|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | -----------------
| + | Moved to [http://www.logicmuseum.com/authors/augustine/civitate-15.htm here]. |
| − | ON THE CITY OF GOD, BOOK XV
| |
| − | -----------------
| |
| − | [[Directory:Logic Museum/Augustine City of God|Index]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | Translated by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Dods_%28theologian%29 Marcus Dods]
| |
| − | | |
| − | *[[#c0|Introduction]]
| |
| − | *[[#c1|Chapter 1]] Of the Two Lines of the Human Race Which from First to Last Divide It
| |
| − | *[[#c2|Chapter 2]] Of the Children of the Flesh and the Children of the Promise
| |
| − | *[[#c3|Chapter 3]] That Sarah's Barrenness was Made Productive by God's Grace
| |
| − | *[[#c4|Chapter 4]] Of the Conflict and Peace of the Earthly City
| |
| − | *[[#c5|Chapter 5]] Of the Fratricidal Act of the Founder of the Earthly City, and the Corresponding Crime of the Founder of Rome
| |
| − | *[[#c6|Chapter 6]] Of the Weaknesses Which Even the Citizens of the City of God Suffer During This Earthly Pilgrimage in Punishment of Sin, and of Which They are Healed by God's Care
| |
| − | *[[#c7|Chapter 7]] Of the Cause of Cain's Crime and His Obstinacy, Which Not Even the Word of God Could Subdue
| |
| − | *[[#c8|Chapter 8]] What Cain's Reason Was for Building a City So Early in the History of the Human Race
| |
| − | *[[#c9|Chapter 9]] Of the Long Life and Greater Stature of the Antediluvians
| |
| − | *[[#c10|Chapter 10]] Of the Different Computation of the Ages of the Antediluvians, Given by the Hebrew Manuscripts and by Our Own
| |
| − | *[[#c11|Chapter 11]] Of Methuselah's Age, Which Seems to Extend Fourteen Years Beyond the Deluge
| |
| − | *[[#c12|Chapter 12]] Of the Opinion of Those Who Do Not Believe that in These Primitive Times Men Lived So Long as is Stated
| |
| − | *[[#c13|Chapter 13]] Whether, in Computing Years, We Ought to Follow the Hebrew or the Septuagint
| |
| − | *[[#c14|Chapter 14]] That the Years in Those Ancient Times Were of the Same Length as Our Own
| |
| − | *[[#c15|Chapter 15]] Whether It is Credible that the Men of the Primitive Age Abstained from Sexual Intercourse Until that Date at Which It is Recorded that They Begat Children
| |
| − | *[[#c16|Chapter 16]] Of Marriage Between Blood-Relations, in Regard to Which the Present Law Could Not Bind the Men of the Earliest Ages
| |
| − | *[[#c17|Chapter 17]] Of the Two Fathers and Leaders Who Sprang from One Progenitor
| |
| − | *[[#c18|Chapter 18]] The Significance of Abel, Seth, and Enos to Christ and His Body the Church
| |
| − | *[[#c19|Chapter 19]] The Significance Of Enoch's Translation
| |
| − | *[[#c20|Chapter 20]] How It is that Cain's Line Terminates in the Eighth Generation, While Noah, Though Descended from the Same Father, Adam, is Found to Be the Tenth from Him
| |
| − | *[[#c21|Chapter 21]] Why It is That, as Soon as Cain's Son Enoch Has Been Named, the Genealogy is Forthwith Continued as Far as the Deluge, While After the Mention of Enos, Seth's Son, the Narrative Returns Again to the Creation of Man
| |
| − | *[[#c22|Chapter 22]] Of the Fall of the Sons of God Who Were Captivated by the Daughters of Men, Whereby All, with the Exception of Eight Persons, Deservedly Perished in the Deluge
| |
| − | *[[#c23|Chapter 23]] Whether We are to Believe that Angels, Who are of a Spiritual Substance, Fell in Love with the Beauty of Women, and Sought Them in Marriage, and that from This Connection Giants Were Born
| |
| − | *[[#c24|Chapter 24]] How We are to Understand This Which the Lord Said to Those Who Were to Perish in the Flood: "Their Days Shall Years
| |
| − | *[[#c25|Chapter 25]] Of the Anger of God, Which Does Not Inflame His Mind, Nor Disturb His Unchangeable Tranquillity
| |
| − | *[[#c26|Chapter 26]] That the Ark Which Noah Was Ordered to Make Figures In Every Respect Christ and the Church
| |
| − | *[[#c27|Chapter 27]] Of the Ark and the Deluge, and that We Cannot Agree with Those Who Receive the Bare History, But Reject the Allegorical Interpretation, Nor with Those Who Maintain the Figurative and Not the Historical Meaning
| |
| − | | |
| − |
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {| border=1 cellpadding=10
| |
| − | !valign = top width=47%|Latin
| |
| − | !valign = top width=53%|Latin
| |
| − | | |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c0"><b>BOOK XV</b> [] ||The City of God (Book XV) Argument-Having treated in the four preceding books of the origin of the two cities, the earthly and the heavenly, Augustin explains their growth and progress in the four books which follow; and, in order to do so, he explains the chief passages of the sacred history which bear upon this subject. In this fifteenth book he opens this part of his work by explaining the events recorded in Genesis from the time of Cain and Abel to the deluge.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c1"><b>BOOK XV</b> [I] De felicitate paradisi vel de ipso paradiso et de vita ibi primorum hominum eorumque peccato atque supplicio multi multa senserunt, multa dixerunt, multa litteris mandaverunt. Nos quoque secundum scripturas sanctas vel quod in eis legimus vel quod ex eis intellegere potuimus earum congruentes auctoritati de his rebus in superioribus libris diximus. Enucleatius autem si ista quaerantur, multiplices atque multimodas pariunt disputationes, quae pluribus intexendae sint voluminibus, quam hoc opus tempusque deposcit, quod non ita largum habemus, ut in omnibus, quae possunt requirere otiosi et scrupulosi, paratiores ad interrogandum quam capaciores ad intellegendum, nos oporteat inmorari. Arbitror tamen satis nos iam fecisse magnis et difficillimis quaestionibus de initio vel mundi vel animae vel ipsius generis humani, quod in duo genera distribuimus, unum eorum, qui secundum hominem, alterum eorum, qui secundum Deum vivunt; quas etiam mystice appellamus civitates duas, hoc est duas societates hominum, quarum est una quae praedestinata est in aeternum regnare cum Deo, altera aeternum supplicium subire cum diabolo. Sed iste finis est earum, de quo post loquendum est. Nunc autem quoniam de exortu earum sive in angelis, quorum numerus ignoratur a nobis, sive in duobus primis hominibus satis dictum est, iam mihi videtur earum adgrediendus excursus, ex quo illi duo generare coeperunt, donec homines generare cessabunt. Hoc enim universum tempus sive saeculum, in quo cedunt morientes succeduntque nascentes, istarum duarum civitatum, de quibus disputamus, excursus est. Natus est igitur prior Cain ex illis duobus generis humani parentibus, pertinens ad hominum civitatem, posterior Abel, ad civitatem Dei. Sicut enim in uno homine, quod dixit apostolus, experimur, quia non primum quod spiritale est, sed quod animale, postea spiritale (unde unusquisque, quoniam ex damnata propagine exoritur, primo sit necesse est ex Adam malus atque carnalis; quod si in Christum renascendo profecerit, post erit bonus et spiritalis): sic in universo genere humano, cum primum duae istae coeperunt nascendo atque moriendo procunere civitates, prior est natus civis huius saeculi, posterius autem isto peregrinus in saeculo et pertinens ad civitatem Dei, gratia praedestinatus gratia electus, gratia peregrinus deorsum gratia civis sursum. Nam quantum ad ipsum adtinet, ex eadem massa oritur, quae originaliter est tota damnata; sed tamquam figulus Deus (hanc enim similitudinem non inpudenter, sed prudenter introducit apostolus) ex eadem massa fecit aliud uas in honorem, aliud in contumeliam. Prius autem factum est uas in contumeliam, post vero alterum in honorem, quia et in ipso uno, sicut iam dixi, homine prius est reprobum, unde necesse est incipiamus et ubi non est necesse ut remaneamus, posterius vero probum, quo proficientes veniamus et quo pervenientes maneamus. Proinde non quidem omnis homo malus erit bonus, nemo tamen erit bonus qui non erat malus; sed quanto quisque citius mutatur in melius, hoc in se facit nominari, quod adprehendit, celerius et posteriore cooperit vocabulum prius. Scriptum est itaque de Cain, quod condiderit civitatem; Abel autem tamquam peregrinus non condidit. Superna est enim sanctorum civitas, quamuis hic pariat cives, in quibus peregrinatur, donec regni eius tempus adveniat, cum congregatura est omnes in suis corporibus resurgentes, quando eis promissum dabitur regnum, ubi cum suo principe rege saeculorum sine ullo temporis fine regnabunt. ||Of the bliss of Paradise, of Paradise itself, and of the life of our first parents there, and of their sin and punishment, many have thought much, spoken much, written much. We ourselves, too, have spoken of these things in the foregoing books, and have written either what we read in the Holy Scriptures, or what we could reasonably deduce from them. And were we to enter into a more detailed investigation of these matters, an endless number of endless questions would arise, which would involve us in a larger work than the present occasion admits. We cannot be expected to find room for replying to every question that may be started by unoccupied and captious men, who are ever more ready to ask questions than capable of understanding the answer. Yet I trust we have already done justice to these great and difficult questions regarding the beginning of the world, or of the soul, or of the human race itself. This race we have distributed into two parts, the one consisting of those who live according to man, the other of those who live according to God. And these we also mystically call the two cities, or the two communities of men, of which the one is predestined to reign eternally with God, and the other to suffer eternal punishment with the devil. This, however, is their end, and of it we are to speak afterwards. At present, as we have said enough about their origin, whether among the angels, whose numbers we know not, or in the two first human beings, it seems suitable to attempt an account of their career, from the time when our two first parents began to propagate the race until all human generation shall cease. For this whole time or world-age, in which the dying give place and those who are born succeed, is the career of these two cities concerning which we treat.Of these two first parents of the human race, then, Cain was the first-born, and he belonged to the city of men; after him was born Abel, who belonged to the city of God. For as in the individual the truth of the apostle's statement is discerned, "that is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural, and afterward that which is spiritual," 1 Corinthians 15:46 whence it comes to pass that each man, being derived from a condemned stock, is first of all born of Adam evil and carnal, and becomes good and spiritual only afterwards, when he is grafted into Christ by regeneration: so was it in the human race as a whole. When these two cities began to run their course by a series of deaths and births, the citizen of this world was the first-born, and after him the stranger in this world, the citizen of the city of God, predestinated by grace, elected by grace, by grace a stranger below, and by grace a citizen above. By grace,-for so far as regards himself he is sprung from the same mass, all of which is condemned in its origin; but God, like a potter (for this comparison is introduced by the apostle judiciously, and not without thought), of the same lump made one vessel to honor, another to dishonor. Romans 9:21 But first the vessel to dishonor was made, and after it another to honor. For in each individual, as I have already said, there is first of all that which is reprobate, that from which we must begin, but in which we need not necessarily remain; afterwards is that which is well-approved, to which we may by advancing attain, and in which, when we have reached it we may abide. Not, indeed, that every wicked man shall be good, but that no one will be good who was not first of all wicked; but the sooner any one becomes a good man, the more speedily does he receive this title, and abolish the old name in the new. Accordingly, it is recorded of Cain that he built a city, Genesis 4:17 but Abel, being a sojourner, built none. For the city of the saints is above, although here below it begets citizens, in whom it sojourns till the time of its reign arrives, when it shall gather together all in the day of the resurrection; and then shall the promised kingdom be given to them, in which they shall reign with their Prince, the King of the ages, time without end.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c2"><b>BOOK XV</b> [II] Vmbra sane quaedam civitatis huius et imago prophetica ei significandae potius quam praesentandae seruivit in terris, quo eam tempore demonstrari oportebat, et dicta est etiam ipsa civitas sancta merito significantis imaginis, non expressae, sicut futura est, veritatis. De hac imagine seruiente et de illa, quam significat, libera civitate sic apostolus ad Galatas loquitur: Dicite mihi, inquit, sub lege volentes esse legem non audistis? Scriptum est enim, quod Abraham duos filios habuit, unum de ancilla et unum de libera. Sed ille quidem, qui de ancilla, secundum carnem natus est, qui autem de libera, per repromissionem; quae sunt in allegoria. Haec enim sunt duo testamenta, unum quidem a monte Sina in seruitutem generans, quod est Agar; Sina enim mons est in Arabia, quae coniuncta est huic quae nunc est Hierusalem, seruit enim cum filiis suis. Quae autem sursum est Hierusalem, libera est, quae est mater nostra. Scriptum est enim: Laetare sterilis, quae non paris, erumpe et exclama, quae non parturis; quoniam multi filii desertae, magis quam eius quae habet virum. Nos autem, fratres, secundum Isaac promissionis filii sumus. Sed sicut tunc, qui secundum carnem natus fuerat, persequebatur eum, qui secundum spiritum: ita et nunc. Sed quid dicit scriptura? Eice ancillam et filium eius; non enim heres erit filius ancillae cum filio liberae. Nos autem, fratres, non sumus ancillae filii, sed liberae, qua libertate Christus nos liberavit. Haec forma intellegendi de apostolica auctoritate descendens locum nobis aperit, quem ad modum scripturas duorum testamentorum, ueteris et novi, accipere debeamus. Pars enim quaedam terrenae civitatis imago caelestis civitatis effecta est, non se significando, sed alteram, et ideo seruiens. Non enim propter se ipsam, sed propter aliam significandam est instituta, et praecedente alia significatione et ipsa praefigurans praefigurata est. Namque Agar ancilla Sarrae eiusque filius imago quaedam huius imaginis fuit; et quoniam transiturae erant umbrae luce veniente, ideo dixit libera Sarra, quae significabat liberam civitatem, cui rursus alio modo significandae etiam illa umbra seruiebat: Eice ancillam et filium eius; non enim heres erit filius ancillae cum filio meo Isaac, quod ait apostolus: Cum filio liberae. Invenimus ergo in terrena civitate duas formas, unam suam praesentiam demonstrantem, alteram caelesti civitati significandae sua praesentia seruientem. Parit autem cives terrenae civitatis peccato vitiata natura, caelestis vero civitatis cives parit a peccato naturam liberans gratia; unde illa vocantur uasa irae, ista uasa misericordiae. Significatum est hoc etiam in duobus filiis Abrahae, quod unus de ancilla, quae dicebatur Agar, secundum carnem natus est Ismael, alter est autem de Sarra libera secundum repromissionem natus Isaac. Vterque quidem de semine Abrahae; sed illum genuit demonstrans consuetudo naturam, illum vero dedit promissio significans gratiam; ibi humanus usus ostenditur, hic divinum beneficium commendatur. ||There was indeed on earth, so long as it was needed, a symbol and foreshadowing image of this city, which served the purpose of reminding men that such a city was to be rather than of making it present; and this image was itself called the holy city, as a symbol of the future city, though not itself the reality. Of this city which served as an image, and of that free city it typified, Paul writes to the Galatians in these terms: "Tell me, you that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond maid, the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bond woman was born after the flesh, but he of the free woman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which genders to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answers to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, you barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, you that travailest not, for the desolate has many more children than she which has an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless, what says the Scripture? Cast out the bond woman and her son: for the son of the bond woman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. And we, brethren, are not children of the bond woman, but of the free, in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free." Galatians 4:21-31 This interpretation of the passage, handed down to us with apostolic authority, shows how we ought to understand the Scriptures of the two covenants-the old and the new. One portion of the earthly city became an image of the heavenly city, not having a significance of its own, but signifying another city, and therefore serving, or "being in bondage." For it was founded not for its own sake, but to prefigure another city; and this shadow of a city was also itself foreshadowed by another preceding figure. For Sarah's handmaid Agar, and her son, were an image of this image. And as the shadows were to pass away when the full light came, Sarah, the free woman, who prefigured the free city (which again was also prefigured in another way by that shadow of a city Jerusalem), therefore said, "Cast out the bond woman and her son; for the son of the bond woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac," or, as the apostle says, "with the son of the free woman." In the earthly city, then, we find two things-its own obvious presence, and its symbolic presentation of the heavenly city. Now citizens are begotten to the earthly city by nature vitiated by sin, but to the heavenly city by grace freeing nature from sin; whence the former are called "vessels of wrath," the latter "vessels of mercy." Romans 9:22-23 And this was typified in the two sons of Abraham,-Ishmael, the son of Agar the handmaid, being born according to the flesh, while Isaac was born of the free woman Sarah, according to the promise. Both, indeed, were of Abraham's seed; but the one was begotten by natural law, the other was given by gracious promise. In the one birth, human action is revealed; in the other, a divine kindness comes to light.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c3"><b>BOOK XV</b> [III] Sarra quippe sterilis erat et desperatione prolis saltem de ancilla sua concupiscens habere, quod de se ipsa non se posse cernebat, dedit eam fetandam viro, de quo parere voluerat nec potuerat. Exegit itaque etiam sic debitum de marito utens iure suo in utero alieno. Natus est ergo Ismael, sicut nascuntur homines, permixtione sexus utriusque, usitata lege naturae. Ideo dictum est: Secundum carnem; non quod ista beneficia Dei non sint aut non illa operetur Deus, cuius opifex sapientia adtingit, sicut scriptum est, a fine usque ad finem fortiter et disponit omnia suaviter; sed ubi significandum fuerat Dei donum, quod indebitum hominibus gratis gratia largiretur, sic oportuit dari filium, quem ad modum naturae non debebatur excursibus. Negat enim natura iam filios tali commixtioni maris et feminae, qualis esse poterat Abrahae et Sarrae in illa iam aetate, etiam mulieris accedente sterilitate, quae nec tunc parere potuit, quando non aetas fecunditati, sed aetati fecunditas defuit. Quod ergo naturae sic affectae fructus posteritatis non debebatur, significat quod natura generis humani peccato vitiata ac per hoc iure damnata nihil verae felicitatis in posterum merebatur. Recte igitur significat Isaac, per repromissionem natus, filios gratiae, cives civitatis liberae, socios pacis aeternae, ubi sit non amor propriae ac privatae quodam modo voluntatis, sed communi eodemque inmutabili bono gaudens atque ex multis unum cor faciens, id est perfecte concors oboedientia caritatis. ||Sarah, in fact, was barren; and, despairing of offspring, and being resolved that she would have at least through her handmaid that blessing she saw she could not in her own person procure, she gave her handmaid to her husband, to whom she herself had been unable to bear children. From him she required this conjugal duty, exercising her own right in another's womb. And thus Ishmael was born according to the common law of human generation, by sexual intercourse. Therefore it is said that he was born "according to the flesh,"-not because such births are not the gifts of God, nor His handiwork, whose creative wisdom "reaches," as it is written, "from one end to another mightily, and sweetly does she order all things," Wisdom 8:1 but because, in a case in which the gift of God, which was not due to men and was the gratuitous largess of grace, was to be conspicuous, it was requisite that a son be given in a way which no effort of nature could compass. Nature denies children to persons of the age which Abraham and Sarah had now reached; besides that, in Sarah's case, she was barren even in her prime. This nature, so constituted that offspring could not be looked for, symbolized the nature of the human race vitiated by sin and by just consequence condemned, which deserves no future felicity. Fitly, therefore, does Isaac, the child of promise, typify the children of grace, the citizens of the free city, who dwell together in everlasting peace, in which self-love and self-will have no place, but a ministering love that rejoices in the common joy of all, of many hearts makes one, that is to say, secures a perfect concord.