2 Sunday before Nativity – Eve of Nativity

Scripture called heaven and earth that formless matter of the universe, which was changed into formed and beautiful natures by God's ineffable command.… This heaven and earth, which were confused and mixed up, were suited to receive forms from God their maker.

1. It is right that any one beginning to narrate the formation of the world should begin with the good order which reigns in visible things. I am about to speak of the creation of heaven and earth, which was not spontaneous, as some have imagined, but drew its origin from God. What ear is worthy to hear such a tale? How earnestly the soul should prepare itself to receive such high lessons! How pure it should be from carnal affections, how unclouded by worldly disquietudes, how active and ardent in its researches, how eager to find in its surroundings an idea of God which may be worthy of Him! But before weighing the justice of these remarks, before examining all the sense contained in these few words, let us see who addresses them to us. Because, if the weakness of our intelligence does not allow us to penetrate the depth of the thoughts of the writer, yet we shall be involuntarily drawn to give faith to his words by the force of his authority. Now it is Moses who has composed this history; Moses, who, when still at the breast, is described as exceeding fair; Moses, whom the daughter of Pharaoh adopted; who received from her a royal education, and who had for his teachers the wise men of Egypt; Moses, who disdained the pomp of royalty, and, to share the humble condition of his compatriots, preferred to be persecuted with the people of God rather than to enjoy the fleeting delights of sin; Moses, who received from nature such a love of justice that, even before the leadership of the people of God was committed to him, he was impelled, by a natural horror of evil, to pursue malefactors even to the point of punishing them by death; Moses, who, banished by those whose benefactor he had been, hastened to escape from the tumults of Egypt and took refuge in Ethiopia, living there far from former pursuits, and passing forty years in the contemplation of nature; Moses, finally, who, at the age of eighty, saw God, as far as it is possible for man to see Him; or rather as it had not previously been granted to man to see Him, according to the testimony of God Himself, If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house, with him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently and not in dark speeches. It is this man, whom God judged worthy to behold Him, face to face, like the angels, who imparts to us what he has learned from God. Let us listen then to these words of truth written without the help of the enticing words of man's wisdom 1 Corinthians 2:4 by the dictation of the Holy Spirit; words destined to produce not the applause of those who hear them, but the salvation of those who are instructed by them. 2. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1 I stop struck with admiration at this thought. What shall I first say? Where shall I begin my story? Shall I show forth the vanity of the Gentiles? Shall I exalt the truth of our faith? The philosophers of Greece have made much ado to explain nature, and not one of their systems has remained firm and unshaken, each being overturned by its successor. It is vain to refute them; they are sufficient in themselves to destroy one another. Those who were too ignorant to rise to a knowledge of a God, could not allow that an intelligent cause presided at the birth of the Universe; a primary error that involved them in sad consequences. Some had recourse to material principles and attributed the origin of the Universe to the elements of the world. Others imagined that atoms, and indivisible bodies, molecules and ducts, form, by their union, the nature of the visible world. Atoms reuniting or separating, produce births and deaths and the most durable bodies only owe their consistency to the strength of their mutual adhesion: a true spider's web woven by these writers who give to heaven, to earth, and to sea so weak an origin and so little consistency! It is because they knew not how to say In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Deceived by their inherent atheism it appeared to them that nothing governed or ruled the universe, and that was all was given up to chance. To guard us against this error the writer on the creation, from the very first words, enlightens our understanding with the name of God; In the beginning God created. What a glorious order! He first establishes a beginning, so that it might not be supposed that the world never had a beginning. Then he adds Created to show that which was made was a very small part of the power of the Creator. In the same way that the potter, after having made with equal pains a great number of vessels, has not exhausted either his art or his talent; thus the Maker of the Universe, whose creative power, far from being bounded by one world, could extend to the infinite, needed only the impulse of His will to bring the immensities of the visible world into being. If then the world has a beginning, and if it has been created, enquire who gave it this beginning, and who was the Creator: or rather, in the fear that human reasonings may make you wander from the truth, Moses has anticipated enquiry by engraving in our hearts, as a seal and a safeguard, the awful name of God: In the beginning God created— It is He, beneficent Nature, Goodness without measure, a worthy object of love for all beings endowed with reason, the beauty the most to be desired, the origin of all that exists, the source of life, intellectual light, impenetrable wisdom, it is He who in the beginning created heaven and earth. 3. Do not then imagine, O man! That the visible world is without a beginning; and because the celestial bodies move in a circular course, and it is difficult for our senses to define the point where the circle begins, do not believe that bodies impelled by a circular movement are, from their nature, without a beginning. Without doubt the circle (I mean the plane figure described by a single line) is beyond our perception, and it is impossible for us to find out where it begins or where it ends; but we ought not on this account to believe it to be without a beginning. Although we are not sensible of it, it really begins at some point where the draughtsman has begun to draw it at a certain radius from the centre. Thus seeing that figures which move in a circle always return upon themselves, without for a single instant interrupting the regularity of their course, do not vainly imagine to yourselves that the world has neither beginning nor end. For the fashion of this world passes away 1 Corinthians 7:31 and Heaven and earth shall pass away. Matthew 24:35 The dogmas of the end, and of the renewing of the world, are announced beforehand in these short words put at the head of the inspired history. In the beginning God made. That which was begun in time is condemned to come to an end in time. If there has been a beginning do not doubt of the end. Of what use then are geometry— the calculations of arithmetic— the study of solids and far-famed astronomy, this laborious vanity, if those who pursue them imagine that this visible world is co-eternal with the Creator of all things, with God Himself; if they attribute to this limited world, which has a material body, the same glory as to the incomprehensible and invisible nature; if they cannot conceive that a whole, of which the parts are subject to corruption and change, must of necessity end by itself submitting to the fate of its parts? But they have become vain in their imaginations and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. Romans 1:21-22 Some have affirmed that heaven co-exists with God from all eternity; others that it is God Himself without beginning or end, and the cause of the particular arrangement of all things. 4. One day, doubtless, their terrible condemnation will be the greater for all this worldly wisdom, since, seeing so clearly into vain sciences, they have wilfully shut their eyes to the knowledge of the truth. These men who measure the distances of the stars and describe them, both those of the North, always shining brilliantly in our view, and those of the southern pole visible to the inhabitants of the South, but unknown to us; who divide the Northern zone and the circle of the Zodiac into an infinity of parts, who observe with exactitude the course of the stars, their fixed places, their declensions, their return and the time that each takes to make its revolution; these men, I say, have discovered all except one thing: the fact that God is the Creator of the universe, and the just Judge who rewards all the actions of life according to their merit. They have not known how to raise themselves to the idea of the consummation of all things, the consequence of the doctrine of judgment, and to see that the world must change if souls pass from this life to a new life. In reality, as the nature of the present life presents an affinity to this world, so in the future life our souls will enjoy a lot conformable to their new condition. But they are so far from applying these truths, that they do but laugh when we announce to them the end of all things and the regeneration of the age. Since the beginning naturally precedes that which is derived from it, the writer, of necessity, when speaking to us of things which had their origin in time, puts at the head of his narrative these words— In the beginning God created. 5. It appears, indeed, that even before this world an order of things existed of which our mind can form an idea, but of which we can say nothing, because it is too lofty a subject for men who are but beginners and are still babes in knowledge. The birth of the world was preceded by a condition of things suitable for the exercise of supernatural powers, outstripping the limits of time, eternal and infinite. The Creator and Demiurge of the universe perfected His works in it, spiritual light for the happiness of all who love the Lord, intellectual and invisible natures, all the orderly arrangement of pure intelligences who are beyond the reach of our mind and of whom we cannot even discover the names. They fill the essence of this invisible world, as Paul teaches us. For by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities or powers Colossians 1:16 or virtues or hosts of angels or the dignities of archangels. To this world at last it was necessary to add a new world, both a school and training place where the souls of men should be taught and a home for beings destined to be born and to die. Thus was created, of a nature analogous to that of this world and the animals and plants which live thereon, the succession of time, for ever pressing on and passing away and never stopping in its course. Is not this the nature of time, where the past is no more, the future does not exist, and the present escapes before being recognised? And such also is the nature of the creature which lives in time,— condemned to grow or to perish without rest and without certain stability. It is therefore fit that the bodies of animals and plants, obliged to follow a sort of current, and carried away by the motion which leads them to birth or to death, should live in the midst of surroundings whose nature is in accord with beings subject to change. Thus the writer who wisely tells us of the birth of the Universe does not fail to put these words at the head of the narrative. In the beginning God created; that is to say, in the beginning of time. Therefore, if he makes the world appear in the beginning, it is not a proof that its birth has preceded that of all other things that were made. He only wishes to tell us that, after the invisible and intellectual world, the visible world, the world of the senses, began to exist. The first movement is called beginning. To do right is the beginning of the good way. Just actions are truly the first steps towards a happy life. Again, we call beginning the essential and first part from which a thing proceeds, such as the foundation of a house, the keel of a vessel; it is in this sense that it is said, The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, Proverbs 9:10 that is to say that piety is, as it were, the groundwork and foundation of perfection. Art is also the beginning of the works of artists, the skill of Bezaleel began the adornment of the tabernacle. Often even the good which is the final cause is the beginning of actions. Thus the approbation of God is the beginning of almsgiving, and the end laid up for us in the promises the beginning of all virtuous efforts. 6. Such being the different senses of the word beginning, see if we have not all the meanings here. You may know the epoch when the formation of this world began, it, ascending into the past, you endeavour to discover the first day. You will thus find what was the first movement of time; then that the creation of the heavens and of the earth were like the foundation and the groundwork, and afterwards that an intelligent reason, as the word beginning indicates, presided in the order of visible things. You will finally discover that the world was not conceived by chance and without reason, but for an useful end and for the great advantage of all beings, since it is really the school where reasonable souls exercise themselves, the training ground where they learn to know God; since by the sight of visible and sensible things the mind is led, as by a hand, to the contemplation of invisible things. For, as the Apostle says, the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. Romans 1:20 Perhaps these words In the beginning God created signify the rapid and imperceptible moment of creation. The beginning, in effect, is indivisible and instantaneous. The beginning of the road is not yet the road, and that of the house is not yet the house; so the beginning of time is not yet time and not even the least particle of it. If some objector tell us that the beginning is a time, he ought then, as he knows well, to submit it to the division of time— a beginning, a middle and an end. Now it is ridiculous to imagine a beginning of a beginning. Further, if we divide the beginning into two, we make two instead of one, or rather make several, we really make an infinity, for all that which is divided is divisible to the infinite. Thus then, if it is said, In the beginning God created, it is to teach us that at the will of God the world arose in less than an instant, and it is to convey this meaning more clearly that other interpreters have said: God made summarily that is to say all at once and in a moment. But enough concerning the beginning, if only to put a few points out of many. 7. Among arts, some have in view production, some practice, others theory. The object of the last is the exercise of thought, that of the second, the motion of the body. Should it cease, all stops; nothing more is to be seen. Thus dancing and music have nothing behind; they have no object but themselves. In creative arts on the contrary the work lasts after the operation. Such is architecture— such are the arts which work in wood and brass and weaving, all those indeed which, even when the artisan has disappeared, serve to show an industrious intelligence and to cause the architect, the worker in brass or the weaver, to be admired on account of his work. Thus, then, to show that the world is a work of art displayed for the beholding of all people; to make them know Him who created it, Moses does not use another word. In the beginning, he says God created. He does not say God worked, God formed, but God created. Among those who have imagined that the world co-existed with God from all eternity, many have denied that it was created by God, but say that it exists spontaneously, as the shadow of this power. God, they say, is the cause of it, but an involuntary cause, as the body is the cause of the shadow and the flame is the cause of the brightness. It is to correct this error that the prophet states, with so much precision, In the beginning God created. He did not make the thing itself the cause of its existence. Being good, He made it an useful work. Being wise, He made it everything that was most beautiful. Being powerful He made it very great. Moses almost shows us the finger of the supreme artisan taking possession of the substance of the universe, forming the different parts in one perfect accord, and making a harmonious symphony result from the whole. In the beginning God made heaven and earth. By naming the two extremes, he suggests the substance of the whole world, according to heaven the privilege of seniority, and putting earth in the second rank. All intermediate beings were created at the same time as the extremities. Thus, although there is no mention of the elements, fire, water and air, imagine that they were all compounded together, and you will find water, air and fire, in the earth. For fire leaps out from stones; iron which is dug from the earth produces under friction fire in plentiful measure. A marvellous fact! Fire shut up in bodies lurks there hidden without harming them, but no sooner is it released than it consumes that which has hitherto preserved it. The earth contains water, as diggers of wells teach us. It contains air too, as is shown by the vapours that it exhales under the sun's warmth when it is damp. Now, as according to their nature, heaven occupies the higher and earth the lower position in space, (one sees, in fact, that all which is light ascends towards heaven, and heavy substances fall to the ground); as therefore height and depth are the points the most opposed to each other it is enough to mention the most distant parts to signify the inclusion of all which fills up intervening Space. Do not ask, then, for an enumeration of all the elements; guess, from what Holy Scripture indicates, all that is passed over in silence. 8. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. If we were to wish to discover the essence of each of the beings which are offered for our contemplation, or come under our senses, we should be drawn away into long digressions, and the solution of the problem would require more words than I possess, to examine fully the matter. To spend time on such points would not prove to be to the edification of the Church. Upon the essence of the heavens we are contented with what Isaiah says, for, in simple language, he gives us sufficient idea of their nature, The heaven was made like smoke, that is to say, He created a subtle substance, without solidity or density, from which to form the heavens. As to the form of them we also content ourselves with the language of the same prophet, when praising God that stretches out the heavens as a curtain and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in. In the same way, as concerns the earth, let us resolve not to torment ourselves by trying to find out its essence, not to tire our reason by seeking for the substance which it conceals. Do not let us seek for any nature devoid of qualities by the conditions of its existence, but let us know that all the phenomena with which we see it clothed regard the conditions of its existence and complete its essence. Try to take away by reason each of the qualities it possesses, and you will arrive at nothing. Take away black, cold, weight, density, the qualities which concern taste, in one word all these which we see in it, and the substance vanishes. If I ask you to leave these vain questions, I will not expect you to try and find out the earth's point of support. The mind would reel on beholding its reasonings losing themselves without end. Do you say that the earth reposes on a bed of air? How, then, can this soft substance, without consistency, resist the enormous weight which presses upon it? How is it that it does not slip away in all directions, to avoid the sinking weight, and to spread itself over the mass which overwhelms it? Do you suppose that water is the foundation of the earth? You will then always have to ask yourself how it is that so heavy and opaque a body does not pass through the water; how a mass of such a weight is held up by a nature weaker than itself. Then you must seek a base for the waters, and you will be in much difficulty to say upon what the water itself rests. 9. Do you suppose that a heavier body prevents the earth from falling into the abyss? Then you must consider that this support needs itself a support to prevent it from falling. Can we imagine one? Our reason again demands yet another support, and thus we shall fall into the infinite, always imagining a base for the base which we have already found. And the further we advance in this reasoning the greater force we are obliged to give to this base, so that it may be able to support all the mass weighing upon it. Put then a limit to your thought, so that your curiosity in investigating the incomprehensible may not incur the reproaches of Job, and you be not asked by him, Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? Job 38:6 If ever you hear in the Psalms, I bear up the pillars of it; see in these pillars the power which sustains it. Because what means this other passage, He has founded it upon the sea, if not that the water is spread all around the earth? How then can water, the fluid element which flows down every declivity, remain suspended without ever flowing? You do not reflect that the idea of the earth suspended by itself throws your reason into a like but even greater difficulty, since from its nature it is heavier. But let us admit that the earth rests upon itself, or let us say that it rides the waters, we must still remain faithful to thought of true religion and recognise that all is sustained by the Creator's power. Let us then reply to ourselves, and let us reply to those who ask us upon what support this enormous mass rests, In His hands are the ends of the earth. It is a doctrine as infallible for our own information as profitable for our hearers. 10. There are inquirers into nature who with a great display of words give reasons for the immobility of the earth. Placed, they say, in the middle of the universe and not being able to incline more to one side than the other because its centre is everywhere the same distance from the surface, it necessarily rests upon itself; since a weight which is everywhere equal cannot lean to either side. It is not, they go on, without reason or by chance that the earth occupies the centre of the universe. It is its natural and necessary position. As the celestial body occupies the higher extremity of space all heavy bodies, they argue, that we may suppose to have fallen from these high regions, will be carried from all directions to the centre, and the point towards which the parts are tending will evidently be the one to which the whole mass will be thrust together. If stones, wood, all terrestrial bodies, fall from above downwards, this must be the proper and natural place of the whole earth. If, on the contrary, a light body is separated from the centre, it is evident that it will ascend towards the higher regions. Thus heavy bodies move from the top to the bottom, and following this reasoning, the bottom is none other than the centre of the world. Do not then be surprised that the world never falls: it occupies the centre of the universe, its natural place. By necessity it is obliged to remain in its place, unless a movement contrary to nature should displace it. If there is anything in this system which might appear probable to you, keep your admiration for the source of such perfect order, for the wisdom of God. Grand phenomena do not strike us the less when we have discovered something of their wonderful mechanism. Is it otherwise here? At all events let us prefer the simplicity of faith to the demonstrations of reason. 11. We might say the same thing of the heavens. With what a noise of words the sages of this world have discussed their nature! Some have said that heaven is composed of four elements as being tangible and visible, and is made up of earth on account of its power of resistance, with fire because it is striking to the eye, with air and water on account of the mixture. Others have rejected this system as improbable, and introduced into the world, to form the heavens, a fifth element after their own fashioning. There exists, they say, an æthereal body which is neither fire, air, earth, nor water, nor in one word any simple body. These simple bodies have their own natural motion in a straight line, light bodies upwards and heavy bodies downwards; now this motion upwards and downwards is not the same as circular motion; there is the greatest possible difference between straight and circular motion. It therefore follows that bodies whose motion is so various must vary also in their essence. But, it is not even possible to suppose that the heavens should be formed of primitive bodies which we call elements, because the reunion of contrary forces could not produce an even and spontaneous motion, when each of the simple bodies is receiving a different impulse from nature. Thus it is a labour to maintain composite bodies in continual movement, because it is impossible to put even a single one of their movements in accord and harmony with all those that are in discord; since what is proper to the light particle, is in warfare with that of a heavier one. If we attempt to rise we are stopped by the weight of the terrestrial element; if we throw ourselves down we violate the igneous part of our being in dragging it down contrary to its nature. Now this struggle of the elements effects their dissolution. A body to which violence is done and which is placed in opposition to nature, after a short but energetic resistance, is soon dissolved into as many parts as it had elements, each of the constituent parts returning to its natural place. It is the force of these reasons, say the inventors of the fifth kind of body for the genesis of heaven and the stars, which constrained them to reject the system of their predecessors and to have recourse to their own hypothesis. But yet another fine speaker arises and disperses and destroys this theory to give predominance to an idea of his own invention. Do not let us undertake to follow them for fear of falling into like frivolities; let them refute each other, and, without disquieting ourselves about essence, let us say with Moses God created the heavens and the earth. Let us glorify the supreme Artificer for all that was wisely and skillfully made; by the beauty of visible things let us raise ourselves to Him who is above all beauty; by the grandeur of bodies, sensible and limited in their nature, let us conceive of the infinite Being whose immensity and omnipotence surpass all the efforts of the imagination. Because, although we ignore the nature of created things, the objects which on all sides attract our notice are so marvellous, that the most penetrating mind cannot attain to the knowledge of the least of the phenomena of the world, either to give a suitable explanation of it or to render due praise to the Creator, to Whom belong all glory, all honour and all power world without end. Amen.

[The Manichaeans assert that] the form of the world is due to the wisdom of the supreme Artificer; matter came to the Creator from without; and thus the world results from a double origin. It has received from outside its matter and its essence and from God its form and figure. They thus come to deny that the mighty God has presided at the formation of the universe and pretend that he has only brought a crowning contribution to a common work, that he has only contributed some small portion to the genesis of beings. They are incapable from the debasement of their reasoning of raising their glances to the height of truth. Here below arts are subsequent to matter—introduced into life by the indispensable need of them. Wool existed before weaving made it supply one of nature's imperfections. Wood existed before carpentering took possession of it and transformed it each day to supply new wants and made us see all the advantages derived from it, giving the oar to the sailor, the winnowing fan to the laborer, the lance to the soldier. But God, before all those things that now attract our notice existed, after casting about in his mind and determining to bring into being time which had no being, imagined the world such as it ought to be and created matter in harmony with the form that he wished to give it. He assigned to the heavens the nature adapted for the heavens and gave to the earth an essence in accordance with its form. He formed, as he wished, fire, air and water, and gave to each the essence that the object of its existence required. Finally, he welded all the diverse parts of the universe by links of indissoluble attachment and established between them so perfect a fellowship and harmony that the most distant, in spite of their distance, appeared united in one universal sympathy. Let those men therefore renounce their fabulous imaginations, who, in spite of the weakness of their argument, pretend to measure a power as incomprehensible to man's reason as it is unutterable by man's voice. God created the heavens and the earth, but not only half—he created all the heavens and all the earth, creating the essence with the form.

It appears, indeed, that even before this world an order of things existed of which our mind can form an idea but of which we can say nothing, because it is too lofty a subject for men who are but beginners and are still babes in knowledge. The birth of the world was preceded by a condition of things suitable for the exercise of supernatural powers, outstripping the limits of time, eternal and infinite. The Creator and Demiurge of the universe perfected his works in it, spiritual light for the happiness of all who love the Lord, intellectual and invisible natures, all the orderly arrangement of pure intelligences who are beyond the reach of our mind and of whom we cannot even discover the names. They fill the essence of this invisible world, as Paul teaches us. "For by him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities or powers" or virtues or hosts of angels or the dignities of archangels. To this world at last it was necessary to add a new world, both a school and training place where the souls of men should be taught and a home for beings destined to be born and to die. Thus was created, of a nature analogous to that of this world and the animals and plants which live on it, the succession of time, forever pressing on and passing away and never stopping in its course. Is not this the nature of time, where the past is no more, the future does not exist, and the present escapes before being recognized? And such also is the nature of the creature that lives in time—condemned to grow or to perish without rest and without certain stability. It is therefore fit that the bodies of animals and plants, obliged to follow a sort of current and carried away by the motion that leads them to birth or to death, should live in the midst of surroundings whose nature is in accord with beings subject to change. Thus the writer who wisely tells us of the birth of the universe does not fail to put these words at the head of the narrative. "In the beginning God created"; that is to say, in the beginning of time. Therefore, if he makes the world appear in the beginning, it is not a proof that its birth has preceded that of all other things that were made. He only wishes to tell us that, after the invisible and intellectual world, the visible world, the world of the senses, began to exist.

We are proposing to examine the structure of the world and to contemplate the whole universe, not from the wisdom of the world but from what God taught his servant when he spoke to him in person and without riddles.

In the beginning, God created heaven and earth. By introducing the creation of the world, the divine Scripture aptly and immediately demonstrates the eternity and omnipotence of God the Creator. Indeed, by stating that He created the world at the beginning of time, it designates that He existed eternally before time. And by narrating that He created heaven and earth at the very beginning of creation, it declares that He is omnipotent in such a swift act of operation, to whom wanting is doing. For human frailty, when it operates; for example, when we build a house, we first prepare the material at the beginning of the work, and after this beginning, we dig deep, then lay stones in the foundation, then build walls by adding rows of stones, and thus gradually progressing, we reach the perfection of the intended work. But God, whose hand is omnipotent to execute His work, did not need the delay of time, because it is written: "He has made all that He desired" (Psalm 113:3). Hence, it was well-pleasing, because in the beginning, God created heaven and earth, to be clearly understood that both were made by God simultaneously, although both cannot be said by man at the same time. Finally, the prophet says: "In the beginning, you have laid the foundation of the earth, Lord" (Psalm 102:26). However, here it is narrated that the Lord created heaven and earth in the beginning; from which it is clearly inferred that the creation of both elements was accomplished together, and this with such speed of divine power that not even the first moment of the nascent world was surpassed. However, it may not improbably be understood that in the beginning, God made heaven and earth in His Only Begotten Son, who, when asked by the Jews what they should believe about Him, replied: "The beginning, who is speaking to you" (John 8:25). Because in Him, as the Apostle says (Colossians 1:16), all things were created in heaven and on earth. But it must be carefully considered, so that whoever devotes attention to allegorical senses may not, by allegorizing, forsake the evident truth of history. But what and of what nature the heaven was, which was made in the beginning along with the earth, is hinted at in the following words when it is said:

Corporeal nature was brought into being in six days, such that in the beginning, before every day, "God created heaven and earth." Since things flow from the first and most perfect principle, and such a principle is most omnipotent, most wise, and most benevolent: therefore it was necessary that they be brought into being in such a way that in their production the aforesaid threefold nobility and excellence would shine forth. And therefore the divine operation for producing the world-machine was threefold, namely creation, which is appropriately attributed to omnipotence; distinction, which corresponds to wisdom, and adornment, which corresponds to the most generous goodness. And since creation is from nothing, therefore it was in the beginning, before every day, as the foundation of all things and all times.

To intimate the order of nature, Scripture determines, according to what was fitting for God to work: that in the beginning, before the course of time, that threefold nature was brought from non-being into being, when it says: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth" and "the Spirit of God moved over the waters." Where by the name of heaven the luminous nature is intimated; by the name of earth, the opaque; by the name of water, the pervious or transparent, whether subject to contrariety or elevated above contrariety. Where also the eternal Trinity is intimated, namely the Father in the name of God creating, the Son in the name of the beginning, the Holy Spirit in the name of the Spirit of God. And thus is to be understood that which is said: "He who lives forever created all things simultaneously": not because He created them in a chaos of every kind of confusion, as the poets imagined, since He brought forth this threefold nature, the highest in the highest place, the middle in the middle, and the lowest in the lowest: nor indeed into a being of every kind of distinction, since heaven was perfect, and the earth unformed, and the middle nature, as it were holding a middle position, had not yet been brought to perfect distinction.

Three errors are to be guarded against in the sciences, which destroy sacred Scripture and the Christian faith and all wisdom. The error against the cause of being concerns the eternity of the world, namely to posit that the world is eternal. This first error is refuted by what is written: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth." For you hold that God is the cause of all things either in part or in whole. If in part: then you take away from God his primacy of causing. If in whole: then God is the cause of every other thing; therefore he produces it not from himself, not from something else, because nothing else exists; therefore from nothing. Likewise, it follows according to this error that a thing had being and non-being simultaneously, and that being was before non-being; and many other absurdities. Whence it is certain that God created all things.

It is manifest that a beginning should be made from the One from whom the two greatest Wise Men began: Moses, the originator of wisdom, and John, its consummator. The former said: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," and, in Augustine's opinion, this means the Son. And John said: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God; and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him." If, therefore, it is impossible to understand a creature except through that by which it was made, it is necessary that the true Word go before thee.

These, then, are the mysteries concerned with the Tree of Life, that is, Holy Scripture, because it begins with eternity and ends in the direction of eternity. Hence, "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"; and at the end, "I saw a new heaven and a new earth." These are the forty-eight boards of the dwelling — twenty on one side, and twenty on the other, and eight in the back — within which is placed the Ark, that is, Christ, containing in Himself "all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge," upon whom the Cherubim gaze.

In one respect, as many Christians have noticed, contemporary science has recently come into line with Christian doctrine, and parted company with the classical forms of materialism. If anything emerges clearly from modern physics, it is that nature is not everlasting. The universe had a beginning, and will have an end. But the great materialistic systems of the past all believed in the eternity, and thence in the self-existence of matter. As Professor Whittaker said in the Riddell Lectures of 1942, "It was never possible to oppose seriously the dogma of the Creation except by maintaining that the world has existed from all eternity in more or less its present state." This fundamental ground for materialism has now been withdrawn. We should not lean too heavily on this, for scientific theories change. But at the moment it appears that the burden of proof rests, not on us, but on those who deny that Nature has some cause beyond herself.

[Distinguishing the Christian doctrine of creation from Pantheism — God is not identical with the universe but its Maker, as a painter is not his picture]

The Christian idea is quite different. They think God invented and made the universe—like a man making a picture or composing a tune. A painter is not a picture, and he does not die if his picture is destroyed. You may say, 'He's put a lot of himself into it,' but you only mean that all its beauty and interest has come out of his head. His skill is not in the picture in the same way that it is in his head, or even in his hands.

For the first time in my life I began to look at the question with both eyes open. In the world I know, the perfect produces the imperfect, which again becomes perfect — egg leads to bird and bird to egg — in endless succession. If there ever was a life which sprang of its own accord out of a purely inorganic universe, or a civilization which raised itself by its own shoulder-straps out of pure savagery, then this event was totally unlike the beginnings of every subsequent life and every subsequent civilization. The thing may have happened; but all its plausibility is gone. On any view, the first beginning must have been outside the ordinary processes of nature. An egg which came from no bird is no more 'natural' than a bird which had existed from all eternity. And since the egg-bird-egg sequence leads us to no plausible beginning, is it not reasonable to look for the real origin somewhere outside sequence altogether? You have to go outside the sequence of engines, into the world of men, to find the real originator of the Rocket. Is it not equally reasonable to look outside Nature for the real Originator of the natural order?

Evidently, then, something beyond Nature exists. Man is on the border line between the Natural and the Supernatural. Material events cannot produce spiritual activity, but the latter can be responsible for many of our actions on Nature. Will and Reason cannot depend on anything but themselves, but Nature can depend on Will and Reason, or, in other words, God created Nature.

I won't admit without a struggle that when I speak of God "uttering" or "inventing" the creatures I am "watering down the concept of creation." I am trying to give it, by remote analogies, some sort of content. I know that to create is defined as "to make out of nothing," ex nihilo. But I take that to mean "not out of any pre-existing material." It can't mean that God makes what God has not thought of, or that He gives His creatures any powers or beauties which He Himself does not possess. Why, we think that even human work comes nearest to creation when the maker has "got it all out of his own head."

Nor am I suggesting a theory of "emanations". The differentia of an "emanation"—literally an overflowing, a trickling out—would be that it suggests something involuntary. But my words—"uttering" and "inventing"—are meant to suggest an act.

This act, as it is for God, must always remain totally inconceivable to man. For we—even our poets and musicians and inventors—never, in the ultimate sense, make. We only build. We always have materials to build from. All we can know about the act of creation must be derived from what we can gather about the relation of the creatures to their Creator.

Two and twenty works, O lover of the good and the beautiful, did God make from the beginning until the seventh day, namely these. On the first day He made the higher heaven, the earth, the waters from which come snow, ice, hail, frost and dew; then the spirits which minister before His face, such as these—the angels standing in His presence, the angels of glory, the angels of the clouds and darkness and snows and hail and frost—the angels of sounds, of thunder and lightning; the angels of cold and heat, of winter and autumn, and the angels of all the spirits of His creatures which arc in heaven and upon earth and in Chaos; then the darkness and the brooding over the abyss, the waters which once covered the earth, out of which darkness comes evening and night, the light of day and of the dawn. These seven mighty works did God make on the first day. On the second day was made the firmament which is in the midst of the waters. On the same day the waters were divided, one half of which ascended above the firmament, while the other half was underneath the firmament, upon the face of all the earth. This was the only work which God made on the second day.

For on the first day He made the matter out of which things were created; but on the other days He gave their form and arrangement to the things created. For example, He made the heaven which was before non-existent—not this visible heaven, but the one above it, for the visible was made on the second day. God made the higher heaven—the heaven of heavens to the Lord, and it is higher than this visible heaven, and, as in a house of two stories, between it and the earth another heaven is interposed. God having thus created the world as one house, placed this visible heaven as a roof in the middle, and the waters above it. Wherefore, David says: Who covereth his upper chambers with waters. God then made the heaven when it was not, the earth when it was not, the abysses when they were not, and wind, air, fire, water; of all the things that came into existence He made their matter on the first day.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," [ Gen 1:1 ] that is, the substance of the heavens and the substance of the earth. So let no one think that there is anything interpretive (turgama) in the works of the six days. No one can rightly say that the things that pertain to these days were symbolic, nor can one say that they were meaningless names or that other things were symbolized for us by their names. Rather, let us know that just as heaven and earth were created in the beginning, so they were truly heaven and earth. There was no other thing signified by the names "heaven" and "earth". The rest of the works and things made that followed were not meaningless significations either, for the substances of their natures correspond to what their names signify.

"In the beginning God created heaven and earth." [ Gen1:1 ] At this point these comprised the only things that had been made, for there was nothing else created along with heaven and earth. Even the elements that were created on that day had not yet been created. If the elements had been created along with heaven and earth, Moses would have said so. But he did not, lest he give the names of the elements precedence over their substances. Therefore it is evident that heaven and earth came to be from nothing because neither water nor wind had yet been created, nor had fire, light or darkness been given their natures, for they were posterior to heaven and earth. These things were created things that came after heaven and earth and they were not self-subsistent beings for they did not exist before [ heaven and earth ].

Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else. It is really far more logical to start by saying 'In the beginning God created heaven and earth' even if you only mean 'In the beginning some unthinkable power began some unthinkable process.' For God is by its nature a name of mystery, and nobody ever supposed that man could imagine how a world was created any more than he could create one.

And the root phrase for all Christian theism was this, that God was a creator, as an artist is a creator. A poet is so separate from his poem that he himself speaks of it as a little thing he has "thrown off." Even in giving it forth he has flung it away. This principle that all creation and procreation is a breaking off is at least as consistent through the cosmos as the evolutionary principle that all growth is a branching out. A woman loses a child even in having a child. All creation is separation. Birth is as solemn a parting as death.

It was the prime philosophic principle of Christianity that this divorce in the divine act of making (such as severs the poet from the poem or the mother from the new-born child) was the true description of the act whereby the absolute energy made the world. According to most philosophers, God in making the world enslaved it. According to Christianity, in making it, He set it free. God had written, not so much a poem, but rather a play; a play he had planned as perfect, but which had necessarily been left to human actors and stage-managers, who had since made a great mess of it.

In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one God. This is a transcript of the excellent law. But before beginning to give the transcript of the book of the law, it will be worth while to instruct you, O brother, as to its excellence, and the dignity of its disposition. Its first excellence is, that God delivered it by the hand of our most blessed ruler, the chief of the prophets, and first of the apostles, or those who were sent to the children of Israel, viz. Moses the son of Amram, the son of Kohath, of the sons of Levi. Now he was adorned with all manner of wisdom, and endowed with the best genius. Illustrious in dignity, remarkable for the integrity of his disposition, distinguished for power of reason, he talked with God. And He chose him as an instrument of value. By His leader and prophet, God Most High sent it clown to us, and committed it to us (blessed be His name) in the Syriac tongue of the Targum, which the Seventy translated into the Hebrew tongue, to wit, into the tongue of the nation, and the idiom of the common people. Moses. therefore, received it from the eternal Lord, and was the first to whom it was entrusted, and who obeyed its rules and ordinances. Then he taught it to the children of Israel, who also embraced it. And he explained to them its profound mysteries and dark places. And he expounded to them those things which were less easy, as God permitted him, and concealed from them those secrets of the law, as God forbade him (to reveal them). Nor did there rise among them one who was better practised in His judgments and decrees, and who communicated more clearly the mysteries of His doctrine, until God translated him to Himself, after He had made him perfect by forty whole years in the wilderness.

And these following are the names of the teachers who handed down the law in continuous succession after Moses the prophet, until the advent of Messiah:-

Know, then, my brother, whom may God bless, that God delivered the most excellent law into the hands of Moses the prophet, the son of Amram.

And Moses delivered it to Joshua the son of Nun.

And Joshua the son of Nun delivered it Anathal.

And Anathal delivered it to Jehud.

And Jehud delivered it to Samgar.

And Samgar delivered it to Baruk.

And Baruk delivered it to Gideon.

And Gideon delivered it to Abimelech.

And Abimelech delivered it to Taleg.

And Taleg delivered it to Babin the Gileadite.

And Babin delivered it to Jiphtach.

And Jiphtach delivered it to Ephran.

And Ephran delivered it to Elul of the tribe Zebulon.

And Elul delivered it to Abdan.

And Abdan delivered it to Shimshon the brave.

And Shimshon delivered it to Helkanah, the son of Jerachmu, the son of Jehud. Moreover, he was the father of Samuel the prophet. Of this Helkanah mention is made in the beginning of the first book of Kings (Samuel).

And Helkanah delivered it to Eli the priest. And Eli delivered it to Samuel the prophet.

And Samuel delivered it to Nathan the prophet.

And Nathan delivered it to Gad the prophet.

And Gad the prophet delivered it to Shemaiah the teacher. And Shemaiah delivered it to Iddo the teacher. And Iddo delivered it to Achia.

And Achia delivered it to Abihu.

And Abihu delivered it to Elias the prophet.

And Elias delivered it to his disciple Elisaeus.

And Elisaeus delivered it to Malachia the prophet.

And Malachia delivered it to Abdiahu.

And Abdiahu delivered it to Jehuda.

And Jehuda delivered it to Zacharias the teacher. In those days came Bachthansar king of Babel, and laid waste the house of the sanctuary, and carried the children of Israel into captivity to Babel.

And after the captivity of Babel, Zacharia the teacher delivered it to Esaia the prophet, the son of Amos.

And Esaia delivered it to Jeremia the prophet.

And Jeremia the prophet delivered it to Chizkiel.

And Chizkiel the prophet delivered it to Hosea the prophet, the son of Bazi.

And Hosea delivered it to Joiel the prophet.

And Joiel delivered it to Amos the prophet.

And Amos delivered it to Obadia.

And Obadia delivered it to Jonan the prophet, the son of Mathi, the son of Armelah, who was the brother of Elias the prophet.

And Jonan delivered it to Micha the Morasthite, who delivered it to Nachum the Alcusite. And Nachum delivered it to Chabakuk the prophet.

And Chabakuk delivered it to Sophonia the prophet.

And Sophonia delivered it to Chaggaeus the prophet.

And Chaggaeus delivered it to Zecharia the prophet, the son of Bershia.

And Zecharia, when in captivity, delivered it to Malachia. And Malachia delivered it to Ezra the teacher.

And Ezra delivered it to Shamai the chief priest, and Jadua to Samean, (and) Samean delivered it to Antigonus.

And Antigonus delivered it to Joseph the son of Johezer, (and) Joseph the son of Gjuchanan.

And Joseph delivered it to Jehosua, the son of Barachia.

And Jehosua delivered it to Nathan the Arbelite.

And Nathan delivered it to Shimeon, the elder son of Shebach. This is he who carried the Messias in his arms.

Simeon delivered it to Jehuda.

Jehuda delivered it to Zecharia the priest.

And Zecharia the priest, the father of John the Baptist, delivered it to Joseph, a teacher of his own tribe.

And Joseph delivered it to Hanan and Caiaphas. Moreover, from them were taken away the priestly, and kingly, and prophetic offices.

These were teachers at the advent of Messias; and they were both priests of the children of Israel. Therefore the whole number of venerable and honourable priests put in trust of this most excellent law was fifty-six, Hanan (i.e., Annas) and Caiaphas being excepted.

And those are they who delivered it in the last days to the state of the children of Israel; nor did there arise any priests after them.

This is the account of what took place with regard to the most excellent law.

Armius, author of the book of Times, has said: In the nineteenth year of the reign of King Ptolemy, He ordered the elders of the children of Israel to be assembled, in order that they might put into his hands a copy of the law, and that they might each be at hand to explain its meaning.

The elders accordingly came, bringing with them the most excellent law. Then be commanded that every one of them should interpret the book of the law to him.

But he dissented from the interpretation which the elders had given. And he ordered the elders to be thrust into prison and chains. And seizing the book of the law, he threw it into a deep ditch, and cast fire and hot ashes upon it for seven days. Then afterwards he ordered them to throw the filth of the city into that ditch in which was the book of the law. And the ditch was filled to the very top.

The law remained seventy years under the filth in that ditch, yet did not perish, nor was there even a single leaf of it spoilt.

In the twenty-first year of the reign of King Apianutus they took the book of the law out of the ditch, and not one leaf thereof was spoilt.

And after the ascension of Christ into heaven, came King Titus, son of Aspasianus king of Rome, to Jerusalem, and besieged and took it. And he destroyed the edifice of the second house, which the children of Israel had built. Titus the king destroyed the house of the sanctuary, and slew all the Jews who were in it, and built Tsion (sic) in their blood. And after that deportation the Jews were scattered abroad in slavery. Nor did they assemble any more in the city of Jerusalem, nor is there hope anywhere of their returning.

After Jerusalem was laid waste, therefore, Shemaia and Antalia (Abtalion) delivered the law,-kings of Baalbach, a city which Soliman, son of King David, had built of old, and which was restored anew in the days of King Menasse, who sawed Esaia the prophet asunder.

King Adrian, of the children of Edom, besieged Baalbach, and took it, and slew all the Jews who were in it, (and) as many as were of the family of David he reduced to slavery. And the Jews were dispersed over the whole earth, as God Most High had foretold: "And I will scatter you among the Gentiles, and disperse you among the nations."

And these are the things which have reached us as to the history of that most excellent book. The Preface is ended.

And the blessed prophet, indeed, the great Moses, wrote this book, and designated and marked it with the title, The Book of Being, i.e., "of created beings," etc.

I have received the desired letters of my Desiderius, who in a foretelling of things to happen has obtained with Daniel a certain name [see Vulgate Daniel 9.23: quia vir desideriorum es tu, "for you are a man of desires"], beseeching that I might hand over to our hearers a translation of the Pentateuch in the Latin tongue from the Hebrew words. Certainly a dangerous work, open to the barkings of detractors, who accuse me of insult to the Seventy to prepare a new interpretation from the old ones, thus approving ability (or "genius") like wine. As has very often been testified by me, I, for my part, am able to offer a portion in the Tabernacle of God, without the riches (or "abilities") of one being damaged by the poverties of others. But that I may have dared, the effort of Origen provoked me, who mixed the translation of Theodotion to the ancient edition, with asterisk and obelus, that is, star and spit, a work distinguishing everything, while he either makes to shine those things which were previously lacking, or he slays and pierces through everything superfluous. And especially by the authority of the Evangelists and the Apostles, in which we read many things from the Old Testament which are not found in our books, as it is (with): "Out of Egypt I have called My Son," and "For He shall be called a Nazarene," and "They will look on Him Whom they have pierced," and "Rivers of living waters shall flow from his belly," and "Things which no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor has arisen in the heart of man, which God has prepared for those loving Him," and many others which are desiring a proper context (or "book" [Jerome uses a Greek word here: συνταγμα]). Therefore let us ask them where these are written, and when they are unable to say, we may produce them from the Hebrew books. The first witness is in Hosea, the second in Isaiah, the third in Zechariah, the fourth in Proverbs, the fifth is also in Isaiah, of which many are ignorant, the follies of apocrypha being followed, preferring Iberian dirges to authentic books. The cause of the error is not for me to explain. The Jews say it was done wisely in deliberation, so Ptolemy, the worshipper of one god, might not yet discover a double divinity with the Hebrews; he made them (do so) chiefly for this reason, because he was seen to fall into the dogma of Plato. Accordingly, wherever anything sacred in Scripture is witnessed of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, they are either translated otherwise, or they have passed over all in silence, so they might both satisfy the king, and might not divulge the secret of the Faith. And I don't know who was the first author to construct with his lying the seventy cells in Alexandria, into which were divided those who wrote, with Aristeas the champion [another Greek word: υπερασπιστης] of the same Ptolemy, and many after the time of Josephus having reported no such thing, but rather (for them) to have gathered in groups, writing in one basilica, (and) not to have prophesied. For it is one thing to be a seer, another to be an interpreter. In that one the Spirit predicts things to come; in this one by his learning and abundance of words he translates those things he has understood. Unless Tullius (Cicero) is understood to have translated, by inspiration of the spirit of rhetoric, the Economics of Xenophon, the Protagoras of Plato, and the For Ctesiphon by Demosthenes. Or the Holy Spirit wove together the witnesses of these books one way through the Seventy interpreters and another way through the Apostles, so that what they passed over in silence, what was written by these was invented [? - obscure]. Therefore, what? We condemn the ancients? By no means! But after those earlier in the House of God, we work at what we can. They are interpreted before the coming of Christ and what they didn't know, they tranlated in ambiguous (or "uncertain") sentences. We write after His Passion and Resurrection, not so much prophecy as history. For in the one are told what things were heard, in the other what were seen. What we understand better, we also translate better. Hear, therefore, O rival; listen, O detractor! I do not condemn, I do not censure the Seventy, but I confidently prefer the Apostles to all of them. Christ speaks to me through their mouth, who I read were placed before the prophets among the Spiritual gifts, among which interpreters hold almost the last place. Why are you tortured by spite? Why do you incite ignorant souls against me? If anywhere in the translation I have been seen by you to err, ask the Hebrews. Consult the teachers of the many different cities. What theirs have of Christ, yours do not have. It is another matter if they have afterward removed the testimonies used by the Apostles against them, and the Latin copies are more correct than the Greek, (and) the Greek than the Hebrew! Truth is against these enviers. Now I pray you, dearest Desiderius, so that in such a great work which you have made me undertake and take up a beginning from Genesis, you might help in (your) prayers, how I might, by the same Spirit by Whom the books were written, be able to translate them into Latin words.

Chapter 1, Verse 1. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Many people believe, as it is also written in the Altercation of Jason and Papiscus, and Tertullian in his book against Praxeas argues: and also Hilary in the exposition of a certain Psalm affirms, that it is found in Hebrew: 'In the son, God created the heavens and the earth', which is false, as the truth of the matter itself proves. For even the Seventy Interpreters, and Symmachus, and Theodotion translated it as 'In the beginning'. And it is written in Hebrew, Bresith (); which Aquila interprets, in the chapter: and not Baben (), which is called ((Al. interpreted)), in the son. Therefore, it can be understood more according to the meaning than according to the literal translation about Christ: who is approved both in the very beginning of Genesis, which is the head of all books, and also in the beginning of the Gospel of John, as the creator of heaven and earth. Hence, in the Psalms (Psalm 39:9), he says about himself: In the chapter ((Al. chapter)) of the book it is written about me, that is, in the beginning of Genesis. And in the Gospel: All things were made through him, and without him nothing was made (John 1:3). But it should also be known that among the Hebrews this book is called B'reishit: having the custom of giving names to their volumes from their beginnings.

Notice this remarkable author, dearly beloved, and the particular gift he had. I mean, while all the other inspired authors told either what would happen after a long time or what was going to take place immediately, this blessed author, being born many generations after the event, was guided by the deity on high and judged worthy to narrate what had been created by the Lord of all from the very beginning. Accordingly he began with these words: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth." He well nigh bellows at us all and says, "Is it by human beings I am taught in uttering these things? It is the one who brought being from nothing who stirred my tongue in narrating them." Since we therefore listen to these words not as the words of Moses but as the words of the God of all things coming to us through the tongue of Moses, so I beg you, let us heed what is said as distinguished from our own reasoning.

Let us accept what is said with much gratitude, not overstepping the proper limit nor busying ourselves with matters beyond us. This is the besetting weakness of enemies of the truth, wishing as they do to assign every matter to their own reasoning and lacking the realization that it is beyond the capacity of human nature to plumb God's creation.

Why does it proceed, first heaven then earth? The temple's roof made before its pavement? God is not subject to nature's demands nor to the rules of technique. God is the creator and master technician of nature, and art, and everything made or imagined.

Even if it is granted that the God of all things followed an order [in the creation], he is shown to be God and Creator and to have brought all things into being out of nothing.

What is the beginning of all things except our Lord and "Savior of all," Jesus Christ "the firstborn of every creature?" In this beginning, therefore, that is, in his Word, "God made heaven and earth" as the evangelist John also says in the beginning of his Gospel: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him, and without him nothing was made."

Scripture is not speaking here of any temporal beginning, but it says that the heavens and the earth and all things that were made were made "in the beginning," that is, in the Savior.

VII. (26) Moses says also; "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth:" taking the beginning to be, not as some men think, that which is according to time; for before the world time had no existence, but was created either simultaneously with it, or after it; for since time is the interval of the motion of the heavens, there could not have been any such thing as motion before there was anything which could be moved; but it follows of necessity that it received existence subsequently or simultaneously. It therefore follows also of necessity, that time was created either at the same moment with the world, or later than it--and to venture to assert that it is older than the world is absolutely inconsistent with philosophy. (27) But if the beginning spoken of by Moses is not to be looked upon as spoken of according to time, then it may be natural to suppose that it is the beginning according to number that is indicated; so that, "In the beginning he created," is equivalent to "first of all he created the heaven;" for it is natural in reality that that should have been the first object created, being both the best of all created things, and being also made of the purest substance, because it was destined to be the most holy abode of the visible Gods who are perceptible by the external senses; (28) for if the Creator had made everything at the same moment, still those things which were created in beauty would no less have had a regular arrangement, for there is no such thing as beauty in disorder. But order is a due consequence and connection of things precedent and subsequent, if not in the completion of a work, at all events in the intention of the maker; for it is owing to order that they become accurately defined and stationary, and free from confusion.

We, however, insist on the proper signification of every word, and say that principium means beginning,—being a term which is suitable to represent things which begin to exist. For nothing which has come into being is without a beginning, nor can this its commencement be at any other moment than when it begins to have existence. Thus principium, or beginning, is simply a term of inception, not the name of a substance. Now, inasmuch as the heaven and the earth are the principal works of God, and since, by His making them first, He constituted them in an especial manner the beginning of His creation, before all things else, with good reason does the Scripture preface (its record of creation) with the words, "In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth;" just as it would have said, "At last God made the heaven and the earth," if God had created these after all the rest. Now, if the beginning is a substance, the end must also be material. No doubt, a substantial thing may be the beginning of some other thing which may be formed out of it: thus the clay is the beginning of the vessel, and the seed is the beginning of the plant. But when we employ the word beginning in this sense of origin, and not in that of order, we do not omit to mention also the name of that particular thing which we regard as the origin of the other. On the other hand, if we were to make such a statement as this, for example, "In the beginning the potter made a basin or a water-jug," the word beginning will not here indicate a material substance (for I have not mentioned the clay, which is the beginning in this sense), but only the order of the work, meaning that the potter made the basin and the jug first, before anything else—intending afterwards to make the rest. It is, then, to the order of the works that the word beginning has reference, not to the origin of their substances. I might also explain this word beginning in another way, which would not, however, be inapposite. The Greek term for beginning, which is aρχh, admits the sense not only of priority of order, but of power as well; whence princes and magistrates are called aρχοντες. Therefore in this sense too, beginning may be taken for princely authority and power. It was, indeed, in His transcendent authority and power, that God made the heaven and the earth.

We, however, have but one God, and but one earth too, which in the beginning God made. The Scripture, which at its very outset proposes to run through the order thereof, tells us as its first information that it was created; it next proceeds to set forth what sort of earth it was. In like manner with respect to the heaven, it informs us first of its creation—"In the beginning God made the heaven:" it then goes on to introduce its arrangement; how that God both separated "the water which was below the firmament from that which was above the firmament," and called the firmament heaven,—the very thing He had created in the beginning. Similarly it (afterwards) treats of man: "And God created man, in the image of God made He him." It next reveals how He made him: "And (the Lord) God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Now this is undoubtedly the correct and fitting mode for the narrative. First comes a prefatory statement, then follow the details in full; first the subject is named, then it is described. ... Indeed, how full and complete is the meaning of these words: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth; but the earth was without form, and void,"—the very same earth, no doubt, which God made, and of which the Scripture had been speaking at that very moment.

1) "Of time." Things are said to be created in the beginning of time, not as if the beginning of time were a measure of creation, but because together with time heaven and earth were created. 2) In the Son." In the Son by reason of wisdom, in order that, as it is said (Psalm 103:24), "Thou hast made all things in wisdom," it may be understood that God made all things in the beginning--that is, in the Son; according to the word of the Apostle (Colossians 1:16), "In Him"--the Son--"were created all things. 3) Before all things--Nothing is made except as it exists. But nothing exists of time except "now." Hence time cannot be made except according to some "now"; not because in the first "now" is time, but because from it time begins. God: That is to say the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The Hebrew original has "Elohim," which may be rendered "Gods" or "Judges": Various languages have diverse modes of expression. So as by reason of the plurality of "supposita" the Greeks said "three hypostases," so also in Hebrew "Elohim" is in the plural. We, however, do not apply the plural either to "God" or to "substance," Though the name "God" signifies a being having Godhead, nevertheless the mode of signification is different. For the name "God" is used substantively; whereas "having Godhead" is used adjectively. Consequently, although there are "three having Godhead," it does not follow that there are three Gods. Created: To be created is, in a manner, to be made. Creation is not change, but is understood as first not existing at all, and afterwards as existing. The gloss has, "To create is to make something from nothing." To create belongs to God according to His being, that is, His essence, which is common to the three Persons of the whole Trinity. The angels were created at the same time as corporeal creatures. For the angels are part of the universe: they do not constitute a universe of themselves; but both they and corporeal natures unite in constituting one universe. At the same time the contrary is not to be deemed erroneous; especially on account of the opinion of Gregory Nazianzen. For Jerome says (In Ep. ad ***. i, 2): "Six thousand years of our time have not yet elapsed; yet how shall we measure the time, how shall we count the ages, in which the Angels, Thrones, Dominations, and the other orders served God?" Damascene also says (De Fide Orth. ii): "Some say that the angels were begotten before all creation; as Gregory the Theologian declares, He first of all devised the angelic and heavenly powers, and the devising was the making thereof." Heaven: According to Chrysostom (Hom. iii in Genes.), Moses prefaces his record by speaking of the works of God collectively, in the words, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth," and then proceeds to explain them part by part; in somewhat the same way as one might say: "This house was constructed by that builder," and then add: "First, he laid the foundations, then built the walls, and thirdly, put on the roof." In accepting this explanation we are, therefore, not bound to hold that a different heaven is spoken of in the words: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth," and when we read that the firmament was made on the second day. We may also say that the heaven recorded as created in the beginning is not the same as that made on the second day; and there are several senses in which this may be understood. Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. i, 9) that the heaven recorded as made on the first day is the formless spiritual nature, and that the heaven of the second day is the corporeal heaven. According to Bede (Hexaem. i) and Strabus, the heaven made on the first day is the eternal one, and the firmament made on the second day, the starry heaven. According to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii) that of the first day was spherical in form and without stars, the same, in fact, that the philosophers speak of, calling it the ninth sphere, and the primary movable body that moves with diurnal movement: while by the firmament made on the second day he understands the starry heaven. According to another theory, touched upon by Augustine [Gen. ad lit. ii, 1] the heaven made on the first day was the starry heaven, and the firmament made on the second day was that region of the air where the clouds are collected, which is also called heaven, but equivocally. And to show that the word is here used in an equivocal sense, it is expressly said that "God called the firmament heaven"; just as in a preceding verse it said that "God called the light day" (since the word "day" is also used to denote a space of twenty-four hours). Other instances of a similar use occur, as pointed out by Rabbi Moses. Earth: The earth stands in relation to the heaven as the centre of a circle to its perimeter. But as one center may have many perimeters, so, though there is but one earth, there may be many heavens.

The good architect lays the foundation first and afterward, when the foundation has been laid, plots the various parts of the building, one after the other, and then adds to it the ornamentation.… Scripture points out that things were first created and afterward put in order lest it be supposed that they were not actually created and that they had no beginning, just as if the nature of things had been, as it were, generated from the beginning and did not appear to be something added afterward.

The Spirit fittingly moved over the earth, destined to bear fruit because by the aid of the Spirit it held the seeds of new birth which were to germinate according to the words of the prophet: "Send forth thy Spirit and they shall be created and thou shalt renew the face of the earth."

The earth was invisible and unorganized, and darkness was over the abyss. Formlessness is suggested by these words, so that we might grasp the meaning by degrees, for we are unable to think cognitively about an absolute privation of form that still does not go as far as nothing. From this, another visible and organized heaven and earth were to be made.

"And darkness was over the abyss." The Manichaeans find fault with this and say, "Was God then in darkness, before he made the light?" They themselves are truly in the darkness of ignorance, and for that reason they do not understand the light in which God was before he made this light. For they know only the light they see with the eyes of the flesh. And therefore they worship this sun that every creature sees. But let us understand that there is a different light in which God dwells.

One who diligently considers what darkness is really finds only the absence of light. Thus it said, "darkness was over the abyss," as if to say, "There was no light over the abyss." Hence, this matter that is ordered and distinguished by the next work of God is called the invisible and unformed earth and the deep that is lacking light. This is what was above called heaven and earth, like the seed of heaven and earth.

The matter is first called by the name of the universe, that is, of heaven and earth, for the sake of which it was made from absolutely nothing. Second, its formlessness is conveyed by the mention of the unformed earth and the abyss, because among all the elements earth is more formless and less bright than the rest. Third, by the name water, there is signified matter that is subject to the work of the Maker, for water can be moved more easily than earth. And thus on account of the easiness by which it can be worked and moved, the matter subject to the Maker should be called water rather than earth.

5. Do not then go beyond yourself to seek for evil, and imagine that there is an original nature of wickedness. Each of us, let us acknowledge it, is the first author of his own vice. Among the ordinary events of life, some come naturally, like old age and sickness, others by chance like unforeseen occurrences, of which the origin is beyond ourselves, often sad, sometimes fortunate, as for instance the discovery of a treasure when digging a well, or the meeting of a mad dog when going to the market place. Others depend upon ourselves, such as ruling one's passions, or not putting a bridle on one's pleasures, to be master of our anger, or to raise the hand against him who irritates us, to tell the truth, or to lie, to have a sweet and well-regulated disposition, or to be fierce and swollen and exalted with pride. Here you are the master of your actions. Do not look for the guiding cause beyond yourself, but recognise that evil, rightly so called, has no other origin than our voluntary falls. If it were involuntary, and did not depend upon ourselves, the laws would not have so much terror for the guilty, and the tribunals would not be so without pity when they condemn wretches according to the measure of their crimes. But enough concerning evil rightly so called. Sickness, poverty, obscurity, death, finally all human afflictions, ought not to be ranked as evils; since we do not count among the greatest boons things which are their opposites. Among these afflictions, some are the effect of nature, others have obviously been for many a source of advantage. Let us then be silent for the moment about these metaphors and allegories, and, simply following without vain curiosity the words of Holy Scripture, let us take from darkness the idea which it gives us.

But reason asks, was darkness created with the world? Is it older than light? Why in spite of its inferiority has it preceded it? Darkness, we reply, did not exist in essence; it is a condition produced in the air by the withdrawal of light. What then is that light which disappeared suddenly from the world, so that darkness should cover the face of the deep? If anything had existed before the formation of this sensible and perishable world, no doubt we conclude it would have been in light. The orders of angels, the heavenly hosts, all intellectual natures named or unnamed, all the ministering spirits, did not live in darkness, but enjoyed a condition fitted for them in light and spiritual joy.

No one will contradict this; least of all he who looks for celestial light as one of the rewards promised to virtue, the light which, as Solomon says, is always a light to the righteous, the light which made the Apostle say Giving thanks unto the Father, which has made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light. Colossians 1:12 Finally, if the condemned are sent into outer darkness evidently those who are made worthy of God's approval, are at rest in heavenly light. When then, according to the order of God, the heaven appeared, enveloping all that its circumference included, a vast and unbroken body separating outer things from those which it enclosed, it necessarily kept the space inside in darkness for want of communication with the outer light. Three things are, indeed, needed to form a shadow, light, a body, a dark place. The shadow of heaven forms the darkness of the world. Understand, I pray you, what I mean, by a simple example; by raising for yourself at mid-day a tent of some compact and impenetrable material, and shutting yourself up in it in sudden darkness. Suppose that original darkness was like this, not subsisting directly by itself, but resulting from some external causes. If it is said that it rested upon the deep, it is because the extremity of air naturally touches the surface of bodies; and as at that time the water covered everything, we are obliged to say that darkness was upon the face of the deep.

6. And the Spirit of God was borne upon the face of the waters. Does this spirit mean the diffusion of air? The sacred writer wishes to enumerate to you the elements of the world, to tell you that God created the heavens, the earth, water, and air and that the last was now diffused and in motion; or rather, that which is truer and confirmed by the authority of the ancients, by the Spirit of God, he means the Holy Spirit. It is, as has been remarked, the special name, the name above all others that Scripture delights to give to the Holy Spirit, and always by the spirit of God the Holy Spirit is meant, the Spirit which completes the divine and blessed Trinity. You will find it better therefore to take it in this sense. How then did the Spirit of God move upon the waters? The explanation that I am about to give you is not an original one, but that of a Syrian, who was as ignorant in the wisdom of this world as he was versed in the knowledge of the Truth. He said, then, that the Syriac word was more expressive, and that being more analogous to the Hebrew term it was a nearer approach to the scriptural sense. This is the meaning of the word; by was borne the Syrians, he says, understand: it cherished the nature of the waters as one sees a bird cover the eggs with her body and impart to them vital force from her own warmth. Such is, as nearly as possible, the meaning of these words— the Spirit was borne: let us understand, that is, prepared the nature of water to produce living beings: a sufficient proof for those who ask if the Holy Spirit took an active part in the creation of the world.

1. In the few words which have occupied us this morning we have found such a depth of thought that we despair of penetrating further. If such is the fore court of the sanctuary, if the portico of the temple is so grand and magnificent, if the splendour of its beauty thus dazzles the eyes of the soul, what will be the holy of holies? Who will dare to try to gain access to the innermost shrine? Who will look into its secrets? To gaze into it is indeed forbidden us, and language is powerless to express what the mind conceives. However, since there are rewards, and most desirable ones, reserved by the just Judge for the intention alone of doing good, do not let us hesitate to continue our researches. Although we may not attain to the truth, if, with the help of the Spirit, we do not fall away from the meaning of Holy Scripture we shall not deserve to be rejected, and, with the help of grace, we shall contribute to the edification of the Church of God.

The earth, says Holy Scripture, was invisible and unfinished. The heavens and the earth were created without distinction. How then is it that the heavens are perfect while the earth is still unformed and incomplete? In one word, what was the unfinished condition of the earth? And for what reason was it invisible? The fertility of the earth is its perfect finishing; growth of all kinds of plants, the upspringing of tall trees, both productive and sterile, flowers' sweet scents and fair colours, and all that which, a little later, at the voice of God came forth from the earth to beautify her, their universal Mother. As nothing of all this yet existed, Scripture is right in calling the earth without form. We could also say of the heavens that they were still imperfect and had not received their natural adornment, since at that time they did not shine with the glory of the sun and of the moon and were not crowned by the choirs of the stars. These bodies were not yet created. Thus you will not diverge from the truth in saying that the heavens also were without form. The earth was invisible for two reasons: it may be because man, the spectator, did not yet exist, or because being submerged under the waters which over-flowed the surface, it could not be seen, since the waters had not yet been gathered together into their own places, where God afterwards collected them, and gave them the name of seas. What is invisible? First of all that which our fleshly eye cannot perceive; our mind, for example; then that which, visible in its nature, is hidden by some body which conceals it, like iron in the depths of the earth. It is in this sense, because it was hidden under the waters, that the earth was still invisible. However, as light did not yet exist, and as the earth lay in darkness, because of the obscurity of the air above it, it should not astonish us that for this reason Scripture calls it invisible.

2. But the corrupters of the truth, who, incapable of submitting their reason to Holy Scripture, distort at will the meaning of the Holy Scriptures, pretend that these words mean matter. For it is matter, they say, which from its nature is without form and invisible—being by the conditions of its existence without quality and without form and figure. The Artificer submitting it to the working of His wisdom clothed it with a form, organized it, and thus gave being to the visible world.

If matter is uncreated, it has a claim to the same honours as God, since it must be of equal rank with Him. Is this not the summit of wickedness, that an extreme deformity, without quality, without form, shape, ugliness without configuration, to use their own expression, should enjoy the same prerogatives with Him, Who is wisdom, power and beauty itself, the Creator and the Demiurge of the universe? This is not all. If matter is so great as to be capable of being acted on by the whole wisdom of God, it would in a way raise its hypostasis to an equality with the inaccessible power of God, since it would be able to measure by itself all the extent of the divine intelligence. If it is insufficient for the operations of God, then we fall into a more absurd blasphemy, since we condemn God for not being able, on account of the want of matter, to finish His own works. The poverty of human nature has deceived these reasoners. Each of our crafts is exercised upon some special matter— the art of the smith upon iron, that of the carpenter on wood. In all, there is the subject, the form and the work which results from the form. Matter is taken from without— art gives the form— and the work is composed at the same time of form and of matter. Such is the idea that they make for themselves of the divine work. The form of the world is due to the wisdom of the supreme Artificer; matter came to the Creator from without; and thus the world results from a double origin. It has received from outside its matter and its essence, and from God its form and figure. They thus come to deny that the mighty God has presided at the formation of the universe, and pretend that He has only brought a crowning contribution to a common work, that He has only contributed some small portion to the genesis of beings: they are incapable from the debasement of their reasonings of raising their glances to the height of truth. Here below arts are subsequent to matter— introduced into life by the indispensable need of them. Wool existed before weaving made it supply one of nature's imperfections. Wood existed before carpentering took possession of it, and transformed it each day to supply new wants, and made us see all the advantages derived from it, giving the oar to the sailor, the winnowing fan to the labourer, the lance to the soldier. But God, before all those things which now attract our notice existed, after casting about in His mind and determining to bring into being time which had no being, imagined the world such as it ought to be, and created matter in harmony with the form which He wished to give it. He assigned to the heavens the nature adapted for the heavens, and gave to the earth an essence in accordance with its form. He formed, as He wished, fire, air and water, and gave to each the essence which the object of its existence required. Finally, He welded all the diverse parts of the universe by links of indissoluble attachment and established between them so perfect a fellowship and harmony that the most distant, in spite of their distance, appeared united in one universal sympathy. Let those men therefore renounce their fabulous imaginations, who, in spite of the weakness of their argument, pretend to measure a power as incomprehensible to man's reason as it is unutterable by man's voice.

3. God created the heavens and the earth, but not only half—He created all the heavens and all the earth, creating the essence with the form. For He is not an inventor of figures, but the Creator even of the essence of beings. Further let them tell us how the efficient power of God could deal with the passive nature of matter, the latter furnishing the matter without form, the former possessing the science of the form without matter, both being in need of each other; the Creator in order to display His art, matter in order to cease to be without form and to receive a form. But let us stop here and return to our subject.

The earth was invisible and unfinished. In saying In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, the sacred writer passed over many things in silence, water, air, fire and the results from them, which, all forming in reality the true complement of the world, were, without doubt, made at the same time as the universe. By this silence, history wishes to train the activity or our intelligence, giving it a weak point for starting, to impel it to the discovery of the truth. Thus, we are not told of the creation of water; but, as we are told that the earth was invisible, ask yourself what could have covered it, and prevented it from being seen? Fire could not conceal it. Fire brightens all about it, and spreads light rather than darkness around. No more was it air that enveloped the earth. Air by nature is of little density and transparent. It receives all kinds of visible object, and transmits them to the spectators. Only one supposition remains; that which floated on the surface of the earth was water— the fluid essence which had not yet been confined to its own place. Thus the earth was not only invisible; it was still incomplete. Even today excessive damp is a hindrance to the productiveness of the earth. The same cause at the same time prevents it from being seen, and from being complete, for the proper and natural adornment of the earth is its completion: grain waving in the valleys— meadows green with grass and rich with many coloured flowers— fertile glades and hill-tops shaded by forests. Of all this nothing was yet produced; the earth was in travail with it in virtue of the power that she had received from the Creator. But she was waiting for the appointed time and the divine order to bring forth.

4. Darkness was upon the face of the deep. Genesis 1:2 A new source for fables and most impious imaginations if one distorts the sense of these words at the will of one's fancies. By darkness these wicked men do not understand what is meant in reality— air not illumined, the shadow produced by the interposition of a body, or finally a place for some reason deprived of light. For them darkness is an evil power, or rather the personification of evil, having his origin in himself in opposition to, and in perpetual struggle with, the goodness of God. If God is light, they say, without any doubt the power which struggles against Him must be darkness, Darkness not owing its existence to a foreign origin, but an evil existing by itself. Darkness is the enemy of souls, the primary cause of death, the adversary of virtue. The words of the Prophet, they say in their error, show that it exists and that it does not proceed from God. From this what perverse and impious dogmas have been imagined! What grievous wolves, Acts 20:29 tearing the flock of the Lord, have sprung from these words to cast themselves upon souls! Is it not from hence that have come forth Marcions and Valentini, and the detestable heresy of the Manicheans, which you may without going far wrong call the putrid humour of the churches.

O man, why wander thus from the truth, and imagine for yourself that which will cause your perdition? The word is simple and within the comprehension of all. The earth was invisible. Why? Because the deep was spread over its surface. What is the deep? A mass of water of extreme depth. But we know that we can see many bodies through clear and transparent water. How then was it that no part of the earth appeared through the water? Because the air which surrounded it was still without light and in darkness. The rays of the sun, penetrating the water, often allow us to see the pebbles which form the bed of the river, but in a dark night it is impossible for our glance to penetrate under the water. Thus, these words the earth was invisible are explained by those that follow; the deep covered it and itself was in darkness. Thus, the deep is not a multitude of hostile powers, as has been imagined; nor darkness an evil sovereign force in enmity with good. In reality two rival principles of equal power, if engaged without ceasing in a war of mutual attacks, will end in self destruction. But if one should gain the mastery it would completely annihilate the conquered. Thus, to maintain the balance in the struggle between good and evil is to represent them as engaged in a war without end and in perpetual destruction, where the opponents are at the same time conquerors and conquered. If good is the stronger, what is there to prevent evil being completely annihilated? But if that be the case, the very utterance of which is impious, I ask myself how it is that they themselves are not filled with horror to think that they have imagined such abominable blasphemies.

It is equally impious to say that evil has its origin from God; because the contrary cannot proceed from its contrary. Life does not engender death; darkness is not the origin of light; sickness is not the maker of health. In the changes of conditions there are transitions from one condition to the contrary; but in genesis each being proceeds from its like, and not from its contrary. If then evil is neither uncreate nor created by God, from whence comes its nature? Certainly that evil exists, no one living in the world will deny. What shall we say then? Evil is not a living animated essence; it is the condition of the soul opposed to virtue, developed in the careless on account of their falling away from good. 5. Do not then go beyond yourself to seek for evil, and imagine that there is an original nature of wickedness. Each of us, let us acknowledge it, is the first author of his own vice. Among the ordinary events of life, some come naturally, like old age and sickness, others by chance like unforeseen occurrences, of which the origin is beyond ourselves, often sad, sometimes fortunate, as for instance the discovery of a treasure when digging a well, or the meeting of a mad dog when going to the market place. Others depend upon ourselves, such as ruling one's passions, or not putting a bridle on one's pleasures, to be master of our anger, or to raise the hand against him who irritates us, to tell the truth, or to lie, to have a sweet and well-regulated disposition, or to be fierce and swollen and exalted with pride. Here you are the master of your actions. Do not look for the guiding cause beyond yourself, but recognise that evil, rightly so called, has no other origin than our voluntary falls. If it were involuntary, and did not depend upon ourselves, the laws would not have so much terror for the guilty, and the tribunals would not be so without pity when they condemn wretches according to the measure of their crimes. But enough concerning evil rightly so called. Sickness, poverty, obscurity, death, finally all human afflictions, ought not to be ranked as evils; since we do not count among the greatest boons things which are their opposites. Among these afflictions, some are the effect of nature, others have obviously been for many a source of advantage. Let us then be silent for the moment about these metaphors and allegories, and, simply following without vain curiosity the words of Holy Scripture, let us take from darkness the idea which it gives us.

But reason asks, was darkness created with the world? Is it older than light? Why in spite of its inferiority has it preceded it? Darkness, we reply, did not exist in essence; it is a condition produced in the air by the withdrawal of light. What then is that light which disappeared suddenly from the world, so that darkness should cover the face of the deep? If anything had existed before the formation of this sensible and perishable world, no doubt we conclude it would have been in light. The orders of angels, the heavenly hosts, all intellectual natures named or unnamed, all the ministering spirits, did not live in darkness, but enjoyed a condition fitted for them in light and spiritual joy. No one will contradict this; least of all he who looks for celestial light as one of the rewards promised to virtue, the light which, as Solomon says, is always a light to the righteous, the light which made the Apostle say Giving thanks unto the Father, which has made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light. Colossians 1:12 Finally, if the condemned are sent into outer darkness evidently those who are made worthy of God's approval, are at rest in heavenly light. When then, according to the order of God, the heaven appeared, enveloping all that its circumference included, a vast and unbroken body separating outer things from those which it enclosed, it necessarily kept the space inside in darkness for want of communication with the outer light. Three things are, indeed, needed to form a shadow, light, a body, a dark place. The shadow of heaven forms the darkness of the world. Understand, I pray you, what I mean, by a simple example; by raising for yourself at mid-day a tent of some compact and impenetrable material, and shutting yourself up in it in sudden darkness. Suppose that original darkness was like this, not subsisting directly by itself, but resulting from some external causes. If it is said that it rested upon the deep, it is because the extremity of air naturally touches the surface of bodies; and as at that time the water covered everything, we are obliged to say that darkness was upon the face of the deep.

6. And the Spirit of God was borne upon the face of the waters. Does this spirit mean the diffusion of air? The sacred writer wishes to enumerate to you the elements of the world, to tell you that God created the heavens, the earth, water, and air and that the last was now diffused and in motion; or rather, that which is truer and confirmed by the authority of the ancients, by the Spirit of God, he means the Holy Spirit. It is, as has been remarked, the special name, the name above all others that Scripture delights to give to the Holy Spirit, and always by the spirit of God the Holy Spirit is meant, the Spirit which completes the divine and blessed Trinity. You will find it better therefore to take it in this sense. How then did the Spirit of God move upon the waters? The explanation that I am about to give you is not an original one, but that of a Syrian, who was as ignorant in the wisdom of this world as he was versed in the knowledge of the Truth. He said, then, that the Syriac word was more expressive, and that being more analogous to the Hebrew term it was a nearer approach to the scriptural sense. This is the meaning of the word; by was borne the Syrians, he says, understand: it cherished the nature of the waters as one sees a bird cover the eggs with her body and impart to them vital force from her own warmth. Such is, as nearly as possible, the meaning of these words— the Spirit was borne: let us understand, that is, prepared the nature of water to produce living beings: a sufficient proof for those who ask if the Holy Spirit took an active part in the creation of the world.

A new source for fables and most impious imaginations if one distorts the sense of these words at the will of one's fancies. By darkness these wicked men do not understand what is meant in reality— air not illumined, the shadow produced by the interposition of a body, or finally a place for some reason deprived of light. For them darkness is an evil power, or rather the personification of evil, having his origin in himself in opposition to, and in perpetual struggle with, the goodness of God. If God is light, they say, without any doubt the power which struggles against Him must be darkness, Darkness not owing its existence to a foreign origin, but an evil existing by itself. Darkness is the enemy of souls, the primary cause of death, the adversary of virtue. The words of the Prophet, they say in their error, show that it exists and that it does not proceed from God. From this what perverse and impious dogmas have been imagined! What grievous wolves, Acts 20:29 tearing the flock of the Lord, have sprung from these words to cast themselves upon souls! Is it not from hence that have come forth Marcions and Valentini, and the detestable heresy of the Manicheans, which you may without going far wrong call the putrid humour of the churches.

O man, why wander thus from the truth, and imagine for yourself that which will cause your perdition? The word is simple and within the comprehension of all. The earth was invisible. Why? Because the deep was spread over its surface. What is the deep? A mass of water of extreme depth. But we know that we can see many bodies through clear and transparent water. How then was it that no part of the earth appeared through the water? Because the air which surrounded it was still without light and in darkness. The rays of the sun, penetrating the water, often allow us to see the pebbles which form the bed of the river, but in a dark night it is impossible for our glance to penetrate under the water. Thus, these words the earth was invisible are explained by those that follow; the deep covered it and itself was in darkness. Thus, the deep is not a multitude of hostile powers, as has been imagined; nor darkness an evil sovereign force in enmity with good. In reality two rival principles of equal power, if engaged without ceasing in a war of mutual attacks, will end in self destruction. But if one should gain the mastery it would completely annihilate the conquered. Thus, to maintain the balance in the struggle between good and evil is to represent them as engaged in a war without end and in perpetual destruction, where the opponents are at the same time conquerors and conquered. If good is the stronger, what is there to prevent evil being completely annihilated? But if that be the case, the very utterance of which is impious, I ask myself how it is that they themselves are not filled with horror to think that they have imagined such abominable blasphemies.

It is equally impious to say that evil has its origin from God; because the contrary cannot proceed from its contrary. Life does not engender death; darkness is not the origin of light; sickness is not the maker of health. In the changes of conditions there are transitions from one condition to the contrary; but in genesis each being proceeds from its like, and not from its contrary. If then evil is neither uncreate nor created by God, from whence comes its nature? Certainly that evil exists, no one living in the world will deny. What shall we say then? Evil is not a living animated essence; it is the condition of the soul opposed to virtue, developed in the careless on account of their falling away from good.

3. God created the heavens and the earth, but not only half—He created all the heavens and all the earth, creating the essence with the form. For He is not an inventor of figures, but the Creator even of the essence of beings. Further let them tell us how the efficient power of God could deal with the passive nature of matter, the latter furnishing the matter without form, the former possessing the science of the form without matter, both being in need of each other; the Creator in order to display His art, matter in order to cease to be without form and to receive a form. But let us stop here and return to our subject.

The earth was invisible and unfinished. In saying In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, the sacred writer passed over many things in silence, water, air, fire and the results from them, which, all forming in reality the true complement of the world, were, without doubt, made at the same time as the universe. By this silence, history wishes to train the activity or our intelligence, giving it a weak point for starting, to impel it to the discovery of the truth. Thus, we are not told of the creation of water; but, as we are told that the earth was invisible, ask yourself what could have covered it, and prevented it from being seen? Fire could not conceal it. Fire brightens all about it, and spreads light rather than darkness around. No more was it air that enveloped the earth. Air by nature is of little density and transparent. It receives all kinds of visible object, and transmits them to the spectators. Only one supposition remains; that which floated on the surface of the earth was water— the fluid essence which had not yet been confined to its own place. Thus the earth was not only invisible; it was still incomplete. Even today excessive damp is a hindrance to the productiveness of the earth. The same cause at the same time prevents it from being seen, and from being complete, for the proper and natural adornment of the earth is its completion: grain waving in the valleys— meadows green with grass and rich with many coloured flowers— fertile glades and hill-tops shaded by forests. Of all this nothing was yet produced; the earth was in travail with it in virtue of the power that she had received from the Creator. But she was waiting for the appointed time and the divine order to bring forth.

1. In the few words which have occupied us this morning we have found such a depth of thought that we despair of penetrating further. If such is the fore court of the sanctuary, if the portico of the temple is so grand and magnificent, if the splendour of its beauty thus dazzles the eyes of the soul, what will be the holy of holies? Who will dare to try to gain access to the innermost shrine? Who will look into its secrets? To gaze into it is indeed forbidden us, and language is powerless to express what the mind conceives. However, since there are rewards, and most desirable ones, reserved by the just Judge for the intention alone of doing good, do not let us hesitate to continue our researches. Although we may not attain to the truth, if, with the help of the Spirit, we do not fall away from the meaning of Holy Scripture we shall not deserve to be rejected, and, with the help of grace, we shall contribute to the edification of the Church of God.

The earth, says Holy Scripture, was invisible and unfinished. The heavens and the earth were created without distinction. How then is it that the heavens are perfect while the earth is still unformed and incomplete? In one word, what was the unfinished condition of the earth? And for what reason was it invisible? The fertility of the earth is its perfect finishing; growth of all kinds of plants, the upspringing of tall trees, both productive and sterile, flowers' sweet scents and fair colours, and all that which, a little later, at the voice of God came forth from the earth to beautify her, their universal Mother. As nothing of all this yet existed, Scripture is right in calling the earth without form. We could also say of the heavens that they were still imperfect and had not received their natural adornment, since at that time they did not shine with the glory of the sun and of the moon and were not crowned by the choirs of the stars. These bodies were not yet created. Thus you will not diverge from the truth in saying that the heavens also were without form. The earth was invisible for two reasons: it may be because man, the spectator, did not yet exist, or because being submerged under the waters which over-flowed the surface, it could not be seen, since the waters had not yet been gathered together into their own places, where God afterwards collected them, and gave them the name of seas. What is invisible? First of all that which our fleshly eye cannot perceive; our mind, for example; then that which, visible in its nature, is hidden by some body which conceals it, like iron in the depths of the earth. It is in this sense, because it was hidden under the waters, that the earth was still invisible. However, as light did not yet exist, and as the earth lay in darkness, because of the obscurity of the air above it, it should not astonish us that for this reason Scripture calls it invisible.

2. But the corrupters of the truth, who, incapable of submitting their reason to Holy Scripture, distort at will the meaning of the Holy Scriptures, pretend that these words mean matter. For it is matter, they say, which from its nature is without form and invisible—being by the conditions of its existence without quality and without form and figure. The Artificer submitting it to the working of His wisdom clothed it with a form, organized it, and thus gave being to the visible world.

If matter is uncreated, it has a claim to the same honours as God, since it must be of equal rank with Him. Is this not the summit of wickedness, that an extreme deformity, without quality, without form, shape, ugliness without configuration, to use their own expression, should enjoy the same prerogatives with Him, Who is wisdom, power and beauty itself, the Creator and the Demiurge of the universe? This is not all. If matter is so great as to be capable of being acted on by the whole wisdom of God, it would in a way raise its hypostasis to an equality with the inaccessible power of God, since it would be able to measure by itself all the extent of the divine intelligence. If it is insufficient for the operations of God, then we fall into a more absurd blasphemy, since we condemn God for not being able, on account of the want of matter, to finish His own works. The poverty of human nature has deceived these reasoners. Each of our crafts is exercised upon some special matter— the art of the smith upon iron, that of the carpenter on wood. In all, there is the subject, the form and the work which results from the form. Matter is taken from without— art gives the form— and the work is composed at the same time of form and of matter.

Such is the idea that they make for themselves of the divine work. The form of the world is due to the wisdom of the supreme Artificer; matter came to the Creator from without; and thus the world results from a double origin. It has received from outside its matter and its essence, and from God its form and figure. They thus come to deny that the mighty God has presided at the formation of the universe, and pretend that He has only brought a crowning contribution to a common work, that He has only contributed some small portion to the genesis of beings: they are incapable from the debasement of their reasonings of raising their glances to the height of truth. Here below arts are subsequent to matter— introduced into life by the indispensable need of them. Wool existed before weaving made it supply one of nature's imperfections. Wood existed before carpentering took possession of it, and transformed it each day to supply new wants, and made us see all the advantages derived from it, giving the oar to the sailor, the winnowing fan to the labourer, the lance to the soldier. But God, before all those things which now attract our notice existed, after casting about in His mind and determining to bring into being time which had no being, imagined the world such as it ought to be, and created matter in harmony with the form which He wished to give it. He assigned to the heavens the nature adapted for the heavens, and gave to the earth an essence in accordance with its form. He formed, as He wished, fire, air and water, and gave to each the essence which the object of its existence required. Finally, He welded all the diverse parts of the universe by links of indissoluble attachment and established between them so perfect a fellowship and harmony that the most distant, in spite of their distance, appeared united in one universal sympathy. Let those men therefore renounce their fabulous imaginations, who, in spite of the weakness of their argument, pretend to measure a power as incomprehensible to man's reason as it is unutterable by man's voice.

Surely the perfect condition of the earth consists in its state of abundance: the budding of all sorts of plants, the putting forth of the lofty trees both fruitful and barren, the freshness and fragrance of flowers, and whatever things appeared on earth a little later by the command of God to adorn their mother. Since as yet there was nothing of this, the Scripture reasonably spoke of it as incomplete. We might say the same also about the heavens; that they were not yet brought to perfection themselves, nor had they received their proper adornment, since they were not yet lighted around by the moon nor the sun, nor crowned by the choirs of the stars. For these things had not yet been made. Therefore you will not err from the truth if you say that the heavens also were incomplete.

But the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the face of the deep. For why were these things about the earth mentioned, leaving heaven aside, unless because he did not want anything like that to be understood about heaven? For the higher heaven is that which remains always quiet, secluded from all the variable state of this world, in the divine glory of foreknowledge. For about our heaven, in which the lights necessary for this age are placed, scripture subsequently declares both how and when it was made. Therefore, the higher heaven, which is inaccessible to all mortal sights, was not created formless and empty on the earth, which in its first creation produced neither budding plants nor living creatures, because undoubtedly it was immediately created with its inhabitants, that is, filled with the most blessed hosts of angels; who, created in the beginning along with heaven and earth, immediately attributed their condition and that of the entirety of primeval creation to the praise of the Creator, as the very Creator testifies who, speaking to his holy servant Job, says: Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth (Job 38:4)? And shortly after: When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy (Job 38:7); clearly calling the morning stars those same angels, whom he also names the sons of God, to distinguish them from holy men, who were to be created afterward, and who, like evening stars, were to die in the flesh after confessing divine praise; among these morning stars, one due to the contempt of the praise of God, deserved to hear: How you have fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! You are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations! For you said in your heart: I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God (Isaiah 14:12). In the exposition of this statement, Saint Jerome also recalls the higher heaven, writing thus: "Either before he fell from heaven, he was saying these things; or after he fell from heaven: if he was still in heaven, how does he say: I will ascend into heaven? But because we read, The heaven of heaven is the Lord's, while he was in heaven, that is, the firmament, he desired to ascend into heaven, where the Lord's throne is, not out of humility, but out of pride. But if he speaks these things after he fell from heaven, we should understand the words of arrogance, since neither does he settle being cast down, but still promises himself grandeur, not to be among the stars, but above the stars of God (book VI, on Isaiah)." Justly, therefore, it is memorable that the heaven of heaven was not made formless or empty, nor is there said to remain any place in it for darkness or the abyss, for the Lord God illuminates it, and its lamp is the Lamb. And justly the earth was formless and empty, as it was still covered entirely by the abyss, that is, the immense depth of waters. Rightly, darkness was over the face of the abyss, since light, which could expel it, had not yet been created. However, those who criticize God by saying that He created darkness before light should not be heeded, because God did not create any darkness in the water or air, but by the distinct order of His providence, He first created the waters along with the heavens and the earth, and then, when He wished, adorned them with the grace of light. This is what we still see happening both in the water and in the air through the daily approach and departure of the sun. For it is not appropriate to believe that the waters were made by anyone other than God, which Scripture, although not saying it openly, clearly implies by indicating that they were illuminated and ordered by His command. Furthermore, the psalm openly states: "And the waters above the heavens praise the name of the Lord, because He commanded and they were created" (Psalm 148:4). It is noteworthy that in the beginning, when heaven was made, two elements of this world—water and earth—are specifically mentioned, and it is understood that the two remaining elements, fire and air, were also included. Fire was concealed in the iron and stones, which were hidden within the earth's interior at that time, and air in the very earth itself, known to be mixed with it because when it becomes moist and receives the warmth of the sun, it immediately exhales abundant vapors. The hot springs that erupt from the earth's interior serve as evidence of the burning fire within, which, when certain metals are encountered deep in the earth, not only produce warm but even scalding waters that reach the surface. These elements were not, as some argue, mixed formlessly together, but the earth, bounded entirely by its current borders, was then just as it is now, except that part of it still remains hidden under the deep sea. The waters covered its entire surface to such a depth that they reached those places where waters now dwell above the firmament of heaven, praising the name of the Creator God along with the heavens of the heavens without ceasing. Thus, the formless matter from which the world was made, as attested by Scripture in its praise of God, saying: "Who made the world from formless matter," had no beauty until it came into the light. Everything that we see in the world, whether starting from the waters and the earth or from nothing, began their natural course. The earth and the waters themselves are called formless matter because, before coming into the light, they had no form. What is so out of order about the material beginnings of the world being dark, so that when light came, what was made would become better, and like a progressing person, what was to follow would be signified by this initial state? This is explained by the Apostle when he says: "For God, who commanded light to shine out of darkness, has shone in our hearts" (2 Cor. 4:6). Elsewhere he says: "You were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord" (Eph. 5:8)—that very light which, when there was darkness over the face of the abyss, God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

And the Spirit of God was moving over the waters. It should not be childishly thought that the creative Spirit, of whom it is written, 'the Spirit of the Lord has filled the world' (Wis. I, 7), was hovering over the things to be created in terms of physical location; rather, it must be understood that the divine power was excelling over the creatures, having in its own power when he would enlighten the abyss of waters, when he would separate them into one place so that the dry land would appear, when and how he would arrange the other creatures according to his will, in the likeness of a craftsman, whose will is accustomed to being superior to the things to be made. This also pertains to the distinction of the higher heaven, in which presently everything arranged by the presence of the Holy Spirit was perfectly illuminating: But these things, as in the lower, that is, the creatures of this world, he intended to lead well the beginnings of condition from time to perfection. For Moses also briefly mentioned the higher world for this reason, because he intended to speak about this world in which man was made, for the instruction of the human race, believing it sufficient if he comprehended the entire state and ornament of the spiritual and invisible creature under the single name of heaven, which he said was made in the beginning; he described the bodily, visible, and corruptible creature more extensively in order; that is, he silently passed over those things which men have sought out as higher and stronger, proposing rather those things which were commanded or promised by God to men. Hence, he also deliberately kept silent about the fall of the rebellious angel and his companions, because this clearly pertained to the state of that invisible and spiritual creature, of which the holy Basil in his second book of Hexameron thus mentions: 'For we think that if there was anything before the establishment of this sensible and corruptible world, it surely was in light. For neither the dignity of angels, nor all the celestial hosts, or if there is anything named or unnameable or any rational power, or ministering spirit, could dwell in darkness, but in light and joy, possessing a fitting abode.' When he well proclaimed that in the beginning God, that is, the Father through the Son, made heaven and earth, he also added a mention of the Holy Spirit by adding: And the Spirit of God was moving over the waters, to signify that the power of the whole Trinity was working together in the creation of the world.

To intimate the order of nature, Scripture determines, according to what was fitting for God to work: that in the beginning, before the course of time, that threefold nature was brought from non-being into being, when it says: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth" and "the Spirit of God moved over the waters." Where by the name of heaven the luminous nature is intimated; by the name of earth, the opaque; by the name of water, the pervious or transparent, whether subject to contrariety or elevated above contrariety. Where also the eternal Trinity is intimated, namely the Father in the name of God creating, the Son in the name of the beginning, the Holy Spirit in the name of the Spirit of God.

But some one will say that it is recorded that He made the heaven and the earth, while nothing is recorded of waters and fire and air. In the first place then, brethren, when He said that the heaven and the earth were made, He indicated by the things which contain, the things that are contained. Then after the interposition of a few passages, hear Him next relate when the air was made: And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Here He does not speak of the Holy Spirit, for the uncreated is not numbered along with what is created, but it is the motion of the air which He calls spirit.

After this Moses spoke not of the firmament and things that were above [it], but rather of those things that were between the firmament and the earth which is within [ the firmament ]. Moses wrote about [ the things within the firmament ] for us, although he did not write about everything for us, for he did not record for us the day on which the spiritual things were created. Moses then goes on to write about the earth, "that it was tohu and bohu, " [ Gen1:2 ] that is, void and desolation. This is to show that even the void and desolation were prior to the elements. I am not saying that the void and desolation were something, but rather that that earth which was to become well-known did not exist, for only the [primitive] earth, without any other [adornment] existed. After Moses spoke about the creation of heaven and earth and showed that the waste and desolation preceded the elements that were created by the length of that moment that followed [their creation ], he turned to write about those elements saying, "Darkness was upon the face of the abyss" [ Gen1:2 ] . For the abyss of waters was created at that time. But how was it created on the day on which it was created? Even though it was created on this day and at this time, Moses does not tell us here how it was created. For now we should accept the creation of the abyss as it is written, while we wait to learn from Moses how it was created. As for the darkness that was upon the face of the abyss, some posit that it was a cloud of heaven. Now, if the firmament had been created on the first day they would speak rightly. If the upper heavens were similar to the firmament, then there would be a thick darkness between the two heavens, for the light had not been created nor affixed there to dissipate the darkness there by its rays. But if the place between the two heavens is light as Ezekiel, Paul, and Stephen bear witness, then how could the heavens, which had dissipated the darkness with their lights, spread darkness over the abyss? Because everything that was created was created in those six days, whether its creation was written down or not, the clouds must also have been created on that first day, just as fire was created along with wind, although Moses did not write about the fire as he did about the wind. Thus, the clouds were created along with the abyss although Moses did not write that the clouds were created along with the abyss, just as he did not record the creation of fire along with that of the wind when he wrote about the creation of the wind. It was necessary that everything be known to have its beginning in those six days. The clouds were surely created along with the abyss, for how many times were these brought forth from the abyss? Elijah saw a cloud rising up out of the sea. Solomon also said, "By his knowledge the depths broke forth and the clouds sprinkled down dew." It was not only because of their substance that they should have been created at this point, but they were created on that first night because they also rendered service on that first night. Just as the clouds covered Egypt for three days and three nights, clouds were spread over all of creation on the first night and on the first day. If the clouds had been dispersed, light would not have been required on the first day because the brightness of the upper heavens would have been sufficient to fill the place of the light that was created on the first day. After one night and one day were completed, the firmament was created on the second evening and henceforth its shadow rendered service for all subsequent nights. Therefore, heaven and earth were created on the evening of the first night. Along with the abyss that was created there were also created those clouds which brought about the requisite night when they were spread out. After their shadow had served for twelve hours, light was created beneath them and the light dispersed their shadow that had been spread over the waters all night. After Moses spoke of the darkness that was spread over the face of the abyss, he then said, "the wind of God was hovering over the face of the waters." [ Gen1:2 ] Because Moses called it the "wind of God" and said "it was hovering," some posit that this is the Holy Spirit and, because of that which is written here, associate it with the activity [of creation.] Nevertheless, the faithful do not make this connection, for they are not likely to so relate it. Rather, by those things that are truly said about it, they associate it with that element. To the end that from these names they are not able to consider the Spirit as active in creation. For it is said that an evil spirit of God consumed Saul. It is also said that "[ the wind ] was hovering," but what came forth from the waters on the first day when [ the wind ] was hovering over the waters? If on the day that it was written that "it was hovering over the waters" nothing came out of the waters, and then on the fifth day when the waters brought forth reptiles and birds, it was not written that the wind "was hovering," how then can anyone say that this wind took part in the activity of creation? For, although scripture says "it was hovering", it did not say that anything came out of the waters on the day that it was hovering. Just as through the service of the clouds, that is, the shadow of the first night, the creation of the clouds that came to be on the first day was brought to our attention, so too through the service of the wind, which is its breeze, Moses wished to make known to us the creation [ of the wind ]. For just as clouds do not exist without a shadow neither does wind exist without a breeze. It is in their service then that we notice those things that are not otherwise apparent to us. Therefore that wind was blowing because it was created for this purpose. After it blew and manifested its creation through its service on the first night, it became calm once again on the first day just as the clouds were dispersed once again on the first day.

[The Holy Spirit] warmed the waters with a kind of vital warmth, even bringing them to a boil through intense heat in order to make them fertile. The action of a hen is similar. It sits on its eggs, making them fertile through the warmth of incubation. Here then, the Holy Spirit foreshadows the sacrament of holy baptism, prefiguring its arrival, so that the waters made fertile by the hovering of cthat same divine Spirit might give birth to the children of God.

It was appropriate to reveal here that the Spirit hovered in order for us to learn that the work of creation was held in common by the Spirit with the Father and the Son. The Father spoke. The Son created. And so it was also right that the Spirit offer its work, clearly shown through its hovering, in order to demonstrate its unity with the other persons. Thus we learn that all was brought to perfection and accomplished by the Trinity.

In the beginning of Genesis, it is written: "And the Spirit was stirring above the waters." You see, then, what it says in the beginning of Genesis. Now for its mystical meaning—"The Spirit was stirring above the waters"—already at that time baptism was being foreshadowed. It could not be true baptism, to be sure, without the Spirit.

(Verse 2.) And the spirit of God was moving over the waters. Because in our books it is written 'was moving', in Hebrew it has 'Merefeth', which we can call 'hovering' or 'brooding', in the likeness of a bird, warming the eggs with the heat of life. From which we understand that it is not said to be the spirit of the world, as some suppose, but the Holy Spirit, who is also said to be the giver of life to all things from the beginning. And if a giver of life, then also a creator. But if You are the creator and God. For, He says, send forth Your Spirit, and they shall be created (Psalm 103, 30).

For the depth and the darkness underlay the earth. Since the deep was under the earth, and the darkness was over the deep, undoubtedly both the darkness and the deep were under the earth. For since the waters were over the earth, which they covered, while the spirit was over the waters, both the spirit and the waters were alike over the earth. Of darkness, indeed, the Lord Himself by Isaiah says, "I formed the light, and I created darkness." Isaiah 45:7 Of the wind also Amos says, "He that strengthens the thunder, and creates the wind, and declares His Christ unto men;" Amos 4:13 thus showing that that wind was created which was reckoned with the formation of the earth, which was wafted over the waters, balancing and refreshing and animating all things: not (as some suppose) meaning God Himself by the spirit, on the ground that "God is a Spirit," John 4:24 because the waters would not be able to bear up their Lord; but He speaks of that spirit of which the winds consist, as He says by Isaiah, "Because my spirit went forth from me, and I made every blast."[Against Hermogenes 31] Note that Tertullian understands "spirit" to mean created wind.

The earth was void: or "invisible," inasmuch as the waters covered and concealed it from view; and the formlessness of the earth. But other holy writers understand by earth the element of earth, in this sense, the earth was, according to them, without form. In other words, they hold that formlessness of matter preceded in time its formation. But St. Augustine believes that the formlessness of matter was not prior in time to its formation, but only in origin or the order of nature, Empty: or, according to another reading [Septuagint], "shapeless"--that is, unadorned by herbs and plants. darkness was upon the face of the deep: The formlessness of water, which holds the middle place, is called the "deep," because, as Augustine says (Contr. Faust. xxii, 11), this word signifies the mass of waters without order. Spirit of God: Rabbi Moses (Perplex. ii) understands by the "Spirit of the Lord," the air or the wind, as Plato also did, and says that it is so called according to the custom of Scripture, in which these things are throughout attributed to God. But according to the holy writers, the Spirit of the Lord signifies the Holy Ghost, Who is said to "move over the water"--that is to say, over what Augustine holds to mean formless matter, lest it should be supposed that God loved of necessity the works He was to produce, as though He stood in need of them. For love of that kind is subject to, not superior to, the object of love. Moreover, it is fittingly implied that the Spirit moved over that which was incomplete and unfinished, since that movement is not one of place, but of pre-eminent power, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. i, 7). It is the opinion, however, of Basil (Hom. ii in Hexaem.) that the Spirit moved over the element of water, "fostering and quickening its nature and impressing vital power, as the hen broods over her chickens." For water has especially a life-giving power, since many animals are generated in water, and the seed of all animals is liquid. Also the life of the soul is given by the water of baptism, according to John 3:5: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Scripture usually means the Holy Spirit, Who is said to "move over the waters," not, indeed, in bodily shape, but as the craftsman's will may be said to move over the material to which he intends to give a form.

In creation the Person of the Father is indicated by God the Creator, the Person of the Son by the beginning, in which He created, and the Person of the Holy Ghost by the Spirit that moved over the waters. But in the formation, the Person of the Father is indicated by God that speaks, and the Person of the Son by the Word in which He speaks, and the Person of the Holy Spirit by the satisfaction with which God saw that what was made was good.

God is the author of light, and the place and cause of darkness is the world. But the good Author uttered the word light so that he might reveal the world by infusing brightness therein and thus make its aspect beautiful. Suddenly then, the air became bright and darkness shrank in terror from the brilliance of the novel brightness.

We ought to understand that God did not say "Let there be light" by a sound brought forth from the lungs or by the tongue and teeth. Such thoughts are those of persons physically preoccupied. To be wise in accord with the flesh is death. "Let there be light" was spoken ineffably.

As the words themselves make sufficiently clear, we are told that this light was made. The light born from God is one thing; the light that God made is another. The light born from God is the very Wisdom of God, but the light made by God is something mutable, whether corporeal or incorporeal.

