4 Sunday before Nativity

"When Abraham learned of this, he counted his servants born in the house" and with 318 men won a victory and liberated his nephew. This shows that the separation had taken place in friendship, since Abraham's love for his nephew was so great that he was willing to confront even the dangers of war on his behalf. What does it mean "he counted"? It means he "chose." So too what Jesus said in the Gospel refers not only to the knowledge of God but also to the grace of the just: "Even the hairs on your head are all counted." Indeed, "the Lord knows those who are his," but those who are not his he does not deign to know. Abraham, then, counted 318 men. You should understand that it is not numerical quantity that is here expressed but the value of their election. He chose, in fact, those whom he judged worthy to belong to the number of the faithful who were to believe in the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ. Indeed, the letter T in Greek means "three hundred," and the sum IH—ten plus eight—expresses the name of Jesus. So Abraham conquered in virtue of faith, not through the strength of a numerous army. And so it was that with no more than a few house servants he triumphed over those who had defeated the armies of five kings.

When Abram heard that his brother Lot had been captured, he numbered his trained servants, three hundred and eighteen, and so on. Indeed, it is a very great miracle of divine power that Abraham, with such a small troop, inflicted such a great slaughter on the enemies, but it contains the deeper sacrament of faith in which we must overcome the spiritual battle. There were three hundred and eighteen, a number that clearly designates the victorious sign of the cross and the name of our Savior Jesus Christ, through whom this has been consecrated for the fortification of our salvation. For among the Greeks, three hundred is marked by the letter T, which is shaped like a cross. For if it had received an apex in the middle, not the figure of the cross but the very sign of the cross would be clearly seen. However, ten and eight are marked among them by Ι and Η, which are the first letters in the name of Jesus: and therefore when three hundred and eighteen are noted in Greek, it is not far from being read as the cross of Jesus. So, fittingly, Abraham overcame the enemies and freed his brother with three hundred and eighteen comrades, to mystically prefigure that the one who would recall the world from death through the passion of the cross would be born from his seed; and he himself would also, by the name of the Savior, that is, Jesus, stand out and be honored throughout the whole world: but also, that all who would pertain to salvation would achieve salvation only through this venerable sign and through his terrible name.

(Verse 14) And he pursued them as far as Dan, to the city of the Phoenicians, which is now called Paneas. But Dan is one of the sources of the Jordan. For the other is also called Jor, which means 'stream'. Therefore, the Jordan is the name given to the two springs that, not far from each other, join to form a single stream.

Consider in this case, I ask you, dearly beloved, the greatness of heart exemplified in the just man's virtue. Trusting in the power of God, he was not cowed by the force of the enemy when he learned of the rout they had caused, first by falling upon all the tribes and prevailing against the Amalekites and all the others, and then by engaging the Sodomites, putting them to flight and seizing all their property. The reason, you see, why sacred Scripture described all this to us ahead of time, as well as all they achieved through their bravery, was that you might learn that the patriarch prevailed against them not by physical strength but through faith in God. [He] achieved all this under the protection of help from on high, not by wielding weapons and arrows and spears or by drawing bows or raising shields but with a few retainers of his own household.

"Abraham counted servants, born in his house … as far as Hobah, which is to the right of Damascus." Even the number is of vital importance. For in that number there is life, if we believe in the passion in the name of the Lord Jesus. In fact, this is the interpretation of the abovementioned name, Hobah, that is, "life." Appropriately too it is said that Hobah is located to the right of Damascus. For the sheep stand on the right, while the goats are on the left. The trained mind knows how many soldiers to choose to finish the battle, with what arms to supply them, with what banners to lead them. It does not lead its forces with images of eagles or dragons, but it marches into battle with the cross of Christ and in the name of Jesus, deriving courage from this sign, loyal to this banner. Rightly then is that mind called trained which has received the true wisdom of the just man. And justice is quick to correct, and by admonishing it calls back sinners, it stems the assaults of the passions. .

"Abraham counted 318 servants, born in his house … as far as Hobah, which is to the right of Damascus." Even the number is of vital importance. For in that number there is life, if we believe in the passion in the name of the Lord Jesus. In fact, this is the interpretation of the above-mentioned name, Hobah, that is, "life." Appropriately too it is said that Hobah is located to the right of Damascus. For the sheep stand on the right, while the goats are on the left. The trained mind knows how many soldiers to choose to finish the battle, with what arms to supply them, with what banners to lead them. It does not lead its forces with images of eagles or dragons, but it marches into battle with the cross of Christ and in the name of Jesus, deriving courage from this sign, loyal to this banner. Rightly then is that mind called trained which has received the true wisdom of the just man. And justice is quick to correct, and by admonishing it calls back sinners, it stems the assaults of the passions.

And he pursued them as far as Dan, and having divided his companions, he fell upon them at night and struck them, and pursued them as far as Hobah, which is to the left of Damascus. The entire series of sacred scripture is full of mystic figures, and not only in what is said and done, but even in the very places and times where these things take place, it agrees with that apostolic saying, "For all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition" (1 Cor. 10:11). Dan is interpreted as Judgment, Hobah as Condemnation, Damascus as the Cup of Blood. Therefore, Abraham, pursuing his enemies, found them in Dan and struck them by night when they were unsuspecting and secure, those who were rejoicing as if with captured prey, boasting that they had raged up to that point; for all sinners and those exalting themselves in the riches of this life and in the oppression of the innocent are permitted to boast up to the brink of divine judgment about their works; but with imprudent blindness, as if set in the midst of the night, when they say peace and safety, then sudden destruction will come upon them: hence it is well said that he struck them and pursued them to Hobah, that is, Condemnation, which is understood to mean no other condemnation than sudden and eternal destruction. It is said, he says, 'to the left of Damascus.' Damascus, as we have said, is interpreted as the Cup of Blood; by which name the delight of vices is rightly signified. For what is the delight of sin but a cup of blood, when one strives to fulfill the desires of the flesh and blood without any hesitation? And Hobah is where Abraham struck his adversaries, to the left of Damascus, because the condemnation that is going to punish the impious will thrust them into eternal punishment with the devil and his angels, which is usually designated by the left. However, Damascus is a noble city of Phoenicia and formerly the metropolis of all Syria. Dan was also a town of Phoenicia, the boundary of the province of Judea towards the north where today is Paneas, which was formerly called Caesarea Philippi; from where also the Jordan derived its name, which flows from Lebanon. For Dan is one of its sources; the other is called Jor, which is interpreted as Stream. Therefore, with the two sources not far from each other united into one stream, it is thenceforth called the Jordan.

"Abraham also recovered the goods." … This certainly does not refer to patrimony but to the vital goods of the soul, where the truly valuable riches—not straw, not hay—are to be found, where there is a reliable splendor of eloquence that contains the substance of our hope. These are indeed our true goods, that is, wisdom that abounds in riches; these are the goods that do not perish. Bodily enjoyment and the use of external goods, on the other hand, are of short, not of long, duration. This is why some people rightly regard it as improper to speak of inherited substance. In fact, inheritance is not the basis of our subsistence, since even people who lack money do not, however, lack the substance of life.

Why was it, someone may ask, that he called up retainers of his own household to the number of 318? For you to learn that he did not simply take everyone but only retainers of his own household, men raised by Lot, so that they might wreak their vengeance with much relish, like men entering this conflict for their own lord. "He fell upon them by night," the text says, "himself and his retainers, and continued to strike and pursue them." It was, you see, a hand from on high that joined in the attack and assisted in directing the battle. Hence they had no need of weapons or fighting machines. Instead, he had only to heave into sight with his retainers to smite some and cause others to take to flight, doing both in complete security without harassment from anyone. And he recovered the cavalry of the king of Sodom, his nephew Lot, all his accoutrements and the women. Do you see why it was permitted that while the others fled Lot alone should be taken captive? For two reasons: so that the patriarch's virtue should become manifest and that on his account many others also might find deliverance. Then he returns bearing a great prize of distinction, Lot, and parading as well as him the cavalry, women and accoutrements. [He] announces in a clear voice and proclaims more loudly than any trumpet that it was not by human power nor by force of numbers that he had won the prize and achieved victory but had done everything with aid from on high.

Do you see here in every event the just man being conspicuous and demonstrating to everyone on every occasion God's providence in his regard? Now you see him also zealous to prove a teacher of reverence for God to the Sodomites. "The king of Sodom," Scripture says, remember, "came out to meet him on his return from the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings with him." Notice the extent of his virtue and his enjoyment of assistance from God. The king comes out to meet this stranger, advanced in years, and shows high regard for him. He had learned, you see, that the advantage of kingship is as nothing to the person who lacks assistance from on high and that nothing could be more efficacious than God's hand raised to assist.

But one who is victorious should not claim the victory for himself; rather, he should attribute it to God. This is the teaching of Abraham, who became more humble, not more proud, in victory. Indeed, he offered a sacrifice and gave tithes; for this reason too, he received the blessing of Melchizedek, which means in translation "king of justice, king of peace." He was indeed the priest of the most high God. Who is the king of justice, the priest of God, but he to whom it is said, "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek," that is, Son of God, priest of the Father, the one who through the sacrifice of his body propitiated the Father for our transgressions?

Having received this oracle of promise, Abraham migrated and remained in another place of the same land, that is, beside the oak of Mamre, which was Hebron. Then, on the invasion of Sodom, when five kings carried on war against four and Lot was taken captive with the conquered Sodomites, Abraham delivered him from the enemy, leading with him to battle 318 of his homeborn servants. [He] won the victory for the kings of Sodom but would take nothing of the spoils when offered by the king for whom he had won them. He was then openly blessed by Melchizedek, who was priest of God most high, about whom many and great things are written in the epistle that is inscribed to the Hebrews, which most say is by the apostle Paul, though some deny this. For then first appeared the sacrifice which is now offered to God by Christians in the whole wide world. Long after the event this sacrifice was said by the prophet to be fulfilled in Christ, who was yet to come in the flesh: "Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." That is to say, not after the order of Aaron, for that order was to be taken away when the things shone forth that were intimated beforehand by these shadows.

Therefore, Melchisedech signifies the Lord Savior: first indeed, as the Apostle says, who is interpreted as king of righteousness, and then king of Salem, which is king of peace (Hebrews 7:2): with these words, the blessed apostle demonstrates how the figure of Melchisedech should be understood, teaching us very clearly that in the letters of the Old Testament we should seek not only the significations of things but also of names. Just as Melchisedech by his name and person figuratively announces Christ the King of righteousness, he also by the name of his city denotes figuratively the Church of the saints, that is, the city of the great King; about which it is written: "And His place was made in Salem, that is, in peace" (Psalm 76:3). However, Salem is the same that was later called Jerusalem by King David, becoming the metropolis of the entire province of Judea, because he bought the place of the temple there, and left the expenses of the construction to his son Solomon, all of which and many others that are read about this city pertain to the Church as is clear to all readers. Also with the nature of his sacrifice, of which he made Abraham a participant while blessing him, he prefigured the offering of the New Testament, which our Lord Himself first offered in the sacrament of His body and blood, and which He left to the Church to always be offered for the remission of sins: in whose unique participation He taught that all the children of the promise would be blessed: to such an extent that no one can be a part of eternal life without participation in this: "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you will not have life in you: whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life" (John 6:54). Thus, in the great significance of the sacrament, Melchisedech the priest blessed Abraham, offering him part of the sacrifice which he had offered to the Lord in bread and wine: clearly insinuating that not only we who came in the flesh after the Lord's passion but also Abraham himself who had received the promises, and all his chosen seed were to be granted eternal blessing through the offering of the Lord's passion. And indeed, Abraham had heard from the Lord: "And I will bless you, and I will make your name great, and you shall be blessed." He had heard: "And in you, all the families of the earth shall be blessed;" but before any son who would be the co-heir of this blessing was born to him; before he offered any sacrifice to God to give thanks for the granted blessing, Melchisedech king of Salem met him bringing bread and wine which he had offered to God, and blessed him, so that he might clearly understand that the blessing promised to him was to be received through the King of righteousness and the author of supreme peace, through the excellent high priest, through the mystical sacrifice of bread and wine, with all his seed. Therefore, let not the Jews boast of the Levitical priesthood against the Christians, since they offer the sacrifices of flesh, and we offer bread and wine to the Lord. For our sacrifice excels in both time and dignity: in time, indeed, because Melchisedech offered this first, before that Abraham or the priests from the stock of Levi came: and in dignity, because it was said to the Lord Christ by the Father concerning this and not that: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech" (Psalm 110:4). Which is also completed by the work itself, and now made manifest throughout the world, only a fool and an impious person denies. Thus it is clear that Melchisedech was greater than Abraham the patriarch. For without any contradiction, as the Apostle says, the lesser is blessed by the better (Hebrews 7:7). The sacrifice of Melchisedech is greater than the sacrifices which Abraham is read to have offered subsequently: because this the Lord Christ, that Aaron: this the priests of the New Testament, that of the Old were to offer. Wherefore it is well added: "And he gave him tithes of all." Which the Apostle understood and explained very sublimely; so that Abraham gave tithes to him not only for himself but also for all those who were to be born from him, among whom were the priests themselves who were to accept tithes from the people: "Through Abraham, even Levi, who accepts tithes, was tithed: for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchisedech met him" (Hebrews 7:9). Just as the Levitical tribe excelled, that is, the priestly people, from whom they received tithes; so Melchisedech excelled even those priests and Levites when he received from them in their father Abraham: for they were still in his loins. Abraham indeed in this place designates the people of Israel with their priesthood, while Melchisedech singularly expresses the Mediator between God and men with the priesthood which He left to the heirs of the New Testament: "And Abraham is blessed and tithed by Melchisedech," because even those who were most outstanding in the law and Levitical priesthood could only be blessed by the Lord Jesus Christ, and all that they could have of virtues had to be referred to Him, and they could only be saved by confessing that these were of His grace: hence Peter, when the grace of the Gospel was becoming clear, as if to the priesthood which was to come according to the order of Melchisedech, said to the zealots of legal observance: "Why do you test God by putting a yoke of servitude on the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But by the grace of the Lord Jesus, we believe to be saved in the same manner as they" (Acts 15:10). Therefore, Abraham gave tithes of all to Melchisedech the priest, from whom he had received the blessing: because indeed he understood that the type and image of the better priesthood were prefigured in him; this is, that he bore the figure of the legal priesthood, Melchisedech of the evangelical priesthood. For he was going to generate temporal priesthood from himself, which was to be maintained through the successions of priests; Melchisedech is read to have neither beginning of priesthood nor end nor predecessor nor successor: wherefore he fittingly bears the image of Him to whom it is said: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech." Let these few things be said about Melchisedech as they seemed sufficient for our work. Moreover, whoever desires to know fully about him and the mysteries he prefigured, let him diligently read the entire Epistle to the Hebrews.

But Melchizedek, king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine (for he was priest of the most high God), blessed him, and said: Blessed be Abram by the most high God, creator of heaven and earth, and blessed be the most high God, by whose protection your enemies are in your hands, and he gave him tithes of all. Notable first in this reading is that the patriarchs foreshadowed what the apostles proclaimed: And if one member suffers, says Paul, all the members suffer together; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice together (1 Cor. 12:25). For when Lot suffered adversities, Abraham empathized; when they rejoiced over their deliverance and victory, Melchizedek also rejoiced and, blessing the victorious one who had exposed himself to danger for the sake of his brethren's troubles, with heavenly benediction. He magnificently praised not only the human victor but also the Lord who granted the victory, according to that evangelical saying: Let your good works be seen, and glorify your Father who is in heaven (Matt. 5:16). Next, it should be noted that after the struggle and victory, Abraham was blessed; and this was done by the king and priest of the most high God: because we all, too, who belong to the promise of the heavenly homeland, await the blessing of the eternal kingdom after the labors of good works, which is prepared for us from the foundation of the world by the great king and priest, namely the Mediator between God and men, Jesus Christ; about whose kingdom, which he has coequal and coeternal with the Father, it is said in the psalm: The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet (Psalm 110:1), etc.: concerning whose priesthood, in which he offered himself as a sacrifice to the Father for us, it is added in the same psalm saying: The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek (Ibid. 4). Regarding the explanation of the verse and the priesthood and kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was prefigured in Melchizedek, it is appropriate for our humble self to speak and treat briefly in this place, since the Apostle in his epistle to the Hebrews discussed and explained these topics most sublimely and comprehensively, following his lead we have considered it appropriate to insert a few points from the many he made here.

Likewise, in the priest Melchizedek, we see the sacrament of the sacrifice of the Lord prefigured according to what the divine Scripture testifies and says: "And Melchizedek, the king of Salem, brought out bread and wine, for he was a priest of the most high God, and he blessed Abraham." But that Melchizedek portrayed a type of Christ, the Holy Spirit declares in the Psalms, saying in the person of the Father to the Son: "Before the day star … I have begotten you.… You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." The order proceeds first from the sacrifice and then descends to Melchizedek, a priest of the most high God, because he offered bread, because he blessed Abraham. For who is more a priest of the most high God than our Lord Jesus Christ, who offered sacrifice to God the Father and offered the very same thing that Melchizedek had offered, bread and wine, that is, actually, his body and blood?

Daniel told a story of another hermit who used to live in the lower parts of Egypt, and who said in his simplicity that Melchizedek was the Son of God. Now when the blessed man Theophilus, the archbishop of Alexandria, heard of it, he sent a message asking the monks to bring the hermit to him. When he saw him, he realized that he was a man of vision and that every thing that he had asked for God had given him, and that he had only said this out of simplicity. The archbishop dealt with him wisely in the following manner, saying, 'Abba, pray to God for me, because I have begun to think that Melchizedek was the Son of God,' and he added, 'It cannot be true, for the high priest of God was a man. But because I had doubts in my mind about this, I sent for you to pray to God for me that He may reveal the truth of the matter to you.' Then, because the hermit had confidence in the power of prayer, he said to him firmly, 'Wait three days, and I will ask God about this and then I shall be able to tell you who Melchizedek was.' So the hermit went away, and returned after three days, and said to the blessed Archbishop Theophilus, 'Melchizedek was a man.' The Archbishop said unto him, 'How do you know that, abba?' The hermit said, 'God showed me all the Patriarchs, one by one, and they passed before me one after the other, from Adam to Melchizedek, and an angel said to me, "This is Melchizedek." That is indeed how the truth of this matter appeared tome.' The hermit went away, and he himself proclaimed that Melchizedek was a man, and the blessed Theophilus rejoiced greatly.

This Melchizedek is Shem, who became a king due to his greatness; he was the head of fourteen nations. In addition, "he was a priest." He received this from Noah, his father, through the rights of succession. Shem lived not only to the time of Abraham, as Scripture says, but even to [the time of] Jacob and Esau, the grandsons of Abraham. It was to him that Rebekah went to ask and was told, "Two nations are in your womb, and the older shall be a servant to the younger." Rebekah would not have bypassed her husband, who had been delivered at the high place, or her father-in-law, to whom revelations of the divinity came continually, and gone straight to ask Melchizedek unless she had learned of his greatness from Abraham or Abraham's son.

You sent me the volume anonymous and authorless... When I read it, I realized that the most famous question about High Priest Melchizedek had been discussed there with many arguments, in an attempt to teach that he who blessed the great Patriarch was of a more divine nature and should not be considered among men... When I read the letter and found myself adjured with remarkable entreaties in the last little page not to spurn the petitioner, I searched through the books of the Ancients to see what each one said, and I answered you, as it were, with the counsel of many. And immediately on the first page of Genesis I found an exegesis by Origen concerning Melchizedek, in which he discusses the matter in many words and comes to the conclusion that he was an angel. With almost the same arguments your author has employed on the Holy Spirit, he speaks on the heavenly powers. I went on to his follower Didymus, and came to a like result. I turned to Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Emisenus, Apollinaris also, and our Eustathius, who first sang the war trumpet against Arius as the Bishop of Antioch's Church: and I found that all of their opinions, with different arguments and byways, had arrived at one intersection, to say that Melchizedek was a Canaanite man, the king of the city of Jerusalem, which was first called Salem, then Jebus, and finally Jerusalem... I will also give the opinion of the Hebrews... they say that this was Shem, the first son of Noah, and at the time when Abram was born, he was 390 years old, reckoning them thus. After the flood, in the second year, Shem, having lived for 100 years, begot Arphaxad; And after Arphaxad was born, he lived for 500 years, that is, a total of 600 years. And when Arphaxad was thirty-five years old, he begot Salah, who also thirty years old, begot Eber, and we read that Eber begot Peleg at the age of 34. Again, Phaleg, having completed thirty years, begot Rehu: who himself, after his thirty-second year from his birth, begot Serug: of whom, when he had arrived at his thirtieth year, was born Nachor: who, when he was twenty-nine years old, begot Thare: whom we read, at the age of seventy, to have begotten Abram, and Nachor, and Aran. Calculate the number of years through each age, and you will find from the birth of Shem to the generation of Abram, three hundred and ninety years. Now Abraham died in the hundred and seventy-fifth year of his age. By calculation, it is found that Shem, his tenth-degree grandson, survived Abraham by thirty-five years.

(Verse 18.) And Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought forth bread and wine; and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him. Because our work, either the Hebrew Questions or the Collection of Traditions, is once for all, therefore let us infer what the Hebrews think of this. They say that he is the son of Shem, Noah's son; and by calculating the years of his life, they show that he lived until Isaac, and that all the firstborn of Noah, until Aaron assumed the priesthood, were priests. Furthermore, Jerusalem is called the king of Salem, which was previously called Salem. However, blessed Apostle to the Hebrews (VII, 3), mentioning one without a father or mother, refers to Christ, and through Christ to the Church of the Gentiles. For all the glory of the head is referred to the members, because he, having a foreskin, blessed the circumcised Abraham, and in Abraham the Levites, and through the Levites Aaron: from whom later the priesthood. From this he wants to gather that the priesthood of the Church, having a foreskin, blessed the synagogue with the circumcised priesthood. But as he says: You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek (Ps. CIX, 4): our mystery is signified in the word of the order: not by offering irrational victims through Aaron, but by offering bread and wine: that is, the body and blood of the Lord Jesus.

What is conveyed to us by this comment, "the king of Salem and priest of God the most high"? He was, for one thing, king of Salem, the text says. Blessed Paul, after all, said the same in drawing attention to him when writing to the believers among the Hebrews, calling to mind his name and his city of origin. At the same time he plumbed the significance of his name and employed some degree of etymology in saying, "Melchizedek, king of righteousness." You see, in the Hebrew language the word Melchi means "kingdom" and Sedek "righteousness." Then, moving on to the name of the city, he says, "king of peace," Salem after all meaning "peace." On the other hand, he was a priest, possibly self-appointed, this being the way with the priests of the time, you see. So in fact his peers had either accorded him the honor on account of his preeminence in age, or he had made it his business to act as a priest, like Noah, like Abel, like Abraham when they used to offer sacrifices. In a particular manner he was to prove a type of Christ. Hence Paul too understands him in this role in the words "With no father, with no mother, with no family history, lacking beginning of days and end of life, he yet resembles the Son of God and remains a priest forever." How, you ask, is it possible for a person to have no father or mother and to lack beginning of days and end of life? You heard that he was a type; well, neither marvel at this nor expect everything to be found in the type. You see, he would not be a type if he were likely to contain every feature that occurs in reality. So what does the saying mean? It means this: Just as Melchizedek is said to have no father or mother on account of there being no mention of his parents and to have no family history on account of there being no history for him, so too Christ, on account of his having no mother in heaven or father on earth, is said to have no family history and in fact has none.

He not only blessed him but also praised God. In the words "blessed be Abraham by God the most high, who created heaven and earth," he also highlighted to us God's power as distinguished from his creatures. If he in fact is God, Creator of heaven and earth, those worshiped by human beings would not be gods; Scripture says, remember, "Let those gods perish who did not make heaven and earth." The text reads, "Blessed be God, who delivered your enemies into your hands." Notice, I ask you, how he not only celebrates the just man but also acknowledges God's assistance. After all, without grace from above he could not have prevailed over the might of those besetting him. "Who delivered your enemies," the text says, namely, he it is who caused everything, he it is who rendered the strong powerless, he it is who brought down the armed hordes through those unarmed. From that source is the grace coming forth that provides you with such power.

Thou shalt not long for division, but shalt bring those who contend to peace. Thou shalt judge righteously, thou shalt not respect persons in reproving for transgressions. Thou shalt not be undecided whether it shall be or no.

All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth. Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof. [Deuteronomy 10:14] If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof: Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

[Trypho the Jew said,] "But now, return to the original topic and prove to us that the prophetic Spirit ever admits the existence of another God, besides the Creator of all things; and do be careful not the mention the sun and moon, which, Scripture tells us, God permitted the Gentiles to worship as gods. Even prophets often misuse the word in this sense when they say, 'Your God is God of gods and Lord of lords,' often adding, 'the great and mighty and terrible.' Such words are used not as if they were really gods but because the word is instructing us that the true God, the Creator of all, is the sole Lord of all those who are falsely regarded as gods and lords. To convince us of this the Holy Spirit said through David: 'The gods of the Gentiles (although reputed as gods) are idols of demons, and not gods.'3 And he places a curse upon those who make or worship such idols.""Trypho," I answered, "… They who worship these idols and similar objects are justly condemned."

And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, showed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. [Deuteronomy 10:20]

Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. [Deuteronomy 10:20] Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

Mary Magdalene had brought the news to His disciples, Peter and John, that the Lord was taken away from the sepulchre; and they, when they came thither, found only the linen clothes wherewith the body had been shrouded; and what else could they believe but what she had told them, and what she had herself also believed? "Then the disciples went away again unto their own" (home); that is to say, where they were dwelling, and from which they had run to the sepulchre. "But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping." For while the men returned, the weaker sex was fastened to the place by a stronger affection. And the eyes, which had sought the Lord and had not found Him, had now nothing else to do but weep, deeper in their sorrow that He had been taken away from the sepulchre than that He had been slain on the tree; seeing that in the case even of such a Master, when His living presence was withdrawn from their eyes, His remembrance also had ceased to remain. Such grief, therefore, now kept the woman at the sepulchre.

"And as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre." Why she did so I know not. For she was not ignorant that He whom she sought was no longer there, since she had herself also carried word to the disciples that He had been taken from thence; while they, too, had come to the sepulchre, and had sought the Lord's body, not merely by looking, but also by entering, and had not found it. What then does it mean, that, as she wept, she stooped down, and looked again into the sepulchre? Was it that her grief was so excessive that she hardly thought she could believe either their eyes or her own? Or was it rather by some divine impulse that her mind led her to look within?

(Tr. cxxi. 1) i. e. To the place where they were lodging, and from which they had ran to the sepulchre. But though the men returned, the stronger love of the woman fixed her to the spot. But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping.

(de Con. Ev. iii. xxiv. 69) i. e. Outside of the place where the stone sepulchre was, but yet within the garden.

(Tr. cxxi. 1) The eyes then which had sought our Lord, and found Him not, now wept without interruption; more for grief that our Lord had been removed, than for His death upon the cross. For now even all memorial of Him was taken away.

(de Con. Ev. iii. xxiv. 69) She then saw, with the other women, the Angel sitting on the right, on the stone which had been rolled away from the sepulchre, at whose words it was that she looked into the sepulchre. (Mat. 28:5.)

(Tr. cxxi) In her too great grief she could believe neither her own eyes, nor the disciples'. Or was it a divine impulse which caused her to look in?

Full of feeling somehow is the female sex, and more inclined to pity. I say this, lest thou shouldest wonder how it could be that Mary wept bitterly at the tomb, while Peter was in no way so affected. For, "The disciples," it saith, "went away unto their own home"; but she stood shedding tears. Because hers was a feeble nature, and she as yet knew not accurately the account of the Resurrection; whereas they having seen the linen clothes and believed, departed to their own homes in astonishment. And wherefore went they not straightway to Galilee, as had been commanded them before the Passion? They waited for the others, perhaps, and besides they were yet at the height of their amazement. These then went their way: but she stood at the place, for, as I have said, even the sight of the tomb tended greatly to comfort her. At any rate, thou seest her, the more to ease her grief, stooping down, and desiring to behold the place where the body lay.

And when He was risen from the dead, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, then to Cleopas in the way, and after that to us His disciples, who had fled away for fear of the Jews, but privately were very inquisitive about Him.

But Mary stood at the tomb outside, "that is, before that place of the rock-hewn sepulchre," and she remained perseveringly: therefore she found: Luke 11: "But if he shall continue knocking, I say to you, even though he will not rise and give to him because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity he will rise and give him as many loaves as he needs"; Colossians 4: "Continue steadfastly in prayer, watching in it," etc. Weeping: Augustine: "The eyes which had sought the Lord and had not found him were now given over to tears, and the woman grieved more that the Lord had been taken away from the tomb than that he had been slain upon the wood."

It should be noted that Mary wept from compunction, Luke 7; she wept from compassion, above, chapter 11: "Jesus, when he saw her weeping"; she wept from devotion, as here, concerning which the Psalm says: "My tears have been my bread day and night, while it is said to me daily: Where is your God?"

While therefore she wept. Here consolation is offered to the desolate one, both in vision and in speech, but she is consoled by neither. In vision she is consoled by the sight of the Angels; whence he says: While therefore she wept, as one desolate, she stooped down and looked into the tomb, so that she might at least receive some consolation from the sight of the place: but she received a greater one. She stooped down, through humility: Job 22: "He who has been humbled shall be in glory, and he who has lowered his eyes, he himself shall be saved."

Question. Concerning what he says, that while Mary wept, she stooped down and looked into the tomb. Why was she looking, since she knew he was not there? Gregory responds: "For one who loves, to have looked once does not suffice, because the force of love multiplies the intensity of searching." And Augustine says that "because she loved vehemently, therefore she thought that neither her own nor others' eyes should easily be believed."

Mary Magdalene, who had been a sinner in the city, by loving the truth, washed away the stains of her sin with tears: and the voice of Truth is fulfilled, by which it is said: "Many sins are forgiven her, because she loved much." For she who had previously remained cold through sinning, afterward burned ardently through loving. For after she came to the tomb, and did not find the Lord's body there, she believed it had been taken away, and announced this to the disciples. They came and saw, and believed that it was as the woman had said. And of them it is immediately written: "The disciples therefore went away to their own homes." And then it is added: "But Mary stood at the tomb outside, weeping."

In this matter it should be considered how great a force of love had kindled this woman's mind, who did not depart from the Lord's tomb even when the disciples departed. She was seeking the one she had not found, she wept while seeking, and inflamed by the fire of her love, she burned with desire for him whom she believed had been taken away. Hence it happened that she alone then saw him, she who remained to seek, because indeed the virtue of a good work is perseverance, and by the voice of Truth it is said: "He who perseveres to the end, he shall be saved." And by the precept of the law, the tail of the victim is commanded to be offered in sacrifice. In the tail, of course, is the end of the body; and he sacrifices well who brings the sacrifice of a good work to the end of the required action. Hence Joseph is described as having had a full-length tunic among the rest of his brothers. A tunic reaching to the heel is a good work carried through to completion.

But Mary, as she wept, stooped down and looked into the tomb. Certainly she had already seen the tomb empty, had already announced that the Lord had been taken away; why is it that she stoops down again, desires to see again? But for one who loves, to have looked once is not enough, because the force of love multiplies the intensity of searching. Therefore she sought first, and did not find; she persevered in seeking, whence it happened that she found, and it came about that desires delayed grew, and growing, grasped what they had found. Hence it is that the Church says of the same bridegroom in the Song of Songs: "In my bed through the nights I sought him whom my soul loves; I sought him, and did not find him. I will arise and go about the city; through the streets and squares I will seek him whom my soul loves." She also repeats the failure of finding, saying: "I sought him, and did not find him." But because discovery does not delay itself long if the search does not cease, she adds: "The watchmen who guard the city found me. Have you seen him whom my soul loves? When I had passed a little beyond them, I found him whom my soul loves."

For we seek the beloved in bed when in some little rest of the present life we sigh with longing for our Redeemer. We seek by night, because even if the mind is now awake in him, nevertheless the eye still grows dim. But whoever does not find his beloved, it remains that he arise and go about the city, that is, traverse the holy Church of the elect with mind and inquiry; let him seek him through streets and squares, that is, let him observe those walking through narrow and broad ways, so that if he can find any traces of him in them, he may search them out, because there are some, even of secular life, who have something to imitate in the practice of virtue. But as we seek, the watchmen who guard the city find us, because the holy fathers who guard the state of the Church meet our good endeavors, that they may teach us by their word or their writing. When we pass a little beyond them, we find him whom we love, because our Redeemer, though by humility a man among men, was nevertheless by divinity above men. Therefore when the watchmen are passed by, the beloved is found, because when we perceive that the prophets and apostles are beneath him, we consider that he who is God by nature is above men.

First, therefore, he is sought without being found, so that afterward, when found, he may be held more tightly. For holy desires, as we have said, grow by delay. But if they fail by delay, they were not desires. With this love burned whoever was able to reach the truth. Hence David says: "My soul has thirsted for the living God; when shall I come and appear before the face of God?" Hence he admonishes us, saying: "Seek his face always." Hence the prophet says: "My soul has desired you in the night, but also with my spirit in my inmost heart I will watch for you from early morning." Hence again the Church says in the Song of Songs: "I am wounded with love." For it is just that she should reach health from the sight of the physician, who bears the wound of love in her breast through the heat of her desire for him. Hence again she says: "My soul melted when the beloved spoke." For the mind of a person not seeking the form of its Creator is badly hardened, because it remains cold in itself. But if it has now begun to burn with desire to follow him whom it loves, melted by the fire of love it runs. It becomes anxious with desire, all things in the world that pleased grow worthless, there is nothing that delights outside the Creator, and things that formerly delighted the soul afterward become grievously burdensome. Nothing consoles its sadness, as long as he who is desired is not yet seen. The mind grieves, the very light is wearisome; and by such fire the rust of guilt is refined in the mind, and the kindled soul, as if in the manner of gold, because through use it lost its appearance, becomes bright through burning.

(Hom. xxv. ut supr.) For to have looked once is not enough for love. Love makes one desire to look over and over again.

(Hom. xxv.) She sought the body, and found it not; she persevered in seeking; and so it came to pass that she found. Her longings, growing the stronger, the more they were disappointed, at last found and laid hold on their object. For holy longings ever gain strength by delay; did they not, they would not be longings. Mary so loved, that not content with seeing the sepulchre, she stooped down and looked in: let us see the fruit which came of this persevering love: And seeth two Angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

(Hom. lxxxvi) Be not astonished that Mary wept for love at the sepulchre, and Peter did not; for the female sex is naturally tender, and inclined to weep.

(Hom. lxxxvi) The sight of the sepulchre itself was some consolation. Nay, behold her, to console herself still more, stooping down, to see the very place where the body lay: And as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre.

Mary, with the sensitivity and love of tears characteristic of women, stands at the tomb and weeps. Not finding Jesus, she gazes at the place where the beloved body had been laid, and in this alone finds consolation. For this she is also deemed worthy to see more than the disciples.

2491 First, it was constant, and it deserves praise, especially considering that the disciples left, the disciples went back, not yet understanding the scripture "that he must rise from the dead," back to their homes, where they were staying and from where they had run to the tomb. Their fear was so great that they did not stay together: I will strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter" [Zech 13:7]; "The holy stones lie scattered at the head of every street" (Lam 4:1). Further, she stood there, lingering near the tomb, Mary stood weeping outside the tomb. The disciples had left, but a stronger and more burning affection fixed the weaker sex to the spot.

2492 A question arises here, because Mark (16:5‑8) says that the women "went out and fled from the tomb." Therefore, they must have been within it. Why then does John say that Mary stood outside? We should say to answer this that the tomb of Christ was hewn out of rock and surrounded by a garden, as was stated before. Sometimes, therefore, the Evangelists calls only the place where the body of Christ had been laid the tomb, and at other times the entire enclosure is called the tomb. Thus when the women are said to enter into the tomb [as in Mark 16:5], this should be understood to mean the entire enclosure. But when it says here that Mary stood outside, the Evangelist is referring to the tomb hewn out of rock. But this rock‑hewn tomb was within the enclosure they had already entered. Mary was standing here because of the unwavering love which had inflamed her heart "Be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord" (1 Cor 15:58); "Our feet have been standing within your gates" (Ps 122:2).

2493 Secondly, Mary's devotion is admired because it issued in tears, for she stood there weeping: "She weeps bitterly in the night" (Lam 1:2). There are two kinds of tears: tears of compunction, to wash away sins ‑ "Every night I flood my bed with tears" (Ps 6:7) ‑ and tears of devotion, from a desire for heavenly things ‑ "He goes forth," hastening towards heavenly things, "weeping, bearing the seed for sowing" (Ps 126:6). Mary Magdalene had copious tears of compunction at the time of her conversion, when she had been the village sinner. Then, in her love for the truth, she washed the stains of her sins with her tears: "Her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much" (Lk 7:47). She also shed abundant tears of devotion over the passion and resurrection of Christ, as we see here.

2494 Thirdly, her devotion is admired because of her earnest search for Christ, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb. This weeping of Mary came from the desire of love. For it is the nature of love to want its beloved present; and if the beloved cannot be really present, it at least wants to think of the beloved: "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (Mt 6:21). Mary shed these bitter tears because the eyes which had sought her Lord and did not find him were now freed for tears, and she grieved the more because he had been taken from the tomb. The life of such a Teacher had been destroyed, but his memory remained. Since Mary could not have him present, she wanted at least to look at the place where he had been buried, so she stooped to look into the tomb. We learn from this that we should look at the death of Christ with a humble heart: "You have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes" (Mt 11:25). She stooped to look, giving us the example to look continually on the death of Christ with the eyes of our mind, for one look is not enough for one who loves, for the force of love increases the desire to explore: "Looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame" (Heb 12:2). She stooped to look, pressed down by the love of Christ: "The love of Christ presses us" [2 Cor 5:14]. Or again, according to Augustine, by a divine impulse in her soul she was made to look about, and saw something greater, the angels: "For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God" (Rom 8:14).

For look she did, "and saw two angels in white, sitting, the one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain." Why is it that one was sitting at the head, and the other at the feet? Was it, since those who in Greek are called angels are in Latin nuntii [in English, news-bearers], that in this way they signified that the gospel of Christ was to be preached from head to foot, from the beginning even to the end?

(Tr. cxxi) But why did one sit at the head, the other at the feet? To signify that the glad tidings of Christ's Gospel was to be delivered from the head to the feet, from the beginning to the end. The Greek word Angel means one who delivers news.

(de Con. Evang. iii. xxiv) Here the Angels must be understood to rise up, for Luke describes them as seen standing.

And she saw two Angels in white, sitting. Therefore they sit in white, because they had come to announce the splendor of our solemnity, namely the resurrection. One at the head and another at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been laid. Gregory explains why they were positioned thus. "He," he says, "was to be announced through his passion, who is God before the ages and man at the end of the ages: as it were, the Angel sits at the head, when through the Apostle John it is preached that In the beginning was the Word, etc.; and as it were at the feet, when it is said: The Word was made flesh." And thus consolation was made for her from the vision: Luke, the last chapter: "Certain women from among us amazed us, who before dawn were at the tomb, and not finding his body, came saying that they had also seen a vision of Angels, who say that he is alive."

Question. Concerning what he says, that after the departure of the disciples she saw Angels: because it is said in Luke 24 that the women reported to the Apostles that they had seen Angels; and then it is said that the disciples went to the tomb. Augustine responds in the third book of On the Harmony of the Evangelists that "Luke says this by way of recapitulation; for they ran to the tomb when it had only been announced concerning the body having been taken away; and afterward the vision of the Angels occurred, which they subsequently reported."

Question. There is a doubt: because in Mark 16 it is said of one Angel only: Entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right, covered with a white robe. Likewise, Mark says Mary entered, but this one says she only looked in. To this Augustine responds in the third book of On the Harmony of the Evangelists: "On the first day of the week," he says, "that is, on the Lord's day, at dawn the women came to the tomb, as all the Evangelists narrate; and when they saw the stone taken away, before they looked more carefully, they ran and announced it to Peter and John, who ran to the tomb and afterward returned. But Mary with others stood at the tomb outside weeping, that is, before that place of the rock-hewn sepulcher, but nevertheless within that space into which they had already entered. Then they saw an Angel sitting on the right upon the stone rolled away from the tomb, of which Angel Matthew 28 and Mark 16 narrate. Then he said to them: Fear not, etc., which Matthew and Mark say. At these words Mary, while she wept, stooped down and looked into the tomb, as is said here; where she saw two Angels in white sitting, who say to her: Woman, why do you weep? And then it is to be understood that the Angels rose and stood, as Luke says, that two men stood beside them in shining garments." Whence the contradiction is resolved from the fact that one says what the other omits; and from the fact that Mark calls the tomb a certain space before the sepulchre enclosed by a wall, while John means the very place in which the body of Jesus lay.

The angels appeared sitting at the head and at the feet where the Body of Jesus had lain; thereby, as it were, signifying to the woman, who thought that the Lord had been taken away, that no one could have done despite unto the holy Body while angels kept watch and holy powers encompassed the Temple of God, for they knew their Lord. One may raise the question, not unreasonably, how it was that the blessed angels said nothing to the holy disciples, and did not even appear unto them, but were both seen by the woman and also spake unto her. We reply, then, that it was the object of the Saviour Christ to instil into the minds of those who loved Him the perfect knowledge of the mystery concerning Him; but that this perfect knowledge was in different ways given unto them, and adapted to the requirements of those who stood in need of it. The course of events itself, as compared with the expectations raised in Holy Writ, sufficed to give the holy disciples adequate knowledge, and begat in them a confidence that did not admit of doubt. For they went home trusting in the Holy Scriptures, and it would have been superfluous for those, whose faith was thus firmly grounded, to be taught by the mouth of the holy angels; but it was very necessary to the woman, who knew not the Holy and Divine Scripture, and by no other means could apprehend the deep mystery of the Resurrection.

