Wednesday of the 27th week after Pentecost

(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.

The evangelist had indicated that the mother of God was found with child of the Holy Spirit, and he proved this above by the angel's revelation; here he proves it by appealing to an earlier prophecy. Hence, he says: All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet. And it should be noted that this passage can be understood here in two ways. For Chrysostom supposes that the angel said all this and introduced the prophecy, the reason being that he did not wish what he foretold to appear new. Consequently, he suddenly willed to show that it had been foretold many ages ago: "Who already made what will be" (Is 48:3), according to another translation. Others say (and I believe better) that the passage all this took place... are the words of the evangelist; for the angel's words end at He will save his people... And the evangelist introduces them for three reasons: first, to show that the Old Testament is about Christ: "All the prophets bear witness to him, that those who believe in him receive forgiveness of their sins" (Acts 10:45). Secondly, in order that they might more easily believe Christ: "If you believed Moses, you would perhaps also believe me; for he wrote of me" (Jn 5:46). Thirdly, to show the agreement between the Old and New Testaments: "These are the shadow of things to come, but the body is Christ" (Col 2:17).

But to understand what is contained in that prophecy, it should be noted that the angel announces three things: first, he said that which is born in her...; secondly, she will bear a son; thirdly, and his name shall be called. Therefore, it was of the Holy Spirit that she conceived through virginity.

But let us return to the text: All this took place to fulfill... But on the other hand, the angel had foretold many things, namely, that which is conceived in her; she will bear a son; and again, he shall be called... But not all this had taken place. One might answer one way according to Rabanus that all this took place... refers to past events; that the angel appeared to the Virgin and said those words, all this has taken place to preserve the Virgin, so that the "to" is taken in a causal sense. Or it refers to the things he had foretold, and it can be said that all took place on account of predestination. Or one might say that the evangelist wrote when all this had taken place; and therefore, it refers to that. Hence, the "to" is taken in a consecutive sense, because God did not will to be incarnated to fulfill a prophecy, as though the Old Testament has more dignity than the New; but after the prophecy Christ was made incarnate.

What then saith this oracle? "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel."

How was it then, one may say, that His name was not called Emmanuel, but Jesus Christ? Because he said not, "thou shalt call," but "they shall call," that is, the multitude, and the issue of events. For here he puts the event 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 amongst men. For He hath indeed always been amongst men, but never so manifestly.

But if Jews are obstinate, we will ask them, when was the child called, "Make speed to the spoil, hasten the prey?" Why, they could not say. How is it then that the prophet said, "Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz?" Because, when he was born, there was a taking and dividing of spoils, therefore the event that took place in his time is put as his name. And the city, too, it is said, shall be called "the city of righteousness, the faithful city Sion." And yet we nowhere find that the city was called "righteousness," but it continued to be called Jerusalem. However, inasmuch as this came to pass in fact, when the city underwent a change for the better, on that account he saith it is so called. For when any event happens which marks out him who brings it to pass, or who is benefited by it, more clearly than his name, the Scripture speaks of the truth of the event as being a name to him.

But if, when their mouths are stopped on this point, they should seek another, namely, what is said touching Mary's virginity, and should object to us other translators, saying, that they used not the term "virgin," but "young woman;" in the first place we will say this, that the Seventy were justly entitled to confidence above all the others. For these made their translation after Christ's coming, continuing to be Jews, and may justly be suspected as having spoken rather in enmity, and as darkening the prophecies on purpose; but the Seventy, as having entered upon this work an hundred years or more before the coming of Christ, stand clear from all such suspicion, and on account of the date, and of their number, and of their agreement, would have a better right to be trusted.

But even if they bring in the testimony of those others, yet so the tokens of victory would be with us. Because the Scripture is wont to put the word "youth," for "virginity;" and this with respect not to women only, but also to men. For it is said, "young men and maidens, old men with younger ones." And again, speaking of the damsel who is attacked, it saith, "if the young woman cry out," meaning the virgin.

And what goes before also establishes this interpretation. For he doth not merely say, "Behold, the Virgin shall be with child," but having first said, "Behold, the Lord Himself shall give you a sign," then he subjoins, "Behold, the Virgin shall be with child." Whereas, if she that was to give birth was not a virgin, but this happened in the way of marriage, what sort of sign would the event be? For that which is a sign must of course be beyond the course of common events, it must be strange and extraordinary; else how could it be a sign?

Begin we, therefore, to prove that the Birth of Christ was announced by prophets; as Isaiah (e.g., ) foretells, "Hear ye, house of David; no petty contest have ye with men, since God is proposing a struggle. Therefore God Himself will give you a sign; Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and ye shall call his name Emmanuel" (which is, interpreted, "God with us" ): "butter and honey shall he eat; " : "since, ere the child learn to call father or mother, he shall receive the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria, in opposition to the king of the Assyrians." Accordingly the Jews say: Let us challenge that prediction of Isaiah, and let us institute a comparison whether, in the case of the Christ who is already come, there be applicable to Him, firstly, the name which Isaiah foretold, and (secondly) the signs of it which he announced of Him. Well, then, Isaiah foretells that it behoves Him to be called Emmanuel; and that subsequently He is to take the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria, in opposition to the king of the Assyrians. "Now," say they, "that (Christ) of yours, who is come, neither was called by that name, nor engaged in warfare." But we, on the contrary, have thought they ought to be admonished to recall to mind the context of this passage as well. For subjoined is withal the interpretation of Emmanuel-"God with us"-in order that you may regard not the sound only of the name, but the sense too. For the Hebrew sound, which is Emmanuel, has an interpretation, which is, God with us. Inquire, then, whether this speech, "God with us" (which is Emmanuel), be commonly applied to Christ ever since Christ's light has dawned, and I think you will not deny it. For they who out of Judaism believe in Christ, ever since their believing on Him, do, whenever they shall wish to say Emmanuel, signify that God is with us: and thus it is agreed that He who was ever predicted as Emmanuel is already come, because that which Emmanuel signifies is come-that is, "God with us."

Now, it will first by necessary to show what previous reason there was for the Son of God's being born of a virgin. He who was going to consecrate a new order of birth, must Himself be born after a novel fashion, concerning which Isaiah foretold how that the Lord Himself would give the sign. What, then, is the sign? "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son." Accordingly, a virgin did conceive and bear "Emmanuel, God with us." This is the new nativity; a man is born in God. And in this man God was born, taking the flesh of an ancient race, without the help, however, of the ancient seed, in order that He might reform it with a new seed, that is, in a spiritual manner, and cleanse it by the re-moral of all its ancient stains.

Whereas, then, they contend that the novelty (of Christ's birth) consisted in this, that as the Word of God became flesh without the seed of a human father, so there should be no flesh of the virgin mother (assisting in the transaction), why should not the novelty rather be confined to this, that His flesh, although not born of seed, should yet have proceeded from flesh? I should like to go more closely into this discussion. "Behold," says he, "a virgin shall conceive in the womb." Conceive what? I ask. The Word of God, of course, and not the seed of man, and in order, certainly, to bring forth a son. "For," says he, "she shall bring forth a son." Therefore, as the act of conception was her own, so also what she brought forth was her own, also, although the cause of conception was not. If, on the other hand, the Word became flesh of Himself, then He both conceived and brought forth Himself, and the prophecy is stultified.

Now, to upset all conceits of this sort, let me dispel at once the preliminary idea on which they rest-their assertion that the prophets make all their announcements in figures of speech. Now, if this were the case, the figures themselves could not possibly have been distinguished, inasmuch as the verities would not have been declared, out of which the figurative language is stretched. And, indeed, if all are figures, where will be that of which they are the figures? How can you hold up a mirror for your face, if the face nowhere exists? But, in truth, all are not figures, but there are also literal statements; nor are all shadows, but there are bodies too: so that we have prophecies about the Lord Himself even, which are clearer than the day For it was not figuratively that the Virgin conceived in her womb; nor in a trope did she bear Emmanuel, that is, Jesus, God with us.

Nay, (I answer, ) this is spoken concerning the Spirit of God. For it was certainly of the Holy Spirit that the virgin conceived; and that which He conceived, she brought forth. That, therefore, had to be born which was conceived and was to be brought forth; that is to say, the Spirit, whose "name should be called Emmanuel which, being interpreted, is, God with us."

Behold, the Virgin shall be with child. The Jews say that it is not written in the prophecy "virgin" but "young woman." To which it may be answered that "young woman" and "virgin" mean the same thing in Scripture, for in Scripture "young woman" refers to one who is still a virgin. Furthermore, if it was not a virgin that gave birth, how would it be a sign, something extraordinary? Listen to Isaiah who says, "For this reason the Lord Himself shall give you a sign," and immediately he adds, "Behold, the Virgin" (Is. 7:14). So if it were not a virgin that would give birth, it would not be a sign. The Jews, then, alter the text of Scripture in their malice, putting "young woman" instead of "virgin." But whether the text reads "young woman" or "virgin," it should be understood in either case that it is a virgin who will give birth so that the event may be a miraculous sign. And shall bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. The Jews say, "How then is it that He was not called Emmanuel but Jesus Christ?" One may answer, "The prophet did not say 'You shall call,' but 'They shall call.'" That is, the events and deeds of His life will show that He is God and that He keeps company with us. For Holy Scripture gives names that are derived from the events of one's life; for example, "Call his name Plunder Swiftly" (Is. 8:3). Yet where does it record that anyone was ever called by such a name? But since error was despoiled and taken captive at the moment of the Lord's birth, Scripture gives this as His name, which He acquires from the event.

And this is stated in the prophecy: Behold, a virgin shall conceive; "Like the crocus it shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice with joy and singing" (Is 35:2). Likewise, A virgin shall bear a son, because in bearing, her virginity was not impaired in any way: "There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots." Christ is the blossom; therefore, the virginity was not harmed in any way. He continues, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

But why does this not agree with the angel's words, and he shall be called Jesus? The answer is that the promise was made to the Jews, who had obtained salvation from the coming of Christ. And Jesus means savior, which is the same as Emmanuel, God with us. For God is with us in four ways: by assuming our nature: "The Word was made flesh" (Jn 1:14); by a conformity in nature, because alike in all things: "Being born in the likeness of man" (Phil 2:8); by his bodily life: "After this he appeared on earth and lived among men" (Bar 3:37); by his spiritual mode of life: "Behold I am with you all days, even to the end of the world" (Mt 28:20).

But why does it say in Isaiah, "And he will be called," whereas it says here they shall call? Jerome says that here it says they shall call, because what the angel first called him at the annunciation (Lk 2:21) the apostles later called him when preaching and telling of his glory: "The in the name of Jesus every knee should bend" (Phil 2:10).

Which means God with us. But who added this interpretation of the prophecy, God with us? A prophet or the evangelist? And it seems that it was not the evangelist, because there was no need, since he wrote in Hebrew. One might answer in one way that Emmanuel is a composite name; hence, the evangelist interpreted it even in Hebrew. Or one might say that the person who first translated from the Hebrew inserted this interpretation.

It should be noted that in a Gloss it says that there are three kinds of prophecy, namely, of predestination, of foreknowledge and of threatening; and they differ. For prophecy is said to be the foretelling of things that are far off, i.e., of future things. And among future things some are such that God alone does them; others are such that, even though God does them, yet they are done by us and by other creatures; others, finally, are such that God does not do them at all, as evil things. The foretelling of things that God alone can do is called the prophecy of predestination, as the Virgin's conception; hence, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive" (Is 7:14), is a prophecy of predestination. But things done by secondary causes can be considered in two ways: first, as they are in the foreknowledge of God; for example, about Lazarus. For if someone considered natural causes, he would say that he would never rise, and he would be stating the truth; but he was destined to rise according to the order of divine foreknowledge. Therefore, when a prophecy is a foretelling of something as it exists in the divine foreknowledge, it is always fulfilled; but when it is according to the order of secondary causes, not always, as is clear from Isaiah (38:1), when Isaiah says to Hezekiah: "Set your house in order; for you shall die, you shall not recover."

But does a prophecy impose necessity on foreknowledge? The answer is that it does not, because prophecy is a sign of divine foreknowledge, which does not impose necessity on things foreknown, because it considers future things in their presentiality. For whatever is done is present to God, because his scrutiny extends to all time; for if I see something present, my scrutiny imposes no necessity, as when I see someone sitting. And this is the way we understood those prophecies listed in the book. For three errors must be considered. One was that of the Manichees asserting that no prophecy about Christ is found in the entire Old Testament, and any found in the New Testament are adulterations. On the other hand it says in Rom (1:1): "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets." That he is speaking of the Jewish prophets is clear in (c. 9:5): "Of their patriarchs is Christ according to the flesh." Another was that of Theodore, who says that none of the statements cited from the Old Testament are in the literal sense about Christ, but they are adaptations, as when they quote Virgil's line: "Remembering such things, he hung suspended; and he stayed where he was affixed"; for this has been adapted to Christ. Then the expression, to fulfill, should be explained, as though the evangelist were saying: "And this can be adapted." On the other hand, Luke (24:44) says: "Everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." And it should be noted that in the Old Testament there are some things that are referred to Christ and said of him alone, as in Is (7:14): "Behold, a virgin shall conceive in her womb and shall bear a son," and in Ps 22 (v. 1): "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" And if anyone taught a different literal sense, it would be heretical; and heresy is condemned. But because not only the words of the Old Testament but also deeds signify something about Christ, some are sometimes said literally of certain others, but are referred to Christ, in as much as these function as a figure of Christ; as when it is said of Solomon: "He shall rule from sea to sea" (Ps 72:8), for this was not fulfilled in him. The third error was that of the Jews. Here it should be noted that the Jews especially object to that text, because in Hebrew it does not say "virgin" but "fair", which is the same as a young woman. Hence, in the literal sense they are not said of Christ but of Emmanuel, or, according to others, of a certain son of Isaiah.

But Jerome objects against them: that it could not have been said of Isaiah's son is proved, because he had already been born, when this was said. Furthermore, there is no record at that time of any famous person named Emmanuel. Likewise, it is not a sign that a girl would give birth. Hence, he says that "fair" is equivocal and sometimes signifies age; sometimes hidden, and then it signifies a virgin carefully guarded: and that is what it signifies here. Again, the Jews object that it was given as a sign: "Two kings shall go forth to meet Ahaz" (Is 7:3) and he promised that they would be freed from them by giving this sign to Ahaz. The answer is that he gave this sign not only to Ahaz but also to the house of David, because he says: "Hear, therefore, house of David"; as if the prophet were saying: The Lord will help you against that king, because he will do much greater things, because he will be the liberation not only of him but of the whole world.

Joseph therefore learns from the angel about the sacrament of the heavenly mystery and happily complies with the angel's word. Rejoicing, he abides by the divine plan. He accepts holy Mary and glories in exultant praise because he was deemed worthy to hear that the virgin mother of such great majesty was called by the angel to be his wife.

(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.

(ord. et ap. Anselm ex Beda cit.) He not only did what the Angel commanded, but as he commanded it. Let each one who is warned of God, in like manner, break off all delays, rise from sleep, and do that which is commanded him.

Otherwise; On account of the glorification of the most holy Mary, she could not be known by Joseph until the birth; for she who had the Lord of glory in her womb, how should she be known? If the face of Moses talking with God was made glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look thereon, how much more could not Mary be known, or even looked upon, who bare the Lord of glory in her womb? After the birth she was known of Joseph to the beholding of her face, but not to be approached carnally.

(Ord.) Or; He is first-born among the elect by grace; but by nature the Only-begotten of God the Father, the only Son of Mary. And called His name Jesus, on the eighth day on which the circumcision took place, and the Name was given.

The passage for discussion now is, "And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife and knew her not till she had brought forth a son, and he called his name Jesus." Here, first of all, it is quite needless for our opponent to show so elaborately that the word know has reference to coition, rather than to intellectual apprehension: as though anyone denied it, or any person in his senses could ever imagine the folly which Helvidius takes pains to refute. Then he would teach us that the adverb till implies a fixed and definite time, and when that is fulfilled, he says the event takes place which previously did not take place, as in the case before us, "and knew her not till she had brought forth a son." It is clear, says he, that she was known after she brought forth, and that that knowledge was only delayed by her engendering a son. To defend his position he piles up text upon text, waves his sword like a blind-folded gladiator, rattles his noisy tongue, and ends with wounding no one but himself.

Our reply is briefly this — the words knew and till in the language of Holy Scripture are capable of a double meaning. As to the former, he himself gave us a dissertation to show that it must be referred to sexual intercourse, and no one doubts that it is often used of the knowledge of the understanding, as, for instance, "the boy Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem, and his parents knew it not." Now we have to prove that just as in the one case he has followed the usage of Scripture, so with regard to the word till he is utterly refuted by the authority of the same Scripture, which often denotes by its use a fixed time (he himself told us so), frequently time without limitation, as when God by the mouth of the prophet says to certain persons, [Isaiah 46:4] "Even to old age I am he." Will He cease to be God when they have grown old? And the Saviour in the Gospel tells the Apostles, [Matthew 28:20] "Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." Will the Lord then after the end of the world has come forsake His disciples, and at the very time when seated on twelve thrones they are to judge the twelve tribes of Israel will they be bereft of the company of their Lord? Again Paul the Apostle writing to the Corinthians says, "Christ the first-fruits, afterward they that are Christ's, at his coming. Then comes the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father, when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he has put all enemies under his feet." Granted that the passage relates to our Lord's human nature, we do not deny that the words are spoken of Him who endured the cross and is commanded to sit afterwards on the right hand. What does he mean then by saying, "for he must reign, till he has put all enemies under his feet"? Is the Lord to reign only until His enemies begin to be under His feet, and once they are under His feet will He cease to reign? Of course His reign will then commence in its fullness when His enemies begin to be under His feet. David also in the fourth Song of Ascents speaks thus, "Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maiden unto the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look unto the Lord our God, until he have mercy upon us." Will the prophet, then, look unto the Lord until he obtain mercy, and when mercy is obtained will he turn his eyes down to the ground? Although elsewhere he says, "My eyes fail for your salvation, and for the word of your righteousness." I could accumulate countless instances of this usage, and cover the verbosity of our assailant with a cloud of proofs; I shall, however, add only a few, and leave the reader to discover like ones for himself.

The word of God says in Genesis, "And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hand, and the rings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem, and lost them until this day." Likewise at the end of Deuteronomy, [Deuteronomy 34:5-6] "So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord. And he buried him in the valley, in the land of Moab over against Beth-peor: but no man knows of his sepulchre unto this day." We must certainly understand by this day the time of the composition of the history, whether you prefer the view that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch or that Ezra re-edited it. In either case I make no objection. The question now is whether the words unto this day are to be referred to the time of publishing or writing the books, and if so it is for him to show, now that so many years have rolled away since that day, that either the idols hidden beneath the oak have been found, or the grave of Moses discovered; for he obstinately maintains that what does not happen so long as the point of time indicated by until and unto has not been attained, begins to be when that point has been reached. He would do well to pay heed to the idiom of Holy Scripture, and understand with us, (it was here he stuck in the mud) that some things which might seem ambiguous if not expressed are plainly intimated, while others are left to the exercise of our intellect. For if, while the event was still fresh in memory and men were living who had seen Moses, it was possible for his grave to be unknown, much more may this be the case after the lapse of so many ages. And in the same way must we interpret what we are told concerning Joseph. The Evangelist pointed out a circumstance which might have given rise to some scandal, namely, that Mary was not known by her husband until she was delivered, and he did so that we might be the more certain that she from whom Joseph refrained while there was room to doubt the import of the vision was not known after her delivery.

In short, what I want to know is why Joseph refrained until the day of her delivery? Helvidius will of course reply, because he heard the angel say, [Matthew 1:20] "that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." And in turn we rejoin that he had certainly heard him say, [Matthew 1:20] "Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto you Mary your wife." The reason why he was forbidden to forsake his wife was that he might not think her an adulteress. Is it true then, that he was ordered not to have intercourse with his wife? Is it not plain that the warning was given him that he might not be separated from her? And could the just man dare, he says, to think of approaching her, when he heard that the Son of God was in her womb? Excellent! We are to believe then that the same man who gave so much credit to a dream that he did not dare to touch his wife, yet afterwards, when he had learned from the shepherds that the angel of the Lord had come from heaven and said to them, "Be not afraid: for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all people, for there is born to you this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord;" and when the heavenly host had joined with him in the chorus [Luke 2:14] "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of good will;" and when he had seen just Simeon embrace the infant and exclaim, "Now let your servant depart, O Lord, according to your word in peace: for my eyes have seen your salvation;" and when he had seen Anna the prophetess, the Magi, the Star, Herod, the angels; Helvidius, I say, would have us believe that Joseph, though well acquainted with such surprising wonders, dared to touch the temple of God, the abode of the Holy Ghost, the mother of his Lord? Mary at all events "kept all these sayings in her heart." You cannot for shame say Joseph did not know of them, for Luke tells us, [Luke 2:33] "His father and mother were marvelling at the things which were spoken concerning Him." And yet you with marvellous effrontery contend that the reading of the Greek manuscripts is corrupt, although it is that which nearly all the Greek writers have left us in their books, and not only so, but several of the Latin writers have taken the words the same way. Nor need we now consider the variations in the copies, since the whole record both of the Old and New Testament has since that time been translated into Latin, and we must believe that the water of the fountain flows purer than that of the stream.

Helvidius will answer, "What you say, is in my opinion mere trifling. Your arguments are so much waste of time, and the discussion shows more subtlety than truth. Why could not Scripture say, as it said of Thamar and Judah, [Genesis 38:26] 'And he took his wife, and knew her again no more'? Could not Matthew find words to express his meaning? 'He knew her not,' he says, 'until she brought forth a son.' He did then, after her delivery, know her, whom he had refrained from knowing until she was delivered."

If you are so contentious, your own thoughts shall now prove your master. You must not allow any time to intervene between delivery and intercourse. You must not say, "If a woman conceive seed and bear a man child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of the separation of her sickness shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days. She shall touch no hallowed thing," and so forth. On your showing, Joseph must at once approach, her, and be subject to Jeremiah's [Jeremiah 5:8] reproof, "They were as mad horses in respect of women: every one neighed after his neighbour's wife." Otherwise, how can the words stand good, "he knew her not, till she had brought forth a son," if he waits after the time of another purifying has expired, if his lust must brook another long delay of forty days? The mother must go unpurged from her child-bed taint, and the wailing infant be attended to by the midwives, while the husband clasps his exhausted wife. Thus forsooth must their married life begin so that the Evangelist may not be convicted of falsehood. But God forbid that we should think thus of the Saviour's mother and of a just man. No midwife assisted at His birth; no women's officiousness intervened. With her own hands she wrapped Him in the swaddling clothes, herself both mother and midwife, [Luke 2:7] "and laid Him," we are told, "in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn"; a statement which, on the one hand, refutes the ravings of the apocryphal accounts, for Mary herself wrapped Him in the swaddling clothes, and on the other makes the voluptuous notion of Helvidius impossible, since there was no place suitable for married intercourse in the inn.