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c4"><b>BOOK XV</b> [IV] Terrena porro civitas, quae sempiterna non erit (neque enim, cum extremo supplicio damnata fuerit, iam civitas erit), hic habet bonum suum, cuius societate laetatur, qualis esse de talibus laetitia rebus potest. Et quoniam non est tale bonum, ut nullas angustias faciat amatoribus suis, ideo civitas ista adversus se ipsam plerumque dividitur litigando, bellando atque pugnando et aut mortiferas aut certe mortales victorias requirendo. Nam ex quacumque sui parte adversus alteram sui partem bellando surrexerit, quaerit esse victrix gentium, cum sit captiva vitiorum; et si quidem, cum vicerit, superbius extollitur, etiam mortifera; si vero condicionem cogitans casusque communes magis quae accidere possunt adversis angitur, quam eis quae provenerunt secundis rebus inflatur, tantummodo mortalis est ista victoria. Neque enim semper dominari poterit permanendo eis, quos potuerit subiugare vincendo. Non autem recte dicitur ea bona non esse, quae concupiscit haec civitas, quando est et ipsa in suo humano genere melior. Concupiscit enim terrenam quandam pro rebus infimis pacem; ad eam namque desiderat pervenire bellando; quoniam si vicerit et qui resistat non fuerit, pax erit, quam non habebant partes in vicem adversantes et pro his rebus, quas simul habere non poterant, infelici egestate certantes. Hanc pacem requirunt laboriosa bella, hanc adipiscitur quae putatur gloriosa victoria. Quando autem vincunt qui causa iustiore pugnabant, quis dubitet gratulandam esse victoriam et provenisse optabilem pacem? Haec bona sunt et sine dubio Dei dona sunt. Sed si neglectis melioribus, quae ad supernam pertinent civitatem, ubi erit victoria in aeterna et summa pace secura, bona ista sic concupiscuntur, ut vel sola esse credantur vel his, quae meliora creduntur, amplius diligantur: necesse est miseria consequatur et quae inerat augeatur. ||But the earthly city, which shall not be everlasting (for it will no longer be a city when it has been committed to the extreme penalty), has its good in this world, and rejoices in it with such joy as such things can afford. But as this is not a good which can discharge its devotees of all distresses, this city is often divided against itself by litigations, wars, quarrels, and such victories as are either life-destroying or short-lived. For each part of it that arms against another part of it seeks to triumph over the nations through itself in bondage to vice. If, when it has conquered, it is inflated with pride, its victory is life-destroying; but if it turns its thoughts upon the common casualties of our mortal condition, and is rather anxious concerning the disasters that may befall it than elated with the successes already achieved, this victory, though of a higher kind, is still only short-lived; for it cannot abidingly rule over those whom it has victoriously subjugated. But the things which this city desires cannot justly be said to be evil, for it is itself, in its own kind, better than all other human good. For it desires earthly peace for the sake of enjoying earthly goods, and it makes war in order to attain to this peace; since, if it has conquered, and there remains no one to resist it, it enjoys a peace which it had not while there were opposing parties who contested for the enjoyment of those things which were too small to satisfy both. This peace is purchased by toilsome wars; it is obtained by what they style a glorious victory. Now, when victory remains with the party which had the juster cause, who hesitates to congratulate the victor, and style it a desirable peace? These things, then, are good things, and without doubt the gifts of God. But if they neglect the better things of the heavenly city, which are secured by eternal victory and peace never-ending, and so inordinately covet these present good things that they believe them to be the only desirable things, or love them better than those things which are believed to be better,-if this be so, then it is necessary that misery follow and ever increase.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c5"><b>BOOK XV</b> [V] Primus itaque fuit terrenae civitatis conditor fratricida; nam suum fratrem civem civitatis aeternae in hac terra peregrinantem inuidentia victus occidit. Vnde mirandum non est, quod tanto post in ea civitate condenda, quae fuerat huius terrenae civitatis, de qua loquimur, caput futura et tam multis gentibus regnatura, huic primo exemplo et, ut Graeci appellant, *a)rxetu/pwj quaedam sui generis imago respondit. Nam et illic, sicut ipsum facinus quidam poeta commemoravit illorum, Fraterno primi madverunt sanguine muri. Sic enim condita est Roma, quando occisum Remum a fratre Romulo Romana testatur historia; nisi quod isti terrenae civitatis ambo cives erant. Ambo gloriam de Romanae rei publicae institutione quaerebant; sed ambo eam tantam, quantam si unus esset, habere non poterant. Qui enim volebat dominando gloriari, minus utique dominaretur, si eius potestas vivo consorte minveretur. Vt ergo totam dominationem haberet unus, ablatus est socius, et scelere crevit in peius, quod innocentia minus esset et melius. Hi autem fratres Cain et Abel non habebant ambo inter se similem rerum terrenarum cupiditatem, nec in hoc alter alteri inuidit, quod eius dominatus fieret angustior, qui alterum occidit, si ambo dominarentur (Abel quippe non quaerebat dominationem in ea civitate, quae condebatur a fratre), sed inuidentia illa diabolica, qua inuident bonis mali, nulla alia causa, nisi quia illi boni sunt, illi mali. Nullo enim modo fit minor accedente seu permanente consorte possessio bonitatis, immo possessio bonitas, quam tanto latius, quanto concordius individua sociorum possidet caritas. Non habebit denique istam possessionem, qui eam noluerit habere communem, et tanto eam reperiet ampliorem, quanto amplius ibi potuerit amare consortem. Illud igitur, quod inter Remum et Romulum exortum est, quem ad modum adversus se ipsam terrena civitas dividatur, ostendit; quod autem inter Cain et Abel, inter duas ipsas civitates, Dei et hominum, inimicitias demonstravit. Pugnant ergo inter se mali et mali; item pugnant inter se mali et boni: boni vero et boni, si perfecti sunt, inter se pugnare non possunt. Proficientes autem nondumque perfecti ita possunt, ut bonus quisque ex ea parte pugnet contra alterum, qua etiam contra semet ipsum; et in uno quippe homine caro concupiscit adversus spiritum et spiritus adversus carnem. Concupiscentia ergo spiritalis contra alterius potest pugnare carnalem vel concupiscentia carnalis contra alterius spiritalem, sicut inter se pugnant boni et mali; vel certe ipsae concupiscentiae carnales inter se duorum bonorum, nondum utique perfectorum, sicut inter se pugnant mali et mali, donec eorum, qui curantur, ad ultimam victoriam sanitas perducatur. ||Thus the founder of the earthly city was a fratricide. Overcome with envy, he slew his own brother, a citizen of the eternal city, and a sojourner on earth. So that we cannot be surprised that this first specimen, or, as the Greeks say, archetype of crime, should, long afterwards, find a corresponding crime at the foundation of that city which was destined to reign over so many nations, and be the head of this earthly city of which we speak. For of that city also, as one of their poets has mentioned, "the first walls were stained with a brother's blood," or, as Roman history records, Remus was slain by his brother Romulus. And thus there is no difference between the foundation of this city and of the earthly city, unless it be that Romulus and Remus were both citizens of the earthly city. Both desired to have the glory of founding the Roman republic, but both could not have as much glory as if one only claimed it; for he who wished to have the glory of ruling would certainly rule less if his power were shared by a living consort. In order, therefore, that the whole glory might be enjoyed by one, his consort was removed; and by this crime the empire was made larger indeed, but inferior, while otherwise it would have been less, but better. Now these brothers, Cain and Abel, were not both animated by the same earthly desires, nor did the murderer envy the other because he feared that, by both ruling, his own dominion would be curtailed,-for Abel was not solicitous to rule in that city which his brother built,-he was moved by that diabolical, envious hatred with which the evil regard the good, for no other reason than because they are good while themselves are evil. For the possession of goodness is by no means diminished by being shared with a partner either permanent or temporarily assumed; on the contrary, the possession of goodness is increased in proportion to the concord and charity of each of those who share it. In short, he who is unwilling to share this possession cannot have it; and he who is most willing to admit others to a share of it will have the greatest abundance to himself. The quarrel, then, between Romulus and Remus shows how the earthly city is divided against itself; that which fell out between Cain and Abel illustrated the hatred that subsists between the two cities, that of God and that of men. The wicked war with the wicked; the good also war with the wicked. But with the good, good men, or at least perfectly good men, cannot war; though, while only going on towards perfection, they war to this extent, that every good man resists others in those points in which he resists himself. And in each individual "the flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh." Galatians 5:17 This spiritual lusting, therefore, can be at war with the carnal lust of another man; or carnal lust may be at war with the spiritual desires of another, in some such way as good and wicked men are at war; or, still more certainly, the carnal lusts of two men, good but not yet perfect, contend together, just as the wicked contend with the wicked, until the health of those who are under the treatment of grace attains final victory.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c6"><b>BOOK XV</b> [VI] Languor est quippe iste, id est illa inoboedientia, de qua in libro quarto decimo disseruimus, primae inoboedientiae supplicium, et ideo non natura, sed vitium; propter quod dicitur proficientibus bonis et ex fide in hac peregrinatione viventibus: In vicem onera uestra portate, et sic adimplebitis legem Christi; item alibi dicitur: Corripite inquietos, consolamini pusillanimes, suscipite infirmos, patientes estote ad omnes; videte ne quis malum pro malo alicui reddat; item alio loco: Si praeoccupatus fuerit homo in aliquo delicto, vos, qui spiritales estis, instruite huius modi in spiritu mansuetudinis, intendens te ipsum, ne et tu tempteris; et alibi: Sol non occidat super iracundiam uestram; et in euangelio: Si peccaverit in te frater tuus, corripe eum inter te et ipsum. item de peccatis, in quibus multorum cavetur offensio, apostolus dicit: Peccantes coram omnibus argue, ut ceteri timorem habeant. Propter hoc et de venia in vicem danda multa praecipiuntur et magna cura propter tenendam pacem, sine qua nemo poterit videre Deum; ubi ille terror, quando iubetur seruus decem milium talentorum reddere debita, quae illi fuerant relaxata, quoniam debitum denariorum centum conseruo suo non relaxavit; qua similitudine proposita Dominus Iesus adiecit atque ait: Sic et vobis faciet Pater uester caelestis, si non dimiseritis unusquisque fratri suo de cordibus uestris. Hoc modo curantur cives civitatis Dei in hac terra peregrinantes et paci supernae patriae suspirantes. Spiritus autem sanctus operatur intrinsecus, ut valeat aliquid medicina, quae adhibetur extrinsecus. Alioquin etiamsi Deus ipse utens creatura sibi subdita in aliqua specie humana sensus adloquatur humanos, sive istos corporis sive illos, quos istis simillimos habemus in somnis, nec interiore gratia mentem regat atque agat, nihil prodest homini omnis praedicatio veritatis. Facit autem hoc Deus a uasis misericordiae irae uasa discernens, dispensatione qua ipse novit multum occulta, sed tamen iusta. Ipso quippe adivuante mirabilibus et latentibus modis, cum peccatum quod habitat in membris nostris, quae potius iam poena peccati est, sicut apostolus praecipit, non regnat in nostro mortali corpore ad oboediendum desideriis eius nec ei membra nostra velut iniquitatis arma exhibemus, convertitur ad mentem non sibi ad mala, Deo regente, consentientem et eam regentem tranquillius nunc habebit, postea sanitate perfecta atque inmortalitate percepta homo sine ullo peccato in aeterna pace regnabit. ||This sickliness-that is to say, that disobedience of which we spoke in the fourteenth book-is the punishment of the first disobedience. It is therefore not nature, but vice; and therefore it is said to the good who are growing in grace, and living in this pilgrimage by faith, "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ." Galatians 6:2 In like manner it is said elsewhere, "Warn them that are unruly, comfort the feeble-minded, support the weak, be patient toward all men. See that none render evil for evil unto any man." And in another place, "If a man be overtaken in a fault, you which are spiritual restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering yourself, lest you also be tempted." Galatians 6:1 And elsewhere, "Let not the sun go down upon your wrath." Ephesians 4:26 And in the Gospel, "If your brother shall trespass against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone." Matthew 18:15 So too of sins which may create scandal the apostle says, "Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear." 1 Timothy 5:20 For this purpose, and that we may keep that peace without which no man can see the Lord, Hebrews 12:14 many precepts are given which carefully inculcate mutual forgiveness; among which we may number that terrible word in which the servant is ordered to pay his formerly remitted debt of ten thousand talents, because he did not remit to his fellow-servant his debt of two hundred pence. To which parable the Lord Jesus added the words, "So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if you from your hearts forgive not every one his brother." Matthew 18:35 It is thus the citizens of the city of God are healed while still they sojourn in this earth and sigh for the peace of their heavenly country. The Holy Spirit, too, works within, that the medicine externally applied may have some good result. Otherwise, even though God Himself make use of the creatures that are subject to Him, and in some human form address our human senses, whether we receive those impressions in sleep or in some external appearance, still, if He does not by His own inward grace sway and act upon the mind, no preaching of the truth is of any avail. But this God does, distinguishing between the vessels of wrath and the vessels of mercy, by His own very secret but very just providence. When He Himself aids the soul in His own hidden and wonderful ways, and the sin which dwells in our members, and is, as the apostle teaches, rather the punishment of sin, does not reign in our mortal body to obey the lusts of it, and when we no longer yield our members as instruments of unrighteousness, Romans 6:12-13 then the soul is converted from its own evil and selfish desires, and, God possessing it, it possesses itself in peace even in this life, and afterwards, with perfected health and endowed with im mortality, will reign without sin in peace everlasting.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c7"><b>BOOK XV</b> [VII] Sed hoc ipsum, quod sicut potuimus exposuimus, cum Deus locutus esset ad Cain eo more, quo cum primis hominibus per creaturam subiectam velut eorum socius forma congrua loquebatur, quid ei profuit? Nonne conceptum scelus in necando fratre etiam post verbum divinae admonitionis implevit? Nam cum sacrificia discrevisset amborum, in illius respiciens, huius despiciens, quod non dubitandum est potuisse cognosci signo aliquo adtestante visibili, et hoc ideo fecisset Deus, quia mala erant opera huius, fratris vero eius bona: contristatus est Cain valde et concidit facies eius. Sic enim scriptum est: Et dixit Dominus ad Cain: Quare tristis factus es et quare concidit facies tua? Nonne si recte offeras, recte autem non dividas, peccasti? Quiesce; ad te enim conversio eius, et tu dominaberis illius. In hac admonitione vel monitu, quem Deus protulit ad Cain, illud quidem quod dictum est: Nonne si recte offeras, recte autem non dividas, peccasti? quia non elucet cur vel unde sit dictum, multos sensus peperit eius obscuritas, cum divinarum scripturarum quisque tractator secundum fidei regulam id conatur exponere. Recte quippe offertur sacrificium, cum offertur Deo vero, cui uni tantummodo sacrificandum est. Non autem recte dividitur, dum non discernuntur recte vel loca vel tempora vel res ipsae quae offeruntur vel qui offert et cui offertur vel hi, quibus ad uescendum distribuitur quod oblatum est, ut divisionem hic discretionem intellegamus; sive cum offertur, ubi non oportet aut quod non ibi, sed alibi oportet, sive cum offertur, quando non oportet aut quod non tunc, sed alias oportet, sive cum offertur, quod nusquam et num quam penitus debuit, sive cum electiora sibi eiusdem generis rerum tenet homo, quam sunt ea, quae offert Deo, sive eius rei, quae oblata est, fit particeps profanus aut quilibet quem fas non est fieri. In quo autem horum Deo displicuerit Cain, facile non potest inveniri. Sed quoniam Iohannes apostolus, cum de his fratribus loqueretur: Non sicut Cain, inquit, ex maligno erat et occidit fratrem suum; et cuius rei gratia occidit? Quia opera illius maligna fuerunt, fratris autem eius iusta: datur intellegi propterea Deum non respexisse in munus eius, quia hoc ipso male dividebat, dans Deo aliquid suum, sibi autem se ipsum. Quod omnes faciunt, qui non Dei, sed suam sectantes voluntatem, id est non recto, sed peruerso corde viventes, offerunt tamen Deo munus, quo putant eum redimi, ut eorum non opituletur sanandis pravis cupiditatibus, sed explendis. Et hoc est terrenae proprium civitatis, Deum vel deos colere, quibus adivuantibus regnet in victoriis et pace terrena, non caritate consulendi, sed dominandi cupiditate. Boni quippe ad hoc utuntur mundo, ut fruantur Deo; mali autem contra, ut fruantur mundo, uti volunt Deo; qui tamen eum vel esse vel res humanas curare iam credidit. Sunt enim multo deteriores, qui ne hoc quidem credunt. Cognito itaque Cain quod super eius germani sacrificium, nec super suum respexerat Deus, utique fratrem bonum mutatus imitari, non elatus debuit aemulari. Sed contristatus est et concidit facies eius. Hoc peccatum maxime arguit Deus, tristitiam de alterius bonitate, et hoc fratris. Hoc quippe arguendo interrogavit dicens: Quare contristatus es, et quare concidit facies tua? Quia enim fratri inuidebat, Deus videbat et hoc arguebat. Nam hominibus, quibus absconditum est cor alterius, esse posset ambiguum et prorsus incertum, utrum illa tristitia malignitatem suam, in qua se Deo displicuisse didicerat, an fratris doluerit bonitatem, quae Deo placuit, cum in sacrificium eius aspexit. Sed rationem reddens Deus, cur eius oblationem accipere noluerit, ut sibi ipse potius merito quam ei frater inmerito displiceret, cum esset iniustus non recte dividendo, hoc est non recte vivendo, et indignus cuius adprobaretur oblatio, quam esset iniustior, quod fratrem iustum gratis odisset, ostendit. Non tamen eum dimittens sine mandato sancto, iusto et bono: Quiesce, inquit; ad te enim conversio eius, et tu dominaberis illius. Numquid fratris? Absit. Cuius igitur, nisi peccati? Dixerat enim: Peccasti, tum deinde addidit: Quiesce; ad te enim conversio eius, et tu dominaberis illius. Potest quidem ita intellegi ad ipsum hominem conversionem esse debere peccati, ut nulli alii quam sibi sciat tribuere debere quod peccat. Haec est enim salubris paenitentiae medicina et veniae petitio non incongrua, ut, ubi ait: Ad te enim conversio eius, non subaudiatur "erit", sed "sit"; praecipientis videlicet, non praedicentis modo. Tunc enim dominabitur quisque peccato, si id sibi non defendendo praeposuerit, sed paenitendo subiecerit; alioquin et illi seruiet dominanti, si patrocinium adhibuerit accidenti. Sed ut peccatum intellegatur concupiscentia ipsa carnalis, de qua dicit apostolus: Caro concupiscit adversus spiritum, in cuius carnis fructibus et inuidiam commemorat, qua utique Cain stimulabatur et accendebatur in fratris exitium: bene subauditur "erit", id est: Ad te enim conversio eius erit, et tu dominaberis illius. Cum enim commota fuerit pars ipsa carnalis, quam peccatum appellat apostolus, ubi dicit: Non ego operor illud, sed quod habitat in me peccatum (quam partem animi etiam philosophi dicunt esse vitiosam, non quae mentem debeat trahere, sed cui mens debeat imperare eamque ab inlicitis operibus ratione cohibere); _ - cum ergo commota fuerit ad aliquid perperam committendum, si quiescatur et obtemperetur dicenti apostolo: Nec exhibueritis membra uestra arma iniquitatis peccato, ad mentem domita et victa convertitur, ut subditae ratio dominetur. Hoc praecepit Deus huic, qui facibus inuidiae inflammabatur in fratrem et, quem debuerat imitari, cupiebat auferri. Quiesce, inquit; manus ab scelere contine, non regnet peccatum in tuo mortali corpore ad oboediendum desideriis eius, nec exhibeas membra tua iniquitatis arma peccato. Ad te enim conversio eius, dum non adivuatur relaxando, sed quiescendo frenatur; et tu dominaberis illius, ut, cum forinsecus non permittitur operari, sub potestate mentis regentis et beneuolentis adsuescat etiam intrinsecus non moveri. Dictum est tale aliquid in eodem divino libro et de muliere, quando post peccatum Deo interrogante atque iudicante damnationis sententias acceperunt, in serpente diabolus et in se ipsis illa et maritus. Cum enim dixisset et: Multiplicans multiplicabo tristitias tuas et gemitum tuum, et in tristitiis paries filios, deinde addidit: Et ad virum tuum conversio tua, et ipse tui dominabitur. Quod dictum est ad Cain de peccato vel de vitiosa carnis concupiscentia, hoc isto loco de peccatrice femina; ubi intellegendum est virum ad regendam uxorem animo carnem regenti similem esse oportere. Propter quod dicit apostolus: Qui diligit uxorem suam, se ipsum diligit; nemo enim umquam carnem suam odio habuit. Sananda sunt enim haec sicut nostra, non sicut aliena damnanda. Sed illud Dei praeceptum Cain sicut praeuaricator accepit. Inualescente quippe inuidentiae vitio fratrem insidiatus occidit. Talis erat terrenae conditor civitatis. Quo modo autem significaverit etiam Iudaeos, a quibus Christus occisus est pastor ovium hominum, quem pastor ovium pecorum praefigurabat Abel, quia in allegoria prophetica res est, parco nunc dicere, et quaedam hinc adversus Faustum Manichaeum dixisse me recolo. ||But though God made use of this very mode of address which we have been endeavoring to explain, and spoke to Cain in that form by which He was wont to accommodate Himself to our first parents and converse with them as a companion, what good influence had it on Cain? Did he not fulfill his wicked intention of killing his brother even after he was warned by God's voice? For when God had made a distinction between their sacrifices, neglecting Cain's, regarding Abel's, which was doubtless intimated by some visible sign to that effect; and when God had done so because the works of the one were evil but those of his brother good, Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. For thus it is written: "And the Lord said unto Cain, Why are you angry, and why is your countenance fallen? If you offer rightly, but dost not rightly distinguish, have you not sinned? Fret not yourself, for unto you shall be his turning, and you shall rule over him." Genesis 4:6-7 In this admonition administered by God to Cain, that clause indeed, "If you offer rightly, but dost not rightly distinguish, have you not sinned?" is obscure, inasmuch as it is not apparent for what reason or purpose it was spoken, and many meanings have been put upon it, as each one who discusses it attempts to interpret it according to the rule of faith. The truth is, that a sacrifice is "rightly offered" when it is offered to the true God, to whom alone we must sacrifice. And it is "not rightly distinguished" when we do not rightly distinguish the places or seasons or materials of the offering, or the person offering, or the person to whom it is presented, or those to whom it is distributed for food after the oblation. Distinguishing is here used for discriminating,-whether when an offering is made in a place where it ought not or of a material which ought to be offered not