And so she who loves thus, who bends down again to the tomb she had looked at, let us see by what fruit the force of love redoubles in her the work of seeking. It follows: "She saw two angels in white, sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been laid."

What does it mean that two angels are seen in the place of the Lord's body, one sitting at the head, and the other at the feet, except that in the Latin language an angel is called a messenger, and he was to be announced through his passion, who is both God before all ages, and man at the end of the ages? It is as if the angel sits at the head, when through the apostle John it is proclaimed that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." And it is as if the angel sits at the feet, when he says: "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."

We can also understand the two Testaments by the two angels, one earlier and the other following. These angels are joined to one another through the place of the Lord's body, because indeed both Testaments, while they announce with equal meaning that the Lord became incarnate and died and rose again, sit as it were the earlier Testament at the head, and the later Testament at the feet. Hence also the two cherubim that cover the mercy seat look upon one another with their faces turned toward the mercy seat. For cherubim means "fullness of knowledge." And what is signified by the two cherubim except both Testaments? And what is figured by the mercy seat except the incarnate Lord? Of whom John says: "For he is the propitiation for our sins." And while the Old Testament proclaims that this was to be done which the New Testament declares was done concerning the Lord, it is as if both cherubim look upon one another, while they turn their faces toward the mercy seat, because while they see the incarnate Lord placed between them, they do not disagree in their view, for they narrate the mystery of his dispensation in harmony.

(Hom. xxv. in Evang. c. 1, 14) The Angel sits at the head when the Apostles preach that in the beginning was the Word: he sits, as it were, at the feet, when it is said, The Word was made flesh. By the two Angels too we may understand the two testaments; both of which proclaim alike the incarnation, death, and resurrection of our Lord. The Old seems to sit at the head, the New at the feet.

By all these circumstances, as though a door was being opened for her, she was led by little and little to the knowledge of the Resurrection. And the manner of their sitting invited her to question them, for they showed that they knew what had taken place; on which account they did not sit together either, but apart from one another. For because it was not likely that she would dare at once to question them, both by questioning her, and by the manner of their sitting, they bring her to converse.

And therefore she received no small reward for this her great zeal. For what the disciples saw not, this saw the woman first, Angels sitting, the one at the feet, the other at the head, in white; even the dress was full of much radiance and joy. Since the mind of the woman was not sufficiently elevated to accept the Resurrection from the proof of the napkins, something more takes place, she beholdeth something more; Angels sitting in shining garments, so as to raise her thus awhile from her passionate sorrow, and to comfort her. But they said nothing to her concerning the Resurrection, yet is she gently led forward in this doctrine. She saw countenances bright and unusual; she saw shining garments, she heard a sympathizing voice.

She saw what they did not see, namely: two Angels. The vision of the Angels was for her the greatest consolation. And their bright garments, and their sitting, one at the head and the other at the feet, showed that they knew something greater, and, if asked, could instruct. Every soul that has mastery over the passions is called Mary. Having been purified through dispassion, she sees in Jesus both God and Man. For one of the Angels, sitting at the head, points to the Divinity, and the other, sitting at the feet, to the humble incarnation of the Word.

2495 Next the Evangelist describes the sight of the angels (v 12). He mentions four things.

2496 First, what Mary saw, which was that she saw two angels, which goes to show that all orders of angels, both those "assisting" and those "ministering," were in service to Christ: "Let all God's angels worship him" (Heb 6:1).

A question arises here because Matthew (28:2) and Mark (16:5) say that Mary and the other women saw one angel on the right side of the tomb, while here we have two angels and they are inside. Each one is correct, for Matthew and Mark tell what occurred first, when the women first came, and believing that Christ was taken, returned to the disciples. But John recounts what happened after Mary returned with the disciples and remained after they had left.

2497 Secondly, he mentions their raiment, in white. This shows the splendor of the resurrection and the glory of the risen Christ: "They shall walk with me in white" (Rev 3:4). Indeed, we read that the armies of heaven followed him and were clothed in white, that is, raised to heavenly glory (Rev 19:14).

2498 Thirdly, we see that they were sitting. This indicates the calmness and power of Christ, who being now at rest from all afflictions, reigns in immortal flesh and sitting at the right hand of the Father: "Sit at my right hand" (Ps 110:1); he will sit "upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom" (Is 9:7).

2499 Fourthly, we see how they were positioned, one at the head and one at the feet. We can refer this to three things. First, to the two Testaments. The word "angel" in Greek means "messenger," and both Testaments brought messages about Christ: "And the crowds that went before him and that followed him shouted, 'Hosanna to the Son of David!'" (Mt 21:9). So the angel sitting at the head signifies the Old Testament, and the angel at the feet the New Testament.

Secondly, we can relate this to those who preach Christ. There are two natures in Christ, the divine and the human: the head of Christ is God (1 Cor 11:3), and the feet of Christ are his human nature: "We will adore in the place where his feet stood" [Ps 132:7]. So, those who preach the divinity of Christ ‑ as in "In the beginning was the Word" (1:1) ‑ are sitting at the head; those who preach his humanity ‑ as in "And the Word became flesh" (1:14) ‑ are sitting at the feet.

Thirdly, we can refer this to the time when the mysteries of Christ are announced. Then one angel sits at the head and the other at the feet because they signified that the mysteries of Christ would be announced from the head or beginning of the world to its end: "You proclaim the Lord's death until he comes" (1 Cor 11:26).

"They say to her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him." The angels forbade her tears: for by such a position what else did they announce, but that which in some way or other was a future joy? For they put the question, "Why weepest thou?" as if they had said, Weep not. But she, supposing they had put the question from ignorance, unfolded the cause of her tears. "Because," she said, "they have taken away my Lord:" calling her Lord's inanimate body her Lord, meaning a part for the whole; just as all of us acknowledge that Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, our Lord, who of course is at once both the Word and soul and flesh, was nevertheless crucified and buried, while it was only His flesh that was laid in the sepulchre. "And I know not," she added, "where they have laid Him." This was the greater cause of sorrow, because she knew not where to go to mitigate her grief. But the hour had now come when the joy, in some measure announced by the angels, who forbade her tears, was to succeed the weeping.

(Tr. cxxi) But she, thinking that they wanted to know why she wept, tells them the reason: She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord. The lifeless body of her Lord, she calls her Lord, putting the part for the whole; just as we confess that Jesus Christ the Son of God was buried, when only His flesh was buried. And I know not where they have placed Him: it was a still greater grief, that she did not know where to go to console her grief.

They say to her: Woman, why do you weep? Not only does the Lord console her by sight, but also by the speech of the Angels: whence he says: They say to her: Woman, why do you weep? as if to say: do not weep. For it was no longer a time for weeping, but for joy, since the Lord was rising. But she refused to be consoled, recalling the cause of her grief: Because they have taken away my Lord, that is, his body, is said by synecdoche: and I do not know where they have laid him. Augustine: "This was the greater cause of grief, because she did not know where to go to console her grief." Whence she could say that verse of the Psalm: "My soul refused to be consoled" etc.; Lamentations 1: "Therefore my eye weeps and sheds tears, because my consoler has departed from me, he who converts my soul."

Observe that the tears shed for Christ do not lose their reward, nor is it long before love for him bears fruit. Rather, his grace and rich restitution will follow closely in the wake of pain. Notice how—as Mary was sitting there, her cheeks bedewed with mourning for her beloved Lord whom she had lost—notice how the Savior granted to her the knowledge of the mystery about him through the mouth of holy angels. They tell her to stop crying because this was no occasion for tears. She was making a subject for rejoicing a cause of grief. Why, indeed, they say, when death has been subdued, and corruption has lost its power and our Savior Christ has risen again and made a new pathway for the dead back to incorruption and to life—why would you misunderstand what is going on now? Why are you so distraught with pain when what is actually going on calls for rejoicing? You should be glad, even ecstatic! And so, why then are you crying and, in effect detracting from the honor due to what amounts to a celebration?

His body too is called "the Lord" on account of the inherent Godhead.

The angels seek Mary, saying: "Woman, why do you weep?" And she says to them: "Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him." For indeed the sacred words which stir up tears of love in us also console those same tears, since they promise us the sight of our Redeemer.

But it should be noted according to the historical sense that the woman did not say: "They have taken away the body of my Lord," but "They have taken away my Lord." For it is the usage of sacred Scripture sometimes to signify the whole from a part, and sometimes a part from the whole. For it signifies the whole from a part, as it is written concerning the sons of Jacob: "That Jacob went down into Egypt with seventy souls." For souls did not descend into Egypt without bodies; but through the soul alone the whole person is signified, because the whole is expressed from a part. And only the Lord's body had lain in the tomb, and Mary was not seeking the body of the Lord, but the Lord who had been taken away, evidently designating a part from the whole.

(Hom. fin.) The very declarations of Scripture which excite our tears of love, wipe away those very tears, by promising us the sight of our Redeemer again.

"They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him." She speaks very warmly and affectionately. "What sayest thou? Knowest thou not yet anything concerning the Resurrection, but dost thou still form fancies about His being laid?" Seest thou how she had not yet received the sublime doctrine?

And the words "why are you weeping?" are full of sincere sympathy. So that Mary would not be troubled, as a woman, by this question they calm her distress. They ask with such sympathy and gentleness: "Woman! why are you weeping?" And she answers with fervor and love: "They have taken away my Lord, and that is why I weep; I do not know where they have laid Him; I would go there and anoint His body, and in this, at least, I would find some consolation."

2500 Next, the Evangelist gives the greeting of the angels (20:13): first their question; and then Mary's answer.

2501 Concerning the first, the angels knew that Mary was uncertain about the resurrection and so as if beginning anew they asked her the reason for her tears: they, the angels, said to her, Woman, why are you weeping? This was like saying: Do not cry for there is no need for it, because "Weeping may tarry for the night," of the passion, "but joy comes with the morning," of the resurrection (Ps 30:5); "Keep your voice from weeping, and your eyes from tears; for your work shall be rewarded" (Jer 31:16). In this regard we can recall to mind that Gregory said that the very same sacred words which excite our tears of love console those same tears when they promise us hope in our Redeemer: "When the cares of my heart are many, your consolations cheer my soul" (Ps 94:19).

2502 Mary thought that they were questioning her because of their ignorance, and regarded them not as angels but as men; so she gave the reason for her tears: They have taken the Lord, that is, the body of my Lord. Here she was referring to a part by mentioning the whole, just like we profess that the Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God was buried, although only his flesh was buried, because his divinity was never separated from his flesh. And I do not know where they have laid him. This was the reason for her desolation: she did not know where to go to find him to soothe her sorrow.

2503 Is it a consolation for one who loves to have something that belonged to the beloved? According to Augustine, in his Confessions, this would be more a cause of sorrow. For this reason he said that he fled from all the places where he had formerly spent time with his friend. Still, Chrysostom says that this would be a cause of consolation. Each of these is true. In all cases where there is a mixture of joy and sadness, the hope for the thing desired brings pleasure ‑ "Rejoice in your hope, be patient in tribulation" (Rom 12:12) ‑ and also brings sorrow ‑ "Hope deferred makes the heart sick" (Prv 13:12). But hope does not cause these from the same point of view. Hope causes joy because it regards the thing loved as able to be obtained; but insofar as this thing is actually absent it produces sorrow. It is like that here: something belonging to a friend, because it stands for the friend, is pleasant to the lover; while inasmuch as it recalls the absence of the one loved it produces sadness.

This was foretold in the Song of Songs: "On my bed I sought the one my soul loves. I sought him in the night and did not find him." Of those also who found him and held him by the feet, it is foretold, in the same book, "I will hold the one my soul loves and will not let him go."

Lastly, "when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing Him to be the gardener, saith unto Him, Sir, If thou hast borne Him hence, tell me where thou hast laid Him, and I will take Him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto Him, Rabboni, which is to say, Master." Let no one speak ill of the woman because she called the gardener, Sir (domine), and Jesus, Master. For there she was asking, here she was recognizing; there she was showing respect to a person of whom she was asking a favor, here she was recalling the Teacher of whom she was learning to discern things human and divine. She called one lord (sir), whose handmaid she was not, in order by him to get at the Lord to whom she belonged. In one sense, therefore, she used the word Lord when she said, "They have taken away my Lord; and in another, when she said, Sir (lord), if thou hast borne Him hence." For the prophet also called those lords who were mere men, but in a different sense from Him of whom it is written, "The Lord is His name." But how was it that this woman, who had already turned herself back to see Jesus, when she supposed Him to be the gardener, and was actually talking with Him, is said to have again turned herself, in order to say unto Him "Rabboni," but just because, when she then turned herself in body, she supposed Him to be what He was not, while now, when turned in heart, she recognized Him to be what He was.

(Tr. cxxi) The hour was now come, which the Angels announced, when sorrow should be succeeded by joy: And when she had thus said, she turned herself back.

(Tr. cxxi) Or she first turned her body, but thought Him what He was not; now she was turned in heart, and knew who He was. Let no one however blame her, because she called the gardener, Lord, and Jesus, Master. The one was a title of courtesy to a person from whom she was asking a favour; the other of respect to a Teacher from whom she was used to learn to distinguish the divine from the human. The word Lord is used in different senses, when she says, They have taken away my Lord, and when she says, Lord, if Thou have borne Him away.

When she had said these things. Here, to her who is unwilling to be consoled, the manifestation of Christ occurs: and first he manifests himself to the senses of the flesh, then of the mind: to the senses of the body, namely to sight through appearance and to hearing through conversation. She first beholds Jesus, whence he says: When she had said these things, by which she was showing that she did not wish to be consoled; she turned around and saw Jesus standing. She turned because love did not allow her to stand still, but rather she looked now here, now there. Or, as Chrysostom says, "Christ, appearing silently behind her, struck the Angels with awe, and they by their movement and gesture showed that they had seen something great: and this turned the woman around." And she saw Jesus, with the eyes of the body, not of the heart: whence: And she did not know that it was Jesus.

The woman, or rather all womankind, is slow of understanding. For she does not understand the hidden meaning of what met her gaze, but rather announces it as the cause of her grief. But as she ceased not to call Christ Lord, and thereby signified her love towards Him, she is justly permitted to enjoy the sight of the object of her desire. For she beholds |655 Jesus, though she did not think Him to be at her side; and why? Either her ignorance was caused by our Saviour Christ still concealing Himself by His Divine power, and not allowing Himself very easily to be recognised by the eye of the beholder; or, as it was still early in the morning, she could not readily distinguish what was before her eyes, as night somehow prevented her from so doing, and scarcely revealed the Figure of Him Who was drawing nigh. Therefore, also, our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, in the Song of Songs, makes mention of His walk on this night, and the moisture of the morning dew, in the words: For My Head is filled with dew, and My Locks with the drops of the night.

When she had said these things, she turned around and saw Jesus standing, and she did not know that it was Jesus. It should be noted that Mary, who still doubted about the Lord's resurrection, turned around to see Jesus, because evidently through that very doubt of hers she had, as it were, turned her back to the Lord's face, since she did not at all believe that he had risen. But because she both loved and doubted, she saw and did not recognize him, and love both showed him to her and doubt hid him. Her continued ignorance is expressed when it is added: "And she did not know that it was Jesus."

(Hom. xxv.) We must observe that Mary, who as yet doubted our Lord's resurrection, turned back to see Jesus. By her doubting she turned her back, as it were, upon our Lord. Yet inasmuch as she loved, she saw Him. She loved and doubted: she saw, and did not recognise Him: And saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.

Was he one person when he was not known and another when he was known? He was surely one and the same. Whether, therefore, they knew him or not depended on their sight. It did not depend on him who was seen. And yet, it did depend on him in this sense, that he held their eyes so that they might not know him. And finally, in order that you may see that the mistake that held them was not to be attributed to the Lord's body but to the fact that their eyes were closed, we are told, "Their eyes were opened, and they knew him." This is why, as long as Mary Magdalene did not recognize Jesus and sought the living among the dead, she thought he was the gardener. Afterward she recognized him, and then she called him Lord.

And by what kind of consequence is it, that she having spoken to them, and not having yet heard anything from them, turned back? Methinks that while she was speaking, Christ suddenly appearing behind her, struck the Angels with awe; and that they having beheld their Ruler, showed immediately by their bearing, their look, their movements, that they saw the Lord; and this drew the woman's attention, and caused her to turn herself backwards. To them then He appeared on this wise, but not so to the woman, in order not at the first sight to terrify her, but in a meaner and ordinary form, as is clear from her supposing that He was the gardener. It was meet to lead one of so lowly a mind to high matters, not all at once, but gently.

"Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away." Again she speaks of laying down, and taking away, and carrying, as though speaking of a corpse. But her meaning is this; "If ye have borne him hence for fear of the Jews, tell me, and I will take him." Great is the kindness and loving affection of the woman, but as yet there is nothing lofty with her. Wherefore He now setteth the matter before her, not by appearance, but by Voice. For as He was at one time known to the Jews, and at another time unperceived though present; so too in speaking, He, when He chose, then made Himself known; as also when He said to the Jews, "Whom seek ye?" they knew neither the Countenance nor the Voice until He chose. And this was the case here. And He named her name only, reproaching and blaming her that she entertained such fancies concerning One who lived.

Why did Mary turn around? When she was conversing with the Angels, what prompted her to turn back? Probably, while she was speaking with the Angels, Jesus, suddenly appearing behind her, astonished them, and they, having seen the Master, by their appearance, movement, and gaze immediately revealed that they had seen the Lord, and this woman (Mary), having noticed this, turned around.

2504 Now the Evangelist shows how Mary came to see Christ: first, he tells how she saw Christ; secondly, how he was recognized by her. Concerning the first, we see her seeing Christ; and then what Christ said to her.

2505 Firstly, then, Saying this, that is, when Mary said this to the angels, she turned round. Chrysostom wonders why Mary, who was speaking to the angels, whom she considered to be at least men deserving of respect, turned around before they had a chance to answer her. The answer is that while Mary was responding to the angels' question Christ arrived and the angels stood out of reverence. When Mary saw this, she was puzzled and turned around to see what had made them stand up. Thus in Luke (24:4) mention is made that the two angels were seen standing.

Having turned around, Mary saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus, for he did not appear glorious to her, although the angels saw him as glorious and were honoring him. We see from this that if anyone desires to see Christ, they must turn round to him: "Return to me, says the Lord of hosts, and I will return to you" (Zech 1:3). Those come to the point of seeing him who entirely turn themselves to him by love: "She [Wisdom] hastens to make herself known to those who desire her" (Wis 6:14).

Mystically, this signifies that at one time Mary had turned her back to Christ by her disbelief, but when she turned her soul to knowing him, she turned round to him.

2506 Why didn't Mary recognize Christ, since he was the same person as before? We should say that it was either because she did not believe that the one she had seen dead had risen, or else her eyes were held so that she would not recognize him, like the two disciples on their way to Emmaus (Lk 24:16).

While she was going with the other women, according to Matthew, "Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came and held him by the feet and worshiped him." So we gather that there were two visions of angels. We also understand that our Lord too was seen twice: once when Mary took him for the gardener and again when he met them by the way. In this way, by repeating his presence, he strengthens their faith and calms their fears.… And so Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples, not alone but with the other women whom Luke mentions.

(de Con. Evang. iii. xxiv. 69) She then went away from the sepulchre, i. e. from that part of the garden before the rock which had been hollowed out, and with her the other women. But these, according to Mark, were seized with trembling and amazement, and said nothing to any man: Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that He had spoken these things unto her.

(de Con. Evang. iii. 25) While she was going with the other women, according to Matthew, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. (Matt 28:9) So we gather that there were two visions of Angels; and that our Lord too was seen twice, once when Mary took Him for the gardener, and again, when He met them by the way, and by this repeating His presence confirmed their faith. And so Mary Magdalen came and told the disciples, not alone, but with the other women whom Luke mentions.

Mystically, Mary, which name signifies, mistress, enlightened, enlightener, star of the sea, stands for the Church, which is also Magdalen, i. e. towered, (Magdalen being Greek for tower,) as we read in the Psalms, Thou hast been a strong tower for me. (Ps. 61:3) In that she announced Christ's resurrection to the disciples, all, especially those to whom the office of preaching is committed, are admonished to be zealous in setting forth to others whatever is revealed from above.

Mary Magdalene therefore came. Here the fifth point is noted, namely the report of the manifestation made by Magdalene: whence it says: Announcing to the disciples: Because I have seen the Lord, and these things he said to me, supply: which have been said above: Chrysostom says: "She announces both the vision and the words, so that they might be instructed in both."

Question. Concerning the order of this manifestation. For if the disciples were more worthy, it seems that the Lord ought to have appeared to them first, and again that the disciples should teach the women rather than the women the disciples. I respond: It must be said that this was done by the order of divine dispensation and by the merit of human solicitude: the order of divine dispensation: on account of which Gregory says: "Because in paradise the woman served death to the man, from the sepulcher the woman announces life to men, and she narrates the words of the life-giver, she who had narrated the words of the death-dealing serpent." The merit of human solicitude, because, when the disciples withdrew, the woman remained afflicted and desolate: and therefore she more quickly merited to be consoled and refreshed by the Lord's appearance.

That race which is specially subject to weakness----I mean the race of women----is restored by the loving-kindness of our Saviour, Who, in a manner, rolled up in one the source and origin of our infirmities, and ameliorated them for the future. For Mary announced that she had seen the Lord, Who had escaped from the bonds of death, and had heard His Voice, and brought to the disciples the words of life, and the firstfruits of the Divine Gospel.

"Mary Magdalene came announcing to the disciples: I have seen the Lord, and he said these things to me." Behold, the guilt of the human race is cut off from where it proceeded. For because in paradise a woman served death to man, from the tomb a woman announces life to men; and she narrates the words of her life-giver who had narrated the words of the death-bearing serpent. As if the Lord says to the human race not in words but in deeds: From the same hand by which the drink of death was brought to you, receive the cup of life.

(Hom. xxv.) So the sin of mankind is buried in the very place whence it came forth. For whereas in Paradise the woman gave the man the deadly fruit, a woman from the sepulchre announced life to men; a woman delivers the message of Him who raises us from the dead, as a woman had delivered the words of the serpent who slew us.

So great a good is perseverance and endurance. But how was it that they did not any more grieve when He was about to depart, nor speak as they had done before? At that time they were affected in such a way, as supposing that He was about to die; but now that He was risen again, what reason had they to grieve? Moreover, Mary reported His appearance and His words, which were enough to comfort them.

Mary, having been deemed worthy of such words, departs and announces this to the disciples. See how good are zeal and perseverance. Be zealous yourself as well, and perhaps you will learn something higher, and from a disciple of the Word you will become a teacher.

2522 Mary was quick to obey, as we see from Mary Magdalene went and said to the disciples etc. "For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you" (1 Cor 11:23); "What I have heard from the Lord of hosts, the God is Israel, I announce to you" (Is 21:10).

(in Luc. c. iii.) He therefore names specially two authors of His birth—one who received the promise concerning the kindreds of the people, the other who obtained the oracle concerning the generation of Christ; and though he is later in order of succession is yet first named, inasmuch as it is greater to have received the promise concerning Christ than concerning the Church, which is through Christ; for greater is He who saves than that which is saved.

Vigil. Tapsens. (ibid. p. 644): The audaciousness of this most insane error I will curb by the authority of the heavenly testimonies, and demonstrate the distinct personality of the proper substance of the Son. I shall not produce things which are liable to be explained away as agreeable to the assumption of human nature; but shall offer such passages as all will allow to be decisive in proof of His divine nature. In Genesis we find God saying, "Let Us make man in Our own Image." By this plural number showing, that there was some other person to whom He spoke. Had He been one, He would have been said to have made Him in His own Image, but there is another; and He is said to have made man in the Image of that other.

Some might be perplexed by the fact that Matthew enumerates one series of ancestors, descending through David to Joseph, while Luke specifies a different succession, tracing the ancestry from Joseph backwards through David. It was easy for them to perceive that Joseph was able to have two fathers, one blood father by whom he was born and another adoptive father by whom he was adopted. Indeed, this was the custom of adoption even among that people of God. In this way they could endow sonship upon those whom they had not given birth. Recall how Pharaoh's daughter adopted Moses (and she was a foreigner). And Jacob himself adopted his own grandsons, the sons of Joseph: "And now your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt, before I came to you in Egypt, are mine; Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine, as Reuben and Simeon are. And the offspring born to you after them shall be yours." In this way, too, it came about that there were twelve tribes of Israel, with the tribe of Levi being given the special task of tending the temple. Along with this one there were thirteen tribes, although there had been twelve sons of Jacob. In this way it is understood that Luke included Joseph's father in his Gospel, not by whom he was begotten but by whom he was adopted. He recounted his ancestors upwards until he came to David.

(de Hær. 8, et 10.) Cerinthus then and Ebion made Jesus Christ only man; Paul of Samosata, following them, asserted Christ not to have had an existence from eternity, but to have begun to be from His birth of the Virgin Mary; he also thought Him nothing more than man. This heresy was afterwards confirmed by Photinus.

(de Hæres. 19.) The error of Nestorius was, that he taught that a man only was born of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom the Word of God received not into Unity of person and inseparable fellowship; a doctrine which Catholic ears could not endure.

(de Hæres. 41.) Sabellius they say was a disciple of Noetus, who taught that the same Christ was one and the same Father and Holy Spirit.

(cont. Faust. ii. 1.) Faustus affirms, that "the Gospel both begins, and begins to be so called, from the preaching of Christc, in which He no where affirms Himself to have been born of men. Nay, so far is this genealogy from being part of the Gospel, that the writer does not venture so to entitle it; beginning, 'The book of the generation,' not 'The book of the Gospel.' Mark again, who cared not to write of the generation, but only of the preaching of the Son of God, which is properly The Gospel, begins thus accordingly, The Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God. Thus then, all that we read in Matthew before the words, Jesus began to preach the Gospel of the kingdom, (Matt. 4:17.) is a part of the genealogy, not of the Gospel. I therefore betook myself to Mark and John, with whose prefaces I had good reason to be satisfied, as they introduce neither David, nor Mary, nor Joseph." To which Augustine replies, What will he say then to the Apostle's words, Remember the resurrection of Jesus Christ of the seed of David according to my Gospel. (2 Tim. 2:8.) But the Gospel of the Apostle Paul was likewise that of the other Apostles, and of all the faithful, as he says, Whether I, or they, thus have we preached the Gospel.

(de Hær. 49.) The Arians will not have the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to be of one and the same substance, nature, and existence; but that the Son is a creature of the Father, and the Holy Spirit a creature of a creature, i. e. created by the Son; further, they think that Christ took the flesh without a soul.

(de Trin. i. 6.) But John declares the Son to be not only God, but even of the same substance as the Father; for when he had said, The Word was God, he added, all things were made by Him; whence it is clear that He was not made by Whom all things were made; and if not made, then not created; and therefore of one substance with the Father, for all that is not of one substance with the Father is creature.

(cont. Fel. 13.) I know not what benefit the person of the Mediator has conferred upon us, if He redeemed not our better part, but took upon Him our flesh only, which without the soul cannot have consciousness of the benefit. But if Christ came to save that which had perished, the whole man had perished, and therefore needs a Saviour; Christ then in coming saves the whole man, taking on Him both soul and body.

(Lib. 83. Quæst. q. 80.) How too do they answer innumerable objections from the Gospel Scriptures, in which the Lord speaks so many things manifestly contrary to them? as is that, My soul is sorrowful even unto death, (Matt. 26:38.) and, I have power to lay down My life; (John 10:18.) and many more things of the like kind. Should they say that He spoke thus in parables, we have at hand proofs from the Evangelists themselves, who in relating His actions, bear witness as to the reality of His body, so of His soul, by mention of passions which cannot be without a soul; as when they say, Jesus wondered, was angry, and others of like kind.

(de Hæres. 55.) The Apollinarians also as the Arians affirmed that Christ had taken the human flesh without the soul. But overthrown on this point by the weight of Scripture proof, they then said that that part which is the rational soul of man was wanting to the soul of Christ, and that its place was filled by the Word itself. But if it be so, then we must believe that the Word of God took on Him the nature of some brute with a human shape and appearance. But even concerning the nature of Christ's body, there are some who have so far swerved from the right faith, as to say, that the flesh and the Word were of one and the same substance, most perversely insisting on that expression, The Word was made flesh; which they interpret that some portion of the Word was changed into flesh, not that He took to Him flesh of the flesh of the Virgind.

§ 1 The sacrament of our salvation and faith, though in all the divine scriptures, is especially contained in the evangelical preaching, in which the secret of the heavenly sanctuary is revealed to us even as the mystery of the Lord's passion and resurrection is revealed to everyone. However, the transcribers the gospel (as it is divided into four books) are: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, who once had been prefigured and predestined to the duty of this divine work, as the blessed Luke reported: Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compose a narrative of the things that have been fulfilled among us. (Luke 1:1)  For Matthew is appointed by the divine authority and grace of the holy spirit to be the first to write down the gospel, then Mark and Luke, most recently of all John, after he came back, upon the death of Domitian Caesar, from Patmos, the island where he had been bound.  After he had been posted on this island and written the Revelation, he was disclosed the gospel he was to write on account of the different heresies instigated by the devil that by then were beginning to spring up.

§ 2 Matthew certainly and John too belong to the number of the twelve apostles, who not only were with the Lord before the passion but also kept company with him after the resurrection for forty days.  They carefully recounted everything they saw and heard according to what John testified in his epistle, saying: as we have heard and saw with our eyes and by our hand have been examined, these things we declare to you.  (1 John 1:1-3) But Mark was Peter's disciple and interpreter.  He did not see the Lord in the flesh but he wrote the gospel, filled full of heavenly grace and the holy spirit.  Luke also did not see the Lord in the flesh, but, because he was very educated in the law (since he was a companion of Paul in everything), he wrote down the gospel carefully in his own name, expounding from the very beginning everything in the order of the matters as he learned with respect to the apostles, as he himself testified, saying: as those who have been there all along and those who had been ministers of the message handed down to us. (Luke 1:2)

§ 3 Therefore, the authority of these four evangelists is firm and steadfast, because they all composed by one principle. Of course, various principles are taught in their sure foundation, but they do not disagree among themselves on anything, because every one of them perceived the same thing by faith concerning the Lord's incarnation, nativity, passion, resurrection, and also his twin advent. And because we endeavor to say some things about the gospels, the responsibility and situation of the matter advise us to test also the truth of the gospels prefigured from the law of the Old Testament, as surely the Apostle says:  the law was a shadow of things to come (Heb 10:1), because neither can the new stand without the old nor could the old have any stability without the new.  It is said that everything about them is more complete in their place when the message is to be from the two testaments.

§ 4 Thus, both the type and the number of the four gospels are clearly described in the law and the prophets, as in the four rivers that flow from one source in Eden, or in the four rows of stones that Aaron wore woven in the priestly garment on his chest, or in the fourfold row of twelve calves that Solomon set up under the bronze sea in the temple.  In all of these, the expressedexamples of the future truth cannot be doubted.  Hence also Elijah the Tishbite----not unknowing by the holy Spirit of the evangelical sacrament of the preaching to come, when he freed the people from error and turned them from idols to God----poured four jugs of water in the sacrifice he offered when he put the burnt offering on the wood and made it three times in number.  And fire came down from the sky, as he openly declared even then the image of the coming hope, that is the sacrament of the cross and the number of the gospels and the grace of baptism and the faith in the Trinity, in which we are baptized and made a worthy sacrifice for God, coming upon us with fire from the sky, that is, his holy Spirit presented to us as a gift.

§ 5 But even clearer and plainer we find that through Ezekiel the prophet these gospels are depicted in the four living things whose appearance and shape are both described.  Their likeness, he says, is the appearance of a human and the appearance of a lion and the appearance of a calf and the appearance of a flying eagle. (Ezek 1:10)  Evident among these is certainly the form of the evangelists.  Although they are depicted in different appearances for each changing principle, their preaching is nonetheless not different.  In fact, the prophet, when he said that the appearances are specific to each, related that each of their four appearances is heavenly, that is, each living thing has the four appearances.  The reason for this is not obscure, because it is meant that they are one, both individually and collectively.  While he certainly distinguishes and separates them in connection with their appearances or number, the unity of preaching still makes them inseparable and whole, because you will find everything in each and the whole in all.  But we must understand and get to know just this difference among the appearances.  The appearance, he says, of a human, and the appearance of a lion and the appearance of a calf and the appearance of a flying eagle.  The appearance of a human is understood as the gospel according to Matthew, a human since he began from the bodily birth of the Lord to make the introduction, saying: The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham, (Matt 1:1) etc.  He announces his birth by this human origin.  Because of that, it is thus described as the appearance of a human.  Now, the appearance of a lion is understood to be the gospel according to John, because, when the other evangelists had said that Christ our God is made human according to the assumption of flesh and born of the virgin, he revealed his timeless and divine birth in just the beginning of his message, saying: In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and God as the Word, (John 1:1) etc.  With this voice, the preacher of such divinity roared like a lion to frighten off the heresies.

§ 6 The Apocalypse also mentioned these living things, but we must carefully examine why, when the prophet had said that the first appearance was of a human, then of a lion, did the Apocalypse put the appearance of the lion earlier in reversed order, saying The appearance of a lion and the appearance of a human (Rev 4:7), because we must point out it is so, not accidentally but for a particular reason.  For Matthew has thus been described first in order in with the prophet in the appearance of a human, because he was to write down the first gospel.  But John is brought earlier for this reason in the Apocalypse, because he surpassed everyone in preaching the timeless and coeternal Son of the Father by the excellent beginning of his preaching.  Thus, he is placed later as to time or order, but he is regarded first as to faith since he would know the secret, divine mysteries from reclining on the Lord's bosom.  But the fact that John is preferred in connection with faith does not detract from the other evangelists since they all were directed by one and the same Spirit to the complete instruction of the Church and wrote about the Lord necessarily and completely.  For, because many different heresies were to come, the holy spirit so impacted the writing of each as to expound the complete and perfect sacrament of the heavenly faith through all of them, by which it confuted all enemies of the truth together.  Finally, the Holy Spirit at once opposes those wretched people who deny that the Son of God was born of a virgin for our salvation, judging this as unworthy for God, through Matthew and Luke.  Through them, it clearly discloses both the birth of the Lord according to the flesh and the conception and labor of the virgin.  However, those who dared blaspheme the true divinity of the Son of God and the unlimited nature of his eternity, denying in particular that he was born of the Father and is true God and had always been with the Father, St. John and Mark nonetheless oppose at once, condemning the infidelity of their blasphemy, testifying in the beginning of his gospel that the only-begotten Son of God is God.

§ 7 But as we are all carefully following this along, I seem to have gone on longer than I intended to.  Let us now go back to the order.  Thus, St. John is described in the appearance of the lion, as best comprehended. The gospel according to Luke, however, is recognized in the appearance of the calf, because he wrote according to the law as he began from the priesthood of Zacharias saying: In the days of Herod the king of Judea, there was a certain by the name of Zacharias from the order of Abijah and his wife of the sons of Aaron, etc. For that reason, however, he has been represented by the person of the calf, because the law he wrote according to had decreed for a type of a future truth that, among other sacrifices, a calf be offered for the sins of the people.  Hence, not undeservedly, only this evangelist made mention of this fattened calf, which was killed for the salvation and return of the lost son in the joy of the exulting father, because St. Luke so made mention as he declared that our Lord and Savior has suffered for the sins of the human race according to the preceding form of the law. To be sure, the appearance of the flying eagle is understood as the gospel according to Mark, who began with a prophetic testimony saying: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ Son of God, as is written in Isaiah: Behold I send my angel before my appearance.  A voice crying in the wilderness: Prepare the ways of the Lord, make our God's paths straight. (Mark 1:1-3) And because the eagle is often described as the form of the holy spirit, who has been spoken in the prophets, he is thus depicted in the appearance of an eagle.  For also only he reported that our Lord and Savior flew away to heaven, that is, wetn back to the Father, as David had said: He ascended above the Cherubim and flew; he flew above the feathers of the wind. (Ps 17:11 [18:10])

§ 8 Finally, as we know that the reason for such a sacrament is arranged in each of the evangelists by the Holy Spirit, the same appearances also combine in the person of our Lord and God.  For, he is understood to be a human because of the flesh that he took on from the virgin, and the calf because of what he himself offered as a sacrifice worthy of God for our sins, and a lion for the power of the virtue that defeated death in triumph, allowing in himself none of the brunt of outside fears, and an eagle because, when the mystery of the passion was completed as an eagle flew to heaven, the booty of human flesh it snatched from our jaws has been taken with him.

§ 9 For the same reason in the prophet Zechariah we also read the foretold number of the evangelists, reported by the prophet like this: I saw, he said, four chariots going out of two mountains ,and these mountains, he said, were mountains of bronze.  In the first chariot were red horses, and in the second chariot were black horsed, and in the third chariot were white horses, and in the fourth chariot were different and dappled horses.  And I said to the angel who was speaking to me: What are these, lord?  Responding he said to me: Do you not know what these are?  And I said: No, lord.  And he told me: These are the four winds of the sky that stand with God before the whole earth.  (Zech 6:1-5) And so this is the number of the chariots. In fact the following rationale, promulgated by prophetic reason, teaches us to perceive a type of the gospel truth: we notice that the gospels have also been clearly designated in these chariots.  He declared that the four horses are described in four parts, as we best recall, because each of the gospels must be understood in the four and the four in each.  Although the preaching of the evangelists would rightly seem to be in four portions, they still are undividedly of one mind for the unity of the faith.  In fact, we know that the gospels were clearly prefigured in these chariots, because the prophet asked the angel speaking to him about what these were and he was told this: These are the four winds of the sky that stand with God before all the earth, which he reported by God's command to have circled all the earth.  And if we have not considered the saying about these winds (which blow through the lands and generate waves or brew up storms), it is simple enough to understand that, when they have been described in the prophets desiring only the divine and eternal heavenly things, the Lord deservedly adds more: These are the ones that circle the earth; they soften my fury (Zech 6:8).  As we perceptively have recognized, the divine wrath, which was over people's sins, cannot otherwise be appeased except through the gospel's preaching, which runs throughout the globe and gives both the remission of sins and salvation to the human race.

§ 10  Yet the arrangement of the world rests upon the rationale for this evangelical number: for we recognize the four seasons that the year progresses through and the four corners of the earth that the four guardian angels are assigned to, referring to the Apocalypse.

§ 11 And although there are said to be four gospels because of the number of the evangelists, even though there is only gospel among them all, as the Lord said: And this gospel will be preached through the whole globe (Matt 24:14).  He did not say gospels but gospel.  The apostle described this too when he says: If anyone has preached to you a gospel other than what you have received, let them be accursed.  (Gal 1:9)  Hence, it is plain that there are certain four books of the gospels, but one gospel is counted in these four books.  And for that reason one must not be prejudiced should we sometimes say "gospels" because of the number of evangelists or when we name the gospels in this way as the most important books or when we designate the number of the evangelists according to the usual custom of the majority.  Indeed we both confess and believe that there is one true gospel according to the authority of the Lord or even the apostle.

§ 12 Although we have wanted to establish the number of evangelists from a painstaking study of the various testimonies of the prophets, I have extended the sermon longer than I have intended to.  But we strive to investigate the order of the gospel according to Matthew, even with little insight and a mediocre sermon.

Therefore St. Matthew began writing his Gospel with an introduction of this sort, saying, "This is the book of Jesus Christ, descendant of David, descendant of Abraham. Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob," and the rest that follows. Matthew, as I have said, tells of the second birth of the Lord into flesh and for this reason traces his family line from Abraham, treating separately the tribe of Judah, until he comes down to Joseph and Mary. Since the Evangelist begins from Abraham by succession of birth and recounts in order the names of all, one may wonder why he calls Christ our Lord only the descendant of David and the descendant of Abraham in saying, "This is the book of the lineage of Jesus Christ, Son of David, Son of Abraham." At any rate, we know that the Evangelist did not say this without reason and in this order. Each of them, both Abraham and David, whether by the promise of the Lord or rank of birth, lived as a worthy predecessor in the line of Jesus Christ as to his existence in flesh. For the Lord had promised to Abraham, who by right of circumcision was the founding patriarch of the Jewish people, that from his seed all nations would be blessed. This was realized in Christ, who received his body from the line of Abraham. The apostle made an interpretation for the Galatians about this, saying, "Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, 'And to offsprings,' referring to many; but, referring to one, 'And to your offspring,' which is Christ." So also is David first among the tribe of Judah in the rank of king. And likewise God promised to this very tribe that the eternal king, Christ the Lord, would be born from the fruit of its womb. For David was the first king from the tribe of Judah, from which the Son of God received his flesh. Thus Matthew rightly counted Christ our Lord as the descendant of David and Abraham, because both Joseph and Mary are descended from these regal origins, the line of David, who himself descended from Abraham, who in faith lived as the father of nations and in flesh was the first of the Jewish people.

(Ep. i. ad Monachos Egypti.) Saith the Apostle of the Only-begotten, Who being in the form of God, thought it no robbery to be equal with God (Phil. 2:6). Who then is this who is in the form of God? or how emptied He Himself, and humbled Himself to the likeness of man? If the above-mentioned heretics dividing Christ into two parts, i. e. the Man and the Word, affirm that it was the Man that was emptied of glory, they must first show what form and equality with the Father are understood to be, and did exist, which might suffer any manner of emptying. But there is no creature, in its own proper nature, equal with the Father; how then can any creature be said to be emptied? or from what eminence to descend to become man? Or how can he be understood to have taken upon Him, as though He had not at first, the form of a servant? But, they say, the Word being equal with the Father dwelt in Man born of a woman, and this is the emptying. I hear the Son truly saying to the Holy Apostles, If any man love Me, he will keep My saying; and My Father will lore him, and We will come unto him, and make Our abode with him. (John 14:23.) Hear how He saith that He and the Father will dwell in them that love Him. Do you then suppose that we shall grant that He is there emptied of His glory, and has taken upon Him the form of a servant, when He makes His abode in the hearts of them that love Him? Or the Holy Spirit, does He fulfil an assumption of human flesh, when He dwells in our hearts?