(Cont. Helvid. c. 5.) Helvidius is at much superfluous trouble to make this word know refer to carnal knowledge rather than to acquaintance, as though any had ever denied that; or as if the follies to which he replies had ever occurred to any person of common understanding. He then goes on to say, that the adverb 'until' denotes a fixed time when that should take place, which had not taken place before; so that here from the words, He knew her not until she had brought forth her first-born Son, it is clear, he says, that after that he did know her. And in proof of this he heaps together many instances from Scripture. To all this we answer, that the word 'until' is to be understood in two senses in Scripture. And concerning the expression, knew her not, he has himself shown, that it must be referred to carnal knowledge, none doubting that it is often used of acquaintance, as in that, The child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem, and His parents knew not of it. (Luke 2:43.) In like manner 'until' often denotes in Scripture, as he has shown, a fixed period, but often also an infinite time, as in that, Even to your old age I am He. (Isa. 46:4.) Will God then cease to be when they are grown old? Also the Saviour in the Gospel, Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of this world. (Mat. 28:20.) Will He then leave His disciples at the end of the world? Again, the Apostle says, He must reign till He has put His enemies under His feel. (1 Cor. 15:25.) Be it understood then, that that which if it had not been written might have been doubted of, is expressly declared to us; other things are left to our own understandingc. So here the Evangelist informs us, in that wherein there might have been room for error, that she was not known by her husband until the birth of her Son, that we might thence infer that much less was she known afterwards.

(cont. Helvid. 8.) Lastly, I would ask, Why then did Joseph abstain at all up to the day of birth? He will surely answer, Because of the Angel's words, That which is born in her, &c. He then who gave so much heed to a vision as not to dare to touch his wife, would he, after he had heard the shepherds, seen the Magi, and known so many miracles, dare to approach the temple of God, the seat of the Holy Ghost, the Mother of his Lord?

From the words, her firstborn Son, some most erroneously suspect that Mary had other sons, saying that first-born can only be said of one that has brethren. But this is the manner of Scripture, to call the first-born not only one who is followed by brethren, but the first-birth of the mother.

(Cont. Helvid. 10.) For if he only was first-born who was followed by other brethren, then no first-birth could be due to the Priests, till such time as the second birth took place.

"Then Joseph, being raised from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him." Seest thou obedience, and a submissive mind? Seest thou a soul truly wakened, and in all things incorruptible? For neither when he suspected something painful or amiss could he endure to keep the Virgin with him; nor yet, after he was freed from this suspicion, could he bear to cast her out, but he rather keeps her with him, and ministers to the whole Dispensation.

"And took unto him Mary his wife." Seest thou how continually the evangelist uses this word, not willing that that mystery should be disclosed as yet, and annihilating that evil suspicion?

Took unto him, not took home to him; for he had not sent her away; he had put her away in thought only, and now took her again in thought.

As one might say, 'He told it not so long as he lived;' would this imply that he told it after his death? Impossible. So it were credible that Joseph might have known her before the birth, while he was yet ignorant of the great mystery; but after that he understood how she had been made a temple of the Only-begotten of God, how could he occupy that? The followers of Eunomius think, as they have dared to assert this, that Joseph also dared to do it, just as the insane think all men equally mad with themselves.

It may be said, that know here signifies simply, to understand; that whereas before he had not understood how great her dignity, after the birth he then knew that she had been made more honourable and worthy than the whole world, who had carried in her womb Him whom the whole world could not contain.

Life returned by the same entrance through which death had entered in. By Adam's disobedience we were ruined, by Joseph's obedience we all begin to be recalled to our former condition; for in these words is commended to us the great virtue of obedience, when it is said, And Joseph rising from sleep, did as the Angel of the Lord had commanded him.

Or, Took her so far, as that the nuptial rites being complete, she was called his wife; but not so far as to lie with her, as it follows, And knew her not.

It is clear that this Name was well known to the Holy Fathers and the Prophets of God, but to him above all, who spake, My soul fainted for Thy salvation; (Ps. 119:81.) and, My soul hath rejoiced in Thy salvation. Also to him who spake, I will joy in God my Saviour. (Ps. 13:5. Hab. 3:18.)

Then Joseph awoke from sleep and did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him. Behold a wakeful, vigilant soul who immediately obeyed. And took unto him his wife. The evangelist continually calls her "the wife of Joseph" to allay evil suspicion and to show that she was not anyone else's wife but his.

Having proved from the angel's revelation and from the prophet's prediction that the Mother of God conceived of the Holy Spirit, the evangelist plans to show the same thing from the obedience of Joseph, who would not have acquiesced in the angel's words that he take Mary as his spouse, unless he had known that she had been with child of the Holy Spirit. In regard to this he does two things: first, the spouse's obedience to the angel is mentioned; secondly, the manner of the obedience is described.

Note that because we lapsed into sin by the disobedience of the first man — "By the disobedience of one man many were made sinners" (Rom 5:19) — obedience is proposed at the beginning of our restoration.

And we can note four things necessary for obedience: The first is that it be well-ordered. I say well-ordered, because vices should be first abandoned and then one must obey in order to act virtuously: "Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns" (Jer 4:3). And therefore, it is stated here that Joseph rising from sleep, i.e., from laziness and doubt. Concerning this sleep Eph (5:14) says: "Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead." The second is that it be quick: "Do not delay from day to day, do not put off being turned to the Lord. For his anger will come suddenly" (Sir 5:8). And therefore, it is stated here that he did at once as the angel commanded him. A Gloss says: "Whoever is advised by God should avoid delays, rise from sleep and do what he is commanded." The third is that it be perfect, so that not only what is commanded is done, but the way in which it is commanded. Hence, it says here as he had commanded him. A Gloss: "perfect obedience." "Children, obey your parents in all things" (Col 3:20). The fourth is that it be discerning, so that one obeys the person who should be obeyed and in matters in which he should be obeyed, in order that nothing be done against God. Hence, he says that he did as the angel of the Lord (not an evil one) commanded him: "Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world" (1 Jn 4:1).

He took his wife. Here is shown the matter in which he obeyed. Three things are presented: first, the obedience he rendered to the angel; secondly, the reverence he showed the mother; thirdly, the service he offered the newborn Christ. The angel commanded Joseph: "Do not fear to take Mary, your wife." And Joseph did as the angel commanded. Here it is evident that he found a good wife. But didn't he have her in his house? Why then does he say: "And rising up, he took her"? Chrysostom answers: because he had not expelled her from the house but from his heart. Or because she was first brought, but the marriage was to be celebrated later, and then it is said that she is a wife.

Those heretics were called Antidicomarites who denied the virginity of Mary to the point that they claim that after the birth of Christ she had intercourse with her husband.

It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?

For "he did not know her" - it says - "until she gave birth to a Son, her firstborn." But this could make one suppose that Mary, after having offered in all her purity her own service in giving birth to the Lord, by virtue of the Holy Spirit, did not subsequently refrain from normal conjugal relations. That would not have affected the teaching of our religion at all, because Mary's virginity was necessary until the service of the Incarnation, and what happened afterward need not be investigated in order to affect the doctrine of the mystery. But since the lovers of Christ [that is, the faithful] do not allow themselves to hear that the Mother of God ceased at a given moment to be a virgin, we consider their testimony sufficient.

But concerning what the Evangelist said, "And he did not know her till she had borne her firstborn son," not a few careless people insist on asking whether after the Lord's birth the holy mother Mary had relations with Joseph. But this is not admissible on the grounds of either faith or truth. Far be it indeed that after the sacrament of so great a mystery and after the birth of the sublime Lord, one should believe that the Virgin Mary was intimate with a man. Remember that Miriam the prophetess of the Old Testament (the sister of Moses and Aaron) remained a virgin unsullied by man, having beheld the light of heavenly signs after the plagues of Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea and the Lord's glory going in advance and seen in a pillar of fire and clouds. It is not plausible therefore that the Mary of the Gospel, a virgin bearing God, who beheld God's glory not in a cloud but was worthy of carrying him in her virginal womb, had relations with a man. Noah, who was made worthy to converse with God, declared that he would abstain from the conjugal need. Moses, after hearing God calling him from the bush, abstained from conjugal relations. Now are we to believe that Joseph, the man who always did what was right, had relations with holy Mary after the birth of the Lord?

It helps us to understand the terms 'first-born' and 'only-begotten' when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin 'until she brought forth her first-born son' [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin

Because there are those who dare to say that Mary cohabited with Joseph after she bore the Redeemer, we reply, 'How would it have been possible for her who was the home of the indwelling of the Spirit, whom the divine power overshadowed, that she be joined by a mortal being, and gave birth filled with birthpangs, in the image of the primeval curse?' If Mary was blessed of women, she would have been exempt from the curse from the beginning, and from the bearing of children in birthpangs and curses. It would be impossible therefore to call one who gave birth with these birthpangs blessed.

For I have heard from someone that certain persons are venturing to say that she had marital relations after the Savior's birth. And I am not surprised. The ignorance of persons who do not know the sacred scriptures well and have not consulted histories, always turns them to one thing after another, and distracts anyone who wants to track down something about the truth out of his own head. To begin with, when the Virgin was entrusted to Joseph - lots having compelled her to take this step - she was not entrusted to him for marriage, since he was a widower. He was called her husband because of the Law, but it plainly follows from the Jewish tradition that the Virgin was not entrusted to him for matrimony. It was for the preservation of her virginity in witness to the things to come - [a witness] that Christ's incarnation was nothing spurious but was truly attested, as without a man's seed but truly brought about by the Holy Spirit.

Certain expressions in the evangelical narratives are said to imply that Mary bore other children besides the Lord, and it is even asserted that no unprejudiced person could interpret them otherwise. The justice of this charge may be fairly questioned. The context in each case seems to suggest another explanation of these expressions, which does not decide anything one way or the other. St. Matthew writes that Joseph 'knew not' his wife 'till (ewV ou) she brought forth a son' (1:25); while St. Luke speaks of her bringing forth 'her firstborn son' (2:7). St. Matthew's expression however, 'till she brought forth,' as appears from the context, is intended simply to show that Jesus was not begotten in the course of nature; and thus, while it denies any previous intercourse with her husband, it neither asserts nor implies any subsequent intercourse. Again, the prominent idea conveyed by the term 'firstborn' to a Jew would be not the birth of other children, but the special consecration of this one. The typical reference in fact is foremost in the mind of St. Luke, as he himself explains it, 'Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord' (2:23). Thus 'firstborn' does not necessarily suggest 'later-born,' any more than 'son' suggests 'daughter.' The two words together describe the condition under which in obedience to the law a child was consecrated to God. The 'firstborn son' is in fact the Evangelist's equivalent for the 'male that openeth the womb.'

(Verse 25.) And he took his wife, and did not know her until she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus. From this passage, some very perverse people suspect and say that Mary had other children, arguing that the term firstborn is only used when someone has siblings. However, this is contrary to the custom in the divine scriptures, where the term firstborn is not applied to someone who has siblings, but to the one who is born first. Read the aforementioned book against Helvidius.

And knew her not. This passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary's perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of inspired writers. Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.

There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest that from this passage (Matt 1:25) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company... And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second. Thus we see the intention of the Holy Spirit. This is why to lend ourselves to foolish subtleties would be to abuse Holy Scripture.

"And took unto him Mary his wife." Seest thou how continually the evangelist uses this word, not willing that that mystery should be disclosed as yet, and annihilating that evil suspicion?

And when he had taken her, "he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son." He hath here used the word "till," not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, "till"? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, "The raven returned not till the earth was dried up." And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, "From age until age Thou art," not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, "In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away," it doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word "till," to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference. Thus, what it was necessary for thee to learn of Him, this He Himself hath said; that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth; but that which both was seen to be a consequence of the former statement, and was acknowledged, this in its turn he leaves for thee to perceive; namely, that not even after this, she having so become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail, and a child-bearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her. For if he had known her, and had kept her in the place of a wife, how is it that our Lord commits her, as unprotected, and having no one, to His disciple, and commands him to take her to his own home?

How then, one may say, are James and the others called His brethren? In the same kind of way as Joseph himself was supposed to be husband of Mary. For many were the veils provided, that the birth, being such as it was, might be for a time screened. Wherefore even John so called them, saying, "For neither did His brethren believe in Him."

But just as He who was conceived kept her who conceived still virgin, in like manner also He who was born preserved her virginity intact, only passing through her and keeping her closed. [Ezekiel 44:2] The conception, indeed, was through the sense of hearing, but the birth through the usual path by which children come, although some tell tales of His birth through the side of the Mother of God. For it was not impossible for Him to have come by this gate, without injuring her seal in anyway.

The ever-virgin One thus remains even after the birth still virgin, having never at any time up till death consorted with a man. For although it is written, And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born Son [Matthew 1:25], yet note that he who is first-begotten is first-born even if he is only-begotten. For the word "first-born" means that he was born first but does not at all suggest the birth of others. And the word "till" signifies the limit of the appointed time but does not exclude the time thereafter. For the Lord says, And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world , not meaning thereby that He will be separated from us after the completion of the age. The divine apostle, indeed, says, And so shall we ever be with the Lord [1 Thessalonians 4:17], meaning after the general resurrection.

For could it be possible that she, who had borne God and from experience of the subsequent events had come to know the miracle, should receive the embrace of a man. God forbid!

I believe that He [Jesus] was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.

If anyone does not in accord with the Holy Fathers acknowledge the holy and ever virgin and immaculate Mary was really and truly the Mother of God, inasmuch as she, in the fullness of time, and without seed, conceived by the Holy Spirit, God in the Word Himself, who before all time was born of God the Father, and without loss of integrity brought Him forth, and after His birth preserved her virginity inviolate, let him be condemned.

And by a new nativity He was begotten, conceived by a Virgin, born of a Virgin, without paternal desire, without injury to the mother's chastity... for a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bare, and a Virgin she remained.

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.

Where are they who think that the Virgin's conception and giving birth to her child are to be likened to those of other women... The Virgin conceives, the Virgin brings forth her child, and she remains a virgin.

If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, the one from all eternity of the Father, without time and without body; the other in these last days, coming down from heaven and being made flesh of the holy and glorious Mary, Mother of God and always a virgin, and born of her: let him be anathema.

That is, he never came together with her at all. "Until" here does not mean that before the birth he did not know her and afterwards he did, but that he absolutely never knew her. Scripture employs this expression. For example, the raven "returned not unto the ark until the water had dried off from the earth" (Gen 8:7). But neither did it return after the water had dried off. Again, "I am with you until the end of the world" (Gen 28:20). So after the end He will no longer be with the saints? But how can that be? For at that time more than ever will He be with them. So must you understand here "until she brought forth'' to mean, neither before the birth nor after the birth did he know her. How could he have touched the Holy Virgin having once understood the ineffable birth giving?

The evangelist does not call Him "her firstborn son" in the sense that she later gave birth to a second son, but simply that He was the first and only child that she bore. For Christ is both the "firstborn" by having been born first, and the "only begotten," in that He had no brother.

And here, too, he shows Joseph's ready obedience to do everything that the angel had told him to do.

And knew her not until she had brought forth. That is, he never came together with her at all. "Until" here does not mean that before the birth he did not know her and afterwards he did, but that he absolutely never knew her. Scripture employs this expression. For example, the raven "returned not unto the ark until the water had dried off from the earth" (Gen 8:7). But neither did it return after the water had dried off. Again, "I am with you until the end of the world" (Gen 28:20). So after the end He will no longer be with the saints? But how can that be? For at that time more than ever will He be with them. So must you understand here "until she brought forth" to mean, neither before the birth nor after the birth did he know her. How could he have touched the Holy Virgin having once understood the ineffable birth giving? Her firstborn son. The evangelist does not call Him "her firstborn son" in the sense that she later gave birth to a second son, but simply that He was the first and only child that she bore. For Christ is both the "firstborn" by having been born first, and the "only begotten," in that He had no brother. And he called His name Jesus. And here, too, he shows Joseph's ready obedience to do everything that the angel had told him to do.

Some have said that this is not to be understood of carnal knowledge, but of acquaintance. Thus Chrysostom says [Opus Imperf. in Matth., Hom. 1: among the spurious works ascribed to Chrysostom] that "Joseph did not know her, until she gave birth, being unaware of her dignity: but after she had given birth, then did he know her. Because by reason of her child she surpassed the whole world in beauty and dignity: since she alone in the narrow abode of her womb received Him Whom the world cannot contain."

Others again refer this to knowledge by sight. For as, while Moses was speaking with God, his face was so bright "that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold it"; so Mary, while being "overshadowed" by the brightness of the "power of the Most High," could not be gazed on by Joseph, until she gave birth. But afterwards she is acknowledged by Joseph, by looking on her face, not by lustful contact.

Jerome, however, grants that this is to be understood of knowledge by intercourse; but he observes that "before" or "until" has a twofold sense in Scripture. For sometimes it indicates a fixed time, as Galatians 3:19: The law "was set because of transgressions, until the seed should come, to whom He made the promise." On the other hand, it sometimes indicates an indefinite time, as in Psalm 122:2: "Our eyes are unto the Lord our God, until He have mercy on us"; from which it is not to be gathered that our eyes are turned from God as soon as His mercy has been obtained. In this sense those things are indicated "of which we might doubt if they had not been written down: while others are left out to be supplied by our understanding. Thus the evangelist says that the Mother of God was not known by her husband until she gave birth, that we may be given to understand that still less did he know her afterwards" (Adversus Helvid. v).

But lest anyone suppose that intercourse had taken place, he continues but he knew her not. Here it should be noted that the word, "know", is taken in two ways in Sacred Scripture: sometimes for knowledge, as in John (16:7): "And you shall know him and have seen him"; sometimes for carnal intercourse, as in Gen (4:1): "But Adam knew Eve, his wife," i.e., carnally.

But one might object that it does not say absolutely that he knew her not, but until she had borne a son. He knew her later; hence, even Elvidius said: "Although the virgin conceived Christ, later she had other sons from Joseph." Therefore, Jerome says that "until" sometimes signifies something finite and determinate, as when I say: "I will not come, until I eat," because I signify that I will come after this; sometimes it signifies infinitely and indeterminately, for example: "He must reign, until he puts all enemies under his feet" (1 Cor 15:25). Does that mean that he will not reign after this? Not at all. But Scripture uses such a way of speaking, because it intends to remove what can be doubtful. For there could be a doubt, when the Blessed Virgin had brought forth, whether she had been known by Joseph before the birth of Christ, because the first should not have been a matter of doubt to anyone, because the angels sang: "Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to men of good will" (Lk 2:14). And therefore, this is what the evangelist intends. And Jerome's argument against Elvidius is excellent: "You say, Elvidius, that she did not know Joseph before the birth, because he had been warned in sleep by an angel. If, therefore, a warning in sleep was strong enough to keep him from knowing Mary, how much more the knowledge of the angels and the adoration of the shepherds and the Magi?" Chrysostom, however, took "knowledge" for intellectual knowledge. He did not know how great was her dignity; but after she brought forth, he knew. Others say that from speaking with the Lord, Moses' face shone so brightly, that the children of Israel could not gaze upon his face (2 Cor 3:7). Therefore, if Moses had this from communing with God, much more did this Blessed Virgin, who carried him in her womb have such facial brilliance, that Joseph did not know her. But the first explanation is more to the letter.

Elvidius likewise says that the words are "until she brought forth her firstborn son." But "first" is said with respect to others that follow. Therefore, she had other sons. Jerome answers that it is a custom in Scripture to call firstborn all those whom others did not precede; thus it says in Ex (13:12) that the firstborn of the Jews were offered to the Lord. Jerome asks: Was it necessary to wait and not offer him to the Lord, until a second son was born? Therefore, the firstborn are those whom others did not precede; and that is the sense here.

Then he mentions the service he rendered. Luke (2:2) mentions this in greater detail, but Matthew touches it lightly. For thus the Holy Spirit wills that what one says, the other passes over in silence. He called his name Jesus. This name was quite renowned and desired among the ancients: "I will await your salvation, O Lord" (Gen 49:11); "I will rejoice in the Lord and exult in God, my Jesus" (Hab 3:18).

I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonorable, impious, unworthy or evil... I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.

(in Luc. iii. 41.) It is said, that some Idumæan robbers coming to Ascalon, brought with them among other prisoners Antipatera. He was instructed in the law and customs of the Jews, and acquired the friendship of Hyrcanus, king of Judæa, who sent him as his deputy to Pompey. He succeeded so well in the object of his mission, that he laid claim to a share of the throne. He was put to death, but his son Herod was under Antony appointed king of Judæa, by a decree of the Senate; so it is clear that Herod sought the throne of Judæa without any connection or claim of birth.

(non occ.) After the miraculous Virgin-birth, a God-man having by Divine power proceeded from a virgin womb; in the obscure shelter of such a cradle, a narrow stall, wherein lay Infinite Majesty in a body more narrow, a God was suckled and suffered the wrapping of vile rags—amidst all this, on a sudden a new star shone in the sky upon the earth, and driving away the darkness of the world, changed night into day; that the day-star should not be hidden by the night. Hence it is that the Evangelist says, Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

(De Cons. Evang. 2. 15.) Concerning the place, Bethlehem, Matthew and Luke agree; but the cause and manner of their being there, Luke relates, Matthew omits. Luke again omits the account of the Magi, which Matthew gives.

(Serm. 202.) What were these Magi but the first fruits of the Gentiles? Israelitish shepherds, gentile Magians, one from far, the other from near, hastened to the one Corner-stone.

(Serm. 200.) Jesus then was manifested neither to the learned nor the righteous; for ignorance belonged to the shepherds, impiety to the idolatrous Magi. Yet does that Corner-stone attract them both to Itself, seeing He came to choose the foolish things of this world to confound the wise, and not to call the righteous, but sinners; that nothing great should exalt himself, none weak should despair.

(vid. contr. Faust. ii. 1.) And, according, to Faustus this introduction of the account of the star would lead us rather to call this part of the history, 'The Nativity,' than 'The Gospel.'

(de Civ. Dei, v. 1.) For by the word 'fate,' in common acceptation, is meant the disposition of the stars at the moment of a person's birth or conception; to which some assign a power independent of the will of God. These must be kept at a distance from the ears of all who desire to be worshippers of Gods of any sort. But others think the stars have this virtue committed to them by the great God; wherein they greatly wrong the skies, in that they impute to their splendent host the decreeing of crimes, such as should any earthly people decree, their city should in the judgment of mankind deserve to be utterly destroyed.

(de Civ. Dei, v. 6.) It cannot be said to be utterly absurd to suppose that sidereal afflatus should influence the state of the body, when we see that it is by the approach and departure of the sun that the seasons of the year are varied, and that many things, as shells and the wonderful tides of the Ocean, increase or decrease as the moon waxes or wanes. But not so, to say that the dispositions of the mind are subject to sidereal impulse. Do they say that the stars rather foreshew than effect these results? how then do they explain, that in the life of twins, in their actions, their successes, professions, honours, and all other circumstances of life, there will often be so great diversity, that men of different countries are often more alike in their lives than twins, between whose birth there was only a moment's, and between whose conception in the womb there was not a moment's, interval. And the small interval between their births is not enough to account for the great difference between their fates. Some give the name of fate not only to the constitution of the stars, but to all series of causes, at the same time subjecting all to the will and power of God. This sort of subjection of human affairs and fate is a confusion of language which should be corrected, for fate is strictly the constitution of the stars. The will of God we do not call 'fate,' unless indeed we will derive the word from 'speaking;' as in the Psalms, God hath spoken once, twice have I heard the same. (Ps. 62:11.) There is then no need of much contention about what is merely a verbal controversy.