there but elsewhere; or when an offering is made at a wrong time, or of a material suitable not then but at some other time; or when that is offered which in no place nor any time ought to be offered; or when a man keeps to himself choicer specimens of the same kind than he offers to God; or when he or any other who may not lawfully partake profanely eats of the oblation. In which of these particulars Cain displeased God, it is difficult to determine. But the Apostle John, speaking of these brothers, says, "Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous." 1 John 3:12 He thus gives us to understand that God did not respect his offering because it was not rightly "distinguished" in this, that he gave to God something of his own but kept himself to himself. For this all do who follow not God's will but their own, who live not with an upright but a crooked heart, and yet offer to God such gifts as they suppose will procure from Him that He aid them not by healing but by gratifying their evil passions. And this is the characteristic of the earthly city, that it worships God or gods who may aid it in reigning victoriously and peacefully on earth not through love of doing good, but through lust of rule. The good use the world that they may enjoy God: the wicked, on the contrary, that they may enjoy the world would fain use God,-those of them, at least, who have attained to the belief that He is and takes an interest in human affairs. For they who have not yet attained even to this belief are still at a much lower level. Cain, then, when he saw that God had respect to his brother's sacrifice, but not to his own, should have humbly chosen his good brother as his example, and not proudly counted him his rival. But he was angry, and his countenance fell. This angry regret for another person's goodness, even his brother's, was charged upon him by God as a great sin. And He accused him of it in the interrogation, "Why are you angry, and why is your countenance fallen?" For God saw that he envied his brother, and of this He accused him. For to men, from whom the heart of their fellow is hid, it might be doubtful and quite uncertain whether that sadness bewailed his own wickedness by which, as he had learned, he had displeased God, or his brother's goodness, which had pleased God, and won His favorable regard to his sacrifice. But God, in giving the reason why He refused to accept Cain's offering and why Cain should rather have been displeased at himself than at his brother, shows him that though he was unjust in "not rightly distinguishing," that is, not rightly living and being unworthy to have his offering received, he was more unjust by far in hating his just brother without a cause.Yet He does not dismiss him without counsel, holy, just, and good. "Fret not yourself," He says, "for unto you shall be his turning, and you shall rule over him." Over his brother, does He mean? Most certainly not. Over what, then, but sin? For He had said, "You have sinned," and then He added, "Fret not yourself, for to you shall be its turning, and you shall rule over it." And the "turning" of sin to the man can be understood of his conviction that the guilt of sin can be laid at no other man's door but his own. For this is the health-giving medicine of penitence, and the fit plea for pardon; so that, when it is said, "To you its turning," we must not supply "shall be," but we must read, "To you let its turning be," understanding it as a command, not as a prediction. For then shall a man rule over his sin when he does not prefer it to himself and defend it, but subjects it by repentance; otherwise he that becomes protector of it shall surely become its prisoner. But if we understand this sin to be that carnal concupiscence of which the apostle says, "The flesh lusts against the spirit," Galatians 5:17 among the fruits of which lust he names envy, by which assuredly Cain was stung and excited to destroy his brother, then we may properly supply the words "shall be," and read, "To you shall be its turning, and you shall rule over it." For when the carnal part which the apostle calls sin, in that place where he says, "It is not I who do it, but sin that dwells in me," Romans 7:17 that part which the philosophers also call vicious, and which ought not to lead the mind, but which the mind ought to rule and restrain by reason from illicit motions,-when, then, this part has been moved to perpetrate any wickedness, if it be curbed and if it obey the word of the apostle, "Yield not your members instruments of unrighteousness unto sin," Romans 6:13 it is turned towards the mind and subdued and conquered by it, so that reason rules over it as a subject. It was this which God enjoined on him who was kindled with the fire of envy against his brother, so that he sought to put out of the way him whom he should have set as an example. "Fret not yourself," or compose yourself, He says: withhold your hand from crime; let not sin reign in your mortal body to fulfill it in the lusts thereof, nor yield your members instruments of unrighteousness unto sin. "For to you shall be its turning," so long as you do not encourage it by giving it the rein, but bridle it by quenching its fire. "And you shall rule over it;" for when it is not allowed any external actings, it yields itself to the rule of the governing mind and righteous will, and ceases from even internal motions. There is something similar said in the same divine book of the woman, when God questioned and judged them after their sin, and pronounced sentence on them all,-the devil in the form of the serpent, the woman and her husband in their own persons. For when He had said to her, "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in sorrow shall you bring forth children," then He added, "and your turning shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you." Genesis 3:16 What is said to Cain about his sin, or about the vicious concupiscence of his flesh, is here said of the woman who had sinned; and we are to understand that the husband is to rule his wife as the soul rules the flesh. And therefore, says the apostle, "He that loves his wife, loves himself; for no man ever yet hated his own flesh." Ephesians 5:28-29 This flesh, then, is to be healed, because it belongs to ourselves: is not to be abandoned to destruction as if it were alien to our nature. But Cain received that counsel of God in the spirit of one who did not wish to amend. In fact, the vice of envy grew stronger in him; and, having entrapped his brother, he slew him. Such was the founder of the earthly city. He was also a figure of the Jews who slew Christ the Shepherd of the flock of men, prefigured by Abel the shepherd of sheep: but as this is an allegorical and prophetical matter, I forbear to explain it now; besides, I remember that I have made some remarks upon it in writing against Faustus the Manichжan.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c8"><b>BOOK XV</b> [VIII] Nunc autem defendenda mihi videtur historia, ne sit scriptura incredibilis, quae dicit aedificatam ab uno homine civitatem eo tempore, quo non plus quam viri quattuor vel potius tres, postea quam fratrem frater occidit, fuisse videntur: in terra, id est primus homo pater omnium et ipse Cain et eius filius Enoch, ex cuius nomine ipsa civitas nuncupata est. Sed hoc quos movet, parum considerant non omnes homines, qui tunc esse potuerunt, scriptorem sacrae huius historiae necesse habuisse nominare, sed eos solos, quos operis suscepti ratio postulabat. Propositum quippe scriptoris illius fuit, per quem sanctus Spiritus id agebat, per successiones certarum generationum ex uno homine propagatarum pervenire ad Abraham ac deinde ex eius semine ad populum Dei, in quo distincto a ceteris gentibus praefigurarentur et praenuntiarentur omnia, quae de civitate, cuius aeternum erit regnum, et de rege eius eodemque conditore Christo in Spiritu praevidebantur esse ventura; ita ut nec de altera societate hominum taceretur, quam terrenam dicimus civitatem, quantum ei commemorandae satis esset, ut civitas Dei etiam suae adversariae conparatione clarescat. Cum igitur scriptura divina, ubi et numerum annorum, quos illi homines vixerunt, commemorat, ita concludat, ut dicat de illo, de quo loquebatur: Et genuit filios et filias, et fuerunt omnes dies illius vel illius quos vixit anni tot, et mortuus est: numquid quia eosdem filios et filias non nominat, ideo intellegere non debemus per tam multos annos, quibus tunc in saeculi huius prima aetate vivebant, nasci potuisse plurimos homines, quorum coetibus condi possent etiam plurimae civitates? Sed pertinuit ad Deum, quo ista inspirante conscripta sunt, has duas societates suis diversis generationibus primitus digerere atque distinguere, ut seorsum hominum, hoc est secundum hominem viventium, seorsum autem filiorum Dei, id est hominum secundum Deum viventium, generationes contexerentur usque diluuium, ubi ambarum societatum discretio concretioque narratur; discretio quidem, quod ambarum separatim generationes commemorantur, unius fratricidae Cain, alterius autem qui vocabatur Seth; natus quippe fuerat et ipse de Adam pro illo, quem frater occidit; concretio autem, quia bonis in deterius declinantibus tales universi facti fuerant, ut diluuio delerentur; excepto uno iusto, cui nomen erat Noe, et eius coniuge et tribus filiis totidemque nuribus, qui homines octo ex illa omnium uastatione mortalium per arcam euadere meruerunt. Quod igitur scriptum est: Et cognovit Cain uxorem suam, et concipiens peperit Enoch; et erat aedificans civitatem in nomine filii sui Enoch: non est quidem consequens, ut istum primum filium genuisse credatur. Neque enim hoc ex eo putandum est, quia dictus est cognovisse uxorem suam, quasi tunc se illi primitus concumbendo miscuisset. Nam et de ipso patre omnium Adam non tunc solum hoc dictum est, quando conceptus est Cain, quem primogenitum videtur habuisse; verum etiam posterius eadem scriptura: Cognovit, inquit, Adam Euam uxorem suam, et concepit et peperit filium, et nominavit nomen illius Seth. Vnde intellegitur ita solere illam scripturam loqui, quamuis non semper cum in ea legitur factos hominum fuisse conceptus, non tamen solum cum primum sibi sexus uterque miscetur. Nec illud necessario est argumento, ut primogenitum patri existimemus Enoch, quod eius nomine illa civitas nuncupata est. Non enim ab re est, ut propter aliquam causam, cum et alios haberet, diligeret eum pater ceteris amplius. Neque enim et Iudas primogenitus fuit, a quo Iudaea cognominata est et Iudaei. Sed etiamsi conditori civitatis illius iste filius primus est natus, non ideo putandum est tunc a patre conditae civitati nomen eius inpositum, quando natus est, quia nec constitui tunc ab uno poterat civitas, quae nihil est aliud quam hominum multitudo aliquo societatis vinculo conligata; sed cum illius hominis familia tanta numerositate cresceret, ut haberet iam populi quantitatem, tunc potuit utique fieri, ut et constitueret et nomen primogeniti sui constitutae inponeret civitati. Tam longa quippe vita illorum hominum fuit, ut illic memoratorum, quorum et anni taciti non sunt, qui vixit minimum ante diluuium, ad septingentos quinquaginta tres perveniret. Nam plures nongentos annos etiam transierunt, quamuis nemo ad mille peruenerit. Quis itaque dubitaverit per unius hominis aetatem tantum multiplicari potuisse genus humanum, ut esset unde constituerentur non una, sed plurimae civitates? Quod ex hoc conici facillime potest, quia ex uno Abraham non multo amplius quadringentis annis numerositas Hebraeae gentis tanta procreata est, ut in exitu eiusdem populi ex Aegypto sescenta hominum milia fuisse referantur bellicae ivuentutis; ut omittamus gentem Idumaeorum non pertinentem ad populum Israel, quam genuit frater eius Esau, nepos Abrahae, et alias natas ex semine ipsius Abrahae non per Sarram coniugem procreato. ||At present it is the history which I aim at defending, that Scripture may not be reckoned incredible when it relates that one man built a city at a time in which there seem to have been but four men upon earth, or rather indeed but three, after one brother slew the other,-to wit, the first man the father of all, and Cain himself, and his son Enoch, by whose name the city was itself called. But they who are moved by this consideration forget to take into account that the writer of the sacred history does not necessarily mention all the men who might be alive at that time, but those only whom the scope of his work required him to name. The design of that writer (who in this matter was the instrument of the Holy Ghost) was to descend to Abraham through the successions of ascertained generations propagated from one man, and then to pass from Abraham's seed to the people of God, in whom, separated as they were from other nations, was prefigured and predicted all that relates to the city whose reign is eternal, and to its king and founder Christ, which things were foreseen in the Spirit as destined to come; yet neither is this object so effected as that nothing is said of the other society of men which we call the earthly city, but mention is made of it so far as seemed needful to enhance the glory of the heavenly city by contrast to its opposite. Accordingly, when the divine Scripture, in mentioning the number of years which those men lived, concludes its account of each man of whom it speaks, with the words, "And he begat sons and daughters, and all his days were so and so, and he died," are we to understand that, because it does not name those sons and daughters, therefore, during that long term of years over which one lifetime extended in those early days, there might not have been born very many men, by whose united numbers not one but several cities might have been built? But it suited the purpose of God, by whose inspiration these histories were composed, to arrange and distinguish from the first these two societies in their several generations,-that on the one side the generations of men, that is to say, of those who live according to man, and on the other side the generations of the sons of God, that is to say, of men living according to God, might be traced down together and yet apart from one another as far as the deluge, at which point their dissociation and association are exhibited: their dissociation, inasmuch as the generations of both lines are recorded in separate tables, the one line descending from the fratricide Cain, the other from Seth, who had been born to Adam instead of him whom his brother slew; their association, inasmuch as the good so deteriorated that the whole race became of such a character that it was swept away by the deluge, with the exception of one just man, whose name was Noah, and his wife and three sons and three daughters-in-law, which eight persons were alone deemed worthy to escape from that desolating visitation which destroyed all men.Therefore, although it is written, "And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bare Enoch, and he built a city and called the name of the city after the name of his son Enoch," Genesis 4:17 it does not follow that we are to believe this to have been his first-born; for we cannot suppose that this is proved by the expression "he knew his wife," as if then for the first time he had had intercourse with her. For in the case of Adam, the father of all, this expression is used not only when Cain, who seems to have been his first-born, was conceived, but also afterwards the same Scripture says, "Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived, and bare a son, and called his name Seth." Genesis 4:25 Whence it is obvious that Scripture employs this expression neither always when a birth is recorded nor then only when the birth of a first-born is mentioned. Neither is it necessary to suppose that Enoch was Cain's first-born because he named his city after him. For it is quite possible that though he had other sons, yet for some reason the father loved him more than the rest. Judah was not the first-born, though he gives his name to Judжa and the Jews. But even though Enoch was the first-born of the city's founder, that is no reason for supposing that the father named the city after him as soon as he was born; for at that time he, being but a solitary man, could not have founded a civic community, which is nothing else than a multitude of men bound together by some associating tie. But when his family increased to such numbers that he had quite a population, then it became possible to him both to build a city, and give it, when founded, the name of his son. For so long was the life of those antediluvians, that he who lived the shortest time of those whose years are mentioned in Scripture attained to the age of 753 years. And though no one attained the age of a thousand years, several exceeded the age of nine hundred. Who then can doubt that during the lifetime of one man the human race might be so multiplied that there would be a population to build and occupy not one but several cities? And this might very readily be conjectured from the fact that from one man, Abraham, in not much more than four hundred years, the numbers of the Hebrew race so increased, that in the exodus of that people from Egypt there are recorded to have been six hundred thousand men capable of bearing arms, Exodus 12:37 and this over and above the Idumжans, who, though not numbered with Israel's descendants, were yet sprung from his brother, also a grandson of Abraham; and over and above the other nations which were of the same stock of Abraham, though not through Sarah,-that is, his descendants by Hagar and Keturah, the Ishmaelites, Midianites, etc.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c9"><b>BOOK XV</b> [IX] Quam ob rem nullus prudens rerum existimator dubitaverit Cain non solum aliquam, verum etiam magnam potuisse condere civitatem, quando in tam longum tempus protendebatur vita mortalium; nisi forte infidelium quispiam ex ipsa numerositate annorum nobis ingerat quaestionem, qua vixisse tunc homines scriptum est in auctoritatibus nostris, et hoc neget esse credendum. Ita quippe non credunt etiam magnitudines corporum longe ampliores tunc fuisse quam nunc sunt. Vnde et nobilissimus eorum poeta Vergilius de ingenti lapide, quem in agrorum limite infixum vir fortis illorum temporum pugnans et rapuit et cucurrit et intorsit et misit: Vix illum (inquit) lecti bis sex ceruice subirent, Qualia nunc hominum producit corpora tellus, significans maiora tunc corpora producere solere tellurem. Quanto magis igitur temporibus recentioribus mundi ante illud nobile diffamatumque diluuium! Sed de corporum magnitudine plerumque incredulos nudata per uetustatem sive per vim fluminum variosque casus sepulcra conuincunt, ubi apparuerunt vel unde ceciderunt incredibilis magnitudinis ossa mortuorum. Vidi ipse non solus, sed aliquot mecum in Vticensi litore molarem hominis dentem tam ingentem, ut, si in nostrorum dentium modulos minutatim concideretur, centum nobis videretur facere potuisse. Sed illum gigantis alicuius fuisse crediderim. Nam praeter quod erant omnium multo quam nostra maiora tunc corpora, gigantes longe ceteris anteibant; sicut aliis deinde nostrisque temporibus rara quidem, sed numquam ferme defuerunt, quae modum aliorum plurimum excederent. Plinius Secundus, doctissimus homo, quanto magis magisque praeterit saeculi excursus, minora corpora naturam ferre testatur; quod etiam Homerum commemorat saepe carmine fuisse conquestum, non haec velut poetica figmenta deridens, sed in historicam fidem tamquam miraculorum naturalium scriptor adsumens. Verum, ut dixi, antiquorum magnitudines corporum inventa plerumque ossa, quoniam diuturna sunt, etiam multo posterioribus saeculis produnt. Annorum autem numerositas cuiusque hominis, quae temporibus illis fuit, nullis nunc talibus documentis venire in experimentum potest. Nec tamen ideo fides sacrae huic historiae deroganda est, cuius tanto inpudentius narrata non credimus, quanto impleri certius praenuntiata conspicimus. Dicit tamen etiam idem Plinius esse adhuc gentem, ubi ducentos annos vivitur. Si ergo humanarum vitarum diuturnitates, quas experti non sumus, hodie habere creduntur incognita nobis loca, cur non habuisse credantur et tempora? An vero credibile est alicubi esse quod hic non est, et incredibile est aliquando fuisse quod nunc non est? ||Wherefore no one who considerately weighs facts will doubt that Cain might have built a city, and that a large one, when it is observed how prolonged were the lives of men, unless perhaps some sceptic take exception to this very length of years which our authors ascribe to the antediluvians and deny that this is credible. And so, too, they do not believe that the size of men's bodies was larger then than now, though the most esteemed of their own poets, Virgil, asserts the same, when he speaks of that huge stone which had been fixed as a landmark, and which a strong man of those ancient times snatched up as he fought, and ran, and hurled, and cast it,-"Scarce twelve strong men of later mould That weight could on their necks uphold. "thus declaring his opinion that the earth then produced mightier men. And if in the more recent times, how much more in the ages before the world-renowned deluge? But the large size of the primitive human body is often proved to the incredulous by the exposure of sepulchres, either through the wear of time or the violence of torrents or some accident, and in which bones of incredible size have been found or have rolled out. I myself, along with some others, saw on the shore at Utica a man's molar tooth of such a size, that if it were cut down into teeth such as we have, a hundred, I fancy, could have been made out of it. But that, I believe, belonged to some giant. For though the bodies of ordinary men were then larger than ours, the giants surpassed all in stature. And neither in our own age nor any other have there been altogether wanting instances of gigantic stature, though they may be few. The younger Pliny, a most learned man, maintains that the older the world becomes, the smaller will be the bodies of men. And he mentions that Homer in his poems often lamented the same decline; and this he does not laugh at as a poetical figment, but in his character of a recorder of natural wonders accepts it as historically true. But, as I said, the bones which are from time to time discovered prove the size of the bodies of the ancients, and will do so to future ages, for they are slow to decay. But the length of an antediluvian's life cannot now be proved by any such monumental evidence. But we are not on this account to withhold our faith from the sacred history, whose statements of past fact we are the more inexcusable in discrediting, as we see the accuracy of its prediction of what was future. And even that same Pliny tells us that there is still a nation in which men live 200 years. If, then, in places unknown to us, men are believed to have a length of days which is quite beyond our own experience, why should we not believe the same of times distant from our own? Or are we to believe that in other places there is what is not here, while we do not believe that in other times there has been anything but what is now?