(Ep. ad Joan. Antioch. tom. 6. Ep. 107.) We account those persons mad who have suspected that so much as the shadow of change could take place in the nature of the Divine Word; it abides what it ever was, neither is nor can be changed.

(Ordinaria.) The full expression would be This is the book of the generation; but this is a usual ellipse; e. g. The vision of Isaiah, for, 'This is the vision.' Generation, he says in the singular number, though there be many here given in succession, as it is for the sake of the one generation of Christ that the rest are here introduced.

But since from this title it appears that the whole book is concerning Jesus Christ, it is necessary first to know what we must think concerning Him; for so shall be better explained what this book relates of Him.

(non occ.) Others denied the reality of Christ's human nature. Valentinus said, that Christ sent from the Father, carried about a spiritual or celestial body, and took nothing of the Virgin, but passed through her as through a channel, taking nothing of her flesh. But we do not therefore believe Him to have been born of the Virgin, because by no other means He could have truly lived in the flesh, and appeared among men; but because it is so written in the Scripture, which if we believe not we cannot either be Christians, or be saved. But even a body taken of spiritual, or ethereal, or clayey substance, had He willed to change into the true and very quality of human flesh, who will deny His power to do this? The Manichæans said that the Lord Jesus Christ was a phantasm, and could not be born of the womb of a woman. But if the body of Christ was a phantasm, He was a deceiver, and if a deceiver, then He was not the truth. But Christ is the Truth; therefore His Body was not a phantasm.

(non occ.) And as the opening both of this Gospel, and of that according to Luke, manifestly proves Christ's birth of a woman, and hence His real humanity, they reject the beginning of both these Gospels.

What Matthew publishes in order of kingly succession, Luke has set forth in order of priestly origin. While accounting for each order, both indicate the relationship of the Lord to each ancestral lineage. The order of his lineage is thus duly presented, because the association of the priestly and royal tribes that was begun through David from marriage is now confirmed out of the descent from Shealtiel to Zerubbabel. And so, while Matthew recounts his paternal origin that began in Judah, Luke teaches that his ancestry was taken from the tribe of Levi. Each in his own way demonstrates the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is both the eternal king and priest, as seen even in the fleshly origin of both of his ancestries. It does not matter that the origin of Joseph instead of Mary is recounted, for indeed there is one and the same blood relationship for the whole tribe. Moreover, both Matthew and Luke provide precedents. They name fathers in order not so much by their lineage as by their clan, since the tribe began from one individual and continues under a family of one succession and origin. Indeed, Christ has to be shown as the son of David and Abraham, so Matthew began in this way: "The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." It does not matter who is placed in a given order as long as the whole family is understood to derive from a single source. Joseph and Mary belonged to the same kinship line. Joseph is shown to have sprung from the line of Abraham. It is revealed that Mary came from this line, too. This system is codified in law so that, if the oldest of a family should die without sons, the next oldest brother of the same family would take the dead man's wife in marriage. He would consider his sons as received into the family of the one who had died, and thus the order of succession remains with the firstborn, since they are considered to be the fathers of those born after them in either name or birth.

(Quæst. Nov. et Vet. Test. q. 49.) What God conferred on those, who, by the anointing of oil were consecrated as kings or priests, this the Holy Spirit conferred on the Man Christ; adding moreover a purification. The Holy Spirit cleansed that which taken of the Virgin Mary was exalted into the Body of the Saviour, and this is that anointing of the Body of the Saviour's flesh whence He was called Christ. Because the impious craft of the Jews denied that Jesus was born of the seed of David, he adds, The son of David, the son of Abraham.

(Epist. lib. iv. 166.) But not to mention all arguments, let us bring forward that one to which all arguments point, that, for one who was God to assume a lowly guise both has an obvious use, and is an adaptation and in nothing contradicts the course of nature. But for one who is man to speak things divine and supernatural is the highest presumption; for though a king may humble himself a common soldier may not take on him the state of an emperor. So, if He were God made man, all lowly things have place; but if mere man, high things have none.

Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek, though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Cæsarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Berœa, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist "Out of Egypt have I called my son," and "for he shall be called a Nazarene."

(Prolog. in Comm. in Matt.) 'The face of a man' (in Ezekiel's vision [Ez. 1:5]) signifies Matthew, who accordingly opens his Gospel with the human genealogy of Christ.

(Comm. in Matt. ch. 1.) We read in Isaiah, Who shall declare His generation? (Is. 53:8.) But it does not follow that the Evangelist contradicts the Prophet, or undertakes what he declares impossible; for Isaiah is speaking of the generation of the Divine nature; St. Matthew of the incarnation of the human.

The order of the names is inverted, but of necessity; for had he written Abraham first, and David afterwards, he would have to repeat Abraham again to preserve the series of the genealogy.

Why Joseph's genealogy is traced, who had no part in the birth. And one cause we have mentioned already; but it is necessary to mention likewise the other, that which is more mystical and secret than the first. What then is this? He would not that it should be manifest to the Jews, at the time of the birth, that Christ was born of a virgin.

Nay, be not troubled at the strangeness of the saying. For it is no statement of mine, but of our fathers, wonderful and illustrious men. For if He disguised many things from the first, calling Himself Son of Man, and hath not everywhere clearly unfolded to us even His equality with the Father; why dost thou wonder at His having for a time disguised this also, taking order as He was for a certain great and marvellous purpose?

But what kind of marvel? it may be asked. That the Virgin should be preserved, and delivered from evil suspicion. For if this had been discovered by the Jews from the beginning, they would have stoned the Virgin, making the report a handle for mischief, and would have condemned her for adultery. For if in regard to the other matters, for which they had frequent precedents likewise in the old dispensation, they were quite shameless in their obstinacy (for so, because He had cast out devils, they called Him possessed; and because He healed on the Sabbath day, they supposed Him to be an adversary of God; and yet oftentimes even before this had the Sabbath been broken), what would they not have said, if this had been told them? Especially as they had all time before this on their side, in that it never had produced any such thing. For if after so many miracles they still called Him son of Joseph, how before the miracles would they have believed that He was born of a virgin?

It is then for this reason that both Joseph has his genealogy traced, and the Virgin betrothed to him. For if even he, who was both a just and wondrous man, required many things, in order that he should receive that which had come to pass; an angel, and the vision in dreams, and the testimony from the prophets; how could the Jews, being both dull and depraved, and of so unfriendly spirit towards Him, have admitted this idea into their minds? For the strangeness and novelty thereof would be sure greatly to disturb them, and the fact that they had never so much as heard of such a thing having happened in the times of their forefathers. For as the man who was once persuaded that He is Son of God, would after that have no cause to doubt concerning this too; so he who was accounting Him to be a deceiver and an adversary of God, how could he but have been yet more offended by this, and have been led on unto the opposite notion? For this cause neither do the apostles at the first directly say this, but while of His resurrection they discourse much and often (forasmuch as of this there were examples in the times before, although not such as this); that He was born of a virgin they do not say always: nay, not even His mother herself ventured to utter this. See, for instance, what saith the Virgin even to Himself: "Behold, Thy father and I have sought Thee." For if this suspicion had been entertained, neither would He any longer have been accounted to be a Son of David, and this opinion not being held, many other evils besides would have arisen. For this cause neither do the angels say these things to all, but to Mary only, and Joseph; but when showing to the shepherds the glad tidings of that which was come to pass, they no longer added this.

"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, Son of David, Son of Abraham."

"What sayest thou? Didst thou not promise to discourse of the Only-begotten Son of God, and dost thou make mention of David, a man born after a thousand generations, and say that he is both father and ancestor?" Stay, seek not to learn all at once, but gently and by little and little. Why, it is in the vestibule that thou art standing, by the very porch; why then dost thou hasten towards the inner shrine? As yet thou hast not well marked all without. For neither for a while do I declare unto thee that other generation: or rather not even this which cometh after, for it is unutterable, and unspeakable. And before me the Prophet Isaiah hath told thee this; where when proclaiming His passion, and His great care for the world, and admiring who He was, and what He became, and whither He descended, he cried out loud and clear, saying thus, "Who shall declare His generation?"

It is not then of that we are now to speak, but of this beneath, this which took place on earth, which was amongst ten thousand witnesses. And concerning this again we will relate in such wise as it may be possible for us, having received the grace of the Spirit. For not even this may any one set forth altogether plainly, forasmuch as this too is most awful. Think not, therefore, it is of small things thou art hearing, when thou hearest of this birth, but rouse up thy mind, and straightway tremble, being told that God hath come upon earth. For so marvellous was this, and beyond expectation, that because of these things the very angels formed a choir, and in behalf of the world offered up their praise for them, and the prophets from the first were amazed at this, that "He was seen upon earth, and conversed with men." Yea, for it is far beyond all thought to hear that God the Unspeakable, the Unutterable, the Incomprehensible, and He that is equal to the Father, hath passed through a virgin's womb, and hath vouchsafed to be born of a woman, and to have Abraham and David for forefathers. But why do I say Abraham and David? For what is even more amazing, there are those women, whom we have lately mentioned.

Hearing these things, arise, and surmise nothing low: but even because of this very thing most of all shouldest thou marvel, that being Son of the Unoriginate God, and His true Son, He suffered Himself to be called also Son of David, that He might make thee Son of God. He suffered a slave to be father to Him, that He might make the Lord Father to thee a slave.

Seest thou at once from the beginning of what nature are the Gospels? If thou doubt concerning the things that pertain to thee from what belongs to Him believe these also. For it is far more difficult, judging by human reason, for God to become man, than for a man to be declared a Son of God. When therefore thou art told that the Son of God is Son of David and of Abraham, doubt not any more that thou too, the son of Adam, shall be son of God. For not at random, nor in vain did He abase Himself so greatly, only He was minded to exalt us. Thus He was born after the flesh, that thou mightest be born after the Spirit; He was born of a woman, that thou mightest cease to be the son of a woman.

Wherefore the birth was twofold, both made like unto us, and also surpassing ours. For to be born of a woman indeed was our lot, but "to be born not of blood, nor of the will of flesh, nor of man," but of the Holy Ghost, was to proclaim beforehand the birth surpassing us, the birth to come, which He was about freely to give us of the Spirit.

Wherefore he call it a "book of the generation of Jesus Christ," while yet this book hath not the birth only, but the whole dispensation? Because this is the sum of the whole dispensation, and is made an origin and root of all our blessings. As then Moses calleth it the book of heaven and earth, although he hath not discoursed of heaven and earth only, but also of all things that are in the midst thereof; so also this man hath named his book from that which is the sum of all the great things done. For that which teems with astonishment, and is beyond hope and all expectation, is that God should become man. But this having come to pass, all afterwards follows in reasonable consequence.

Wherefore did he not say, "the Son of Abraham," and then "the Son of David?" It is not, as some suppose, that he means to proceed upward from the lower point, since then he would have done the same as Luke, but now he doth the contrary. Why then hath he made mention of David? The man was in the mouths of all, both from his distinction, and from the time, for he had not been so very long since dead, like Abraham. And though God made promises to both, yet the one, as old, was passed over in silence, while the other, as fresh and recent, was repeated of all. Themselves, for instance, say, "Doth not Christ come of the seed of David, and out of Bethlehem, the town where David was?" And no man called Him Son of Abraham, but all Son of David; and that because this last was more in the recollection of all, both on account of the time, as I have already said, and because of his royalty. On this principle again all the kings whom they had in honor after his time were named from him, both by the people themselves and by God. For both Ezekiel and other prophets besides speak of David as coming and rising again; not meaning him that was dead, but them who were emulating his virtue. And to Hezekiah He saith, "I will defend this city, for mine own sake and for my servant David's sake." And to Solomon too He said, that for David's sake He rent not the kingdom during his lifetime. For great was the glory of the man, both with God and with men.

On account of this he makes the beginning at once from him who was more known, and then runs up to his father; accounting it superfluous, as far as regards the Jews, to carry the genealogy higher up. For these were principally the persons held in admiration; the one as a prophet and a king, the other as a patriarch and a prophet.

"But whence is it manifest that He is of David?" one may say. For if He was not sprung of a man, but from a woman only, and the Virgin hath not her genealogy traced, how shall we know that He was of David's race? Thus, there are two things inquired; both why His mother's genealogy is not recited, and wherefore it can be that Joseph is mentioned by them, who hath no part in the birth: since the latter seems to be superfluous, and the former a defect.

Of which then is it necessary to speak first? How the Virgin is of David. How then shall we know that she is of David? Hearken unto God, telling Gabriel to go unto "a virgin betrothed to a man (whose name was Joseph), of the house and lineage of David." What now wouldest thou have plainer than this, when thou hast heard that the Virgin was of the house and lineage of David?

Hence it is evident that Joseph also was of the same. Yes, for there was a law, which bade that it should not be lawful to take a wife from any other stock, but from the same tribe. And the patriarch Jacob also foretold that He should arise out of the tribe of Judah, saying on this wise: "there shall not fail a ruler out of Judah, nor a governor out of his loins, until He come for whom it is appointed, and He is the expectation of the Gentiles."

"Well; this prophecy doth indeed make it clear that He was of the tribe of Judah, but not also that He was of the family of David. Was there then in the tribe of Judah one family only, even that of David, or were there not also many others? And might it not happen for one to be of the tribe of Judah, but not also of the family of David?"

Nay, lest thou shouldest say this, the evangelist hath removed this suspicion of thine, by saying, that He was "of the house and lineage of David."

And if thou wish to learn this from another reason besides, neither shall we be at a loss for another proof. For not only was it not allowed to take a wife out of another tribe, but not even from another lineage, that is, from another kindred. So that if either we connect with the Virgin the words, "of the house and lineage of David," what hath been said stands good; or if with Joseph, by that fact this also is proved. For if Joseph was of the house and lineage of David, he would not have taken his wife from another than that whence he himself was sprung.

"What then," one may say, "if he transgressed the law?" Why, for this cause he hath by anticipation testified that Joseph was righteous, on purpose that thou mightest not say this, but having been told his virtue, mightest be sure also that he would not have transgressed the law. For he who was so benevolent, and free from passion, as not to wish, even when urged by suspicion, to attempt inflicting punishment on the Virgin, how should he have transgressed the law for lust? he that showed wisdom and self-restraint beyond the law (for to put her away, and that privily, was to act with self-restraint beyond the law), how should he have done anything contrary to the law; and this when there was no cause to urge him?

Now that the Virgin was of the race of David is indeed from these things evident; but wherefore he gave not her genealogy, but Joseph's, requires explanation. For what cause was it then? It was not the law among the Jews that the genealogy of women should be traced. In order then that he might keep the custom, and not seem to be making alterations from the beginning, and yet might make the Virgin known to us, for this cause he hath passed over her ancestors in silence, and traced the genealogy of Joseph. For if he had done this with respect to the Virgin, he would have seemed to be introducing novelties; and if he had passed over Joseph in silence, we should not have known the Virgin's forefathers. In order therefore that we might learn, touching Mary, who she was, and of what origin, and that the laws might remain undisturbed, he hath traced the genealogy of her espoused husband, and shown him to be of the house of David. For when this hath been clearly proved, that other fact is demonstrated with it, namely, that the Virgin likewise is sprung from thence, by reason that this righteous man, even as I have already said, would not have endured to take a wife from another race.

For this reason he hath also straightway called Him by this title, naming Him Jesus. For this name, Jesus, is not Greek, but in the Hebrew language it is thus called Jesus; which is, when interpreted into the Greek tongue, "A Saviour." And He is called a Saviour, from His saving His people.

Seest thou how he hath given wings to the hearer, at once speaking things familiar, and at the same time by these indicating to us things beyond all hope? I mean that both these names were well known to the Jews. For, because the things that were to happen were beyond expectation, the types even of the names went before, in order that from the very first all the unsettling power of novelty might be taken away. Thus he is called Jesus, who after Moses brought the people into the land of promise. Hast thou seen the type? Behold the truth. That led into the land of promise, this into heaven, and to the good things in the heavens; that, after Moses was dead, this after the law had ceased; that as a leader, this as a King.

However, lest having heard the word Jesus, thou shouldest by reason of the identity of the name be perplexed, he hath added, "Jesus Christ, Son of David." But that other was not of David, but of another tribe.

(Epist. 59. ad Const. Id. Ep. 83. ad Palest.) We do not speak of Christ as man in such a sort as to allow that any thing was wanting to Him, which it is certain pertains to human nature, whether soul, or rational mind, or flesh, and flesh such as was taken of the Woman, not gained by a change or conversion of the Word into flesh. These three several errors, that thrice false heresy of the Apollinarists has brought forward. Eutyches also chose out this third dogma of Apollinaris, which denying the verity of the human body and soul, maintained that our Lord Jesus Christ was wholly and entirely of one nature, as though the Divine Word had changed itself into flesh and soul, and as though the conception, birth, growth, and such like, had been undergone by that Divine Essence, which was incapable of any such changes with the very and true flesh; for such as is the nature of the Only-begotten, such is the nature of the Father, and such is the nature of the Holy Ghost, both impassible and eternal. But if to avoid being driven to the conclusion that the Godhead could feel suffering and death, he departs from the corruption of Apollinaris, and should still dare to affirm the nature of the incarnate Word, that is of the Word and the flesh, to be the same, he clearly falls into the insane notions of Manichæus and Marcion, and believes that the Lord Jesus Christ did all His actions with a false appearance, that His body was not a human body, but a phantasm, which imposed on the eyes of the beholders.

(Ep. 35. ad Julian.) But what Eutyches ventured to pronounce as an episcopal decision, that in Christ before His incarnation were two natures, but after His incarnation only one, it behoved that he should have been urgently pressed to give the reason of this his belief. I suppose that in using such language he supposed the soul which the Saviour took, to have had its abode in heaven before it was born of the Virgin Marye. This Catholic hearts and ears endure not, for that the Lord when He came down from heaven showed nothing of the condition of human nature, nor did He take on Him any soul that had existed before, nor any flesh that was not taken of the flesh of His mother. Thus what was justly condemned in Origenf, must needs be rebuked in Eutyches, to wit, that our souls before they were placed in our bodies had actions not only wonderful but various.

So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.

(Homil. in Matt. Hom. i.) Matthew wrote for the Jews, and in Hebrewa; to them it was unnecessary to explain the divinity which they recognized; but necessary to unfold the mystery of the Incarnation. John wrote in Greek for the Gentiles who knew nothing of a Son of God. They required therefore to be told first, that the Son of God was God, then that this Deity was incarnate.

Another reason is that royal dignity is above natural, though Abraham was first in time, yet David in honour.

By this exordium he shows that it is the birth of Christ according to the flesh that he has undertaken to narrate.

Though the genealogy occupies only a small part of the volume, he yet begins thus, The book of the generation. For it is the manner of the Hebrews to name their books from that with which they open; as Genesis.

He says, The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, because he knew it was written, 'The book of the generation of Adam.' He begins thus then, that he may oppose book to book, the new Adam to the old Adam, for by the one were all things restored which had been corrupted by the other.

By saying, of Jesus Christ, he expresses both the kingly and priestly office to be in Him, for Jesus, who first bore this name, was after Moses, the first who was leader of the children of Israel; and Aaron, anointed by the mystical ointment, was the first priest under the Law.

Though any affirm that the prophet (Isaiah) does speak of His human generation, we need not answer to his enquiry, Who shall declare it? "No man;" but, "Very few;" because Matthew and Luke have.

These heresies therefore the Apostles overthrow in the opening of their Gospels, as Matthew in relating how He derived His descent from the kings of the Jews proves Him to have been truly man and to have had true flesh. Likewise Luke, when he describes the priestly stock and person; Mark when he says, The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God; and John when lie says, In the beginning was the Word; both show Him to have been before all ages God, with God the Father.

One must bear in mind therefore that the Evangelists, or rather the Spirit speaking through them, took pains to ensure that their readers believed that Christ was truly God and truly human. Because of what they wrote, no one could possibly doubt that he is God by nature, beyond all variation, mutation or illusion, and that according to the ordered plan of God he was truly human. This is why John could say, on the one hand, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John immediately adds, "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." Hence Matthew wrote appropriately, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." On the one hand he is not able to be counted simply from natural generation among families, since it is written, "Who shall declare his generation?" He is before the centuries and of one substance with the Father himself, from the standpoint of eternity. But by this genealogy he is also numbered among the families of humanity according to the flesh. For in truth, while remaining God, Christ became man without ceasing to be God, unaltered till the end of time.This is why there is also mention of the ancient patriarchs in the lineage, the narrative and observation of the times and vicissitudes that are indeed proper to human history. Through all this Matthew made it clear that Christ participates in our human generation and in our nature. Otherwise some might claim that he appeared in illusion and in imagination only, rather than by becoming genuinely human. Think of what might have been said if none of this had been written?

The Life of the Evangelist Matthew Matthew, also known as Levi, tax collector turned apostle, was the first to compose the Gospel of Christ, in Judea in the Hebrew language for those of the circumcision who believed. It is unknown by whom it was later translated into Greek. The Hebrew text is preserved to this day in the library of Caesarea that was most diligently assembled by the Martyr Pamphilus. The Nazarenes of Berroia in Syria, who use this text, gave me permission to copy it. From this one is easily convinced that where the evangelist makes use of the testimony of the Old Testament Scriptures, either himself, or in the person of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, he does not follow the authority of the Seventy (i.e. The Septuagint), but of the Hebrew text. It is from the latter that these two passages come: Out of Egypt have I called My Son (Mt 2:15) and He shall be called a Nazarene (Mt 2:23).

They may, then, obliterate the testimony of the devils which proclaimed Jesus the son of David; but whatever unworthiness there be in this testimony, that of the apostles they will never be able to efface, There is, first of all, Matthew, that most faithful chronicler of the Gospel, because the companion of the Lord; for no other reason in the world than to show us clearly the fleshly original of Christ, he thus begins his Gospel: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." With a nature issuing from such fountal sources, and an order gradually descending to the birth of Christ, what else have we here described than the very flesh of Abraham and of David conveying itself down, step after step, to the very virgin, and at last introducing Christ,-nay, producing Christ Himself of the virgin?

There are four Evangelists; two of them, Matthew and John, were of the company of the twelve, and two, Mark and Luke, were of the seventy. Mark was a follower and disciple of Peter; and Luke, of Paul. Matthew, then, first wrote the Gospel, in the Hebrew language for the Jews who believed, eight years after Christ's Ascension. Some say that John translated it from the Hebrew language into Greek. Mark wrote his Gospel ten years after the Ascension, instructed by Peter. Luke wrote his Gospel fifteen years after the Ascension, and John the most wise Theologian, thirty two years after the Ascension.

It is said that after the death of the first three Evangelists, the three Gospels were brought to John while he yet lived that he might see them and judge if they had been composed according to the truth. When John read them he fully accepted the grace of the truth in them. and whatever the other Evangelists had omitted, he completed in his Gospel, and whatever they had touched on briefly, he elaborated. This was the beginning of theology. Since the other Evangelists had not mentioned the existence of God the Word from before the ages, John himself spoke the word of God—theology—concerning this, so that no one would think that God the Word was a mere man without divinity. For Matthew speaks only of the existence of Christ in the flesh, as he was writing for the Jews for whom it sufficed to learn that Christ was begotten from Abraham and David. A believing Jew is content to know that Christ is from David.

You might ask, "Was not one Evangelist enough?" Listen, then: one was enough, but four were allowed to write so that the truth might be revealed more clearly. When you see these four Evangelists, not sitting down together in one place, but each one by himself at a different time and place writing about the same things as if with one voice, do you not marvel at the truth of the Gospel and conclude that they spoke by the Holy Spirit? Do not tell me that they are not in agreement in all points. Consider where exactly they do not agree. Does one Evangelist say that Christ was born, and another, that He was not? Or one, that He rose, and another, that He did not? Indeed not! In what is essential, they speak with one voice. Therefore, if they do not diverge in the essential points, why do you marvel if they appear to vary in minor details? It is precisely because their accounts do not agree in every detail that we can see that they present the truth. If they had agreed on every point, it would cause one to suspect that they sat down and deliberated together in writing the Gospels. Instead, what one Evangelist has omitted, another has recorded, and for this reason that they seem to be at variance on certain points.

1. The book of the generation. Why did he not say "vision" or "word" as did the prophets who prefaced their writing in this manner: "The vision which Isaiah saw (Is 1:1)," and "The word which came to Isaiah (Is 2:1)." Do you wish to know why? Because the prophets were speaking to hard-hearted and disobedient people, and therefore they would say, "This is a divine vision," or "This is the word of God," so that the people would be frightened and not disdain what was said. But Matthew was addressing believers who were obedient and of a good disposition, and for this reason he did not begin in the manner of the prophets. I will also add that what the prophets saw, they saw noetically, that is, with their minds, envisioning these things by the Holy Spirit; and this is why they called them "visions." But Matthew did not see Christ noetically, nor did he envision Him in his mind, but he was with Him tangibly and listened to Him with his senses and saw Him in the flesh. Therefore he did not say, "The vision which I saw," but "The book of generation." Of Jesus. The name "Jesus" is not Greek but Hebrew, meaning "Saviour," for Iao is the Hebrew word for "salvation." Christ. The Hebrew kings and priests were called "christs" [i.e. "anointed ones"], because they were anointed with the holy oil poured out from a horn held over the head. The Lord, therefore, is called Christ, both as King because He ruled over sin, and as Priest because He offered Himself as a sacrifice for us. He Himself was pre-eminently anointed with the true oil, the Holy Spirit; for who else possessed the Spirit as did the Lord? In the saints, the grace of the Holy Spirit was at work, but in Christ it was not the grace of the Spirit at work, but rather Christ being of one essence with the Spirit worked the miracles. The Son of David. Since Matthew had said "Jesus," he added "the Son of David," so that you would not think he was speaking of the other Jesus [i.e. Joshua]; for there was another renowned Jesus, who became commander after Moses, but he was called "son of Nave," and not "son of David." For he preceded David by many generations and was not of the tribe of Judah, from which David was descended, but of another. The son of Abraham. Why did he place David before Abraham? He did so because to the Jews David had greater renown, both because he was more recent than Abraham and because he was more illustrious on account of his kingdom. For of the kings, David was the first to please God, and he received the promise from God that the Christ would arise from his seed. For this reason all men called Christ "the Son of David." And indeed David was also a symbolic type of Christ; for just as David ruled after Saul, that outcast from God who was rejected, so too Christ came in the flesh to reign over us after Adam had been deprived of the kingship and the dominion which he had over all things, both animals and demons.

Among the evangelists, Matthew is chiefly concerned with the humanity of Christ. Hence, according to Gregory, in the symbol of the four animals, he is signified as a man. By his humanity Christ entered the world, progressed, and then departed. Therefore, the Gospel is divided into three parts: first, the evangelist treats of Christ's entry into the world; secondly, of his progress (ch. 3); thirdly, of his exit (c. 21).

In the first part he does two things: first, the generation of Christ is described; secondly, it is manifested (c. 2).

In the first part he does three things: first, the quasi-title of the entire book is presented; secondly, the series of fathers is traced (v. 2); thirdly, the generation of Christ is described in particular (v. 18).

The title mentioned beforehand is The Book of the Genealogy of Jesus Christ. This seems to be an incomplete sentence. For it presents a nominative without a verb. But not so; for Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Hebrews. Therefore, in writing he followed the custom of the Jews. But it is customary among the Jews to speak in this manner, as when it says: "The vision of Isaiah, son of Amos," "This is" is understood, and it is not necessary to add it. So here, when it says, The Book of the Genealogy of Jesus Christ, "This is" is understood.

Nor is this way of speaking unusual among us: for if we wish to title a book, it is called "Priscian the Elder" or "Younger", and there is no need to add "This is" or "Begins".

Likewise, one might ask, since only a small part of this book is about the generation of Christ, why does the book get this title? The answer is that Matthew, who wrote to the Hebrews, follows their custom in writing. But the Hebrews were wont to entitle books from their beginnings, as the Book of Genesis, because generation is treated there; hence Genesis (5:1): "This is the genealogy of Adam." And the Book of Exodus, because in the first part the departure of the children of Israel from Egypt is described.

But one might ask why Jesus Christ is added. The answer is that according to the Apostle in 1 Cor 15:22: "As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive." But Matthew had seen the first book of the Old Testament, in which generation is discussed and in which it says (5:1): "This is the book of the genealogy of Adam." Therefore, in order that the New Testament, which deals with regeneration and restoration, might agree with the Old, he says: The Book of the Genealogy of Jesus Christ, to show that the author of both is the same.

Then the question arises about the fact that it says here: The Genealogy of Jesus Christ, for Isaiah (53:8) has the contrary: "As for his generation, who shall tell it?" But the sense, according to Jerome, is that there is in Christ a twofold generation, namely, the divine, which cannot be expressed; because, although we call him in some way a begotten Son, in another way the manner in which he was born neither man nor angel can comprehend. The other is the human, about which he deals; but in this generation there are many difficult things. Therefore, according to Remigius, very few can express it.

There is the question also why he says Generation, since many generations are grouped here. But the answer is that, although many generations are listed, they are introduced for one, namely, for the generation of Christ, about which it says below: "The generation of Christ took place in this way."

The one whose generation is constructed is described from the name, when it says Jesus; secondly, from his office, when it says Christ; thirdly, from his origin, when it says son of David, son of Abraham.

Although there have been others with the name, Jesus, as Jesus the son of Nun: "Jesus the son of Nun was mighty in war and was the successor of Moses in prophesying" (Sir 46:1), and another about the time of the construction of the temple, about whom Zechariah (3:21) speaks. Yet they were figurative and nominal Jesus', in as much as they were a figure of him. Jesus introduced the people of Israel into the Promised Land; but this Jesus, i.e., our Savior, introduced us not into a material land but into the heavenly: "We have Jesus, the author and perfector of our faith in his blood" (Heb 12:2). And he is rightly called Jesus, for this name suits him according to both natures, namely, divine and human. Indeed, according to the human he suffered in the flesh and fulfilled the mystery of our redemption; and since that passion would have no efficacy except in virtue of the adjoined divinity, it says below: "You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."

But why say Christ? Would not Jesus have been enough? I answer that this was done because, as we have said, others too were called "Jesus".

He describes him from his office, when he says Christ, i.e., anointed. But note three anointings in the Old Law. For Aaron was anointed a priest (Lev 8:11); Saul was anointed king by Samuel (1 Sam 10:11), as was David (1 Sam 16:13); Elisha was anointed a prophet (1 Kg 19:16). Therefore, because Christ was the true priest in Ps 110 (v. 4): "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek," and king and prophet, it is right to call him Christ on account of the three offices he exercised.

Son of David, son of Abraham. This raises a question about the number and about the order. As to the first, why does he name those two? For the reason given in the prologue, namely, that Abraham was a prophet. In Gen (20:7) the Lord said to Abimelech, king of Gerar: "Restore the man's wife, for he is a prophet." He was also a priest (Gen 15:9), for he fulfilled the office of priest, namely, by offering a victim to the Lord: "Bring me," he says, "a heifer three years old..." But David was a prophet, as is clear from Acts (2:30). He was also a king, as it says in 2 Sam (2:4). Therefore, because Christ was king and prophet and priest, he is correctly called their son. For if he had mentioned only Abraham, there would be no sign that Christ would be a king; if only David, the priestly dignity would not be denoted in Christ. Therefore, both are mentioned.

The answer to the second, according to Jerome, is that David is mentioned first and the order changed for the purpose of constructing the genealogy. For if he had first said "son of Abraham" and secondly "son of David", he would have had to repeat Abraham in order to continue the order of the genealogy. According to Ambrose, however, David is placed first by reason of dignity; for the promise about that head was made to David in Ps 132 (v. 11): "one of the sons of your body I will set on your throne"; but to Abraham about the members, namely, of the Church: "And by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth be blessed" (Gen 22:18).

Here it should be noted that there have been many errors about Christ. For some erred in regard to his divinity, as Paul of Samosata, Photinus and Sabellius; some in regard to his humanity, and some in regard to both. Still others have erred in regard to his person.

The first error in regard to his humanity was that of Manicheus, who said that he did not receive a true, but an imaginary, body. Against this is what the Lord says in Luke (24:39): "Handle and see; for a spirit has not flesh as you see that I have."

Secondly, after him erred Valentine, who said that he brought a heavenly body with him, that it was not assumed from the Virgin, but that it passed through her as water through a channel. But Rom (1:3) says against this: "Who was made from the seed of David according to the flesh."

The third error was that of Apollinaris, who said that he received only a body and no soul, but that in place of a soul he had his divinity. But against this is the fact that Christ frequently says: "My soul is sorrowful" (Jn 12:27). But on this account he later changed his opinion and said that Christ had a vegetal and sensitive soul, but still no rational soul, in place of which was his divinity. But then would follow the awkward situation that Christ would not have been any more man than a brute.

These errors were assigned as though by lot to the four evangelists. For Mark and John mainly destroyed the errors touching the divinity; hence John asserted immediately in the beginning: "In the beginning was the Word." And Mark began thus: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the son of God." He did not say, "the son of Abraham". Matthew and Luke destroy in the beginning those errors which concern the humanity.

Hence in the statement, son of David, son of Abraham, all errors about the humanity of Christ are excluded. For one is not called the son of someone except in virtue of univocal generation, which is according to agreement in species. For no matter what is generated from a man, unless it shares in the nature of the species, it is never called a son; as is evident in the case of lice and the like. Therefore, if Christ is the son of David and of Abraham, he should have the same nature by reason of the same species; but he would not have the same specific nature, if he had not a true and natural body, or if he took it from heaven, or even if it lacked a sensitive or a rational soul. Hence, the exclusion of every error is clear.

"The first living creature was like to a lion, and the second was like to a calf, and the third had a face like to a man, and the fourth was like to a flying eagle; and they had six wings, and round about and within they were full of eyes; and they had no rest, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord Omnipotent. And the four and twenty elders, failing down before the throne, adored God." The four and twenty elders arethe twenty-four books of the prophets and of the law, which give testimonies of the judgment. Moreover, also, they are the twenty-four fathers-twelve apostles and twelve patriarchs.And in that the living creatures are different in appearance, this is the reason: the living creature like to a lion designates Mark, in whom is heard the voice of the lion roaring in the desert. And in the figure of a man, Matthew strives to declareto us the genealogy of Mary, from whom Christ took flesh. Therefore, in enumerating from Abraham to David, and thence to Joseph, he spoke of Him as if of a man: therefore his announcement sets forth the image of a man. Luke, in narrating the priesthood of Zacharias as he offers a sacrifice for the people, and the angel that appears to him with respect of the priesthood, and the victim in the same description bore the likeness of a calf. John the evangelist, like to an eagle hastening on uplifted wings to greater heights, argues about the Word of God. Mark, therefore, as an evangelist thus beginning, "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet; " The voice of one crying in the wilderness," -has the effigy of a lion. And Matthew, "The hook of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham: " this is the form of a man. But Luke said, "There was a priest, by name Zachariah, of the course of Abia, and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron: " this is the likeness of a calf. But John, when he begins, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," sets forth the likeness of a flying eagle. Moreover, not only do the evangelists express their four similitudes in their respective openings of the Gospels, but also the Word itself of God the Father Omnipotent, which is His Son our Lord Jesus Christ, bears the same likeness in the time of His advent. When He preaches to us, He is, as it were, a lion and a lion's whelp. And when for man's salvation He was made man to overcome death, and to set all men free, and that He offered Himself a victim to the Father on our behalf, He was called a calf. And that He overcame death and ascended into the heavens, extending His wings and protecting His people, He was named a flying eagle. Therefore these announcements, although they are four, yet are one, because it proceeded from one mouth. Even as the river in paradise, although it is one, was divided into four heads. Moreover, that for the announcement of the New Testament those bring creatures had eyes within and without, shows the spiritual providence which both looks into the secrets of the heart, and beholds the things which are coming after that are within and without.

(Vigil. Tapsens. [Athan. Ed. Ben. vol. ii. p. 646.]) The Apostle John, seeing long before by the Holy Spirit this man's madness, rouses him from his deep sleep of error by the preaching of his voice, saying, In the beginning was the Word. (John 1:1.) He therefore, who in the beginning was with God, could not in this last time take the beginning of His being from man. He says further, (let Photinus hear his words,) Father, glorify Me with that glory which I had with Thee before the world was. (John 17:5.)

(Vigil. Tapsens. [ibid. p. 644.]) The audaciousness of this most insane error I will curb by the authority of the heavenly testimonies, and demonstrate the distinct personality of the proper substance, of the Son. I shall not produce things which are liable to be, explained away as agreeable to the assumption of human; nature; but shall offer such passages as all will allow to be decisive in proof of His divine nature. In Genesis we find God saying, Let Us make man in Our own Image. By this plural number showing, that there was some other person to whom He spoke. Had He been one, He would have been said to have made Him in His own Image, but there is another; and He is said to have made man in the Image of that other.

(in Luc. cap. 3. lib. iii. n. 7, 8.) For Abraham was the first who deserved the witness of faith; "He believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." It behoved therefore that he should be set forth as the first in the line of descent, who was the first to deserve the promise of the restoration of the Church, In thee shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. And it is again brought to a period in David, for that Jesus should be called his Son; hence to him is preserved the privilege, that from him should come the beginning of the Lord's genealogy.

(De Cons. Evan. ii. 1.) Matthew, by beginning with Christ's genealogy, shows that he has undertaken to relate Christ's birth according to the flesh. But Luke, as rather describing Him as a Priest for the atonement of sin, gives Christ's genealogy not in the beginning of his Gospel, but at His baptism, when John bare that testimony, Lo, He that taketh away the sins of the world. (John 1:29.) In the genealogy of Matthew is figured to us the taking on Him of our sins by the Lord Christ; in the genealogy of Luke, the taking away of our sins by the same; hence Matthew gives them in a descending, Luke in an ascending, series. But Matthew, describing Christ's human generation in descending order, begins his enumeration with Abraham.

Yet he names all the brethren of Judah with him in the lineage. lsmael and Esau had not remained in the worship of the true God; but the brethren of Judah were reckoned in God's people.

But Judah is the only one mentioned by name, and that because the Lord was descended from him only. But in each of the Patriarchs we must note not their history only, but the allegorical and moral meaning to be drawn from them; allegory, in seeing whom each of the Fathers foreshewed; moral instruction in that through each one of the Fathers some virtue may be edified in us either through the signification of his name, or through his exampleg. Abraham is in many respects a figure of Christ, and chiefly in his name, which is interpreted the Father of many nations, and Christ is Father of many believers. Abraham moreover went out from his own kindred, and abode in a strange land; in like manner Christ, leaving the Jewish nation, went by His preachers throughout the Gentiles.

Morally; Abraham signifies to us the virtue of faith in Christ, as an example himself, as it is said of him, Abraham believed God, and it was accounted unto Him for righteousness. Isaac may represent hope; for Isaac is interpreted 'laughter,' as he was the joy of his parents; and hope is our joy, making ns to hope for eternal blessings and to joy in them. Abraham begat Isaac, and faith begets hope. Jacob signifies 'love,' for love embraces two lives; active in the love of our neighbour, contemplative in the love of God; the active is signified by Leah, the contemplative by Rachel. For Leah is interpreted. 'labouringh,' for she is active in labour; Racheli 'having seen the beginning,' because by the contemplative, the beginning, that is God, is seen. Jacob is born of two parents, as love is born of faith and hope; for what we believe, we both hope for and love.

But why is it, that having mentioned Abraham, and having said that "he begat Isaac, and Isaac, Jacob;" and not having made any mention of his brother; when he is come to Jacob, he remembers both "Judah, and his brethren"? Now there are some that say, it was because of the perverseness of Esau, and of the rest that came before. But I should not say this; for if it were so, how is it that he a little after mentions such women? It being out of contraries, in this place, that His glory is manifested; not by having great forefathers, but low and of little account. For to the lofty One it is a great glory to be able to abase Himself exceedingly. Wherefore then did He not mention them? Because Saracens, and Ishmaelites, and Arabians, and as many as are sprung from those ancestors, have nothing in common with the race of the Israelites. For this cause then he passes over those in silence, and hastens on to His forefathers, and those of the Jewish people. Wherefore he saith, "And Jacob begat Judas and his brethren." For at this point the race of the Jews begins to have its peculiar mark.

For this cause he made mention also of the twelve patriarchs, by this again bringing down their pride at the noble birth of their fathers. Because many of these also were born of women that were slaves; but nevertheless the difference of the parents did not make a difference in the children. For all were equally both patriarchs and heads of tribes. For this is the precedence of the Church, this the prerogative of the nobility that is among us, taking its type from the beginning. So that whether thou be bond or free, thou hast from thence nothing more nor less; but the question is all about one thing only, namely, the mind, and the disposition of the soul.

Isaac is interpreted 'laughter,' but the laughter of the saints is not the foolish convulsion of the lips, but the rational joy of the heart, which was the mystery of Christ. For as he was granted to his parents in their extreme age to their great joy, that it might be known that he was not the child of nature, but of grace, thus Christ also in this last time came of a Jewish mother to be the joy of the whole earth; the one of a virgin, the other of a woman past the age, both contrary to the expectation of nature.

Our Jacob in like manner begot the twelve Apostles in the Spirit, not in the flesh; in word, not in blood. Judah is interpreted 'confessor,' for he was a type of Christ who was to be the confessor of His Father, as He spake, I confess to Thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth.

These heresies therefore the Apostles overthrow in the opening of their Gospels, as Matthew in relating how He derived His descent from the kings of the Jews proves Him to have been truly man and to have had true flesh. Likewise Luke, when he describes the priestly stock and person; Mark when he says, The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God; and John when lie says, In the beginning was the Word; both show Him to have been before all ages God, with God the Father.