(cont. Faust. ii. 5.) But if we will not subject the nativity of any man to the influence of the stars, in order that we may vindicate the freedom of the will from any chain of necessity; how much less must we suppose sidereal influences to have ruled at His temporal birth, who is eternal Creator and Lord of the universe? The star which the Magi saw, at Christ s birth according to the flesh, did not rule His fate, but ministered as a testimony to Him. Further, this was not of the number of those stars, which from the beginning of the creation observe their paths of motion according to the law of their Maker; but a star that first appeared at the birth, ministering to the Magi who sought Christ, by going before them till it brought them to the place where the infant God the Word was. According to some astrologers such is the connection of human fate with the stars, that on the birth of some men stars have been known to leave their courses, and go directly to the new-born. The fortune indeed of him that is born they suppose to be bound up with the course of the stars, not that the course of the stars is changed after the day of any man's birth. If then this star were of the number of those that fulfil their courses in the heavens, how could it determine what Christ should do, when it was commanded at His birth only to leave its own course? If, as is more probable, it was first created at His birth, Christ was not therefore born because it arose, but the reverse; so that if we must have fate connected with the stars, this star did not rule Christ's fate, but Christ the stars.

(Serm. 374. 1.) Will you ask, from whom had they learned that such an appearance as a star was to signify the birth of Christ? I answer from Angels, by the warning of some revelation. Do you ask, was it from good or ill Angels? Truly even wicked spirits, namely the dæmons, confessed Christ to be the Son of God. But why should they not have heard it from good Angels, since in this their adoration of Christ their salvation was sought, not their wickedness condemned? The Angels might say to them, 'The Star which ye have seen is the Christ. Go ye, worship Him, where He is now born, and see how great is He that is born.'

(ord. Josh. 19:15.) There are two Bethlehems; one in the tribe of Zabulon, the other in the tribe of Judah, which was before called Ephrata.

These Magi were kings, and though their gifts were three, it is not to be thence inferred that themselves were only three in number, but in them was prefigured the coming to the faith of the nations sprung from the three sons of Noah. Or, the princes were only three, but each brought a large company with him. They came not after a year's end, for He would then have been found in Egypt, not in the manger, but on the thirteenth day. To show whence they came it is said, from the East.

Or, they had dromedaries and Arabian horses, whose great swiftness brought them to Bethlehem in thirteen days.

(interlin.) 'His star,' i. e. the star He created for a witness of Himself.

(ord.) To the Shepherds, Angels, and the Magians, a star points out Christ; to both speaks the tongue of Heaven, since the tongue of the Prophets was mute. The Angels dwell in the heavens, the stars adorn it, to both therefore the heavens declare the glory of God.

(ord.) In the east. It seems doubtful whether this refers to the place of the star, or of those that saw it; it might have risen in the east, and gone before them to Jerusalem.

How vain moreover is prayer for those who live by fate; Divine Providence is banished from the world together with piety, and man is made the mere instrument of the sidereal motions. For these they say move to action, not only the bodily members, but the thoughts of the mind. In a word, they who teach this, take away all that is in us, and the very nature of a contingency; which is nothing less than to overturn all things. For where will there be free will? but that which is in us must be free.

He is also fittingly born in Bethlehem: for Bethlehem is interpreted as "house of bread." For he himself is the one who says: I am the living bread who came down from heaven. The place, therefore, in which the Lord is born was previously called "house of bread," because it was surely going to happen that he would appear there through the substance of flesh, who would refresh the minds of the elect with inner satisfaction.

As you heard in the Gospel reading, dearest brothers, when the King of heaven was born, the king of earth was troubled, because earthly height is confounded when heavenly height is revealed.

(in Evang. i. 10. n. 4.) It should be known that the Priscillianists, heretics who believe every man to be born under the aspect of some planet, cite this text in support of their error; the new star which appeared at the Lord's birth they consider to have been his fate.

(Sup. 2.) But far be it from the hearts of the faithful to call any thing, 'fate.'

(Hom. in Ev. Lib. i. Hom. 10.) To the Jews who used their reason, a rational creature, i. e. an Angel, ought to preach. But the Gentiles who knew not to use their reason are brought to the knowledge of the Lord, not by words, but by signs; to the one prophecy, as to the faithful; to the other signs, as to the unbelievers. One and the same Christ is preached, when of perfect age, by Apostles; when an infant, and not yet able to speak, is announced by a star to the Gentiles; for so the order of reason required; speaking preachers proclaimed a speaking Lord, mute signs proclaimed a mute infant.

Verse 2. "Wherefore the king commanded that the soothsayers, the magi, the charmers, and the Chaldeans show the king his dream. And when they came, they stood in the presence of the king." Those whom we have translated as "soothsayers" (harioli) others have rendered as epaoidoi, that is, "enchanters." Well then, it seems to me that enchanters are people who perform a thing by means of words; magi are those who pursue individual lines of philosophic enquiry; charmers are those who employ blood and animal sacrifices and often have contact with corpses. Furthermore the term "astrologers" among the Chaldeans signifies, I believe, what the common people call mathematicians. But common usage and ordinary conversation understands the term magi as wicked enchanters . Yet they were regarded differently among their own nation, inasmuch as they were the philosophers of the Chaldeans, and even the kings and princes of this same nation do all they can to acquire a knowledge of this science. Wherefore also it was they who first at the nativity of our Lord and Savior learned of his birth, and who came to holy Bethlehem and adored the child, under the guidance of the star which shone above them (Matthew 2:1-12).

We think the Evangelist first wrote, as we read in the Hebrew, 'Judah,' not 'Judæa.' For in what other country is there a Bethlehem, that this needs to be distinguished as in 'Judæa?' But 'Judah' is written, because there is another Bethlehem in Galilee.

They knew that such a star would rise by the prophecy of Balaam, whose successors they were. But whether they were Chaldæans, or Persians, or came from the utmost ends of the earth, how in so short a space of time could they arrive at Jerusalem?

We have need of much wakefulness, and many prayers, that we may arrive at the interpretation of the passage now before us, and that we may learn who these wise men were, and whence they came, and how; and at whose persuasion, and what was the star. Or rather, if ye will, let us first bring forward what the enemies of the truth say. Because the devil hath blown upon them with so violent a blast, as even from this passage try to arm them against the words of truth.

What then do they allege? "Behold," say they, "even when Christ was born a star appeared; which is a sign that astrology may be depended on." How then, if He had His birth according to that law, did He put down astrology, and take away fate, and stop the mouths of demons, and cast out error, and overthrow all such sorcery?

And what moreover do the wise men learn from the star of itself? That He was King of the Jews? And yet He was not king of this kingdom; even as He said also to Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world." At any rate He made no display of this kind, for He had neither guards armed with spear or shield, nor horses, nor chariots of mules, nor any other such thing around Him; but He followed this life of meanness and poverty, carrying about with Him twelve men of mean estate.

And even if they knew Him to be a king, for what intent are they come? For surely this is not the business of astrology, to know from the stars who are born, but from the hour when men are born to predict what shall befall them: so it is said. But these were neither present with the mother in her pangs, nor did they know the time when He was born, neither did they, beginning at that moment, from the motion of the stars compute what was to happen: but conversely, having a long time before seeing a star appear in their own country, they come to see Him that was born.

For if ye can learn what the star was, and of what kind, and whether it were one of the common stars, or new and unlike the rest, and whether it was a star by nature or a star in appearance only, we shall easily know the other things also. Whence then will these points be manifest? From the very things that are written. Thus, that this star was not of the common sort, or rather not a star at all, as it seems at least to me, but some invisible power transformed into this appearance, is in the first place evident from its very course. For there is not, there is not any star that moves by this way, but whether it be the sun you mention, or the moon, or all the other stars, we see them going from east to west; but this was wafted from north to south; for so is Palestine situated with respect to Persia.

In the second place, one may see this from the time also. For it appears not in the night, but in mid-day, while the sun is shining; and this is not within the power of a star, nay not of the moon; for the moon that so much surpasses all, when the beams of the sun appear, straightway hides herself, and vanishes away. But this by the excess of its own splendor overcame even the beams of the sun, appearing brighter than they, and in so much light shining out more illustriously.

In the third place, from its appearing, and hiding itself again. For on their way as far as Palestine it appeared leading them, but after they set foot within Jerusalem, it hid itself: then again, when they had left Herod, having told him on what account they came, and were on the point of departing, it shows itself; all which is not like the motion of a star, but of some power highly endued with reason. For it had not even any course at all of its own, but when they were to move, it moved; when to stand, it stood, dispensing all as need required: in the same kind of way as the pillar of the cloud, now halting and now rousing up the camp of the Jews, when it was needful.

In the fourth place, one may perceive this clearly, from its mode of pointing Him out. For it did not, remaining on high, point out the place; it not being possible for them so to ascertain it, but it came down and performed this office. For ye know that a spot of so small dimensions, being only as much as a shed would occupy, or rather as much as the body of a little infant would take up, could not possibly be marked out by a star. For by reason of its immense height, it could not sufficiently distinguish so confined a spot, and discover it to them that were desiring to see it. And this any one may see by the moon, which being so far superior to the stars, seems to all that dwell in the world, and are scattered over so great an extent of earth,-seems, I say, near to them every one. How then, tell me, did the star point out a spot so confined, just the space of a manger and shed, unless it left that height and came down, and stood over the very head of the young child? And at this the evangelist was hinting when he said, "Lo, the star went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was."

Seest thou, by what store of proofs this star is shown not to be one of the many, nor to have shown itself according to the order of the outward creation? And for what intent did it appear? To reprove the Jews for their insensibility, and to cut off from them all occasion of excuse for their willful ignorance. For, since He who came was to put an end to the ancient polity, and to call the world to the worship of Himself, and to be worshipped in all land and sea, straightway, from the beginning, He opens the door to the Gentiles, willing through strangers to admonish His own people. Thus, because the prophets were continually heard speaking of His advent, and they gave no great heed, He made even barbarians come from a far country, to seek after the king that was among them. And they learn from a Persian tongue first of all, what they would not submit to learn from the prophets; that, if on the one hand they were disposed to be candid, they might have the strongest motive for obedience; if, on the other hand, they were contentious, they might henceforth be deprived of all excuse. For what could they have to say, who did not receive Christ after so many prophets, when they saw that wise men, at the sight of a single star, had received this same, and had worshipped Him who was made manifest. Much in the same way then as He acted in the case of the Ninevites, when He sent Jonas, and as in the case of the Samaritan and the Canaanitish women; so He did likewise in the instance of the magi. For this cause He also said, "The men of Nineveh shall rise up, and shall condemn:" and, "the Queen of the South shall rise up, and shall condemn this generation:" because these believed the lesser things, but the Jews not even the greater.

"And wherefore," one may say, "did He attract them by such a vision?" Why, how should He have done? Sent prophets? But the magi would not have submitted to prophets. Uttered a voice from above? Nay, they would not have attended. Sent an angel? But even him they would have hurried by. And so for this cause dismissing all those means, God calleth them by the things that are familiar, in exceeding condescension; and He shows a large and extraordinary star, so as to astonish them, both at the greatness and beauty of its appearance, and the manner of its course.

"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." While wise men followed under the auspices of a star, these believed not, with prophets even sounding in their ears. But wherefore doth he mention to us both the time and the place, saying, "in Bethlehem," and "in the days of Herod the king?" And for what reason doth he add his rank also? His rank, because there was also another Herod, he who slew John: but that was a tetrarch, this a king. And the place likewise, and the time, he puts down, to bring to our remembrance ancient prophecies; whereof one was uttered by Micah, saying, "And thou, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art by no means the least among the princes of Judah;" and the other by the patriarch Jacob, distinctly marking out to us the time, and setting forth the great sign of His coming. For, "A ruler," saith he, "shall not fail out of Judah, nor a leader out of his loins, until He come for whom it is appointed, and He is the expectation of the Gentiles."

And this again is worth inquiry, whence it was that they came to entertain such a thought, and who it was that stirred them up to this. For it doth not seem to me to be the work of the star only, but also of God, who moved their soul; which same kind of thing He did also in the case of Cyrus, disposing him to let the Jews go. He did not however so do this as to destroy their free will, since even when He called Paul from above by a voice, He manifested both His own grace and Paul's obedience.

And wherefore, one may ask, did He not reveal this to all the wise men of the East? Because all would not have believed, but these were better prepared than the rest; since also there were countless nations that perished, but it was to the Ninevites only that the prophet was sent; and there were two thieves on the cross, but one only was saved. See at least the virtue of these men, not only by their coming, but also by their boldness of speech. For so that they may not seem to be a sort of impostors, they tell who showed them the way, and the length of their journey; and being come, they had boldness of speech: "for we are come," that is their statement, "to worship Him:" and they were afraid neither of the people's anger, nor of the tyranny of the king. Whence to me at least they seem to have been at home also teachers of their countrymen. For they who here did not shrink from saying this, much more would they speak boldly in their own country, as having received both the oracle from the angel, and the testimony from the prophet.

(Serm. xxxiii. 2.) Christ Himself, the expectation of the nations, that innumerable posterity once promised to the most blessed patriarch Abraham, but to be born not after the flesh, but by the Spirit; therefore likened to the stars for multitude, that from the father of all nations, not an earthly but an heavenly progeny might be looked for. Thus the heirs of that promised posterity, marked out in the stars, are roused to the faith by the rise of a new star, and where the heavens had been at first called in to witness, the aid of Heaven is continued.

(Serm. xxxiv. 3.) Besides that star thus seen with the bodily eye, a yet brighter ray of truth pierced their hearts; they were enlightened by the illumination of the true faith.

(ubi sup.) What they knew and believed might have been sufficient for themselves, that they needed not to seek to see with the bodily eye, what they saw so clearly with the spiritual. But their earnestness and perseverance to see the Babe was for our profit. It profited us that Thomas, after the Lord's resurrection, touched and felt the marks of his wounds, and so for our profit the Magians' eyes looked on the Lord in His cradle.

What does this mean, that it was in the time of a very malevolent king that God descended to earth, divinity entered into flesh, a heavenly union occurred with an earthly body? What does this mean? How could it happen that a tyrant could then be driven out by one who was not a king, who would free his people, renew the face of the earth and restore freedom? Herod, an apostate, had wrongly invaded the kingdom of the Jews, taken away their liberty, profaned their holy places, disrupted the established order, abolished whatever there was of discipline and religious worship. It was fitting therefore that God's own aid would come to succor that holy race without any human help. Rightly did God emancipate the race that no human hand could free. In just this way will Christ come again, to undo the antichrist, free the world, restore the original land of paradise, uphold the liberty of the world and take away all its slavery.

(Append. Serm. 132.) Many kings of Judæa had been born and died before, yet had Magi ever sought out any of them for adoration? No, for they had not been taught that any of these spoke from heaven. To no ordinary King of Judæa had these men, aliens from the land of Judæa, ever thought such honour due. But they had been taught that this Child was one, in worshipping whom they would certainly secure that salvation which is of God. Neither His age was such as attracts men's flattery; His limbs not robed in purple, His brow not crowned with a diamond, no pompous train, no awful army, no glorious fame of battles, attracted these men to Him from the remotest countries, with such earnestness of supplication. There lay in a manger a Boy, newly born, of infantine size, of pitiable poverty. But in that small Infant lay hid something great, which these men, the first-fruits of the Gentiles, had learned not of earth but of heaven; as it follows, We have seen His star in the east. They announce the vision and ask, they believe and enquire, as signifying those who walk by faith and desire sight.

(Hill. Quæst. V. and N. Test. q. 63.) They might think that a king of Judæa was born, since the birth of temporal princes is sometimes attended by a star. These Chaldean Magi inspected the stars, not with malevolence, but with the true desire of knowledge; following, it may be supposed, the tradition from Balaam; so that when they saw this new and singular star, they understood it to be that of which Balaam had prophesied, as marking the birth of a King of Judæa.

Let us see to what serves this designation of time. In the days of Herod the king. It shows the fulfilment of Daniel's prophecy, wherein he spake that Christ should be born after seventy weeks of years. For from the time of the prophecy to the reign of Herod, the years of seventy weeks were accomplished. Or again, as long as Judæa was ruled by Jewish princes, though sinners, so long prophets were sent for its amendment; but now, whereas God's law was held under the power of an unrighteous king, and the righteousness of God enslaved by the Roman rule, Christ is born; the more desperate sickness required the better physician.

When He was born ... behold wise men, that is, immediately on His birth, showing that a great God existed in a little one of man.

Or, they had set out two years before the Saviour's birth, and though they travelled all that time, neither meat nor drink failed in their scrips.

Or, whence the day springs, thence came the first-fruits of the faith; for faith is the light of the soul. Therefore they came from the East, but to Jerusalem.

If then any should become an adulterer or homicide through means of the planets, how great is the evil and wickedness of those stars, or rather of Him who made them? For as God knows things to come, and what evils are to spring from those stars; if He would not hinder it, He is not good; if He would but could not, He is weak. Again, if it be of the star that we are either good or bad, we have neither merit nor demerit, as being involuntary agents; and why should I be punished for sin which I have done not wilfully, but by necessity? The very commands of God against sin, and exhortations to righteousness, overthrow such folly. For where a man has not power to do, or where he has not power to forbear, who would command him either to do or to forbear?

Were they then ignorant that Herod reigned in Jerusalem? Or that it is a capital treason to proclaim another King while one yet lives? But while they thought on the King to come, they feared not the king that was; while as yet they had not seen Christ, they were ready to die for Him. O blessed Magi! who before the face of a most cruel king, and before having beheld Christ, were made His confessors.

Otherwise, he mentions the foreign king to show the fulfilment of the prophecy. The Sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a Lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come. (Gen. 49:10.)

The Magi are men who enquire into the nature of things philosophically, but common speech uses Magi for wizards. In their own country, however, they are held in other repute, being the philosophers of the Chaldæans, in whose lore kings and princes of that nation are taught, and by which themselves knew the birth of the Lord.

In the beginning of this passage of the Gospel he puts three several things; the person, When Jesus was born, the place, in Bethlehem of Judæa, and the time, in the days of Herod the king. These three circumstances verify his words.

It should be known, that opinions vary respecting the Magi. Some say they were Chaldæans, who are known to have worshipped a star as God; thus their fictitious Deity showed them the way to the true God. Others think that they were Persians; others again, that they came from the utmost ends of the earth. Another and more probable opinion is, that they were descendants of Balaam, who having his prophecy, There shall rise a Star out of Jacob, (Numb. 24:17.) as soon as they saw the star, would know that a King was born.

Some used to answer, 'No marvel if that boy who was then born could draw them so speedily, though it were from the ends of the earth.'

Or, if they were the descendants of Balaam, their kings are not far distant from the land of promise, and might easily come to Jerusalem in that so short time. But why does he write from the East? Because surely they came from a country eastward of Judæa. But there is also great beauty in this, They came out of the East, seeing all who come to the Lord, come from Him and through Him; as it is said in Zechariah, Behold the Man whose name is the East. (Zech. 6:12.)

Yet was not the Lord born there; thus they knew the time but not the place of His birth. Jerusalem being the royal city, they believed that such a child could not be born in any other. Or it was to fulfil that Scripture, The Law shall go out of Sion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. (Isa. 2:3.) And there Christ was first preached. Or it was to condemn the backwardness of the Jews.

Some affirm this star to have been the Holy Spirit; He who descended on the baptized Lord as a dove, appearing to the Magi as a star. Others say it was an Angel, the same who appeared to the shepherds.

Let those Eastern magi be believed, dowering with gold and incense the infancy of Christ as a king; and the infant has received "the power of Damascus" without battle and arms.

Let the shepherds take better care of their flock, and let the wise men spare their legs so long a journey; let them keep their gold to themselves.

The patriarch Jacob had already anticipated this very time precisely when he said, "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs." Matthew brought these same prophetic testimonies forward in order to show from them that everything came about according to the words of the prophets. On the one hand, he showed that Christ would come from Bethlehem, as had been said by the prophet. On the other hand, he demonstrated that this saying of Jacob prefigured that this was to occur "in the days of Herod." First then those who ruled over Israel were from David, from the tribe of Judah (Levi's brother), until the captivity in Babylon. After these things the high priests themselves who held the leadership of the people were of the tribe of Levi, but their lineage was also traced from Judah. An intermixture had occurred between the levitical tribe—especially the high priests—and the royal tribe of Judah. Afterward, when the brothers Aristobulus and Hyrcanus came into conflict with each other and warred over the monarchy, the kingdom finally settled upon Herod, who was not a Jew by race, for he was the son of Antipater, an Idumean. And it was, in fact, during the time of his kingdom that Christ the Master appeared, when the kings and rulers from among the Jews had ceased.

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea. Being interpreted, "Bethlehem" means "house of bread" and "Judea" means "confession." May we also now become a house of the spiritual bread by means of our confession. In the days of Herod. He mentions Herod so that you, O reader, might learn that the line of rulers and kings of the tribe of Judah had failed, and so by necessity Christ came. For Herod was not a Judean, but an Idumean, the son of Antipater by an Arab woman. So when the line of the rulers had failed, then came the Expectation of the Gentiles, as Jacob had prophesied. The king. There was another Herod, the Tetrarch, and so the evangelist adds the title "king." Behold, there came Magi from the east to Jerusalem. Why did the Magi come? For the condemnation of the Jews. For if the idolatrous Magi believed, what defense could the Jews give? The Magi also came so that the glory of Christ might shine forth all the more through the witness of the Magi who before had been subject to the demons and were enemies of God. "From the east." This, too, is for the condemnation of the Jews; for the Magi came from such a great distance to worship Him, while the Jews, who had Christ there in their midst, persecuted Him.

Having dealt with the birth of Christ, the evangelist now intends to make it manifest: first, by the testimony of the Magi; secondly by the testimony of the Innocents (v. 13).

In regard to the first he presents three things: first, the birth of Christ is announced; secondly, the place is inquired into (v. 3); thirdly, the person of Jesus is sought (v. 7).

In regard to the first he does three things: first, Christ's birth is declared and testimony given; secondly, the witnesses are introduced (v. 1b); thirdly, their testimony is given (v. 2).

In regard to the first he touches on four things: the birth, the name of the newborn, the place and the time.

(1) The first is mentioned, when he says, Now when Jesus was born. And it should be noted that Luke discusses the birth more fully, whereas Matthew discusses the adoration of the Magi more fully than Luke. The name is mentioned, when he says, Jesus; the place, when he says, in Bethlehem of Judah, not of Judea, which the entire region of the people of Israel is called, but of Judah, i.e., that portion of the land which fell by lot to Judah. It is called "Bethlehem of Judah" to distinguish it from the other Bethlehem, which is in the tribe of Zebulun, which Joshua mentions (9:10).

Note that those three phrases, When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judah in the days of Herod, the king, are fittingly placed. For Bethlehem signifies the Church, in which was born Jesus, the true bread, about which John (6:35) says: "I am the true bread which came down from heaven." Therefore, salvation comes to no one, unless he is in the Lord's house. In these is Christ, the Savior, born: "You shall call your borders salvation and your gates praise" (Is 60:18). And he added, the king, to distinguish him from another Herod: for he was the one under whom Christ was born; the other, who killed John, was a son of this Herod but was not a king.