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c10"><b>BOOK XV</b> [X] Quocirca etsi inter Hebraeos et nostros codices de ipso numero annorum nonnulla videtur esse distantia, quod ignoro qua ratione sit factum: non tamen tanta est, ut illos homines tam longaeuos fuisse dissentiant. Nam ipse homo primus Adam, antequam gigneret filium, qui est appellatus Seth, ducentos triginta vixisse annos reperitur in codicibus nostris, in Hebraeis autem centum triginta perhibetur; sed postea quam eum genuit, septingentos vixisse legitur in nostris, octingentos vero in illis; atque ita in utrisque universitatis summa concordat. Ac deinde per consequentes generationes antequam gignatur, qui gigni commemoratur, minus vixisse apud Hebraeos pater eius invenitur centum annos; sed postea quam est genitus idem ipse, centum minus quam in Hebraeis inveniuntur in nostris; atque ita et hinc et inde numeri universitas consonat. In sexta autem generatione nusquam utrique codices discrepant. In septima vero, ubi ille qui natus est Enoch non mortuus, sed quod Deo placuerit translatus esse narratur, eadem dissonantia est, quae in superioribus quinque de centum annis antequam gigneret eum, qui ibi commemoratus est, filium, atque in summa similis consonantia. Vixit enim annos, antequam transferretur, secundum utrosque codices trecentos sexaginta quinque. Octaua generatio habet quidem nonnullam diversitatem, sed minorem ac dissimilem ceteris. Mathusalam quippe, quem genuit Enoch, antequam gigneret eum, qui in ipso ordine sequitur, secundum Hebraeos non centum minus, sed viginti amplius vixit annos; qui rursus in nostris, postea quam eum genuit, reperiuntur additi, et in utrisque sibi summa universi numeri occurrit. In sola nona generatione, id est in annis Lamech, filii Mathusalae, patris autem Noe, summa universitatis discrepat, sed non plurimum. Viginti enim et quattuor annos plus vixisse in Hebraeis quam in nostris codicibus invenitur. Namque antequam gigneret filium, qui vocatus est Noe, sex minus habet in Hebraeis quam in nostris; postea vero quam eum genuit, triginta amplius in eisdem quam in nostris. Vnde sex illis detractis restant viginti quattuor, ut dictum est. ||Wherefore, although there is a discrepancy for which I cannot account between our manuscripts and the Hebrew, in the very number of years assigned to the antediluvians, yet the discrepancy is not so great that they do not agree about their longevity. For the very first man, Adam, before he begot his son Seth, is in our manuscripts found to have lived 230 years, but in the Hebrew manuscripts 130. But after he begot Seth, our copies read that he lived 700 years, while the Hebrew give 800. And thus, when the two periods are taken together, the sum agrees. And so throughout the succeeding generations, the period before the father begets a son is always made shorter by 100 years in the Hebrew, but the period after his son is begotten is longer by 100 years in the Hebrew than in our copies. And thus, taking the two periods together, the result is the same in both. And in the sixth generation there is no discrepancy at all. In the seventh, however, of which Enoch is the representative, who is recorded to have been translated without death because he pleased God, there is the same discrepancy as in the first five generations, 100 years more being ascribed to him by our manuscripts. before he begat a son. But still the result agrees; for according to both documents he lived before he was translated 365 years. In the eighth generation the discrepancy is less than in the others, and of a different kind. For Methuselah, whom Enoch begat, lived, before he begat his successor, not 100 years less, but 100 years more, according to the Hebrew reading; and in our manuscripts. again these years are added to the period after he begat his son; so that in this case also the sum-total is the same. And it is only in the ninth generation, that is, in the age of Lamech, Methuselah's son and Noah's father, that there is a discrepancy in the sum total; and even in this case it is slight. For the Hebrew manuscripts. represent him as living twenty-four years more than ours assign to him. For before he begat his son, who was called Noah, six years fewer are given to him by the Hebrew manuscripts than by ours; but after he begat this son, they give him thirty years more than ours; so that, deducting the former six, there remains, as we said, a surplus of twenty-four.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c11"><b>BOOK XV</b> [XI] Per hanc autem discrepantiam Hebraeorum codicum atque nostrorum exoritur illa famosissima quaestio, ubi Mathusalam quattuordecim annos vixisse post diluuium conputatur, cum scriptura ex omnibus, qui in terra tunc fuerant, solos octo homines in arca exitium commemoret euasisse diluuii, in quibus Mathusalam non fuit. Secundum codices enim nostros Mathusalam priusquam gigneret illum, quem vocavit Lamech, vixit annos centum sexaginta septem; deinde ipse Lamech, antequam ex illo natus esset Noe, vixit annos centum octoginta octo, qui fiunt simul trecenti quinquaginta quinque; his adduntur sescenti Noe, quoto eius anno diluuium factum est: qui fiunt nongenti quinquaginta quinque, ex quo Mathusalam natus est, usque ad annum diluuii. Omnes autem anni vitae Mathusalam nongenti sexaginta novem conputantur, quia, cum vixisset annos centum sexaginta septem et genuisset filium, qui est appellatus Lamech, post eum genitum vixit annos octingentos duo; qui omnes, ut diximus, nongenti sexaginta novem fiunt. Vnde detractis nongentis quinquaginta quinque ab ortu Mathusalae usque ad diluuium remanent quattuordecim, quibus vixisse creditur post diluuium. Propter quod eum nonnulli, etsi non in terra, ubi omnem carnem, quam vivere in aquis natura non sinit, constat fuisse deletam, cum patre suo qui translatus fuerat aliquantum fuisse atque ibi, donec diluuium praeteriret, vixisse arbitrantur, nolentes derogare fidem codicibus, quos in auctoritatem celebriorem suscepit ecclesia, et credentes Iudaeorum potius quam istos non habere quod verum est. Non enim admittunt, quod magis hic esse potuerit error interpretum, quam in ea lingua esse falsum, unde in nostram per Graecam scriptura ipsa translata est, sed inquiunt non esse credibile septuaginta interpretes, qui uno simul tempore unoque sensu interpretati sunt, errare potuisse aut ubi nihil eorum intererat voluisse mentiri; Iudaeos vero, dum nobis inuident, quod lex et prophetae ad nos interpretando transierint, mutasse quaedam in codicibus suis, ut nostris minveretur auctoritas. Hanc opinionem vel suspicionem accipiat quisque ut putaverit; certum est tamen non vixisse Mathusalam post diluuium, sed eodem anno fuisse defunctum, si verum est quod de numero annorum in Hebraeis codicibus invenitur. De illis autem septuaginta interpretibus quid mihi videatur, suo loco diligentius inserendum est, cum ad ipsa tempora, quantum necessitas huius operis postulat, commemoranda adivuante Domino venerimus. Praesenti enim sufficit quaestioni secundum utrosque codices tam longas habuisse vitas illius aevi homines, ut posset aetate unius, qui de duobus, quos solos terra tunc habuit, parentibus primus est natus, ad constituendam etiam civitatem multiplicari genus humanum. ||From this discrepancy between the Hebrew books and our own arises the well-known question as to the age of Methuselah; for it is computed that he lived for fourteen years after the deluge, though Scripture relates that of all who were then upon the earth only the eight souls in the ark escaped destruction by the flood, and of these Methuselah was not one. For, according to our books, Methuselah, before he begat the son whom he called Lamech, lived 167 years; then Lamech himself, before his son Noah was born, lived 188 years, which together make 355 years. Add to these the age of Noah at the date of the deluge, 600 years, and this gives a total of 955 from the birth of Methuselah to the year of the flood. Now all the years of the life of Methuselah are computed to be 969; for when he had lived 167 years, and had begotten his son Lamech, he then lived after this 802 years, which makes a total, as we said, of 969 years. From this, if we deduct 955 years from the birth of Methuselah to the flood, there remains fourteen years, which he is supposed to have lived after the flood. And therefore some suppose that, though he was not on earth (in which it is agreed that every living thing which could not naturally live in water perished), he was for a time with his father, who had been translated, and that he lived there till the flood had passed away. This hypothesis they adopt, that they may not cast a slight on the trustworthiness of versions which the Church has received into a position of high authority, and because they believe that the Jewish manuscripts rather than our own are in error. For they do not admit that this is a mistake of the translators, but maintain that there is a falsified statement in the original, from which, through the Greek, the Scripture has been translated into our own tongue. They say that it is not credible that the seventy translators, who simultaneously and unanimously produced one rendering, could have erred, or, in a case in which no interest of theirs was involved, could have falsified their translation; but that the Jews, envying us our translation of their Law and Prophets, have made alterations in their texts so as to undermine the authority of ours. This opinion or suspicion let each man adopt according to his own judgment. Certain it is that Methuselah did not survive the flood, but died in the very year it occurred, if the numbers given in the Hebrew manuscripts are true. My own opinion regarding the seventy translators I will, with God's help, state more carefully in its own place, when I have come down (following the order which this work requires) to that period in which their translation was executed. For the present question, it is enough that, according to our versions, the men of that age had lives so long as to make it quite possible that, during the lifetime of the first-born of the two sole parents then on earth, the human race multiplied sufficiently to form a community.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c12"><b>BOOK XV</b> [XII] Neque enim ullo modo audiendi sunt, qui putant aliter annos illis temporibus conputatos, id est tantae brevitatis, ut unus annus noster decem illos habuisse credatur. Quapropter, inquiunt, cum audierit quisque vel legerit nongentos annos quemque vixisse, debet intellegere nonaginta; decem quippe illi anni unus est noster et decem nostri centum illi fuerunt. Ac per hoc, ut putant, viginti trium annorum fuit Adam, quando genuit Seth, et ipse Seth viginti agebat et sex menses, quando ex illo natus est Enos, quos appellat scriptura ducentos et quinque annos; quoniam sicut isti suspicantur, quorum exponimus opinionem, unum annum, qualem nunc habemus, in decem partes illi dividebant et easdem partes annos vocabant; quarum partium habet una quadratum senarium, eo quod sex diebus Deus perfecerit opera sua, ut in septimo requiesceret (de qua re in libro undecimo, sicut potui, disputavi); sexiens autem seni, qui numerus quadratum senarium facit, triginta sex dies sunt; qui multiplicati deciens ad trecentos sexaginta perveniunt, id est duodecim menses lunares. Propter quinque dies enim reliquos, quibus solaris annus impletur, et diei quadrantem, propter quem quater ductum eo anno, quo bissextum vocant, unus dies adicitur, addebantur a ueteribus postea dies, ut occurreret numerus annorum, quod dies Romani intercalares vocabant. Proinde etiam Enos, quem genuit Seth, decem et novem agebat annos, quando ex illo natus est filius eius Cainan, quos annos dicit scriptura centum nonaginta. Et deinceps per omnes generationes, in quibus hominum anni commemorantur ante diluuium, nullus fere in nostris codicibus invenitur, qui, cum esset centum annorum vel infra vel etiam centum viginti aut non multo amplius, genuerit filium; sed qui minima aetate genuerunt, centum sexaginta, et quod excurrit, fuisse referuntur; quia nemo, inquiunt, decem annorum homo potest gignere filios, qui numerus centum appellabantur anni ab illis hominibus; sed in annis sedecim est matura pubertas et proli iam idonea procreandae, quos centum et sexaginta annos illa tempora nuncupabant. Vt autem aliter annum tunc fuisse conputatum non sit incredibile, adiciunt quod apud plerosque scriptores historiae reperitur, Aegyptios habuisse annum quattuor mensum, Acarnanas sex mensum, Lavinios tredecim mensum. Plinius Secundus cum commemorasset relatum fuisse in litteras quendam vixisse centum quinquaginta duos, alium decem amplius, alios ducentorum annorum habuisse vitam, alios trecentorum, quosdam ad quingentos, alios ad sescentos, nonnullos ad octingentos etiam pervenisse, haec omnia inscitia temporum accidisse arbitratus est. "Alii quippe, inquit, aestate determinabant annum et alterum hieme, alii quadripertitis temporibus, sicut Arcades, inquit, quorum anni trimenstres fuerunt." Adiecit etiam aliquando Aegyptios, quorum paruos annos quaternorum mensum fuisse supra diximus, lunae fine limitasse annum. "Itaque apud eos, inquit, et singula milia annorum vixisse produntur." His velut probabilibus argumentis quidam non destruentes fidem sacrae huius historiae, sed astruere nitentes, ne sit incredibile quod tam multos annos vixisse referuntur antiqui, persuaserunt sibi, nec se suadere inpudenter existimant, tam exiguum spatium temporis tunc annum vocatum, ut illi decem sint unus noster et decem nostri centum illorum. Hoc autem esse falsissimum documento evidentissimo ostenditur. Quod antequam faciam, non mihi tacendum videtur, quae credibilior possit esse suspicio. Poteramus certe hanc adseuerationem ex Hebraeis codicibus redarguere atque conuincere, ubi Adam non ducentorum triginta, sed centum triginta annorum fuisse reperitur, quando tertium genuit filium; qui anni si tredecim nostri sunt, procul dubio, primum quando genuit, undecim vel non multo amplius annorum fuit. Quis potest hac aetate generare usitata ista nobisque notissima lege naturae? Sed hunc omittamus, qui fortasse etiam quando creatus est potuit; non enim eum tam paruum, quam infantes nostri sunt, factum fuisse credibile est. Seth filius eius non ducentorum quinque, sicut nos legimus, sed centum quinque fuit, quando genuit Enos; ac per hoc secundum istos nondum habebat undecim annos aetatis. Quid dicam de Cainan eius filio, qui cum apud nos centum septuaginta reperiatur, apud Hebraeos septuaginta legitur fuisse, quando genuit Maleleel? Quis generat homo septennis, si tunc anni septuaginta nuncupabantur, qui septem fuerunt? ||For they are by no means to be listened to who suppose that in those times years were differently reckoned, and were so short that one of our years may be supposed to be equal to ten of theirs. So that they say, when we read or hear that some man lived 900 years, we should understand ninety, ten of those years making but one of ours, and ten of ours equalling 100 of theirs. Consequently, as they suppose, Adam was twenty-three years of age when he begat Seth, and Seth himself was twenty years and six months old when his son Enos was born, though the Scripture calls these months 205 years. For, on the hypothesis of those whose opinion we are explaining, it was customary to divide one such year as we have into ten parts, and to call each part a year. And each of these parts was composed of six days squared; because God finished His works in six days, that He might rest the seventh. Of this I disputed according to my ability in the eleventh book. Now six squared, or six times six, gives thirty-six days; and this multiplied by ten amounts to 360 days, or twelve lunar months. As for the five remaining days which are needed to complete the solar year, and for the fourth part of a day, which requires that into every fourth or leap-year a day be added, the ancients added such days as the Romans used to call "intercalary," in order to complete the number of the years. So that Enos, Seth's son, was nineteen years old when his son Cainan was born, though Scripture calls these years 190. And so through all the generations in which the ages of the antediluvians are given, we find in our versions that almost no one begat a son at the age of 100 or under, or even at the age of 120 or thereabouts; but the youngest fathers are recorded to have been 160 years old and upwards. And the reason of this, they say, is that no one can beget children when he is ten years old, the age spoken of by those men as 100, but that sixteen is the age of puberty, and competent now to propagate offspring; and this is the age called by them 160. And that it may not be thought incredible that in these days the year was differently computed from our own, they adduce what is recorded by several writers of history, that the Egyptians had a year of four months, the Acarnanians of six, and the Lavinians of thirteen months. The younger Pliny, after mentioning that some writers reported that one man had lived 152 years, another ten more, others 200, others 300, that some had even reached 500 and 600, and a few 800 years of age, gave it as his opinion that all this must be ascribed to mistaken computation. For some, he says, make summer and winter each a year; others make each season a year, like the Arcadians, whose years, he says, were of three months. He added, too, that the Egyptians, of whose little years of four months we have spoken already, sometimes terminated their year at the wane of each moon; so that with them there are produced lifetimes of 1000 years.By these plausible arguments certain persons, with no desire to weaken the credit of this sacred history, but rather to facilitate belief in it by removing the difficulty of such incredible longevity, have been themselves persuaded, and think they act wisely in persuading others, that in these days the year was so brief that ten of their years equal but one of ours, while ten of ours equal 100 of theirs. But there is the plainest evidence to show that this is quite false. Before producing this evidence, however, it seems right to mention a conjecture which is yet more plausible. From the Hebrew manuscripts we could at once refute this confident statement; for in them Adam is found to have lived not 230 but 130 years before he begat his third son. If, then, this mean thirteen years by our ordinary computation, then he must have begotten his first son when he was only twelve or thereabouts. Who can at this age beget children according to the ordinary and familiar course of nature? But not to mention him, since it is possible he may have been able to beget his like as soon as he was created,-for it is not credible that he was created so little as our infants are,-not to mention him, his son was not 205 years old when he begot Enos, as our versions have it, but 105, and consequently, according to this idea, was not eleven years old. But what shall I say of his son Cainan, who, though by our version 170 years old, was by the Hebrew text seventy when he beget Mahalaleel? If seventy years in those times meant only seven of our years, what man of seven years old begets children?