Jacob is interpreted 'supplanter,' and it is said of Christ, Thou hast cast down beneath Me them that rose up against Me. (Ps. 18:43.)

Abraham begat Isaac. Matthew begins the genealogy with Abraham because he was the father of the Hebrews, and because he first received the promises that in his seed all the nations would be blessed (Gen. 22:18). Therefore it is fitting that he should give the genealogy of Christ beginning with Abraham, for the seed of Abraham is Christ by Whom all we nations have been blessed who were formerly cursed. "Abraham" means "father of the nations," and "Isaac," "joy" or "laughter." The evangelist makes no mention of the illegitimate children of Abraham, Ishmael and the others, because the Jews were not descended from them, but from Isaac. And Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren. You see that he mentioned Judah and his brothers because the twelve tribes were from them.

Having presented the title, the genealogical series is woven. This is divided into three parts according to the three series of fourteen, out of which the aforesaid genealogical series is woven. The first set of fourteen is from Abraham to David, who came forth through patriarchs. The second goes from David to the Babylonian transmigration and proceeds through the kings. The third is from the transmigration to Christ, and begins with leaders and proceeds through private persons.

The first is divided into three parts: first are mentioned the fathers who lived before the entry into Egypt; secondly, those who were involved in the exodus and in the entry into the promised land; thirdly, those who existed after the entry into the promised land. He says, therefore: Abraham was the father of Isaac.

Here it should be noted, before we proceed any further, that two evangelists describe the generation of Christ according to the flesh; namely, Luke and Matthew, but differently. This difference consists in five things.

For, first, they differ as to its position in the work: because Matthew begins to weave the generation of Christ at the beginning of his Gospel, but Luke not at the beginning, but after the baptism. The reason for this, according to Augustine, is that Matthew undertook to describe the fleshly generation of Christ; therefore, he should have presented it immediately in the beginning. But Luke's main purpose was to comment in Christ the priestly person. It pertains to a priest to expiate for sins. Therefore, after the baptism, in which expiation of sins takes place, was the suitable time to present the generation of Christ.

But secondly, Luke and Matthew in the genealogy of Christ differ in regard to order; because Matthew wove Christ's generation by beginning with Abraham and by descending to Christ, but Luke begins with Christ and by ascending proceeds to Abraham and much further. The reason is that according to the Apostle (Rom 4:25), there were two things in Christ, namely, the humility to assume the defects of our nature and the power of divinity and grace, through which he purged us from these defects. (Rom 8:3): "God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh," on account of the first; "and for sin he condemned sin in the flesh," on account of the second. Therefore, Matthew, who is interested in Christ's fleshly generation through which he descended so far as to assume our weakness, fittingly describes his generation by descending. But Luke, who commends in him his priestly dignity, through which we are reconciled to God and united to Christ, fittingly proceeded by ascending.

Thirdly, they differ as to manner: because in the narration of the genealogy Matthew used the word begot and Luke the word "was of". And this occurs, because Matthew in the entire narration mentions only fathers according to the flesh; but Luke mentions many fathers according to the Law or by adoption. For it had been commanded in the Law that if a man should die without children, his brother should take his wife and raise up children for him. Hence, they were not the children of the one who begot them, but by adoption they were regarded as belonging to the previous husband. Hence, Luke, who mentions many sons by adoption, does not say "begot"; because, although they had not begotten them, yet they were theirs by adoption. But Matthew, who mentions only fathers according to the flesh, says begot. The reason for this is that, as has been stated, Matthew is concerned mainly with Christ's humanity. And because according to the flesh he was born of parents according to the flesh, no one is mentioned in Matthew's genealogy who was not a father according to the flesh. But Luke stresses in Christ the priestly dignity through which we are adopted as God's sons; therefore, he mentioned fathers not only according to the flesh but also those according to the Law.

They differ, fourthly, as to termini: because Matthew begins his genealogy with Abraham and continues it to Christ; but Luke goes from Christ not only to Abraham but as far as God. The reason for this can be taken from the fact that Matthew wrote to the Hebrews, who boasted of Abraham: "We are descendants of Abraham" (Jn 8:33), who was the first principle of believing; and therefore, Matthew begins with Abraham. But Luke wrote to the Greeks, who knew nothing about Abraham except through Christ: for if Christ had not existed, they would have known nothing about Abraham; therefore, Luke began with Christ and ended not only in Abraham, but in God.

They differ, fifthly, as to the persons listed: because in Luke's entire genealogy no woman is mentioned; but in Matthew some women are introduced. The reason for this, according to Ambrose, is that Luke, as has been said, commends especially the priestly dignity; but the greatest purity is required in a priest. But Matthew wove his genealogy according to the flesh; therefore some women are mentioned there.

Yet it should be noted that in all of Matthew's genealogy only women who were sinners are mentioned, either because she had been noted for some sin, as Tamar, who committed fornication (Gen 38:24) and Ruth, who had been an idolater and a gentile; and Uriah's wife, who was an adulteress (2 Sam 11:2). These were mentioned to designate, according to Jerome, that he whose genealogy is given, entered the world to redeem sinners. Another reason is given by Ambrose, namely, in order to remove embarrassment from the Church. For if Christ willed to be born of sinners, unbelievers should not jeer, if sinners join the Church. Another reason can be assigned, I believe, according to Chrysostom, in order to show the imperfection of the Law and that Christ came to fulfill the Law. The fact that certain female sinners are mentioned denotes that those who were greatest in the Law were sinners; as David and Judah. And in this is designated the imperfection of others. For if those were sinners, then much more the others: "All have sinned and need the glory of God" (Rom 3:23). And therefore they are mentioned in the genealogy of Christ to designate that he had fulfilled the Law. Note, however, that those women, although they had been sinners, were not so at the time in which their genealogy is woven; but they had already been cleansed by penance.

He says, therefore, Abraham was the father of Isaac. Here two things should be considered according to the letter, or literal sense. First, that by those fathers mentioned Christ is designated; secondly, that even those are referred or can be referred to our instruction. He says, therefore, first: Abraham was the father of Isaac. And this is stated in Gen (c. 21). But Isaac was the father of Jacob (Gen c. 25). And Jacob was the father of Judah and his brothers. Here one asks, since Abraham had another son besides Isaac, namely, Ishmael, as did Isaac, why no mention is made of them here, when it says, Judah and his brothers. Also, why is Judah expressly mentioned by name rather than the others.

The reason is that Judah and his brothers continued in the worship of the one God and, therefore, they are mentioned in the genealogy of Christ; but not Isaac and Ishmael, or Jacob and Esau. As to the second, this occurred to show that in Christ Jacob's prophecy was fulfilled: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs. And he will be the expected of the gentiles" (Gen 29:10); "For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah" (Heb 7:14); and that is why he is mentioned rather than the others.

Secondly, it should be noted that by the fathers mentioned in the genealogy of Christ, Christ is signified either by reason of the name or of a deed or of something else, as is clear. For Abraham means the father of many nations and signifies Christ, about whom Heb (2:10) says: "Who had brought many sons to glory." Furthermore, at the Lord's command Abraham left his homeland (Gen 12:4), and it is Christ who said in Jeremiah (12:7): "I have forsaken my house, I have abandoned my heritage." In like manner Abraham, who laughed, saying: "God has made laughter for me" (Gen 21:6); and it is Christ at whose birth joy is announced not to one person alone but to the entire world: "Behold, I bring you news of great joy, which will come to all the people; for to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord" (Lk 2:10). Similarly, by Jacob, both by reason of its meaning and by reason of an action, as is evident from his putting a stone, i.e., the hardness of the passion, under his head. In like manner by Judah and Perez, which means division: for he will divide the sheep from the goats (Mt 25:32).

(in Luc. c. 3.) But Luke has avoided the mention of these, that he might set forth the series of the priestly race immaculate. But the plan of St. Matthew did not exclude the righteousness of natural reason; for when he wrote in his Gospel, that He who should take on Him the sins of all, was born in the flesh, was subject to wrongs and pain, he did not think it any detraction from His holiness that He did not refuse the further humiliation of a sinful parentage. Nor, again, would it shame the Church to be gathered from among sinners, when the Lord Himself was born of sinners; and, lastly, that the benefits of redemption might have their beginning with His own forefathers: and that none might imagine that a stain in their blood was any hindrance to virtue, nor again any pride themselves insolently on nobility of birth.

(ubi sup.) Observe that Matthew does not name both without a meaning; for though the object of his writing only required the mention of Phares, yet in the twins a mystery is signified; namely, the double life of the nations, one by the Law, the other by Faith.

(de Civ. Dei, xv. 15.) Neither was Judah himself a first-born, nor of these two sons was either his first-born; he had already had three before them. So that he keeps in that line of descent, by which he shall arrive at David, and from him whither he purposed.

Passing over the other sons of Jacob, the Evangelist follows the family of Judah, saying, But Judah begat Phares and Zara of Thamar.

Judah begat Phares and Zarah before he went into Egypt, whither they both accompanied their father. In Egypt, Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; Aram begat Aminadab; Aminadab begat Naasson; and then Moses led them out of Egypt. Naasson was head of the tribe of Judah under Moses in the desert, where he begat Salmon; and this Salmon it was who, as prince of the tribe of Judah, entered the land of promise with Joshua.

This Salmon in the promised land begat Booz of this Rahab. Booz begat Obeth of Ruth.

Jesse, the father of David, has two names, being more frequently called Isai. But the Prophet says, There shall come a rod from the stem of Jesse; (Is. 11:1.) therefore to show that this prophecy was fulfilled in Mary and Christ, the Evangelist puts Jesse.

Christ Himself espouses Rahab, i. e. the Gentile Church; for Rahabr is interpreted either 'hunger,' or 'breadth,' or 'might;' for the Church of the Gentiles hungers and thirsts after righteousness, and converts philosophers and kings by the might of her doctrine. Ruth is interpreted either 'seeing' or 'hastenings' and denotes the Church which in purity of heart sees God, and hastens to the prize of the heavenly call.

Let us now see what virtues they be which these fathers edify in us; for faith, hope, and charity are the foundation of all virtues; those that follow are like additions over and above them. Judah is interpreted 'confession,' of which there are two kinds, confession of faith, and of sin. If then, after we be endowed with the three forementioned virtues, we sin, confession not of faith only but of sin is needful for us. Phares is interpreted 'division,' Zamar 'the east,' and Thamar 'bitternessz.' Thus confession begets separation from vice, the rise of virtue, and the bitterness of repentance. After Phares follows Esron, 'an arrow,' for when one is separated from vice and secular pursuits, he should become a dart wherewith to slay by preaching the vices of others. Aram is interpreted 'elect' or 'loftya,' for as soon as one is detached from this world, and profiteth for another, he must needs be held to be elect of God, famous amongst men, high in virtue. Naasson is 'augury,' but this augury is of heaven, not of earth. It is that of which Joseph boasted when he said, Ye have taken away the cup of my Lord, where with He is wont to divine. (Gen. 44:5.) The cup is the divine Scripture wherein is the draught of wisdom; by this the wise man divines, since in it he sees things future, that is, heavenly things. Next is Salomonb, 'that perceiveth,' for he who studies divine Scripture becomes perceiving, that is, he discerns by the taste of reason, good from bad, sweet from bitter. Next is Booz, that is 'brave,' for who is well taught in Scripture becomes brave to endure all adversity.

Then follows Obeth, i. e. 'servitude,' for which none is fit but he who is strong; and this servitude is begotten of Ruth, that is 'haste,' for it behoves a slave to be quick, not slow.

Or Jesse may be interpreted 'incensec.' For it we serve God in love and fear, there will be a devotion in the heart, which in the heat and desire of the heart offers the sweetest incense to God. But when one is become a fit servant, and a sacrifice of incense to God, it follows that he becomes David, (i. e. 'of a strong hand,') who fought mightily against his enemies, and made the Idumeans tributary. In like manner ought he to subdue carnal men to God by teaching and example.

(Verse 3.) But Judas begot Phares and Zaram of Thamar. Phares begot Esron. Esron begot Aram. Aram begot Aminadab. Aminadab begot Naasson. It should be noted in the genealogy of the Savior that no holy women are included; only those whom Scripture reproaches, since He came for sinners, being born of sinners, in order to erase the sins of all. Therefore, even in the following generations, Ruth the Moabitess and Bathsheba the wife of Uriah are mentioned.

It should be noted, that none of the holy women are taken into the Saviour's genealogy, but rather such as Scripture has condemned, that He who came for sinners being born of sinners might so put away the sins of all; thus Ruth the Moabitess follows among the rest.

But besides what we have said, there is another cause also, wherefore he hath mentioned even this history; for to be sure, Zara's name was not cast at random on that of Phares. (For indeed it was irrelevant, and superfluous, when he had mentioned Phares, from whom he was to trace Christ's genealogy, to mention Zara also.) Wherefore then did he mention him? When Thamar was on the point of giving birth to them, the pangs having come upon her, Zara put forth his hand first. Then the midwife, when she saw this, in order that the first should be known, bound his hand with scarlet; but the child, when he was bound, drew in his hand, and when he had drawn it in, Phares came forth first, and then Zara. The midwife when she saw this said, "Why was the hedge broken up for thee?"

Seest thou the dark expression of mysteries? For it was not without purpose that these things were recorded for us: since neither was it worth our study to learn, what it might be that the midwife said; nor worth a narrative to know, that he who came out second, put forth his hand first. What then is the mysterious lesson? First, from the name of the child we learn what is inquired, for Phares is "a division," and "a breach." And moreover from the thing itself, which took place; for it was not in the order of nature that, having thrust out his hand, he should draw it in again when bound; these things neither belonged to a movement directed by reason, nor did they take place in the way of natural consequence. For after the hand had found its way out, that another child should come forth before was perhaps not unnatural; but that he should draw it back, and give a passage for another, was no longer after the manner of children at the birth, but the grace of God was present with the children, ordering these things, and sketching out for us by them a sort of image of the things that were to come.

What then? Some of those who have examined these things accurately say, that these children are a type of the two nations. And so in order that thou mightest learn that the polity of the latter people shone forth previously to the origin of the former, the child that hath the hand stretched forth doth not show itself entire, but draws even it in again; and after his brother had glided forth whole, then he too appears entire. And this took place also with regard to the two nations. I mean, that after the polity of the Church had been manifested in the times of Abraham, and then had been withdrawn in the midst of its course, the Jewish people came, and the legal polity, and then the new people appeared entire with their own laws. Wherefore also the midwife saith, "Why was the hedge broken up for thee?" because the law coming in had broken in upon the freedom of the polity. For indeed the Scripture is ever wont to call the law a hedge; as the prophet saith: "Thou hast broken down her hedge, so that all they which pass by the way do pluck off her grapes:" and, "I have set a hedge about it:" and Paul, "Having broken down the middle wall of the hedge." But others say, that the saying, "Why was the hedge broken up for thee?" was spoken touching the new people: for this at its coming put down the law.

"And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar." What doest thou, O man, putting us in remembrance of a history that contains an unlawful intercourse? But why is this said? Since, if we were recounting the race of a mere man, one might naturally have been silent touching these things; but if of God Incarnate, so far from being silent, one ought to make a glory of them, showing forth His tender care, and His power. Yea, it was for this cause He came, not to escape our disgraces, but to bear them away. Therefore as He is the more admired, in that He not only died, but was even crucified (though the thing be opprobrious, yet the more opprobrious the more doth it show Him full of love to man), so likewise may we speak touching His birth; it is not only because He took flesh upon Him, and became man, that we justly stand amazed at Him, but because He vouchsafed to have also such kinsfolk, being in no respect ashamed of our evils. And this He was proclaiming from the very beginnings of His birth, that He is ashamed of none of those things that belong to us; while He teaches us also hereby, never to hide our face at our forefathers' wickedness, but to seek after one thing alone, even virtue. For such a man, though he have an alien for his ancestor, though he have a mother who is a prostitute, or what you will, can take no hurt thereby. For if the whoremonger himself, being changed, is nothing disgraced by his former life, much more will the wickedness of his ancestry have no power to bring to shame him that is sprung of an harlot or an adulteress, if he be virtuous.

But he did these things not only to instruct us, but also to bring down the haughtiness of the Jews. For since they, negligent about virtue in their own souls, were parading the name of Abraham, thinking they had for a plea their forefathers' virtue; he shows from the very beginning that it is not in these things men ought to glory, but in their own good deeds.

Besides this, he is establishing another point also, to show that all are under sin, even their forefathers themselves. At least their patriarch and namesake is shown to have committed no small sin, for Thamar stands against him, to accuse his whoredom. And David too had Solomon by the wife whom he corrupted. But if by the great ones the law was not fulfilled, much more by the less. And if it was not fulfilled, all have sinned, and Christ's coming is become necessary.

By Zarah is denoted the people of the Jews, which first appeared in the light of faith, coming out of the dark womb of the world, and was therefore marked with the scarlet thread of the circumciser, for all supposed that they were to be God's people; but the Law was set before their face as it had been a wall or hedge. Thus the Jews were hindered by the Law, but in the times of Christ's coming the hedge of the Law was broken down that was between Jews and Gentiles, as the Apostle speaks, Breaking down the middle wall of partition; (Eph. 2:14.) and thus it fell out that the Gentiles, who were signified by Phares, as soon as the Law was broken through by Christ's commandments, first entered into the faith, and after followed the Jews.

It is asked, why this epithet King is thus given by the holy Evangelist to David alone? Because he was the first king in the tribe of Judah. Christ Himself is Phares 'the divider,' as it is written, Thou shalt divide the sheep from the goats; (Mat. 25:33.) He is Zaraml, 'the east,' Lo the man, the east is His name; (Zech. 6:12.) He is Esromm, 'an arrow,' He hath set me as a polished shaft. (Is. 49:2.)

Christ is also Boozt, because He is strength, for, When I am lifted up, I will draw all men unto Me. (John 12:32.) He is Obeth. 'a servantu,' for, the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister. (Mat. 20:28.) He is Jesse, or 'burntx,' for, I am come to send fire on earth. (Luke 12:49.) He is Davidy, 'mighty in arm,' for, the Lord is great and powerful; (Ps. 24:8.) 'desirable,' for, He shall come, the Desire of all nations; (Hag. 2:7.) 'beautiful to behold,' according to that, Beautiful in form before the sons of men. (Ps. 45:3.)

It is for this reason [to show Christ's true humanity] that in this genealogy the Evangelist mentioned in his list even those who had shocking carnal relations that were inappropriate and outside the law. For Matthew wrote with due deliberation, "And Judah became the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar" and even more plainly "And David became the father of Solomon by Uriah's wife." These were women with whom they became united by fornication and adultery. By this means the genealogy revealed that it is our very sinful nature that Christ himself came to heal. It is that very nature which had fallen, revolted and plunged into inordinate desires. When our nature fled [from God], he took hold of it. When it dashed out and ran away in revolt, he stopped it, held onto it, enabled it to return and blocked its downward spiral. This is what the words of the apostle say in this regard: "For surely it is not with angels that he is concerned but with the descendants of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect."Christ therefore took upon himself a blood relationship to that nature which fornicated, in order to purify it. He took on that very nature that was sick, in order to heal it. He took on that nature which fell, in order to lift it up. All this occurred in a charitable, beneficial manner wholly appropriate to God. Although sinless, he became united to the flesh that is of the same essence as ours, which possesses an intelligent soul. It is with this premise that the gestation and conception from the Holy Spirit was spoken and the virgin birth occurred, the birth that knew not marriage or carnal union and that respected in an unspeakable manner the seal of virginal purity.

And Judah begat Pharez and Zarah of Tamar. Tamar was the daughter-in-law of Judah, the wife of his son Er (Gen. 38:6-30). When Er died childless, Judah married her to another of his sons, Onan. But when he, too, was cut down from among the living on account of his wickedness, Judah did not marry her to any other of his sons. But she desired to have a child of the seed of Abraham, and so she put off the garments of a widow, dressed as a harlot, came together with her father-in-law, and from him conceived twin boys. As she was giving birth to them, the first child reached its hand out from her womb, as if it would be born first, and at once the mid-wife marked the extended hand of the child with a scarlet thread so as to distinguish the firstborn. But the child drew its hand back into the womb and the other one was born first, followed by the one who had reached out its hand. So the one who was born first was named "Pharez" which means "interruption," for it had interrupted the natural order; and the child which withdrew its hand was named "Zarah." This account indicates a certain mystery. For just as Zarah first showed his hand and then withdrew it, so, too, the life in Christ appeared in those holy ones who lived before the law and circumcision. For all these were not counted as righteous by the observances of the law and the commandments, but by living the evangelic life of the Gospel. Consider Abraham who left his father and his home for God's sake and even denied the order of nature by his willingness to sacrifice Isaac. Consider Job, and Melchizedek. But when the law came, this manner of life receded. Just as in the story, Pharez was born and then Zarah came forth again, so too, when the law had been given, the evangelic life later shone forth again, marked with the scarlet thread, that is, sealed with the blood of Christ. The reason why the evangelist mentioned these two children, therefore, is that their birth revealed something mysterious. But there is another reason why he mentions Tamar, who does not appear to be praiseworthy on account of her physical relations with her father-in-law; and that was to show that Christ Who accepted all things for our sake, accepted even to have such forbears as these. It was moreover for this very reason that He was born from them, that He might sanctify them; for He came not to call the righteous, but the sinners.

Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar. Here one asks, since the Lord was not born of Zerah but of Perez, why was the former mentioned? Also, why was he expressed by name, whereas previously he said, his brothers? The answer, according to Ambrose, is that this took place in a mystery. To understand this, note the story in Gen (c. 38) that in Tamar's delivery, Zerah appeared first and the midwife tied a scarlet thread on his hand and said: (5:28) "This one came out first." Therefore, his name was called Zerah. But as he drew back his hand, the other came out. The midwife said: "What a breach you have made for yourself." But Zerah, who appeared first, signifies the Jewish people on whose hand the midwife tied the scarlet thread, i.e., circumcision, which involves a flow of blood. But as he drew back his hand, the other came out, because "a blinding has come upon part of Israel" (Rom 11:25). For thus the divided gentile people entered into the light of faith, having come from the matrix of ignorance and unbelief.

But morally, in those generations the status of our justification is designated according to the six requirements for justification: namely, faith, by Abraham, who was justified by the righteousness of faith; for elsewhere he is called the principle of faith: "The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised" (Rom 4:11). Isaac, hope, because it means laughter: "Rejoice in hope" (Rom 12:12). Jacob, charity, for he took two wives: Leah, which means labor, and Rachel, i.e., the two lives inspired by charity according to the two precepts: for the contemplative delights in God; the active is the life through which the neighbor is helped. Judah, confession, which is twofold: of faith: "Man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved" (Rom 10:10). The other confession is of sins: "Confess your sins to one another" (James 5:16). But two effects follow from this, namely, the destruction of vices, which is designated by Perez, and the origin of virtue, which is signified by Zerah. And these arise from Tamar, which means bitterness: "All my sleep has fled because of the bitterness of my soul" (Is 38:15).

Perez was the father of Hezron. Here is mentioned a list of the fathers born in Egypt or during the exodus. For just as by Perez, which means division, is signified Christ (Mt 25:32): "He will separate the sheep from the goats"; so by Hezron, which means arrow or inner court. For he is called arrow on account of the efficacy of preaching, which penetrates the hearts of the audience: "Your arrows are sharp in the heart of the king's enemies; the peoples fall under you" (Ps 45:5); but inner court on account of the breadth of charity, because it loved not only friends but enemies as well: "While we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son" (Rom 5:10); "He made intercession for the transgressors" (Is 53:12); "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Lk 23:34).

Hezron was the father of Ram. Ram means chosen or on high: "Behold my servant, and he is high above all" (Is 42:1); "He put him above every principality" (Eph 1:21).

(Vers. 4 seqq.) Naasson, however, fathered Salmon. Salmon, however, fathered Boaz by Rahab. Boaz, however, fathered Obed by Ruth. Obed, however, fathered Jesse. Jesse, however, fathered King David. David, however, king, fathered Solomon by her who had been Uriah's. Solomon, however, fathered Rehoboam. Rehoboam, however, fathered Abijah. Abijah, however, fathered Asa. Asa, however, fathered Jehoshaphat. Jehoshaphat, however, fathered Joram. This is Naasson, the prince of the tribe of Judah, as we read in Numbers (Num. I and II).

But as we believe that the names of these Fathers were given for some special reason under the providence of God, it follows, but Naasson begat Salmon. This Salmon after his father's death entered the promised land with Joshua as prince of the tribe of Judah. He took a wife of the name of Rahab. This Rahab is said to have been that Rahab the harlot of Jericho who entertained the spies of the children of Israel, and hid them safely. For Salmon being noble among the children of Israel, inasmuch as he was of the tribe of Judah, and son of the prince thereof, beheld Rahab so ennobled through her great faith, that she was worthy whom he should take to wife. Salmon is interpreted 'receive a vesselk,' perhaps as if invited in God's providence by his very name to receive Rahab a vessel of election.

Or following another interpretation, according to the abundance of grace, and the width of love. He isn Aram the chosen, according to that, Behold my Servant whom I have chosen. (Is. 42:1.) He is Aminadab, that is 'willingo,' in that He says, I will freely sacrifice to Thee. (Is. 54:6.) Also He is Naassonp, i. e. 'augury,' as He knows the past, the present, and the future; or, 'like a serpent,' according to that, Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness. (John 3:14.) He isq Salmon, i. e. 'that feeleth,'as He said, I feel that power is gone forth out of me. (Luke 8:46.)

Ram was the father of Amminadab, which means voluntarily. For it is in his person that Ps 54 (v. 6) says: "With a freewill offering I will sacrifice to you; I will give thanks to your name, O Lord, for it is good"; (Is 53:7): "He was offered, because he willed it; yet he opened not his mouth"; (Jn 6:38): "I came not to do my will but his who sent me."

Aminadab was the father of Nahshon, which means augury, or serpentine, because Christ knew not only present things but also the past and future: "All are open and laid bare to his sight" (Heb 4:13). Serpentine on account of prudence, for prudence is attributed to the serpent: "Be prudent as serpents" (Mt 10:16); "The deceived and the deceiver he knows" (Job 12:16).

Note that Nahshon lived in the time of Moses and departed with him from Egypt. He was also a chief in the tribe of Judah in the desert (Num 1:7). But note that Ex (13:18), where the text has, "The children of Israel left Egypt armed for battle," Aquila translated "prepared for battle," but the LXX text is better: "The children of Israel left Egypt in the fifth generation."

But it is said that one should count not through the tribe of Judah but through the tribe of Levi, under whose leadership the children of Israel left Egypt: "You lead your people like a flock, by the hand of Moses and Aaron" (Ps 77:20). And it is evident that there are only five generations: for Jacob was the father of Levi, Levi of Khath, Kohath of Amram, Amram of Moses and Aaron, and under Moses they left Egypt.

Note here that the tribe of Judah was multiplied more than all the other tribes, because kings, who should fight, were destined to come from it. The tribe which multiplied the least was Levi's, because it was pre-ordained to divine duties and the priesthood, for which fewer sufficed. Therefore, he desires that even by counting through the tribe of Judah the statement in Genesis (15:16) is true: "They shall come back here in the fifth generation." Therefore, Jerome says that what is said there should be understood by counting through the tribe of Levi; but what is said here, through the tribe of Judah. For Perez entered Egypt with Jacob and with Judah, his father. And it is evident that Nahshon was the fifth from Perez. Similarly, Levi entered Egypt with his father, Jacob. And therefore, the generations must be counted from Levi and not from Jacob. But it is clear that Moses was the fourth from Levi.

Nahshon was the father of Salmon. Salmon means sensible and signifies Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Morally, it should be noted here that just as in the first generation is signified the order of our justification as to the state of beginners; so in this second generation, which similarly contains five, is signified the progress of the proficients. For the first thing to follow from the fact that a man has been justified from sin is that he has zeal for souls. Therefore, it was fitting that Perez beget Hezron, which means arrow, on account of the efficacy of preaching, by which the hearts of the audience are penetrated: "He made me a polished arrow" (Is 49:2). The others are also adapted thus.

(ubi sup.) But how did Ruth who was an alien marry a man that was a Jew? and wherefore in Christ's genealogy did His Evangelist so much as mention a union, which in the eye of the law was bastard? Thus the Saviour's birth of a parentage not admitted by the law appears to us monstrous, until we attend to that declaration of the Apostle, The Law was not given for the righteous, but for the unrighteous. (1 Tim. 1:9.) For this woman who was an alien, a Moabitess, a nation with whom the Mosaic Law forbad all intermarriage, and shut them totally out of the Church, how did she enter into the Church, unless that she were holy and unstained in her life above the Law? Therefore she was exempt from this restriction of the Law, and deserved to be numbered in the Lord's lineage, chosen from the kindred of her mind, not of her body. To us she is a great example, for that in her was prefigured the entrance into the Lord's Church of all of us who are gathered out of the Gentiles.

Ruth the Moabitess fulfils the prophecy of Isaiah, Send forth, O Lord, the Lamb that shall rule over the earth, out of the rock of the desert to the mount of the daughter of Sion. (Is. 16:1.)

Seest thou that it was not for few nor small causes that he brought to our remembrance the whole history concerning Judah? For this end he hath mentioned Ruth also and Rahab, the one an alien, the other an harlot, that thou mayest learn that He came to do away with all our ills. For He hath come as a Physician, not as a Judge. Therefore in like manner as those of old took harlots for wives, even so God too espoused unto Himself the nature which had played the harlot: and this also prophets from the beginning declare to have taken place with respect to the Synagogue. But that spouse was ungrateful towards Him who had been an husband to her, whereas, the Church, when once delivered from the evils received from our fathers, continued to embrace the Bridegroom.

See, for instance, what befell Ruth, how like it is to the things which belong to us. For she was both of a strange race, and reduced to the utmost poverty, yet Boaz when he saw her neither despised her poverty nor abhorred her mean birth, as Christ having received the Church, being both an alien and in much poverty, took her to be partaker of the great blessings. But even as Ruth, if she had not before left her father, and renounced household and race, country and kindred, would not have attained unto this alliance; so the Church too, having forsaken the customs which men had received from their fathers, then, and not before, became lovely to the Bridegroom. Of this therefore the prophet discourses unto her, and saith, "Forget thy people, and thy father's house, so shall the king have pleasure in thy beauty." This Ruth did too, and because of this she became a mother of kings, even as the Church did likewise. For of her David himself sprung. So then to shame them by all these things, and to prevail on them not to be high-minded, he hath both composed the genealogy, and brought forward these women. Yes, for this last, through those who intervened, was parent to the great king, and of these David is not ashamed. For it cannot, nay, it cannot be that a man should be good or bad, obscure or glorious, either by the virtue or by the vice of his forefathers; but if one must say somewhat even paradoxical, he shines forth the more, who not being of worthy ancestors, has yet become excellent.

How Booz took to wife a Moabitess whose name was Ruth, I thought it needless to tell, seeing the Scripture concerning them is open to all. We need but say thus much, that Ruth married Booz for the reward of her faith, for that she had cast off the gods of her forefathers, and had chosen the living God. And Booz received her to wife for reward of his faith, that from such sanctified wedlock might be descended a kingly race.

This brave one is the son of Rahab, that is, of the Church; for Rahab signifies 'breadth' or 'spread out,' for because the Church of the Gentiles was called from all quarters of the earth, it is called 'breadth.'

They who look to wealth and not temper, to beauty and not faith, and require in a wife such endowments as are required in harlots, will not beget sons obedient to their parents or to God, but rebellious to both; that their children may be punishment of their ungodly wedlock. Obeth begat Jesse, that is 'refreshment,' for whoever is subject to God and his parents, begets such children as prove his 'refreshment.'

But how far wider an extent the Lord assigns to those crimes we are sure: when He defines adultery to consist even in concupiscence, "if one shall have cast an eye lustfully on," and stirred his soul with immodest commotion; when He judges murder to consist even in a word of curse or of reproach, and in every impulse of anger, and in the neglect of charity toward a brother just as John teaches, that he who hates his brother is a murderer.

Some believe Rachab to be that Rahab the harlot who received the spies of Jesus son of Nave [i.e. Joshua son of Nun]. She saved them, and was herself saved as well. He mentions her to show that just as she was a harlot, so, too, was the congregation of the nations, for they went whoring in their practices. But all those who accepted the spies of Jesus, that is, the apostles, and were convinced by their words, were saved from among the nations. And Boaz begat Obed of Ruth. Ruth was a foreigner but nevertheless she was married to Boaz (Ruth 4:13-17). So, too, the Church is from among the Gentiles. For like Ruth, these Gentiles had been foreigners and outside the covenants, yet they forsook their people, their idols, and their father, the devil. And as Ruth was wed to Boaz of the seed of Abraham, so too was the Church taken as bride by the Son of God.

And Obed begat Jesse; and Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of Uriah's wife. Again, he mentions Uriah's wife to show that no one should be ashamed of his forefathers but rather should strive by his own virtue to make even them illustrious. He also mentions Uriah's wife to show that all are acceptable to God, even those born of adultery, if only they have virtue.

Salmon was the father of Boaz by Rahab. Here are mentioned fathers born after the entry into the promised land. For Salmon was fathered in the desert and entered the promised land with Joshua; he took as his wife Rahab, a prostitute, from whom Boaz was born. Boaz means strong: "O Lord, my strength and my stronghold" (Jer 16:19). Rahab, however, means hunger or width, and signifies the Church, because beatitude is related to that hunger: "Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after justice, for they shall have their fill" (Mt 5:6). It means width, because the Church has been spread through the whole world: "Enlarge the place of your tent and let the curtains of your tents be stretched out" (Is 54:2). Likewise it means impetus, because by the impetus of preaching it converts kings and philosophers. It signifies, too, the Church by reason of the fact that Rahab placed in her window a scarlet thread, by which she was saved from the destruction of Jericho (Jos 2:21). Our window is the mouth: therefore, the thread in the window is our confession of the passion of Christ, through which the Church is freed from death. Likewise, by reason of the marriage: because just as Rahab was joined in marriage to Salmon, who was a chief in the tribe of Judah, so Christ espoused the Church to himself: "I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband" (2 Cor 11:2).

But here one asks according to the letter, since Rahab was a prostitute, how was she espoused to such a great chief, who was greater than many others? The answer is that Rahab did something great, in as much as she scorned her own people and her paternal rite and chose the worship of the God of Israel. Therefore, as if to show the greatest honor, she was given to the noblest chief.

Boaz was the father of Obed by Ruth. This is quoted from the last chapter of the Book of Ruth. Obed means serving or service; and it signifies Christ, of whom a prophet says: "You have made me serve in your sins" (Is 43:24). But Ruth signifies the Church born of the gentiles by reason of place: for she was a Moabitess. Moab means from the father: "You are from your father the devil" (Jn 8:44). And again by reason of marriage, as it says in a Gloss.

But why were these women mentioned here, since they were sinners? Jerome gives a reason touching Ruth, namely, that a prophecy be fulfilled: "Send a lamb, O Lord, to rule the earth from a rock in the desert" (Is 16:1). The rock of the desert is of evil, and Ruth the Moabitess is signified. Ambrose, however assigns another reason, saying: "It would come to pass that the Church would be composed of gentile unbelievers; and, therefore, it could blush and be embarrassed, unless they saw that even Christ was descended from sinners." Hence, in order to remove such embarrassment and confusion, they were to be listed.

But it says in Dt (25:3): "Moabites and Ammonites will not enter the Church." Therefore, since Ruth was a Moabitess, how was she received into the Church? The answer is from the Apostle to the Galatians (5:18) that those led by the Spirit are not under the law. But in a law the intention of the lawgiver is more to be considered than the words of the law. For what was the cause why the Lord forbade them to enter the Church? Because he found idolatry among them, he did not wish the just to be drawn into idolatry. Hence, when she was converted, she was no longer an idolatress and, therefore, not subject to the prohibition.

Obed was the father of Jesse. This is from the last chapter of Ruth. Jesse is taken to mean sacrifice or conflagration and signifies the one who offered himself as a victim to God in an odor of sweetness. But since he was also called Isai, as is clear in 1 Samuel in many places, why did not the evangelist use that name here? The answer is that this was done to show that in Christ was fulfilled the word of the prophet: "There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse" (Is 11:2).

(ubi sup.) But the holy David is the more excellent in this, that he confessed himself to be but man, and neglected not to wash out with the tears of repentance the sin of which he had been guilty, in so taking away Urias' wife. Herein showing us that none ought to trust in his own strength, for we have a mighty adversary whom we cannot overcome without God's aid. And you will commonly observe very heavy sins befalling to the share of illustrious men, that they may not from their other excellent virtues be thought more than men, but that you may see that as men they yield to temptation.

(De Cons. Ev. ii. 4.) Since in Matthew's genealogy is showed forth the taking on Him by Christ of our sins, therefore he descends from David to Solomon, in whose mother David had sinned. Luke ascends to David through Nathan, for through Nathan the prophet God punished David's sin; because Luke's genealogy is to show the putting away of our sins.

(Lib. Retract. ii. 16.) That is it, must be said, through a prophet of the same name, for it was not Nathan the son of David who reproved him, but a prophet of the same name.

The Evangelist has now finished the first fourteen generations, and is come to the second, which consists of royal personages, and therefore beginning with David, who was the first king in the tribe of Judah, he calls him David the king.

Besides, he does not name Bathsheba, that, by naming Urias, he may recal to memory that great wickedness which she was guilty of towards him.

Mystically, David is Christ, who overcame Golias, that is, the Devil. Urias, i. e. God is my light, is the Devil who says, I will be like the Highest. (Is. 14:14.) To Him the Church was married, when Christ on the Throne of the majesty of His Father loved her, and having made her beautiful, united her to Himself in wedlock. Or Urias is the Jewish nation who through the Law boasted of their light. From them Christ took away the Law, having taught it to speak of Himself. Bersabee is 'the well of satiety,' that is, the abundance of spiritual grace.

Let us enquire why Matthew does not mention Bathsheba by name as he does the other women. Because the others, though deserving of much blame, were yet commendable for many virtues. But Bathsheba was not only consenting in the adultery, but in the murder of her husband, hence her name is not introduced in the Lord's genealogy.

The Evangelist exposes and derides the passions of our race, its dishonors and ailments, to which the Word of God descended in his mercy. He descended to glorify them and raise them up by his charity. It in no way reflects badly upon the physician that he stoops to the level of those who are sick. Matthew could have written, "David became the father of Solomon by Bathsheba" (the name of the woman involved). In deriding, so to speak, adultery itself, he rather stated clearly, "And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah." He thus showed that Christ, who descended from such a degenerate race by generation, "took up our infirmities and bore the burden of our ills," as one of the prophets said.

Jesse was the father of David the king. David is taken to mean strong hand and fair to behold; both of which suit Christ, as is evident. For he was strong in overcoming the devil. "But when one stronger than he assails him and overcomes him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted and divides his spoil" (Lk 11:22). Also "he is the fairest of the sons of men" (Ps 45:2). But why was it that, since many of the others were kings, he is called king? The answer is that he was the first king in the tribe of Judah, from which the Lord was born. For although Saul had been king, he was from the tribe of Benjamin. The second reason is that the others reigned on account of the merits of David: "I will establish his line for ever and his throne as the days of the heavens" (Ps 89:29). The third reason is to show the fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy (23:5): "I will raise up for David a righteous branch and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land"; "Upon the throne of David and over his kingdom to establish it" (Is 9:7).

But morally in this generation the fruit of the perfect is designated, just as in other generations the fruit of beginners and proficients. For the first requirement for a perfect man is that he be brave in attacking adversities, so that he is not held back on account of some difficulty: and this is signified by Boaz, which is taken to mean brave: "They who hope in the Lord shall renew their strength, they shall mount up with wings like eagles; they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint" (Is 40:31); "Who shall find the valiant woman?" (Pr 31:10). The second is the humility of the servant, so that the greater one is, the humbler he is in all things; and this is signified by Obed, which is taken to mean incense or conflagration: "Let my prayer be directed as incense in your sight" (Ps 14:2). And from this, one arrives at the kingdom and glory, because Jesse was the father of David the king: "Who made them a kingdom and priests to our God" (Rev 5:20); "You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people" (1 Pt 2:9).

Having presented the genealogical series of the fathers which ran through the patriarchs, he now presents the series of fathers which came forth from kings. And it is divided into two parts: first are presented the kings born of Israel without a mixture of alien seed; secondly, the kings who undertook a union with foreigners at Joram was the father of Uzziah.

Here two questions arise: for Luke in recounting the generation of Christ ascends through Nathan; but Matthew proceeds in descending order from David to Christ through Solomon. Hence, there seems to be some contrariety. The answer, as has been said, is that Luke in the genealogy of Christ mentions many fathers who were not fathers of fleshly origin by propagation but according to legal adoption; but Matthew mentions no one who was not a father according to the flesh. And it is true that according to the flesh the Lord descended from David through Solomon and not through Nathan; nevertheless, according to Augustine there is no lack of mystery that Matthew goes from David through Solomon to Christ, but Luke ascends from Christ to David through Nathan. For Matthew had undertaken to describe the origin of Christ according to the flesh, in virtue of which Christ descended even unto the likeness of sinful flesh; and therefore, Matthew is correct in his genealogy's descending from David through Solomon, with whose mother David had sinned. But Luke, who intends to stress in Christ the priestly dignity, through which was expiation of sins, is correct in ascending to David through Nathan, who was a holy man. But note that according to the same Augustine in the Book of Retractions it is not supposed that this prophet Nathan who rebuked David was the same as the son he fathered, but that they were alike in name only.

The second question is why Bathsheba is not mentioned by name as were Tamar, Rahab and Ruth. The answer is that the others, although they had been sinners for a while, were later converted and repentant; but she committed the crime of adultery basely and consented to murder. Therefore, on account of the shame her name is kept silent.