But why does Scripture mention the time? There are two reasons: first, to show that Jacob's prophecy is 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 desired of the nations" (Gen 49:10). For Herod was the first foreigner to reign in Judea. The second is that a more serious disease needs a greater and better physician. But the people of Israel at that time were suffering considerable distress under gentile rule; and therefore, they needed a very special consoler. For prophets were sent to them in their other afflictions, but now on account of the greatness of the affliction the Lord of the prophets was sent to them: "When the cares of my heart are many, your consolations cheer my soul" (Ps 94:19).

Then the witnesses are presented and described in three ways: from their profession, from their origin and from the place where they give testimony. In regard to the first he says Magi [wise men]. In ordinary speech they are called "enchanters", but in the Persian tongue they are called philosophers and wise men [Magi]. They came to Jesus, because they recognized from Christ the glory of the wisdom they possessed. They are, indeed, the first fruits of the gentiles, because they were the first to come to Christ. According to Augustine, in their coming is fulfilled the word of Is (8:4): "Before the child knows how to cry 'my father' or 'my mother', the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria." For before Christ had spoken, he had removed the courage of Damascus and the riches and spoils of Samaria, i.e., idolatry. For they had removed idolatry and offered gifts. We should also remember that some Jews, namely, the shepherds, came to Christ; and some gentiles, namely, the Magi: for Christ is the cornerstone who made the two one.

Why the magi and shepherds? Because the shepherds were simple and the Magi sinners, to show that Christ receives both. The evangelist does not say how many Magi there were. But in view of the gifts there seem to have been three kings, although many others were represented in them: "The gentiles shall walk in your light" (Is 60:3).

Concerning the second, namely, the origin, he says, from the East. It should be noted that some take from the East to mean the "far East"; but then how would they come in such a few days? Some answer that they came miraculously; others that they had camels. But Chrysostom says that the star appeared to them for two years before the birth, and it was then that they prepared themselves and came to Jerusalem in two years and thirteen days. But it can be explained in another way as signifying a region near Jerusalem on the east; for they are said to have been of the sect of Balaam, who said: "A star shall come forth out of Jacob" (Num 24:17). This Balaam lived near the promised land on the east.

Then he mentions the place, came to Jerusalem. But why did they come to Jerusalem? For two reasons: one was that it was a royal city; hence they looked for the king of the Jews in the royal city. Furthermore, this happened according to God's plan, that testimony about Christ be given first in Jerusalem, as it says in Is (2:3): "Out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem."

CONCERNING THE STAR; SHOWING HOW AND THROUGH WHAT THE MAGI RECOGNIZED THE STAR, AND THAT JOSEPH DID NOT TAKE MARY AS HIS WIFE.:

I WILL write and inform thee, our dear brother, concerning the righteous of old, and concerning the handing down of the histories of their deeds ; and how, and through what, the Magi recognized the Star, and came and worshipped our Lord with their offerings ; partly from the Holy Scriptures, and partly as we have found in the true chronicles, which were written and composed by men of old in various cities. The ancient scribes testify, that everything which was written by the care of Jason in five large books, from the year 88 of the kingdom of the Greeks till the year 177 (B.C. 223----134), they themselves abridged hastily in two books, from the year 137 (B.C. 174), omitting also the things that were done within the space of fifty years. But as regards other things, with the care that they took, they entered into the repository of the archives of their fathers, where were written and deposited the acts of the remaining histories of the Prophets, which were not written in the books of the Prophets ; and they found in the chronicles, that the Tabernacle of Witness which Moses made, and the Ark which he constructed, and the Altar of Propitiation which he consecrated,----these the Prophet Jeremiah took, and concealed them in a cave of the mountain on which Moses used to pray. And they also found in these chronicles, that the fire which Moses received from Heaven, and with which the priests used to minister, till the time they went |152 down to Babylon, ---- it too was found to have been buried and concealed by Jeremiah the Prophet in a pit which was in watery ground; and after seventy years it was discovered; and with it the captive priests used to minister on the altar, until the appearance of our Lord. And many other things, which the scribe Aristobulus and his colleagues had written in the book of records, and in the epistles of the kings of the house of David and Hezekiah and Josiah and their companions, were written and deposited (there). And when they had found them, they collected them, and wrote them out in the volumes of their books. And through the care of these ancient writers, when they saw that the Jews went to the city of Tyre to praise Herakles, a hero of the Greeks, ---- this too they put into writing; and that Andronicus used treachery towards Onias, the high priest and a famous man, and slew him at Daphne, which lies by Antioch, without any crime, ----not even this did they neglect. And it was found in the true chronicles of the Persians, which were written and deposited there from ancient generations, that Jerusalem was a warlike city from its (earliest) days, and did not make much account of kings, and great fortresses were in the midst of it. And when Sihon, the king of the Amorites, was slain, Moses said : "Now is fulfilled that which was spoken in the ancient proverbs : 'A fire shall go out of Heshbon, and a flame from the city of Sihou, and shall devour the city of Moab, and all the worshippers of the altars of Arnon.'" And when Moses heard that this was written in the books of the Amorites, he too added and put it into his book. And when King Saul persecuted David, David recited to him some of the ancient proverbs, and said: '"From the wicked proceedeth wickedness, but verily my hand shall not be upon thee ;' and because of this my hand is not upon thee, but the hand of the Lord hath power over thee." And when the people went up from Babylon, and there was a great strife concerning their going up, king Darius commanded, and the books of the records and acts of the preceding kings were called for ; and there was found among their chronicles a roll, in which was written : "I truly, Cyrus, king |153 of Persia, have commanded that the people of the Hebrews should go up from Babylon to Jerusalem, along with the vessels of the service of the house of the Lord." And when king Darius heard this, he too affixed his seal to this order, and commanded that, whosoever should disobey this order, a beam should be pulled down from his house, and they should make it into a cross, and hang him upon it, and that his house should be given up to plunder. And he added of his own (goods) expenses for the house of the Lord. And Job, whose time was anterior to that of Moses, ---- before that Moses narrated the history of the creation of Adam, Job said unto his friends, as he had found in the tradition of the generations before him : "This we have found in the world, since Adam was created upon the earth. Who is he that made man upon the face of the earth?" And to his Lord he said: "What shall I do unto Thee, O Maker of man ? in return for Thy hands, which have laboured and made me, and fashioned me and framed me, when Thou didst curdle me like cheese of milk." Moses himself too found many things, which were going down and coming by tradition from mouth to ear, from one generation to another ; and he put them into his book, although he left out many things which could not be comprised (in it). For that which is said of Abraham, that he was enjoining his children and his household to keep the commandments of the Lord, is older than the laws of Moses by four hundred and thirty years. For these commandments, which Abraham was enjoining his household (to keep), were received by him, as it were by tradition, from Shem ; and Shem too received them from his father Noah ; and Noah received them from Enoch ; and Enoch received them from Adam ; and Adam received them from his Lord. For the barbarous races who keep (the commandments) 'Thou shalt not kill,' and 'Thou shalt not steal,' and 'Thou shalt not commit adultery,' and destroy wizards, and so forth, ---- this is not (done) as it were by the law of Scripture, but by the law of the mind of ancient tradition, which is older than the law that Moses wrote. For it was not of the law of Scripture that Joseph was afraid, and did not come nigh unto |154 his master's wife; nor was it of the law of Scripture that the king of Gedar (Gerar) was afraid; he and his nobles, and did not come nigh unto Rebecca; nor was it of the law of Scripture that Lot was afraid, and said to the people of Sodom, "Do not do this disgraceful and shameful thing to the men who have entered under the shadow of my roof; but of that law and mind which was born with the ancient generations, and went on, and came by tradition of their children down to the time of Moses, who put into writing those things which were written on the tablets of the heart; for "the law was added because of falling away." And as many things, which Moses also neglected, are found in chronicles that were written and laid up, so too the history of the Star which the Magi saw, was found in a chronicle which was written and laid up in Arnon, the border of the Moabites and Ammonites. And this history was taken from the place in which it was written, and was conveyed away and deposited in the fortress of Achmethan, which is in Persia. Because that, in the time of Moses, and both before and after Moses, the Assyrians were lords over the land of the Moabites and of the Ammonites, where Balaam said, "A Star shall rise out of Jacob, and a Head shall arise in Israel." And it was not merely over the land of the children of Lot that the Assyrians were lords, but also over the land of Sihon and of Og, the kings of the Amorites, and over the whole land of Palestine, and over Phoenicia, and Syria, and all Mesopotamia; seeing that the nations sent up tribute to them, as if subdued under their hands, and gave them hostages, and offered them crowns of victory. And whenever one place rebelled against another, and they commenced war against one another, (word) was written and sent to the Assyrian kings, and as they commanded, so it was (done), and those who rebelled received chastisement. And along with these things, both the deeds which Moses did in inner Arabia, and in outer Arabia, and in Rekem of Gea, and in the regions which were round about the cities of Moab, and the history of the Star, which Balaam spoke, and so forth;----these things the princes and judges of those places |155 wrote down, and sent and made them known ; and they were read before ασκρτοσ, the king of the Assyrians, who was reigning at the time in which they were done. And he commanded, and the record of these matters was deposited in the fortress of Achmethan, where they were preserved among the books of the kings of Assyria, as was also the custom in other countries. And after ασκρτσ [ασκδτσ], there reigned after him αμυντοσ there in Assyria, when Moses was between the Amorites and the Edomites, and had come to the city of Petra, which is called in the language of Mesopotamia Rekem of Gea. And when the people encamped over against 'Ad'ira, which is 'Adu'ira (Aroer), that lies in the valley of Arnon, which separates the Midianites, the children of Kentura (Keturah), the concubine of Abraham, from the children of Lot, Abraham's brother's sou, in the days of Balak the son of Zippor, the king of the Moabites ; and when Balak saw the people that were with Moses, which had come near to his borders, he despised them, and neglected the wars which he had witnessed ; how Sihon, king of the Amorites, who had taken possession by war of the land of the Moabites, carrying away hostages from the Moabites, was not able to stand before this people, who had slain him and destroyed him at Jahaz; nor was the king of Canaan, who dwelt in the south, able to stand before this people, and they called his place a devoted place. Of these things Balak, the king of Moab, was afraid, and he trembled, and was frightened to wage war with Moses, before whom neither the kings of Egypt had stood, nor the kings of other very mighty nations, nor had even the terrible sea itself dared to stand before Moses. And Balak called the elders of the Midianites and his nobles, and said to them: "This Moses, who, lo, has terrified the whole earth, and slain the kings that were around us,----and behold, the people that are with him are |156 grazing on our land as the ox that grazeth in the field, ---- is he not that Moses, who was made the overseer and shepherd of Jethro, the priest of your gods, whom ye received as a guest, and who was protected among you as a stranger ? And lo, today he is expelling us from our lands, and driving us out of our territories. But let us abstain from war, and let us send and call Balaam the soothsayer, to come and curse them ; because they are the children of Jacob, who trembled and was afraid of the curses of his father Isaac, as we have all heard from our fathers." And they sent after Balaam the soothsayer. And the messengers went and found him at Urem, which is situated over against Turär, the eastern (part) of Mesopotamia; and they said to him : "The king of the Moabites, and the princes of the Midianites, have sent us after thee, that thou mayest go with us and curse the people that has come out of Egypt." But Balaam, through his craftiness, because he knew that the power of his word was not sufficient to enable him to do this, and to stand before six hundred thousand drawers of the sword, laid hold of a pretext, and said to those who had come after him : "Be ye witnesses unto me henceforth, that I fear lest perchance the Lord should not permit me to curse the people and destroy it by means of words and maledictions." And when he went unto Balak the king, instead of the curses which he was looking to hear from him, he heard blessings from him. And when Balaam saw that Balak began to be vexed with him, because, instead of curses, he heard from him something which he did not expect, Balaam said unto Balak : "The . princes whom thou didst send after me, can testify that I said unto them, 'Whatever the Lord sayeth unto me, I will say, and not what Balak says unto me, who has sent you unto me.' And upon this condition I arose and came with them unto thee, to tell thee that the legions of the Chittites and the armies of the Greeks are about to issue forth from the whole land of the Macedonians, and to subdue the Assyrians in wrath and the |157 land of Nimrod in anger. And after this happens, then shall rise the Star out of the children of Jacob, whom thou didst wish to keep in darkness ; and the Head shall arise in Israel, to come and destroy whom thou didst send after me ; and He shall destroy their mighty men, and shall subdue the whole seed of Seth the son of Adam." But Balak the king and his nobles,----when they heard that the mighty Assyrians, who were rulers over them, were going to be subdued under the yoke of the king of the Greeks, and the whole earth (was going to be subjected) to Him on whose account the Star was going to rise, destroying their mighty men,----laid aside the fear of the people who were abiding over against them. But that king Balak might not come to disgrace and (incur) the punishment of death from amunts king of the Assyrians, he wrote and informed him of the things that Balaam said. And he commanded, and the letter was laid up in his archives, as was written above ; and they received this writing, this history being handed down and coming from people to people through the whole land of the Assyrians. But the Assyrians, because they were born and brought up in the doctrine of the Chaldaeans (astrologers) of their country and of the soothsayers their countrymen, according to what they had received from their mother Babylon, from whom, began astrology and soothsaying and magic, just as from Egypt (began) incantation,----on this account they received the word of Balaam the soothsayer, the disciple of Babylon, and were not able to refuse credit to his word, lest the whole doctrine, on which they took their stand, should be proved false; for Balaam was called "the soothsayer," because of the doctrine of astrology in which he was brought up. And as to his being besides called a prophet, because his word turned out true in regard to the legions of the Chittites which issued forth, and about the Star which arose,----although in these things indeed he was true and trustworthy, yet because he was a false witness, and said : "I see no iniquity in Israel," the children of Jacob slew him" as a liar. To be brief,----the tradition of the history of Balaam was handed down and came from king αμυντροσ (αμυντοσ) to king |158 βχοσ (βλχοσ), in whose days Othniel the son of Kenaz was ruler over the Hebrews. And from βχοσ (βλχοσ) to king βλπτωρ (or βλφτωρ), in whose days Ehur (Ehud) killed Eglon the king of the Moabites. And from (λ)βκροσ (or βχροσ) to king πραιρσ, in whose days the Philistines subdued the Hebrews. And from πραιροσ (πραιδοσ) to king σωροσ, in whose days the Hebrews were delivered from beneath the hand of their enemies. And from σωροσ to king πλμροσ, in whose days Jael killed Sisera the general. And from (λ)πλμροσ to king πισοσ, in whose days Gideon slew the children of Midian. And from (λ)πισοσ to king σρσμοσσ; in whose days Abimelech slew his seventy brethren. And from σρμοσσ to king μνθροσ, in whose days died Tola, the son of Abimelech's uncle. And from (λ)μνθροσ to king τομοσ, in whose days Nephthah (Jephthah) offered his daughter a sacrifice to God. And from (λ)τομσοσ to king τυασσ, in whose days Samson died among the Philistines. And from (λ)τυασσ to king θινοσ, in whose days died (Eli) the high priest. And from (λ)θινοσ to king δρκλσ, in whose days Saul was slain on the hill of the Gibeonites, and David became king. And from (λ)δκλσ (δρκλσ) to king ευπλσ, in whose days Solomon sat upon the regal throne. And from (λ)ευπλσ to king αθνοσ, in whose days Jeroboam became king over Israel. And from (λ)αθνοσ to king πτραιοσ; in whose days (Azariah) the son of Azur (Oded) the prophet said unto king Asa : "Because this people listened not unto the voice of the Lord |159 their God, there was no peace either to him that went out or to him that came in." And from (λ)πραιοσ to king φτριοσ, in whose days the Lord smote Jehoram the son of Athaliah, the sister of Ahab, and his bowels came forth from his inside, and he died. And from (λ)φρτισ to king ακρπζσ, in whose days Joash was slain by his servants. And from (λ)βπρσ to king θισκων, in whose days Uzziah was smitten with leprosy. And from (λ)θισκων to king αρβκσ, in whose days Menachem reigned over Israel. And from αρβκσ to king σωσρμσ, in whose days Jotham built the gates of the house of the Lord. And from σωσρμοσ to king μρκιοσ, in whose days Hezekiah opened the gates of the house of the Lord, which had been closed by Ahaz his father. And from king (λ)μρκοσ, in whose days Manasseh made the image with four faces, to king αιρκσ, in whose days Manasseh returned and came up from Babylon, because he knew that the Lord was God. And from (λ)αρικσ to king φρατροσ, in whose days Josiah burned the bones of the priests. And from φρτροσ to king κυβσρσ, in whose days Daniel and Hananiah and their companions were led away captive to Babylon. And from κυβσροσ to king αστβυγσ, in whose days the Babylonians laid waste Jerusalem. And from αστιβγσ to Cyrus the king of the Persians, who proclaimed the return to the children of Israel, that they should go up from Babylon to Jerusalem. All these kings of the Assyrians, from the days of Moses to Cyrus the Persian, were on their guard and watching to see when the word of Balaam would be fulfilled; and when the legions of the Chittites would issue forth from the land of the Macedonians ; and how would be devastated the lands and regions of all Asia, and the city of Ephesus, and the districts of Pontus, and Galatia, and Cilicia, and all Syria, and the spacious country of Mesopotamia and of all the Parthians; and (how) they would pass on to Nineveh, the city of Nimrod, the first of all mighty men, and would wage war violently with the Assyrians, and conquer them and subdue them. |160  When then the Assyrians saw that their kingdom was taken away from them, and was given to the Persians, they thought that the great war of the Chittites too, of which they had been afraid, had passed away from them. For although at different times the Assyrians had had wars of and by themselves,----when the Babylonians waged war with them, and took away from them the kingdom ; and again the Medes waged war with the Babylonians, and took away the kingdom from them also; and the Persians also waged war with the Medes, and the Persians conquered and won the kingdom;----yet they had had no fear in all these wars and struggles, because they knew that those who were overcome, were the brethren and associates of those who were victorious. For neither was it possible that Cyrus the Persian should succumb in war, because that in the days of Isaiah the prophet the gates of victory had been opened before Cyrus ; nor was it possible that the gates should be shut in his face, because he was called the Anointed of the Lord. And after Cyrus the Persian reigned Cambyses, at whose word Syria was laid waste, and Phœnicia, and Palestine, and other countries. And from Cambyses (the tradition was handed down) to the first Darius, in whose days Ezra the scribe rebuilt the desolate places of Jerusalem. And from Darius to king Artachshasht, in whose days Sanballat and Shimshai the scribe were hindering the people from rebuilding the desolate places of Jerusalem. And from Artachshasht to king ....., in whose days went up the remnant which had remained in Babylon, and some of the children of the captivity of the people. And from ..... to another Darius, in whose days went up Ezra the scribe, he and the priests and the Lévites, and were walking upon the wall of Jerusalem, and repeating the psalms of David for the completion of the building. And from Darius to the last Artachshasht, in whose days the |161 furniture of Eliashib was thrown out into the street, because he had made for himself a house in the court of the house of God. And from Artachshasht to the last Darius, who is the ram that Daniel foresaw, butting westward and northward and southward ; and there came a he-goat, and the legions of the Chittites with him, as Balaam had said, and waged war with Darius, king of the Medes and Babylonians and Assyrians and Persians, and overcame him, and slew him, and ravaged the people who were with him, and cast him down, and subdued the Assyrians under his power, and made them tributary to the kingdom of the Greeks, which was of old subject to the power of the Assyrians. The kingdom of the Jews too, which had also been subject to the children of the East, passed under the power of the Greeks. And when the Persians saw that the word of Balaam had turned out true and become a fact, they were also specially concerned to see when the Star would arise and become visible, about which he spoke, meditating what might perchance happen at its rising, and whence it would appear, and concerning whom it would testify. And after this Darius, whom Alexander the king of the Greeks slew, there arose king ARSUN, in whose days cities were increased in their buildings in the land of Syria. And from (L)ARSUN (the tradition was handed down) to king ARTMRSUS, in whose days the Books of the Hebrews were translated into Greek. And from (L)ARTMRSUS to king ATISHCHU, in whose days lived Jesus the son of Simeon, the priest, who was called Bar-Sira (the son of Sirach or Siracides). And from (L)TISHIS to king APTSHURS (or APHTSHURS), in whose days the impure Jason received from the king of the Greeks the power over the children of his people ; and he wrote the children of his people by the name of Antiochians through the praises of Herakles. And from (L)APTSHURS to king PRIDUS, in whose days the senators (συγκλητικοί) of the Romans wrote to the cities letters of greeting regarding the party of Jonathan and Simeon (Simon), the sons of Mattathias. |162  And from (L)MPRUS to king ASTRUS, in whose days Arshak (Arsaces) the Parthian waged war with the king of the Greeks and slew him. And from (L)MPIZRUS to king ANSCUS, in whose days the kingdom of the Greeks was cut off. And from (L)ISCUS to king PIRSHBUR (Pir-Shabur?), in whose days Augustus Caesar reigned over the Roman empire. And in his days was the glorious manifestation of our adored Saviour. And therefore in the days of this PIRSHBUR, who was called ZMRNS, there appeared the Star, both transformed in its aspect, and also conspicuous by its rays, and terrible and grand in the glorious extent of its light. And it overpowered by its aspect all the stars that were in the heavens, as it inclined to the depth, to teach that its Lord had come down to the depth, and ascended again to the height of its nature, to show that its Lord was God in His nature. And when the Persians saw it, they were alarmed and afraid, and there fell upon them agitation and trembling, and fear got the mastery over them. And it was visible to the inner depths of the East alone ; and the Persians, and the Huzites, and the other peoples that were around them, knew that this was what Balaam had foretold ; and this apparition and news flew through the whole East : "The king of Persia is preparing splendid offerings and gifts and presents, and is sending them by the hands of the Magi, the worshippers of fire." And because the king did not know where the Messiah was born, he commanded the bearers of the offerings, (saying): "Keep going towards the Star, and walking on the road along which it runs before you ; and by day and night keep observing its light." And when they set forth with the sun from their country, in which this sun (of ours) is born every day, the Star too with its rays was running on before them, accompanying them and going with them, and becoming as it were an attendant of theirs. And they halted in many places, passing by large fortified towns, and (through) various foreign tongues and different garbs, that were unlike to one another. And they halted outside of the cities, and not inside of the cities, until they reached the gates of Jerusalem, over which the Star stood still, entering and alarming Jerusalem and its inhabitants, and terrifying also the kings and priests. |163  And when they had entered within the gates of the city, it was concealed from them. And when the Magi saw that neither the kings, nor the priests, nor the chiefs of the people perceived the coming of the Messiah, and the Star was concealed, they knew that, because they were not worthy, they did not perceive the birth of the Son, nor were they worthy to behold the Star. And when the Magi saw that the Star was hidden from them, they went forth by night from the city ; and at that very moment the Star appeared unto them ; and they went after the apparition of it, until it descended and stood still over the cave of Bethlehem, where was born the Messiah. And in that hour they opened their treasures, and offered unto Him many presents and gifts of offerings, bowing down in adoration before the Messiah, that their offerings might be accepted, and that they might be delivered from the hateful treachery which they had seen in Jerusalem, and might reach their own country without fear, and might carry back word to those who had sent them of what they had seen and heard. And when they had made their offerings and passed the night there, the Star too stopped with them above the cave. And when they rose early in the morning to set out for their country, it was for the second time running on and going before them on the way, which was different from the former one; and until they had entered their city, it did not quit them, nor was it concealed as on the former occasion. And when they had entered into the presence of the king who had sent them, they narrated to him all that they had heard and seen. These things too were written down there in inner Persia, and were stored up among the records of the deeds of their kings, where was written and stored up the history of the legions of the Chittites and the account of this Star, that they might be preserved where were preserved the histories of the ancients. But Joseph and Mary, when they saw the treachery of king Herod and the envy of the Scribes and Pharisees, arose and took the Child, and went to a foreign country and of a barbarous tongue; and there they dwelt for the space of four |164 years, during which Herod continued to reign after (their flight). And at the commencement of the reign of Herod's son, they arose and went up from that land to the country of Galilee, Joseph and Mary, and our Lord along with them, and the five sons of Hannah (Anna), the first wife of Joseph. But Mary and our Lord were dwelling together in the house in which Mary received the Annunciation from the holy Angel.   and eleven, in the second year of the coming of our Saviour, in the consulship of Caesar and of Capito, in the month of the latter Kanun, these Magi came from the East and worshipped our Lord at Bethlehem of the kings. And in the year four hundred and thirty (A.D. 119), in the reign of Hadrianus Caesar, in the consulship of Severus and of Fulgus, in the episcopate of Xystus, bishop of the city of Rome, this concern arose in (the minds of) men acquainted with the Holy Books; and through the pains of the great men in various places this history was sought for and found, and written in the tongue of those who took this care.