The first word of God created the nature of light; it made darkness vanish, dispelled gloom, illuminated the world, and gave to all beings at the same time a sweet and gracious aspect. The heavens, until then enveloped in darkness, appeared with that beauty which they still present to our eyes. The air was lighted up, or rather made the light circulate mixed with its substance, and, distributing its splendour rapidly in every direction, so dispersed itself to its extreme limits. Up it sprang to the very æther and heaven. In an instant it lighted up the whole extent of the world, the North and the South, the East and the West. For the æther also is such a subtle substance and so transparent that it needs not the space of a moment for light to pass through it. Just as it carries our sight instantaneously to the object of vision, so without the least interval, with a rapidity that thought cannot conceive, it receives these rays of light in its uttermost limits. With light the æther becomes more pleasing and the waters more limpid. These last, not content with receiving its splendour, return it by the reflection of light and in all directions send forth quivering flashes. The divine word gives every object a more cheerful and a more attractive appearance, just as when men in deep sea pour in oil they make the place about them clear. So, with a single word and in one instant, the Creator of all things gave the boon of light to the world.

Let there be light. The order was itself an operation, and a state of things was brought into being, than which man's mind cannot even imagine a pleasanter one for our enjoyment. It must be well understood that when we speak of the voice, of the word, of the command of God, this divine language does not mean to us a sound which escapes from the organs of speech, a collision of air struck by the tongue; it is a simple sign of the will of God, and, if we give it the form of an order, it is only the better to impress the souls whom we instruct.

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. It is fitting for the works of God that the adornment of the world should begin with light: for since He Himself is the true light and dwells in inaccessible light, whose most blessed vision the angels in the heavens of heavens began to enjoy immediately after they were created, He also suitably granted to this world the first grace of material light to be its adornment, so that the other things He created might appear from the source of that light. However, that God is said to have spoken, whether for light to come into being or for other things, we must not believe to be by a bodily voice as we do, but rather that it is understood higher that God spoke for creation to be made, because through His Word He made all, that is, through His only-begotten Son: about whom the Evangelist John speaks more plainly: "In the beginning," he says, "was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It was in the beginning with God; all things were made through Him" (John 1:1). Therefore, what John says, all things were made through the Word of God, is what Moses says, that God said: "Let there be light"; said: "Let there be a firmament"; said: "Let there be," and other creatures. This the psalm also says with the addition of the Holy Spirit's person: "By the word of the Lord were the heavens established and all their host by the spirit of His mouth" (Psalm 33:6). But if it is asked in what places light was made on God's command, while the abyss still covered the entire breadth of the earth, it is undoubtedly clear that it shone in the higher parts of that same earth, which the daylight of the sun now usually illuminates. Nor should it be surprising to us that light can shine in the waters by divine operation, since it is established that waters are often illuminated even by human operation, particularly by sailors, who, submerged in the depths of the sea, make them transparent and clear by emitting oil from their mouths. For if man can do such things with the oil from his mouth, how much more must we believe God can create through the Spirit of His mouth, especially as we must believe much rarer waters existed in the beginning than we now usually see on earth, before they were gathered together into one place so that dry land might appear.

Since the distinction of the bodies of the world is considered according to a threefold mode, therefore it was accomplished over three days. For there is the distinction of luminous nature from transparent and opaque, and this was made on the first day in the division of light from darkness.

Things have being in a threefold way, namely in matter or their proper nature, in created intelligence, and in the eternal art; in accordance with which three things Scripture says: "God said: let it be made: He made, and it was made."

Now rightly the whole of time, which runs its course according to a threefold law, namely the law implanted within, the law given from without, and the law infused from above, runs through seven ages and is consummated at the end of the sixth; so that the course of the world may correspond to its origin, and the course of the greater world may correspond to the course of life of the lesser world, namely man, for whose sake it was made. For the first age of the world, in which the formation of the world itself took place, the fall of the demons and the confirmation of the Angels, rightly corresponds to the first day, on which light was made and was distinguished from darkness. Now the first age is called infancy, because, just as infancy is entirely erased by forgetfulness, so that first age was consumed by the flood.

In the work of virtue, six things are required corresponding to the works of the six days. The first is understood in the work of the first day, when God said: Let there be light: and light was made: this is provident circumspection.

Of the central Person, it is said in Genesis: "The Lord God made to grow out of the ground all kinds of trees pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden." In reference to which Augustine writes that of all the things that were made, it was said: "Let there be, He made it," and so it was--excepting light, of which God said "Let there be light," and there was light--for they were produced first in all eternity from Eternal Art, second in the intelligent creature, and third in the material world.

And yet Scriptures say: "God said, 'Let there be light.'" And again, "God said," that is, He begot the Word in whom He disposed all things, and, disposing them, made them. Hence Augustine writes in his Confessions: "Whatever You make, you make through your Word coeternal with You, nor do you make anything by any other mode than by expressing it; and yet You do not eternally make what You eternally express."

There is a vision through that understanding which is given by nature, and a vision through that understanding which is lifted up by faith, taught by Scripture, exalted by contemplation, enlightened by prophecy, absorbed by rapture in God. Through the first vision, we understand that to which our intelligence reaches by its own power. This corresponds to the first day on which light was made. Without this light which is given within, a man has nothing, neither faith nor grace nor the illumination of wisdom. For this reason also light was separated from darkness.

God said, Let there be light, and the nature of fire came into being. And again proceeding He says: But our souls He fenced round with the body, while He made the angels bodiless. So then, what we see to be the case with respect to human souls and to angels, the same is the case with respect to fire, for the fire above subsists without matter, but the fire below with matter, for the fire above is akin to the fire below, just as our souls are also akin to the angels. How so? because the former are spirit and the latter too are spirit.

The light was released so that it might spread over everything without being fastened down. It dispersed the darkness that was over everything although it did not move. It was only when [the light] went away and when it came that it moved, for when [the light] went away the rule was given to the night, and at [the light's] coming there would be an end to [the night's] rule. After the brightness [of the light] rendered its service for three days … the sun was in the firmament in order to ripen whatever had sprouted under that first light.

After Moses spoke of heaven and earth, of the darkness, the abyss and the wind that came to be at the beginning of the first night, he then turned to speak about the light that came to be at dawn of the first day. At the end of the twelve hours of that night, the light was created between the clouds and the waters and it chased away the shadow of the clouds that were overshadowing the waters and making them dark. For Nisan was the first month; in it the number of the hours of day and night were equal. The light, then, remained a length of twelve hours so that each day might also obtain its [ own ] hours just as the night possesses a measured length of time. Although the light and the clouds were created in the twinkling of an eye, the day and the night of the first day were each completed in twelve hours. The light then was like a bright mist over the face of the earth. Whether it was like the dawn or like the pillar that gave light in the wilderness to the people, it is obvious that it was unable to chase away the darkness that was spread over the face of everything, unless it had spread out completely over everything, either by its substance or by its appearance. The light was released so that it might spread over everything without being fastened down. It dispersed the darkness that was over everything although it did not move. It was only when [ the light ] went away and when it came that it moved, so that when [ the light ] went away the rule was given to the night and at [ the light's ] coming there would be an end to [ the night's ] rule.

"And God said, Let there be light, and there was light." Genesis 1:3 Immediately there appears the Word, "that true light, which lights man on his coming into the world," John 1:9 and through Him also came light upon the world. From that moment God willed creation to be effected in the Word, Christ being present and ministering unto Him: and so God created. The Word also Himself assume His own form and glorious garb, His own sound and vocal utterance, when God says, "Let there be light." Genesis 1:3 This is the perfect nativity of the Word, when He proceeds forth from God. [Against Praxeas 7,12]

Be light made: I answer, then, with Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv), that the light was the sun's light, formless as yet, being already the solar substance, and possessing illuminative power in a general way, to which was afterwards added the special and determinative power required to produce determinate effects. Thus, then, in the production of this light a triple distinction was made between light and darkness. First, as to the cause, forasmuch as in the substance of the sun we have the cause of light, and in the opaque nature of the earth the cause of darkness. Secondly, as to place, for in one hemisphere there was light, in the other darkness. Thirdly, as to time; because there was light for one and darkness for another in the same hemisphere; and this is signified by the words, "He called the light day, and the darkness night." Augustine seems to say (De Civ. Dei xi, 9,33) that Moses could not have fittingly passed over the production of the spiritual creature, and therefore when we read, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth," a spiritual nature as yet formless is to be understood by the word "heaven," and formless matter of the corporeal creature by the word "earth." And spiritual nature was formed first, as being of higher dignity than corporeal. The forming, therefore, of this spiritual nature is signified by the production of light, that is to say, of spiritual light. For a spiritual nature receives its form by the enlightenment whereby it is led to adhere to the Word of God.

God, as judge of the whole work, foreseeing what is going to happen as something completed, commends the part of his work which is still in its initial stages, being already cognizant of its termination.

We should understand that this sentence does not signify joy as if over an unexpected good but an approval of the work. For what is said more fittingly of God—insofar as it can be humanly said—than when Scripture puts it this way: "he spoke," and "it was made," "it pleased him." Thus we understand in "he spoke" his sovereignty, in "it was made" his power and in "it pleased him" his goodness. These ineffable things had to be said in this way by a man to men so that they might profit all.

"God saw that the light was good," and these words do not mean that God found before him a good that he had not known but that he was pleased by one that was finished.

How can we worthily praise light after the testimony given by the Creator to its goodness? The word, even among us, refers the judgment to the eyes, incapable of raising itself to the idea that the senses have already received. But, if beauty in bodies results from symmetry of parts, and the harmonious appearance of colours, how in a simple and homogeneous essence like light, can this idea of beauty be preserved? Would not the symmetry in light be less shown in its parts than in the pleasure and delight at the sight of it? Such is also the beauty of gold, which it owes not to the happy mingling of its parts, but only to its beautiful colour which has a charm attractive to the eyes.

Thus again, the evening star is the most beautiful of the stars: not that the parts of which it is composed form a harmonious whole; but thanks to the unalloyed and beautiful brightness which meets our eyes. And further, when God proclaimed the goodness of light, it was not in regard to the charm of the eye but as a provision for future advantage, because at that time there were as yet no eyes to judge of its beauty. And God divided the light from the darkness; (Genesis 1:4) that is to say, God gave them natures incapable of mixing, perpetually in opposition to each other, and put between them the widest space and distance.

Evening, then, is a common boundary line of day and night; and similarly morning is the part of night bordering on day. In order, therefore, to give the prerogative of prior generation to the day, Moses mentioned first the limit of the day and then that of the night, as night followed the day. The condition in the world before the creation of light was not night but darkness. That which was opposed to the day was named night.

And God saw the light, that it was good. Not as if suddenly seeing the light previously unknown did He praise it, because He says it is good; but He declared that it, which He knew would be praiseworthy once created, was already worthy of praise and admiration by men. Indeed, because He did not completely dispel the darkness of the world by infusing light (for it is the privilege of the heavenly realm to enjoy fixed and perpetual light), but by illuminating one part, He left the other dark, it is rightly added:

And He divided the light from the darkness. For He divided them not only by their quality but also by the distance of places, namely by spreading light in the upper part of the world where human activity was to take place, while allowing the lower parts to remain in their ancient darkness.

God saw that the light was good. God separated the light from the darkness, etc. After every one of the works of the six days, with the exception of the second, it is said: God saw that it was good. And at the end: God saw that all He had made was very good. God is said to see, because He makes us see. The first vision of the soul is by means of understanding naturally given. Hence in the Psalm: The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us. And here all the difficulties of philosophy could be explained. The philosophers have offered nine sciences and promised a tenth: contemplation. But many philosophers, while attempting to avoid the darkness of error, have themselves become involved in major errors. While professing to be wise, they have become fools. Because they boasted of their knowledge, these philosophers have become the likes of Lucifer. With the Egyptians was the densest darkness, but with Your saints was the greatest light. All those who properly followed the Law of Nature, the patriarchs, the prophets, and the philosophers, were the sons of light. Truth is the light of the soul. This light never fails. Indeed, it shines so powerfully upon the soul that this soul cannot possibly believe it to be non-existing, or abstain from expressing it, without an inner contradiction. For if truth does not exist, it is true that truth does not exist: and so something is true. And if something is true, it is true that truth exists. Hence if truth does not exist, truth exists!

It has been said that truth is intellectual light radiating over intelligence either human or angelical; and that it shines forth in a manner that cannot be stopped, for it cannot be thought of as non-existing. Now a thing may shine forth in three different ways: as the truth of an object, as the truth of an expression, or as proper behavior. As the truth of an object, it consists in conformity of existence with essence; as the truth of an expression, it is conformity of essence with thought; as proper behavior, it is righteous living. And this is clear on the part of the principle which sends forth light, of the subject which receives this light, and of the objective towards which it enlightens. As a cause of being, this light is powerful; as a reason of understanding, this light is clear; as an ordering of life, this light is good. And that is the reason why it is written: God saw that the light was good. As a powerful light, it irradiates for the sake of understanding substances or essences, the quantities and natures of the world; as a clear light, it irradiates for the sake of understanding rational expressions, reasonings and proofs; as a good light, it suffuses the intelligence, or demonstrates matters of propriety, activity, or justice. As a means of understanding propriety, it points to the practice of good habits; as a means of understanding activity, it points to intellectual speculation; as a means of understanding justice, it points to political laws. First, it is necessary that propriety be acquired, then activity investigated, and finally justice exercised. And here is shown how a prelate should behave: being perfect in both action and contemplation, he must accept the laws. Where? On the Mountain of Contemplation, with Moses, so that he may act with propriety and industry, and not as a beast, for a beast cannot go up into the Mountain: a beast that touches the Mountain must be stoned.

God saw the light that it was good; and He divided the light from the darkness. This passage is quoted to explain the vision of intelligence which is infused by nature. Concerning the fact that it was good, it makes us see, both through scientific consideration and through the contemplation of wisdom. Through scientific consideration, it makes us see in so far as it illumines as light, that is, as the truth of things, the truth of expression, and the truth of behavior. Through the contemplation of wisdom, it makes us see in so far as it illumines by means of the influx of a radiation from the eternal light into the soul. It procures the vision of this same light in itself, as in a mirror; in a separate intelligence, as in a medium somewhat removed; in the eternal light, as in the original subject. It is also written that He divided the light from the darkness; and that some philosophers attacked ideas, as a result of which the threefold understanding of truth was hidden: that is, the truth of eternal art, the truth of divine providence, and the truth of the fall of the angels—which follows if angels only have their perfection from motion. The consequence of this is a threefold blindness: concerning the eternity of the world, the unity of the intellect, and the question of punishment and glory.

These philosophers had the wings of ostriches, for their affective powers were not cleansed or ordained or straightened: for this can be obtained only through faith. Hence they proposed a false circle of beatitude, second a false sufficiency of merits in the present world, third an eternal soundness of internal powers. In these three instances, they fell into darkness.

But faith, brushing away these obscurities, indicates the disease, its cause, Physician, and medicine; it heals the soul by placing the roots of merits in God who must be satisfied. And so the soul goes forth through faith into assured hope by means of the merits of Christ, and not in a presumptuous fashion. And so faith heals, straightens and ordains: in this manner the soul may be changed, straightened and ordained. The philosophers did not know these roots. Faith alone, then, divides the light from the darkness. Hence, the Apostle says: You were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. For faith, that has hope and charity together with good works, heals the soul, and once it has been healed, cleanses and lifts it up and makes it into the likeness of God. Now we are in the true light: not like those who sleep and take the false for the true, an idol for God.

"God saw the light that it was good; and He divided the light from the darkness." The passage, "God saw the light," is quoted on account of the first vision of the intelligence, which is infused by nature. It means that God made it possible to see. This has been covered in the two preceding collations by considering the sciences, in that the light shines as the truth of things, the truth of words, and the truth of moral acts. And nine parts were distinguished in the doctrine, of which the three principal are radiations proceeding, according to Augustine, from the decree of the eternal light. It was also established that "God saw," that is, made it possible to see, through wisdom-procuring contemplation, through the enlightenment of the soul seen in itself as in a mirror, seen in the intelligence and in a conveying medium, and in the uncreated light as in its fountainhead, in accordance with the six conditions which this light impresses upon the mind. And in accordance with these, the soul rises up in the said light by means of reasoning, testing, and understanding, as it has been said. And the philosophers — at least the most worthy among them — and the ancients have come to this point: that there exists a beginning and an end and an exemplary reason.

"God divided the light from the darkness" in order that what had been said of the angels could also be said of the philosophers. But why have some of them followed darkness? Because of this: although all could see the first cause as the universal principle and universal end, they had different opinions concerning the means. For some denied that exemplars of things existed in this cause: the leader of these seems to have been Aristotle who, in the beginning and the end of his Metaphysics, and in many other places, strongly condemns the ideas of Plato. Wherefore he says that God knows only Himself, and does not need the knowledge of any other thing, and produces as the desired and loved. But this supposes that He knows nothing, or no particular thing. Therefore Aristotle is the principal assailant of Platonic ideas in his "Ethics" where he says that the supreme good cannot be an Idea. And the reasons he adduces are worthless, and the commentator answers them.

Upon this error, there follows another, that is, that God has neither foreknowledge nor providence, since He does not have within Himself a rational justification of things by which He could know them. They also say that there are no truths concerning the future except that of necessary things. And from this it follows that all things come about either by chance or by necessity. And since it is impossible that things come about by chance, the Arabs conclude to absolute necessity, that is, that these substances that move the globe are the necessary causes of all things. From this it follows that truth is hidden, that is, the truth of government of worldly things in terms of pain and glory. If, indeed, these substances are inerrant movers, nothing is supposed concerning hell or the existence of the devil: neither did Aristotle ever suppose the existence of the devil, nor happiness after this life, as it appears. Here, then, there is a threefold error: a concealment of exemplarity, of divine providence and of world government.

From this follows a threefold blindness or darkness, that is, concerning the eternity of the world, which seems to be Aristotle's thesis according to all the Greek doctors, for instance Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzen, the Damascene, Basil, and the commentators of all the Arabs, who say that Aristotle holds this opinion, and his words are seen to mean it. Never will you find that he said that the world had a principle or a beginning: he even argues against Plato who seems to have been the only one to suppose that time began. And this is contrary to the light of truth. From this follows blindness concerning the existence of a single intellect, for if the world is supposed to be eternal, one of these hypotheses must be true: that souls are infinite in number since there would be an infinite number of men; or that the soul is corruptible; or that it is transmitted from body to body; or that there is only one single intellect in all, an error attributed to Aristotle by his commentator. From these two propositions it may be concluded that after this life there is neither happiness nor pain.

These men, then, fell into error and were not separated from darkness: and these are the worst errors. And they are not yet closed by the key of the bottomless pit. These are the obscurities of Egypt: although a great light had been seen in these things through earlier forms of knowledge, yet all light was put out by these errors. And some men, seeing that Aristotle had been so great in other matters and had expressed the truth so well, could not believe that in this he had not said the truth.

But I say that the eternal light is the exemplar of all things, and that the mind, once lifted up as was the mind of others among the noble philosophers of antiquity, is able to reach it. And in the same light, the first thing to come to the mind is the exemplar of the virtues. As Plotinus writes, "it is absurd that the exemplars of other things be in God, and not the exemplars of the virtues."

Yet there is a difference, and it is just what I suggested. The Eastern mysticism is an ecstasy of unity; the Christian mysticism is an ecstasy of creation, that is of separation and mutual surprise. The latter says, like St. Francis, "My brother fire and my sister water"; the former says, "Myself fire and myself water." Whether you call the Eastern attitude an extension of oneself into everything or a contraction of oneself into nothing is a matter of metaphysical definition. The effect is the same, an effect which lives and throbs throughout all the exquisite arts of the East. This effect is the thing called rhythm, a pulsation of pattern, or of ritual, or of colours, or of cosmic theory, but always suggesting the unification of the individual with the world. But there is quite another kind of sympathy--the sympathy with a thing because it is different. No one will say that Rembrandt did not sympathise with an old woman; but no one will say that Rembrandt painted like an old woman. No one will say that Reynolds did not appreciate children; but no one will say he did it childishly. The supreme instance of this divine division is sex, and that explains (what I could never understand in my youth) why Christendom called the soul the bride of God. For real love is an intense realisation of the "separateness" of all our souls. The most heroic and human love-poetry of the world is never mere passion; precisely because mere passion really is a melting back into Nature, a meeting of the waters. And water is plunging and powerful; but it is only powerful downhill. The high and human love-poetry is all about division rather than identity; and in the great love-poems even the man as he embraces the woman sees her, in the same instant, afar off; a virgin and a stranger.

The angels, dominions and powers, although they began to exist at some time, were already in existence when the [visible] world was created.

"And God divided the light and the darkness, and God called the light day and he called the darkness night." It did not say here "God made the darkness," because darkness is merely the absence of light. Yet God made a division between light and darkness. So too we make a sound by crying out, and we make a silence by not making a sound, because silence is the cessation of sound. Still in some sense we distinguish between sound and silence and call the one sound and the other silence.… "He called the light day, and he called the darkness night" was said in the sense that he made them to be called, because he separated and ordered all things so that they could be distinguished and receive names.

Since the birth of the sun, the light that it diffuses in the air, when shining on our hemisphere, is day; and the shadow produced by its disappearance is night. But at that time it was not after the movement of the sun, but following this primitive light spread abroad in the air or withdrawn in a measure determined by God, that day came and was followed by night.

Evening is then the boundary common to day and night; and in the same way morning constitutes the approach of night to day. It was to give day the privileges of seniority that Scripture put the end of the first day before that of the first night, because night follows day: for, before the creation of light, the world was not in night, but in darkness. It is the opposite of day which was called night, and it did not receive its name until after day. Thus were created the evening and the morning. Scripture means the space of a day and a night, and afterwards no more says day and night, but calls them both under the name of the more important: a custom which you will find throughout Scripture. Everywhere the measure of time is counted by days, without mention of nights. The days of our years, says the Psalmist. Few and evil have the days of the years of my life been, Genesis 47:9 said Jacob, and elsewhere all the days of my life. Thus under the form of history the law is laid down for what is to follow. And the evening and the morning were one day. Why does Scripture say one day the first day? Before speaking to us of the second, the third, and the fourth days, would it not have been more natural to call that one the first which began the series? If it therefore says one day, it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day— we mean of a day and of a night; and if, at the time of the solstices, they have not both an equal length, the time marked by Scripture does not the less circumscribe their duration. It is as though it said: twenty-four hours measure the space of a day, or that, in reality a day is the time that the heavens starting from one point take to return there. Thus, every time that, in the revolution of the sun, evening and morning occupy the world, their periodical succession never exceeds the space of one day. But must we believe in a mysterious reason for this? God who made the nature of time measured it out and determined it by intervals of days; and, wishing to give it a week as a measure, he ordered the week to revolve from period to period upon itself, to count the movement of time, forming the week of one day revolving seven times upon itself: a proper circle begins and ends with itself. Such is also the character of eternity, to revolve upon itself and to end nowhere. If then the beginning of time is called one day rather than the first day, it is because Scripture wishes to establish its relationship with eternity. It was, in reality, fit and natural to call one the day whose character is to be one wholly separated and isolated from all the others. If Scripture speaks to us of many ages, saying everywhere, age of age, and ages of ages, we do not see it enumerate them as first, second, and third. It follows that we are hereby shown not so much limits, ends and succession of ages, as distinctions between various states and modes of action. The day of the Lord, Scripture says, is great and very terrible, Joel 2:11 and elsewhere Woe unto you that desire the day of the Lord: to what end is it for you? The day of the Lord is darkness and not light. Amos 5:18 A day of darkness for those who are worthy of darkness. No; this day without evening, without succession and without end is not unknown to Scripture, and it is the day that the Psalmist calls the eighth day, because it is outside this time of weeks. Thus whether you call it day, or whether you call it eternity, you express the same idea. Give this state the name of day; there are not several, but only one. If you call it eternity still it is unique and not manifold. Thus it is in order that you may carry your thoughts forward towards a future life, that Scripture marks by the word one the day which is the type of eternity, the first fruits of days, the contemporary of light, the holy Lord's day honoured by the Resurrection of our Lord. And the evening and the morning were one day.

But, while I am conversing with you about the first evening of the world, evening takes me by surprise, and puts an end to my discourse. May the Father of the true light, Who has adorned day with celestial light, Who has made the fire to shine which illuminates us during the night, Who reserves for us in the peace of a future age a spiritual and everlasting light, enlighten your hearts in the knowledge of truth, keep you from stumbling, and grant that you may walk honestly as in the day. Romans 13:13 Thus shall you shine as the sun in the midst of the glory of the saints, and I shall glory in you in the day of Christ, to Whom belong all glory and power for ever and ever. Amen.

Since the birth of the sun, the light that it diffuses in the air, when shining on our hemisphere, is day; and the shadow produced by its disappearance is night. But at that time it was not after the movement of the sun, but following this primitive light spread abroad in the air or withdrawn in a measure determined by God, that day came and was followed by night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Genesis 1:5 Evening is then the boundary common to day and night; and in the same way morning constitutes the approach of night to day. It was to give day the privileges of seniority that Scripture put the end of the first day before that of the first night, because night follows day: for, before the creation of light, the world was not in night, but in darkness. It is the opposite of day which was called night, and it did not receive its name until after day. Thus were created the evening and the morning. Scripture means the space of a day and a night, and afterwards no more says day and night, but calls them both under the name of the more important: a custom which you will find throughout Scripture. Everywhere the measure of time is counted by days, without mention of nights. The days of our years, says the Psalmist. Few and evil have the days of the years of my life been, Genesis 47:9 said Jacob, and elsewhere all the days of my life. Thus under the form of history the law is laid down for what is to follow. And the evening and the morning were one day. Why does Scripture say one day the first day? Before speaking to us of the second, the third, and the fourth days, would it not have been more natural to call that one the first which began the series? If it therefore says one day, it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day— we mean of a day and of a night; and if, at the time of the solstices, they have not both an equal length, the time marked by Scripture does not the less circumscribe their duration. It is as though it said: twenty-four hours measure the space of a day, or that, in reality a day is the time that the heavens starting from one point take to return there. Thus, every time that, in the revolution of the sun, evening and morning occupy the world, their periodical succession never exceeds the space of one day. But must we believe in a mysterious reason for this? God who made the nature of time measured it out and determined it by intervals of days; and, wishing to give it a week as a measure, he ordered the week to revolve from period to period upon itself, to count the movement of time, forming the week of one day revolving seven times upon itself: a proper circle begins and ends with itself. Such is also the character of eternity, to revolve upon itself and to end nowhere. If then the beginning of time is called one day rather than the first day, it is because Scripture wishes to establish its relationship with eternity. It was, in reality, fit and natural to call one the day whose character is to be one wholly separated and isolated from all the others. If Scripture speaks to us of many ages, saying everywhere, age of age, and ages of ages, we do not see it enumerate them as first, second, and third. It follows that we are hereby shown not so much limits, ends and succession of ages, as distinctions between various states and modes of action. The day of the Lord, Scripture says, is great and very terrible, Joel 2:11 and elsewhere Woe unto you that desire the day of the Lord: to what end is it for you? The day of the Lord is darkness and not light. Amos 5:18 A day of darkness for those who are worthy of darkness. No; this day without evening, without succession and without end is not unknown to Scripture, and it is the day that the Psalmist calls the eighth day, because it is outside this time of weeks. Thus whether you call it day, or whether you call it eternity, you express the same idea. Give this state the name of day; there are not several, but only one. If you call it eternity still it is unique and not manifold. Thus it is in order that you may carry your thoughts forward towards a future life, that Scripture marks by the word one the day which is the type of eternity, the first fruits of days, the contemporary of light, the holy Lord's day honoured by the Resurrection of our Lord. And the evening and the morning were one day. But, while I am conversing with you about the first evening of the world, evening takes me by surprise, and puts an end to my discourse. May the Father of the true light, Who has adorned day with celestial light, Who has made the fire to shine which illuminates us during the night, Who reserves for us in the peace of a future age a spiritual and everlasting light, enlighten your hearts in the knowledge of truth, keep you from stumbling, and grant that you may walk honestly as in the day. Romans 13:13 Thus shall you shine as the sun in the midst of the glory of the saints, and I shall glory in you in the day of Christ, to Whom belong all glory and power for ever and ever. Amen.

Now, henceforth, after the creation of the sun, it is day when the air is illuminated by the sun shining on the hemisphere above the earth, and night is the darkness of the earth when the sun is hidden. Yet it was not at that time according to solar motion, but it was when that first created light was diffused and again drawn in according to the measure ordained by God, that day came and night succeeded.

In fact, there did exist something, as it seems, even before this world which our mind can attain by contemplation but which has been left uninvestigated because it is not adapted to those who are beginners and as yet infants in understanding. This was a certain condition older than the birth of the world and proper to the supramundane powers, one beyond time, everlasting, without beginning or end. In it the Creator and Producer of all things perfected the works of his art, a spiritual light befitting the blessedness of those who love the Lord, rational and invisible natures, and the whole orderly arrangement of spiritual creatures which surpass our understanding and of which it is impossible even to discover the names. These fill completely the essence of the invisible world.

And He called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. This was said for our understanding; for in what language did God call the light Day and the darkness Night; whether in Hebrew, or Greek, or some other language! And so for everything else that He named, it can be asked in what language He named them; but with God, there is pure understanding without noise and diversity of tongues. However, it is said He "called" because He made them to be called, as He distinguished and ordered everything so that Days could be seen and names given. For we say: That householder built this house, meaning he had it built, and many such examples are found throughout the books of divine Scriptures.

And there was evening and there was morning, one day. And there was evening as the light gradually waned following the completion of the period of daytime length, and as the lower parts of the world emerged, which now habitually happens by the circuit of the sun throughout the night; and there was morning as the same light gradually returned over the earth and initiated another day; and thus one day was completed, namely of twenty-four hours, for the commendation of which the Scripture vigilantly admonishes us so that we might learn that the light which was made illuminated the lower parts of the earth by its setting. For if this did not happen, but rather as evening came, the whole light perished gradually, and gradually returned with the morning and rose again, it would not call it a perfect day in the morning of the next day but in the evening of the first day. Hence, it also preferred to say evening and morning, rather than night and day, to imply that the action of the original light was by circuit, which now indeed happens by the circuit of the sun night and day; beyond this only, that after the stars were created, night too is suffused with its own light, although lesser than that of the day. However, during those first three days, the night remained entirely gloomy and obscure. It was completely fitting that the day beginning from the light should be extended into the morning of the following day, so that it might be intimated that the works of Him who is the true light, and in whom there are no shadows, begin from the light and are completed in the light.

Heaven, earth, fire, wind and water were created from nothing as Scripture bears witness. But light, which came to be on the first day along with the rest of the things that came to be afterwards, came to be from something. For when these other things came to be from nothing, Moses said, "God created heaven and earth." Although it is not written concerning fire, water and wind that they were created, neither is it written that they were made. Therefore, they came to be from nothing just as heaven and earth came to be from nothing. After God began to make [things] from something, Moses wrote, "God said, 'Let there be'" light, and so on. Even though Moses did say, "God created the great serpents," still "let the waters swarm with swarming things" had been [ said ] prior to that. Therefore those five created things were created from nothing and everything else was made from those [ five ] things that came to be from nothing. Fire was also created on the first day, although it is not written down that it was created, because it was in another element. It did not have its own existence, for it was created together with that thing in which it was. It is not possible that a thing which does not exist of itself can precede that thing which is the cause of its existence. That [ fire ] is in the earth, nature bears witness, but that it was not created together with the earth, scripture affirms, when it says, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth." Fire then, since it does not exist of itself, remains with the earth, even if the wind and the clouds have been commanded at every moment to bring forth fire from their wombs along with the wind and the clouds. Darkness, too, is neither a self-subsistent being nor a created thing, but is a shadow, as scripture makes clear. It was created neither before heaven nor after the clouds, for it was with the clouds and was brought forth from the clouds. [ Darkness ] too exists in another [ thing ], for it has no substance of its own. When that in which it exists vanishes, the darkness likewise vanishes with it. For whatever comes to an end along with another thing when it vanishes is without its own existence, because that other thing is the cause of its existence. So, how could darkness, whose existence is due to the clouds and to the firmament and not to the first light or to the sun, exist of itself? It is [ a thing ] which one thing, by its cover, brings forth and another, by its brightness, destroys. If one thing creates it and causes it to become something while another thing turns it back into nothing, how can it be a self-subsistent being? The clouds and the firmament, which were created at the beginning, bring it forth and the light that was created on the first day brings it to an end. If a created thing creates it and another created thing destroys it, and henceforth, one thing, at one moment, brings it into visibility and another, at that very moment itself turns back into nothing, turns it back into nothing, it is by compulsion that [ one thing ] causes it to begin and [ another thing ] causes it to go away. If created things cause it to come into existence and also cause it to vanish then it is a creation of creatures. [ The darkness then ] is but a shadow of the firmament and it is capable of vanishing in the presence of another thing, for it can be destroyed before the sun. Some teachings posit that this [ darkness ], which is at all times subject to created things, is an adversary of creatures, and they make that thing which has no substance of its own a self-existent being.

So let no one think that there is anything allegorical in the works of the six days. No one can rightly say that the things pertaining to these days were symbolic, nor can one say that they were meaningless names or that other things were symbolized for us by their names. Rather, let us know in just what manner heaven and earth were created in the beginning. They were truly heaven and earth. There was no other thing signified by the names "heaven" and "earth." The rest of the works and things made that followed were not meaningless significations either, for the substances of their natures correspond to what their names signify.

He did not say "night and day," but "one day," with reference to the name of the light. He did not say the "first day; "for if he had said the "first" day, he would also have had to say that the "second" day was made. But it was right to speak not of the "first day," but of "one day," in order that by saying "one," he might show that it returns on its orbit and, while it remains one, makes up the week.

"And there was evening and morning one day": According to Basil (Hom. ii in Hexaem.), the entire period takes its name, as is customary, from its more important part, the day. And instance of this is found in the words of Jacob, "The days of my pilgrimage," where night is not mentioned at all. But the evening and the morning are mentioned as being the ends of the day, since day begins with morning and ends with evening, or because evening denotes the beginning of night, and morning the beginning of day. It seems fitting, also, that where the first distinction of creatures is described, divisions of time should be denoted only by what marks their beginning. And the reason for mentioning the evening first is that as the evening ends the day, which begins with the light, the termination of the light at evening precedes the termination of the darkness, which ends with the morning. But Chrysostom's explanation is that thereby it is intended to show that the natural day does not end with the evening, but with the morning (Hom. v in Gen.). Or else it can be said, as Augustine puts it (Gen. ad lit. iv, 23), that there is nothing to prevent us from calling something light in comparison with one thing, and darkness with respect to another. In the same way the life of the faithful and the just is called light in comparison with the wicked, according to Ephesians 5:8: "You were heretofore darkness; but now, light in the Lord": yet this very life of the faithful, when set in contrast to the life of glory, is termed darkness, according to 2 Peter 1:19: "You have the firm prophetic word, whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place." So the angel's knowledge by which he knows things in their own nature, is day in comparison with ignorance or error; yet it is dark in comparison with the vision of the Word.

1. We have now recounted the works of the first day, or rather of one day. Far be it from me indeed, to take from it the privilege it enjoys of having been for the Creator a day apart, a day which is not counted in the same order as the others. Our discussion yesterday treated of the works of this day, and divided the narrative so as to give you food for your souls in the morning, and joy in the evening. Today we pass on to the wonders of the second day. And here I do not wish to speak of the narrator's talent, but of the grace of Scripture, for the narrative is so naturally told that it pleases and delights all the friends of truth. It is this charm of truth which the Psalmist expresses so emphatically when he says, How sweet are your words unto my taste, yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth. Yesterday then, as far as we were able, we delighted our souls by conversing about the oracles of God, and now today we are met together again on the second day to contemplate the wonders of the second day. I know that many artisans, belonging to mechanical trades, are crowding around me. A day's labour hardly suffices to maintain them; therefore I am compelled to abridge my discourse, so as not to keep them too long from their work. What shall I say to them? The time which you lend to God is not lost: he will return it to you with large interest. Whatever difficulties may trouble you the Lord will disperse them. To those who have preferred spiritual welfare, He will give health of body, keenness of mind, success in business, and unbroken prosperity. And, even if in this life our efforts should not realise our hopes, the teachings of the Holy Spirit are none the less a rich treasure for the ages to come. Deliver your heart, then, from the cares of this life and give close heed to my words. Of what avail will it be to you if you are here in the body, and your heart is anxious about your earthly treasure? 2. And God said Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. Genesis 1:6 Yesterday we heard God's decree, Let there be light. Today it is, Let there be a firmament. There appears to be something more in this. The word is not limited to a simple command. It lays down the reason necessitating the structure of the firmament: it is, it is said, to separate the waters from the waters. And first let us ask how God speaks? Is it in our manner? Does His intelligence receive an impression from objects, and, after having conceived them, make them known by particular signs appropriate to each of them? Has He consequently recourse to the organs of voice to convey His thoughts? Is He obliged to strike the air by the articulate movements of the voice, to unveil the thought hidden in His heart? Would it not seem like an idle fable to say that God should need such a circuitous method to manifest His thoughts? And is it not more conformable with true religion to say, that the divine will and the first impetus of divine intelligence are the Word of God? It is He whom Scripture vaguely represents, to show us that God has not only wished to create the world, but to create it with the help of a co-operator. Scripture might continue the history as it is begun: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth; afterwards He created light, then He created the firmament. But, by making God command and speak, the Scripture tacitly shows us Him to Whom this order and these words are addressed. It is not that it grudges us the knowledge of the truth, but that it may kindle our desire by showing us some trace and indication of the mystery. We seize with delight, and carefully keep, the fruit of laborious efforts, while a possession easily attained is despised. Such is the road and the course which Scripture follows to lead us to the idea of the Only begotten. And certainly, God's immaterial nature had no need of the material language of voice, since His very thoughts could be transmitted to His fellow-worker. What need then of speech, for those Who by thought alone could communicate their counsels to each other? Voice was made for hearing, and hearing for voice. Where there is neither air, nor tongue, nor ear, nor that winding canal which carries sounds to the seat of sensation in the head, there is no need for words: thoughts of the soul are sufficient to transmit the will. As I said then, this language is only a wise and ingenious contrivance to set our minds seeking the Person to whom the words are addressed. 3. In the second place, does the firmament that is called heaven differ from the firmament that God made in the beginning? Are there two heavens? The philosophers, who discuss heaven, would rather lose their tongues than grant this. There is only one heaven, they pretend; and it is of a nature neither to admit of a second, nor of a third, nor of several others. The essence of the celestial body quite complete constitutes its vast unity. Because, they say, every body which has a circular motion is one and finite. And if this body is used in the construction of the first heaven, there will be nothing left for the creation of a second or a third. Here we see what those imagine who put under the Creator's hand uncreated matter; a lie that follows from the first fable. But we ask the Greek sages not to mock us before they are agreed among themselves. Because there are among them some who say there are infinite heavens and worlds. When grave demonstrations shall have upset their foolish system, when the laws of geometry shall have established that, according to the nature of heaven, it is impossible that there should be two, we shall only laugh the more at this elaborate scientific trifling. These learned men see not merely one bubble but several bubbles formed by the same cause, and they doubt the power of creative wisdom to bring several heavens into being! We find, however, if we raise our eyes towards the omnipotence of God, that the strength and grandeur of the heavens differ from the drops of water bubbling on the surface of a fountain. How ridiculous, then, is their argument of impossibility! As for myself, far from not believing in a second, I seek for the third whereon the blessed Paul was found worthy to gaze. And does not the Psalmist in saying heaven of heavens give us an idea of their plurality? Is the plurality of heaven stranger than the seven circles through which nearly all the philosophers agree that the seven planets pass—circles which they represent to us as placed in connection with each other like casks fitting the one into the other? These circles, they say, carried away in a direction contrary to that of the world, and striking the æther, make sweet and harmonious sounds, unequalled by the sweetest melody. And if we ask them for the witness of the senses, what do they say? That we, accustomed to this noise from our birth, on account of hearing it always, have lost the sense of it; like men in smithies with their ears incessantly dinned. If I refuted this ingenious frivolity, the untruth of which is evident from the first word, it would seem as though I did not know the value of time, and mistrusted the intelligence of such an audience. But let me leave the vanity of outsiders to those who are without, and return to the theme proper to the Church. If we believe some of those who have preceded us, we have not here the creation of a new heaven, but a new account of the first. The reason they give is, that the earlier narrative briefly described the creation of heaven and earth; while here scripture relates in greater detail the manner in which each was created. I, however, since Scripture gives to this second heaven another name and its own function, maintain that it is different from the heaven which was made at the beginning; that it is of a stronger nature and of a special use to the universe.

The mass of waters, which from all directions flowed over the earth, and was suspended in the air, was infinite, so that there was no proportion between it and the other elements. Thus, as it has been already said, the abyss covered the earth. We give the reason for this abundance of water. None of you assuredly will attack our opinion; not even those who have the most cultivated minds, and whose piercing eye can penetrate this perishable and fleeting nature; you will not accuse me of advancing impossible or imaginary theories, nor will you ask me upon what foundation the fluid element rests. By the same reason which makes them attract the earth, heavier than water, from the extremities of the world to suspend it in the centre, they will grant us without doubt that it is due both to its natural attraction downwards and its general equilibrium, that this immense quantity of water rests motionless upon the earth. Therefore the prodigious mass of waters was spread around the earth; not in proportion with it and infinitely larger, thanks to the foresight of the supreme Artificer, Who, from the beginning, foresaw what was to come, and at the first provided all for the future needs of the world. But what need was there for this superabundance of water? The essence of fire is necessary for the world, not only in the economy of earthly produce, but for the completion of the universe; for it would be imperfect if the most powerful and the most vital of its elements were lacking. Now fire and water are hostile to and destructive of each other. Fire, if it is the stronger, destroys water, and water, if in greater abundance, destroys fire. As, therefore, it was necessary to avoid an open struggle between these elements, so as not to bring about the dissolution of the universe by the total disappearance of one or the other, the sovereign Disposer created such a quantity of water that in spite of constant diminution from the effects of fire, it could last until the time fixed for the destruction of the world. He who planned all with weight and measure, He who, according to the word of Job, knows the number of the drops of rain, knew how long His work would last, and for how much consumption of fire He ought to allow. This is the reason of the abundance of water at the creation. Further, there is no one so strange to life as to need to learn the reason why fire is essential to the world. Not only all the arts which support life, the art of weaving, that of shoemaking, of architecture, of agriculture, have need of the help of fire, but the vegetation of trees, the ripening of fruits, the breeding of land and water animals, and their nourishment, all existed from heat from the beginning, and have been since maintained by the action of heat. The creation of heat was then indispensable for the formation and the preservation of beings, and the abundance of waters was no less so in the presence of the constant and inevitable consumption by fire. 6. Survey creation; you will see the power of heat reigning over all that is born and perishes. On account of it comes all the water spread over the earth, as well as that which is beyond our sight and is dispersed in the depths of the earth. On account of it are abundance of fountains, springs or wells, courses of rivers, both mountain torrents and ever flowing streams, for the storing of moisture in many and various reservoirs. From the East, from the winter solstice flows the Indus, the greatest river of the earth, according to geographers. From the middle of the East proceed the Bactrus, the Choaspes, and the Araxes, from which the Tanais detaches itself to fall into the Palus-Mæotis. Add to these the Phasis which descends from Mount Caucasus, and countless other rivers, which, from northern regions, flow into the Euxine Sea. From the warm countries of the West, from the foot of the Pyrenees, arise the Tartessus and the Ister, of which the one discharges itself into the sea beyond the Pillars and the other, after flowing through Europe, falls into Euxine Sea. Is there any need to enumerate those which the Ripæan mountains pour forth in the heart of Scythia, the Rhone, and so many other rivers, all navigable, which after having watered the countries of the western Gauls and of Celts and of the neighbouring barbarians, flow into the Western sea? And others from the higher regions of the South flow through Ethiopia, to discharge themselves some into our sea, others into inaccessible seas, the Ægon the Nyses, the Chremetes, and above all the Nile, which is not of the character of a river when, like a sea, it inundates Egypt. Thus the habitable part of our earth is surrounded by water, linked together by vast seas and irrigated by countless perennial rivers, thanks to the ineffable wisdom of Him Who ordered all to prevent this rival element to fire from being entirely destroyed. However, a time will come, when all shall be consumed by fire; as Isaiah says of the God of the universe in these words, That says to the deep, Be dry, and I will dry up your rivers. Isaiah 44:27 Reject then the foolish wisdom of this world, and receive with me the more simple but infallible doctrine of truth. 7. Therefore we read: Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. I have said what the word firmament in Scripture means. It is not in reality a firm and solid substance which has weight and resistance; this name would otherwise have better suited the earth. But, as the substance of superincumbent bodies is light, without consistency, and cannot be grasped by any one of our senses, it is in comparison with these pure and imperceptible substances that the firmament has received its name. Imagine a place fit to divide the moisture, sending it, if pure and filtered, into higher regions, and making it fall, if it is dense and earthy; to the end that by the gradual withdrawal of the moist particles the same temperature may be preserved from the beginning to the end. You do not believe in this prodigious quantity of water; but you do not take into account the prodigious quantity of heat, less considerable no doubt in bulk, but exceedingly powerful nevertheless, if you consider it as destructive of moisture. It attracts surrounding moisture, as the melon shows us, and consumes it as quickly when attracted, as the flame of the lamp draws to it the fuel supplied by the wick and burns it up. Who doubts that the æther is an ardent fire? If an impassable limit had not been assigned to it by the Creator, what would prevent it from setting on fire and consuming all that is near it, and absorbing all the moisture from existing things? The aerial waters which veil the heavens with vapours that are sent forth by rivers, fountains, marshes, lakes, and seas, prevent the æther from invading and burning up the universe. Thus we see even this sun, in the summer season, dry up in a moment a damp and marshy country, and make it perfectly arid. What has become of all the water? Let these masters of omniscience tell us. Is it not plain to every one that it has risen in vapour, and has been consumed by the heat of the sun? They say, none the less, that even the sun is without heat. What time they lose in words! And see what proof they lean upon to resist what is perfectly plain. Its colour is white, and neither reddish nor yellow. It is not then fiery by nature, and its heat results, they say, from the velocity of its rotation. What do they gain? That the sun does not seem to absorb moisture? I do not, however, reject this statement, although it is false, because it helps my argument. I said that the consumption of heat required this prodigious quantity of water. That the sun owes its heat to its nature, or that heat results from its action, makes no difference, provided that it produces the same effects upon the same matter. If you kindle fire by rubbing two pieces of wood together, or if you light them by holding them to a flame, you will have absolutely the same effect. Besides, we see that the great wisdom of Him who governs all, makes the sun travel from one region to another, for fear that, if it remained always in the same place, its excessive heat would destroy the order of the universe. Now it passes into southern regions about the time of the winter solstice, now it returns to the sign of the equinox; from thence it betakes itself to northern regions during the summer solstice, and keeps up by this imperceptible passage a pleasant temperature throughout all the world. Let the learned people see if they do not disagree among themselves. The water which the sun consumes is, they say, what prevents the sea from rising and flooding the rivers; the warmth of the sun leaves behind the salts and the bitterness of the waters, and absorbs from them the pure and drinkable particles, thanks to the singular virtue of this planet in attracting all that is light and in allowing to fall, like mud and sediment, all which is thick and earthy. From thence come the bitterness, the salt taste and the power of withering and drying up which are characteristic of the sea. While as is notorious, they hold these views, they shift their ground and say that moisture cannot be lessened by the sun.

And surely we need not believe, because [the firmament] seems to have had its origin, according to the general understanding, from water, that it is like either frozen water or some such material that takes its origin from the percolation of moisture, such as is a crystalline rock.

God also said: Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from those which were above the firmament. And it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven, and the evening and the morning were the second day. Here the creation of our heaven, in which the stars are fixed, is described; that it is established firm in the midst of the waters. For we see that waters are underneath it, and above the air and the earth; but we are taught not only by the authority of this Scripture but also by the words of the prophet, who says: Stretching out the heaven like a tent curtain, who covers its higher parts with waters (Psalm 104:2). Therefore, it is established that the starry heaven is firm in the midst of the waters, and nothing prevents believing that it was made out of the waters; for we know how strong, transparent, and pure the crystal stone is, which is certainly generated from the condensation of water, what hinders us from believing that the same disposer of natures solidified the substance of the waters in the firmament of heaven? If someone is moved by how waters, which naturally always flow and fall to the lowest place, can stand above the round heaven, let him remember the Scripture saying about God: Who binds the waters in his clouds, that they do not burst out together downward (Job 26:8); and understand that He who binds the waters below the heaven temporarily as He wills, so that they do not fall all together, not supported by a stronger material foundation, but only retained by the vapors of the clouds, He could also suspend the waters above the round sphere of the heaven, so that they never fall down, not by a vaporous thinness, but by an icy solidity. But even if He wanted to hold liquid waters there, is this greater a miracle than what Scripture says that He hangs the earth itself on nothing? For when the waves of the Red Sea or the river Jordan were set up like walls for the passing of the Israelite people, do they not give evident evidence that waters could stand fixed even above the revolving round heaven? Certainly, what kind of waters they are there, or for what purpose they are reserved, the Creator Himself knows; only it should not be doubted that there are waters there because the holy Scripture says so. But what it is to say of God "let this or that creature be made" has been said above. For He said that it should be made, since He arranged everything to be created in His co-eternal Word, that is, His only-begotten Son. Therefore, when we hear: God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters, let us understand that it was in the Word of God to be made, in which whatever God did out of time He foresaw would be made within the Word before all time. But when we hear: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from those which were above the firmament, and it was so, let us understand that the creation and disposition of the heaven and waters did not exceed the limits prescribed in the Word of God, according to that of the Psalmist: He gave a commandment, and it shall not pass away (Psalm 148:6). This is to be understood equally about the creatures that are said to be made in the following four days. And when we hear added: And God saw that it was good, let us understand that in the goodness of His Spirit, it pleased Him not as if it was known after it was made but rather in that goodness it pleased Him that it should remain, where it pleased Him it should be made. For it is to be noted that the addition of this word in this place is not found in the Hebrew truth. And it is surprising why among all the things that are read to have been created by God, only in the works of the second day, the approbation of the divine vision is not added, which, however, itself along with the others that God made are shown to have been good when it is said afterward: And God saw all things that He had made, and they were very good, unless perhaps, as some of the Fathers expound, the Scripture wanted to make us understand that the double number, which divides from unity and prefigures the covenants of marriage, is not good; whence also all the animals entering two by two into Noah's ark turn out to be unclean, and an odd number is shown to be clean. Concerning what has been so far expounded, that is, about the creation of the first and second day, the holy Clement thus reports to have spoken by the apostle Peter: "In the beginning, when God made the heaven and the earth, like one house, and the very bodies of the world cast a shadow of those that were enclosed within, they issued darkness from themselves. But when the will of God introduced light, those shadows of the bodies were immediately devoured by light; then the light is assigned to the day, the darkness to the night. Now, the water which was inside the world in the middle of that first heaven and earth, as if congealed by cold, and solidified like crystal, is stretched out, and by such a firmament, the spaces between heaven and earth are as if shut in, and the Creator called that firmament heaven, named by the word of the ancient heaven, and thus divided the whole fabric of the world, when it was one house, into two regions. The cause of this division was that the upper region might serve as a habitation for angels and the lower for men." (Recognition of St. Clement, book I, chapter 27). I have chosen to insert these few things into our work so that the reader may see how much this agrees with the sense of the Fathers.

There is the distinction of transparent nature from transparent, and this was made on the second day in the division of waters from waters.

It is rightly said that the firmament was made in the midst of the waters, not because the waters above the heavens are fluid, cold, heavy, and corruptible waters, but because they are subtle and incorruptible, pervious and raised above all contrariety, and on this account are of celestial nature and to be placed among the celestial things by reason of the nobility of their form. They are also placed there by reason of power and influence. For since every bodily action in lower things takes its rule, origin, and vigor from celestial nature, and since there are two active qualities, namely the hot and the cold, and some heaven is principally influencing the hot, namely the sidereal heaven by reason of its luminosity: it was fitting that some heaven should influence the cold, and thus the crystalline. And just as the sidereal heaven, although it influences toward heat, is nevertheless not formally hot: so also the heaven that is called watery or crystalline is not essentially cold. Hence what the Saints say, that the waters are placed there to restrain the heat of the higher bodies and other similar things, are to be understood not according to formal predication, but according to efficacy and influence.

The second age, in which through the ark and the flood the good were saved and the wicked destroyed, corresponds to the second day, on which through the firmament the separation of waters from waters was made. The second age is called childhood; for just as in childhood we begin to speak, so in the second age the distinction of tongues was made.

In the work of virtue, six things are required corresponding to the works of the six days. It is necessary that a man set for himself a right end in God; and this is indicated when he says: Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters. And God called the firmament heaven; because it is necessary that a man be drawn upward, so that he may have a right intention toward God.

The second vision is understood of the second day, when a firmament was made in the midst, and this firmament is faith which divides the waters. Faith is the origin of wisdom and the origin of knowledge, whether of eternal or of temporal things, in so far as neither knowledge nor wisdom disagrees with faith.

Wisdom refers to the understanding of the eternal God, knowledge to the knowing of God made man. Wherefore the firmament was made in the midst of the waters, that is, faith, in order that the soul may know those things that are above the firmament and those that are below it. And such wisdom concerns divine things, and such knowledge, human things.

The second time corresponds to the second day and to the age of childhood: for then there was made "a firmament in the midst of the waters." At this time, a covenant was made by means of the rainbow, lest man be wiped out by the waters from below; and by means of the ark, lest he perish later in the flood. And as in childhood infants speak and learn to speak, so in the second time tongues were divided. And this extends from Noah to Abraham.

First of all, it is proved from the account of the creation that God divided the one place which extends from the earth to the first heaven, by placing in the middle the firmament, that is, the second heaven, thus making the one place into two places.

On the second day God said: Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. He made this heaven, not the one above, but the visible heaven which he crystallised from the waters like ice. But I shall endeavour to place the matter before your eyes, for many things are better explained by ocular than by oral demonstration. This water, let us suppose, overflowed the earth five cubits. Then God said: Let there be a firmament in the midst of the water, and thereupon a solid ice-like substance was produced in the midst of the waters, which made lighter the upper half of the water, and left the other half underneath, as it is written: Let there be a firmament in the midst of the water, and let it make a division between the waters. But wherefore does he call it the firmament? It is, because God made it firm and solid from waters which are of rarer and less compact substance. Wherefore David also says: Praise him in the firmament of his power; and, to take another example, we may adduce smoke, which when emitted from burning wood is rarified and attenuated, but when it mounts up high into the air becomes transformed into the density of a cloud. In this wise, when God had made the waters, which are by nature rarified, ascend on high, He there made them solid. And that this example is to the point, and true, Isaiah testifies where he says: The heaven was made firm and solid as smoke. The heaven having therefore become solid in the midst of the waters made the upper half of them light, but the other half He left underneath. Why then and for what purpose were the waters placed above? Was it that we might drink them or that we might sail on them? For that there are waters above, David testifies, saying: And the water which is above the heavens.

For what fault have they to find with the vast creation of God, who out of the fluid nature of the waters formed the stable substance of the heavens? For God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters." God spoke once for all, and it stands fast, never failing.

The waters that the earth drank on the first day were not salty. Even if they were like the deep on the surface of the earth, they were still not seas. For it was in the seas that these waters, which were not salty before being gathered together, became salty. When they were sent throughout the entire earth for the earth to drink they were sweet, but when they were gathered into seas on the third day, they became salty, lest they become stagnant due to their being gathered together and so that they might receive the rivers that enter into them without increasing. For the quantity that the seas require for nourishment is the measure of the rivers that flow down into them. The rivers flow down into the seas lest the heat of the sun dry them up. The saltiness [ of the seas ] then swallows up [ the rivers ] lest they increase, rise up and cover the earth. Thus the rivers turn into nothing, as it were, because the saltiness of the sea swallows them up. Even if the seas were created when the waters were created and were hidden in the waters, and the seas were bitter, the waters above them were not bitter. For just as in the flood there were seas, but they were covered over [ by those waters ], they were not able to change the sweet waters of the flood, which came from above, into their bitter nature, for if these waters had been bitter, how were the olives and all the plants preserved in them? How did those of the house of Noah and those with them drink from them? Even if Noah had commanded that every food be brought for himself and those with him because there would be no food anywhere, he did not allow water to be brought because those who had entered the ark would be able to take the water from outside of the ark to drink. Therefore, just as the waters of the flood were not salty while the seas were hidden within them, neither were the waters that were gathered on the third day bitter even though the seas below them were bitter. Just as the gathering of the waters did not precede that word which said, "Let the waters be gathered and let the dry land appear," [ Gen1:9 ] neither did the seas exist until that moment when God "called the gathering of water 'seas'." When they received their name they were changed. In their [ new ] place the [ waters ] attained that saltiness which had not been theirs [ even ] outside of their [ old ] place. For their place became deep at that very moment when God said, "Let the waters be gathered into one place." [ Gen1:9 ] Then either the land [ that contained ] the sea was brought down below the [ level of the ] earth to receive within it its own waters along with the waters that were above the entire earth, or the waters swallowed each other so that the place might be sufficient for them, or the place of the sea shook and it became a great depth and the waters quickly hastened into that basin. Although the will of God had gathered these waters, when the earth was created, a gate was opened for them to be gathered into one place. Just as in the gathering of the first and second waters there was found no gathering place because there was no place from which they might go out, so now do these waters come down with all the rains and showers and are gathered into seas along paths and roads which had been prepared for them on the first day. After Moses spoke of those things that came to be on the first day, he began to write about those things that came to be on the second day, saying, "And God said, 'Let there be a firmament between the waters and let it separate the waters below the firmament from the waters above the firmament.'" [ Gen1:6 ] The firmament between the waters was pressed together from the waters. It was of the same measure as the waters that were spread out over the surface of the earth. Then if, in its origin, it was above the earth (for the earth, water and fire were beneath it, while water, wind and darkness were above it), how do others posit that this [ firmament ], which encloses this world within it like a child in the womb, was created in the middle of everything as the womb of everything? If, on the other hand, the firmament had been created as the center of everything, light, darkness and wind, which were above the firmament when it was created, would have been confined above the firmament. If the creation [ of the firmament ] had occurred at night, the darkness and wind would also have remained there together with the waters which remained there. But if the creation [ of the firmament ] had occurred in the day, the light and the wind also would have remained there along with the waters. And if the [ wind, water and lights ] had remained there then the [ wind, water and lights ] here would be other things. When, then, could the [ wind, water and lights ] have been created? If, however, they did not remain there, how did those elements that were above [ the firmament ] when they were created move below it?

On the first day God made what He made out of nothing. But on the other days He did not make out of nothing, but out of what He had made on the first day, by moulding it according to His pleasure.

And let it divide between water and water: and it was so. And God made the firmament; and God divided between the water which was under the firmament, and the water above the firmament: and it was so.

As the excessive volume of water bore along over the face of the earth, the earth was by reason thereof "invisible" and "formless." When the Lord of all designed to make the invisible visible, He fixed then a third part of the waters in the midst; and another third part He set by itself on high, raising it together with the firmament by His own power; and the remaining third He left beneath, for the use and benefit of men. Now at this point we have an asterisk. The words are found in the Hebrew, but do not occur in the Septuagint.

What of the fact that waters were in some way the regulating powers by which the disposition of the world thenceforward was constituted by God? For the suspension of the celestial firmament in the midst He caused by "dividing the waters;" the suspension of "the dry land" He accomplished by "separating the waters." After the world had been hereupon set in order through its elements, when inhabitants were given it, "the waters" were the first to receive the precept "to bring forth living creatures." Water was the first to produce that which had life, that it might be no wonder in baptism if waters know how to give life. For was not the work of fashioning man himself also achieved with the aid of waters? Suitable material is found in the earth, yet not apt for the purpose unless it be moist and juicy; which (earth) "the waters," separated the fourth day before into their own place, temper with their remaining moisture to a clayey consistency.[On Baptism 3]

A firmament: Strabus and Bede teach that there is an eternal heaven, because the firmament, which they take to mean the sidereal heaven, is said to have been made, not in the beginning, but on the second day: whereas the reason given by Basil is that otherwise God would seem to have made darkness His first work. Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. i, 9) that the heaven of the second day is the corporeal heaven. According to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii) the firmament made on the second day is the starry heaven. Chrysostom understood that the heaven in 1:1 is the same heaven of the second day. Divide the waters from the waters: Whether, then, we understand by the firmament the starry heaven, or the cloudy region of the air, it is true to say that it divides the waters from the waters, according as we take water to denote formless matter, or any kind of transparent body, as fittingly designated under the name of waters. For the starry heaven divides the lower transparent bodies from the higher, and the cloudy region divides that higher part of the air, where the rain and similar things are generated, from the lower part, which is connected with the water and included under that name.

The waters were divided so that some were above the firmament and others below the firmament. Since we said that matter was called water, I believe that the firmament of heaven separated the corporeal matter of visible things from the incorporeal matter of invisible things.

The matter was separated by the interposition of the firmament so that the lower matter is that of bodies and the higher matter that of souls.

Before laying hold of the meaning of Scripture let us try to meet objections from other quarters. We are asked how, if the firmament is a spherical body, as it appears to the eye, its convex circumference can contain the water which flows and circulates in higher regions? What shall we answer? One thing only: because the interior of a body presents a perfect concavity it does not necessarily follow that its exterior surface is spherical and smoothly rounded. Look at the stone vaults of baths, and the structure of buildings of cave form; the dome, which forms the interior, does not prevent the roof from having ordinarily a flat surface. Let these unfortunate men cease, then, from tormenting us and themselves about the impossibility of our retaining water in the higher regions. Now we must say something about the nature of the firmament, and why it received the order to hold the middle place between the waters. Scripture constantly makes use of the word firmament to express extraordinary strength. The Lord my firmament and refuge. I have strengthened the pillars of it. Praise him in the firmament of his power. The heathen writers thus call a strong body one which is compact and full, to distinguish it from the mathematical body. A mathematical body is a body which exists only in the three dimensions, breadth, depth, and height. A firm body, on the contrary, adds resistance to the dimensions. It is the custom of Scripture to call firmament all that is strong and unyielding. It even uses the word to denote the condensation of the air: He, it says, who strengthens the thunder. Scripture means by the strengthening of the thunder, the strength and resistance of the wind, which, enclosed in the hollows of the clouds, produces the noise of thunder when it breaks through with violence. Here then, according to me, is a firm substance, capable of retaining the fluid and unstable element water; and as, according to the common acceptation, it appears that the firmament owes its origin to water, we must not believe that it resembles frozen water or any other matter produced by the filtration of water; as, for example, rock crystal, which is said to owe its metamorphosis to excessive congelation, or the transparent stone which forms in mines. This pellucid stone, if one finds it in its natural perfection, without cracks inside, or the least spot of corruption, almost rivals the air in clearness. We cannot compare the firmament to one of these substances. To hold such an opinion about celestial bodies would be childish and foolish; and although everything may be in everything, fire in earth, air in water, and of the other elements the one in the other; although none of those which come under our senses are pure and without mixture, either with the element which serves as a medium for it, or with that which is contrary to it; I, nevertheless, dare not affirm that the firmament was formed of one of these simple substances, or of a mixture of them, for I am taught by Scripture not to allow my imagination to wander too far afield. But do not let us forget to remark that, after these divine words let there be a firmament, it is not said and the firmament was made but, and God made the firmament, and divided the waters. Genesis 1:7 Hear, O you deaf! See, O you blind!— who, then, is deaf? He who does not hear this startling voice of the Holy Spirit. Who is blind? He who does not see such clear proofs of the Only begotten. Let there be a firmament. It is the voice of the primary and principal Cause. And God made the firmament. Here is a witness to the active and creative power of God.

But as far as concerns the separation of the waters I am obliged to contest the opinion of certain writers in the church who, under the shadow of high and sublime conceptions, have launched out into metaphor and have seen in the waters only a figure to denote spiritual and incorporeal powers. In the higher regions, accordingly, above the firmament, dwell the better; in the lower regions, earth and matter are the dwelling place of the malignant. So, say they, God is praised by the waters that are above the heavens, that is to say, by the good powers, the purity of whose soul makes them worthy to sing the praises of God. And the waters that are under the heavens represent the wicked spirits, who from their natural height have fallen into the abyss of evil. Turbulent, seditious, agitated by the tumultuous waves of passion, they have received the name of sea, because of the instability and the inconstancy of their movements. Let us reject these theories as dreams and old women's tales.

Someone may ask this: Why does the Scripture reduce to a command of the Creator that tendency to flow downward which belongs naturally to water?… If water has this tendency by nature, the command ordering the waters to be gathered together into one place would be superfluous.… To this inquiry we say this, that you recognized very well the movements of the water after the command of the Lord, both that it is unsteady and unstable and that it is borne naturally down slopes and into hollows; but how it had any power previous to that, before the motion was engendered in it from this command, you yourself neither know nor have you heard it from one who knew. Reflect that the voice of God makes nature, and the command given at that time to creation provided the future course of action for the creatures.

The firmament was created on the evening of the second night, just as the heavens came to be on the evening of the first night. But when the firmament came into existence, the covering of clouds that had served for a night and a day in the place of the firmament dissipated. Because [ the firmament ] had been created between the light and the darkness, no darkness remained above it, for the shadow of the clouds was dispelled when the clouds themselves were dispelled. Nor did any of this light remain there, for its alotted measure of time had come to an end and so it sank into the waters that were beneath [ the firmament ]. The wind could not have remained there, either, because it did not even exist there. It was on the first night that Moses said "it hovered" and not on the second night. If the firmament had been created on the first night when [ the wind ] was blowing there could then be some debate. But, since it is not written that [ the wind ] was blowing when the firmament was created, who would say that the wind was there when Scripture does not say so? After the wind hovered on the first day, manifested its service by its blowing and returned to its stillness, then the firmament came to be. It is evident, therefore, that [ the wind ] neither remained above nor descended below, for how can one seek in any place or spot for something whose very substance only exists at the moment of its service and whose service comes to an end when it ceases to blow? The wind underwent three things on the day of its creation: it was created from nothing, it blew in and through something, and it reverted to being hidden in its stillness. After the wind had undergone these three things, the firmament was created on the evening of the second day. There was then nothing that rose along with it, because there was nothing that remained above it. It made a separation between the waters that it was commanded to separate, but not between the light, the wind or darkness, for this had not been commanded. There was no light, therefore, on the first night. On the night of the second and third day, it sank into the waters beneath the firmament and sprang forth as we said [ above ]. But on the fourth day, when the waters were gathered into one place, they say that the firmament was formed and that the sun, the moon, and the stars were formed from the firmament and from fire, and there were places set apart for the lights. The moon would rise in the west of the firmament, the sun in the east, and at the same moment, the stars were dispersed in orderly fashion throughout the entire firmament.

Firmament: Not that in which the stars are set, but the part of the atmosphere where the clouds are collected, and which has received the name firmament from the firmness and density of the air. "For a body is called firm," that is dense and solid, "thereby differing from a mathematical body" as is remarked by Basil (Hom. iii in Hexaem.).

Above the firmament: The waters above the firmament must rather be the vapors resolved from the waters which are raised above a part of the atmosphere, and from which the rain falls. As to the nature of these waters, all are not agreed. Origen says (Hom. i in Gen.) that the waters that are above the firmament are "spiritual substances." Wherefore it is written (Psalm 148:4): "Let the waters that are above the heavens praise the name of the Lord," and (Daniel 3:60): "Ye waters that are above the heavens, bless the Lord." To this Basil answers (Hom. iii in Hexaem.) that these words do not mean that these waters are rational creatures, but that "the thoughtful contemplation of them by those who understand fulfils the glory of the Creator." Hence in the same context, fire, hail, and other like creatures, are invoked in the same way, though no one would attribute reason to these. We must hold, then, these waters to be material, but their exact nature will be differently defined according as opinions on the firmament differ.

Since Scripture called heaven the firmament, we can without absurdity hold that anything below the ethereal heaven, in which everything is peaceful and stable, is more mutable and perishable and is a kind of corporeal matter prior to the reception of beauty and the distinction of forms.

In the work of virtue, six things are required corresponding to the works of the six days. It is necessary that a man set for himself a right end in God; and this is indicated when he says: Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters. And God called the firmament heaven; because it is necessary that a man be drawn upward, so that he may have a right intention toward God.

GOD called the firmament heaven. The loftiness and firmness of faith have been explained. Now we must speak of its splendor. Heaven is called caelum, because engraved (caelatum), that is, sculptured with stars. Genesis explains how splendid is this faith: "Look at the heavens and, if you can, count the stars. So shall your posterity be." The promise of a bodily posterity was made to Abraham, for it is written: "So shall your posterity be." The promise of a spiritual posterity was also made to him, for through faith he was to be the father of a multitude. The flesh of Abraham gave forth offspring and was thus multiplied. All the more so would his spiritual begetting be fruitful: for he begot spiritually through his fruitful mind. Now, the great number of thoughts arising out of faith transcend in clarity the light of the stars.

GOD called the firmament heaven. It has been said that the scope of faith consists in two things, the extreme of loftiness and the extreme of depth. The scope of faith has been discussed: its firmness now remains to be covered. But if faith is lofty, how can it be certain? For the higher a thing is, the less it is known; and the less it is known, the more doubtful it must necessarily be. Wherefore we should understand that the firmness of this faith is threefold. It consists first in the witness of truth expressed through the uncreated Word; second, in the witness of truth expressed through the incarnate Word; third, in the witness of truth expressed through the inspired Word.

There now follows the work of the second day, which is the second vision of understanding, lifted up by faith: and of this it is not said that God "saw" but that He "called" it. Literally speaking, this heaven is lofty, stable, and visible: it is lofty as regards its position, stable as regards its form, and visible as regards its clarity. It is lofty: hence in Proverbs, "The heaven above and the earth beneath." By the very fact that the heaven is noble, it holds the highest place in the order of the universe, and the earth the lowest. It is also stable as regards its form, for it moves without changing place, but within its place, around a center. Hence in Job: "Do you spread out with Him the firmament of the skies, hard as a brazen mirror?" It is finally visible as regards the multitude of its adornments. Hence, in Job, "His spirit hath adorned the heavens." And, in Ecclesiasticus, "The beauty, the glory of the heavens are the stars, that rise to adorn the heights of God." Because of the latter quality, heaven is called caelum, from caelando, "by engraving," and not "by concealing": by carving, since it is written with the diphthong ae, for it is adorned and so to speak engraved with lights.

Firmament means a vision of faith. For faith makes the soul or intelligence lofty, since it goes beyond every reason and investigation of the mind. It makes it stable, because it excludes doubt and vacillation; it makes it visible, because it displays its multiformed light. And so, the solidity of faith is also called heaven, because it makes understanding lofty through investigation, stable when it establishes the truth, and visible when it fills it with a manifold light. Hence in Daniel: "The wise shall shine brightly like the splendor of the firmament." But no one is wise unless he is taught by God, for "No one comes to the Father but through Me," says the Saviour. And in John: "They all shall be taught of God." No one is taught in matters of faith except through God; and because it comes about through God's voice, it is said: "God called the firmament heaven." It is not said, God saw the firmament, but called it, because the solidity of faith consists rather in belief than in contemplation. For belief is through the ear, because, as the Apostle wrote to the Romans, "faith depends on hearing," and, before that, "with the heart a man believes unto justice."

Now faith consists more precisely in the confession of truth than in the communication of light. Hence, "with the mouth profession of faith is made unto salvation." Therefore in a certain sense faith sees, and in another it does not see. The merit of faith is founded on non-seeing, the light of faith on believing. There exists therefore a firmament-heaven, "the substance of things to be hoped for." And it consists in light, because it is "the evidence of things that are not seen." Wherefore it has both light and clouds. "God called the firmament heaven." In Ecclesiasticus it is written: "The firmament on high is His beauty, the beauty of heaven with its glorious shew." And here, three things are touched upon: loftiness, stability, and beauty. For this vision of faith is lofty, stable and beautiful. This faith is most noble, most solid and most splendid. Many possess it, however, without knowing it, for the face of faith is covered: it wears a kind of dark veil. It turns sinful souls into the most exalted. Hence, in the Acts, "He cleansed their hearts by faith."

Although God said about the light that came to be on the first day that "it was very good," He did not say this about the firmament which came to be on the second day, because the firmament had not yet been finished, neither in its structure nor in its adornment. The Creator delayed until the lights came to be so that when [ the firmament ] was adorned with the sun and the moon and the stars, and the strength of the darkness that was weakened by the lights shining from it, He would then say of the firmament as well as of [ the rest of creation ] that "it was very good."

Although God had already previously made heaven, now he makes the firmament. For he made heaven first, about which he says, "Heaven is my throne." But after that he makes the firmament, that is, the corporeal heaven. For every corporeal object is, without doubt, firm and solid; and it is this that "divides the water which is above heaven from the water which is below heaven."

And if the words, "God saw that it was good," are not said of the work of the second day, this is because the work of distinguishing the waters was only begun on that day, but perfected on the third. Hence these words, that are said of the third day, refer also to the second. Or it may be that Scripture does not use these words of approval of the second days' work, because this is concerned with the distinction of things not evident to the senses of mankind. Or, again, because by the firmament is simply understood the cloudy region of the air, which is not one of the permanent parts of the universe, nor of the principal divisions of the world. The above three reasons are given by Rabbi Moses [Perplex. ii.], and to these may be added a mystical one derived from numbers and assigned by some writers, according to whom the work of the second day is not marked with approval because the second number is an imperfect number, as receding from the perfection of unity.

Now when Scripture says, "Let the water which is below the heavens be gathered into one gathering," these words mean that this corporeal matter is to be formed into the beauty that these visible waters have. This gathering into one place is the formation of these waters that we see and touch. For every form is reduced to a rule of unity. What else should we understand is meant by the words "let the dry land appear" than this matter receives the visible form that this earth that we see and touch now has? Hence the previous expression "the earth was invisible and without form" signified the confusion and obscurity of matter, and the expression "the water over which the spirit of God was borne" signified that same matter. But now this water and earth are formed from that matter that was called by their names before it had received the forms that we now see.

Hence, at the words "Let the waters be gathered together, and let dry land appear," these two things [earth and water] received their proper forms familiar to us and perceived by our senses, water being made fluid and earth solid. Of water, therefore, it is said, "Let it be gathered"; of earth, "Let it appear." For water tends to ebb and flow, but earth remains immobile.

What trouble you have given me in my previous discourses by asking me why the earth was invisible, why all bodies are naturally endued with colour, and why all colour comes under the sense of sight. And, perhaps, my reason did not appear sufficient to you, when I said that the earth, without being naturally invisible, was so to us, because of the mass of water that entirely covered it. Hear then how Scripture explains itself. Let the waters be gathered together, and let the dry land appear. The veil is lifted and allows the earth, hitherto invisible, to be seen. Perhaps you will ask me new questions. And first, is it not a law of nature that water flows downwards? Why, then, does Scripture refer this to the fiat of the Creator? As long as water is spread over a level surface, it does not flow; it is immovable. But when it finds any slope, immediately the foremost portion falls, then the one that follows takes its place, and that one is itself replaced by a third. Thus incessantly they flow, pressing the one on the other, and the rapidity of their course is in proportion to the mass of water that is being carried, and the declivity down which it is borne. If such is the nature of water, it was supererogatory to command it to gather into one place. It was bound, on account of its natural instability, to fall into the most hollow part of the earth and not to stop until the levelling of its surface. We see how there is nothing so level as the surface of water. Besides, they add, how did the waters receive an order to gather into one place, when we see several seas, separated from each other by the greatest distances? To the first question I reply: Since God's command, you know perfectly well the motion of water; you know that it is unsteady and unstable and falls naturally over declivities and into hollow places. But what was its nature before this command made it take its course? You do not know yourself, and you have heard from no eye-witness. Think, in reality, that a word of God makes the nature, and that this order is for the creature a direction for its future course. There was only one creation of day and night, and since that moment they have incessantly succeeded each other and divided time into equal parts. 3. Let the waters be gathered together. It was ordered that it should be the natural property of water to flow, and in obedience to this order, the waters are never weary in their course. In speaking thus, I have only in view the flowing property of waters. Some flow of their own accord like springs and rivers, others are collected and stationary. But I speak now of flowing waters. Let the waters be gathered together unto one place. Have you never thought, when standing near a spring which is sending forth water abundantly, Who makes this water spring from the bowels of the earth? Who forced it up? Where are the store-houses which send it forth? To what place is it hastening? How is it that it is never exhausted here, and never overflows there? All this comes from that first command; it was for the waters a signal for their course. In all the story of the waters remember this first order, let the waters be gathered together. To take their assigned places they were obliged to flow, and, once arrived there, to remain in their place and not to go farther. Thus in the language of Ecclesiastes, All the waters run into the sea; yet the sea is not full. Ecclesiastes 1:6-7 Waters flow in virtue of God's order, and the sea is enclosed in limits according to this first law, Let the waters be gathered together unto one place. For fear the water should spread beyond its bed, and in its successive invasions cover one by one all countries, and end by flooding the whole earth, it received the order to gather unto one place. Thus we often see the furious sea raising mighty waves to the heaven, and, when once it has touched the shore, break its impetuosity in foam and retire. Fear ye not me, says the Lord....which have placed the sand for the bound of the sea. Jeremiah 5:22 A grain of sand, the weakest thing possible, curbs the violence of the ocean. For what would prevent the Red Sea from invading the whole of Egypt, which lies lower, and uniting itself to the other sea which bathes its shores, were it not fettered by the fiat of the Creator? And if I say that Egypt is lower than the Red Sea, it is because experience has convinced us of it every time that an attempt has been made to join the sea of Egypt to the Indian Ocean, of which the Red Sea is a part. Thus we have renounced this enterprise, as also have the Egyptian Sesostris, who conceived the idea, and Darius the Mede who afterwards wished to carry it out. I report this fact to make you understand the full force of the command, Let the waters be gathered unto one place; that is to say, let there be no other gathering, and, once gathered, let them not disperse. 4. To say that the waters were gathered in one place indicates that previously they were scattered in many places. The mountains, intersected by deep ravines, accumulated water in their valleys, when from every direction the waters betook themselves to the one gathering place. What vast plains, in their extent resembling wide seas, what valleys, what cavities hollowed in many different ways, at that time full of water, must have been emptied by the command of God! But we must not therefore say, that if the water covered the face of the earth, all the basins which have since received the sea were originally full. Where can the gathering of the waters have come from if the basins were already full? These basins, we reply, were only prepared at the moment when the water had to unite in a single mass. At that time the sea which is beyond Gadeira and the vast ocean, so dreaded by navigators, which surrounds the isle of Britain and western Spain, did not exist. But, all of a sudden, God created this vast space, and the mass of waters flowed in. Now if our explanation of the creation of the world may appear contrary to experience, (because it is evident that all the waters did not flow together in one place,) many answers may be made, all obvious as soon as they are stated. Perhaps it is even ridiculous to reply to such objections. Ought they to bring forward in opposition ponds and accumulations of rain water, and think that this is enough to upset our reasonings? Evidently the chief and most complete affluence of the waters was what received the name of gathering unto one place. For wells are also gathering places for water, made by the hand of man to receive the moisture diffused in the hollow of the earth. This name of gathering does not mean any chance massing of water, but the greatest and most important one, wherein the element is shown collected together. In the same way that fire, in spite of its being divided into minute particles which are sufficient for our needs here, is spread in a mass in the æther; in the same way that air, in spite of a like minute division, has occupied the region round the earth; so also water, in spite of the small amount spread abroad everywhere, only forms one gathering together, that which separates the whole element from the rest. Without doubt the lakes as well those of the northern regions and those that are to be found in Greece, in Macedonia, in Bithynia and in Palestine, are gatherings together of waters; but here it means the greatest of all, that gathering the extent of which equals that of the earth. The first contain a great quantity of water; no one will deny this. Nevertheless no one could reasonably give them the name of seas, not even if they are like the great sea, charged with salt and sand. They instance for example, the Lacus Asphaltitis in Judæa, and the Serbonian lake which extends between Egypt and Palestine in the Arabian desert. These are lakes, and there is only one sea, as those affirm who have travelled round the earth. Although some authorities think the Hyrcanian and Caspian Seas are enclosed in their own boundaries, if we are to believe the geographers, they communicate with each other and together discharge themselves into the Great Sea. It is thus that, according to their account, the Red Sea and that beyond Gadeira only form one. Then why did God call the different masses of water seas? This is the reason; the waters flowed into one place, and their different accumulations, that is to say, the gulfs that the earth embraced in her folds, received from the Lord the name of seas: North Sea, South Sea, Eastern Sea, and Western Sea. The seas have even their own names, the Euxine, the Propontis, the Hellespont, the Ægean, the Ionian, the Sardinian, the Sicilian, the Tyrrhene, and many other names of which an exact enumeration would now be too long, and quite out of place. See why God calls the gathering together of waters seas. But let us return to the point from which the course of my argument has diverted me. 5. And God said: Let the waters be gathered together unto one place and let the dry land appear. He did not say let the earth appear, so as not to show itself again without form, mud-like, and in combination with the water, nor yet endued with proper form and virtue. At the same time, lest we should attribute the drying of the earth to the sun, the Creator shows it to us dried before the creation of the sun. Let us follow the thought Scripture gives us. Not only the water which was covering the earth flowed off from it, but all that which had filtered into its depths withdrew in obedience to the irresistible order of the sovereign Master. And it was so. This is quite enough to show that the Creator's voice had effect: however, in several editions, there is added And the water which was under the heavens gathered itself unto one place and the dry land was seen; words that other interpreters have not given, and which do not appear conformable to Hebrew usage. In fact, after the assertion, and it was so, it is superfluous to repeat exactly the same thing. In accurate copies these words are marked with an obelus, which is the sign of rejection.

1. There are towns where the inhabitants, from dawn to eve, feast their eyes on the tricks of innumerable conjurors. They are never tired of hearing dissolute songs which cause much impurity to spring up in their souls, and they are often called happy, because they neglect the cares of business and trades useful to life, and pass the time, which is assigned to them on this earth, in idleness and pleasure. They do not know that a theatre full of impure sights is, for those who sit there, a common school of vice; that these melodious and meretricious songs insinuate themselves into men's souls, and all who hear them, eager to imitate the notes of harpers and pipers, are filled with filthiness. Some others, who are wild after horses, think they are backing their horses in their dreams; they harness their chariots, change their drivers, and even in sleep are not free from the folly of the day. And shall we, whom the Lord, the great worker of marvels, calls to the contemplation of His own works, tire of looking at them, or be slow to hear the words of the Holy Spirit? Shall we not rather stand around the vast and varied workshop of divine creation and, carried back in mind to the times of old, shall we not view all the order of creation? Heaven, poised like a dome, to quote the words of the prophet; earth, this immense mass which rests upon itself; the air around it, of a soft and fluid nature, a true and continual nourishment for all who breathe it, of such tenuity that it yields and opens at the least movement of the body, opposing no resistance to our motions, while, in a moment, it streams back to its place, behind those who cleave it; water, finally, that supplies drink for man, or may be designed for our other needs, and the marvellous gathering together of it into definite places which have been assigned to it: such is the spectacle which the words which I have just read will show you.

God said: Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so. The waters that filled everything between the sky and the earth were drawn off, and they gathered into one place, so that the light which shone clearly on the waters for the previous two days might shine more brightly in the pure air; and the earth which had been hidden appeared, and that which had remained muddy and weak under the waters, by their withdrawal, became dry, and was made suitable for receiving seeds. If anyone should ask where the waters that had covered all parts of the earth up to the sky were gathered, let him know that it could have happened that the earth itself, by the command of the Creator, subsided far and wide, providing some parts concave, into which the waters, flowing together, might be received, so that the dry land might appear from those parts where the moisture had receded. It can also not unreasonably be believed that the primary waters, as we mentioned above, were rarer, which covered the land like a mist; but by gathering were made denser, which could be contained in their assigned places, with the dry land appearing in the remaining parts. Although it is clear that there are many seas, he says that the waters were gathered into one place, because evidently all these are connected by a continuous wave and are joined to the great ocean and sea; but even if some lakes appear to be enclosed by themselves, they are said to discharge their streams into the sea through some hidden perforated caverns. For the diggers of wells also prove this, since the entire earth is filled with flowing waters through invisible veins, which draw their origin from the sea.

There is the distinction of transparent nature from opaque, and this was made on the third day in the division of waters from the earth. In these, moreover, the distinction of celestial and elemental things is implicitly given to be understood.

The third age, in which Abraham was called, and the synagogue was begun, which was to bear fruit and generate offspring for the worship of God, corresponds to the third day, on which the earth appeared and brought forth green plants. The third age is called adolescence, because, just as the generative power then begins to pass into its act, so then Abraham was called, and circumcision was given to him, and the promise concerning the seed was made.

In the work of virtue, six things are required corresponding to the works of the six days. Pure affection is required; and this is understood in the third work, when God divided the land from the waters, that is, secular affections from divine ones.

The third vision is understood of the third day, when the waters were gathered together and dry land appeared. The land is Scriptures which have spiritual meanings and refer to angelical and divine hierarchies which have often been marvelously described by the saints: and from these Scriptures spring forth vegetation and the tree of life. But let everyone beware of the tree of inquisitive knowledge.

Such is the third vision, of understanding instructed by Scriptures, which is figured in the work of the third day. And as in the work of the days, there is added a second to the first and a third to both of them, so also out of the first and second visions there comes forth a third, and this vision is more noble and greater than the preceding two. And although such adaptation and comparison to the work of the third day may not seem properly fitting since the earth is the lowest of the elements, while the Scriptures are most high, yet the relationship is excellently pointed out: for whatever the heavens contain in any measure of excellence, the earth holds or receives or possesses in some measure of liveliness. Wherefore it receives the influences of heaven and brings forth the most beautiful swarms of beings.

Now this vision is concerned with three things, the spiritual meanings of the senses, the sacramental symbols, and the manifold interpretations that are drawn from them. All of Scriptures may be reduced to these three. The first are offered to our understanding by means of the gathering of the waters, that is, the spiritual meanings.

The waters that the earth drank on the first day were not salty. Even if they were like the deep on the surface of the earth, they were still not seas. For it was in the seas that these waters, which were not salty before being gathered together, became salty. When they were sent throughout the entire earth for the earth to drink they were sweet, but when they were gathered into seas on the third day, they became salty, lest they become stagnant due to their being gathered together and so that they might receive the rivers that enter into them without increasing. For the quantity that the seas require for nourishment is the measure of the rivers that flow down into them. The rivers flow down into the seas lest the heat of the sun dry them up. The saltiness [ of the seas ] then swallows up [ the rivers ] lest they increase, rise up and cover the earth. Thus the rivers turn into nothing, as it were, because the saltiness of the sea swallows them up. Even if the seas were created when the waters were created and were hidden in the waters, and the seas were bitter, the waters above them were not bitter. For just as in the flood there were seas, but they were covered over [ by those waters ], they were not able to change the sweet waters of the flood, which came from above, into their bitter nature, for if these waters had been bitter, how were the olives and all the plants preserved in them? How did those of the house of Noah and those with them drink from them? Even if Noah had commanded that every food be brought for himself and those with him because there would be no food anywhere, he did not allow water to be brought because those who had entered the ark would be able to take the water from outside of the ark to drink. Therefore, just as the waters of the flood were not salty while the seas were hidden within them, neither were the waters that were gathered on the third day bitter even though the seas below them were bitter. Just as the gathering of the waters did not precede that word which said, "Let the waters be gathered and let the dry land appear," [ Gen1:9 ] neither did the seas exist until that moment when God "called the gathering of water 'seas'." When they received their name they were changed. In their [ new ] place the [ waters ] attained that saltiness which had not been theirs [ even ] outside of their [ old ] place. For their place became deep at that very moment when God said,"Let the waters be gathered into one place." [ Gen1:9 ] Then either the land [ that contained ] the sea was brought down below the [ level of the ] earth to receive within it its own waters along with the waters that were above the entire earth, or the waters swallowed each other so that the place might be sufficient for them, or the place of the sea shook and it became a great depth and the waters quickly hastened into that basin. Although the will of God had gathered these waters, when the earth was created, a gate was opened for thm to be gathered into one place. Just as in the gathering of the first and second waters there was found no gathering place because there was no place from which they might go out, so now do these waters come down with all the rains and showers and are gathered into seas along paths and roads which had been prepared for them on the first day. After Moses spoke of the firmament, which came to be on the second day, he then turned to write about the gathering of the waters and about the grass and the trees that the earth brought forth on the third day, saying, "And God said, 'Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.'" [ Gen1:9 ] From the fact that He said, "Let the waters be gathered into one place," it is evident that it was the earth which bore the waters and that the abysses were not standing on nothing beneath the earth. Although the waters were gathered in the night at the word of God, the surface of the earth still became dry in the twinkling of an eye.

As for the question of precisely how any single thing came into existence, we must banish it altogether from our discussion. Even in the case of things which are quite within the grasp of our understanding and of which we have sensible perception, it would be impossible for the speculative reason to grasp the "how" of the production of the phenomenon, so much so that even inspired and saintly men have deemed such questions insoluble. For instance, the apostle says, "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen are not made of things which do appear." … Let us, following the example of the apostle, leave the question of the "how" in each created thing without meddling with it at all but merely observing incidentally that the movement of God's will becomes at any moment that he pleases a fact, and the intention becomes at once realized in nature. .

Have you seen, dear brother, how God, in a sense, stripped the earth, which was invisible and formless, and was covered by the waters as if they were veils, and showed us its face, after he had imposed an appropriate name on it as well? "And the gatherings of the waters he called seas." So the waters also got their name. In fact, as an excellent craftsman, who sets out to make with his art a certain vase, does not give it a name until he has completed it, so the good Lord does not impose names on the elements until he has put them in their proper place according to his command. Therefore after the earth had received its name and had reached its proper form, the gathered waters were called with their own name.

Now, the fact that Scripture speaks of one gathering does not mean that they were gathered together into one place, for notice that after this it says: "And the gathering together of the waters he called seas." Actually, the account meant that the waters were segregated by themselves apart from the earth. And so the waters were brought together into their gathering places and the dry land appeared.

Let us labor, therefore, to gather "the water that is under heaven" and cast it from us that "the dry land," which is our deeds done in the flesh, might appear. When this has been done, "men seeing our good works may glorify our Father who is in heaven." For if we have not separated from us those waters that are under heaven, that is, the sins and vices of our body, our dry land will not be able to appear nor have the courage to advance to the light.

It was when the waters were withdrawn into their hollow abysses that the dry land became conspicuous, which was hitherto covered with its watery envelope. Then it forthwith becomes "visible," God saying, "Let the water be gathered together into one mass, and let the dry land appear." Genesis 1:9 "Appear," says He, not "be made." It had been already made, only in its invisible condition it was then waiting to appear. "Dry," because it was about to become such by its severance from the moisture, but yet "land." "And God called the dry land Earth," not Matter. [Against Hermogenes 29]

One place: All the waters have the sea as their goal, into which they flow by channels hidden or apparent, and this may be the reason why they are said to be gathered together into one place. Let the waters be gathered together in one place: that is, apart from the dry land. Let the dry land appear: On the second day the intermediate body, water, was formed, receiving from the firmament a sort of distinction and order (so that water be understood as including certain other things, as explained above (68, 3). On the third day the earth, the lowest body, received its form by the withdrawal of the waters, and there resulted the distinction in the lowest body, namely, of land and sea. Hence Scripture, having clearly expresses the manner in which it received its form by the equally suitable words, "Let the dry land appear."

Why does Scripture say above that the waters were gathered together unto one place, and that the dry earth appeared? Why does it add here the dry land appeared, and God gave it the name of earth? It is that dryness is the property which appears to characterize the nature of the subject, while the word earth is only its simple name. Just as reason is the distinctive faculty of man, and the word man serves to designate the being gifted with this faculty, so dryness is the special and peculiar quality of the earth. The element essentially dry receives therefore the name of earth, as the animal who has a neigh for a characteristic cry is called a horse. The other elements, like the earth, have received some peculiar property which distinguishes them from the rest, and makes them known for what they are. Thus water has cold for its distinguishing property; air, moisture; fire, heat. But this theory really applies only to the primitive elements of the world. The elements which contribute to the formation of bodies, and come under our senses, show us these qualities in combination, and in the whole of nature our eyes and senses can find nothing which is completely singular, simple and pure. Earth is at the same time dry and cold; water, cold and moist; air, moist and warm; fire, warm and dry. It is by the combination of their qualities that the different elements can mingle. Thanks to a common quality each of them mixes with a neighbouring element, and this natural alliance attaches it to the contrary element. For example, earth, which is at the same time dry and cold, finds in cold a relationship which unites it to water, and by the means of water unites itself to air. Water placed between the two, appears to give each a hand, and, on account of its double quality, allies itself to earth by cold and to air by moisture. Air, in its turn, takes the middle place and plays the part of a mediator between the inimical natures of water and fire, united to the first by moisture, and to the second by heat. Finally fire, of a nature at the same time warm and dry, is linked to air by warmth, and by its dryness reunites itself to the earth. And from this accord and from this mutual mixture of elements, results a circle and an harmonious choir whence each of the elements deserves its name. I have said this in order to explain why God has given to the dry land the name of earth, without however calling the earth dry. It is because dryness is not one of those qualities which the earth acquired afterwards, but one of those which constituted its essence from the beginning. Now that which causes a body to exist, is naturally antecedent to its posterior qualities and has a pre-eminence over them. It is then with reason that God chose the most ancient characteristic of the earth whereby to designate it. 6. And God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:10 Scripture does not merely wish to say that a pleasing aspect of the sea presented itself to God. It is not with eyes that the Creator views the beauty of His works. He contemplates them in His ineffable wisdom. A fair sight is the sea all bright in a settled calm; fair too, when, ruffled by a light breeze of wind, its surface shows tints of purple and azure,— when, instead of lashing with violence the neighbouring shores, it seems to kiss them with peaceful caresses. However, it is not in this that Scripture makes God find the goodness and charm of the sea. Here it is the purpose of the work which makes the goodness. In the first place sea water is the source of all the moisture of the earth. It filters through imperceptible conduits, as is proved by the subterranean openings and caves whither its waves penetrate; it is received in oblique and sinuous canals; then, driven out by the wind, it rises to the surface of the earth, and breaks it, having become drinkable and free from its bitterness by this long percolation. Often, moved by the same cause, it springs even from mines that it has crossed, deriving warmth from them, and rises boiling, and bursts forth of a burning heat, as may be seen in islands and on the sea coast; even inland in certain places, in the neighbourhood of rivers, to compare little things with great, almost the same phenomena occur. To what do these words tend? To prove that the earth is all undermined with invisible conduits, where the water travels everywhere underground from the sources of the sea. 7. Thus, in the eyes of God, the sea is good, because it makes the under current of moisture in the depths of the earth. It is good again, because from all sides it receives the rivers without exceeding its limits. It is good, because it is the origin and source of the waters in the air. Warmed by the rays of the sun, it escapes in vapour, is attracted into the high regions of the air, and is there cooled on account of its rising high above the refraction of the rays from the ground, and, the shade of the clouds adding to this refrigeration, it is changed into rain and fattens the earth. If people are incredulous, let them look at caldrons on the fire, which, though full of water, are often left empty because all the water is boiled and resolved into vapour. Sailors, too, boil even sea water, collecting the vapour in sponges, to quench their thirst in pressing need. Finally the sea is good in the eyes of God, because it girdles the isles, of which it forms at the same time the rampart and the beauty, because it brings together the most distant parts of the earth, and facilitates the inter-communication of mariners. By this means it gives us the boon of general information, supplies the merchant with his wealth, and easily provides for the necessities of life, allowing the rich to export their superfluities, and blessing the poor with the supply of what they lack. But whence do I perceive the goodness of the Ocean, as it appeared in the eyes of the Creator? If the Ocean is good and worthy of praise before God, how much more beautiful is the assembly of a Church like this, where the voices of men, of children, and of women, arise in our prayers to God mingling and resounding like the waves which beat upon the shore. This Church also enjoys a profound calm, and malicious spirits cannot trouble it with the breath of heresy. Deserve, then, the approbation of the Lord by remaining faithful to such good guidance, in our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and power for ever and ever. Amen.

Scripture does not merely wish to say that a pleasing aspect of the sea presented itself to God. It is not with eyes that the Creator views the beauty of His works. He contemplates them in His ineffable wisdom. A fair sight is the sea all bright in a settled calm; fair too, when, ruffled by a light breeze of wind, its surface shows tints of purple and azure,— when, instead of lashing with violence the neighbouring shores, it seems to kiss them with peaceful caresses. However, it is not in this that Scripture makes God find the goodness and charm of the sea. Here it is the purpose of the work which makes the goodness.

In the first place sea water is the source of all the moisture of the earth. It filters through imperceptible conduits, as is proved by the subterranean openings and caves whither its waves penetrate; it is received in oblique and sinuous canals; then, driven out by the wind, it rises to the surface of the earth, and breaks it, having become drinkable and free from its bitterness by this long percolation. Often, moved by the same cause, it springs even from mines that it has crossed, deriving warmth from them, and rises boiling, and bursts forth of a burning heat, as may be seen in islands and on the sea coast; even inland in certain places, in the neighbourhood of rivers, to compare little things with great, almost the same phenomena occur. To what do these words tend? To prove that the earth is all undermined with invisible conduits, where the water travels everywhere underground from the sources of the sea.

7. Thus, in the eyes of God, the sea is good, because it makes the under current of moisture in the depths of the earth. It is good again, because from all sides it receives the rivers without exceeding its limits. It is good, because it is the origin and source of the waters in the air. Warmed by the rays of the sun, it escapes in vapour, is attracted into the high regions of the air, and is there cooled on account of its rising high above the refraction of the rays from the ground, and, the shade of the clouds adding to this refrigeration, it is changed into rain and fattens the earth. If people are incredulous, let them look at caldrons on the fire, which, though full of water, are often left empty because all the water is boiled and resolved into vapour. Sailors, too, boil even sea water, collecting the vapour in sponges, to quench their thirst in pressing need.

Finally the sea is good in the eyes of God, because it girdles the isles, of which it forms at the same time the rampart and the beauty, because it brings together the most distant parts of the earth, and facilitates the inter-communication of mariners. By this means it gives us the boon of general information, supplies the merchant with his wealth, and easily provides for the necessities of life, allowing the rich to export their superfluities, and blessing the poor with the supply of what they lack.

But whence do I perceive the goodness of the Ocean, as it appeared in the eyes of the Creator? If the Ocean is good and worthy of praise before God, how much more beautiful is the assembly of a Church like this, where the voices of men, of children, and of women, arise in our prayers to God mingling and resounding like the waves which beat upon the shore. This Church also enjoys a profound calm, and malicious spirits cannot trouble it with the breath of heresy. Deserve, then, the approbation of the Lord by remaining faithful to such good guidance, in our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and power for ever and ever. Amen.

Why does Scripture say above that the waters were gathered together unto one place, and that the dry earth appeared? Why does it add here the dry land appeared, and God gave it the name of earth? It is that dryness is the property which appears to characterize the nature of the subject, while the word earth is only its simple name. Just as reason is the distinctive faculty of man, and the word man serves to designate the being gifted with this faculty, so dryness is the special and peculiar quality of the earth. The element essentially dry receives therefore the name of earth, as the animal who has a neigh for a characteristic cry is called a horse. The other elements, like the earth, have received some peculiar property which distinguishes them from the rest, and makes them known for what they are. Thus water has cold for its distinguishing property; air, moisture; fire, heat. But this theory really applies only to the primitive elements of the world. The elements which contribute to the formation of bodies, and come under our senses, show us these qualities in combination, and in the whole of nature our eyes and senses can find nothing which is completely singular, simple and pure. Earth is at the same time dry and cold; water, cold and moist; air, moist and warm; fire, warm and dry. It is by the combination of their qualities that the different elements can mingle. Thanks to a common quality each of them mixes with a neighbouring element, and this natural alliance attaches it to the contrary element. For example, earth, which is at the same time dry and cold, finds in cold a relationship which unites it to water, and by the means of water unites itself to air. Water placed between the two, appears to give each a hand, and, on account of its double quality, allies itself to earth by cold and to air by moisture. Air, in its turn, takes the middle place and plays the part of a mediator between the inimical natures of water and fire, united to the first by moisture, and to the second by heat. Finally fire, of a nature at the same time warm and dry, is linked to air by warmth, and by its dryness reunites itself to the earth. And from this accord and from this mutual mixture of elements, results a circle and an harmonious choir whence each of the elements deserves its name. I have said this in order to explain why God has given to the dry land the name of earth, without however calling the earth dry. It is because dryness is not one of those qualities which the earth acquired afterwards, but one of those which constituted its essence from the beginning. Now that which causes a body to exist, is naturally antecedent to its posterior qualities and has a pre-eminence over them. It is then with reason that God chose the most ancient characteristic of the earth whereby to designate it.