But note that in Scripture sometimes the sins of the great are recorded, as David and others; and this, because the devil prostrates not only the small and lowly, but also the great; for he is our adversary. And therefore, as a warning they are mentioned, so that he who stands may not fall. Another reason is that they not think themselves more than men. For if someone were to consider only the perfection in them, he could be deceived into idolatry; but when he sees that they have fallen into sin, he no longer believes that they are superhuman.

Note, too, according to Augustine, that sometimes the literal fact is evil and the thing is very good; and sometimes the deed is good and the thing signified evil. For Uriah was a good and just man and is not reprehended for anything in Scripture; yet he signifies the devil. Bathsheba on the other hand was a sinner; yet she signifies a good thing, namely, the Church. For Uriah is taken to mean God my light and signifies the devil, who desired the light of divinity: "I will be like the Most High" (Is 14:14). Bathsheba is taken to mean seven wells or the well of a group and signifies the Church of the gentiles on account of the seven-fold grace of baptism. The devil first married her, but David, i.e., Christ, took her from him and became one with her and killed the devil. Or Bathsheba signifies the Law, through whose ways were led the people who do not want to enter the house through spiritual understanding but bring in the letters of their death, because "the letter kills" (2 Cor 3:6). But David, i.e., Christ, removed the Law from the Jews, when he taught how to understand it spiritually.

Solomon is interpreted 'peacemaker,' because having subdued all the nations round about, and made them tributary, he had a peaceful reign. Roboam is interpreted 'by a multitude of people,' for multitude is the mother of sedition; for where many are joined in a crime, that is commonly unpunishable. But a limit in numbers is the mistress of good order.

Or; 'the might of the people,' because he quickly converts the people to the faith.

Solomon was the father of Rehoboam. But just as David is taken to mean stronghanded or fair to behold, so Solomon, peaceful: and this is correct, because from the vigor of good activity arises peace of conscience: "Great peace have those who love thy law" (Ps 119:165). But it happens that from peace of conscience a man wants to arrive at the good. Hence, Solomon begot Rehoboam, which is taken to mean force, because by the force of preaching one with peace of conscience is moved to extend Christ's name, as it says of the apostles in Is (27:6): "They will come to Jacob with force, Israel shall blossom and bring forth fruits and fill the whole world with fruit." But both signify Christ, because he is peace. Also Rehoboam, who converted the people by the force of preaching.

Rehoboam was the father of Abijah, which is taken to mean God the Father, because, from the fact that a man is eager for the spiritual or bodily progress of others through works of mercy, he is made worthy of God's fatherhood, as it says below: (5:44): "Do good to those who hate you, that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven"; and in Lk (6:36): "Be merciful." This, too, befits Christ, to whom it is said: "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son" (Heb 1:5).

Abijah was the father of Asa, which is taken to mean raise up: because sometimes a man, after being made the father and superior over others, experiences an absence of confidence. Therefore, Abijah was the father of Asa, in order that a man make continual progress and raise himself always to higher things. This befits Christ, who is said to be raised up, i.e., growing: "The boy grew" (Lk 2:40). Or "raising up," because he took away the sins of the world.

(Hilar. Amast. V. et N. Test. q. 85.) Or, Ochozias, Joash, and Amasias, were excluded from the number, because their wickedness was continuous and without interval. For Solomon was suffered to hold the kingdom for his father's deserts, Roboam for his son's. But these three doing evil successively were excluded. This then is an example how a race is cut off when wickedness is shown therein in perpetual succession. And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias.

This Ezekias was he to whom, when he had no children, it was said, Set thy house in order, for thou shalt die. (Is. 38:1.) He wept, not from desire of longer life, for he knew that Solomon had thereby pleased God, that he had not asked length of days; but he wept, for he feared that God's promise should not be fulfilled, when himself, being in the line of David of whom Christ should come, was without children. And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias.

Morally; After David follows Solomon, which is interpreted, 'peaceful.' For one then becomes peaceful, when unlawful motions being composed, and being as it were already set in the everlasting rest, he serves God, and turns others to Him. Then follows Roboam, that is 'the breadth of the people.' For when there is no longer any thing to overcome within himself, it behoves a man to look abroad to others, and to draw with him the people of God to heavenly things. Next is Abias, that is, 'the Lord Father,' for these things premised, He may proclaim Himself the Son of God, and then He will be Asa, that is, 'raising up,' and will ascend to His Father from virtue to virtue: and He will become Josaphat, that is, 'judging,' for He will judge others, and will be judged of none. Thus he becomes Joram, that is, 'lofty,' as it were dwelling on high; and is made Oziah, that is, 'the strong One of the Lord,' as attributing all his strength to God, and persevering in his path. Then follows Jotham, that is, 'perfect,' for he groweth daily to greater perfection. And thus he becomes Ahaz, that is, 'embracing,' for by obedience knowledge is increased according to that, They have proclaimed the worship of the Lord, and have understood His doings. Then follows Ezekias, that is, 'the Lord is strong,' because he understands that God is strong, and so turning to His love, he becomes Manasses, 'forgetful,' because he gives up as forgotten all worldly things; and is made thereby Amon, that is, 'faithful,' for whoso despises all temporal things, defrauds no man of his goods. Thus he is made Josias, that is, 'in certain hope of the Lord's salvation;' for Josias is interpreted 'the salvation of the Lord.'

Thus the stain of the Gentile alliance being purged, the royal race is again taken up in the fourth following generation.

Joram, however, begot Oziam. Ozias, however, begot Joathan. Joathan, however, begot Achaz. Achaz, however, begot Ezechiam. Ezechias, however, begot Manassen. Manasses, however, begot Amon. Amon, however, begot Josiam. Josias, however, begot Jechoniam and his brothers in the Babylonian exile. In the fourth book of Kings (Ch. III, VIII and following), we read that Joram was begotten by Ochoziam, and after his death, Josabeth, daughter of King Joram and sister of Ochozia, took Joas, the son of her brother, and rescued him from the slaughter that was being carried out by Athalia (or Atholia). His son Amasias succeeded him to the kingdom, and after him his son Azarias, who is also called Ozias (or Ochozias). His son Joathan succeeded him. Therefore, you can see that according to the history, there were three kings in the middle whom the Evangelist omitted: for Joram did not beget Ozias, but Ochozias, and the others we mentioned. However, because it was the intent of the Evangelist to list three sets of fourteen generations in different periods of time, and Joram had married the most wicked Jezabel, his memory is removed up to the third generation, so as not to be included in the order of the holy birth.

In the fourth book of Kings we read, that Ochozias was the son of Joram. On his death, Josabeth, sister of Ochozias and daughter of Joram, took Joash, her brother's son, and preserved him from the slaughter of the royal seed by Athalias. To Joash succeeded his son Amasias; after him his son Azarias, who is called Ozias; after him his son Joatham. Thus you see according to historical truth there were three intervening kings, who are omitted by the Evangelist. Joram, moreover, begot not Ozias, but Ochozias, and the rest as we have related. But because it was the purpose of the Evangelist to make each of the three periods consist of fourteen generations, and because Joram had connected himself with Jezebel's most impious race, therefore his posterity to the third generation is omitted in tracing the lineage of the holy birth.

What the Holy Spirit testified through the Prophet, saying, that He would cut off every male from the house of Ahab, and Jezebel, that Jehu the son of Nausi fulfilled, and received the promise that his children to the fourth generation should sit on the throne of Israel. As great a blessing then as was given upon the house of Ahab, so great a curse was given on the house of Joram, because of the wicked daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, that his sons to the fourth generation should be cut out of the number of the Kings. Thus his sin descended on his posterity as it had been written, I will visit the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation. (Exod. 20:5.) Thus see how dangerous it is to marry with the seed of the ungodly.

But it may be asked, why the Evangelist says they were born in the carrying away, when they were born before the carrying away. He says this because they were born for this purpose, that they should be led captive, from the dominion of the whole nation, for their own and others' sins. And because God foreknew that they were to be carried away captive, therefore he says, they were born in the carrying away to Babylon. But of those whom the holy Evangelist places together in the Lord's genealogy, it should be known, that they were alike in good or ill fame. Judas and his brethren were notable for good, in like manner Phares and Zara, Jechonias and his brethren, were notable for evil.

Bersabee is interpreted 'the seventh well,' or 'the well of the oathc;' by which is signified the grant of baptism, in which is given the gift of the sevenfold Spirit, and the oath against the Devil is made. Christ is also Solomon, i. e. the peaceful, according to that of the Apostle, He is our peace. (Eph. 2:14.) Roboamd is, 'the breadth of the people,' according to that, Many shall come from the East and from the West.

He is also Abias, that is, 'the Lord Father,' according to that, One is your Father who is in heaven. (Mat. 23:9.) And again, Ye call me Master and Lord. (John 13:13.) He is also Asae, that is, 'lifting up,' according to that, Who taketh away the sins of the world. (John 1:29.) He is also Josaphat, that is, 'judging,' for, The Father hath committed all judgment unto the Son. (John 5:22.) He is also Joram, that is, 'lofty,' according to that, No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven. (John 3:13.) He is also Ozias, that is, 'the Lord's strength,' for The Lord is my strength and my praise. (Ps. 118:14.) He is also Jothamf, that is, 'completed,' or 'perfected,' for Christ is the end of the Law. (Rom. 10:4.) He is also Ahazg, that is, 'turning,' according to that, Be ye turned to Me. (Zech. 1:3.)

He is also Ezekias, that is, 'the strong Lord,' or, 'the Lord shall comfort;' according to that, Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world. (John 16:33.) He is also Manasses, that is, 'forgetful,' or, 'forgotten,' according to that, I will not remember your sins any more. (Ezek. 28.) He is also Aaronh, that is,' faithful,' according to that, The Lord is faithful in all His words. (Ps. 145:17.) He is also Josias, that is, 'the incense of the Lordi,' as, And being in an agony, He prayed more earnestly. (Luke 22:44.)

He is Jechoniask, that is, 'preparing,' or 'the Lord's preparation,' according to that, If I shall depart, I will also prepare a place for you. (John 14:3.)

Asa was the father of Jehoshaphat, which is taken to mean living on high, because the one appointed judge ought to live on high: "He will dwell on the heights" (Is 33:6). How this happens is told by the Apostle: "Our commonwealth is in heaven" (Phil 3:20). And this befits Christ, because "the Lord is high above all the nations."

Joram was the father of Uzziah. Here a question arises. For it says in 1 Chronicles (3:11) that Joram was the father of Ahaziah, who was the father of Joash, who was the father of Amaziah, also called Azariah. Amaziah was the father of Uzziah. Therefore, the evangelist seems to have erred twice in the genealogical series: first, because Joram was not the father of Uzziah; secondly, because he left out three generations. The answer to the first difficulty is that for one to generate another can be understood in two ways: mediately and immediately. Immediately, as the father according to the flesh immediately generates his son. In this sense, Joram did not generate Uzziah. In another way, mediately, as we are called sons of Adam; and so a son can be said to be generated by a father or grandfather, because he descended from him through a mediate generation.

There are three reasons why he left out three kings. The first is from Jerome, who says (as it is stated in Ex 20:5): "The Lord visits the sins of the fathers upon the children of the third and fourth generation of those who hate me." Now Joram married the daughter of Jezebel, named Athalia, who drew him to idolatry. Ahaziah was more given to idolatry than his father. Similarly Joram, along with the crime of idolatry, also slew Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada. Therefore, those three, as though unworthy, were excluded from the genealogy of Christ.

Chrysostom gives another reason. For the Lord (2 Kg 9) commanded Jehu, the son of Nimshi, to destroy the house of Ahab. He was diligent in executing the command, and yet he did not cease worshiping the gods, for he adored calves cast out of metal. And because he was diligent in carrying out the Lord's command by destroying Ahab's house, it was said to him that his sons to the fourth generation would sit upon the throne. Hence, just as Jehu merited the kingdom of Israel to the third or fourth generation, so oppositely, Joram, who had intercourse with pagan women and transferred the sin of the house of Israel to the house of Judah, was due to lose the name of his posterity in the genealogy of Christ to the fourth generation, having made expiation for his sin.

In Questions of the New and Old Testaments Augustine assigns another reason. For he says that some were good and they found good fathers, as Isaac and Jacob; some were evil and yet found good fathers, as Solomon was a sinner and yet had David, a just and holy man, as his father. Some were not good and did not have good fathers, as those three, as is clear from the foregoing. Joram sinned and his sin continued to Uzziah, who did almost no evil, except that he burned incense; but continuation in sin is the cause or reason of destruction. Therefore, those three, who persisted in the sin of idolatry, are excluded from the genealogy of Christ.

A mystical reason is assigned on account of the three uses of fourteen by which Matthew intends to describe the genealogy of Christ. Uzziah is taken to mean the Lord's robust one and it signifies Christ about whom it says in Ps 118 (v. 14): "The Lord is my strength and my song; he has become my salvation." Mystically, Joram was the father of Uzziah, because those who live in high places ought to act bravely. Note that Isaiah prophesied under this Uzziah, as is clear from Is (c. 13). For God removed prophecy and teaching on account of the sins of princes and kings; hence, under a good king prophecy began once more.

Or, 'embracing,' because None knoweth the Father but the Son. (Matt. 11:27.)

Uzziah was the father of Jotham, which is taken to mean perfect, and it signifies Christ, through whom the Church grows perfect daily. And so it was that Uzziah was the father of Jotham, because those who act bravely make continual progress: "They will go from virtue to virtue" (Ps 84:8).

Jotham was the father of Ahaz, which is taken to mean comprehending, because by continuous progress in the virtues a man comes to the knowledge of God: "Through your precepts I get understanding; therefore I hate every false way" (Ps 119:104); "They declared God's works and have understood what he has wrought" (Ps 64:9). Therefore, Paul says: "I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own" (Phil 3:12). And it befits Christ, who alone comprehends the godhead perfectly: "No one knows the Father, but the Son" (Lk 10:22).

Ahaz was the father of Hezekiah, i.e., the strong lord, because he had such strength from the Lord: "The Lord is my rock and my fortress" (2 Sam 22:2). And this befits Christ, who is strong in battle.

And that incense signifies prayer, the Psalmist witnesses, saying, Let my prayer come up as incense before Thee. (Ps. 141:2.) Or, 'The salvation of the Lord,' according to that, My salvation is for ever. (Is. 55.)

Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh and it means forgetful, because one who knows God so well forgets temporal things: "Forget your people and your father's house" (Ps 45:10); "God has made me forget all my hardship" (Gen 41:51). And this befits Christ of whom it says: "If a wicked man turns away from all his sins, I will not remember the sins he has committed" (Ez 18:21).

Manasseh was the father of Amon, i.e., faithful and nourishing, because he is truly faithful who spurns temporal things. For, according to Gregory, fraud is the daughter of greed; therefore, one who perfectly scorns temporal things is no longer worried about unbelief. Hence, it is well said that Manasseh was the father of Amon. For this is taken to mean nourishing, because one who spurns temporal things should mercifully use them to nourish the poor: "If you would be perfect, go and sell all you have": behold the scorn; "and give to the poor": behold the nourishment (Mt 19:21). This befits Christ, who is truly faithful: "It was I who taught Ephraim to walk, I took him up in my arms; but they did not know that I healed them" (Hos 11:3); "How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen her brood under her wings and you would not" (Mt 23:37).

Amon was the father of Josiah, which is taken to mean the Lord's salvation, or incense, because man obtains his salvation by forgetting temporal things, which he gives away and distributes. Or this incense befits Christ: "In the sight of their fathers he wrought marvels" (Ps 78:12); "He gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God" (Eph 5:2).

(In Luc. cap. 2.) That there were two kings of the name of Joakim, is clear from the Book of Kings. And Joakim slept with his fathers, and Joachin his son reigned, in his stead. (2 Kings 24:6.) This son is the same whom Jeremiah calls Jeconias. And rightly did St. Matthew purpose to differ from the Prophet, because he sought to show therein the great abundance of the Lord's mercies. For the Lord did not seek among men nobility of race, but suitably chose to be born of captives and of sinners, as He came to preach remission of sin to the captives. The Evangelist therefore did not conceal either of these; but rather showed them both, inasmuch as both were called Jeconias.

Verse 1. "In the third year of the reign of Joacim (Jehoiakim) king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it." Jehoiakim, son of the Josiah in whose thirteenth regnal year Jeremiah began to prophesy, and under whom the woman Hulda prophesied, was the same man as was called by the other name of Eliakim, and reigned over the tribes of Judah and Jerusalem eleven years. His son Jehoiachin surnamed Jeconiah, followed him in the kingship, and on the tenth day of the third month of his reign he was taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar's generals and brought to Babylon. In his place his paternal uncle Zedekiah, a son of Josiah, was appointed king, and in his eleventh year Jerusalem was captured and destroyed. Let no one therefore imagine that the Jehoiakim in the beginning of Daniel is the same person as the one who is spelled Jehoiachin in the commencement of Ezekiel. For the latter has "-chin" as its final syllable, whereas the former has "-kim." And it is for this reason that in the Gospel according to Matthew there seems to be a generation missing, because the second group of fourteen, extending to the time of Jehoiakim, ends with a son of Josiah, and the third group begins with Jehoiachin, son of Jehoiakim. Being ignorant of this factor, Porphyry formulated a slander against the Church which only revealed his own ignorance, as he tried to prove the evangelist Matthew guilty of error.

(Verse 12 and following) And after the Babylonian exile, Jechonias fathered Salathiel. Salathiel fathered Zorobabel. Zorobabel fathered Abiud. Abiud fathered Eliacim. Eliacim fathered Azor. Azor fathered Sadoc. Sadoc fathered Achim. Achim fathered Eliud. Eliud fathered Eleazar. Eleazar fathered Matthan. Matthan fathered Jacob. If we were to place Jechonias at the end of the first fourteen generations, in the next there would not be fourteen but thirteen. Therefore, let us know that Jeconiah is the same person as Joachim, the former being the father and the latter being the son; the former is written with 'c' and 'm', while the latter is written with 'ch' and 'n'. This confusion arose due to errors of the scribes and the passage of time among both the Greeks and the Latins.

Otherwise, we may consider the first Jeconias to be the same as Joakim, and the second to be the son not the father, the one being spelt with k and m, the second by ch and n. This distinction has been confounded both by Greeks and Latins, by the fault of writers and the lapse of time.

But the order in the Book of Kings (2 Kings 23.) is different, thus namely; Josias begot Eliakim, afterwards called Joakim; Joakim begot Jechonias. But Joakim is not reckoned among the Kings in the genealogy, because God's people had not set him on the throne, but Pharaoh by his might. For if it were just that only for their intermixture with the race of Ahab, three kings should be shut out of the number in the genealogy, was it not just that Joakim should be likewise shut out, whom Pharaoh had set up as king by hostile force? And thus Jechonias, who is the son of Joakim, and the grandson of Josiah, is reckoned among the kings as the son of Josiah, in place of his father who is omitted.

The "deportation to Babylon" means the captivity which they later endured when they were all led away into Babylon. For the Babylonians campaigned against them on another occasion, causing less affliction. But on this occasion, the Babylonians carried them all away from their homeland.

Josiah was the father of Jechoniah and his brothers. This is taken to mean the Lord's preparation or the resurrection, and it signifies Christ, who prepared a place for us (Jn 14) and who says: "I am the resurrection and the life" (Jn 11:22). And through this we come to the resurrection.

Here arise three textual questions: first, how Josiah is said to be the father of Jechoniah, whereas he begot not him but his father, Jehoiakim. There are two answers to this. According to Chrysostom, with whom Augustine agrees, the name of Jehoiakim is entirely omitted, because he reigned not by God's decree but by the power of Pharaoh, who established him in the kingdom after imprisoning his brother, Jotham, who had reigned before him. In regard to this, note the history in 2 Kings (c. 22) and 2 Chronicles (c. 36). Josiah had three sons, Jotham, Jehoahaz (also called Eliakim) and Zedekiah. For if, as Augustine says, those three kings are removed from the genealogy, because they were guilty of idolatry; how much more the one who was installed not by God or a prophet but by a pagan? The opinion is Jerome's but not the words, as he wishes and Ambrose concurs, that both were called Jehoiakim, i.e., the one mentioned at the end of the second fourteen and at the beginning of the third; and both Jechoniah and Jehoiakim are the same. Hence, it should be noted that Josiah had three sons: Jehoiakim, also called Eliakim, Jotham and Zedekiah. But when Josiah was dead, Jotham reigned, although he was the second son. After his capture and imprisonment by Pharaoh, king of Egypt, Jehoiakim was made king with the obligation of paying tribute. After Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, overcame the king of Egypt, he besieged Jerusalem and took Jehoiakim, whom he sent to Jerusalem under tribute. Later, when Jehoiakim, trusting in the king of Egypt's help, attempted to rebel against the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar went up to Jerusalem, captured and slew him, and put Jehoiakim's son in his place and called him Jehoiakim, the same name as his father. After this action Nebuchadnezzar feared that he might recall his father's death and form an alliance with the king of Egypt. So he returned to Jerusalem, attacked it, and this Jehoiakim, the son of the other Jehoiakim, surrendered himself and his wife and sons on the advice of Jeremiah to king Nebuchadnezzar; and they are properly said to have migrated in the transmigration. Nebuchadnezzar, however, appointed the father's brother, Zedekiah, king in his place and brought Jehoiakim to Babylon. He is the one about whom it is said later: and after the departure to Babylon.

But why was he called Jechoniah, when his name was Jehoiakim? The answer is that the name was given him by the prophet Jeremiah (22:24): "Thus says the Lord: though Coniah, the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, wore the signet ring on my right hand, yet I would tear you off." And in v. 28: "Is this man Coniah a despised broken pot?" And, therefore, the evangelist preferred to use that name, to show that he agrees with the prophet.

The second question is why it says Jechoniah and his brothers. For there were many kings who had brothers, but no mention is made of them. The answer is, according to Ambrose, that wherever mention is made of brothers, as when it says, "Judah and his brothers," and "Perez and Zerah by Tamar," it signifies that they were equal in holiness or malice. But those three were all evil. Or it can be said that it was because each of those brothers reigned, as is clear from what has been said. This was not true of the brothers of other kings.

The third question concerns the phrase, in the transmigration. It seems to be false, because Josiah never transmigrated. The answer is that this must be taken according to God's foreknowledge, according to which it was ordained that those whom he then generated would transmigrate. Or it can be said that in the transmigration is the same as near the transmigration, or when it was now imminent.

Of whom Jeremiah speaks. Write this man dethroned; for there shall not spring of his seed one sitting on the throne of David. (Jer. 22:30.) How is this said of the Prophet, that none of the seed of Jeconias should reign? For if Christ reigned, and Christ was of the seed of Jeconiah, then has the Prophet spoken falsely. But it is not there declared that there shall be none of the seed of Jeconiah, and so Christ is of his seed; and that Christ did reign, is not in contradiction to the prophecy; for He did not reign with worldly honours, as He said, My kingdom is not of this world. (John 18:36.)

But this seems to contradict the genealogy which is read in Chronicles (1 Chron. 3:17.). For there it is said, that Jeconias begot Salathiel and Phadaias, and Phadaias begot Zorobabel, and Zorobabel Mosollah, Ananias, and Salomith their sister. But we know that many parts of the Chronicles have been corrupted by time, and error of transcribers. Hence come many and controverted questions of genealogies which the Apostle bids us avoid (1 Tim. 1:4.). Or it may be said, that Salathiel and Phadaias are the same man under two different names. Or that Salathiel and Phadaias were brothers, and both had sons of the same name, and that the writer of the history followed the genealogy of Zorobabel, the son of Salathiel. From Abiud down to Joseph, no history is found in the Chronicles; but we read that the Hebrews had many other annals, which were called the Words of the Days, of which much was burned by Herod, who was a foreigner, in order to confound the descent of the royal line. And perhaps Joseph had read in them the names of his ancestors, or knew them from some other source. And thus the Evangelist could learn the succession of this genealogy. It should be noted, that the first Jeconiah is called the resurrection of the Lord, the second, the preparation of the Lord. Both are very applicable to the Lord Christ, who declares, I am the resurrection, and the life; (John 11:25.) and, I go to prepare a place for you. (John 14:2.) Salathiel, i. e. 'the Lord is my petition,' is suitable to Him who said, Holy Father, keep them whom Thou hast given Me. (John 17:11.)

(ubi sup.) After the carrying away, he sets Jeconiah again, as now become a private person.

Concerning Salathiell, we have read nothing either good or bad, but we suppose him to have been a holy man, and in the captivity to have constantly besought God in behalf of afflicted Israel, and that hence he was named Salathiel, 'the petition of Godm.' Salathiel begot Zorobabel, which is interpreted, 'flowing postponed,' or, 'of the confusion,' or here, 'the doctor of Babylonn.' I have read, but know not whether it be true, that both the priestly line and the royal line were united in Zorobabel; and that it was through him that the children of Israel returned into their own country. For that in a disputation held between three, of whom Zorobabel was one, each defending his own opinion, Zorobabel's sentence, that Truth was the strongest thing, prevailed; and that for this Darius granted him that the children of Israel should return to their country; and therefore after this providence of God, he was rightly called Zorobabel, 'the doctor of Babylon.' For what doctrine greater than to show that Truth is the mistress of all things?

But let us see what moral signification these names contain. After Jeconias, which means 'the preparation of the Lord,' follows Salathiel, i. e. 'God is my petition,' for he who is rightly prepared, prays not but of God. Again, he becomes Zorobabel, 'the master of Babylon,' that is, of the men of the earth, whom he makes to know concerning God, that He is their Father, which is signified in Abiud. Then that people rise again from their vices, whence follows Eliacim, 'the resurrection;' and thence rise to good works, which is Azor, and becomes Sadoch, i. e. 'righteous;' and then they are taught the love of their neighbour. He is my brother, which is signified in Achim; and through love to God he says of Him, 'My God,' which Eliud signifies. Then follows Eleazar, i. e. 'God is my helper;' he recognizes God as his helper. But whereto he tends is shown in Matthan, which is interpreted 'gift,' or 'giving;' for he looks to God as his benefactor; and as he wrestled with and overcame his vices in the beginning, so he does in the end of life, which belongs to Jacob, and thus he reaches Joseph, that is, 'The increase of virtues.'

He is also Zorobabel, that is, 'the master of confusion,' according to that, Your Master eateth with publicans and sinners. (Matt. 9:11.)

Here is given the third series of fourteen in the genealogy of Christ, and it lists private persons. Concerning Jechoniah, as was indicated above, there were two opinions: for Jerome and Ambrose think that the one was placed at the end of the first series of fourteen and went by the name of Jehoiakim; the other is the one named Jehoiachim. Augustine's opinion has been given above. For the transmigration of the children of Israel signifies the transfer of the faith to the gentiles: "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you" (Acts 13:46). In that transmigration was made, as it were, a certain reflection of the Jews upon the gentiles. Hence, someone is, as it were, constituted a corner; and therefore, Jechoniah signifies Christ, who was made the corner-stone, uniting in himself both the Jewish people and the gentiles: "The stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner" (Ps 118:22).

In Jeremiah (22:30) it says: "Write this man, Zedekiah, down as childless, a man who shall not succeed in his days; for none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David." How then is Christ said to have descended from David through Zedekiah, since it is written of Christ: "Upon the throne of David and over his kingdom to sit" (Is 9:7)? The answer is that, according to Ambrose, when Christ is said to sit upon the throne, it means a spiritual, not a material, throne, except in as much as a spiritual kingdom is signified by David's material kingdom.

Shealtiel was the father of Zerubbabel. But 1 Ch (c. 3) says that the sons of Jechoniah were Shealtiel, Malchiram, Pedaiah, whose sons were Zerubbabel and Shimei. No mention is made of Abiud. Therefore, it seems that the evangelist erred in saying that Shealtiel was the father of Zerubbabel and that Zerubbabel was the father of Abiud. Three answers are given to this in a Gloss. One answer is that in the book of Chronicles many things are marred by the mistakes of writers, especially matters pertaining to numbers and names. On account of these errors, the Apostle forbids the converts to occupy themselves with those genealogies, which promote speculation rather than divine training (1 Tim 4). Another answer is that Shealtiel had two names: for he was called Shealtiel and Caphadar; and therefore the book of Chronicles says that Zerubbabel is the son of Caphadara, but the evangelist that he is the son of Shealtiel. Therefore, there is no contrariety. A third answer is the truer one, namely, that Shealtiel and Caphadara were brothers, as it says in the book of Chronicles. Caphadara fathered a son whom he called by the same name, Zerubbabel, who was the father of Abiud. It should be noted that the book of Chronicles narrates the genealogy of Caphadara, but the evangelist that of Shealtiel, because Christ was to be born from him.

Note, too, that of those who were from Abiud to Joseph, no mention is made in the books of Sacred Scripture, but they were taken from the Hebrew people's annals, most of which Herod burned, in order to conceal the ignobility of his own ancestors. The text is evident; let us take up the mystical sense. Note, therefore, that in this section of the genealogy three orders are mentioned. The first is the order of teachers and contains four generations; for preparation is required before prayer: "Before prayer prepare your soul" (Sir 18:23) and therefore, after Jechoniah, which is taken to mean the Lord's preparation, comes Shealtiel, which means my petition; and it designates Christ, who in all things "is heard for his reverence" (Heb 5:7). But the prayer should come before teaching: "Pray that utterance may be given to me in opening my mouth" (Eph 6:19). And therefore, Shealtiel follows Zerubbabel, which means teacher of Babel, i.e., of confusion; because by the teaching and preaching of the apostles the gentiles were recalled to the true God, to the confusion of idolatry. And this especially befits Christ, who says: "You call me master and Lord, and you say well" (Jn 13:13).

He is Abiud, that is, 'He is my Father,' according to that, I and the Father are One. (John 10:30.) He is also Eliacimo, that is, 'God the Reviver,' according to that, I will revive him again in the last day. (John 6:54.) He is also Azor, that is, 'aided,' according to that, He who sent Me is with Me. (John 8:29.)

By teaching and preaching, however, a man acquires the dignity of a father; hence, those who give spiritual instruction are called father: "For although you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers" (1 Cor 4:15). And therefore there follows, Zerubbabel was the father of Abiud, which is interpreted as my father, and this befits Christ: "He shall cry to me, 'You are my father'" (Ps 89:26).

Abiud was the father of Eliakim. Here is designated the order of beginners or hearers. But the first effect which preaching makes in the hearer and which the preacher should intend is that he rise from vices to virtues, according to Eph (5:4): "Awake, O sleeper." And therefore, Abiud was the father of Eliakim, which is interpreted resurrection, and befits Christ, who says in Jn (11:26): "Everyone who believes in me has everlasting life." The one rising cannot reach the state of righteousness except by God's help, as it says in Ps 121 (v. 2): "My help is from the Lord." And therefore it follows: Eliakim was the father of Azor, which is interpreted helped. And this befits Christ, of whom it says in Ps 27 (v. 9): "Be my helper, O Lord."

He is also Sadoch, that is, 'the just,' or, 'the justified,' according to that, He was delivered, the just for the unjust. (1 Pet. 3:18.) He is also Achim, that is, 'my brother is He,' according to that, Whoso doeth the will of My Father, he is My brother. (Matt. 12:50.) He is also Eliud, that is, 'He is my God,' according to that, My Lord, and my God. (John 20:28.)

By means of this help one reaches righteousness; hence, Azor was the father of Zadok, which means just: "It is the justice of God for salvation to everyone who has faith" (Rom 1:22). The consummation or end of righteousness is charity: "The end of righteousness is Christ, the end of the precept is charity" (1 Tim 1:5). There are only two precepts, namely, the love of God and of neighbor: "And this commandment we have from God, that he who loves God shall also love his brother" (1 Jn 4:21). And therefore, Zadok follows Achim; and Achim Eliud. Achim means brother; hence, it signifies love of neighbor: "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity" (Ps 133:1). This befits Christ, who is our flesh and brother. And because love of neighbor cannot exist without love of God, it follows Eliud was the father of Achim. Eliud means my God: "I will love you, O Lord" (Ps 18:2). And this befits Christ: "You are my God" (Ps 34:15).

He is also Eleazar, i. e. 'God is my helper,' as in the seventeenth Psalm, My God, my helper. He is also Mathan, that is, 'giving,' or, 'given,' for, He gave gifts for men; (Eph. 4:8.) and, God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son. (John 3:16.)

He is also Jacob, 'that supplanteth,' for not only hath He supplanted the Devil, but hath given His power to His faithful people; as, Behold I have given you power to tread upon serpents. (Luke 10:19.)

Achim was the father of Eleazar. Here is designated the order of proficients. But one cannot make progress without God's help; hence, the first thing required for making progress is divine help. Therefore, Eliud is rightly followed by Eleazar, which means God, my helper: "Blessed is the man whose help is from you" (Ps 88:6). But because God can help towards salvation in many ways, as by removing obstacles and by giving occasions, the strongest help is by the gift of grace: "By the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor 15:10). And therefore, Eleazar, i.e., the help of God, is followed by Matthan, i.e., gift, namely, of divine grace. And this befits Christ, who is also the giver: "God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son" (Jn 3:16): "He gave gifts to men" (Eph 4:8). But because man could so rely on the gift of grace, that he would become negligent by not cooperating with grace through his free will, there follows Jacob, which means wrestler. Therefore 1 Cor (15:10) says: "By the grace of God I am what I am." and then, "and his grace in me has not been void"; "We urge you not to receive the grace of God in vain" (2 Cor 6:1). Now follows Joseph, i.e., increase, because by grace and the effort of free will a man reaches increase: "The path of the righteous is like the light of dawn, which shines brighter and brighter until full day" (Pr 4:18). Hence, Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary.

Matthew relates the human lineage of Christ in this way: After recounting the fathers from Abraham, he continues to Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom Jesus was born. It is not fitting to think of Joseph apart from his marriage to Mary, who bore Christ as a virgin and not from intercourse with him. For by his example an incomparable commendation is made to faithful married persons of the principle that even when by common consent they maintain their continence, the marital relation can still remain steadfast and still be rightly called one of wedlock, not by virtue of physical intercourse but by the heart's affection. This is especially so because it was possible for a son to be born to them without bodily embrace, which is intended within the purpose of procreation. Furthermore, Joseph should not have been denied being called Christ's father on the basis that he did not beget him through intercourse. For if he had adopted a child from another, he would have rightly been the father of one who was not even born from his own wife.Indeed, Christ was even considered by some to be the son of Joseph, just as if he had been simply born of his flesh. But this was believed by those who did not know of Mary's virginity. Luke says, "Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph." Instead of naming Mary his only parent, he had not the slightest hesitation in also speaking of both parties as his parents when he says, "And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was upon him. Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover." Lest any imagine that by the "parents" here was meant only Mary and her blood relations, we do well to recall that preceding word of Luke: "And his father and mother marveled at what was said about him."

Since he thus related that Christ was born from Mary as a virgin and not as a result of intercourse with Joseph, for what reason does Matthew call him his father, if not because we understand Joseph to be truly the husband of Mary, not through intercourse of the flesh but in virtue of the genuine spiritual union of marriage?… All this suggests that Luke's phrase, "as was supposed," was inserted with a view of correcting those of the opinion that he was born from Joseph in the same way that others are born.

(De Cons. Evang. ii. 2.) He is more properly called his son, by whom he was adopted, than had he been said to have been begotten of him of whose flesh he was not born. Wherefore Matthew, in saying Abraham begot Isaac, and continuing the same phrase throughout down to Jacob begot Joseph, sufficiently declares that he gives the father according to the order of nature, so as that we must hold Joseph to have been begotten, not adopted, by Jacob. Though even if Luke had used the word begotten, we need not have thought it any serious objection; for it is not absurd to say of an adopted son that he is begotten, not after the flesh, but by affection.

(De Cons. Evang. ii. 4.) And suitably does Luke, who relates Christ's ancestry not in the opening of his Gospel, but at his baptism, follow the line of adoption, as thus more clearly pointing Him out as the Priest that should make atonement for sin. For by adoption we are made the sons of God, by believing in the Son of God. But by the descent according to the flesh which Matthew follows, we rather see that the Son of God was for us made man. Luke sufficiently shows that he called Joseph the son of Heli, because he was adopted by Heli, by his calling Adam the son of God, which he was by grace, as he was set in Paradise, though he lost it afterwards by sinning.

(De Hæres. ii.) This is said against Valentinus, who taught that Christ took nothing of the Virgin Mary, but passed through her as through a channel or pipe.

Wherefore it pleased Him to take flesh of the womb of a woman, is known in His own secret counsels; whether that He might confer honour on both sexes alike, by taking the form of a man, and being born of a woman, or from some other reason which I would not hastily pronounce on.

(De Cons. Evang. ii. 1.) It was not lawful that he should think to separate himself from Mary for this, that she brought forth Christ as yet a Virgin. And herein may the faithful gather, that if they be married, and preserve strict continence on both sides, yet may their wedlock hold with union of love only, without carnal; for here they see that it is possible that a son be born without carnal embrace.

(De Nupt. et Concup. i. 11.) In Christ's parents was accomplished every good benefit of marriage, fidelity, progeny, and a sacrament. The progeny we see in the Lord Himself; fidelity, for there was no adultery; sacrament, for there was no divorce.

(ubi sup.) Also, the line of descent ought to be brought down to Joseph, that in wedlock no wrong might be done to the male sex, as the more worthy, provided only nothing was taken away from the truth; because Mary was of the seed of David.

(Id. non occ.) Hence then we believe that Mary was in the line of David; namely, because we believe the Scripture which affirms two things, both that Christ was of the seed of David according to the flesh, and that He should be conceived of Mary not by knowledge of man, but as yet a virgin.

Herein we must beware of the error of Nestorius, who thus speaks; "When Divine Scripture is to speak either of the birth of Christ which is of the Virgin Mary, or His death, it is never seen to put God, but either, Christ, or Son, or Lord; since these three are significative of the two natures, sometimes of this, sometimes of that, and sometimes of both this and that together. And here is a testimony to this, Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. For God the Word needed not a second birth of a woman."

(Hist. Eccles. 1.7.) For Matthan and Melchi at different periods had each a son by one and the same wife Jesca. Matthan, who traced through Solomon, first had her, and died leaving one son, Jacob by name. As the Law forbade not a widow, either dismissed from her husband, or after the death of her husband, to be married to another, so Melchi, who traced through Matthan, being of the same tribe but of another race, took this widow to his wife, and begat Heli his son. Thus shall we find Jacob and Heli, though of a different race, yet by the same mother, to have been brethren. One of whom, namely Jacob, after Heli his brother was deceased without issue, married his wife, and begat on her the third, Joseph, by nature indeed and reason his own son; whereupon also it is written, And Jacob begat Joseph. But by the Law, he was the son of Heli; for Jacob, being his brother, raised up seed to him. Thus the genealogy, both as recited by Matthew, and by Luke, stands right and true; Matthew saying, And Jacob begot Joseph; Luke saying, Which was the son, as it was supposed, (for he adds this withal,) of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Melchi. Nor could he have more significantly or properly expressed that way of generation according to the Law, which was made by a certain adoption that had respect to the dead, carefully leaving out the word begetting throughout even to the end.

(ubi sup.) Neither does this lack good authority; nor has it been suddenly devised by us for this purpose. For the kinsmen of our Saviour according to the flesh, either out of desire to show forth this their so great nobility of stock, or simply for the truth's sake, have delivered it unto us.

(De Eccles. Dog. 2.) The Son of God was born of human flesh, that is of Mary, and not by man after the way of nature, as Ebion says; and accordingly it is significantly added, Of her Jesus was born.

In the last place, after all the patriarchs, he sets down Joseph the husband of Mary, for whose sake all the rest are introduced, saying, But Jacob begot Joseph.

(Quæst. Nov. et Vet. Test. q. 49.) What God conveyed by the anointing of oil to those who were anointed to be kings, this the Holy Spirit conveyed upon the man Christ, adding thereto the expiation; wherefore when born He was called Christ; and thus it proceeds, who is called Christ.

(Ver. 16) But Jacob begot Joseph. Here Julianus Augustus has presented to us the disagreement of the Evangelists, why the evangelist Matthew called Joseph the son of Jacob, and Luke called him the son of Heli; not understanding the custom of the Scriptures, that one is according to nature, the other according to the Law his father. For we know this by the command of God given through Moses, that if a brother or relative without children dies, another should take his wife to raise up offspring for his brother or relative (Deut. II). Both Africanus, a historian of the time, and Eusebius of Caesarea extensively debated in their books the discrepancies in the Gospels.

This passage is objected to us by the Emperor Julian in his Discrepancy of the Evangelists. Matthew calls Joseph the son of Jacob, Luke makes him the son of Heli. He did not know the Scripture manner, one was his father by nature, the other by law. For we know that God commanded by Moses, that if a brother or near kinsman died without children, another should take his wife, to raise up seed to his brother or kinsman. (Deut. 25.) But of this matter Africanus the chronologistp, and Eusebius of Cæsarca, have disputed more fully.

When you hear this word husband, do not straight bethink you of wedlock, but remember the Scripture manner, which calls persons only betrothed husband and wife.

The attentive reader may ask, Seeing Joseph was not the father of the Lord and Saviour, how does his genealogy traced down to him in order pertain to the Lord? We will answer, first, that it is not the practice of Scripture to follow the female line in its genealogies; secondly, that Joseph and Mary were of the same tribe, and that he was thence compelled to take her to wife as a kinsman, and they were enrolled together at Bethlehem, as being come of one stock.

Having then mentioned all His forefathers, and ending with Joseph, he did not stop at this, but added, "Joseph the husband of Mary;" intimating that it was for her sake he traced his genealogy also. Then, lest when thou hast heard of the "husband of Mary," thou shouldest suppose that Christ was born after the common law of nature, mark, how he sets it right by that which follows. "Thou hast heard," saith he, "of an husband, thou hast heard of a mother, thou hast heard a name assigned to the child, therefore hear the manner too of the birth. "The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise." "Of what kind of birth art thou telling me, I pray thee, since thou hast already mentioned His ancestors?" "I still wish to tell thee the manner also of His birth." Seest thou, how he wakens up the hearer? For as though he were about to speak of something unusual, he promises to tell also the manner thereof.