But we must ask why, when the Redeemer was born, an angel appeared to the shepherds in Judea, while a star, not an angel, led the Magi from the East to worship him. The reason is that for the Jews, as those who use reason, a rational creature—that is, an angel—was the proper herald; but the Gentiles, because they did not know how to use reason, were led to know the Lord not through a voice but through signs. Hence Paul also says: Prophecies were given to believers, not to unbelievers; but signs to unbelievers, not to believers; because prophecies were given to the former as believers, not unbelievers, and signs to the latter as unbelievers, not believers. And it should be noted that when our Redeemer was already of mature age, the apostles preached him to those same Gentiles, but when he was an infant, not yet speaking through the function of a human body, a star announced him to the Gentiles, because the order of reason demanded that speaking preachers should make known to us the Lord who now spoke, while mute elements should proclaim him who did not yet speak.

(Chapter 2, Verses 2 and following) For we have seen his star in the East, and have come to worship him. When King Herod heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. To confound the Jews and make them understand the birth of Christ from the Gentiles, a star rises in the East, which the successors of Balaam, through prophecy, had known. Read the book of Numbers (Chapter XXIV). The magi, however, were guided by a star to Judea, so that when questioned by the priests, they would be able to give an account of the coming of Christ.

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. It is said that these Magi were descendants of Balaam the soothsayer; and that when they discovered Balaam's oracle, "A star shall arise out of Jacob" (Num. 24:17), they understood the mystery concerning Christ, and so they came desiring to see Him that had been born. "For we have seen His star in the east." When you hear "star," do not think that it was a star such as we see, but a divine and angelic power that appeared in the form of a star. The Magi were astrologers, and so the Lord used what was familiar to them to draw them to Himself. In the same manner, the Lord astonished Peter the fisherman by the multitude of fish which he caught by the name of Christ. That the star was an angelic power is apparent from the fact that it shone even by day, and that it moved as they moved, and stood still as they rested; also, that it moved from Persia in the north to Jerusalem in the south. For a star never moves from north to south. "And are come to worship Him." These Magi are seen to possess great virtue. For if they came to worship Christ in a strange land, how much more would they preach Him with great boldness in Persia?

(2) Then the testimony is presented, when it says, Where is he who is born king of the Jews? In this testimony they say three things: first, they announce the birth of a king; secondly, they mention the sign of this birth, we have seen his star in the East; thirdly, they profess their pious intention, we have come to adore him.

They say, therefore, where is he? It should be noted that those Magi are the first-fruits of the nations and prefigure in themselves our condition. For they presuppose something, namely, the birth of Christ, and the look for something, namely, the place. We, indeed, have Christ by faith, but we look for something by hope: for we shall see him face to face: "We walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Cor 5:7).

But since they had heard of a king in Jerusalem, why did they say these things? For anyone who acknowledges another king in the king's city exposes himself to danger. But surely they did this through the zeal of faith. Hence, in them was announced that fearless faith suggested below (10:24): "Do not fear those who kill the body." Then they mention the sign of this birth, we have seen... Note that these words were the occasion of two errors: Some, as the Priscillianists, said that all of men's acts are performed and ruled by fate. And they confirm it by these words, we have seen his star. Therefore, he was born under some star. The other was the error of the Manichees, who deny fate and, consequently, this gospel. But both errors are rejected.

But before proceeding to explain the letter, let us see what fate is and how these things should be believed and how not. Note, therefore, that in human affairs we see many things happening by accident and by chance. But it happens that something fortuitous and by chance relative to a lower cause is not fortuitous when related to a higher cause. For example, if an employer sent three men for someone and none knows the other, if they all met, it would be by chance, so far as they are concerned; but relative to the employer's intention, it would not be chance. But according to this there were two opinions about fate. Some said that things of chance are not explained by a higher cause planning them; and they denied fate as well as all divine providence. And according to Augustine this was Cicero's opinion. But we say that things of chance are explained by a higher cause planning them. Since fate suggests something commanded and proclaimed beforehand, there is a difference of opinion about the source of this arrangement. For some say that it is due to the power of the heavenly bodies; in other words, fate is nothing more than the arrayal of the stars. Others explain contingent events by divine providence.

But the other opinion must be rejected. For human acts are not ruled by the arrangement of the heavenly bodies. This is clear for the present, as many valid reasons testify. First, because it is impossible for a bodily force to act on a non-bodily force, for in the order of nature the lower cannot act on the higher nature. Now there are in the soul certain powers superior to the body and some equipped with bodily organs, such as the nutritive and the sense powers. Now, heavenly bodies, although they act directly on lower bodies and produce changes in them, can also act indirectly on powers equipped with organs. But they cannot act on powers equipped with organs by compelling them, but only by inclining them. For we say that this person is prone to anger, and this from heavenly causes; but directly, the choice as such is in the will. Hence, no disposition can be formed in the human body, such that the judgment of free will would not surpass it. Hence, anyone who would rank free will lower than the heavenly bodies would necessarily have to admit that the senses are not different from the intellect. Secondly, because all divine worship is thereby excluded, because all things would occur by necessity; and so, even the direction of all governments would be ruined, because there would be no need to take counsel or provide for anything, and so on. Thirdly, because we would attribute to God the malice of men; which would be to insult him who created the stars. Therefore, it is clear that to say this is altogether contrary to the faith. Hence, Gregory says: "Far be it from the hearts of the faithful to say that fate is anything."

But if you wish to call divine providence "fate", then it is something. But as Augustine says, because we should have nothing in common with unbelievers, we must not apply this name to it. Hence, he says: "Correct the wording and you may hold the opinion." Therefore, it cannot be said we have seen his star, i.e., on which his entire life depends; because, according to Augustine, in that case the star would not follow the new-born, for then Christ should be called more the fate of the star, rather than the converse.

It should be noted that that star was not among those originally created. This is evident for the following reasons: first, from its movement, because no star is moved from north to south. But the locale of the Persians, whence the Magi came, is situated in the north. Secondly, other stars never rest; but this one was not moving without interruption. Thirdly, from the time, because during the day no star gives light; but this one afforded light to the Magi during the day. Fourthly, from its location, because it was not in the firmament. This is clear, because the star enabled them to pick the right house exactly. Therefore, it must be admitted that it was specially created for the service of Christ. Therefore, he says we have seen his star, i.e., created for his service.

Some say that this star was the Holy Spirit, who appeared in the form of a star, just as later at Christ's baptism he appeared in the form of a dove. Others say that it was an angel. But one must admit that it was a true star. And he wished to be manifested by the evidence of a star, because it befitted him. For he is the king of the heavens and, therefore, he willed to be manifested by the heavenly disclosures: "The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork" (Ps 19:1); to the Jews through angels, through whom they had received the Law: "The law was given by angels" (Gal 3:19); to the gentiles by a star, because they came to a knowledge of God through creatures: "His invisible nature has been clearly perceived through the things that were made" (Rom 1:20). Secondly, because it befitted those to whom he was made manifest, namely, the gentiles, whose call was promised to Abraham by an allusion to the stars: "Look up at the heavens and count the stars, if you can" (Gen 15:5). Hence, both at his birth and during his passion a sign was made in heaven which made Christ known to all the gentiles. Thirdly, it suited everyone, because he is the savior of all.

But he says in the east. This can be explained in two ways. According to Rabanus in the following way: a star existing in Judea appeared to the gentiles in the east; or, we have seen the star in the east. This seems better. Hence, it says: And lo, the star they had seen in the east went before them. This is also clear from its being located near the earth, because otherwise, it would not have pointed out the place. Therefore, it could not be seen from such a far-away place.

Then they mention their devout intention, and have come to worship him. Here are two questions. For Augustine says: "Were they curious, so that whenever any indication was made by a star, they would look for a king." This would be foolish. But it should be noted that they paid homage not to an earthly king but to a heavenly. This shows that a divine power was present; otherwise, if they had been seeking an earthly king, they would have lost all devotion, when they found one wrapped in cheap clothing.

But Augustine asks again: How were they able to know from the star that the God-man was born? He answers that they knew from an angel revealing it; for the one who showed them the star sent them an angel to reveal this. Pope Leo says that "just as outwardly the eyes were filled with the light of that star, so inwardly a divine ray revealed." The third reason is that they were from the stock of Balaam who said (Num 24:17): "A star shall arise out of Jacob." Hence, they had it from his prophecy. And so, seeing a star of such brilliance, they suspected that the heavenly king had been born; and therefore, they inquired. And we have come to worship him. In this was fulfilled the words of Ps 72 (v. 11): "May all kings fall down before him, all nations serve him."

(non occ.) As the Magi seek a Redeemer, so Herod fears a successor.

(Serm. 200. 2.) If His birth as an infant makes proud kings tremble, what will His tribunal as a Judge do? Let princes fear Him sitting at the right hand of His Father, whom this impious king feared while He hanged yet on His mother's breast.

(ord.) The King, he is called, though in comparison with him whom they are seeking he is an alien and a foreigner.

(ord.) Perhaps he was troubled not on his own account, but for fear of the displeasure of the Romans. They would not allow the title of King or of God to any without their permission.

(ord.) Jerusalem was troubled with him, as willing to favour him whom it feared; the vulgar always pay undue honour to one who tyrannizes over it. Observe the diligence of his enquiry. If he should find him, he would do to him as he showed afterwards his disposition; if he should not, he would at least be excused to the Romans.

But in all the signs which were shown either at the Lord's birth or at His death, we must consider how great was the hardness in the hearts of certain Jews, which recognized Him neither through the gift of prophecy nor through miracles. For all the elements testified that their Author had come. To speak of them somewhat in human terms: the heavens recognized that He was God, because they immediately sent forth a star. The sea recognized Him, because it offered itself to be walked upon beneath His feet. The earth recognized Him, because it trembled when He died. The sun recognized Him, because it hid the rays of its light. The rocks and walls recognized Him, because at the time of His death they were split apart. Hell recognized Him, because it gave back the dead whom it held. And yet Him whom all the insensible elements perceived as Lord, the hearts of unbelieving Jews still do not at all recognize as God, and, harder than rocks, they refuse to be split open for repentance, and they deny to confess Him whom the elements, as we said, proclaimed as God either by signs or by being rent asunder.

(Hom. in Evang. i. 10.) At the birth of a King of Heaven, a king of earth is troubled; surely, earthly greatness is confounded, when heavenly greatness shows itself.

But "when Herod," saith the Scripture, "had heard, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him." Herod naturally, as being king, and afraid both for himself and for his children; but why Jerusalem? Surely the prophets had foretold Him a Saviour, and Benefactor, and a Deliverer from above. Wherefore then was Jerusalem troubled? From the same feeling which caused them before also to turn away from God when pouring His benefits on them, and to be mindful of the flesh-pots of Egypt, while in the enjoyment of great freedom.

But mark, I pray thee, the accuracy of the prophets. For this selfsame thing also had the prophet foretold from the first, saying, "They would be glad, if they had been burnt with fire; for unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given."

But nevertheless, although troubled, they seek not to see what hath happened, neither do they follow the wise men, nor make any particular inquiry; to such a degree were they at once both contentious and careless above all men. For when they had reason rather to pride themselves that the king was born amongst them, and had attracted to Him the land of the Persians, and they were on the point of having all subject to them, as though their affairs had advanced towards improvement, and from the very outset His empire had become so glorious; nevertheless, they do not even for this become better. And yet they were but just delivered from their captivity there; and it was natural for them to think (even if they knew none of those things that are high and mysterious, but formed their judgment from what is present only), "If they thus tremble before our king at His birth, much more when grown up will they fear and obey Him, and our estate will be more glorious than that of the barbarians."

But none of these things thoroughly awakens them, so great was their dullness, and with this their envy also: both which we must with exact care root out of our mind; and he must be more fervent than fire who is to stand in such an array.

(ubi sup.) Thou art troubled, Herod, without cause. Thy nature cannot contain Christ, nor is the Lord of the world content with the narrow bounds of thy dominion. He, whom thou wouldest not should reign in Judæa, reigns every where.

(Serm. xxxvi. 2.) Herod represents the Devil; who as he then instigated him, so now he unweariedly imitates him. For he is grieved by the calling of the Gentiles, and by the daily ruin of his power.

Were they then ignorant that Herod reigned in Jerusalem? Or that it is a capital treason to proclaim another King while one yet lives? But while they thought on the King to come, they feared not the king that was; while as yet they had not seen Christ, they were ready to die for Him. O blessed Magi! who before the face of a most cruel king, and before having beheld Christ, were made His confessors.

Herod was troubled when he heard that a King was born of Jewish lineage, lest, himself being an Idumæan, the kingdom should return again to native princes, and himself be expelled, and his seed after him. Great station is ever obnoxious to great fears, as the boughs of trees planted in high ground move when never so little wind blows, so high men are troubled with little rumours; while the lowly, like trees in the valley, remain at peace.

Both have their own causes of jealousy, both fear a successor in their kingdom; Herod an earthly successor, the Devil a spiritual. Even Jerusalem is troubled, which should have rejoiced at that news, when a Jewish King was said to be risen up. But they were troubled, for the wicked cannot rejoice at the coming of the good. Or perhaps it was in fear that Herod should wreak his wrath against a Jewish King on his race.

For thus it is written in the prophet: "And thou, Bethlehem, are not the least in the leaders of Judah: for out of thee shall issue a Leader who shall feed my People lsrµl." But if hitherto he has not been born, what "leader" was it who was thus announced as to proceed from the tribe of Judah, out of Bethlehem? For it behoves him to proceed from the tribe of Judah and from Bethlehem.

When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. Herod was troubled because he was a foreigner and feared for his kingdom; for he knew that he was unworthy of it. But why were the Jews troubled? They ought instead to have rejoiced that they would have a king to whom the kings of Persia paid homage. But evil is indeed a senseless thing.

After the announcement of the birth of Christ, inquiry is made as to the place of his birth. Three things are mentioned: first, their motive for asking; secondly, the inquiry is made (v. 4); thirdly, the truth is found (v. 5).

(3) The motive was Herod's disquiet. Hence, when he heard this. It is significant that he calls Herod a king, to show that he was not the king they were seeking. There were three reasons for his disquiet: the first came from his ambition to preserve his kingdom, since he was a foreigner. For he knew or had heard the words of Dan (2:44): "In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall its sovereignty be left to another people." But here he was deceived, because that kingdom was spiritual: "My kingdom is not of this world" (Jn 18:36). Hence, Herod was disturbed, because he feared the loss of his kingdom; but more disturbed was the devil, fearing the total destruction of his kingdom: "Now is the prince of this world cast out" (Jn 12:31). And note that, as Chrysostom says, men established in lofty places are disturbed by any slight word spoken against them. The second reason came from fear of the Roman Empire. For it had decreed that no one be called god or king without their consent; hence, he feared. But this was a worldly fear, which is forbidden: "Who are you that you are afraid of man who dies, of the son of man who is made like grass?" (Is 51:12). The third was shamefacedness. For one is embarrassed before his people, when someone else is called king. Thus he was like Saul, who said: "I have sinned; yet honor me now before the elders of the people and before Israel" (1 Sam 15:30).

What follows is strange: and all Jerusalem with him. For it seems that they should have rejoiced. But it should be noted that they had three reasons for being disturbed: the first was their wickedness; for they were wicked, since they always detested the life style of the Jews: "Fools detest those who flee from evil" (Pr 13:19); the second was to please Herod: "As the judge of the people is, so are his ministers" (Sir 10:2). The third was that they feared that Herod on hearing this would rage more against the Jewish people.

The mystical meaning is that he was earthly. Gregory: An earthly king was disturbed, when the king of heaven was born, because earthly greatness is bewildered when heavenly loftiness is disclosed. "Then the moon will be confounded and the sun ashamed, when the Lord of hosts shall reign on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem" (Is 24:21). And it should be noted, as Augustine says: "But what will the judge's tribunal be, when the infant's cradle terrified proud kings? Let kings fear him sitting at the right hand of the Father, whom a wicked king feared, when he was taking nourishment from his mother's breasts."

Moreover, to add to the measure of their damnation, Him whom they despise now that He is born, they knew long beforehand would be born. And they knew not only that He would be born, but also where He would be born.

Seest thou how all things are done to convict the Jews? how, as long as He was out of their sight, the envy had not yet laid hold of them, and they rehearsed the testimonies of Him with truth; but when they saw the glory that arose from the miracles, a grudging spirit possessed them, and thenceforth they betrayed the truth.

However, the truth was exalted by all things, and strength was the more gathered for it even by its enemies. See for example in this very case, how wonderful and beyond expectation are the results secretly provided for. For both the barbarians and the Jews do the same time alike learn something more of one another, and teach one another. Thus the Jews, for their part, heard from the wise men, that a star also had proclaimed Him in the land of the Persians; the wise men, in their turn, were informed by the Jews that this Man, whom the star proclaimed, prophets also had made known from a long time of old. And the ground of their inquiry was made to both an occasion of setting forth clearer and more perfect instruction; and the enemies of the truth are compelled even against their will to read the writings in favor of the truth, and to interpret the prophecy; although not all of it. For having spoken of Bethlehem, and how that out of it He shall come that should rule Israel, they proceed not afterwards to add what follows, out of flattery to the king. And what was this? That "His goings forth are from of old, from everlasting."

Why does Herod make this enquiry, seeing he believed not the Scriptures? Or if he did believe, how could he hope to be able to kill Him whom the Scriptures declared should be King? The Devil instigated him, who believed that Scripture lies not; such is the faith of devils, who are not permitted to have perfect belief, even of that which they do believe. That they do believe, it is the force of truth constrains them; that they do not believe, it is that they are blinded by the enemy. If they had perfect faith, they would live as about to depart from this world soon, not as to possess it for ever.

They are called Scribes, not from the employment of writing, but from the interpretation of the Scriptures, for they were doctors of the law. Observe, he does not enquire where Christ is born, but where He should be born; the subtle purpose of this was to see if they would show pleasure at the birth of their King. He calls Him Christ, because he knew that the King of the Jews was anointed.

And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. The scribes were the teachers of the people, like those whom we call "scholars." God ordained in His providence that these men be asked, so that they would confess the truth, and by this confession be condemned. For those who crucified Him had first confessed Him.

(4) And assembling... Here the inquiry is mentioned. And, as has been said, Herod was led to inquire both for the sake of his kingdom and for fear of the Romans. Hence, he was looking for the truth. But in order to have certainty about something, three things are required of the investigators, for credence is given to the multitude, to authorities and to the learned. Hence, he assembled many having authority and recognized as wise. And this is what he says: assembled all, as to the first; "A multitude of wise men is the salvation of the world" (Wis 6:24); the chief priests, as to the second: "The lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth" (Mal 2:7); and scribes, as to the third. They are called scribes, not only because they wrote, but because they interpreted the writings of the Law. It was through them that he wished to investigate the truth: "Do not presume to speak much among the great, and do not say much in the presence of the old" (Sir 32:13).

He inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. The Magi called him king, but the others were looking for the Christ; for they knew from talking with the Jews that the lawful king of the Jews is anointed. But he either believed the prophecy or he did not. If he believed, he knew that he could not be prevented from reigning. Then why did he kill the children? If he did not believe, why did he search for him. The answer is that he did not believe completely, because he was ambitious; and ambition makes a man blind.

(Serm. 374. 2. 373. 4.) The star that guided the Magi to the spot where was the Infant God with His Virgin Mother, might have conducted them straight to the town; but it vanished, and showed not itself again to them till the Jews themselves had told them the place where Christ should be born; Bethlehem of Judaea. Like in this to those who built the ark for Noah, providing others with a refuge, themselves perished in the flood; or like to the stones by the road that show the miles, but themselves are not able to move. The enquirers heard and departed; the teachers spake and remained still. Even now the Jews show us something similar; for some Pagans, when clear passages of Scripture are shown them, which prophesy of Christ, suspecting them to be forged by the Christians, have recourse to Jewish copies. Thus they leave the Jews to read unprofitably, and go on themselves to believe faithfully.

(ord.) He quotes this prophecy as they quote who give the sense and not the words.

For when questioned by Herod, they specify the place of His birth, which they had learned by the authority of Scripture. And they bring forth the testimony by which Bethlehem is shown to be honored by the birth of a new ruler, so that their very knowledge might become both a testimony of damnation for them and an aid to belief for us. Isaac indeed aptly prefigured them when he blessed his son Jacob; for with eyes grown dim yet prophesying, he did not see his son present before him, to whom he foresaw so many things in the future, because indeed the Jewish people, filled with the spirit of prophecy yet blind, did not recognize in His present coming the One about whom they had foretold so many things concerning the future.

(Hom. in. Evang. viii. 1.) Rightly is He born in Bethlehem, which signifies the house of bread, who said, am the living bread, who came down from heaven.

(Verse 5) But they said to him: in Bethlehem of Judea. For thus it is written by the prophet: And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means least among the leaders of Judah. For from you shall come forth a ruler, who will shepherd my people Israel. This is an error of the scribes. We think that it was first written by the evangelist, as we read in the Hebrew itself, 'of Judah,' not 'of Judea.' For what other Bethlehem of the nations is there, that it should be distinguished here as 'of Judea'? But it is called Judaea for this reason, because there is another Bethleem in Galilee. Read the book of Joshua the son of Nun (Joshua 19). Finally, even in the testimony itself, which is taken from the prophecy of Micah, it is written thus: And you, O Bethlehem, land of Judah (Micah 5:2).