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c13"><b>BOOK XV</b> [XIII] Sed cum hoc dixero, continuo referetur illud Iudaeorum esse mendacium, de quo superius satis actum est; nam septuaginta interpretes laudabiliter celebratos viros non potuisse mentiri. Vbi si quaeram, quid sit credibilius, Iudaeorum gentem tam longe lateque diffusam in hoc conscribendum mendacium uno consilio conspirare potuisse et, dum aliis inuident auctoritatem, sibi abstulisse veritatem, an septuaginta homines, qui etiam ipsi Iudaei erant, uno in loco positos, quoniam rex Aegyptius Ptolomaeus eos ad hoc opus asciverat, ipsam veritatem gentibus alienigenis inuidisse et communicato istuc fecisse consilio: quis non videat quid proclivias faciliusque credatur? Sed absit ut prudens quispiam vel Iudaeos cuiuslibet peruersitatis atque malitiae tantum potuisse credat in codicibus tam multis et tam longe lateque dispersis, vel septuaginta illos memorabiles viros hoc de inuidenda gentibus veritate unum communicasse consilium. Credibilius ergo quis dixerit, cum primum de bibliotheca Ptolomaei describi ista coeperunt, tunc aliquid tale fieri potuisse in codice uno, sed primitus inde descripto, unde iam latius emanaret; ubi potuit quidem accidere etiam scriptoris error. Sed hoc in illa quaestione de vita Mathusalae non absurdum est suspicari, et in illo alio, ubi superantibus viginti quattuor annis summa non convenit. In his autem, in quibus continuatur ipsius mendositatis similitudo, ita ut ante genitum filium, qui ordini inseritur, alibi supersint centum anni, alibi desint; post genitum autem ubi deerant supersint, ubi supererant desint, ut summa conveniat; et hoc in prima, secunda, tertia, quarta, quinta, septima generatione invenitur: videtur habere quandam, si dici potest, error ipse constantiam nec casum redolet, sed industriam. Itaque illa diversitas numerorum aliter se habentium in codicibus Graecis et Latinis, aliter in Hebraeis, ubi non est ista de centum annis prius additis et postea detractis per tot generationes continuata parilitas, nec malitiae Iudaeorum nec diligentiae vel prudentiae septuaginta interpretum, sed scriptoris tribuatur errori, qui de bibliotheca supradicti regis codicem describendum primus accepit. Nam etiam nunc, ubi numeri non faciunt intentum ad aliquid, quod facile possit intellegi vel quod appareat utiliter disci, et neglegenter describuntur et neglegentius emendantur. Quis enim sibi existimet esse discendum, quot milia hominum tribus Israel singillatim habere potuerunt? quoniam prodesse aliquid non putatur; et quotus quisque hominum est, cui profunditas utilitatis huius appareat? Hic vero, ubi per tot contextas generationes centum anni alibi adsunt, alibi desunt, et post natum, qui commemorandus fuerat, filium desunt ubi adfuerunt, adsunt ubi defuerunt, ut summa concordet, nimirum cum vellet persuadere, qui hoc fecit, ideo numerosissimos annos vixisse antiquos, quod eos brevissimos nuncupabant, et hoc de maturitate pubertatis, qua idonea filii gignerentur, conaretur ostendere, atque ideo in illis centum annis decem nostros insinuandos putaret incredulis, ne homines tamdiu vixisse recipere in fidem nollent, addidit centum, ubi gignendis filiis habilem non invenit aetatem, eosdemque post genitos filios, ut congrueret summa, detraxit. Sic quippe voluit credibiles facere idonearum generandae proli convenientias aetatum, ut tamen numero non fraudaret universas aetates viventium singulorum. Quod autem id in sexta generatione non fecit, hoc ipsum est quod magis monet ideo illum fecisse, cum res, quam dicimus, postulavit, quia non fecit, ubi non postulavit. Invenit namque in eadem generatione apud Hebraeos vixisse Iared, antequam genuisset Enoch, centum sexaginta duos, qui secundum illam rationem brevium annorum fiunt anni sedecim et aliquid minus quam menses duo; quae iam aetas apta est ad gignendum, et ideo addere centum annos breues, ut nostri viginti sex fierent, necesse non fuit, nec post natum Enoch eos detrahere, quos non addiderat ante natum. Sic factum est ut hic nulla esset inter codices utrosque varietas. Sed rursus movet, cur in octaua generatione, antequam de Mathusalam nasceretur Lamech, cum apud Hebraeos legantur centum octoginta duo anni, viginti minus inveniuntur in codicibus nostris, ubi potius addi centum solent, et post genitum Lamech conplendam restituuntur ad summam, quae in codicibus utrisque non discrepat. Si enim centum septuaginta annos propter pubertatis maturitatem decem et septem volebat intellegi, sicut nihil addere, ita nihil detrahere iam debebat, quia invenerat aetatem idoneam generationi filiorum, propter quam in aliis centum illos annos, ubi eam non inveniebat, addebat. Hoc autem de viginti annis merito putaremus casu mendositatis accidere potuisse, nisi eos, sicut prius detraxerat, restituere postea curaret, ut summae conveniret integritas. An forte astutius factum existimandum est, ut illa, qua centum anni prius solent adici et postea detrahi, occultaretur industria, cum et illic, ubi necesse non fuerat, non quidem de centum annis, verum tamen de quantulocumque numero prius detracto, post reddito, tale aliquid fieret? Sed quomodolibet istuc accipiatur, sive credatur ita esse factum sive non credatur, sive postremo ita sive non ita sit: recte fieri nullo modo dubitaverim, ut, cum diversum aliquid in utrisque codicibus invenitur, quando quidem ad fidem rerum gestarum utrumque esse non potest verum, ei linguae potius credatur, unde est in aliam per interpretes facta translatio. Nam in quibusdam etiam codicibus Graecis tribus et uno Latino et uno etiam Syro inter se consentientibus inventus est Mathusalam sex annis ante diluuium fuisse defunctus. ||But if I say this, I shall presently be answered, It is one of the Jews' lies. This, however, we have disposed of above, showing that it cannot be that men of so just a reputation as the seventy translators should have falsified their version. However, if I ask them which of the two is more credible, that the Jewish nation, scattered far and wide, could have unanimously conspired to forge this lie, and so, through envying others the authority of their Scriptures, have deprived themselves of their verity; or that seventy men, who were also themselves Jews, shut up in one place (for Ptolemy king of Egypt had got them together for this work), should have envied foreign nations that same truth, and by common consent inserted these errors: who does not see which can be more naturally and readily believed? But far be it from any prudent man to believe either that the Jews, however malicious and wrong-headed, could have tampered with so many and so widely-dispersed manuscripts; or that those renowned seventy individuals had any common purpose to grudge the truth to the nations. One must therefore more plausibly maintain, that when first their labors began to be transcribed from the copy in Ptolemy's library, some such misstatement might find its way into the first copy made, and from it might be disseminated far and wide; and that this might arise from no fraud, but from a mere copyist's error. This is a sufficiently plausible account of the difficulty regarding Methuselah's life, and of that other case in which there is a difference in the total of twenty-four years. But in those cases in which there is a methodical resemblance in the falsification, so that uniformly the one version allots to the period before a son and successor is born 100 years more than the other, and to the period subsequent 100 years less, and vice versв, so that the totals may agree,-and this holds true of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and seventh generations,-in these cases error seems to have, if we may say so, a certain kind of constancy, and savors not of accident, but of design.Accordingly, that diversity of numbers which distinguishes the Hebrew from the Greek and Latin copies of Scripture, and which consists of a uniform addition and deduction of 100 years in each lifetime for several consecutive generations, is to be attributed neither to the malice of the Jews nor to men so diligent and prudent as the seventy translators, but to the error of the copyist who was first allowed to transcribe the manuscript from the library of the above-mentioned king. For even now, in cases where numbers contribute nothing to the easier comprehension or more satisfactory knowledge of anything, they are both carelessly transcribed, and still more carelessly emended. For who will trouble himself to learn how many thousand men the several tribes of Israel contained? He sees no resulting benefit of such knowledge. Or how many men are there who are aware of the vast advantage that lies hid in this knowledge? But in this case, in which during so many consecutive generations 100 years are added in one manuscript where they are not reckoned in the other, and then, after the birth of the son and successor, the years which were wanting are added, it is obvious that the copyist who contrived this arrangement designed to insinuate that the antediluvians lived an excessive number of years only because each year was excessively brief, and that he tried to draw the attention to this fact by his statement of their age of puberty at which they became able to beget children. For, lest the incredulous might stumble at the difficulty of so long a lifetime, he insinuated that 100 of their years equalled but ten of ours; and this insinuation he conveyed by adding 100 years whenever he found the age below 160 years or thereabouts, deducting these years again from the period after the son's birth, that the total might harmonize. By this means he intended to ascribe the generation of offspring to a fit age, without diminishing the total sum of years ascribed to the lifetime of the individuals. And the very fact that in the sixth generation he departed from this uniform practice, inclines us all the rather to believe that when the circumstance we have referred to required his alterations, he made them; seeing that when this circumstance did not exist, he made no alteration. For in the same generation he found in the Hebrew manuscript, that Jared lived before he begat Enoch 162 years, which, according to the short year computation, is sixteen years and somewhat less than two months, an age capable of procreation; and therefore it was not necessary to add 100 short years, and so make the age twenty-six years of the usual length; and of course it was not necessary to deduct, after the son's birth, years which he had not added before it. And thus it comes to pass that in this instance there is no variation between the two manuscripts.This is corroborated still further by the fact that in the eighth generation, while the Hebrew books assign 182 years to Methuselah before Lamech's birth, ours assign to him twenty less, though usually 100 years are added to this period; then, after Lamech's birth, the twenty years are restored, so as to equalize the total in the two books. For if his design was that these 170 years be understood as seventeen, so as to suit the age of puberty, as there was no need for him adding anything, so there was none for his subtracting anything; for in this case he found an age fit for the generation of children, for the sake of which he was in the habit of adding those 100 years in cases where he did not find the age already sufficient. This difference of twenty years we might, indeed, have supposed had happened accidentally, had he not taken care to restore them afterwards as he had deducted them from the period before, so that there might be no deficiency in the total. Or are we perhaps to suppose that there was the still more astute design of concealing the deliberate and uniform addition of 100 years to the first period and their deduction from the subsequent period-did he design to conceal this by doing something similar, that is to say, adding and deducting, not indeed a century, but some years, even in a case in which there was no need for his doing so? But whatever may be thought of this, whether it be believed that he did so or not, whether, in fine, it be so or not, I would have no manner of doubt that when any diversity is found in the books, since both cannot be true to fact, we do well to believe in preference that language out of which the translation was made into another by translators. For there are three Greek manuscripts, one Latin, and one Syriac, which agree with one another, and in all of these Methuselah is said to have died six years before the deluge.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c14"><b>BOOK XV</b> [XIV] Nunc iam videamus quonam modo evidenter possit ostendi, non tam breues, ut illi decem unus esset noster, sed tantae prolixitatis annos, quantae nunc habemus (quos utique circuitus conficit solis), in illorum hominum vita prolixissima conputatos. Sescentensimo nempe anno vitae Noe scriptum est factum esse diluuium. Cur ergo ibi legitur: Et aqua diluuii facta est super terram sescentensimo anno in vita Noe, secundi mensis, septima et vicensima mensis, si annus ille minimus, quales decem faciunt unum nostrum, triginta sex habebat dies? Tantillus quippe annus, si antiquo more hoc nomen accepit, aut non habet menses, aut mensis eius est triduum, ut habeat duodecim menses. Quo modo igitur hic dictum est: Sescentensimo anno, secundi mensis, septima et vicensima mensis, nisi quia tales, quales nunc sunt, etiam tunc erant menses? Nam quo pacto aliter vicensimo et septimo die secundi mensis diceretur coeptum esse diluuium? Deinde postea in fine diluuii ita legitur: Et sedit arca in mense septimo septima et vicensima mensis super montes Ararat. Aqua autem minvebatur usque ad undecimum mensem; in undecimo autem mense prima die mensis paruerunt capita montium. Si igitur tales menses erant, tales profecto et anni erant, quales nunc habemus. Menses quippe illi triduani viginti et septem dies habere non poterant. Aut si pars tricensima tridui tunc appellabatur dies, ut omnia proportione minuantur: ergo nec toto quadriduo nostro factum est illud tam grande diluuium, quod memoratur factum quadraginta diebus et noctibus. Quis hanc absurditatem et uanitatem ferat? Proinde removeatur hic error, qui coniectura falsa ita uult astruere scripturarum nostrarum fidem, ut alibi destruat. Prorsus tantus etiam tunc dies fuit, quantus et nunc est, quem viginti quattuor horae diurno curriculo nocturnoque determinant; tantus mensis, quantus et nunc est, quem luna coepta et finita concludit; tantus annus, quantus et nunc est, quem duodecim menses lunares additis propter cursum solarem quinque diebus et quadrante consummant, quanti anni sescentensimi vitae Noe secundus erat mensis eiusque mensis vicensimus et septimus dies, quando coepit esse diluuium, in quo dies quadraginta continuatae ingentes pluuiae memorantur, qui dies non binas ac paulo amplius horas habebant, sed vicenas et quaternas die noctuque transactas. Ac per hoc tam magnos annos vixerunt illi antiqui usque amplius quam nongentos, quantos postea vixit Abraham centum septuaginta et post eum filius eius Isaac centum octoginta et filius eius Iacob centum quinquaginta, et quantos interposita aliquanta aetate Moyses centum viginti, et quantos etiam nunc vivunt homines septuaginta vel octoginta vel non multo amplius, de quibus dictum est: Et amplius eis labor et dolor. Illa vero numerorum varietas, quae inter codices Hebraeos invenitur et nostros, neque de hac antiquorum longaevitate dissentit, et si quid habet ita diversum, ut verum esse utrumque non possit, rerum gestarum fides ab ea lingua repetenda est, ex qua interpretatum est quod habemus. Quae facultas cum volentibus ubique gentium praesto sit, non tamen uacat, quod septuaginta interpretes in plurimis, quae diversa dicere videntur, ex Hebraeis codicibus emendare ausus est nemo. Non enim est illa diversitas putata mendositas; nec ego ullo modo putandam existimo: sed ubi non est scriptoris error, aliquid eos divino spiritu, ubi sensus esset consentaneus veritati et praedicans veritatem, non interpretantium munere, sed prophetantium libertate aliter dicere voluisse credendum est. Vnde merito non solum Hebraeis, verum etiam ipsis, cum adhibet testimonia de scripturis, uti apostolica invenitur auctoritas. Sed hinc me oportuniore loco, si Deus adivuerit, promisi diligentius locuturum; nunc quod instat expediam. Non enim ambigendum est ab homine, qui ex primo homine primus est natus, quando tamdiu vivebant, potuisse constitui civitatem, sane terrenam, non illam, quae dicitur civitas Dei, de qua ut scriberemus, laborem tanti huius operis in manus sumpsimus. ||Let us now see how it can be plainly made out that in the enormously protracted lives of those men the years were not so short that ten of their years were equal to only one of ours, but were of as great length as our own, which are measured by the course of the sun. It is proved by this, that Scripture states that the flood occurred in the six hundredth year of Noah's life. But why in the same place is it also written, "The waters of the flood were upon the earth in the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the twenty-seventh day of the month," if that very brief year (of which it took ten to make one of ours) consisted of thirty-six days? For so scant a year, if the ancient usage dignified it with the name of year, either has not months, or this month must be three days, so that it may have twelve of them. How then was it here said, "In the six hundredth year, the second month, the twenty-seventh day of the month," unless the months then were of the same length as the months now? For how else could it be said that the flood began on the twenty-seventh day of the second month? Then afterwards, at the end of the flood, it is thus written: "And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually until the eleventh month: on the first day of the month were the tops of the mountains seen." Genesis 8:4-5 But if the months were such as we have, then so were the years. And certainly months of three days each could not have a twenty-seventh day. Or if every measure of time was diminished in proportion, and a thirtieth part of three days was then called a day, then that great deluge, which is recorded to have lasted forty days and forty nights, was really over in less than four of our days. Who can away with such foolishness and absurdity? Far be this error from us,-an error which seeks to build up our faith in the divine Scriptures on false conjecture only to demolish our faith at another point. It is plain that the day then was what it now is, a space of four-and-twenty hours, determined by the lapse of day and night; the month then equal to the month now, which is defined by the rise and completion of one moon; the year then equal to the year now, which is completed by twelve lunar months, with the addition of five days and a fourth to adjust it with the course of the sun. It was a year of this length which was reckoned the six hundredth of Noah's life, and in the second month, the twenty-seventh day of the month, the flood began,-a flood which, as is recorded, was caused by heavy rains continuing for forty days, which days had not only two hours and a little more, but four-and-twenty hours, completing a night and a day. And consequently those antediluvians lived more than 900 years, which were years as long as those which afterwards Abraham lived 175 of, and after him his son Isaac 180, and his son Jacob nearly 150, and some time after, Moses 120, and men now seventy or eighty, or not much longer, of which years it is said, "their strength is labor and sorrow."But that discrepancy of numbers which is found to exist between our own and the Hebrew text does not touch the longevity of the ancients; and if there is any diversity so great that both versions cannot be true, we must take our ideas of the real facts from that text out of which our own version has been translated. However, though any one who pleases has it in his power to correct this version, yet it is not unimportant to observe that no one has presumed to emend the Septuagint from the Hebrew text in the many places where they seem to disagree. For this difference has not been reckoned a falsification; and for my own part I am persuaded it ought not to be reckoned so. But where the difference is not a mere copyist's error, and where the sense is agreeable to truth and illustrative of truth, we must believe that the divine Spirit prompted them to give a varying version, not in their function of translators, but in the liberty of prophesying. And therefore we find that the apostles justly sanction the Septuagint, by quoting it as well as the Hebrew when they adduce proofs from the Scriptures. But as I have promised to treat this subject more carefully, if God help me, in a more fitting place, I will now go on with the matter in hand. For there can be no doubt that, the lives of men being so long, the first-born of the first man could have built a city,-a city, however, which was earthly, and not that which is called the city of God, to describe which we have taken in hand this great work.