And observe a most admirable order in the things he hath mentioned. For he did not proceed directly to the birth, but puts us in mind first, how many generations he was from Abraham, how many from David, and from the captivity of Babylon; and thus he sets the careful hearer upon considering the times, to show that this is the Christ who was preached by the prophets. For when thou hast numbered the generations, and hast learnt by the time that this is He, thou wilt readily receive likewise the miracle which took place in His birth. Thus, being about to tell of a certain great thing, His birth of a virgin, he first shadows over the statement, until he hath numbered the generations, by speaking of "an husband of Mary;" or rather he doth even put in short space the narration of the birth itself, and then proceeds to number also the years, reminding the hearer, that this is He, of whom the patriarch Jacob had said, He should then at length come, when the Jewish rulers had come to an end; of whom the prophet Daniel had proclaimed beforehand, that He should come after those many weeks. And if any one, counting the years spoken of to Daniel by the angel in a number of weeks, would trace down the time from the building of the city to His birth, by reckoning he will perceive the one to agree with the other.

But let us see what moral signification these names contain. After Jeconias, which means 'the preparation of the Lord,' follows Salathiel, i. e. 'God is my petition,' for he who is rightly prepared, prays not but of God. Again, he becomes Zorobabel, 'the master of Babylon,' that is, of the men of the earth, whom he makes to know concerning God, that He is their Father, which is signified in Abiud. Then that people rise again from their vices, whence follows Eliacim, 'the resurrection;' and thence rise to good works, which is Azor, and becomes Sadoch, i. e. 'righteous;' and then they are taught the love of their neighbour. He is my brother, which is signified in Achim; and through love to God he says of Him, 'My God,' which Eliud signifies. Then follows Eleazar, i. e. 'God is my helper;' he recognizes God as his helper. But whereto he tends is shown in Matthan, which is interpreted 'gift,' or 'giving;' for he looks to God as his benefactor; and as he wrestled with and overcame his vices in the beginning, so he does in the end of life, which belongs to Jacob, and thus he reaches Joseph, that is, 'The increase of virtues.'

He is also Joseph, that is, 'adding,' according to that, I came that they might have life, and that they might have it abundantly. (John 10:10.)

But to what shifts you resort, in your attempt to rob the syllable ex (of) of its proper force as a preposition, and to substitute another for it in a sense not found throughout the Holy Scriptures! You say that He was born through a virgin, not of a virgin, and in a womb, not of a womb, because the angel in the dream said to Joseph, "That which is born in her" (not of her) "is of the Holy Ghost." But the fact is, if he had meant "of her," he must have said "in her; "for that which was of her, was also in her. The angel's expression, therefore, "in her," has precisely the same meaning as the phrase "of her." It is, however, a fortunate circumstance that Matthew also, when tracing down the Lord's descent from Abraham to Mary, says, "Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Christ." But Paul, too, silences these critics when he says, "God sent forth His Son, made of a woman." Does he mean through a woman, or in a woman? Nay more, for the sake of greater emphasis, he uses the word "made" rather than born, although the use of the latter expression would have been simpler. But by saying "made," he not only confirmed the statement, "The Word was made flesh," but he also asserted the reality of the flesh which was made of a virgin.

Why does he give the genealogy of Joseph and not of Mary, the Theotokos? What participation did Joseph have in that seedless birth giving? Surely Joseph was not the true father of Jesus, so that Matthew could give Christ's genealogy through Joseph? Listen then: Joseph truly had no share in the birth of Christ; and therefore the genealogy of the Theotokos ought to have been given. But as it was not lawful to reckon ancestry through the mother, he did not give the genealogy of the Virgin. And yet, by giving the genealogy of Joseph, Matthew gave her genealogy as well. For it was the law that a woman was not to be taken as wife by a man who was of a different tribe and who was not of her father's lineage (Num. 36:8-9). This being the law, it is obvious that Joseph's genealogy includes that of the Theotokos, for she was of the same tribe and the same lineage. If she were not, she could not have been betrothed to him. So the evangelist both kept the law which forbade the reckoning of ancestry through the mother, and at the same time provided the genealogy of the Theotokos by giving the genealogy of Joseph. He calls Joseph "the husband of Mary," according to the common practice. For we are accustomed to call the man who is betrothed the "husband" of her who is betrothed, even before the marriage has taken place.

But two questions arise here. The first concerns the contrariety which seems to exist between Luke and Matthew: for Luke says that Joseph was from Eli, who was from Matthat; but Matthew says that he was from Jacob. Therefore, there seems to be contrariety between them. The answer is that the two were from the same stock but not from the same family, namely Matthan and Matthat. Matthan married Hesta, from whom Jacob was born. But when Matthan died, because the Law did not forbid a widow to marry, she married his brother Matthat, who begot Eli through her. Hence, Jacob and Eli were brothers from the same mother but not from the same father. Eli took a wife and died without children; hence, Jacob, to raise up seed to his brother, took the same wife and begot Joseph. Consequently, Joseph was Jacob's son according to the flesh, but Eli's by adoption. Therefore, Matthew, who mentions only fathers according to the flesh in his genealogy, says that Joseph was the son of Jacob; but Luke, who mentions many fathers not according to the flesh, calls him the son of Eli. The reason for this diversity has been explained above.

But it should be noted that when a brother took the wife of his brother, in order to restore his name, it should not be supposed that the son produced was called by the name of the dead brother. For Boaz, who took Ruth to raise up seed to Elimelech, begot a son, whom he did not call Elimelech but Obed. However, he is said to have revived this name, because that son was ascribed to him according to the Law. This is not unbelievable; because, as we read in the history of the Church, the apostles and evangelists were instructed about the genealogy of Christ by his immediate parents, who got some of it from their memory and some from the books of Chronicles.

The second question is this: Matthew intended to write the genealogy of Christ; therefore, since Christ was not the son of Joseph but only of Mary, why was it necessary to extend the genealogy of Christ from Abraham to Joseph? The answer is that it was customary among the Jews, and still is to this day, to take one's wife from his own tribe. Hence, it says in Num (36:7) that each one took a wife from his own tribe and relatives. And although this was not necessary to observe, yet from custom it was observed. Hence, Joseph took as his wife, Mary, who was his closest relative. And therefore, because they were from the same stock, this shows that since Joseph descended from David, also Mary and Christ were from the seed of David. But where does it say that Joseph and Mary were from the same tribe? The answer is clear from Luke (2:4), because at the time of the census Joseph and Mary went into the city of David, which is Bethlehem. Hence, the fact that he took her with him shows that they were from the same family.

But why does he not show Christ's genealogy from David through Mary? The answer is that it was not the custom among the Hebrews or even the gentiles to weave a genealogy through the woman. Hence, Christ, who had come for the salvation of men, willed in this matter to observe the customs of men. And so his genealogy is described not through women, especially since without danger to the truth his genealogy through men could be known.

The husband of Mary. Jerome says: "When you hear 'husband', suspicion should not be aroused about the wedding." But wasn't it a true marriage? The answer is that it was, because the three goods of marriage were there: the child, God himself; fidelity, because no adultery; and sacrament, because it was an indissoluble union of souls. What then is to be said? This is understood in regard to the completion of the wedding, which is by carnal union. But, as Augustine says, he is called the husband of Mary to show that the marriage is between two who vowed to be continent. But how was it a marriage? For the vow is an obstacle to contracting marriage and destroys the contract. Therefore, since the Blessed Virgin had vowed virginity, there seems to have been no marriage. Furthermore, there was consent to carnal union, if it was a marriage. The answer is that the Blessed Virgin faced a dilemma. For on the one hand was the Law's curse, to which a sterile woman was subject; on the other hand was her proposal to observe virginity, unless the Lord should ordain otherwise. Hence, she committed herself to the divine arrangement. As far as the statement that she consented to carnal union is concerned, it must be denied; but she consented to marriage directly and to carnal union, as it were, implicitly, if God willed it.

Of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ. Here two errors are excluded: one of them says that Christ was the son of Joseph. This is excluded by the fact that it says of whom [de qua]. For if he had been the son of Joseph, he would have said of whom [de quo] or at least of whom [de quibus]. Valentine's error is also excluded, for he said that Christ did not assume a body from the Blessed Virgin, but that he brought it from heaven and it passed through the Blessed Virgin as through a channel. Opposed to this is the fact that it says of whom. For if the case were as Valentine said, the evangelist would not have said of whom but "through whom" or "from whom", or something of that sort. For this preposition "de" in de qua always denotes consubstantiality. Hence, by the fact that he says de, he denotes that the body of Christ was from the body of the Blessed Virgin: "God sent his Son, born of woman, born under the law" (Gal 4:4). Here one must avoid Nestorius' error, who put two persons in Christ. Consequently, he did not admit that God was born and suffered. Neither did he attribute to the man things of God, such as to be eternal or to have created the stars. Hence in one of his letters he takes that text to confirm his error: of whom Jesus was born. He does not say "God" but Jesus, which is a man's name, and Christ. But according to this there would be no union in Christ, nor would Christ be described as one.

Hence, note that in Christ, because there is a union of two natures in one person, there is a "communication of idioms", so that things of God are attributed to the man, and conversely. And any example can be given of two accidents in a subject, as an apple is said to be white and tasty. As to the tasty thing, it is said to be white by reason of the fact that the apple is white, and conversely.

Who is called Christ. Note that he is simply called Christ without any addition. This denotes that he has been anointed with an invisible oil, not with a material oil as the kings and prophets in the Law: "Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows" (Ps 45:7).

(Vigil. Cont. Fel. 12. ap. Aug. t. 8. p. 45.) But not one was the Son of God, and another the son of a man; but the same Christ was the Son of both God and man. And as in one man, the soul is one and the body is another, so in the mediator between God and man, the Son of God was one, and the son of man another; yet of both together was one Christ the Lord. Two in distinction of substance, one in unity of Person. But the heretic objects; "how can you teach Him to have been born in time whom you say was before coeternal with His Father? For birth is as it were a motion of a thing not in being, before it be born, bringing about this, that by benefit of birth it come into being. Whence it is concluded, that He who was in being cannot be born; if He could be born He was not in being." (To this it is replied by Augustine;) Let us imagine, as many will have it, that the universe has a general soul, which by some unspeakable motion gives life to all seeds, so as that itself is not mixed up with the things it produces. When this then passes forth into the womb to form passible matter to its own uses, it makes one with itself the person of that thing which it is clear has not the same substance. And thus, the soul being active and the matter passive, of two substances is made one man, the soul and the flesh being distinct; thus it is that our confession is, that that soul is born of the womb which in coming to the womb we say conferred life on the thing conceived. He, I say, is said to be born of His mother, who shaped to Himself a body out of her, in which He might be born; not as though before He was born, His mother might, as far as pertained to Him, not have been in being. In like manner, yea in a manner yet more incomprehensible and sublime, the Son of God was born, by taking on Him perfect manhood of his Mother. He who by his singular almighty power is the cause of their being born to all things that are born.

(in Luc. c. 3.) Let us not think this is to be overlooked, that though there were seventeen Kings of Judæa between David and Jeconiah, Matthew only recounts fourteen. We must observe that there might be many more successions to the throne than generations of men; for some may live longer and beget children later; or might be altogether without seed; thence the number of Kings and of generations would not coincide.

(ubi sup.) Again, from Jeconiah to Joseph are computed twelve generations; yet he afterwards calls these also fourteen. But if you look attentively, you will be able to discover the method by which fourteen are reckoned here. Twelve are reckoned including Joseph, and Christ is the thirteenth; and history declares that there were two Joakims, that is two Jeconiahs, father and son. The Evangelist has not passed over either of these, but has named them both. Thus, adding the younger Jeconiah, fourteen generations are computed.

This particular number of generations, totaling forty, is a sign of that laborious period in which, under the discipline of Christ the King, we will continue to fight against the devil. The same number was foreshadowed in both the law and the prophets, who had already solemnized a fast of forty days for the humbling of the soul (this pattern was firmly set in the narratives of Moses and Elijah, each of whom fasted for forty days). The Gospel narrative itself then again foreshadowed this same number in the fast of the Lord himself, during his forty days of temptation by the devil. What else does this narrative show than that condition of temptation which pertains to us through all the space of this age? Christ bore this temptation in the flesh when he condescended to take upon himself our own mortality.Add to this also that after his resurrection, it was his will to remain with his disciples on the earth not longer than forty days. During this time he continued to mingle his resurrected life with theirs in the form of human intercourse. He shared with them food, which mortals need for life, even though he himself would never die. All this was done with the view of signifying to them through these forty days that although his presence would be later hidden from their eyes, he would yet fulfill what he promised when he said, "I am with you, even to the end of the world."67 There may be other and subtler methods of accounting for the length of this age, but the most apparent anticipations within the natural order of this number are the seasons of the years, which revolve in four successive alternations. Note also the fact that the world itself has its bounds determined by four divisions (which Scripture sometimes designates by the names of the winds, east and west, north or south). The number forty then is four times the cycle-completing number ten. The number ten, of course, is itself made up by adding one, two, three and four together.

(De Cons. Ev. ii. 4.) Or, one of Christ's forefathers is counted twice, because in him, Jeconiah to wit, there was made a passing off to strange nations since he was carried to Babylon. Wherever a series turns out of the right line to go in any other direction there is an angle made, and that part that is in the angle is reckoned twice. Thus here is a figure of Christ, who passes from the circumcision to the uncircumcision, and is made a cornerstone.

(ubi sup.) After having divided the whole into three periods of fourteen generations, he does not sum them all up and say, The sum of the whole is forty and two; because one of those fathers, that is Jeconiah, is reckoned twice; so that they do not amount to forty-two, as three times fourteen does, but because one is reckoned twice over, there are only forty-one generations. Matthew therefore, whose purpose was to draw out Christ's kingly character, counts forty successions in the genealogy exclusive of Christ. This number denotes the time for which we must be governed by Christ in this world, according to that painful discipline which is signified by the iron rod of which it is written in the Psalms, Thou shall rule them with a rod of iron. That this number should denote this our temporal life, a reason offers at hand, in this, that the seasons of the year are four, and that the world itself is bounded by four sides, the east, and west, the north, and the south. But forty contains ten four times. Moreover, ten itself is made up by a number proceeding from one to four.

Or we may say, that there are three Kings overlooked, as was said above.

Or in this number is signified the sevenfold grace of the Holy Spirit. The number is made up of seven, doubled, to show that the grace of the Holy Spirit is needed both for soul and body to salvation. Also the genealogy is divided into three portions of fourteen thus. The first from Abraham to David, so as that David is included in it; the second from David to the carrying away, in which David is not included, but the carrying away is included; the third is from the carrying away to Christ, in which if we say that Jeconiah is included, then the carrying away is included. In the first are denoted the men before the Law, in which you will find some of the men of the Law of nature, such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, all as far as Solomon. In the second are denoted the men under the Law; for all who are included in it were under the Law. In the third are found the men of grace; for it is finished in Christ, who was the giver of grace; and because in it was the deliverance from Babylon, signifying the deliverance from captivity that was made by Christ.

Or, the ten refers to the decalogue, the four to this life present, which passes through four seasons; or by the ten is meant the Old Testament, by the four the New.

(Verse 17) The man of Mary, from whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ. When you hear the word 'man', do not entertain the suspicion of marriage; but remember the custom of the Scriptures, that the husband is called the spouse of the bride.

He hath divided all the generations into three portions, to indicate that not even when their form of government was changed did they become better, but alike under an aristocracy, and under a king, and under an oligarchy, they were in the same evil ways, and whether popular leaders, or priests, or kings controlled them, it was no advantage to them in the way of virtue.

But wherefore hath he in the middle portion passed over three kings, and in the last, having set down twelve generations, affirmed them to be fourteen? The former question I leave for you to examine; for neither is it needful for me to explain all things to you, lest ye should grow indolent: but the second we will explain. To me then he seems in this place to be putting in the place of a generation, both the time of the captivity, and Christ Himself, by every means connecting Him with us. And full well doth he put us in mind of that captivity, making it manifest that not even when they went down thither, did they become more sober-minded; in order that from everything His coming may be shown to be necessary.

Wherefore, that he was not acting without an object, or by chance, when he distributed Christ's forefathers into three portions, is plain from what hath been said. And mark, too, whence he begins, and where he ends. From Abraham to David; from David to the captivity of Babylon; from this unto Christ Himself. For both at the beginning he put the two in close succession, David and Abraham, and also in summing up he mentions both in the same way. And this, because, as I have already said, it was to them that the promises were made.

But why can it be, that as he mentioned the captivity of Babylon, he did not mention also the descent into Egypt? Because they had ceased to be any longer afraid of the Egyptians, but the Babylonians they dreaded still. And the one thing was ancient, but the other fresh, and had taken place of late. And to the one they were carried down for no sins, but to the other, transgressions were the cause of their being removed.

Having enumerated the generations from Abraham to Christ, he divides them into three divisions of fourteen generations, because three times at the end of fourteen generations the state of the people of the Jews was changed. From Abraham to David they were under Judges; from David to the carrying away into Babylon under Kings; from the carrying away to Christ under the High Priests. What he would show then is this; like as ever at the end of fourteen generations the state of men has changed, so there being fourteen generations completed from the carrying away to Christ, it must needs be that the state of men be changed by Christ. And so since Christ all the Gentiles have been made under one Christ Judge, King, and Priest. And for that Judges, Kings, and Priests prefigured Christ's dignity, their beginnings were always in a type of Christ; the first of the Judges was Joshua the son of Nave; the first of the Kings, David; the first of the Priests, Jesus son of Josedech. That this was typical of Christ none doubts.

Or, the same Jeconiah is counted twice in the Gospel, once before the carrying away, and again after the carrying away. For this Jeconiah being one person had two different conditions; before the carrying away he was King, as being made King by the people of God; but he became a private man at the carrying away; hence he is reckoned once among the Kings before the carrying away; and after the carrying away once among private men.

He made fourteen generations, because the ten denotes the decalogue, and the four the four books of the Gospel; whence this shows the agreement of the Law and the Gospel. And he put the fourteen three times over, that he might show that the perfection of law, prophecy, and grace, consists in the faith of the Holy Trinity.

But if any, maintaining that it is not the same Jeconiah, but two different persons, make the number forty and two, we then shall say that the Holy Church is signified; for this number is the product of seven, and six; (for six times seven make forty-two;) the six denotes labour, and the seven rest.

So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the deportation to Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. He divides the generations into three different conditions of leadership, to show the Jews that although they were ruled by judges, as they were until David, and by kings, as they were until the deportation, and by priests, as they were until Christ, yet it did not benefit them at all in acquiring virtue; but they were in need of the true Judge and King and Priest, Who is Christ. For when the line of their rulers had failed, then Christ came, in accordance with the prophecy of Jacob. How can there be fourteen generations from the deportation to Babylon until Christ when only thirteen persons are mentioned? If the reckoning of ancestry through the mother could be given, we would list Mary as well, and thus complete the number. But since it cannot, how can this be resolved? Some say that he counted the deportation itself as a person, that is, as a generation.

So all the generations. Having mentioned the generation of Christ, he concludes to the number of generations. The first series of fourteen is from Abraham to David inclusively; hence David is included in that first set of fourteen. The second set of fourteen extends from David exclusively, namely, in such a way that David himself is not counted; but it begins with Solomon and ends at the transmigration to Babylon. And this is: and from David to the transmigration to Babylon. The third begins with the transmigration to Babylon and ends in Christ, so that Christ is the fourteenth.

But why was the evangelist so diligent and careful to distinguish Christ's generation into three sets of fourteen? Chrysostom assigns a reason: because in those three sets of fourteen there always occurred some change in the people of Israel. For during the first fourteen they were under leaders; in the second under kings; in the third under high priests. And Christ himself is leader and king and high priest: "The Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king" (Is 33:22). About his priesthood it says in Ps 110 (v. 4): "You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek."

He assigns another reason, namely, to show the need for Christ's coming. For in the first fourteen they asked for a king against God's will and they transgressed the Law; in the second, however, they were led into captivity on account of their sins; but in the third through Christ we are freed from all the guilt and misery and slavery of sin.

Jerome assigns a third reason: because by those three are signified the three times in which the life of all men is led. For by the first fourteen is signified the time before the Law, because in it are mentioned certain fathers who lived before the Law; by the second time under the Law, because all those mentioned are under the Law; by the third, however, the time of grace, because it is terminated at Christ, through whom "grace and truth come" (Jn 1:17). This distinction also suits a mystery, because fourteen is a number composed of ten and four. By ten, therefore, is understood the Old Testament, which was given in ten commandments; but by four, the Gospel, which is distinguished into four books. These fourteens designate faith in the Trinity. Hence, by the fact that Matthew divides his genealogy into three sets of fourteen is designated that through New and Old Testaments by faith in the Trinity one arrives at Christ.

Concerning the number of generations there are two opinions. For according to Jerome, who says that the Jechoniah at the end of the second set of fourteen is not the same as the one at the beginning of the third; there are forty-two generations; as many as three fourteens make. But according to Augustine, there are only forty-one and that Christ is that one. And this befits a mystery. For fourteen arise by adding four to ten and conversely. But according to the Platonists, four is the number for bodies; for a body is composed of four elements. Ten is the number resulting from the addition of the linear numbers: for one, two, three and four make ten. And because Matthew intends to declare how Christ descended linearly to us, he comes to us by forty generations. But Luke, who intends to commend in Christ the priestly dignity, to which belongs expiation of sins: "I say to you, not seven times, but seventy times seven times" (Mt 18:22), presents seventy-seven generations. This number comes from multiplying seven by eleven. By eleven, therefore, the transgression of the decalogue is understood; by seven the sevenfold grace, through which remission of sins comes about. The fact that Jerome posits forty-two generations is not devoid of mystery, because by those two are understood the two precepts of charity, or the two Testaments, New and Old.

(Vigil. Cont. Fel. 12. ap. Aug. t. 8. p. 45.) But not one was the Son of God, and another the son of a man; but the same Christ was the Son of both God and man. And as in one man, the soul is one and the body is another, so in the mediator between God and man, the Son of God was one, and the son of man another; yet of both together was one Christ the Lord. Two in distinction of substance, one in unity of Person. But the heretic objects; "how can you teach Him to have been born in time whom you say was before coeternal with His Father? For birth is as it were a motion of a thing not in being, before it be born, bringing about this, that by benefit of birth it come into being. Whence it is concluded, that He who was in being cannot be born; if He could be born He was not in being." (To this it is replied by Augustine;) Let us imagine, as many will have it, that the universe has a general soul, which by some unspeakable motion gives life to all seeds, so as that itself is not mixed up with the things it produces. When this then passes forth into the womb to form passible matter to its own uses, it makes one with itself the person of that thing which it is clear has not the same substance. And thus, the soul being active and the matter passive, of two substances is made one man, the soul and the flesh being distinct; thus it is that our confession is, that that soul is born of the womb which in coming to the womb we say conferred life on the thing conceived. He, I say, is said to be born of His mother, who shaped to Himself a body out of her, in which He might be born; not as though before He was born, His mother might, as far as pertained to Him, not have been in being. In like manner, yea in a manner yet more incomprehensible and sublime, the Son of God was born, by taking on Him perfect manhood of his Mother. He who by his singular almighty power is the cause of their being born to all things that are born.

(De Spir. Sanct. ii. 5.) That which is of any thing is either of the substance or the power of that thing; of the substance, as the Son who is of the Father; of the power, as all things are of God, even as Mary was with child of the Holy Spirit.

(De Nupt. et Concup. i. 12.) There was no carnal knowledge in this wedlock, because in sinful flesh this could not be without carnal desire which came of sin, and which He would be without, who was to be without sin; and that hence He might teach us that all flesh which is born of sexual union is sinful flesh, seeing that Flesh alone was without sin, which was not so born.

(Enchir c. 40.) Furthermore, this manner in which Christ was born of the Holy Spirit suggests to us the grace of God, by which man without any previous merits, in the very beginning of his nature, was united with the Word of God into so great unity of person, that he was also made son of God. (c. 38.). But inasmuch as the whole Trinity wrought to make this creature which was conceived of the Virgin, though pertaining only to the person of the Son, (for the works of the Trinity are indivisible,) why is the Holy Spirit only named in this work? Must we always, when one of the Three is named in any work, understand that the whole Trinity worked in that?

(De Cons. Evang. ii. 5.) How this was done Matthew omits to write, but Luke relates after the conception of John, In the sixth month the Angel was sent; and again, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee. This is what Matthew relates in these words, She was found with child of the Holy Ghost. And it is no contradiction that Luke has described what Matthew omits; or again that Matthew relates what Luke has omitted; that namely which follows, from Now Joseph her husband being a just man, to that place where it is said of the Magi, that They returned into their own country another way. If one desired to digest into one narrative the two accounts of Christ's birth, he would arrange thus; beginning with Matthew's words, Now the birth of Christ was on this wise; (Luke 1:5.) then taking up with Luke, from There was in the days of Herod, to, Mary abode with her three months, and returned to her house; then taking up again Matthew, add, She was found with child of the Holy Ghost. (Mat. 1:10.)

(in Luc. c. 3.) Mary is interpreted, 'Star of the Sea,' after the Hebrew; 'Mistress,' after the Syriac; as she bare into the world the Light of salvation, and the Lordr.

We read of Mary that "she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit" (Mt 1:18). But I think the bride of the Lord has something similar in this respect to his mother. For unless she also had been found as having from the Holy Spirit, she would by no means have so familiarly inquired from those who found her concerning him whose Spirit that is. She did not wait for them to declare for what purpose they had come; she herself spoke, and indeed from the abundance of the heart: "Have you seen him whom my soul loves?" She knew that blessed were the eyes that had seen, and marveling at those who had seen, she was saying: Are you those to whom it was given to see him whom so many kings and prophets wished to see and did not see? Are you those who merited to behold Wisdom in the flesh, Truth in a body, God in a man?

There is an activity of God displayed throughout creation, a wholesale activity let us say which men refuse to recognize. The miracles done by God incarnate, living as a man in Palestine, perform the very same things as this wholesale activity, but at a different speed and on a smaller scale. One of their chief purposes is that men, having seen a thing done by personal power on the small scale, may recognize, when they see the same thing done on the large scale, that the power behind it is also personal – is indeed the very same person who lived among us two thousand years ago. The miracles in fact are a retelling in small letters of the very same story which is written across the whole world in letters too large for some of us to see...

I can understand the man who denies the miraculous altogether; but what is one to make of the people who admit some miracles but deny the Virgin Birth? Is it that for all their lip service to the laws of Nature there is only one law of Nature that they really believe? Or is it that they see in this miracle a slur upon sexual intercourse which is rapidly becoming the one thing venerated in a world without veneration? No miracle is in fact more significant. What happens in ordinary generation? What is a father's function in the act of begetting? A microscopic particle of matter from his body fertilizes the female: and with that microscopic particle passes, it may be, the color of his hair and his great grandfather's hanging lip, and the human form in all its complexity of bones, liver, sinews, heart, and limbs, and pre-human form which the embryo will recapitulate in the womb. Behind every spermatozoon lies the whole history of the universe: locked within it is no small part of the world's future. That is God's normal way of making a man – a process that takes centuries, beginning with the creation of matter itself, and narrowing to one second and one particle at the moment of begetting. And once again men will mistake the sense impressions which this creative act throws off for the act itself or else refer it to some infinite being such as Genius. Once, therefore, God does it directly, instantaneously; without a spermatozoon, without the millenniums of organic history behind the spermatozoon. There was of course another reason. This time He was creating not simply a man, but the man who was to be Himself: the only true Man. The process which leads to the spermatozoon has carried down with it through the centuries much undesirable silt; the life which reaches us by that normal route is tainted. To avoid that taint, to give humanity a fresh start, he once short-circuited the process. There is a vulgar anti-God paper which some anonymous donor sends me every week. In it recently I saw the taunt that we Christians believe in a God who committed adultery with the wife of a Jewish carpenter. The answer to that is that if you describe the action of God in fertilizing Mary as "adultery" then, in that sense, God would have committed adultery with every woman who ever had a baby. For what He did once without a human father, He does always even when He uses a human father as His instrument. For the human father in ordinary generation is only a carrier, sometimes an unwilling carrier, always the last in a long line of carriers, of life that comes from the supreme life. Thus the filth that our poor, muddled, sincere, resentful enemies fling at the Holy One, either does not stick, or, sticking, turns into glory.

Those who do not know that this great myth became fact when the Virgin conceived are, indeed, to be pitied. But Christians also need to be reminded... that what became fact was a myth, that it carries with it into the world of fact all the properties of a myth. God is more than a god, not less; Christ is more than Balder, not less.

For blessed Matthew, after enumerating the genealogy of Christ, added the following regarding hope for our salvation: "After Mary, mother of Jesus, had been betrothed to Joseph, she was found to be pregnant by the Holy Spirit before they were married." This is the heavenly mystery, this sacrament obscured and hidden by the Holy Spirit. Luke describes in greater detail the manner of the Lord's incarnation, for he recounts how an angel came to Mary and greeted her saying, "Hail woman full of grace," and the rest that follows. And when Mary asked him how what he had been proclaiming to her could take place—because she had never had relations with a man—he said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. And thus what is born from you will be called the Son of God." It was right that holy Mary, who was about to conceive the Lord of glory in her womb, be informed about the Holy Spirit and the excellence of the Most High when she received into her blessed womb the Creator of the world. Indeed, both Matthew and Luke began their narratives with the corporeal birth of the Lord. John, however, addresses the issue of Jesus' divine birth in the preface to his Gospel: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. This was with God in the beginning. All things were made through him and without him nothing was made." The Evangelists help us to recognize both the divine and corporeal birth of the Lord, which they describe as a twofold mystery and a kind of double path. Indeed, both the divine and the bodily birth of the Lord are indescribable, but that from the Father vastly exceeds every means of description and wonder. The bodily birth of Christ was in time; his divine birth was before time. The one in this age, the other before the ages. The one from a virgin mother, the other from God the Father. Angels and men stood as witnesses at the corporeal birth of the Lord, yet at his divine birth there was no witness except the Father and the Son, because nothing existed before the Father and the Son. But because the Word could not be seen as God in the glory of his own divinity, he assumed visible flesh to demonstrate his invisible divinity. He took from us what is ours in order to give generously what is his.

(Epist. ad Monach. Egypt. [Ep. p. 7.]) What will any one see in the Blessed Virgin more than in other mothers, if she be not the mother of God, but of Christ, or the Lord, as Nestorius says? For it would not be absurd should any one please to name the mother of any anointed person, the mother of Christ. Yet she alone and more than they is called the Holy Virgin, and the mother of Christ. For she bare not a simple man as ye say, but rather the Word incarnate, and made man of God the Father. But perhaps you say, Tell me, do you think the Virgin was made the mother of His divinity? To this also we say, that the Word was born of the very substance of God Himself, and without beginning of time always coexisted with the Father. But in these last times when He was made flesh, that is united to flesh, having a rational soul, He is said to be born of a woman after the flesh. Yet is this sacrament in a manner brought out like to birth among us; for the mothers of earthly children impart to their nature that flesh that is to be perfected by degrees in the human form; but God sends the life into the animal. But though these are mothers only of the earthly bodies, yet when they bear children, they are said to bear the whole animal, and not a part of it only. Such do we see to have been done in the birth of Emmanuel; the Word of God was born of the substance of His Father; but because He took on Him flesh, making it His own, it is necessary to confess that He was born of a woman according to the flesh. Where seeing He is truly God, how shall any one doubt to call the Holy Virgin the Mother of God?

(Epist. ad Joan Antioch [Ep. p. 107.]) But if we were to say that the holy Body of Christ came down from heaven, and was not made of His mother, as Valentinus does, in what sense could Mary be the Mother of God?

The name of His Mother is added, Mary.

And to whom she was betrothed is shown, Joseph.

But the words denote carnal knowledge.

(ap. Anselm.) Therefore the words, Is of the Holy Ghost, were set down by the Evangelist, to the end, that when it was said that she was with child, all wrong suspicion should be removed from the minds of the hearers.

For what reason did God, deciding that the Savior should be born from a virgin, not choose a virgin who was not betrothed? Might it have been, then, an economy for her to conceive while having a betrothed, so that it might not appear as a disgrace upon her body for her to conceive? For it is rightly written in one of the letters of a certain martyr—I mean Ignatius, the second bishop of Antioch after the blessed Peter, who fought with beasts in Rome during the persecution—"and the virginity of Mary escaped the notice of the ruler of this age." So, if it had not been for what seemed to be a marriage, it would not have escaped his notice, but the ruler of this age would have known that Mary, having never slept with a man, conceived, and thus the conception must be divine. The Savior wished through the entire economy to elude the devil, and indeed ordered the disciples not to make him manifest.

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

Notice, he [Helvidius] says, that the word used is betrothed, not entrusted as you say, and of course the only reason why she was betrothed was that she might one day be married. And the Evangelist would not have said before they came together if they were not to come together, for no one would use the phrase before he dined of a man who was not going to dine. Then, again, the angel calls her wife and speaks of her as united to Joseph...

Let us take the points one by one, and follow the tracks of this impiety that we may show that he has contradicted himself. He admits that she was betrothed, and in the next breath will have her to be a man's wife whom he has admitted to be his betrothed. Again, he calls her wife, and then says the only reason why she was betrothed was that she might one day be married. And, for fear we might not think that enough, "the word used," he says, "is betrothed and not entrusted, that is to say, not yet a wife, not yet united by the bond of wedlock." But when he continues, "the Evangelist would never have applied the words, before they came together to persons who were not to come together, any more than one says, before he dined, when the man is not going to dine," I know not whether to grieve or laugh. Shall I convict him of ignorance, or accuse him of rashness? Just as if, supposing a person to say, "Before dining in harbour I sailed to Africa," his words could not hold good unless he were compelled some day to dine in harbour. If I choose to say, "the apostle Paul before he went to Spain was put in fetters at Rome," or (as I certainly might) "Helvidius, before he repented, was cut off by death," must Paul on being released at once go to Spain, or must Helvidius repent after death, although the Scripture says "In sheol who shall give you thanks?" Must we not rather understand that the preposition before, although it frequently denotes order in time, yet sometimes refers only to order in thought? So that there is no necessity, if sufficient cause intervened to prevent it, for our thoughts to be realized. When, then, the Evangelist says before they came together, he indicates the time immediately preceding marriage, and shows that matters were so far advanced that she who had been betrothed was on the point of becoming a wife. As though he said, before they kissed and embraced, before the consummation of marriage, she was found to be with child. And she was found to be so by none other than Joseph, who watched the swelling womb of his betrothed with the anxious glances, and, at this time, almost the privilege, of a husband. Yet it does not follow, as the previous examples showed, that he had intercourse with Mary after her delivery, when his desires had been quenched by the fact that she had already conceived. And although we find it said to Joseph in a dream, "Fear not to take Mary your wife"; and again, "Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife," no one ought to be disturbed by this, as though, inasmuch as she is called wife, she ceases to be betrothed, for we know it is usual in Scripture to give the title to those who are betrothed. The following evidence from Deuteronomy establishes the point. [Deuteronomy 22:24-25] "If the man," says the writer, "find the damsel that is betrothed in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her, he shall surely die, because he has humbled his neighbour's wife." And in another place, [Deuteronomy 22:23-24] "If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then you shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and you shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he has humbled his neighbour's wife: so you shall put away the evil from the midst of you." Elsewhere also, [Deuteronomy 20:7] "And what man is there that has betrothed a wife, and has not taken her? Let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her."

(Verse 18.) And from the deportation to Babylon to Christ, fourteen generations. Count from Jechoniah to Joseph, and you will find thirteen generations. Therefore, the fourteenth generation will be reckoned to be in Christ himself.

But the generation of Christ was as follows. Let the diligent reader inquire and say: Since Joseph is not the father of the Lord Savior, why does the order of the generation lead to Joseph? To this we will first respond that it is not the usual practice of the Scriptures to trace the order of women in generations. Furthermore, Joseph and Mary were from the same tribe, so according to the Law, Joseph had to take her as a relative, and they were both counted in Bethlehem, being from the same lineage.

When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, why is she conceived not from a simple virgin, but from a betrothed one? First, so that through the generation, the origin of Mary could be shown by Joseph. Second, so that she would not be stoned by the Jews as an adulteress. Third, so that fleeing to Egypt, she would have the comfort of her husband. Ignatius the Martyr also added a fourth cause as to why she was conceived from the betrothed one: in order to hide the birth from the devil, while he thought it was not from a virgin, but from a wife.

Before they came together, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, 'Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.' All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel' (which means, God with us). When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

But why is He conceived not of a Virgin merely, but of a Virgin espoused? First, that by the descent of Joseph, Mary's family might be made known; secondly, that she might not be stoned by the Jews as an adulteress; thirdly, that in her flight into Egypt she might have the comfort of a husband. The Martyr Ignatius (vid. Ign. ad Eph. 19.) adds yet a fourth reason, namely, that his birth might be hid from the Devil, looking for Him to be born of a wife and not of a virgin.

(cont. Helvid. in princ.) It is to be known, that Helvidius, a certain turbulent man, having got matter of disputation, takes in hand to blaspheme against the Mother of God. His first proposition was, Matthew begins thus, When she was espoused. Behold, he says, you have her espoused, but, as ye say, not yet committed; but surely not espoused for any other reason than as being to be married.

And found by none other than by Joseph, who knew all, as being her espoused husband.

(Cont. Helvid. in princip.) But says Helvidius; Neither would the Evangelist have said Before they came together, if they were not to come together afterwards; as none would say, Before dinner, where there was to be no dinner. As if one should say, Before I dined in harbour, I set sail for Africa, would this have no meaning in it, unless he were at some time or other to dine in the harbour? Surely we must either understand it thus,—that before, though it often implies something to follow, yet often is said of things that follow only in thought; and it is not necessary that the things so thought of should take place, for that something else has happened to prevent them from taking place.

Therefore it by no means follows that they did come together afterwards; Scripture however shows not what did happen.

"The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise." "Of what kind of birth art thou telling me, I pray thee, since thou hast already mentioned His ancestors?" "I still wish to tell thee the manner also of His birth." Seest thou, how he wakens up the hearer? For as though he were about to speak of something unusual, he promises to tell also the manner thereof.

And observe a most admirable order in the things he hath mentioned. For he did not proceed directly to the birth, but puts us in mind first, how many generations he was from Abraham, how many from David, and from the captivity of Babylon; and thus he sets the careful hearer upon considering the times, to show that this is the Christ who was preached by the prophets. For when thou hast numbered the generations, and hast learnt by the time that this is He, thou wilt readily receive likewise the miracle which took place in His birth. Thus, being about to tell of a certain great thing, His birth of a virgin, he first shadows over the statement, until he hath numbered the generations, by speaking of "an husband of Mary;" or rather he doth even put in short space the narration of the birth itself, and then proceeds to number also the years, reminding the hearer, that this is He, of whom the patriarch Jacob had said, He should then at length come, when the Jewish rulers had come to an end; of whom the prophet Daniel had proclaimed beforehand, that He should come after those many weeks.

How then was He born, I pray thee? "When as His mother Mary was espoused:" He saith not "virgin," but merely "mother;" so that his account is easy to be received. And so having beforehand prepared the hearer to look for some ordinary piece of information, and by this laying hold of him, after all he amazes him by adding the marvellous fact, saying, "Before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." He saith not, "before she was brought to the bridegroom's house;" for indeed she was therein. It being the way of the ancients for the most part to keep their espoused wives in their house: in those parts, at least, where one may see the same practised even now. Thus also Lot's sons-in-law were in his house with him. Mary then herself likewise was in the house with Joseph.

And wherefore did she not conceive before her espousal? It was, as I said at first, that what had been done might be concealed awhile, and that the Virgin might escape every evil suspicion. For when he, who had most right of all to feel jealousy, so far from making her a show, or degrading her, is found even receiving and cherishing her after her conception; it was quite clear that, unless he had fully persuaded himself that what was done was of the operation of the Holy Spirit, he would not have kept her with him, and ministered to her in all other things. And most properly hath he said, that "she was 'found' with child," the sort of expression that is wont to be used with respect to things strange, and such as happen beyond all expectation, and are unlooked for.

Proceed therefore no further, neither require anything more than what hath been said; neither say thou, "But how was it that the Spirit wrought this of a virgin?" For if, when nature is at work, it is impossible to explain the manner of the formation; how, when the Spirit is working miracles, shall we be able to express these? And lest thou shouldest weary the evangelist, or disturb him by continually asking these things, he hath said who it was that wrought the miracle, and so withdrawn himself. "For I know," saith he, "nothing more, but that what was done was the work of the Holy Ghost."

Shame on them who busy themselves touching the generation on high. For if this birth, which hath witnesses without number, and had been proclaimed so long a time before, and was manifested and handled with hands, can by no man be explained; of what excess of madness do they come short who make themselves busy and curious touching that unutterable generation? For neither Gabriel nor Matthew was able to say anything more, but only that it was of the Spirit; but how, of the Spirit, or in what manner, neither of them hath explained; for neither was it possible.

Nor think that thou hast learnt all, by hearing "of the Spirit;" nay, for we are ignorant of many things, even when we have learnt this; as, for instance, how the Infinite is in a womb, how He that contains all things is carried, as unborn, by a woman; how the Virgin bears, and continues a virgin. How, I pray thee, did the Spirit frame that Temple? how did He take not all the flesh from the womb, but a part thereof, and increased it, and fashioned it? For that He did come forth of the Virgin's flesh, He hath declared by speaking of "that which was conceived in her;" and Paul, by saying, "made of a woman;" whereby he stops the mouths of them that say, Christ came among us as through some conduit. For, if this were so, what need of the womb? If this were so, He hath nothing in common with us, but that flesh is of some other kind, and not of the mass which belongs to us. How then was He of the root of Jesse? How was He a rod? how Son of man? how was Mary His mother? how was He of David's seed? how did he "take the form of a servant?" how "was the Word made flesh?" and how saith Paul to the Romans, "Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is God over all?" Therefore that He was of us, and of our substance, and of the Virgin's womb, is manifest from these things, and from others beside; but how, is not also manifest. Do not either thou then inquire; but receive what is revealed, and be not curious about what is kept secret.