(Epist. 57.) The Jews are here blamed for ignorance; for whereas the prophecy says, Thou Bethlehem Ephrata; they said, 'Bethlehem in the land of Judah.'

"But why," one may say, "if He was to come from thence, did He live in Nazareth after the birth, and obscure the prophecy?" Nay, He did not obscure it, but unfolded it the more. For the fact, that while His mother had her constant residence in the one place, He was born in the other, shows the thing to have been done by a Divine dispensation.

And for this cause, let me add, neither did He remove from thence straightway after His birth, but abode forty days, giving opportunity to them that were disposed to be inquisitive to examine all things accurately. Because there were in truth many things to move them to such an inquiry, at least if they had been disposed to give heed to them. Thus at the coming of the wise men the whole city was in a flutter, and together with the city the king, and the prophet was brought forward, and a court of high authority was summoned; and many other things too were done there, all which Luke relates minutely. Such were what concerns Anna, and Simeon, and Zacharias, and the angels, and the shepherds; all which things were to the attentive sufficient to give hints for ascertaining what had taken place.

Observe the exactness of the prophecy; it is not He shall be in Bethlehem, but shall come out of Bethlehem; showing that He should be only born there. What reason is there for applying this to Zorobabel, as some do? For his goings forth were not from everlasting; nor did he go forth from Bethlehem, but was born in Babylonia. The expression, art not the least, is a further proof, for none but Christ could make the town where He was born illustrious. And after that birth, there came men from the utmost ends of the earth to see the stable and manger. He calls Him not 'the Son of God,' but (he Ruler who shall govern My people Israel; for thus He ought to condescend at the first, that they should not be scandalized, but should preach such things as more pertained to salvation, that they might be gained. Who shall rule My people Israel, is said mystically, for those of the Jews who believed; for if Christ ruled not all the Jews, theirs is the blame. Meanwhile he is silent respecting the Gentiles, that the Jews might not be scandalized. Mark this wonderful ordinance; Jews and Magi mutually instruct each other; the Jews learn of the Magi that a star had proclaimed Christ in the east, the Magi from the Jews that the Prophets had spoken of Him of old. Thus confirmed by a twofold testimony, they would look with more ardent faith for One whom the brightness of the star and the voice of the Prophets equally proclaimed.

(Serm. xxxi. 2.) The Magi, judging as men, sought in the royal city for Him, whom they had been told was born a King. But He who took the form of a servant, and came not to judge but to be judged, chose Bethlehem for His birth, Jerusalem for His death.

When they should have kept secret the mystery of the King appointed of God, especially before a foreign king, straightway they became not preachers of the word of God, but revealers of His mystery. And they not only display the mystery, but cite the passage of the prophet, viz. Micah.

By cutting short the prophecy, they became the cause of the murder of the Innocents. For the prophecy proceeds, From thee shall go forth a King who shall feed My people Israel, and His day shall be from everlasting. Had they cited the whole prophecy, Herod would not have raged so madly, considering that it could not be an earthly King whose days were spoken of as from everlasting.

And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judea; for thus it is written by the prophet. By which prophet? By Micah (Micah 5:2).

(5) They told him: "In Bethlehem of Judah." Here the truth is presented: first, the truth (v. 5); secondly, it is confirmed by a prophecy (v. 6). It should be noted that Christ willed to be born in Bethlehem for three reasons: first, to avoid glory. For this reason he chose two places: one in which he willed to be born, namely, Bethlehem; the other in which he suffered, namely, Jerusalem. This, of course, is against those who seek glory, who wish to be born in high places and refuse to suffer in a place of honor: "I do not seek my glory" (Jn 8:50). Secondly, to confirm his doctrine and show its truth. For if he had been born in some large city, the power of his doctrine could have been ascribed to human power: "You know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Cor 8:9). Thirdly, to show that he was of the house of David: "Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem to be enrolled there, because they were of the house and family of David" (Lk 2:4). It also befits a mystery, because Bethlehem means house of bread; and Christ is that "living bread which came down from heaven" (Jn 6:51).

Jacob was called the first Israel when he beheld the ladder and, on it, the "angels ascending and descending." He wrestled with the one who appeared to him. He heard him say, "Your name shall no more be called Jacob, but Israel." By this name the entire people of Israel was called, as if by a name divinely chosen, setting them apart from other nations. Now, Israel means "a mind that sees God." Thus the church from among the Gentiles is also called Israel, not according to the flesh but according to divine grace.

(non occ.) This latter half of the prophecy the Jews dropped; and other parts they altered, either through ignorance, (as was said above,) or for perspicuity, that Herod who was a foreigner might better understand the prophecy; thus for Ephrata, they said, land of Judah; and for little among the thousands of Judah, which expresses its smallness contrasted with the multitude of the people, they said, not the least among the princes, willing to show the high dignity that would come from the birth of the Prince. As if they had said, Thou art great among cities from which princes have come.

(in Mich. v. 2.) The following is the sense of the prophecy. Thou, Bethlehem, of the land of Judah, or Ephrata, (which is added to distinguish it from another Bethlehem in Galilee,) though thou art a small village among the thousand cities of Judah, yet out of thee shall be born Christ, who shall be the Ruler of Israel, who according to the flesh is of the seed of David, but was born of Me before the worlds; and therefore it is written, His goings forth are of old. In the beginning was the Word.

But mark also the exactness of the prophecy. For it does not say, "He will abide" in Bethlehem," but "He will come out" thence. So that this too was a subject of prophecy, His being simply born there.

Some of them, however, being past shame, say that these things were spoken of Zerubbabel. But how can they be right? For surely "his goings forth" were not "from of old, from everlasting." And how can that suit him which is said at the beginning, "Out of thee shall He come forth:" Zorobabel not having been born in Judaea, but in Babylon, whence also he was called Zorobabel, because he had his origin there? And as many as know the Syrians' language know what I say.

And together with what hath been said, all the time also since these things is sufficient to establish the testimony. For what saith he? "Thou art not the least among the princes of Judah," and he adds the cause of the pre-eminence, saying, "out of thee shall He come." But no one else hath made that place illustrious or eminent, excepting Him alone. For example: since that birth, men come from the ends of the earth to see the manger, and the site of the shed. And this the prophet foretold aloud from the first, saying, "Thou art not the least among the princes of Judah;" that is, among the heads of tribes. By which expression he comprehended even Jerusalem.

But how saith he that Bethlehem is "not the least among the princes of Judah?" for not in Palestine alone, but in the whole world, the village hath become conspicuous. Why, so far he was speaking to Jews; wherefore also he added, "He shall feed my people Israel." And yet He fed the whole world; but as I have said, He is fain not to offend as yet, by revealing what He hath to say touching the Gentiles.

But how was it, one may say, that He did not feed the Jewish people? I answer, first, this too is accomplished: for by the term Israel in this place, he figuratively meant such as believed on Him from among the Jews. And Paul interpreting this, saith, "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel," but as many as have been born by faith and promise. And if He did not feed them all, this is their own fault and blame. For when they ought to have worshipped with the wise men, and have glorified God that such a time was come, doing away all their sins (for not a word was spoken to them of judgments set, or of accounts to be given, but of a mild and meek Shepherd); they for their part do just the contrary, and are troubled, and make disturbance, and go on continually framing plots without end.

Though little among cities that have dominion, yet art thou not the least, for out of thee shall come the Ruler, who shall rule My people Israel; this Ruler is Christ, who rules and guides His faithful people.

(Serm. 1. ap. Conc. Eph.) Had He chosen the mighty city of Rome, it might have been thought that this change of the world had been wrought by the might of her citizens; had He been the son of the emperor, his power might have aided Him. But what was His choice? All that was mean, all that was in low esteem, that in this transformation of the world, divinity might at once be recognized. Therefore He chose a poor woman for His mother, a poor country for His native country; He has no money, and this stable is His cradle.

And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah. Since Bethlehem was small, it was despised, but now it is greatly renowned for Christ Who came forth from it. For all people from the ends of the earth come to venerate this holy Bethlehem. For out of thee shall come a Governor. Rightly did he say, "out of thee shall come" and not "in thee shall remain." For Christ did not remain in Bethlehem, but came out from, that is, left it after His birth, and spent most of His years in Nazareth. The Jews say that this prophecy concerns Zerubbabel, but they plainly are lying; for Zerubbabel was not born in Bethlehem, but in Babylon. Consider his name: "Zeru" means "seed" or "birth," and "babel" means "Babylon," therefore, "he that was born in Babylon." But even the prophecy refutes them where it says, "His goings forth are from the beginning, and in the days of the age" (Micah 5:2). Of whom else are the goings forth both from the beginning and in the days of this age if not of Christ, Who had two goings forth, that is, a double genesis? The first, His begetting, was from the beginning from the Father, and the second, His Nativity according to the flesh, was in the days of this age, and took its beginning from the Theotokos and occurred in time. Let the Jews say, therefore, that Zerubbabel was from the beginning; but they have no grounds on which to make this claim. Who shall shepherd My people Israel. The prophecy said, "shall shepherd," not "tyrannize" or "devour" them. For the other kings were not shepherds but wolves. But Christ is a shepherd, as He Himself says, "I am the good shepherd" (Jn. 10:11). "My people Israel" means those who believed, whether Jew or Gentile. "Israel" means "seeing God," so all those who see God are Israelites, even those who are Gentiles.

(6) Then the truth is confirmed by the prophecy, And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler, who will govern my people Israel. From this prophecy we can consider two things: for the Magi announced something and sought something. And both are from this prophecy: In regard to the first he says, And you, O Bethlehem; in regard to the second, from you shall come a ruler. Thus the birth of Christ is confirmed by a double testimony, namely, of a star and of a prophecy, because in the mouth of two or three witnesses is the truth: "In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall stand" (Dt 19:15). And note that when they were all unbelieving, they were given signs of bodily things; when they now believed, prophecy was given: "Tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers; while prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers" (1 Cor 14:22).

It should be noted that the Jews made two errors in this prophecy, because there (Mic 5:2) it says: "And you, Bethlehem-Ephrathah," and again it does not say: "Are by no means least." There are two possible reasons why they changed it: first, it can be said that they did it out of ignorance; secondly, that they knowingly used the words. But they give the sense. For since Herod was a foreigner, he would not have understood the prophet's text; consequently, they said something which was known to Herod. Hence they say, "land of Judah" and "you are not the least," i.e., you are not the least among the thousands of the men of Judah. Or "among the rulers of Judah," i.e., among the principal cities of Judah. "From you shall come a ruler, who will govern my people Israel." That ruler Dan (9:25) speaks of: "To the coming of the Christ, a prince"; and Ps 31 (v. 5): "You shall be a leader to me," for he rules the people of Israel not only materially but also spiritually. "Has God rejected his people?" (Rom 11:1); "Give ear, O shepherd of Israel, you who lead Joseph like a flock" (Ps 80:2).

And notice that they omit the end of the prophecy: "His origin is from of old from the days of eternity." This suggests that he was not to be an earthly king but heavenly; which if Herod knew, he would not have been wicked. Hence, they were the cause of the slaughter. Furthermore, from that ending is shown the falsity of the interpretation made by the Jews, who explain them of Zerubbabel, because "his origin is from of old from the days of eternity" does not apply to him. Again, he was born not in Judea but in Babylon.

It wasn't the words of the magi that troubled Herod. It was the speculations of the legal experts about the words of the believing prophets. For the magi were seeking a king, but the Jews were declaring that Christ had been born. For this reason, turning aside the magi, Herod calls the Jews and asks them where the Christ should be born, he "whom you, having heard the magi, are now announcing." This is how the enemies of the truth may sometimes unwillingly speak the truth. They interpret the whole prophecy uselessly, failing to grasp what is necessary.

(non occ.) According to others, the star was first seen on the day of the nativity, and having accomplished its end, ceased to be. Thus Fulgentius says, "The Boy at His birth created a new star." (Serm. de Epiph.) Though they now knew both time and place, he still would not have them ignorant of the person of the Child, Go, he says, and enquire diligently of the young Child; a commission they would have executed even if he had not commanded it.

But when the birth of our King became known, Herod turned to cunning schemes, lest he be deprived of his earthly kingdom.

"Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared:"

Attempting to slay that which was born, an act of extreme folly not of madness only; since what had been said and done was enough to have withholden him from any such attempt. For those occurrences were not after the manner of man. A star, I mean, calling the wise men from on high; and barbarians making so long a pilgrimage, to worship Him that lay in swaddling clothes and a manger; and prophets too from of old, proclaiming beforehand all this; these and all the rest were more than human events: but nevertheless, none of these things restrained him. For such a thing is wickedness. It falls foul of itself, and is ever attempting impossibilities. And mark his utter folly. If on the one hand he believed the prophecy, and accounted it to be unchangeable, it was quite clear that he was attempting impossibilities; if again he disbelieved, and did not expect that those sayings would come to pass, he need not have been in fear and alarm, nor have formed any plot on that behalf. So that in either way his craft was superfluous.

And this too came of the utmost folly, to think that the wise men would make more account of him than of the Child that was born, for the sake of which they had come so long a journey. For if, before they saw, they were so inflamed with longing for Him; after they had seen with their eyes, and been confirmed by the prophecy, how hoped he to persuade them to betray the young Child to him?

Nevertheless, many as were the reasons to withhold him, he made the attempt; and having "privily called the wise men, he inquired of them." Because he thought that Jews would be concerned in favor of the Child, and he never could expect that they would fall away unto such madness as to be willing to give up to His enemies their Protector and Saviour, and Him who was come for the deliverance of their nation.

On account of this he both calls them privily, and seeks the time not of the Child, but of the star: thereby marking out the object of his chase so as to include far more than it. For the star, I think, must have appeared a long time before. It was a long time which the wise men had to spend on their journey. In order, therefore, that they might present themselves just after His birth (it being meet for Him to be worshipped in His very swaddling clothes, that the marvellous and strange nature of the thing might appear), the star, a long time before, makes itself visible. Whereas if at the moment of His birth in Palestine, and not before, it had been seen by them in the East, they, consuming a long time in their journey, would not have seen Him in swaddling clothes on their arrival. As to his slaying the children "from two years old and under," let us not marvel; for his wrath and dread, for the sake of a fuller security, added very much to the time, so that not one might escape.

(Serm. in App. 131. 3.) The star had been seen, and with great wonder, nearly two years before. We are to understand that it was signified to them whose the star was, which was visible all that time till He, whom it signified, was born. Then as soon as Christ was made known to them they set out, and came and worshipped Him in thirteen days from the easta.

As soon as Herod had heard the answer, though doubly authenticated, both by the authority of the Priests, and the passage from the Prophets, he yet turned not to worship the King that was to be born, but sought how he might put Him to death by subtilty. He saw that the Magi were neither to be won by flattery, nor awed by threats, nor bribed by gifts, to consent to this murder; he sought therefore to deceive them; he privily called the wise men; that the Jews, whom he suspected, might not know of it. For he thought they would incline the rather to a King of theirown nation.

Diligently enquired; craftily, for he feared they would not return to him, and then he should know how he should do to put the young Child to death.

Then Herod summoned the Magi secretly. He summoned them secretly on account of the Jews, for he suspected that perhaps the Jews would highly esteem the Child and devise means to save Him as their future liberator. Therefore Herod meets with the Magi secretly. And carefully ascertained from them what time the star had appeared. That is, he learned the exact time. The star had appeared to the Magi before the Lord was born. Since their journey would take a long time, the star appeared well before His birth so that they could worship Him while He was still in swaddling clothes. Some say that the star appeared simultaneously with Christ's birth, and that the Magi came two years later and found the Lord neither in swaddling clothes nor in the manger, but in the house with His mother when He was two years old. But you, O reader, consider the former interpretation to be better.

Then inquiry is made about the person of the newly-born (v. 7). First, the inquiry is presented; secondly, the discovery (v. 11); thirdly, the veneration of the child (v. 11b).

They were moved to search for the person for two reasons: because Herod persuaded them, and because the star was leading them.

Hence, in regard to the first the exhortation is mentioned; secondly, the Magi's zeal in following the star (v. 9).

In regard to the first, three things are mentioned: first, he asks about the time of the star; secondly, he announces the place (v. 8); thirdly, he asks them to make inquiry (v. 8b).

(7) He says, therefore, Then Herod. Here it should be noted that the Jews knew the place but not the time. Hence, they are upbraided by the Lord: "Because they did not know the time of their visitation" (Lk 19:44), and "The ox knows its owner, and the ass its master's crib; but Israel does not know, my people does not understand" (Is 1:3). Therefore, the time is investigated. And Chrysostom says that the star appeared to them for two years; others that it appeared on the day of his birth.

Herod treats the magi as ambassadors. For after a certain manner, they had come to the King of Israel in order to intercede that there might be peace between them and the Israelites. They hoped that, for Gentiles and Jews alike, there might be "one fold, one shepherd."

He requests that it be reported back to him where the child might be found; he pretends that he wishes to adore him, so that he might destroy him (as if he could find him). But how great is human malice against the counsel of divinity? For it is written: There is no wisdom, there is no prudence, there is no counsel against the Lord. By his character, who else is signified but hypocrites, who, while they seek falsely, never deserve to find the Lord?

(Hom. in Ev. i. 10. 3.) He feigns a wish of worshipping Him only that he may discover Him, and put Him to death.

Having therefore called them, he saith, "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."

Seest thou his extreme folly? Why, if thou sayest these things in sincerity, wherefore dost thou inquire privily? But if intending to plot against Him, how is it thou dost not perceive, that from the fact of their being asked secretly the wise men will be able to perceive thy craft? But as I have already said, a soul taken captive by any wickedness becomes more utterly senseless than any thing.

And he said not, "go and learn concerning the King," but "concerning the young Child;" for he could not even endure to call Him by the name of His dominion.

But the wise men perceive nothing of this, by reason of their exceeding reverence (for they never could have expected that he could have gone on to so great wickedness, and would have attempted to form plots against a dispensation so marvellous): and they depart suspecting none of these things, but from what was in themselves auguring all that would be in the rest of mankind.

"Go and search diligently for the child, and when you have found him bring me word." Appropriately did Herod say, "Bring me word," for the one who hastens to come to Christ always brings a word of renunciation to the devil. When the priest says to the future Christian, "Do you renounce the devil?" the latter will answer, "I do renounce him." Properly therefore are the magi instructed to bring word to Herod, who realized he was taking the place of the devil. Satan knew how to corrupt a person."That I may come and worship him." He wants to lie but he cannot. He who feigned adoration will come that he might bow to abuse, kneel to inflict punishment, recline to do harm.… But when the clouds of treachery have passed, in the fair weather of emerging Christian faith, the magi behold again the star they had seen, preceding and leading them on. Finally they arrive at the most holy place of the Lord's birth.

To induce them to do this, he put on the colour of devotion, beneath which he whetted the sword, hiding the malice of his heart under colour of humility. Such is the manner of the malicious, when they would hurt any one in secret, they feign meekness and affection.

The Magi obeyed the King so far as to seek the Lord, but not to return to Herod. Like in this to good hearers; the good they hear from wicked preachers, that they do; but do not imitate their evil lives.

And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the Child. He did not say, "search for the king" but "search for the Child," for he could not endure even to utter Christ's name. From this it is clear that he was in a rage against Christ. And when ye have found Him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship Him also. And when they had heard the king, they departed. The Magi were guileless and thought that Herod, too, spoke without guile. And lo, the star which they saw in the east went before them. The star was hidden for a time by God's providence so that they would inquire of the Jews, and Herod would be troubled, and thus the truth would be made all the more apparent. But when they had departed from Jerusalem, it again appeared and guided them; from which it is clear that the star was a divine power. Until it came and stood over where the young Child was. This, too, was extraordinary. For the star descended from the heights and came closer to the earth to show them the place. For if it had appeared to them from the heights, how would they have been able to know the particular spot where Christ was? For the stars are visible over a great area. So it is that you may see the moon over your house, while it appears to me that it is over my house alone; and, in short, to each one the moon, or a star, appears to stand over them alone. Neither could this star have pointed out where Christ was if it had not descended and all but stood over the head of the Child.

(8) He announces the place at he sent them to Bethlehem. He asks them to make inquiry at Go and search diligently. He tells them to do two things, and in order that they do them, he adds a third.

As to the first he says, Go and search diligently. And he asks deceitfully, because his intent was to kill, as those to whom it is said in Jn (7:34): "You will seek me and you will not find me." In regard to the second he says, and when you have found him, bring me word. This, too, he said for the sake of evil: "He will test you through much talk" (Sir 13:11). In regard to the third he says, that I too may come and worship him; and truly he craftily promises worship of God: "Their tongue is a deadly arrow; it speaks deceitfully" (Jer 9:8); "They speak peace with their neighbor, while mischief is in their hearts" (Ps 28:3).

Note that whereas the Magi call him king, Herod calls him a child, because from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. Note, too, that he asks Jews where the Christ would be born, because he wanted to test and see whether they would rejoice.

(in Luc. ii. 45.) The star is the way, and the way is Christ; and according to the mystery of the incarnation, Christ is a star. He is a blazing and a morning-star. Thus where Herod is, the star is not seen; where Christ is, there it is again seen, and points out the way.

To perform its due service to the Lord, it advanced slowly, leading them to the spot. It was ministering to Him, and not ruling His fate; its light showed the suppliants and filled the inn, shed over the walls and roof that covered the birth; and thus it disappeared.

(Serm. 374. 2. 373. 4.) The star that guided the Magi to the spot where was the Infant God with His Virgin Mother, might have conducted them straight to the town; but it vanished, and showed not itself again to them till the Jews themselves had told them the place where Christ should be born; Bethlehem of Judaea. Like in this to those who built the ark for Noah, providing others with a refuge, themselves perished in the flood; or like to the stones by the road that show the miles, but themselves are not able to move. The enquirers heard and departed; the teachers spake and remained still. Even now the Jews show us something similar; for some Pagans, when clear passages of Scripture are shown them, which prophesy of Christ, suspecting them to be forged by the Christians, have recourse to Jewish copies. Thus they leave the Jews to read unprofitably, and go on themselves to believe faithfully.

(Anselm.) It is evident that the star must have been in the air, and close above the house where the Child was, else it would not have pointed out the exact house.

(ord.) Or, the star is the illumination of faith, which leads him to the nearest aid; while they turn aside to the Jews, the Magi lose it; so those who seek counsel of the bad, lose the true light.

But amid these matters it should be known that the Priscillianist heretics believe that each person is born under the configurations of the stars; and they take this in support of their error, that a new star appeared when the Lord appeared in the flesh, and they believe that the star which appeared was his fate. But if we consider the words of the Gospel, where it is said of the same star: "Until it came and stood over where the child was," since the child did not run to the star, but the star ran to the child, if it may be said, the star was not the fate of the child, but the child who appeared was the fate of the star. But far be it from the hearts of the faithful to say that fate is anything real. For the Creator alone who made this life of men governs it. For man was not made for the sake of the stars, but the stars were made for the sake of man. And if a star is called the fate of a man, man is declared to be subject to its own ministrations. Certainly when Jacob, coming forth from the womb, held the heel of his elder brother with his hand, the first could by no means come forth completely unless the second had also begun; and yet although their mother brought forth both at one time and at the same moment, the quality of each one's life was not the same.