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c15"><b>BOOK XV</b> [XV] Dicet ergo aliquis: "Itane credendum est hominem filios generaturum nec habentem propositum continentiae centum et amplius, vel secundum Hebraeos non multo minus, id est octoginta, septuaginta, sexaginta annos a concumbendi opere uacuisse, aut si non uacaret, nihil prolis gignere potuisse?" Haec quaestio duobus modis solvitur. Aut enim tanto serior fuit proportione pubertas, quanto vitae totius maior annositas; aut, quod magis video esse credibile, non hic primogeniti filii commemorati sunt, sed quos successionis ordo poscebat, ut perveniretur ad Noe, a quo rursus ad Abraham videmus esse peruentum, ac deinde usque ad certum articulum temporis, quantum oportebat signari etiam generationibus commemoratis cursum gloriosissimae civitatis in hoc mundo peregrinantis et supernam patriam requirentis. Quod enim negari non potest, prior omnibus Cato ex coniunctione maris et feminae natus est. Neque enim illo nato dixisset Adam, quod dixisse legitur: Adquisivi hominem per Deum, nisi illis duobus ipse fuisset homo. nascendo additus primus. Hunc secutus Abel, quem maior frater occidit, praefigurationem quandam peregrinantis civitatis Dei, quod ab impiis et quodam modo terrigenis, id est terrenam originem diligentibus et terrenae civitatis terrena felicitate gaudentibus, persecutiones iniquas passura fuerat, primus ostendit. Sed quot annorum erat Adam, cum eos genuit, non apparet. Exinde digeruntur generationes aliae de Cain, aliae de illo, quem genuit Adam in eius successionem, quem frater occidit, et appellavit nomen illius Seth dicens, ut scriptum est: Suscitavit enim mihi Deus semen aliud pro Abel, quem occidit Cain. Cum itaque istae duae series generationum, una de Seth, altera de Cain, has duas, de quibus agimus, distinctis ordinibus insinvent civitates, unam caelestem in terris peregrinantem, alteram terrenam terrenis tamquam sola sint gaudiis inhiantem vel inhaerentem: nullus de progenie Cain, cum dinumerata sit connumerato Adam usque ad octauam generationem, quot annorum fuisset expressus est, quando genuit eum, qui commemoratur post eum. Noluit enim Spiritus Dei in terrenae civitatis generationibus tempora notare ante diluuium, sed in caelestis maluit, tamquam essent memoria digniores. Porro autem Seth quando natus est, non quidem taciti sunt anni patris eius, sed iam genuerat alios; et utrum solos Cain et Abel, adfirmare quis audeat? Non enim quia soli nominati sunt propter ordines generationum quas commemorare oportebat, ideo consequens videri debet solos fuisse tunc generatos ex Adam. .Cum enim silentio coopertis omnium nominibus ceterorum legatur eum genuisse filios et filias: quota fuerit ista proles eius, quis praesumat adserere, si culpam temeritatis evitat? Potuit quippe Adam divinitus admonitus dicere, postea quam Seth natus est: Suscitavit enim mihi Deus semen aliud pro Abel, quoniam talis erat futurus, qui impleret illius sanctitatem, non quod ipse prior post eum temporis ordine nasceretur. Deinde quod scriptum est: Vixit autem Seth quinque et ducentos annos (uel secundum Hebraeos quinque et centum annos), et genuit Enos; quis possit nisi inconsideratus adseuerare hunc eius primogenitum fuisse? ut admirantes merito requiramus, quo modo per tot annos inmunis fuerit a conubio sine ullo proposito continentiae vel non genuerit coniugatus; quando quidem etiam de ipso legitur: Et genuit filios et filias, et fuerunt omnes dies Seth duodecim et nongenti anni, et mortuus est. Atque ita deinceps, quorum anni commemorantur, nec filios filiasque genuisse reticentur. Ac per hoc non apparet omnino, utrum, qui nominatur genitus, ipse fuerit primogenitus: Immo vero, quoniam credibile non est patres illos aetate tam longa aut inpuberes fuisse aut coniugibus caruisse vel fetibus, nec illos eorum filios primos eis natos fuisse credibile est. Sed cum sacrae scriptor historiae ad ortum vitamque Noe, cuius tempore diluuium factum est, per successiones generationum notatis temporibus intenderet pervenire, eas utique commemoravit, non quae primae suis parentibus fuerint, sed quae in propagationis ordinem venerint. Exempli gratia, quo id fiat apertius, aliquid interponam, unde nullus ambigat fieri potuisse quod dico. Euangelista Matthaeus generationem dominicae carnis per seriem parentum volens commendare memoriae, ordiens a patre Abraham atque ad David primitus ut perveniret intendens: Abraham, inquit, genuit Isaac; cur non dixit Ismael, quem primitus genuit? Isaac autem, inquit, genuit Iacob; cur non dixit Esau, qui eius primogenitus fuit? Quia scilicet per illos ad David pervenire non posset. Deinde sequitur: Iacob autem genuit Iudam et fratres eius; numquid Iudas primogenitus fuit? Iudas, inquit, genuit Phares et Zarat; nec istorum geminorum aliquis fuit primogenitus Iudae, sed ante illos iam tres genuerat. Eos itaque tenuit in ordine generationum, per quos ad David atque inde quo intenderat perveniret. Ex quo intellegi potest, ueteres quoque homines ante diluuium non primogenitos, sed eos fuisse commemoratos, per quos ordo succedentium generationum ad Noe patriarcham duceretur, ne serae pubertatis illorum obscura et non necessaria quaestio nos fatiget. ||Some one, then, will say, Is it to be believed that a man who intended to beget children, and had no intention of continence, abstained from sexual intercourse a hundred years and more, or even, according to the Hebrew version, only a little less, say eighty, seventy, or sixty years; or, if he did not abstain, was unable to beget offspring? This question admits of two solutions. For either puberty was so much later as the whole life was longer, or, which seems to me more likely, it is not the first-born sons that are here mentioned, but those whose names were required to fill up the series until Noah was reached, from whom again we see that the succession is continued to Abraham, and after him down to that point of time until which it was needful to mark by pedigree the course of the most glorious city, which sojourns as a stranger in this world, and seeks the heavenly country. That which is undeniable is that Cain was the first who was born of man and woman. For had he not been the first who was added by birth to the two unborn persons, Adam could not have said what he is recorded to have said, "I have gotten a man by the Lord." Genesis 4:1 He was followed by Abel, whom the elder brother slew, and who was the first to show by a kind of foreshadowing of the sojourning city of God, what iniquitous persecutions that city would suffer at the hands of wicked and, as it were, earth-born men, who love their earthly origin, and delight in the earthly happiness of the earthly city. But how old Adam was when he begat these sons does not appear. After this the generations diverge, the one branch deriving from Cain, the other from him whom Adam begot in the room of Abel slain by his brother, and whom he called Seth, saying, as it is written, "For God has raised me up another seed for Abel whom Cain slew." Genesis 4:25 These two series of generations accordingly, the one of Cain, the other of Seth, represent the two cities in their distinctive ranks, the one the heavenly city, which sojourns on earth, the other the earthly, which gapes after earthly joys, and grovels in them as if they were the only joys. But though eight generations, including Adam, are registered before the flood, no man of Cain's line has his age recorded at which the son who succeeded him was begotten. For the Spirit of God refused to mark the times before the flood in the generations of the earthly city, but preferred to do so in the heavenly line, as if it were more worthy of being remembered. Further, when Seth was born, the age of his father is mentioned; but already he had begotten other sons, and who will presume to say that Cain and Abel were the only ones previously begotten? For it does not follow that they alone had been begotten of Adam, because they alone were named in order to continue the series of generations which it was desirable to mention. For though the names of all the rest are buried in silence, yet it is said that Adam begot sons and daughters; and who that cares to be free from the charge of temerity will dare to say how many his offspring numbered? It was possible enough that Adam was divinely prompted to say, after Seth was born, "For God has raised up to me another seed for Abel," because that son was to be capable of representing Abel's holiness, not because he was born first after him in point of time. Then because it is written, "And Seth lived 205 years," or, according to the Hebrew reading, "105 years, and begat Enos," Genesis 5:6 who but a rash man could affirm that this was his first-born? Will any man do so to excite our wonder, and cause us to inquire how for so many years he remained free from sexual intercourse, though without any purpose of continuing so, or how, if he did not abstain, he yet had no children? Will any man do so when it is written of him, "And he begat sons and daughters, and all the days of Seth were 912 years, and he died?" Genesis 5:8 And similarly regarding those whose years are afterwards mentioned, it is not disguised that they begat sons and daughters.Consequently it does not at all appear whether he who is named as the son was himself the first begotten. Nay, since it is incredible that those fathers were either so long in attaining puberty, or could not get wives, or could not impregnate them, it is also incredible that those sons were their first-born. But as the writer of the sacred history designed to descend by well-marked intervals through a series of generations to the birth and life of Noah, in whose time the flood occurred, he mentioned not those sons who were first begotten, but those by whom the succession was handed down.Let me make this clearer by here inserting an example, in regard to which no one can have any doubt that what I am asserting is true. The evangelist Matthew, where he designs to commit to our memories the generation of the Lord's flesh by a series of parents, beginning from Abraham and intending to reach David, says, "Abraham begat Isaac;" Matthew i why did he not say Ishmael, whom he first begat? Then "Isaac begat Jacob;" why did he not say Esau, who was the first-born? Simply because these sons would not have helped him to reach David. Then follows, "And Jacob begat Judah and his brethren:" was Judah the first begotten? "Judah," he says, "begat Pharez and Zara;" yet neither were these twins the first-born of Judah, but before them he had begotten three other sons. And so in the order of the generations he retained those by whom he might reach David, so as to proceed onwards to the end he had in view. And from this we may understand that the antediluvians who are mentioned were not the first-born, but those through whom the order of the succeeding generations might be carried on to the patriarch Noah. We need not, therefore, weary ourselves with discussing the needless and obscure question as to their lateness of reaching puberty.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c16"><b>BOOK XV</b> [XVI] Cum igitur genus humanum post primam copulam viri facti ex puluere et coniugis eius ex viri latere marium feminarumque coniunctione opus haberet, ut gignendo multipficaretur, nec essent ulli homines, nisi qui ex illis duobus nati fuissent: viri sorores suas coniuges acceperunt; quod profecto quanto est antiquius conpellente necessitate, tanto postea factum est damnabilius religione prohibente. Habita est enim ratio rectissima caritatis, ut homines, quibus esset utilis atque honesta concordia, diversarum necessitudinum vinculis necterentur, nec unus in uno multas haberet, sed singulae spargerentur in singulos ac sic ad socialem vitam diligentius conligandam plurimae plurimos obtinerent. Pater quippe et socer duarum sunt necessitudinum nomina. Vt ergo alium quisque habeat patrem, alium socerum, numerosius se caritas porrigit. Vtrumque autem unus Adam esse cogebatur et filiis et filiabus suis, quando fratres sororesque conubio iungebantur. Sic et Eua uxor eius utrique sexui filiorum fuit et socrus et mater; quae si duae feminae fuissent, mater altera et socrus altera, copiosius se socialis dilectio conligaret. Ipsa denique iam soror, quod etiam uxor fiebat, duas tenebat una necessitudines; quibus per singulas distributis, ut altera esset soror, altera uxor, hominum numero socialis propinquitas augeretur. Sed hoc unde fieret tunc non erat, quando nisi fratres et sorores ex illis duobus primis nulli homines erant. Fieri ergo debuit quando potuit, ut existente copia inde ducerentur uxores, quae non erant iam sorores, et non solum illud ut fieret nulla necessitas esset, verum etiam si fieret nefas esset. Nam si et nepotes primorum hominum, qui iam consobrinas poterant accipere coniuges, sororibus matrimonio iungerentur: non iam duae, sed tres in homine uno necessitudines fierent, quae propter caritatem numerosiore propinquitate nectendam disseminari per singulos singulae debuerunt. Esset enim unus homo filiis suis, fratri scilicet sororique coniugibus, et pater et socer et auunculus; ita et uxor eius eisdem communibus filiis et mater et amita et socrus; idemque inter se filii eorum non solum essent fratres atque coniuges, verum etiam consobrini, quia et fratrum filii. Omnes autem istae necessitudines, quae uni homini tres homines conectebant, novem conecterent, si essent in singulis singulae, ut unus homo haberet alteram sororem, alteram uxorem, alteram consobrinam, alterum patrem, alterum auunculum, alterum socerum, alteram matrem, alteram amitam, alteram socrum; atque ita se non in paucitate coartatum, sed latius atque numerosius propinquitatibus crebris vinculum sociale diffunderet. Quod humano genere crescente et multiplicato etiam inter impios deorum multorum falsorumque cultores sic observari cernimus, ut, etiamsi peruersis legibus permittantur fraterna coniugia, melior tamen consuetudo ipsam malit exhorrere licentiam, et cum sorores accipere in matrimonium primis humani generis temporibus omnino licuerit, sic aversetur, quasi numquam licere potuerit. Ad humanum enim sensum vel adliciendum vel offendendum mos valet plurimum; qui cum in hac causa inmoderationem concupiscentiae coherceat, eum dissignari atque corrumpi merito esse nefarium iudicatur. Si enim est iniquum aviditate possidendi transgredi limitem agrorum, quanto est iniquius libidine concumbendi subuertere limitem morum! Experti autem sumus in conubiis consobrinarum etiam nostris temporibus propter gradum propinquitatis fraterno gradui proximum quam raro per mores fiebat, quod fieri per leges licebat, quia id nec divina prohibuit et nondum prohibuerat lex humana. Verum tamen factum etiam licitum propter vicinitatem horrebatur inliciti et, quod fiebat cum consobrina, paene cum sorore fieri videbatur; quia et ipsi inter se propter tam propinquam consanguinitatem fratres vocantur et paene germani sunt. Fuit autem antiquis patribus religiosae curae. ne ipsa propinquitas se paulatim propaginum ordinibus dirimens longius abiret et propinquitas esse desisteret, eam nondum longe positam rursus matrimonii vinculo conligare et quodam modo reuocare fugientem. Vnde iam pleno hominibus orbe terrarum, non quidem sorores ex patre vel matre vel ex ambobus suis parentibus natas, sed tamen amabant de suo genere ducere uxores. Verum quis dubitet honestius hoc tempore etiam consobrinorum prohibita esse coniugia? non solum secundum ea, quae disputavimus, propter multiplicandas adfinitates, ne habeat duas necessitudines una persona, cum duae possint eas habere et numerus propinquitatis augeri; sed etiam quia nescio quo modo inest humanae verecundiae quiddam naturale atque laudabile, ut, cui debet causa propinquitatis reuerendum honorem, ab ea contineat, quamuis generatricem, tamen libidinem, de qua erubescere videmus et ipsam pudicitiam coniugalem. Copulatio igitur maris et feminae, quantum adtinet ad genus mortalium, quoddam seminarium est civitatis; sed terrena civitas generatione tantummodo, caelestis autem etiam regeneratione opus habet, ut noxam generationis euadat. Vtrum autem aliquod fuerit, vel si fuit, quale fuerit corporale atque visibile regenerationis signum ante diluuium, sicut Abrahae circumcisio postea est imperata, sacra historia tacet. Sacrificasse tamen Deo etiam illos antiquissimos homines non tacet; quod et in duobus primis fratribus claruit, et Noe post diluuium, cum de arca fuisset egressus, hostias Deo legitur immolasse. De qua re in praecedentibus libris iam diximus, non ob aliud daemones arrogantes sibi divinitatem deosque se credi cupientes sibi expetere sacrificium et gaudere huius modi honoribus, nisi quia verum sacrificium vero Deo deberi sciunt. ||As, therefore, the human race, subsequently to the first marriage of the man who was made of dust, and his wife who was made out of his side, required the union of males and females in order that it might multiply, and as there were no human beings except those who had been born of these two, men took their sisters for wives,-an act which was as certainly dictated by necessity in these ancient days as afterwards it was condemned by the prohibitions of religion. For it is very reasonable and just that men, among whom concord is honorable and useful, should be bound together by various relationships; and one man should not himself sustain many relationships, but that the various relationships should be distributed among several, and should thus serve to bind together the greatest number in the same social interests. "Father" and "father-in-law" are the names of two relationships. When, therefore, a man has one person for his father, another for his father-in-law, friendship extends itself to a larger number. But Adam in his single person was obliged to hold both relations to his sons and daughters, for brothers and sisters were united in marriage. So too Eve his wife was both mother and mother-in-law to her children of both sexes; while, had there been two women, one the mother, the other the mother-in-law, the family affection would have had a wider field. Then the sister herself by becoming a wife sustained in her single person two relationships, which, had they been distributed among individuals, one being sister, and another being wife, the family tie would have embraced a greater number of persons. But there was then no material for effecting this, since there were no human beings but the brothers and sisters born of those two first parents. Therefore, when an abundant population made it possible, men ought to choose for wives women who were not already their sisters; for not only would there then be no necessity for marrying sisters, but, were it done, it would be most abominable. For if the grandchildren of the first pair, being now able to choose their cousins for wives, married their sisters, then it would no longer be only two but three relationships that were held by one man, while each of these relationships ought to have been held by a separate individual, so as to bind together by family affection a larger number. For one man would in that case be both father, and father-in-law, and uncle to his own children (brother and sister now man and wife); and