Now this refutes also the false interpretation which some have drawn from the words of Matthew, where he says, "Before they came together she was found to be with child." They interpret this as though the evangelist meant to say, "Later she came together with Joseph like any other wife and lay with him, but before this occurred she was with child apart from Joseph," etc. Again, when he says, "And Joseph knew her not until she brought forth her first-born son" [Matt. 1:25], they interpret it as though the evangelist meant to say that he knew her, but not before she had brought forth her first-born son. This was the view of Helvidius which was refuted by Jerome.

Such carnal interpretations miss the meaning and purpose of the evangelist. As we have said, the evangelist, like the prophet Isaiah, wishes to set before our eyes this mighty wonder, and point out what an unheard-of thing it is for a maiden to be with child before her husband brings her home and lies with her; and further, that he does not know her carnally until she first has a son, which she should have had after first having been known by him. Thus, the words of the evangelist do not refer to anything that occurred after the birth, but only to what took place before it. For the prophet and the evangelist, and St. Paul as well, do not treat of this virgin beyond the point where they have from her that fruit for whose sake she is a virgin and everything else. After the child is born they dismiss the mother and speak not about her, what became of her, but only about her offspring. Therefore, one cannot from these words [Matt. 1:18, 25] conclude that Mary, after the birth of Christ, became a wife in the usual sense; it is therefore neither to be asserted nor believed. All the words are merely indicative of the marvelous fact that she was with child and gave birth before she had lain with a man.

The form of expression used by Matthew is the common idiom, as if I were to say, "Pharaoh believed not Moses, until he was drowned in the Red Sea." Here it does not follow that Pharaoh believed later, after he had drowned; on the contrary, it means that he never did believe. Similarly when Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her. Again, the Red Sea overwhelmed Pharaoh before he got across. Here too it does not follow that Pharaoh got across later, after the Red Sea had overwhelmed him, but rather that he did not get across at all. In like manner, when Matthew [1:18] says, "She was found to be with child before they came together," it does not follow that Mary subsequently lay with Joseph, but rather that she did not lie with him.

Elsewhere in Scripture the same manner of speech is employed. Psalm 110 [:1] reads, "God says to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool.'" Here it does not follow that Christ does not continue to sit there after his enemies are placed beneath his feet. Again, in Genesis 28 [:15], "I will not leave you until I have done all that of which I have spoken to you." Here God did not leave him after the fulfillment had taken place. Again, in Isaiah 42 [:4], "He shall not be sad, nor troublesome, till he has established justice in the earth." There are many more similar expression, so that this babble of Helvidius is without justification; in addition, he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.

Why does the Evangelist make mention here of "birth," whereas at the start of the Gospel he had said "generation"? For in this place he says, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way," but there "The book of the generation." … What then is the difference between "birth" and "generation"? How are either of them to be understood as applied to Christ? Note that this, my spoken word, in its own proper nature, is intangible and invisible. But when it is written down in a book, in a manner of speaking, it takes on a body. It is then both seen and touched. So it is with the fleshless, bodiless Word of God. The Word is neither seen nor described according to his Godhood but becomes, through his incarnation, subject to both sight and description. For this reason there is the "book" of his "generation" as of one who is made flesh. But here the point under investigation is not why he says "book" instead of "vision" or "account" (for this has been discussed already). Rather, it is why, when Matthew had previously mentioned "generation," he here speaks of "birth." What is "birth" as distinguished from "generation"? There is a difference between generation and birth. For "generation," or "coming into being," is the original formation of things by God, while "birth" is the succession from others caused by the verdict of death that came on account of the transgression. And even now, "generation" has something incorruptible and sinless about it, whereas "birth" implies that which is subject to passion and sin. The Lord in his eternal generation is incapable of sin. His being born did not undermine his eternal generation, which is incorruptible. But upon being born he assumed what is passible. That does not imply that he assumed what is subject to sin. He continued to bear the original Adam incapable of being lessened, either in respect of corruptibility or as regards the possibility of sin. Hence the "generation" in the case of Christ is not according to some procession from nonbeing into being. It is rather a transition [a path, a way] from existing "in the form of God" to the taking on of "the form of a servant." Hence his "birth" was both like ours and above ours. For to be born "of woman" is like our birth, but to be born "not of the will of the flesh" or "of man" but of the Holy Spirit is above ours. There is here an intimation, a prior announcement of a future birth to be bestowed on us by the Spirit.

For what reason did God, deciding that the Savior should be born from a virgin, not choose a virgin who was not betrothed? Might it have been, then, an economy for her to conceive while having a betrothed, so that it might not appear as a disgrace upon her body for her to conceive? For it is rightly written in one of the letters of a certain martyr—I mean Ignatius, the second bishop of Antioch after the blessed Peter, who fought with beasts in Rome during the persecution—"and the virginity of Mary escaped the notice of the ruler of this age." So, if it had not been for what seemed to be a marriage, it would not have escaped his notice, but the ruler of this age would have known that Mary, having never slept with a man, conceived, and thus the conception must be divine. The Savior wished through the entire economy to elude the devil, and indeed ordered the disciples not to make him manifest. But even when he was tempted by the devil, nowhere did he openly declare that he is the Son of God, but merely said: it is not necessary for me to worship you, it is not necessary for me to make stones into bread, it is not necessary for me to throw myself down from above. Also, the Apostle says that the economy of the passion was done in forgetfulness of the opposing power: "which none of the rulers of this age understood; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." If it was not hidden from the demon—for it said: "We know who you are, the Son of God"—see, the lesser in evil knew the Savior, but the greater in evil was hindered by the magnitude of his wickedness from beholding him.

(non occ.) She was indeed espoused to Joseph, but not united in wedlock; that is to say, His mother immaculate, His mother incorrupt, His mother pure. His mother! Whose mother? The mother of God, of the Only-begotten, of the Lord, of the King, of the Maker of all things, and the Redeemer of all.

(Serm. 148.) If you are not confounded when you hear of the birth of God, let not His conception disturb you, seeing the pure virginity of the mother removes all that might shock human reverence. And what offence against our awe and reverence is there, when the Deity entered into union with purity that was always dear to Him, where an Angel is mediator, faith is bridemaid, where chastity is the giving away, virtue the gift, conscience the judge, God the cause; where the conception is inviolateness, the birth virginity, and the mother a virginq.

(in App. 122 et al.) Christ was also born of a pure virgin, because it was not holy that virtue should be born of pleasure, chastity of self-indulgence, incorruption of corruption. Nor could He come from heaven but after some new manner, who came to destroy the ancient empire of death. Therefore she received the crown of virginity who bare the King of chastity. Farther, our Lord sought out for Himself a virgin abode, wherein to be received, that He might show us that God ought to be borne in a chaste body. Therefore He that wrote on tables of stone without an iron pen, the same wrought in Mary by the Holy Spirit; She was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

(Serm. 236. in App.) But not, as some impiously think, are we to suppose, that the Holy Spirit was as seed, but we say that He wrought with the power and might of a Creators.

Having said above, And Jacob begat Joseph, to whom Mary being espoused bare Jesus; that none who heard should suppose that His birth was as that of any of the forementioned fathers, he cuts off the thread of his narrative, saying, But Christ's generation was thus. As though he were to say, The generation of all these fathers was as I have related it; but Christ's was not so, but as follows, His mother Mary being espoused.

Therefore both espoused and yet remaining at home; for as in her who should conceive in the house of her husband, is understood natural conception; so in her who conceives before she be taken to her husband, there is suspicion of infidelity.

Mary was therefore betrothed to a carpenter, because Christ the Spouse of the Church was to work the salvation of all men through the wood of the Cross.

That He should not be born of passion, of flesh and blood, who was therefore born that He might take away all passion of flesh and blood.

For, as a not incredible account relates, Joseph was absent when the things were done which Luke writes. For it is not easy to suppose that the Angel came to Mary and said those words, and Mary made her answer when Joseph was present. And even if we suppose thus much to have been possible, yet it could not be that she should have gone into the hill country, and abode there three months when Joseph was present, because he must needs have enquired the causes of her departure and long stay. And so when after so many months he returned from abroad, he found her manifestly with child.

But if any, maintaining that it is not the same Jeconiah, but two different persons, make the number forty and two, we then shall say that the Holy Church is signified; for this number is the product of seven, and six; (for six times seven make forty-two;) the six denotes labour, and the seven rest.

Yet it might be referred to the foregoing in this way, The generation of Christ was, as I have related, thus, Abraham begat Isaac.

Or the word come together may not mean carnal knowledge, but may refer to the time of the nuptials, when she who was betrothed begins to be wife. Thus, before they came together, may mean before they solemnly celebrated the nuptial rites.

Now the birth of Christ took place in this manner: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph. Why did God permit her to be betrothed, and thus give men any cause at all for suspicion that Joseph had come together with her? So that she would have a protector in hardships; for Joseph took care of her during the flight to Egypt and preserved her. She was betrothed for another reason: to escape the notice of the devil. For the devil had heard that the Virgin would conceive (Is. 7:14), and was keeping the Virgin under his surveillance. So that the deceiver might be deceived, Joseph betrothed the Ever-virgin, outwardly appearing to be her spouse, but not so in actual deed. Before they came together, she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit. "Come together" here means "physical relations." For she had conceived before there were any physical relations. Therefore the evangelist is amazed at the extraordinary event and cries out, "she was found."

As Jerome says (Contra Helvid. i): "Although this particle 'before' often indicates a subsequent event, yet we must observe that it not infrequently points merely to some thing previously in the mind: nor is there need that what was in the mind take place eventually, since something may occur to prevent its happening. Thus if a man say: 'Before I dined in the port, I set sail,' we do not understand him to have dined in port after he set sail: but that his mind was set on dining in port." In like manner the evangelist says: "Before they came together" Mary "was found with child, of the Holy Ghost," not that they came together afterwards: but that, when it seemed that they would come together, this was forestalled through her conceiving by the Holy Ghost, the result being that afterwards they did not come together.

Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. Having presented Christ's genealogy in general, his generation in particular is now described. And it is divided into three parts: first, he presents a title; secondly he describes the manner of the generation (v. 18b), thirdly he proves the manner of generation (v. 19).

He says, therefore of Christ. This is read in two ways: for according to Chrysostom it is a kind of prologue to what is to be said; but according to Remigius it is an epilogue of what has been said. In the first way, it is read thus: "Thus we have spoken about the genealogy of Christ, how Abraham was the father of Isaac, etc., by descent according to the flesh, but the birth of Christ took place in this way: supply: "as will be said in the following." In the second way it is read thus, so that it is an epilogue of what went before: "Thus Abraham etc. to Christ. But the birth of Christ took place in this way: supply: "so that from Abraham through David and others they stretch forth to Christ."

Then he describes the manner of the birth: first, he describes the person giving birth; secondly, the generating of Christ; thirdly the person generating.

He describes the person giving birth: first, from her condition, secondly, from her dignity; thirdly from her name.

He says, therefore, When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph. But immediately a question arises. Since Christ willed to be born of a virgin, why should he want his mother to be betrothed? According to Jerome there are three reasons: the first is that the testimony to her virginity be more credible. For if she had not been betrothed and said that she is a virgin, when she was pregnant, it would seem that she claimed to be a virgin merely to conceal the crime of adultery. But there was no need to lie, when she was betrothed. And therefore, there was more reason to believe her: "Your testimonies were made exceedingly credible" (Ps 119:144). Another reason is that she would have the protection of a man, both when she fled into Egypt and when she returned. The third reason was in order that her offspring would be concealed from the devil; otherwise, if he knew, he would impede his passion and the fruit of our redemption: "If they had known, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Cor 2:8). This is explained of the devil, i.e., not to permit him to be crucified.

But on the other hand, could not the devil know whether she was a virgin? For her virginity was in inviolate flesh. Therefore, the devil could know that she was a virgin. The answer is, according to Ambrose, who also assigns this reason: namely, that devils are by the subtlety of their nature capable of things which they cannot do without God's permission. Hence the devil would have known her virginity, if God had not prevented him from making a careful examination. According to Ambrose, there are three reasons for this: the first is to preserve the honor of the mother of God: "The Lord preferred that men wonder about his origin, rather than about his mother's purity. Therefore, he willed that she be espoused, in order that any suspicion of adultery be removed; for he had come to fulfill the Law, not to destroy it: "I have come not to destroy the law but to fulfill it" (Mt 5:17); "Honor your father and your mother" (Ex 20:12). Another reason is so that virgins observed in adultery might have no excuse; for if the Lord's mother had not been betrothed and yet pregnant, others could excuse themselves through her: "Incline not my heart to any evil to busy myself with wicked deeds" (Ps 141:4). The third reason is because Christ espoused the Church to himself, and it is a virgin: "I have betrothed you to Christ" (2 Cor 11:2). Consequently, he willed to be born of a betrothed virgin as a sign that he had betrothed the Church to himself.

When his mother Mary had been betrothed. But to whom? To Joseph. According to Chrysostom, Joseph was a wood-worker and he signifies Christ, who restored all things through the wood of the cross in heaven and on the earth.

His mother, i.e., of God. Here is shown her dignity: for it has been granted to no creature, no man, no angel, to be the father or mother of God. But this was a privilege of a singular grace that she become the mother not only of a man but of God. Therefore, it says in Rev (12:1): "A woman clothed with the sun," as though filled with the Holy Trinity. Nestorius denied this, because the divinity was not received from the virgin. Against this the martyr Ignatius uses a beautiful example to show that she was the mother of God. "It is obvious," he says, "that in the generation of men in general the woman is called the mother; yet the woman does not give the rational soul, which is from God, but she gives the substance for the formation of the body. But the woman is called the mother of the whole man, because that which was taken from her is united to the rational soul. Similarly, since the humanity of Christ was taken from the Blessed Virgin, then on account of its being united to the divinity, the Blessed Virgin is called not only the mother of a man but also of God; although the divinity was not received from her any more than the rational soul in others is obtained from the mother."

Mary, a proper name is taken to mean star of the sea or enlightener and lady; hence in Rev (12:1) she is described with the moon under her feet.

Before they came together... Here Elvidius objects: "If before they came together, then at some time they did come together." Hence, he denied the virginity of Christ's mother: not before birth, not during the birth, but after the birth, he says that she was known by her husband. Jerome answers that no doubt the word "before" always implies a relationship to the future. But this can be in two ways: either according to reason or according to the acceptation of the intellect. For if one says: "Before I ate in the port at Rome, I sailed to Africa," that does not mean that after I sailed to Africa, I ate; but that I had intended to eat and, prevented by the sailing, I did not eat. And that is the case here. It should not be interpreted in such a way that later they really came together, as that knave says, but because from the very fact that she was betrothed to him according to general opinion, it was lawful for them to come together, although they never did.

Remigius explains it another way, so that it is understood of the solemn celebration of marriage: the betrothal occurred and took place for some days, and in the meantime the spouse was not under the husband's care. Later the solemn celebration of the marriage took place, and then the wife was brought to the husband's house. It is about this marriage ceremony that the evangelist is speaking here. Accordingly, Elvidius' objection has no place.

She was found... Note the appropriateness of the word. For, properly speaking, that is said to be found, concerning which there was no thought or hope; and Joseph had such an opinion of Mary's purity, that it was beyond his expectation to find her pregnant.

Found to be with child. Found by Joseph who, as Jerome says, in virtue of the marriage searched out all her secrets.

Of the Holy Spirit. Here he touches on the cause of the conception. This must be read separately from the preceding phrase. For it should not be read or understood that Joseph found her with child of the Holy Spirit, but merely that he found her pregnant. But in order that no suspicion of adultery arise in the mind of the hearers, he added of the Holy Spirit, i.e. from the power of the Holy Spirit not from his substance, lest he be regarded the son of the Holy Spirit: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you" (Lk 1:35).

But although, according to Augustine, the works of the Trinity are indivisible, so that not only the Holy Spirit but also the Father and Son produced this conception; yet by a certain appropriateness it is attributed to the Holy Spirit. There are three reasons for this: the first is that the Holy Spirit is love. But this is the greatest sign of love, that God willed his Son to be incarnate: "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son" (Jn 3:16). Secondly, because grace is attributed to the Holy Spirit: "There are varieties of graces but the same Spirit" (1 Cor 12:4). The third reason is assigned in the deliberations of the Council of Nicea, namely, that there are two words in us: the word of the heart and the word of the voice. The heart's word is the intellect's conception, which is hidden from men, except in so far as it is uttered by the voice or by a word of the voice. To the word of the heart is compared the eternal Word before the incarnation, when he was with the Father and hidden from us; but to the voice's word is compared the incarnate Word, which has already appeared to us and has been manifested. But the heart's word is not joined to the voice save through the spirit; and therefore, it was correct to say that the incarnation of the Word, through which he appeared visible to us was made through the medium of the Holy Spirit.

Note here four reasons why Christ willed to be born of a virgin: first, because original sin is contracted in the offspring from the union of man and woman; hence, if Christ had been born of a marriage act, he would have contracted original sin. But this would be unbecoming, since he had come into the world to take away our sins. Hence, he ought not have been infected with the contagion of sin. The second is that Christ was the principal teacher of chastity: "There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 19:12). The third is on account of purity and cleanness: "Wisdom will not enter into a sinful soul" (Wis 1:4). Hence, it was fitting that his mother's womb not be defiled with any corruption. The fourth is on account of a property of a word: because as a word emanates from the heart, so Christ willed and should have been born from the Virgin without any defilement.

(in Luc. ii. 5.) St. Matthew has beautifully taught how a righteous man ought to act, who has detected his wife's disgrace; so as at once to keep himself guiltless of her blood, and yet pure from her defilements; therefore it is he says, Being a just man. Thus is preserved throughout in Joseph the gracious character of a righteous man, that his testimony may be the more approved; for, the tongue of the just speaketh the judgment of truth.

(in Luc. ii. 1.) But as no one puts away what he has not received; in that he was minded to put her away, he admits to have received her.

(De Cons. Evang. ii. 5.) How this was done Matthew omits to write, but Luke relates after the conception of John, In the sixth month the Angel was sent; and again, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee. This is what Matthew relates in these words, She was found with child of the Holy Ghost. And it is no contradiction that Luke has described what Matthew omits; or again that Matthew relates what Luke has omitted; that namely which follows, from Now Joseph her husband being a just man, to that place where it is said of the Magi, that They returned into their own country another way. If one desired to digest into one narrative the two accounts of Christ's birth, he would arrange thus; beginning with Matthew's words, Now the birth of Christ was on this wise; (Luke 1:5.) then taking up with Luke, from There was in the days of Herod, to, Mary abode with her three months, and returned to her house; then taking up again Matthew, add, She was found with child of the Holy Ghost. (Mat. 1:10.)

Otherwise; if you alone have knowledge of a sin that any has committed against you, and desire to accuse him thereof before men, you do not herein correct, but rather betray him. But Joseph, being a just man, with great mercy spared his wife, in this great crime of which he suspected her. The seeming certainty of her unchastity tormented him, and yet because he alone knew of it, he was willing not to publish it, but to send her away privily; seeking rather the benefit than the punishment of the sinner.

There is one thing often said about our ancestors we must not say. We must not say "They believed in miracles because they did not know the Laws of Nature." This is nonsense. When St. Joseph discovered that his bride was pregnant, he was "minded to put her away." He knew enough biology for that. Otherwise, of course he would not have regarded pregnancy as a proof of infidelity. When he accepted the Christian explanation, he regarded it as a miracle precisely because he knew enough of the Laws of Nature to know that this was a suspension of them. When the disciples saw Christ walking on the water they were frightened: they would not have been frightened unless they had known the Laws of Nature and known that this was an exception. If a man had no conception of a regular order in Nature, then of course he could not notice departures from that order: just as a dunce who does not understand the normal meter of a poem is also unconscious of the poet's variations from it. Nothing is wonderful except the abnormal and nothing is abnormal until we have grasped the norm.

(ap. Anselm.) Or, in seeking to put her away, he was just; in that he sought it privily, is shown his mercy, defending her from disgrace; Being a just man, he was minded to put her away; and being unwilling to expose her in public, and so to disgrace her, he sought to do it privily.

(part ap. Anselm. part in Ord.) Or, being unwilling to bring her home to his house to live with him for ever, he was minded to put her away privily; that is, to change the time of their marriage. For that is true virtue, when neither mercy is observed without justice, nor justice without mercy; both which vanish when severed one from the other. Or he was just because of his faith, in that he believed that Christ should be born of a virgin; wherefore he wished to humble himself before so great a favour.

(Ver. 19.) But Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded privately to put her away. But while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: If any man take her as wife that has been defiled, her defilement is upon him (1 Cor. VI, 16). And it is commanded in the Law, not only guilty persons, but also those who have knowledge of the crime, to be subject to punishment (Lev. V): how then does Joseph, who conceals the crime of his wife, deserve to be called just? But this is a testimony to Mary, that Joseph knowing her chastity, and wondering at what had happened, kept silent about it, not understanding its mystery.

But how is Joseph thus called just, when he is ready to hide his wife's sin? For the Law enacts, that not only the doers of evil, but they who are privy to any evil done, shall be held to be guilty.

Or this may be considered a testimony to Mary, that Joseph, confident in her purity, and wondering at what had happened, covered in silence that mystery which he could not explain.

"And Joseph her husband, being," saith he "a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily."

Having said that it was of the Holy Ghost, and without cohabitation, he establishes his statement in another way again. Lest any one should say, "Whence doth this appear? Who hath heard, who hath seen any such thing ever come to pass?"-or lest you should suspect the disciple as inventing these things to favor his Master;-he introduces Joseph as contributing, by what he underwent, to the proof of the things mentioned; and by his narrative all but says, "If thou doubt, me, and if thou suspect my testimony, believe her husband." For "Joseph," saith he, "her husband, being a just man." By "a just man" in this place he means him that is virtuous in all things. For both freedom from covetousness is justice, and universal virtue is also justice; and it is mostly in this latter sense that the Scripture uses the name of justice; as when it saith, "a man that was just and true;" and again, "they were both just." Being then "just," that is good and considerate, "he was minded to put her away privily." For this intent he tells what took place before Joseph's being fully informed, that thou mightest not mistrust what was done after he knew. However, such a one was not liable to be made a public example only, but that she should also be punished was the command of the law. Whereas Joseph remitted not only that greater punishment, but the less likewise, namely, the disgrace. For so far from punishing, he was not minded even to make an example of her. Seest thou a man under self-restraint, and freed from the most tyrannical of passions. For ye know how great a thing jealousy is: and therefore He said, to whom these things are clearly known, "For full of jealousy is the rage of a husband;" "he will not spare in the day of vengeance:" and "jealousy is cruel as the grave." And we too know of many that have chosen to give up their lives rather than fall under the suspicion of jealousy. But in this case it was not so little as suspicion, the burden of the womb entirely convicting her. But nevertheless he was so free from passion as to be unwilling to grieve the Virgin even in the least matters. Thus, whereas to keep her in his house seemed like a transgression of the law, but to expose and bring her to trial would constrain him to deliver her to die; he doth none of these things, but conducts himself now by a higher rule than the law. For grace being come, there must needs henceforth be many tokens of that exalted citizenship. For as the sun, though as yet he show not his beams, doth from afar by his light illumine more than half the world; so likewise Christ, when about to rise from that womb, even before He came forth, shone over all the world. Wherefore, even before her travail, prophets danced for joy, and women foretold what was to come, and John, when he had not yet come forth from the belly, leaped from the very womb. Hence also this man exhibited great self-command, in that he neither accused nor upbraided, but only set about putting her away.

But if he had no suspicion of her, how could he be a just man, and yet seek to put her away, being immaculate? He sought, to put her away, because he saw in her a great sacrament, to approach which he thought himself unworthy.

(Serm. in App. s. 195.) Joseph, understanding that Mary was with child, is perplexed that it should be thus with her whom he had received from the temple of the Lord, and had not yet known, and resolved within himself, saying, What shall I do? Shall I proclaim it, or shall I overlook it? If I proclaim it, I am indeed not consenting to the adultery; but I am running into the guilt of cruelty, for by Moses' law she must be stoned. If I overlook it, I am consenting to the crime, and take my portion with the adulterers. Since then it is an evil to overlook the thing, and worse to proclaim the adultery, I will put her away from being my wife.

He beheld her to be with child, whom he knew to be chaste; and because he had read, There shall come a Rod out of the stem of Jesse, (Is. 11:1.) of which he knew that Mary was comes, and had also read, Behold, a virgin shall conceive, (Is. 7:14.) he did not doubt that this prophecy should be fulfilled in her.

Then Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to divorce her secretly. The law decreed that the adulteress be pilloried, that is, exposed and punished publicly. How, then, was Joseph righteous since he intended to cover up her sin and thus to transgress the law? The answer is, first, that he was righteous for intending to do this very thing. He did not wish to be harsh, but in his great goodness took compassion on her, showing himself to be above the law, and already living in a manner superior to the decrees of the law. Secondly, since he himself knew that she had conceived of the Holy Spirit, he did not wish to pillory and abuse her who had conceived not by adultery but of the Holy Spirit. Behold what the evangelist says: "She was found to be with child." Found by whom? By Joseph; that is, he discerned that she had conceived of the Holy Spirit. Therefore he "was minded to divorce her secretly," for he no longer dared to take as a wife her who had been deemed worthy of such grace.

Her husband Joseph being a just man. After indicating the manner of the generation, he now confirms it with witnesses. For when he had said above that the mother of Jesus was found with child and that this was of the Holy Spirit, someone might believe that the evangelist mentioned this out of respect for the Master. Therefore, the evangelist now confirms the aforesaid manner of generation: first, by a prophetic pronouncement: "All this took place..." (v. 22); secondly, the person revealing: "But as he considered this..." (v. 20); thirdly, the words of the revelation are presented: "Joseph, son of David..." (v. 20b).

The person to whom the revelation is made is commended for two things, namely, that he is just and, therefore, did not lie; secondly, from the fact that he was her spouse or husband and, therefore, would not tolerate any crime in her: "The zeal and fury of the husband will not spare, when he takes revenge" (Pr 6:34).

He says, therefore: she was found by Joseph with child. But Joseph, her husband, being a just man and unwilling to put her away. There are two opinions here, namely, of Ambrose and of Augustine. For Augustine suggests that Joseph, not being present when the angel's announcement was made, returned and finding her pregnant, had suspicions of adultery. But then the question immediately arises: how was he just, if he was unwilling to put her to shame whom he suspected of adultery, i.e., divulge her crime? For he seemed thereby to consent to her sin, and it says in Rom (1:32): "Not only those who do such things but approve those who do them deserve to die." Three answers are given to this. The first is according to Chrysostom, namely, that justice is twofold. For one is the justice which is the cardinal virtue, which is called special justice; the other is legal justice, which includes every virtue, as piety and clemency and so on. Therefore, when it is said that Joseph was just, it should be understood of general justice, so that justice is taken for piety. Hence, because he was just, i.e., pious, he was unwilling to put her to shame. Another answer is Augustine's, namely, that sin is of two kinds, namely hidden and open. For a hidden sin is not to be made a matter of public knowledge, but a remedy should be applied in a different way. Therefore, the suspicion of adultery which Joseph had was suspicion of a hidden and not open sin, because he alone knew; and again, if others knew that she was pregnant, they could not think but that it was from him. Therefore, her crime was not divulged. The third answer is that of Rabanus: that Joseph was just and pious. He was pious in that he was unwilling to divulge, but he appeared just in not wishing to put her away. For he knew that "one who keeps an adulteress is stupid and unwise" as it says in Pr (18:22). But according to Jerome and Origen, he had no suspicion of adultery. For Joseph knew Mary's purity and had read in the Scripture that a virgin would conceive (Is 7:14) and in (11:1): "There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots." He had also known that Mary had descended from David. Hence, it was easier for him to believe that this had been fulfilled in her than that she had fornicated. And so, considering himself unworthy to live together with such holiness, he wanted to put her away secretly; just as Peter said: "Depart from me, O Lord, for I am a sinful man" (Lk 5:8). Hence, he was unwilling to put her away, i.e., bring her to him and take her in marriage, for he thought himself unworthy.

In this word appeared is conveyed the power of Him that did appear, allowing Himself to be seen where and how He pleases.

(in Luc. ii. 5.) Be not troubled that he calls her his wife; for she is not herein robbed of her virginity, but her wedlock is witnessed to, and the celebration of her marriage is declared.

(Enchir. 38.) But shall we therefore say that the Holy Spirit is the Father of the man Christ, that as God the Father begot the Word, so the Holy Spirit begot the man? This is such an absurdity, that the ears of the faithful cannot bear it. How then do we say that Christ was born by the Holy Spirit, if the Holy Spirit did not beget Him? Did He create Him? For so far as He is man He was created, as the Apostle speaks; He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. (Rom. 1:3.) For though God made the world, yet is it not right to say that it is the Son of God, or born by Him, but that it was made, or created, or formed by Him. But seeing that we confess Christ to have been born by the Holy Spirit, and of the Virgin Mary, how is He not the Son of the Holy Spirit, and is the Son of the Virgin? It does not follow, that whatever is born by any thing, is therefore to be called the son of that thing; for, not to say that of man is born in one sense a son, in another a hair, or vermin, or a worm, none of which are his son, certainly those that are born of water and the Spirit none would call sons of water; but sons of God their Father, and their Mother the Church. Thus Christ was born of the Holy Spirit, and yet is the Son of God the Father, not of the Holy Spirit.

While St. Joseph, yet uninformed of so great a mystery, wanted to put away Mary quietly, he was advised in a dream by an angel who said to him, "Do not be afraid, Joseph, son of David, to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit." St. Joseph is made aware of the heavenly mystery, lest he think otherwise about Mary's virginity. He is also made aware of this that he might exclude the evil of suspicion and receive the good of the mystery. The following words were said to him: "Do not be afraid, Joseph, son of David, to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit," so he might acknowledge the integrity of his fiancée and the virgin birth. It was not appropriate for so great a mystery to be revealed to anyone other than Joseph, who was known to be Mary's fiancé, and no reproach of sin was attached to his name. In fact, Joseph translated from Hebrew into Latin means "beyond reproach." Notice here too the order of a mystery: The devil first spoke to Eve the virgin long ago, and then to a man, that he might administer to them the word of death. In the latter case, a holy angel first spoke to Mary and then to Joseph, that he might reveal to them the word of life. In the former case, a woman was chosen unto sin; in the latter case, she was chosen unto salvation. In the former case, the man fell through the woman; in the latter case, he rose through the virgin. The angel therefore said to Joseph, "Do not be afraid, Joseph, son of David, to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit."And he added, "She shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins." But this name of Lord which was given to Jesus from the virgin's womb is not new to him but old. For Jesus translated from Hebrew into Latin means "Savior." This name is agreeable to God because he says through the prophet: "Just God and a Savior; there is none beside me." Lastly, when the Lord himself would speak through Isaiah about the bodily origin of his nativity, he says, "The Lord called me from the womb, from the body of my mother he named my name." His name is certainly not strange, for Jesus was called according to the flesh (i.e., Savior, who was a Savior according to divinity). For Jesus, as we said, is rendered as "Savior." This is what he said through the prophet: "From the body of my mother he named my name." And that he might more fully show us the sacrament of his incarnation, he went on to say, "He made my mouth like a sharp sword … he made me a polished arrow, in his quiver he hid me away." By the arrow he signified his divinity; by the quiver he assumed a body from the Virgin in which his divinity was covered with a garment of flesh.

(part ap. Anselm. part in Ord.) Or, being unwilling to bring her home to his house to live with him for ever, he was minded to put her away privily; that is, to change the time of their marriage. For that is true virtue, when neither mercy is observed without justice, nor justice without mercy; both which vanish when severed one from the other. Or he was just because of his faith, in that he believed that Christ should be born of a virgin; wherefore he wished to humble himself before so great a favour.

(ap. Ans.) In this is to be noted the wise soul that desires to undertake nothing rashly.

(part Int. part Anselm.) The Angel appearing calls him by name, and adds his descent, in order to banish fear, Joseph, son of David; Joseph, as though he were known to him by name and his familiar friend.

(ord.) To be born in her, and born of her, are two different things; to be born of her is to come into the world; to be born in her, is the same as to be conceived. Or the word born is used according to the foreknowledge of the Angel which he has of God, to whom the future is as the past.

(Verse 20.) Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife. For what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son. And as we said before, the term 'spouses' is used for wives, as the book against Helvidius explains more fully. And an angel speaks to Joseph in a dream with gentle affection, to confirm the righteousness of his silence. It is also noteworthy that Joseph is said to be the son of David, in order to show that Mary is also from the line of David.

But we are not to think that she ceased to be betrothed, because she is here called wife, since we know that this is the Scripture manner to call the man and woman, when espoused, husband and wife; and this is confirmed by that text in Deuteronomy, If one find a virgin that is betrothed to a man in the field, and offer violence to her, and lie with her, he shall die, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife. (Deut. 22:23.)

The matter then being in this state, and all at their wits' end, the angel comes to solve all their difficulties. But it is worth inquiring, why the angel did not speak sooner, before the husband had such thoughts: but, "when he thought on it," not until then, he came; for it is said, "While he thought on these things, the angel" comes. And yet to her he declares the good tidings even before she conceived. And this again contains another difficulty; for even though the angel had not spoken, wherefore was the Virgin silent, who had been informed by the angel; and why, when she saw her betrothed husband in trouble, did she not put an end to his perplexity?

Wherefore then did not the angel speak before Joseph became troubled. For we must needs explain the former difficulty first. For what reason then did he not speak? Lest Joseph should be unbelieving, and the same happen to him as to Zacharias. For when the thing was visible, belief was thenceforth easy; but when it had not yet a beginning, it was not equally easy to receive his saying. For this reason the angel spake not at the first, and through the same cause the Virgin too held her peace. For she did not think to obtain credit with her betrothed husband, in declaring to him a thing unheard of, but rather that she should provoke him the more, as though she were cloking a sin that had been committed. Since if she herself, who was to receive so great a favor, is affected somewhat after the manner of man, and saith, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" much more would he have doubted; and especially when hearing it from the woman who was under suspicion. Wherefore the Virgin saith nothing to him, but the angel, the time demanding it, presents himself to him.

Why then, it may be asked, did he not so in the Virgin's case also, and declare the good tidings to her after the conception? Lest she should be in agitation and great trouble. For it were likely that she, not knowing the certainty, might have even devised something amiss touching herself, and have gone on to strangle or to stab herself, not enduring the disgrace. For wondrous indeed was that Virgin, and Luke points out her excellency, saying, that when she heard the salutation, she did not straightway pour herself out, neither did she accept the saying, but "was troubled," seeking "what manner of salutation this might be." Now she who was of such perfect delicacy would even have been distracted with dismay at the thought of her shame, not expecting, by whatever she might say, to convince any one who should hear of it, but that what had happened was adultery. Therefore to prevent these things, the angel came before the conception. Besides that, it was meet that womb should be free from trouble which the Maker of all things entered; and the soul rid of all perturbation, which was thought worthy to become the minister of such mysteries. For these reasons He speaks to the Virgin before the conception, but to Joseph at the time of travail.

And this many of the simpler sort, not understanding, have said there is a discordance; because Luke saith it was Mary to whom he declared the good tidings, but Matthew, that it was Joseph; not knowing that both took place. And this sort of thing it is necessary to bear in mind throughout the whole history; for in this way we shall solve many seeming discordances.

The angel then comes, when Joseph is troubled. For in addition to the causes mentioned, with a view also to the manifestation of his self-command, he defers his coming. But when the thing was on the point of taking place, then at last he presents himself. "While he thought on these things, an angel appeareth to Joseph in a dream."

Seest thou the mildness of the husband? So far from punishing, he did not even declare it to any one, no not even to her whom he suspected, but was thinking it over with himself, as aiming to conceal the cause even from the Virgin herself. For neither is it said that he was minded to "cast her out," but to "put her away," so very mild and gentle was the man. "But while he is thinking on these things, the angel appeareth in a dream."

And why not openly, as to the shepherds, and to Zacharias, and to the Virgin? The man was exceedingly full of faith, and needed not this vision. Whereas the Virgin, as having declared to her very exceeding good tidings, greater than to Zacharias, and this before the event, needed also a marvellous vision; and the shepherds, as being by disposition rather dull and clownish. But this man, after the conception, when his soul was actually possessed with that evil suspicion, and ready to exchange it for good hopes, if there appeared any one to guide that way, readily receives the revelation. Wherefore he hath the good tidings declared to him after his suspicion, that this selfsame thing might be to him a convincing proof of the things spoken. I mean, that the fact of his having mentioned it to no one, and his hearing the angel say the very things which he thought in his mind, this afforded him an unquestionable sign that one had come from God to say it. For to Him alone it belongs to know the secrets of the heart.

Mark only, what a number of results are here. The man's self-command is thoroughly shown; the word spoken in season contributes to his faith, and the history is freed from suspicion, in that it shows him to have felt what it was likely a husband would feel.

How then doth the angel assure him? Hear and marvel at the wisdom of his words. For being come he saith, "Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife." He straightway puts him in mind of David, of whom the Christ was to spring, and he doth not suffer him to be greatly perturbed, by the title of his forefathers, reminding him of the promise made to the whole race. Else wherefore doth he call him "Son of David"?

"Fear not:" and yet in another case God doeth not so, but when one was devising about a certain woman what he ought not, He spake the word more in a way of rebuke, and with a threat. And yet there too, the act was of ignorance, for not with knowledge did that person take Sarah; yet nevertheless He rebuked him: but here mildly. For exceeding great were the mysteries He was dispensing, and wide the interval between the two men; wherefore neither was there need of rebuke.

But by saying, "fear not," he signifies him to have been afraid, lest he should give offense to God, as retaining an adulteress; since, if it had not been for this, he would not have even thought of casting her out. In all ways then he points out that the angel came from God, bringing forward and setting before him all, both what he thought to do, and what he felt in his mind.

Now having mentioned her name, he stayed not at this, but added also, "thy wife;" whereas he would not have called her so, if she had been corrupted. And here he calls her that is espoused "a wife;" as indeed the Scripture is wont to call betrothed husbands sons-in-law even before marriage.

But what means, "to take unto thee?" To retain her in his house, for in intention she had been now put away by him. "Her, being put away, do thou retain," saith he, "as committed unto thee by God, not by her parents. And He commits her not for marriage; but to dwell with thee; and by my voice doth He commit her." Much as Christ Himself afterwards committed her to His disciple, so even now unto Joseph.

Then having obscurely signified the matter in hand, he mentioned not the evil suspicion; but, in a manner more reverent and seemly, by telling the cause of travail he removed this also; implying that the very thing which had made him afraid, and for which he would have cast her out,-this very thing, I say, was a just cause why he should take her and retain her in his house. Thus more than entirely doing away with his distress. "For she is not only free," saith he, "from unlawful intercourse, but even above all nature is her conception. Not only therefore put away thy fear, but even rejoice more exceedingly, 'for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.'"

A strange thing it was which he spake of, surpassing man's reason, and above all the laws of nature. How then is he to believe, to whom such tidings are altogether new? "By the things that are past," saith he, "by the revelations." For with this intent he laid open all things that were in his mind, what he felt, what he feared, what he was resolved to do;-that by these he might assure himself of this point.

As her betrothed husband also he is admonished not to be afraid; for the mind that compassionates has most fear; as though he were to say, Here is no cause of death, but of life; she that brings forth life, does not deserve death.

(Serm. in App. 195.) Yet though Joseph think on these things, let not Mary the daughter of David be troubled; as the word of the Prophet brought pardon to David, so the Angel of the Saviour delivers Mary. Behold, again appears Gabriel the bridesman of this Virgin; as it follows, Behold the Angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph.

(Hil. Quæst. N. et V. Test. qu. 52.) But if Christ was born by the agency of the Holy Ghost, how is that said, Wisdom hath built herself an house? (Prov. 9:1.) That house may be taken in two meanings. First, the house of Christ is the Church, which He built with His own blood; and secondly, His body may be called His house, as it is called His temple. But the work of the Holy Spirit, is also the work of the Son of God, because of the unity of their nature and their will; for whether it be the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, that doeth it, it is the Trinity that works, and what the Three do, is of One God.

By addressing him as son of David, he sought to recal to his memory the promise of God to David, that of his seed should Christ be born.

Also by the words, Fear not, he desired to show that he knew the heart; that by this he might have the more faith in those good things to come, which he was about to speak concerning Christ.

There were three reasons why the Angel appeared to Joseph with this message. First, that a just man might not be led into an unjust action, with just intentions. Secondly, for the honour of the mother herself, for had she been put away, she could not have been free from evil suspicion among the unbelievers. Thirdly, that Joseph, understanding the holy conception, might keep himself from her with more care than before He did not appear to Joseph before the conception, that he should not think those things that Zacharias thought, nor suffer what he suffered in falling into the sin of unbelief concerning the conception of his wife in her old age. For it was yet more incredible that a virgin should conceive, than that a woman past the age should conceive.

How the Angel appeared to Joseph is declared in the words, In his sleep; that is, as Jacob saw the ladder offered by a kind of imagining to the eyes of his heart.

Or, to take her, that is, in marriage union and continual converse.

Because Joseph was minded, as has been said, to put Mary away privily, which if he had done, there would have been few who would not rather have thought her a harlot than a virgin, therefore this purpose of Joseph was changed by Divine revelation, whence it is said, While he thought on these things.