5. And God said: Let the waters be gathered together unto one place and let the dry land appear. He did not say let the earth appear, so as not to show itself again without form, mud-like, and in combination with the water, nor yet endued with proper form and virtue. At the same time, lest we should attribute the drying of the earth to the sun, the Creator shows it to us dried before the creation of the sun. Let us follow the thought Scripture gives us. Not only the water which was covering the earth flowed off from it, but all that which had filtered into its depths withdrew in obedience to the irresistible order of the sovereign Master. And it was so. This is quite enough to show that the Creator's voice had effect: however, in several editions, there is added And the water which was under the heavens gathered itself unto one place and the dry land was seen; words that other interpreters have not given, and which do not appear conformable to Hebrew usage. In fact, after the assertion, and it was so, it is superfluous to repeat exactly the same thing. In accurate copies these words are marked with an obelus, which is the sign of rejection.

4. To say that the waters were gathered in one place indicates that previously they were scattered in many places. The mountains, intersected by deep ravines, accumulated water in their valleys, when from every direction the waters betook themselves to the one gathering place. What vast plains, in their extent resembling wide seas, what valleys, what cavities hollowed in many different ways, at that time full of water, must have been emptied by the command of God! But we must not therefore say, that if the water covered the face of the earth, all the basins which have since received the sea were originally full. Where can the gathering of the waters have come from if the basins were already full? These basins, we reply, were only prepared at the moment when the water had to unite in a single mass. At that time the sea which is beyond Gadeira and the vast ocean, so dreaded by navigators, which surrounds the isle of Britain and western Spain, did not exist. But, all of a sudden, God created this vast space, and the mass of waters flowed in.

Now if our explanation of the creation of the world may appear contrary to experience, (because it is evident that all the waters did not flow together in one place,) many answers may be made, all obvious as soon as they are stated. Perhaps it is even ridiculous to reply to such objections. Ought they to bring forward in opposition ponds and accumulations of rain water, and think that this is enough to upset our reasonings? Evidently the chief and most complete affluence of the waters was what received the name of gathering unto one place. For wells are also gathering places for water, made by the hand of man to receive the moisture diffused in the hollow of the earth. This name of gathering does not mean any chance massing of water, but the greatest and most important one, wherein the element is shown collected together. In the same way that fire, in spite of its being divided into minute particles which are sufficient for our needs here, is spread in a mass in the æther; in the same way that air, in spite of a like minute division, has occupied the region round the earth; so also water, in spite of the small amount spread abroad everywhere, only forms one gathering together, that which separates the whole element from the rest. Without doubt the lakes as well those of the northern regions and those that are to be found in Greece, in Macedonia, in Bithynia and in Palestine, are gatherings together of waters; but here it means the greatest of all, that gathering the extent of which equals that of the earth. The first contain a great quantity of water; no one will deny this. Nevertheless no one could reasonably give them the name of seas, not even if they are like the great sea, charged with salt and sand. They instance for example, the Lacus Asphaltitis in Judæa, and the Serbonian lake which extends between Egypt and Palestine in the Arabian desert. These are lakes, and there is only one sea, as those affirm who have travelled round the earth. Although some authorities think the Hyrcanian and Caspian Seas are enclosed in their own boundaries, if we are to believe the geographers, they communicate with each other and together discharge themselves into the Great Sea. It is thus that, according to their account, the Red Sea and that beyond Gadeira only form one. Then why did God call the different masses of water seas? This is the reason; the waters flowed into one place, and their different accumulations, that is to say, the gulfs that the earth embraced in her folds, received from the Lord the name of seas: North Sea, South Sea, Eastern Sea, and Western Sea. The seas have even their own names, the Euxine, the Propontis, the Hellespont, the Ægean, the Ionian, the Sardinian, the Sicilian, the Tyrrhene, and many other names of which an exact enumeration would now be too long, and quite out of place. See why God calls the gathering together of waters seas. But let us return to the point from which the course of my argument has diverted me.

What trouble you have given me in my previous discourses by asking me why the earth was invisible, why all bodies are naturally endued with colour, and why all colour comes under the sense of sight. And, perhaps, my reason did not appear sufficient to you, when I said that the earth, without being naturally invisible, was so to us, because of the mass of water that entirely covered it. Hear then how Scripture explains itself. Let the waters be gathered together, and let the dry land appear. The veil is lifted and allows the earth, hitherto invisible, to be seen. Perhaps you will ask me new questions. And first, is it not a law of nature that water flows downwards? Why, then, does Scripture refer this to the fiat of the Creator? As long as water is spread over a level surface, it does not flow; it is immovable. But when it finds any slope, immediately the foremost portion falls, then the one that follows takes its place, and that one is itself replaced by a third. Thus incessantly they flow, pressing the one on the other, and the rapidity of their course is in proportion to the mass of water that is being carried, and the declivity down which it is borne. If such is the nature of water, it was supererogatory to command it to gather into one place. It was bound, on account of its natural instability, to fall into the most hollow part of the earth and not to stop until the levelling of its surface. We see how there is nothing so level as the surface of water. Besides, they add, how did the waters receive an order to gather into one place, when we see several seas, separated from each other by the greatest distances? To the first question I reply: Since God's command, you know perfectly well the motion of water; you know that it is unsteady and unstable and falls naturally over declivities and into hollow places. But what was its nature before this command made it take its course? You do not know yourself, and you have heard from no eye-witness. Think, in reality, that a word of God makes the nature, and that this order is for the creature a direction for its future course. There was only one creation of day and night, and since that moment they have incessantly succeeded each other and divided time into equal parts.

3. Let the waters be gathered together. It was ordered that it should be the natural property of water to flow, and in obedience to this order, the waters are never weary in their course. In speaking thus, I have only in view the flowing property of waters. Some flow of their own accord like springs and rivers, others are collected and stationary. But I speak now of flowing waters. Let the waters be gathered together unto one place. Have you never thought, when standing near a spring which is sending forth water abundantly, Who makes this water spring from the bowels of the earth? Who forced it up? Where are the store-houses which send it forth? To what place is it hastening? How is it that it is never exhausted here, and never overflows there? All this comes from that first command; it was for the waters a signal for their course.

In all the story of the waters remember this first order, let the waters be gathered together. To take their assigned places they were obliged to flow, and, once arrived there, to remain in their place and not to go farther. Thus in the language of Ecclesiastes, All the waters run into the sea; yet the sea is not full. Ecclesiastes 1:6-7 Waters flow in virtue of God's order, and the sea is enclosed in limits according to this first law, Let the waters be gathered together unto one place. For fear the water should spread beyond its bed, and in its successive invasions cover one by one all countries, and end by flooding the whole earth, it received the order to gather unto one place. Thus we often see the furious sea raising mighty waves to the heaven, and, when once it has touched the shore, break its impetuosity in foam and retire. Fear ye not me, says the Lord....which have placed the sand for the bound of the sea. Jeremiah 5:22 A grain of sand, the weakest thing possible, curbs the violence of the ocean. For what would prevent the Red Sea from invading the whole of Egypt, which lies lower, and uniting itself to the other sea which bathes its shores, were it not fettered by the fiat of the Creator? And if I say that Egypt is lower than the Red Sea, it is because experience has convinced us of it every time that an attempt has been made to join the sea of Egypt to the Indian Ocean, of which the Red Sea is a part. Thus we have renounced this enterprise, as also have the Egyptian Sesostris, who conceived the idea, and Darius the Mede who afterwards wished to carry it out.

I report this fact to make you understand the full force of the command, Let the waters be gathered unto one place; that is to say, let there be no other gathering, and, once gathered, let them not disperse.

And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering of the waters He called Seas. Previously, indeed, He called this entire more solid part of the world Earth for distinction, when He said: In the beginning, God created the heaven and the Earth; and the Earth was without form and void. But now, after the world began to be formed, and when the waters retreated to their place, the surface of the Earth appeared. For distinction of the part still covered by waters, the other portion, which was dry, received the name Earth; hence it was called in Latin, because it is trodden by the feet of living creatures. The gatherings of the waters are called Seas, namely for the most part. For also among the Hebrews, all gatherings of waters, whether salty or fresh, are said to be called Seas. Aptly, He who first, because of the continuation of all waters on Earth, stated they were gathered into one place, now also names their gatherings of waters in the plural, and says these are called Seas in the plural, because of their manifold inlets, which themselves acquire names according to the regions.

And God saw that it was good. The Earth was not yet producing herbs, nor had it yet, whether by itself or the waters, brought forth living creatures, and yet God is said to have seen that it was good, with the waters receding and the dry land appearing. Because the Creator of waters and the Estimator of the universe, foreseeing what was to be, praises as perfect that which was still in the beginning of the first work. And it is no wonder for Him, for whom the perfection of things lies not in the completion of the work but in His predestined will.

(10) And he called the gatherings of waters seas. It should be noted that every gathering of waters, whether they be salty or fresh, according to the language of the Hebrews, are called seas. Therefore, Porphyry falsely accuses the Evangelists of ignorance in performing a miracle, because the Lord walked on the sea, that he called the lake of Genezareth a sea, when every lake and gathering of waters are called seas.

The dry land, after the water was removed from it, did not continue further as "dry land" but was named "earth" by God. In this manner also our bodies, if this separation from them takes place, will no longer remain "dry land." They will, on the contrary, be called "earth" because they can now bear fruit for God.

It was when the waters were withdrawn into their hollow abysses that the dry land became conspicuous, which was hitherto covered with its watery envelope. Then it forthwith becomes "visible," God saying, "Let the water be gathered together into one mass, and let the dry land appear." "Appear," says He, not "be made." It had been already made, only in its invisible condition it was then waiting to appear. "Dry," because it was about to become such by its severance from the moisture, but yet "land." "And God called the dry land Earth," not Matter. And so, when it afterwards attains its perfection, it ceases to be accounted void, when God declares, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed after its kind, and according to its likeness, and the fruit-tree yielding fruit, whose seed is in itself, after its kind."

And God called the dry land, Earth: According to Augustine (De Gen. Contr. Manich. i), primary matter is meant by the word earth, where first mentioned, but in the present passage it is to be taken for the element itself. Again it may be said with Basil (Hom. iv in Hexaem.), that the earth is mentioned in the first passage in respect of its nature, but here in respect of its principal property, namely, dryness. Wherefore it is written: "He called the dry land, Earth." It may also be said with Rabbi Moses, that the expression, "He called," denotes throughout an equivocal use of the name imposed. Thus we find it said at first that "He called the light Day": for the reason that later on a period of twenty-four hours is also called day, where it is said that "there was evening and morning, one day." In like manner it is said that "the firmament," that is, the air, "He called heaven": for that which was first created was also called "heaven." And here, again, it is said that "the dry land," that is, the part from which the waters had withdrawn, "He called, Earth," as distinct from the sea; although the name earth is equally applied to that which is covered with waters or not. So by the expression "He called" we are to understand throughout that the nature or property He bestowed corresponded to the name He gave. The gathering together of the waters He called Seas: That the waters occupied more places than one seems to be implied by the words that follow, "The gathering together of the waters He called Seas."

Here we must note the plan of the Ruler of the world. Since the crops and trees created are different in species from earth and water and so cannot be counted among the elements, the decree by which they are to proceed from the earth is given separately, and the customary phrases describing their creation are put down separately. Thus Scripture says, "And so it was done," and then there is a repetition of what was done. There is separate mention also of the fact that God saw that it was good. But since these creatures cling fast to the earth and are joined to it by their roots, God wished them also to belong to the same day [of creation].

1. At the shows in the circus the spectator must join in the efforts of the athletes. This the laws of the show indicate, for they prescribe that all should have the head uncovered when present at the stadium. The object of this, in my opinion, is that each one there should not only be a spectator of the athletes, but be, in a certain measure, a true athlete himself. Thus, to investigate the great and prodigious show of creation, to understand supreme and ineffable wisdom, you must bring personal light for the contemplation of the wonders which I spread before your eyes, and help me, according to your power, in this struggle, where you are not so much judges as fellow combatants, for fear lest the truth might escape you, and lest my error might turn to your common prejudice. Why these words? It is because we propose to study the world as a whole, and to consider the universe, not by the light of worldly wisdom, but by that with which God wills to enlighten His servant, when He speaks to him in person and without enigmas. It is because it is absolutely necessary that all lovers of great and grand shows should bring a mind well prepared to study them. If sometimes, on a bright night, while gazing with watchful eyes on the inexpressible beauty of the stars, you have thought of the Creator of all things; if you have asked yourself who it is that has dotted heaven with such flowers, and why visible things are even more useful than beautiful; if sometimes, in the day, you have studied the marvels of light, if you have raised yourself by visible things to the invisible Being, then you are a well prepared auditor, and you can take your place in this august and blessed amphitheatre. Come in the same way that any one not knowing a town is taken by the hand and led through it; thus I am going to lead you, like strangers, through the mysterious marvels of this great city of the universe. Our first country was in this great city, whence the murderous dæmon whose enticements seduced man to slavery expelled us. There you will see man's first origin and his immediate seizure by death, brought forth by sin, the first born of the evil spirit. You will know that you are formed of earth, but the work of God's hands; much weaker than the brute, but ordained to command beings without reason and soul; inferior as regards natural advantages, but, thanks to the privilege of reason, capable of raising yourself to heaven. If we are penetrated by these truths, we shall know ourselves, we shall know God, we shall adore our Creator, we shall serve our Master, we shall glorify our Father, we shall love our Sustainer, we shall bless our Benefactor, we shall not cease to honour the Prince of present and future life, Who, by the riches that He showers upon us in this world, makes us believe in His promises and uses present good things to strengthen our expectation of the future. Truly, if such are the good things of time, what will be those of eternity? If such is the beauty of visible things, what shall we think of invisible things? If the grandeur of heaven exceeds the measure of human intelligence, what mind shall be able to trace the nature of the everlasting? If the sun, subject to corruption, is so beautiful, so grand, so rapid in its movement, so invariable in its course; if its grandeur is in such perfect harmony with and due proportion to the universe: if, by the beauty of its nature, it shines like a brilliant eye in the middle of creation; if finally, one cannot tire of contemplating it, what will be the beauty of the Sun of Righteousness? If the blind man suffers from not seeing the material sun, what a deprivation is it for the sinner not to enjoy the true light!

9. But what need is there to continue, when in the same fig tree we have the most opposite flavours, as bitter in the sap as it is sweet in the fruit? And in the vine, is it not as sweet in the grapes as it is astringent in the branches? And what a variety of colour! Look how in a meadow this same water becomes red in one flower, purple in another, blue in this one, white in that. And this diversity of colours, is it to be compared to that of scents? But I perceive that an insatiable curiosity is drawing out my discourse beyond its limits. If I do not stop and recall it to the law of creation, day will fail me while making you see great wisdom in small things.

Let the earth bring forth the fruit tree yielding fruit. Immediately the tops of the mountains were covered with foliage: paradises were artfully laid out, and an infinitude of plants embellished the banks of the rivers. Some were for the adornment of man's table; some to nourish animals with their fruits and their leaves; some to provide medicinal help by giving us their sap, their juice, their chips, their bark or their fruit. In a word, the experience of ages, profiting from every chance, has not been able to discover anything useful, which the penetrating foresight of the Creator did not first perceive and call into existence. Therefore, when you see the trees in our gardens, or those of the forest, those which love the water or the land, those which bear flowers, or those which do not flower, I should like to see you recognising grandeur even in small objects, adding incessantly to your admiration of, and redoubling your love for the Creator. Ask yourself why He has made some trees evergreen and others deciduous; why, among the first, some lose their leaves, and others always keep them. Thus the olive and the pine shed their leaves, although they renew them insensibly and never appear to be despoiled of their verdure. The palm tree, on the contrary, from its birth to its death, is always adorned with the same foliage. Think again of the double life of the tamarisk; it is an aquatic plant, and yet it covers the desert. Thus, Jeremiah compares it to the worst of characters— the double character.

10. Let the earth bring forth. This short command was in a moment a vast nature, an elaborate system. Swifter than thought it produced the countless qualities of plants. It is this command which, still at this day, is imposed on the earth, and in the course of each year displays all the strength of its power to produce herbs, seeds and trees. Like tops, which after the first impulse, continue their evolutions, turning upon themselves when once fixed in their centre; thus nature, receiving the impulse of this first command, follows without interruption the course of ages, until the consummation of all things. Let us all hasten to attain to it, full of fruit and of good works; and thus, planted in the house of the Lord we shall flourish in the court of our God, in our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and power for ever and ever. Amen.

8. Plants reproduce themselves in so many different ways, that we can only touch upon the chief among them. As to fruits themselves, who could review their varieties, their forms, their colours, the peculiar flavour, and the use of each of them? Why do some fruits ripen when exposed bare to the rays of the sun, while others fill out while encased in shells? Trees of which the fruit is tender have, like the fig tree, a thick shade of leaves; those, on the contrary, of which the fruits are stouter, like the nut, are only covered by a light shade. The delicacy of the first requires more care; if the latter had a thicker case, the shade of the leaves would be harmful. Why is the vine leaf serrated, if not that the bunches of grapes may at the same time resist the injuries of the air and receive through the openings all the rays of the sun? Nothing has been done without motive, nothing by chance. All shows ineffable wisdom.

What discourse can touch all? Can the human mind make an exact review, remark every distinctive property, exhibit all the differences, unveil with certainty so many mysterious causes? The same water, pumped up through the root, nourishes in a different way the root itself, the bark of the trunk, the wood and the pith. It becomes leaf, it distributes itself among the branches and twigs and makes the fruits swell— it gives to the plant its gum and its sap. Who will explain to us the difference between all these? There is a difference between the gum of the mastich and the juice of the balsam, a difference between that which distils in Egypt and Libya from the fennel. Amber is, they say, the crystallized sap of plants. And for a proof, see the bits of straws and little insects which have been caught in the sap while still liquid and imprisoned there. In one word, no one without long experience could find terms to express the virtue of it. How, again, does this water become wine in the vine, and oil in the olive tree? Yet what is marvellous is, not to see it become sweet in one fruit, fat and unctuous in another, but to see in sweet fruits an inexpressible variety of flavour. There is one sweetness of the grape, another of the apple, another of the fig, another of the date. I shall willingly give you the gratification of continuing this research. How is it that this same water has sometimes a sweet taste, softened by its remaining in certain plants, and at other times stings the palate because it has become acid by passing through others? How is it, again, that it attains extreme bitterness, and makes the mouth rough when it is found in wormwood and in scammony? That it has in acorns and dogwood a sharp and rough flavour? That in the turpentine tree and the walnut tree it is changed into a soft and oily matter?

3. Up to this point, the order in which plants shoot bears witness to their first arrangement. Every herb, every plant proceeds from a germ. If, like the couch-grass and the crocus, it throws out a shoot from its root and from this lower protuberance, it must always germinate and start outwards. If it proceeds from a seed, there is still, by necessity, first a germ, then the sprout, then green foliage, and finally the fruit which ripens upon a stalk hitherto dry and thick. Let the earth bring forth grass. When the seed falls into the earth, which contains the right combination of heat and moisture, it swells and becomes porous, and, grasping the surrounding earth, attracts to itself all that is suitable for it and that has affinity to it. These particles of earth, however small they may be, as they fall and insinuate themselves into all the pores of the seed, broaden its bulk and make it send forth roots below, and shoot upwards, sending forth stalks no less numerous than the roots. As the germ is always growing warm, the moisture, pumped up through the roots, and helped by the attraction of heat, draws a proper amount of nourishment from the soil, and distributes it to the stem, to the bark, to the husk, to the seed itself and to the beards with which it is armed. It is owing to these successive accretions that each plant attains its natural development, as well grain as vegetables, herbs or brushwood. A single plant, a blade of grass is sufficient to occupy all your intelligence in the contemplation of the skill which produced it. Why is the wheat stalk better with joints? Are they not like fastenings, which help it to bear easily the weight of the ear, when it is swollen with fruit and bends towards the earth? Thus, while oats, which have no weight to bear at the top, are without these supports, nature has provided them for wheat. It has hidden the grain in a case, so that it may not be exposed to birds' pillage, and has furnished it with a rampart of barbs, which, like darts, protect it against the attacks of tiny creatures.

4. What shall I say? What shall I leave unsaid? In the rich treasures of creation it is difficult to select what is most precious; the loss of what is omitted is too severe. Let the earth bring forth grass; and instantly, with useful plants, appear noxious plants; with grain, hemlock; with the other nutritious plants, hellebore, monkshood, mandrake and the juice of the poppy. What then? Shall we show no gratitude for so many beneficial gifts, and reproach the Creator for those which may be harmful to our life? And shall we not reflect that all has not been created in view of the wants of our bellies? The nourishing plants, which are destined for our use, are close at hand, and known by all the world. But in creation nothing exists without a reason. The blood of the bull is a poison: ought this animal then, whose strength is so serviceable to man, not to have been created, or, if created, to have been bloodless? But you have sense enough in yourself to keep you free from deadly things. What! Sheep and goats know how to turn away from what threatens their life, discerning danger by instinct alone: and you, who have reason and the art of medicine to supply what you need, and the experience of your forebears to tell you to avoid all that is dangerous, you tell me that you find it difficult to keep yourself from poisons! But not a single thing has been created without reason, not a single thing is useless. One serves as food to some animal; medicine has found in another a relief for one of our maladies. Thus the starling eats hemlock, its constitution rendering it insusceptible to the action of the poison. Thanks to the tenuity of the pores of its heart, the malignant juice is no sooner swallowed than it is digested, before its chill can attack the vital parts. The quail, thanks to its peculiar temperament, whereby it escapes the dangerous effects, feeds on hellebore. There are even circumstances where poisons are useful to men; with mandrake doctors give us sleep; with opium they lull violent pain. Hemlock has ere now been used to appease the rage of unruly diseases; and many times hellebore has taken away long standing disease. These plants, then, instead of making you accuse the Creator, give you a new subject for gratitude.

5. Let the earth bring forth grass. What spontaneous provision is included in these words—that which is present in the root, in the plant itself, and in the fruit, as well as that which our labour and husbandry add! God did not command the earth immediately to give forth seed and fruit, but to produce germs, to grow green, and to arrive at maturity in the seed; so that this first command teaches nature what she has to do in the course of ages. But, they ask, is it true that the earth produces seed after his kind, when often, after having sown wheat, we gather black grain? This is not a change of kind, but an alteration, a disease of the grain. It has not ceased to be wheat; it is on account of having been burnt that it is black, as one can learn from its name. If a severe frost had burnt it, it would have had another colour and a different flavour. They even pretend that, if it could find suitable earth and moderate temperature, it might return to its first form. Thus, you find nothing in nature contrary to the divine command. As to the darnel and all those bastard grains which mix themselves with the harvest, the tares of Scripture, far from being a variety of grain, have their own origin and their own kind; image of those who alter the doctrine of the Lord and, not being rightly instructed in the word, but, corrupted by the teaching of the evil one, mix themselves with the sound body of the Church to spread their pernicious errors secretly among purer souls. The Lord thus compares the perfection of those who believe in Him to the growth of seed, as if a man should cast seed into the ground; and should sleep and rise, night and day, and the seed should spring and grow up, he knows not how. For the earth brings forth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the ear, after that the full grain in the ear. Matthew 4:26-28 Let the earth bring forth grass. In a moment earth began by germination to obey the laws of the Creator, completed every stage of growth, and brought germs to perfection. The meadows were covered with deep grass, the fertile plains quivered with harvests, and the movement of the grain was like the waving of the sea. Every plant, every herb, the smallest shrub, the least vegetable, arose from the earth in all its luxuriance. There was no failure in this first vegetation: no husbandman's inexperience, no inclemency of the weather, nothing could injure it; then the sentence of condemnation was not fettering the earth's fertility. All this was before the sin which condemned us to eat our bread by the sweat of our brow.

Now there is such a variety of fruits in fruit trees that it is beyond all expression; a variety not only in the fruits of trees of different families, but even in those of the same species, if it be true, as gardeners say, that the sex of a tree influences the character of its fruits. They distinguish male from female in palms; sometimes we see those which they call female lower their branches, as though with passionate desire, and invite the embraces of the male. Then, those who take care of these plants shake over these palms the fertilizing dust from the male palm-tree, the psen as they call it: the tree appears to share the pleasures of enjoyment; then it raises its branches, and its foliage resumes its usual form. The same is said of the fig tree. Some plant wild fig trees near cultivated fig trees, and there are others who, to remedy the weakness of the productive fig tree of our gardens, attach to the branches unripe figs and so retain the fruit which had already begun to drop and to be lost. What lesson does nature here give us? That we must often borrow, even from those who are strangers to the faith, a certain vigour to show forth good works. If you see outside the Church, in pagan life, or in the midst of a pernicious heresy, the example of virtue and fidelity to moral laws, redouble your efforts to resemble the productive fig tree, who by the side of the wild fig tree, gains strength, prevents the fruit from being shed, and nourishes it with more care.

At this command every copse was thickly planted; all the trees, fir, cedar, cypress, pine, rose to their greatest height, the shrubs were straightway clothed with thick foliage. The plants called crown-plants, roses, myrtles, laurels, did not exist; in one moment they came into being, each one with its distinctive peculiarities. Most marked differences separated them from other plants, and each one was distinguished by a character of its own. But then the rose was without thorns; since then the thorn has been added to its beauty, to make us feel that sorrow is very near to pleasure, and to remind us of our sin, which condemned the earth to produce thorns and caltrops. But, they say, the earth has received the command to produce trees yielding fruit whose seed was in itself, and we see many trees which have neither fruit, nor seed. What shall we reply? First, that only the more important trees are mentioned; and then, that a careful examination will show us that every tree has seed, or some property which takes the place of it. The black poplar, the willow, the elm, the white poplar, all the trees of this family, do not produce any apparent fruit; however, an attentive observer finds seed in each of them. This grain which is at the base of the leaf, and which those who busy themselves with inventing words call mischos, has the property of seed. And there are trees which reproduce by their branches, throwing out roots from them. Perhaps we ought even to consider as seeds the saplings which spring from the roots of a tree: for cultivators tear them out to multiply the species. But, we have already said, it is chiefly a question of the trees which contribute most to our life; which offer their various fruits to man and provide him with plentiful nourishment. Such is the vine, which produces wine to make glad the heart of man; such is the olive tree, whose fruit brightens his face with oil. How many things in nature are combined in the same plant! In a vine, roots, green and flexible branches, which spread themselves far over the earth, buds, tendrils, bunches of sour grapes and ripe grapes. The sight of a vine, when observed by an intelligent eye, serves to remind you of your nature. Without doubt you remember the parable where the Lord calls Himself a vine and His Father the husbandman, and every one of us who are grafted by faith into the Church the branches. He invites us to produce fruits in abundance, for fear lest our sterility should condemn us to the fire. cf.John 15:1-6 He constantly compares our souls to vines. My well beloved, says He, has a vineyard in a very fruitfull hill, Isaiah 5:1 and elsewhere, I have planted a vineyard and hedged it round about. Matthew 21:33 Evidently He calls human souls His vine, those souls whom He has surrounded with the authority of His precepts and a guard of angels. The angel of the Lord encamps round about them that fear him. And further: He has planted for us, so to say, props, in establishing in His Church apostles, prophets, teachers; and raising our thoughts by the example of the blessed in olden times, He has not allowed them to drag on the earth and be crushed under foot. He wishes that the claspings of love, like the tendrils of the vine, should attach us to our neighbours and make us rest on them, so that, in our continual aspirations towards heaven, we may imitate these vines, which raise themselves to the tops of the tallest trees. He also asks us to allow ourselves to be dug about; and that is what the soul does when it disembarrasses itself from the cares of the world, which are a weight on our hearts. He, then, who is freed from carnal affections and from the love of riches, and, far from being dazzled by them, disdains and despises this miserable vain glory, is, so to say, dug about and at length breathes, free from the useless weight of earthly thoughts. Nor must we, in the spirit of the parable, put forth too much wood, that is to say, live with ostentation, and gain the applause of the world; we must bring forth fruits, keeping the proof of our works for the husbandman. Be like a green olive tree in the house of God, never destitute of hope, but decked through faith with the bloom of salvation. Thus you will resemble the eternal verdure of this plant and will rival it in fruitfulness, if each day sees you giving abundantly in alms.

2. Let the earth bring forth grass yielding seed after his kind. So that although some kind of grass is of service to animals, even their gain is our gain too, and seeds are especially designed for our use. Such is the true meaning of the words that I have quoted. Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed after his kind. In this manner we can re-establish the order of the words, of which the construction seems faulty in the actual version, and the economy of nature will be rigorously observed. In fact, first comes germination, then verdure, then the growth of the plant, which after having attained its full growth arrives at perfection in seed.

How then, they say, can Scripture describe all the plants of the earth as seed-bearing, when the reed, couch-grass, mint, crocus, garlic, and the flowering rush and countless other species, produce no seed? To this we reply that many vegetables have their seminal virtue in the lower part and in the roots. The need, for example, after its annual growth sends forth a protuberance from its roots, which takes the place of seed for future trees. Numbers of other vegetables are the same and all over the earth reproduce by the roots. Nothing then is truer than that each plant produces its seed or contains some seminal virtue; this is what is meant by after its kind. So that the shoot of a reed does not produce an olive tree, but from a reed grows another reed, and from one sort of seed a plant of the same sort always germinates. Thus, all which sprang from the earth, in its first bringing forth, is kept the same to our time, thanks to the constant reproduction of kind.

Let the earth bring forth. See how, at this short word, at this brief command, the cold and sterile earth travailed and hastened to bring forth its fruit, as it cast away its sad and dismal covering to clothe itself in a more brilliant robe, proud of its proper adornment and displaying the infinite variety of plants.

I want creation to penetrate you with so much admiration that everywhere, wherever you may be, the least plant may bring to you the clear remembrance of the Creator. If you see the grass of the fields, think of human nature, and remember the comparison of the wise Isaiah. All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field. Truly the rapid flow of life, the short gratification and pleasure that an instant of happiness gives a man, all wonderfully suit the comparison of the prophet. Today he is vigorous in body, fattened by luxury, and in the prime of life, with complexion fair like the flowers, strong and powerful and of irresistible energy; tomorrow and he will be an object of pity, withered by age or exhausted by sickness. Another shines in all the splendour of a brilliant fortune, and around him are a multitude of flatterers, an escort of false friends on the track of his good graces; a crowd of kinsfolk, but of no true kin; a swarm of servants who crowd after him to provide for his food and for all his needs; and in his comings and goings this innumerable suite, which he drags after him, excites the envy of all whom he meets. To fortune may be added power in the State, honours bestowed by the imperial throne, the government of a province, or the command of armies; a herald who precedes him is crying in a loud voice; lictors right and left also fill his subjects with awe, blows, confiscations, banishments, imprisonments, and all the means by which he strikes intolerable terror into all whom he has to rule. And what then? One night, a fever, a pleurisy, or an inflammation of the lungs, snatches away this man from the midst of men, stripped in a moment of all his stage accessories, and all this, his glory, is proved a mere dream. Therefore the Prophet has compared human glory to the weakest flower.

It was deep wisdom that commanded the earth, when it rested after discharging the weight of the waters, first to bring forth grass, then wood as we see it doing still at this time. For the voice that was then heard and this command were as a natural and permanent law for it; it gave fertility and the power to produce fruit for all ages to come; Let the earth bring forth. The production of vegetables shows first germination. When the germs begin to sprout they form grass; this develops and becomes a plant, which insensibly receives its different articulations, and reaches its maturity in the seed. Thus all things which sprout and are green are developed. Let the earth bring forth green grass. Let the earth bring forth by itself without having any need of help from without. Some consider the sun as the source of all productiveness on the earth. It is, they say, the action of the sun's heat which attracts the vital force from the centre of the earth to the surface. The reason why the adornment of the earth was before the sun is the following; that those who worship the sun, as the source of life, may renounce their error. If they be well persuaded that the earth was adorned before the genesis of the sun, they will retract their unbounded admiration for it, because they see grass and plants vegetate before it rose. If then the food for the flocks was prepared, did our race appear less worthy of a like solicitude? He, who provided pasture for horses and cattle, thought before all of your riches and pleasures. If he fed your cattle, it was to provide for all the needs of your life. And what object was there in the bringing forth of grain, if not for your subsistence? Moreover, many grasses and vegetables serve for the food of man.

7. But let us return to the examination of the ingenious contrivances of creation. How many trees then arose, some to give us their fruits, others to roof our houses, others to build our ships, others to feed our fires! What a variety in the disposition of their several parts! And yet, how difficult is it to find the distinctive property of each of them, and to grasp the difference which separates them from other species. Some strike deep roots, others do not; some shoot straight up and have only one stem, others appear to love the earth and, from their root upwards, divide into several shoots. Those whose long branches stretch up afar into the air, have also deep roots which spread within a large circumference, a true foundation placed by nature to support the weight of the tree. What variety there is in bark! Some plants have smooth bark, others rough, some have only one layer, others several. What a marvellous thing! You may find in the youth and age of plants resemblances to those of man. Young and vigorous, their bark is distended; when they grow old, it is rough and wrinkled. Cut one, it sends forth new buds; the other remains henceforward sterile and as if struck with a mortal wound. But further, it has been observed that pines, cut down, or even submitted to the action of fire, are changed into a forest of oaks. We know besides that the industry of agriculturists remedies the natural defects of certain trees. Thus the sharp pomegranate and bitter almonds, if the trunk of the tree is pierced near the root to introduce into the middle of the pith a fat plug of pine, lose the acidity of their juice, and become delicious fruits. Let not the sinner then despair of himself, when he thinks, if agriculture can change the juices of plants, the efforts of the soul to arrive at virtue, can certainly triumph over all infirmities.

1. It was deep wisdom that commanded the earth, when it rested after discharging the weight of the waters, first to bring forth grass, then wood as we see it doing still at this time. For the voice that was then heard and this command were as a natural and permanent law for it; it gave fertility and the power to produce fruit for all ages to come; Let the earth bring forth. The production of vegetables shows first germination. When the germs begin to sprout they form grass; this develops and becomes a plant, which insensibly receives its different articulations, and reaches its maturity in the seed. Thus all things which sprout and are green are developed. Let the earth bring forth green grass. Let the earth bring forth by itself without having any need of help from without. Some consider the sun as the source of all productiveness on the earth. It is, they say, the action of the sun's heat which attracts the vital force from the centre of the earth to the surface. The reason why the adornment of the earth was before the sun is the following; that those who worship the sun, as the source of life, may renounce their error. If they be well persuaded that the earth was adorned before the genesis of the sun, they will retract their unbounded admiration for it, because they see grass and plants vegetate before it rose. If then the food for the flocks was prepared, did our race appear less worthy of a like solicitude? He, who provided pasture for horses and cattle, thought before all of your riches and pleasures. If he fed your cattle, it was to provide for all the needs of your life. And what object was there in the bringing forth of grain, if not for your subsistence? Moreover, many grasses and vegetables serve for the food of man. 2. Let the earth bring forth grass yielding seed after his kind. So that although some kind of grass is of service to animals, even their gain is our gain too, and seeds are especially designed for our use. Such is the true meaning of the words that I have quoted. Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed after his kind. In this manner we can re-establish the order of the words, of which the construction seems faulty in the actual version, and the economy of nature will be rigorously observed. In fact, first comes germination, then verdure, then the growth of the plant, which after having attained its full growth arrives at perfection in seed. How then, they say, can Scripture describe all the plants of the earth as seed-bearing, when the reed, couch-grass, mint, crocus, garlic, and the flowering rush and countless other species, produce no seed? To this we reply that many vegetables have their seminal virtue in the lower part and in the roots. The need, for example, after its annual growth sends forth a protuberance from its roots, which takes the place of seed for future trees. Numbers of other vegetables are the same and all over the earth reproduce by the roots. Nothing then is truer than that each plant produces its seed or contains some seminal virtue; this is what is meant by after its kind. So that the shoot of a reed does not produce an olive tree, but from a reed grows another reed, and from one sort of seed a plant of the same sort always germinates. Thus, all which sprang from the earth, in its first bringing forth, is kept the same to our time, thanks to the constant reproduction of kind. Let the earth bring forth. See how, at this short word, at this brief command, the cold and sterile earth travailed and hastened to bring forth its fruit, as it cast away its sad and dismal covering to clothe itself in a more brilliant robe, proud of its proper adornment and displaying the infinite variety of plants. I want creation to penetrate you with so much admiration that everywhere, wherever you may be, the least plant may bring to you the clear remembrance of the Creator. If you see the grass of the fields, think of human nature, and remember the comparison of the wise Isaiah. All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field. Truly the rapid flow of life, the short gratification and pleasure that an instant of happiness gives a man, all wonderfully suit the comparison of the prophet. Today he is vigorous in body, fattened by luxury, and in the prime of life, with complexion fair like the flowers, strong and powerful and of irresistible energy; tomorrow and he will be an object of pity, withered by age or exhausted by sickness. Another shines in all the splendour of a brilliant fortune, and around him are a multitude of flatterers, an escort of false friends on the track of his good graces; a crowd of kinsfolk, but of no true kin; a swarm of servants who crowd after him to provide for his food and for all his needs; and in his comings and goings this innumerable suite, which he drags after him, excites the envy of all whom he meets. To fortune may be added power in the State, honours bestowed by the imperial throne, the government of a province, or the command of armies; a herald who precedes him is crying in a loud voice; lictors right and left also fill his subjects with awe, blows, confiscations, banishments, imprisonments, and all the means by which he strikes intolerable terror into all whom he has to rule. And what then? One night, a fever, a pleurisy, or an inflammation of the lungs, snatches away this man from the midst of men, stripped in a moment of all his stage accessories, and all this, his glory, is proved a mere dream. Therefore the Prophet has compared human glory to the weakest flower. 3. Up to this point, the order in which plants shoot bears witness to their first arrangement. Every herb, every plant proceeds from a germ. If, like the couch-grass and the crocus, it throws out a shoot from its root and from this lower protuberance, it must always germinate and start outwards. If it proceeds from a seed, there is still, by necessity, first a germ, then the sprout, then green foliage, and finally the fruit which ripens upon a stalk hitherto dry and thick. Let the earth bring forth grass. When the seed falls into the earth, which contains the right combination of heat and moisture, it swells and becomes porous, and, grasping the surrounding earth, attracts to itself all that is suitable for it and that has affinity to it. These particles of earth, however small they may be, as they fall and insinuate themselves into all the pores of the seed, broaden its bulk and make it send forth roots below, and shoot upwards, sending forth stalks no less numerous than the roots. As the germ is always growing warm, the moisture, pumped up through the roots, and helped by the attraction of heat, draws a proper amount of nourishment from the soil, and distributes it to the stem, to the bark, to the husk, to the seed itself and to the beards with which it is armed. It is owing to these successive accretions that each plant attains its natural development, as well grain as vegetables, herbs or brushwood. A single plant, a blade of grass is sufficient to occupy all your intelligence in the contemplation of the skill which produced it. Why is the wheat stalk better with joints? Are they not like fastenings, which help it to bear easily the weight of the ear, when it is swollen with fruit and bends towards the earth? Thus, while oats, which have no weight to bear at the top, are without these supports, nature has provided them for wheat. It has hidden the grain in a case, so that it may not be exposed to birds' pillage, and has furnished it with a rampart of barbs, which, like darts, protect it against the attacks of tiny creatures. 4. What shall I say? What shall I leave unsaid? In the rich treasures of creation it is difficult to select what is most precious; the loss of what is omitted is too severe. Let the earth bring forth grass; and instantly, with useful plants, appear noxious plants; with grain, hemlock; with the other nutritious plants, hellebore, monkshood, mandrake and the juice of the poppy. What then? Shall we show no gratitude for so many beneficial gifts, and reproach the Creator for those which may be harmful to our life? And shall we not reflect that all has not been created in view of the wants of our bellies? The nourishing plants, which are destined for our use, are close at hand, and known by all the world. But in creation nothing exists without a reason. The blood of the bull is a poison: ought this animal then, whose strength is so serviceable to man, not to have been created, or, if created, to have been bloodless? But you have sense enough in yourself to keep you free from deadly things. What! Sheep and goats know how to turn away from what threatens their life, discerning danger by instinct alone: and you, who have reason and the art of medicine to supply what you need, and the experience of your forebears to tell you to avoid all that is dangerous, you tell me that you find it difficult to keep yourself from poisons! But not a single thing has been created without reason, not a single thing is useless. One serves as food to some animal; medicine has found in another a relief for one of our maladies. Thus the starling eats hemlock, its constitution rendering it insusceptible to the action of the poison. Thanks to the tenuity of the pores of its heart, the malignant juice is no sooner swallowed than it is digested, before its chill can attack the vital parts. The quail, thanks to its peculiar temperament, whereby it escapes the dangerous effects, feeds on hellebore. There are even circumstances where poisons are useful to men; with mandrake doctors give us sleep; with opium they lull violent pain. Hemlock has ere now been used to appease the rage of unruly diseases; and many times hellebore has taken away long standing disease. These plants, then, instead of making you accuse the Creator, give you a new subject for gratitude. 5. Let the earth bring forth grass. What spontaneous provision is included in these words—that which is present in the root, in the plant itself, and in the fruit, as well as that which our labour and husbandry add! God did not command the earth immediately to give forth seed and fruit, but to produce germs, to grow green, and to arrive at maturity in the seed; so that this first command teaches nature what she has to do in the course of ages. But, they ask, is it true that the earth produces seed after his kind, when often, after having sown wheat, we gather black grain? This is not a change of kind, but an alteration, a disease of the grain. It has not ceased to be wheat; it is on account of having been burnt that it is black, as one can learn from its name. If a severe frost had burnt it, it would have had another colour and a different flavour. They even pretend that, if it could find suitable earth and moderate temperature, it might return to its first form. Thus, you find nothing in nature contrary to the divine command. As to the darnel and all those bastard grains which mix themselves with the harvest, the tares of Scripture, far from being a variety of grain, have their own origin and their own kind; image of those who alter the doctrine of the Lord and, not being rightly instructed in the word, but, corrupted by the teaching of the evil one, mix themselves with the sound body of the Church to spread their pernicious errors secretly among purer souls. The Lord thus compares the perfection of those who believe in Him to the growth of seed, as if a man should cast seed into the ground; and should sleep and rise, night and day, and the seed should spring and grow up, he knows not how. For the earth brings forth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the ear, after that the full grain in the ear. Matthew 4:26-28 Let the earth bring forth grass. In a moment earth began by germination to obey the laws of the Creator, completed every stage of growth, and brought germs to perfection. The meadows were covered with deep grass, the fertile plains quivered with harvests, and the movement of the grain was like the waving of the sea. Every plant, every herb, the smallest shrub, the least vegetable, arose from the earth in all its luxuriance. There was no failure in this first vegetation: no husbandman's inexperience, no inclemency of the weather, nothing could injure it; then the sentence of condemnation was not fettering the earth's fertility. All this was before the sin which condemned us to eat our bread by the sweat of our brow. 6. Let the earth, the Creator adds, bring forth the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself. Genesis 1:11 At this command every copse was thickly planted; all the trees, fir, cedar, cypress, pine, rose to their greatest height, the shrubs were straightway clothed with thick foliage. The plants called crown-plants, roses, myrtles, laurels, did not exist; in one moment they came into being, each one with its distinctive peculiarities. Most marked differences separated them from other plants, and each one was distinguished by a character of its own. But then the rose was without thorns; since then the thorn has been added to its beauty, to make us feel that sorrow is very near to pleasure, and to remind us of our sin, which condemned the earth to produce thorns and caltrops. But, they say, the earth has received the command to produce trees yielding fruit whose seed was in itself, and we see many trees which have neither fruit, nor seed. What shall we reply? First, that only the more important trees are mentioned; and then, that a careful examination will show us that every tree has seed, or some property which takes the place of it. The black poplar, the willow, the elm, the white poplar, all the trees of this family, do not produce any apparent fruit; however, an attentive observer finds seed in each of them. This grain which is at the base of the leaf, and which those who busy themselves with inventing words call mischos, has the property of seed. And there are trees which reproduce by their branches, throwing out roots from them. Perhaps we ought even to consider as seeds the saplings which spring from the roots of a tree: for cultivators tear them out to multiply the species. But, we have already said, it is chiefly a question of the trees which contribute most to our life; which offer their various fruits to man and provide him with plentiful nourishment. Such is the vine, which produces wine to make glad the heart of man; such is the olive tree, whose fruit brightens his face with oil. How many things in nature are combined in the same plant! In a vine, roots, green and flexible branches, which spread themselves far over the earth, buds, tendrils, bunches of sour grapes and ripe grapes. The sight of a vine, when observed by an intelligent eye, serves to remind you of your nature. Without doubt you remember the parable where the Lord calls Himself a vine and His Father the husbandman, and every one of us who are grafted by faith into the Church the branches. He invites us to produce fruits in abundance, for fear lest our sterility should condemn us to the fire. cf.John 15:1-6 He constantly compares our souls to vines. My well beloved, says He, has a vineyard in a very fruitfull hill, Isaiah 5:1 and elsewhere, I have planted a vineyard and hedged it round about. Matthew 21:33 Evidently He calls human souls His vine, those souls whom He has surrounded with the authority of His precepts and a guard of angels. The angel of the Lord encamps round about them that fear him. And further: He has planted for us, so to say, props, in establishing in His Church apostles, prophets, teachers; and raising our thoughts by the example of the blessed in olden times, He has not allowed them to drag on the earth and be crushed under foot. He wishes that the claspings of love, like the tendrils of the vine, should attach us to our neighbours and make us rest on them, so that, in our continual aspirations towards heaven, we may imitate these vines, which raise themselves to the tops of the tallest trees. He also asks us to allow ourselves to be dug about; and that is what the soul does when it disembarrasses itself from the cares of the world, which are a weight on our hearts. He, then, who is freed from carnal affections and from the love of riches, and, far from being dazzled by them, disdains and despises this miserable vain glory, is, so to say, dug about and at length breathes, free from the useless weight of earthly thoughts. Nor must we, in the spirit of the parable, put forth too much wood, that is to say, live with ostentation, and gain the applause of the world; we must bring forth fruits, keeping the proof of our works for the husbandman. Be like a green olive tree in the house of God, never destitute of hope, but decked through faith with the bloom of salvation. Thus you will resemble the eternal verdure of this plant and will rival it in fruitfulness, if each day sees you giving abundantly in alms. 7. But let us return to the examination of the ingenious contrivances of creation. How many trees then arose, some to give us their fruits, others to roof our houses, others to build our ships, others to feed our fires! What a variety in the disposition of their several parts! And yet, how difficult is it to find the distinctive property of each of them, and to grasp the difference which separates them from other species. Some strike deep roots, others do not; some shoot straight up and have only one stem, others appear to love the earth and, from their root upwards, divide into several shoots. Those whose long branches stretch up afar into the air, have also deep roots which spread within a large circumference, a true foundation placed by nature to support the weight of the tree. What variety there is in bark! Some plants have smooth bark, others rough, some have only one layer, others several. What a marvellous thing! You may find in the youth and age of plants resemblances to those of man. Young and vigorous, their bark is distended; when they grow old, it is rough and wrinkled. Cut one, it sends forth new buds; the other remains henceforward sterile and as if struck with a mortal wound. But further, it has been observed that pines, cut down, or even submitted to the action of fire, are changed into a forest of oaks. We know besides that the industry of agriculturists remedies the natural defects of certain trees. Thus the sharp pomegranate and bitter almonds, if the trunk of the tree is pierced near the root to introduce into the middle of the pith a fat plug of pine, lose the acidity of their juice, and become delicious fruits. Let not the sinner then despair of himself, when he thinks, if agriculture can change the juices of plants, the efforts of the soul to arrive at virtue, can certainly triumph over all infirmities. Now there is such a variety of fruits in fruit trees that it is beyond all expression; a variety not only in the fruits of trees of different families, but even in those of the same species, if it be true, as gardeners say, that the sex of a tree influences the character of its fruits. They distinguish male from female in palms; sometimes we see those which they call female lower their branches, as though with passionate desire, and invite the embraces of the male. Then, those who take care of these plants shake over these palms the fertilizing dust from the male palm-tree, the psen as they call it: the tree appears to share the pleasures of enjoyment; then it raises its branches, and its foliage resumes its usual form. The same is said of the fig tree. Some plant wild fig trees near cultivated fig trees, and there are others who, to remedy the weakness of the productive fig tree of our gardens, attach to the branches unripe figs and so retain the fruit which had already begun to drop and to be lost. What lesson does nature here give us? That we must often borrow, even from those who are strangers to the faith, a certain vigour to show forth good works. If you see outside the Church, in pagan life, or in the midst of a pernicious heresy, the example of virtue and fidelity to moral laws, redouble your efforts to resemble the productive fig tree, who by the side of the wild fig tree, gains strength, prevents the fruit from being shed, and nourishes it with more care. 8. Plants reproduce themselves in so many different ways, that we can only touch upon the chief among them. As to fruits themselves, who could review their varieties, their forms, their colours, the peculiar flavour, and the use of each of them? Why do some fruits ripen when exposed bare to the rays of the sun, while others fill out while encased in shells? Trees of which the fruit is tender have, like the fig tree, a thick shade of leaves; those, on the contrary, of which the fruits are stouter, like the nut, are only covered by a light shade. The delicacy of the first requires more care; if the latter had a thicker case, the shade of the leaves would be harmful. Why is the vine leaf serrated, if not that the bunches of grapes may at the same time resist the injuries of the air and receive through the openings all the rays of the sun? Nothing has been done without motive, nothing by chance. All shows ineffable wisdom. What discourse can touch all? Can the human mind make an exact review, remark every distinctive property, exhibit all the differences, unveil with certainty so many mysterious causes? The same water, pumped up through the root, nourishes in a different way the root itself, the bark of the trunk, the wood and the pith. It becomes leaf, it distributes itself among the branches and twigs and makes the fruits swell— it gives to the plant its gum and its sap. Who will explain to us the difference between all these? There is a difference between the gum of the mastich and the juice of the balsam, a difference between that which distils in Egypt and Libya from the fennel. Amber is, they say, the crystallized sap of plants. And for a proof, see the bits of straws and little insects which have been caught in the sap while still liquid and imprisoned there. In one word, no one without long experience could find terms to express the virtue of it. How, again, does this water become wine in the vine, and oil in the olive tree? Yet what is marvellous is, not to see it become sweet in one fruit, fat and unctuous in another, but to see in sweet fruits an inexpressible variety of flavour. There is one sweetness of the grape, another of the apple, another of the fig, another of the date. I shall willingly give you the gratification of continuing this research. How is it that this same water has sometimes a sweet taste, softened by its remaining in certain plants, and at other times stings the palate because it has become acid by passing through others? How is it, again, that it attains extreme bitterness, and makes the mouth rough when it is found in wormwood and in scammony? That it has in acorns and dogwood a sharp and rough flavour? That in the turpentine tree and the walnut tree it is changed into a soft and oily matter? 9. But what need is there to continue, when in the same fig tree we have the most opposite flavours, as bitter in the sap as it is sweet in the fruit? And in the vine, is it not as sweet in the grapes as it is astringent in the branches? And what a variety of colour! Look how in a meadow this same water becomes red in one flower, purple in another, blue in this one, white in that. And this diversity of colours, is it to be compared to that of scents? But I perceive that an insatiable curiosity is drawing out my discourse beyond its limits. If I do not stop and recall it to the law of creation, day will fail me while making you see great wisdom in small things. Let the earth bring forth the fruit tree yielding fruit. Immediately the tops of the mountains were covered with foliage: paradises were artfully laid out, and an infinitude of plants embellished the banks of the rivers. Some were for the adornment of man's table; some to nourish animals with their fruits and their leaves; some to provide medicinal help by giving us their sap, their juice, their chips, their bark or their fruit. In a word, the experience of ages, profiting from every chance, has not been able to discover anything useful, which the penetrating foresight of the Creator did not first perceive and call into existence. Therefore, when you see the trees in our gardens, or those of the forest, those which love the water or the land, those which bear flowers, or those which do not flower, I should like to see you recognising grandeur even in small objects, adding incessantly to your admiration of, and redoubling your love for the Creator. Ask yourself why He has made some trees evergreen and others deciduous; why, among the first, some lose their leaves, and others always keep them. Thus the olive and the pine shed their leaves, although they renew them insensibly and never appear to be despoiled of their verdure. The palm tree, on the contrary, from its birth to its death, is always adorned with the same foliage. Think again of the double life of the tamarisk; it is an aquatic plant, and yet it covers the desert. Thus, Jeremiah compares it to the worst of characters— the double character. 10. Let the earth bring forth. This short command was in a moment a vast nature, an elaborate system. Swifter than thought it produced the countless qualities of plants. It is this command which, still at this day, is imposed on the earth, and in the course of each year displays all the strength of its power to produce herbs, seeds and trees. Like tops, which after the first impulse, continue their evolutions, turning upon themselves when once fixed in their centre; thus nature, receiving the impulse of this first command, follows without interruption the course of ages, until the consummation of all things. Let us all hasten to attain to it, full of fruit and of good works; and thus, planted in the house of the Lord we shall flourish in the court of our God, in our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and power for ever and ever. Amen.

After the earth, rid of the weight of the water, had rested, the command had come to it to bring forth first the herbs, then the trees. And this we see still happening even at the present time. For the voice that was then heard and the first command became, as it were, a law of nature and remained in the earth, giving it the power to produce and bear fruit for all succeeding time.

When the earth heard, "Let it bring forth vegetation and the fruit trees," it did not produce plants that it had hidden in it; nor did it send up to the surface the palm or the oak or the cypress that had been hidden somewhere down below in its womb. On the contrary, it is the divine Word that is the origin of things made.

And He said: Let the earth bring forth green plants producing seed, and fruit trees making fruit according to their kinds, whose seed is in itself upon the earth. And it was so. And the earth brought forth green plants, and bearing seed according to their kinds, and trees making fruit, each having seed according to its kind. And God saw that it was good, and the evening and the morning were the third day. It is clear from these words of God that the world's adornment was perfected in springtime. For it is in this season that green plants usually appear on the earth and trees are laden with fruit; and it is also noteworthy that the first sprouts of plants and trees did not come from seed, but emerged from the earth; for at one command of the Creator, the earth, which appeared dry, was suddenly adorned with plants and dressed with flowering groves, and these immediately produced from themselves fruit and seeds of their respective kinds. For it was necessary that each form of things should first proceed perfectly at the command of the Lord, just as man himself, for whom all things on earth were made, is believed to have been created perfectly, that is, in the age of youth.

The sacramental symbols are represented by the swarming of beings on earth, in this passage: "Let the earth bring forth vegetation." The manifold interpretations are signified by the seed, in this passage: "...containing their seed," etc. Who can know the infinity of seeds, when in a single one are contained forests of forests and thence seeds in infinite number? Likewise, out of Scriptures may be drawn an infinite number of interpretations which none but God can comprehend. For as new seeds come forth from plants, so also from Scriptures come forth new interpretations and new meanings, and thereby are Sacred Scriptures distinct from everything else. Hence, in relation to the interpretations yet to be drawn, we may compare to a single drop from the sea all those that have been drawn so far.

"Let the earth bring forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants," etc. It has been explained how, by the gathering of waters, spiritual meanings should be understood. Now it remains to explain how the sacramental figures are symbolized by the vegetation of the earth. For it is not without reason that the vegetation of the earth is seen to point to Sacred Scriptures, in the sense that it has a great number of figures that grow and produce a multiplication of thoughts in the soul.

Vegetation on earth is alive, generous, and lovely. Alive, that is, having strength: wherefore it produces the green herb. And by this it is shown that the sacraments of Scripture, which externally seem arid, are yet alive within.

Some people believe that these sacraments and these Scriptures were so composed that the man who wrote them merely placed one sentence after another. It is not so, for Scripture is supremely orderly, and its order is similar to that of nature in the development of vegetation on earth. First there was a fixing of roots; then the production of green foliage; third, a multiplication of fresh flowers; fourth, an abundance of restoring fruit. Likewise, in Scripture there is first a fixing of the roots of virtue, as in the Patriarchs who are in a sense the roots of all that is said in Scripture. Hence in their calling there is a first planting. But later, in the establishment of commands and sacrifices, there is a production of green foliage. Later still, in the manifestation of the prophetical visions, there is a multiplication of flowers. Finally, in the diffusion of spiritual charisms, there is an abundance of restoring fruit. And so, here there was first one Patriarch as a single root, that is, Abraham, then another, Isaac, and a third, Jacob. And he begot twelve patriarchs from whom came the Twelve Tribes. After this plantation there followed the Law as a production of green foliage, that gave shade. And because foliage is not to last forever, but is to be followed by flowers, there followed prophecy with both fragrance and beauty. And because it was fitting that the heavens distil dew, there followed in the fourth place a Fruit in Christ, because Christ is the fruit of the Law and its fulfillment.

"The earth brought forth vegetation, every kind of seed-bearing plant and all kinds of trees that bear fruit containing their seed," etc. Concerning this vision of the intelligence taught by Scripture, we have said of the spiritual interpretation that it was understood by means of the gathering of waters. Likewise, of the sacramental figure, that it was understood through the germination of the earth. We have spoken also of the theories that were understood both through the seed and through the fruit. For these theories reproduce in a manner related to seed, and they sustain in a manner related to food: wherefore they are understood partly under the aspect of seed and partly under the aspect of the germination of fruits. In terms of seed, they consist in correlations of times, by which times follow one another; in terms of the fruit of a tree they consist also in correlations of times, by which times correspond to one another. In the order of comparison of a tree or a seed to the seed, the times follow one another; in the order of comparison of the germ to the germinating, they correspond to each other.

And why doth He not make it of things that are not? Stopping the mouth of Marcion, and of Manichaeans, who alienate His creation from Him, and teaching by His very works, that even all the things that are seen are His works and creatures, and signifying that it is Himself who gives the fruits, who said at the beginning, "Let the earth put forth the herb of grass," and "Let the waters bring forth things moving with living souls."

For this is not at all a less work than the other. For though those were made of things that are not, yet nevertheless were they of water; and it was no greater thing to produce fruits out of the earth, and moving things with life out of the water, than out of five loaves to make so many; and of fishes again, which was a sign that He was ruler both of the earth and of the sea.

But concerning the production of plants, Augustine's opinion differs from that of others. For other commentators, in accordance with the surface meaning of the text, consider that the plants were produced in act in their various species on this third day; whereas Augustine (Gen. ad lit. v, 5; viii, 3) says that the earth is said to have then produced plants and trees in their causes, that is, it received then the power to produce them. He supports this view by the authority of Scripture, for it is said (Genesis 2:4-5): "These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that . . . God made the heaven and the earth, and every plant of the field before it sprung up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew." Therefore, the production of plants in their causes, within the earth, took place before they sprang up from the earth's surface. And this is confirmed by reason, as follows. In these first days God created all things in their origin or causes, and from this work He subsequently rested. Yet afterwards, by governing His creatures, in the work of propagation, "He worketh until now."Now the production of plants from out the earth is a work of propagation, and therefore they were not produced in act on the third day, but in their causes only. However, in accordance with other writers, it may be said that the first constitution of species belongs to the work of the six days, but the reproduction among them of like from like, to the government of the universe. And Scripture indicates this in the words, "before it sprung up in the earth," and "before it grew," that is, before like was produced from like; just as now happens in the natural course by the production of seed. Wherefore Scripture says pointedly (Genesis 1:11): "Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed," as indicating the production of perfection of perfect species, from which the seed of others should arise. Nor does the question where the seminal power may reside, whether in root, stem, or fruit, affect the argument.

Let everyone be informed that the sun is not the author of vegetation.… How can the sun give the faculty of life to growing plants when these have already been brought forth by the life-giving creative power of God before the sun entered into such a life as this? The sun is younger than the green shoot, younger than the green plant.

The Manichaeans are accustomed to say, "If God commanded that the edible plants and the fruit trees come forth from the earth, who commanded that there come forth so many thorny or poisonous plants that are useless for food and so many trees that bear no fruit?" … We should say then that the earth was cursed by reason of the sin of man so that it bears thorns, not that it should suffer punishment since it is without sensation but that it should always set before the eyes of man the judgment upon human sin. Thus men might be admonished by it to turn away from sins and to turn to God's commandments. Poisonous plants were created as a punishment or as a trial for mortals. All this is the result of sin.

The adornment of the earth is older than the sun, that those who have been misled may cease worshiping the sun as the origin of life.

When I hear "grass," I think of grass, and in the same manner I understand everything as it is said: a plant, a fish, a wild animal and an ox. Indeed, "I am not ashamed of the gospel." … (Some) have attempted by false arguments and allegorical interpretations to bestow on the Scripture a dignity of their own imagining. But theirs is the attitude of one who considers himself wiser than the revelations of the Spirit and introduces his own ideas in pretense of an explanation. Therefore, let it be understood as it has been written.

Likewise, this vegetation is lovely. Wherefore Genesis continues: "Each one according to its kind." Even exterior roughness that gives nature a reputation of malformation is yet what makes it most beautiful. Hence the bride says: "I am as dark — but lovely." That is, lovely because dark.

There follows a reference to seeds and fruits. "The earth brought forth vegetation, every kind of seed-bearing plant." As in the gathering of the waters, there was a symbol of the many forms of intelligent beings, and in the germination of the earth, a symbol of the multiplicity of sacramental images, so also in the seeds is shown a kind of infinity in the heavenly theories that are pointed to by these same seeds. For the principal intelligences and figures exist in certain determined numbers, while the theories are almost infinite. For as the reflection of light-rays and images from a mirror comes about in almost infinite ways, so it is from the mirror of Scriptures. Who can know how many are the intermediate angles between the right and the obtuse, between the obtuse and the acute? Hence, as in the seeds there is multiplication to infinity, so also are the theories multiplied. Wherefore in Daniel: "Many shall pass over, and knowledge shall be manifold," for one man and another look differently into the mirror.

"The earth brought forth vegetation, every kind of seed-bearing plant and all kinds of trees that bear fruit containing their seed," etc. Concerning this vision of the intelligence taught by Scripture, we have said of the spiritual interpretation that it was understood by means of the gathering of waters. Likewise, of the sacramental figure, that it was understood through the germination of the earth. We have spoken also of the theories that were understood both through the seed and through the fruit. For these theories reproduce in a manner related to seed, and they sustain in a manner related to food: wherefore they are understood partly under the aspect of seed and partly under the aspect of the germination of fruits. In terms of seed, they consist in correlations of times, by which times follow one another; in terms of the fruit of a tree they consist also in correlations of times, by which times correspond to one another. In the order of comparison of a tree or a seed to the seed, the times follow one another; in the order of comparison of the germ to the germinating, they correspond to each other.

Although the grasses were only a moment old at their creation, they appeared as if they were months old. Likewise, the trees, although only a day old when they sprouted forth, were nevertheless like trees years old as they were fully grown and fruits were already budding on their branches. The grass that would be required as food for the animals that were to be created two days later was thus made ready. And the new corn that would be food for Adam and his descendants, who would be thrown out of paradise four days later, was thus prepared.

In the beginning, we see, it was not an ear rising from a grain but a grain coming from an ear, and after that, the ear grows round the grain.

Hence Scripture shows you everything completed before the creation of this body [the sun] lest you attribute the production of the crops to it instead of to the Creator of all things.

He created the sun on the fourth day lest you think it is the cause of the day.

And to such a degree has the Holy Ghost made this the rule of His Scripture, that whenever anything is made out of anything, He mentions both the thing that is made and the thing of which it is made. "Let the earth," says He, "bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit-tree yielding fruit after its kind, whose seed is in itself, after its kind. And it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after its kind." ... If the Holy Ghost took upon Himself so great a concern for our instruction, that we might know from what everything was produced, would He not in like manner have kept us well informed about both the heaven and the earth, by indicating to us what it was that He made them of, if their original consisted of any material substance?

For because ages consist of times, and times are made up of days, and months, and years; since also days, and months, and years are measured by suns, and moons, and stars, which He ordained for this purpose (for "they shall be," says He, "for signs of the months and the years"), it clearly follows that the ages belong to the Creator, and that nothing of what was fore-ordained before the ages can be said to be the property of any other being than Him who claims the ages also as His own. [Against Marcion 5.6]

Concerning the production of foliage, it is said in the Book of Numbers: "How goodly are your tents, O Jacob; your encampments, O Israel! They are like gardens beside a stream." These are the mysteries of Scripture. Who can conceive the charm of the mysteries of Sacred Scriptures?

The oracle in the previously quoted prophecy, in saying that the Lord would come into Egypt, foretold the journey of our Lord Jesus Christ when he went into Egypt with his parents. Here we have the prophecy of his return from Egypt in its natural order, when he came back with his parents into the land of Israel, in the words "God led him out of Egypt." For our Lord and Savior Jesus, the Christ of God, was the only one of the seed of Israel and of the Jewish race who has rule over many nations, so that it is indisputable that he is the fulfillment of the prophecy which says, literally, "that a man will come from the Jewish race and rule over many nations." If he is not, let him who will suggest some other famous man among the Hebrews who has ruled over many nations. But this he cannot do, for such a man never existed. But with regard to our Savior, truth itself will shout and cry aloud, even if we say nothing. This shows plainly that his divine power has ruled, through the human he took of the seed of Israel according to the flesh, and even now will rule many nations.

If God's prophecies were inserted in the sacred books by Moses, how much more so were they copied by men who then lived in Mesopotamia, for they considered Balaam splendid and certainly were disciples of his art! After his time the profession and instruction of the seers is said to have flourished in parts of the Orient. Possessing copies of everything which Balaam prophesied, they even have it written: "A star shall advance from Jacob, and a man shall rise from Israel." The magi kept these writings more among themselves, and so when Jesus was born they recognized the star and understood that the prophecy was fulfilled more than did the people of Israel who disdained to hear the words of the holy prophets. Therefore, only from the writings which Balaam had left, they learned that the time was approaching, came and immediately sought to adore him. Moreover, in order to show their great faith, they honored the little boy as a king.

A star shall arise out of Jacob, there shall be raised up a man out of Israel—and he shall smite the princes of Moab—and destroy all the sons of Seth. By the sons of Sêth he means the whole world. And this is not applicable to anyone except the Lord Christ, for Sêth is by interpretation a foundation. Since therefore Cain and his seed perished utterly in the deluge, while Abel the younger died childless, Sêth was posterior to these, from whom both Noah and all the world are descended, and who is thus a foundation as it were of mankind. Moreover for this reason Adam, inspired by the deity, addressed him by the name of Sêth, that is, foundation; and therefore he said: And he will subdue all the sons of Seth, that is, the whole world. Now this is applicable to Christ, and to Him alone, whom all scripture ever keeps in view.

We are told that Balaam's successors moved by this (for the prediction was preserved most likely among them)4 when they noticed in the heavens a strange star besides the usual ones, fixed above the head, so to say, and vertically above Judea, hastened to arrive at Palestine, to inquire about the king announced by the star's appearance.

Listen to the Evangelist's words about Caiaphas, the high priest of the Jews: "He did not give this as a personal opinion, but in his capacity of high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus was destined to die, not for the person alone but to bring together into one also the nations that had been scattered." You will find something like it occurring again in the story of Balaam also: When urged to curse the people, he not merely did not curse them but even prophesied great and wonderful things, not merely about the people but also about the coming of the Savior.

Although it was a gift of divine favor that the birth of the Savior should become recognizable to the nations, nevertheless, to understand the wonder of the sign, the wise men were also able to be reminded through the ancient pronouncements of Balaam, for they knew that it had at one time been spread abroad in a famous and memorable prediction: "A star will appear out of Jacob, and a man will rise up from Israel. He will rule over the nations." So the three men, stirred by God through the shining of this unusual star, follow the course of its gleaming light ahead of them, thinking that they would find the indicated child in the royal city of Jerusalem.When this conjecture had failed them, however, they learned from scribes and teachers of the Jews what the sacred Scriptures had told about the birth of Christ. Encouraged by the double evidence, they sought him out with an even more ardent faith, the one to whom both the brightness of the star and the authority of prophets pointed.

Moses himself [wrote] in the book of Numbers: "There shall come a star out of Jacob, and a man shall arise out of Israel." For this cause, therefore, being God, he took upon him flesh, that, becoming a mediator between God and man, having overcome death, he might by his guidance lead man to God.

(Chapter IV - Verses 1 onwards) And it shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and it shall be lifted up above the hills; and peoples shall flow to it, and many nations shall come, and say: 'Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.' For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem; he shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore. But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree, and no one shall make them afraid, for the mouth of the Lord of hosts has spoken. For all the peoples walk each in the name of its god, but we will walk in the name of the Lord our God forever and ever. On that day, says the Lord, I will gather the lame and gather her whom I have driven away, and the one whom I have afflicted; I will make the lame a remnant, and the one who was cast off a strong nation; and the Lord will reign over them in Mount Zion from now on and forever. And in the last days, the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be raised above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it, and many peoples shall come and say: 'Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.' For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem; he shall judge between many peoples, and shall arbitrate between strong nations far away; they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more; but they shall all sit under their own vines and under their own fig trees, and no one shall make them afraid; for the mouth of the Lord of hosts has spoken. For all the peoples walk, each in the name of its god, but we will walk in the name of the Lord our God forever and ever. But we will go in the name of the Lord our God forever and beyond. In that day, says the Lord, I will gather her who was crushed, and her who was cast out, I will receive, and those whom I had rejected: and I will make the crushed into a remnant, and the cast out into a strong nation, and the Lord will reign over them on Mount Zion, from now and forever. For the leaders of Judah have despised justice, and have perverted all that is right, and have built Zion with blood, and Jerusalem with iniquity: and not only have they done these things, but they have also judged for bribes, and the priests of Jerusalem have answered for payment, and her prophets have divined for money, and because of them, Zion was like a plowed field, and Jerusalem had fallen into heaps of stones, and the mountain of the temple of God, desolate among the high forests. Therefore now, their house is abandoned and deserted, when the Son of God, going out of the temple, said: Rise, let us go hence (John 14:31): And: Your house shall be left to you desolate (Luke 13:15). The angels also, with Joseph reporting, said: Let us go forth from our abodes, for the mountain of Zion is exalted, of which it is said to the prince of Tyre. And you were wounded on the mountain of the Lord (Ezek. XXVIII). But this mountain of the Lord was revealed in the last days, when the kingdom of heaven was drawing near. For in the consummation of the ages, for the condemnation of sinners, our Savior appeared through his sacrifice, and he came at the eleventh hour to hire workers. And completing His passion, John says: It is the last hour (1 John 2:18): in six thousand years, if five hundred years are divided by the hours of each day, the last hour will consequently be called the time of the faith of the Gentiles. And it will be made manifest, he says, the mountain of the Lord prepared upon the tops of the mountains. It will be made manifest, which was previously hidden, and prepared not only in the mountains, but upon the tops of the mountains, Moses and the Prophets, who prophesied about Him. For although they have written all things holy, nevertheless, in comparison to the prophecy in which they foretold the coming of the Savior, all other things are humble and do not reach to the top of the mountains. And it is said, 'He will be exalted upon the hills.' (Philippians 2:8-9) Indeed, he appeared as a man and took on the form of a servant; he humbled himself unto death, even death on a cross. But the Father exalted him and gave him a name that is above every name, and the whole life of mankind, compared to his way of life, is called fields and valleys. So to this mountain, which is prepared on the top of the mountains, and exalted above the hills, all people will hasten, or as it is written in Hebrew, all the people will flow, that is, in the manner of rivers, innumerable crowds will gather. But the people will hasten when the Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and the inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya which are near Cyrene, and Roman visitors, Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs will have believed in him together. Do they not seem to you to have hurried to the mountain, to whom it was said: Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men (Matt. 4:19-20), and they immediately followed the Savior? And again, the Scripture relates about James and John, that having left the boat and father and the waves of the world, they hurried to the mountain. And when Matthew the tax collector heard: Follow me (Matt. 9), he immediately ran. And that too in the Gospel, when great crowds from Galilee and the Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea and beyond the Jordan followed him, and he healed them, he approves the peoples who hurried. But as the people hasten, many nations will also go to the mountain: indeed, the whole world believing in it, and they will say to the standard, mutually challenging themselves to the gallows: Come, let us ascend to the mountain of the Lord. Ascension is necessary in order for anyone to be able to reach Christ, and to the house of God of Jacob, the Church, which is the house of God, the pillar and foundation of truth. Moreover, what Jacob signifies the Savior, as we have said: Jacob, my servant, I will uphold him (Isaiah 2:3). But they will also say to those to whom they had spoken: Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and they will add: So that they may show us His way, which we either understand in the Angels who are present in the Churches, or in the holy Scriptures, which show the way of the Lord, and Him who says: I am the way (John 14). And let us walk in His paths, namely in the Apostles, through whom we have believed in Christ. For from Zion a spiritual law has come forth, and the word of God has passed from Jerusalem to the nations, who He will judge among many peoples (John 5:22): For the Father has given all judgment to the Son. And he shall rebuke many nations unto a great distance (Ps. XCIII, 11): For the Lord takes hold of the wise in their craftiness, and he understands the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile. But he shall judge among the peoples who are deserving of salvation, and those who are unworthy, and at his coming all zeal for war shall be directed towards peace (Isai. II, 4). Swords shall be turned into plowshares, and spears into pruning-hooks, and the nation shall cease to wage war against another nation. No one will learn to fight, in the absence of the necessity to fight. And there will be such peace, that not only in cities, but also in villages and fields, everyone will be safe: and this will happen, because the mouth of the Lord has spoken. And first indeed, according to the letter, before a child was born to us, whose government was upon his shoulder, the whole world was full of blood, nations fought against nations, kings fought against kings, and peoples fought against peoples. Finally, even the Roman Republic itself was torn apart by civil wars, with Cinna and Octavius and Carbo fighting, with Sylla and Marius, Antony and Catiline, Caesar and Gnaeus Pompeius, Augustus and Brutus, and with the same Augustus and Antony: in their battles, entire kingdoms shed blood. But after the reign of Christ began, Rome obtained a unique reign; the path of the Apostles became known throughout the world, and the gates of cities were opened to them, and a unique reign of one God was established for preaching. It is also possible to interpret this saying in a tropological sense: that we may say to the faith of Christ, anger and unbridled insults are put aside, so that each person may place their hand on the plow and not look back, and desiring to reap spiritual fruits, breaking the darts of insults and spears of contempt, so that while others labor, we may enter into their labors, and it may be said of us: 'They that sow in tears shall reap in joy, carrying their sheaves.' Now no one fights against another, because we read: Blessed are the peacemakers (Matt. V, 9). No one learns to argue to the downfall of the listeners, but puts silence on his mouth, and is silent; because it is an evil time (Ps. CIII). And each one rests under his vine, to press the wine, which makes glad the heart of man, under that vine, whose farmer is the Father (John XV), and under his fig tree collecting the sweet fruits of the Holy Spirit, charity, joy, peace, and the rest. But all these things happen, according to both interpretations, because the words of the Lord are true, and he said and did them. All the peoples will go, each one on his own way: but we will walk in the name of the Lord our God forever and beyond. They say to all the nations going astray according to their error, we hastened to the mountain of the Lord, and we said: Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob (Isaiah 2:3), and we will walk in the name of Christ our Lord, because he is the mountain who is God. In that day, in which the sun of justice will shine, that which was formerly crushed will be gathered together, and that which was expelled will be received, and to this the crushed will be gathered together, so that it may be placed among the remnants, and the forsaken will be made into a strong nation. For unless the Lord of hosts had left us seed, we would have been like Sodom, and we would have been similar to Gomorrah (Rom. 9:29). But according to the Hebrew, it is beautiful: I will gather the limping one, and the one who has walked badly and to whom Elijah said: How long will you limp? (1 Kings 18:21). Whose foot had been scandalized was cut off (Mark 9). I will gather the one whom I had cast out, and to whom I had given the bill of divorce. And the one whom I had afflicted with various captivities, or had delivered to the devil and his angels. And so that a diligent reader may not immediately oppose us, saying how can you claim that the limping one has been gathered, and the one that had been cast out has been collected, when the Jews remain in unbelief? Let him hear about the first Church of Christ that believed from the Jews, from which even the Apostles came, about which Luke describes in the Acts of the Apostles: that in one day three thousand believed, and elsewhere five thousand (Acts 2). And about whom James speaks to Paul: You see, brother Paul, how many thousands there are among the Jews who believe, and all of these are zealous for the Law (Ibid., 21). But consider also the prophetic significance: He did not say, 'I will make the whole lame person whole,' but 'I will make the lame person into a remnant, so that the remnant and the chosen ones may be saved, and those who have labored may become a strong nation, namely the Christian people, which neither sword nor fire nor torments will overcome. See the faith and passion of the Martyrs, and you will not doubt the strength of this nation. And the Lord will rule over them, that is, over many nations, and over the lame remnants on Mount Zion, in the Church, in the watchtower, in the contemplation of virtues, from the present world to the future.' But if anyone wants to understand this which is said: 'I will gather that which was broken, and I will receive that which was cast out, etc.,' to refer to the human soul which, before the coming of Christ, was subject to various sufferings and vices, and was like a lost and diseased sheep torn apart by the jaws of wolves, he will not be mistaken, as long as he knows that the one that was broken and afflicted will later be part of the Lord's kingdom, and will live in Zion, and will be carried on the shoulders of the good shepherd to the former mountain. It should also be known, and this chapter which we have now exposed, and a similar one from Isaiah, refers the Jews and the heirs of their errors to the thousand-year reign of Christ and the saints. And that which is said: All peoples will worship, each one in the name of their Lord God, should be interpreted as each nation being tormented with their own idol, and being cast into the fire of eternal punishment. But from the subsequent things, it is argued that this is not said about the end of the ages, but about the first coming of Christ, in which the remnants of the limping are gathered and the nations are saved beforehand. Therefore Isaiah has given this testimony: The word that was spoken to Isaiah son of Amos concerning Judah and Jerusalem: In the last days the mountain of the Lord's house will be established as the highest of the mountains; it will be exalted above the hills, and all nations will stream to it. Many peoples will come and say, 'Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths.' The law will go out from Zion, the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore. (Isaiah 2) It is significant here that it is said that the word of God, coming out from Jerusalem, will judge between many nations and specifically rebuke the people of Judah. For he will judge us as sinners according to the measure of our works: but he will not judge them as wicked and deniers, but will reprove and condemn them.

Now it is evident that no one can terrify or subdue us who have believed in Jesus over all the world. For it is plain that, though beheaded, and crucified, and thrown to wild beasts, and chains, and fire, and all other kinds of torture, we do not give up our confession; but the more such things happen, the more do others and in larger numbers become faithful, and worshippers of God through the name of Jesus. For Just as if one should cut away the fruit-bearing parts of a vine, it grows up again, and yields other branches flourishing and fruitful; even so the same thing happens with us. For the vine planted by God and Christ the Saviour is His people. But the rest of the prophecy shall be fulfilled at His second coming. For the expression, "He that is afflicted [and driven out]," i.e., from the world, [implies] that, so far as you and all other men have it in your power, each Christian has been driven out not only from his own property, but even from the whole world; for you permit no Christian to live.

Further, the same prophet foretold even the place in which Christ was to be born: "But you, O Bethlehem Eph'rathah, who are little among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from old, from ancient days."

By designating Bethlehem, they [the Jews] were like the builders of Noah's ark, providing others the means of escape, yet themselves perishing in the flood. Like milestones, they showed the way but were incapable of walking along it. They were asked where the Christ was to be born. They answered, "In Bethlehem of Judah. For thus it was written by the prophet"—they were repeating from memory, you see, what had been written about this by Micah: "And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are not the least among the leaders of Judah; for from you shall come forth the king who is going to be the shepherd of my people Israel."

According to prophecy, Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judah, at the time, as I said, when Herod was king in Judea. At Rome, the republic had given way to the entire empire, and the emperor Caesar Augustus had established a worldwide peace. Christ was born a visible man of a virgin mother, but he was a hidden God because God was his Father. So the prophet had foretold: "Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a son; and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which is interpreted, God with us." To prove that he was God, Christ worked many miracles, some of which—as many as seemed necessary to establish his claim—are recorded in the Gospels. Of these miracles the very first was the marvelous manner of his birth.

This is Micah the seventh in order, who also was privileged to prophesy concerning the coming of the Lord Christ, and he says: And thou Bethlehem, the house of Ephratha, art the least to be among the thousands of Judah. From thee, there shall come forth to me one who shall be for a ruler over Israel, whose goings forth have been of old from everlasting. The chief priests and scribes of the Jews, taking this passage, when Herod asked them where the Christ should be born, replied, In Bethlehem of Judaea, upon which he sent the Wise Men away to Bethlehem.

It is enough for piety for you to know, as we have said, that God has one only Son, one naturally begotten, who did not begin to be when he was born in Bethlehem but is before all ages. For listen to the prophet Micah: "And you, Bethlehem, house of Ephratha, are little to be among the thousands of Judah. From you shall come forth for me a leader who shall feed my people Israel; and his goings forth are from the beginning, from the days of eternity." Therefore do not fix your attention on him as coming from Bethlehem simply but worship him as begotten eternally of the Father. Admit no one who speaks of a beginning of the Son in time, but acknowledge his timeless beginning, the Father.

"But you, O Bethlehem, you are too little for what you are." That is, even though in comparison with your enemies you are little in force and number and incapable to lead "the thousand of Judah," yet, thanks to the help that I give you, the powerful ruler will be able to make war against them. For I have destined him to that from the beginning, through the promises already made to David. This is said with the usual reference to Zerubbabel, but its true meaning has been revealed in Christ, because when he appeared, all the promises made to Abraham and David were fulfilled.

The text says, "His origin is from the beginning," the beginning, that is, according to the promises made to Abraham and David.

(Version 2.) And you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times. LXX: And you, Bethlehem, house of Ephrathah, are small among the thousands of Judah; out of you shall come forth for me one who will be ruler in Israel, and his goings forth are from of old, from the days of eternity. In the Gospel according to Matthew (Mat. II), when the magi from the East came and Herod asked the scribes where the Christ, the Lord, was to be born, they are said to have responded: In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it was written by the prophet: And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel. It is clear to me, even without my speaking, that the testimony does not agree with the Hebrew or the Septuagint interpreters. And I believe that Matthew, wanting to accuse the Scribes and priests of negligence in regard to the reading of divine Scripture, also placed it in this way, as has been said by them. Furthermore, those who assert that in almost all testimonies taken from the Old Testament there is such an error, that either the order is changed, or the words, and sometimes even the sense itself is different, testify not from a written book, but from their memory, which is sometimes mistaken, to the apostles and evangelists. Therefore, let us explain the Hebrew: And you, Bethlehem, that is, the house of bread, which is called Ephratha, are indeed the least among the cities of Judah, and compared to so many thousands, you are hardly a small village; but from this small village will come forth Christ, who is the ruler in Israel. And do not think that he is only from the lineage of David, to whom I promised, saying: I will set upon your throne the fruit of your womb (Ps. CXXXI, 11), the assumption of flesh does not hinder the divine majesty: for he is born of me before all ages, and as the creator of time, he is not bound by it. He is the one of whom I said in another psalm: Before Lucifer I begot you (Ps. 109:3). For in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1). This was in the beginning with God. And therefore his coming forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. That Bethlehem itself is Ephrath, the book of Genesis shows, in which Scripture records: Rachel died and was buried on the way to Ephrath, which is Bethlehem (Gen. 35). And in both names it signifies a sacrament: for the house is called bread, because of the living bread, which came down from heaven (John VI). And Ephrata, which translates as seeing madness, because of Herod's insanity, since he was deceived by the wise men, he was very angry, and sent and slew all the children in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. And because of the great amount of bloodshed, a voice was heard in the heights, lamentation and weeping, Rachel weeping for her children (Jer. XXXI). We read according to the Septuagint, specifically in the book of Joshua, where three cities and towns of Judah are described, among others, including: Thaeco, Ephratha, which is Bethlehem, Phagor, Aetham, Culon, Tami (also called Tatami), Soris, Caraem, Gallim, Baether, and Manocho, eleven cities, and their villages (Josue XV). This is not found in the Hebrew text, nor in any other interpreter, and whether it was erased from the ancient books by the malice of the Jews so that Christ would not appear to have been born from the tribe of Judah, or whether it was added by the Septuagint without clear knowledge, we do not know for certain. Nevertheless, we can confirm this from the book of Judges, that Bethlehem is in the tribe of Judah, for it is written: 'And there was a Levite man, living in the farthest parts of the hill country of Ephraim, who took to himself a concubine from Bethlehem in Judah. And his concubine was angry with him, and she went back to her father's house at Bethlehem in Judah' (Judges 19:1). It is well said, Bethlehem in Judah, to distinguish it from Bethlehem, which is situated in Galilee, as I found in the same volume of Jesus. Ephratha can sound in our language as fruitful, abundant, and fruitful, and it also shows in the mystery, which is the house of bread.

It was another prophet, again, who pointed out the place where he would be born. For Micah said, "And you, Bethlehem, the land of Judah, are by no means the least among the princes of Judah. For out of you will come the leader who will shepherd my people, Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity." He revealed his existence before all ages. When he said "there will come the leader who will shepherd my people, Israel," he revealed Christ's birth in the flesh.

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel. [Micah 5:2] Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.

Now this patently resembles the prologue to the Gospel, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; he was in the beginning with God." It also resembles what was said by God through blessed David, "From the womb before the daystar I begot you." This person, then, who was before time, who was in the beginning with God, who is God the Word, with his origins from that source from the beginning, receives his birth according to the flesh (the text says) in you [Bethlehem], making you famous and illustrious, even though unimportant among Judah's thousands.

But now, the same star which led the magi to the place where the infant God was to be found with his virgin mother could of course have led them right to the very city. But it withdrew, and didn't appear at all to them again, until the Jews themselves had been questioned about the city where Christ was to be born. This was to oblige them to name it themselves, on the evidence of divine Scriptures, and to say themselves, "In Bethlehem of Judah. For so it is written, 'And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are not the least among the princes of Judah; for from you shall come forth the leader who will rule my people Israel.' " What else can divine Providence have meant by this, but that among the Jews would remain only the divine Scriptures by which the nations would be instructed, they themselves being blind? This evidence they would carry about with them not as an assistance to their own salvation but as evidence of ours. Because today it may happen that when we bring forward prophecies about Christ, uttered long before and now made clear by the events that have fulfilled them, the pagans whom we wish to gain will say that they weren't foretold so long ago but have been composed by us after the event, so that what has later occurred may be thought to have been previously prophesied. Then we can cite the volumes owned by the Jews, to clear the doubts of the pagans, who were already prefigured in those magi, whom the Jews instructed from the divine books about the city in which Christ was born, without themselves either seeking or acknowledging him.

"He shall give them up until the time when she who is in labor has brought forth." This is what the prophet calls Jerusalem. This means he will abandon them to the afflictions of captivity until the time of the return. This means that these predictions will not come true before they are back from their captivity. Henana of Adiabene says "she who is in labor" means Jerusalem because she is in the pains of labor, which are her afflictions, and waits the birth of her salvation, until according to her expectations it sets to her return and her pains' end. But in the same manner they will endure different difficulties until the Virgin gives birth to Christ.

(Verse 3) Because of this, He will give them until the time when she who is in labor gives birth, and the rest of his brothers shall return to the children of Israel. LXX: Therefore, He will give them until the time of the one giving birth: she shall give birth, and the rest of his brothers shall return to the children of Israel. Because from Bethlehem, which is Ephrathah, Christ the ruler has come forth in Israel, and his coming forth was not only at the time when he was seen in the flesh, but from the beginning of eternity, or from the beginning of the age. Because He always spoke through the prophets, and the word of God became incarnate in their hands (the hands of the saints): therefore, He will give the Jews, and He will permit them to rule until the time of childbirth, when that is fulfilled: Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry out, you who are not in labor; for the children of the desolate one will be more than the children of the one who has a husband (Isaiah 54:1, LXX). For when the barren woman has borne seven, and she who had many children is weakened, and through the offense of the Jewish people, the fullness of the Gentiles enters, then all Israel will be saved, and the remnant of his brothers will be converted to the children of Israel; and when the prophet Elijah comes, which means, God is Lord, he will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers (Luke 1:17), and the last people will be joined to the ancient, so that they may truly be called the sons of Abraham, when they believe in the one whom Abraham saw and rejoiced (John 8). But what is the time in which the barren woman will give birth? I believe it is the time spoken of by Isaiah: 'In an acceptable time I have heard you, and in the day of salvation I have helped you' (Isaiah 49:8). And Paul, understanding this as referring to the time of Christ, says: 'Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation' (2 Corinthians 6:2). I think this also symbolically demonstrates what is written in Ecclesiastes: 'A time to be born, and a time to die' (Ecclesiastes 3:2), which refers to the time when the synagogue, which was barren, gave birth to the people of the Gentiles but lost its own children. Nevertheless, it can also be understood differently: The Lord will give the temple and Jerusalem, and the Jews, until the time when the virgin gives birth, who after giving birth and receiving the spoils of Samaria and the power of Damascus, with the people of Judah being killed, the remnant of Israel will be saved. And the brothers of Christ, that is, the apostles, will turn to the faith of the prophets and patriarchs, who announced the coming of Christ, and the prophecy of the psalm will be fulfilled: You were born for your fathers sons, and so on (Ps. 44, 17).

(Verse 4) And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of his God: and they shall be converted, for now he shall be magnified even to the ends of the earth. LXX: And he shall stand, and shall see, and shall feed his flock in the strength of the Lord, and they shall be in the glory of the name of the Lord their God: for now they shall be magnified even to the ends of the earth. Afterward the sun of justice shall rise to the heights of heaven, and shall come to the borders of the people: and he shall give his light to everyone, and shall be made manifest in his power: and the residue shall be turned into the children of Israel. Then shall the Lord our God appear to them: and they shall pass in a cloud, and shall come to the places mentioned before: the Lord our God shall enlighten them, and shall perpetuate the work of his justice in peace. (Psalm 22, 1) But He feeds them, not only in the strength of the Lord, but also in the exaltation of the name of His God, when He says to the Father: Holy Father, keep them in Your name, those whom You have given Me, that they may be one, as We are: while I was with them, I kept them in Your name: those whom You have given Me, I have guarded, and none of them has perished (John 17:11). And they will turn, or as Symmachus interprets it better, they will dwell. Jasubu () enim verbum Hebraicum utrumque significat. Habitabunt autem in Ecclesia Domini, quiamagnificatus est Christus usque ad terminum terrae. Sive, juxta LXX, quia magnificabuntur (( Al. magnificantur)) ipsi cum pastore suo usque ad extremum terrae, ut in omnem terram exeat sonus eorum et in fines orbis terrae verba eorum (Ps. XVIII) .

Evidently [the Hebrew leaders] understood [the prophecy] in a carnal manner, just as Herod did, and reckoned that Christ's kingdom would be like the powers in this world. They hoped for a temporal leader, while Herod feared an earthly rival. "Herod, you are trapped in a useless fear. In vain do you attempt to rage against the child you suspect. Your realm does not encompass Christ, nor does the Lord of the world care about the meager limits within which you wield the rod of your power. He whom you do not wish to see reign in Judea reigns everywhere. You yourself would reign more happily if you would submit to his rule. Why not turn into honest service that which you resolve to do in falsehood and guile? Go with the wise men and worship the true king in humble adoration. But more inclined as you are toward the Jewish blindness, you do not imitate the faith of these Gentiles. You turn your perverse heart to cruel wiles. Yet you are not going to kill the one you fear, nor will you harm those whom you eliminate."

The root of Jesse the patriarch is the family of the Jews, Mary is the rod, Christ the flower of Mary, who, about to spread the good odor of faith throughout the whole world, budded forth from a virgin womb, as he himself said: "I am the flower of the plain, a lily of the valley."

Moreover, he wonderfully expressed his incarnation, saying: From the shoot, my son, you have ascended; in that he sprouted as a plant of the earth in the womb of the Virgin, and as a flower of sweet fragrance, he ascended for the redemption of the whole world, emitted by the maternal womb with the splendor of new light, just as Isaiah says: A shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots. The root of the family of the Jews is Mary, the branch is Mary, Christ is the flower of Mary. The rod, which is of royal lineage, rightly comes from the house and homeland of David, whose flower is Christ, who has abolished the stench of the worldly filth and has poured out the fragrance of eternal life.

And there shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit. The root is indeed the family of the Jews, the branch is Mary, the flower is Christ of Mary, who when he shines forth in our land and delights the field of the soul, or blossoms in his Church, we cannot fear the cold, nor dread the rain, but await the day of judgment.

Jacob also prayed when he returned back from Laban, and he was rescued from the hands of his brother, Esau. He prayed as follows, confessing and saying, "With my staff have I crossed this river Jordan, and now I have become two camps." Wondrous symbol of our Savior! When our Lord first came, the staff left the stem of Jesse, just like Jacob's staff; and when he returns from his Father's house at his second coming, he goes back to him with two camps, one from the people [Israel], the other from the peoples [nations]—just like Jacob who returned to his father Isaac with two camps.

David was the king of Israel and the son of Jesse at a certain time in the Old Testament, when the New Testament was still hidden there in the Old, like a fruit in its root. For if you seek the fruit in its root, you will not find it. But neither would you find the fruit in the branch, unless it had first come from the root.At that time, then, the first people had come from the seed of Abraham carnally. The second people, those who belong to the New Testament, also belong to the seed of Abraham, but spiritually. Those first people who were still carnal, therefore, among whom very few prophets understood both what was to be desired from God and when to announce it publicly, foretold this future time and the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ. Insofar as Christ himself was born according to the flesh, he was hidden in the root, in the seed of the patriarchs, and was to be revealed at a certain time, like fruit appearing on the branch, as it is written: "A rod will bloom from the root of Jesse." The same is true of the New Testament, which was hidden in Christ throughout those earlier times and was known only to the prophets and to a very small group of godly persons, not as the manifestation of present realities but as a revelation of future events. For what does it mean, brothers, if I can remind you of one specific event, that Abraham, sending his faithful servant to betroth a wife to his only son, makes him swear to him and in the oath says to him, "Put your hand under my thigh and swear"? What was in the thigh of Abraham upon which the man put his hand and swore? What was there, except what was then promised to him: "in your seed, all the peoples will be blessed"? The thigh signifies the flesh. From the flesh of Abraham, through Isaac and Jacob and, without naming everyone, through Mary, came our Lord Jesus Christ.

The prophet Isaiah bears witness that our Redeemer had to be conceived in Nazareth when he says, "A nazareus will ascend from his root." The term nazareus has the meaning of "flower" or "clean." The Son of God made incarnate for us can properly be named by this term, both because he adopted the nature of a human being clean from all vices and because in him the font and origin of spiritual fruits came forth for all believers, since to them he both pointed out examples and granted the fruits of living properly and blessedly.

Now [Mary] saw that she herself, who had arisen from the stock of Jesse, had conceived God's Son of the Holy Spirit.

For it is history when something is reported as having been done or said in plain discourse according to the letter; for example, the people of Israel, after they had been delivered from Egypt, are said to have made a tabernacle for the Lord in the wilderness. It is allegory when the presence of Christ and the sacraments of the church are designated by mystical words or things; by words, certainly, as when Isaiah says, "A shoot [virga] shall come forth from the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up from his root," which is to say openly, "The Virgin Mary will be born from the stock of David, and Christ will proceed from his lineage"; and by things, as when the people delivered from Egyptian slavery through the blood of the lamb signifies the church freed from the devil's domination by the passion of Christ.

The seven lamps are the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, all of which remain in our Lord and Redeemer forever and are distributed in his members (that is, in all the elect) according to his will. Therefore the seven lamps are set upon the lampstand because upon our Redeemer, the firstborn "from the root of Jesse," rested "the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of fortitude, the Spirit of knowledge and of godliness," and he was filled "with the Spirit of the fear of the Lord." As he himself also says through the same prophet, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because the Lord has anointed me."

The prophet Isaiah testified that it was necessary that our Redeemer be conceived in Nazareth when he said, "There will come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a nazareus will go up from his root." Nazareus can be translated either as "flower" or as "pure." The Son of God who was made flesh for us can rightly be called by these names because he assumed a human nature which was pure of every vice and because he is the font and source of spiritual fruit for all who believe in him, to whom he also both showed an example and granted the gift of righteous and blessed living.

Finally, He must be supremely just, because of the manifold character of a justice making infallible inquiries, irreproachable distinctions, and irrevocable judgments, handing out retribution to each one according to his deeds. Isaiah writes: "A shoot shall sprout from the stump of Jesse. Justice shall be the band around his waist. Not by appearance shall He judge nor by hearsay shall He decide." Such, then, is God: for if He were mere man, He could not judge otherwise than through witnesses. All the judgments of Scriptures refer to this one judgment.

Third, there is the production of prophets similar to the multiplication of flowers. Flowers appeared when the prophet said: "A shoot shall sprout from the stump of Jesse, and from his roots a bud shall blossom."

Elsewhere, the Holy Spirit also speaks of the Virgin about to give birth when he says, "There will come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower will arise from his root." The rod from the root of Jesse signifies the Virgin Mary, who found her origins in the stem of Jesse through David. For, as the Evangelist or apostle reveals, out of the tribe of David came the Virgin Mary, from whom the flower of human flesh arose in Christ. This is the rod which, having been placed in the ark of testimony to be a sign for everlasting memory, has now by a new and wonderful mystery, without moisture from the earth, brought forth the fruit of the almond. It is by this miracle that Aaron's priesthood was confirmed.

By the fruit of the root he will graft us onto his tree.

He is the son of Mary, however, and not the son of Joseph. He did not appear in the body from any other lineage, except from David.

This shows in an obvious way that the birth of Christ would be from the root of Jesse, who was the father of David. This points toward the birth which the Gentiles would follow, having been prophetically announced by way of signs.

It is prophesied that one will come forth of the seed of Jesse, that is to say, of David, many years after the death of both David and Solomon.

In which rod, no doubt the blessed Virgin Mary is predicted, who sprung from the stock of Jesse and David and fecundated by the Holy Spirit, brought forth a new flower of human flesh, becoming a virgin-mother. (Pope St. Leo the Great Sermon 4) Or it could be that a flower refers to Christ; and it is probably implied indirectly by "rod" that he has royal dignity as well, a rod being a symbol of kingship. (St. Cyril of Alexandria) Or it could be that Jesse is the root, David the tree that through its branch, that is, Mary, has produced fruit, that is Christ.

Just as when a lion is born from a lion, the nature is not changed but is shown to have a common source, so also one who is born from God cannot be anything other than God. But he calls him a lion's cub for the purpose of signifying the Son. Indeed, he adds "from a sprout, my son, you have gone up," because he wants to show us that Christ came from the sprout of Judah, as it was also said through the prophet Isaiah: "there will come forth a rod [virga] out of the root of Jesse, and a flower will go up from his root." This Jesse was the father of David, from whose root, that is, source, the Virgin Mary [maria virgo] was born. That Isaiah refers to a "rod" [virga] and to a "flower" from the rod suggests that the flower which is Christ would be born from a virgin [virgine].