his wife would be mother, aunt, and mother-in-law to them; and they themselves would be not only brother and sister, and man and wife, but cousins also, being the children of brother and sister. Now, all these relationships, which combined three men into one, would have embraced nine persons had each relationship been held by one individual, so that a man had one person for his sister, another his wife, another his cousin, another his father, another his uncle, another his father-in-law, another his mother, another his aunt, another his mother-in-law; and thus the social bond would not have been tightened to bind a few, but loosened to embrace a larger number of relations.And we see that, since the human race has increased and multiplied, this is so strictly observed even among the profane worshippers of many and false gods, that though their laws perversely allow a brother to marry his sister, yet custom, with a finer morality, prefers to forego this license; and though it was quite allowable in the earliest ages of the human race to marry one's sister, it is now abhorred as a thing which no circumstances could justify. For custom has very great power either to attract or to shock human feeling. And in this matter, while it restrains concupiscence within due bounds, the man who neglects and disobeys it is justly branded as abominable. For if it is iniquitous to plough beyond our own boundaries through the greed of gain, is it not much more iniquitous to transgress the recognized boundaries of morals through sexual lust? And with regard to marriage in the next degree of consanguinity, marriage between cousins, we have observed that in our own time the customary morality has prevented this from being frequent, though the law allows it. It was not prohibited by divine law, nor as yet had human law prohibited it; nevertheless, though legitimate, people shrank from it, because it lay so close to what was illegitimate, and in marrying a cousin seemed almost to marry a sister,-for cousins are so closely related that they are called brothers and sisters, and are almost really so. But the ancient fathers, fearing that near relationship might gradually in the course of generations diverge, and become distant relationship, or cease to be relationship at all, religiously endeavored to limit it by the bond of marriage before it became distant, and thus, as it were, to call it back when it was escaping them. And on this account, even when the world was full of people, though they did not choose wives from among their sisters or half-sisters, yet they preferred them to be of the same stock as themselves. But who doubts that the modern prohibition of the marriage even of cousins is the more seemly regulation-not merely on account of the reason we have been urging, the multiplying of relationships, so that one person might not absorb two, which might be distributed to two persons, and so increase the number of people bound together as a family, but also because there is in human nature I know not what natural and praiseworthy shamefacedness which restrains us from desiring that connection which, though for propagation, is yet lustful and which even conjugal modesty blushes over, with any one to whom consanguinity bids us render respect?The sexual intercourse of man and woman, then, is in the case of mortals a kind of seed-bed of the city; but while the earthly city needs for its population only generation, the heavenly needs also regeneration to rid it of the taint of generation. Whether before the deluge there was any bodily or visible sign of regeneration, such as was afterwards enjoined upon Abraham when he was circumcised, or what kind of sign it was, the sacred history does not inform us. But it does inform us that even these earliest of mankind sacrificed to God, as appeared also in the case of the two first brothers; Noah, too, is said to have offered sacrifices to God when he had come forth from the ark after the deluge. And concerning this subject we have already said in the foregoing books that the devils arrogate to themselves divinity, and require sacrifice that they may be esteemed gods, and delight in these honors on no other account than this, because they know that true sacrifice is due to the true God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c17"><b>BOOK XV</b> [XVII] Cum ergo esset Adam utriusque generis pater, id est et cuius series ad terrenam, et cuius series ad caelestem pertinet civitatem, occiso Abel atque in eius interfectione commendato mirabili sacramento facti sunt duo patres singulorum generum, Cain et Seth, in quorum filiis, quos commemorari oportebat, duarum istarum civitatum in genere mortalium evidentius indicia clarere coeperunt. Cain quippe genuit Enoch, in cuius nomine condidit civitatem, terrenam scilicet, non peregrinantem in hoc mundo, sed in eius temporali pace ac felicitate quiescentem. Cain autem interpretatur possessio; unde dictum est, quando natus est, sive a patre sive a matre eius: Adquisivi hominem per Deum. Enoch vero dedicatio; hic enim dedicatur terrena civitas, ubi conditur, quoniam hic habet eum, quem intendit et appetit, finem. Porro ille Seth interpretatur resurrectio et Enos filius eius interpretatur homo; non sicut Adam. Et ipsum enim nomen homo interpretatur; sed commune perhibetur esse in illa lingua, id est Hebraea, masculo et feminae. Nam sic de illo scriptum est: Masculum et feminam fecit illos et benedixit illos et cognominavit nomen eorum Adam. Vnde non ambigitur sic appellatam fuisse feminam Euam proprio nomine, ut tamen Adam, quod interpretatur homo, nomen esset amborum. Enos autem sic interpretatur homo, ut hoc non posse feminam nuncupari periti linguae illius adseuerent, tamquam filius resurrectionis, ubi non nubent neque uxores ducent. Non enim erit ibi generatio, cum illuc perduxerit regeneratio. Quare et hoc non incassum notandum arbitror, quod in eis generationibus, quae propagantur ex illo qui est appellatus Seth, cum genuisse filios filiasque dicantur, nulla ibi genita nominatim femina expressa est; in his autem, quae propagantur ex Cain, in ipso fine, quo usque pertendunt, novissima femina genita nominatur. Sic enim legitur: Mathusael genuit Lamech. et sumpsit sibi Lamech duas uxores, nomen uni Ada et nomen secundae Sella, et peperit Ada Iobel; hic erat pater habitantium in tabernaculis pecuariorum. Et nomen fratris eius Iobal; hic fuit qui ostendit psalterium et citharam. Sella autem peperit et ipsa Tobel; et erat malleator et aerarius aeramenti et ferri. Soror autem Tobel Noemma. Hoc usque porrectae sunt generationes ex Cain, quae sunt omnes ab Adam octo adnumerato ipso Adam, septem scilicet usque ad Lamech, qui duarum maritus uxorum fuit, et octaua est generatio in filiis eius, in quibus commemoratur et femina. Vbi eleganter significatum est terrenam civitatem usque in sui finem carnales habituram generationes, quae marium feminarumque coniunctione proveniunt. Vnde et ipsae, quod praeter Euam nusquam reperitur ante diluuium, nominibus propriis exprimuntur uxores illius hominis, qui nominatur hic novissimus pater. Sicut autem Cain, quod interpretatur possessio, terrenae conditor civitatis, et filius eius, in cuius nomine condita est, Enoch, quod interpretatur dedicatio, indicat istam civitatem et initium et finem habere terrenum, ubi nihil speratur amplius, quam in hoc saeculo cerni potest: ita Seth, quod interpretatur resurrectio, cum sit generationum seorsus commemoratarum pater, quid de filio eius sacra haec historia dicat, intuendum est. ||Since, then, Adam was the father of both lines,-the father, that is to say, both of the line which belonged to the earthly, and of that which belonged to the heavenly city,-when Abel was slain, and by his death exhibited a marvellous mystery, there were henceforth two lines proceeding from two fathers, Cain and Seth, and in those sons of theirs, whom it behoved to register, the tokens of these two cities began to appear more distinctly. For Cain begat Enoch, in whose name he built a city, an earthly one, which was not from home in this world, but rested satisfied with its temporal peace and happiness. Cain, too, means "possession;" wherefore at his birth either his father or mother said," I have gotten a man through God." Then Enoch means "dedication;" for the earthly city is dedicated in this world in which it is built, for in this world it finds the end towards which it aims and aspires. Further, Seth signifies "resurrection," and Enos his son signifies "man," not as Adam, which also signifies man, but is used in Hebrew indifferently for man and woman, as it is written, "Male and female created He them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam," Genesis 5:2 leaving no room to doubt that though the woman was distinctively called Eve, yet the name Adam, meaning man, was common to both. But Enos means man in so restricted a sense, that Hebrew linguists tell us it cannot be applied to woman: it is the equivalent of the "child of the resurrection," when they neither marry nor are given in marriage. Luke 20:35-36 For there shall be no generation in that place to which regeneration shall have brought us. Wherefore I think it not immaterial to observe that in those generations which are propagated from him who is called Seth, although daughters as well as sons are said to have been begotten, no woman is expressly registered by name; but in those which sprang from Cain at the very termination to which the line runs, the last person named as begotten is a woman. For we read, "Methusael begat Lamech. And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of the shepherds that dwell in tents. And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. And Zillah, she also bare Tubal-cain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah." Genesis 4:18-22 Here terminate all the generations of Cain, being eight in number, including Adam,-to wit, seven from Adam to Lamech, who married two wives, and whose children, among whom a woman also is named, form the eighth generation. Whereby it is elegantly signified that the earthly city shall to its termination have carnal generations proceeding from the intercourse of males and females. And therefore the wives themselves of the man who is the last named father of Cain's line, are registered in their own names,-a practice nowhere followed before the deluge save in Eve's case. Now as Cain, signifying possession, the founder of the earthly city, and his son Enoch, meaning dedication, in whose name it was founded, indicate that this city is earthly both in its beginning and in its end,-a city in which nothing more is hoped for than can be seen in this world,-so Seth, meaning resurrection, and being the father of generations registered apart from the others, we must consider what this sacred history says of his son.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c18"><b>BOOK XV</b> [XVIII] Et Seth, inquit, natus est filius, et nominavit nomen eius Enos; hic speravit inuocare nomen Domini Dei. Nempe clamat adtestatio veritatis. In spe igitur vivit homo filius resurrectionis; in spe vivit, quamdiu peregrinatur hic, civitas Dei, quae gignitur ex fide resurrectionis Christi. Ex duobus namque illis hominibus, Abel, quod interpretatur luctus, et eius fratre Seth, quod interpretatur resurrectio, mors Christi et vita eius ex mortuis figuratur. Ex qua fide gignitur hic civitas Dei, id est homo, qui speravit inuocare nomen Domini Dei. Spe enim salui facti sumus, ait apostolus. Spes autem quae videtur, non est spes. Quod enim videt quis, quid et sperat? Si autem quod non videmus speramus, per patientiam expectamus. Nam quis uacare hoc existimet ab altitudine sacramenti? Numquid enim Abel non speravit inuocare nomen Domini Dei, cuius sacrificium scriptura tam acceptum Deo fuisse commemorat? Numquid ipse Seth non speravit inuocare nomen Domini Dei, de quo dictum est: Suscitavit enim mihi Deus semen aliud pro Abel? Cur ergo huic proprie tribuitur, quod piorum omnium intellegitur esse commune, nisi quia oportebat in eo, qui de patre generationum in meliorem.partem, hoc est supernae civitatis, separatarum, primus commemoratur exortus, praefigurari hominem, id est hominum societatem, quae non secundum hominem in re felicitatis terrenae, sed secundum Deum vivit in spe felicitatis aeternae? Nec dictum est: "Hic speravit in Dominum Deum", aut: "Hic inuocavit nomen Domini Dei", sed: Speravit, inquit, inuocare nomen Domini Dei. Quid sibi hoc uult Speravit inuocare, nisi quia prophetia est exorturum populum, qui secundum electionem gratiae inuocaret nomen Domini Dei? Hoc est, quod per alium prophetam dictum apostolus de hoc populo intellegit ad Dei gratiam pertinente: Et erit, omnis qui inuocaverit nomen Domini saluus erit. Hoc ipsum enim quod dicitur: Et nominavit nomen eius Enos, quod interpretatur homo, ac deinde additur: Hic speravit inuocare nomen Domini Dei, satis ostenditur, quod non in se ipso spem ponere debeat homo; maledictus enim omnis (sicut alibi legitur), qui spem suam ponit in homine, ac per hoc nec in se, ut sit civis alterius civitatis, quae non secundum filium Cain dedicatur hoc tempore, id est mortalis huius saeculi labente transcursu, sed in illa inmortalitate beatitudinis sempiternae. ||And to Seth, it is said, "there was born a son, and he called his name Enos: he hoped to call on the name of the Lord God." Genesis 4:26 Here we have a loud testimony to the truth. Man, then, the son of the resurrection, lives in hope: he lives in hope as long as the city of God, which is begotten by faith in the resurrection, sojourns in this world. For in these two men, Abel, signifying "grief," and his brother Seth, signifying "resurrection," the death of Christ and His life from the dead are prefigured. And by faith in these is begotten in this world the city of God, that is to say, the man who has hoped to call on the name of the Lord. "For by hope," says the apostle, "we are saved: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man sees, why does he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it." Romans 8:24-25 Who can avoid referring this to a profound mystery? For did not Abel hope to call upon the name of the Lord God when his sacrifice is mentioned in Scripture as having been accepted by God? Did not Seth himself hope to call on the name of the Lord God, of whom it was said, "For God has appointed me another seed instead of Abel?" Why then is this which is found to be common to all the godly specially attributed to Enos, unless because it was fit that in him, who is mentioned as the first-born of the father of those generations which were separated to the better part of the heavenly city, there should be a type of the man, or society of men, who live not according to man in contentment with earthly felicity, but according to God in hope of everlasting felicity? And it was not said, "He hoped in the Lord God," nor "He called on the name of the Lord God," but "He hoped to call on the name of the Lord God." And what does this "hoped to call" mean, unless it is a prophecy that a people should arise who, according to the election of grace, would call on the name of the Lord God? It is this which has been said by another prophet, and which the apostle interprets of the people who belong to the grace of God: "And it shall be that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Romans 10:13 For these two expressions, "And he called his name Enos, which means man," and "He hoped to call on the name of the Lord God," are sufficient proof that man ought not to rest his hopes in himself; as it is elsewhere written, "Cursed is the man that trusts in man." Consequently no one ought to trust in himself that he shall become a citizen of that other city which is not dedicated in the name of Cain's son in this present time, that is to say, in the fleeting course of this mortal world, but in the immortality of perpetual blessedness.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c19"><b>BOOK XV</b> [XIX] Nam et ista propago, cuius est pater Seth, in ea generatione habet dedicationis nomen, quae septima est ex Adam adnumerato Adam. Septimus enim ab illo natus est Enoch, quod interpretatur dedicatio. Sed ipse est ille translatus, quoniam placuit Deo, et insigni numero in ordine generationum, quo sabbatum consecratum est, septimo scilicet ab Adam. Ab ipso autem patre istarum generationum, quae discernuntur a progenie Cain, id est a Seth, sextus est; quoto die factus est homo et consummavit Deus omnia opera sua. Sed huius Enoch translatio nostrae dedicationis est praefigurata dilatio. Quae quidem iam facta est in Christo capite nostro, qui sic resurrexit, ut non moriatur ulterius, sed etiam ipse translatus est; restat autem altera dedicatio universae domus, cuius ipse Christus est fundamentum, quae differtur in finem, quando erit omnium resurrectio non moriturorum amplius. Sive autem domus Dei dicatur sive templum Dei sive civitas Dei, id ipsum est nec abhorret a Latini eloquii consuetudine. Nam et Vergilius imperiosissimam civitatem domum appellat Assaraci, Romanos volens intellegi, qui de Assaraco per Troianos originem ducunt; et domum Aeneae eosdem ipsos, quia eo duce Troiani cum Italiam venissent ab eis condita est Roma. Imitatus namque est poeta ille litteras sacras, in quibus dicitur domus Iacob iam ingens populus Hebraeorum. ||For that line also of which Seth is the father has the name "Dedication" in the seventh generation from Adam, counting Adam. For the seventh from him is Enoch, that is, Dedication. But this is that man who was translated because he pleased God, and who held in the order of the generations a remarkable place, being the seventh from Adam, a number signalized by the consecration of the Sabbath. But, counting from the diverging point of the two lines, or from Seth, he was the sixth. Now it was on the sixth day God made man, and consummated His works. But the translation of Enoch prefigured our deferred dedication; for though it is indeed already accomplished in Christ our Head, who so rose again that He shall die no more, and who was Himself also translated, yet there remains another dedication of the whole house, of which Christ Himself is the foundation, and this dedication is deferred till the end, when all shall rise again to die no more. And whether it is the house of God, or the temple of God, or the city of God, that is said to be dedicated, it is all the same, and equally in accordance with the usage of the Latin language. For Virgil himself calls the city of widest empire "the house of Assaracus," meaning the Romans, who were descended through the Trojans from Assaracus. He also calls them the house of Жneas, because Rome was built by those Trojans who had come to Italy under Жneas. For that poet imitated the sacred writings, in which the Hebrew nation, though so numerous, is called the house of Jacob.