But the astrologers are accustomed to respond to this by saying that the power of a constellation is in the instant of a moment. To them we say in reply that the duration of birth is considerable. If therefore a constellation changes in the instant of a moment, it will now be necessary for them to declare as many fates as there are limbs of those being born. The astrologers are also accustomed to affirm that whoever is born under the sign of Aquarius will obtain the occupation of a fisherman in this life. But Getulia, as it is said, has no fishermen. Who then would say that no one is born there under the star of Aquarius, where there is absolutely no fisherman? Again, those whom they assert are born under the sign of Libra, they say will become money-changers; and the provinces of many nations know nothing of money-changers. Therefore they must confess either that this sign is absent among them, or that it has no fated effect whatsoever. In the land of the Persians and Franks, kings come forth from their lineage; and when these are born, who would estimate how many are born at the same moments of hours and times from a servile condition? And yet the sons of kings, born under one and the same star with slaves, advance to the kingdom, while the slaves who were born with them die in servitude. We have spoken briefly about the star, lest we seem to have passed over the foolishness of the astrologers without examination.

"And, lo! the star, which they saw in the east, went before them."

For therefore only was it hidden, that having lost their guide, they might come to be obliged to make inquiry of the Jews, and so the matter might be made evident to all. Since after they have made inquiries, and have had His enemies for informants, it appears to them again. And mark how excellent was the order; how in the first place after the star the people of the Jews receives them, and the king, and these bring in the prophecy to explain what had appeared: how next, after the prophet, an angel again took them up and taught them all things; but for a time they journey from Jerusalem to Bethlehem by the guidance of the star, the star again journeying with them from that place also; that hence too thou mightest learn, that this was not one of the ordinary stars, for there is not so much as one star that hath this nature. And it not merely moved, but "went before them," drawing and guiding them on in mid-day.

"But what need of this star any more," one may ask, "when the place was ascertained?" In order that the Child also might be seen. For there was not anything to make Him manifest, since the house was not conspicuous, neither was His mother glorious, or distinguished. There was need then of the star, to set them by the place. Wherefore it re-appears on their coming out of Jerusalem, and stays not, before it hath reached the manger.

And marvel was linked on to marvel; for both were strange things, as well the magi worshipping, as the star going before them; and enough to attract even such as were made all of stone. For if the wise men had said, they had heard prophets say these things, or that angels had discoursed with them in private, they might have been disbelieved; but now, when the vision of the star appeared on high, even they that were exceeding shameless had their mouths stopped.

Moreover, the star, when it stood over the young Child, stayed its course again: which thing itself also was of a greater power than belongs to a star, now to hide itself, now to appear, and having appeared to stand still. Hence they too received an increase of faith. For this cause they rejoiced also, that they had found what they were seeking, that they had proved messengers of truth, that not without fruit had they come so great a journey; so great a longing (so to speak) had they for Christ. For first it came and stood over His very head, showing that what is born is Divine; next standing there, it leads them to worship Him; being not simply barbarians, but the wiser sort amongst them.

Seest thou, with how great fitness the star appeared? Why; because even after the prophecy, and after the interpretation of the chief priests and scribes, they still had their minds turned towards it.

This passage shows, that when the star had brought the Magi nearly to Jerusalem, it was hidden from them, and so they were compelled to ask in Jerusalem, where Christ should be born? and thus to manifest Him to them; on two accounts, first, to put to confusion the Jews, inasmuch as the Gentiles instructed only by sight of a star sought Christ through strange lands, while the Jews who had read the Prophets from their youth did not receive Him, though born in their country. Secondly, that the Priests, when asked where Christ should be born, might answer to their now condemnation, and while they instructed Herod, they were themselves ignorant of Him. The star went before them, to show them the greatness of the King.

What wonder that a divine star should minister to the Sun of righteousness about to rise. It stood over the Child's head, as it were, saying, 'This is He;' proving by its place what it had no voice to utter.

The Magi obeyed the King so far as to seek the Lord, but not to return to Herod. Like in this to good hearers; the good they hear from wicked preachers, that they do; but do not imitate their evil lives.

Or, the star figures the grace of God, and Herod the Devil. He, who by sin puts himself in the Devil's power, loses that grace; but if he return by repentance, he soon finds that grace again which leaves him not till it have brought him to the young Child's house, i. e. the Church.

(9) Then the zeal of the Magi is mentioned, for he had asked them to do two things: to inquire and to return. But the Magi did one. Hence, when they heard the king, they went their way. But they did not do the other. Hearers, indeed, should be such that they learn good things but relinquish evil: "Do what they say, but do not act according to their works" (Mt 23:3).

Having presented one of the factors moving the Magi, namely, Herod's urging, the evangelist now mentions the other factor moving them to search for Christ, namely, the star leading them. In regard to this he does two things: first, he mentions the star leading them; secondly, the joy they felt at this (v. 10).

And note that the star first performs its own motion, because it leads the Magi directly to Christ; also when it came to rest, it indicated where the child was (v. 9). Hence, in regard to the first he says, the star went before them. From the statement that the star they had seen in the East went before them, we are given to understand that when the Magi turned aside to go to Jerusalem, the star disappeared; but when they left Herod, it appeared again. It disappeared for three reasons: First, to shame the Jews who, although instructed in the Law to seek Christ, scorned him; whereas the gentiles, non-instructed, seek him. Thus Isaiah (55:5) is fulfilled: "Nations that knew you not shall run to you." Secondly, for the instruction of the Magi. For the Lord's will is to make himself manifest to them not only by the star but also by the Law, so that knowledge of the Law might be joined to their knowledge of creatures: "In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall stand" (Dt 19:15); "To the law and to the testimony" (Is 8:20). Thirdly, for our instruction. And we are instructed about two things according to a Gloss: first, that those who seek human help are deserted by the divine. For it is unlawful to seek human help without seeking divine: "Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help and rely on horses, who trust in chariots because they are many, and in horsemen, because they are very strong, but do not look to the Holy One of Israel" (Is 31:1). Secondly, we are instructed that we, who are believers, should not seek signs, as those did who, seeing the star, rejoiced exceedingly; but we ought to be content with the doctrines of the prophets, because signs are given for unbelievers.

There are two mysteries in this. For the star signifies Christ: "I am the root of David, the bright morning star" (Rev 22:16). Hence, by that star we can understand God's grace, which we lose, when we come to Herod, i.e., the devil: "We were once darkness, but now light in the Lord" (Eph 5:8). Again, when we depart from Herod, i.e., the devil, we find the star, i.e., Christ's grace. This is like Ex (13:2), where it says that the Lord went ahead of Israel in a pillar of fire. Here, however, he went ahead in the form of a star.

Till it came to rest over the place where the child was. Here we understand two things: one is that the star was not very high; otherwise, they would not have been able to distinguish the child's house. The other is that after the star had served its purpose, it was dissolved into its matter. Where the child was. He often calls him child, in order to tell us that he is the one about whom it is said: "A child is born to us" (Is 9:6).

(ord.) Or, the star is the illumination of faith, which leads him to the nearest aid; while they turn aside to the Jews, the Magi lose it; so those who seek counsel of the bad, lose the true light.

This service of the star is followed by the rejoicing of the Magi.

(ord.) He rejoices indeed who rejoices on God's account, who is the true joy. With great joy, he says, for they had great cause.

(Anselm.) In these offerings we observe their national customs, gold, frankincense, and various spices abounding among the Arabians; yet they intended thereby to signify something in mystery.

(Anselm.) The three men who offer, signify the nations who come from the three quarters of the earth. They open their treasures, i. e. manifest the faith of their hearts by confession. Rightly in the house, teaching that we should not vain-gloriously display the treasure of a good conscience. They bring three (vid. sup. note g, p. 18.) gifts, i. e. the faith in the Holy Trinity. Or opening the stores of Scripture, they offer its threefold sense, historical, moral, and allegorical; or Logic, Physic, and Ethics, making them all serve the faith.

(Hom. in Evang. i. 106.) Gold, as to a King; frankincense, as sacrifice to God; myrrh, as embalming the body of the dead.

(ubi sup.) Something further may yet be meant here. Wisdom is typified by gold; as Solomon saith in the Proverbs, A treasure to be desired is in the mouth of the wise. (Prov. 21:20.) By frankincense, which is burnt before God, the power of prayer is intended, as in the Psalms, Let my speech come before thee as incense. (Ps. 141:2.) In myrrh is figured mortification of the flesh. To a king at his birth we offer gold, if we shine in his sight with the light of wisdom; we offer frankincense, if we have power before God by the sweet savour of our prayers; we offer myrrh, when we mortify by abstinence the lusts of the flesh.

Shame upon Marcion, shame upon Paul of Samosata, for refusing to see what those wise men saw, the forefathers of the Church; for I am not ashamed so to call them. Let Marcion be ashamed, beholding God worshipped in the flesh. Let Paul be ashamed, beholding Him worshipped as not being merely a man. As to His being in the flesh, that first is signified by the swaddling clothes and the manger; as to their not worshipping Him as a mere man, they declare it, by offering Him, at that unripe age, such gifts as were meet to be offered to God. And together with them let the Jews also be ashamed, seeing themselves anticipated by barbarians and magi, whilst they submit not so much as to come after them. For indeed what happened then was a type of the things to come, and from the very beginning it was shown that the Gentiles would anticipate their nation.

"But how was it," one may ask, "that not at the beginning, but afterwards, He said, 'Go ye, and make disciples of all nations'?" Because the occurrence was a type, as I said, of the future, and a sort of declaration of it beforehand. For the natural order was that Jews should come unto Him first; but forasmuch as they of their own choice gave up their proper benefit, the order of things was inverted. Since not even in this instance should the wise men have come before the Jews, nor should persons from so great a distance have anticipated those who were settled about the very city, nor should those who had heard nothing have prevented them that were nurtured in so many prophecies. But because they were exceedingly ignorant of their own blessings, those from Persia anticipate those at Jerusalem. And this indeed is what Paul also saith: "It was necessary that the word of the Lord should first have been spoken to you, but seeing ye have judged yourselves unworthy, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." For even though before they did not obey, at any rate when they heard it from the wise men, they ought to have made all haste; but they would not. Therefore, while those are slumbering, these run before.

Let us then also follow the magi, let us separate ourselves from our barbarian customs, and make our distance therefrom great, that we may see Christ, since they too, had they not been far from their own country, would have missed seeing Him. Let us depart from the things of earth. For so the wise men, while they were in Persia, saw but the star, but after they had departed from Persia, they beheld the Sun of Righteousness. Or rather, they would not have seen so much as the star, unless they had readily risen up from thence. Let us then also rise up; though all men be troubled, let us run to the house of the young Child; though kings, though nations, though tyrants interrupt this our path, let not our desire pass away. For so shall we thoroughly repel all the dangers that beset us. Since these too, except they had seen the young Child, would not have escaped their danger from the king. Before seeing the young Child, fears and dangers and troubles pressed upon them from every side; but after the adoration, it is calm and security; and no longer a star but an angel receives them, having become priests from the act of adoration; for we see that they offered gifts also.

Do thou therefore likewise leave the Jewish people, the troubled city, the blood-thirsty tyrant, the pomp of the world, and hasten to Bethlehem, where is the house of the spiritual Bread. For though thou be a shepherd, and come hither, thou wilt behold the young Child in an inn: though thou be a king, and approach not here, thy purple robe will profit thee nothing; though thou be one of the wise men, this will be no hindrance to thee; only let thy coming be to honor and adore, not to spurn the Son of God; only do this with trembling and joy: for it is possible for both of these to concur in one.

But take heed that thou be not like Herod, and say, "that I may come and worship Him," and when thou art come, be minded to slay Him. For him do they resemble, who partake of the mysteries unworthily: it being said, that such a one "shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord." Yes; for they have in themselves the tyrant who is grieved at Christ's kingdom, him that is more wicked than Herod of old, even Mammon. For he would fain have the dominion, and sends them that are his own to worship in appearance, but slaying while they worship. Let us fear then, lest at any time, while we have the appearance of suppliants and worshippers, we should in deed show forth the contrary.

And let us cast everything out of our hands when we are to worship; though it be gold that we have, let us offer it unto him and not bury it. For if those barbarians then offered it for honor, what will become of thee, not giving even to Him that hath need? If those men journeyed so far to see Him newly born, what sort of excuse wilt thou have, not going out of thy way one alley's length, that thou mayest visit Him sick or in bonds? And yet when they are sick or in bonds, even our enemies have our pity; thine is denied even to thy Benefactor and Lord. And they offered gold, thou hardly givest bread. They saw the star and were glad, thou, seeing Christ Himself a stranger and naked, art not moved.

How then saith Luke, that He was lying in the manger? Because at the birth indeed she presently laid Him there (for, as was not unlikely, in that large assemblage for the taxing, they could find no house; which Luke also signifies, by saying, "Because there was no room, she laid Him" there); but afterwards she took Him up, and held Him on her knees. For no sooner was she arrived at Bethlehem than she brought her pangs to an end, that thou mayest thence also learn the whole dispensation, and that these things were not done at random, or by chance, but that they all were in course of accomplishment, according to some Divine foreknowledge, and prophetic order.

But what was it that induced them to worship? For neither was the Virgin conspicuous, nor the house distinguished, nor was any other of the things which they saw apt to amaze or attract them. Yet they not only worship, but also "open their treasures," and "offer gifts;" and gifts, not as to a man, but as to God. For the frankincense and the myrrh were a symbol of this. What then was their inducement? That which wrought upon them to set out from home and to come so long a journey; and this was both the star, and the illumination wrought of God in their mind, guiding them by little and little to the more perfect knowledge. For, surely, had it not been so, all that was in sight being ordinary, they would not have shown so great honor. Therefore none of the outward circumstances was great in that instance, but it was a manger, and a shed, and a mother in poor estate; to set before thine eyes, naked and bare, those wise men's love of wisdom, and to prove to thee, that not as mere man they approached Him, but as a God, and Benefactor. Wherefore neither were they offended by ought of what they saw outwardly, but even worshipped, and brought gifts; gifts not only free from Judaical grossness, in that they sacrificed not sheep and calves, but also coming nigh to the self-devotion of the Church, for it was knowledge and obedience and love that they offered unto Him.

(Serm. in Epiph. s. 4. 3.) Though in stature a babe, needing the aid of others, unable to speak, and different in nothing from other infants, yet such faithful witnesses, showing the unseen Divine Majesty which was in Him, ought to have proved most certainly that that was the Eternal Essence of the Son of God that had taken upon Him the true human nature.

They rejoiced, because their hopes were not falsified but confirmed, and because the toil of so great travel had not been undertaken in vain.

By the mystery of this star they understood that the dignity of the King then born exceeded the measure of all worldly kings.

Mary His mother, not crowned with a diadem or laying on a golden couch; but with barely one garment, not for ornament but for covering, and that such as the wife of a carpenter when abroad might have. Had they therefore come to seek an earthly king, they would have been more confounded than rejoiced, deeming their pains thrown away. But now they looked for a heavenly King; so that though they saw nought of regal state, that star's witness sufficed them, and their eyes rejoiced to behold a despised Boy, the Spirit showing Him to their hearts in all His wonderful power, they fell down and worshipped, seeing the man, they acknowledged the God.

And though it were not then understood what these several gifts mystically signified, that is no difficulty; the same grace that instigated them to the deed, ordained the whole.

Joseph was absent by Divine command, that no wrong suspicions might occur to the Gentiles.

And it was not enough to say, They rejoiced, but they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.

He adds greatly, showing that men rejoice more over what they have lost than over what they possess.

And it is to be known that each did not offer a different gift, but each one the three things, each one thus proclaiming the King, the God, and the man.

When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. They rejoiced that they had not been led astray but had found what they were seeking.

(10) Then the effect on the Magi of the star's leading them is mentioned. Hence, seeing the star they rejoiced. They rejoiced on account of the hope they recovered. For they feared to lose what they hoped for, because they had journeyed a long distance: "Rejoicing in hope" (Rom 12:12). He says, with joy. For some rejoice and do not rejoice: "Even in laughter, the heart is sad, and the end of joy is grief" (Pr 14:13). But true and perfect joy deals with God: "Rejoicing, I shall rejoice in the Lord, and my soul shall exult in my God" (Is 61:10). Thirdly he adds great, because they now knew great things about God, namely, God Incarnate and most merciful: "Shout and sing for joy, O inhabitant of Zion, for great in your midst is the holy one of Israel" (Is 12:6). Fourthly, he adds, exceedingly, because they rejoiced intensely. For they had recovered what they had lost: "There is joy before the angels of God..." (Lk 15:10).

(non occ.) Gold, as paid to a mighty King; frankincense, as offered to God; myrrh, as to one who is to die for the sins of all.

Let us now observe how glorious was the dignity that attended the King after his birth, after the magi in their journey remained obedient to the star. For immediately the magi fell to their knees and adored the one born as Lord. There in his very cradle they venerated him with offerings of gifts, though Jesus was merely a whimpering infant. They perceived one thing with the eyes of their bodies but another with the eyes of the mind. The lowliness of the body he assumed was discerned, but the glory of his divinity is now made manifest. A boy he is, but it is God who is adored. How inexpressible is the mystery of his divine honor! The invisible and eternal nature did not hesitate to take on the weaknesses of the flesh on our behalf. The Son of God, who is God of the universe, is born a human being in the flesh. He permits himself to be placed in a manger, and the heavens are within the manger. He is kept in a cradle, a cradle that the world cannot hold. He is heard in the voice of a crying infant. This is the same one for whose voice the whole world would tremble in the hour of his passion. Thus he is the One, the God of glory and the Lord of majesty, whom as a tiny infant the magi recognize. It is he who while a child was truly God and King eternal. To him Isaiah pointed, saying, "For a boy has been born to you; a son has been given to you, a son whose empire has been forged on his shoulders."

But the Magi bring gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Gold indeed befits a king, frankincense was placed in sacrifice to God, and with myrrh the bodies of the dead are preserved. Therefore the Magi proclaim through mystical gifts the one whom they adore: by gold a king, by frankincense God, by myrrh a mortal. But there are certain heretics who believe him to be God, but do not believe that he reigns everywhere. These indeed offer him frankincense, but refuse to offer gold as well. And there are some who consider him a king, but deny he is God. These offer him gold, but refuse to offer frankincense. And there are some who confess him to be both God and king, but deny that he assumed mortal flesh. These offer him gold and frankincense, but refuse to offer myrrh of assumed mortality. Let us therefore offer gold to the newborn Lord, that we may confess he reigns everywhere; let us offer frankincense, that we may believe that he who appeared in time existed as God before time; let us offer myrrh, that we may believe him whom we believe to be impassible in his divinity to have also been mortal in our flesh.

Although in gold, frankincense, and myrrh something else can also be understood. For by gold wisdom is designated, as Solomon attests, who says: A desirable treasure rests in the mouth of the wise. By frankincense, which is burned to God, the power of prayer is expressed, as the Psalmist testifies, who says: Let my prayer be directed as incense in your sight. By myrrh the mortification of our flesh is figured; hence the holy Church says of her workers who strive for God even unto death: My hands have dripped with myrrh. Therefore we offer gold to the newborn King if we shine in his sight with the brightness of heavenly wisdom. We offer frankincense if we burn the thoughts of the flesh on the altar of the heart through holy devotion to prayer, that we may be able to give forth a sweet fragrance to God through heavenly desire. We offer myrrh if we mortify the vices of the flesh through abstinence. For by myrrh, as we said, dead flesh is prevented from putrefying. But for dead flesh to putrefy is for this mortal body to serve the flow of lust, as is said of certain people through the prophet: The beasts of burden have rotted in their dung. For beasts of burden to rot in their dung is for carnal men to end their lives in the stench of lust. Therefore we offer myrrh to God when we preserve this mortal body from the putrefaction of lust through the seasoning of continence.

(Verse 11.) And opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold, frankincense, and myrrh. The presbyter Juvencus beautifully captures the significance of the gifts in one verse.

Thus, they bring gifts of gold, myrrh, and incense to the king, the people, and the God.

And having received an answer in a dream, they returned to their own country by another way, so as not to go back to Herod. Those who had presented gifts to the Lord subsequently received a response. However, the response (which is called χρηματισθέντες in Greek) was not made through an angel, but through the Lord Himself, in order to demonstrate the privilege of Joseph's merits. They returned by another way because they were not to mix with the unfaithfulness and treachery of the Jews.

Let the shepherds take better care of their flock, and let the wise men spare their legs so long a journey; let them keep their gold to themselves. Let Herod, too, mend his manners, so that Jeremy may not glory over him.

And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary His mother. At the time of His birth, the Virgin laid the Child in the manger as they could not find a house then. But later it is most likely that they found a house, and it is there that the Magi found them. Joseph and Mary had gone up to Bethlehem to be enrolled there, as Luke says (Lk 2), and as there was a great number of people assembled there for the census, they did not have a house for a time, and so He was born in the cave. Later a house was found and there the Magi saw the Lord. And they fell down and worshipped Him. Behold, what enlightened souls! They saw a pauper, and worshipped. For they had been informed that He was God, and therefore they also offered Him gifts, as to God and man. Listen, then: And when they had opened their treasures, they offered Him gifts: gold and frankincense and myrrh. Gold they offered to Him as to a king, for we pay tribute of gold to the king to whom we are subject. They offered frankincense as to God, for we burn incense to God. They offered myrrh since He would taste of death. For the Jews would prepare the dead for burial with myrrh to preserve the body from corruption. Myrrh, which is dry, desiccates the body and prevents worms from breeding. Do you see the faith of the Magi? They had been taught by the prophecy of Balaam alone that the Lord was both God and King and would be born for our sake. Listen to the prophecy: "He reclined and rested as a lion, and as a young lion; may they be blessed that call Thee blessed" (Num. 24:9). Behold the kingship in the lion, and death in the reclining. Behold the divinity; for only the divine nature has the power to bless.

(11) Then he deals with the finding of the child. Hence, and entering the house, they found the child. And he touches on three things: the house which, if one were to inquire what sort it was, is revealed in Lk (2:7). Again, if it be asked what sort of child it was, he did not differ in any way from infants, as the saints say. As to externals, he did not speak, he seems helpless, and so on. If one asks about the mother, the answer is that she looked like the wife of a carpenter. I say this, because, if they had been looking for an earthly king, they would have been shocked at what they saw. But seeing lowly things and considering the loftiest, they were moved to admiration and adored him: and they fell down and worshipped him. But why is there no mention of Joseph? Because by God's plan he was not present, so that no grounds for an improper opinion be given to those who were the firstfruits of the gentiles.

Then he mentions the reverence they showed the child by adoring and offering and obeying. He says, therefore, and they fell down and worshipped him as God concealed in man: "The Ethiopians will fall down before him" (Ps 72:9). They also showed reverence by offering; hence, opening their treasures. For it was the custom of Persians always to adore with a gift: opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh. "May the kings of Tarshish and of the isles bring him gifts, may the kings of Sheba and Seba bring gifts" (Ps 72:10); "All those from Sheba shall come. They shall bring gold and frankincense, and shall proclaim the praise of the Lord" (Is 60:6).