Until the beginning of the vision, or the burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amos saw, his entire prophecy was about Christ, a prophecy that we want to explain piecemeal lest the ideas and discussions thereof together confuse the reader's memory. The Jews interpreted the branch and the flower from the root of Jesse to be the Lord himself because the power of his governance is demonstrated in the branch and his beauty in the flower. But we understand the branch from the root of Jesse to be the holy Virgin Mary, who had no shoot connatural to herself. About her we read above: "Behold, a virgin will conceive and bear a son." And the flower is the Lord our Savior, who said in the Song of Songs, "I am the flower of the field and the lily of the valleys." In place of "root," which only the Septuagint translated, the Hebrew text has geza, which Aquila and Symmachus and Theodotus interpret as kormon, that is, "stem." And they translated "flower," which the Hebrew text calls nēṣer, as "bud" to show that after a long time in Babylonian captivity, no longer possessing any glory from the sprout of the old kingdom of David, Christ would rise from Mary as though from her stem. The educated of the Hebrews believe that what all the ecclesiastics sought in the Gospel of Matthew but could not find, where it was written "Because he will be called a Nazarene," was taken from this place. But it should be noted that nēṣer was written here with the [Hebrew] letter ṣade [צ], the peculiar sound of which—somewhere between z and s—the Latin language does not express.

The land that before brought forth thorns, hears in Isaiah the blessing: "A shoot shall sprout from the stump of Jesse, and from his roots a bud shall blossom." "You have turned away the captivity of Jacob." The Lord has come, therefore, to proclaim pardon to captives. There is a parallel to this in another passage of Scripture: "He led captivity captive," that is, we, who in former times had been captured by the devil to perdition, now are led away by the Savior to salvation.

Chapter XI - Verses 1, 2. And there shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up out of his root. And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him: the spirit of wisdom, and of understanding, the spirit of counsel, and of fortitude, the spirit of knowledge, and of godliness. And he shall be filled with the spirit of the fear of the Lord. Up to the beginning of the Vision or the weight of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amos saw, all this prophecy is about Christ, which we wish to explain in parts so as not to confuse the reader's memory by presenting and discussing it all at once. The rod and the flower from the root of Jesse are interpreted as the Lord Himself of the Jews: so that in the rod, the power of the reigning one may be shown, and in the flower, the beauty. But we understand the rod from the root of Jesse to be the holy Virgin Mary, who had no fruit cohering to herself; of whom we also read above: Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son (Isa. VII, 14). And the flower is the Lord and Savior, who says in the Song of Solomon: I am the flower of the field and the lily of the valleys (Cant. II, 1). Concerning the root which alone the LXX translators turned into Hebrew script, it has (in Geza) which Aquila and Symmachus and Theodotio interpreted as κορμὸν, that is, trunk. And concerning the flower which is called (in Hebrew) Neser, they translated it as germ to show that much later after the Babylonian captivity, with no one from the line of David possessing the glory of the ancient kingdom, Christ arose as if from the trunk of Mary, and from Mary Christ was born. That which in the Gospel of Matthew everyone seeks the words of the Ecclesiastics, and does not find where it is written, 'He shall be called a Nazarene' (Matt. 2:23), the learned Hebrews think is taken from this place. But it should be known that here 'Nazarene' is written with the letter 'Sade', which the Latin language does not express the sound and property of between 'z' and 's'. It is, in fact, a strident sound and is barely pronounced with the tongue against the teeth: from which the city of Zion is also written. Moreover, the Nazarenes, whom the Seventy sanctified, whom Symmachus separated, transferred, pronounce 'Zain' (the letter element is always written). Therefore, upon this flower, who will suddenly rise from the trunk and root of Jesse through the Virgin Mary, the spirit of the Lord will rest, because in him it pleased all the fullness of divinity to dwell bodily: not by parts, as with the other saints; but according to the Gospel that the Nazarenes read, which was written in the Hebrew language: 'Upon him descends every source of the Holy Spirit.' Now, the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom (2 Corinthians 3:17). In the same volume of Matthew, we read that which is written in the following: Behold, my servant whom I have chosen: my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him: he shall show judgment to the Gentiles (Matt. XII, 18). This is understood to refer to the understanding of the Savior, in whom the Spirit of the Lord rested, that is, he remained in eternal habitation: not so as to fly away and descend to him again; but according to the testimony of John the Baptist, he would continually remain, who said: I saw the Spirit descending as a dove from heaven, and remaining upon him, and I did not know him: but he who sent me to baptize in water, said to me: He upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending, and remaining upon him, he it is who baptizes in the Holy Spirit (John. XXXII, 33). Furthermore, in the Gospel, of which we have mentioned above, we find these writings: And it came to pass, when the Lord was ascended out of the water, the whole fountain of the Holy Spirit descended and rested upon him, and said to him: My son, in all the prophets I have expected thee, that thou shouldst come, and that I might rest in thee. For thou art my rest, thou art my first begotten Son, who reignest in eternity. Who is called the Spirit of the Lord and the Spirit of wisdom; for all things were made by him, and without him was made nothing that was made (John 1:3). And in the Psalms it is sung: How great are your works, O Lord! You have made all things in wisdom (Ps. XCI, 24). And the Apostle writes: Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God (I Cor. I). And in Proverbs it is read: By his wisdom, God founded the earth, and by his prudence, he prepared the heavens (Prov. III, 19). And just as the Word of God is called light, and life, and resurrection, so the spirit of wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord is named: not because it is different according to the differences of names, but because it is the one and same source and beginning of all virtues. Therefore, without Christ, no one can be wise, intelligent, wise counsel, strong, learned, pious, or full of the fear of God. And it should be noted that the Spirit of the Lord, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, counsel and fortitude, knowledge and piety, and the fear of the Lord, that is, the number seven, which is said to be the seven eyes on one stone in Zechariah (Chapter 3), may rest upon the rod and flower, who rose from the root of Jesse, and therefore from the line of David. But the Spirit of the fear of the Lord has filled him because of those who lack the fear of the Lord: for they are little ones, whom perfect love casts out. For whoever fears, has punishment, and is not perfect (1 John 4:18). Therefore, the Apostle speaks to the believers: For you have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear: but you have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father (Romans 8:15). And in Malachi we read: If I am a father, where is my glory? And if I am the Lord, where is my fear? (Malachi 1:6). Concerning this fear, it is sung in the Psalm: Come, children, listen to me: I will teach you the fear of the Lord (Psalm 34:11).

The same rule of truth teaches us to believe, after the Father, also on the Son of God, Christ Jesus, the Lord our God, but the Son of God—of that God who is both one and alone, namely, the Founder of all things, as already has been expressed above. For this Jesus Christ, I will once more say, the Son of this God, we read of as having been promised in the Old Testament and we observe to be manifested in the New, fulfilling the shadows and figures of the Old Testament types, being the embodiment of truth. For as well the ancient prophecies as the Gospels testify him to be the son of Abraham and the son of David. Genesis itself anticipates him when it says, "To you will I give it, and to your seed." He is spoken of when Scripture shows how a man wrestled with Jacob; he too, when it says, "There shall not fail a prince from Judah, nor a leader from between his thighs, until he shall come to whom it has been promised; and he shall be the expectation of the nations." He is spoken of by Moses when he says, "Provide another whom you may send." He is again spoken of by the same, when he [Moses] testifies, saying, "A prophet will God raise up to you from your brothers; listen to him as if to me." [Moses] bears witness of him, finally, when he says, "You shall see your life hanging in doubt night and day, and you shall not believe him." Isaiah also refers to him: "There shall go forth a rod from the root of Jesse, and a flower shall grow up from his root." The same also when he says, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son."

We believe, therefore, in the immortal and invisible God, not in him whom the infidels have fashioned to be God, who is both an adulterer and a thunderer, but in the true God, Creator and Ruler of all the world.We also hold to Jesus Christ his Son, formerly promised through the prophets, and we know that the promise has been fulfilled. Yet, because we were not present when it was fulfilled, we are also commanded to believe it. The Jews were present then, however, from whose race the Savior himself chose apostles through whom the faith has reached us. As a member of the very race in which and from which he deigned to be born, the prophet Isaiah predicted a long time ago: "Behold, a virgin will conceive in the womb and will bear a son, and you will call his name Emmanuel, which means 'God with us.' "; And elsewhere [we read]: "There will come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower will go up from his root." The branch signifies the Virgin Mary, and the flower of the rod represents the Son of the Virgin, the Lord Jesus Christ. Before these things took place, the Jews read about it and did not understand.… Christ was born from a virgin like a flower from a branch, without the involvement of any seed. He was born a small infant and a great king.

In him dwelt the fullness of the Spirit; therefore I acknowledge him to be "the rod of the stem of Jesse." His blooming flower shall be my Christ, upon whom has rested, according to Isaiah, "the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and piety, and of the fear of the Lord." Now to no man, except Christ, would this diversity of spiritual proofs suitably apply. He is indeed like a flower for the Spirit's grace, reckoned indeed of the stem of Jesse but thence to derive his descent through Mary.

352. And there shall come forth a rod out of the root. The destruction of their adversary having been set out, the restoration of the people, who had been divided into the two tribes and the ten tribes, is promised. And this is divided into two parts.

In the first part, the restorer is described,

in the second, the restoration is promised: and it shall come to pass in that day (Isa 11:11).

Now this chapter is interpreted in three ways.

For Jerome and all our saints interpret it as concerning the restoration made through Christ and concerning Christ, so that it was spoken figuratively;

some teachers interpret it as concerning Ezechias or Josias, similarly taking the passage figuratively;

the Jews interpret it as concerning their messiah, whom they await, wishing to understand all of it literally.

But this last interpretation is foolish and fabulous;

the second is tortured;

but the first is straightforwardly true, and therefore, following this first interpretation, we shall touch on the others indirectly.

The first part therefore is divided into three:

in the first, Christ the restorer is described as to his nativity;

in the second, as to his sanctity: and the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him (Isa 11:2);

in the third, as to his dignity: in that day the root of Jesse (Isa 11:10).

353. Concerning the first, he touches on two things;

the procession of his mother from the royal line or lineage: and there shall come forth a rod, a rod to which no shrubbery adhered, out of the root of Jesse: literally, from the lineage of Jesse, who was the father of David: a star shall rise out of Jacob and a rod shall spring up from Israel (Num 24:17);

as to the procession of the son from the virgin mother, and a flower, Christ: I am the flower of the field, and the lily of the valleys (Song 2:1), shall rise up, for he that comes from heaven is above all (John 3:31); hence, below: behold the Lord will ascend upon a swift cloud, and will enter into Egypt, and the idols of Egypt shall be moved (Isa 19:1).

354. Out of the root of Jesse: I will raise up to David a just branch: and a king shall reign, and shall be wise: and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth (Jer 23:5). Where he ought to say, out of the rod, he says, out of the root, in order to exclude two heresies:

one of which said that Christ did not have true flesh;

another which said that Christ had true flesh but that it was not propagated from Adam and from his ancestors and others, but was created by God in the Blessed Virgin; or that it came from our first parents separately like a kind of light, never infected by the contagion of original sin.

This heresy is wholly excluded by this where he said to rise up from the parents of the Virgin, like a flower from a root. The Jews say that the flower and the rod refer to the Christ; and he is called a rod because of his power and his scourging of the wicked, and a flower because of his honesty and consolation of the good. Jerome says that it is from this verse that what is said in Matthew 2:23 is taken: he shall be called a Nazarene, which means flowery. Those who explain this chapter as concerning Josias and Ezechias explain this similarly, and they say that Josias and Ezechias are said to descend from Jesse and not from their nearer ancestors because to David was made the promise of the confirmation of the kingdom in his sons.

355. It is to be noted on the words, and there shall come forth a rod, that the Virgin is called a rod:

first, consoling in tribulations: but lift you up your rod, and stretch forth your hand over the sea, and divide it: that the children of Israel may go through the midst of the sea on dry ground (Exod 14:16);

second, bearing fruit: Moses found that the rod of Aaron for the house of Levi, was budded: and that the buds swelling it hid bloomed blossoms (Num 17:8);

third, satisfying: and when Moses had lifted up the rod, striking the rock twice, there came forth water in great abundance, so that the people and their cattle drank (Num 20:11);

fourth, scourging: a star shall rise out of Jacob and a rod shall spring up from Israel: and shall strike the chiefs of Moab (Num 24:17);

fifth, watching: I see a rod watching (Jer 1:11).

356. Note on the words, and a flower out of his root, that Christ is called a flower:

first, because of the purity of Mary: behold you are fair, O my love (Song 1:14); behold you are fair, my beloved (Song 1:15); and below this: I am the flower of the field, and the lily of the valleys (Song 2:1);

second, because of the ease of injury by the wind: he shall be blasted as a vine when its grapes are in the first flower (Job 15:33);

third, because of sweetness of smell: send forth flowers, as the lily, and yield a smell (Sir 39:19);

fourth, because of comeliness of beauty: and as the rainbow giving light in bright clouds, and as the flower of roses in the days of the spring (Sir 50:8);

fifth, because of certitude of fruit: as the vine I have brought forth a pleasant odor: and my flowers are the fruit of honor and riches (Sir 24:23).

Therefore, the fear of the just is the tribunal of Christ's speech and the golden foundation of full prudence. But the good image, like the likeness of truth, is the word of the saints. And see how the fear of the saints is like a golden foundation. Read Isaiah: see how much fear he has subjected, in order to make it blameless and good fear: the spirit, he says, of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and power, the spirit of knowledge and piety, the spirit of holy fear. By how much fear did he subject, so that he might have something to follow? He is informed through wisdom, instructed through understanding, guided by counsel, strengthened by virtue, governed by knowledge, adorned by piety. Take away from fear of the Lord those things, and it is an irrational and foolish fear, one of those: "Outside are battles, inside are fears," by which even Paul would have been afflicted if he did not have the Lord as his comforter.

So, then, the Holy Spirit is the river, and the abundant river, which according to the Hebrews flowed from Jesus in the lands, as we have received it prophesied by the mouth of Isaiah. This is the great river that flows always and never fails. And not only a river, but also one of copious stream and overflowing greatness, as also David said: "The stream of the river makes glad the city of God."60For neither is that city, the heavenly Jerusalem, watered by the channel of any earthly river, but that Holy Spirit, proceeding from the fount of life, by a short draught of whom we are satiated, seems to flow more abundantly among those celestial thrones, dominions and powers, angels and archangels, rushing in the full course of the seven virtues of the Spirit. For if a river rising above its banks overflows, how much more does the Spirit, rising above every creature, when he touches the low-lying fields of our minds, as it were, make glad that heavenly nature of the creatures with the larger fertility of his sanctification. And let it not trouble you that either here it is said "rivers" or elsewhere "seven Spirits," for by the sanctification of these seven gifts of the Spirit, as Isaiah said, is signified the fullness of all virtue; the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and strength, the Spirit of knowledge and godliness, and the Spirit of the fear of God. One, then is the river, but many the channels of the gifts of the Spirit. This river, then, goes forth from the fount of life.

And as the Son is the Angel of great counsel, so, too, is the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Counsel, that you may know that the Counsel of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is One. Counsel, not concerning any doubtful matters, but concerning those foreknown and determined.

A person would not have wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety and fear of God unless, according to the prophet's words, he had received "the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, of counsel and of fortitude, of knowledge and of godliness, and of fear of God." ... And a person would not have power and love and sobriety, except by receiving the Spirit of whom the apostle speaks: "We have not received the spirit of fear but of power and of love and of sobriety." So also one would not have faith unless he received the spirit of faith of which the same apostle says: "But having the same spirit of faith, as it is written, 'I believed, therefore I have spoken,' we also believe therefore we speak also." Thus he shows very plainly that faith is not received because of merit but by the mercy of him who has mercy on whom he will, when he says of himself: "I have obtained mercy to be faithful."

For if Paul had said only "Jesus Christ," he would have included Jesus Christ according to his divinity, according to his being the Word who was with God, Jesus Christ the Son of God. Yet children cannot receive what is said in this manner. How, therefore, do they who are fed milk receive it? "Jesus Christ," he said, "and him crucified." Feed upon what he did for you, and you will grow to know him as he is. There are therefore both those who ascend and those who descend on that ladder. Who are they that ascend? They who progress towards the understanding of things spiritual. Who are they that descend? They who, although, as far as men may, they enjoy the comprehension of things spiritual: nevertheless, descend unto the infants, to say to them such things as they can receive, so that, after being nourished with milk, they may become fitted and strong enough to take spiritual meat. Isaiah, brothers, was himself among those who descended to us, for the steps upon which he descended are obvious. In reference to the Holy Spirit, he said "the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, of counsel and fortitude, of knowledge and piety, the Spirit of the fear of God rested upon him," he began from wisdom and descended toward fear. See how the teacher descended from wisdom toward fear; you who learn, if you are to make progress, must ascend from fear to wisdom. For it is written, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." Listen, therefore, to the psalms.

And this Holy Spirit is in Scripture especially spoken of by the number seven, whether in Isaiah or in the Apocalypse, where the seven Spirits of God are most directly mentioned, on account of the sevenfold operation of one and the self-same Spirit. And this sevenfold operation is mentioned in Isaiah: "the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, of counsel and fortitude, of knowledge and piety, the Spirit of the fear of God rested upon him." This fear of the Lord should be understood as pure, enduring forever.

"The love of God has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us."That the Holy Spirit is suggested by the number seven anybody knows who can read. But listen anyway, those of you who read carelessly, or perhaps cannot read. This is how God presents the Holy Spirit through the prophet Isaiah: "The Spirit," he says, "of wisdom and understanding, of counsel and fortitude, of knowledge and piety, the Spirit of the fear of God." This is the sevenfold Spirit who is also called down upon the newly baptized. The law is the Decalogue; the Ten Commandments, you see, were written on tablets, but stone ones still, because of the stubborn hardness of the Jews. After the Spirit came, what does the apostle say? "You yourselves are our letter, not written with ink but with the Spirit of the living God; not on tablets of stone, but on the fleshly tablets of the heart." Take away the Spirit, the letter kills, because it finds the sinner guilty, doesn't set him free. That's why the apostle says, "For we are not sufficient of ourselves to think anything as coming from ourselves; but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us sufficient to be ministers of the new covenant, not in the letter, but in the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit brings to life." So add seven to ten, if you wish to fulfill all justice. When you are commanded by the law to do something, ask the Spirit to help you.

The apostle also says to Timothy, "For God hath not given to us the spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." Now in respect of this passage of the apostle, we must be on our guard against supposing that we have not received the spirit of the fear of God, which is undoubtedly a great gift of God, and concerning which the prophet Isaiah says, "The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon thee, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and piety, the spirit of the fear of the Lord." It is not the fear with which Peter denied Christ that we have received the spirit of, but that fear concerning which Christ Himself says, "Fear Him who hath power to destroy both soul and body in hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear Him." This, indeed, He said, lest we should deny Him from the same fear which shook Peter; for such cowardice he plainly wished to be removed from us when He, in the preceding passage, said, "Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do." It is not of this fear that we have received the spirit, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. And of this spirit the same Apostle Paul discourses to the Romans: "We glory in tribulations, knowing that tribulation worketh patience; and patience, experience; and experience, hope; and hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us." Not by ourselves, therefore, but by the Holy Ghost which is given to us, does it come to pass that, through that very love, which he shows us to be the gift of God, tribulation does not do away with patience, but rather produces it.

It seems to me, therefore, that the sevenfold operation of the Holy Spirit, of which Isaiah speaks, coincides with these stages and maxims. However, the order is different. In Isaiah, the enumeration begins from the higher, while here it begins from the lower; in the former, it starts from wisdom and ends at the fear of God. But "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." Therefore, if we ascend step by step, as it were, while we enumerate, the first grade is the love of God; the second is piety; the third is knowledge; the fourth is fortitude; the fifth is counsel; the sixth is understanding; the seventh is wisdom. The fear of God coincides with the humble, of whom it is here said, "Blessed are the poor in spirit."

The seven lamps are the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, all of which remain in our Lord and Redeemer forever and are distributed in his members (that is, in all the elect) according to his will.

Only of the mediator between God and humanity, the man Jesus Christ, can it be said truthfully, "And the Spirit of the Lord will rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and strength, the Spirit of knowledge and piety, and the Spirit of the fear of the Lord will fill him." Each of the saints, on the other hand, receives not the fullness of his Spirit but receives from his fullness only as the Spirit grants it, for "to one is given through the Spirit a word of wisdom, and to another a word of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith in the same Spirit, to another the grace of healing in the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the discernment of spirits, to another different kinds of languages, to another the interpretation of words. One and the same Spirit operates all of these gifts, dividing to each person as he wills."

In truth, not all the saints receive the fullness of his Spirit, but they receive from his fullness, insofar as he grants it.

Although the gifts of gratuitously given grace are very many, and generally all habits divinely given can not absurdly be called gifts of God, yet specially and appropriately there are seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, which Isaiah enumerates and names, speaking of the flower that proceeded from the root of Jesse, that is, Christ, of whom he says that the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and fortitude, the spirit of knowledge and piety, and the spirit of the fear of the Lord shall fill him. In this enumeration he proceeds by descending from the highest and by combining, so that at once the distinction, connection, origin, and order of the gifts may be shown.

The reason for understanding the aforesaid is this: since the restorative principle through supreme liberality gives grace not only for rectifying against the crookedness of vices through the habits of virtues, but also for freeing against the impediments of infirmities through the habits of gifts; therefore the gratuitous gifts must be multiplied according to what is necessary for sufficiency of freedom. Since therefore our soul needs to be freed in a sevenfold manner, hence it is that from a sevenfold cause it is necessary that the gifts of the Holy Spirit be sevenfold.

First, therefore, for most expeditiously repelling the crookedness of vices, there are seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, namely: fear against pride; piety against envy; knowledge against anger, which is as it were a kind of madness; fortitude against sloth, which renders the mind powerless for good; counsel against avarice; understanding against gluttony; and wisdom against lust.

Second, for freeing the natural powers, the gifts of the Holy Spirit must be seven. For the irascible power needs to be freed for good things both in prosperity and in adversity: in prosperity it is freed through fear, in adversity through fortitude. The concupiscible power needs to be freed with respect to affection toward the neighbor, and this is done through piety; and with respect to affection toward God, and this is done through the taste of wisdom. The rational power indeed needs to be freed in the speculation, choice, and execution of truth: through the gift of understanding it is freed for speculating upon the true, through the gift of counsel for choosing the true, through the gift of knowledge for executing what has been chosen.

Third, for the carrying out of the seven offices of the virtues there must be seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. For fear disposes to temperance, since fear transfixes the flesh; piety to true justice; knowledge to prudence; fortitude to fortitude or patience; counsel to hope; understanding to faith; wisdom to charity. Whence, just as charity is the mother and consummation of all the virtues, so wisdom is of the gifts.

Fourth, for readiness in suffering conformably to Christ, there are seven habits of the gifts. Now Christ was moved to suffer by the paternal will, human necessity and the vigor of virtue. The divine will indeed moved him, as known through understanding, as loved through wisdom, as held in reverence through fear. Our necessity also moved him, for the knowing of which knowledge is necessary, and for the pitying of which piety is superadded. The vigor of virtue moved him no less, as provident in choosing through counsel, as vigorous in enduring through fortitude. And thus the gifts must be seven.

Fifth, for readiness in acting, seven gifts are given by the Holy Spirit. For ready action, we must be made ready to turn away from evil, which is done through fear. We must also be made ready to advance in good of a twofold kind: either of necessity, or of supererogation. Regarding the first, we are made ready through knowledge and piety, such that one directs and the other executes; regarding the second, through counsel directing and through fortitude executing. We must also rest in the best, both as regards the understanding of the true and as regards the affection for the good; the first is done through the gift of understanding, the second through the gift of wisdom, in which there is rest.

For readiness in contemplating, the gifts of the Holy Spirit are seven in number. For the hierarchical and contemplative life requires the soul to be purged, illuminated, and perfected. Now it must be purged from concupiscence, from malice, from ignorance, from weakness or impotence: the first is done by fear, the second by piety, the third by knowledge, the fourth by fortitude. Illuminated we also need to be regarding the works of restoration and of the original creation: the first is given by counsel, the second by understanding. Perfected we are to be through approach to the highest, which consists in one, and this through the gift of wisdom; and thus the mystery of contemplation is consummated.

Finally, for readiness in action and contemplation there must be seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. For the contemplative life, on account of its turning toward the Trinity, must have three expediting gifts: with respect to reverence for majesty, fear; with respect to the understanding of truth, understanding; with respect to the savor or taste of goodness, wisdom. The active life, however, which is engaged in doing and enduring, must have four, namely piety for doing and fortitude for enduring; and the directive gifts of these two, namely knowledge and counsel. Whence, because direction is necessary for readiness, there arises a combination of gifts; and more gifts pertain to the intellect, because the light of knowledge greatly avails to direct one's feet into the right path.

"The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and fortitude, the spirit of knowledge and piety, and the spirit of the fear of the Lord shall fill him." John in the Apocalypse saw in the midst of the throne a Lamb having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent into all the earth. He calls the gifts of the Holy Spirit horns and eyes. There is a certain efficacy of the gifts of the Holy Spirit by which all evils are combated; there is another efficacy of the gifts by which a person is equipped for all good things. And because strength resides in horns, therefore the gifts by which evils are combated he calls horns. And because the power of readiness resides in the eyes, therefore the gifts by which a person is equipped for all good things he calls eyes.

Through the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, designated by the seven horns, the seven mortal sins are destroyed, and seven virtues are introduced. The gift of fear destroys pride and brings about the good of poverty; the gift of piety destroys envy and introduces meekness; the gift of knowledge destroys wrath and introduces mourning; the gift of fortitude destroys sloth and introduces hunger for justice; the gift of counsel destroys avarice and introduces mercy; the gift of understanding destroys gluttony and introduces purity of heart; the gift of wisdom destroys lust and introduces peace.

The third ground of the influx of fortitude is from God indwelling. "The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and fortitude, the spirit of knowledge and piety"; and he places fortitude in the middle, because Christ does not dwell in us unless we have these two, namely the Spirit of the Lord and fortitude; and therefore he placed fortitude in the middle. Peter denied at the voice of a maidservant, yet stood firm against the emperor, because without the Spirit of the Lord the soul is weak, and with the Spirit of the Lord it is strong. He stood firm against the emperor, because with the Spirit of the Lord he was then strong.

As we said earlier, the seven-formed Spirit has been denoted here, as you easily infer by calculation and recognize by his activity. But we must regard this Holy Spirit as one and the same as him whose virtues are known by Isaiah's witness to be the same seven which we have mentioned: the Spirit of wisdom, of understanding, of counsel, of courage, of knowledge, of piety, of fear of the Lord; and he distributes these to each as he wills. It should not trouble you that everywhere Isaiah ascribes the words to the voice of the Holy Spirit, for clearly "voice" is associated with the whole Trinity. We read of the Father's voice when he says, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased," and again of the Son's voice in the words "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" Likewise in the Acts of the Apostles we read of the Holy Spirit: "Separate for me Paul and Barnabas, for the work to which I have called them."

Isaiah signifies that the Spirit was indeed one and indivisible, but his operations diverse.

We read in Isaiah that the Spirit of the Lord descended upon the Lord Jesus, "the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and strength, the Spirit of knowledge and piety." It is in reference to this same Spirit of the Lord who descended upon the Savior in a holy outpouring that the Son said through Isaiah, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me," and that Matthew the Evangelist said, "Behold, the heavens opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending upon him like a dove." Luke the Evangelist, moreover, clearly teaches that the Spirit of God whom the Savior received in baptism is the Holy Spirit: "Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan."

I think Isaiah loves to call the activities of the Spirit "spirits."

For there are seven sons born to us, when by the conception of good intent the seven virtues of the holy Spirit spring up in us. Thus the Prophet particularizes this inward offspring, when the Spirit renders the mind fruitful, in these words: "And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and piety, and the spirit of the fear of the Lord shall fill him." So when by the coming of the Holy Spirit there is engendered in each of us, wisdom, understanding, counsel, might, knowledge, piety, and the fear of the Lord, something like a lasting posterity is begotten in the mind, which preserves the stock of our nobility that is above unto life, for so much the longer as it allies it with the love of eternity.

The gate is ascended by seven steps, because through the sevenfold grace of the Holy Spirit the entrance to heavenly life is opened to us. Isaiah, enumerating this sevenfold grace in our very Head, or in His body, which we are, says: "The spirit of wisdom and understanding shall rest upon Him, the spirit of counsel and fortitude, the spirit of knowledge and piety, and the spirit of the fear of the Lord shall fill Him." Speaking of heavenly things, he numbered these steps by descending rather than ascending, namely: wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, fear. And since it is written, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom," it is without doubt established that one ascends from fear to wisdom, but does not return from wisdom to fear, because indeed wisdom possesses perfect charity. And it is written: "Perfect charity casts out fear." Therefore the prophet, because he was speaking from heavenly things down to the lowest, began rather from wisdom and descended to fear. But we who strive from earthly things toward heavenly things, let us enumerate those same steps by ascending, that we may be able to arrive from fear to wisdom. For in our mind the first step of ascent is the fear of the Lord; the second, piety; the third, knowledge; the fourth, fortitude; the fifth, counsel; the sixth, understanding; the seventh, wisdom. For the fear of the Lord exists in the mind. But what kind of fear is this, if piety is not with it?

For you know that in the Old Testament all action is commanded through the precepts of the Decalogue, but in the New Testament the power of that same action is given through the sevenfold grace of the Holy Spirit as the faithful are multiplied. Announcing this, the prophet says: "The Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and fortitude, the Spirit of knowledge and piety, and the Spirit of the fear of the Lord shall fill him." But he receives action in this Spirit who acknowledges the faith of the Trinity, so that he believes the Father and the Son and the same Holy Spirit to be of one power and confesses them to be of one substance. Because therefore the seven things we mentioned above were given more broadly through the New Testament, but the ten precepts through the Old, all our virtue and action can be fully comprehended through ten and seven.

About this text you should first take care to observe that Isaiah does not say that "the spirit of fear shall rest upon him" but "shall fill him." The power of it is so abundant that if once it possesses a person in its strength, it possesses his mind to the exclusion of all else. Linked with the charity that never fails, it fills and permanently possesses the soul whom it has seized, and it cannot be lessened by the temptations of any this-worldly happiness.

The Scripture says that these enumerated powers of the Spirit have come on Him, not because He stood in need of them, but because they would rest in Him, i.e., would find their accomplishment in Him, so that there would be no more prophets in your nation after the ancient custom: and this fact you plainly perceive. For after Him no prophet has arisen among you.

Moreover, the apostle Paul says, "Having the same Spirit; as it is written, 'I believed, and therefore have I spoken'; we also believe, and therefore speak." He is therefore one and the same Spirit who was in the prophets and apostles, except that in the former he was occasional, in the latter always. But in the former not as being always in them, in the latter as abiding always in them; and in the former distributed with reserve, in the latter entirely poured out; in the former given sparingly, in the latter liberally bestowed; not yet manifested before the Lord's resurrection, but conferred after the resurrection. For, he said, "I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, that he may be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth." And, "When he, the Advocate, shall come, whom I shall send to you from my Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from my Father." And, "If I do not go away, that Advocate shall not come to you; but if I go away, I will send him to you." And, "When the Spirit of truth shall come, he will direct you into all the truth." And because the Lord was about to depart to the heavens, he gave the Paraclete out of necessity to the disciples; so as not to leave them in any degree orphans, which was hardly desirable, and forsake them without an advocate and some kind of protector.For this is he who strengthened their hearts and minds, who marked out the Gospel sacraments, who was in them the enlightener of divine things; and they being strengthened, feared, for the sake of the Lord's name, neither dungeons nor chains, nay, even trod under foot the very powers of the world and its tortures. For they were henceforth armed and strengthened by the same Spirit, having in themselves the gifts which this same Spirit distributes and appropriates to the church, the spouse of Christ, as her ornaments. This is he who places prophets in the church, instructs teachers, directs tongues, gives powers and healings, does wonderful works, often discrimination of spirits, affords powers of government, suggests counsels and orders and arranges whatever other gifts there are of charismata.… This is he who, after the manner of a dove, when our Lord was baptized, came and abode upon him, dwelling in Christ full and entire, and not maimed in any measure or portion; but with his whole overflow copiously distributed and sent forth, so that from him others might receive some enjoyment of his graces: the source of the wholeness of the Holy Spirit remaining in Christ, so that from him might be drawn streams of gifts and works, while the Holy Spirit dwelt richly in Christ. For truly Isaiah, prophesying this, said, "And the Spirit of wisdom and understanding shall rest upon him, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and piety; and the Spirit of the fear of the Lord shall fill him." This selfsame thing also he said in the person of the Lord himself, in another place. "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me; because he has anointed me, he has sent me to preach the gospel to the poor."

In Christ alone he dwells fully and entirely, not lacking in any measure or part; but in all his overflowing abundance dispensed and sent forth, so that other men might receive from Christ a first outpouring, as it were, of his graces. For the fountainhead of the entire Holy Spirit abides in Christ, that from him might be drawn streams of grace and wondrous deeds because the Holy Spirit dwells richly in Christ.

Scripture testifies that "a great and strong angel exclaimed in heaven: Who is worthy to open the book and to break its seal? No one was able to open the book or to look at it, neither in heaven nor on earth nor under the earth." John wept and lamented that none of all the rational creatures in the universe was found worthy to open the book to look at it. One of the elders consoled John as he wept and said, "Do not cry, John. Behold, the Lion from the tribe of Judah, the root of David, was victorious in opening the book and breaking its seal." What, I ask, is this book which no one was ever able to receive from the hand of the living, except "he who walks without sin and does justice"? It is not enough that he walk without sin or that he be a lamb, but he must be a slain lamb who crowned purity with the witness of the passion of life, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God. These undoubtedly are "the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and strength, the spirit of knowledge and piety, and the Spirit of the fear of the Lord." What, therefore, is this book? It is the book of judgment, I believe. For "the Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son."

357. And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him. Here he describes him as to his sanctity, as to three things:

first, as to habits of necessity;

second, as to rectitude of works: he shall not judge according to the sight of the eyes (Isa 11:3);

third, as to the effect of this rectitude: the wolf shall dwell with the lamb (Isa 11:6).

His perfection as to gratuitous habits is shown in three things.

First, as to their rest: shall rest, for grace was not increased in him: a woman shall compass a man (Jer 31:22); nor was it interrupted by fault: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth (1 Pet 2:22); nor was it troubled by the battle of the flesh, for it was without the original fault: let it expect light, and not see it, nor the rising of the dawning of the day (Job 3:9); he upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him, he it is that baptizes (John 1:33).

358. As to multitude in all the gifts: the spirit of wisdom. For although all the gifts of sanctifying grace are infused at the same time, nevertheless, no one else has perfect use of them all, because of which, concerning all these, it is now said: there was not found the like to him (Sir 44:20); nor again all gratuitous graces: to one indeed, by the Spirit, is given the word of wisdom: and to another, the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit (1 Cor 12:8–9). But Christ had all of these perfectly, for God doth not give the Spirit by measure (John 3:34).

360. To understand these things which are said here it necessary to see five things concerning these gifts:

first, how they differ from the virtues, the beatitudes, and the fruits;

second, their number;

third, their order;

fourth, how they exist in Christ;

fifth, in what manner they are attributed to the Holy Spirit.

361. Concerning the first, it is to be known that, as Gregory says, the gifts are given to assist the virtues, by which the powers of the soul are perfected for acts that are proportionate according to a human manner, as faith, which makes us to see in a glass and obscurity. Now there is a twofold defect of virtue: one accidental, from the indisposition of the one who has the habit, from which the virtue remains imperfect in the subject, and this defect is removed through the increase of the virtue; the other defect is essential on the part of the habit itself, as faith is continually imperfect according to its disposition, because it is obscure, and this defect is removed through a higher habit, which is called a gift, for as it exceeds the manner of human operation, it is given by God: as the gift of understanding, which in some manner makes things of faith to be seen clearly and distinctly. An operation, however, proceeding from a virtue perfected by a gift is called a beatitude, which is nothing other than operation according to perfect virtue, as the Philosopher says, as is said in Matthew 5:8: blessed are the clean of heart: they shall see God. But delight necessarily follows such operation, for delight is the unhindered operation of a proper habit, as the Philosopher says; and according to this, it is called a fruit; hence Ambrose on the fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5:22), says that they are called fruits in as much as they renew minds with sincere delight.

362. Concerning the second, it is to be known that the number of the gifts can be understood in three ways, because gifts are perfected either through retreat from evil, and thus is fear; or through approach to good, and thus either according to the contemplative life or according to the active life: if according to the contemplative, either according to the end of contemplation, and thus is wisdom, which concerns the highest causes; or according the means to the end, and thus is understanding, as of created spiritual substances and of what pertains to them. If according to the active life, either as to those things to which all are held, and thus the executive gift is piety, which is benevolence to those who are joined by faith or the image of God, and the directing gift is knowledge; or of those things to which not all are held, and the executive gift is fortitude, as it exposes itself to difficulties, and the directing gift is counsel.

363. From this the response to the third is now evident, because the gifts are ordered first in as far as they are perfections, and this order is considered according to the emanation of the gifts from the giver, and not in as far as they are received. Again it is evident that wisdom directs understanding, because the wise man sets things in order, and, through first things, someone is regulated in secondary things, as metaphysics regulates the other sciences, counsel regulates fortitude, knowledge regulates piety, fear regulates in all, because it directs to approach the good and in retreat from evil.

364. Concerning the fourth, it is to be known that Christ had these gifts according to their most excellent uses, according to which they are had in heaven. For he did not have servile fear as if he feared punishment or filial fear as if he feared to sin but the chaste fear which belongs to reverence: he was heard for his reverence (Heb 5:7). And it is similarly evident concerning the other gifts. However, it is said especially that the spirit of fear filled him lest, from the greatness of his gifts, he be thought to be proud, like the first angel, about whom it is said in Ezekiel 28:16: by the multitude of your wisdom or merchandise, your inner parts were filled with iniquity; or because he came to save through humility; or because he wished to be imitated in this: learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart (Matt 11:29).

365. Concerning the fifth, it is to be known that if these gifts are considered according to their own natures, as knowledge in as much as it is knowledge, then some of them are appropriated to the Son, which pertain to the perfection of the intellect, some to Holy Spirit, which pertain to the perfection of the affections, although all of them together are gifts of the entire Trinity. If, however, they are considered in as much as they have the nature of a gift, they are thus all attributed to the Holy Spirit, who is the first gift in whom all gifts are given. Similarly too if they are considered as to the principle of motion of such gifts, which is love: for the goodness of God, as Dionysius says, is diffusive of all things which are received in creatures from God, which are appropriated to the Holy Spirit. Others, however, refer this to the holiness of Josias and Ezechias; the Jews refer it to the antichrist.

Finally, He must be supremely just, because of the manifold character of a justice making infallible inquiries, irreproachable distinctions, and irrevocable judgments, handing out retribution to each one according to his deeds. Isaiah writes: "A shoot shall sprout from the stump of Jesse. Justice shall be the band around his waist. Not by appearance shall He judge nor by hearsay shall He decide." Such, then, is God: for if He were mere man, He could not judge otherwise than through witnesses. All the judgments of Scriptures refer to this one judgment.

(Verse 3 and following) He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or decide by what he hears with his ears. But he will judge the poor with justice, and decide with fairness for the humble of the earth. He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and kill the wicked with the breath of his lips. Righteousness will be his belt, and faithfulness the sash around his waist. These words refer to the first coming of the Savior; the Jews argue about the future at the end of the world. Moreover, they translated: He will not judge according to glory, nor argue according to speech: but he will judge with humble judgment, and argue the humble of the earth. For he shows no partiality in judgment: but he speaks to the scribes, Pharisees and rulers: Woe to you, hypocrites: And, the kingdom of God will be taken from you, and given to the nation producing its fruits (Matthew 23:13, and 21:43). And he does not rebuke according to words and the hearing of the ears. For when they said to Him, 'Master, we know that You are true, and teach the way of God in truth, and do not care about anyone's opinion, for You do not regard the appearance of men' (Matthew 22:16), knowing their malice, He answered, 'Why do you test me, you hypocrites?' and so on with similar things. He judged in righteousness the poor in spirit, to whom belongs the kingdom of God, and he rebuked in fairness the meek and humble of the earth, saying to the Apostles, 'Are you still foolish?' And again: Do you not yet understand or comprehend? And to Peter specifically: O you of little faith, why did you doubt? (Mark 8:17). Or certainly for the humble and meek he argued for others who sought to oppress them (Matthew 14:31). He also struck down all earthly works with a rod, or as the Septuagint translated, with the word of his mouth, speaking in the Gospel: Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. And with the breath of his lips he will kill the wicked (Mat. X, 34, and Luc. XII, 51): of whom we read in the ninth psalm: Thou hast rebuked the Gentiles, and the wicked one hath perished: thou hast put out their name for ever and ever (Ps. IX, 6). And the Apostle Paul writes: Whom the Lord Jesus will slay with the breath of his mouth (II Thess. II, 8; Ephes. VI). But when the wicked man is struck, the Lord is girded with justice and truth and faith. For he has made Himself to us wisdom from God, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption (1 Corinthians 1), who also speaks in the Gospel: I am the light, and the life, and the truth (John 8:6 and 14). And it is said in the Psalms: Truth has risen from the earth: and justice has looked down from heaven (Psalm 84:2). Therefore, the Apostle also exhorts the Ephesians: Stand therefore, having your loins girded with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness (Ephesians 6:14). But if faith is read for truth, it must be said that the belt of the Lord, with which Jeremiah was girded (Jeremiah 13), is the faith of believers.

359. As to fullness, for he was perfect in every grace, which is noted where it says, the spirit of the fear of the Lord filled him: we saw him full of grace (John 1:14). Concerning all these things: in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead corporeally (Col 2:9).

366. He shall not judge according to the sight of the eyes. Here he shows his holiness as to rectitude of works, and especially in judging, because this is the work of a king. Hence he shows three things:

first, his shrewdness in discerning;

second, his justice in executing: but he shall judge;

third, his constancy in persevering, and justice shall be (Isa 11:5).

Therefore he says, as to the first, he shall not judge according to the sight of the outward eyes, nor according to the hearing of the outward ears, as if to those who say in Matthew 22:16, master, we know that you are a true speaker. Because he needed not that any should give testimony of man: for he knew what was in man (John 2:25). And this cannot be explained as of a mere man, as is said in 1 Samuel 16:7: man sees those things that appear, but the Lord beholds the heart. And therefore they said separately, now we know that you know all things (John 16:30). Nevertheless, others explain this in a tortured way as concerning the just kings, for they did not judge things that appear at first glance according to flatteries, but diligently sought the truth of the case.

For in the last days false prophets shall be multiplied, and such as corrupt the word; and the sheep shall be changed into wolves, and love into hatred: for through the abounding of iniquity the love of many shall wax cold. For men shall hate, and persecute, and betray one another. And then shall appear the deceiver of the world, the enemy of the truth, the prince of lies, [2 Thessalonians 2:3-12] whom the Lord Jesus "shall destroy with the spirit of His mouth, who takes away the wicked with His lips; and many shall be offended at Him. But they that endure to the end, the same shall be saved. And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven;" [Isaiah 11:4; Matthew 24:1-51] and afterwards shall be the voice of a trumpet by the archangel; and in that interval shall be the revival of those that were asleep. And then shall the Lord come, and all His saints with Him, with a great concussion above the clouds, with the angels of His power, [Matthew 16:27] in the throne of His kingdom, to condemn the devil, the deceiver of the world, and to render to every one according to his deeds. "Then shall the wicked go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous shall go into life eternal," [Matthew 25:46] to inherit those things "which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man, such things as God has prepared for them that love Him;" [1 Corinthians 2:9] and they shall rejoice in the kingdom of God, which is in Christ Jesus.

Hence, when Isaiah said "he will judge the poor with justice," he was without doubt speaking of those very persons to whom it was said, "Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God."

Just as "feigned righteousness is not righteousness, but double iniquity," so feigned holiness is not holiness, but rather iniquity. Against such the Apostle says: "In the last times there will be men who are lovers of pleasures, having the appearance of piety, but denying its power." Those having the appearance of piety are hypocrites. For such a one is a son of perdition. Of such a one it is said: "With the breath of his lips he shall strike the impious one," namely him who will have the greatest appearance of piety.

He [Christ] does not esteem the learned above the simple, nor the rich above the poor.

That the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son, the prophetic and apostolic teaching shows us. So Isaiah says concerning the Son, "He shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked." Concerning him the apostle also says, "Whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth." The one Son of God himself, showing who the Spirit of his mouth is, after his resurrection, breathing on his disciples, says, "Receive the Holy Spirit." "From the mouth," indeed, of the Lord Jesus himself, says John in the Apocalypse, "a sharp, two-edged word came forth." The very Spirit of his mouth is the sword itself that comes forth from his mouth.

rod of his mouth....: He is not speaking literally, for all the language in this passage he employs in a spiritual sense.

367. But he shall judge. Here his justice in executing is shown.

And first, as to the good, in distributing their rights: he shall judge, in the day of judgment and even now: the Father has given all judgment to the Son (John 5:22); the Poor, about whom it says in Matthew 5:3: blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Second, as to the wicked, and first, as to the members: he shall strike the earth, that is, the earthly, with the rod of his mouth: go, you cursed, into everlasting fire (Matt 25:41); woe to you, scribes and Pharisees (Matt 23:13); as to the head: with the breath of his lips, that is, his indignation expressed with words; he shall slay the wicked, that is, the antichrist: the man of sin will be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and is lifted up above all that is called God or that is worshipped (2 Thess 2:3–4); or the devil: now is the judgment of the world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out (John 12:31). And all this can be explained literally of the just kings, and who slew the impious with their precepts.

"And out of His mouth was issuing a sharp two-edged sword." By the twice-sharpened sword going forth out of His mouth is shown, that it is He Himself who has both now declared the word of the Gospel, and previously by Moses declared the knowledge of the law to the whole world. But because from the same word, as well of the New as of the Old Testament, He will assert Himself upon the whole human race, therefore He is spoken of as two-edged. For the sword arms the soldier, the sword slays the enemy, the sword punishes the deserter. And that He might show to the apostles that He was announcing judgment, He says: "I came not to send peace, but a sword." And after He had completed His parables, He says to them: "Have ye understood all these things? And they said, We have. And He added, Therefore is every scribe instructed in the kingdom of God like unto a man that is a father of a family, bringing forth from his treasure things new and old," -the new, the evangelical words of the apostles; the old, the precepts of the law and the prophets: and He testified that these proceeded out of His mouth. Moreover, He also says to Peter: "Go thou to the sea, and cast a hook, and take up the fish that shall first come up; and having opened its mouth, thou shalt find a stater (that is, two denarii), and thou shalt give it for me and for thee." And similarly David says by the Spirit: "God spake once, twice I have heard the same." Because God once decreed from the beginning what shall be even to the end. Finally, as He Himself is the Judge appointed by the Father. on account of His assumption of humanity, wishing to show that men shall be judged by the word that He had declared, He says: "Think ye that I will judge you at the last day? Nay, but the word," says He, "which I have spoken unto you, that shall judge you in the last day." And Paul, speaking of Antichrist to the Thessalonians, says: "Whom the Lord Jesus will slay by the breath of His mouth." And Isaiah says: "By the breath of His lips He shall slay the wicked." This, therefore, is the two-edged sword issuing out of His mouth.

At all times let us stand firm, but especially now, although many afflictions overtake us and many heretics are furious against us. Let us then, my beloved brothers, celebrate with thanksgiving the holy feast that now draws near to us, "girding up the loins of our minds," like our Savior Jesus Christ, of whom it is written, "Righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins."

Finally, He must be supremely just, because of the manifold character of a justice making infallible inquiries, irreproachable distinctions, and irrevocable judgments, handing out retribution to each one according to his deeds. Isaiah writes: "A shoot shall sprout from the stump of Jesse. Justice shall be the band around his waist. Not by appearance shall He judge nor by hearsay shall He decide." Such, then, is God: for if He were mere man, He could not judge otherwise than through witnesses. All the judgments of Scriptures refer to this one judgment.

"Righteousness shall be the girdle of his waist, and truth the girdle of his loins." As a king has a belt made of gold and precious stones, so in a prophetic manner, he speaks about the belt made of righteousness and truth. By the belt we may also understand the divinity of the Word, because he is righteousness, according to the apostle: "He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption." He is also the truth, according to Evangelist: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life." The Word being the righteousness and the truth that comes from the root of Jesse, his waist [belt] points out to his attribute as king and warrior as the Word who conquers the invisible powers and hosts.

He is not speaking of a literal, physical belt, for all the language in this passage he employs in a spiritual sense.

368. And justice shall be. Here his constancy in persevering is set out: and justice, which he shall observe in his judgments, shall be the girdle of his loins, that is, the sword with which he shall fight, and faith, confidence from God by which he will prevail; and this can be applied to Christ and to the just kings. Or the girdle of his loins which strongly adheres to man, and girdles the whole man on all sides. Or justice, in the equity of the deed, faith, faithfulness in the mode of doing: stand, having your loins girt about (Eph 6:14); or justice, the just; faith, the faithful; and thus these words are only referred to Christ: as the girdle sticks close to the loins of a man, so have I brought close to me all the house of Israel (Jer 13:11). From this Jerome argues against the Hebrews that all these things cannot be understood literally.

If the earthly lion could read the prophecy of that day when he shall eat hay like an ox, he would regard it as a description not of heaven, but of hell. And if there is nothing in the lion but carnivorous sentience, then he is unconscious and his "survival" would have no meaning. But if there is a rudimentary Leonine self, to that also God can give a "body" as it pleases Him--a body no longer living by the destruction of the lamb, yet richly Leonine in the sense that it also expresses whatever energy and splendour and exulting power dwelled within the visible lion on this earth. I think, under correction, that the prophet used an eastern hyperbole when he spoke of the lion and the lamb lying down together. That would be rather impertinent of the lamb. To have lions and lambs that so consorted (except on some rare celestial Saturnalia of topsy-turvydom) would be the same as having neither lambs nor lions. I think the lion, when he has ceased to be dangerous, will still be awful: indeed, that we shall then first see that of which the present fangs and claws are a clumsy, and satanically perverted, imitation. There will still be something like the shaking of a golden mane: and often the good Duke will say, "Let him roar again".

[Isaiah] continues prophetically to show the transformation of all different races of humanity, barbarian and Greek … through the teaching of Christ.… The irrational animals and wild beasts in the passage represent the Gentiles, who are naturally like animals. One who comes from the seed of Jesse will rule over the Gentiles. This is the genealogy of our Savior and Lord, in whom the Gentiles now believe and hope.

And sometimes this pure gentleness and this pure fierceness met and justified their juncture; the paradox of all the prophets was fulfilled, and, in the soul of St. Louis, the lion lay down with the lamb. But remember that this text is too lightly interpreted. It is constantly assured, especially in our Tolstoyan tendencies, that when the lion lies down with the lamb the lion becomes lamb-like. But that is brutal annexation and imperialism on the part of the lamb. That is simply the lamb absorbing the lion instead of the lion eating the lamb. The real problem is--Can the lion lie down with the lamb and still retain his royal ferocity? That is the problem the Church attempted; that is the miracle she achieved.

For behold, we who seem clothed in religious habit have come together from the diverse condition of the world to faith and to hearing the word of the almighty Lord, and from dissimilar iniquities we have been gathered into the concord of holy Church, so that what is said of the promise of the Church through Isaiah now seems to have been openly fulfilled: "The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid." For through the bowels of holy charity the wolf dwells with the lamb, because those who were plunderers in the world rest in peace with the gentle and meek. And the leopard lies down with the kid, because he who was spotted with the stains of his sins consents to be humbled with him who despises himself and confesses himself a sinner. Where it is also added: "The calf and the lion and the sheep shall dwell together," because he who prepares himself as a daily sacrifice to God through a contrite heart, and another who raged severely from cruelty like a lion, and another who perseveres in the simplicity of his innocence like a sheep, have come together in the folds of holy Church. Behold what charity is like, which kindles, burns up, melts together the diversities of minds and reforms them as it were into one appearance of gold.

I am quite aware that some persons endeavour to refer these words to the case of savage men, both of different nations and various habits, who come to believe, and when they have believed, act in harmony with the righteous. But although this is [true] now with regard to some men coming from various nations to the harmony of the faith, nevertheless in the resurrection of the just [the words shall also apply] to those animals mentioned. For God is non in all things. And it is right that when the creation is restored, all the animals should obey and be in subjection to man, and revert to the food originally given by God (for they had been originally subjected in obedience to Adam), that is, the productions of the earth. But some other occasion, and not the present, is [to be sought] for showing that the lion shall [then] feed on straw. And this indicates the large size and rich quality of the fruits. For if that animal, the lion, feeds upon straw [at that period], of what a quality must the wheat itself be whose straw shall serve as suitable food for lions?

The predicted blessing, therefore, belongs unquestionably to the times of the kingdom, when the righteous shall bear rule upon their rising from the dead; when also the creation, having been renovated and set free, shall fructify with an abundance of all kinds of food, from the dew of heaven, and from the fertility of the earth: as the elders who saw John, the disciple of the Lord, related that they had heard from him how the Lord used to teach in regard to these times, and say: The days will come, in which vines shall grow, each having ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each true twig ten thousand shoots, and in each one of the shoots ten thousand clusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give five and twenty metretes of wine. And when any one of the saints shall lay hold of a cluster, another shall cry out, "I am a better cluster, take me; bless the Lord through me." In like manner [the Lord declared] that a grain of wheat would produce ten thousand ears, and that every ear should have ten thousand grains, and every grain would yield ten pounds (quinque bilibres) of clear, pure, fine flour; and that all other fruit-bearing trees, and seeds and grass, would produce in similar proportions (secundum congruentiam iis consequentem); and that all animals feeding [only] on the productions of the earth, should [in those days] become peaceful and harmonious among each other, and be in perfect subjection to man.

And these things are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book; for there were five books compiled (συντεταγμένα) by him. And he says in addition, "Now these things are credible to believers." And he says that, "when the traitor Judas did not give credit to them, and put the question, 'How then can things about to bring forth so abundantly be wrought by the Lord.' the Lord declared, 'They who shall come to these [times] shall see.' " When prophesying of these times, therefore, Esaias says: "The wolf also shall feed with the lamb, and the leopard shall take his rest with the kid; the calf also, and the bull, and the lion shall eat together; and a little boy shall lead them. The ox and the bear shall feed together, and their young ones shall agree together; and the lion shall eat straw as well as the ox. And the infant boy shall thrust his hand into the asp's den, into the nest also of the adder's brood; and they shall do no harm, nor have power to hurt anything in my holy mountain." And again he says, in recapitulation, "Wolves and lambs shall then browse together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and the serpent earth as if it were bread; and they shall neither hurt nor annoy anything in my holy mountain, says the Lord." [Isaiah 40:6, etc.] I am quite aware that some persons endeavour to refer these words to the case of savage men, both of different nations and various habits, who come to believe, and when they have believed, act in harmony with the righteous. But although this is [true] now with regard to some men coming from various nations to the harmony of the faith, nevertheless in the resurrection of the just [the words shall also apply] to those animals mentioned. For God is rich in all things. And it is right that when the creation is restored, all the animals should obey and be in subjection to man, and revert to the food originally given by God (for they had been originally subjected in obedience to Adam), that is, the productions of the earth. But some other occasion, and not the present, is [to be sought] for showing that the lion shall [then] feed on straw. And this indicates the large size and rich quality of the fruits. For if that animal, the lion, feeds upon straw [at that period], of what a quality must the wheat itself be whose straw shall serve as suitable food for lions?

The others are easy to understand according to the vivifying spirit. For Paul the wolf, who first persecuted and lacerated the church, about whom it was said, "Benjamin is a rapacious wolf," lived with a lamb—that is, either with Ananias, by whom he was baptized, or with the apostle Peter, to whom it was said, "Feed my lambs." And the leopard, which first did not change its spots, once it was washed in the fountain of the Lord lay down with the kid—not the goat on the left but the one that is sacrificed at the pasch of the Lord. It is also to be noted that the lamb and the kid will not dwell and recline with the wolf and the leopard, but the wolf and the leopard will imitate the innocence of the lamb and the kid.The lion, previously most ferocious, and the sheep and the calf lingered together. We also see in the church today that the rich and the poor, the powerful and the humble, kings and peasants, remain together and are ruled in the church by small children, whom we understand to be the apostles and apostolic men, men who are unskilled in rhetoric but not in knowledge. When they are federated among themselves by the discipline of the Lord, such that their families also are united, then the saying will be implemented: "Their young will lie down together." The lion, moreover, will not eat meat but hay, because it feeds on simple food. Observe also that the cow will not eat meat, but the lion will eat hay. I believe that "hay" in sacred Scripture is understood to be simple words, as is "wheat," the inner marrow, the meaning which is found in the letter. And it frequently happens that secular men unacquainted with the mysteries are fed by a simple reading of the Scriptures. The infant also, who is a child with respect to evil, places his hand in the hole of the asp and demons flee from the besieged bodies of men. One who is weaned no longer takes nourishment from the milk of infants but now feeds on solid food. He puts his hand in the den of the serpent, that is, the habitation of Satan himself, and extracts him from it. Hence the apostles were given power to tread on serpents and scorpions and every strength of the enemy. And venomous beasts were previously unable to harm or to kill those who will have lived on God's holy mountain, which means the church, about which it is said in the Gospel, "A city set on a hill cannot be hidden."

Not of course that the ox may learn ferocity from the lion but that the lion may learn docility from the ox.

"And I will strike for you a covenant on that day with the beasts of the field, the birds of the air and with what crawls on the ground; and I will destroy the bow, the sword and war from the earth; and I will make them sleep in safety." According to the Septuagint, "And I will arrange for them a covenant on that day with the beasts of the field, the birds of the air and with what crawls on the ground; and I will destroy war from the earth; and I will make them live in hope." When all talk of false religion is removed from the people who confess the Lord and, he said, when they call me "my husband," no longer daring to cry to "Baal" (which means "my idol"), then I will strike for them a covenant and an agreement with the beasts of the field and with the birds of the sky and with what crawls on the ground. Of this moment Isaiah also speaks: "The wolf will dwell with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the kid, and the calf, the lion and the lamb will remain together, and a small child will lead them." The cow and the bear will feed together and relax with their young; and the lion will eat hay like the ox, no longer desiring to eat flesh and blood at all, but enjoying its food with the pure and simple. To enable him to receive Cornelius from the Gentiles, it was revealed and commanded to Peter that he could eat any animal and that he should consider nothing to be unclean when, after being seized with thanksgiving, he later heard: "What God has purified, you must not call common." At the coming of the Lord our Savior, therefore, after the triumph of his resurrection and ascension to the Father, two walls will be joined at the cornerstone by him who "made both one." He called her "pitied" who was once called "not pitied," and he called them his people who was once called "not my people." And the bow, the sword and war will be destroyed, granting peace to all. For instruments of war are unnecessary when there is no one to wage war. Israel will be joined to the Gentiles, and what was said in Deuteronomy will be fulfilled: "Rejoice, Gentiles, with his people." For "God is known in Judah, his name is great in Israel."

(Verse 6 and following) The wolf will live with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the young goat; the calf, the lion, and the sheep will all stay together, and a small child will lead them. The calf and the bear will graze together; their young ones will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like an ox. The infant will play near the cobra's den, and the young child will put his hand into the viper's nest. They will not cause harm or destroy on my holy mountain, for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea. This also the Jews and our Jewish followers contend will happen literally, that in the glory of Christ, whom they believe will come at the end of the world, all beasts will be tamed, and the former ferocity, the wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the other things with the others, which we now see as contrary to each other. We should ask those who accept everything in the present text as it is written, and do not relate to spiritual understanding, according to the saying of the Apostle, who says: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ (2 Corinthians 1:3), therefore, the root, and the branch, and the flower should not be understood literally: and when it is said that the earth was struck by the word of God, and the wicked were killed by the breath of his lips, they should be understood as written: and they should be compelled to teach how the Lord's loins are surrounded by incorporeal things with righteousness and truth. But let us also ask them what is worthy of the majesty of the Lord, that the wolf and the lamb may feed together, and the leopard may lie down with the young goat, and the lion may eat straw like the ox, and a small child may put his hand into the hole of the venomous snake? Unless, perhaps, according to the fables of the poets, they will restore to us the golden age of Saturn, in which wolves and lambs will feed together, and rivers will flow with sweet wine, and the sweetest honey will drip from the leaves of trees, and everything will be filled with milk from the fountains. But if they respond that for the happiness of the times these things are to come, so that without anyone's harm, men may enjoy all good things, let them hear from us that nothing is good except virtue, and nothing is evil except vice, as the Psalmist says: Who is the man that desires life, and loves to see good days? Restrain your tongue from evil, and your lips from speaking deceit. Turn away from evil, and do good. (Psalm 34:14; 31:27). But riches, and bodily health, and abundance of all things, and their contraries, poverty, weakness, and lack, even among the philosophers of the world, are neither reckoned among good things nor among bad things, but are called indifferent. And the Stoics also, who agree in most respects with our doctrine, consider nothing to be good except honesty and virtue alone, and nothing to be evil except shamefulness. We have briefly stated these things in order to convincingly refute those who Judaize while in a deep sleep. However, through the life-giving spirit, understanding is easy. For Paul, formerly a persecutor and destroyer of the Church, is like a wolf, of whom it is said: Benjamin is a ravenous wolf; he dwelt with the lamb, or like Ananias, by whom he was baptized (Gen. XLIX, 27; Acts VIII), or like the Apostle Peter, to whom it was said: Feed my lambs (John XXI). And the leopard, who previously did not change its spots, lies down in the fountain of the Lord with the kid, not the one on the left, but the one sacrificed on the Lord's Passover. And this must be noted, that neither the lamb nor the kid dwell and lie down with the wolf and the leopard, but the wolf and the leopard imitate the innocence of the lamb and the kid. The lion also will dwell together with the most ferocious, and the sheep, and the calf. This we see daily in the Church, the rich and the poor, the powerful and the humble, kings and commoners dwelling together, and being ruled in the Church by little children, whom we understand to be the Apostles, and by Apostolic men, unskilled in language, but not in knowledge. When those who are bound together in the discipline of the Lord are united among themselves, so that their families are also joined, then this will be fulfilled: their young ones will rest together. The lion will also not eat meat, but straw, so that it may feed on simple food. And here it must be observed that it is not the ox that eats meat, but the lion that eats straw. I think that in Holy Scriptures, straw is understood as simple words. However, wheat and the inner marrow represent the meaning that is found in the letter: and it often happens that people of the world, who are ignorant of the mysteries, feed on simple reading of the Scriptures. The infant, who is small in wickedness, also puts his hand into the snake's hole and drives away the demons from the bodies of those possessed. But the child who is weaned is no longer nourished by milk but now eats solid food. He puts his hand into the cave of the ruler, that is, into the dwelling place of Satan himself, and from there he pulls him out. Hence, the power was given to the Apostles to tread on serpents and scorpions and over all the power of the enemy (Luke 10). However, poisonous animals will never be able to harm or kill those who dwell in the holy mountain of God, which is interpreted as the Church, as it is said in the Gospel: A city set on a hill cannot be hidden (Matt. 5:14). But lest we think that this is said about Mount Zion according to the error of the Hebrews, the following verse of the Gospel preaching shows the sacraments: For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord (Isaiah 11:9). This is what was said above more obscurely: The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid (Isaiah 11:6). And according to their custom, the words of the prophets are revealed at the end: As the waters cover the sea (Habakkuk 2:14). Just as the depths of the sea are covered by the waters of the sea, that is, the land covered by the waves, so the knowledge of the Lord will fill the whole earth. The blessed Apostle Peter also testifies to the diverse conjunction of previous manners in the linen cloth (Acts 10), which was sent down from heaven, having four elements, which we understand as representing the four regions of the world, so that we may know the earth filled with the knowledge of God: in this vessel there were quadrupeds, and serpents, and wild beasts, and birds of the sky, so that just as the Ark did in the Flood, the Church may provide in the world.

The prophet also foretold the kinds of people from whom the church would be established. Not only the meek and the mild and the good would form the church. The wild, the inhuman and men whose ways were like those of wolves and lions and bulls would flock together with them and form one church. Hear how the prophet foretold the diversity of this flock when he said, "Then a wolf shall feed with a lamb." And by this he showed the simplicity of the way of life the church's rulers would live.

When he says, "Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low, and the rough ways shall be made smooth," he is signifying the exaltation of the lowly, the humiliation of the self-willed, the hardness of the law changed into easiness of faith. For it is no longer toils and labors, says he, but grace and forgiveness of sins, affording great facility of salvation. Next he states the cause of these things, saying, "All flesh shall see the salvation of God," no longer Jews and proselytes only, but also all earth and sea and the entire human race. Because by "the crooked things" he signified our whole corrupt life, publicans, harlots, robbers, magicians, as many as having been perverted before afterwards walked in the right way: much as he himself likewise said, "Publicans and harlots go into the kingdom of God before you," because they believed. And in other words also again the prophet declared the selfsame thing, thus saying, "Then wolves and lambs shall feed together." For similarly here by the hills and valleys, he meant that incongruities of character are blended into one and the same evenness of self-restraint, so also there, by the characters of the brute animals indicating the different human dispositions, he again spoke of their being linked in one and the same harmony of godliness.

I have heard many saying, "The threats of a king are like the wrath of a lion"; being full of dejection and lamentation. What then should we say to such? That he who said, "The wolves and the lambs shall feed together; and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox," will be able to convert the lion into a mild lamb.

The elders who saw John, the disciple of the Lord, related that they had heard from him how the Lord used to teach in regard to these times, and say: The days will come, in which vines shall grow, each having ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each true twig ten thousand shoots, and in each one of the shoots ten thousand clusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give five and twenty metretes of wine. And when any one of the saints shall lay hold of a cluster, another shall cry out, "I am a better cluster, take me; bless the Lord through me." In like manner [the Lord declared] that a grain of wheat would produce ten thousand ears, and that every ear should have ten thousand grains, and every grain would yield ten pounds (quinque bilibres) of clear, pure, fine flour; and that all other fruit-bearing trees, and seeds and grass, would produce in similar proportions (secundum congruentiam iis consequentem); and that all animals feeding [only] on the productions of the earth, should [in those days] become peaceful and harmonious among each other, and be in perfect subjection to man... Now these things are credible to believers... When the traitor Judas did not give credit to them, and put the question, 'How then can things about to bring forth so abundantly be wrought by the Lord.' the Lord declared, 'They who shall come to these [times] shall see.'

The promise will be fulfilled when kings, peasants and the poor all gather equally around the one table of Christ (believed and seen by us); according to the prophet Isaiah: "Then the wolf will dine with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the kid, and the cow, the lion and the lamb will eat straw together, and a small child will feed them."

369. The wolf shall dwell. Here the effect of his rectitude is set out, which is in the multitude of peace, which he shows as to two things:

first, as to the meekness of the great,

second, as to the security of the lowly: and the sucking child (Isa 11:8).

The meekness of the great is shown as to three things:

first, as to dwelling: the rapacious wolf with the innocent lamb, and on the contrary, for the wolf will follow the lamb's innocence; the crafty leopard with the simple kid; the calf, a kind of animal that is strong, and the lion, a kind of animal that is strong and fierce; the sheep, a kind of animal that is weak, together they will all be in unity, where there is neither Gentile nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free. But Christ is all and in all (Col 3:11). This is signified in Noah's ark, where there were all animals of each kind (Gen 7:1–3).

370. Second, as to government: a little child: Peter the fisherman. Above: behold I and my children (Isa 8:18); the foolish things of the world has God chosen, that he may confound the wise and the contemptible things that he may confound the strong (1 Cor 1:27); shall lead, that is, he shall lead them to the kingdom, like a general.

Such is the grace of the waters, that their calves and lions flee from them, so that this prophetic saying about the sanctity of the Church rightly applies to them: Then wolves and lambs will graze together, and lions and oxen will eat straw together. No wonder, since even in the Church, water works in the same way, that the washed-away wickedness of the thieves is compared with the innocence.

Where and when, therefore, will this blessing be accomplished except in the kingdom of God, where grain, wine and oil are in abundance? The earth will yield its fruit generously and every evil will be destroyed, as Isaiah said: "In those days, the lion will eat straw with the ox, the wolf and the lamb will feed together, and a small child will put his hand in the den of an asp without being harmed." In his kingdom, God will recreate the world as wonderfully as it was made at the beginning, before the first man sinned. For after he violated the word of God, all things were corrupted, profaned and cursed when God said, "Cursed is the ground because of your works." The passing form of this world, therefore, will become the kingdom of the saints and the liberation of creation.

If we carefully examine the words of the Prophets, we discover that these and they were put forth by the same Spirit. For when Isaiah observed the life of sinners devoured by the ancient and insatiable enemy, he said, "the lion shall eat straw like the ox." But what is signified by the words hay, and straw, except the life of the carnal? Of which it is said by the Prophet, "All flesh is hay." He then who here is 'Behemoth,' is there a 'lion;' they who are here called 'hay,' are there called 'straw.' But the mind strives to enquire why this lion in Isaiah, or Behemoth as he is called by the voice of the Lord, is in both passages compared not to a horse, but an ox. But we ascertain this the sooner, if we consider what is the difference of foods in the two animals. For horses eat hay, however dirty, but drink clean water only. But oxen drink water, however filthy, but feed only on clean hay. What then is it, for which this Behemoth is compared to an ox, which feeds on clean food, except that which is said of this ancient enemy by another Prophet: "His food is choice." For he rejoices not in seizing those whom he beholds lying of their own accord in the lowest depths with himself, involved in wicked and filthy actions. He therefore seeks to eat hay as an ox, because he seeks to wound with the fang of his suggestion the pure life of the spiritual.

Hence there too it is added: "And a little child shall lead them." Who is this little child except he of whom it is written: "A child is born to us, a son is given to us"? He leads those dwelling together, because lest our hearts cling to earthly things, he daily inflames them through inward desire. And this very leading of his is to kindle us unceasingly to love of him, lest when we love one another we remain in mind in this exile, lest the rest of this life so please us that it leads to forgetfulness of our homeland, lest the mind delighted by prosperity grow sluggish.

371. Third, as to eating, in two ways:

as to conformity of food: the calf, who eats grass and is a clean animal, the bear, who tears meat and is not a clean animal, shall feed together, on the same food of the Word of God; their young ones, that is, their families, together, that is, in conformity, shall rest to eat, or the food of the sacraments: they ate the same spiritual food (1 Cor 10:3).

Second, as to humility of food, the lion, the king, like the ox, the rustic, straw, rough doctrine, or, literally, abstinence from food: shall the rhinoceros be willing to serve you, or will he stay at your crib? (Job 39:9).

But this seems to be more expressly preserved in religion, where men of different ages and conditions live with one mind, that is, in conformity: who makes men of one mind to dwell in a house (Ps 67:7[68:6]). Others say that this was fulfilled in the time of the good kings, when the great lived in peace with the lowly. The Jews say all these things are to happen literally in the times of the antichrist.

Listen to how the flesh of God becomes an antidote: The Word became flesh; He put His hand into the den of vipers, He expelled the venom, He removed sin; that is, He condemned sin in the flesh.

Happily the Creator has promised by Isaiah to give this power even to little children, of putting their hand in the cockatrice den and on the hole of the young asps without at all receiving hurt. And, indeed, we are aware … that under the figure of scorpions and serpents are portended evil spirits, whose very prince is described by the name of serpent, dragon and every other most conspicuous beast in the power of the Creator. This power the Creator conferred first of all upon his Christ, even as the ninetieth psalm says to him: "Upon the asp and the basilisk shall you tread; the lion and the dragon shall you trample under foot." So also Isaiah: "In that day the Lord God shall draw his sacred, great and strong sword" (even his Christ) "against that dragon, that great and tortuous serpent; and he shall slay him in that day."

372. And the sucking child shall play. Here he shows the security of the young, and he sets out three things:

their confidence, where against horror he sets out joy: on the other hole of the asp, that is, on the trials which the devil or a tyrant will send, and immediately, because he has begun to be nourished by the milk of the doctrine of faith: and not only so: but we glory also in tribulation, knowing that tribulation works patience (Rom 5:3); or in converting the wicked: he that hears, let him say: come (Rev 22:17). Against flight, which is indicative of fear, he sets out the daring of invasion; the weaned child, now eating solid food, shall do more, for he shall thrust his hand into the den of the basilisk, that is, the devil, who is king over all the children of pride (Job 41:25); for he will confidently expose himself to the persecutions of tyrants, as did many martyrs: he exults boldly, he goes forward to meet armed men (Job 39:21); or this refers to preachers, who thrust the hand of preaching for the conversion of sinners; or at the breasts, of newness and delight, for the newly converted rejoice at this.

But now, to all the earth has gone forth their voice, and all the earth has been filled with the knowledge of God, and the disciples have made disciples of all the nations, and now is fulfilled what is written: "They shall be all taught of God." And then what was revealed was but a type; but now the truth has been manifested.

Beyond philosophical knowledge, God gave us theological knowledge, which is the pious awareness of credible truth: because the eternal light, namely God, is a light inaccessible to us as long as we are mortal and have the eyes of a bat. Hence Augustine says: "The weak gaze of the mind is not fixed upon so excellent a light unless it is cleansed through the justice of faith." Therefore theological knowledge is founded upon faith: just as the philosophical sciences are founded upon their first principles, so the science of Scripture is founded upon the articles of faith, which are the twelve foundations of the city. Concerning this knowledge it is said in Isaiah: "They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain": there follows: "because the earth is filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters of the sea covering it." Sacred Scripture is compared to the water of the sea on account of the profundity of its mysteries, on account of the manifold variety of its senses and on account of the establishment of the Churches.

In relation to the abundantly flowing multiformity of the spiritual meanings, there are many outpourings, of the waters from clouds, rivers, fountains, and all come from the sea. If you ask: How? It is through various detours and motions: this is how the cloud, the river, the fountain answer. Hence, in Isaiah: "The earth shall be filled with knowledge of the Lord, as water covers the sea." And before this: "There shall be no harm or ruin on all my holy mountain."

Now this refers much more directly to the time of the New Testament, when Scripture was made evident, and mostly toward the end, when those Scriptures were understood which had not been understood before. For then there shall be a "mountain," that is, the contemplative Church; then, "there shall be no harm" when the monsters of heresy shall flee on account of the proper use of wisdom.

Paul testifies to our Redeemer when he says, "He was made a curse for us." The wood of the cross is also announced through the prophet, who said, "The Lord reigned from a tree," and again, "Let us put wood in his bread." But the wood of the cross is explicitly revealed through the gospel, where the prophesied passion of the Lord is described.This very same cross is also maintained in words and works through the apostles, as when Paul writes, "The world is crucified to me and I to the world," and again, "May I glory in nothing except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ." For us who strive to reach the eternal homeland, therefore, sacred Scripture is the sea in its four aspects. It announces the cross because it bears us on a tree to the land of the living. Had the prophet not found a likeness between sacred Scripture and the sea, he never would have said, "The earth is full of the knowledge of the Lord, like the waters covering the sea." It follows, then: "The four had one likeness and their appearance and work was like a wheel within a wheel." The four had one likeness because what the law proclaimed, so also did the prophets; and what the prophets announced, the gospel set forth; and what the gospel set forth, the apostles proclaimed throughout the world. The likeness of the four is one, therefore, because even though the divine words are distinct with regard to time, they are nevertheless unified to those who hear them. "And their appearance and work was like a wheel within a wheel." The wheel within a wheel is the New Testament within the Old, as we have already said, for what the Old Testament signifies, this the New Testament displays. Let me speak succinctly of complex matters. What does it mean that Eve is produced from a sleeping Adam if not that the church is formed from the dying Christ? What does it mean that Isaac bore wood as he was led to be sacrificed and that he continued to live after he had been laid on the altar, if not that our Redeemer himself bore the wood of the cross as he was led along and that he died in sacrifice for us according to his humanity but nevertheless remained immortal in his divinity?

We all are blended into one and the same evenness of self-restraint, so also there, by the characters of the brute animals indicating the different dispositions of men, he again spoke of their being linked in one and the same harmony of godliness.

The successful spread of the gospel message all over the world was also predicted.

373. Second, he sets out inability to hurt them: they shall not hurt; in my holy mountain, that is, the Church, except the willing: behold, I have given you power (Luke 10:19); and these signs shall follow them that believe: they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents: and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them (Mark 16:17–18).

374. Third, he sets out the cause of both: for the earth is filled with the knowledge of the Lord: their sound has gone forth into all the earth (Ps 18:5[19:4]); I, wisdom, have poured out rivers (Sir 24:40).

The Jews explain all of this literally. Others say that it signifies that, in the times of the good kings, all the young boldly committed themselves to those who were previously plunderers and cruel men.

Here is the meaning: his death will be glorious so that what the Savior prayed in the Gospel might be fulfilled: "Father, glorify me with the glory that I had with you before the world came to be." This was said about his nativity and about other sacraments in the public view. He came to death who was not accustomed to bearing the name of the dead but because perpetual life was in Christ, it was called "rest." But we, in order to make the meaning clear to the reader, replaced "rest" and "dormancy" with another word of the same meaning: "sepulcher." At that time therefore, when the gospel of Christ shines in all the world and the earth is filled with the knowledge of God, like waters of the sea covering the land, the root of Jesse and he who arises from his stem will be a sign to all the people, that they might see the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. He will have a horn in his hands, in which are hidden his strength, that when he is exalted he might draw all things to himself.

Long before this tomb [of Christ] was hewn out by Joseph, its glory was foretold in Isaiah's prediction, "his rest shall be glorious," meaning that the place of the Lord's burial should be held in universal honor.

In that day, that is, at the time of which it was also spoken above, when the root of Jesse will arise as a sign for the peoples, or to rule the nations, the Lord will send forth his hand a second time that all of Israel may be saved at the end of the world when the fullness of the Gentiles will enter, by no means according to our Judaizers. But we should understand all these things as pertaining to the first advent. For since only one day is indicated both here and above, we are unable to refer the former to the first advent and the latter to the second, such that the events that follow and those that preceded would not be referred to Christ, whom the Jews contended had not yet come, but would still come in the future. After the calling of the Gentiles, therefore, who were formerly thought to be the tail, Israel will be known as the tail, that the Lord may put forth his hand a second time and take possession of the remnant of his people, about whom we also read above: not all of Israel but that portion of Israel to be saved, which will remain from Assyria and Egypt and diverse parts of the world. For first the twelve apostles and the seventy and the one hundred twenty souls and the five hundred to whom the Lord appeared at once, then the three thousand and the five thousand are Jews who will have believed in the Lord.

On that day the root of Jesse shall stand as a signal to the peoples; the nations shall inquire of him, and his dwelling shall be glorious. LXX: On that day the root of Jesse shall stand as a signal to the peoples; the nations shall seek him out, and his dwelling shall be honored. For his resting place has been chosen in Hebrew, Mnuatho (), which all have likewise translated. And for his honor, in Hebrew it is read as Chabod (), which clearly signifies glory. And the meaning is: his death will be glorious, so that what the Savior prays for in the Gospel may be fulfilled: Father, glorify me with the glory which I had before the world was with you (John 17:5). It has been said about his birth, it has been said about the others in the midst of the Sacraments: he came to death, which is not called by the usual name of mortals, but because eternal life was in Christ, it is called rest. But we, in order to make the meaning clear to the reader, translate it as dormition and rest, with another word but the same meaning, we turn it into a tomb. Therefore, in that time, when the Gospel of Christ will shine forth throughout the whole world, and the knowledge of the Lord will fill all the earth like the waters cover the sea, the root of Jesse will be and the one who will rise from his lineage as a sign for all peoples, so that the nations may see the sign of the Son of Man in heaven (Matt. 24). He will have horns in his hands, in which his strength will be hidden, so that when exalted, he may draw all things to himself (Hab. 3). As the Septuagint translated, he will rise from the dead to be the prince of all nations, and all peoples will hope in him. This is also testified by Jacob in a mystical message about the tribe of Judah: The prince will not fail from Judah, nor the leader from his loins, until he comes to whom it belongs, and he will be the expectation of the nations. And in that day, the Lord will stretch out his hand a second time to possess the remnant of his people, which will be left behind by the Assyrians, and by Egypt, and by Phut, and by Ethiopia, and by Elam, and by Shinar, and by Hamath, and by the islands of the sea. And He will lift up a signal for the nations, and will gather the outcasts of Israel, and assemble the scattered ones of Judah from the four corners of the earth. The jealousy of Ephraim will depart, and the enemies of Judah will be destroyed. Ephraim will not be jealous of Judah, and Judah will not fight against Ephraim. They will swoop down on the Philistines' shoulder through the sea, together they will plunder the sons of the East. And Edom and Moab will be under their control, and the sons of Ammon will obey them. In that day, which is the time mentioned before, when the Root of Jesse rises as a signal for the peoples, in order to rule over the nations, the Lord will stretch out His hand a second time, so that not according to our Jewish understanding at the end of the world, when the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, then all Israel will be saved (Rom. XI); but let us understand all these things in relation to His first coming. For we cannot, when the same day is said both now and above, refer it to the first coming, and the one below to the second: lest by these things which follow, and those which precede, Christ whom the Jews contend has not yet come but is to come, should be referred to him. After the calling of the Gentiles, therefore, which were formerly reckoned in the tail, Israel shall be reckoned in the tail, in order that the Lord may again put forth his hand a second time, and possess the remnant of his people, of whom we have read above, not all Israel, but the remnants are to be saved, which shall be left by the Assyrians and by Egypt, and by the various nations around. For first the Twelve Apostles, and seventy, and one hundred twenty souls, and five hundred, who were gathered together, the Lord appeared to them, then three thousand, and five thousand Jews believed in the Lord. James also speaks to the apostle Paul, who himself was among the others: See, brother, how many thousands there are of believing Jews? all of these are zealous for the law (Acts 21:20). And in the same volume we read: Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven, who were amazed and said: Are not all these Galileans, and how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome, both Jews and converts to Judaism; Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues! (Acts 2:9-11) From all these nations, people from Israel, through the apostles, will be saved. The Ecclesiastical Histories report that the apostles preached the Gospel in the whole world, in such a way that some reached Persia and India, and Ethiopia extended its hands to God, and gifts for Christ were brought from across the rivers of Ethiopia. So that it may not seem to signify only the eastern peoples, it also includes the rest: And from the islands of the sea. However, the islands of the sea signify the western region, which is enclosed by the circuit of the ocean. Therefore, the sign of the Cross will be raised among all nations, and first it will gather the people of Israel from the synagogues, in order to fulfill the command of the Savior given to the Apostles, who said: Go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 10:6). Finally, Paul also speaks to the unbelievers among the Jews, saying: It was necessary for the word of God to be spoken to you first; but since you have rejected it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles, as the Lord has commanded us (Acts 13:46-47). But the four cardinal directions, east and west, south and north, signify, as by these the calling of the world is demonstrated. In that time, Isaiah says, Ephraim and Judah, who now, as prophesied by me, dissent with hostile hatred between themselves, will not be enemies, but according to the prophecy of Ezekiel, two rods will be joined into one rod, and they will be joined in the Church of Christ, who were previously separated (Ezek. VII), so that they may work together in the nations and willingly bear the burden of the Philistines on their shoulders across the sea, that is, they may first preach to the coastal Palestinians and swiftly proceed by sea to the other nations. Or according to the Seventy Interpreters: they will fly in the ships of foreigners, they will plunder the sea together; from which let us understand the example of the apostle Paul, who was carried by ships of foreigners through Pamphylia, and Asia, and Macedonia, and Achaia, and various islands and provinces, even to Italy (Acts 28), and as he himself writes, to Spain also (Romans 15). Therefore, Ephraim and Judah, that is, those who believed in Christ from the twelve tribes of the Jews, will plunder the East together, and extend their hands in Idumea and Moab, according to what Christ speaks mystically in the person of David: I will stretch out my shoe to Idumea: to me foreigners will serve (Psalm 59:10). For at that time when Isaiah prophesied, these nations were adversaries to the people of Judah, and therefore he now says that after the root of Jesse rises, to reign over the nations, and the banner of the Cross for the salvation of the whole world is raised up, then even Idumea, Moab, and the sons of Ammon, in fact, the entire extent of Arabia, will give their hands to the Apostles, and in the places of idolatry the Church of Christ will be raised up.

Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God. Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name. And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people. And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people. And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust. [Isaiah 11:10] Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost.

Now Jesse was the father of David, and the promise with an oath was made to David. The prophet would not have spoken of the Lord Christ as a rod growing out of Jesse if he had only known him as God.

375. In that day. Here he places the dignity of the restorer. For a sign, the sign of the cross; those who take up this sign will be saved: I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself (John 12:32); below: behold I will lift up my hand to the Gentiles, and will set up my sign to the people; him the Gentiles shall beseech (Isa 49:22). All kings of the earth shall adore him: all nations shall serve him (Ps 71[72]:11). His sepulcher shall be glorious: it shall be venerated by all; hence it is signified by the sepulcher which he built in Modin for an everlasting monument, that it might be seen by all passing by (1 Macc 13:25–30). Others explain this as concerning Josias, for he was buried in the sepulchers of the kings.

Listen now to Jeremiah: "This is our God, and there shall be no one else like him who has found out all the way of knowledge and has given it to Jacob his servant and to Israel his beloved. Afterward he showed himself on earth and dwelled among people." For previously he had said, "And he is human, and who shall know him?" Thus you have God seen on earth and dwelling among people. Now I ask you what sense you would assign to "no one has seen God at any time, except the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father," when Jeremiah proclaims God seen on earth and dwelling among people? The Father most assuredly cannot be seen except by the Son. Who then is this who was seen and lived among us? He must be our God, for he is God visible in human form, whom human beings can handle.

It is ordained that not only we human beings but also the angels, the archangels, the celestial nations and all we who are on earth give praise. "Bless the Lord," it says, "all you works of his." His good works are no small achievement; rather, they exceed all speech, intellect and human understanding. The prophets announce these things every day, each in various ways publishing this splendid triumph. One says, "You have gone up on high, you have led captivity captive, and you have received gifts among people." And, "The Lord strong and powerful in battle." And another says, "He will divide the spoils of the strong." For this is why he came, in order to announce freedom to the prisoners and the recovery of sight to the blind. And raising aloud the cry of victory against over death, he said, "Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O grave, is your sting?" And another, in its turn, announcing good news of the most profound peace, said, "They will forge their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks." And while one invokes Jerusalem, saying, "Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion, because your king comes to you, meek, riding on a beast of burden, a young colt," another proclaims his second coming, thus saying, "The Lord, whom you seek, will come, and who will abide the day of his coming? Leap as calves set free from their bonds." And another again, amazed at such similar events, said, "This is our God; no other will be compared with him."

They speak who obeyed the apostolic calling without delay and "have the desire to be set free from the body so as to be with Christ," preferring nothing to the fulfillment of the commandments.

Now this is His Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, who in the last times was made a man among men, that He might join the end to the beginning, that is, man to God. Wherefore the prophets, receiving the prophetic gift from the same Word, announced His advent according to the flesh, by which the blending and communion of God and man took place according to the good pleasure of the Father, the Word of God foretelling from the beginning that God should be seen by men, and hold converse with them upon earth, should confer with them, and should be present with His own creation, saving it, and becoming capable of being perceived by it, and freeing us from the hands of all that hate us, that is, from every spirit of wickedness; and causing us to serve Him in holiness and righteousness all our days, in order that man, having embraced the Spirit of God, might pass into the glory of the Father.…Inasmuch, then, as the Spirit of God pointed out by the prophets things to come, forming and adapting us beforehand for the purpose of our being made subject to God, but it was still a future thing that man, through the good pleasure of the Holy Spirit, should see [God], it necessarily behoved those through whose instrumentality future things were announced, to see God, whom they intimated as to be seen by men; in order that God, and the Son of God, and the Son, and the Father, should not only be prophetically announced, but that He should also be seen by all His members who are sanctified and instructed in the things of God, that man might be disciplined beforehand and previously exercised for a reception into that glory which shall afterwards be revealed in those who love God.

The prophet David says, "He sent his word and healed them." And Jeremiah, "He is our God, and there is no other but him, who has searched all the ways of wisdom and given it to Jacob, his beloved. After that he appeared on earth and dwelled among human beings." And the prophet Habakkuk says, "The word will depart and go out into the fields." And the prophet Isaiah, "Their heart is completely weighed down. He is a man, and who will know him?" John the Evangelist confirms this, saying, "The Word became flesh and dwelled among us." Paul also attests this: "He, being by nature equal to God, did not consider it a good to be equal to God but made himself nothing, taking the nature of a servant, becoming like human beings and being as a man." And the Sibyl confesses, "Certainly to judge the flesh and the world with his presence."

He clearly calls us to goodness by Solomon when he says, "Blessed is the one who has found wisdom and the mortal who has found understanding." "For goodness is found by him who seeks it and is likely to be seen by him who has found it." By Jeremiah, too, he sets forth prudence when he says, "Blessed are we, Israel; for what is pleasing to God is known by us"—and it is known by the Word, by whom we are blessed and wise. For wisdom and knowledge are mentioned by the same prophet when he says, "Hear, O Israel, the commandments of life, and listen to know understanding."

He urges the Israelites to be the first to take hold of grace. In fact, "it was necessary that the Word of God first be announced to them." The spiritual Israel speaks in this way, to whom the Savior addresses himself, saying, "Blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears, because they hear."

And it was fitting that the king, who prized the substances deemed precious among people, gold, and silver, and brass and iron, should identify these substances as the kingdoms that held sovereignty at different times in the life of humankind; but that the prophet should describe these same kingdoms under the likeness of beasts, in accordance with the manner of their rule. And again, the king—who was puffed up, so it appears, in his own conceit and prided himself on the power of his ancestors—is shown the vicissitude to which affairs are subject and the end destined for all the kingdoms of the earth. This is done in order to teach him humility and understand that there is nothing lasting among people but only that which is appointed the end of all things—the kingdom of God.

"Behold a great image." How, then, should we not mark the things prophesied of old in Babylon by Daniel, and now yet in the course of fulfilment in the world? For the image shown at that time to Nebuchadnezzar furnished a type of the whole world. In these times the Babylonians were sovereign over all, and these were the golden head of the image. And then, after them, the Persians held the supremacy for 245 years, and they were represented by the silver. Then the Greeks had the supremacy, beginning with Alexander of Macedon, for 300 years, so that they were the brass. After them came the Romans, who were the iron legs of the image, for they were strong as iron. Then (we have) the toes of clay and iron, to signify the democracies that were subsequently to rise, partitioned among the ten toes of the image, in which shall be iron mixed with clay.

"Thou sawest," etc. Apollinaris on this: He looked, and behold, as it were, an image. For it did not appear to him as an actual object, presented to the view of an onlooker, but as an image or semblance. And while it contains in it many things together, that is in such a way that it is not really one, but manifold. For it comprised a summary of all kingdoms; and its exceeding splendour was on account of the glory of the kings, and its terrible appearance on account of their power. Eusebius Pumphili, and Hippolytus the most holy bishop of Rome, compare the dream of Nebuchadnezzar now in question with the vision of the prophet Daniel. Since these have given a different interpretation of this vision now before us in their expositions, I deemed it necessary to transcribe what is said by Eusebius of Caesarea, who bears the surname Pamphili, in the 15th book of his Gospel Demonstration; for he expounds the whole vision in these terms: "I think that this (i.e., the vision of Nebuchadnezzar) differs in nothing from the vision of the prophet. For as the prophet saw a great sea, so the king saw a great image. And again, as the prophet saw four beasts, which he interpreted as four kingdoms, so the king was given to understand four kingdoms under the gold, and silver, and brass, and iron. And again, as the prophet saw the division of the ten horns of the last beast, and three horns broken by one; so the king, in like manner, saw in the extremities of the image one part iron and another clay. And besides this, as the prophet, after the vision of the four kingdoms, saw the Son of man receive dominion, and power, and a kingdom; so also the king thought he saw a stone smite the whole image, and become a great mountain and fill the sea. And rightly so. For it was quite consistent in the king, whose view of the spectacle of life was so false, and who admired the beauty of the mere sensible colours, so to speak, in the picture set up to view, to liken the life of all men to a great image; but (it became) the prophet to compare the great and mighty tumult of life to a mighty sea. And it was fitting that the king, who prized the substances deemed precious among men, gold, and silver, and brass, and iron, should liken to these substances the kingdoms that held the sovereignty at different times in the life of men; but that the prophet should describe these same kingdoms under the likeness of beasts, in accordance with the manner of their rule. And again, the king-who was puffed up, as it seems, in his own conceit, and plumed himself on the power of his ancestors-is shown the vicissitude to which affairs are subject, and the end destined for all the kingdoms of earth, with the view of teaching him to lay aside his pride in himself, and understand that there is nothing stable among men, but only that which is the appointed end of all things-the kingdom of God. For after the first kingdom of the Assyrians, which was denoted by the gold, there will be the second kingdom of the Persians, expressed by the silver; and then the third kingdom of the Macedonians, signified by the brass; and after it, the fourth kingdom of the Romans will succeed, more powerful than those that went before it; for which reason also it was likened to iron. For of it is said: "And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron; as iron breaketh and subdueth all things, so shall it break and subdue all things." And after all these kingdoms which have been mentioned, the kingdom of God is represented by the stone that breaks the whole image. And the prophet, in conformity with this, does not see the kingdom which comes at the end of all these things, until he has in order described the four dominions mentioned under the four beasts. And I think that the visions shown, both to the king and to the prophet, were visions of these four kingdoms alone, and of none others, because by these the nation of the Jews was held in bondage from the times of the prophet."

Verse 31. "Thou sawest, O king, and behold there was, as it were, a large statue." Instead of "statue," that is a sculptured effigy, the only rendering used by Symmachus, others have translated it as "image," intending by this term to indicate a resemblance to future events. Let us go through the prophetic interpretation, and as we translate Daniel's words, let us explain at some length the matters which he briefly states.

It is made known that the devout as well as the impious see visions and dreams, as can be proved from Scripture.… Nebuchadnezzar, who worshiped images and ordered those who worshiped God to be cast into fire, saw a dream extending over the whole age of the world.… Thus, we cannot infer with absolute certainty that the one who has seen visions and dreams and apparitions is undoubtedly devout. For in the case of the devout person, the truth gushes up natural and pure in his mind, not worked through dreams but granted to the good through intelligence.

As Daniel said, "You are the head of gold." And why was he called the head of gold? Was it not because the word of Jeremiah was fulfilled in him? For Jeremiah said, "Babylon is a golden cup in the hand of the Lord that makes all the earth to drink of its wine." And also Babylon was called the head of all kingdoms, as it is written, "Babylon was the head of the kingdom of Nimrod."

This signified a kingdom that was inferior to it; namely, Darius the Mede [king of Persia]. For he put the kingdom on the scales, and the kingdom of the house of Nimrod was weighed and found wanting. And because it was wanting, Darius received it. Because of this he [Daniel] said "another kingdom inferior to you." And because it was inferior, the children of Media did not rule in all the earth.

This is the kingdom of the children of Javan, who are children of Japhet. For the children of Javan came against the kingdom of their brothers. For Madai and Javan are sons of Japhet. But Madai was foolish and incapable of governing the kingdom, until Javan, his brother, came, who was wise and cunning, to destroy the kingdoms. For Alexander, son of Philip, ruled in all the earth.

The second element, silver, signifies the Persian kingdom and the Medes. Cyrus, by way of his own success and marriage, created from the Medes the kingdom of Persia.… He speaks of a chest and arms to show that he knows there were two peoples, each limb a founder, that are joined together.

The iron is Alexander, the conqueror of all nations. Indeed, as iron submits all bodies, so he broke the forces of all princes and kings, and subjected their authorities. And the toes … these are the ten Hellenistic kings which originated from Alexander's empire: some of them were strong and powerful like iron; others were weak and humble. And even though they tried to settle peace and friendship among them with mutual marriages, they were never able to reach an agreement nor to stay firm in their decisions.

"His feet," etc. Hippolytus: In the vision of the prophet, the ten horns are the things that are yet to be.

We know that the stone cut from the mountain without hands is Christ, who came from the kingdom of the Jews without human father: the stone that shattered all the kingdoms of the earth, all the tyrannies of idols and devils; the stone that grew and became a great mountain and filled the whole world.

he speaks of a stone cut out of the mountains without hands, and, in the vision, of the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, whereby he indicates the Lord Christ on both sides of his descent—from Abraham and from the Virgin without human seed, for here the words without hands mean without human seed; while the words on the clouds of heaven are employed because the clouds without human hands carry as it were in their womb the rains to which they give birth. Then again, in the image, the words: And he smote the clay, the iron, the brass, the silver and the gold, and they became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors, and the wind with its gusts swept them away and there was no more place found for them (Dan. ii, 35); and in the vision the words: I beheld till the beast was slain and his body destroyed, and given to be burned with fire; and as for the rest of the beasts their dominion was taken away, yet their lives were prolonged for a season (Dan. vii, ii), signify respectively the same thing—namely, that at the coming of the Lord Christ all these empires would be taken away—the Babylonian, the Median, the Persian and the Macedonian, while all the kingdoms that arose from the partition of the last would become of no account. And such was the very condition of things in the time of Christ, for neither did the Babylonian, Median, Persian nor Macedonian empires then exist, but they had all been destroyed

A stone was cut without hands, and it brake in pieces the clay, the iron, the brass, the silver and the gold, and it filled the whole earth.

What is the stone … but Christ? For of him Isaiah says, "And I am laying in Zion for a foundation, a costly stone, precious, elect"; and Daniel likewise, "A stone was cut out but not by hand," that is, Christ was born without a man.

"Thou sawest till that a stone was cut." Thou sawest, as it were, a stone cut without hands, and smiting the image upon its feet. For the human kingdom was decisively separated from the divine; with reference to which it is written, "as it were cut." The stroke, however, smites the extremities, and in these it broke all dominion that is upon earth.

It talks of a mountain, and the mountain is veiled to the party of Donatus.… The holy Daniel saw a vision and wrote down what he saw, and he said that he had seen a stone hewn out of a mountain without hands. It is Christ, coming from the nations of the Jews, which was also a mountain, you see, because it has the kingdom.… What is the mountain over which the heretics stumbled? Listen to Daniel again: "And that stone grew and became a great mountain, such that it filled all the face of the earth." How right the psalm is to say to Christ the Lord as he rises again, "Be exalted over the heavens, O God, and let your glory be over the whole earth." What is your glory over the whole earth? Over the whole earth is your church, over the whole earth your bride.

"His holy hill" is his holy church. It is that mountain which, according to Daniel's vision, grew from a very small stone till it overtook the kingdoms of the earth and grew to such a size that it "filled the face of the earth."

If therefore the great God showed future things by Daniel, and confirmed them by His Son; and if Christ is the stone which is cut out without hands, who shall destroy temporal kingdoms, and introduce an eternal one, which is the resurrection of the just; as he declares, "The God of heaven shall raise up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed,"-let those thus confuted come to their senses, who reject the Creator (Demiurgum), and do not agree that the prophets were sent beforehand from the same Father from whom also the Lord came, but who assert that prophecies originated from diverse powers.

And in the days of those kings shall the God of Heaven set up a Kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people, and it shall stand for ever (Dan. ii, 44). And in the vision he says: And he came even to the Ancient of days and they brought him near before him—and there was given him dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all people, nations and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed (Dan. vii, 13, 14). This is one instance more of his saying the same thing both in the image and the vision, namely, that at the coming of the Lord Christ those kingdoms shall pass away and be destroyed, but his kingdom shall be indissoluble and eternal

He, being begotten by the Father before the beginning of time, was God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and remains the same for ever; for "of His kingdom there shall be no end," says Daniel the prophet. Let us all therefore love one another in harmony, and let no one look upon his neighbour according to the flesh, but in Christ Jesus. Let nothing exist among you which may divide you; but be ye united with your bishop, being through him subject to God in Christ.

Clearly, this teaches about that which will occur at the end, that is, the coming of the kingdom of heaven that is without end. For the kingdom of iron having been brought alongside the weaker element and the composite vessel having been wrought, then shall appear "the stone cut without hand." … The stone that was cut without hands and grew into a great mountain and fills the whole earth is the second advent, and it will strike against the feet of the vessel … and all kingdoms will be destroyed and delivered up to oblivion, and the kingdom without end will be established.

"And the dream is certain," That no one, therefore, may have any doubt whether the things announced shall turn out so or not, the prophet has confirmed them with the words, "And the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure; "I have not erred in the interpretation of the vision.