But to what shifts you resort, in your attempt to rob the syllable ex (of) of its proper force as a preposition, and to substitute another for it in a sense not found throughout the Holy Scriptures! You say that He was born through a virgin, not of a virgin, and in a womb, not of a womb, because the angel in the dream said to Joseph, "That which is born in her" (not of her) "is of the Holy Ghost." But the fact is, if he had meant "of her," he must have said "in her; "for that which was of her, was also in her. The angel's expression, therefore, "in her," has precisely the same meaning as the phrase "of her." It is, however, a fortunate circumstance that Matthew also, when tracing down the Lord's descent from Abraham to Mary, says, "Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Christ."

But while he pondered these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying. When the righteous one was uncertain, then the angel appeared in order to show him what to do. The angel appeared to him in a dream, because Joseph had great faith. With the shepherds the angel conversed openly, as they were rough country men; but the angel spoke to Joseph, who was righteous and believing, in his sleep. How could Joseph not believe, when the angel spoke to him of matters that were in his mind and that he had not revealed to anyone? For it says, "while he pondered," but did not speak of, these things, the angel appeared to him. It was right that he believed the angel to be of God, for it is the attribute of God to know the things that are unspoken. Joseph son of David. The angel called him "son of David" to remind him that the prophets had foretold that the Christ would come from the seed of David. It is as if the angel were saying to him, "Do not doubt, but remember David who received the promise concerning Christ." Fear not to take unto thee. Here he shows that Joseph was afraid to keep her, lest he spurn God by harboring an adulteress. Or, in another sense, "Fear not," that is, "Though you fear to touch her who has conceived of the Holy Spirit, do not fear to take her unto thee, that is, to keep her within your house." For in his thoughts and deliberations he had already divorced her. Mary thy wife. This means, you perhaps think that she is an adulteress. But I say to you that she is your wife, that is, she has not been corrupted by anyone, but she is your own betrothed. For that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. Not only is she acquitted of any unlawful union, but she has conceived in some divine and wondrous manner. Therefore you ought rather to rejoice because of this.

But as he considered this... Here we are introduced to the person revealing, and three things are mentioned: first, the time; secondly, the person revealing is introduced; thirdly, the manner of the revelation is expressed.

He says, therefore: But as he considered this, i.e., while he was revolving these things in his mind, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared. Note that two things are commended about Joseph here, namely, wisdom and kindness. Wisdom, indeed, in the fact that he deliberated before he acted: "Take heed to the path of your feet" (Pr 4:26), i.e., do nothing without the judgment and deliberation of reason. There was kindness in his not divulging her deed: this is the opposite of many who want to make public at once whatever they have in their heart: "A man without self-control in speaking is like a city broken into and left without walls" (Pr 25:28). Therefore, he deserved to be instructed or consoled. Hence, he continues: behold, an angel of the Lord appeared, as though God's help was before his eyes: "The Lord is a helper in prosperity and in adversity" (Ps 9:10); "For, behold, God helps me, and the Lord defends my soul" (Ps 53:6).

An angel of the Lord: for nothing was better able to bring relief than one who knew that virginity had been preserved. Hence, the same angel sent to Mary was being sent to Joseph: "The angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear him" (Ps 34:7), i.e., Mary and Joseph, to free her from infamy and that Joseph not put her away in his disquiet.

But here the question arises why the revelation was not made to Joseph in the beginning, before he became so disturbed? Also, why did not Mary reveal to him the angelic announcement, which had been made to her? The answer to the first is that he did this to make his testimony more credible. For just as the Lord permitted the apostle Thomas to doubt his resurrection, so that while doubting he would feel, and feeling he would believe, and believing would remove the wound of unbelief in us, so the Lord permitted Joseph to doubt Mary's purity, so that while doubting, he would receive the revelation from the angel and, after receiving it, believe more firmly. The answer to the second is that if Mary had told him, he would not have believed.

Appeared to him in a dream. Behold the manner of the revelation. Note that, properly speaking, to appear is concerned with that which of its nature is invisible, yet it is in its power to be seen such as God or angels. For things whose nature is to be seen will not, properly speaking, be said to appear. Hence, it is called a divine apparition or angelic. Therefore, it is in the proper sense that "he appeared in a dream." But why in a dream? The reason is presented in a Gloss: because Joseph was somewhat doubtful. Hence, he was in a certain sense sleeping; and therefore, it is correct to say that the angel appeared to him in sleep. For as the Apostle says: "Prophecy has been given for believers, signs for unbelievers" (1 Cor 14:22). Properly speaking, a prophetic revelation occurs during sleep: "If there is a prophet of the Lord among you, I, the Lord, make myself known to him in a vision. I speak with him in a dream" (Num 12:6). Therefore, because Joseph was just and faithful, an appearance should have been made to him as to one faithful, namely, a revelation, as it were, prophetic. But because a bodily appearance is miraculous, such an appearance was not suited to him, since he believed and was faithful.

But then why was a visible appearance made to Mary, since she was most faithful? The answer is that the mystery of the Incarnation was revealed from its beginning, when it was more difficult to believe; therefore, it is fitting that a visible appearance be made to her. But it was not revealed to Joseph from its beginning but rather when it had been for the most part fulfilled, since he already saw her womb enlarged. Hence, he could believe more easily; and therefore, the appearance made in sleep was enough.

Joseph, son of David. Here the words of the revelation are presented. And it is divided into three parts in keeping with the three things the angel does. For, first of all, he forbids Mary and Joseph to divorce; secondly, he discloses the mystery of the Incarnation: that which is conceived in her...; thirdly, he foretells the devotedness Joseph would show to the child: she will bear a son.

He says, therefore, Joseph. He calls him and draws his attention, so that he will listen, and to recall him to himself. This is common in Scripture, namely, that when an appearance which concerns higher things is about to occur, it requires in the hearer a certain elevation and attention of the mind: "Son of man, stand upon your feet and I will speak with you" (Ez 2:11); and in (2:8): "I will take my stand to watch" (Heb 2:1). Son of David. Therefore, he expresses his lineage, to avoid what Isaiah (7:13) says: "Hear then, O house of David. Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also?" For the sign was not given to one person but to a whole tribe or house. Hence, because he had to instruct him about this, he is commanded in the expression of his lineage to fix the prophet's prediction in his memory. Do not fear. Every appearance, whether it be of a good or bad angel, causes some fear; and this, because such an appearance is extraordinary and, as it were, foreign to man's nature. Therefore, in a way, it puts a man outside himself. But in this there is a difference: because the appearance of an evil angel strikes terror, and he leaves a man in that terror, in order more easily to lead into sin a man put, as it were, outside himself. But the appearance of a good angel, although it produces terror, it ends at once and consolation is obtained, in order that the man may return to himself and understand what is being said to him. Hence, Luke (c. 1) says that an angel appeared to Zechariah and immediately adds: "Fear not, Zechariah" (1:13), and in (1:30): "Fear not, Mary." Hence, after the appearance to Joseph, consolation follows immediately. But he has two fears, namely, of God and of sin, i.e., that by living with Mary he was aware of sin; and therefore, Do not be afraid, namely, without sin, to take Mary, your wife. Note that she is called wife, not because of marriage but because of espousal. For it is the custom in Scripture to call espoused persons married and married persons espoused.

But why is he commanded to accept her, since he had not yet put her away? The answer is that although he had not put her away bodily, he had put her away in his attitude. And that is why he is commanded to accept her. Or fear not to accept her as to the solemnities and celebration of marriage.

That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. Here the mystery of the Incarnation is presented. And note that whereas there were three there; namely, the Virgin conceiving, the Son of God conceived, and the power of the Holy Spirit, the angel mentions two of them; namely, the one conceiving and the author of the conception. But the third, namely, the Son of God conceived, he only expresses indefinitely: that which is conceived in her. This suggests that he is ineffable and incomprehensible not only to men but also to angels. He says, that which is born in her, not "of her," because to be born of a woman is to come forth into the light; to be born in a mother is for the child to be conceived. Is of the Holy Spirit. This therefore, is the angel's testimony, which the Evangelist advances to prove what he had said above: she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.

Note that in the case of other women, when they conceive, a formative power is resident in the male seed. It is by this power that the fetus is formed and grows in the mother's womb. But the power of the Holy Spirit supplied this; therefore, the saints sometimes say that the Holy Spirit was there in place of the seed; sometimes it is said that there was no seed there at all. The answer is that in the male seed are two things: the bodily substance, that descends from the body of the male, and the formative power. Therefore, one must say that the Holy Spirit was there for the seed as to its formative power, but he was not there for the seed as to its bodily substance. For the body of Christ or his conception came to be not from the substance of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, it is clear that the Holy Spirit cannot be called the father of Christ, because he is not so either according to his human nature or his divine nature: not according to the divine, because, although Christ is of the same nature and glory as the Holy Spirit, the Son receives nothing according to this divine nature from the Holy Spirit. Therefore, he cannot be called his Son, for a son receives something from his father. Nor according to his human nature, because the father and the son must agree in nature; but Christ, although he was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, was not of the substance of the Holy Spirit.

But on the other hand, when it says, of the Holy Spirit, it is the same as what Pr (9:1) says: "Wisdom built herself a home." Therefore, it seems that divine wisdom itself, i.e., the Son of God, united the human nature to himself. Consequently, it was not done by the power of the Holy Spirit. There are two answers to this, according to Augustine: first, that the passage in Proverbs is understood of the Church which Christ founded in his blood. The second is that the works of the Trinity are undivided; and therefore, what the Son does, the Holy Spirit also does. But yet by a certain appropriation it is attributed to the Holy Spirit. The reason for this has been explained above.

(Enchir. 38.) But shall we therefore say that the Holy Spirit is the Father of the man Christ, that as God the Father begot the Word, so the Holy Spirit begot the man? This is such an absurdity, that the ears of the faithful cannot bear it. How then do we say that Christ was born by the Holy Spirit, if the Holy Spirit did not beget Him? Did He create Him? For so far as He is man He was created, as the Apostle speaks; He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. (Rom. 1:3.) For though God made the world, yet is it not right to say that it is the Son of God, or born by Him, but that it was made, or created, or formed by Him. But seeing that we confess Christ to have been born by the Holy Spirit, and of the Virgin Mary, how is He not the Son of the Holy Spirit, and is the Son of the Virgin? It does not follow, that whatever is born by any thing, is therefore to be called the son of that thing; for, not to say that of man is born in one sense a son, in another a hair, or vermin, or a worm, none of which are his son, certainly those that are born of water and the Spirit none would call sons of water; but sons of God their Father, and their Mother the Church. Thus Christ was born of the Holy Spirit, and yet is the Son of God the Father, not of the Holy Spirit.

(ap. Anselm.) That Joseph should not suppose that he was no longer needed in this wedlock, seeing the conception had taken place without his intervention, the Angel declares to him, that though there had been no need of him in the conception, yet there was need of his guardianship; for the Virgin should bear a Son, and then he would be necessary both to the Mother and her Son; to the Mother to screen her from disgrace, to the Son to bring Him up and to circumcise Him. The circumcision is meant when he says, And thou, shalt call His name Jesus; for it was usual to give the name in circumcision.

(Verse 21.) And you shall call his name Jesus. For he will save his people from their sins. Jesus means 'Savior' in Hebrew. The evangelist noted the etymology of his name, saying: 'You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people.'

Jesus is a Hebrew word, meaning Saviour. He points to the etymology of the name, saying, For He shall save His people from their sins.

Or rather, not by things past only, but likewise by things to come, he wins him over. "And she shall bring forth," saith he, "a Son, and thou shall call His name Jesus." "For do not thou, because He is of the Holy Ghost, imagine that thou art an alien to the ministry of this dispensation. Since although in the birth thou hast no part, but the Virgin abode untouched, nevertheless, what pertains to a father, not injuring the honor of virginity, that do I give thee, to set a Name on that which is born: for 'thou shalt call Him.' For though the offspring be not thine, yet shalt thou exhibit a father's care towards Him. Wherefore I do straightway, even from the giving of the name, connect thee with Him that is born."

Then lest on the other hand any one should from this suspect him to be the father, hear what follows, with what exact care he states it. "She shall bring forth," he saith, "a Son:" he doth not say, "bring forth to thee," but merely "she shall bring forth," putting it indefinitely: since not to him did she bring forth, but to the whole world.

For this cause too the angel came bringing His name from Heaven, hereby again intimating that this is a wondrous birth: it being God Himself who sends the name from above by the angel to Joseph. For neither was this without an object, but a treasure of ten thousand blessings. Wherefore the angel also interprets it, and suggests good hopes, in this way again leading him to belief. For to these things we are wont to be more inclined, and therefore are also fonder of believing them.

So having established his faith by all, by the past things, by the future, by the present, by the honor given to himself, he rings in the prophet also in good time, to give his suffrage in support of all these. But before introducing him, he proclaims beforehand the good things which were to befall the world through Him. And what are these? Sins removed and done away. "For He shall save His people from their sins."

Here again the thing is signified to be beyond all expectation. For not from visible wars, neither from barbarians, but what was far greater than these, from sins, he declares the glad tidings of deliverance; a work which had never been possible to any one before.

But wherefore, one may ask, did he say, "His people," and not add the Gentiles also? That he might not startle the hearer yet a while. For to him that listens with understanding he darkly signified the Gentiles too. For "His people" are not the Jews only, but also all that draw nigh and receive the knowledge that is from Him.

And mark how he hath by the way discovered to us also His dignity, by calling the Jewish nation "His people." For this is the word of one implying nought else, but that He who is born is God's child, and that the King of those on high is the subject of his discourse. As neither doth forgiving sins belong to any other power, but only to that single essence.

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

Let them approach to hear this, who ask, Who is He that Mary bare? He shall save His people; not any other man's people; from what? from their sins. That it is God that forgives sins, if you do not believe the Christians so affirming, believe the infidels, or the Jews who say, None can forgive sins but God only. (Luke 5:1.)

He said not, Shall bear thee a Son, as to Zacharias, Behold, Elisabeth thy wife shall bear thee a son. For the woman who conceives of her husband, bears the son to her husband, because he is more of him than of herself; but she who had not conceived of man, did not bear the Son to her husband, but to herself.

Thou shalt call His name, he says, and not, "shalt give Him a name," for His name had been given from all eternity.

He shows the same man to be the Saviour of the whole world, and the Author of our salvation. He saves indeed not the unbelieving, but His people; that is, He saves those that believe on Him, not so much from visible as from invisible enemies; that is, from their sins, not by fighting with arms, but by remitting their sins.

My present discussion is, how the evil spirit could have known that He was called by such a name, when there had never at any time been uttered about Him a single prophecy by a god who was unknown, and up to that time silent, of whom it was not possible for Him to be attested as "the Holy One," as (of a god) unknown even to his own Creator. What similar event could he then have published of a new deity, whereby he might betoken for "the holy one" of the rival god? Simply that he went into the synagogue, and did nothing even in word against the Creator? As therefore he could not by any means acknowledge him, whom he was ignorant of, to be Jesus and the Holy One of God; so did he acknowledge Him whom he knew (to be both). For he remembered how that the prophet had prophesied of "the Holy One" of God, and how that God's name of "Jesus" was in the son of Nun. These facts he had also received from the angel, according to our Gospel: "Wherefore that which shall be born of thee shall be called the Holy One, the Son of God; " and, "Thou shalt call his name Jesus."

And she shall bear a son. So that no one could ask, "How can I believe you that she has conceived of the Holy Spirit?" the angel speaks of the future, saying that she shall bear a son. "For if I tell the truth in this matter, it is clear that what I said concerning her conception of the Holy Spirit is also true." The angel did not say, "She shall bear you a son," but simply, "She shall bear a son." For Mary did not bring forth for Joseph's sake, but for the whole world; nor did this grace concern him alone, but it was poured out on all. And thou shalt call His name Jesus. "Thou shalt call," as though you were His father, and as the protector of the Virgin. For you must not think, Joseph, that because the conception is of the Holy Spirit that you can leave the Virgin helpless, but rather you will serve her in all things. For He shall save His people from their sins. Here he interprets the name "Jesus," showing that it means "Saviour." The angel says that Jesus will save His people, not only the Jewish people, but also the Gentiles who are eager to believe and to become His people. From whom will He save them? Perhaps from enemies? No, but from their sins. Hence it is clear that it is God Who will be born, for it is the attribute of God alone to forgive sins.

She will bear a Son. Here he foretells the obeisance Joseph will show to the child when born. And he does three things: first, he foretells the virgin birth; secondly, he shows beforehand the obeisance Joseph will show to the child; thirdly, he mentions the name conferred on the child, when he says Jesus.

He says, therefore, she will bear a son. He does not say, "to you," because he did not beget the child. In Luke (1:15) it says: "Your wife will bear you a son," because Zechariah himself begot it. Or he does not say, "to you," in order to show that he was born for all: she will bear a Son not only to you but to the whole world: "Behold, I bring you good news of great joy, because today is born to you in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord" (Lk 2:10). But because Joseph could say: So she has conceived of the Holy Spirit and will bear a Son. What does that have to do with me? She does not need me in any way. Therefore, he mentions Joseph's assistance. You shall call his name... It was a custom among the Jews, and it persists to this day, that they circumcised a son on the eighth day and then gave him a name. This was done by Joseph; hence in this work he was a minister, and it is said to him: You shall call, and not "you will give," because he was already named: "You shall be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord will give" (Is 62:2). Jesus. This is the name imposed by God. And he mentions the cause: for he will save his people..., a people acquired by his blood: "Those who deny him will not be his people" (Dan 9:26). Hence, they are the people of God by faith: "You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a purchased people" (1 Pt 2:9). In the book of Judges it is frequently said that such or such a one has saved Israel: but from whom? From material enemies. But here it is from their sins, by remitting them, which God alone can do: "In order that you may know that the Son of man has power on earth to forgive sins" (Lk 5:24).

Note that Nestorius is confused here, because he said that God's attributes, such as to be eternal and omnipotent and so on, do not belong to that man. Lo, the very same man, who was born of a virgin and is called Jesus, will save his people from their sins. Hence, since God alone can forgive sins, it is necessary to say that this man is God, and that the attributes of God belong to him in the truest sense.

(Cont. Faust. 12. 45, and 13. 7.) Who so mad as to say with Manichæus, that it is a weak faith not to believe in Christ without a witness; whereas the Apostle says, How shall they believe on Him of whom they have not heard? Or how shall they hear without a preacher? (Rom. 10:14.) That those things which were preached by the Apostles might not be contemned, nor thought to be fables, they are proved to have been foretold by the Prophets. For though attested by miracles, yet there would not have been wanting men to ascribe them all to magical power, had not such suggestions been overcome by the additional testimony of prophecy. For none could suppose that long before He was born, He had raised up by magic prophets to prophesy of Him. For if we say to a Gentile, Believe on Christ that He is God, and he should answer, Whence is it that I should believe on Him? we might allege the authority of the Prophets. Should he refuse assent to this, we establish their credit from their having foretold things to come, and those things having truly come to pass. I suppose he could not but know how great persecutions the Christian religion has formerly suffered from the Kings of this world; let him now behold those very Kings submitting to the kingdom of Christ, and all nations serving the same; all which things the Prophets foretold. He then hearing these things out of the Scriptures of the Prophets, and beholding them accomplished throughout the whole earth, would be moved to faith.

(ap. Anselm.) Or, he says, all this was done, meaning, the Virgin was betrothed, she was kept chaste, she was found with child, the revelation was made by the Angel, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken. For that the Virgin should conceive and should bring forth would never have been fulfilled, had she not been espoused that she should not be stoned; and had not her secret been disclosed by the Angel, and so Joseph taken her unto him, that she was not dismissed to disgrace and to perish by stoning. So had she perished before the birth, that prophecy would have been made void which says, She shall bring forth a Son. (Isa. 7:14.)

(non occ.) Or it may be said, that the word that does not here denote the cause; for the prophecy was not fulfilled merely because it was to be fulfilled. But it is put consecutively, as in Genesis, He hung the other on the gallows, that the truth of the interpreter might be proved; (Gen. 40:22.) since by the weighing of one, truth is established. So also in this place we must understand it as if it were, that which was foretold being done, the prophecy was accomplished.

(ap. Anselm.) This error then is barred by the Evangelist saying, That it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet. Now one kind of prophecy is by the preordination of God, and must needs be fulfilled, and that without any free choice on our part. Such is that of which we now speak; wherefore he says, Lo, to show the certainty of prophecy. There is another kind of prophecy which is by the foreknowledge of God, and with this our free will is mixed up; wherein by grace working with us we obtain reward, or if justly deserted by it, torment. Another is not of foreknowledge, but is a kind of threat made after the manner of men; as that, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown: (Jonah 3.) understanding, unless the Ninevites amend themselves.

(Verse 22 onwards) Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph, being raised from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him. And all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: Behold, a virgin shall conceive in her womb. But the prophet, because he predicts the future, signifies what is going to happen, and he writes, he will receive: but the evangelist, because he narrates a story not about the future but about the past, changed he will receive to he has received. For he who has, will by no means receive. We read something similar in the Psalms: You have ascended on high, you have led captivity captive: you have received gifts among men (Ps. 67:19). The apostle, in citing this testimony, did not say he received, but he gave: because there it signified about the future that he would receive; here it narrates about the one who had already given what he had received.

(In Is. 7:14.) Since it is introduced in the Prophet by the words, The Lord Himself shall give you a sign, it ought to be something new and wonderful. But if it be, as the Jews will have it, a young woman, or a girl shall bring forth, and not a virgin, what wonder is this, since these are words signifying age and not purity? Indeed the Hebrew word signifying Virgin (Bethula) is not used in this place, but instead the word 'Halmaa,' which except the LXX all render 'girl.' But the word 'Halma' has a twofold meaning; it signifies both 'girl,' and 'hidden;' therefore 'Halma' denotes not only 'maiden' or 'virgin,' but 'hidden,' 'secret;' that is, one never exposed to the gaze of men, but kept under close custody by her parents. In the Punic tongue also, which is said to be derived from Hebrew sources, a virgin is properly called 'Halma.' In our tongue also 'Halma' means holy; and the Hebrews use words of nearly all languages; and as far as my memory will serve me, I do not think I ever met with Halma used of a married woman, but of her that is a virgin, and such that she be not merely a virgin, but in the age of youth; for it is possible for an old woman to be a maid. But this was a virgin in years of youth, or at least a virgin, and not a child too young for marriage.

(In loc.) For that which Matthew the Evangelist says, Shall have in her womb, the Prophet who is foretelling something future, writes, shall receive. The Evangelist, not foretelling the future but describing the past, changes shall receive, into shall have; but he who has, cannot after receive that he has. He says, Lo, a Virgin shall hare in her womb, and shall bear a Son.

(in Is. 7:14.) The LXX and three others translate, 'Thou shalt call,' instead of which we have here, They shall call, which is not so in the Hebrew; for the word 'Charathib,' which all render Thou shalt call, may mean, 'And she shall call,' that is, The Virgin that shall conceive and shall bear Christ, shall call His name Emmanuel, which is interpreted, 'God with us.'

(ubi sup.) It should be known, that the Hebrews believe this prophecy to refer to Ezekias the son of Ahaz, because in his reign Samaria was taken; but this cannot be established. Ahaz son of Jotham reigned over Judæa and Jerusalem sixteen years, and was succeeded by his son Ezekias, who was twenty-three years old, and reigned over Judæa and Jerusalem twenty-nine years; how then can a prophecy prophesied in the first year of Ahaz refer to the conception and birth of Ezekias, when he was already nine years of age? Unless perhaps the sixth year of the reign of Ezekias, in which Samaria was taken, they think is here called his infancy, that is, the infancy of his reign, not of his age; which even a fool must see to be hard and forced. A certain one of our interpreters contends, that the Prophet Isaiah had two sons, Jashub and Emmanuel; and that Emmanuel was born of his wife the Prophetess as a type of the Lord and Saviour. But this is a fabulous tale.

(ubi sup.) What is spoken to Ahaz then is to be thus understood. This Child, that shall be born of a Virgin of the house of David, shall now be called Emmanuel, that is, God with us, because the events (perhaps delivery from the two hostile kings) will make it appear that you have God present with you. But after He shall be called Jesus, that is, Saviour, because He shall save the whole human race. Wonder not, therefore, O house of David, at the newness of this thing, that a Virgin should bring forth a God, seeing He has so great might that though yet to be born after a long while, He delivers you now when you call upon Him.

"Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying." In a tone worthy of the wonder, with all his might he hath uttered his voice, saying, "Now all this was done." For when he saw the sea and the abyss of the love of God towards man, and that actually come to pass which never had been looked for, and nature's laws broken, and reconciliations made, Him who is above all come down to him that is lower than all, and "the middle walls of partition broken," and the impediments removed, and many more things than these done besides; in one word he hath put before us the miracle, saying, "Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord." For, "think not," saith he, "that these things are now determined upon; they were prefigured of old." Which same thing, Paul also everywhere labors to prove.

And the angel proceeds to refer Joseph to Isaiah; in order that even if he should, when awakened, forget his own words, as newly spoken, he might by being reminded of those of the prophet, with which he had been nourished up continually, retain likewise the substance of what he had said. And to the woman he mentioned none of these things, as being a damsel and unskilled in them, but to the husband, as being a righteous man and one who studied the prophets, from them he reasons. And before this he saith "Mary, thy wife;" but now, when he hath brought the prophet before him, he then trusts him with the name of virginity; for Joseph would not have continued thus unshaken, when he heard from him of a virgin, unless he had first heard it also from Isaiah. For indeed it was nothing novel that he was to hear out of the prophets, but what was familiar to him, and had been for a long time the subject of his meditations. For this cause the angel, to make what he said easy to be received, brings in Isaiah. And neither here doth he stop, but connects the discourse with God. For he doth not call the saying Isaiah's, but that of the God of all things. For this cause he said not, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of Isaiah," but "which was spoken of the Lord." For the mouth indeed was Isaiah's, but the oracle was wafted from above.

(Serm. xxiii. 1.) The conception was by the Holy Spirit within the womb of the Virgin; who, as she conceived in perfect chastity, in like manner brought forth her Son.

Let them approach to hear this, who ask, Who is He that Mary bare? He shall save His people; not any other man's people; from what? from their sins. That it is God that forgives sins, if you do not believe the Christians so affirming, believe the infidels, or the Jews who say, None can forgive sins but God only. (Luke 5:1.)

(Dial. tit. 7.) For we know not that any man of that day was called Emmanuel. But the Hebrew objects, How can it be that this was said on account of Christ and Mary, when many centuries intervened between Ahaz and Mary? But though the Prophet was speaking to Ahaz, the prophecy was yet not spoken to him only or of his time only; for it is introduced, Hear, O house of David; (Isa. 7:13.) not, 'Hear, O Ahaz.' Again, The Lord Himself shall give you a sign; meaning He, and none other; from which we may understand that the Lord Himself should be the sign. And that he says to you, (plur.) and not 'to thee,' shows that this was not spoken to Ahaz, or on his account only.

(in App. s. 123.) He, who by a touch could heal the severed limbs of others, how much more could He, in His own birth, preserve whole that which He found whole? In this parturition, soundness of the Mother's body was rather strengthened than weakened, and her virginity rather confirmed than lost.

First, Angels hymning, secondly, Apostles preaching, then Holy Martyrs, and lastly, all believers.

It is the custom of the Evangelist to confirm what he says out of the Old Testament, for the sake of those Jews who believed on Christ, that they might recognize as fulfilled in the grace of the Gospel, the things that were foretold in the Old Testament; therefore he adds, Now all this was done. Here we must enquire why he should say all this was done, when above he has only related the conception. It should be known that he says this to show, that in the presence of God all this was done before it was done among men. Or he says, all this was done, because he is relating past events; for when he wrote, it was all done.

It is a question, who interpreted this name? The Prophet, or the Evangelist, or some translator? It should be known then, that the Prophet did not interpret it; and what need had the Holy Evangelist to do so, seeing he wrote in the Hebrew tongue? Perhaps that was a difficult and rare word in Hebrew, and therefore needed interpretation. It is more probable that some translator interpreted it, that the Latins might not be perplexed by an unintelligible word. In this name are conveyed at once the two substances, the Divinity and Humanity in the one Person of the Lord Jesus Christ. He who before all time was begot in an unspeakable manner by God the Father, the same in the end of time was made Emmanuel, that is, God with us, of a Virgin Mother. This God with us may be understood in this way. He was made with us, passible, mortal, and in all things like unto us without sin; or because our frail substance which He took on Him, He joined in one Person to His Divine substance.

(Hom. 1 and 2. in Conc. Eph. ap. Hard. t. i. pp. 1643. 1655.) Inasmuch as Photinus affirms that He that was now born was mere man, not allowing the divine birth, and maintains that He who now issued from the womb was the man separate from the God; let him show how it was possible that human nature, born of the Virgin's womb, should have preserved the virginity of that womb uncorrupted; for the mother of no man ever yet remained a virgin. But forasmuch as it was God the Word who was now born in the flesh, He showed Himself to be the Word, in that He preserved His mother's virginity. For as our word when it is begot does not destroy the mind, so neither does God the Word in choosing His birth destroy the virginity.

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying. Do not think that only now in these recent times did God resolve to do these things, but from before, even from the beginning. For you know the prophets, Joseph, as the student of the law which you are. Remember what was spoken by the law. He did not say, "what Isaiah had spoken," but, "what the Lord had spoken." For it was not man who spoke, but God, through the mouth of the prophet, and therefore the oracle is trustworthy.

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.

That ruler tempting Him said, Good Master, he ought to have said, Good God. For although goodness exists in divinity and divinity in goodness, yet by adding Good Master, he uses good only in part, not in the whole. For God is good altogether, man partially.

(Quæst. Ev. lib. ii. qu. 63.) It may seem that the account given in Matthew is different, where it is said, "Why askest thou me of good?" which might apply better to the question which he asked, What good shall I do? (Matt. 10.) In this place he both calls Him good, and asks the question about good. It will be best then to understand both to have been said, Why callest thou me good? and, Why askest thou me of good? though the latter may rather be implied in the former.

And a certain ruler asked him, saying: Good teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? I believe this ruler had heard from the Lord that only those who want to be like children will enter the kingdom of God, and therefore, concerned with obtaining clear guidance, he asks to be told openly, not in parables, by what merits of works he may gain eternal life.

A certain ruler having heard our Lord say, that only those who would be like little children should enter the kingdom of heaven, entreats Him to explain to him not by parable but openly by what works he may merit to obtain eternal life.

Second, curiosity in possessing is refuted in two ways.

And a certain one asked him etc. After the refutation of curiosity in investigating, there follows here the second part of this section, in which the refutation of curiosity in possessing takes place; and this he does in two ways, first by commending poverty, second by approving liberality, below in the nineteenth chapter: And having entered, he was passing through Jericho.

First, by commending poverty in four ways, He shows poverty to be commendable and worthy of approval on four grounds: first, by reason of perfection in its merit; second, by reason of imperfection in its contrary, at the passage: When he heard these things, he was sorrowful; third, by reason of consummation in its reward, at the passage: And Peter said: Behold etc.; fourth, by reason of the condescension of Christ in his example, at the passage: And Jesus took the twelve disciples.

In explaining the merit of perfect poverty, four things are introduced, namely the interrogation, by which it is asked what is to be done; the response, by which it is shown whither one must tend; the instruction, by which the way of salvation is declared; the exhortation, by which the way of perfection is urged.

First, therefore, as regards the interrogation, by which it is asked what is to be done, he says: And a certain ruler asked him.

Here it seems that Ambrose and Bede contradict each other. For Ambrose says that this man questioned Jesus with a testing and inquisitive question, and this is gathered both from the fact that the Lord rebuked him, and from the fact that he did not accept the Lord's counsel. Hence Ambrose in the Gloss: "The question was crafty, and therefore the response was shrewd." But Bede says that he questioned with a faithful and earnest question, which he draws from the fact that the Lord Jesus is said especially to have loved him; hence Bede in the Gloss: "This man should not be thought, as some say, to have either tempted God or to have lied about his life; otherwise, as Mark says, having gazed into the secrets of his heart, Jesus would not be said to have loved him."

But this is resolved by a certain saying of John Chrysostom: "This man," he says, "was rich and a tempter and proud, but Jesus looked upon him with eyes of mercy." And so he did not love in him what he formerly was through pride, but what he began to be through grace.

But whatever intention he may have had in doing this, he made a useful question: and therefore he adds: Saying: Good Master, what shall I do to possess eternal life? This is a right and useful question, according to that passage of Jeremiah 6: "Stand upon your ways and see and ask about the ancient paths, which is the good way, and walk in it"; and this by the counsel of the Lord, Matthew 6: "Seek first the kingdom of God and his justice," through which the kingdom is acquired; and Tobit 4: "Always seek counsel from a wise man"; and especially saving counsel must always be sought from the one most wise Christ and supreme Master. And therefore he calls him Master, from whom as from the most expert he seeks sound counsel, according to that passage of Ecclesiasticus 6: "Let many be at peace with you, but let your counselor be one in a thousand." And this is Christ, of whom Song of Songs 5: "My beloved is white and ruddy, chosen out of thousands"; and Ecclesiastes 7: "One man among a thousand I have found." From him therefore, who alone is the Master, according to that passage of Matthew 23: "One is your Master, Christ," who alone is wisdom: First Corinthians 1: "We call Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God," who alone is the true counselor, according to that passage of Isaiah 9: "His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor" etc.; this counsel and instruction must be sought, according to that passage of Isaiah 48: "I am the Lord who teaches you profitable things, who governs you in the way in which you walk."

Just as the world is composed of opposites, of heat and cold, dry and wet, so also is it made up of givers and receivers. Again when he says, "If you would be perfect, sell your possessions and give to the poor," he convicts the man who boasts that he has kept all the commandments from his youth up. For he had not fulfilled "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Only then was he taught by the Lord who wished to make him perfect, to give for love's sake.

The Jewish crowds … with their princes and teachers … looked at Christ as being a mere man like one of us, and not as God who had become man. They approached him to test him and lay the nets of their cleverness for him.…He is called here a ruler. He fancied himself to have learned the law and supposed that he had been accurately taught it. He imagined that he could convict Christ of introducing laws of his own and of dishonoring the commandment spoken by most wise Moses. It was the Jews' goal to prove that Christ opposed and resisted the former commandments and established new laws by his own authority, in opposition to those previously existing. Their wicked conduct toward him had a false pretext. He comes near and makes a pretense of speaking kindly. He calls him "Teacher," designates him "good," and professes himself desirous of being a disciple. He says, "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?" Observe how he mixes flattery with fraud and deceit, like one who mingles vinegar with honey. He supposed that he could deceive him in this way.

Now he thought to detect Christ in blaming the law of Moses, while He introduced His own commands. He went then to the Master, and calling Him good, says that he wishes to be taught by Him, for he sought to tempt Him. But He who takes the wise in their craftiness answers him fitly as follows, Why callest thou me good? there is none good, save God alone.

But the ruler expected to hear Christ say, Forsake the commandments of Moses, and listen to Mine. Whereas He sends him to the former; as it follows, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery.

The ruler was not able to contain the new word, but being like an old bottle, burst with sorrow.

And to the person who said to Him, "Good Master," He confessed that God who is truly good, saying, "Why callest thou Me good: there is One who is good, the Father in the heavens;" and they assert that in this passage the Aeons receive the name of heavens.

For when on earth He acted in the very same manner, and answered to one who addressed Him as 'Good Master': 'Why callest thou me good? One is good, my Father who is in heaven.'

And Peter said: "I shall explain to you how goodness itself is just. Our teacher Himself first said to the Pharisee who asked Him, 'What shall I do to inherit eternal life?' 'Do not call me good; for one is good, even the Father who is in the heavens;' and straightway He introduced these words, 'But if thou shalt wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.' And when he said, 'What commandments?' He pointed him to those of the law. Now He would not, if He were indicating some other good being, have referred him to the commandments of the Just One. That indeed justice and goodness are different I allow, but you do not know that it is within the power of the same being to be good and just. For He is good, in that He is now long-suffering with the penitent, and welcomes them; but just, when acting as judge He will give to every one according to his deserts."

Now, undoubtedly, He is the good God who "sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust, and maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good; " sustaining and nourishing and assisting even Marcionites themselves! When afterwards "a certain man asked him, `Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? '" (Jesus) inquired whether he knew (that is, in other words, whether he kept) the commandments of the Creator, in order to testify that it was by the Creator's precepts that eternal life is acquired. Then, when he affirmed that from his youth up he had kept all the principal commandments, (Jesus) said to him: "One thing thou yet lackest: sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.

That rich man did go his way who had not "received" the precept of dividing his substance to the needy, and was abandoned by the Lord to his own opinion. Nor will "harshness" be on this account imputed to Christ, the Found of the vicious action of each individual free-will.

This man, in the opinion of some, was a certain evil schemer and sought to trap Jesus in His words. But it is more likely that he was a lover of money, since Christ Himself exposed him as precisely such. And the evangelist Mark says that a certain man, running up and falling on his knees, asked Jesus, and "looking at him, Jesus loved him" (Mk. 10:17, 21). So then, this man was covetous. He comes to Jesus wishing to learn about eternal life. Perhaps in this case too he was driven by a passion for acquisition. For no one desires a long life so much as a covetous man. So he thought that Jesus would show him a way by which he could live forever, possess his property, and thus enjoy himself. But when the Lord said that the means of attaining eternal life is the renunciation of possessions, then he, as though reproaching himself for the question and Jesus for the answer, went away. For he needed eternal life because he had riches for many years. But when he must give up his possessions and live, it would seem, in poverty, then what need has he of eternal life?

When he says then, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? it is the same as if he says, Thou art good; vouchsafe me then an answer to my question. I am learned in the Old Testament, but I see in Thee something far more excellent. For Thou makest no earthly promises, but preachest the kingdom of heaven. Tell me then, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

He said, "All these I have kept from my youth." Jesus, hearing this, said to him, "You still lack one thing." This prince is not to be thought a liar when he claimed he kept the commandments of the law, but he confessed simply as he had lived. Because if he were guilty of the charge of lying, the evangelist Mark would not have added, writing about him: "Jesus looking at him, loved him, and said to him, 'You lack one thing: Go, sell all that you have' (Mark 10), and so on. For the Lord loves those who keep even the lesser mandates of the law, but nonetheless shows what was lesser in the law to those who desire to be perfect.

Or we must not think him to have lied, but to have avowed that he had lived honestly, that is, at least in outward things, else Mark could never have said, And Jesus seeing him, loved him. (Mark. 10:21.)

And since these commandments do not justify through simple knowledge, but through experiential observance, therefore the Lord was not asking about simple knowledge when He said: You know the commandments, but about experiential knowledge, because, as is said in Romans 2, "not the hearers of the law, but the doers of the law are just before God." Therefore this lawyer responds as one who understands, when it follows: Who said: All these things I have kept from my youth: and this indeed according to the counsel of the Wise Man in Proverbs 3: "My son, do not forget my law, and let your heart keep my precepts; for they shall add to you length of days and years of life and peace"; because it is said in Ecclesiastes 8: "He who keeps the commandment shall experience no evil."

(in Matt. 19:19.) The young man speaks false, for if he had fulfilled that which was afterwards placed among the commandments, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, how was it that when he heard, Go and sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, he went away sorrowful?

Then, when he affirmed that from his youth up he had kept all the principal commandments, (Jesus) said to him: "One thing thou yet lackest: sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." Well now, Marcion, and all ye who are companions in misery, and associates in hatred with that heretic, what will you dare say to this? Did Christ rescind the forementioned commandments: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother? "Or did He both keep them, and then add what was wanting to them? This very precept, however, about giving to the poor, was very largely diffused through the pages of the law and the prophets.

Hearing this, he was sorrowful, for he was very rich. This is the sadness of the world that works death. These deceptive riches are like thorns that choke the Lord's seed.

Having heard these things, he was saddened, etc. After he showed poverty to be commendable by reason of its perfection in merit, here he shows it to be commendable by reason of the imperfection in its contrary, which is indeed the tenacious clinging to riches. Concerning which four things are introduced by the Evangelist, namely the sign, danger, obstacle, and remedy of human tenacity, which is the gift of divine grace.

First, therefore, as regards the sign of human tenacity, it is said: Having heard these things, he was saddened, because he was very rich. For because he abounded in riches, he shuddered at the destitution of poverty, and therefore he was made sad at the praise and counsel of poverty. And this is the consequence of cupidity and the sign of tenacity, when someone is saddened out of horror of poverty: Ecclesiasticus 14: "The eye of the covetous man is insatiable in his portion of iniquity; he will not be satisfied until he consumes, withering his own soul." "And he who is in want will not be satisfied with bread, and he will be sorrowful at his own table." But this sadness is evil, because it is the sadness of the world, of which Second Corinthians 7 says: "The sadness of the world works death." For it is said in Ecclesiasticus 38: "From sadness death hastens and covers virtue, and sadness of heart bends the neck." Therefore whoever wishes to flee this sadness must hate the cupidity of riches, which prick after the manner of thorns, as is intimated in Matthew 13. For concerning the rich man it is said in Job 15: "The sound of terror is always in his ears, and when there is peace, he suspects treachery." But contrary to these are the just and perfect Christians, to whom it is said in Hebrews 10: "You received the plundering of your goods with joy, knowing that you have a better and enduring substance."

(Hom. 63. in Matt.) Or else; I shall not hesitate to call this ruler covetous, for with this Christ reproaches him, but I say not that he was a tempter.

As the Lord promised the covetous ruler a treasure in heaven, he nevertheless did not heed, for he was a slave to his treasures, and therefore "became sorrowful" upon hearing the Lord urge him to part with his possessions, since he desired eternal life precisely so that with his great abundance of wealth he might also live forever. The ruler's sorrow shows that he was a well-intentioned man, and not a cunning villain. For none of the Pharisees ever became sorrowful; rather, they grew hardened. It is not unknown to me that the great luminary of the universe, Chrysostom, held that this young man desired true eternal life and loved it, but was possessed by a powerful passion—love of money; yet the thought now proposed is also not out of place, that he desired eternal life as a covetous man.

(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.