Mystically, it should be considered that they opened their treasures not during their journey, but only when they came to Christ. Similarly, we should not make our goods manifest, while we are wayfarers. Hence, this is reprehended below (c. 25) in the parable of the virgins, and in (13:44): "The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up; then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field."

They offered him gifts... Some assign a literal reason for these gifts and say that the Magi found three things: a squalid house, a helpless child and a poor mother. Therefore, they offered gold to sustain the mother, myrrh to sustain the child's members, frankincense to remove the stench. But it should be noted that something mystical is involved here, such that those three refer to the three things we should offer, namely, faith, action and contemplation. As to faith in two ways: first as to the things found in Christ, namely, royal dignity: "The king will reign and be wise" (Jer 23:5); and therefore, they offered gold in tribute. The greatness of the priesthood and, therefore, frankincense, as a sacrifice. Man's mortality: and therefore, myrrh. Secondly, as to faith in the Trinity, because the persons of the Trinity are designated in us. Secondly, they can be referred to our action. For by gold can be signified wisdom: "If you search for wisdom as for hidden treasures, then you will understand the fear of the Lord" (Pr 2:4). By frankincense devout prayer: "Let my prayer, O Lord, be directed as incense in your sight" (Ps 144:2). By myrrh mortification of the flesh: "Mortify your members which are on earth" (Col 3:5); "My hands dripped with myrrh" (Song of Songs 5:5). As to contemplation by those three can be signified the three senses of Sacred Scripture, under which are included the allegorical, anagogical and moral; or the three parts of philosophy, namely, moral, logic and natural. For we ought to use all these for the service of God.

(non occ.) The wicked Herod, now made cruel by fear, will needs do a deed of horror. But how could he ensnare him who had come to cut off all fraud? His fraud is escaped as it follows, And being warned.

This is an example to us of modesty and faith, that once we have come to know and adore Christ as King, we may abandon the path we were traveling before, which was the path of error. We may now proceed by the other path, on which Christ is our guide. We may return to our place, paradise, from which Adam was driven out. This place is mentioned in the psalm as one where we will please the Lord in the land of the living. Thus it was that the magi, having been advised to follow another road, frustrated the tyrant's cruel designs in their return. It was in this manner, through the magi, that the boy who was born a king became known, while at the same time the wiles of the tyrant Herod were overcome. It was predicted that our infant Lord and Savior would be triumphant even at the very beginning of his life in the flesh. This was foretold in advance by Isaiah when he said, "For before the child shall have knowledge to cry 'father' and 'mother,' the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria." By "riches of Damascus" is meant the gold that the boy, born the Son of God, received as offered to him by the magi. The "spoils of Samaria" represent the worship of idols, the superstitious error of Samaria from which he diverted those same magi. Those who previously were the prey of the devil because of their false religion became the plunder of God through their knowledge of Christ. The "king of the Assyrians" refers to Herod, or in fact to the devil, to whom the magi themselves became enemies, reverencing as they did the Son of God, our Lord and Savior.

(Anselm.) The three men who offer, signify the nations who come from the three quarters of the earth. They open their treasures, i. e. manifest the faith of their hearts by confession. Rightly in the house, teaching that we should not vain-gloriously display the treasure of a good conscience. They bring three (vid. sup. note g, p. 18.) gifts, i. e. the faith in the Holy Trinity. Or opening the stores of Scripture, they offer its threefold sense, historical, moral, and allegorical; or Logic, Physic, and Ethics, making them all serve the faith.

(ord.) This warning is given by the Lord Himself; it is none other that now teaches these Magi the way they should return, but He who said, I am the way. (John 14.) Not that the Infant actually speaks to them, that His divinity may not be revealed before the time, and His human nature may be thought real. But he says, having received an answer, for as Moses prayed silently, so they with pious spirit had asked what the Divine will bade. By another way, for they were not to be mixed up with the unbelieving Jews.

The magi hint at something great for us by the fact that they return to their own country by another way. For in doing what they were warned to do, they surely suggest to us what we should do. Our country is paradise, to which, once we have come to know Jesus, we are forbidden to return by the way we came. For we departed from our country by being proud, by being disobedient, by following visible things, by tasting the forbidden food; but we must return to it by weeping, by obeying, by despising visible things, and by restraining the appetite of the flesh. Therefore we go back to our country by another way, because we who departed from the joys of paradise through pleasures are called back to them through lamentations.

Hence it is necessary, dearest brothers, that we, always fearful and always watchful, set before the eyes of our heart on one side the sins of our deeds, on the other the judgment of final severity. Let us consider how severe the judge comes who threatens judgment yet remains hidden; who holds out terrors to sinners and yet still forbears; and therefore delays coming sooner so that he may find fewer to condemn. Let us punish our sins with weeping, and with the voice of the Psalmist let us come before his face in confession. Therefore let no deceit of pleasures deceive us, let no vain joy seduce us. For near is the judge who said: "Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep." For hence Solomon says: "Laughter shall be mingled with sorrow, and mourning takes hold of the end of joy." Hence he says again: "I counted laughter an error, and to joy I said: Why are you vainly deceived?" Hence again he says: "The heart of the wise is where sadness is, and the heart of fools is where gladness is." Let us therefore fear the precepts of God, if we truly celebrate the solemnity of God. For a sacrifice pleasing to God is affliction against sin, as the Psalmist testifies who says: "A sacrifice to God is a contrite spirit." Our past sins were forgiven in the receiving of baptism, and yet after baptism we have committed many sins, but we cannot be washed again by the water of baptism. Since therefore we have defiled our life even after baptism, let us baptize our conscience with tears, so that, seeking our country again by another way, we who departed from it delighted by good things may return to it embittered by evils, through the grace of our Lord.

(Hom. in Ev. i. 10. 7.) We may learn much from this return of the Magi another way. Our country is Paradise, to which, after we have come to the knowledge of Christ we are forbidden to return the way we came. We have left this country by pride, disobedience, following things of sight, tasting forbidden food; and we must return to it by repentance, obedience, by contemning things of sight, and overcoming carnal appetite.

They had offered gifts to the Lord, and receive a warning corresponding to it. This warning (in the Greek 'having received a response') is given not by an Angel, but by the Lord Himself, to show the high privilege granted to the merit of Joseph.

See from this also their faith, how they were not offended, but are docile, and considerate; neither are they troubled, nor reason with themselves, saying, "And yet, if this Child be great, and hath any might, what need of flight, and of a clandestine retreat? and wherefore can it be, that when we have come openly and with boldness, and have stood against so great a people, and against a king's madness, the angel sends us out of the city as runaways and fugitives?" But none of these things did they either say or think. For this most especially belongs to faith, not to seek an account of what is enjoined, but merely to obey the commandments laid upon us.

Had the Magi sought Christ as an earthly King, they would have remained with Him when they had found Him; but they only worship, and go their way. After their return, they continued in the worship of God more stedfast than before, and taught many by their preaching. And when afterwards Thomas reached their country, they joined themselves to him, and were baptized, and did according to his preachingb.

It was impossible that they, who left Herod to go to Christ, should return to Herod. They who have by sin left Christ and passed to the devil, often return to Christ; for the innocent, who knows not what is evil, is easily deceived, but having once tasted the evil he has taken up, and remembering the good he has left, he returns in penitence to God. He who has forsaken the devil and come to Christ, hardly returns to the devil; for rejoicing in the good he has found, and remembering the evil he has escaped, with difficulty returns to that evil.

And being warned by God in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way. Consider the sequence of events. First God guided them to faith by means of the star. Then they came to Jerusalem and He taught them through the prophet Micah that Christ was to be born in Bethlehem. And finally, they were warned by means of the angel. They obeyed the warning, that is, the divine speech. Therefore, having received the warning, that is, having accepted the revelation from God, they deceived Herod. They were not afraid of pursuit, but were bold in the power of Him that had been born. Thus they were true witnesses and confessors.

(12) Then he mentions how they showed reverence in obeying. Hence being warned [answered] in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed to their own country by another way. But how could they have received an answer, if they put no question? The answer is that God sometimes answers a question still in the mind, and they inwardly asked what would be pleasing to God concerning their return: "Why do you cry to me?" (Ex 14:15). But do revelations come directly from God? Denis proves that he does not but uses angels. This is done to indicate the importance of the information: "It was ordained by angels through an intermediary" (Gal 3:19); "This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, 'God will raise up for you a prophet, from your brethren, as he raised me up'" (Acts 7:37).

They returned to their own country by another way. This shows that we return to our own country, paradise, from which we were expelled by sin, through obedience: "Do not swerve to the right or to the left; turn your foot away from evil" (Pr 4:27). Chrysostom says here that those who returned led holy lives and later became helpers of St. Thomas, the apostle; however, nothing is found in Scripture about them after their departure.

It may be thought strange by some that the disciples wished to prevent the little children from coming to our Lord, as it is said, when they saw it, they rebuked them. But we must understand in this either a mystery, or the effect of their love to Him. For they did it not from envy or harsh feeling towards the children, but they manifested a holy zeal in their Lord's service, that he might not be pressed by the crowds. Our own interest must be given up where an injury is threatened to God. But we may understand the mystery to be, that they desired the Jewish people to be first saved, of whom they were according to the flesh.

(Serm. 115.) To whom are they brought to be touched, but to the Saviour? And as being the Saviour they are presented to Him to be saved, who came to save that which was lost. But with regard to these innocents, when were they lost? The Apostle says, By one man sin entered into the world. (Rom. 5:12.) Let then the little children come as the sick to a physician, the lost to their Redeemer.

They were bringing children to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. And this lesson, full of the teaching of humility, shows that the innocent and simple can reach the grace of the Lord. The disciples rebuked those who were bringing them, not because they did not want the children to be blessed by the Savior's hand and voice, but because, not yet having complete faith, they thought he would be exhausted by the importunity of those presenting the children, like a human.

They were bringing infants to him etc. After he led by a parabolic example to humility in prayer, here consequently by an expressed example he also leads to humility in conduct, and this by the example of infants, who were offered to Christ and accepted by him as a sign of the approval of humility. In the explication of this example, five things are introduced by the Evangelist: first, the importunate offering of the infants; second, the carnal rebuke of those offering; third, the benign reception of those offered; fourth, the judicial approbation of the humble; fifth, the severe reprobation of the proud.

First, therefore, as to the offering of infants, he says: They were bringing infants to him, that he might touch them. The Gloss: "After the aforementioned controversy and the sentence given, infants are offered to the humble Master, that it might be shown that innocent and simple age pertains to grace"; whence in the Psalm: "Out of the mouth of infants and sucklings you have perfected praise." They were offering them, that he might give them a blessing through the imposition of hands: in which the Sacrament of Confirmation was prefigured and in a certain way intimated, in which an abundance of grace and blessing is given, according to that passage in Acts 8: "They laid hands upon them, and they received the Holy Spirit." Now this Holy Spirit rests upon the little ones, according to that passage in the last chapter of Isaiah: "What is the house that you will build for me? And what is this place of my rest?" "But to whom shall I look, if not to the poor and contrite in spirit and trembling at my words?" where another translation says: "Upon whom shall my Spirit rest, if not upon the humble and quiet one?" And this is most true when one is offered to the Lord; the Psalm: "For my father and my mother have forsaken me, but the Lord has taken me up." And therefore as a figure of this it is said in the last chapter of Leviticus: "Whatever has once been consecrated shall be holy of holies to the Lord."

Second, as regards the rebuking of those who brought them, he adds: When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them, namely those bringing them, and this because they were carnally attached to Christ. Hence the Gloss: "They rebuked, not because they did not want the infants to be blessed by the hand and voice of the Savior, but because, not yet perfect in faith, they thought that he, in the manner of men, would be wearied by the importunity of those bringing them." Hence for the sake of the Master's rest they were hindering the work of others' salvation, just as Peter too in Matthew 16, when the Lord said that he must suffer, said: "Far be it from you, Lord, this shall not happen to you." Or, because they were carnally attached to their own people; hence the Gloss: "They rebuked, perhaps for this reason, because they wanted the people of the Jews, from whom they were according to the flesh, to be saved first." And therefore they were moved by carnal compassion, concerning which Sirach 18: "The compassion of man is toward his neighbor, but the mercy of God," etc. In this deed, however, the disciples bore the type of carnal priests and prelates, who love carnal rest and proximity of blood more than the salvation of peoples; just as also in their contention, namely of the disciples, which they had, they bear the figure of the ambitious, concerning which below in chapter twenty-two: "There arose a contention among the disciples, which of them should seem to be the greater." And these are the two vices that most corrupt the Church of God, namely ambition for dignities and negligence of the salvation of neighbors. For both of these it is said in Jeremiah 48: "Cursed is he who does the work of God deceitfully, and cursed is he who withholds his sword from blood"; another translation has negligently: in which both deceitful ambition and slothful negligence are condemned together.

Mothers brought their babes. They wanted his blessing and begged for their infants the touch of his holy hand. The blessed disciples rebuked them for doing this, not because they envied the babes; rather they were paying him due respect as their teacher and preventing him from getting unnecessarily tired. They placed much value on order.Even until now, infants are brought near and blessed by Christ by means of consecrated hands. The pattern of the act continues even until this day and descends to us from the custom of Christ as its fountain. Only now, the bringing of infants does not take place in an unbecoming or disorderly manner but with proper order, solemnity and reverence.

The example of children also leads to humility. The Lord hereby teaches us to be humble, to accept everyone, and to despise no one. The disciples considered it unworthy of such a Teacher to bring children to Him. But He shows them that one must be so humble as not to disdain even the very least.

After what He had said, our Lord teaches us a lesson of humility by His own example; He does not turn away the little children who are brought to Him, but graciously receives them.

The wise men of the Gentiles therefore who seek for wisdom in a mystery, which is the kingdom of God, and will not receive this without the evidence of logical proof, are rightly shut out from this kingdom.

(ut sup.) Seeing that there is an incomparably greater number of poor which might be saved by forsaking their riches, they understood that all who love riches, even though they cannot obtain them, were to be counted among the number of the rich. It follows, And he said to them, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God, which must not be taken as if a rich man with covetousness and pride might enter into the kingdom of God, but that it is possible with God for a man to be converted from covetousness and pride, to charity and humility.

And those who heard it said, "And who can be saved?" What does this answer pertain to unless it is because the far greater multitude of the poor, who could be saved with the rich being lost, understood that all who love riches, even if they cannot obtain them, are reckoned among the rich?

Fourth, regarding the remedy for this very tenacity through divine help, he adds: And those who heard said: And who can be saved? They say this seeking a remedy and dreading the danger. For since very few perfectly despise riches, it seems from this that almost no one can attain perpetual salvation. Hence Augustine: "Since the poor are more numerous than the rich, the Apostles would not have said this unless they understood in the number of the rich all those who desire to obtain riches"; but few are those who are not such, because, as is said in Philippians 2, "all seek the things that are their own, not the things that are of Jesus Christ." All, therefore, seem to be in danger of damnation.

(Hom. 63. in Matt.) These weighty words so far exceeded the capacity of the disciples, that when they heard them, they asked, Who then can be saved? not that they feared for themselves, but for the whole world.

He who has a human way of thinking, that is, is carried away by earthly things and attached to the terrestrial, for him, as it is said, it is impossible to be saved, but for God this is possible; that is, when someone has God as his counselor and takes the ordinances of God and the commandments concerning poverty as his teachers, and calls upon Him for help, for that person it will be possible to be saved. For it is our part to desire the good, but to accomplish it is the work of God. And in another sense: if we, having risen above every human faintheartedness regarding wealth, desire even to make friends for ourselves by means of unrighteous wealth, then we shall be saved and shall be escorted by them into eternal habitations. For it is better if we renounce everything, or if we do not renounce everything, at least make the poor our partners, and then the impossible will become possible. Although without renouncing everything one cannot be saved, yet through the lovingkindness of God it becomes possible to be saved even in the case where several portions are distributed for genuine benefit.

With men therefore whose thoughts creep earthward, salvation is impossible, but with God it is possible. For when man shall have God for his counsellor, and shall have received the righteousness of God and His teaching concerning poverty, as well as have invoked His aid, this shall be possible to him.

But Peter said: Behold, we have left everything and followed you. Great confidence. Peter was a fisherman, he was not rich, he sought food by hand and skill, and yet he speaks confidently, We have left everything. And because it is not enough to just leave, he adds what is perfect: And followed you. We have done what you commanded, so what reward will you give us?

As if he says, We have done what Thou commandedst us, what reward then wilt Thou give us? And because it is not enough to have left all things, he adds that which made it perfect, saying, And have followed thee.

But Peter said. After he commended poverty through its perfection in merit and through its imperfection in the contrary, here thirdly he shows it commendable on account of its consummation in reward. Concerning the description of this, the procedure follows this order. For here the loftiness of perfect poverty is introduced as authoritative through apostolic observance, as approved through divine judgment, as enriched through grace, as rewarding through glory.

First, therefore, as regards the authentication of poverty through apostolic observance, he says: But Peter said: Behold, we have left all things and have followed you. Peter says this as the prince of the Apostles, upon whom ecclesiastical perfection is built, according to that passage in Matthew sixteen: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." He says this not for display, but to know the sublimity of the reward; whence in Matthew nineteen: "Behold, we have left all things and have followed you: what therefore shall be ours?" etc. Peter also says this to show that the counsel of poverty was fulfilled by the Apostles; whence Jerome: "Great confidence: Peter was a fisherman, he had not been rich, he sought food by hand and by skill; and yet he speaks confidently, saying: We have left all things." And Gregory gives the reason for this, saying thus: "For as much was left behind by those who followed as could have been desired by those who did not follow." Since, therefore, all things could be desired, when they left behind desire, they left behind all things. Peter also says this not boastfully for display, but wisely, so that he might invite others to imitation. Whence Bernard on this word, behold, we have left all things: "Well done, Peter, and not to your folly, because the world passes away and its desire, and it is more expedient to leave behind than to be left behind."

And note that he most fittingly joins two things here: we have left and we have followed you: because we cannot follow Christ as he runs unless we run after him, and we cannot run unless we are unburdened; whence in Hebrews twelve: "Laying aside every weight and the sin which surrounds us, let us run with patience the race set before us, looking" etc. And on this Bernard says: "Well done, he says, Peter, and not to your folly, because you could not follow him who runs while burdened; nor is it a useless exchange to have left all things for him who is above all things." Christ also, whom we follow, we cannot overtake unless we are unburdened; and we follow in vain unless we overtake him, according to that passage in Philippians three: "But I press on, if somehow I may lay hold of that for which I also have been laid hold of." And on this Bernard says: "It is clear that those are happy who have been unburdened and follow the Lord unencumbered; a most narrow opening awaits us, if we wish to overtake him whom we follow." And thus Paul was following, who said in Philippians three: "Forgetting those things which are behind, stretching forth myself to those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the heavenly calling." So also the other Apostles, of whom in Matthew four: "Having left their nets and their father, they followed the Lord," is said of James and John; and in Mark one it is said of Peter and Andrew: "Having left their nets and their boat, they followed him"; similarly of blessed Matthew it is said in Luke five that "having left all things, he followed the Lord."

It says, "Peter said to him, 'Look, we have left all and followed you.' " …I imagine, to this some may reply, "What had the disciples given up? They were men who gained the necessities of life by their sweat and labor, being by trade fishermen, who perhaps owned a boat and nets somewhere. They did not have well-built houses or any other possessions. What did they leave, or for what did they ask a reward from Christ?" What is our answer to this? For this very reason, they made this most necessary inquiry. Since they possessed nothing except what was trifling and of slight value, they would learn how God will reward and gladden with his gifts those who likewise have left but little for the sake of the kingdom of God. They desired to be counted worthy of the kingdom of heaven because of their love for him. The rich man, one who has disregarded much, will confidently expect a reward. He who possessed little and abandoned it, how was it not right to ask what hopes he might entertain? For this reason, as representing those in the same condition of their having left little, they say, "Behold, we have left all and followed you." It is further necessary to observe also this. Correctly considered, the pain of abandoning is the same whether one abandons much or little. Come and let us see the real meaning of the matter by a trivial example. Suppose two men had to stand naked. The one took off expensive clothes while the other put off only what was cheap and easy to get. Would not the pain of the nakedness be equal in both cases? What possible doubt can there be on this point? As far as regards obedience and good will, those who had different circumstances and yet practiced equal readiness and willingly sold what they had must be placed on an equal footing with the rich. The very wise Paul also takes up their cause. He wrote, "If there be a ready mind, it is accepted according to what a man has and not according to what he has not." Thus inquiry of the holy apostles was not unreasonable.

The rich man who has despised many things will naturally expect a reward, but he who possessing little resigns what he has, may fairly ask what there is in store for him; as it follows, Then Peter said, Lo, we have left all. Matthew adds, What shall we have therefore? (Matt. 19:27.)

It was necessary to say this, because those who forsake a few things, as far as regards their motives and obedience, are weighed in the same balance with the rich, who have forsaken all, inasmuch as they act from the like affections, in voluntarily making a surrender of all that they possess. And therefore it follows, Verily I say unto you, there is no man that hath left house, &c. who shall not receive manifold more, &c. He inspires all who hear Him with the most joyful hopes, confirming His promises to them with an oath, beginning His declaration with Verily. For when the divine teaching invites the world to the faith of Christ, some perhaps regarding their unbelieving parents are unwilling to distress them by coming to the faith, and have the like respect of others of their relations; while some again forsake their father and mother, and hold lightly the love of their whole kindred in comparison of the love of Christ.

This then we say, that he who gives up all worldly and carnal things will gain for himself far greater, inasmuch as the Apostles, after leaving a few things, obtained the manifold gifts of grace, and were accounted great every where. We then shall be like to them. If a man has left his home, he shall receive an abiding place above. If his father, he shall have a Father in heaven. If he has forsaken his kindred, Christ shall take him for a brother. If he has given up a wife, he shall find divine wisdom, from which he shall beget spiritual offspring. If a mother, he shall find the heavenly Jerusalem, who is our mother. From brethren and sisters also united together with him by the spiritual bond of his will, he shall receive in this life far more kindly affections.

At this, Peter asks: "behold, we have left everything," and he asks not for himself alone, but for the consolation of all the poor. Lest only the rich have good hopes of receiving much, as those who renounced much, while the poor have no hope, as those who renounced little and therefore earned a small reward — for this reason Peter asks and hears in response that both in the present and the future age, everyone who has despised his possessions for God's sake will receive recompense, even if those possessions were small. Do not look at the fact that they are small, but consider that this small amount contained all the person's means of livelihood, and that just as you placed your hope in much and great things, so he hoped to sustain his life with this little and small amount. I say nothing of the fact that one who has little has a greater attachment to it. This is evident with fathers. Having one child, they show greater attachment to it than when they have more children. So too the poor man, having one house and one field, loves them more intensely than you love your many possessions. And even if this is not the case, and the attachment of both is equal, then the renunciation is equally worthy. Therefore, in the present age as well they receive a recompense many times greater, just as these very apostles did. For each of them, having left behind a hut, now possesses magnificent churches, fields, parishes, many women attached to them by their zeal and faith, and in general everything else besides. And in the age to come they will receive not a multitude of similar fields and bodily rewards, but eternal life.