Verse 45. "The great God has shown to the king the events which shall hereafter come to pass, and the dream is true and its interpretation is reliable." Daniel again asserts that the revelation of the dream is not a matter of personal merit, but has been granted for the purpose of making the interpretation manifest to the king and of teaching the king that God alone is to be worshipped.

However, at the final period of all these empires of gold and silver and bronze and iron, a rock (namely, the Lord and Savior) was cut off without hands, that is, without copulation or human seed and by birth from a virgin's womb; and after all the empires had been crushed, He became a great mountain and filled the whole earth. This last the Jews and the impious Porphyry apply to the people of Israel, who they insist will be the strongest power at the end of the ages, and will crush all realms and will rule forever.

So we have in another place: "A child is born to us, and a son is given to us." In the term child there is an indication of age; in the term son a reference to the fullness of Godhead. He was made of his mother and born of the Father, but as the same person he was born and given. Do not think of two but of one. For the Son of God is one person, born of the Father and sprung from the virgin. The names differ in order but unite in one, just as the scriptural lesson just read teaches: "Man was made in her, and the Highest himself has founded her." He was man indeed in body, but the Highest in power. And while he is God and man through diversity of nature, he is the same person, not two persons, though being God and man. He has, therefore, something peculiar to his own nature and something in common with us, but in both cases he is one and in both he is perfect.

And not only did the Father send the Son but also gave him, as the Son himself gave himself. For we read, "Grace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins." If they think that the Son was subjected to God because he was sent, they cannot deny that it was of grace that he was given. But he was given by the Father, as Isaiah said: "Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given." But he was given by the Spirit and was sent by the Spirit. For since the prophet has not defined by whom he was given, he shows that he was given by the grace of the Trinity; and inasmuch as the Son himself gave himself, he could not be subject to himself according to his Godhead. Therefore that he was given could not be a sign of subjection in the Godhead.

Therefore, in order to call the Gentiles to the grace of his resurrection (for it is indeed a rich and fertile land that produces eternal fruits, fruits a hundred and sixty times over), he subjected his shoulder to work, subjecting himself to the cross, in order to carry our sins. And so the Prophet says: His authority is on his shoulder (Isaiah 9:6), that is, the power of divinity over the bodily passion, or the cross surpassing the body. Therefore, he placed his shoulder on the plow, enduring all insults, subjected to labor in such a way that he was wounded because of our iniquities, and weakened because of our sins.

Christ, then, is the beginning of our virtue. He is the beginning of purity, who taught maidens not to look for the embraces of humanity but to yield the purity of their bodies and minds to the service of the Holy Spirit rather than to a husband. Christ is the beginning of frugality, for he became poor, though he was rich. Christ is the beginning of patience, for when he was reviled, he reviled not again. When he was struck, he did not strike back. Christ is the beginning of humility, for he took the form of a servant, though in the majesty of his power he was equal with God the Father. From him each various virtue has taken its origin.For this cause, then, that we might learn these different virtues, "a son was given us, whose beginning was upon his shoulder." That "beginning" is the Lord's cross—the beginning of strong courage, wherewith a way has been opened for the holy martyrs to enter the sufferings of the holy war.

Furthermore, we must prove that this Jesus was beforehand promised from ancient times in the prophets and was called the Son of God. David said, "You are my son; today I have begotten you." Again he said, "In the glories of holiness, from the womb, from of old, I have begotten you, a child." And Isaiah said, "Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and his government was upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful, and Counselor, and mighty God of the ages, and Prince of peace. And to the increase of his government and to his peace there is no end." Therefore tell me, O wise teacher of Israel, who is he that was born and whose name was called "child" and "son" and "Wonderful" and "Counselor," the "mighty God of the ages," and "Prince of peace," "to the increase of" whose government and to whose "peace [he said], there is no end?" For if we call Christ the Son of God, David taught us [this]; and that we call him God, this we learned from Isaiah. "And his government was laid upon his shoulder"; for he bore his cross and went out from Jerusalem. And that he "was born as a child," Isaiah again said, "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear; and his name shall be called Immanuel, which is, our God with us."

We read, "A child is born to us," because we see him in the nature of a servant, which he had because the Virgin conceived and brought forth a son. However, because it was the Word of God who became flesh in order to dwell among us, and because he remains what he was (that is, really God hidden in the flesh), we use the words of the angel Gabriel and call "his name Emmanuel." He is properly called God with us to avoid thinking of God as one person and the humanity [in Christ] as another.

The fact that the one who talked to Moses is called both the angel of the Lord and the Lord raises a big problem, which calls not for hasty assertion but for careful investigation. There are two opinions that can be put forward about it, of which either may be true, since they both fit the faith. When I say that either may be true, I mean whichever of them was intended by the writer. When we are searching the Scriptures, we may of course understand them in a way in which the writer perhaps did not; but what we should never do is understand them in a way which does not square with the rule of faith, with the rule of truth, with the rule of piety. So I am offering you both opinions. There may be yet a third that escapes me. Anyway, of these two propositions, choose whichever you like. Some people say that the reason why he is called both the angel of the Lord and the Lord is that he was in fact Christ, of whom the prophet says plainly that he is "the angel of great counsel." "Angel" is a word signifying function, not nature. "Angel" is Greek for the Latin nuntius. So "Messenger" is the name of an action: you are called a messenger for doing something, namely, for bringing some message. Now who would deny that Christ brought us a message about the kingdom of heaven? And then an angel, that is to say, a messenger, is sent by the one who wants to give a message by him. And who would deny that Christ was sent? So often did he say, "I did not come to do my own will but the will of him who sent me," that he of all people is the one who was sent. After all, that pool at Siloam "means Sent." That is why he told the man whose eyes he anointed with mud to wash his face there. No one's eyes are opened except those of the person who is cleansed by Christ. So then, the angel and the Lord are one and the same.

Surely the entire divinely arranged plan of our Redeemer's [coming] in the flesh is the reconciliation of the world—it was for this purpose that he became incarnate, for this he suffered, for this he was raised from the dead—that he might lead us, who had incurred God's anger by sinning, back to God's peace by his act of reconciliation. Hence he was rightly given the name "Father of the world to come" and "Prince of peace" by the prophet; and the apostle, writing about him to those from among the nations who had believed, said, "And coming, he brought the good news of peace to you who were from far off and peace to those who were near, since through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father."

Clothed in flesh, [Christ] descended into the water as "an angel of great counsel," that is, as a herald of the Father's will to Jewish people. By his deeds and his teaching he moved sinners, so that he would be killed—he who, by his bodily death, was able not only to heal those who were ailing spiritually but also to bring the dead back to life. The movement of the water, then, suggests the Lord's passion, which occurred by the Jewish nation being moved and stirred up.

"Which will be to all people," not to all the people of the Jews, nor to all the people of the nations, but to all the people who, either from the Jews or from the nations of the whole world, are brought together in one flock to one confession of Christ. From one and the same partaking of the mysteries of Christ they are called "Christian." …The light of life rose for those of us dwelling in the region of the shadow of death.

But who is the good counselor? Certainly that one of whom it is said: 'His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, God, the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace.' He is the Angel of great counsel: this is he to whom we ought to attend with a pure heart. Ecclesiasticus says: 'Before all works let a true word precede you, and before every act a stable counsel.' The true word, which can neither be deceived nor deceive, is the only-begotten Son of God and his doctrine and his life. Let this word precede you and this stable counsel. Stable counsel is none other than that of my God; 'the counsel of the Lord remains forever.'

Supposing I wanted to know how the Word of God can be the Restorer: Isaiah speaks of it: "A child is born to us, a son is given us; upon His shoulder dominion rests. They name Him Wonder-Counselor, God-Hero, Father-Forever, Prince of Peace." He it is who restored the hierarchy of heaven, and that below heaven which had totally fallen. Hence He must needs have touched both heaven and earth. This Hierarch had to be preeminent, endowed with awareness, acceptable to God, victorious, most generous, and just. He is called "Wonder" because He had to be preeminent in power, showing the miracle of miracles in His own Person, the plurality of natures. He is called "Counselor" because He was the best Counselor and the most wise, and from Him come forth documents of the greatest certainty. He is called "God" because He was acceptable to God, not only because in the form of God, but as God. He is called "Strong" because He overcame the world, despoiled Hades, and restored Paradise. He is called "Father of the age to come" because He is the Principle of those influences by which we will live in the future. He is called "Prince of Peace" because of the manifold character of a justice making infallible inquiries, irreproachable distinctions, and irrevocable judgments.

When Isaac himself carried the wood for the sacrifice of himself, in this, too, he prefigured Christ our Lord, who carried his own cross to the place of his passion. Of this mystery much had already been foretold by the prophets: "And his government shall be upon his shoulders." Christ, then, had the government upon his shoulders when he carried his cross with wonderful humility. Not unfittingly does Christ's cross signify government: by it the devil is conquered and the whole world recalled to the knowledge and grace of Christ.

We often find the Lord Christ described as a child because of the purity of his innocence. The simplicity of youth bestows on a child the blessing of aversion from vices and from the malice of the world. As Christ himself attested, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven." "Child" is used in the text: "Behold my child whom I have chosen, my beloved in which my soul delights," and in another passage: "A child is born to us, and a son bestowed on us."

In the holy Scripture Christ is often called a child because of his innocence of mind. As Isaiah says, "For a child has been born to us, and a son has been given to us."

Today was born the child, and his name was called Wonderful! For a wonder it is that God should reveal himself as a baby.

For we too say plainly that the prophet, wishing to make manifest the mystery concerning Christ, called the self-existent "Angel," that the meaning of the words might not be referred to the Father, as it would have been if the title of "Existent" alone had been found throughout the discourse. But just as our word is the revealer and messenger (or "angel") of the movements of the mind, even so we affirm that the true Word that was in the beginning, when he announces the will of his Father, is styled "angel" (or "messenger"), a title given to him on account of the operation of conveying the message. And as the sublime John, having previously called him "Word," so introduces the further truth that the Word was God, that our thoughts might not at once turn to the Father, as they would have done if the title of God had been put first. So too does the mighty Moses, after first calling him "Angel," teach us in the words that follow that he is none other than the self-existent himself, that the mystery concerning the Christ might be foreshown, by the Scripture assuring us by the name Angel that the Word is the interpreter of the Father's will, and, by the title of the "self-existent," of the closeness of relation subsisting between the Son and the Father. And if Eunomius should bring forward Isaiah also as calling him "the 'angel' of mighty counsel," not even so will he overthrow our argument. For there, in clear and incontrovertible terms, there is indicated by the prophecy the dispensation of his humanity; for "unto us," he says, "a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name is called the angel of mighty counsel." … For as the "angel" (or "messenger") gives information from someone, even so the Word reveals the thought within, the seal shows by its own stamp the original mold, and the image by itself interprets the beauty of that whereof it is the image, so that in their signification all these terms are equivalent to one another. For this reason the title angel is placed before that of the "self-existent," the son being termed "angel" as the exponent of his Father's will, and the "existent" as having no name that could possibly give a knowledge of his essence, but transcending all the power of names to express.

After two names, therefore [child and son], he will be called by another six names: wonderful, counselor, God, mighty, father of the coming age, prince of peace. For the names are not to be joined into couplets as many think, such that we would read "wonderful counselor" and "mighty God." Instead "wonderful," which is pele in Hebrew, is to be read separately, as is "counselor," or what is called yôʿēṣ in their language. The title "God" also, whom the Hebrews call ēl stands on its own. Thus in subsequent passages where we read, "For you are God and we were unaware," and again, "I am God and there is no other beyond me," along with many similar statements, the Hebrew uses ēl where Latin uses Deus. And "mighty," which comes next, is called gibbôr in Hebrew. Hence when the same prophet remembers "They will lay their trust upon God, the Holy One of Israel in truth, and the remnant of Jacob upon the mighty God," the Hebrew text has ēl gibbôr for "mighty God." But anyone who reads that the Savior is our peace, according to the apostle Paul, will have no doubt that the father of the coming age and of the resurrection, which is completed in our vocation, is also the prince of peace who said to the apostles, "My peace I give to you, my peace I bequeath to you." The Septuagint in my opinion, terrified as it was by the majesty of these names, did not dare to say of a child that he must be called God and so forth but wrote in place of the six names, which it did not have in Hebrew, "angel of great counsel, and I will bring peace and his salvation upon the princes," which seems to me to have the following meaning: He who announced to us that Israel would be thrown down for a while and that the nations would be healed is the angel of great counsel who also gave peace to its princes, apostles and apostolic men, and bequeathed dogmatic healing to their believers.

(Verse 6.) For a child is born to us, a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace. His empire shall be multiplied, and there shall be no end of peace: he shall sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom; to establish it and strengthen it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth and forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this. For a child is born to us, a son is given to us, upon whose shoulder dominion is laid: and his name is called, Wonderful, Counselor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace. His empire shall be multiplied, and there shall be no end of peace: he shall sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom; to establish it and strengthen it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth and forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish these things. Therefore the devil, and all his violent plundering, by which he oppressed the human race and mixed blood with blood, will be consumed by fire and the eternal fire will be their food. For a child is born to us, a son is given to us, of whom it has been said: Before the child knows how to reject evil and choose good (Isaiah 7:16); and later in the generation of the Prophetess: Before the child knows how to call his father and mother (Isaiah 8:4). Therefore this boy, who was born of a virgin, is called Emmanuel, which means 'God is with us'; and he is also called 'from the Prophetess', that is, conceived by the Holy Spirit. Hasten, strip off, hurry to plunder: he is now called by many names. And although he has shown that he is God by being called Emmanuel, which means 'God is with us', now he says that his government has been established upon his shoulder, or that he himself has carried his cross, or by showing the strength of his arm through his shoulder, as Isaiah also said: The Lord God has revealed his holy arm to all the nations (Isaiah 52:10). And again: Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? (Isaiah 53:1) Therefore, He will be called by two names, and by six other names: Wonderful, Counselor, God, Mighty, Father of the future age, Prince of peace. For, as many think, the two names should not be joined together, as we read, Wonderful Counselor, and again, Mighty God; but Wonderful should be read separately, which in Hebrew is called Phele (), and Counselor separately, which is called Ides () in their language; and God separately, which is called El () in Hebrew. Finally, in the following passages where we read: You are indeed God, and we did not know: And again: I am God, and there is no other besides me (Isaiah XLV, 5), and many similar to these: because in Latin it is said Deus, in Hebrew it is written El. And what follows, Fortis, in Hebrew is called Gibbor (). Therefore, in the place where the same prophet mentions: They shall trust in the holy God of Israel in truth: and what remains of Jacob shall trust in the mighty God (Isaiah VIII), for mighty God in Hebrew it has El Gibbor. But the Father of the future age and of the resurrection, which is fulfilled in our calling; and the prince of peace, who spoke to the Apostles: My peace I give you, my peace I leave you (John 14:27): he who has read our peace according to Paul the Apostle will not doubt the Savior. With the majesty of the names, I think that the Seventy did not dare to say of the child what is clearly to be called God, etc.: but instead they used six names, which are not found in Hebrew, the Angel of great counsel, and I will bring peace upon the leaders, and his health. What seems to me to have this meaning: The Angel of Great Counsel, announced to us that Israel is to be cast aside for a time, and that the Gentiles are to be saved. And he bestowed peace upon his princes, the Apostles and apostolic men, and left the preservation of his teachings to those who believed. As for what follows: His empire shall be multiplied, and there shall be no end to peace; for this reason the Septuagint translated it as: His great principality. We must know that the Hebrew word Mesra, here and above, was interpreted as principality by the Septuagint. For this reason, we turn above the principate, this authority. However, the eagle, deceived by the ambiguity of the word μέτρον, that is, interpreted as measure, which is called the same name in both Hebrew and Latin. And he will not doubt about the multiple authority of the Savior and his peace, which has no end, whoever reads in the Psalms: Ask of me, and I shall give thee the nations for thine inheritance, and the very ends of the earth for thy possession (Ps. II, 8). And again: And the multitude of peace, until the moon be taken away (Ps. LXXI, 7), that is, until the end of the age. But his principality and empire will be over the throne and kingdom of David, which had been dispersed after the Babylonian captivity, in order to confirm and strengthen it, and to show that it will be perpetual (so that the promise of God would not seem in vain) from the time of the Incarnation to eternity. Therefore, the zeal, that is, the jealousy of the Lord of hosts, did this, because they themselves provoked him to jealousy with those who were not gods, and he provoked them to jealousy with a nation that was not a nation (Deut. 32). Let us now move on to the rest.

When Scripture wishes to show that God needs no one, it says that he has no counselor. When it wishes to show the equal honor of the Only Begotten, it calls the Son of God his counselor.

The Son of God is said to be the angel of great counsel because of his many other teachings, but especially because he revealed his Father to humankind.

Come now, and let me show you that the Son is called God. "Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall give birth to a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which means, 'God is with us.' " Did you see how both the name Lord is given to the Father and the name God is given to the Son? In the psalm, the sacred writer said, "Let them know that Lord is your name." Here Isaiah says, "They shall call his name Immanuel." And again, he says, "A child is born to us, and a son is given to us; and his name shall be called Angel of Great Counsel, God the Strong, the Mighty One."

"Unto us a child is born, and unto us a young man is given, and the government shall be upon His shoulders;" which is significant of the power of the cross, for to it, when He was crucified, He applied His shoulders, as shall be more clearly made out in the ensuing discourse.

And when Isaiah calls Him the Angel of mighty counsel, did he not foretell Him to be the Teacher of those truths which He did teach when He came [to earth]? For He alone taught openly those mighty counsels which the Father designed both for all those who have been and shall be well-pleasing to Him, and also for those who have rebelled against His will, whether men or angels.

[Eutyches] might have read the words of the same prophet: "A child is born to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulders: and they shall call his name, angel of the Great Counsel, God the Mighty, the Prince of peace, Father of the world to come." And he would not speak nonsense, saying that the Word was made flesh in such a way that Christ, born from the Virgin's womb, had a man's form yet did not have the reality of his mother's body.

For this reason the apostles are told, "unless you change and become like this child." He does not say "like these children" but "like this child." He chooses one; he proposes one. Let us see, then, who he might be, who is proposed to the disciples to be imitated. I do not think that he is from the people, nor from the ordinary crowd, nor from the vast multitude—this one who was given, through the apostles, as an example of holiness to the entire world. I do not think, I say, that he is from the ordinary crowd but from heaven. For he is the child from heaven about whom the prophet Isaiah says, "A child is born to us, a son is given to us." Clearly he is the child who, like an innocent, did not curse when he was cursed, did not strike back when he was struck, but rather in his very suffering prayed for his enemies, saying, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Thus simplicity, which nature has given to infants, the Lord augmented with the virtue of mercy.

Because he is of God, he is rightly called God, since he is the Son of God; and because he is subject to the Father and herald of the Father's will, he is proclaimed "Angel of Great Counsel." … The title [angel] does, however, suit the person of Christ, since he is not only God, inasmuch as he is the Son of God, but also a messenger, inasmuch as he is the herald of the Father's economy of salvation. Heretics must realize that they are acting contrary to the Scriptures when they say they believe that Christ was also an angel but do not want to admit that he is also the God who they read came frequently to visit the human race in the Old Testament.

The title of angel is also appropriate to Christ because he was made "the Angel of Great Counsel." He is an angel because he lays bare the heart of the Father, as John declares. For if John says that this Word, who lays bare the bosom of the Father, was also made flesh, so that he could lay bare the heart of the Father, it follows that Christ is not only man but also an angel. And the Scriptures show not only that he is an angel but also that he is God. This is what we too believe. For, if we will not admit that it was Christ who then spoke to Hagar, we must either make an angel God or reckon God the Almighty Father among the angels.

Likewise Isaiah also says, "For unto us a child is born." But what is there unusual in this, unless he speaks of the Son of God? "To us is given he whose government is upon his shoulder." Now, what king is there who bears the ensign of his dominion upon his shoulder, and not rather upon his head as a diadem, or in his hand as a scepter, or else as a mark in some royal apparel? But the one new King of the new ages, Jesus Christ, carried on his shoulder both the power and the excellence of his new glory, even his cross; so that, according to our former prophecy, he might thenceforth reign from the tree as Lord.

But the prophet who predicted the Emmanuel has written of him a little further on that "unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulders; and his name is called angel of great counsel, wonderful, counselor, mighty God, powerful, Prince of peace, Father of the age to come." Now if the baby born of the virgin is styled "Mighty God," then it is only with reason that the mother is called "mother of God." For the mother shares the honor of her offspring, and the Virgin is both mother of the Lord Christ as man and again is his servant as Lord and Creator and God.

303. For a child is born to us. Here he describes the Savior.

And first, as to his reception;

second, as to his naming, where it says, and his name shall be called (Isa 9:6);

third, as to his power, where it says, his empire shall be multiplied (Isa 9:7).

For we receive him in our nature in his birth: for a child is born to us: I bring you good tidings of great joy that shall be to all the people: for, this day is born to you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of David (Luke 2:10–11).

We receive him in our knowledge in the testimony of the Father: this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: hear him (Matt 17:5). Bernard: lightly the boy is pleased, easily he pardons: we are poor and can give little; nevertheless for that child we can be reconciled to Christ the child if we wish. And a son is given.

We receive him also in divine reverence through his passion, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth (Phil 2:10). And the government is upon his shoulder, that is, the cross, through which he is raised up into government: and bearing his own cross, he went forth to the place which is called Calvary (John 19:17).

304. And his name shall be called. Here he sets out his naming,

and first, a name expressing divine wisdom: wonderful: your knowledge is become wonderful to me (Ps 138[139]:6); hence all his works were wonderful, and especially in the union of natures in one person; as to human wisdom: counsellor, adding counsels to precepts: let one of a thousand be your counsellor (Sir 6:6).

Expressing divine power: God: below, verily you are a hidden God (Isa 45:15); human power: mighty, in power: he is wise in heart, and mighty in strength (Job 9:4).

Third, a name expressing abundance of goodness as to his divine nature: father of the world to come, that is, begetting sons into glory: for it became him for whom are all things and by whom are all things, who had brought many children into glory, to perfect the author of their salvation, by his passion (Heb 2:10); below: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem (Isa 22:21); as to his human nature, prince of peace, inasmuch as he is mediator: for he is our peace, who has made both one (Eph 2:14); you are a prince of God among us (Gen 23:6).

308. It is to be noted on the words, a child is born to us (Isa 9:6), that Christ is called a child,

first, in birth, because of his age: entering into the house, they found the child with Mary his mother (Matt 2:11);

second, in possessions, because of his poverty: you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that being rich he became poor for your sakes (2 Cor 8:9);

third, in heart, because of his humility: learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart (Matt 11:29);

fourth, in death, because of the baseness of his death: let us condemn him to a most shameful death (Wis 2:20).

309. It is to be noted on the words, is given to us (Isa 9:6), that Christ is given to us

first, as a brother: who shall give you to me for my brother, sucking the breasts of my mother? (Song 8:1);

second, as a teacher: O children of Zion, rejoice, and be joyful in the Lord your God: because he has given you a teacher of justice (Joel 2:23);

third, as a watchman: O son of man, I have made you a watchman to the house of Israel (Ezek 33:7);

fourth, as a defender, below: he shall send them a Savior and a defender to deliver them (Isa 19:20);

fifth, as a shepherd: and I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them (Ezek 34:23);

sixth, as an example of action: for I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you do also (John 13:15);

seventh, as food for the journey: the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world (John 6:52);

eighth, as the price of redemption: the Son of man is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister and to give his life a redemption for many (Matt 20:28);

ninth, as a reward: to him that overcomes I will give to eat the hidden manna (Rev 2:17).

310. Likewise, it is to be noted on the words, upon his shoulder (Isa 9:6), that God laid upon the shoulder of Christ

first, sins, as upon one who makes satisfaction: the Lord has laid upon him the iniquity of us all (Isa 53:6);

second, a key, as upon a priest: and I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut (Isa 22:22);

third, the government, as upon a ruler: the government is upon his shoulder (Isa 9:6);

fourth, glory, as upon a conqueror: and I shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house (Isa 22:24).

When Israel had been saved through the apostles, all the world flocked to the threshold of truth and of the peacemaker Solomon, of whom it was said, "His dominion will be increased and there will be no end of peace." For he [Christ] is "the stone broken off from the mountain," and in his earthly reign of faith, as he falls upon his enemy, he alone possesses a peaceful dominion throughout the earth.

And, indeed, just as in his divinity the Mediator between God and human beings foresaw the mother of whom he willed to be born when he should so will, so also in his humanity he chose the time that he wished for his nativity. Moreover, he himself granted that that [time] should be such as he willed, namely, that in a calm among the storm of wars a singular tranquility of unusual peace should cover the whole world.… He chose a time of utmost peace as the time when he would be born because this was the reason for his being born in the world, that he might lead the human race back to the gifts of heavenly peace.… Our Lord was born in a time of peace, so that even by the circumstance of the time he might teach that he was the very one of whom the prophecy sent before [him] spoke: "His sovereignty will be multiplied, and there will be no end of peace." … The very author of peace and the Maker of time sent before him a time of peace, and thus when he appeared in the flesh he opened an approach to light and proclaimed the joys of eternal peace first to the house of Jacob (that is, the Israelite people), and then to all the nations which came streaming to him. And we must not pass over the fact that the serenity of that earthly peace, at the time when the heavenly king was born, not only offered testimony to his grace but also provided a service, since it bestowed on the preachers of his word the capability of traveling over the world and spreading abroad the grace of the gospel wherever they wished.

All these things, as the apostle teaches, "were done as an example for us" and were written down for us, and so we must scrutinize them carefully for their spiritual meaning. King Solomon, whose name means "peaceful," typologically designates our Redeemer himself, of whom Isaiah says, "His sovereignty will be increased, and there will be no end of peace." The temple that he built is his catholic church, which he gathers into the one structure of his faith and charity from all the believers throughout the world, as it were from living stones.

This voice of repentance is that of the Jewish people and of all who found in Christ access to the salvation for which they were searching. I now know with certainty that you are the one concerning whom it was said "his government will be increased and there will be no end to peace" and that you govern the kingdom in which the pure of heart will see God with unceasing happiness. I beg you, therefore, to strengthen and increase the faith that you imparted to me through the bestowal of your sacraments and heavenly gifts. Thus, having received the pledge of the Spirit, may I remain confident that you will forevermore preserve from destruction the generation of works which were begotten by my heart after the washing of my body and that you will never remove my name from the heavenly home which you deigned to grant to my fathers who, through the law, faithfully and devoutly awaited your coming.

What does the spiritual house or temple that King Solomon made for the Lord in Jerusalem signify? Solomon himself, whose name means "peaceful," is a fitting symbol of the one about whom the prophet sang, "His government will be increased, and there will be no end to peace." [This is] the same one concerning whom the apostle also wrote to the church of the Gentiles, "and he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near, for through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father."That it took Solomon seven years to build the temple, which he completed and dedicated in the eighth year, was a sign that for seven years, or the entire span of the present age, the Lord would build the church as a heavenly dwelling for the gathered faithful. In the future life, however, when he appears in the glory of the resurrection, he will complete and perfect the church and raise it forevermore to the joy of life immortal in the vision of his beauty. Our resurrection, then, is rightly signified by the number eight, since the just will be raised from the dead on the eighth day, that is, after the seventh of the sabbath.

In this verse, Solomon signifies the everlasting light by "length of days," the survival of death by "years of life" and the state of happiness to be discovered by "growth in peace." Isaiah refers to the same reality when he says, "His government will be increased, and there will be no end to peace." For when the people of God are obedient to God's law, both historically and at the present time, they are enabled to live for a long time in the repose of peace.

Solomon gave the name "parables" or "metaphors" to this book [Proverbs] because he wanted us to understand it profoundly, not just according to the literal sense. He prefigures the Lord in this respect, who would speak to the crowds through parables. For just as Solomon's own name and peaceful reign foretold the enduring kingdom of Christ and of the church, concerning which it is written "his government will be increased, and there will be no end to peace upon the throne of David and his kingdom," so also did his construction and dedication of the temple artfully refer to the building of holy church, which will be dedicated for all eternity at the resurrection. The testimony of the crowds of people who greeted Christ with palm branches and praises at his entry into Jerusalem also declares him to be the son of David and the spiritual king of Israel.

Isaiah said, "His government will be increased, and there will be no end to peace upon the throne of David and his kingdom, to confirm and strengthen it in right judgment and justice."He did not say "to acquire the glory of worldly riches" or "to have victory over many peoples and cities" or "to conquer the powerful," but "to confirm it in right judgment and justice." For it is through this that the church is strengthened and the kingdom of Christ is extended both within each of the faithful and throughout the entire world.

Surely the coming of God in the flesh could not remain hidden from humanity, since the prophet had openly said about him, as though to the whole human race: "behold your God," and "this is your God," and again "the mighty God, Father of the coming world, Prince of peace," and "of his kingdom there will be no end." Once God had come, however, did his coming remain hidden from those who openly confessed? Was Peter ignorant of the advent of God when he said, "You are Christ, the Son of the living God"? Did Martha not know the one in whom she believed or the meaning of what she was saying when she declared, "Lord, I believe that you are Christ, the Son of the living God who has come into the world"? Finally, was not everyone who asked him to heal diseases or to replace lost limbs or to raise the dead petitioning God's omnipotence rather than humanity's weakness?

Listen to how Isaiah predicted this long beforehand when he said, "and his name shall be called Messenger of Great Counsel, Wonderful Counselor, God the Strong, the Mighty One, the Prince of peace, Father of the world to come."No one could say this of a mere man, as is obvious even to those who are very eager to show how stubborn they can be. No man from the beginning of time has been called God the Mighty or Father of the world to come or the Prince of peace. For Isaiah said, "There is no end of his peace." And what did happen makes it clear that this peace has spread over the whole earth and sea, over the world where people dwell and where no one lives, over mountains, woodlands and hills, starting from that day on which he was going to leave his disciples and said to them, "My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you." Why did Christ speak in this way? Because the peace which comes from a human being is easily destroyed and subject to many changes. But Christ's peace is strong, unshaken, firm, fixed, steadfast, immune to death and unending.

305. His empire shall be multiplied. Here he describes his power,

and first, as to the magnitude of his kingdom;

second, as to the nobility of his kingdom: he shall sit upon the throne;

third, as to its eternity: from henceforth and for ever.

Concerning the first, he sets out two things.

First, the magnitude of his kingdom: his empire shall be multiplied: and all kings shall serve him, and shall obey him (Dan 7:27); as to the quiet of peace: and there shall be no end of peace, below: you will keep peace: peace, because we have hoped in you (Isa 26:3).

306. Upon the throne of David. Here he describes the nobility of his kingdom. Upon the throne of David, that is, upon the Church, which is signified by the kingdom of David: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father (Luke 1:32); as to the effect of his kingdom: to establish it, for resistance, and strengthen it, also for fighting, in judgment, that is, through judgment: a king shall reign, and shall be wise: and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth (Jer 23:5); as to the eternity of his kingdom, from henceforth, that is, from the time of the Incarnation, and for ever: his power is an everlasting power that shall not be taken away: and his kingdom that shall not be destroyed (Dan 7:14).

307. Finally, he places the motive for giving this, the zeal, that is, the love, of the Lord, the Father: God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son (John 3:16). The Jews interpret this as Ezechias. But clearly his kingdom was not made strong eternally, nor do the names in 9:6, which signify divine eminence, fit him. Because of this, the Septuagint omits these names and puts in their place, angel of the great council.

For the one and the same Spirit of God, who proclaimed by the prophets what and of what sort the advent of the Lord should be, did by these elders give a just interpretation of what had been truly prophesied; and He did Himself, by the apostles, announce that the fulness of the times of the adoption had arrived, that the kingdom of heaven had drawn nigh, and that He was dwelling within those that believe on Him who was born Emmanuel of the Virgin. To this effect they testify, [saying,] that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost;" [Matthew 1:18] and that the angel Gabriel said unto her, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God;" [Luke 1:35] and that the angel said to Joseph in a dream, "Now this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, Behold, a virgin shall be with child." [Matthew 1:23] But the elders have thus interpreted what Esaias said: "And the Lord, moreover, said unto Ahaz, Ask for thyself a sign from the Lord thy God out of the depth below, or from the height above. And Ahaz said, I will not ask, and I will not tempt the Lord. And he said, It is not a small thing for you to weary men; and how does the Lord weary them? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son; and ye shall call His name Emmanuel. Butter and honey shall He eat: before He knows or chooses out things that are evil, He shall exchange them for what is good; for before the child knows good or evil, He shall not consent to evil, that He may choose that which is good." [Isaiah 7:10-17] Carefully, then, has the Holy Ghost pointed out, by what has been said, His birth from a virgin, and His essence, that He is God (for the name Emmanuel indicates this). And He shows that He is a man, when He says, "Butter and honey shall He eat;" and in that He terms Him a child also, [in saying,] "before He knows good and evil;" for these are all the tokens of a human infant. But that He "will not consent to evil, that He may choose that which is good,"— this is proper to God; that by the fact, that He shall eat butter and honey, we should not understand that He is a mere man only, nor, on the other hand, from the name Emmanuel, should suspect Him to be God without flesh.

(Verse 10, 11.) And the Lord added, speaking to Achaz, saying: Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord your God in the depths of hell, or in the highest above. He had previously spoken to Achaz through the prophet, saying: Behold, be silent, do not fear, and so on. Since Achaz did not believe, and therefore did not understand, the Lord himself speaks to Achaz, so that at least, frightened by the authority of the Lord, he may accept what is said. For, he says to him, it seems difficult to you that the most powerful kingdoms are to be ended in a short time, and that you will be delivered from great danger along with your people; ask for yourself a sign, not from idols, by whose error you are held captive, but from the Lord your God who promises you help, and that sign is the basis of your request, whether from the depths or from on high. But while only the Seventy interpreted it as 'from the depth of hell,' the others translated it more significantly according to the Hebrew, 'from the depth of the underworld.' Therefore, just as 'the depths of hell' signifies a profound abyss, so we should understand 'the heights above the heavens' as an exalted state. So when you hear a sign about either the underworld or the exalted, believe in the future things that I have mentioned. Do you want, he says, the earth to be split open and the great chasms of the underworld to be revealed, which are said to exist in the heart of the earth, or for the heavens to be opened? Both pertain to the mystery of the death and ascension of the Lord: For he who descended is the one who also ascended (Ephesians 4:10). And in the Apostle we read: 'Don't say in your heart, "Who will ascend into heaven?" (that is, to bring Christ down)' or 'Who will descend into the abyss?' (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)' (Romans 10:6-7). And in another place, speaking about Christ, it says: 'That you may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge' (Ephesians 3:18). As far as mystical understanding is concerned, Moses also received signs from the earth, which we read about in the Psalms: He sent signs and wonders among you, O Egypt (Ps. CXXXIV, 9), such as frogs, locusts, gnats, and flies; from heaven, he sent hail, fire, and three days of darkness. We also have the example of Hezekiah, when the sun went back ten lines, receiving a sign from heaven (IV Kings XX); and Joshua, the son of Nun, in Gibeon and Aijalon, when the sun and moon stood still (Joshua X). Most people think that Saul received a sign from the earth and the depths of hell when he saw Samuel raised through enchantments and magic arts (1 Samuel 28). But even the prophet Jonah, who was liberated from the abyss, the depths, and the jaws of death, gave and received a sign of the underworld (Jonah 2). I have read in a certain Commentary that this passage is interpreted allegorically, understanding the deep and high as perceptible and intelligible things, which we can call sensible and intelligible, with the former referring to the senses and the latter to the mind and reason. Also, the virgin is interpreted as the soul, which is not corrupted by any consciousness of sin, and can give birth to Emmanuel, God with us, that is, the present word of God. But we do not eat the flesh of the lamb, but roast it, and we must dry up all the humors of pleasures in us, so that we do not neglect the sacrament of our faith, while we understand more than it is necessary to understand.

And the Lord spoke again to Achaz. Here the sign of liberation is set out. And first, the liberty to choose a sign is given; second, the sign for believing is conferred: therefore the Lord himself shall give (Isa 7:14). Concerning the first, three things are set out.

But what Isaiah said, "From the height above, or from the depth beneath," was meant to indicate, that "He who descended was the same also who ascended." But in this that he said, "The Lord Himself shall give you a sign," he declared an unlooked-for thing with regard to His generation, which could have been accomplished in no other way than by God the Lord of all, God Himself giving a sign in the house of David. For what great thing or what sign should have been in this, that a young woman conceiving by a man should bring forth,-a thing which happens to all women that produce offspring? But since an unlooked-for salvation was to be provided for men through the help of God, so also was the unlooked-for birth from a virgin accomplished; God giving this sign, but man not working it out.

First, the liberty of choosing a sign is conceded: and the Lord said to Achaz—because he disdained the prophets, the Lord himself spoke: because it seems hard that such powerful kings would be destroyed so quickly—ask you a sign, that you might believe, of the Lord your God. From this it seems that these may be the words of the prophet; and to this is to be said that it is a custom of Hebrew speech to use a noun for a pronoun: hence, of the Lord your God, that is, "of me." Or they are the words of the Lord through inspiration, and of the prophet through declaration, below: should not the prophet seek of his God? (Isa 8:19). Unto the depth of hell, that the earth be opened and hell be exposed, as in the destruction of Dathan and Abiron (Num 16:31–33); or by hell is meant the lower elements, as Moses brought forth locusts and gnats from the earth (Exod 8:16–19, 10:1–20); or unto the height above, as Joshua, when the sun stood still (Josh 10:1–15): for the Jews seek signs (1 Cor 1:22).

(Verse 12.) And Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord. This is not humility, but pride, that he does not want to ask for a sign from the Lord. Although it is written in Deuteronomy: You shall not test the Lord your God (Deut. 6:16), and the Savior used this against the devil as a testimony (Matt. 4): nevertheless, being commanded to ask, he should have fulfilled the command in obedience, especially since both Gideon and Manoah asked for and received a sign (Judges 6 and 13). However, according to the ambiguity of the Hebrew language, in which it is written 'Ulo Enasse Adonai' (), and all similarly translated it, I will not attempt the Lord, that it may be read, I will not exalt the Lord. For the impious king knew that if he sought a sign, he would receive it, and the Lord would be glorified. Therefore, like a worshipper of idols, who had set up altars in every corner of the streets and on the mountains and in shady groves, and considered fanatics to be Levites, he does not want to seek a sign as commanded.

Second, the refusal of the offer: and Achaz said: I will not ask, either because he was trusting in idols or in the king of the Assyrians, or because he was jealous of the glory of God, or because, being placed in distress, he feared to offend God, below: Lord, they have sought after you in distress (Isa 26:16). Hence he says, I will not tempt, for he relied on what is said in Deuteronomy 6:16: you shall not tempt the Lord your God. But he understood badly, for by the authority of the Lord he was allowed to seek a sign, as Gideon with the fleece (Judg 6:36–40).

And when He says, "Hear, O house of David," [Isaiah 7:13] He performed the part of one indicating that He whom God promised David that He would raise up from the fruit of his belly (ventris) an eternal King, is the same who was born of the Virgin, herself of the lineage of David. For on this account also, He promised that the King should be "of the fruit of his belly," which was the appropriate [term to use with respect] to a virgin conceiving, and not "of the fruit of his loins," nor "of the fruit of his reins," which expression is appropriate to a generating man, and a woman conceiving by a man. In this promise, therefore, the Scripture excluded all virile influence; yet it certainly is not mentioned that He who was born was not from the will of man. But it has fixed and established "the fruit of the belly," that it might declare the generation of Him who should be [born] from the Virgin, as Elisabeth testified when filled with the Holy Ghost, saying to Mary, "Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy belly;" [Luke 1:42] the Holy Ghost pointing out to those willing to hear, that the promise which God had made, of raising up a King from the fruit of [David's] belly, was fulfilled in the birth from the Virgin, that is, from Mary. Let those, therefore, who alter the passage of Isaiah thus, "Behold, a young woman shall conceive," and who will have Him to be Joseph's son, also alter the form of the promise which was given to David, when God promised him to raise up, from the fruit of his belly, the horn of Christ the King. But they did not understand, otherwise they would have presumed to alter even this passage also.

(Verse 13.) And he said, hear therefore, house of David: Is it not enough for you to be troublesome to men, that you are also troublesome to my God? Who is this that said, hear therefore, house of David? Not God who had said above to Ahaz: Ask a sign for yourself from the Lord your God; but a Prophet, as is proven from what follows: For you are troublesome to my God. And the meaning is: because you not only persecute the prophets and despise their words; but you also contradict the present and commanding judgment of God; so that you bring upon yourself the labor, as he says in another place: I have labored, enduring (Isaiah 1:14), therefore the Lord will do what follows. Regarding the labor and trouble that Aquila and Symmachus have translated, LXX and Theodotius have interpreted it as a struggle and contest, because the contentious ones do not submit their necks to the Lord's service, but with Him willing to heal their wounds, they reject healing. And it should be noted that when the impious King Ahaz did not want to seek a sign, the prophetic message should be directed to the house of David, that is, to the royal tribe mentioned above: And they reported these things to the house of David, saying: Syria and Ephraim have joined forces.

Third, the rebuke of the one who refuses is set out: and he, namely, Isaiah, said: therefore, since you are so rebellious, hear you therefore, O house of David, because of its consent in the malice of the king, or because the promised Christ is given as a sign to David: of the fruit of your womb I will set upon your throne (Ps 131[132]:11). Is it a small thing for you, to merit divine wrath, to be grievous to men, whom you plunder, or to the prophets, in whom you do not believe; that you are grievous, through rebellion, to my God, not yours, whom you did not obey: why is this a burden to you? for I will cast you away, says the Lord (Jer 23:33).

But what does this passage mean, if not that God has come in the flesh?

Christ was born a visible man of a human virgin mother, but he was a hidden God because God was his Father. So the prophet had foretold: "Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a son; and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which is interpreted, God with us." To prove that he was God, Christ worked many miracles, some of which—as many as seemed necessary to establish his claim—are recorded in the Gospels. Of these miracles the very first was the marvelous manner of his birth; the very last, his ascension into heaven in his body risen from the dead.

But who shall say that Christ and Christians have no connection with Israel, seeing that Israel was the grandson of Abraham, to whom first, as afterwards to his son Isaac, and then to his grandson Israel himself, that promise was given, which I have already mentioned, namely: "In your seed shall all nations be blessed"? That prediction we see now in its fulfillment in Christ. For it was of this line that the Virgin was born, concerning whom a prophet of the people of Israel and of the God of Israel sang in these terms: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son; and they shall call his name Emmanuel." For by interpretation, Emmanuel means "God with us." This God of Israel … has forbidden the worship of other gods, … has forbidden the making of idols, … has commanded their destruction, … has by his prophet predicted that the Gentiles from the ends of the earth would say, "Surely our fathers have worshiped lying idols, in which there is no profit." This same God is he who, by the name of Christ and by the faith of Christians, has ordered, promised and exhibited the overthrow of all these superstitions.

You must appreciate, brothers and sisters, what a tremendous desire possessed the saints of old to see the Christ. They knew he was going to come, and all those who were living devout and blameless lives would say, "Oh, if only that birth may find me still here! Oh, if only I may see with my own eyes what I believe from God's Scriptures!" The saints who knew from the holy Scripture that a virgin was going to give birth as you heard when Isaiah was read: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb and shall bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel." What Emmanuel means the Gospel declares to us, saying, "which is interpreted, God with us." So do not let it surprise you, unbelieving soul, whoever you are, do not let it strike you as impossible that a virgin should give birth, and in giving birth remain a virgin. Realize that it was God who was born, and you will not be surprised at a virgin giving birth. So then, to prove to you how the saints and just men and women of old longed to see what was granted to this old man Simeon, our Lord Jesus Christ said, when speaking to his disciples, "Many just men and prophets have wished to see what you see and have not seen it; and to hear what you hear and have not heard it."

Do you hesitate or refuse to believe his birth of a virgin, when you ought rather to believe that thus it was fitting for God to be born man? Learn that this, too, was foretold by the prophet: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel, which is interpreted, God with us." You will not doubt, therefore, the motherhood of a virgin if you want to believe the nativity of a God who does not relinquish the government of the universe and comes in flesh among human beings; who bestows fecundity on his mother yet does not diminish her integrity.

The Savior's name, because of which he is called "God with us" by the prophet, signifies both natures of his one person. For he who, born before time from the Father, is God himself in the fullness of time, became Emmanuel (that is, "God with us") in his mother's womb, because he deigned to take the weakness of our nature into the unity of his person when "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." In a wonderful manner he began to be what we are, while not ceasing to be what he had been, assuming our nature in such a way that he himself would not lose what he had been.

Where shall that price be found? Certainly nowhere except in the womb of the glorious Virgin. Whence Isaiah: "Behold, a Virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel." Emmanuel is interpreted "God with us." It was not fitting for the Virgin to have a son unless he were God, nor for God to have a mother unless she were a Virgin. That price could not be found except in the Virgin. It is "from afar and from the uttermost boundaries," because in him the highest is joined with the lowest, and the first with the last. That price is "from afar," by which the entire human race is redeemed: because what is redeemed is the lowest, therefore it is the highest; because what is redeemed is the last, therefore it is the first. Man among creatures was created last.

The full accord of the witnesses is found in the words of Scriptures. Isaiah says: The virgin shall be with child; and Luke: Thou shalt conceive. One says: Christ shall be slain; and the Evangelist: Put Him to death. Whatever, then, had been foretold by the prophets was fulfilled through Christ.

The blessed Hezekiah then, who was King of the Jews, and a very pious and virtuous man and an object of God's especial care, entertained the idea that the blessed David had spoken of him prophetically in many of the Psalms, such as the nineteenth, the twentieth, and many others besides, and having moreover applied to himself the prophecy which had once been made in his father's time by Isaiah: Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, he was uplifted in mind by the workings of human passion, and imagined himself to be the Christ who had been predicted. He was in consequence at first unwilling to take a part in the common offices of life, through the existence of another opinion among the Jews, that Christ when He comes, never dies, but abides for ever, as they also said in the Gospel: We have heard out of the Law that Christ abideth for ever. So Hezekiah being of this opinion abstained from taking a wife and providing for the succession of his line by having children, being under the belief that he would live always

House of David, from this time on when you encounter your enemies, call upon the one who is named Immanuel. The meaning of the title, which is "God with us," reveals the power of the Word. Believe this sign, be courageous, and do not call upon the gods of Damascus. Do not enlist those who have no assistance to offer. Rather, call upon Immanuel, the God who will "be with" people at the appropriate time. Take heart with confidence, trusting in the power of the title.… If the prophet had said, "They will call his name Immanuel," he would have been speaking only of a future time. This would have caused doubt for some, because when the Savior was born of the virgin his name was not Immanuel but Jesus, as the angel had instructed Joseph, saying, "Do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." If the prophecy was "they will call his name Immanuel," then how would the Savior had fulfilled it, when his name was Jesus and not Immanuel? But this is not how it was written, because not everyone would call him by this title. The prophetic word says accurately, "You shall call." … Some scribes, because they did not understand this, wrote, "they will call" rather than "you shall call" in the Gospel of Matthew, even though the prophecy does not read this way. The Hebrew word translated in the passage is "you shall call," as is used by all the translations. Some translators translate the word for "virgin" as "young woman." There is no reason to think that the virgin was not also a young woman; in fact it is likely that the virgin who conceived the Savior was not fully grown but a young maiden.

Humanity was blended with God, and he was one. The more powerful predominated in order that I might become god just as he became human. Although he was already begotten, he was born of a woman, who was a virgin. Because his birth was from a woman, it was human. Because she was a virgin, it was divine. He had neither a human father nor a divine mother.

By no means will God speak in many and various ways, according to the apostle Paul, nor according to another prophet will he be represented through the hands of the prophets, but he who previously spoke through others will himself say "Here I am." The bride in the Song of Songs also asked in this regard: "O that you would kiss me with the kisses of your mouth!" For "the Lord of hosts is himself the King of glory." He will descend to a virginal womb and will enter and exit through the eastern gate that always remains closed, concerning which Gabriel said to the virgin: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the one who will be born to you is holy and will be called the Son of God." And Proverbs writes, "Wisdom built itself a home." Thus when it is said, "The Lord himself will give you a sign," this should refer to something new and marvelous.

Isaiah tells of the mystery of our faith and hope: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel." I know that the Jews are accustomed to meet us with the objection that in Hebrew the word almah does not mean a virgin but "a young woman." And, to speak truth, a virgin is properly called bethulah, but a young woman, or a girl, is not almah but naarah! What then is the meaning of almah? A hidden virgin, that is, not merely virgin, but a virgin and something more, because not every virgin is hidden, shut off from the occasional sight of men.

(Verse 14) Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and you shall call His name Emmanuel. In no way does God speak in various ways according to the Apostle Paul (Hebrews 1), nor according to any other prophet (Hosea 12), nor is He likened to the hands of prophets, but He who formerly spoke through others will say Himself, 'I am present' (Isaiah 58). This is the One whom the Bride was asking for in the Song of Solomon: 'Let him kiss me with the kiss of his mouth' (Song of Solomon 1:2). For the Lord of hosts, he is the king of glory (Ps. 23:10): He himself shall descend into the virgin's womb, and shall enter and depart from the Eastern gate, which is always closed (Ezek. 44); of which Gabriel says to the Virgin: The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you: therefore the holy one who shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35). And in Proverbs: Wisdom has built herself a house (Prov. 9:1). But when it is said, 'The Lord himself will give you a sign,' it must be new and marvelous. But if a young woman, as the Jews want, and not a virgin, were to give birth, what sign could it be called, since this name refers to age, not integrity? And indeed, so that we may compare our understanding with that of the Jews and not offer them the mockery of our ignorance, the Hebrew word for 'virgin' is 'Bethula' (), which is not written here in the present passage: instead, the word used is 'Alma' (), which all except the Septuagint translated as 'young woman.' Furthermore, the word 'alma' is ambiguous among them: for it is said both 'adolescentula' (young girl) and 'abscondita' (hidden), that is, 'ἀπόκρυφος' (secret).... Hence, in the title of the ninth psalm, where it is written in Hebrew as 'Alamoth' (), other translators have rendered it as 'adolescence', which the LXX interpreted as 'absconditis' (hidden things). And in Genesis we read: when Rebecca is said to be 'alma' (Gen. XXIV), Aquila did not translate it as 'adolescentula' or 'puella', but as 'abscondita' (hidden). Moreover, the Shunammite woman, having lost her son, fell at the feet of Elisha, and Jezi forbade her, but she heard from the Prophet: Let her go, for she is in pain, and the Lord hides from me (2 Kings 4:27). Because in Latin it is said 'hides from me', in Hebrew it is written 'Eelim Memmenni'. Therefore, a chaste woman, not only a girl or a virgin, but with great care is said to be hidden and secret, which has never been exposed to the gaze of men; but she has been guarded with great diligence by her parents. The Punic language, which is said to originate (or derive) from Hebrew sources, is properly called alma virgo. And to make the Jews laugh, alma is also called sancta in our language. And the Hebrews use the words of almost all languages: as in the Song of Songs (Song 3:9) where the Greek word φορεῖον, meaning litter, is used and it is also found in Hebrew. The Hebrews also use the words nugas (trifles) and mensuram (measure) in the same way and with the same meanings. And as far as my memory serves me, I never think I have read of a married woman having nourished men. but of a woman who is a virgin: not only a virgin, but a virgin of youthful age, and in the years of adolescence. For it is possible that an old woman may be a virgin, but this woman was a virgin in her girlhood. Or certainly a virgin, not a little girl, and one who could not yet know a man: but already marriageable. Finally, in Deuteronomy (Deut. XXII, 25 et seqq.) a virgin is understood under the name of a girl and a young girl. If, he said, a man finds a betrothed girl in the field and forces her, and lies with her, you shall kill only the man who lay with her, and the girl shall not be put to death. For just as when someone rises up against his neighbor in ambush and kills him, so this matter happened. In the field he found her: the betrothed girl cried out, and there was no one to save her. And in the volume of Kings (3 Kings 1), we read that they sought a virgin girl named Abishag, and they brought her to the king, who slept with her, and she cared for him, and the girl was very beautiful, and she served him, and the king did not know her. And what follows: And you shall call his name Emmanuel, and the seventy and three likewise translated it, for which it is written in Matthew, they shall call: which is not found in Hebrew. Therefore, this child who will be born of a Virgin, O house of David, shall now be called Emmanuel, which means, God with us, because you will prove to have God present by the very fact that you are freed from two enemy kings: and he who will be called Jesus afterwards, which means, Savior, because he will save the entire human race, shall now be called by you the name of Emmanuel. The Word of God, which all the interpreters have translated, you can understand and name: which is namely that the Virgin herself who will conceive and give birth, shall be called by this name, Christ. In many testimonies that the Evangelists or Apostles took from the ancient books, it should be carefully observed that they did not follow the order of the words, but the meaning. Hence, in the present passage, Matthew used 'in utero habebit' instead of 'concipiet in utero' (Matthew 1:13) and 'vocabunt' instead of 'vocabis'. The Hebrews believe that this is prophesied about the son of Hezekiah, Ahaz's son, that Samaria will be captured during his reign, which cannot be proven at all. Indeed, Ahaz, the son of Jotham, reigned over Judah and Jerusalem for sixteen years (2 Kings 16): and his son Hezekiah succeeded him as king, being twenty-five years old, and reigned over Judah and Jerusalem for twenty-nine years. So, how is it that in the first year of Ahaz, this prophecy about Hezekiah's conception and birth is said to have been given to him, when at that time when Ahaz began to reign, Hezekiah was already nine years old, unless perhaps they say that his infancy, not his age, is being referred to in the sixth year of Hezekiah's reign, when Samaria was captured? That it is forced and violent is evident even to fools. Some of us argue that the prophet Isaiah had two sons, Jasub and Emmanuel, and that Emmanuel was generated from his prophetess wife, as a symbol of the Lord Savior, so that the first son Jasub, which means abandoned or converted, signifies the Jewish people who were abandoned and will later return. And the second son, that is, Emmanuel, meaning God with us, signifies the calling of the Gentiles after the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

You have heard, therefore, that the Father is called Lord. Come now, and let me show you that the Son is called God. "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall give birth to a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which means, 'God is with us.' " Did you see how both the name Lord is given to the Father and the name God is given to the Son? In the psalm, the sacred writer said, "Let them know that Lord is your name." Here Isaiah says, "They shall call his name Immanuel."

To prevent you from thinking that his coming to earth was an accommodation, as those others were, and to give you solid grounds for truly believing that his was real flesh, he was conceived, born and nurtured. That his birth might be made manifest and become common knowledge, he was laid in a manger, not in some small room but in a lodging place before a throng of people. This was the reason for the swaddling clothes and also for the prophecies spoken long before. The prophecies showed not only that he was going to be a man but also that he would be conceived, born and nurtured as any child would be. Isaiah proclaimed this when he said, "Behold, the virgin will conceive and bear a son, and they will call his name Immanuel." He eats butter and honey. And again, the same prophet said, "A child is born to us, a son is given to us." Do you see how these prophecies foretold his infancy?

What precedes this passage also gives us its meaning. He does not simply say, "Behold, the virgin will conceive." First he said, "Behold, the Lord will give you a sign," and then he adds to it, "Behold, the virgin will conceive." If the one who was to give birth was not a virgin but the conception occurred in the natural manner, then what sort of sign would this be? A sign must be extraordinary and strange, or how else could it be a sign?

Were she not to be a virgin, the birth would not have been a sign. A sign is something that differs from the normal way things happen, that is outside the natural manner. A sign is so unusual and unexpected that someone who sees it or hears of it sees that it is out of the ordinary. It is called a "sign" because it is significant. Were the birth to be like normal births, it would not have been significant. If the prophecy is about a woman giving birth in the normal manner, like what happens every day, then why call it a sign?

And hear again how Isaiah in express words foretold that He should be born of a virgin; for he spoke thus: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a son, and they shall say for His name, `God with us.'" For things which were incredible and seemed impossible with men, these God predicted by the Spirit of prophecy as about to come to pass, in order that, when they came to pass, there might be no unbelief, but faith, because of their prediction. But lest some, not understanding the prophecy now cited, should charge us with the very things we have been laying to the charge of the poets who say that Jupiter went in to women through lust, let us try to explain the words. This, then, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive," signifies that a virgin should conceive without intercourse. For if she had had intercourse with any one whatever, she was no longer a virgin; but the power of God having come upon the virgin, overshadowed her, and caused her while yet a virgin to conceive. And the angel of God who was sent to the same virgin at that time brought her good news, saying, "Behold, thou shalt conceive of the Holy Ghost, and shalt bear a Son, and He shall be called the Son of the Highest, and thou shalt call His name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins,"--as they who have recorded all that concerns our Saviour Jesus Christ have taught, whom we believed, since by Isaiah also, whom we have now adduced, the Spirit of prophecy declared that He should be born as we intimated before. It is wrong, therefore, to understand the Spirit and the power of God as anything else than the Word, who is also the first-born of God, as the foresaid prophet Moses declared; and it was this which, when it came upon the virgin and overshadowed her, caused her to conceive, not by intercourse, but by power. And the name Jesus in the Hebrew language means Saviour in the Greek tongue. Wherefore, too, the angel said to the virgin, "Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins." And that the prophets are inspired by no other than the Divine Word, even you, as I fancy, will grant.

Moreover, the prophecy, "Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son," was uttered respecting Him. For if He to whom Isaiah referred was not to be begotten of a virgin, of whom did the Holy Spirit declare, "Behold, the Lord Himself shall give us a sign: behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son?" For if He also were to be begotten of sexual intercourse, like all other first-born sons, why did God say that He would give a sign which is not common to all the first-born sons? But that which is truly a sign, and which was to be made trustworthy to mankind,--namely, that the first-begotten of all creation should become incarnate by the Virgin's womb, and be a child,--this he anticipated by the Spirit of prophecy, and predicted it, as I have repeated to you, in various ways.

He [God] was with us on the earth, when he assumed flesh; and he was no less God in man, and man in God. That he was both God and man was declared before by the prophets.

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. [Isaiah 7:14]

The manner of his birth proves the truth about the Lord: a virgin conceived without knowing a man; her belly was filled, having been touched by no embrace; and her chaste womb received the Holy Spirit, whom her pure members preserved and her unsullied body carried. Behold the miracle of the mother of the Lord! She is a virgin when she conceives, a virgin when she brings forth, a virgin after birth. What glorious virginity! What splendid fruitfulness! The world's goodness is born, and there is no pain of childbirth. The womb is emptied, a child is brought forth, and still virginity is not violated. For it was fitting that when God was born, the value of chastity should increase, and that one who was untouched should not be violated by his coming—he who came to heal what was injured—and that bodily purity should not be harmed by him who bestows virginity on those who have been baptized and had formerly been unchaste. The child who has been born, then, is placed in a crib. This is God's first dwelling place, and the ruler of heaven does not disdain these straitened circumstances—he whose home was the virginal womb. Clearly Mary was a fit habitation for Christ not because of the nature of her body but because of the grace of her virginity.

What is the sign? "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son." In fact, a virgin did conceive and gave birth to "Emmanuel, God with us." This is the new birth: a man born from God. God was born in the man, taking the flesh of the old human race without the help of the old human seed. God took the flesh in order to reform the old human race with a new seed. In other words, he spiritually cleansed the old human race by removing its old stains.

Therefore. Here the sign for belief is given. And first, the sign of liberation is conferred; second, he threatens the unbelieving with the punishment of destruction: the Lord shall bring upon you (Isa 7:17).

Now this is the sign of the Incarnation of Christ. But the Jews object against this in many ways.

First, that the Lord was giving a sign of the liberation of the Jews at that time, with which the Incarnation of Christ agrees in nothing.

To which is to be said that the Incarnation of Christ signifies that liberation by an argument from the greater: for if God will give his son for the salvation of the whole world, much more can he save you from these enemies? He that spared not even his own Son, but delivered him up for us all (Rom 8:32); or as a motive cause, for this moves the Lord, as it were, since many good things are conceded to this people, however unjust they were, because he had provided for his Son to be made incarnate from them.

Likewise they object that the sign that follows is given to those who are present, but the Incarnation did not happen in their time, and so it would appear that no sign was given.

To which is to be said that, although the Incarnation did not happen in the presence of those men, it nevertheless did happen in the presence of the abiding house of David: hence he says, hear, O house of David (Isa 7:13), but not, "hear, Achaz."

Likewise they object that a sign ought to precede the thing signified; but the Incarnation happened long after this liberation; therefore it was not a sign of it.

To which is to be said that sometimes a sign follows the thing signified, as Deuteronomy 18:22: you shall have this sign: whatsoever that same prophet foretells in the name of the Lord, and it comes not to pass: that thing the Lord has not spoken; sometimes it occurs at the same time: when you shall hear the sound of one going in the tops of the pear trees, then shall you join battle (2 Sam 5:24); sometimes the sign precedes the thing signified, as with Gideon in Judges 7:5–7, when the sign was given that he ought to conquer with those who had lapped up water with their hands. And it is necessary that this sign should follow the thing signified, even as they themselves explain: for if it preceded it, then the child was born before the death of Phacee, who reigned twenty years; in the seventeenth year of his reign, Achaz began to reign, and Achaz reigned sixteen years; therefore, Achaz reigned thirteen years after the death of Phacee. And in the twelfth year of Achaz, Osee began to reign. In the ninth year of his reign, Samaria was captured, which was six years after the death of Achaz. Therefore, at the capture of Samaria, the child would have been at least nineteen years old; and thus what is said below in 8:4, that the child did not know to call his father and mother, would be false.

Likewise they object that in Hebrew it does not say virgin, but alma, which, according to them, signifies a marriageable young girl, as is found in Genesis 24:16 concerning Rebecca; where we have an exceeding comely maid, they also have alma. And even if it said bethula, which, according to them, signifies a virgin, this does not necessarily mean that she conceives while remaining a virgin, because it may be that she who was a virgin at the time of the prophecy, should conceive afterwards, having been corrupted by the seed of a man.

To which is to be said that it would be no sign at all if a young woman should conceive, and even a corrupted virgin. The Lord, however, wished to signify something great, when he said: unto the depth of hell, or unto the height above (Isa 7:11). Therefore, according to us, alma is used rather than young girl, because alma signifies a virgin, according to the origin of the word, and still more, it means one who is protected, about whom there can be no suspicion of evil. But bethula signifies virgin according to a later manner of speaking.

The Jews, however, explain this verse in two ways. Some say it concerns Ezechias; some say it concerns the son of Isaiah, whom they imagine to have been called Emmanuel.

But that the first cannot stand is thus shown, because Ezechias was twenty-five years old when he began to reign (2 Kgs 18:2), and Achaz reigned sixteen years (2 Kgs 16:2); therefore Ezechias was ten years old when his father began to reign; and thus he could not be promised to be born here. Moreover, how would he not know to call his father and mother, when, in the sixth year of his reign, Samaria was captured?

Likewise, that the second cannot stand is shown because this would be no sign at all. And moreover the son of Isaiah was not Lord of Judea, and yet, in Isaiah 8:8, the land of Judea is spoken of as a possession of Emmanuel. And therefore it is necessary to understand this to be speaking of the son of God.

Following this, therefore, he does three things. First, he promises the sign: therefore, because you do not wish to ask, the Lord himself shall give you a sign, of your liberation. This sign is also given to the shepherds in Luke 2:12: and this shall be a sign unto you. You shall find the infant wrapped in swaddling clothes.

Second, the sign itself is set out, behold a virgin. And first, the miraculous conception is set out: behold a virgin, remaining a virgin, shall conceive, in giving birth, bear a son.

Second, the naming of the miraculously begotten child; and first, as to his divinity: shall call, namely, the virgin shall call, or you yourself, Judah, shall call, in danger; his name Emmanuel, which is translated: "God with us." You shall call his name Emmanuel (Matt 1:23). And this entire occurrence has nothing like it elsewhere, for it is a new thing: the Lord has created a new thing upon the earth: a woman—or a female—shall compass a man (Jer 31:22); hence, a man perfect in conception itself, although not according to perfection of quantity, as Augustine says on John 2:20: six and forty years was this temple in building; and therefore, it is above man, for there is nothing new under the sun (Eccl 1:10). Hence there cannot be found another event that corresponds to this prophecy besides this story: behold you shall conceive and shall bring forth a son (Luke 1:31). This is signified in Ezekiel 44:2: this gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel has entered in by it.

It is to be noted on the words, his name shall be called Emmanuel, that is, "God with us," that Christ is with us in many ways. First, as a brother, through fellowship of nature: who shall give you to me for my brother, sucking the breasts of my mother, that I may find you without, and kiss you? (Song 8:1). Second, as a bridegroom, through the bond of love: if any one love me, he will keep my word (John 14:23). Third, as a shepherd, through the solace of inner consolation: behold, I stand at the gate and knock. If any man shall hear my voice and open to me the door, I will come in to him and will sup with him (Rev 3:20). Fourth, as a savior, through the help of defense: therefore fear you not, my servant Jacob, says the Lord, neither be dismayed, O Israel: for behold, I will save you from a country afar off (Jer 30:10). Fifth, as a leader, through the example of his work: the Lord alone was his leader (Deut 32:12).

It is to be noted on the words, behold a virgin, that behold is said because of her singular eminence: first, because she is above women because of her virginity: hence he says, behold a virgin; second, she is above virgins because of her fruitfulness: hence he says, she shall conceive; third, she is above all angels because of the worthiness of her fruit: hence he says, she shall bear a son: never doth he take hold of the angels: but of the seed of Abraham he takes hold (Heb 2:16).

(Verse 15) He shall eat butter and honey, so that he may know how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before he knows to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings. The Lord will bring the king of Assyria upon you and your people and your father's house—days that have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall hiss for the fly that is in the uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria. And they shall come, and shall rest all of them in the desolate valleys, and in the holes of the rocks, and upon all thorns, and upon all bushes. I will say something even more amazing, so that you do not think that he is born in a fantasy, he will use foods of infancy, he will eat butter and milk. And although many centuries later the Evangelist testifies about him: But the child grew in wisdom and age and grace before God and men (Luke 2:52): and this is said to confirm the truth of the human body: yet still wrapped in swaddling clothes, and fed with butter and honey, he will have the ability to judge between good and evil, so that he may reject evil and choose good. Not because he did or disapproved or chose this, but because he knew how to disapprove and choose, so that through these words we may know that the infancy of the human body did not hinder divine wisdom. Lastly, the Angels announce to the shepherds the laying in the manger: The Magi adore coming from the East, whom it is to be believed were certainly chosen. And on the other hand, Herod, the scribes, and the Pharisees are disapproved, (Matthew 2), because they killed many thousands of infants for the sake of one child.

This is said ["The child grew in wisdom and in age before God and men"] in order to establish the truth of his human body. Nevertheless, wrapped in swaddling clothes and fed with curds and honey, he will have the judgment to distinguish between good and evil, that rejecting evil he might choose the good. It does not say that he will in fact reject and choose but that he would learn to reject and to choose, so that we might know through such words that this pertains to the infant's human body, not to divine wisdom. Finally, it must be believed that the angels who announced to shepherds the news of the infant lying in a manger and the magi who came from the east to worship him were chosen. Herod, the scribes and the Pharisees, on the other hand, were condemned because they slaughtered thousands of children for the sake of one infant.

Now, since the Lord was not a mere man but was also God and knew all things, he stood in no need of reflection, inquiry, counsel or judgment. He also had a natural affinity for good and antipathy for evil. Thus it is in this sense that the prophet Isaiah, too, says, "Before the child shall know to refuse the evil, he will choose the good. For before the child knows to refuse the evil and to choose the good, he will reject the evil by choosing the good." The "before" shows that he made no inquiry or investigation in a human manner but that since he was God and divinely subsisted in the flesh—that is to say, was personally united to the flesh—by the fact of his very being and his knowing all things he naturally possessed the good.

Second, as to his humanity: he shall eat butter and honey, literally, manly foods, because from infancy he held himself to the manner of other men: and being born, I drew in the common air, and fell upon the earth, that is made alike, and the first voice which I uttered was crying, as all others do (Wis 7:3).

Or from the part to the whole, according to the rules of Tyconius: for through these he understands all human foods. That he may know. The "that" is consecutive, for, feeding on such things, the child still knows to refuse the evil, without experience, and to choose the good, without counsel, having all perfect knowledge. The devil had promised this, but did not fulfill it (Gen 3:5); but God gave it freely: for he has given me the true knowledge of the things that are: to know the disposition of the whole world, and the virtues of the elements (Wis 7:17).

Or, "that" is causal: that he may know, that is, that he may show himself to know, because he is led through the foods to the perfect quantity of years, in which he shows himself to know. Augustine on Song of Songs 4:11, honey and milk, says that humanity is signified by butter, because it comes from the nourishment of the earth; divinity is signified by honey, because it is collected from the dew of heaven. He had, moreover, a nature without corruption, like butter without curd; and he carried consolation without judgment, like honey without the sting. Bernard: our little one chose to be newly conceived, because he took the nature of our flesh without corruption. Similarly, the bee brings us honey without mingling in the sting. He came not to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him (John 3:17). And thus, "that" is also causal. And this is a sign from below on the part of the virgin giving birth, and from above on the part of God being born: the Lord will give goodness: and our earth shall yield her fruit (Ps 84:13[85:12]).

(Verse 16) For before the boy knows how to reject evil and choose good, the land that you detest will be abandoned by the face of its two kings. In the sixth year of the reign of Hezekiah, Samaria was captured by the Assyrians (2 Kings 18), that is, in his thirty-first year of age. Therefore, this one who is to be born, either from a Virgin, as we believe, or from a young woman, as the Jews claim, will eat butter and honey, and will be so young that he cannot discern between evil and good, and before he leaves infancy, the land of Syria and Samaria will be laid waste by the Assyrians. Let the Hebrews answer how Hezekiah is proclaimed an infant at the age of thirty-one, and of such a young age that he, eating honey and butter, like the children of Nineveh, does not know left from right, that is, does not know evil from good. But in regard to Emmanuel, which means 'God is with us,' he will have an easy understanding. As for the mystery and invocation of his name, let the land of Syria and Samaria be laid waste, even by the Assyrians who prevail, and let the house of David be freed from the two kings whom he fears, namely, Rezin and Pekah.

Third, the adaptation of the sign is set out: for before the child know, that is, before he assumed created knowledge in being born; the land, of Samaria and Syria (2 Kgs 16:9, 17:3–5).

Chapter 8 — Verses 1-4. And the Lord said to me: Take for yourself a large book, and write in it with the pen of a man, quickly seize the spoils, swiftly plunder. And I appointed faithful witnesses for myself, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Barachiah, and I approached the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the Lord said to me: Call his name, hasten, seize the spoils, hurry to plunder; for before the child knows how to call his father and his mother, the strength of Damascus will be taken away, and the spoils of Samaria will be carried off before the king of Assyria. Seventy interpreters were employed for the large book, they translated it into a new and large book. And because it is found in Hebrew, I called upon faithful witnesses who said: 'It is present indeed, and let faithful men be my witnesses.' And concerning Uriah the Priest, only Uriah, the rest likewise. The first prophet was sent to Ahaz (Isaiah 7), to foretell to him what the Scripture mentions: but since he was unwilling to listen, the Lord himself speaks to Ahaz and commands him to ask for a sign either in the depth or in the height. In response to this, I will not ask, and I will not test the Lord. After the wicked king is dismissed, the words of God are turned to the house of David, and a Virgin is promised to give birth to a son, whose name shall be Emmanuel, which means, God is with us. If he is frequently invoked, Samaria shall be overthrown and Syria: and shall be overthrown by the king of Assyria, who shall later capture Judah itself; so that all the land of Judah shall be turned into a wilderness. Again, therefore, under another figure, a virgin birth is described. And the Lord said to the Prophet, that he should not reveal the secret of the new birth to the people, but write it in this great volume that we now read. And to make it more wondrous, let it be written in human words and in the style that men are accustomed to write, so that it may contain the sacraments of God. But what is this that is written in human style? That a child born swiftly may take away spoils and quickly plunder, that is, that he may no longer suffer the devil to reign. And let him not send Angels or Prophets, but he himself descend to save his creatures. Therefore, the Prophet does what he was commanded and summons two faithful witnesses for himself, Uriah the priest, who is a teacher of the law, as Malachi says: The lips of the priest shall guard knowledge, and they shall seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts (Malachi 2:7); and Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom there is no doubt was a prophet. We read that during the reign of Ahaz, Uriah was a priest of the Temple of the Lord (2 Kings 4), to whom Ahaz commanded to make an altar like the altar in Damascus. And the book of Days (2 Chronicles 29) narrates that Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, sought the Lord in the days of Zechariah, who was learned in the fear of God. Isaiah presented himself as worthy of the prophetic spirit and offered the prophetess, that is, the Holy Spirit, who is called Rua in the Hebrew language. According to what is written: Come to the Lord and be illumined (Psalm 33:6). Therefore, the Lord was conceived by the Holy Spirit. And although human speech cannot explain the mysteries of his nativity, nevertheless Gabriel speaks to the Virgin who conceived him: The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God (Luke 1:35). Some interpret the holy prophetess Mary, whom there is no doubt was a prophetess, for she herself speaks in the Gospel: For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me (Luke 1:48-49), and the rest. And it is commanded by Isaiah, that the very child who was formerly called Emmanuel, should now be called, hasten, strip away the spoils, hasten to plunder. For ascending on high, he led captivity captive; he received gifts for men (Ps. 67; Eph. 4:8) . And before assuming a human body, and calling God his father in his infancy, and calling Mary his mother, the strength of Damascus will be taken away, and the spoils of Samaria by the king of Assyrians: so that even before he is born, he will save his people, the house of David, by his mere invocation. Uriah means the light of the Lord; Zacharias, the memory of the Lord; and Barachias, the blessing of the Lord: by these witnesses, the birth of Christ is confirmed. For he, in the Gospel of Luke, explained to two men going to Emmaus that Moses and the Prophets had prophesied about him. According to typology, in the virgin soul, untouched by any stain, conceived by the Holy Spirit, he quickly takes spoils from opposing powers and makes all things serve him. And now, as he sees in part and prophesies in part (1 Corinthians 13), before he can be made perfect and rightfully call God his heavenly Father and Mother, he, still in infancy and in progress, will conquer the strength of Damascus, namely the doctrine of secular wisdom. And he will take the spoils of Samaria that the heretics have taken from the Church, saying, 'We have no share in David, nor inheritance in the son of Jesse' (1 Kings 12:16), with the very king of the Assyrians present, the devil, who will not be able to come to their aid. But these holy women do not only bear sons to the prophets, Maria the eternal Virgin, but also to the patriarchs. Sara, which is interpreted as 'ruler' or 'prince', that is, chief: and Rebecca, which in our language means 'patience'.

263. And the Lord said to me: take you a great book. Here he foretells the destruction of the ten tribes, insofar as it pertains to their punishment. This was carried out by the Assyrians: first, in the reign of Phacee, by Theglathphalasar, who captured the two and a half tribes which were across the Jordan, and many people from the tribes of Zebulon and Naphtali (2 Kgs 15); afterwards, by Salmanasar, who reduced the remaining tribes to captivity (2 Kgs 18:9–12). However, the two tribes also shared in this tribulation, for they were afflicted by Theglathphalasar, as is said in 2 Chronicles 28:20, and by Sennacherib, as is said below in chapter 36. Nevertheless, they were not entirely subjugated. And this is divided into two parts:

in the first, he foretells the tribulation;

in the second, its mode and order: at the first time the land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephtali was lightly touched (ch. 9).

264. This chapter, moreover, is divided into three parts:

in the first, he threatens the ten tribes with destruction by the Assyrians;

in the second, he foretells the affliction of the two tribes in this, where it says, and shall pass through Judah, overflowing (Isa 8:8);

in the third, he strengthens them with their future liberation, where it says, gather yourselves (Isa 8:9).

Concerning the first, he does two things:

in the first, the sign of destruction is set out;

in the second, the deed itself is described, where it says, and the Lord spoke to me again (Isa 8:5).

Concerning the first, he sets out two things:

first, he sets out the prefiguration of the punishment;

in the second, the expression of the sign, where it says, for before the child know (Isa 8:4).

The Jews, however, interpret this sign literally as the son of Isaiah, through whose name the Lord wished to signify the destruction of the ten tribes. And according to this, he confirmed the sign in three ways:

first, by writing;

second, by testimony, where it says, and I took (Isa 8:2);

third, by the deed itself, where it says, and I went (Isa 8:3).

265. Concerning the first, he sets out three things,

namely, that in which it is to be written: a great book, for, literally, the book is large to signify the magnitude of the tribulation: take you a roll of a book, and you shall write in it all that I have spoken to you against Israel and Judah (Jer 36:2).

Second, that with which it is to be written: with a man's pen, that is, plainly, that it may be understood, and that what is written will remain: write the vision, and make it plain upon tables: that he that reads it may run over it (Hab 2:2).

Third, that which is to be written, namely, the name of him who will lay waste, signifying in brief the future destruction: take away the spoils with speed, quickly take the prey, that is, ravage. These may be words of the Lord spoken to the prophet, and thus they are taken materially; or they are spoken to the enemies, and thus, significatively, below: and I will give him a charge against the people of my wrath, to take away the spoils, and to lay hold on the prey (Isa 10:6).

268. Against this, some object in many ways that it should not be understood literally,

first, because, since the words commanded to be written are few, it is not necessary for the book to be large;

second, because it is not probable that the prophet, a decent man, would have brought in witnesses when he went to his wife;

third, because Urias made an altar of idols like the altar of Damascus in the temple of the Lord (2 Kgs 16:15–16), and thus he was not a faithful witness;

fourth, because Zachariah was not alive then, for Zachariah the son of Joiada had been killed long before by Joas, king of Judah (2 Chr 24:22); another man is called Zachariah, who was one of the twelve prophets, and he lived long after, during the return of the people from captivity, as is clear from Zechariah 1:1 and through the whole book: therefore, the prophet could not have taken Zachariah as a witness; and moreover there remains a similar objection as exists with the first sign, that the child himself was born before the death of Phacee: therefore, as was proved above, he was at least nineteen years old at the capture of Samaria, and therefore what is said in 8:4 is false: before the child know to call his father and his mother.

269. And thus they hold that this is understood only of Christ, just as the first sign; that, by the great book, Sacred Scripture is signified, about which it says in Baruch 4:1: this is the book of the commandments of God, and the law, that is for ever; by the man's pen, the manner of prophecy, that it is not altogether clear to everyone, but only to the rational, who can conceive things signified from figures: I have multiplied visions, and I have used similitudes by the ministry of the prophets (Hos 12:10).

Take away the spoils with speed, the name of Christ, that is, a circumlocution for his name, because Jesus is savior, in that he took away spoils, that is, sinners, from the power of the devil, and plundered hell, about which it says below: therefore will I distribute to him very many, and he shall divide the spoils of the strong (Isa 53:12).

By Urias, which means "light of the Lord," the law is signified: because the commandment is a lamp, and the law a light (Prov 6:23). By Zachariah, which means "memory of the Lord," the son of Barachias, which means "blessing of the Lord," prophecy is signified, for the prophets received divine knowledge through the blessing of a divine gift. And these, namely, the law and the prophets, are the witnesses of the Incarnation of Christ: all things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses and in the prophets and in the psalms, concerning me (Luke 24:44). The prophetess, moreover, is the blessed Virgin, who prophesied saying: my soul doth magnify the Lord (Luke 1:46), to whom the prophet went through prophetic understanding and through faith; or the prophetess is said to be the Holy Spirit, who is the principle of all prophecy: for prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1:21). For in Hebrew, the word for "spirit," namely, ruah, is feminine in gender, and according to this, she conceived, that is, the Spirit made Mary to conceive: for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Spirit (Matt 1:20). Call his name, O Isaiah, that is, foretell his name, as above.

270. This interpretation, however, is not of such authority as that above on 7:14, concerning the other sign, because it is more forced and does not have authority from the Scriptures, as the other does from Matthew 1:22–23. Hence some say that it is not unreasonable if this be understood literally, in such a way, however, that this child may be a figure of Christ, as is also said above in a certain gloss on 7:14: behold a virgin.

Hence, according to this, a reply can be made to the objections that were made at first.

And to the first is to be said that the book was great, not because the writing required it, but to signify the magnitude of the tribulation.

To the second is to be said that it can be understood that the witnesses were brought in for the writing, as may be done in claims of privilege, and not for his going to his wife; and even if they were brought in for this, it would not be more against decency, as it seems, than bringing in witnesses for fornication as in Hosea 1:2–3, even though many interpret that passage literally.

To the third is to be said that Urias is called faithful because of the authority of the priesthood and not because of the goodness of his life; or that he was held to be worthy of faith by the king.

To the fourth is to be said that this Zachariah was neither of the ones named; for it is the custom among the Hebrews, as among many peoples, that names are given to sons from their kindred, as is said in Luke 1:61 of John: there is none of your kindred that is called by this name, and thus, this Zachariah could have been from the progeny of the one who had been killed earlier; or it is also the custom among the Hebrews, as Jerome says, that they often use a proper noun for a common noun, as they often use Bosra, which is the name of a fortified city, for any fortified city: and thus, because that Zachariah was a faithful prophet, and of great reputation among the people, this man is also called Zachariah, who perhaps was similarly worthy of faith to the people of that place.

To the fifth is to be said that this is not a similar objection, for it is necessary that what is said above only be understood of the destruction, because it says in 7:16: the land shall be forsaken; but 8:4 can be understood of the persecution carried out by Theglathphalasar, who destroyed Damascus (2 Kgs 16:9), and despoiled the kingdom of Samaria (2 Kgs 15:19–20); hence he says expressly: the strength of Damascus, and the spoils of Samaria shall be taken away, and this event was near enough.

271. It is to be noted on the words, a great book (Isa 8:1), that the Sacred Page is a book that is said to be,

first, great, as to the greatness of its content: hear me, for I will speak of great things: and my lips shall be opened to preach right things (Prov 8:6).

Second, it is sealed, as to vision, below: and the vision of all shall be unto you as the words of a book that is sealed (Isa 29:11).

Third, it is rolled up because of its multiple senses: and I looked, and behold, a hand was sent to me, wherein was a book rolled up (Ezek 2:9).

Fourth, it is bitter because of the labor of study: and I took the book from the hand of the angel and ate it up: and it was in my mouth, sweet as honey. And when I had eaten it, my belly was bitter (Rev 10:10); they that in the morning early watch for me, shall find me (Prov 8:17).

Fifth, it is sweet, as to its effect: eat this book: and I did eat it: and it was sweet as honey in my mouth (Ezek 3:1–3).

Sixth, it is flying, as to its meaning: I saw, and behold a volume flying (Zech 5:1); will the eagle mount up at your command, and make her nest in high places? (Job 39:27).

Seventh, it is life-giving, as to its fruit: all these things are the book of life, and the covenant of the Most High, and the knowledge of truth (Sir 24:32); he that shall find me, shall find life (Prov 8:35).

266. And I took unto me. Here the sign is confirmed by testimony; faithful witnesses: in the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word stand (Deut 19:15).

How was it, then, one may say, that his name was not called Emmanuel but Jesus Christ? Because he did not say "you shall call" but "they shall call," that is, the multitude and the issue of events. For here he uses an event (i.e., God being "with us") as a name; and this is customary in Scripture, to substitute the events that take place for names. Therefore, to say, "they shall call" him "Emmanuel" means nothing else than that they shall see God among humanity. For he has always been among them, but never so manifestly.

267. And I went to the prophetess. Here it is confirmed by the deed, for sometimes the prophets announced a future thing also by the deed itself, as below: go, and loose the sackcloth from off your loins, and take off your shoes from your feet. And he did so, and went naked, and barefoot (Isa 20:2). Hence this is understood literally that he went to his wife. Hence two things are set out:

first, the begetting of the child: and I went;

second, the naming of the begotten, call his name, hasten, as if to say: make haste to do it; take away the spoils, as above (Isa 8:1).

Or according to another version of Jerome: hasten, the spoils take away; and this is better, since, according to this, there is nothing more in the name than in what was written in the book.

For, before the child knew how to call his father and mother, as Isaiah had prophesied of him, he took the strength of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria. That is, before he uttered human speech through his humanity, he took the strength of Damascus or that which gave confidence to Damascus. For, in the estimation of the world, that city had flourished for some time on account of her riches. But preeminence in riches is gained by gold, and the magi as suppliants offered gold to Christ.

For that expression of Isaiah 'He shall take the power of Damascus and spoils of Samaria,' foretold that the power of the evil demon that dwelt in Damascus should be overcome by Christ as soon as He was born; and this is proved to have happened. For the Magi, who were held in bondage for the commission of all evil deeds through the power of that demon, by coming to worship Christ, shows that they have revolted from that dominion which held them captive; and this [dominion] the Scripture has showed us to reside in Damascus. Moreover, that sinful and unjust power is termed well in parable, Samaria. And none of you can deny that Damascus was, and is, in the region of Arabia, although now it belongs to what is called Syrophoenicia. Hence it would be becoming for you, sirs, to learn what you have not perceived, from those who have received grace from God, namely, from us Christians; and not to strive in every way to maintain your own doctrines, dishonouring those of God.

I, on my part, now wish to engage with you in a discussion on the allegorical expressions of the apostle. What figures of speech could the novel god have found in the prophets (fit for himself)? "He led captivity captive," [Ephesians 4:8] says the apostle. With what arms? In what conflicts? From the devastation of what country? From the overthrow of what city? What women, what children, what princes did the Conqueror throw into chains? For when by David Christ is sung as "girded with His sword upon His thigh," [Psalm 45:3] or by Isaiah as "taking away the spoils of Samaria and the power of Damascus," [Isaiah 8:4] you make Him out to be really and truly a warrior confest to the eye. Learn then now, that His is a spiritual armour and warfare, since you have already discovered that the captivity is spiritual, in order that you may further learn that this also belongs to Him, even because the apostle derived the mention of the captivity from the same prophets as suggested to him his precepts likewise: ...

272. For before the child know. Here the interpretation of the sign is set out; and it is already clear according to the literal interpretation. According to the other interpretation, however: for before the child know, by created knowledge, his father, his putative father Joseph, or God; the strength of Damascus, and the spoils of Samaria shall be taken away, according to this, this can also be referred to the captivity of Samaria.

(Verse 9, 10.) Gather together, O people, and be conquered, and listen, all far away lands: be strengthened and be conquered. Gird yourselves, and be conquered: take counsel, and it shall be dissipated: speak a word, and it shall not be, because God is with us. Regarding the phrase 'gather together, or be weakened, and be broken,' as others have interpreted, the Septuagint translated it as 'know.' For the Hebrew word, Rou (), because of the resemblance of the letter Res () and Daleth (), they understood it as Dou (). Therefore, know that the people of Samaria and Syria are weak and feeble, and in the presence of Emmanuel, they are unable to do anything against the city of God, Jerusalem. And not only you, who are neighbors, but the whole distant land should know this. For even if you gather an army and prepare for battle, and the number of those besieging is greater than the number of those being besieged, I say to you again, you will be defeated. And whatever plan you make against Jerusalem will be destroyed. And although you have said above (Isaiah 7:6): Let us go up to Judah and harass it, and make a breach in it, and set a king over it, the son of Tabeel; you speak a word, but it will not stand, for God is with us, that is, Emmanuel. We can use this testimony against the nations in the time of persecution, that although they may seem strong and overcome us in those who have fallen, they will be defeated in those who have shed their blood for Christ, and that after the wars, peace will be restored to the Churches, and all their plans against Emmanuel will be scattered, for God is with us. They also listen beneficially to contradict the truth, so that they may ultimately be overcome by reason, and never desire to prevail in falsehood, because whatever they say, wickedness can never overcome what is right.

And what the same prophet said has been fulfilled. "God is with us. Know this, O nations, and be conquered." For we who are from the nations have been conquered and overcome. And we who bend our necks beneath his grace stand forth as a kind of spoils of his victory.

278. Gather yourselves together, O you peoples. Because he had said that the persecution of the Assyrians would run over in some manner into the two tribes, here he strengthens them, because they were not to be finally captured in that persecution, nor even be subjugated by the ten tribes and the Syrians. And this is divided into two parts:

in the first, he sets out divine strengthening;

in the second, he removes the communication of diviners: and when they shall say to you (Isa 8:19).

Concerning the first, he sets out two things:

first, he sets out the ridicule of the enemy,

second, the instruction of the people: for thus says the Lord (Isa 8:11).

Concerning the first of these, he does two things:

first, he sets out the ridicule or insult;

second, the reason for the ridicule: because God is with us (Isa 8:10).

And he ridicules the army of those who fight, the counsel of the wise, and the command of the lords: for wars are fought by these three.

279. Now an army grows strong by three things:

namely, by multitude, and as to this, he says: O you peoples, of Syria and Samaria, gather yourselves together, that you may be many, and be overcome, by God fighting against you through whomsoever of his ministers; and not only you, but give ear to this same thing all you lands. And this is sarcasm, a certain species of trope, which is said to be a sort of ridicule that is hostile and full of hatred: break forth, and come, all you nations from round about, and gather yourselves together: there will the Lord cause all your strong ones to fall down (Joel 3:11).

Second, it grows strong in the fortitude of body and soul of those who fight, and as to this he says, strengthen yourselves: let the weak say: I am strong (Joel 3:10).

Third, it grows strong in the protection of arms: gird yourselves, which pertains properly to swords, but is taken from there to apply to all arms: gird yourselves, and be valiant men, and be ready against the morning, that you may fight with these nations that are assembled against us to destroy us and our sanctuary (1 Macc 3:58).

280. As to counsel: take counsel together, and it shall be defeated: who catches the wise in their craftiness, and scatters the counsel of the wicked (Job 5:13); there is no wisdom, there is no prudence, there is no counsel against the Lord (Prov 21:30).

281. As to the commands of lords concerning these things which are chosen after counsel: speak a word, and it shall not be done, above: let us make him king in the midst thereof (Isa 7:6). For the kings would announce what they chose to the people, as Homer says.

282. He sets out the reason by translating the name Emmanuel, because God is with us: if God be for us, who is against us? (Rom 8:31); and they shall fight against you, and shall not prevail: for I am with you to save you, and to deliver you, says the Lord (Jer 15:20).

"And on the first of the week came Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and saw the stone taken away from the sepulchre." The first of the week is what Christian practice now calls the Lord's day, because of the resurrection of the Lord.

(de Con. Evang. iii. 24) Mary Magdalene, undoubtedly the most fervent in love, of all the women that ministered to our Lord; so that John deservedly mentions her only, and says nothing of the others who were with her, as we know from the other Evangelists.

(Tr. cxx) Una sabbati is the day which Christians call the Lord's day, after our Lord's resurrection. Matthew calls it prima sabbati.

(de Con. Evang. iii. 24.) What Mark says, Very early in the morning, at the rising of the sun (Mark 16:1), does not contradict John's words, when it was yet dark. At the dawn of day, there are yet remains of darkness, which disappear as the light breaks in. We must not understand Mark's words, Very early in the morning, at the rising of the sun, ἡλίου ἀνατεέλαντος to mean that the sun was above the horizon, but rather what we ourselves ordinarily mean by the phrase, when we want any thing to be done very early, we say at the rising of the sun, i. e. some time before the sun is risen.

(Con. Evang. iii. 24) Now took place what Matthew only relates, the earthquake, and rolling away of the stone, and fright of the guards.

Una sabbati, i. e. one day after the sabbath.

Now on the first day of the week, etc. The Evangelist treated above of those things which pertain to the Lord's incarnation and passion; from this place to the end he treats of those things which pertain to his resurrection. Therefore in this part is treated the manifestation of Christ's resurrection. And because the solicitude of the disciples preceded this manifestation, and our instruction or the certitude of faith followed, the solicitude of the disciples and women is first described, to whom he manifested himself.

The solicitude of Mary is noted both in her vigilance in seeking and in her diligence in reporting. She was indeed vigilant in seeking, because she came at the earliest dawn; therefore he says: Now on the first day of the week, namely the Lord's day, which is the first, that is, the first day of the week, that is, of the seven-day period, according to that passage in Luke 18: "I fast twice in the week." Sabbath is also the name of the seventh day; Exodus 20: "Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day." Mary Magdalene came early, as one anxious to see the Lord's body, and therefore she did not wait for daylight; and therefore he adds: While it was still dark, to the tomb. Chrysostom: "Mary, being wholly lovingly disposed toward the Master, because the Sabbath had passed, could not bear to rest, but came at deep dawn to the tomb, wishing to find a certain consolation from the place." And because it was early, therefore she found; Proverbs 8: "Those who watch for me early shall find me."

And she saw the stone: here is noted her diligence in reporting, in this, that she reports the opening of the tomb she had seen to the disciples; whence: And she saw the stone rolled away from the tomb. This removal of the stone was signified in Judges 16, where it is said that "Samson seized both doors of the gate with the posts and bars, and placing them on his shoulders, carried them to the top of the mountain."

Question. Since other women had come to the tomb with Magdalene, why does John speak only of her? Augustine responds in the third book of On the Harmony of the Evangelists: "Mary Magdalene," he says, "was far more fervent than the other women who had ministered to the Lord; on account of which John not undeservedly mentioned her alone, passing over in silence the others who were with her, as the other Evangelists attest."

Question. Concerning what he says: She came to the tomb in the morning. On the contrary: In Matthew 28 it is said that they came in the evening to see the sepulcher. Augustine responds saying that "in the evening of the Sabbath" is the same as "in the night of the Sabbath"; and he proves that it ought to be understood thus by the following text: "which dawns on the first day of the week," which cannot be the case if we understand only the beginning of the night; but evening by synecdoche gives us to understand the night, which begins to end at daylight. Others respond that this was said because in the evening they prepared themselves by buying spices, but in the morning at dawn they came, as John says.

Question. What is meant by what is said: While it was still dark, since in Mark 16 it is said: The sun having already risen? I respond: As Augustine says in the book On the Harmony of the Evangelists, Mary came twice: first, before she called the disciples, and afterward she returned again; and the first time she came while it was still dark; afterward, when the sun was shining.

Question. Concerning what he says: She saw the stone rolled away, etc. Would it not have been of greater power to go out with it closed? It seems so. And it must be said that the Lord rose while the tomb was closed, and it was opened afterwards by the Angel. Chrysostom: "Jesus indeed rose while the stone and the seals remained in place. But because it was necessary for others to be assured, the tomb is opened after the resurrection, and thus what had happened is believed."

No one, I suppose, will imagine that the inspired writers disagree or that they fix the time of the resurrection differently. But anyone who chooses to investigate the meaning of the indications they give of the time will find that their accounts add up. For early dawn and late night fix the same point of time, that is, the very dead of night, so to say. There is, therefore, no discrepancy between them. For the one, taking as his starting point the end of night, and the other the beginning, both reach the middle watch and meet at the same point, that is, as I just now said, the dead of night.

No very exact account seems to be offered in the Scriptures of the hour at which Jesus rose. For the Evangelists have given different descriptions of the parties who came to the sepulcher one after another, and all have declared that they found the Lord risen already. It was "in the end of the sabbath," as Matthew has said. It was "early, when it was yet dark," as John writes. It was "very early in the morning," as Luke puts it. And it was "very early in the morning, at the rising of the sun," as Mark tells us. And so, no one has shown us clearly the exact time when he rose. It is admitted, however, that those who came to the sepulcher in the end of the sabbath found him no longer lying in it, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week. And let us not suppose that the Evangelists disagree or contradict each other. But even though there may seem to be some small difficulty as to the subject of our inquiry, if they all agree that the light of the world, our Lord, rose on that one night, while they differ with respect to the hour, we may well seek with wise and faithful mind to harmonize their statements.

The reading of the holy Gospel which you have just heard, brothers, is very clear on the surface of its historical meaning, but we must seek out its mysteries in brief. Mary Magdalene came to the tomb while it was still dark. According to the historical account, the hour is noted; but according to the mystical understanding, the intelligence of the one seeking is signified. For Mary was seeking at the tomb the author of all things, whom she had seen dead in the flesh; and because she did not find him, she believed he had been stolen. Therefore it was still dark when she came to the tomb.

(Hom. in Ev. xxii.) It is well said, When it was yet dark: Mary was seeking the Creator of all things in the tomb, and because, she found Him not, thought He was stolen. Truly it was yet dark when she came to the sepulchre. And seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

Hidden first in a womb of flesh, he sanctified human birth by his own birth. Hidden afterward in the womb of the earth, he gave life to the dead by his resurrection. Suffering, pain and sighs have now fled away. For who has known the mind of God, or who has been his counselor if not the Word made flesh who was nailed to the cross, who rose from the dead and who was taken up into heaven? This day brings a message of joy: it is the day of the Lord's resurrection when, with himself, he raised up the race of Adam. Born for the sake of human beings, he rose from the dead with them. On this day paradise is opened by the risen one, Adam is restored to life and Eve is consoled. On this day the divine call is heard, the kingdom is prepared, we are saved and Christ is adored. On this day, when he had trampled death under foot, made the tyrant a prisoner and despoiled the underworld, Christ ascended into heaven as a king in victory, as a ruler in glory, as an invincible charioteer. He said to the Father, "Here am I, O God, with the children you have given me." And he heard the Father's reply, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool." To him be glory, now and for ever, through endless ages. Amen.

How can I recount for you these hidden realities or proclaim what goes beyond any word or concept? How can I lay open before you the mystery of the Lord's resurrection, the saving sign of his cross and of his three days' death? For each and every event that happened to our Savior is an outward sign of the mystery of our redemption. Just as Christ was born from his mother's inviolate virginal womb, so too he rose again from the closed tomb. As he, the only-begotten Son of God was made the firstborn of his mother, so, by his resurrection, he became the firstborn from the dead. His birth did not break the seal of his mother's virginal integrity. Nor did his rising from the dead break the seals on the sepulcher. And so, just as I cannot fully express his birth in words, neither can I wholly encompass his going forth from the tomb.

"The first day of the week" (that is, the Lord's day) "cometh Mary Magdalene, very early in the morning, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulcher." For He arose while both stone and seals lay over Him; but because it was necessary that others should be fully satisfied, the tomb was opened after the Resurrection, and thus what had come to pass was confirmed. This then was what moved Mary. For being entirely full of loving affection towards her Master, when the Sabbath was past, she could not bear to rest, but came very early in the morning, desiring to find some consolation from the place. But when she saw the place, and the stone taken away, she neither entered in nor stooped down, but ran to the disciples, in the greatness of her longing; for this was what she earnestly desired, she wished very speedily to learn what had become of the body.

To the Sun, before sun, once he had set in the tomb The young women bearing incense hastened at dawn, As though seeking the day and saying to one another, "O friends, come Let us anoint with spices The body, life-bearing and buried, The flesh which resurrects the fallen Adam That lies here in this tomb. Let us go, let us hurry like the magi, And let us kneel down and bring with us The myrrh as gifts— Not to him in swaddling clothes But to him wrapped in burial cloths. And let us weep and cry out: 'O Master! Arise! You who offer resurrection to the fallen.' " While these godly women were discussing These things among themselves, They considered another idea, which is full of wisdom, And they said to one another: "Women, why are we fooling ourselves? For surely the Lord is not in the tomb! Could it have held in subjection this long One who controls the breath of living beings? Would he still be lying there as a putrid corpse?… Let Mary go and see the tomb, And let us follow whatever she tells us, For most certainly, as he foretold, The immortal one has arisen, He who offers resurrection to the fallen." The wise women, giving due consideration to this idea, As planned, sent forward Mary Magdalene To the tomb, as the Theologian says. It was dark, but love lighted the way for her; And so she saw the great stone rolled away From the entrance to the tomb.

It seems to those who dissent that here also the words of the Evangelists do not agree with one another. On the contrary, it seems to me that on the basis of their accounts their words are perfectly consistent.… Indeed, John says, "Early … while it was dark." The word early is not referred here to the morning. In fact, he does not say while it was "still" dark, which should have been said with regard to morning. But he wrote, "while it was dark," that is, on the next day when the night began, by designating with the term early the entire day so that he might say the day after the sabbath. The holy Scripture usually defines both day and night with the word day, because the sun, after its course throughout the night and the day, makes the beginning of the next day by returning to its place in the west. And this is confirmed by Moses, who says, "And there was evening and there was morning, the first day," which he also says about the second and third days, and all the rest.… John says, "Early on the first day of the week," indicating the next day, that is, "on the first day of the week, when it was dark," in order to signify that when the night began, the women came, in order to perform the proper honor according to customs.

"The first day of the week" the Evangelist calls that day which we call the Lord's Day. For he calls the week of days "sabbath," and "the first day of the week" means the first day. In essence, every day is one. But one, taken many times and added together, makes up many. Thus, the first day is one; taken twice, it is the second; three times, the third; and so on. Such a day is an image of the future age, which is one day, neither interrupted by night nor having a midday. God is its Sun, never setting. Just as the Lord rose on this day, making His corruptible body incorruptible, so also shall we in the future age receive incorruption. So, on the first day of the week "Mary Magdalene comes." Since the Sabbath had passed, and movement was no longer forbidden by the law, she sets out, wishing to find some consolation from the place of the Lord's burial.

Or thus: The Jews called the days of the week sabbath, and the first day, one of the sabbaths, which day is a type of the life to come; for that life will be one day not cut short by any night, since God is the sun there, a sun which never sets. On this day then our Lord rose again, with an incorruptible body, even as we in the life to come shall put on incorruption.

But how came they to the sepulchre, while the soldiers were guarding it? an easy question to answer. After our Lord's resurrection and the earthquake, and the appearance of the angel at the sepulchre, the guards withdrew, and told the Pharisees what had happened.

2470 Having related the mysteries of the passion of Christ, the Evangelist now speaks of the resurrection. First, he says the resurrection was made known to certain women; secondly, to the disciples (v 19). The revelation of Christ's resurrection to the women went in stages: first, there is the open tomb; secondly, the appearance of the angel (v 11); thirdly, the sight of Christ (v 14). In regard to the first, he first mentions the sight of the open tomb; secondly, this news is reported to the disciples (v 2); and thirdly, they see for themselves (v 3).

2471 Four things can be noted about the first. First, the time: it was one day of the sabbath, that is, the first day of the week. The Jews considered the sabbath as a very sacred day, and all the other days were described in reference to the sabbath. Thus they spoke of the first day of the sabbath, the second day of the sabbath, and so on. Matthew [28:1] speaks of the "first day of the sabbath". But John speaks of "one day of the sabbath" because he is referring to a mystery, for this day of the resurrection was the beginning of a new creation: "When you send forth your Spirit, they are created; and you renew the face of the ground" (Ps 104:30); "For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation" (Gal 6:15). In Genesis (1:5), when Moses is speaking of the first day of creation he says "one day." "God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day." And so the Evangelist uses these words of Moses because he wants to express a newness. And also because this day begins the day of eternity, which is one day, no night interrupting it, because the sun which makes this day will never set. "And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine upon it, for the glory of God is its light, and its lamp is the Lamb" (Rev 21:23); "There will be one day, which is known to the Lord, not day and night, for at evening time there will be light" [Zech 14:7].

2472 Secondly, the person who saw the tomb is given, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark. A question arises here because Mark (16:1) makes mention of Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome; and Matthew (28:1) also mentions "the other Mary." According to Augustine the resolution is that Mary Magdalene was more ardent and more devoted to Christ than the other women. Thus we read that "Her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much" (Lk 7:47). And for this reason the Evangelist mentions her by name. This is also the reason why the Lord appeared to her first, "He appeared first to Mary Magdalene" (Mk 16:9); "She [Wisdom] hastens to make herself known to those who desire her" (Wis 6:14).

2473 Thirdly, the time is given, early, while it was still dark. Luke (23:55) tells us that the women who had come with Christ from Galilee saw his tomb and how his body was laid, and they prepared spices and ointments for it. They rested on the sabbath according to the commandment. As soon as the sabbath was over, on the first day of the week, before daylight, she [Mary Magdalene] came to the tomb, incited by her exceedingly great love: "Its flashes," the flashes of love, "are flashes of fire" (Song 8:6).

2474 The question arises why Mark says "very early, after the sun had risen" [Mk 16:2], while the Evangelist says, while it was still dark. The answer is that what Mark says should be understood as referring to the breaking of the day, so that the sun had risen, but had not yet appeared in the sky.

2475 Fourthly, we are told what Mary saw, she saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. This was a sign that either someone had taken Christ away, or that he had arisen. When Matthew (28:2) says that "an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone," we should not think the stone was rolled away before Christ arose, but only after. For since Christ came forth from the closed womb of the Virgin even though his body was not glorified, it is not surprising if he passed through the tomb with his glorified body. The stone was taken away so that people could see that Christ was not there, and more easily believe in his resurrection.

"She ran, therefore, and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid Him." Some of the Greek codices have, "They have taken my Lord," which may likely enough have been said by the stronger than ordinary affection of love and handmaid relationship; but we have not found it in the several codices to which we have had access.

(Tr. cxx) This is the way in which he usually mentions himself. Jesus loved all, but him in an especial and familiar way. And saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid Him.

(Tr. cxx) Some of the Greek copies have, taken away my Lord, which is more expressive of love, and of the feeling of an handmaiden. But only a few have this reading.

She ran therefore and came to Simon Peter, who above all others loved Christ, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, that is, to John, who does not name himself out of humility; and she says to them: They have taken the Lord from the tomb: in the Greek "my" is added to express her affection. They have taken, namely indefinitely, either the Jews or the guards, and I do not know where they have placed him, which was for her a cause of greater sorrow. For since she still knew and loved him carnally, therefore, with his flesh taken away, no consolation remained.

This excellent and pious woman would never have endured remaining at home and leaving the sepulcher [after the burial] if she had not had respect for sabbath law and the penalty that was incurred by those who transgressed it. This fear curbed her excessive zeal, allowing ancient custom to prevail, and to withdraw her thoughts from the object of her most earnest longings for awhile. But when the sabbath was already past and the dawn of the next day was appearing, she hurried back to the spot. And then, when she saw the stone rolled away from the mouth of the tomb, well-grounded suspicions seized her mind and, calling to mind the ceaseless hatred of the Jews, she thought that Jesus had been carried away. And so she accuses them of this crime in addition to their other misdeeds. While she was thus engaged and mulling over the possibilities in her mind, the woman returned to the men who loved the Lord, anxious to obtain the cooperation of the most intimate of his disciples in her quest. And so deep-rooted and impregnable was her faith that she thought no less of Christ because of his death on the cross but even when he was dead called him Lord, as she had always done, thereby showing a truly God-loving spirit.

Question: How is it that in John the disciples hearing Mary, and then coming to the sepulcher, believed. But in Luke it is said that "their words appeared in their sight as an idle tale and they did not believe?Answer: Mary, in John, told what she had seen to the chief apostles Peter and John alone, as declaring some secret. And they again, unknown to the other disciples, ran to the sepulcher, saw and believed. And there was nothing strange in the chief apostles having seen and believed while the rest to whom the women reported, not having received with their own eyes, did not believe them. Indeed, when the Savior appeared to the assembled disciples themselves, according to John, those who saw him rejoiced. But Thomas, since he was not with them and did not see, was not persuaded. But if he disbelieved the apostles, one would scarcely blame the rest because, not having as yet beheld him, they disbelieved the women. The Scripture shows much examination and carefulness on the part of the disciples, not readily assenting to their words but at first suspending judgment until they recognized the truth fully and clearly.

And therefore she ran to tell the disciples, that they might seek Him with her, or grieve with her: Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved.

She ran quickly and announced it to the disciples. But those ran before the others who loved more than the others, namely Peter and John.

(iii. Mor. ix.) She puts the part for the whole; she had come only to seek for the body of our Lord, and now she laments that our Lord, the whole of Him, is taken away.

This was the meaning of her running, and her words declare it. "They have taken away," she saith, "my Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him." Seest thou how she knew not as yet anything clearly concerning the Resurrection, but thought there had been a removal of the body, and tells all simply to the disciples? And the Evangelist hath not deprived the woman of such a praise, nor thought it shame that they should have learnt these things first from her who had passed the night in watching. Thus everywhere doth the truth-loving nature of his disposition shine forth.

And, having seen the stone rolled away from the tomb, she goes with great haste to Peter and John. The Lord rose at the time when the stone was still lying in its place and the seals were intact. But since someone needed to be witnesses of the resurrection and enter the tomb, the stone was rolled away by an Angel. Mary, not yet knowing anything about the resurrection, calls this event a theft and a removal.

2476 Next the Evangelist mentions that this was reported. Because of Mary's exceeding love she could not delay telling what she had seen to the disciples, so she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved: "This day is a day of good news; if we are silent and wait until the morning light, punishment will overtake us" (2 Kgs 7:9). And so one who hears the words of God should tell it to others without delay: "Let him who hears say, 'Come'" (Rev 22:17). Mary came to those who were the more important, and who loved Christ more ardently, so that they might either look for Jesus with her or share her sorrow.

She said to them, They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him. Mary saw the empty tomb, and not yet having it in her heart that Christ had risen, she said, and we do not know where they have laid him. We can see from this that Mary had not been alone at the tomb, and that she still had doubts about the resurrection. So it was not without reason that the Evangelist wrote that it was still dark, for this indicated the condition of their minds, in which there was the darkness of doubt: "They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness" (Ps 82:5). Note that in the Greek manuscripts it reads, my Lord, which shows the impetus of her love and her affectionate devotion: "Whom have I in heaven but you? And there is nothing upon earth that I desire besides you.... God is the strength of my heart and my portion for ever" (Ps 73:25).

"Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. So they ran both together: and that other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre." The repetition here is worthy of notice and of commendation for the way in which a return is made to what had previously been omitted, and yet is added just as if it followed in due order. For after having already said, "they came to the sepulchre," he goes back to tell us how they came, and says, "so they ran both together," etc. Where he shows that, by outrunning his companion, there came first to the sepulchre that other disciple, by whom he means himself, while he relates all as if speaking of another.

(Tr. cxx) After saying, came to the sepulchre, he goes back and tells us how they came: So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre; meaning himself, but he always speaks of himself, as if he were speaking of another person.

Simon Peter therefore went out. Here is noted the solicitude of the disciples, both in the swiftness of running and in the carefulness of examining. They were therefore solicitous, because, having heard that he had been taken away, they came quickly; whence he says: Simon Peter therefore went out, and that other disciple, and they came to the tomb; this is said by anticipation, that is, they set out on the journey to come to the tomb.

Question. Why is it that these alone ran, and not the others? It must be said that either because it was reported to these alone; or, as Gregory says, "those ran before the rest who loved before the rest."

Peter and John seem to come to the sepulcher in broad daylight (an opportune time). By not coming during the night and in darkness, no one can suspect them of what the chief priests falsely accused them, that is, that they came by night and stole him. Therefore the men did not come by night or while it was still dark but while it was broad daylight. But if the Gospel says that the disciples were gathered together for fear of the Jews, someone may object, "How then did those who were shut up visit the sepulcher in broad daylight?" We respond that it was natural that those who were living in the city in the midst of the Jews would be closed in, gathered together in one house. But those who came to the tomb, since they were outside the city, were far from fear of the Jews since they were going to a place deserted and empty of people. But perhaps it may also be the case that Peter and John, being above the fear of the other disciples, ventured more boldly to go out from the house while the others were too scared. In other matters it was recorded that they were considered worthy of more honor than the other apostles.

Be a Peter or a John; Hasten to the sepulcher, Running together, Running against one another, Vying in the noble race. And even if you are beaten in speed, Win the victory of showing who wants it more— Not just looking into the tomb, but going in.

But those ran before the others who loved more than the others, namely Peter and John. Now the two were running together, but John ran ahead more quickly than Peter and arrived first at the tomb, but did not presume to enter. Peter came later, and entered. What, brothers, what does this running signify? Surely this very subtle description by the evangelist is not to be thought devoid of mysteries? Not at all. For John would not have said that he both arrived first and did not enter, if he had believed that mystery was absent from his very hesitation. What then is designated by John except the Synagogue, what by Peter except the Church?

(xxii. in Evang.) But Peter and John before the others, for they loved most; Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.

When then she came and said these things, they hearing them, draw near with great eagerness to the sepulcher, and see the linen clothes lying, which was a sign of the Resurrection. For neither, if any persons had removed the body, would they before doing so have stripped it; nor if any had stolen it, would they have taken the trouble to remove the napkin, and roll it up, and lay it in a place by itself; but how? they would have taken the body as it was. On this account John tells us by anticipation that it was buried with much myrrh, which glues linen to the body not less firmly than lead; in order that when thou hearest that the napkins lay apart, thou mayest not endure those who say that He was stolen. For a thief would not have been so foolish as to spend so much trouble on a superfluous matter. For why should he undo the clothes? and how could he have escaped detection if he had done so? since he would probably have spent much time in so doing, and be found out by delaying and loitering. But why do the clothes lie apart, while the napkin was wrapped together by itself? That thou mayest learn that it was not the action of men in confusion or haste, the placing some in one place, some in another, and the wrapping them together. From this they believed in the Resurrection. On this account Christ afterwards appeared to them, when they were convinced by what they had seen. Observe too here again the absence of boastfulness in the Evangelist, how he witnesses to the exactness of Peter's search. For he himself having gotten before Peter, and having seen the linen clothes, enquired not farther, but withdrew; but that fervent one passing farther in, looked at everything carefully, and saw somewhat more, and then the other too was summoned to the sight. For he entering after Peter, saw the grave-clothes lying, and separate. Now to separate, and to place one thing by itself, and another, after rolling it up, by itself, was the act of some one doing things carefully, and not in a chance way, as if disturbed.

Then the disciples come to the tomb and see the linens lying there alone; and this was a sign of the true resurrection. For if someone had moved the body, he would not have stripped it bare; and if someone had stolen it, he would not have taken care to roll up the napkin and place it separately in a special spot, but would have taken the body simply, as best he could. For this reason the evangelist said beforehand that the body of Christ was buried with much myrrh, which adheres the linens to the body no worse than pitch, so that when we hear that the napkin lay in a separate place, we would in no way believe those who say that the body of Christ was stolen. For a thief would not have been so foolish as to expend so much effort on a superfluous matter, without suspecting that the longer he occupied himself with it, the sooner he might be caught. At what hour the resurrection took place, no one knows, just as the time of the second coming is also unknown. If the evangelist Matthew says that the earthquake occurred late in the evening, and John says that Mary came and saw the stone rolled away in the morning, when it was still dark, there is no contradiction in this. For, first, according to Matthew, the women came late on the Sabbath, while in John the women are not mentioned now—since Matthew had already spoken of this, it would have been superfluous for John to speak of the same thing as well; but Mary Magdalene comes in the morning. The visits to the tomb are different: sometimes Mary comes with the other women, sometimes she alone. From this the appearance of disagreement among the evangelists arises, in that they are speaking of different visits, each of his own. Thus, first, we say that Matthew speaks of one visit—that of the women—while John speaks of another, the visit of a woman—the Magdalene. Then, late in the evening and morning, "when it was still dark," which one might call early morning, coincide as one and the same, so that all this time is the middle of the night. If you ask how Peter and John and the women entered the tomb when there were guards there, the answer is simple: when the Lord rose and with an earthquake an Angel appeared at the tomb, the guards went off to report this to the Pharisees, and thus the tomb was freed from the military guard, and the disciples could come without fear.

2477 The Evangelist next shows how this was investigated. First, he indicates the eagerness with which Peter and John acted, for they left the place where they were, Peter then came out with the other disciple. Those who want to look into the mysteries of Christ have in a sense to come out from themselves and from their carnal way of living: "Come out, O daughters of Zion, and behold King Solomon" [Song 3:11].

And they both ran together, quickly, namely, but in this swiftness unequally. And that other disciple outran Peter and came first to the tomb — therefore quickly, because they wished to apprehend: First Corinthians 9: "Those who run in a race all indeed run, but one receives the prize: so run that you may apprehend" — or because he was younger and could run faster, or because he was more fervent in seeing: but nevertheless Peter was more diligent in examining; whence there follows a disparity in the diligence of examination.

What then is designated by John except the Synagogue, what by Peter except the Church? Nor should it seem strange that the Synagogue is said to be signified by the younger and the Church by the elder, because even if the Synagogue is prior to the Church of the Gentiles in the worship of God, nevertheless the multitude of the Gentiles is prior to the Synagogue in the practice of the world, as Paul attests when he says: "Because what is spiritual is not first, but what is natural." Therefore by the elder Peter is signified the Church of the Gentiles, but by the younger John the Synagogue of the Jews. Both ran together, because from the time of its origin until its setting, the Gentile world ran with the Synagogue by a common and equal path, even if not with a common and equal understanding.

But this account of the Evangelist must not be thought to be without some mystical meaning. By John, the younger of the two, the synagogue; by Peter, the elder, the Gentile Church is represented: for though the synagogue was before the Gentile Church as regards the worship of God, as regards time the Gentile world was before the synagogue. They ran together, because the Gentile world ran side by side with the synagogue from first to last, in respect of purity and community of life, though a purity and community of understanding they had not.

Or thus: Peter is practical and prompt, John contemplative and intelligent, and learned in divine things. Now the contemplative man is generally beforehand in knowledge and intelligence, but the practical by his fervour and activity gets the advance of the other's perception, and sees first into the divine mystery.

2478 Secondly, we see the details of their search. First, it is said that they ran, they both ran, they who loved Christ more than the others: "I will run in the way of your commandments" (Ps 119:32); "So run that you may obtain it," the prize (1 Cor 9:25).

2479 Secondly, we see how the disciples arrived, the other disciple outran Peter. John arrived first, and Peter followed.

"And he stooping down," he says, "saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and saw the linen clothes lying, and the napkin, which had been about His head, not lying with the linen clothes, but folded up in one place by itself." Do we suppose these things have no meaning? I can suppose no such thing. But we hasten on to other points, on which we are compelled to linger by the need there is for investigation, or some other kind of obscurity. For in such things as are self-manifest, the inquiry into the meaning even of individual details is, indeed, a subject of holy delight, but only for those who have leisure, which is not the case with us.

And when he had stooped down, he saw the linen cloths lying there, yet he did not go in: and so in seeking he was swift, but in examination remiss, while Peter on the contrary.

The cloths lying within seem to me at once to furnish also a proof that the body had not been taken away by people, as Mary supposed. For no one taking away the body would leave the linens, nor would the thief ever have stayed until he had undone the linens and so be caught. And at the same time they establish the resurrection of the body from the dead. For God, who transforms the bodies of our humiliation so as to be conformed to the body of Christ's glory, changed the body as an organ of the power that dwelt in it, changing it into something more divine. But he left the linen cloths as superfluous and foreign to the nature of the body.

The Synagogue came first to the tomb, but did not enter, because although it received the commandments of the law and heard the prophecies concerning the incarnation and passion of the Lord, it refused to believe in the one who died. For John saw the linen cloths lying there, yet did not enter, because the Synagogue both recognized the mysteries of sacred Scripture and yet delayed entering through faith by believing in the Lord's passion. The one whom it had long prophesied from afar, it saw present and rejected; it despised him as a man and refused to believe that God had been made mortal in flesh. What does this mean, except that it both ran more quickly and yet stood empty before the tomb?

The synagogue came first to the sepulchre, but entered not: it knew the commandments of the law, and had heard the prophecies of our Lord's incarnation and death, but would not believe in Him who died.

(Hom. lxxxv) On coming he sees the linen clothes set aside: And he slooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying. But he makes no further search: yet went he not in.

Note, if you will, the humility of the evangelist, with which he testifies to the thoroughness of Peter's investigation. He himself arrived first, saw the linen cloths lying there, and investigates nothing further, but waits for Peter.

2480 It is not without reason that the Evangelist is careful to tell us the smallest details. For these two disciples signify two peoples, the Jews [by John] and the Gentiles [by Peter]. Although the Jews were the first to have knowledge of the one true God, the Gentiles were an older people, because even the Jews originated from the Gentiles: "Go from your country and your kindred" (Gen 12:1). These two people were both running over the course of this world: the Jews using the written law, the Gentiles using the law of nature. Or, they were both running by their natural desire for happiness and for a knowledge of the truth, which all men desire to know by their very nature. But the other disciple, that is, the younger one, outran Peter, because the Gentiles came to a knowledge of the truth more slowly than the Jews, since formerly God was known only in Judea. So the Psalm says, "He has not dealt thus with any other nation" (Ps 147:20).

The other disciple reached the tomb first, because he [John, the younger, representing the Jews] was the first to look upon the mysteries of Christ, and the promise was first made to the Jews: "They are the Israelites, and to them belong the... promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ" (Rom 9:4).

And stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. And stooping, under the yoke of the law, "All that the Lord has spoken we will do" (Ex 24:7), he saw the linen cloths lying there, that is, the figures or foreshadowings of all the mysteries, "But their minds were hardened; for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains uplifted" (2 Cor 3:14). But he did not go in, for as long as he was unwilling to believe in the one who was dead he had not yet come to the knowledge of the truth. Another who did not go in was the brother of the prodigal son, for when he heard the celebrations, the music and the dancing, he "refused to go in" (Lk 15:28). Nevertheless, David promised that they would enter: "I will go to the altar of God" (Ps 43:4).

Then Simon Peter came, following him, and entered the tomb, not content merely to look from outside, as John. And so that saying of Matthew 19 was verified: "The last shall be first, and the first last." And he saw the linen cloths lying there, separately.

But Simon Peter came following him and entered the tomb, because the Church of the Gentiles, coming after, both recognized the mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, dead in the flesh, and believed him to be the living God.

Then cometh Simon Peter, and enteredinto the sepulchre: the Gentile Church both knew Jesus Christ as dead man, and believed in Him as living God.

(Hom. lxxxv) Peter on the other hand, being of a more fervid temper, pursued the search, and examined every thing: Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, and the napkin, that was about His head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Which circumstances were proof of His resurrection. For had they carried Him away, they would not have stripped Him; nor, if any had stolen Him, would they have taken the trouble to wrap up the napkin, and put it in a place by itself, apart from the linen clothes; but would have taken away the body as it was. John mentioned the myrrh first of all, for this reason, i. e. to show you that He could not have been stolen away. For myrrh would make the linen adhere to the body, and so caused trouble to the thieves, and they would never have been so senseless as to have taken this unnecessary pains about the matter.

2481 Now the Evangelist recounts the arrival of Peter. As for the literal meaning, the fact that they ran together was a sign of their passionate devotion. John arrived first because he was a younger man than Peter. But considering the mystical sense, Peter follows John because the Gentiles who were converted to Christ were not joined to another church different from the church of the Jews, but were grafted on to the already existing olive tree and church. The Apostle praises them saying, "For you brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea" (1 Thess 2:14).

2482 Thirdly, we see the order in which they entered, Peter first, and then John.

And the napkin that had been over his head, not placed with the linen cloths, as though this had been done in haste: but rolled up separately in one place: the linen cloths for covering the body: above in chapter 19: "They took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths"; the napkin for covering the face: above in chapter 11: "And his face was bound with a napkin." And so he examined all things diligently before John, who had preceded him, but nevertheless in diligent examination he follows him.

He saw the linen cloths lying there, and the cloth that had been over his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up separately in one place. What do we believe it means, brothers, that the cloth from the Lord's head is not found with the linen cloths in the tomb, except that, as Paul attests, God is the head of Christ, and the incomprehensible mysteries of his divinity are separated from the knowledge of our weakness, and his power transcends the nature of creation? And it should be noted that it is said to be found not only separately but also rolled up in one place. For when a cloth is rolled up, neither its beginning nor its end can be seen. Rightly therefore was the cloth from his head found rolled up, because the majesty of divinity neither began to exist nor ceases; it is neither born through a beginning nor confined by an end.

And rightly is it added: "In one place," because God is not in the division of minds. For God is in unity, and those merit to have His grace who do not divide themselves from one another through the scandals of sects. But because sweat is usually wiped away from workers by a cloth, the labor of God can also be expressed by the name of cloth—He who indeed always remains quiet and unchangeable in Himself, yet nevertheless declares that He labors when He bears the harsh depravities of men. Whence He also says through the prophet: "I have labored in enduring." Now God appeared in the flesh, He labored from our infirmity. When unbelievers saw this labor of His passion, they refused to venerate Him. For they disdained to believe that He whom they saw mortal in the flesh was immortal in His divinity. Whence Jeremiah also says: "You will render to them their recompense, O Lord, according to the works of their hands; You will give them as a shield for the heart Your labor." For lest the darts of preaching should penetrate their hearts, since they disdained the labor of His passion, they held that same labor of His as if it were a shield, so that by the very fact that they saw Him labor even unto death, they would not permit His words to pass through to them.

But what are we except members of our Head, that is, of God? Therefore by the linens of the body are signified the bonds of labors which now bind all the elect, that is, His members. The cloth, therefore, which had been upon His head is found separately, because the passion itself of our Redeemer is far removed from our passion, since He without guilt bore what we endure with guilt. He willingly chose to succumb to death, to which we come unwilling.

The napkin about our Lord's head is not found with the linen clothes, i. e. God, the Head of Christ, and the incomprehensible mysteries of the Godhead are removed from our poor knowledge; His power transcends the nature of the creature. And it is found not only apart, but also wrapped together; because of the linen wrapped together, neither beginning nor end is seen; and the height of the Divine nature had neither beginning nor end. And it is into one place: for where there is division, God is not; and they merit His grace, who do not occasion scandal by dividing themselves into sects. But as a napkin is what is used in labouring to wipe the sweat of the brow, by the napkin here we may understand the labour of God: which napkin is found apart, because the suffering of our Redeemer is far removed from ours; inasmuch as He suffered innocently, that which we suffer justly; He submitted Himself to death voluntarily, we by necessity.

The fiery Peter entered inside the tomb and carefully examined everything. But understand how Peter is active and fervent, while John is perceptive and capable of comprehending Divine matters. The purely contemplative one arrives first through knowledge and giftedness, while the active one falls behind, yet through diligence and effort he overcomes the other's sharpness, and the active one is the first to discern some Divine mystery. Does not something similar happen in the sciences as well? Here too, of two boys, the less gifted and slower one surpasses through diligence the one who is by nature quicker and more talented. So also in spiritual matters, the active one who is unskilled in speech often understands better than the contemplative one.

2483 The Evangelist says that Peter entered the tomb. According to the literal meaning, although John arrived first, he did not enter because of his respect for Peter. But considering the mystical interpretation, this signifies that the Jewish people, who were the first to hear of the mysteries of the incarnation, would be converted to the faith after the Gentiles: "That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness have attained it... but that Israel who pursued the righteousness which is based in law did not succeed in fulfilling that law" (Rom 9:30). John saw only the linen cloths. He, Peter, also saw the linen cloths because we [Gentiles] do not reject the Old Testament, for as Luke says, "Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures" (Lk 24:45). But in addition Peter saw the napkin which had been on his head: "The head of Christ is God" (1 Cor 11:3). Thus to see the napkin which had been on the head of Jesus is to have faith in the divinity of Christ, which the Jews refused to accept. This napkin is described as not lying with the linen cloths, and rolled up, having a place by itself, because the divinity of Christ is covered over, and it is apart from every creature because of its excellence: "God who is over all be blessed for ever" (Rom 9:5); "Truly, you art a God who hides yourself" (Is 45:15). He saw the napkin rolled up, to form a circle. And when linen is rolled this way one can not see its beginning or end, for the eminence of the divinity neither begins nor ends: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever" (Heb 13:8); "You are the same, and your years have no end" (Ps 102:27). The napkin was in one place, a place by itself, because God does not dwell where minds are divided; those who merit his grace are those who are one in charity: "His place is in peace" [Ps 76:2]; "For God is not a God of confusion but of peace" (1 Cor 14:33).

2484 Or, in another interpretation, the napkin, which workers use to wipe the sweat off their faces can be understood to indicate the labor of God. For while God always remains tranquil, he presents himself as laboring and burdened when he endures the stubborn depravity of mankind: "They have become a burden to me, I am weary of bearing them" (Is 1:14). Christ took on this burden in a special way when he took on a human nature: "Let him give his cheek to the smiter, and be filled with insults" (Lam 3:30). This napkin is found separate and apart from the other cloths because the sufferings of our Redeemer are far apart and separate from our sufferings. The other linen cloths, which are related to the members of the body as the napkin is to the head, indicate the sufferings of the saints, which are separate from the napkin, that is, the sufferings of Christ, for Christ suffered without fault what we suffer because of our faults: "For Christ also died... the righteous for the unrighteous" (1 Pet 3:18). He went to his death willingly ‑"No one takes it [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord" (10:18); "Christ loved us and gave himself up for us" (Eph 5:2) ‑ while the saints go to their death reluctantly, "Another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go" (21:18).

2485 Why was the Evangelist so careful to mention all these details? Chrysostom says this was done to counter the false rumor spread by the Jews that the body of Christ had been secretly taken away, as we see from Matthew (28:13). For if Christ's body had been stolen away as they said, the disciples would surely not have removed the wrappings, especially since they had to work fast because the guards were near. Nor would they be so careful to lift off the napkin and roll it up and place it in a separate place. They would simply have taken the body as they found it. This was why he allowed himself to be buried with myrrh and aloes: they glue the cloths to the body so that they cannot be quickly removed.

"Then went in also that other disciple who had come first to the sepulchre." He came first, and entered last. This also of a certainty is not without a meaning, but I am without the leisure needful for its explanation. "And he saw, and believed." Here some, by not giving due attention, suppose that John believed that Jesus had risen again; but there is no indication of this from the words that follow. For what does he mean by immediately adding, "For as yet they knew not the scripture, that He must rise again from the dead"? He could not then have believed that He had risen again, when he did not know that it behoved Him to rise again. What then did he see? what was it that he believed? What but this, that he saw the sepulchre empty, and believed what the woman had said, that He had been taken away from the tomb? "For as yet they knew not the scripture, that He must rise again from the dead." Thus also when they heard of it from the Lord Himself, although it was uttered in the plainest terms, yet from their custom of hearing Him speaking by parables, they did not understand, and believed that something else was His meaning.

(Tract. cxxii) i. e. That Jesus had risen again, some think: but what follows contradicts this notion. He saw the sepulchre empty, and believed what the woman had said: For as yet they knew not the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead. If he did not yet know that He must rise again from the dead, he could not believe that He had risen. They had heard as much indeed from our Lord, and very openly, but they were so accustomed to hear parables from Him, that they took this for a parable, and thought He meant something else.

Then therefore that other disciple also entered, who had come first to the tomb, namely by the example of Peter, and he saw the things which have been mentioned, and he believed. But it is expounded differently according to Chrysostom and differently according to Augustine. For Chrysostom expounds: he believed, namely that He had risen; and he drew his argument from this, that if someone had taken Him away, he would not have left everything so orderly arranged, things which were more useful than the body. But Augustine expounds it differently: he believed, namely that the body had been taken away, as the woman had said; and he proves this by the following text.

Question. Since Luke says in the twenty-fourth chapter that Peter went to the tomb, speaking only of Peter, what does it mean that John here says two ran? And further, what necessity was there for John here to make mention of himself? It seems that he would have done better by keeping silent. Augustine responds in the third book of On the Harmony of the Evangelists that Luke mentioned Peter alone because Mary Magdalene first announced it to him; and yet he himself mentions both; whence Cleophas said: Some of our own went to the tomb, etc. To the other point that is asked: why does he make mention of himself? There is a twofold reason: the literal reason, namely, because he wished to place Peter before himself, so as to praise Peter and humble himself: because, although he himself arrived first, he entered after. The allegorical reason is that by John the Jewish people is signified, and by Peter the elder the Gentile people is designated. John ran first but did not enter: because the Jew first received the Law but did not believe; the Gentile, however, arriving later, believed.

When these men (I mean Peter and John, the writer of this book, for he gives himself the name of the other disciple) heard this news from the woman's mouth, they ran with all the speed they could and hurried to the sepulcher. They saw the marvel with their own eyes, being in themselves competent to testify to the event, for they were two in number as the Law enjoined. As yet they did not meet Christ risen from the dead, but they infer his resurrection from the bundle of linen clothes, and from that time on they believed that he had burst the bonds of death, as holy Scripture had long ago proclaimed that he would do. When, therefore, they looked at the issues of events in the light of the prophecies that turned out true, their faith was from that time forward rooted on a firm foundation.

Then therefore that disciple who had come first to the tomb also entered. After Peter entered, John also went in. He who had come first entered later. It should be noted, brothers, that at the end of the world Judea too will be gathered to faith in the Redeemer, as Paul testifies when he says: "Until the fullness of the Gentiles should enter, and so all Israel should be saved." And he saw and believed. What, brothers, what are we to think he believed? Was it that the Lord whom he was seeking had risen? Certainly not, because there was still darkness at the tomb, and the words that follow also contradict this when it says: "For they did not yet know the Scriptures, that he must rise from the dead." What then did he see, and what did he believe? He saw the linen cloths lying there, and he believed what the woman had said, that the Lord had been taken from the tomb.

But after Peter entered, John entered too; for at the end of the world even Judaea shall be gathered in to the true faith.

(Hom. lxxxv) After Peter however, John entered: Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.

Then he too (John), having entered after him (Peter), saw the burial linens lying separately from one another, and believed — not, however, that the Lord had risen, but that He had been stolen. He believed the words of Mary, that they had taken the Lord.

2486 When the Evangelist says, Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, he tells of John's entrance. John did not remain outside but entered after Peter, because when the world is ending, the Jews will also be gathered into the faith: "A hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved" (Rom 11:25); "A remnant will be saved" [Is 10:21].

2487 Or, another interpretation, in the mystical sense. These two disciples stand for two kinds of people: John represents those who are devoted to the contemplation of truth, and Peter stands for those whose main interest is to carry out the commandments. In fact, "Simon" means "obedient." Now it very often happens that contemplatives, because they are docile, are the first to become acquainted with a knowledge of the mysteries of Christ ‑ but they do not enter, for sometimes there is knowledge, but little or no love follows. While those in the active life, because of their continuing fervor and earnestness, even though they are slower to understand, enter into them more quickly, so that those who are later to arrive, are the first to penetrate the divine mysteries: "So the last will be first, and the first last" (Mt 20:16).

For he did not yet know the Scripture, that He must rise from the dead: therefore he did not believe that He had risen, but that He had been taken away. Nevertheless, if we wish to hold the exposition of Chrysostom, the following text is continued thus: He saw and believed, that is, then for the first time he believed from seeing, because before he did not believe; for he did not yet know the Scripture.

"For they did not yet know the Scriptures, that he must rise from the dead." In this matter the greatness of divine providence must be considered, that the hearts of the disciples are both kindled to seek and yet delayed from finding, so that the weakness of the soul, tormented by its own sorrow, might become purer for finding, and might hold on more firmly when it found, the later it found what it was seeking.

Do you see that they clearly understood nothing about the resurrection? The Evangelist pointed out this very thing when he said, "As yet they did not know the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead." In addition to their failure to understand this, they were in much deeper ignorance about other things, such as the kingdom of heaven, that we are chosen as the first fruits, and his ascension into heaven. They were still confined to the ground and not yet able to fly.Such was the understanding they had. They expected that the kingdom would come to him immediately in Jerusalem because they had no better grasp of what the kingdom of heaven really is. Another Evangelist hinted at this when he said that they thought of it as a human kingdom. They were expecting him to enter into it but not to go to the cross and death. Even though they had heard it ten thousand times, they could not clearly understand.

Because he believed Mary and did not think of the resurrection? Because they did not yet know "the Scripture, that He must rise from the dead," and they believed Mary, who suspected that the body had been stolen and moved.

2488 Next when he says, he saw and believed, we see the effect of the investigation. At first glance it seems to mean that he saw the situation and believed that Christ had arisen. But according to Augustine this is not correct, because the next thing the Evangelist says is, for as yet they did not know the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. Therefore, one must say that he saw the empty tomb and believed what the woman had said, which is that someone had taken the Lord. Then we read, for as yet they did not know the scripture, because the meaning of the Scripture was not yet opened to them so they could understand it (Lk 24:45).

But certainly Christ had foretold his passion and resurrection? "I will rise on the third day" [Mt 20:19]. I answer that we should say that in keeping with the way they heard his parables, they failed here also to understand many things which he had said plainly, thinking that he meant something else.

2489 Or, according to Chrysostom's understanding, he saw the linen cloths so folded and arranged which would not have been the case if the body had been furtively snatched away; and believed, with a true faith, that Christ had risen from the dead. What follows, for as yet they did not know the scripture, refers to the statement, he saw and believed. It was like saying: before he saw these things he did not understand the scripture that he must rise from the dead; but when he saw he believed that he had risen from the dead.

Mary Magdalene had brought the news to His disciples, Peter and John, that the Lord was taken away from the sepulchre; and they, when they came thither, found only the linen clothes wherewith the body had been shrouded; and what else could they believe but what she had told them, and what she had herself also believed? "Then the disciples went away again unto their own" (home); that is to say, where they were dwelling, and from which they had run to the sepulchre. "But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping." For while the men returned, the weaker sex was fastened to the place by a stronger affection. And the eyes, which had sought the Lord and had not found Him, had now nothing else to do but weep, deeper in their sorrow that He had been taken away from the sepulchre than that He had been slain on the tree; seeing that in the case even of such a Master, when His living presence was withdrawn from their eyes, His remembrance also had ceased to remain. Such grief, therefore, now kept the woman at the sepulchre.

(Tr. cxxi. 1) i. e. To the place where they were lodging, and from which they had ran to the sepulchre. But though the men returned, the stronger love of the woman fixed her to the spot. But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping.

(de Con. Ev. iii. xxiv. 69) i. e. Outside of the place where the stone sepulchre was, but yet within the garden.

(Tr. cxxi. 1) The eyes then which had sought our Lord, and found Him not, now wept without interruption; more for grief that our Lord had been removed, than for His death upon the cross. For now even all memorial of Him was taken away.

The intense desolation of Mary is therefore intimated, which in its restlessness did not allow her to depart from the sepulcher, even when the other disciples were departing; therefore he says: The disciples therefore went away to their own homes, "that is, where they had been dwelling" before they had come to the tomb, so that they might receive some consolation.

Question. Since Peter loved the Lord so fervently, why did he not remain at the tomb weeping, as Mary did, but departed? And Chrysostom responds: "The female sex is in a certain way more given to compassion"; and therefore do not marvel that Mary wept bitterly at the sepulcher, while Peter felt no such compassion. Others take the reason from the side of faith: for because the woman hoped less concerning the resurrection, therefore she grieved more over the body having been taken away; but Peter, although not fully, nevertheless in some way had confidence: whence it is said in Luke that "he went away wondering to himself." Others take the reason from the side of love, namely because at that time she burned more vehemently than the disciples and was more fervent, therefore she was also more solicitous.

The wise disciples, after having gathered sufficiently satisfactory evidence of the resurrection of our Savior, were unsure, as it were, what to do with their confirmed and unshaken faith. Comparing the events as they had actually occurred with the prophecies of holy Scripture, they went back home and most likely hurried to see their fellow workers to recount the miracle and afterward consider what course should be pursued. They may have also had another motive in doing what they did. For the passion of the Jews was at its height, and the rulers were thirsting eagerly for the blood of every person who marveled at the teaching of the Savior and confessed his divine and ineffable power and glory. But most of all they thirsted for the blood of the holy disciples themselves, who then had good reason for shrinking from an encounter with them. This is why they left the sepulcher before it was quite light, since they could not have done so without risk if they were seen leaving in the daytime—the sun's rays revealing them to everyone. We are far from saying that they were cowards as a reason for their cautious flight. Rather, it is more likely that the knowledge of what was expedient for them was instilled in the minds of the saints by Christ who did not permit these who were destined to be lights and teachers of the world to run unnecessary risks.

(Hom. xxv. in Evang.) Mary Magdalene, who had been the sinner in the city, and who had washed out the spots of her sins by her tears, whose soul burned with love, did not retire from the sepulchre when the others did: Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.

Full of feeling somehow is the female sex, and more inclined to pity. I say this, lest thou shouldest wonder how it could be that Mary wept bitterly at the tomb, while Peter was in no way so affected. For, "The disciples," it saith, "went away unto their own home"; but she stood shedding tears. Because hers was a feeble nature, and she as yet knew not accurately the account of the Resurrection; whereas they having seen the linen clothes and believed, departed to their own homes in astonishment. And wherefore went they not straightway to Galilee, as had been commanded them before the Passion? They waited for the others, perhaps, and besides they were yet at the height of their amazement. These then went their way: but she stood at the place, for, as I have said, even the sight of the tomb tended greatly to comfort her. At any rate, thou seest her, the more to ease her grief, stooping down, and desiring to behold the place where the body lay.

So they returned to themselves, that is, by themselves, having learned nothing more.

2490 Having told how Mary Magdalene came to the opened tomb, the Evangelist now tells how she came to see the angels: first, we see her devotion; secondly, she sees the angels (v 12); thirdly, we have her conversation with them (v 13). Her devotion, which made her fit to see the angels, is praised for three things.

(in Luc. c. iii.) He therefore names specially two authors of His birth—one who received the promise concerning the kindreds of the people, the other who obtained the oracle concerning the generation of Christ; and though he is later in order of succession is yet first named, inasmuch as it is greater to have received the promise concerning Christ than concerning the Church, which is through Christ; for greater is He who saves than that which is saved.

Vigil. Tapsens. (ibid. p. 644): The audaciousness of this most insane error I will curb by the authority of the heavenly testimonies, and demonstrate the distinct personality of the proper substance of the Son. I shall not produce things which are liable to be explained away as agreeable to the assumption of human nature; but shall offer such passages as all will allow to be decisive in proof of His divine nature. In Genesis we find God saying, "Let Us make man in Our own Image." By this plural number showing, that there was some other person to whom He spoke. Had He been one, He would have been said to have made Him in His own Image, but there is another; and He is said to have made man in the Image of that other.

Some might be perplexed by the fact that Matthew enumerates one series of ancestors, descending through David to Joseph, while Luke specifies a different succession, tracing the ancestry from Joseph backwards through David. It was easy for them to perceive that Joseph was able to have two fathers, one blood father by whom he was born and another adoptive father by whom he was adopted. Indeed, this was the custom of adoption even among that people of God. In this way they could endow sonship upon those whom they had not given birth. Recall how Pharaoh's daughter adopted Moses (and she was a foreigner). And Jacob himself adopted his own grandsons, the sons of Joseph: "And now your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt, before I came to you in Egypt, are mine; Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine, as Reuben and Simeon are. And the offspring born to you after them shall be yours." In this way, too, it came about that there were twelve tribes of Israel, with the tribe of Levi being given the special task of tending the temple. Along with this one there were thirteen tribes, although there had been twelve sons of Jacob. In this way it is understood that Luke included Joseph's father in his Gospel, not by whom he was begotten but by whom he was adopted. He recounted his ancestors upwards until he came to David.

(de Hær. 8, et 10.) Cerinthus then and Ebion made Jesus Christ only man; Paul of Samosata, following them, asserted Christ not to have had an existence from eternity, but to have begun to be from His birth of the Virgin Mary; he also thought Him nothing more than man. This heresy was afterwards confirmed by Photinus.

(de Hæres. 19.) The error of Nestorius was, that he taught that a man only was born of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom the Word of God received not into Unity of person and inseparable fellowship; a doctrine which Catholic ears could not endure.

(de Hæres. 41.) Sabellius they say was a disciple of Noetus, who taught that the same Christ was one and the same Father and Holy Spirit.

(cont. Faust. ii. 1.) Faustus affirms, that "the Gospel both begins, and begins to be so called, from the preaching of Christc, in which He no where affirms Himself to have been born of men. Nay, so far is this genealogy from being part of the Gospel, that the writer does not venture so to entitle it; beginning, 'The book of the generation,' not 'The book of the Gospel.' Mark again, who cared not to write of the generation, but only of the preaching of the Son of God, which is properly The Gospel, begins thus accordingly, The Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God. Thus then, all that we read in Matthew before the words, Jesus began to preach the Gospel of the kingdom, (Matt. 4:17.) is a part of the genealogy, not of the Gospel. I therefore betook myself to Mark and John, with whose prefaces I had good reason to be satisfied, as they introduce neither David, nor Mary, nor Joseph." To which Augustine replies, What will he say then to the Apostle's words, Remember the resurrection of Jesus Christ of the seed of David according to my Gospel. (2 Tim. 2:8.) But the Gospel of the Apostle Paul was likewise that of the other Apostles, and of all the faithful, as he says, Whether I, or they, thus have we preached the Gospel.

(de Hær. 49.) The Arians will not have the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to be of one and the same substance, nature, and existence; but that the Son is a creature of the Father, and the Holy Spirit a creature of a creature, i. e. created by the Son; further, they think that Christ took the flesh without a soul.

(de Trin. i. 6.) But John declares the Son to be not only God, but even of the same substance as the Father; for when he had said, The Word was God, he added, all things were made by Him; whence it is clear that He was not made by Whom all things were made; and if not made, then not created; and therefore of one substance with the Father, for all that is not of one substance with the Father is creature.

(cont. Fel. 13.) I know not what benefit the person of the Mediator has conferred upon us, if He redeemed not our better part, but took upon Him our flesh only, which without the soul cannot have consciousness of the benefit. But if Christ came to save that which had perished, the whole man had perished, and therefore needs a Saviour; Christ then in coming saves the whole man, taking on Him both soul and body.

(Lib. 83. Quæst. q. 80.) How too do they answer innumerable objections from the Gospel Scriptures, in which the Lord speaks so many things manifestly contrary to them? as is that, My soul is sorrowful even unto death, (Matt. 26:38.) and, I have power to lay down My life; (John 10:18.) and many more things of the like kind. Should they say that He spoke thus in parables, we have at hand proofs from the Evangelists themselves, who in relating His actions, bear witness as to the reality of His body, so of His soul, by mention of passions which cannot be without a soul; as when they say, Jesus wondered, was angry, and others of like kind.

(de Hæres. 55.) The Apollinarians also as the Arians affirmed that Christ had taken the human flesh without the soul. But overthrown on this point by the weight of Scripture proof, they then said that that part which is the rational soul of man was wanting to the soul of Christ, and that its place was filled by the Word itself. But if it be so, then we must believe that the Word of God took on Him the nature of some brute with a human shape and appearance. But even concerning the nature of Christ's body, there are some who have so far swerved from the right faith, as to say, that the flesh and the Word were of one and the same substance, most perversely insisting on that expression, The Word was made flesh; which they interpret that some portion of the Word was changed into flesh, not that He took to Him flesh of the flesh of the Virgind.

§ 1 The sacrament of our salvation and faith, though in all the divine scriptures, is especially contained in the evangelical preaching, in which the secret of the heavenly sanctuary is revealed to us even as the mystery of the Lord's passion and resurrection is revealed to everyone. However, the transcribers the gospel (as it is divided into four books) are: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, who once had been prefigured and predestined to the duty of this divine work, as the blessed Luke reported: Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compose a narrative of the things that have been fulfilled among us. (Luke 1:1)  For Matthew is appointed by the divine authority and grace of the holy spirit to be the first to write down the gospel, then Mark and Luke, most recently of all John, after he came back, upon the death of Domitian Caesar, from Patmos, the island where he had been bound.  After he had been posted on this island and written the Revelation, he was disclosed the gospel he was to write on account of the different heresies instigated by the devil that by then were beginning to spring up.

§ 2 Matthew certainly and John too belong to the number of the twelve apostles, who not only were with the Lord before the passion but also kept company with him after the resurrection for forty days.  They carefully recounted everything they saw and heard according to what John testified in his epistle, saying: as we have heard and saw with our eyes and by our hand have been examined, these things we declare to you.  (1 John 1:1-3) But Mark was Peter's disciple and interpreter.  He did not see the Lord in the flesh but he wrote the gospel, filled full of heavenly grace and the holy spirit.  Luke also did not see the Lord in the flesh, but, because he was very educated in the law (since he was a companion of Paul in everything), he wrote down the gospel carefully in his own name, expounding from the very beginning everything in the order of the matters as he learned with respect to the apostles, as he himself testified, saying: as those who have been there all along and those who had been ministers of the message handed down to us. (Luke 1:2)

§ 3 Therefore, the authority of these four evangelists is firm and steadfast, because they all composed by one principle. Of course, various principles are taught in their sure foundation, but they do not disagree among themselves on anything, because every one of them perceived the same thing by faith concerning the Lord's incarnation, nativity, passion, resurrection, and also his twin advent. And because we endeavor to say some things about the gospels, the responsibility and situation of the matter advise us to test also the truth of the gospels prefigured from the law of the Old Testament, as surely the Apostle says:  the law was a shadow of things to come (Heb 10:1), because neither can the new stand without the old nor could the old have any stability without the new.  It is said that everything about them is more complete in their place when the message is to be from the two testaments.

§ 4 Thus, both the type and the number of the four gospels are clearly described in the law and the prophets, as in the four rivers that flow from one source in Eden, or in the four rows of stones that Aaron wore woven in the priestly garment on his chest, or in the fourfold row of twelve calves that Solomon set up under the bronze sea in the temple.  In all of these, the expressedexamples of the future truth cannot be doubted.  Hence also Elijah the Tishbite----not unknowing by the holy Spirit of the evangelical sacrament of the preaching to come, when he freed the people from error and turned them from idols to God----poured four jugs of water in the sacrifice he offered when he put the burnt offering on the wood and made it three times in number.  And fire came down from the sky, as he openly declared even then the image of the coming hope, that is the sacrament of the cross and the number of the gospels and the grace of baptism and the faith in the Trinity, in which we are baptized and made a worthy sacrifice for God, coming upon us with fire from the sky, that is, his holy Spirit presented to us as a gift.

§ 5 But even clearer and plainer we find that through Ezekiel the prophet these gospels are depicted in the four living things whose appearance and shape are both described.  Their likeness, he says, is the appearance of a human and the appearance of a lion and the appearance of a calf and the appearance of a flying eagle. (Ezek 1:10)  Evident among these is certainly the form of the evangelists.  Although they are depicted in different appearances for each changing principle, their preaching is nonetheless not different.  In fact, the prophet, when he said that the appearances are specific to each, related that each of their four appearances is heavenly, that is, each living thing has the four appearances.  The reason for this is not obscure, because it is meant that they are one, both individually and collectively.  While he certainly distinguishes and separates them in connection with their appearances or number, the unity of preaching still makes them inseparable and whole, because you will find everything in each and the whole in all.  But we must understand and get to know just this difference among the appearances.  The appearance, he says, of a human, and the appearance of a lion and the appearance of a calf and the appearance of a flying eagle.  The appearance of a human is understood as the gospel according to Matthew, a human since he began from the bodily birth of the Lord to make the introduction, saying: The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham, (Matt 1:1) etc.  He announces his birth by this human origin.  Because of that, it is thus described as the appearance of a human.  Now, the appearance of a lion is understood to be the gospel according to John, because, when the other evangelists had said that Christ our God is made human according to the assumption of flesh and born of the virgin, he revealed his timeless and divine birth in just the beginning of his message, saying: In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and God as the Word, (John 1:1) etc.  With this voice, the preacher of such divinity roared like a lion to frighten off the heresies.

§ 6 The Apocalypse also mentioned these living things, but we must carefully examine why, when the prophet had said that the first appearance was of a human, then of a lion, did the Apocalypse put the appearance of the lion earlier in reversed order, saying The appearance of a lion and the appearance of a human (Rev 4:7), because we must point out it is so, not accidentally but for a particular reason.  For Matthew has thus been described first in order in with the prophet in the appearance of a human, because he was to write down the first gospel.  But John is brought earlier for this reason in the Apocalypse, because he surpassed everyone in preaching the timeless and coeternal Son of the Father by the excellent beginning of his preaching.  Thus, he is placed later as to time or order, but he is regarded first as to faith since he would know the secret, divine mysteries from reclining on the Lord's bosom.  But the fact that John is preferred in connection with faith does not detract from the other evangelists since they all were directed by one and the same Spirit to the complete instruction of the Church and wrote about the Lord necessarily and completely.  For, because many different heresies were to come, the holy spirit so impacted the writing of each as to expound the complete and perfect sacrament of the heavenly faith through all of them, by which it confuted all enemies of the truth together.  Finally, the Holy Spirit at once opposes those wretched people who deny that the Son of God was born of a virgin for our salvation, judging this as unworthy for God, through Matthew and Luke.  Through them, it clearly discloses both the birth of the Lord according to the flesh and the conception and labor of the virgin.  However, those who dared blaspheme the true divinity of the Son of God and the unlimited nature of his eternity, denying in particular that he was born of the Father and is true God and had always been with the Father, St. John and Mark nonetheless oppose at once, condemning the infidelity of their blasphemy, testifying in the beginning of his gospel that the only-begotten Son of God is God.

§ 7 But as we are all carefully following this along, I seem to have gone on longer than I intended to.  Let us now go back to the order.  Thus, St. John is described in the appearance of the lion, as best comprehended. The gospel according to Luke, however, is recognized in the appearance of the calf, because he wrote according to the law as he began from the priesthood of Zacharias saying: In the days of Herod the king of Judea, there was a certain by the name of Zacharias from the order of Abijah and his wife of the sons of Aaron, etc. For that reason, however, he has been represented by the person of the calf, because the law he wrote according to had decreed for a type of a future truth that, among other sacrifices, a calf be offered for the sins of the people.  Hence, not undeservedly, only this evangelist made mention of this fattened calf, which was killed for the salvation and return of the lost son in the joy of the exulting father, because St. Luke so made mention as he declared that our Lord and Savior has suffered for the sins of the human race according to the preceding form of the law. To be sure, the appearance of the flying eagle is understood as the gospel according to Mark, who began with a prophetic testimony saying: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ Son of God, as is written in Isaiah: Behold I send my angel before my appearance.  A voice crying in the wilderness: Prepare the ways of the Lord, make our God's paths straight. (Mark 1:1-3) And because the eagle is often described as the form of the holy spirit, who has been spoken in the prophets, he is thus depicted in the appearance of an eagle.  For also only he reported that our Lord and Savior flew away to heaven, that is, wetn back to the Father, as David had said: He ascended above the Cherubim and flew; he flew above the feathers of the wind. (Ps 17:11 [18:10])

§ 8 Finally, as we know that the reason for such a sacrament is arranged in each of the evangelists by the Holy Spirit, the same appearances also combine in the person of our Lord and God.  For, he is understood to be a human because of the flesh that he took on from the virgin, and the calf because of what he himself offered as a sacrifice worthy of God for our sins, and a lion for the power of the virtue that defeated death in triumph, allowing in himself none of the brunt of outside fears, and an eagle because, when the mystery of the passion was completed as an eagle flew to heaven, the booty of human flesh it snatched from our jaws has been taken with him.

§ 9 For the same reason in the prophet Zechariah we also read the foretold number of the evangelists, reported by the prophet like this: I saw, he said, four chariots going out of two mountains ,and these mountains, he said, were mountains of bronze.  In the first chariot were red horses, and in the second chariot were black horsed, and in the third chariot were white horses, and in the fourth chariot were different and dappled horses.  And I said to the angel who was speaking to me: What are these, lord?  Responding he said to me: Do you not know what these are?  And I said: No, lord.  And he told me: These are the four winds of the sky that stand with God before the whole earth.  (Zech 6:1-5) And so this is the number of the chariots. In fact the following rationale, promulgated by prophetic reason, teaches us to perceive a type of the gospel truth: we notice that the gospels have also been clearly designated in these chariots.  He declared that the four horses are described in four parts, as we best recall, because each of the gospels must be understood in the four and the four in each.  Although the preaching of the evangelists would rightly seem to be in four portions, they still are undividedly of one mind for the unity of the faith.  In fact, we know that the gospels were clearly prefigured in these chariots, because the prophet asked the angel speaking to him about what these were and he was told this: These are the four winds of the sky that stand with God before all the earth, which he reported by God's command to have circled all the earth.  And if we have not considered the saying about these winds (which blow through the lands and generate waves or brew up storms), it is simple enough to understand that, when they have been described in the prophets desiring only the divine and eternal heavenly things, the Lord deservedly adds more: These are the ones that circle the earth; they soften my fury (Zech 6:8).  As we perceptively have recognized, the divine wrath, which was over people's sins, cannot otherwise be appeased except through the gospel's preaching, which runs throughout the globe and gives both the remission of sins and salvation to the human race.

§ 10  Yet the arrangement of the world rests upon the rationale for this evangelical number: for we recognize the four seasons that the year progresses through and the four corners of the earth that the four guardian angels are assigned to, referring to the Apocalypse.

§ 11 And although there are said to be four gospels because of the number of the evangelists, even though there is only gospel among them all, as the Lord said: And this gospel will be preached through the whole globe (Matt 24:14).  He did not say gospels but gospel.  The apostle described this too when he says: If anyone has preached to you a gospel other than what you have received, let them be accursed.  (Gal 1:9)  Hence, it is plain that there are certain four books of the gospels, but one gospel is counted in these four books.  And for that reason one must not be prejudiced should we sometimes say "gospels" because of the number of evangelists or when we name the gospels in this way as the most important books or when we designate the number of the evangelists according to the usual custom of the majority.  Indeed we both confess and believe that there is one true gospel according to the authority of the Lord or even the apostle.

§ 12 Although we have wanted to establish the number of evangelists from a painstaking study of the various testimonies of the prophets, I have extended the sermon longer than I have intended to.  But we strive to investigate the order of the gospel according to Matthew, even with little insight and a mediocre sermon.

Therefore St. Matthew began writing his Gospel with an introduction of this sort, saying, "This is the book of Jesus Christ, descendant of David, descendant of Abraham. Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob," and the rest that follows. Matthew, as I have said, tells of the second birth of the Lord into flesh and for this reason traces his family line from Abraham, treating separately the tribe of Judah, until he comes down to Joseph and Mary. Since the Evangelist begins from Abraham by succession of birth and recounts in order the names of all, one may wonder why he calls Christ our Lord only the descendant of David and the descendant of Abraham in saying, "This is the book of the lineage of Jesus Christ, Son of David, Son of Abraham." At any rate, we know that the Evangelist did not say this without reason and in this order. Each of them, both Abraham and David, whether by the promise of the Lord or rank of birth, lived as a worthy predecessor in the line of Jesus Christ as to his existence in flesh. For the Lord had promised to Abraham, who by right of circumcision was the founding patriarch of the Jewish people, that from his seed all nations would be blessed. This was realized in Christ, who received his body from the line of Abraham. The apostle made an interpretation for the Galatians about this, saying, "Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, 'And to offsprings,' referring to many; but, referring to one, 'And to your offspring,' which is Christ." So also is David first among the tribe of Judah in the rank of king. And likewise God promised to this very tribe that the eternal king, Christ the Lord, would be born from the fruit of its womb. For David was the first king from the tribe of Judah, from which the Son of God received his flesh. Thus Matthew rightly counted Christ our Lord as the descendant of David and Abraham, because both Joseph and Mary are descended from these regal origins, the line of David, who himself descended from Abraham, who in faith lived as the father of nations and in flesh was the first of the Jewish people.

(Ep. i. ad Monachos Egypti.) Saith the Apostle of the Only-begotten, Who being in the form of God, thought it no robbery to be equal with God (Phil. 2:6). Who then is this who is in the form of God? or how emptied He Himself, and humbled Himself to the likeness of man? If the above-mentioned heretics dividing Christ into two parts, i. e. the Man and the Word, affirm that it was the Man that was emptied of glory, they must first show what form and equality with the Father are understood to be, and did exist, which might suffer any manner of emptying. But there is no creature, in its own proper nature, equal with the Father; how then can any creature be said to be emptied? or from what eminence to descend to become man? Or how can he be understood to have taken upon Him, as though He had not at first, the form of a servant? But, they say, the Word being equal with the Father dwelt in Man born of a woman, and this is the emptying. I hear the Son truly saying to the Holy Apostles, If any man love Me, he will keep My saying; and My Father will lore him, and We will come unto him, and make Our abode with him. (John 14:23.) Hear how He saith that He and the Father will dwell in them that love Him. Do you then suppose that we shall grant that He is there emptied of His glory, and has taken upon Him the form of a servant, when He makes His abode in the hearts of them that love Him? Or the Holy Spirit, does He fulfil an assumption of human flesh, when He dwells in our hearts?

(Ep. ad Joan. Antioch. tom. 6. Ep. 107.) We account those persons mad who have suspected that so much as the shadow of change could take place in the nature of the Divine Word; it abides what it ever was, neither is nor can be changed.

(Ordinaria.) The full expression would be This is the book of the generation; but this is a usual ellipse; e. g. The vision of Isaiah, for, 'This is the vision.' Generation, he says in the singular number, though there be many here given in succession, as it is for the sake of the one generation of Christ that the rest are here introduced.

But since from this title it appears that the whole book is concerning Jesus Christ, it is necessary first to know what we must think concerning Him; for so shall be better explained what this book relates of Him.

(non occ.) Others denied the reality of Christ's human nature. Valentinus said, that Christ sent from the Father, carried about a spiritual or celestial body, and took nothing of the Virgin, but passed through her as through a channel, taking nothing of her flesh. But we do not therefore believe Him to have been born of the Virgin, because by no other means He could have truly lived in the flesh, and appeared among men; but because it is so written in the Scripture, which if we believe not we cannot either be Christians, or be saved. But even a body taken of spiritual, or ethereal, or clayey substance, had He willed to change into the true and very quality of human flesh, who will deny His power to do this? The Manichæans said that the Lord Jesus Christ was a phantasm, and could not be born of the womb of a woman. But if the body of Christ was a phantasm, He was a deceiver, and if a deceiver, then He was not the truth. But Christ is the Truth; therefore His Body was not a phantasm.

(non occ.) And as the opening both of this Gospel, and of that according to Luke, manifestly proves Christ's birth of a woman, and hence His real humanity, they reject the beginning of both these Gospels.

What Matthew publishes in order of kingly succession, Luke has set forth in order of priestly origin. While accounting for each order, both indicate the relationship of the Lord to each ancestral lineage. The order of his lineage is thus duly presented, because the association of the priestly and royal tribes that was begun through David from marriage is now confirmed out of the descent from Shealtiel to Zerubbabel. And so, while Matthew recounts his paternal origin that began in Judah, Luke teaches that his ancestry was taken from the tribe of Levi. Each in his own way demonstrates the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is both the eternal king and priest, as seen even in the fleshly origin of both of his ancestries. It does not matter that the origin of Joseph instead of Mary is recounted, for indeed there is one and the same blood relationship for the whole tribe. Moreover, both Matthew and Luke provide precedents. They name fathers in order not so much by their lineage as by their clan, since the tribe began from one individual and continues under a family of one succession and origin. Indeed, Christ has to be shown as the son of David and Abraham, so Matthew began in this way: "The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." It does not matter who is placed in a given order as long as the whole family is understood to derive from a single source. Joseph and Mary belonged to the same kinship line. Joseph is shown to have sprung from the line of Abraham. It is revealed that Mary came from this line, too. This system is codified in law so that, if the oldest of a family should die without sons, the next oldest brother of the same family would take the dead man's wife in marriage. He would consider his sons as received into the family of the one who had died, and thus the order of succession remains with the firstborn, since they are considered to be the fathers of those born after them in either name or birth.

(Quæst. Nov. et Vet. Test. q. 49.) What God conferred on those, who, by the anointing of oil were consecrated as kings or priests, this the Holy Spirit conferred on the Man Christ; adding moreover a purification. The Holy Spirit cleansed that which taken of the Virgin Mary was exalted into the Body of the Saviour, and this is that anointing of the Body of the Saviour's flesh whence He was called Christ. Because the impious craft of the Jews denied that Jesus was born of the seed of David, he adds, The son of David, the son of Abraham.

(Epist. lib. iv. 166.) But not to mention all arguments, let us bring forward that one to which all arguments point, that, for one who was God to assume a lowly guise both has an obvious use, and is an adaptation and in nothing contradicts the course of nature. But for one who is man to speak things divine and supernatural is the highest presumption; for though a king may humble himself a common soldier may not take on him the state of an emperor. So, if He were God made man, all lowly things have place; but if mere man, high things have none.

Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek, though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Cæsarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Berœa, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist "Out of Egypt have I called my son," and "for he shall be called a Nazarene."

(Prolog. in Comm. in Matt.) 'The face of a man' (in Ezekiel's vision [Ez. 1:5]) signifies Matthew, who accordingly opens his Gospel with the human genealogy of Christ.

(Comm. in Matt. ch. 1.) We read in Isaiah, Who shall declare His generation? (Is. 53:8.) But it does not follow that the Evangelist contradicts the Prophet, or undertakes what he declares impossible; for Isaiah is speaking of the generation of the Divine nature; St. Matthew of the incarnation of the human.

The order of the names is inverted, but of necessity; for had he written Abraham first, and David afterwards, he would have to repeat Abraham again to preserve the series of the genealogy.

Why Joseph's genealogy is traced, who had no part in the birth. And one cause we have mentioned already; but it is necessary to mention likewise the other, that which is more mystical and secret than the first. What then is this? He would not that it should be manifest to the Jews, at the time of the birth, that Christ was born of a virgin.

Nay, be not troubled at the strangeness of the saying. For it is no statement of mine, but of our fathers, wonderful and illustrious men. For if He disguised many things from the first, calling Himself Son of Man, and hath not everywhere clearly unfolded to us even His equality with the Father; why dost thou wonder at His having for a time disguised this also, taking order as He was for a certain great and marvellous purpose?

But what kind of marvel? it may be asked. That the Virgin should be preserved, and delivered from evil suspicion. For if this had been discovered by the Jews from the beginning, they would have stoned the Virgin, making the report a handle for mischief, and would have condemned her for adultery. For if in regard to the other matters, for which they had frequent precedents likewise in the old dispensation, they were quite shameless in their obstinacy (for so, because He had cast out devils, they called Him possessed; and because He healed on the Sabbath day, they supposed Him to be an adversary of God; and yet oftentimes even before this had the Sabbath been broken), what would they not have said, if this had been told them? Especially as they had all time before this on their side, in that it never had produced any such thing. For if after so many miracles they still called Him son of Joseph, how before the miracles would they have believed that He was born of a virgin?

It is then for this reason that both Joseph has his genealogy traced, and the Virgin betrothed to him. For if even he, who was both a just and wondrous man, required many things, in order that he should receive that which had come to pass; an angel, and the vision in dreams, and the testimony from the prophets; how could the Jews, being both dull and depraved, and of so unfriendly spirit towards Him, have admitted this idea into their minds? For the strangeness and novelty thereof would be sure greatly to disturb them, and the fact that they had never so much as heard of such a thing having happened in the times of their forefathers. For as the man who was once persuaded that He is Son of God, would after that have no cause to doubt concerning this too; so he who was accounting Him to be a deceiver and an adversary of God, how could he but have been yet more offended by this, and have been led on unto the opposite notion? For this cause neither do the apostles at the first directly say this, but while of His resurrection they discourse much and often (forasmuch as of this there were examples in the times before, although not such as this); that He was born of a virgin they do not say always: nay, not even His mother herself ventured to utter this. See, for instance, what saith the Virgin even to Himself: "Behold, Thy father and I have sought Thee." For if this suspicion had been entertained, neither would He any longer have been accounted to be a Son of David, and this opinion not being held, many other evils besides would have arisen. For this cause neither do the angels say these things to all, but to Mary only, and Joseph; but when showing to the shepherds the glad tidings of that which was come to pass, they no longer added this.

"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, Son of David, Son of Abraham."

"What sayest thou? Didst thou not promise to discourse of the Only-begotten Son of God, and dost thou make mention of David, a man born after a thousand generations, and say that he is both father and ancestor?" Stay, seek not to learn all at once, but gently and by little and little. Why, it is in the vestibule that thou art standing, by the very porch; why then dost thou hasten towards the inner shrine? As yet thou hast not well marked all without. For neither for a while do I declare unto thee that other generation: or rather not even this which cometh after, for it is unutterable, and unspeakable. And before me the Prophet Isaiah hath told thee this; where when proclaiming His passion, and His great care for the world, and admiring who He was, and what He became, and whither He descended, he cried out loud and clear, saying thus, "Who shall declare His generation?"

It is not then of that we are now to speak, but of this beneath, this which took place on earth, which was amongst ten thousand witnesses. And concerning this again we will relate in such wise as it may be possible for us, having received the grace of the Spirit. For not even this may any one set forth altogether plainly, forasmuch as this too is most awful. Think not, therefore, it is of small things thou art hearing, when thou hearest of this birth, but rouse up thy mind, and straightway tremble, being told that God hath come upon earth. For so marvellous was this, and beyond expectation, that because of these things the very angels formed a choir, and in behalf of the world offered up their praise for them, and the prophets from the first were amazed at this, that "He was seen upon earth, and conversed with men." Yea, for it is far beyond all thought to hear that God the Unspeakable, the Unutterable, the Incomprehensible, and He that is equal to the Father, hath passed through a virgin's womb, and hath vouchsafed to be born of a woman, and to have Abraham and David for forefathers. But why do I say Abraham and David? For what is even more amazing, there are those women, whom we have lately mentioned.

Hearing these things, arise, and surmise nothing low: but even because of this very thing most of all shouldest thou marvel, that being Son of the Unoriginate God, and His true Son, He suffered Himself to be called also Son of David, that He might make thee Son of God. He suffered a slave to be father to Him, that He might make the Lord Father to thee a slave.

Seest thou at once from the beginning of what nature are the Gospels? If thou doubt concerning the things that pertain to thee from what belongs to Him believe these also. For it is far more difficult, judging by human reason, for God to become man, than for a man to be declared a Son of God. When therefore thou art told that the Son of God is Son of David and of Abraham, doubt not any more that thou too, the son of Adam, shall be son of God. For not at random, nor in vain did He abase Himself so greatly, only He was minded to exalt us. Thus He was born after the flesh, that thou mightest be born after the Spirit; He was born of a woman, that thou mightest cease to be the son of a woman.

Wherefore the birth was twofold, both made like unto us, and also surpassing ours. For to be born of a woman indeed was our lot, but "to be born not of blood, nor of the will of flesh, nor of man," but of the Holy Ghost, was to proclaim beforehand the birth surpassing us, the birth to come, which He was about freely to give us of the Spirit.

Wherefore he call it a "book of the generation of Jesus Christ," while yet this book hath not the birth only, but the whole dispensation? Because this is the sum of the whole dispensation, and is made an origin and root of all our blessings. As then Moses calleth it the book of heaven and earth, although he hath not discoursed of heaven and earth only, but also of all things that are in the midst thereof; so also this man hath named his book from that which is the sum of all the great things done. For that which teems with astonishment, and is beyond hope and all expectation, is that God should become man. But this having come to pass, all afterwards follows in reasonable consequence.

Wherefore did he not say, "the Son of Abraham," and then "the Son of David?" It is not, as some suppose, that he means to proceed upward from the lower point, since then he would have done the same as Luke, but now he doth the contrary. Why then hath he made mention of David? The man was in the mouths of all, both from his distinction, and from the time, for he had not been so very long since dead, like Abraham. And though God made promises to both, yet the one, as old, was passed over in silence, while the other, as fresh and recent, was repeated of all. Themselves, for instance, say, "Doth not Christ come of the seed of David, and out of Bethlehem, the town where David was?" And no man called Him Son of Abraham, but all Son of David; and that because this last was more in the recollection of all, both on account of the time, as I have already said, and because of his royalty. On this principle again all the kings whom they had in honor after his time were named from him, both by the people themselves and by God. For both Ezekiel and other prophets besides speak of David as coming and rising again; not meaning him that was dead, but them who were emulating his virtue. And to Hezekiah He saith, "I will defend this city, for mine own sake and for my servant David's sake." And to Solomon too He said, that for David's sake He rent not the kingdom during his lifetime. For great was the glory of the man, both with God and with men.

On account of this he makes the beginning at once from him who was more known, and then runs up to his father; accounting it superfluous, as far as regards the Jews, to carry the genealogy higher up. For these were principally the persons held in admiration; the one as a prophet and a king, the other as a patriarch and a prophet.

"But whence is it manifest that He is of David?" one may say. For if He was not sprung of a man, but from a woman only, and the Virgin hath not her genealogy traced, how shall we know that He was of David's race? Thus, there are two things inquired; both why His mother's genealogy is not recited, and wherefore it can be that Joseph is mentioned by them, who hath no part in the birth: since the latter seems to be superfluous, and the former a defect.

Of which then is it necessary to speak first? How the Virgin is of David. How then shall we know that she is of David? Hearken unto God, telling Gabriel to go unto "a virgin betrothed to a man (whose name was Joseph), of the house and lineage of David." What now wouldest thou have plainer than this, when thou hast heard that the Virgin was of the house and lineage of David?

Hence it is evident that Joseph also was of the same. Yes, for there was a law, which bade that it should not be lawful to take a wife from any other stock, but from the same tribe. And the patriarch Jacob also foretold that He should arise out of the tribe of Judah, saying on this wise: "there shall not fail a ruler out of Judah, nor a governor out of his loins, until He come for whom it is appointed, and He is the expectation of the Gentiles."

"Well; this prophecy doth indeed make it clear that He was of the tribe of Judah, but not also that He was of the family of David. Was there then in the tribe of Judah one family only, even that of David, or were there not also many others? And might it not happen for one to be of the tribe of Judah, but not also of the family of David?"

Nay, lest thou shouldest say this, the evangelist hath removed this suspicion of thine, by saying, that He was "of the house and lineage of David."

And if thou wish to learn this from another reason besides, neither shall we be at a loss for another proof. For not only was it not allowed to take a wife out of another tribe, but not even from another lineage, that is, from another kindred. So that if either we connect with the Virgin the words, "of the house and lineage of David," what hath been said stands good; or if with Joseph, by that fact this also is proved. For if Joseph was of the house and lineage of David, he would not have taken his wife from another than that whence he himself was sprung.

"What then," one may say, "if he transgressed the law?" Why, for this cause he hath by anticipation testified that Joseph was righteous, on purpose that thou mightest not say this, but having been told his virtue, mightest be sure also that he would not have transgressed the law. For he who was so benevolent, and free from passion, as not to wish, even when urged by suspicion, to attempt inflicting punishment on the Virgin, how should he have transgressed the law for lust? he that showed wisdom and self-restraint beyond the law (for to put her away, and that privily, was to act with self-restraint beyond the law), how should he have done anything contrary to the law; and this when there was no cause to urge him?

Now that the Virgin was of the race of David is indeed from these things evident; but wherefore he gave not her genealogy, but Joseph's, requires explanation. For what cause was it then? It was not the law among the Jews that the genealogy of women should be traced. In order then that he might keep the custom, and not seem to be making alterations from the beginning, and yet might make the Virgin known to us, for this cause he hath passed over her ancestors in silence, and traced the genealogy of Joseph. For if he had done this with respect to the Virgin, he would have seemed to be introducing novelties; and if he had passed over Joseph in silence, we should not have known the Virgin's forefathers. In order therefore that we might learn, touching Mary, who she was, and of what origin, and that the laws might remain undisturbed, he hath traced the genealogy of her espoused husband, and shown him to be of the house of David. For when this hath been clearly proved, that other fact is demonstrated with it, namely, that the Virgin likewise is sprung from thence, by reason that this righteous man, even as I have already said, would not have endured to take a wife from another race.

For this reason he hath also straightway called Him by this title, naming Him Jesus. For this name, Jesus, is not Greek, but in the Hebrew language it is thus called Jesus; which is, when interpreted into the Greek tongue, "A Saviour." And He is called a Saviour, from His saving His people.

Seest thou how he hath given wings to the hearer, at once speaking things familiar, and at the same time by these indicating to us things beyond all hope? I mean that both these names were well known to the Jews. For, because the things that were to happen were beyond expectation, the types even of the names went before, in order that from the very first all the unsettling power of novelty might be taken away. Thus he is called Jesus, who after Moses brought the people into the land of promise. Hast thou seen the type? Behold the truth. That led into the land of promise, this into heaven, and to the good things in the heavens; that, after Moses was dead, this after the law had ceased; that as a leader, this as a King.

However, lest having heard the word Jesus, thou shouldest by reason of the identity of the name be perplexed, he hath added, "Jesus Christ, Son of David." But that other was not of David, but of another tribe.

(Epist. 59. ad Const. Id. Ep. 83. ad Palest.) We do not speak of Christ as man in such a sort as to allow that any thing was wanting to Him, which it is certain pertains to human nature, whether soul, or rational mind, or flesh, and flesh such as was taken of the Woman, not gained by a change or conversion of the Word into flesh. These three several errors, that thrice false heresy of the Apollinarists has brought forward. Eutyches also chose out this third dogma of Apollinaris, which denying the verity of the human body and soul, maintained that our Lord Jesus Christ was wholly and entirely of one nature, as though the Divine Word had changed itself into flesh and soul, and as though the conception, birth, growth, and such like, had been undergone by that Divine Essence, which was incapable of any such changes with the very and true flesh; for such as is the nature of the Only-begotten, such is the nature of the Father, and such is the nature of the Holy Ghost, both impassible and eternal. But if to avoid being driven to the conclusion that the Godhead could feel suffering and death, he departs from the corruption of Apollinaris, and should still dare to affirm the nature of the incarnate Word, that is of the Word and the flesh, to be the same, he clearly falls into the insane notions of Manichæus and Marcion, and believes that the Lord Jesus Christ did all His actions with a false appearance, that His body was not a human body, but a phantasm, which imposed on the eyes of the beholders.

(Ep. 35. ad Julian.) But what Eutyches ventured to pronounce as an episcopal decision, that in Christ before His incarnation were two natures, but after His incarnation only one, it behoved that he should have been urgently pressed to give the reason of this his belief. I suppose that in using such language he supposed the soul which the Saviour took, to have had its abode in heaven before it was born of the Virgin Marye. This Catholic hearts and ears endure not, for that the Lord when He came down from heaven showed nothing of the condition of human nature, nor did He take on Him any soul that had existed before, nor any flesh that was not taken of the flesh of His mother. Thus what was justly condemned in Origenf, must needs be rebuked in Eutyches, to wit, that our souls before they were placed in our bodies had actions not only wonderful but various.

So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.

(Homil. in Matt. Hom. i.) Matthew wrote for the Jews, and in Hebrewa; to them it was unnecessary to explain the divinity which they recognized; but necessary to unfold the mystery of the Incarnation. John wrote in Greek for the Gentiles who knew nothing of a Son of God. They required therefore to be told first, that the Son of God was God, then that this Deity was incarnate.

Another reason is that royal dignity is above natural, though Abraham was first in time, yet David in honour.

By this exordium he shows that it is the birth of Christ according to the flesh that he has undertaken to narrate.

Though the genealogy occupies only a small part of the volume, he yet begins thus, The book of the generation. For it is the manner of the Hebrews to name their books from that with which they open; as Genesis.

He says, The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, because he knew it was written, 'The book of the generation of Adam.' He begins thus then, that he may oppose book to book, the new Adam to the old Adam, for by the one were all things restored which had been corrupted by the other.

By saying, of Jesus Christ, he expresses both the kingly and priestly office to be in Him, for Jesus, who first bore this name, was after Moses, the first who was leader of the children of Israel; and Aaron, anointed by the mystical ointment, was the first priest under the Law.

Though any affirm that the prophet (Isaiah) does speak of His human generation, we need not answer to his enquiry, Who shall declare it? "No man;" but, "Very few;" because Matthew and Luke have.

These heresies therefore the Apostles overthrow in the opening of their Gospels, as Matthew in relating how He derived His descent from the kings of the Jews proves Him to have been truly man and to have had true flesh. Likewise Luke, when he describes the priestly stock and person; Mark when he says, The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God; and John when lie says, In the beginning was the Word; both show Him to have been before all ages God, with God the Father.

One must bear in mind therefore that the Evangelists, or rather the Spirit speaking through them, took pains to ensure that their readers believed that Christ was truly God and truly human. Because of what they wrote, no one could possibly doubt that he is God by nature, beyond all variation, mutation or illusion, and that according to the ordered plan of God he was truly human. This is why John could say, on the one hand, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John immediately adds, "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." Hence Matthew wrote appropriately, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." On the one hand he is not able to be counted simply from natural generation among families, since it is written, "Who shall declare his generation?" He is before the centuries and of one substance with the Father himself, from the standpoint of eternity. But by this genealogy he is also numbered among the families of humanity according to the flesh. For in truth, while remaining God, Christ became man without ceasing to be God, unaltered till the end of time.This is why there is also mention of the ancient patriarchs in the lineage, the narrative and observation of the times and vicissitudes that are indeed proper to human history. Through all this Matthew made it clear that Christ participates in our human generation and in our nature. Otherwise some might claim that he appeared in illusion and in imagination only, rather than by becoming genuinely human. Think of what might have been said if none of this had been written?

The Life of the Evangelist Matthew Matthew, also known as Levi, tax collector turned apostle, was the first to compose the Gospel of Christ, in Judea in the Hebrew language for those of the circumcision who believed. It is unknown by whom it was later translated into Greek. The Hebrew text is preserved to this day in the library of Caesarea that was most diligently assembled by the Martyr Pamphilus. The Nazarenes of Berroia in Syria, who use this text, gave me permission to copy it. From this one is easily convinced that where the evangelist makes use of the testimony of the Old Testament Scriptures, either himself, or in the person of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, he does not follow the authority of the Seventy (i.e. The Septuagint), but of the Hebrew text. It is from the latter that these two passages come: Out of Egypt have I called My Son (Mt 2:15) and He shall be called a Nazarene (Mt 2:23).

They may, then, obliterate the testimony of the devils which proclaimed Jesus the son of David; but whatever unworthiness there be in this testimony, that of the apostles they will never be able to efface, There is, first of all, Matthew, that most faithful chronicler of the Gospel, because the companion of the Lord; for no other reason in the world than to show us clearly the fleshly original of Christ, he thus begins his Gospel: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." With a nature issuing from such fountal sources, and an order gradually descending to the birth of Christ, what else have we here described than the very flesh of Abraham and of David conveying itself down, step after step, to the very virgin, and at last introducing Christ,-nay, producing Christ Himself of the virgin?

There are four Evangelists; two of them, Matthew and John, were of the company of the twelve, and two, Mark and Luke, were of the seventy. Mark was a follower and disciple of Peter; and Luke, of Paul. Matthew, then, first wrote the Gospel, in the Hebrew language for the Jews who believed, eight years after Christ's Ascension. Some say that John translated it from the Hebrew language into Greek. Mark wrote his Gospel ten years after the Ascension, instructed by Peter. Luke wrote his Gospel fifteen years after the Ascension, and John the most wise Theologian, thirty two years after the Ascension.

It is said that after the death of the first three Evangelists, the three Gospels were brought to John while he yet lived that he might see them and judge if they had been composed according to the truth. When John read them he fully accepted the grace of the truth in them. and whatever the other Evangelists had omitted, he completed in his Gospel, and whatever they had touched on briefly, he elaborated. This was the beginning of theology. Since the other Evangelists had not mentioned the existence of God the Word from before the ages, John himself spoke the word of God—theology—concerning this, so that no one would think that God the Word was a mere man without divinity. For Matthew speaks only of the existence of Christ in the flesh, as he was writing for the Jews for whom it sufficed to learn that Christ was begotten from Abraham and David. A believing Jew is content to know that Christ is from David.

You might ask, "Was not one Evangelist enough?" Listen, then: one was enough, but four were allowed to write so that the truth might be revealed more clearly. When you see these four Evangelists, not sitting down together in one place, but each one by himself at a different time and place writing about the same things as if with one voice, do you not marvel at the truth of the Gospel and conclude that they spoke by the Holy Spirit? Do not tell me that they are not in agreement in all points. Consider where exactly they do not agree. Does one Evangelist say that Christ was born, and another, that He was not? Or one, that He rose, and another, that He did not? Indeed not! In what is essential, they speak with one voice. Therefore, if they do not diverge in the essential points, why do you marvel if they appear to vary in minor details? It is precisely because their accounts do not agree in every detail that we can see that they present the truth. If they had agreed on every point, it would cause one to suspect that they sat down and deliberated together in writing the Gospels. Instead, what one Evangelist has omitted, another has recorded, and for this reason that they seem to be at variance on certain points.

1. The book of the generation. Why did he not say "vision" or "word" as did the prophets who prefaced their writing in this manner: "The vision which Isaiah saw (Is 1:1)," and "The word which came to Isaiah (Is 2:1)." Do you wish to know why? Because the prophets were speaking to hard-hearted and disobedient people, and therefore they would say, "This is a divine vision," or "This is the word of God," so that the people would be frightened and not disdain what was said. But Matthew was addressing believers who were obedient and of a good disposition, and for this reason he did not begin in the manner of the prophets. I will also add that what the prophets saw, they saw noetically, that is, with their minds, envisioning these things by the Holy Spirit; and this is why they called them "visions." But Matthew did not see Christ noetically, nor did he envision Him in his mind, but he was with Him tangibly and listened to Him with his senses and saw Him in the flesh. Therefore he did not say, "The vision which I saw," but "The book of generation." Of Jesus. The name "Jesus" is not Greek but Hebrew, meaning "Saviour," for Iao is the Hebrew word for "salvation." Christ. The Hebrew kings and priests were called "christs" [i.e. "anointed ones"], because they were anointed with the holy oil poured out from a horn held over the head. The Lord, therefore, is called Christ, both as King because He ruled over sin, and as Priest because He offered Himself as a sacrifice for us. He Himself was pre-eminently anointed with the true oil, the Holy Spirit; for who else possessed the Spirit as did the Lord? In the saints, the grace of the Holy Spirit was at work, but in Christ it was not the grace of the Spirit at work, but rather Christ being of one essence with the Spirit worked the miracles. The Son of David. Since Matthew had said "Jesus," he added "the Son of David," so that you would not think he was speaking of the other Jesus [i.e. Joshua]; for there was another renowned Jesus, who became commander after Moses, but he was called "son of Nave," and not "son of David." For he preceded David by many generations and was not of the tribe of Judah, from which David was descended, but of another. The son of Abraham. Why did he place David before Abraham? He did so because to the Jews David had greater renown, both because he was more recent than Abraham and because he was more illustrious on account of his kingdom. For of the kings, David was the first to please God, and he received the promise from God that the Christ would arise from his seed. For this reason all men called Christ "the Son of David." And indeed David was also a symbolic type of Christ; for just as David ruled after Saul, that outcast from God who was rejected, so too Christ came in the flesh to reign over us after Adam had been deprived of the kingship and the dominion which he had over all things, both animals and demons.

Among the evangelists, Matthew is chiefly concerned with the humanity of Christ. Hence, according to Gregory, in the symbol of the four animals, he is signified as a man. By his humanity Christ entered the world, progressed, and then departed. Therefore, the Gospel is divided into three parts: first, the evangelist treats of Christ's entry into the world; secondly, of his progress (ch. 3); thirdly, of his exit (c. 21).

In the first part he does two things: first, the generation of Christ is described; secondly, it is manifested (c. 2).

In the first part he does three things: first, the quasi-title of the entire book is presented; secondly, the series of fathers is traced (v. 2); thirdly, the generation of Christ is described in particular (v. 18).

The title mentioned beforehand is The Book of the Genealogy of Jesus Christ. This seems to be an incomplete sentence. For it presents a nominative without a verb. But not so; for Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Hebrews. Therefore, in writing he followed the custom of the Jews. But it is customary among the Jews to speak in this manner, as when it says: "The vision of Isaiah, son of Amos," "This is" is understood, and it is not necessary to add it. So here, when it says, The Book of the Genealogy of Jesus Christ, "This is" is understood.

Nor is this way of speaking unusual among us: for if we wish to title a book, it is called "Priscian the Elder" or "Younger", and there is no need to add "This is" or "Begins".

Likewise, one might ask, since only a small part of this book is about the generation of Christ, why does the book get this title? The answer is that Matthew, who wrote to the Hebrews, follows their custom in writing. But the Hebrews were wont to entitle books from their beginnings, as the Book of Genesis, because generation is treated there; hence Genesis (5:1): "This is the genealogy of Adam." And the Book of Exodus, because in the first part the departure of the children of Israel from Egypt is described.

But one might ask why Jesus Christ is added. The answer is that according to the Apostle in 1 Cor 15:22: "As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive." But Matthew had seen the first book of the Old Testament, in which generation is discussed and in which it says (5:1): "This is the book of the genealogy of Adam." Therefore, in order that the New Testament, which deals with regeneration and restoration, might agree with the Old, he says: The Book of the Genealogy of Jesus Christ, to show that the author of both is the same.

Then the question arises about the fact that it says here: The Genealogy of Jesus Christ, for Isaiah (53:8) has the contrary: "As for his generation, who shall tell it?" But the sense, according to Jerome, is that there is in Christ a twofold generation, namely, the divine, which cannot be expressed; because, although we call him in some way a begotten Son, in another way the manner in which he was born neither man nor angel can comprehend. The other is the human, about which he deals; but in this generation there are many difficult things. Therefore, according to Remigius, very few can express it.

There is the question also why he says Generation, since many generations are grouped here. But the answer is that, although many generations are listed, they are introduced for one, namely, for the generation of Christ, about which it says below: "The generation of Christ took place in this way."

The one whose generation is constructed is described from the name, when it says Jesus; secondly, from his office, when it says Christ; thirdly, from his origin, when it says son of David, son of Abraham.

Although there have been others with the name, Jesus, as Jesus the son of Nun: "Jesus the son of Nun was mighty in war and was the successor of Moses in prophesying" (Sir 46:1), and another about the time of the construction of the temple, about whom Zechariah (3:21) speaks. Yet they were figurative and nominal Jesus', in as much as they were a figure of him. Jesus introduced the people of Israel into the Promised Land; but this Jesus, i.e., our Savior, introduced us not into a material land but into the heavenly: "We have Jesus, the author and perfector of our faith in his blood" (Heb 12:2). And he is rightly called Jesus, for this name suits him according to both natures, namely, divine and human. Indeed, according to the human he suffered in the flesh and fulfilled the mystery of our redemption; and since that passion would have no efficacy except in virtue of the adjoined divinity, it says below: "You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."

But why say Christ? Would not Jesus have been enough? I answer that this was done because, as we have said, others too were called "Jesus".

He describes him from his office, when he says Christ, i.e., anointed. But note three anointings in the Old Law. For Aaron was anointed a priest (Lev 8:11); Saul was anointed king by Samuel (1 Sam 10:11), as was David (1 Sam 16:13); Elisha was anointed a prophet (1 Kg 19:16). Therefore, because Christ was the true priest in Ps 110 (v. 4): "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek," and king and prophet, it is right to call him Christ on account of the three offices he exercised.

Son of David, son of Abraham. This raises a question about the number and about the order. As to the first, why does he name those two? For the reason given in the prologue, namely, that Abraham was a prophet. In Gen (20:7) the Lord said to Abimelech, king of Gerar: "Restore the man's wife, for he is a prophet." He was also a priest (Gen 15:9), for he fulfilled the office of priest, namely, by offering a victim to the Lord: "Bring me," he says, "a heifer three years old..." But David was a prophet, as is clear from Acts (2:30). He was also a king, as it says in 2 Sam (2:4). Therefore, because Christ was king and prophet and priest, he is correctly called their son. For if he had mentioned only Abraham, there would be no sign that Christ would be a king; if only David, the priestly dignity would not be denoted in Christ. Therefore, both are mentioned.

The answer to the second, according to Jerome, is that David is mentioned first and the order changed for the purpose of constructing the genealogy. For if he had first said "son of Abraham" and secondly "son of David", he would have had to repeat Abraham in order to continue the order of the genealogy. According to Ambrose, however, David is placed first by reason of dignity; for the promise about that head was made to David in Ps 132 (v. 11): "one of the sons of your body I will set on your throne"; but to Abraham about the members, namely, of the Church: "And by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth be blessed" (Gen 22:18).

Here it should be noted that there have been many errors about Christ. For some erred in regard to his divinity, as Paul of Samosata, Photinus and Sabellius; some in regard to his humanity, and some in regard to both. Still others have erred in regard to his person.

The first error in regard to his humanity was that of Manicheus, who said that he did not receive a true, but an imaginary, body. Against this is what the Lord says in Luke (24:39): "Handle and see; for a spirit has not flesh as you see that I have."

Secondly, after him erred Valentine, who said that he brought a heavenly body with him, that it was not assumed from the Virgin, but that it passed through her as water through a channel. But Rom (1:3) says against this: "Who was made from the seed of David according to the flesh."

The third error was that of Apollinaris, who said that he received only a body and no soul, but that in place of a soul he had his divinity. But against this is the fact that Christ frequently says: "My soul is sorrowful" (Jn 12:27). But on this account he later changed his opinion and said that Christ had a vegetal and sensitive soul, but still no rational soul, in place of which was his divinity. But then would follow the awkward situation that Christ would not have been any more man than a brute.

These errors were assigned as though by lot to the four evangelists. For Mark and John mainly destroyed the errors touching the divinity; hence John asserted immediately in the beginning: "In the beginning was the Word." And Mark began thus: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the son of God." He did not say, "the son of Abraham". Matthew and Luke destroy in the beginning those errors which concern the humanity.

Hence in the statement, son of David, son of Abraham, all errors about the humanity of Christ are excluded. For one is not called the son of someone except in virtue of univocal generation, which is according to agreement in species. For no matter what is generated from a man, unless it shares in the nature of the species, it is never called a son; as is evident in the case of lice and the like. Therefore, if Christ is the son of David and of Abraham, he should have the same nature by reason of the same species; but he would not have the same specific nature, if he had not a true and natural body, or if he took it from heaven, or even if it lacked a sensitive or a rational soul. Hence, the exclusion of every error is clear.

"The first living creature was like to a lion, and the second was like to a calf, and the third had a face like to a man, and the fourth was like to a flying eagle; and they had six wings, and round about and within they were full of eyes; and they had no rest, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord Omnipotent. And the four and twenty elders, failing down before the throne, adored God." The four and twenty elders arethe twenty-four books of the prophets and of the law, which give testimonies of the judgment. Moreover, also, they are the twenty-four fathers-twelve apostles and twelve patriarchs.And in that the living creatures are different in appearance, this is the reason: the living creature like to a lion designates Mark, in whom is heard the voice of the lion roaring in the desert. And in the figure of a man, Matthew strives to declareto us the genealogy of Mary, from whom Christ took flesh. Therefore, in enumerating from Abraham to David, and thence to Joseph, he spoke of Him as if of a man: therefore his announcement sets forth the image of a man. Luke, in narrating the priesthood of Zacharias as he offers a sacrifice for the people, and the angel that appears to him with respect of the priesthood, and the victim in the same description bore the likeness of a calf. John the evangelist, like to an eagle hastening on uplifted wings to greater heights, argues about the Word of God. Mark, therefore, as an evangelist thus beginning, "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet; " The voice of one crying in the wilderness," -has the effigy of a lion. And Matthew, "The hook of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham: " this is the form of a man. But Luke said, "There was a priest, by name Zachariah, of the course of Abia, and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron: " this is the likeness of a calf. But John, when he begins, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," sets forth the likeness of a flying eagle. Moreover, not only do the evangelists express their four similitudes in their respective openings of the Gospels, but also the Word itself of God the Father Omnipotent, which is His Son our Lord Jesus Christ, bears the same likeness in the time of His advent. When He preaches to us, He is, as it were, a lion and a lion's whelp. And when for man's salvation He was made man to overcome death, and to set all men free, and that He offered Himself a victim to the Father on our behalf, He was called a calf. And that He overcame death and ascended into the heavens, extending His wings and protecting His people, He was named a flying eagle. Therefore these announcements, although they are four, yet are one, because it proceeded from one mouth. Even as the river in paradise, although it is one, was divided into four heads. Moreover, that for the announcement of the New Testament those bring creatures had eyes within and without, shows the spiritual providence which both looks into the secrets of the heart, and beholds the things which are coming after that are within and without.

(Vigil. Tapsens. [Athan. Ed. Ben. vol. ii. p. 646.]) The Apostle John, seeing long before by the Holy Spirit this man's madness, rouses him from his deep sleep of error by the preaching of his voice, saying, In the beginning was the Word. (John 1:1.) He therefore, who in the beginning was with God, could not in this last time take the beginning of His being from man. He says further, (let Photinus hear his words,) Father, glorify Me with that glory which I had with Thee before the world was. (John 17:5.)

(Vigil. Tapsens. [ibid. p. 644.]) The audaciousness of this most insane error I will curb by the authority of the heavenly testimonies, and demonstrate the distinct personality of the proper substance, of the Son. I shall not produce things which are liable to be, explained away as agreeable to the assumption of human; nature; but shall offer such passages as all will allow to be decisive in proof of His divine nature. In Genesis we find God saying, Let Us make man in Our own Image. By this plural number showing, that there was some other person to whom He spoke. Had He been one, He would have been said to have made Him in His own Image, but there is another; and He is said to have made man in the Image of that other.

(in Luc. cap. 3. lib. iii. n. 7, 8.) For Abraham was the first who deserved the witness of faith; "He believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." It behoved therefore that he should be set forth as the first in the line of descent, who was the first to deserve the promise of the restoration of the Church, In thee shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. And it is again brought to a period in David, for that Jesus should be called his Son; hence to him is preserved the privilege, that from him should come the beginning of the Lord's genealogy.

(De Cons. Evan. ii. 1.) Matthew, by beginning with Christ's genealogy, shows that he has undertaken to relate Christ's birth according to the flesh. But Luke, as rather describing Him as a Priest for the atonement of sin, gives Christ's genealogy not in the beginning of his Gospel, but at His baptism, when John bare that testimony, Lo, He that taketh away the sins of the world. (John 1:29.) In the genealogy of Matthew is figured to us the taking on Him of our sins by the Lord Christ; in the genealogy of Luke, the taking away of our sins by the same; hence Matthew gives them in a descending, Luke in an ascending, series. But Matthew, describing Christ's human generation in descending order, begins his enumeration with Abraham.

Yet he names all the brethren of Judah with him in the lineage. lsmael and Esau had not remained in the worship of the true God; but the brethren of Judah were reckoned in God's people.

But Judah is the only one mentioned by name, and that because the Lord was descended from him only. But in each of the Patriarchs we must note not their history only, but the allegorical and moral meaning to be drawn from them; allegory, in seeing whom each of the Fathers foreshewed; moral instruction in that through each one of the Fathers some virtue may be edified in us either through the signification of his name, or through his exampleg. Abraham is in many respects a figure of Christ, and chiefly in his name, which is interpreted the Father of many nations, and Christ is Father of many believers. Abraham moreover went out from his own kindred, and abode in a strange land; in like manner Christ, leaving the Jewish nation, went by His preachers throughout the Gentiles.

Morally; Abraham signifies to us the virtue of faith in Christ, as an example himself, as it is said of him, Abraham believed God, and it was accounted unto Him for righteousness. Isaac may represent hope; for Isaac is interpreted 'laughter,' as he was the joy of his parents; and hope is our joy, making ns to hope for eternal blessings and to joy in them. Abraham begat Isaac, and faith begets hope. Jacob signifies 'love,' for love embraces two lives; active in the love of our neighbour, contemplative in the love of God; the active is signified by Leah, the contemplative by Rachel. For Leah is interpreted. 'labouringh,' for she is active in labour; Racheli 'having seen the beginning,' because by the contemplative, the beginning, that is God, is seen. Jacob is born of two parents, as love is born of faith and hope; for what we believe, we both hope for and love.

But why is it, that having mentioned Abraham, and having said that "he begat Isaac, and Isaac, Jacob;" and not having made any mention of his brother; when he is come to Jacob, he remembers both "Judah, and his brethren"? Now there are some that say, it was because of the perverseness of Esau, and of the rest that came before. But I should not say this; for if it were so, how is it that he a little after mentions such women? It being out of contraries, in this place, that His glory is manifested; not by having great forefathers, but low and of little account. For to the lofty One it is a great glory to be able to abase Himself exceedingly. Wherefore then did He not mention them? Because Saracens, and Ishmaelites, and Arabians, and as many as are sprung from those ancestors, have nothing in common with the race of the Israelites. For this cause then he passes over those in silence, and hastens on to His forefathers, and those of the Jewish people. Wherefore he saith, "And Jacob begat Judas and his brethren." For at this point the race of the Jews begins to have its peculiar mark.

For this cause he made mention also of the twelve patriarchs, by this again bringing down their pride at the noble birth of their fathers. Because many of these also were born of women that were slaves; but nevertheless the difference of the parents did not make a difference in the children. For all were equally both patriarchs and heads of tribes. For this is the precedence of the Church, this the prerogative of the nobility that is among us, taking its type from the beginning. So that whether thou be bond or free, thou hast from thence nothing more nor less; but the question is all about one thing only, namely, the mind, and the disposition of the soul.

Isaac is interpreted 'laughter,' but the laughter of the saints is not the foolish convulsion of the lips, but the rational joy of the heart, which was the mystery of Christ. For as he was granted to his parents in their extreme age to their great joy, that it might be known that he was not the child of nature, but of grace, thus Christ also in this last time came of a Jewish mother to be the joy of the whole earth; the one of a virgin, the other of a woman past the age, both contrary to the expectation of nature.

Our Jacob in like manner begot the twelve Apostles in the Spirit, not in the flesh; in word, not in blood. Judah is interpreted 'confessor,' for he was a type of Christ who was to be the confessor of His Father, as He spake, I confess to Thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth.

These heresies therefore the Apostles overthrow in the opening of their Gospels, as Matthew in relating how He derived His descent from the kings of the Jews proves Him to have been truly man and to have had true flesh. Likewise Luke, when he describes the priestly stock and person; Mark when he says, The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God; and John when lie says, In the beginning was the Word; both show Him to have been before all ages God, with God the Father.

Jacob is interpreted 'supplanter,' and it is said of Christ, Thou hast cast down beneath Me them that rose up against Me. (Ps. 18:43.)

Abraham begat Isaac. Matthew begins the genealogy with Abraham because he was the father of the Hebrews, and because he first received the promises that in his seed all the nations would be blessed (Gen. 22:18). Therefore it is fitting that he should give the genealogy of Christ beginning with Abraham, for the seed of Abraham is Christ by Whom all we nations have been blessed who were formerly cursed. "Abraham" means "father of the nations," and "Isaac," "joy" or "laughter." The evangelist makes no mention of the illegitimate children of Abraham, Ishmael and the others, because the Jews were not descended from them, but from Isaac. And Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren. You see that he mentioned Judah and his brothers because the twelve tribes were from them.

Having presented the title, the genealogical series is woven. This is divided into three parts according to the three series of fourteen, out of which the aforesaid genealogical series is woven. The first set of fourteen is from Abraham to David, who came forth through patriarchs. The second goes from David to the Babylonian transmigration and proceeds through the kings. The third is from the transmigration to Christ, and begins with leaders and proceeds through private persons.

The first is divided into three parts: first are mentioned the fathers who lived before the entry into Egypt; secondly, those who were involved in the exodus and in the entry into the promised land; thirdly, those who existed after the entry into the promised land. He says, therefore: Abraham was the father of Isaac.

Here it should be noted, before we proceed any further, that two evangelists describe the generation of Christ according to the flesh; namely, Luke and Matthew, but differently. This difference consists in five things.

For, first, they differ as to its position in the work: because Matthew begins to weave the generation of Christ at the beginning of his Gospel, but Luke not at the beginning, but after the baptism. The reason for this, according to Augustine, is that Matthew undertook to describe the fleshly generation of Christ; therefore, he should have presented it immediately in the beginning. But Luke's main purpose was to comment in Christ the priestly person. It pertains to a priest to expiate for sins. Therefore, after the baptism, in which expiation of sins takes place, was the suitable time to present the generation of Christ.

But secondly, Luke and Matthew in the genealogy of Christ differ in regard to order; because Matthew wove Christ's generation by beginning with Abraham and by descending to Christ, but Luke begins with Christ and by ascending proceeds to Abraham and much further. The reason is that according to the Apostle (Rom 4:25), there were two things in Christ, namely, the humility to assume the defects of our nature and the power of divinity and grace, through which he purged us from these defects. (Rom 8:3): "God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh," on account of the first; "and for sin he condemned sin in the flesh," on account of the second. Therefore, Matthew, who is interested in Christ's fleshly generation through which he descended so far as to assume our weakness, fittingly describes his generation by descending. But Luke, who commends in him his priestly dignity, through which we are reconciled to God and united to Christ, fittingly proceeded by ascending.

Thirdly, they differ as to manner: because in the narration of the genealogy Matthew used the word begot and Luke the word "was of". And this occurs, because Matthew in the entire narration mentions only fathers according to the flesh; but Luke mentions many fathers according to the Law or by adoption. For it had been commanded in the Law that if a man should die without children, his brother should take his wife and raise up children for him. Hence, they were not the children of the one who begot them, but by adoption they were regarded as belonging to the previous husband. Hence, Luke, who mentions many sons by adoption, does not say "begot"; because, although they had not begotten them, yet they were theirs by adoption. But Matthew, who mentions only fathers according to the flesh, says begot. The reason for this is that, as has been stated, Matthew is concerned mainly with Christ's humanity. And because according to the flesh he was born of parents according to the flesh, no one is mentioned in Matthew's genealogy who was not a father according to the flesh. But Luke stresses in Christ the priestly dignity through which we are adopted as God's sons; therefore, he mentioned fathers not only according to the flesh but also those according to the Law.

They differ, fourthly, as to termini: because Matthew begins his genealogy with Abraham and continues it to Christ; but Luke goes from Christ not only to Abraham but as far as God. The reason for this can be taken from the fact that Matthew wrote to the Hebrews, who boasted of Abraham: "We are descendants of Abraham" (Jn 8:33), who was the first principle of believing; and therefore, Matthew begins with Abraham. But Luke wrote to the Greeks, who knew nothing about Abraham except through Christ: for if Christ had not existed, they would have known nothing about Abraham; therefore, Luke began with Christ and ended not only in Abraham, but in God.

They differ, fifthly, as to the persons listed: because in Luke's entire genealogy no woman is mentioned; but in Matthew some women are introduced. The reason for this, according to Ambrose, is that Luke, as has been said, commends especially the priestly dignity; but the greatest purity is required in a priest. But Matthew wove his genealogy according to the flesh; therefore some women are mentioned there.

Yet it should be noted that in all of Matthew's genealogy only women who were sinners are mentioned, either because she had been noted for some sin, as Tamar, who committed fornication (Gen 38:24) and Ruth, who had been an idolater and a gentile; and Uriah's wife, who was an adulteress (2 Sam 11:2). These were mentioned to designate, according to Jerome, that he whose genealogy is given, entered the world to redeem sinners. Another reason is given by Ambrose, namely, in order to remove embarrassment from the Church. For if Christ willed to be born of sinners, unbelievers should not jeer, if sinners join the Church. Another reason can be assigned, I believe, according to Chrysostom, in order to show the imperfection of the Law and that Christ came to fulfill the Law. The fact that certain female sinners are mentioned denotes that those who were greatest in the Law were sinners; as David and Judah. And in this is designated the imperfection of others. For if those were sinners, then much more the others: "All have sinned and need the glory of God" (Rom 3:23). And therefore they are mentioned in the genealogy of Christ to designate that he had fulfilled the Law. Note, however, that those women, although they had been sinners, were not so at the time in which their genealogy is woven; but they had already been cleansed by penance.

He says, therefore, Abraham was the father of Isaac. Here two things should be considered according to the letter, or literal sense. First, that by those fathers mentioned Christ is designated; secondly, that even those are referred or can be referred to our instruction. He says, therefore, first: Abraham was the father of Isaac. And this is stated in Gen (c. 21). But Isaac was the father of Jacob (Gen c. 25). And Jacob was the father of Judah and his brothers. Here one asks, since Abraham had another son besides Isaac, namely, Ishmael, as did Isaac, why no mention is made of them here, when it says, Judah and his brothers. Also, why is Judah expressly mentioned by name rather than the others.

The reason is that Judah and his brothers continued in the worship of the one God and, therefore, they are mentioned in the genealogy of Christ; but not Isaac and Ishmael, or Jacob and Esau. As to the second, this occurred to show that in Christ Jacob's prophecy was fulfilled: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs. And he will be the expected of the gentiles" (Gen 29:10); "For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah" (Heb 7:14); and that is why he is mentioned rather than the others.

Secondly, it should be noted that by the fathers mentioned in the genealogy of Christ, Christ is signified either by reason of the name or of a deed or of something else, as is clear. For Abraham means the father of many nations and signifies Christ, about whom Heb (2:10) says: "Who had brought many sons to glory." Furthermore, at the Lord's command Abraham left his homeland (Gen 12:4), and it is Christ who said in Jeremiah (12:7): "I have forsaken my house, I have abandoned my heritage." In like manner Abraham, who laughed, saying: "God has made laughter for me" (Gen 21:6); and it is Christ at whose birth joy is announced not to one person alone but to the entire world: "Behold, I bring you news of great joy, which will come to all the people; for to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord" (Lk 2:10). Similarly, by Jacob, both by reason of its meaning and by reason of an action, as is evident from his putting a stone, i.e., the hardness of the passion, under his head. In like manner by Judah and Perez, which means division: for he will divide the sheep from the goats (Mt 25:32).

(in Luc. c. 3.) But Luke has avoided the mention of these, that he might set forth the series of the priestly race immaculate. But the plan of St. Matthew did not exclude the righteousness of natural reason; for when he wrote in his Gospel, that He who should take on Him the sins of all, was born in the flesh, was subject to wrongs and pain, he did not think it any detraction from His holiness that He did not refuse the further humiliation of a sinful parentage. Nor, again, would it shame the Church to be gathered from among sinners, when the Lord Himself was born of sinners; and, lastly, that the benefits of redemption might have their beginning with His own forefathers: and that none might imagine that a stain in their blood was any hindrance to virtue, nor again any pride themselves insolently on nobility of birth.

(ubi sup.) Observe that Matthew does not name both without a meaning; for though the object of his writing only required the mention of Phares, yet in the twins a mystery is signified; namely, the double life of the nations, one by the Law, the other by Faith.

(de Civ. Dei, xv. 15.) Neither was Judah himself a first-born, nor of these two sons was either his first-born; he had already had three before them. So that he keeps in that line of descent, by which he shall arrive at David, and from him whither he purposed.

Passing over the other sons of Jacob, the Evangelist follows the family of Judah, saying, But Judah begat Phares and Zara of Thamar.

Judah begat Phares and Zarah before he went into Egypt, whither they both accompanied their father. In Egypt, Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; Aram begat Aminadab; Aminadab begat Naasson; and then Moses led them out of Egypt. Naasson was head of the tribe of Judah under Moses in the desert, where he begat Salmon; and this Salmon it was who, as prince of the tribe of Judah, entered the land of promise with Joshua.

This Salmon in the promised land begat Booz of this Rahab. Booz begat Obeth of Ruth.

Jesse, the father of David, has two names, being more frequently called Isai. But the Prophet says, There shall come a rod from the stem of Jesse; (Is. 11:1.) therefore to show that this prophecy was fulfilled in Mary and Christ, the Evangelist puts Jesse.

Christ Himself espouses Rahab, i. e. the Gentile Church; for Rahabr is interpreted either 'hunger,' or 'breadth,' or 'might;' for the Church of the Gentiles hungers and thirsts after righteousness, and converts philosophers and kings by the might of her doctrine. Ruth is interpreted either 'seeing' or 'hastenings' and denotes the Church which in purity of heart sees God, and hastens to the prize of the heavenly call.

Let us now see what virtues they be which these fathers edify in us; for faith, hope, and charity are the foundation of all virtues; those that follow are like additions over and above them. Judah is interpreted 'confession,' of which there are two kinds, confession of faith, and of sin. If then, after we be endowed with the three forementioned virtues, we sin, confession not of faith only but of sin is needful for us. Phares is interpreted 'division,' Zamar 'the east,' and Thamar 'bitternessz.' Thus confession begets separation from vice, the rise of virtue, and the bitterness of repentance. After Phares follows Esron, 'an arrow,' for when one is separated from vice and secular pursuits, he should become a dart wherewith to slay by preaching the vices of others. Aram is interpreted 'elect' or 'loftya,' for as soon as one is detached from this world, and profiteth for another, he must needs be held to be elect of God, famous amongst men, high in virtue. Naasson is 'augury,' but this augury is of heaven, not of earth. It is that of which Joseph boasted when he said, Ye have taken away the cup of my Lord, where with He is wont to divine. (Gen. 44:5.) The cup is the divine Scripture wherein is the draught of wisdom; by this the wise man divines, since in it he sees things future, that is, heavenly things. Next is Salomonb, 'that perceiveth,' for he who studies divine Scripture becomes perceiving, that is, he discerns by the taste of reason, good from bad, sweet from bitter. Next is Booz, that is 'brave,' for who is well taught in Scripture becomes brave to endure all adversity.

Then follows Obeth, i. e. 'servitude,' for which none is fit but he who is strong; and this servitude is begotten of Ruth, that is 'haste,' for it behoves a slave to be quick, not slow.

Or Jesse may be interpreted 'incensec.' For it we serve God in love and fear, there will be a devotion in the heart, which in the heat and desire of the heart offers the sweetest incense to God. But when one is become a fit servant, and a sacrifice of incense to God, it follows that he becomes David, (i. e. 'of a strong hand,') who fought mightily against his enemies, and made the Idumeans tributary. In like manner ought he to subdue carnal men to God by teaching and example.

(Verse 3.) But Judas begot Phares and Zaram of Thamar. Phares begot Esron. Esron begot Aram. Aram begot Aminadab. Aminadab begot Naasson. It should be noted in the genealogy of the Savior that no holy women are included; only those whom Scripture reproaches, since He came for sinners, being born of sinners, in order to erase the sins of all. Therefore, even in the following generations, Ruth the Moabitess and Bathsheba the wife of Uriah are mentioned.

It should be noted, that none of the holy women are taken into the Saviour's genealogy, but rather such as Scripture has condemned, that He who came for sinners being born of sinners might so put away the sins of all; thus Ruth the Moabitess follows among the rest.

But besides what we have said, there is another cause also, wherefore he hath mentioned even this history; for to be sure, Zara's name was not cast at random on that of Phares. (For indeed it was irrelevant, and superfluous, when he had mentioned Phares, from whom he was to trace Christ's genealogy, to mention Zara also.) Wherefore then did he mention him? When Thamar was on the point of giving birth to them, the pangs having come upon her, Zara put forth his hand first. Then the midwife, when she saw this, in order that the first should be known, bound his hand with scarlet; but the child, when he was bound, drew in his hand, and when he had drawn it in, Phares came forth first, and then Zara. The midwife when she saw this said, "Why was the hedge broken up for thee?"

Seest thou the dark expression of mysteries? For it was not without purpose that these things were recorded for us: since neither was it worth our study to learn, what it might be that the midwife said; nor worth a narrative to know, that he who came out second, put forth his hand first. What then is the mysterious lesson? First, from the name of the child we learn what is inquired, for Phares is "a division," and "a breach." And moreover from the thing itself, which took place; for it was not in the order of nature that, having thrust out his hand, he should draw it in again when bound; these things neither belonged to a movement directed by reason, nor did they take place in the way of natural consequence. For after the hand had found its way out, that another child should come forth before was perhaps not unnatural; but that he should draw it back, and give a passage for another, was no longer after the manner of children at the birth, but the grace of God was present with the children, ordering these things, and sketching out for us by them a sort of image of the things that were to come.

What then? Some of those who have examined these things accurately say, that these children are a type of the two nations. And so in order that thou mightest learn that the polity of the latter people shone forth previously to the origin of the former, the child that hath the hand stretched forth doth not show itself entire, but draws even it in again; and after his brother had glided forth whole, then he too appears entire. And this took place also with regard to the two nations. I mean, that after the polity of the Church had been manifested in the times of Abraham, and then had been withdrawn in the midst of its course, the Jewish people came, and the legal polity, and then the new people appeared entire with their own laws. Wherefore also the midwife saith, "Why was the hedge broken up for thee?" because the law coming in had broken in upon the freedom of the polity. For indeed the Scripture is ever wont to call the law a hedge; as the prophet saith: "Thou hast broken down her hedge, so that all they which pass by the way do pluck off her grapes:" and, "I have set a hedge about it:" and Paul, "Having broken down the middle wall of the hedge." But others say, that the saying, "Why was the hedge broken up for thee?" was spoken touching the new people: for this at its coming put down the law.

"And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar." What doest thou, O man, putting us in remembrance of a history that contains an unlawful intercourse? But why is this said? Since, if we were recounting the race of a mere man, one might naturally have been silent touching these things; but if of God Incarnate, so far from being silent, one ought to make a glory of them, showing forth His tender care, and His power. Yea, it was for this cause He came, not to escape our disgraces, but to bear them away. Therefore as He is the more admired, in that He not only died, but was even crucified (though the thing be opprobrious, yet the more opprobrious the more doth it show Him full of love to man), so likewise may we speak touching His birth; it is not only because He took flesh upon Him, and became man, that we justly stand amazed at Him, but because He vouchsafed to have also such kinsfolk, being in no respect ashamed of our evils. And this He was proclaiming from the very beginnings of His birth, that He is ashamed of none of those things that belong to us; while He teaches us also hereby, never to hide our face at our forefathers' wickedness, but to seek after one thing alone, even virtue. For such a man, though he have an alien for his ancestor, though he have a mother who is a prostitute, or what you will, can take no hurt thereby. For if the whoremonger himself, being changed, is nothing disgraced by his former life, much more will the wickedness of his ancestry have no power to bring to shame him that is sprung of an harlot or an adulteress, if he be virtuous.

But he did these things not only to instruct us, but also to bring down the haughtiness of the Jews. For since they, negligent about virtue in their own souls, were parading the name of Abraham, thinking they had for a plea their forefathers' virtue; he shows from the very beginning that it is not in these things men ought to glory, but in their own good deeds.

Besides this, he is establishing another point also, to show that all are under sin, even their forefathers themselves. At least their patriarch and namesake is shown to have committed no small sin, for Thamar stands against him, to accuse his whoredom. And David too had Solomon by the wife whom he corrupted. But if by the great ones the law was not fulfilled, much more by the less. And if it was not fulfilled, all have sinned, and Christ's coming is become necessary.

By Zarah is denoted the people of the Jews, which first appeared in the light of faith, coming out of the dark womb of the world, and was therefore marked with the scarlet thread of the circumciser, for all supposed that they were to be God's people; but the Law was set before their face as it had been a wall or hedge. Thus the Jews were hindered by the Law, but in the times of Christ's coming the hedge of the Law was broken down that was between Jews and Gentiles, as the Apostle speaks, Breaking down the middle wall of partition; (Eph. 2:14.) and thus it fell out that the Gentiles, who were signified by Phares, as soon as the Law was broken through by Christ's commandments, first entered into the faith, and after followed the Jews.

It is asked, why this epithet King is thus given by the holy Evangelist to David alone? Because he was the first king in the tribe of Judah. Christ Himself is Phares 'the divider,' as it is written, Thou shalt divide the sheep from the goats; (Mat. 25:33.) He is Zaraml, 'the east,' Lo the man, the east is His name; (Zech. 6:12.) He is Esromm, 'an arrow,' He hath set me as a polished shaft. (Is. 49:2.)

Christ is also Boozt, because He is strength, for, When I am lifted up, I will draw all men unto Me. (John 12:32.) He is Obeth. 'a servantu,' for, the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister. (Mat. 20:28.) He is Jesse, or 'burntx,' for, I am come to send fire on earth. (Luke 12:49.) He is Davidy, 'mighty in arm,' for, the Lord is great and powerful; (Ps. 24:8.) 'desirable,' for, He shall come, the Desire of all nations; (Hag. 2:7.) 'beautiful to behold,' according to that, Beautiful in form before the sons of men. (Ps. 45:3.)

It is for this reason [to show Christ's true humanity] that in this genealogy the Evangelist mentioned in his list even those who had shocking carnal relations that were inappropriate and outside the law. For Matthew wrote with due deliberation, "And Judah became the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar" and even more plainly "And David became the father of Solomon by Uriah's wife." These were women with whom they became united by fornication and adultery. By this means the genealogy revealed that it is our very sinful nature that Christ himself came to heal. It is that very nature which had fallen, revolted and plunged into inordinate desires. When our nature fled [from God], he took hold of it. When it dashed out and ran away in revolt, he stopped it, held onto it, enabled it to return and blocked its downward spiral. This is what the words of the apostle say in this regard: "For surely it is not with angels that he is concerned but with the descendants of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect."Christ therefore took upon himself a blood relationship to that nature which fornicated, in order to purify it. He took on that very nature that was sick, in order to heal it. He took on that nature which fell, in order to lift it up. All this occurred in a charitable, beneficial manner wholly appropriate to God. Although sinless, he became united to the flesh that is of the same essence as ours, which possesses an intelligent soul. It is with this premise that the gestation and conception from the Holy Spirit was spoken and the virgin birth occurred, the birth that knew not marriage or carnal union and that respected in an unspeakable manner the seal of virginal purity.

And Judah begat Pharez and Zarah of Tamar. Tamar was the daughter-in-law of Judah, the wife of his son Er (Gen. 38:6-30). When Er died childless, Judah married her to another of his sons, Onan. But when he, too, was cut down from among the living on account of his wickedness, Judah did not marry her to any other of his sons. But she desired to have a child of the seed of Abraham, and so she put off the garments of a widow, dressed as a harlot, came together with her father-in-law, and from him conceived twin boys. As she was giving birth to them, the first child reached its hand out from her womb, as if it would be born first, and at once the mid-wife marked the extended hand of the child with a scarlet thread so as to distinguish the firstborn. But the child drew its hand back into the womb and the other one was born first, followed by the one who had reached out its hand. So the one who was born first was named "Pharez" which means "interruption," for it had interrupted the natural order; and the child which withdrew its hand was named "Zarah." This account indicates a certain mystery. For just as Zarah first showed his hand and then withdrew it, so, too, the life in Christ appeared in those holy ones who lived before the law and circumcision. For all these were not counted as righteous by the observances of the law and the commandments, but by living the evangelic life of the Gospel. Consider Abraham who left his father and his home for God's sake and even denied the order of nature by his willingness to sacrifice Isaac. Consider Job, and Melchizedek. But when the law came, this manner of life receded. Just as in the story, Pharez was born and then Zarah came forth again, so too, when the law had been given, the evangelic life later shone forth again, marked with the scarlet thread, that is, sealed with the blood of Christ. The reason why the evangelist mentioned these two children, therefore, is that their birth revealed something mysterious. But there is another reason why he mentions Tamar, who does not appear to be praiseworthy on account of her physical relations with her father-in-law; and that was to show that Christ Who accepted all things for our sake, accepted even to have such forbears as these. It was moreover for this very reason that He was born from them, that He might sanctify them; for He came not to call the righteous, but the sinners.

Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar. Here one asks, since the Lord was not born of Zerah but of Perez, why was the former mentioned? Also, why was he expressed by name, whereas previously he said, his brothers? The answer, according to Ambrose, is that this took place in a mystery. To understand this, note the story in Gen (c. 38) that in Tamar's delivery, Zerah appeared first and the midwife tied a scarlet thread on his hand and said: (5:28) "This one came out first." Therefore, his name was called Zerah. But as he drew back his hand, the other came out. The midwife said: "What a breach you have made for yourself." But Zerah, who appeared first, signifies the Jewish people on whose hand the midwife tied the scarlet thread, i.e., circumcision, which involves a flow of blood. But as he drew back his hand, the other came out, because "a blinding has come upon part of Israel" (Rom 11:25). For thus the divided gentile people entered into the light of faith, having come from the matrix of ignorance and unbelief.

But morally, in those generations the status of our justification is designated according to the six requirements for justification: namely, faith, by Abraham, who was justified by the righteousness of faith; for elsewhere he is called the principle of faith: "The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised" (Rom 4:11). Isaac, hope, because it means laughter: "Rejoice in hope" (Rom 12:12). Jacob, charity, for he took two wives: Leah, which means labor, and Rachel, i.e., the two lives inspired by charity according to the two precepts: for the contemplative delights in God; the active is the life through which the neighbor is helped. Judah, confession, which is twofold: of faith: "Man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved" (Rom 10:10). The other confession is of sins: "Confess your sins to one another" (James 5:16). But two effects follow from this, namely, the destruction of vices, which is designated by Perez, and the origin of virtue, which is signified by Zerah. And these arise from Tamar, which means bitterness: "All my sleep has fled because of the bitterness of my soul" (Is 38:15).

Perez was the father of Hezron. Here is mentioned a list of the fathers born in Egypt or during the exodus. For just as by Perez, which means division, is signified Christ (Mt 25:32): "He will separate the sheep from the goats"; so by Hezron, which means arrow or inner court. For he is called arrow on account of the efficacy of preaching, which penetrates the hearts of the audience: "Your arrows are sharp in the heart of the king's enemies; the peoples fall under you" (Ps 45:5); but inner court on account of the breadth of charity, because it loved not only friends but enemies as well: "While we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son" (Rom 5:10); "He made intercession for the transgressors" (Is 53:12); "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Lk 23:34).

Hezron was the father of Ram. Ram means chosen or on high: "Behold my servant, and he is high above all" (Is 42:1); "He put him above every principality" (Eph 1:21).

(Vers. 4 seqq.) Naasson, however, fathered Salmon. Salmon, however, fathered Boaz by Rahab. Boaz, however, fathered Obed by Ruth. Obed, however, fathered Jesse. Jesse, however, fathered King David. David, however, king, fathered Solomon by her who had been Uriah's. Solomon, however, fathered Rehoboam. Rehoboam, however, fathered Abijah. Abijah, however, fathered Asa. Asa, however, fathered Jehoshaphat. Jehoshaphat, however, fathered Joram. This is Naasson, the prince of the tribe of Judah, as we read in Numbers (Num. I and II).

But as we believe that the names of these Fathers were given for some special reason under the providence of God, it follows, but Naasson begat Salmon. This Salmon after his father's death entered the promised land with Joshua as prince of the tribe of Judah. He took a wife of the name of Rahab. This Rahab is said to have been that Rahab the harlot of Jericho who entertained the spies of the children of Israel, and hid them safely. For Salmon being noble among the children of Israel, inasmuch as he was of the tribe of Judah, and son of the prince thereof, beheld Rahab so ennobled through her great faith, that she was worthy whom he should take to wife. Salmon is interpreted 'receive a vesselk,' perhaps as if invited in God's providence by his very name to receive Rahab a vessel of election.

Or following another interpretation, according to the abundance of grace, and the width of love. He isn Aram the chosen, according to that, Behold my Servant whom I have chosen. (Is. 42:1.) He is Aminadab, that is 'willingo,' in that He says, I will freely sacrifice to Thee. (Is. 54:6.) Also He is Naassonp, i. e. 'augury,' as He knows the past, the present, and the future; or, 'like a serpent,' according to that, Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness. (John 3:14.) He isq Salmon, i. e. 'that feeleth,'as He said, I feel that power is gone forth out of me. (Luke 8:46.)

Ram was the father of Amminadab, which means voluntarily. For it is in his person that Ps 54 (v. 6) says: "With a freewill offering I will sacrifice to you; I will give thanks to your name, O Lord, for it is good"; (Is 53:7): "He was offered, because he willed it; yet he opened not his mouth"; (Jn 6:38): "I came not to do my will but his who sent me."

Aminadab was the father of Nahshon, which means augury, or serpentine, because Christ knew not only present things but also the past and future: "All are open and laid bare to his sight" (Heb 4:13). Serpentine on account of prudence, for prudence is attributed to the serpent: "Be prudent as serpents" (Mt 10:16); "The deceived and the deceiver he knows" (Job 12:16).

Note that Nahshon lived in the time of Moses and departed with him from Egypt. He was also a chief in the tribe of Judah in the desert (Num 1:7). But note that Ex (13:18), where the text has, "The children of Israel left Egypt armed for battle," Aquila translated "prepared for battle," but the LXX text is better: "The children of Israel left Egypt in the fifth generation."

But it is said that one should count not through the tribe of Judah but through the tribe of Levi, under whose leadership the children of Israel left Egypt: "You lead your people like a flock, by the hand of Moses and Aaron" (Ps 77:20). And it is evident that there are only five generations: for Jacob was the father of Levi, Levi of Khath, Kohath of Amram, Amram of Moses and Aaron, and under Moses they left Egypt.

Note here that the tribe of Judah was multiplied more than all the other tribes, because kings, who should fight, were destined to come from it. The tribe which multiplied the least was Levi's, because it was pre-ordained to divine duties and the priesthood, for which fewer sufficed. Therefore, he desires that even by counting through the tribe of Judah the statement in Genesis (15:16) is true: "They shall come back here in the fifth generation." Therefore, Jerome says that what is said there should be understood by counting through the tribe of Levi; but what is said here, through the tribe of Judah. For Perez entered Egypt with Jacob and with Judah, his father. And it is evident that Nahshon was the fifth from Perez. Similarly, Levi entered Egypt with his father, Jacob. And therefore, the generations must be counted from Levi and not from Jacob. But it is clear that Moses was the fourth from Levi.

Nahshon was the father of Salmon. Salmon means sensible and signifies Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Morally, it should be noted here that just as in the first generation is signified the order of our justification as to the state of beginners; so in this second generation, which similarly contains five, is signified the progress of the proficients. For the first thing to follow from the fact that a man has been justified from sin is that he has zeal for souls. Therefore, it was fitting that Perez beget Hezron, which means arrow, on account of the efficacy of preaching, by which the hearts of the audience are penetrated: "He made me a polished arrow" (Is 49:2). The others are also adapted thus.

(ubi sup.) But how did Ruth who was an alien marry a man that was a Jew? and wherefore in Christ's genealogy did His Evangelist so much as mention a union, which in the eye of the law was bastard? Thus the Saviour's birth of a parentage not admitted by the law appears to us monstrous, until we attend to that declaration of the Apostle, The Law was not given for the righteous, but for the unrighteous. (1 Tim. 1:9.) For this woman who was an alien, a Moabitess, a nation with whom the Mosaic Law forbad all intermarriage, and shut them totally out of the Church, how did she enter into the Church, unless that she were holy and unstained in her life above the Law? Therefore she was exempt from this restriction of the Law, and deserved to be numbered in the Lord's lineage, chosen from the kindred of her mind, not of her body. To us she is a great example, for that in her was prefigured the entrance into the Lord's Church of all of us who are gathered out of the Gentiles.

Ruth the Moabitess fulfils the prophecy of Isaiah, Send forth, O Lord, the Lamb that shall rule over the earth, out of the rock of the desert to the mount of the daughter of Sion. (Is. 16:1.)

Seest thou that it was not for few nor small causes that he brought to our remembrance the whole history concerning Judah? For this end he hath mentioned Ruth also and Rahab, the one an alien, the other an harlot, that thou mayest learn that He came to do away with all our ills. For He hath come as a Physician, not as a Judge. Therefore in like manner as those of old took harlots for wives, even so God too espoused unto Himself the nature which had played the harlot: and this also prophets from the beginning declare to have taken place with respect to the Synagogue. But that spouse was ungrateful towards Him who had been an husband to her, whereas, the Church, when once delivered from the evils received from our fathers, continued to embrace the Bridegroom.

See, for instance, what befell Ruth, how like it is to the things which belong to us. For she was both of a strange race, and reduced to the utmost poverty, yet Boaz when he saw her neither despised her poverty nor abhorred her mean birth, as Christ having received the Church, being both an alien and in much poverty, took her to be partaker of the great blessings. But even as Ruth, if she had not before left her father, and renounced household and race, country and kindred, would not have attained unto this alliance; so the Church too, having forsaken the customs which men had received from their fathers, then, and not before, became lovely to the Bridegroom. Of this therefore the prophet discourses unto her, and saith, "Forget thy people, and thy father's house, so shall the king have pleasure in thy beauty." This Ruth did too, and because of this she became a mother of kings, even as the Church did likewise. For of her David himself sprung. So then to shame them by all these things, and to prevail on them not to be high-minded, he hath both composed the genealogy, and brought forward these women. Yes, for this last, through those who intervened, was parent to the great king, and of these David is not ashamed. For it cannot, nay, it cannot be that a man should be good or bad, obscure or glorious, either by the virtue or by the vice of his forefathers; but if one must say somewhat even paradoxical, he shines forth the more, who not being of worthy ancestors, has yet become excellent.

How Booz took to wife a Moabitess whose name was Ruth, I thought it needless to tell, seeing the Scripture concerning them is open to all. We need but say thus much, that Ruth married Booz for the reward of her faith, for that she had cast off the gods of her forefathers, and had chosen the living God. And Booz received her to wife for reward of his faith, that from such sanctified wedlock might be descended a kingly race.

This brave one is the son of Rahab, that is, of the Church; for Rahab signifies 'breadth' or 'spread out,' for because the Church of the Gentiles was called from all quarters of the earth, it is called 'breadth.'

They who look to wealth and not temper, to beauty and not faith, and require in a wife such endowments as are required in harlots, will not beget sons obedient to their parents or to God, but rebellious to both; that their children may be punishment of their ungodly wedlock. Obeth begat Jesse, that is 'refreshment,' for whoever is subject to God and his parents, begets such children as prove his 'refreshment.'

But how far wider an extent the Lord assigns to those crimes we are sure: when He defines adultery to consist even in concupiscence, "if one shall have cast an eye lustfully on," and stirred his soul with immodest commotion; when He judges murder to consist even in a word of curse or of reproach, and in every impulse of anger, and in the neglect of charity toward a brother just as John teaches, that he who hates his brother is a murderer.

Some believe Rachab to be that Rahab the harlot who received the spies of Jesus son of Nave [i.e. Joshua son of Nun]. She saved them, and was herself saved as well. He mentions her to show that just as she was a harlot, so, too, was the congregation of the nations, for they went whoring in their practices. But all those who accepted the spies of Jesus, that is, the apostles, and were convinced by their words, were saved from among the nations. And Boaz begat Obed of Ruth. Ruth was a foreigner but nevertheless she was married to Boaz (Ruth 4:13-17). So, too, the Church is from among the Gentiles. For like Ruth, these Gentiles had been foreigners and outside the covenants, yet they forsook their people, their idols, and their father, the devil. And as Ruth was wed to Boaz of the seed of Abraham, so too was the Church taken as bride by the Son of God.

And Obed begat Jesse; and Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of Uriah's wife. Again, he mentions Uriah's wife to show that no one should be ashamed of his forefathers but rather should strive by his own virtue to make even them illustrious. He also mentions Uriah's wife to show that all are acceptable to God, even those born of adultery, if only they have virtue.

Salmon was the father of Boaz by Rahab. Here are mentioned fathers born after the entry into the promised land. For Salmon was fathered in the desert and entered the promised land with Joshua; he took as his wife Rahab, a prostitute, from whom Boaz was born. Boaz means strong: "O Lord, my strength and my stronghold" (Jer 16:19). Rahab, however, means hunger or width, and signifies the Church, because beatitude is related to that hunger: "Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after justice, for they shall have their fill" (Mt 5:6). It means width, because the Church has been spread through the whole world: "Enlarge the place of your tent and let the curtains of your tents be stretched out" (Is 54:2). Likewise it means impetus, because by the impetus of preaching it converts kings and philosophers. It signifies, too, the Church by reason of the fact that Rahab placed in her window a scarlet thread, by which she was saved from the destruction of Jericho (Jos 2:21). Our window is the mouth: therefore, the thread in the window is our confession of the passion of Christ, through which the Church is freed from death. Likewise, by reason of the marriage: because just as Rahab was joined in marriage to Salmon, who was a chief in the tribe of Judah, so Christ espoused the Church to himself: "I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband" (2 Cor 11:2).

But here one asks according to the letter, since Rahab was a prostitute, how was she espoused to such a great chief, who was greater than many others? The answer is that Rahab did something great, in as much as she scorned her own people and her paternal rite and chose the worship of the God of Israel. Therefore, as if to show the greatest honor, she was given to the noblest chief.

Boaz was the father of Obed by Ruth. This is quoted from the last chapter of the Book of Ruth. Obed means serving or service; and it signifies Christ, of whom a prophet says: "You have made me serve in your sins" (Is 43:24). But Ruth signifies the Church born of the gentiles by reason of place: for she was a Moabitess. Moab means from the father: "You are from your father the devil" (Jn 8:44). And again by reason of marriage, as it says in a Gloss.

But why were these women mentioned here, since they were sinners? Jerome gives a reason touching Ruth, namely, that a prophecy be fulfilled: "Send a lamb, O Lord, to rule the earth from a rock in the desert" (Is 16:1). The rock of the desert is of evil, and Ruth the Moabitess is signified. Ambrose, however assigns another reason, saying: "It would come to pass that the Church would be composed of gentile unbelievers; and, therefore, it could blush and be embarrassed, unless they saw that even Christ was descended from sinners." Hence, in order to remove such embarrassment and confusion, they were to be listed.

But it says in Dt (25:3): "Moabites and Ammonites will not enter the Church." Therefore, since Ruth was a Moabitess, how was she received into the Church? The answer is from the Apostle to the Galatians (5:18) that those led by the Spirit are not under the law. But in a law the intention of the lawgiver is more to be considered than the words of the law. For what was the cause why the Lord forbade them to enter the Church? Because he found idolatry among them, he did not wish the just to be drawn into idolatry. Hence, when she was converted, she was no longer an idolatress and, therefore, not subject to the prohibition.

Obed was the father of Jesse. This is from the last chapter of Ruth. Jesse is taken to mean sacrifice or conflagration and signifies the one who offered himself as a victim to God in an odor of sweetness. But since he was also called Isai, as is clear in 1 Samuel in many places, why did not the evangelist use that name here? The answer is that this was done to show that in Christ was fulfilled the word of the prophet: "There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse" (Is 11:2).

(ubi sup.) But the holy David is the more excellent in this, that he confessed himself to be but man, and neglected not to wash out with the tears of repentance the sin of which he had been guilty, in so taking away Urias' wife. Herein showing us that none ought to trust in his own strength, for we have a mighty adversary whom we cannot overcome without God's aid. And you will commonly observe very heavy sins befalling to the share of illustrious men, that they may not from their other excellent virtues be thought more than men, but that you may see that as men they yield to temptation.

(De Cons. Ev. ii. 4.) Since in Matthew's genealogy is showed forth the taking on Him by Christ of our sins, therefore he descends from David to Solomon, in whose mother David had sinned. Luke ascends to David through Nathan, for through Nathan the prophet God punished David's sin; because Luke's genealogy is to show the putting away of our sins.

(Lib. Retract. ii. 16.) That is it, must be said, through a prophet of the same name, for it was not Nathan the son of David who reproved him, but a prophet of the same name.

The Evangelist has now finished the first fourteen generations, and is come to the second, which consists of royal personages, and therefore beginning with David, who was the first king in the tribe of Judah, he calls him David the king.

Besides, he does not name Bathsheba, that, by naming Urias, he may recal to memory that great wickedness which she was guilty of towards him.

Mystically, David is Christ, who overcame Golias, that is, the Devil. Urias, i. e. God is my light, is the Devil who says, I will be like the Highest. (Is. 14:14.) To Him the Church was married, when Christ on the Throne of the majesty of His Father loved her, and having made her beautiful, united her to Himself in wedlock. Or Urias is the Jewish nation who through the Law boasted of their light. From them Christ took away the Law, having taught it to speak of Himself. Bersabee is 'the well of satiety,' that is, the abundance of spiritual grace.

Let us enquire why Matthew does not mention Bathsheba by name as he does the other women. Because the others, though deserving of much blame, were yet commendable for many virtues. But Bathsheba was not only consenting in the adultery, but in the murder of her husband, hence her name is not introduced in the Lord's genealogy.

The Evangelist exposes and derides the passions of our race, its dishonors and ailments, to which the Word of God descended in his mercy. He descended to glorify them and raise them up by his charity. It in no way reflects badly upon the physician that he stoops to the level of those who are sick. Matthew could have written, "David became the father of Solomon by Bathsheba" (the name of the woman involved). In deriding, so to speak, adultery itself, he rather stated clearly, "And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah." He thus showed that Christ, who descended from such a degenerate race by generation, "took up our infirmities and bore the burden of our ills," as one of the prophets said.

Jesse was the father of David the king. David is taken to mean strong hand and fair to behold; both of which suit Christ, as is evident. For he was strong in overcoming the devil. "But when one stronger than he assails him and overcomes him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted and divides his spoil" (Lk 11:22). Also "he is the fairest of the sons of men" (Ps 45:2). But why was it that, since many of the others were kings, he is called king? The answer is that he was the first king in the tribe of Judah, from which the Lord was born. For although Saul had been king, he was from the tribe of Benjamin. The second reason is that the others reigned on account of the merits of David: "I will establish his line for ever and his throne as the days of the heavens" (Ps 89:29). The third reason is to show the fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy (23:5): "I will raise up for David a righteous branch and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land"; "Upon the throne of David and over his kingdom to establish it" (Is 9:7).

But morally in this generation the fruit of the perfect is designated, just as in other generations the fruit of beginners and proficients. For the first requirement for a perfect man is that he be brave in attacking adversities, so that he is not held back on account of some difficulty: and this is signified by Boaz, which is taken to mean brave: "They who hope in the Lord shall renew their strength, they shall mount up with wings like eagles; they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint" (Is 40:31); "Who shall find the valiant woman?" (Pr 31:10). The second is the humility of the servant, so that the greater one is, the humbler he is in all things; and this is signified by Obed, which is taken to mean incense or conflagration: "Let my prayer be directed as incense in your sight" (Ps 14:2). And from this, one arrives at the kingdom and glory, because Jesse was the father of David the king: "Who made them a kingdom and priests to our God" (Rev 5:20); "You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people" (1 Pt 2:9).

Having presented the genealogical series of the fathers which ran through the patriarchs, he now presents the series of fathers which came forth from kings. And it is divided into two parts: first are presented the kings born of Israel without a mixture of alien seed; secondly, the kings who undertook a union with foreigners at Joram was the father of Uzziah.

Here two questions arise: for Luke in recounting the generation of Christ ascends through Nathan; but Matthew proceeds in descending order from David to Christ through Solomon. Hence, there seems to be some contrariety. The answer, as has been said, is that Luke in the genealogy of Christ mentions many fathers who were not fathers of fleshly origin by propagation but according to legal adoption; but Matthew mentions no one who was not a father according to the flesh. And it is true that according to the flesh the Lord descended from David through Solomon and not through Nathan; nevertheless, according to Augustine there is no lack of mystery that Matthew goes from David through Solomon to Christ, but Luke ascends from Christ to David through Nathan. For Matthew had undertaken to describe the origin of Christ according to the flesh, in virtue of which Christ descended even unto the likeness of sinful flesh; and therefore, Matthew is correct in his genealogy's descending from David through Solomon, with whose mother David had sinned. But Luke, who intends to stress in Christ the priestly dignity, through which was expiation of sins, is correct in ascending to David through Nathan, who was a holy man. But note that according to the same Augustine in the Book of Retractions it is not supposed that this prophet Nathan who rebuked David was the same as the son he fathered, but that they were alike in name only.

The second question is why Bathsheba is not mentioned by name as were Tamar, Rahab and Ruth. The answer is that the others, although they had been sinners for a while, were later converted and repentant; but she committed the crime of adultery basely and consented to murder. Therefore, on account of the shame her name is kept silent.

But note that in Scripture sometimes the sins of the great are recorded, as David and others; and this, because the devil prostrates not only the small and lowly, but also the great; for he is our adversary. And therefore, as a warning they are mentioned, so that he who stands may not fall. Another reason is that they not think themselves more than men. For if someone were to consider only the perfection in them, he could be deceived into idolatry; but when he sees that they have fallen into sin, he no longer believes that they are superhuman.

Note, too, according to Augustine, that sometimes the literal fact is evil and the thing is very good; and sometimes the deed is good and the thing signified evil. For Uriah was a good and just man and is not reprehended for anything in Scripture; yet he signifies the devil. Bathsheba on the other hand was a sinner; yet she signifies a good thing, namely, the Church. For Uriah is taken to mean God my light and signifies the devil, who desired the light of divinity: "I will be like the Most High" (Is 14:14). Bathsheba is taken to mean seven wells or the well of a group and signifies the Church of the gentiles on account of the seven-fold grace of baptism. The devil first married her, but David, i.e., Christ, took her from him and became one with her and killed the devil. Or Bathsheba signifies the Law, through whose ways were led the people who do not want to enter the house through spiritual understanding but bring in the letters of their death, because "the letter kills" (2 Cor 3:6). But David, i.e., Christ, removed the Law from the Jews, when he taught how to understand it spiritually.

Solomon is interpreted 'peacemaker,' because having subdued all the nations round about, and made them tributary, he had a peaceful reign. Roboam is interpreted 'by a multitude of people,' for multitude is the mother of sedition; for where many are joined in a crime, that is commonly unpunishable. But a limit in numbers is the mistress of good order.

Or; 'the might of the people,' because he quickly converts the people to the faith.

Solomon was the father of Rehoboam. But just as David is taken to mean stronghanded or fair to behold, so Solomon, peaceful: and this is correct, because from the vigor of good activity arises peace of conscience: "Great peace have those who love thy law" (Ps 119:165). But it happens that from peace of conscience a man wants to arrive at the good. Hence, Solomon begot Rehoboam, which is taken to mean force, because by the force of preaching one with peace of conscience is moved to extend Christ's name, as it says of the apostles in Is (27:6): "They will come to Jacob with force, Israel shall blossom and bring forth fruits and fill the whole world with fruit." But both signify Christ, because he is peace. Also Rehoboam, who converted the people by the force of preaching.

Rehoboam was the father of Abijah, which is taken to mean God the Father, because, from the fact that a man is eager for the spiritual or bodily progress of others through works of mercy, he is made worthy of God's fatherhood, as it says below: (5:44): "Do good to those who hate you, that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven"; and in Lk (6:36): "Be merciful." This, too, befits Christ, to whom it is said: "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son" (Heb 1:5).

Abijah was the father of Asa, which is taken to mean raise up: because sometimes a man, after being made the father and superior over others, experiences an absence of confidence. Therefore, Abijah was the father of Asa, in order that a man make continual progress and raise himself always to higher things. This befits Christ, who is said to be raised up, i.e., growing: "The boy grew" (Lk 2:40). Or "raising up," because he took away the sins of the world.

(Hilar. Amast. V. et N. Test. q. 85.) Or, Ochozias, Joash, and Amasias, were excluded from the number, because their wickedness was continuous and without interval. For Solomon was suffered to hold the kingdom for his father's deserts, Roboam for his son's. But these three doing evil successively were excluded. This then is an example how a race is cut off when wickedness is shown therein in perpetual succession. And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias.

This Ezekias was he to whom, when he had no children, it was said, Set thy house in order, for thou shalt die. (Is. 38:1.) He wept, not from desire of longer life, for he knew that Solomon had thereby pleased God, that he had not asked length of days; but he wept, for he feared that God's promise should not be fulfilled, when himself, being in the line of David of whom Christ should come, was without children. And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias.

Morally; After David follows Solomon, which is interpreted, 'peaceful.' For one then becomes peaceful, when unlawful motions being composed, and being as it were already set in the everlasting rest, he serves God, and turns others to Him. Then follows Roboam, that is 'the breadth of the people.' For when there is no longer any thing to overcome within himself, it behoves a man to look abroad to others, and to draw with him the people of God to heavenly things. Next is Abias, that is, 'the Lord Father,' for these things premised, He may proclaim Himself the Son of God, and then He will be Asa, that is, 'raising up,' and will ascend to His Father from virtue to virtue: and He will become Josaphat, that is, 'judging,' for He will judge others, and will be judged of none. Thus he becomes Joram, that is, 'lofty,' as it were dwelling on high; and is made Oziah, that is, 'the strong One of the Lord,' as attributing all his strength to God, and persevering in his path. Then follows Jotham, that is, 'perfect,' for he groweth daily to greater perfection. And thus he becomes Ahaz, that is, 'embracing,' for by obedience knowledge is increased according to that, They have proclaimed the worship of the Lord, and have understood His doings. Then follows Ezekias, that is, 'the Lord is strong,' because he understands that God is strong, and so turning to His love, he becomes Manasses, 'forgetful,' because he gives up as forgotten all worldly things; and is made thereby Amon, that is, 'faithful,' for whoso despises all temporal things, defrauds no man of his goods. Thus he is made Josias, that is, 'in certain hope of the Lord's salvation;' for Josias is interpreted 'the salvation of the Lord.'

Thus the stain of the Gentile alliance being purged, the royal race is again taken up in the fourth following generation.

Joram, however, begot Oziam. Ozias, however, begot Joathan. Joathan, however, begot Achaz. Achaz, however, begot Ezechiam. Ezechias, however, begot Manassen. Manasses, however, begot Amon. Amon, however, begot Josiam. Josias, however, begot Jechoniam and his brothers in the Babylonian exile. In the fourth book of Kings (Ch. III, VIII and following), we read that Joram was begotten by Ochoziam, and after his death, Josabeth, daughter of King Joram and sister of Ochozia, took Joas, the son of her brother, and rescued him from the slaughter that was being carried out by Athalia (or Atholia). His son Amasias succeeded him to the kingdom, and after him his son Azarias, who is also called Ozias (or Ochozias). His son Joathan succeeded him. Therefore, you can see that according to the history, there were three kings in the middle whom the Evangelist omitted: for Joram did not beget Ozias, but Ochozias, and the others we mentioned. However, because it was the intent of the Evangelist to list three sets of fourteen generations in different periods of time, and Joram had married the most wicked Jezabel, his memory is removed up to the third generation, so as not to be included in the order of the holy birth.

In the fourth book of Kings we read, that Ochozias was the son of Joram. On his death, Josabeth, sister of Ochozias and daughter of Joram, took Joash, her brother's son, and preserved him from the slaughter of the royal seed by Athalias. To Joash succeeded his son Amasias; after him his son Azarias, who is called Ozias; after him his son Joatham. Thus you see according to historical truth there were three intervening kings, who are omitted by the Evangelist. Joram, moreover, begot not Ozias, but Ochozias, and the rest as we have related. But because it was the purpose of the Evangelist to make each of the three periods consist of fourteen generations, and because Joram had connected himself with Jezebel's most impious race, therefore his posterity to the third generation is omitted in tracing the lineage of the holy birth.

What the Holy Spirit testified through the Prophet, saying, that He would cut off every male from the house of Ahab, and Jezebel, that Jehu the son of Nausi fulfilled, and received the promise that his children to the fourth generation should sit on the throne of Israel. As great a blessing then as was given upon the house of Ahab, so great a curse was given on the house of Joram, because of the wicked daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, that his sons to the fourth generation should be cut out of the number of the Kings. Thus his sin descended on his posterity as it had been written, I will visit the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation. (Exod. 20:5.) Thus see how dangerous it is to marry with the seed of the ungodly.

But it may be asked, why the Evangelist says they were born in the carrying away, when they were born before the carrying away. He says this because they were born for this purpose, that they should be led captive, from the dominion of the whole nation, for their own and others' sins. And because God foreknew that they were to be carried away captive, therefore he says, they were born in the carrying away to Babylon. But of those whom the holy Evangelist places together in the Lord's genealogy, it should be known, that they were alike in good or ill fame. Judas and his brethren were notable for good, in like manner Phares and Zara, Jechonias and his brethren, were notable for evil.

Bersabee is interpreted 'the seventh well,' or 'the well of the oathc;' by which is signified the grant of baptism, in which is given the gift of the sevenfold Spirit, and the oath against the Devil is made. Christ is also Solomon, i. e. the peaceful, according to that of the Apostle, He is our peace. (Eph. 2:14.) Roboamd is, 'the breadth of the people,' according to that, Many shall come from the East and from the West.

He is also Abias, that is, 'the Lord Father,' according to that, One is your Father who is in heaven. (Mat. 23:9.) And again, Ye call me Master and Lord. (John 13:13.) He is also Asae, that is, 'lifting up,' according to that, Who taketh away the sins of the world. (John 1:29.) He is also Josaphat, that is, 'judging,' for, The Father hath committed all judgment unto the Son. (John 5:22.) He is also Joram, that is, 'lofty,' according to that, No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven. (John 3:13.) He is also Ozias, that is, 'the Lord's strength,' for The Lord is my strength and my praise. (Ps. 118:14.) He is also Jothamf, that is, 'completed,' or 'perfected,' for Christ is the end of the Law. (Rom. 10:4.) He is also Ahazg, that is, 'turning,' according to that, Be ye turned to Me. (Zech. 1:3.)

He is also Ezekias, that is, 'the strong Lord,' or, 'the Lord shall comfort;' according to that, Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world. (John 16:33.) He is also Manasses, that is, 'forgetful,' or, 'forgotten,' according to that, I will not remember your sins any more. (Ezek. 28.) He is also Aaronh, that is,' faithful,' according to that, The Lord is faithful in all His words. (Ps. 145:17.) He is also Josias, that is, 'the incense of the Lordi,' as, And being in an agony, He prayed more earnestly. (Luke 22:44.)

He is Jechoniask, that is, 'preparing,' or 'the Lord's preparation,' according to that, If I shall depart, I will also prepare a place for you. (John 14:3.)

Asa was the father of Jehoshaphat, which is taken to mean living on high, because the one appointed judge ought to live on high: "He will dwell on the heights" (Is 33:6). How this happens is told by the Apostle: "Our commonwealth is in heaven" (Phil 3:20). And this befits Christ, because "the Lord is high above all the nations."

Joram was the father of Uzziah. Here a question arises. For it says in 1 Chronicles (3:11) that Joram was the father of Ahaziah, who was the father of Joash, who was the father of Amaziah, also called Azariah. Amaziah was the father of Uzziah. Therefore, the evangelist seems to have erred twice in the genealogical series: first, because Joram was not the father of Uzziah; secondly, because he left out three generations. The answer to the first difficulty is that for one to generate another can be understood in two ways: mediately and immediately. Immediately, as the father according to the flesh immediately generates his son. In this sense, Joram did not generate Uzziah. In another way, mediately, as we are called sons of Adam; and so a son can be said to be generated by a father or grandfather, because he descended from him through a mediate generation.

There are three reasons why he left out three kings. The first is from Jerome, who says (as it is stated in Ex 20:5): "The Lord visits the sins of the fathers upon the children of the third and fourth generation of those who hate me." Now Joram married the daughter of Jezebel, named Athalia, who drew him to idolatry. Ahaziah was more given to idolatry than his father. Similarly Joram, along with the crime of idolatry, also slew Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada. Therefore, those three, as though unworthy, were excluded from the genealogy of Christ.

Chrysostom gives another reason. For the Lord (2 Kg 9) commanded Jehu, the son of Nimshi, to destroy the house of Ahab. He was diligent in executing the command, and yet he did not cease worshiping the gods, for he adored calves cast out of metal. And because he was diligent in carrying out the Lord's command by destroying Ahab's house, it was said to him that his sons to the fourth generation would sit upon the throne. Hence, just as Jehu merited the kingdom of Israel to the third or fourth generation, so oppositely, Joram, who had intercourse with pagan women and transferred the sin of the house of Israel to the house of Judah, was due to lose the name of his posterity in the genealogy of Christ to the fourth generation, having made expiation for his sin.

In Questions of the New and Old Testaments Augustine assigns another reason. For he says that some were good and they found good fathers, as Isaac and Jacob; some were evil and yet found good fathers, as Solomon was a sinner and yet had David, a just and holy man, as his father. Some were not good and did not have good fathers, as those three, as is clear from the foregoing. Joram sinned and his sin continued to Uzziah, who did almost no evil, except that he burned incense; but continuation in sin is the cause or reason of destruction. Therefore, those three, who persisted in the sin of idolatry, are excluded from the genealogy of Christ.

A mystical reason is assigned on account of the three uses of fourteen by which Matthew intends to describe the genealogy of Christ. Uzziah is taken to mean the Lord's robust one and it signifies Christ about whom it says in Ps 118 (v. 14): "The Lord is my strength and my song; he has become my salvation." Mystically, Joram was the father of Uzziah, because those who live in high places ought to act bravely. Note that Isaiah prophesied under this Uzziah, as is clear from Is (c. 13). For God removed prophecy and teaching on account of the sins of princes and kings; hence, under a good king prophecy began once more.

Or, 'embracing,' because None knoweth the Father but the Son. (Matt. 11:27.)

Uzziah was the father of Jotham, which is taken to mean perfect, and it signifies Christ, through whom the Church grows perfect daily. And so it was that Uzziah was the father of Jotham, because those who act bravely make continual progress: "They will go from virtue to virtue" (Ps 84:8).

Jotham was the father of Ahaz, which is taken to mean comprehending, because by continuous progress in the virtues a man comes to the knowledge of God: "Through your precepts I get understanding; therefore I hate every false way" (Ps 119:104); "They declared God's works and have understood what he has wrought" (Ps 64:9). Therefore, Paul says: "I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own" (Phil 3:12). And it befits Christ, who alone comprehends the godhead perfectly: "No one knows the Father, but the Son" (Lk 10:22).

Ahaz was the father of Hezekiah, i.e., the strong lord, because he had such strength from the Lord: "The Lord is my rock and my fortress" (2 Sam 22:2). And this befits Christ, who is strong in battle.

And that incense signifies prayer, the Psalmist witnesses, saying, Let my prayer come up as incense before Thee. (Ps. 141:2.) Or, 'The salvation of the Lord,' according to that, My salvation is for ever. (Is. 55.)

Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh and it means forgetful, because one who knows God so well forgets temporal things: "Forget your people and your father's house" (Ps 45:10); "God has made me forget all my hardship" (Gen 41:51). And this befits Christ of whom it says: "If a wicked man turns away from all his sins, I will not remember the sins he has committed" (Ez 18:21).

Manasseh was the father of Amon, i.e., faithful and nourishing, because he is truly faithful who spurns temporal things. For, according to Gregory, fraud is the daughter of greed; therefore, one who perfectly scorns temporal things is no longer worried about unbelief. Hence, it is well said that Manasseh was the father of Amon. For this is taken to mean nourishing, because one who spurns temporal things should mercifully use them to nourish the poor: "If you would be perfect, go and sell all you have": behold the scorn; "and give to the poor": behold the nourishment (Mt 19:21). This befits Christ, who is truly faithful: "It was I who taught Ephraim to walk, I took him up in my arms; but they did not know that I healed them" (Hos 11:3); "How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen her brood under her wings and you would not" (Mt 23:37).

Amon was the father of Josiah, which is taken to mean the Lord's salvation, or incense, because man obtains his salvation by forgetting temporal things, which he gives away and distributes. Or this incense befits Christ: "In the sight of their fathers he wrought marvels" (Ps 78:12); "He gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God" (Eph 5:2).

(In Luc. cap. 2.) That there were two kings of the name of Joakim, is clear from the Book of Kings. And Joakim slept with his fathers, and Joachin his son reigned, in his stead. (2 Kings 24:6.) This son is the same whom Jeremiah calls Jeconias. And rightly did St. Matthew purpose to differ from the Prophet, because he sought to show therein the great abundance of the Lord's mercies. For the Lord did not seek among men nobility of race, but suitably chose to be born of captives and of sinners, as He came to preach remission of sin to the captives. The Evangelist therefore did not conceal either of these; but rather showed them both, inasmuch as both were called Jeconias.

Verse 1. "In the third year of the reign of Joacim (Jehoiakim) king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it." Jehoiakim, son of the Josiah in whose thirteenth regnal year Jeremiah began to prophesy, and under whom the woman Hulda prophesied, was the same man as was called by the other name of Eliakim, and reigned over the tribes of Judah and Jerusalem eleven years. His son Jehoiachin surnamed Jeconiah, followed him in the kingship, and on the tenth day of the third month of his reign he was taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar's generals and brought to Babylon. In his place his paternal uncle Zedekiah, a son of Josiah, was appointed king, and in his eleventh year Jerusalem was captured and destroyed. Let no one therefore imagine that the Jehoiakim in the beginning of Daniel is the same person as the one who is spelled Jehoiachin in the commencement of Ezekiel. For the latter has "-chin" as its final syllable, whereas the former has "-kim." And it is for this reason that in the Gospel according to Matthew there seems to be a generation missing, because the second group of fourteen, extending to the time of Jehoiakim, ends with a son of Josiah, and the third group begins with Jehoiachin, son of Jehoiakim. Being ignorant of this factor, Porphyry formulated a slander against the Church which only revealed his own ignorance, as he tried to prove the evangelist Matthew guilty of error.

(Verse 12 and following) And after the Babylonian exile, Jechonias fathered Salathiel. Salathiel fathered Zorobabel. Zorobabel fathered Abiud. Abiud fathered Eliacim. Eliacim fathered Azor. Azor fathered Sadoc. Sadoc fathered Achim. Achim fathered Eliud. Eliud fathered Eleazar. Eleazar fathered Matthan. Matthan fathered Jacob. If we were to place Jechonias at the end of the first fourteen generations, in the next there would not be fourteen but thirteen. Therefore, let us know that Jeconiah is the same person as Joachim, the former being the father and the latter being the son; the former is written with 'c' and 'm', while the latter is written with 'ch' and 'n'. This confusion arose due to errors of the scribes and the passage of time among both the Greeks and the Latins.

Otherwise, we may consider the first Jeconias to be the same as Joakim, and the second to be the son not the father, the one being spelt with k and m, the second by ch and n. This distinction has been confounded both by Greeks and Latins, by the fault of writers and the lapse of time.

But the order in the Book of Kings (2 Kings 23.) is different, thus namely; Josias begot Eliakim, afterwards called Joakim; Joakim begot Jechonias. But Joakim is not reckoned among the Kings in the genealogy, because God's people had not set him on the throne, but Pharaoh by his might. For if it were just that only for their intermixture with the race of Ahab, three kings should be shut out of the number in the genealogy, was it not just that Joakim should be likewise shut out, whom Pharaoh had set up as king by hostile force? And thus Jechonias, who is the son of Joakim, and the grandson of Josiah, is reckoned among the kings as the son of Josiah, in place of his father who is omitted.

The "deportation to Babylon" means the captivity which they later endured when they were all led away into Babylon. For the Babylonians campaigned against them on another occasion, causing less affliction. But on this occasion, the Babylonians carried them all away from their homeland.

Josiah was the father of Jechoniah and his brothers. This is taken to mean the Lord's preparation or the resurrection, and it signifies Christ, who prepared a place for us (Jn 14) and who says: "I am the resurrection and the life" (Jn 11:22). And through this we come to the resurrection.

Here arise three textual questions: first, how Josiah is said to be the father of Jechoniah, whereas he begot not him but his father, Jehoiakim. There are two answers to this. According to Chrysostom, with whom Augustine agrees, the name of Jehoiakim is entirely omitted, because he reigned not by God's decree but by the power of Pharaoh, who established him in the kingdom after imprisoning his brother, Jotham, who had reigned before him. In regard to this, note the history in 2 Kings (c. 22) and 2 Chronicles (c. 36). Josiah had three sons, Jotham, Jehoahaz (also called Eliakim) and Zedekiah. For if, as Augustine says, those three kings are removed from the genealogy, because they were guilty of idolatry; how much more the one who was installed not by God or a prophet but by a pagan? The opinion is Jerome's but not the words, as he wishes and Ambrose concurs, that both were called Jehoiakim, i.e., the one mentioned at the end of the second fourteen and at the beginning of the third; and both Jechoniah and Jehoiakim are the same. Hence, it should be noted that Josiah had three sons: Jehoiakim, also called Eliakim, Jotham and Zedekiah. But when Josiah was dead, Jotham reigned, although he was the second son. After his capture and imprisonment by Pharaoh, king of Egypt, Jehoiakim was made king with the obligation of paying tribute. After Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, overcame the king of Egypt, he besieged Jerusalem and took Jehoiakim, whom he sent to Jerusalem under tribute. Later, when Jehoiakim, trusting in the king of Egypt's help, attempted to rebel against the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar went up to Jerusalem, captured and slew him, and put Jehoiakim's son in his place and called him Jehoiakim, the same name as his father. After this action Nebuchadnezzar feared that he might recall his father's death and form an alliance with the king of Egypt. So he returned to Jerusalem, attacked it, and this Jehoiakim, the son of the other Jehoiakim, surrendered himself and his wife and sons on the advice of Jeremiah to king Nebuchadnezzar; and they are properly said to have migrated in the transmigration. Nebuchadnezzar, however, appointed the father's brother, Zedekiah, king in his place and brought Jehoiakim to Babylon. He is the one about whom it is said later: and after the departure to Babylon.

But why was he called Jechoniah, when his name was Jehoiakim? The answer is that the name was given him by the prophet Jeremiah (22:24): "Thus says the Lord: though Coniah, the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, wore the signet ring on my right hand, yet I would tear you off." And in v. 28: "Is this man Coniah a despised broken pot?" And, therefore, the evangelist preferred to use that name, to show that he agrees with the prophet.

The second question is why it says Jechoniah and his brothers. For there were many kings who had brothers, but no mention is made of them. The answer is, according to Ambrose, that wherever mention is made of brothers, as when it says, "Judah and his brothers," and "Perez and Zerah by Tamar," it signifies that they were equal in holiness or malice. But those three were all evil. Or it can be said that it was because each of those brothers reigned, as is clear from what has been said. This was not true of the brothers of other kings.

The third question concerns the phrase, in the transmigration. It seems to be false, because Josiah never transmigrated. The answer is that this must be taken according to God's foreknowledge, according to which it was ordained that those whom he then generated would transmigrate. Or it can be said that in the transmigration is the same as near the transmigration, or when it was now imminent.

Of whom Jeremiah speaks. Write this man dethroned; for there shall not spring of his seed one sitting on the throne of David. (Jer. 22:30.) How is this said of the Prophet, that none of the seed of Jeconias should reign? For if Christ reigned, and Christ was of the seed of Jeconiah, then has the Prophet spoken falsely. But it is not there declared that there shall be none of the seed of Jeconiah, and so Christ is of his seed; and that Christ did reign, is not in contradiction to the prophecy; for He did not reign with worldly honours, as He said, My kingdom is not of this world. (John 18:36.)

But this seems to contradict the genealogy which is read in Chronicles (1 Chron. 3:17.). For there it is said, that Jeconias begot Salathiel and Phadaias, and Phadaias begot Zorobabel, and Zorobabel Mosollah, Ananias, and Salomith their sister. But we know that many parts of the Chronicles have been corrupted by time, and error of transcribers. Hence come many and controverted questions of genealogies which the Apostle bids us avoid (1 Tim. 1:4.). Or it may be said, that Salathiel and Phadaias are the same man under two different names. Or that Salathiel and Phadaias were brothers, and both had sons of the same name, and that the writer of the history followed the genealogy of Zorobabel, the son of Salathiel. From Abiud down to Joseph, no history is found in the Chronicles; but we read that the Hebrews had many other annals, which were called the Words of the Days, of which much was burned by Herod, who was a foreigner, in order to confound the descent of the royal line. And perhaps Joseph had read in them the names of his ancestors, or knew them from some other source. And thus the Evangelist could learn the succession of this genealogy. It should be noted, that the first Jeconiah is called the resurrection of the Lord, the second, the preparation of the Lord. Both are very applicable to the Lord Christ, who declares, I am the resurrection, and the life; (John 11:25.) and, I go to prepare a place for you. (John 14:2.) Salathiel, i. e. 'the Lord is my petition,' is suitable to Him who said, Holy Father, keep them whom Thou hast given Me. (John 17:11.)

(ubi sup.) After the carrying away, he sets Jeconiah again, as now become a private person.

Concerning Salathiell, we have read nothing either good or bad, but we suppose him to have been a holy man, and in the captivity to have constantly besought God in behalf of afflicted Israel, and that hence he was named Salathiel, 'the petition of Godm.' Salathiel begot Zorobabel, which is interpreted, 'flowing postponed,' or, 'of the confusion,' or here, 'the doctor of Babylonn.' I have read, but know not whether it be true, that both the priestly line and the royal line were united in Zorobabel; and that it was through him that the children of Israel returned into their own country. For that in a disputation held between three, of whom Zorobabel was one, each defending his own opinion, Zorobabel's sentence, that Truth was the strongest thing, prevailed; and that for this Darius granted him that the children of Israel should return to their country; and therefore after this providence of God, he was rightly called Zorobabel, 'the doctor of Babylon.' For what doctrine greater than to show that Truth is the mistress of all things?

But let us see what moral signification these names contain. After Jeconias, which means 'the preparation of the Lord,' follows Salathiel, i. e. 'God is my petition,' for he who is rightly prepared, prays not but of God. Again, he becomes Zorobabel, 'the master of Babylon,' that is, of the men of the earth, whom he makes to know concerning God, that He is their Father, which is signified in Abiud. Then that people rise again from their vices, whence follows Eliacim, 'the resurrection;' and thence rise to good works, which is Azor, and becomes Sadoch, i. e. 'righteous;' and then they are taught the love of their neighbour. He is my brother, which is signified in Achim; and through love to God he says of Him, 'My God,' which Eliud signifies. Then follows Eleazar, i. e. 'God is my helper;' he recognizes God as his helper. But whereto he tends is shown in Matthan, which is interpreted 'gift,' or 'giving;' for he looks to God as his benefactor; and as he wrestled with and overcame his vices in the beginning, so he does in the end of life, which belongs to Jacob, and thus he reaches Joseph, that is, 'The increase of virtues.'

He is also Zorobabel, that is, 'the master of confusion,' according to that, Your Master eateth with publicans and sinners. (Matt. 9:11.)

Here is given the third series of fourteen in the genealogy of Christ, and it lists private persons. Concerning Jechoniah, as was indicated above, there were two opinions: for Jerome and Ambrose think that the one was placed at the end of the first series of fourteen and went by the name of Jehoiakim; the other is the one named Jehoiachim. Augustine's opinion has been given above. For the transmigration of the children of Israel signifies the transfer of the faith to the gentiles: "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you" (Acts 13:46). In that transmigration was made, as it were, a certain reflection of the Jews upon the gentiles. Hence, someone is, as it were, constituted a corner; and therefore, Jechoniah signifies Christ, who was made the corner-stone, uniting in himself both the Jewish people and the gentiles: "The stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner" (Ps 118:22).

In Jeremiah (22:30) it says: "Write this man, Zedekiah, down as childless, a man who shall not succeed in his days; for none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David." How then is Christ said to have descended from David through Zedekiah, since it is written of Christ: "Upon the throne of David and over his kingdom to sit" (Is 9:7)? The answer is that, according to Ambrose, when Christ is said to sit upon the throne, it means a spiritual, not a material, throne, except in as much as a spiritual kingdom is signified by David's material kingdom.

Shealtiel was the father of Zerubbabel. But 1 Ch (c. 3) says that the sons of Jechoniah were Shealtiel, Malchiram, Pedaiah, whose sons were Zerubbabel and Shimei. No mention is made of Abiud. Therefore, it seems that the evangelist erred in saying that Shealtiel was the father of Zerubbabel and that Zerubbabel was the father of Abiud. Three answers are given to this in a Gloss. One answer is that in the book of Chronicles many things are marred by the mistakes of writers, especially matters pertaining to numbers and names. On account of these errors, the Apostle forbids the converts to occupy themselves with those genealogies, which promote speculation rather than divine training (1 Tim 4). Another answer is that Shealtiel had two names: for he was called Shealtiel and Caphadar; and therefore the book of Chronicles says that Zerubbabel is the son of Caphadara, but the evangelist that he is the son of Shealtiel. Therefore, there is no contrariety. A third answer is the truer one, namely, that Shealtiel and Caphadara were brothers, as it says in the book of Chronicles. Caphadara fathered a son whom he called by the same name, Zerubbabel, who was the father of Abiud. It should be noted that the book of Chronicles narrates the genealogy of Caphadara, but the evangelist that of Shealtiel, because Christ was to be born from him.

Note, too, that of those who were from Abiud to Joseph, no mention is made in the books of Sacred Scripture, but they were taken from the Hebrew people's annals, most of which Herod burned, in order to conceal the ignobility of his own ancestors. The text is evident; let us take up the mystical sense. Note, therefore, that in this section of the genealogy three orders are mentioned. The first is the order of teachers and contains four generations; for preparation is required before prayer: "Before prayer prepare your soul" (Sir 18:23) and therefore, after Jechoniah, which is taken to mean the Lord's preparation, comes Shealtiel, which means my petition; and it designates Christ, who in all things "is heard for his reverence" (Heb 5:7). But the prayer should come before teaching: "Pray that utterance may be given to me in opening my mouth" (Eph 6:19). And therefore, Shealtiel follows Zerubbabel, which means teacher of Babel, i.e., of confusion; because by the teaching and preaching of the apostles the gentiles were recalled to the true God, to the confusion of idolatry. And this especially befits Christ, who says: "You call me master and Lord, and you say well" (Jn 13:13).

He is Abiud, that is, 'He is my Father,' according to that, I and the Father are One. (John 10:30.) He is also Eliacimo, that is, 'God the Reviver,' according to that, I will revive him again in the last day. (John 6:54.) He is also Azor, that is, 'aided,' according to that, He who sent Me is with Me. (John 8:29.)

By teaching and preaching, however, a man acquires the dignity of a father; hence, those who give spiritual instruction are called father: "For although you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers" (1 Cor 4:15). And therefore there follows, Zerubbabel was the father of Abiud, which is interpreted as my father, and this befits Christ: "He shall cry to me, 'You are my father'" (Ps 89:26).

Abiud was the father of Eliakim. Here is designated the order of beginners or hearers. But the first effect which preaching makes in the hearer and which the preacher should intend is that he rise from vices to virtues, according to Eph (5:4): "Awake, O sleeper." And therefore, Abiud was the father of Eliakim, which is interpreted resurrection, and befits Christ, who says in Jn (11:26): "Everyone who believes in me has everlasting life." The one rising cannot reach the state of righteousness except by God's help, as it says in Ps 121 (v. 2): "My help is from the Lord." And therefore it follows: Eliakim was the father of Azor, which is interpreted helped. And this befits Christ, of whom it says in Ps 27 (v. 9): "Be my helper, O Lord."

He is also Sadoch, that is, 'the just,' or, 'the justified,' according to that, He was delivered, the just for the unjust. (1 Pet. 3:18.) He is also Achim, that is, 'my brother is He,' according to that, Whoso doeth the will of My Father, he is My brother. (Matt. 12:50.) He is also Eliud, that is, 'He is my God,' according to that, My Lord, and my God. (John 20:28.)

By means of this help one reaches righteousness; hence, Azor was the father of Zadok, which means just: "It is the justice of God for salvation to everyone who has faith" (Rom 1:22). The consummation or end of righteousness is charity: "The end of righteousness is Christ, the end of the precept is charity" (1 Tim 1:5). There are only two precepts, namely, the love of God and of neighbor: "And this commandment we have from God, that he who loves God shall also love his brother" (1 Jn 4:21). And therefore, Zadok follows Achim; and Achim Eliud. Achim means brother; hence, it signifies love of neighbor: "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity" (Ps 133:1). This befits Christ, who is our flesh and brother. And because love of neighbor cannot exist without love of God, it follows Eliud was the father of Achim. Eliud means my God: "I will love you, O Lord" (Ps 18:2). And this befits Christ: "You are my God" (Ps 34:15).

He is also Eleazar, i. e. 'God is my helper,' as in the seventeenth Psalm, My God, my helper. He is also Mathan, that is, 'giving,' or, 'given,' for, He gave gifts for men; (Eph. 4:8.) and, God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son. (John 3:16.)

He is also Jacob, 'that supplanteth,' for not only hath He supplanted the Devil, but hath given His power to His faithful people; as, Behold I have given you power to tread upon serpents. (Luke 10:19.)

Achim was the father of Eleazar. Here is designated the order of proficients. But one cannot make progress without God's help; hence, the first thing required for making progress is divine help. Therefore, Eliud is rightly followed by Eleazar, which means God, my helper: "Blessed is the man whose help is from you" (Ps 88:6). But because God can help towards salvation in many ways, as by removing obstacles and by giving occasions, the strongest help is by the gift of grace: "By the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor 15:10). And therefore, Eleazar, i.e., the help of God, is followed by Matthan, i.e., gift, namely, of divine grace. And this befits Christ, who is also the giver: "God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son" (Jn 3:16): "He gave gifts to men" (Eph 4:8). But because man could so rely on the gift of grace, that he would become negligent by not cooperating with grace through his free will, there follows Jacob, which means wrestler. Therefore 1 Cor (15:10) says: "By the grace of God I am what I am." and then, "and his grace in me has not been void"; "We urge you not to receive the grace of God in vain" (2 Cor 6:1). Now follows Joseph, i.e., increase, because by grace and the effort of free will a man reaches increase: "The path of the righteous is like the light of dawn, which shines brighter and brighter until full day" (Pr 4:18). Hence, Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary.

Matthew relates the human lineage of Christ in this way: After recounting the fathers from Abraham, he continues to Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom Jesus was born. It is not fitting to think of Joseph apart from his marriage to Mary, who bore Christ as a virgin and not from intercourse with him. For by his example an incomparable commendation is made to faithful married persons of the principle that even when by common consent they maintain their continence, the marital relation can still remain steadfast and still be rightly called one of wedlock, not by virtue of physical intercourse but by the heart's affection. This is especially so because it was possible for a son to be born to them without bodily embrace, which is intended within the purpose of procreation. Furthermore, Joseph should not have been denied being called Christ's father on the basis that he did not beget him through intercourse. For if he had adopted a child from another, he would have rightly been the father of one who was not even born from his own wife.Indeed, Christ was even considered by some to be the son of Joseph, just as if he had been simply born of his flesh. But this was believed by those who did not know of Mary's virginity. Luke says, "Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph." Instead of naming Mary his only parent, he had not the slightest hesitation in also speaking of both parties as his parents when he says, "And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was upon him. Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover." Lest any imagine that by the "parents" here was meant only Mary and her blood relations, we do well to recall that preceding word of Luke: "And his father and mother marveled at what was said about him."

Since he thus related that Christ was born from Mary as a virgin and not as a result of intercourse with Joseph, for what reason does Matthew call him his father, if not because we understand Joseph to be truly the husband of Mary, not through intercourse of the flesh but in virtue of the genuine spiritual union of marriage?… All this suggests that Luke's phrase, "as was supposed," was inserted with a view of correcting those of the opinion that he was born from Joseph in the same way that others are born.

(De Cons. Evang. ii. 2.) He is more properly called his son, by whom he was adopted, than had he been said to have been begotten of him of whose flesh he was not born. Wherefore Matthew, in saying Abraham begot Isaac, and continuing the same phrase throughout down to Jacob begot Joseph, sufficiently declares that he gives the father according to the order of nature, so as that we must hold Joseph to have been begotten, not adopted, by Jacob. Though even if Luke had used the word begotten, we need not have thought it any serious objection; for it is not absurd to say of an adopted son that he is begotten, not after the flesh, but by affection.

(De Cons. Evang. ii. 4.) And suitably does Luke, who relates Christ's ancestry not in the opening of his Gospel, but at his baptism, follow the line of adoption, as thus more clearly pointing Him out as the Priest that should make atonement for sin. For by adoption we are made the sons of God, by believing in the Son of God. But by the descent according to the flesh which Matthew follows, we rather see that the Son of God was for us made man. Luke sufficiently shows that he called Joseph the son of Heli, because he was adopted by Heli, by his calling Adam the son of God, which he was by grace, as he was set in Paradise, though he lost it afterwards by sinning.

(De Hæres. ii.) This is said against Valentinus, who taught that Christ took nothing of the Virgin Mary, but passed through her as through a channel or pipe.

Wherefore it pleased Him to take flesh of the womb of a woman, is known in His own secret counsels; whether that He might confer honour on both sexes alike, by taking the form of a man, and being born of a woman, or from some other reason which I would not hastily pronounce on.

(De Cons. Evang. ii. 1.) It was not lawful that he should think to separate himself from Mary for this, that she brought forth Christ as yet a Virgin. And herein may the faithful gather, that if they be married, and preserve strict continence on both sides, yet may their wedlock hold with union of love only, without carnal; for here they see that it is possible that a son be born without carnal embrace.

(De Nupt. et Concup. i. 11.) In Christ's parents was accomplished every good benefit of marriage, fidelity, progeny, and a sacrament. The progeny we see in the Lord Himself; fidelity, for there was no adultery; sacrament, for there was no divorce.

(ubi sup.) Also, the line of descent ought to be brought down to Joseph, that in wedlock no wrong might be done to the male sex, as the more worthy, provided only nothing was taken away from the truth; because Mary was of the seed of David.

(Id. non occ.) Hence then we believe that Mary was in the line of David; namely, because we believe the Scripture which affirms two things, both that Christ was of the seed of David according to the flesh, and that He should be conceived of Mary not by knowledge of man, but as yet a virgin.

Herein we must beware of the error of Nestorius, who thus speaks; "When Divine Scripture is to speak either of the birth of Christ which is of the Virgin Mary, or His death, it is never seen to put God, but either, Christ, or Son, or Lord; since these three are significative of the two natures, sometimes of this, sometimes of that, and sometimes of both this and that together. And here is a testimony to this, Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. For God the Word needed not a second birth of a woman."

(Hist. Eccles. 1.7.) For Matthan and Melchi at different periods had each a son by one and the same wife Jesca. Matthan, who traced through Solomon, first had her, and died leaving one son, Jacob by name. As the Law forbade not a widow, either dismissed from her husband, or after the death of her husband, to be married to another, so Melchi, who traced through Matthan, being of the same tribe but of another race, took this widow to his wife, and begat Heli his son. Thus shall we find Jacob and Heli, though of a different race, yet by the same mother, to have been brethren. One of whom, namely Jacob, after Heli his brother was deceased without issue, married his wife, and begat on her the third, Joseph, by nature indeed and reason his own son; whereupon also it is written, And Jacob begat Joseph. But by the Law, he was the son of Heli; for Jacob, being his brother, raised up seed to him. Thus the genealogy, both as recited by Matthew, and by Luke, stands right and true; Matthew saying, And Jacob begot Joseph; Luke saying, Which was the son, as it was supposed, (for he adds this withal,) of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Melchi. Nor could he have more significantly or properly expressed that way of generation according to the Law, which was made by a certain adoption that had respect to the dead, carefully leaving out the word begetting throughout even to the end.

(ubi sup.) Neither does this lack good authority; nor has it been suddenly devised by us for this purpose. For the kinsmen of our Saviour according to the flesh, either out of desire to show forth this their so great nobility of stock, or simply for the truth's sake, have delivered it unto us.

(De Eccles. Dog. 2.) The Son of God was born of human flesh, that is of Mary, and not by man after the way of nature, as Ebion says; and accordingly it is significantly added, Of her Jesus was born.

In the last place, after all the patriarchs, he sets down Joseph the husband of Mary, for whose sake all the rest are introduced, saying, But Jacob begot Joseph.

(Quæst. Nov. et Vet. Test. q. 49.) What God conveyed by the anointing of oil to those who were anointed to be kings, this the Holy Spirit conveyed upon the man Christ, adding thereto the expiation; wherefore when born He was called Christ; and thus it proceeds, who is called Christ.

(Ver. 16) But Jacob begot Joseph. Here Julianus Augustus has presented to us the disagreement of the Evangelists, why the evangelist Matthew called Joseph the son of Jacob, and Luke called him the son of Heli; not understanding the custom of the Scriptures, that one is according to nature, the other according to the Law his father. For we know this by the command of God given through Moses, that if a brother or relative without children dies, another should take his wife to raise up offspring for his brother or relative (Deut. II). Both Africanus, a historian of the time, and Eusebius of Caesarea extensively debated in their books the discrepancies in the Gospels.

This passage is objected to us by the Emperor Julian in his Discrepancy of the Evangelists. Matthew calls Joseph the son of Jacob, Luke makes him the son of Heli. He did not know the Scripture manner, one was his father by nature, the other by law. For we know that God commanded by Moses, that if a brother or near kinsman died without children, another should take his wife, to raise up seed to his brother or kinsman. (Deut. 25.) But of this matter Africanus the chronologistp, and Eusebius of Cæsarca, have disputed more fully.

When you hear this word husband, do not straight bethink you of wedlock, but remember the Scripture manner, which calls persons only betrothed husband and wife.

The attentive reader may ask, Seeing Joseph was not the father of the Lord and Saviour, how does his genealogy traced down to him in order pertain to the Lord? We will answer, first, that it is not the practice of Scripture to follow the female line in its genealogies; secondly, that Joseph and Mary were of the same tribe, and that he was thence compelled to take her to wife as a kinsman, and they were enrolled together at Bethlehem, as being come of one stock.

Having then mentioned all His forefathers, and ending with Joseph, he did not stop at this, but added, "Joseph the husband of Mary;" intimating that it was for her sake he traced his genealogy also. Then, lest when thou hast heard of the "husband of Mary," thou shouldest suppose that Christ was born after the common law of nature, mark, how he sets it right by that which follows. "Thou hast heard," saith he, "of an husband, thou hast heard of a mother, thou hast heard a name assigned to the child, therefore hear the manner too of the birth. "The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise." "Of what kind of birth art thou telling me, I pray thee, since thou hast already mentioned His ancestors?" "I still wish to tell thee the manner also of His birth." Seest thou, how he wakens up the hearer? For as though he were about to speak of something unusual, he promises to tell also the manner thereof.

And observe a most admirable order in the things he hath mentioned. For he did not proceed directly to the birth, but puts us in mind first, how many generations he was from Abraham, how many from David, and from the captivity of Babylon; and thus he sets the careful hearer upon considering the times, to show that this is the Christ who was preached by the prophets. For when thou hast numbered the generations, and hast learnt by the time that this is He, thou wilt readily receive likewise the miracle which took place in His birth. Thus, being about to tell of a certain great thing, His birth of a virgin, he first shadows over the statement, until he hath numbered the generations, by speaking of "an husband of Mary;" or rather he doth even put in short space the narration of the birth itself, and then proceeds to number also the years, reminding the hearer, that this is He, of whom the patriarch Jacob had said, He should then at length come, when the Jewish rulers had come to an end; of whom the prophet Daniel had proclaimed beforehand, that He should come after those many weeks. And if any one, counting the years spoken of to Daniel by the angel in a number of weeks, would trace down the time from the building of the city to His birth, by reckoning he will perceive the one to agree with the other.

But let us see what moral signification these names contain. After Jeconias, which means 'the preparation of the Lord,' follows Salathiel, i. e. 'God is my petition,' for he who is rightly prepared, prays not but of God. Again, he becomes Zorobabel, 'the master of Babylon,' that is, of the men of the earth, whom he makes to know concerning God, that He is their Father, which is signified in Abiud. Then that people rise again from their vices, whence follows Eliacim, 'the resurrection;' and thence rise to good works, which is Azor, and becomes Sadoch, i. e. 'righteous;' and then they are taught the love of their neighbour. He is my brother, which is signified in Achim; and through love to God he says of Him, 'My God,' which Eliud signifies. Then follows Eleazar, i. e. 'God is my helper;' he recognizes God as his helper. But whereto he tends is shown in Matthan, which is interpreted 'gift,' or 'giving;' for he looks to God as his benefactor; and as he wrestled with and overcame his vices in the beginning, so he does in the end of life, which belongs to Jacob, and thus he reaches Joseph, that is, 'The increase of virtues.'

He is also Joseph, that is, 'adding,' according to that, I came that they might have life, and that they might have it abundantly. (John 10:10.)

But to what shifts you resort, in your attempt to rob the syllable ex (of) of its proper force as a preposition, and to substitute another for it in a sense not found throughout the Holy Scriptures! You say that He was born through a virgin, not of a virgin, and in a womb, not of a womb, because the angel in the dream said to Joseph, "That which is born in her" (not of her) "is of the Holy Ghost." But the fact is, if he had meant "of her," he must have said "in her; "for that which was of her, was also in her. The angel's expression, therefore, "in her," has precisely the same meaning as the phrase "of her." It is, however, a fortunate circumstance that Matthew also, when tracing down the Lord's descent from Abraham to Mary, says, "Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Christ." But Paul, too, silences these critics when he says, "God sent forth His Son, made of a woman." Does he mean through a woman, or in a woman? Nay more, for the sake of greater emphasis, he uses the word "made" rather than born, although the use of the latter expression would have been simpler. But by saying "made," he not only confirmed the statement, "The Word was made flesh," but he also asserted the reality of the flesh which was made of a virgin.

Why does he give the genealogy of Joseph and not of Mary, the Theotokos? What participation did Joseph have in that seedless birth giving? Surely Joseph was not the true father of Jesus, so that Matthew could give Christ's genealogy through Joseph? Listen then: Joseph truly had no share in the birth of Christ; and therefore the genealogy of the Theotokos ought to have been given. But as it was not lawful to reckon ancestry through the mother, he did not give the genealogy of the Virgin. And yet, by giving the genealogy of Joseph, Matthew gave her genealogy as well. For it was the law that a woman was not to be taken as wife by a man who was of a different tribe and who was not of her father's lineage (Num. 36:8-9). This being the law, it is obvious that Joseph's genealogy includes that of the Theotokos, for she was of the same tribe and the same lineage. If she were not, she could not have been betrothed to him. So the evangelist both kept the law which forbade the reckoning of ancestry through the mother, and at the same time provided the genealogy of the Theotokos by giving the genealogy of Joseph. He calls Joseph "the husband of Mary," according to the common practice. For we are accustomed to call the man who is betrothed the "husband" of her who is betrothed, even before the marriage has taken place.

But two questions arise here. The first concerns the contrariety which seems to exist between Luke and Matthew: for Luke says that Joseph was from Eli, who was from Matthat; but Matthew says that he was from Jacob. Therefore, there seems to be contrariety between them. The answer is that the two were from the same stock but not from the same family, namely Matthan and Matthat. Matthan married Hesta, from whom Jacob was born. But when Matthan died, because the Law did not forbid a widow to marry, she married his brother Matthat, who begot Eli through her. Hence, Jacob and Eli were brothers from the same mother but not from the same father. Eli took a wife and died without children; hence, Jacob, to raise up seed to his brother, took the same wife and begot Joseph. Consequently, Joseph was Jacob's son according to the flesh, but Eli's by adoption. Therefore, Matthew, who mentions only fathers according to the flesh in his genealogy, says that Joseph was the son of Jacob; but Luke, who mentions many fathers not according to the flesh, calls him the son of Eli. The reason for this diversity has been explained above.

But it should be noted that when a brother took the wife of his brother, in order to restore his name, it should not be supposed that the son produced was called by the name of the dead brother. For Boaz, who took Ruth to raise up seed to Elimelech, begot a son, whom he did not call Elimelech but Obed. However, he is said to have revived this name, because that son was ascribed to him according to the Law. This is not unbelievable; because, as we read in the history of the Church, the apostles and evangelists were instructed about the genealogy of Christ by his immediate parents, who got some of it from their memory and some from the books of Chronicles.

The second question is this: Matthew intended to write the genealogy of Christ; therefore, since Christ was not the son of Joseph but only of Mary, why was it necessary to extend the genealogy of Christ from Abraham to Joseph? The answer is that it was customary among the Jews, and still is to this day, to take one's wife from his own tribe. Hence, it says in Num (36:7) that each one took a wife from his own tribe and relatives. And although this was not necessary to observe, yet from custom it was observed. Hence, Joseph took as his wife, Mary, who was his closest relative. And therefore, because they were from the same stock, this shows that since Joseph descended from David, also Mary and Christ were from the seed of David. But where does it say that Joseph and Mary were from the same tribe? The answer is clear from Luke (2:4), because at the time of the census Joseph and Mary went into the city of David, which is Bethlehem. Hence, the fact that he took her with him shows that they were from the same family.

But why does he not show Christ's genealogy from David through Mary? The answer is that it was not the custom among the Hebrews or even the gentiles to weave a genealogy through the woman. Hence, Christ, who had come for the salvation of men, willed in this matter to observe the customs of men. And so his genealogy is described not through women, especially since without danger to the truth his genealogy through men could be known.

The husband of Mary. Jerome says: "When you hear 'husband', suspicion should not be aroused about the wedding." But wasn't it a true marriage? The answer is that it was, because the three goods of marriage were there: the child, God himself; fidelity, because no adultery; and sacrament, because it was an indissoluble union of souls. What then is to be said? This is understood in regard to the completion of the wedding, which is by carnal union. But, as Augustine says, he is called the husband of Mary to show that the marriage is between two who vowed to be continent. But how was it a marriage? For the vow is an obstacle to contracting marriage and destroys the contract. Therefore, since the Blessed Virgin had vowed virginity, there seems to have been no marriage. Furthermore, there was consent to carnal union, if it was a marriage. The answer is that the Blessed Virgin faced a dilemma. For on the one hand was the Law's curse, to which a sterile woman was subject; on the other hand was her proposal to observe virginity, unless the Lord should ordain otherwise. Hence, she committed herself to the divine arrangement. As far as the statement that she consented to carnal union is concerned, it must be denied; but she consented to marriage directly and to carnal union, as it were, implicitly, if God willed it.

Of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ. Here two errors are excluded: one of them says that Christ was the son of Joseph. This is excluded by the fact that it says of whom [de qua]. For if he had been the son of Joseph, he would have said of whom [de quo] or at least of whom [de quibus]. Valentine's error is also excluded, for he said that Christ did not assume a body from the Blessed Virgin, but that he brought it from heaven and it passed through the Blessed Virgin as through a channel. Opposed to this is the fact that it says of whom. For if the case were as Valentine said, the evangelist would not have said of whom but "through whom" or "from whom", or something of that sort. For this preposition "de" in de qua always denotes consubstantiality. Hence, by the fact that he says de, he denotes that the body of Christ was from the body of the Blessed Virgin: "God sent his Son, born of woman, born under the law" (Gal 4:4). Here one must avoid Nestorius' error, who put two persons in Christ. Consequently, he did not admit that God was born and suffered. Neither did he attribute to the man things of God, such as to be eternal or to have created the stars. Hence in one of his letters he takes that text to confirm his error: of whom Jesus was born. He does not say "God" but Jesus, which is a man's name, and Christ. But according to this there would be no union in Christ, nor would Christ be described as one.

Hence, note that in Christ, because there is a union of two natures in one person, there is a "communication of idioms", so that things of God are attributed to the man, and conversely. And any example can be given of two accidents in a subject, as an apple is said to be white and tasty. As to the tasty thing, it is said to be white by reason of the fact that the apple is white, and conversely.

Who is called Christ. Note that he is simply called Christ without any addition. This denotes that he has been anointed with an invisible oil, not with a material oil as the kings and prophets in the Law: "Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows" (Ps 45:7).

(Vigil. Cont. Fel. 12. ap. Aug. t. 8. p. 45.) But not one was the Son of God, and another the son of a man; but the same Christ was the Son of both God and man. And as in one man, the soul is one and the body is another, so in the mediator between God and man, the Son of God was one, and the son of man another; yet of both together was one Christ the Lord. Two in distinction of substance, one in unity of Person. But the heretic objects; "how can you teach Him to have been born in time whom you say was before coeternal with His Father? For birth is as it were a motion of a thing not in being, before it be born, bringing about this, that by benefit of birth it come into being. Whence it is concluded, that He who was in being cannot be born; if He could be born He was not in being." (To this it is replied by Augustine;) Let us imagine, as many will have it, that the universe has a general soul, which by some unspeakable motion gives life to all seeds, so as that itself is not mixed up with the things it produces. When this then passes forth into the womb to form passible matter to its own uses, it makes one with itself the person of that thing which it is clear has not the same substance. And thus, the soul being active and the matter passive, of two substances is made one man, the soul and the flesh being distinct; thus it is that our confession is, that that soul is born of the womb which in coming to the womb we say conferred life on the thing conceived. He, I say, is said to be born of His mother, who shaped to Himself a body out of her, in which He might be born; not as though before He was born, His mother might, as far as pertained to Him, not have been in being. In like manner, yea in a manner yet more incomprehensible and sublime, the Son of God was born, by taking on Him perfect manhood of his Mother. He who by his singular almighty power is the cause of their being born to all things that are born.

(in Luc. c. 3.) Let us not think this is to be overlooked, that though there were seventeen Kings of Judæa between David and Jeconiah, Matthew only recounts fourteen. We must observe that there might be many more successions to the throne than generations of men; for some may live longer and beget children later; or might be altogether without seed; thence the number of Kings and of generations would not coincide.

(ubi sup.) Again, from Jeconiah to Joseph are computed twelve generations; yet he afterwards calls these also fourteen. But if you look attentively, you will be able to discover the method by which fourteen are reckoned here. Twelve are reckoned including Joseph, and Christ is the thirteenth; and history declares that there were two Joakims, that is two Jeconiahs, father and son. The Evangelist has not passed over either of these, but has named them both. Thus, adding the younger Jeconiah, fourteen generations are computed.

This particular number of generations, totaling forty, is a sign of that laborious period in which, under the discipline of Christ the King, we will continue to fight against the devil. The same number was foreshadowed in both the law and the prophets, who had already solemnized a fast of forty days for the humbling of the soul (this pattern was firmly set in the narratives of Moses and Elijah, each of whom fasted for forty days). The Gospel narrative itself then again foreshadowed this same number in the fast of the Lord himself, during his forty days of temptation by the devil. What else does this narrative show than that condition of temptation which pertains to us through all the space of this age? Christ bore this temptation in the flesh when he condescended to take upon himself our own mortality.Add to this also that after his resurrection, it was his will to remain with his disciples on the earth not longer than forty days. During this time he continued to mingle his resurrected life with theirs in the form of human intercourse. He shared with them food, which mortals need for life, even though he himself would never die. All this was done with the view of signifying to them through these forty days that although his presence would be later hidden from their eyes, he would yet fulfill what he promised when he said, "I am with you, even to the end of the world."67 There may be other and subtler methods of accounting for the length of this age, but the most apparent anticipations within the natural order of this number are the seasons of the years, which revolve in four successive alternations. Note also the fact that the world itself has its bounds determined by four divisions (which Scripture sometimes designates by the names of the winds, east and west, north or south). The number forty then is four times the cycle-completing number ten. The number ten, of course, is itself made up by adding one, two, three and four together.

(De Cons. Ev. ii. 4.) Or, one of Christ's forefathers is counted twice, because in him, Jeconiah to wit, there was made a passing off to strange nations since he was carried to Babylon. Wherever a series turns out of the right line to go in any other direction there is an angle made, and that part that is in the angle is reckoned twice. Thus here is a figure of Christ, who passes from the circumcision to the uncircumcision, and is made a cornerstone.

(ubi sup.) After having divided the whole into three periods of fourteen generations, he does not sum them all up and say, The sum of the whole is forty and two; because one of those fathers, that is Jeconiah, is reckoned twice; so that they do not amount to forty-two, as three times fourteen does, but because one is reckoned twice over, there are only forty-one generations. Matthew therefore, whose purpose was to draw out Christ's kingly character, counts forty successions in the genealogy exclusive of Christ. This number denotes the time for which we must be governed by Christ in this world, according to that painful discipline which is signified by the iron rod of which it is written in the Psalms, Thou shall rule them with a rod of iron. That this number should denote this our temporal life, a reason offers at hand, in this, that the seasons of the year are four, and that the world itself is bounded by four sides, the east, and west, the north, and the south. But forty contains ten four times. Moreover, ten itself is made up by a number proceeding from one to four.

Or we may say, that there are three Kings overlooked, as was said above.

Or in this number is signified the sevenfold grace of the Holy Spirit. The number is made up of seven, doubled, to show that the grace of the Holy Spirit is needed both for soul and body to salvation. Also the genealogy is divided into three portions of fourteen thus. The first from Abraham to David, so as that David is included in it; the second from David to the carrying away, in which David is not included, but the carrying away is included; the third is from the carrying away to Christ, in which if we say that Jeconiah is included, then the carrying away is included. In the first are denoted the men before the Law, in which you will find some of the men of the Law of nature, such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, all as far as Solomon. In the second are denoted the men under the Law; for all who are included in it were under the Law. In the third are found the men of grace; for it is finished in Christ, who was the giver of grace; and because in it was the deliverance from Babylon, signifying the deliverance from captivity that was made by Christ.

Or, the ten refers to the decalogue, the four to this life present, which passes through four seasons; or by the ten is meant the Old Testament, by the four the New.

(Verse 17) The man of Mary, from whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ. When you hear the word 'man', do not entertain the suspicion of marriage; but remember the custom of the Scriptures, that the husband is called the spouse of the bride.

He hath divided all the generations into three portions, to indicate that not even when their form of government was changed did they become better, but alike under an aristocracy, and under a king, and under an oligarchy, they were in the same evil ways, and whether popular leaders, or priests, or kings controlled them, it was no advantage to them in the way of virtue.

But wherefore hath he in the middle portion passed over three kings, and in the last, having set down twelve generations, affirmed them to be fourteen? The former question I leave for you to examine; for neither is it needful for me to explain all things to you, lest ye should grow indolent: but the second we will explain. To me then he seems in this place to be putting in the place of a generation, both the time of the captivity, and Christ Himself, by every means connecting Him with us. And full well doth he put us in mind of that captivity, making it manifest that not even when they went down thither, did they become more sober-minded; in order that from everything His coming may be shown to be necessary.

Wherefore, that he was not acting without an object, or by chance, when he distributed Christ's forefathers into three portions, is plain from what hath been said. And mark, too, whence he begins, and where he ends. From Abraham to David; from David to the captivity of Babylon; from this unto Christ Himself. For both at the beginning he put the two in close succession, David and Abraham, and also in summing up he mentions both in the same way. And this, because, as I have already said, it was to them that the promises were made.

But why can it be, that as he mentioned the captivity of Babylon, he did not mention also the descent into Egypt? Because they had ceased to be any longer afraid of the Egyptians, but the Babylonians they dreaded still. And the one thing was ancient, but the other fresh, and had taken place of late. And to the one they were carried down for no sins, but to the other, transgressions were the cause of their being removed.

Having enumerated the generations from Abraham to Christ, he divides them into three divisions of fourteen generations, because three times at the end of fourteen generations the state of the people of the Jews was changed. From Abraham to David they were under Judges; from David to the carrying away into Babylon under Kings; from the carrying away to Christ under the High Priests. What he would show then is this; like as ever at the end of fourteen generations the state of men has changed, so there being fourteen generations completed from the carrying away to Christ, it must needs be that the state of men be changed by Christ. And so since Christ all the Gentiles have been made under one Christ Judge, King, and Priest. And for that Judges, Kings, and Priests prefigured Christ's dignity, their beginnings were always in a type of Christ; the first of the Judges was Joshua the son of Nave; the first of the Kings, David; the first of the Priests, Jesus son of Josedech. That this was typical of Christ none doubts.

Or, the same Jeconiah is counted twice in the Gospel, once before the carrying away, and again after the carrying away. For this Jeconiah being one person had two different conditions; before the carrying away he was King, as being made King by the people of God; but he became a private man at the carrying away; hence he is reckoned once among the Kings before the carrying away; and after the carrying away once among private men.

He made fourteen generations, because the ten denotes the decalogue, and the four the four books of the Gospel; whence this shows the agreement of the Law and the Gospel. And he put the fourteen three times over, that he might show that the perfection of law, prophecy, and grace, consists in the faith of the Holy Trinity.

But if any, maintaining that it is not the same Jeconiah, but two different persons, make the number forty and two, we then shall say that the Holy Church is signified; for this number is the product of seven, and six; (for six times seven make forty-two;) the six denotes labour, and the seven rest.

So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the deportation to Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. He divides the generations into three different conditions of leadership, to show the Jews that although they were ruled by judges, as they were until David, and by kings, as they were until the deportation, and by priests, as they were until Christ, yet it did not benefit them at all in acquiring virtue; but they were in need of the true Judge and King and Priest, Who is Christ. For when the line of their rulers had failed, then Christ came, in accordance with the prophecy of Jacob. How can there be fourteen generations from the deportation to Babylon until Christ when only thirteen persons are mentioned? If the reckoning of ancestry through the mother could be given, we would list Mary as well, and thus complete the number. But since it cannot, how can this be resolved? Some say that he counted the deportation itself as a person, that is, as a generation.

So all the generations. Having mentioned the generation of Christ, he concludes to the number of generations. The first series of fourteen is from Abraham to David inclusively; hence David is included in that first set of fourteen. The second set of fourteen extends from David exclusively, namely, in such a way that David himself is not counted; but it begins with Solomon and ends at the transmigration to Babylon. And this is: and from David to the transmigration to Babylon. The third begins with the transmigration to Babylon and ends in Christ, so that Christ is the fourteenth.

But why was the evangelist so diligent and careful to distinguish Christ's generation into three sets of fourteen? Chrysostom assigns a reason: because in those three sets of fourteen there always occurred some change in the people of Israel. For during the first fourteen they were under leaders; in the second under kings; in the third under high priests. And Christ himself is leader and king and high priest: "The Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king" (Is 33:22). About his priesthood it says in Ps 110 (v. 4): "You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek."

He assigns another reason, namely, to show the need for Christ's coming. For in the first fourteen they asked for a king against God's will and they transgressed the Law; in the second, however, they were led into captivity on account of their sins; but in the third through Christ we are freed from all the guilt and misery and slavery of sin.

Jerome assigns a third reason: because by those three are signified the three times in which the life of all men is led. For by the first fourteen is signified the time before the Law, because in it are mentioned certain fathers who lived before the Law; by the second time under the Law, because all those mentioned are under the Law; by the third, however, the time of grace, because it is terminated at Christ, through whom "grace and truth come" (Jn 1:17). This distinction also suits a mystery, because fourteen is a number composed of ten and four. By ten, therefore, is understood the Old Testament, which was given in ten commandments; but by four, the Gospel, which is distinguished into four books. These fourteens designate faith in the Trinity. Hence, by the fact that Matthew divides his genealogy into three sets of fourteen is designated that through New and Old Testaments by faith in the Trinity one arrives at Christ.

Concerning the number of generations there are two opinions. For according to Jerome, who says that the Jechoniah at the end of the second set of fourteen is not the same as the one at the beginning of the third; there are forty-two generations; as many as three fourteens make. But according to Augustine, there are only forty-one and that Christ is that one. And this befits a mystery. For fourteen arise by adding four to ten and conversely. But according to the Platonists, four is the number for bodies; for a body is composed of four elements. Ten is the number resulting from the addition of the linear numbers: for one, two, three and four make ten. And because Matthew intends to declare how Christ descended linearly to us, he comes to us by forty generations. But Luke, who intends to commend in Christ the priestly dignity, to which belongs expiation of sins: "I say to you, not seven times, but seventy times seven times" (Mt 18:22), presents seventy-seven generations. This number comes from multiplying seven by eleven. By eleven, therefore, the transgression of the decalogue is understood; by seven the sevenfold grace, through which remission of sins comes about. The fact that Jerome posits forty-two generations is not devoid of mystery, because by those two are understood the two precepts of charity, or the two Testaments, New and Old.

(Vigil. Cont. Fel. 12. ap. Aug. t. 8. p. 45.) But not one was the Son of God, and another the son of a man; but the same Christ was the Son of both God and man. And as in one man, the soul is one and the body is another, so in the mediator between God and man, the Son of God was one, and the son of man another; yet of both together was one Christ the Lord. Two in distinction of substance, one in unity of Person. But the heretic objects; "how can you teach Him to have been born in time whom you say was before coeternal with His Father? For birth is as it were a motion of a thing not in being, before it be born, bringing about this, that by benefit of birth it come into being. Whence it is concluded, that He who was in being cannot be born; if He could be born He was not in being." (To this it is replied by Augustine;) Let us imagine, as many will have it, that the universe has a general soul, which by some unspeakable motion gives life to all seeds, so as that itself is not mixed up with the things it produces. When this then passes forth into the womb to form passible matter to its own uses, it makes one with itself the person of that thing which it is clear has not the same substance. And thus, the soul being active and the matter passive, of two substances is made one man, the soul and the flesh being distinct; thus it is that our confession is, that that soul is born of the womb which in coming to the womb we say conferred life on the thing conceived. He, I say, is said to be born of His mother, who shaped to Himself a body out of her, in which He might be born; not as though before He was born, His mother might, as far as pertained to Him, not have been in being. In like manner, yea in a manner yet more incomprehensible and sublime, the Son of God was born, by taking on Him perfect manhood of his Mother. He who by his singular almighty power is the cause of their being born to all things that are born.

(De Spir. Sanct. ii. 5.) That which is of any thing is either of the substance or the power of that thing; of the substance, as the Son who is of the Father; of the power, as all things are of God, even as Mary was with child of the Holy Spirit.

(De Nupt. et Concup. i. 12.) There was no carnal knowledge in this wedlock, because in sinful flesh this could not be without carnal desire which came of sin, and which He would be without, who was to be without sin; and that hence He might teach us that all flesh which is born of sexual union is sinful flesh, seeing that Flesh alone was without sin, which was not so born.

(Enchir c. 40.) Furthermore, this manner in which Christ was born of the Holy Spirit suggests to us the grace of God, by which man without any previous merits, in the very beginning of his nature, was united with the Word of God into so great unity of person, that he was also made son of God. (c. 38.). But inasmuch as the whole Trinity wrought to make this creature which was conceived of the Virgin, though pertaining only to the person of the Son, (for the works of the Trinity are indivisible,) why is the Holy Spirit only named in this work? Must we always, when one of the Three is named in any work, understand that the whole Trinity worked in that?

(De Cons. Evang. ii. 5.) How this was done Matthew omits to write, but Luke relates after the conception of John, In the sixth month the Angel was sent; and again, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee. This is what Matthew relates in these words, She was found with child of the Holy Ghost. And it is no contradiction that Luke has described what Matthew omits; or again that Matthew relates what Luke has omitted; that namely which follows, from Now Joseph her husband being a just man, to that place where it is said of the Magi, that They returned into their own country another way. If one desired to digest into one narrative the two accounts of Christ's birth, he would arrange thus; beginning with Matthew's words, Now the birth of Christ was on this wise; (Luke 1:5.) then taking up with Luke, from There was in the days of Herod, to, Mary abode with her three months, and returned to her house; then taking up again Matthew, add, She was found with child of the Holy Ghost. (Mat. 1:10.)

(in Luc. c. 3.) Mary is interpreted, 'Star of the Sea,' after the Hebrew; 'Mistress,' after the Syriac; as she bare into the world the Light of salvation, and the Lordr.

We read of Mary that "she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit" (Mt 1:18). But I think the bride of the Lord has something similar in this respect to his mother. For unless she also had been found as having from the Holy Spirit, she would by no means have so familiarly inquired from those who found her concerning him whose Spirit that is. She did not wait for them to declare for what purpose they had come; she herself spoke, and indeed from the abundance of the heart: "Have you seen him whom my soul loves?" She knew that blessed were the eyes that had seen, and marveling at those who had seen, she was saying: Are you those to whom it was given to see him whom so many kings and prophets wished to see and did not see? Are you those who merited to behold Wisdom in the flesh, Truth in a body, God in a man?

There is an activity of God displayed throughout creation, a wholesale activity let us say which men refuse to recognize. The miracles done by God incarnate, living as a man in Palestine, perform the very same things as this wholesale activity, but at a different speed and on a smaller scale. One of their chief purposes is that men, having seen a thing done by personal power on the small scale, may recognize, when they see the same thing done on the large scale, that the power behind it is also personal – is indeed the very same person who lived among us two thousand years ago. The miracles in fact are a retelling in small letters of the very same story which is written across the whole world in letters too large for some of us to see...

I can understand the man who denies the miraculous altogether; but what is one to make of the people who admit some miracles but deny the Virgin Birth? Is it that for all their lip service to the laws of Nature there is only one law of Nature that they really believe? Or is it that they see in this miracle a slur upon sexual intercourse which is rapidly becoming the one thing venerated in a world without veneration? No miracle is in fact more significant. What happens in ordinary generation? What is a father's function in the act of begetting? A microscopic particle of matter from his body fertilizes the female: and with that microscopic particle passes, it may be, the color of his hair and his great grandfather's hanging lip, and the human form in all its complexity of bones, liver, sinews, heart, and limbs, and pre-human form which the embryo will recapitulate in the womb. Behind every spermatozoon lies the whole history of the universe: locked within it is no small part of the world's future. That is God's normal way of making a man – a process that takes centuries, beginning with the creation of matter itself, and narrowing to one second and one particle at the moment of begetting. And once again men will mistake the sense impressions which this creative act throws off for the act itself or else refer it to some infinite being such as Genius. Once, therefore, God does it directly, instantaneously; without a spermatozoon, without the millenniums of organic history behind the spermatozoon. There was of course another reason. This time He was creating not simply a man, but the man who was to be Himself: the only true Man. The process which leads to the spermatozoon has carried down with it through the centuries much undesirable silt; the life which reaches us by that normal route is tainted. To avoid that taint, to give humanity a fresh start, he once short-circuited the process. There is a vulgar anti-God paper which some anonymous donor sends me every week. In it recently I saw the taunt that we Christians believe in a God who committed adultery with the wife of a Jewish carpenter. The answer to that is that if you describe the action of God in fertilizing Mary as "adultery" then, in that sense, God would have committed adultery with every woman who ever had a baby. For what He did once without a human father, He does always even when He uses a human father as His instrument. For the human father in ordinary generation is only a carrier, sometimes an unwilling carrier, always the last in a long line of carriers, of life that comes from the supreme life. Thus the filth that our poor, muddled, sincere, resentful enemies fling at the Holy One, either does not stick, or, sticking, turns into glory.

Those who do not know that this great myth became fact when the Virgin conceived are, indeed, to be pitied. But Christians also need to be reminded... that what became fact was a myth, that it carries with it into the world of fact all the properties of a myth. God is more than a god, not less; Christ is more than Balder, not less.

For blessed Matthew, after enumerating the genealogy of Christ, added the following regarding hope for our salvation: "After Mary, mother of Jesus, had been betrothed to Joseph, she was found to be pregnant by the Holy Spirit before they were married." This is the heavenly mystery, this sacrament obscured and hidden by the Holy Spirit. Luke describes in greater detail the manner of the Lord's incarnation, for he recounts how an angel came to Mary and greeted her saying, "Hail woman full of grace," and the rest that follows. And when Mary asked him how what he had been proclaiming to her could take place—because she had never had relations with a man—he said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. And thus what is born from you will be called the Son of God." It was right that holy Mary, who was about to conceive the Lord of glory in her womb, be informed about the Holy Spirit and the excellence of the Most High when she received into her blessed womb the Creator of the world. Indeed, both Matthew and Luke began their narratives with the corporeal birth of the Lord. John, however, addresses the issue of Jesus' divine birth in the preface to his Gospel: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. This was with God in the beginning. All things were made through him and without him nothing was made." The Evangelists help us to recognize both the divine and corporeal birth of the Lord, which they describe as a twofold mystery and a kind of double path. Indeed, both the divine and the bodily birth of the Lord are indescribable, but that from the Father vastly exceeds every means of description and wonder. The bodily birth of Christ was in time; his divine birth was before time. The one in this age, the other before the ages. The one from a virgin mother, the other from God the Father. Angels and men stood as witnesses at the corporeal birth of the Lord, yet at his divine birth there was no witness except the Father and the Son, because nothing existed before the Father and the Son. But because the Word could not be seen as God in the glory of his own divinity, he assumed visible flesh to demonstrate his invisible divinity. He took from us what is ours in order to give generously what is his.

(Epist. ad Monach. Egypt. [Ep. p. 7.]) What will any one see in the Blessed Virgin more than in other mothers, if she be not the mother of God, but of Christ, or the Lord, as Nestorius says? For it would not be absurd should any one please to name the mother of any anointed person, the mother of Christ. Yet she alone and more than they is called the Holy Virgin, and the mother of Christ. For she bare not a simple man as ye say, but rather the Word incarnate, and made man of God the Father. But perhaps you say, Tell me, do you think the Virgin was made the mother of His divinity? To this also we say, that the Word was born of the very substance of God Himself, and without beginning of time always coexisted with the Father. But in these last times when He was made flesh, that is united to flesh, having a rational soul, He is said to be born of a woman after the flesh. Yet is this sacrament in a manner brought out like to birth among us; for the mothers of earthly children impart to their nature that flesh that is to be perfected by degrees in the human form; but God sends the life into the animal. But though these are mothers only of the earthly bodies, yet when they bear children, they are said to bear the whole animal, and not a part of it only. Such do we see to have been done in the birth of Emmanuel; the Word of God was born of the substance of His Father; but because He took on Him flesh, making it His own, it is necessary to confess that He was born of a woman according to the flesh. Where seeing He is truly God, how shall any one doubt to call the Holy Virgin the Mother of God?

(Epist. ad Joan Antioch [Ep. p. 107.]) But if we were to say that the holy Body of Christ came down from heaven, and was not made of His mother, as Valentinus does, in what sense could Mary be the Mother of God?

The name of His Mother is added, Mary.

And to whom she was betrothed is shown, Joseph.

But the words denote carnal knowledge.

(ap. Anselm.) Therefore the words, Is of the Holy Ghost, were set down by the Evangelist, to the end, that when it was said that she was with child, all wrong suspicion should be removed from the minds of the hearers.

For what reason did God, deciding that the Savior should be born from a virgin, not choose a virgin who was not betrothed? Might it have been, then, an economy for her to conceive while having a betrothed, so that it might not appear as a disgrace upon her body for her to conceive? For it is rightly written in one of the letters of a certain martyr—I mean Ignatius, the second bishop of Antioch after the blessed Peter, who fought with beasts in Rome during the persecution—"and the virginity of Mary escaped the notice of the ruler of this age." So, if it had not been for what seemed to be a marriage, it would not have escaped his notice, but the ruler of this age would have known that Mary, having never slept with a man, conceived, and thus the conception must be divine. The Savior wished through the entire economy to elude the devil, and indeed ordered the disciples not to make him manifest.

For the one and the same Spirit of God, who proclaimed by the prophets what and of what sort the advent of the Lord should be, did by these elders give a just interpretation of what had been truly prophesied; and He did Himself, by the apostles, announce that the fulness of the times of the adoption had arrived, that the kingdom of heaven had drawn nigh, and that He was dwelling within those that believe on Him who was born Emmanuel of the Virgin. To this effect they testify, [saying,] that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost;" [Matthew 1:18] and that the angel Gabriel said to her, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God;" [Luke 1:35] and that the angel said to Joseph in a dream, "Now this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, Behold, a virgin shall be with child." [Matthew 1:23] But the elders have thus interpreted what Esaias said: "And the Lord, moreover, said unto Ahaz, Ask for thyself a sign from the Lord thy God out of the depth below, or from the height above. And Ahaz said, I will not ask, and I will not tempt the Lord. And he said, It is not a small thing for you to weary men; and how does the Lord weary them? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son; and ye shall call His name Emmanuel. Butter and honey shall He eat: before He knows or chooses out things that are evil, He shall exchange them for what is good; for before the child knows good or evil, He shall not consent to evil, that He may choose that which is good." [Isaiah 7:10-17] Carefully, then, has the Holy Ghost pointed out, by what has been said, His birth from a virgin, and His essence, that He is God (for the name Emmanuel indicates this). And He shows that He is a man, when He says, "Butter and honey shall He eat;" and in that He terms Him a child also, [in saying,] "before He knows good and evil;" for these are all the tokens of a human infant. But that He "will not consent to evil, that He may choose that which is good,"— this is proper to God; that by the fact, that He shall eat butter and honey, we should not understand that He is a mere man only, nor, on the other hand, from the name Emmanuel, should suspect Him to be God without flesh.

Notice, he [Helvidius] says, that the word used is betrothed, not entrusted as you say, and of course the only reason why she was betrothed was that she might one day be married. And the Evangelist would not have said before they came together if they were not to come together, for no one would use the phrase before he dined of a man who was not going to dine. Then, again, the angel calls her wife and speaks of her as united to Joseph...

Let us take the points one by one, and follow the tracks of this impiety that we may show that he has contradicted himself. He admits that she was betrothed, and in the next breath will have her to be a man's wife whom he has admitted to be his betrothed. Again, he calls her wife, and then says the only reason why she was betrothed was that she might one day be married. And, for fear we might not think that enough, "the word used," he says, "is betrothed and not entrusted, that is to say, not yet a wife, not yet united by the bond of wedlock." But when he continues, "the Evangelist would never have applied the words, before they came together to persons who were not to come together, any more than one says, before he dined, when the man is not going to dine," I know not whether to grieve or laugh. Shall I convict him of ignorance, or accuse him of rashness? Just as if, supposing a person to say, "Before dining in harbour I sailed to Africa," his words could not hold good unless he were compelled some day to dine in harbour. If I choose to say, "the apostle Paul before he went to Spain was put in fetters at Rome," or (as I certainly might) "Helvidius, before he repented, was cut off by death," must Paul on being released at once go to Spain, or must Helvidius repent after death, although the Scripture says "In sheol who shall give you thanks?" Must we not rather understand that the preposition before, although it frequently denotes order in time, yet sometimes refers only to order in thought? So that there is no necessity, if sufficient cause intervened to prevent it, for our thoughts to be realized. When, then, the Evangelist says before they came together, he indicates the time immediately preceding marriage, and shows that matters were so far advanced that she who had been betrothed was on the point of becoming a wife. As though he said, before they kissed and embraced, before the consummation of marriage, she was found to be with child. And she was found to be so by none other than Joseph, who watched the swelling womb of his betrothed with the anxious glances, and, at this time, almost the privilege, of a husband. Yet it does not follow, as the previous examples showed, that he had intercourse with Mary after her delivery, when his desires had been quenched by the fact that she had already conceived. And although we find it said to Joseph in a dream, "Fear not to take Mary your wife"; and again, "Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife," no one ought to be disturbed by this, as though, inasmuch as she is called wife, she ceases to be betrothed, for we know it is usual in Scripture to give the title to those who are betrothed. The following evidence from Deuteronomy establishes the point. [Deuteronomy 22:24-25] "If the man," says the writer, "find the damsel that is betrothed in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her, he shall surely die, because he has humbled his neighbour's wife." And in another place, [Deuteronomy 22:23-24] "If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then you shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and you shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he has humbled his neighbour's wife: so you shall put away the evil from the midst of you." Elsewhere also, [Deuteronomy 20:7] "And what man is there that has betrothed a wife, and has not taken her? Let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her."

(Verse 18.) And from the deportation to Babylon to Christ, fourteen generations. Count from Jechoniah to Joseph, and you will find thirteen generations. Therefore, the fourteenth generation will be reckoned to be in Christ himself.

But the generation of Christ was as follows. Let the diligent reader inquire and say: Since Joseph is not the father of the Lord Savior, why does the order of the generation lead to Joseph? To this we will first respond that it is not the usual practice of the Scriptures to trace the order of women in generations. Furthermore, Joseph and Mary were from the same tribe, so according to the Law, Joseph had to take her as a relative, and they were both counted in Bethlehem, being from the same lineage.

When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, why is she conceived not from a simple virgin, but from a betrothed one? First, so that through the generation, the origin of Mary could be shown by Joseph. Second, so that she would not be stoned by the Jews as an adulteress. Third, so that fleeing to Egypt, she would have the comfort of her husband. Ignatius the Martyr also added a fourth cause as to why she was conceived from the betrothed one: in order to hide the birth from the devil, while he thought it was not from a virgin, but from a wife.

Before they came together, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, 'Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.' All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel' (which means, God with us). When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

But why is He conceived not of a Virgin merely, but of a Virgin espoused? First, that by the descent of Joseph, Mary's family might be made known; secondly, that she might not be stoned by the Jews as an adulteress; thirdly, that in her flight into Egypt she might have the comfort of a husband. The Martyr Ignatius (vid. Ign. ad Eph. 19.) adds yet a fourth reason, namely, that his birth might be hid from the Devil, looking for Him to be born of a wife and not of a virgin.

(cont. Helvid. in princ.) It is to be known, that Helvidius, a certain turbulent man, having got matter of disputation, takes in hand to blaspheme against the Mother of God. His first proposition was, Matthew begins thus, When she was espoused. Behold, he says, you have her espoused, but, as ye say, not yet committed; but surely not espoused for any other reason than as being to be married.

And found by none other than by Joseph, who knew all, as being her espoused husband.

(Cont. Helvid. in princip.) But says Helvidius; Neither would the Evangelist have said Before they came together, if they were not to come together afterwards; as none would say, Before dinner, where there was to be no dinner. As if one should say, Before I dined in harbour, I set sail for Africa, would this have no meaning in it, unless he were at some time or other to dine in the harbour? Surely we must either understand it thus,—that before, though it often implies something to follow, yet often is said of things that follow only in thought; and it is not necessary that the things so thought of should take place, for that something else has happened to prevent them from taking place.

Therefore it by no means follows that they did come together afterwards; Scripture however shows not what did happen.

"The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise." "Of what kind of birth art thou telling me, I pray thee, since thou hast already mentioned His ancestors?" "I still wish to tell thee the manner also of His birth." Seest thou, how he wakens up the hearer? For as though he were about to speak of something unusual, he promises to tell also the manner thereof.

And observe a most admirable order in the things he hath mentioned. For he did not proceed directly to the birth, but puts us in mind first, how many generations he was from Abraham, how many from David, and from the captivity of Babylon; and thus he sets the careful hearer upon considering the times, to show that this is the Christ who was preached by the prophets. For when thou hast numbered the generations, and hast learnt by the time that this is He, thou wilt readily receive likewise the miracle which took place in His birth. Thus, being about to tell of a certain great thing, His birth of a virgin, he first shadows over the statement, until he hath numbered the generations, by speaking of "an husband of Mary;" or rather he doth even put in short space the narration of the birth itself, and then proceeds to number also the years, reminding the hearer, that this is He, of whom the patriarch Jacob had said, He should then at length come, when the Jewish rulers had come to an end; of whom the prophet Daniel had proclaimed beforehand, that He should come after those many weeks.

How then was He born, I pray thee? "When as His mother Mary was espoused:" He saith not "virgin," but merely "mother;" so that his account is easy to be received. And so having beforehand prepared the hearer to look for some ordinary piece of information, and by this laying hold of him, after all he amazes him by adding the marvellous fact, saying, "Before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." He saith not, "before she was brought to the bridegroom's house;" for indeed she was therein. It being the way of the ancients for the most part to keep their espoused wives in their house: in those parts, at least, where one may see the same practised even now. Thus also Lot's sons-in-law were in his house with him. Mary then herself likewise was in the house with Joseph.

And wherefore did she not conceive before her espousal? It was, as I said at first, that what had been done might be concealed awhile, and that the Virgin might escape every evil suspicion. For when he, who had most right of all to feel jealousy, so far from making her a show, or degrading her, is found even receiving and cherishing her after her conception; it was quite clear that, unless he had fully persuaded himself that what was done was of the operation of the Holy Spirit, he would not have kept her with him, and ministered to her in all other things. And most properly hath he said, that "she was 'found' with child," the sort of expression that is wont to be used with respect to things strange, and such as happen beyond all expectation, and are unlooked for.

Proceed therefore no further, neither require anything more than what hath been said; neither say thou, "But how was it that the Spirit wrought this of a virgin?" For if, when nature is at work, it is impossible to explain the manner of the formation; how, when the Spirit is working miracles, shall we be able to express these? And lest thou shouldest weary the evangelist, or disturb him by continually asking these things, he hath said who it was that wrought the miracle, and so withdrawn himself. "For I know," saith he, "nothing more, but that what was done was the work of the Holy Ghost."

Shame on them who busy themselves touching the generation on high. For if this birth, which hath witnesses without number, and had been proclaimed so long a time before, and was manifested and handled with hands, can by no man be explained; of what excess of madness do they come short who make themselves busy and curious touching that unutterable generation? For neither Gabriel nor Matthew was able to say anything more, but only that it was of the Spirit; but how, of the Spirit, or in what manner, neither of them hath explained; for neither was it possible.

Nor think that thou hast learnt all, by hearing "of the Spirit;" nay, for we are ignorant of many things, even when we have learnt this; as, for instance, how the Infinite is in a womb, how He that contains all things is carried, as unborn, by a woman; how the Virgin bears, and continues a virgin. How, I pray thee, did the Spirit frame that Temple? how did He take not all the flesh from the womb, but a part thereof, and increased it, and fashioned it? For that He did come forth of the Virgin's flesh, He hath declared by speaking of "that which was conceived in her;" and Paul, by saying, "made of a woman;" whereby he stops the mouths of them that say, Christ came among us as through some conduit. For, if this were so, what need of the womb? If this were so, He hath nothing in common with us, but that flesh is of some other kind, and not of the mass which belongs to us. How then was He of the root of Jesse? How was He a rod? how Son of man? how was Mary His mother? how was He of David's seed? how did he "take the form of a servant?" how "was the Word made flesh?" and how saith Paul to the Romans, "Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is God over all?" Therefore that He was of us, and of our substance, and of the Virgin's womb, is manifest from these things, and from others beside; but how, is not also manifest. Do not either thou then inquire; but receive what is revealed, and be not curious about what is kept secret.

Now this refutes also the false interpretation which some have drawn from the words of Matthew, where he says, "Before they came together she was found to be with child." They interpret this as though the evangelist meant to say, "Later she came together with Joseph like any other wife and lay with him, but before this occurred she was with child apart from Joseph," etc. Again, when he says, "And Joseph knew her not until she brought forth her first-born son" [Matt. 1:25], they interpret it as though the evangelist meant to say that he knew her, but not before she had brought forth her first-born son. This was the view of Helvidius which was refuted by Jerome.

Such carnal interpretations miss the meaning and purpose of the evangelist. As we have said, the evangelist, like the prophet Isaiah, wishes to set before our eyes this mighty wonder, and point out what an unheard-of thing it is for a maiden to be with child before her husband brings her home and lies with her; and further, that he does not know her carnally until she first has a son, which she should have had after first having been known by him. Thus, the words of the evangelist do not refer to anything that occurred after the birth, but only to what took place before it. For the prophet and the evangelist, and St. Paul as well, do not treat of this virgin beyond the point where they have from her that fruit for whose sake she is a virgin and everything else. After the child is born they dismiss the mother and speak not about her, what became of her, but only about her offspring. Therefore, one cannot from these words [Matt. 1:18, 25] conclude that Mary, after the birth of Christ, became a wife in the usual sense; it is therefore neither to be asserted nor believed. All the words are merely indicative of the marvelous fact that she was with child and gave birth before she had lain with a man.

The form of expression used by Matthew is the common idiom, as if I were to say, "Pharaoh believed not Moses, until he was drowned in the Red Sea." Here it does not follow that Pharaoh believed later, after he had drowned; on the contrary, it means that he never did believe. Similarly when Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her. Again, the Red Sea overwhelmed Pharaoh before he got across. Here too it does not follow that Pharaoh got across later, after the Red Sea had overwhelmed him, but rather that he did not get across at all. In like manner, when Matthew [1:18] says, "She was found to be with child before they came together," it does not follow that Mary subsequently lay with Joseph, but rather that she did not lie with him.

Elsewhere in Scripture the same manner of speech is employed. Psalm 110 [:1] reads, "God says to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool.'" Here it does not follow that Christ does not continue to sit there after his enemies are placed beneath his feet. Again, in Genesis 28 [:15], "I will not leave you until I have done all that of which I have spoken to you." Here God did not leave him after the fulfillment had taken place. Again, in Isaiah 42 [:4], "He shall not be sad, nor troublesome, till he has established justice in the earth." There are many more similar expression, so that this babble of Helvidius is without justification; in addition, he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.

Why does the Evangelist make mention here of "birth," whereas at the start of the Gospel he had said "generation"? For in this place he says, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way," but there "The book of the generation." … What then is the difference between "birth" and "generation"? How are either of them to be understood as applied to Christ? Note that this, my spoken word, in its own proper nature, is intangible and invisible. But when it is written down in a book, in a manner of speaking, it takes on a body. It is then both seen and touched. So it is with the fleshless, bodiless Word of God. The Word is neither seen nor described according to his Godhood but becomes, through his incarnation, subject to both sight and description. For this reason there is the "book" of his "generation" as of one who is made flesh. But here the point under investigation is not why he says "book" instead of "vision" or "account" (for this has been discussed already). Rather, it is why, when Matthew had previously mentioned "generation," he here speaks of "birth." What is "birth" as distinguished from "generation"? There is a difference between generation and birth. For "generation," or "coming into being," is the original formation of things by God, while "birth" is the succession from others caused by the verdict of death that came on account of the transgression. And even now, "generation" has something incorruptible and sinless about it, whereas "birth" implies that which is subject to passion and sin. The Lord in his eternal generation is incapable of sin. His being born did not undermine his eternal generation, which is incorruptible. But upon being born he assumed what is passible. That does not imply that he assumed what is subject to sin. He continued to bear the original Adam incapable of being lessened, either in respect of corruptibility or as regards the possibility of sin. Hence the "generation" in the case of Christ is not according to some procession from nonbeing into being. It is rather a transition [a path, a way] from existing "in the form of God" to the taking on of "the form of a servant." Hence his "birth" was both like ours and above ours. For to be born "of woman" is like our birth, but to be born "not of the will of the flesh" or "of man" but of the Holy Spirit is above ours. There is here an intimation, a prior announcement of a future birth to be bestowed on us by the Spirit.

For what reason did God, deciding that the Savior should be born from a virgin, not choose a virgin who was not betrothed? Might it have been, then, an economy for her to conceive while having a betrothed, so that it might not appear as a disgrace upon her body for her to conceive? For it is rightly written in one of the letters of a certain martyr—I mean Ignatius, the second bishop of Antioch after the blessed Peter, who fought with beasts in Rome during the persecution—"and the virginity of Mary escaped the notice of the ruler of this age." So, if it had not been for what seemed to be a marriage, it would not have escaped his notice, but the ruler of this age would have known that Mary, having never slept with a man, conceived, and thus the conception must be divine. The Savior wished through the entire economy to elude the devil, and indeed ordered the disciples not to make him manifest. But even when he was tempted by the devil, nowhere did he openly declare that he is the Son of God, but merely said: it is not necessary for me to worship you, it is not necessary for me to make stones into bread, it is not necessary for me to throw myself down from above. Also, the Apostle says that the economy of the passion was done in forgetfulness of the opposing power: "which none of the rulers of this age understood; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." If it was not hidden from the demon—for it said: "We know who you are, the Son of God"—see, the lesser in evil knew the Savior, but the greater in evil was hindered by the magnitude of his wickedness from beholding him.

(non occ.) She was indeed espoused to Joseph, but not united in wedlock; that is to say, His mother immaculate, His mother incorrupt, His mother pure. His mother! Whose mother? The mother of God, of the Only-begotten, of the Lord, of the King, of the Maker of all things, and the Redeemer of all.

(Serm. 148.) If you are not confounded when you hear of the birth of God, let not His conception disturb you, seeing the pure virginity of the mother removes all that might shock human reverence. And what offence against our awe and reverence is there, when the Deity entered into union with purity that was always dear to Him, where an Angel is mediator, faith is bridemaid, where chastity is the giving away, virtue the gift, conscience the judge, God the cause; where the conception is inviolateness, the birth virginity, and the mother a virginq.

(in App. 122 et al.) Christ was also born of a pure virgin, because it was not holy that virtue should be born of pleasure, chastity of self-indulgence, incorruption of corruption. Nor could He come from heaven but after some new manner, who came to destroy the ancient empire of death. Therefore she received the crown of virginity who bare the King of chastity. Farther, our Lord sought out for Himself a virgin abode, wherein to be received, that He might show us that God ought to be borne in a chaste body. Therefore He that wrote on tables of stone without an iron pen, the same wrought in Mary by the Holy Spirit; She was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

(Serm. 236. in App.) But not, as some impiously think, are we to suppose, that the Holy Spirit was as seed, but we say that He wrought with the power and might of a Creators.

Having said above, And Jacob begat Joseph, to whom Mary being espoused bare Jesus; that none who heard should suppose that His birth was as that of any of the forementioned fathers, he cuts off the thread of his narrative, saying, But Christ's generation was thus. As though he were to say, The generation of all these fathers was as I have related it; but Christ's was not so, but as follows, His mother Mary being espoused.

Therefore both espoused and yet remaining at home; for as in her who should conceive in the house of her husband, is understood natural conception; so in her who conceives before she be taken to her husband, there is suspicion of infidelity.

Mary was therefore betrothed to a carpenter, because Christ the Spouse of the Church was to work the salvation of all men through the wood of the Cross.

That He should not be born of passion, of flesh and blood, who was therefore born that He might take away all passion of flesh and blood.

For, as a not incredible account relates, Joseph was absent when the things were done which Luke writes. For it is not easy to suppose that the Angel came to Mary and said those words, and Mary made her answer when Joseph was present. And even if we suppose thus much to have been possible, yet it could not be that she should have gone into the hill country, and abode there three months when Joseph was present, because he must needs have enquired the causes of her departure and long stay. And so when after so many months he returned from abroad, he found her manifestly with child.

But if any, maintaining that it is not the same Jeconiah, but two different persons, make the number forty and two, we then shall say that the Holy Church is signified; for this number is the product of seven, and six; (for six times seven make forty-two;) the six denotes labour, and the seven rest.

Yet it might be referred to the foregoing in this way, The generation of Christ was, as I have related, thus, Abraham begat Isaac.

Or the word come together may not mean carnal knowledge, but may refer to the time of the nuptials, when she who was betrothed begins to be wife. Thus, before they came together, may mean before they solemnly celebrated the nuptial rites.

Now the birth of Christ took place in this manner: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph. Why did God permit her to be betrothed, and thus give men any cause at all for suspicion that Joseph had come together with her? So that she would have a protector in hardships; for Joseph took care of her during the flight to Egypt and preserved her. She was betrothed for another reason: to escape the notice of the devil. For the devil had heard that the Virgin would conceive (Is. 7:14), and was keeping the Virgin under his surveillance. So that the deceiver might be deceived, Joseph betrothed the Ever-virgin, outwardly appearing to be her spouse, but not so in actual deed. Before they came together, she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit. "Come together" here means "physical relations." For she had conceived before there were any physical relations. Therefore the evangelist is amazed at the extraordinary event and cries out, "she was found."

As Jerome says (Contra Helvid. i): "Although this particle 'before' often indicates a subsequent event, yet we must observe that it not infrequently points merely to some thing previously in the mind: nor is there need that what was in the mind take place eventually, since something may occur to prevent its happening. Thus if a man say: 'Before I dined in the port, I set sail,' we do not understand him to have dined in port after he set sail: but that his mind was set on dining in port." In like manner the evangelist says: "Before they came together" Mary "was found with child, of the Holy Ghost," not that they came together afterwards: but that, when it seemed that they would come together, this was forestalled through her conceiving by the Holy Ghost, the result being that afterwards they did not come together.

Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. Having presented Christ's genealogy in general, his generation in particular is now described. And it is divided into three parts: first, he presents a title; secondly he describes the manner of the generation (v. 18b), thirdly he proves the manner of generation (v. 19).

He says, therefore of Christ. This is read in two ways: for according to Chrysostom it is a kind of prologue to what is to be said; but according to Remigius it is an epilogue of what has been said. In the first way, it is read thus: "Thus we have spoken about the genealogy of Christ, how Abraham was the father of Isaac, etc., by descent according to the flesh, but the birth of Christ took place in this way: supply: "as will be said in the following." In the second way it is read thus, so that it is an epilogue of what went before: "Thus Abraham etc. to Christ. But the birth of Christ took place in this way: supply: "so that from Abraham through David and others they stretch forth to Christ."

Then he describes the manner of the birth: first, he describes the person giving birth; secondly, the generating of Christ; thirdly the person generating.

He describes the person giving birth: first, from her condition, secondly, from her dignity; thirdly from her name.

He says, therefore, When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph. But immediately a question arises. Since Christ willed to be born of a virgin, why should he want his mother to be betrothed? According to Jerome there are three reasons: the first is that the testimony to her virginity be more credible. For if she had not been betrothed and said that she is a virgin, when she was pregnant, it would seem that she claimed to be a virgin merely to conceal the crime of adultery. But there was no need to lie, when she was betrothed. And therefore, there was more reason to believe her: "Your testimonies were made exceedingly credible" (Ps 119:144). Another reason is that she would have the protection of a man, both when she fled into Egypt and when she returned. The third reason was in order that her offspring would be concealed from the devil; otherwise, if he knew, he would impede his passion and the fruit of our redemption: "If they had known, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Cor 2:8). This is explained of the devil, i.e., not to permit him to be crucified.

But on the other hand, could not the devil know whether she was a virgin? For her virginity was in inviolate flesh. Therefore, the devil could know that she was a virgin. The answer is, according to Ambrose, who also assigns this reason: namely, that devils are by the subtlety of their nature capable of things which they cannot do without God's permission. Hence the devil would have known her virginity, if God had not prevented him from making a careful examination. According to Ambrose, there are three reasons for this: the first is to preserve the honor of the mother of God: "The Lord preferred that men wonder about his origin, rather than about his mother's purity. Therefore, he willed that she be espoused, in order that any suspicion of adultery be removed; for he had come to fulfill the Law, not to destroy it: "I have come not to destroy the law but to fulfill it" (Mt 5:17); "Honor your father and your mother" (Ex 20:12). Another reason is so that virgins observed in adultery might have no excuse; for if the Lord's mother had not been betrothed and yet pregnant, others could excuse themselves through her: "Incline not my heart to any evil to busy myself with wicked deeds" (Ps 141:4). The third reason is because Christ espoused the Church to himself, and it is a virgin: "I have betrothed you to Christ" (2 Cor 11:2). Consequently, he willed to be born of a betrothed virgin as a sign that he had betrothed the Church to himself.

When his mother Mary had been betrothed. But to whom? To Joseph. According to Chrysostom, Joseph was a wood-worker and he signifies Christ, who restored all things through the wood of the cross in heaven and on the earth.

His mother, i.e., of God. Here is shown her dignity: for it has been granted to no creature, no man, no angel, to be the father or mother of God. But this was a privilege of a singular grace that she become the mother not only of a man but of God. Therefore, it says in Rev (12:1): "A woman clothed with the sun," as though filled with the Holy Trinity. Nestorius denied this, because the divinity was not received from the virgin. Against this the martyr Ignatius uses a beautiful example to show that she was the mother of God. "It is obvious," he says, "that in the generation of men in general the woman is called the mother; yet the woman does not give the rational soul, which is from God, but she gives the substance for the formation of the body. But the woman is called the mother of the whole man, because that which was taken from her is united to the rational soul. Similarly, since the humanity of Christ was taken from the Blessed Virgin, then on account of its being united to the divinity, the Blessed Virgin is called not only the mother of a man but also of God; although the divinity was not received from her any more than the rational soul in others is obtained from the mother."

Mary, a proper name is taken to mean star of the sea or enlightener and lady; hence in Rev (12:1) she is described with the moon under her feet.

Before they came together... Here Elvidius objects: "If before they came together, then at some time they did come together." Hence, he denied the virginity of Christ's mother: not before birth, not during the birth, but after the birth, he says that she was known by her husband. Jerome answers that no doubt the word "before" always implies a relationship to the future. But this can be in two ways: either according to reason or according to the acceptation of the intellect. For if one says: "Before I ate in the port at Rome, I sailed to Africa," that does not mean that after I sailed to Africa, I ate; but that I had intended to eat and, prevented by the sailing, I did not eat. And that is the case here. It should not be interpreted in such a way that later they really came together, as that knave says, but because from the very fact that she was betrothed to him according to general opinion, it was lawful for them to come together, although they never did.

Remigius explains it another way, so that it is understood of the solemn celebration of marriage: the betrothal occurred and took place for some days, and in the meantime the spouse was not under the husband's care. Later the solemn celebration of the marriage took place, and then the wife was brought to the husband's house. It is about this marriage ceremony that the evangelist is speaking here. Accordingly, Elvidius' objection has no place.

She was found... Note the appropriateness of the word. For, properly speaking, that is said to be found, concerning which there was no thought or hope; and Joseph had such an opinion of Mary's purity, that it was beyond his expectation to find her pregnant.

Found to be with child. Found by Joseph who, as Jerome says, in virtue of the marriage searched out all her secrets.

Of the Holy Spirit. Here he touches on the cause of the conception. This must be read separately from the preceding phrase. For it should not be read or understood that Joseph found her with child of the Holy Spirit, but merely that he found her pregnant. But in order that no suspicion of adultery arise in the mind of the hearers, he added of the Holy Spirit, i.e. from the power of the Holy Spirit not from his substance, lest he be regarded the son of the Holy Spirit: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you" (Lk 1:35).

But although, according to Augustine, the works of the Trinity are indivisible, so that not only the Holy Spirit but also the Father and Son produced this conception; yet by a certain appropriateness it is attributed to the Holy Spirit. There are three reasons for this: the first is that the Holy Spirit is love. But this is the greatest sign of love, that God willed his Son to be incarnate: "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son" (Jn 3:16). Secondly, because grace is attributed to the Holy Spirit: "There are varieties of graces but the same Spirit" (1 Cor 12:4). The third reason is assigned in the deliberations of the Council of Nicea, namely, that there are two words in us: the word of the heart and the word of the voice. The heart's word is the intellect's conception, which is hidden from men, except in so far as it is uttered by the voice or by a word of the voice. To the word of the heart is compared the eternal Word before the incarnation, when he was with the Father and hidden from us; but to the voice's word is compared the incarnate Word, which has already appeared to us and has been manifested. But the heart's word is not joined to the voice save through the spirit; and therefore, it was correct to say that the incarnation of the Word, through which he appeared visible to us was made through the medium of the Holy Spirit.

Note here four reasons why Christ willed to be born of a virgin: first, because original sin is contracted in the offspring from the union of man and woman; hence, if Christ had been born of a marriage act, he would have contracted original sin. But this would be unbecoming, since he had come into the world to take away our sins. Hence, he ought not have been infected with the contagion of sin. The second is that Christ was the principal teacher of chastity: "There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 19:12). The third is on account of purity and cleanness: "Wisdom will not enter into a sinful soul" (Wis 1:4). Hence, it was fitting that his mother's womb not be defiled with any corruption. The fourth is on account of a property of a word: because as a word emanates from the heart, so Christ willed and should have been born from the Virgin without any defilement.

(in Luc. ii. 5.) St. Matthew has beautifully taught how a righteous man ought to act, who has detected his wife's disgrace; so as at once to keep himself guiltless of her blood, and yet pure from her defilements; therefore it is he says, Being a just man. Thus is preserved throughout in Joseph the gracious character of a righteous man, that his testimony may be the more approved; for, the tongue of the just speaketh the judgment of truth.

(in Luc. ii. 1.) But as no one puts away what he has not received; in that he was minded to put her away, he admits to have received her.

(De Cons. Evang. ii. 5.) How this was done Matthew omits to write, but Luke relates after the conception of John, In the sixth month the Angel was sent; and again, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee. This is what Matthew relates in these words, She was found with child of the Holy Ghost. And it is no contradiction that Luke has described what Matthew omits; or again that Matthew relates what Luke has omitted; that namely which follows, from Now Joseph her husband being a just man, to that place where it is said of the Magi, that They returned into their own country another way. If one desired to digest into one narrative the two accounts of Christ's birth, he would arrange thus; beginning with Matthew's words, Now the birth of Christ was on this wise; (Luke 1:5.) then taking up with Luke, from There was in the days of Herod, to, Mary abode with her three months, and returned to her house; then taking up again Matthew, add, She was found with child of the Holy Ghost. (Mat. 1:10.)

Otherwise; if you alone have knowledge of a sin that any has committed against you, and desire to accuse him thereof before men, you do not herein correct, but rather betray him. But Joseph, being a just man, with great mercy spared his wife, in this great crime of which he suspected her. The seeming certainty of her unchastity tormented him, and yet because he alone knew of it, he was willing not to publish it, but to send her away privily; seeking rather the benefit than the punishment of the sinner.

There is one thing often said about our ancestors we must not say. We must not say "They believed in miracles because they did not know the Laws of Nature." This is nonsense. When St. Joseph discovered that his bride was pregnant, he was "minded to put her away." He knew enough biology for that. Otherwise, of course he would not have regarded pregnancy as a proof of infidelity. When he accepted the Christian explanation, he regarded it as a miracle precisely because he knew enough of the Laws of Nature to know that this was a suspension of them. When the disciples saw Christ walking on the water they were frightened: they would not have been frightened unless they had known the Laws of Nature and known that this was an exception. If a man had no conception of a regular order in Nature, then of course he could not notice departures from that order: just as a dunce who does not understand the normal meter of a poem is also unconscious of the poet's variations from it. Nothing is wonderful except the abnormal and nothing is abnormal until we have grasped the norm.

(ap. Anselm.) Or, in seeking to put her away, he was just; in that he sought it privily, is shown his mercy, defending her from disgrace; Being a just man, he was minded to put her away; and being unwilling to expose her in public, and so to disgrace her, he sought to do it privily.

(part ap. Anselm. part in Ord.) Or, being unwilling to bring her home to his house to live with him for ever, he was minded to put her away privily; that is, to change the time of their marriage. For that is true virtue, when neither mercy is observed without justice, nor justice without mercy; both which vanish when severed one from the other. Or he was just because of his faith, in that he believed that Christ should be born of a virgin; wherefore he wished to humble himself before so great a favour.

(Ver. 19.) But Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded privately to put her away. But while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: If any man take her as wife that has been defiled, her defilement is upon him (1 Cor. VI, 16). And it is commanded in the Law, not only guilty persons, but also those who have knowledge of the crime, to be subject to punishment (Lev. V): how then does Joseph, who conceals the crime of his wife, deserve to be called just? But this is a testimony to Mary, that Joseph knowing her chastity, and wondering at what had happened, kept silent about it, not understanding its mystery.

But how is Joseph thus called just, when he is ready to hide his wife's sin? For the Law enacts, that not only the doers of evil, but they who are privy to any evil done, shall be held to be guilty.

Or this may be considered a testimony to Mary, that Joseph, confident in her purity, and wondering at what had happened, covered in silence that mystery which he could not explain.

"And Joseph her husband, being," saith he "a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily."

Having said that it was of the Holy Ghost, and without cohabitation, he establishes his statement in another way again. Lest any one should say, "Whence doth this appear? Who hath heard, who hath seen any such thing ever come to pass?"-or lest you should suspect the disciple as inventing these things to favor his Master;-he introduces Joseph as contributing, by what he underwent, to the proof of the things mentioned; and by his narrative all but says, "If thou doubt, me, and if thou suspect my testimony, believe her husband." For "Joseph," saith he, "her husband, being a just man." By "a just man" in this place he means him that is virtuous in all things. For both freedom from covetousness is justice, and universal virtue is also justice; and it is mostly in this latter sense that the Scripture uses the name of justice; as when it saith, "a man that was just and true;" and again, "they were both just." Being then "just," that is good and considerate, "he was minded to put her away privily." For this intent he tells what took place before Joseph's being fully informed, that thou mightest not mistrust what was done after he knew. However, such a one was not liable to be made a public example only, but that she should also be punished was the command of the law. Whereas Joseph remitted not only that greater punishment, but the less likewise, namely, the disgrace. For so far from punishing, he was not minded even to make an example of her. Seest thou a man under self-restraint, and freed from the most tyrannical of passions. For ye know how great a thing jealousy is: and therefore He said, to whom these things are clearly known, "For full of jealousy is the rage of a husband;" "he will not spare in the day of vengeance:" and "jealousy is cruel as the grave." And we too know of many that have chosen to give up their lives rather than fall under the suspicion of jealousy. But in this case it was not so little as suspicion, the burden of the womb entirely convicting her. But nevertheless he was so free from passion as to be unwilling to grieve the Virgin even in the least matters. Thus, whereas to keep her in his house seemed like a transgression of the law, but to expose and bring her to trial would constrain him to deliver her to die; he doth none of these things, but conducts himself now by a higher rule than the law. For grace being come, there must needs henceforth be many tokens of that exalted citizenship. For as the sun, though as yet he show not his beams, doth from afar by his light illumine more than half the world; so likewise Christ, when about to rise from that womb, even before He came forth, shone over all the world. Wherefore, even before her travail, prophets danced for joy, and women foretold what was to come, and John, when he had not yet come forth from the belly, leaped from the very womb. Hence also this man exhibited great self-command, in that he neither accused nor upbraided, but only set about putting her away.

But if he had no suspicion of her, how could he be a just man, and yet seek to put her away, being immaculate? He sought, to put her away, because he saw in her a great sacrament, to approach which he thought himself unworthy.

(Serm. in App. s. 195.) Joseph, understanding that Mary was with child, is perplexed that it should be thus with her whom he had received from the temple of the Lord, and had not yet known, and resolved within himself, saying, What shall I do? Shall I proclaim it, or shall I overlook it? If I proclaim it, I am indeed not consenting to the adultery; but I am running into the guilt of cruelty, for by Moses' law she must be stoned. If I overlook it, I am consenting to the crime, and take my portion with the adulterers. Since then it is an evil to overlook the thing, and worse to proclaim the adultery, I will put her away from being my wife.

He beheld her to be with child, whom he knew to be chaste; and because he had read, There shall come a Rod out of the stem of Jesse, (Is. 11:1.) of which he knew that Mary was comes, and had also read, Behold, a virgin shall conceive, (Is. 7:14.) he did not doubt that this prophecy should be fulfilled in her.

Then Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to divorce her secretly. The law decreed that the adulteress be pilloried, that is, exposed and punished publicly. How, then, was Joseph righteous since he intended to cover up her sin and thus to transgress the law? The answer is, first, that he was righteous for intending to do this very thing. He did not wish to be harsh, but in his great goodness took compassion on her, showing himself to be above the law, and already living in a manner superior to the decrees of the law. Secondly, since he himself knew that she had conceived of the Holy Spirit, he did not wish to pillory and abuse her who had conceived not by adultery but of the Holy Spirit. Behold what the evangelist says: "She was found to be with child." Found by whom? By Joseph; that is, he discerned that she had conceived of the Holy Spirit. Therefore he "was minded to divorce her secretly," for he no longer dared to take as a wife her who had been deemed worthy of such grace.

Her husband Joseph being a just man. After indicating the manner of the generation, he now confirms it with witnesses. For when he had said above that the mother of Jesus was found with child and that this was of the Holy Spirit, someone might believe that the evangelist mentioned this out of respect for the Master. Therefore, the evangelist now confirms the aforesaid manner of generation: first, by a prophetic pronouncement: "All this took place..." (v. 22); secondly, the person revealing: "But as he considered this..." (v. 20); thirdly, the words of the revelation are presented: "Joseph, son of David..." (v. 20b).

The person to whom the revelation is made is commended for two things, namely, that he is just and, therefore, did not lie; secondly, from the fact that he was her spouse or husband and, therefore, would not tolerate any crime in her: "The zeal and fury of the husband will not spare, when he takes revenge" (Pr 6:34).

He says, therefore: she was found by Joseph with child. But Joseph, her husband, being a just man and unwilling to put her away. There are two opinions here, namely, of Ambrose and of Augustine. For Augustine suggests that Joseph, not being present when the angel's announcement was made, returned and finding her pregnant, had suspicions of adultery. But then the question immediately arises: how was he just, if he was unwilling to put her to shame whom he suspected of adultery, i.e., divulge her crime? For he seemed thereby to consent to her sin, and it says in Rom (1:32): "Not only those who do such things but approve those who do them deserve to die." Three answers are given to this. The first is according to Chrysostom, namely, that justice is twofold. For one is the justice which is the cardinal virtue, which is called special justice; the other is legal justice, which includes every virtue, as piety and clemency and so on. Therefore, when it is said that Joseph was just, it should be understood of general justice, so that justice is taken for piety. Hence, because he was just, i.e., pious, he was unwilling to put her to shame. Another answer is Augustine's, namely, that sin is of two kinds, namely hidden and open. For a hidden sin is not to be made a matter of public knowledge, but a remedy should be applied in a different way. Therefore, the suspicion of adultery which Joseph had was suspicion of a hidden and not open sin, because he alone knew; and again, if others knew that she was pregnant, they could not think but that it was from him. Therefore, her crime was not divulged. The third answer is that of Rabanus: that Joseph was just and pious. He was pious in that he was unwilling to divulge, but he appeared just in not wishing to put her away. For he knew that "one who keeps an adulteress is stupid and unwise" as it says in Pr (18:22). But according to Jerome and Origen, he had no suspicion of adultery. For Joseph knew Mary's purity and had read in the Scripture that a virgin would conceive (Is 7:14) and in (11:1): "There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots." He had also known that Mary had descended from David. Hence, it was easier for him to believe that this had been fulfilled in her than that she had fornicated. And so, considering himself unworthy to live together with such holiness, he wanted to put her away secretly; just as Peter said: "Depart from me, O Lord, for I am a sinful man" (Lk 5:8). Hence, he was unwilling to put her away, i.e., bring her to him and take her in marriage, for he thought himself unworthy.

In this word appeared is conveyed the power of Him that did appear, allowing Himself to be seen where and how He pleases.

(in Luc. ii. 5.) Be not troubled that he calls her his wife; for she is not herein robbed of her virginity, but her wedlock is witnessed to, and the celebration of her marriage is declared.

(Enchir. 38.) But shall we therefore say that the Holy Spirit is the Father of the man Christ, that as God the Father begot the Word, so the Holy Spirit begot the man? This is such an absurdity, that the ears of the faithful cannot bear it. How then do we say that Christ was born by the Holy Spirit, if the Holy Spirit did not beget Him? Did He create Him? For so far as He is man He was created, as the Apostle speaks; He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. (Rom. 1:3.) For though God made the world, yet is it not right to say that it is the Son of God, or born by Him, but that it was made, or created, or formed by Him. But seeing that we confess Christ to have been born by the Holy Spirit, and of the Virgin Mary, how is He not the Son of the Holy Spirit, and is the Son of the Virgin? It does not follow, that whatever is born by any thing, is therefore to be called the son of that thing; for, not to say that of man is born in one sense a son, in another a hair, or vermin, or a worm, none of which are his son, certainly those that are born of water and the Spirit none would call sons of water; but sons of God their Father, and their Mother the Church. Thus Christ was born of the Holy Spirit, and yet is the Son of God the Father, not of the Holy Spirit.

While St. Joseph, yet uninformed of so great a mystery, wanted to put away Mary quietly, he was advised in a dream by an angel who said to him, "Do not be afraid, Joseph, son of David, to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit." St. Joseph is made aware of the heavenly mystery, lest he think otherwise about Mary's virginity. He is also made aware of this that he might exclude the evil of suspicion and receive the good of the mystery. The following words were said to him: "Do not be afraid, Joseph, son of David, to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit," so he might acknowledge the integrity of his fiancée and the virgin birth. It was not appropriate for so great a mystery to be revealed to anyone other than Joseph, who was known to be Mary's fiancé, and no reproach of sin was attached to his name. In fact, Joseph translated from Hebrew into Latin means "beyond reproach." Notice here too the order of a mystery: The devil first spoke to Eve the virgin long ago, and then to a man, that he might administer to them the word of death. In the latter case, a holy angel first spoke to Mary and then to Joseph, that he might reveal to them the word of life. In the former case, a woman was chosen unto sin; in the latter case, she was chosen unto salvation. In the former case, the man fell through the woman; in the latter case, he rose through the virgin. The angel therefore said to Joseph, "Do not be afraid, Joseph, son of David, to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit."And he added, "She shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins." But this name of Lord which was given to Jesus from the virgin's womb is not new to him but old. For Jesus translated from Hebrew into Latin means "Savior." This name is agreeable to God because he says through the prophet: "Just God and a Savior; there is none beside me." Lastly, when the Lord himself would speak through Isaiah about the bodily origin of his nativity, he says, "The Lord called me from the womb, from the body of my mother he named my name." His name is certainly not strange, for Jesus was called according to the flesh (i.e., Savior, who was a Savior according to divinity). For Jesus, as we said, is rendered as "Savior." This is what he said through the prophet: "From the body of my mother he named my name." And that he might more fully show us the sacrament of his incarnation, he went on to say, "He made my mouth like a sharp sword … he made me a polished arrow, in his quiver he hid me away." By the arrow he signified his divinity; by the quiver he assumed a body from the Virgin in which his divinity was covered with a garment of flesh.

(part ap. Anselm. part in Ord.) Or, being unwilling to bring her home to his house to live with him for ever, he was minded to put her away privily; that is, to change the time of their marriage. For that is true virtue, when neither mercy is observed without justice, nor justice without mercy; both which vanish when severed one from the other. Or he was just because of his faith, in that he believed that Christ should be born of a virgin; wherefore he wished to humble himself before so great a favour.

(ap. Ans.) In this is to be noted the wise soul that desires to undertake nothing rashly.

(part Int. part Anselm.) The Angel appearing calls him by name, and adds his descent, in order to banish fear, Joseph, son of David; Joseph, as though he were known to him by name and his familiar friend.

(ord.) To be born in her, and born of her, are two different things; to be born of her is to come into the world; to be born in her, is the same as to be conceived. Or the word born is used according to the foreknowledge of the Angel which he has of God, to whom the future is as the past.

(Verse 20.) Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife. For what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son. And as we said before, the term 'spouses' is used for wives, as the book against Helvidius explains more fully. And an angel speaks to Joseph in a dream with gentle affection, to confirm the righteousness of his silence. It is also noteworthy that Joseph is said to be the son of David, in order to show that Mary is also from the line of David.

But we are not to think that she ceased to be betrothed, because she is here called wife, since we know that this is the Scripture manner to call the man and woman, when espoused, husband and wife; and this is confirmed by that text in Deuteronomy, If one find a virgin that is betrothed to a man in the field, and offer violence to her, and lie with her, he shall die, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife. (Deut. 22:23.)

The matter then being in this state, and all at their wits' end, the angel comes to solve all their difficulties. But it is worth inquiring, why the angel did not speak sooner, before the husband had such thoughts: but, "when he thought on it," not until then, he came; for it is said, "While he thought on these things, the angel" comes. And yet to her he declares the good tidings even before she conceived. And this again contains another difficulty; for even though the angel had not spoken, wherefore was the Virgin silent, who had been informed by the angel; and why, when she saw her betrothed husband in trouble, did she not put an end to his perplexity?

Wherefore then did not the angel speak before Joseph became troubled. For we must needs explain the former difficulty first. For what reason then did he not speak? Lest Joseph should be unbelieving, and the same happen to him as to Zacharias. For when the thing was visible, belief was thenceforth easy; but when it had not yet a beginning, it was not equally easy to receive his saying. For this reason the angel spake not at the first, and through the same cause the Virgin too held her peace. For she did not think to obtain credit with her betrothed husband, in declaring to him a thing unheard of, but rather that she should provoke him the more, as though she were cloking a sin that had been committed. Since if she herself, who was to receive so great a favor, is affected somewhat after the manner of man, and saith, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" much more would he have doubted; and especially when hearing it from the woman who was under suspicion. Wherefore the Virgin saith nothing to him, but the angel, the time demanding it, presents himself to him.

Why then, it may be asked, did he not so in the Virgin's case also, and declare the good tidings to her after the conception? Lest she should be in agitation and great trouble. For it were likely that she, not knowing the certainty, might have even devised something amiss touching herself, and have gone on to strangle or to stab herself, not enduring the disgrace. For wondrous indeed was that Virgin, and Luke points out her excellency, saying, that when she heard the salutation, she did not straightway pour herself out, neither did she accept the saying, but "was troubled," seeking "what manner of salutation this might be." Now she who was of such perfect delicacy would even have been distracted with dismay at the thought of her shame, not expecting, by whatever she might say, to convince any one who should hear of it, but that what had happened was adultery. Therefore to prevent these things, the angel came before the conception. Besides that, it was meet that womb should be free from trouble which the Maker of all things entered; and the soul rid of all perturbation, which was thought worthy to become the minister of such mysteries. For these reasons He speaks to the Virgin before the conception, but to Joseph at the time of travail.

And this many of the simpler sort, not understanding, have said there is a discordance; because Luke saith it was Mary to whom he declared the good tidings, but Matthew, that it was Joseph; not knowing that both took place. And this sort of thing it is necessary to bear in mind throughout the whole history; for in this way we shall solve many seeming discordances.

The angel then comes, when Joseph is troubled. For in addition to the causes mentioned, with a view also to the manifestation of his self-command, he defers his coming. But when the thing was on the point of taking place, then at last he presents himself. "While he thought on these things, an angel appeareth to Joseph in a dream."

Seest thou the mildness of the husband? So far from punishing, he did not even declare it to any one, no not even to her whom he suspected, but was thinking it over with himself, as aiming to conceal the cause even from the Virgin herself. For neither is it said that he was minded to "cast her out," but to "put her away," so very mild and gentle was the man. "But while he is thinking on these things, the angel appeareth in a dream."

And why not openly, as to the shepherds, and to Zacharias, and to the Virgin? The man was exceedingly full of faith, and needed not this vision. Whereas the Virgin, as having declared to her very exceeding good tidings, greater than to Zacharias, and this before the event, needed also a marvellous vision; and the shepherds, as being by disposition rather dull and clownish. But this man, after the conception, when his soul was actually possessed with that evil suspicion, and ready to exchange it for good hopes, if there appeared any one to guide that way, readily receives the revelation. Wherefore he hath the good tidings declared to him after his suspicion, that this selfsame thing might be to him a convincing proof of the things spoken. I mean, that the fact of his having mentioned it to no one, and his hearing the angel say the very things which he thought in his mind, this afforded him an unquestionable sign that one had come from God to say it. For to Him alone it belongs to know the secrets of the heart.

Mark only, what a number of results are here. The man's self-command is thoroughly shown; the word spoken in season contributes to his faith, and the history is freed from suspicion, in that it shows him to have felt what it was likely a husband would feel.

How then doth the angel assure him? Hear and marvel at the wisdom of his words. For being come he saith, "Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife." He straightway puts him in mind of David, of whom the Christ was to spring, and he doth not suffer him to be greatly perturbed, by the title of his forefathers, reminding him of the promise made to the whole race. Else wherefore doth he call him "Son of David"?

"Fear not:" and yet in another case God doeth not so, but when one was devising about a certain woman what he ought not, He spake the word more in a way of rebuke, and with a threat. And yet there too, the act was of ignorance, for not with knowledge did that person take Sarah; yet nevertheless He rebuked him: but here mildly. For exceeding great were the mysteries He was dispensing, and wide the interval between the two men; wherefore neither was there need of rebuke.

But by saying, "fear not," he signifies him to have been afraid, lest he should give offense to God, as retaining an adulteress; since, if it had not been for this, he would not have even thought of casting her out. In all ways then he points out that the angel came from God, bringing forward and setting before him all, both what he thought to do, and what he felt in his mind.

Now having mentioned her name, he stayed not at this, but added also, "thy wife;" whereas he would not have called her so, if she had been corrupted. And here he calls her that is espoused "a wife;" as indeed the Scripture is wont to call betrothed husbands sons-in-law even before marriage.

But what means, "to take unto thee?" To retain her in his house, for in intention she had been now put away by him. "Her, being put away, do thou retain," saith he, "as committed unto thee by God, not by her parents. And He commits her not for marriage; but to dwell with thee; and by my voice doth He commit her." Much as Christ Himself afterwards committed her to His disciple, so even now unto Joseph.

Then having obscurely signified the matter in hand, he mentioned not the evil suspicion; but, in a manner more reverent and seemly, by telling the cause of travail he removed this also; implying that the very thing which had made him afraid, and for which he would have cast her out,-this very thing, I say, was a just cause why he should take her and retain her in his house. Thus more than entirely doing away with his distress. "For she is not only free," saith he, "from unlawful intercourse, but even above all nature is her conception. Not only therefore put away thy fear, but even rejoice more exceedingly, 'for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.'"

A strange thing it was which he spake of, surpassing man's reason, and above all the laws of nature. How then is he to believe, to whom such tidings are altogether new? "By the things that are past," saith he, "by the revelations." For with this intent he laid open all things that were in his mind, what he felt, what he feared, what he was resolved to do;-that by these he might assure himself of this point.

As her betrothed husband also he is admonished not to be afraid; for the mind that compassionates has most fear; as though he were to say, Here is no cause of death, but of life; she that brings forth life, does not deserve death.

(Serm. in App. 195.) Yet though Joseph think on these things, let not Mary the daughter of David be troubled; as the word of the Prophet brought pardon to David, so the Angel of the Saviour delivers Mary. Behold, again appears Gabriel the bridesman of this Virgin; as it follows, Behold the Angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph.

(Hil. Quæst. N. et V. Test. qu. 52.) But if Christ was born by the agency of the Holy Ghost, how is that said, Wisdom hath built herself an house? (Prov. 9:1.) That house may be taken in two meanings. First, the house of Christ is the Church, which He built with His own blood; and secondly, His body may be called His house, as it is called His temple. But the work of the Holy Spirit, is also the work of the Son of God, because of the unity of their nature and their will; for whether it be the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, that doeth it, it is the Trinity that works, and what the Three do, is of One God.

By addressing him as son of David, he sought to recal to his memory the promise of God to David, that of his seed should Christ be born.

Also by the words, Fear not, he desired to show that he knew the heart; that by this he might have the more faith in those good things to come, which he was about to speak concerning Christ.

There were three reasons why the Angel appeared to Joseph with this message. First, that a just man might not be led into an unjust action, with just intentions. Secondly, for the honour of the mother herself, for had she been put away, she could not have been free from evil suspicion among the unbelievers. Thirdly, that Joseph, understanding the holy conception, might keep himself from her with more care than before He did not appear to Joseph before the conception, that he should not think those things that Zacharias thought, nor suffer what he suffered in falling into the sin of unbelief concerning the conception of his wife in her old age. For it was yet more incredible that a virgin should conceive, than that a woman past the age should conceive.

How the Angel appeared to Joseph is declared in the words, In his sleep; that is, as Jacob saw the ladder offered by a kind of imagining to the eyes of his heart.

Or, to take her, that is, in marriage union and continual converse.

Because Joseph was minded, as has been said, to put Mary away privily, which if he had done, there would have been few who would not rather have thought her a harlot than a virgin, therefore this purpose of Joseph was changed by Divine revelation, whence it is said, While he thought on these things.

But to what shifts you resort, in your attempt to rob the syllable ex (of) of its proper force as a preposition, and to substitute another for it in a sense not found throughout the Holy Scriptures! You say that He was born through a virgin, not of a virgin, and in a womb, not of a womb, because the angel in the dream said to Joseph, "That which is born in her" (not of her) "is of the Holy Ghost." But the fact is, if he had meant "of her," he must have said "in her; "for that which was of her, was also in her. The angel's expression, therefore, "in her," has precisely the same meaning as the phrase "of her." It is, however, a fortunate circumstance that Matthew also, when tracing down the Lord's descent from Abraham to Mary, says, "Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Christ."

But while he pondered these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying. When the righteous one was uncertain, then the angel appeared in order to show him what to do. The angel appeared to him in a dream, because Joseph had great faith. With the shepherds the angel conversed openly, as they were rough country men; but the angel spoke to Joseph, who was righteous and believing, in his sleep. How could Joseph not believe, when the angel spoke to him of matters that were in his mind and that he had not revealed to anyone? For it says, "while he pondered," but did not speak of, these things, the angel appeared to him. It was right that he believed the angel to be of God, for it is the attribute of God to know the things that are unspoken. Joseph son of David. The angel called him "son of David" to remind him that the prophets had foretold that the Christ would come from the seed of David. It is as if the angel were saying to him, "Do not doubt, but remember David who received the promise concerning Christ." Fear not to take unto thee. Here he shows that Joseph was afraid to keep her, lest he spurn God by harboring an adulteress. Or, in another sense, "Fear not," that is, "Though you fear to touch her who has conceived of the Holy Spirit, do not fear to take her unto thee, that is, to keep her within your house." For in his thoughts and deliberations he had already divorced her. Mary thy wife. This means, you perhaps think that she is an adulteress. But I say to you that she is your wife, that is, she has not been corrupted by anyone, but she is your own betrothed. For that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. Not only is she acquitted of any unlawful union, but she has conceived in some divine and wondrous manner. Therefore you ought rather to rejoice because of this.

But as he considered this... Here we are introduced to the person revealing, and three things are mentioned: first, the time; secondly, the person revealing is introduced; thirdly, the manner of the revelation is expressed.

He says, therefore: But as he considered this, i.e., while he was revolving these things in his mind, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared. Note that two things are commended about Joseph here, namely, wisdom and kindness. Wisdom, indeed, in the fact that he deliberated before he acted: "Take heed to the path of your feet" (Pr 4:26), i.e., do nothing without the judgment and deliberation of reason. There was kindness in his not divulging her deed: this is the opposite of many who want to make public at once whatever they have in their heart: "A man without self-control in speaking is like a city broken into and left without walls" (Pr 25:28). Therefore, he deserved to be instructed or consoled. Hence, he continues: behold, an angel of the Lord appeared, as though God's help was before his eyes: "The Lord is a helper in prosperity and in adversity" (Ps 9:10); "For, behold, God helps me, and the Lord defends my soul" (Ps 53:6).

An angel of the Lord: for nothing was better able to bring relief than one who knew that virginity had been preserved. Hence, the same angel sent to Mary was being sent to Joseph: "The angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear him" (Ps 34:7), i.e., Mary and Joseph, to free her from infamy and that Joseph not put her away in his disquiet.

But here the question arises why the revelation was not made to Joseph in the beginning, before he became so disturbed? Also, why did not Mary reveal to him the angelic announcement, which had been made to her? The answer to the first is that he did this to make his testimony more credible. For just as the Lord permitted the apostle Thomas to doubt his resurrection, so that while doubting he would feel, and feeling he would believe, and believing would remove the wound of unbelief in us, so the Lord permitted Joseph to doubt Mary's purity, so that while doubting, he would receive the revelation from the angel and, after receiving it, believe more firmly. The answer to the second is that if Mary had told him, he would not have believed.

Appeared to him in a dream. Behold the manner of the revelation. Note that, properly speaking, to appear is concerned with that which of its nature is invisible, yet it is in its power to be seen such as God or angels. For things whose nature is to be seen will not, properly speaking, be said to appear. Hence, it is called a divine apparition or angelic. Therefore, it is in the proper sense that "he appeared in a dream." But why in a dream? The reason is presented in a Gloss: because Joseph was somewhat doubtful. Hence, he was in a certain sense sleeping; and therefore, it is correct to say that the angel appeared to him in sleep. For as the Apostle says: "Prophecy has been given for believers, signs for unbelievers" (1 Cor 14:22). Properly speaking, a prophetic revelation occurs during sleep: "If there is a prophet of the Lord among you, I, the Lord, make myself known to him in a vision. I speak with him in a dream" (Num 12:6). Therefore, because Joseph was just and faithful, an appearance should have been made to him as to one faithful, namely, a revelation, as it were, prophetic. But because a bodily appearance is miraculous, such an appearance was not suited to him, since he believed and was faithful.

But then why was a visible appearance made to Mary, since she was most faithful? The answer is that the mystery of the Incarnation was revealed from its beginning, when it was more difficult to believe; therefore, it is fitting that a visible appearance be made to her. But it was not revealed to Joseph from its beginning but rather when it had been for the most part fulfilled, since he already saw her womb enlarged. Hence, he could believe more easily; and therefore, the appearance made in sleep was enough.

Joseph, son of David. Here the words of the revelation are presented. And it is divided into three parts in keeping with the three things the angel does. For, first of all, he forbids Mary and Joseph to divorce; secondly, he discloses the mystery of the Incarnation: that which is conceived in her...; thirdly, he foretells the devotedness Joseph would show to the child: she will bear a son.

He says, therefore, Joseph. He calls him and draws his attention, so that he will listen, and to recall him to himself. This is common in Scripture, namely, that when an appearance which concerns higher things is about to occur, it requires in the hearer a certain elevation and attention of the mind: "Son of man, stand upon your feet and I will speak with you" (Ez 2:11); and in (2:8): "I will take my stand to watch" (Heb 2:1). Son of David. Therefore, he expresses his lineage, to avoid what Isaiah (7:13) says: "Hear then, O house of David. Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also?" For the sign was not given to one person but to a whole tribe or house. Hence, because he had to instruct him about this, he is commanded in the expression of his lineage to fix the prophet's prediction in his memory. Do not fear. Every appearance, whether it be of a good or bad angel, causes some fear; and this, because such an appearance is extraordinary and, as it were, foreign to man's nature. Therefore, in a way, it puts a man outside himself. But in this there is a difference: because the appearance of an evil angel strikes terror, and he leaves a man in that terror, in order more easily to lead into sin a man put, as it were, outside himself. But the appearance of a good angel, although it produces terror, it ends at once and consolation is obtained, in order that the man may return to himself and understand what is being said to him. Hence, Luke (c. 1) says that an angel appeared to Zechariah and immediately adds: "Fear not, Zechariah" (1:13), and in (1:30): "Fear not, Mary." Hence, after the appearance to Joseph, consolation follows immediately. But he has two fears, namely, of God and of sin, i.e., that by living with Mary he was aware of sin; and therefore, Do not be afraid, namely, without sin, to take Mary, your wife. Note that she is called wife, not because of marriage but because of espousal. For it is the custom in Scripture to call espoused persons married and married persons espoused.

But why is he commanded to accept her, since he had not yet put her away? The answer is that although he had not put her away bodily, he had put her away in his attitude. And that is why he is commanded to accept her. Or fear not to accept her as to the solemnities and celebration of marriage.

That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. Here the mystery of the Incarnation is presented. And note that whereas there were three there; namely, the Virgin conceiving, the Son of God conceived, and the power of the Holy Spirit, the angel mentions two of them; namely, the one conceiving and the author of the conception. But the third, namely, the Son of God conceived, he only expresses indefinitely: that which is conceived in her. This suggests that he is ineffable and incomprehensible not only to men but also to angels. He says, that which is born in her, not "of her," because to be born of a woman is to come forth into the light; to be born in a mother is for the child to be conceived. Is of the Holy Spirit. This therefore, is the angel's testimony, which the Evangelist advances to prove what he had said above: she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.

Note that in the case of other women, when they conceive, a formative power is resident in the male seed. It is by this power that the fetus is formed and grows in the mother's womb. But the power of the Holy Spirit supplied this; therefore, the saints sometimes say that the Holy Spirit was there in place of the seed; sometimes it is said that there was no seed there at all. The answer is that in the male seed are two things: the bodily substance, that descends from the body of the male, and the formative power. Therefore, one must say that the Holy Spirit was there for the seed as to its formative power, but he was not there for the seed as to its bodily substance. For the body of Christ or his conception came to be not from the substance of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, it is clear that the Holy Spirit cannot be called the father of Christ, because he is not so either according to his human nature or his divine nature: not according to the divine, because, although Christ is of the same nature and glory as the Holy Spirit, the Son receives nothing according to this divine nature from the Holy Spirit. Therefore, he cannot be called his Son, for a son receives something from his father. Nor according to his human nature, because the father and the son must agree in nature; but Christ, although he was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, was not of the substance of the Holy Spirit.

But on the other hand, when it says, of the Holy Spirit, it is the same as what Pr (9:1) says: "Wisdom built herself a home." Therefore, it seems that divine wisdom itself, i.e., the Son of God, united the human nature to himself. Consequently, it was not done by the power of the Holy Spirit. There are two answers to this, according to Augustine: first, that the passage in Proverbs is understood of the Church which Christ founded in his blood. The second is that the works of the Trinity are undivided; and therefore, what the Son does, the Holy Spirit also does. But yet by a certain appropriation it is attributed to the Holy Spirit. The reason for this has been explained above.

(Enchir. 38.) But shall we therefore say that the Holy Spirit is the Father of the man Christ, that as God the Father begot the Word, so the Holy Spirit begot the man? This is such an absurdity, that the ears of the faithful cannot bear it. How then do we say that Christ was born by the Holy Spirit, if the Holy Spirit did not beget Him? Did He create Him? For so far as He is man He was created, as the Apostle speaks; He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. (Rom. 1:3.) For though God made the world, yet is it not right to say that it is the Son of God, or born by Him, but that it was made, or created, or formed by Him. But seeing that we confess Christ to have been born by the Holy Spirit, and of the Virgin Mary, how is He not the Son of the Holy Spirit, and is the Son of the Virgin? It does not follow, that whatever is born by any thing, is therefore to be called the son of that thing; for, not to say that of man is born in one sense a son, in another a hair, or vermin, or a worm, none of which are his son, certainly those that are born of water and the Spirit none would call sons of water; but sons of God their Father, and their Mother the Church. Thus Christ was born of the Holy Spirit, and yet is the Son of God the Father, not of the Holy Spirit.

(ap. Anselm.) That Joseph should not suppose that he was no longer needed in this wedlock, seeing the conception had taken place without his intervention, the Angel declares to him, that though there had been no need of him in the conception, yet there was need of his guardianship; for the Virgin should bear a Son, and then he would be necessary both to the Mother and her Son; to the Mother to screen her from disgrace, to the Son to bring Him up and to circumcise Him. The circumcision is meant when he says, And thou, shalt call His name Jesus; for it was usual to give the name in circumcision.

(Verse 21.) And you shall call his name Jesus. For he will save his people from their sins. Jesus means 'Savior' in Hebrew. The evangelist noted the etymology of his name, saying: 'You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people.'

Jesus is a Hebrew word, meaning Saviour. He points to the etymology of the name, saying, For He shall save His people from their sins.

Or rather, not by things past only, but likewise by things to come, he wins him over. "And she shall bring forth," saith he, "a Son, and thou shall call His name Jesus." "For do not thou, because He is of the Holy Ghost, imagine that thou art an alien to the ministry of this dispensation. Since although in the birth thou hast no part, but the Virgin abode untouched, nevertheless, what pertains to a father, not injuring the honor of virginity, that do I give thee, to set a Name on that which is born: for 'thou shalt call Him.' For though the offspring be not thine, yet shalt thou exhibit a father's care towards Him. Wherefore I do straightway, even from the giving of the name, connect thee with Him that is born."

Then lest on the other hand any one should from this suspect him to be the father, hear what follows, with what exact care he states it. "She shall bring forth," he saith, "a Son:" he doth not say, "bring forth to thee," but merely "she shall bring forth," putting it indefinitely: since not to him did she bring forth, but to the whole world.

For this cause too the angel came bringing His name from Heaven, hereby again intimating that this is a wondrous birth: it being God Himself who sends the name from above by the angel to Joseph. For neither was this without an object, but a treasure of ten thousand blessings. Wherefore the angel also interprets it, and suggests good hopes, in this way again leading him to belief. For to these things we are wont to be more inclined, and therefore are also fonder of believing them.

So having established his faith by all, by the past things, by the future, by the present, by the honor given to himself, he rings in the prophet also in good time, to give his suffrage in support of all these. But before introducing him, he proclaims beforehand the good things which were to befall the world through Him. And what are these? Sins removed and done away. "For He shall save His people from their sins."

Here again the thing is signified to be beyond all expectation. For not from visible wars, neither from barbarians, but what was far greater than these, from sins, he declares the glad tidings of deliverance; a work which had never been possible to any one before.

But wherefore, one may ask, did he say, "His people," and not add the Gentiles also? That he might not startle the hearer yet a while. For to him that listens with understanding he darkly signified the Gentiles too. For "His people" are not the Jews only, but also all that draw nigh and receive the knowledge that is from Him.

And mark how he hath by the way discovered to us also His dignity, by calling the Jewish nation "His people." For this is the word of one implying nought else, but that He who is born is God's child, and that the King of those on high is the subject of his discourse. As neither doth forgiving sins belong to any other power, but only to that single essence.

And hear again how Isaiah in express words foretold that He should be born of a virgin; for he spoke thus: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a son, and they shall say for His name, `God with us.'" For things which were incredible and seemed impossible with men, these God predicted by the Spirit of prophecy as about to come to pass, in order that, when they came to pass, there might be no unbelief, but faith, because of their prediction. But lest some, not understanding the prophecy now cited, should charge us with the very things we have been laying to the charge of the poets who say that Jupiter went in to women through lust, let us try to explain the words. This, then, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive," signifies that a virgin should conceive without intercourse. For if she had had intercourse with any one whatever, she was no longer a virgin; but the power of God having come upon the virgin, overshadowed her, and caused her while yet a virgin to conceive. And the angel of God who was sent to the same virgin at that time brought her good news, saying, "Behold, thou shalt conceive of the Holy Ghost, and shalt bear a Son, and He shall be called the Son of the Highest, and thou shalt call His name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins," -as they who have recorded all that concerns our Saviour Jesus Christ have taught, whom we believed, since by Isaiah also, whom we have now adduced, the Spirit of prophecy declared that He should be born as we intimated before. It is wrong, therefore, to understand the Spirit and the power of God as anything else than the Word, who is also the first-born of God, as the foresaid prophet Moses declared; and it was this which, when it came upon the virgin and overshadowed her, caused her to conceive, not by intercourse, but by power. And the name Jesus in the Hebrew language means Saviour in the Greek tongue. Wherefore, too, the angel said to the virgin, "Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins." And that the prophets are inspired by no other than the Divine Word, even you, as I fancy, will grant.

Let them approach to hear this, who ask, Who is He that Mary bare? He shall save His people; not any other man's people; from what? from their sins. That it is God that forgives sins, if you do not believe the Christians so affirming, believe the infidels, or the Jews who say, None can forgive sins but God only. (Luke 5:1.)

He said not, Shall bear thee a Son, as to Zacharias, Behold, Elisabeth thy wife shall bear thee a son. For the woman who conceives of her husband, bears the son to her husband, because he is more of him than of herself; but she who had not conceived of man, did not bear the Son to her husband, but to herself.

Thou shalt call His name, he says, and not, "shalt give Him a name," for His name had been given from all eternity.

He shows the same man to be the Saviour of the whole world, and the Author of our salvation. He saves indeed not the unbelieving, but His people; that is, He saves those that believe on Him, not so much from visible as from invisible enemies; that is, from their sins, not by fighting with arms, but by remitting their sins.

My present discussion is, how the evil spirit could have known that He was called by such a name, when there had never at any time been uttered about Him a single prophecy by a god who was unknown, and up to that time silent, of whom it was not possible for Him to be attested as "the Holy One," as (of a god) unknown even to his own Creator. What similar event could he then have published of a new deity, whereby he might betoken for "the holy one" of the rival god? Simply that he went into the synagogue, and did nothing even in word against the Creator? As therefore he could not by any means acknowledge him, whom he was ignorant of, to be Jesus and the Holy One of God; so did he acknowledge Him whom he knew (to be both). For he remembered how that the prophet had prophesied of "the Holy One" of God, and how that God's name of "Jesus" was in the son of Nun. These facts he had also received from the angel, according to our Gospel: "Wherefore that which shall be born of thee shall be called the Holy One, the Son of God; " and, "Thou shalt call his name Jesus."

And she shall bear a son. So that no one could ask, "How can I believe you that she has conceived of the Holy Spirit?" the angel speaks of the future, saying that she shall bear a son. "For if I tell the truth in this matter, it is clear that what I said concerning her conception of the Holy Spirit is also true." The angel did not say, "She shall bear you a son," but simply, "She shall bear a son." For Mary did not bring forth for Joseph's sake, but for the whole world; nor did this grace concern him alone, but it was poured out on all. And thou shalt call His name Jesus. "Thou shalt call," as though you were His father, and as the protector of the Virgin. For you must not think, Joseph, that because the conception is of the Holy Spirit that you can leave the Virgin helpless, but rather you will serve her in all things. For He shall save His people from their sins. Here he interprets the name "Jesus," showing that it means "Saviour." The angel says that Jesus will save His people, not only the Jewish people, but also the Gentiles who are eager to believe and to become His people. From whom will He save them? Perhaps from enemies? No, but from their sins. Hence it is clear that it is God Who will be born, for it is the attribute of God alone to forgive sins.

She will bear a Son. Here he foretells the obeisance Joseph will show to the child when born. And he does three things: first, he foretells the virgin birth; secondly, he shows beforehand the obeisance Joseph will show to the child; thirdly, he mentions the name conferred on the child, when he says Jesus.

He says, therefore, she will bear a son. He does not say, "to you," because he did not beget the child. In Luke (1:15) it says: "Your wife will bear you a son," because Zechariah himself begot it. Or he does not say, "to you," in order to show that he was born for all: she will bear a Son not only to you but to the whole world: "Behold, I bring you good news of great joy, because today is born to you in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord" (Lk 2:10). But because Joseph could say: So she has conceived of the Holy Spirit and will bear a Son. What does that have to do with me? She does not need me in any way. Therefore, he mentions Joseph's assistance. You shall call his name... It was a custom among the Jews, and it persists to this day, that they circumcised a son on the eighth day and then gave him a name. This was done by Joseph; hence in this work he was a minister, and it is said to him: You shall call, and not "you will give," because he was already named: "You shall be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord will give" (Is 62:2). Jesus. This is the name imposed by God. And he mentions the cause: for he will save his people..., a people acquired by his blood: "Those who deny him will not be his people" (Dan 9:26). Hence, they are the people of God by faith: "You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a purchased people" (1 Pt 2:9). In the book of Judges it is frequently said that such or such a one has saved Israel: but from whom? From material enemies. But here it is from their sins, by remitting them, which God alone can do: "In order that you may know that the Son of man has power on earth to forgive sins" (Lk 5:24).

Note that Nestorius is confused here, because he said that God's attributes, such as to be eternal and omnipotent and so on, do not belong to that man. Lo, the very same man, who was born of a virgin and is called Jesus, will save his people from their sins. Hence, since God alone can forgive sins, it is necessary to say that this man is God, and that the attributes of God belong to him in the truest sense.

(Cont. Faust. 12. 45, and 13. 7.) Who so mad as to say with Manichæus, that it is a weak faith not to believe in Christ without a witness; whereas the Apostle says, How shall they believe on Him of whom they have not heard? Or how shall they hear without a preacher? (Rom. 10:14.) That those things which were preached by the Apostles might not be contemned, nor thought to be fables, they are proved to have been foretold by the Prophets. For though attested by miracles, yet there would not have been wanting men to ascribe them all to magical power, had not such suggestions been overcome by the additional testimony of prophecy. For none could suppose that long before He was born, He had raised up by magic prophets to prophesy of Him. For if we say to a Gentile, Believe on Christ that He is God, and he should answer, Whence is it that I should believe on Him? we might allege the authority of the Prophets. Should he refuse assent to this, we establish their credit from their having foretold things to come, and those things having truly come to pass. I suppose he could not but know how great persecutions the Christian religion has formerly suffered from the Kings of this world; let him now behold those very Kings submitting to the kingdom of Christ, and all nations serving the same; all which things the Prophets foretold. He then hearing these things out of the Scriptures of the Prophets, and beholding them accomplished throughout the whole earth, would be moved to faith.

(ap. Anselm.) Or, he says, all this was done, meaning, the Virgin was betrothed, she was kept chaste, she was found with child, the revelation was made by the Angel, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken. For that the Virgin should conceive and should bring forth would never have been fulfilled, had she not been espoused that she should not be stoned; and had not her secret been disclosed by the Angel, and so Joseph taken her unto him, that she was not dismissed to disgrace and to perish by stoning. So had she perished before the birth, that prophecy would have been made void which says, She shall bring forth a Son. (Isa. 7:14.)

(non occ.) Or it may be said, that the word that does not here denote the cause; for the prophecy was not fulfilled merely because it was to be fulfilled. But it is put consecutively, as in Genesis, He hung the other on the gallows, that the truth of the interpreter might be proved; (Gen. 40:22.) since by the weighing of one, truth is established. So also in this place we must understand it as if it were, that which was foretold being done, the prophecy was accomplished.

(ap. Anselm.) This error then is barred by the Evangelist saying, That it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet. Now one kind of prophecy is by the preordination of God, and must needs be fulfilled, and that without any free choice on our part. Such is that of which we now speak; wherefore he says, Lo, to show the certainty of prophecy. There is another kind of prophecy which is by the foreknowledge of God, and with this our free will is mixed up; wherein by grace working with us we obtain reward, or if justly deserted by it, torment. Another is not of foreknowledge, but is a kind of threat made after the manner of men; as that, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown: (Jonah 3.) understanding, unless the Ninevites amend themselves.

(Verse 22 onwards) Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph, being raised from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him. And all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: Behold, a virgin shall conceive in her womb. But the prophet, because he predicts the future, signifies what is going to happen, and he writes, he will receive: but the evangelist, because he narrates a story not about the future but about the past, changed he will receive to he has received. For he who has, will by no means receive. We read something similar in the Psalms: You have ascended on high, you have led captivity captive: you have received gifts among men (Ps. 67:19). The apostle, in citing this testimony, did not say he received, but he gave: because there it signified about the future that he would receive; here it narrates about the one who had already given what he had received.

(In Is. 7:14.) Since it is introduced in the Prophet by the words, The Lord Himself shall give you a sign, it ought to be something new and wonderful. But if it be, as the Jews will have it, a young woman, or a girl shall bring forth, and not a virgin, what wonder is this, since these are words signifying age and not purity? Indeed the Hebrew word signifying Virgin (Bethula) is not used in this place, but instead the word 'Halmaa,' which except the LXX all render 'girl.' But the word 'Halma' has a twofold meaning; it signifies both 'girl,' and 'hidden;' therefore 'Halma' denotes not only 'maiden' or 'virgin,' but 'hidden,' 'secret;' that is, one never exposed to the gaze of men, but kept under close custody by her parents. In the Punic tongue also, which is said to be derived from Hebrew sources, a virgin is properly called 'Halma.' In our tongue also 'Halma' means holy; and the Hebrews use words of nearly all languages; and as far as my memory will serve me, I do not think I ever met with Halma used of a married woman, but of her that is a virgin, and such that she be not merely a virgin, but in the age of youth; for it is possible for an old woman to be a maid. But this was a virgin in years of youth, or at least a virgin, and not a child too young for marriage.

(In loc.) For that which Matthew the Evangelist says, Shall have in her womb, the Prophet who is foretelling something future, writes, shall receive. The Evangelist, not foretelling the future but describing the past, changes shall receive, into shall have; but he who has, cannot after receive that he has. He says, Lo, a Virgin shall hare in her womb, and shall bear a Son.

(in Is. 7:14.) The LXX and three others translate, 'Thou shalt call,' instead of which we have here, They shall call, which is not so in the Hebrew; for the word 'Charathib,' which all render Thou shalt call, may mean, 'And she shall call,' that is, The Virgin that shall conceive and shall bear Christ, shall call His name Emmanuel, which is interpreted, 'God with us.'

(ubi sup.) It should be known, that the Hebrews believe this prophecy to refer to Ezekias the son of Ahaz, because in his reign Samaria was taken; but this cannot be established. Ahaz son of Jotham reigned over Judæa and Jerusalem sixteen years, and was succeeded by his son Ezekias, who was twenty-three years old, and reigned over Judæa and Jerusalem twenty-nine years; how then can a prophecy prophesied in the first year of Ahaz refer to the conception and birth of Ezekias, when he was already nine years of age? Unless perhaps the sixth year of the reign of Ezekias, in which Samaria was taken, they think is here called his infancy, that is, the infancy of his reign, not of his age; which even a fool must see to be hard and forced. A certain one of our interpreters contends, that the Prophet Isaiah had two sons, Jashub and Emmanuel; and that Emmanuel was born of his wife the Prophetess as a type of the Lord and Saviour. But this is a fabulous tale.

(ubi sup.) What is spoken to Ahaz then is to be thus understood. This Child, that shall be born of a Virgin of the house of David, shall now be called Emmanuel, that is, God with us, because the events (perhaps delivery from the two hostile kings) will make it appear that you have God present with you. But after He shall be called Jesus, that is, Saviour, because He shall save the whole human race. Wonder not, therefore, O house of David, at the newness of this thing, that a Virgin should bring forth a God, seeing He has so great might that though yet to be born after a long while, He delivers you now when you call upon Him.

"Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying." In a tone worthy of the wonder, with all his might he hath uttered his voice, saying, "Now all this was done." For when he saw the sea and the abyss of the love of God towards man, and that actually come to pass which never had been looked for, and nature's laws broken, and reconciliations made, Him who is above all come down to him that is lower than all, and "the middle walls of partition broken," and the impediments removed, and many more things than these done besides; in one word he hath put before us the miracle, saying, "Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord." For, "think not," saith he, "that these things are now determined upon; they were prefigured of old." Which same thing, Paul also everywhere labors to prove.

And the angel proceeds to refer Joseph to Isaiah; in order that even if he should, when awakened, forget his own words, as newly spoken, he might by being reminded of those of the prophet, with which he had been nourished up continually, retain likewise the substance of what he had said. And to the woman he mentioned none of these things, as being a damsel and unskilled in them, but to the husband, as being a righteous man and one who studied the prophets, from them he reasons. And before this he saith "Mary, thy wife;" but now, when he hath brought the prophet before him, he then trusts him with the name of virginity; for Joseph would not have continued thus unshaken, when he heard from him of a virgin, unless he had first heard it also from Isaiah. For indeed it was nothing novel that he was to hear out of the prophets, but what was familiar to him, and had been for a long time the subject of his meditations. For this cause the angel, to make what he said easy to be received, brings in Isaiah. And neither here doth he stop, but connects the discourse with God. For he doth not call the saying Isaiah's, but that of the God of all things. For this cause he said not, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of Isaiah," but "which was spoken of the Lord." For the mouth indeed was Isaiah's, but the oracle was wafted from above.

(Serm. xxiii. 1.) The conception was by the Holy Spirit within the womb of the Virgin; who, as she conceived in perfect chastity, in like manner brought forth her Son.

Let them approach to hear this, who ask, Who is He that Mary bare? He shall save His people; not any other man's people; from what? from their sins. That it is God that forgives sins, if you do not believe the Christians so affirming, believe the infidels, or the Jews who say, None can forgive sins but God only. (Luke 5:1.)

(Dial. tit. 7.) For we know not that any man of that day was called Emmanuel. But the Hebrew objects, How can it be that this was said on account of Christ and Mary, when many centuries intervened between Ahaz and Mary? But though the Prophet was speaking to Ahaz, the prophecy was yet not spoken to him only or of his time only; for it is introduced, Hear, O house of David; (Isa. 7:13.) not, 'Hear, O Ahaz.' Again, The Lord Himself shall give you a sign; meaning He, and none other; from which we may understand that the Lord Himself should be the sign. And that he says to you, (plur.) and not 'to thee,' shows that this was not spoken to Ahaz, or on his account only.

(in App. s. 123.) He, who by a touch could heal the severed limbs of others, how much more could He, in His own birth, preserve whole that which He found whole? In this parturition, soundness of the Mother's body was rather strengthened than weakened, and her virginity rather confirmed than lost.

First, Angels hymning, secondly, Apostles preaching, then Holy Martyrs, and lastly, all believers.

It is the custom of the Evangelist to confirm what he says out of the Old Testament, for the sake of those Jews who believed on Christ, that they might recognize as fulfilled in the grace of the Gospel, the things that were foretold in the Old Testament; therefore he adds, Now all this was done. Here we must enquire why he should say all this was done, when above he has only related the conception. It should be known that he says this to show, that in the presence of God all this was done before it was done among men. Or he says, all this was done, because he is relating past events; for when he wrote, it was all done.

It is a question, who interpreted this name? The Prophet, or the Evangelist, or some translator? It should be known then, that the Prophet did not interpret it; and what need had the Holy Evangelist to do so, seeing he wrote in the Hebrew tongue? Perhaps that was a difficult and rare word in Hebrew, and therefore needed interpretation. It is more probable that some translator interpreted it, that the Latins might not be perplexed by an unintelligible word. In this name are conveyed at once the two substances, the Divinity and Humanity in the one Person of the Lord Jesus Christ. He who before all time was begot in an unspeakable manner by God the Father, the same in the end of time was made Emmanuel, that is, God with us, of a Virgin Mother. This God with us may be understood in this way. He was made with us, passible, mortal, and in all things like unto us without sin; or because our frail substance which He took on Him, He joined in one Person to His Divine substance.

(Hom. 1 and 2. in Conc. Eph. ap. Hard. t. i. pp. 1643. 1655.) Inasmuch as Photinus affirms that He that was now born was mere man, not allowing the divine birth, and maintains that He who now issued from the womb was the man separate from the God; let him show how it was possible that human nature, born of the Virgin's womb, should have preserved the virginity of that womb uncorrupted; for the mother of no man ever yet remained a virgin. But forasmuch as it was God the Word who was now born in the flesh, He showed Himself to be the Word, in that He preserved His mother's virginity. For as our word when it is begot does not destroy the mind, so neither does God the Word in choosing His birth destroy the virginity.

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying. Do not think that only now in these recent times did God resolve to do these things, but from before, even from the beginning. For you know the prophets, Joseph, as the student of the law which you are. Remember what was spoken by the law. He did not say, "what Isaiah had spoken," but, "what the Lord had spoken." For it was not man who spoke, but God, through the mouth of the prophet, and therefore the oracle is trustworthy.