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c20"><b>BOOK XV</b> [XX] Dicet aliquis: "Si hoc intendebat scriptor huius historiae in commemorandis generationibus, ex Adam per filium eius Seth, ut per illas perveniret ad Noe, sub quo factum est diluuium, a quo rursus contexeretur ordo nascentium, quo perveniret ad Abraham, a quo Matthaeus, euangelista incipit generationes, quibus ad Christum pervenit aeternum regem civitatis Dei: quid intendebat in generationibus ex Cain et quo eas perducere volebat?" Respondetur: Vsque ad diluuium, quo totum illud genus terrenae civitatis absumptum est, sed reparatum est ex filiis Noe. Neque enim deesse poterit haec terrena civitas societasque hominum secundum hominem viventium usque ad huius saeculi finem, de quo Dominus ait: Filii saeculi huius generant et generantur. Civitatem vero Dei peregrinantem in hoc saeculo regeneratio perducit ad alterum saeculum, cuius filii nec generant nec generantur. Hic ergo generari et generare civitati utrique commune est; quamuis Dei civitas habeat etiam hic multa civium milia, quae ab opere generandi se abstineant; sed habet etiam illa ex imitatione quadam, licet errantium. Ad eam namque pertinent etiam, qui deviantes ab huius fide diversas haereses condiderunt; secundum hominem quippe vivunt, non secundum Deum. Et Indorum gymnosophistae, qui nudi perhibentur philosophari in solitudinibus Indiae, cives eius sunt, et a generando se cohibent. Non est enim hoc bonum, nisi cum fit secundum fidem summi boni, qui Deus est. Hoc tamen nemo fecisse ante diluuium reperitur; quando quidem etiam ipse Enoch septimus ab Adam, qui translatus refertur esse, non mortuus, genuit filios et filias antequam transferretur; in quibus fuit Mathusalam, per quem generationum memorandarum ordo transcurrit. Cur ergo tanta paucitas successionum commemoratur in generationibus ex Cain, si eas usque ad diluuium perduci oportebat, nec erat diuturna aetas praeveniens pubertatem, quae centum vel amplius annos uacaret a fetibus? Nam si non intendebat auctor libri huius aliquem, ad quem necessario perduceret seriem generationum, sicut in illis, quae veniunt de semine Seth, intendebat pervenire ad Noe, a quo rursus ordo necessarius sequeretur: quid opus erat praetermittere primogenitos filios, ut perveniretur ad Lamech, in cuius filiis finitur illa contextio, octaua generatione scilicet ex Adam, septima ex Cain, quasi esset inde aliquid deinceps conectendum, unde perveniretur vel ad Israeliticum populum, in quo caelesti civitati etiam terrena Hierusalem figuram propheticam praebuit, vel ad Christum secundum carnem, qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in saecula, supernae Hierusalem fabricator atque regnator, cum tota progenies Cain diluuio sit deleta? Vnde videri potest in eodem ordine generationum primogenitos fuisse commemoratos. Cur ergo tam pauci sunt? Non enim usque ad diluuium tot esse potuerunt, non uacantibus usque ad centenariam pubertatem patribus ab officio generandi, si non erat tunc proportione longaevitatis illius etiam sera pubertas. Vt enim peraeque triginta annorum fuerint, cum filios generare coeperunt, octiens triceni (quoniam octo sunt generationes cum Adam et cum eis quos genuit Lamech) ducenti et quadraginta sunt anni: num itaque toto deinde tempore usque ad diluuium non generaverunt? Qua tandem causa, qui haec scripsit, generationes commemorare noluit quae sequuntur? Nam ex Adam usque ad diluuium conputantur anni secundum codices nostros duo milia ducenti sexaginta duo; secundum Hebraeos autem mille sescenti quinquaginta sex. Vt ergo istum numerum minorem credamus esse veriorem, de mille sescentis quinquaginta sex annis ducenti quadraginta detrahantur: numquid credibile est per mille quadringentos, et quod excurrit, annos, qui restant usque diluuium, progeniem Cain a generationibus uacare potuisse? Sed qui ex hoc movetur, meminerit, cum quaererem, quo modo credendum sit antiquos illos homines per tam multos annos a gignendis filiis cessare potuisse, duobus modis istam solutam esse quaestionem: aut de sera pubertate, proportione tam longae vitae, aut de filiis qui commemorantur in generationibus, quod non fuerint primogeniti, sed hi, per quos ad eum, quem intendebat auctor libri, poterat perveniri, sicut ad Noe in generationibus Seth. Proinde in generationibus Cain, si non occurrit qui deberet intendi, ad quem praetermissis primogenitis per eos, qui commemorati sunt, perveniri oportebat, sera pubertas intellegenda restabit, ut aliquanto post centum annos puberes habilesque ad gignendum facti fuerint, ut ordo generationum per primogenitos curreret et usque diluuium ad numerum annorum tantae quantitatis occurreret. Quamuis fieri possit, ut propter aliquam secretiorem causam, quae me latet, usque ad Lamech et eius filios generationum perveniente contextu commendaretur haec civitas, quam dicimus esse terrenam, ac deinde cessaret scriptor libri commemorare ceteras, quae usque ad diluuium esse potuerunt. Potest et illa esse causa, cur non ordo generationum per primogenitos duceretur, ut necesse non sit in illis hominibus tam seram credere pubertatem, quod scilicet eadem civitas, quam Cain in nomine Enoch filii sui condidit, longe lateque regnare potuerit et reges habere non simul plures, sed suis aetatibus singulos, quos genuissent sibi successuros quicumque regnassent. Horum regum primus esse potuit ipse Cain, secundus filius eius Enoch, in cuius nomine, ubi regnaretur, condita est civitas; tertius Gaidad, quem genuit Enoch; quartus Mevia, quem genuit Gaidad; quintus Mathusael, quem genuit Mevia; sextus Lamech, quem genuit Mathusael, qui est septimus ab Adam per Cain. Non autem erat consequens, ut primogeniti regum regnantibus succederent patribus, sed quos regnandi meritum propter virtutem terrenae utilem civitati vel sors aliqua reperiret, vel ille potissimum succederet patri hereditario quodam iure regnandi, quem prae ceteris filiis dilexisset. Potuit autem vivente adhuc Lamech atque regnante fieri diluuium, ut ipsum cum aliis omnibus hominibus, exceptis qui in arca fuerunt, quem perderet inveniret. Neque enim mirandum est, si varia quantitate numerositatis annorum interposita per tam longam aetatem ab Adam usque diluuium non aequalis numeri generationes habuit utraque progenies, sed per Cain septem, per Seth autem decem; septimus est enim, ut iam dixi, ab Adam Lamech, decimus Noe; et ideo non unus filius Lamech, sicut in ceteris superius, sed plures commemorati sunt, quia incertum erat quis ei fuisset mortuo successurus, si regnandi tempus inter ipsum et diluuium remansisset. Sed quoquo modo se habeat sive per primogenitos sive per reges ex Cain generationum ordo decurrens, illud mihi nullo pacto praetereundum silentio videtur, quod, cum Lamech septimus ab Adam fuisset inventus, tot eius adnumerati sunt filii, donec undenarius numerus impleretur, quo significatur peccatum. Adduntur enim tres filii et una filia. Vxores autem aliud possunt significare, non hoc quod nunc commendandum videtur. Nunc enim de generationibus loquimur; illae vero unde sint genitae, tacitum est. Quoniam ergo lex denario numero praedicatur, unde est memorabilis ille decalogus, profecto numerus undenarius, quoniam transgreditur denarium, transgressionem legis ac per hoc peccatum significat. Hinc est quod in tabernaculo testimonii, quod erat in itinere populi Dei velut templum ambulatorium, undecim vela cilicina fieri praecepta sunt. In cilicio quippe recordatio est peccatorum propter haedos ad sinistram futuros; quod confitentes in cilicio prosternimur tamquam dicentes quod in psalmo scriptum est: Et peccatum meum ante me est semper. Progenies ergo ex Adam per Cain sceleratum undenario numero finitur, quo peccatum significatur; et ipse numerus femina clauditur, a quo sexu initium factum est peccati, per quod omnes morimur. Commissum est autem, ut et voluptas carnis, quae spiritui resisteret, sequeretur. Nam et ipsa filia Lamech Noemma voluptas interpretatur. Per Seth autem ab Adam usque ad Noe denarius insinuatur legitimus numerus. Cui Noe tres adiciuntur filii, unde uno lapso duo benedicuntur a patre, ut remoto reprobo et probatis filiis ad numerum additis etiam duodenarius numerus intimetur, qui et in patriarcharum et in apostolorum numero insignis est, propter septenarii partes alteram per alteram multiplicatas. Nam ter quaterni vel quater terni ipsum faciunt. His ita se habentibus video considerandum et commemorandum, ista utraque progenies, quae distinctis generationibus duas insinuat civitates, unam terrigenarum, alteram regeneratorum, quo modo postea sic commixta fuerit atque confusa, ut universum genus humanum exceptis octo hominibus diluuio perire mereretur. ||Some one will say, If the writer of this history intended, in enumerating the generations from Adam through his son Seth, to descend through them to Noah, in whose time the deluge occurred, and from him again to trace the connected generations down to Abraham, with whom Matthew begins the pedigree of Christ the eternal King of the city of God, what did he intend by enumerating the generations from Cain, and to what terminus did he mean to trace them? We reply, To the deluge, by which the whole stock of the earthly city was destroyed, but repaired by the sons of Noah. For the earthly city and community of men who live after the flesh will never fail until the end of this world, of which our Lord says, "The children of this world generate, and are generated." Luke 20:34 But the city of God, which sojourns in this world, is conducted by regeneration to the world to come, of which the children neither generate nor are generated. In this world generation is common to both cities; though even now the city of God has many thousand citizens who abstain from the act of generation; yet the other city also has some citizens who imitate these, though erroneously. For to that city belong also those who have erred from the faith, and introduced various heresies; for they live according to man, not according to God. And the Indian gymnosophists, who are said to philosophize in the solitudes of India in a state of nudity, are its citizens; and they abstain from marriage. For continence is not a good thing, except when it is practised in the faith of the highest good, that is, God. Yet no one is found to have practised it before the deluge; for indeed even Enoch himself, the seventh from Adam, who is said to have been translated without dying, begat sons and daughters before he was translated, and among these was Methuselah, by whom the succession of the recorded generations is maintained.Why, then, is so small a number of Cain's generations registered, if it was proper to trace them to the deluge, and if there was no such delay of the date of puberty as to preclude the hope of offspring for a hundred or more years? For if the author of this book had not in view some one to whom he might rigidly trace the series of generations, as he designed in those which sprang from Seth's seed to descend to Noah, and thence to start again by a rigid order, what need was there of omitting the first-born sons for the sake of descending to Lamech, in whose sons that line terminates,-that is to say, in the eighth generation from Adam, or the seventh from Cain,-as if from this point he had wished to pass on to another series, by which he might reach either the Israelitish people, among whom the earthly Jerusalem presented a prophetic figure of the heavenly city, or to Jesus Christ, "according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever," Romans 9:5 the Maker and Ruler of the heavenly city? What, I say, was the need of this, seeing that the whole of Cain's posterity were destroyed in the deluge? From this it is manifest that they are the first-born sons who are registered in this genealogy. Why, then, are there so few of them? Their numbers in the period before the deluge must have been greater, if the date of puberty bore no proportion to their longevity, and they had children before they were a hundred years old. For supposing they were on an average thirty years old when they began to beget children, then, as there are eight generations, including Adam and Lamech's children, 8 times 30 gives 240 years; did they then produce no more children in all the rest of the time before the deluge? With what intention, then, did he who wrote this record make no mention of subsequent generations? For from Adam to the deluge there are reckoned, according to our copies of Scripture, 2262 years, and according to the He brew text, 1656 years. Supposing, then, the smaller number to be the true one, and subtracting from 1656 years 240, is it credible that during the remaining 1400 and odd years until the deluge the posterity of Cain begat no children?But let any one who is moved by this call to mind that when I discussed the question, how it is credible that those primitive men could abstain for so many years from begetting children, two modes of solution were found,-either a puberty late in proportion to their longevity, or that the sons registered in the genealogies were not the first-born, but those through whom the author of the book intended to reach the point aimed at, as he intended to reach Noah by the generations of Seth. So that, if in the generations of Cain there occurs no one whom the writer could make it his object to reach by omitting the first-born and inserting those who would serve such a purpose, then we must have recourse to the supposition of late puberty, and say that only at some age beyond a hundred years they became capable of begetting children, so that the order of the generations ran through the first-born, and filled up even the whole period before the deluge, long though it was. It is, however, possible that, for some more secret reason which escapes me, this city, which we say is earthly, is exhibited in all its generations down to Lamech and his sons, and that then the writer withholds from recording the rest which may have existed before the deluge. And without supposing so late a puberty in these men, there might be another reason for tracing the generations by sons who were not first-born, viz., that the same city which Cain built, and named after his son Enoch, may have had a widely extended dominion and many kings, not reigning simultaneously, but successively, the reigning king begetting always his successor. Cain himself would be the first of these kings; his son Enoch, in whose name the city in which he reigned was built, would be the second; the third Irad, whom Enoch begat; the fourth Mehujael, whom Irad begat; the fifth Methusael, whom Mehujael begat; the sixth Lamech, whom Methusael begat, and who is the seventh from Adam through Cain. But it was not necessary that the first-born should succeed their fathers in the kingdom, but those would succeed who were recommended by the possession of some virtue useful to the earthly city, or who were chosen by lot, or the son who was best liked by his father would succeed by a kind of hereditary right to the throne. And the deluge may have happened during the lifetime and reign of Lamech, and may have destroyed him along with all other men, save those who were in the ark. For we cannot be surprised that, during so long a period from Adam to the deluge, and with the ages of individuals varying as they did, there should not be an equal number of generations in both lines, but seven in Cain's, and ten in Seth's; for as I have already said, Lamech is the seventh from Adam, Noah the tenth; and in Lamech's case not one son only is registered, as in the former instances, but more, because it was uncertain which of them would have succeeded when he died, if there had intervened any time to reign between his death and the deluge.But in whatever manner the generations of Cain's line are traced downwards, whether it be by first-born sons or by the heirs to the throne, it seems to me that I must by no means omit to notice that, when Lamech had been set down as the seventh from Adam, there were named, in addition, as many of his children as made up this number to eleven, which is the number signifying sin; for three sons and one daughter are added. The wives of Lamech have another signification, different from that which I am now pressing. For at present I am speaking of the children, and not of those by whom the children were begotten. Since, then, the law is symbolized by the number ten,-whence that memorable Decalogue,-there is no doubt that the number eleven, which goes beyond ten, symbolizes the transgression of the law, and consequently sin. For this reason, eleven veils of goat's skin were ordered to be hung in the tabernacle of the testimony, which served in the wanderings of God's people as an ambulatory temple. And in that haircloth there was a reminder of sins, because the goats were to be set on the left hand of the Judge; and therefore, when we confess our sins, we prostrate ourselves in haircloth, as if we were saying what is written in the psalm, "My sin is ever before me." The progeny of Adam, then, by Cain the murderer, is completed in the number eleven, which symbolizes sin; and this number itself is made up by a woman, as it was by the same sex that beginning was made of sin by which we all die. And it was committed that the pleasure of the flesh, which resists the spirit, might follow; and so Naamah, the daughter of Lamech, means "pleasure." But from Adam to Noah, in the line of Seth, there are ten generations. And to Noah three sons are added, of whom, while one fell into sin, two were blessed by their father; so that, if you deduct the reprobate and add the gracious sons to the number, you get twelve,-a number signalized in the case of the patriarchs and of the apostles, and made up of the parts of the number seven multiplied into one another,-for three times four, or four times three, give twelve. These things being so, I see that I must consider and mention how these two lines, which by their separate genealogies depict the two cities, one of earth-born, the other of regenerated persons, became afterwards so mixed and confused, that the whole human race, with the exception of eight persons, deserved to perish in the deluge.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c21"><b>BOOK XV</b> [XXI] Primo autem intuendum est, quem ad modum, cum ex Cain generationes enumerarentur, commemorato ante ceteros posteros eius illo, in cuius nomine condita est civitas, id est Enoch, contexti sunt ceteri usque ad illum finem, de quo locutus sum, donec illud genus atque universa propago diluuio deleretur; cum vero filius Seth unus commemoratus fuisset Enos, nondum usque ad diluuium additis ceteris articulus quidam interponitur et dicitur: Hic liber nativitatis hominum, qua die fecit Deus Adam, ad imaginem Dei fecit illum. Masculum et feminam fecit illos, et benedixit illos, et cognominavit nomen eorum Adam, qua die fecit illos. Quod mihi videtur ad hoc interpositum, ut hinc rursus inciperet ab ipso Adam dinumeratio temporum, quam noluit facere, qui haec scripsit, in civitate terrena; tamquam eam Deus sic commemoraret, ut non conputaret. Sed quare hinc reditur ad istam recapitulationem, postea quam commemoratus est filius Seth, homo qui speravit inuocare nomen Domini Dei, nisi quia sic oportebat istas duas proponere civitates, unam per homicidam usque ad homicidam (nam et Lamech duabus uxoribus suis se perpetrasse homicidium confitetur), alteram per eum, qui speravit inuocare nomen Domini Dei? Hoc est quippe in hoc mundo peregrinantis civitatis Dei totum atque summum in hac mortalitate negotium, quod per unum hominem, quem sane occisi resurrectio genuit, commendandum fuit. Homo quippe ille unus totius supernae civitatis est unitas, nondum quidem conpleta, sed praemissa ista prophetica praefiguratione conplenda. Filius ergo Cain, hoc est filius possessionis, (cuius nisi terrenae?) habeat nomen in civitate terrena, quia in eius nomine condita est. De his est enim, de quibus cantatur in psalmo: Inuocabunt nomina eorum in terris ipsorum; propter quod sequitur eos quod in alio psalmo scriptum est: Domine, in civitate tua imaginem eorum ad nihilum rediges. Filius autem Seth, hoc est filius resurrectionis, speret inuocare nomen Domini Dei; eam quippe societatem hominum praefigurat quae dicit: Ego autem sicut oliva fructifera in domo Dei speravi in misericordia Dei; uanas autem glorias famosi in terra nominis non requirat; beatus est enim vir, cuius est nomen Domini spes eius, et non respexit in uanitates et insanias mendaces. Propositis itaque duabus civitatibus, una in re huius saeculi, altera in spe Dei, tamquam ex communi, quae aperta est in Adam, ianua mortalitatis egressis, ut procurrant et excurrant ad discretos proprios ac debitos fines, incipit dinumeratio temporum: In qua et aliae generationes adiciuntur, facta recapitulatione ex Adam, ex cuius origine damnata, veluti massa una meritae damnationi tradita, facit Deus alia in contumeliam uasa irae, alia in honorem uasa misericordiae, illis reddens quod debetur in poena, istis donans quod non debetur in gratia; ut ex ipsa etiam conparatione uasorum irae superna civitas discat, quae peregrinatur in terris, non fidere libertate arbitrii sui, sed speret inuocare nomen Domini Dei. Quoniam voluntas in natura, quae facta est bona a Deo bono, sed mutabilis ab inmutabili, quia ex nihilo, et a bono potest declinare, ut faciat malum, quod fit libero arbitrio, et a malo, ut faciat bonum, quod non fit sine divino adiutorio. ||We must first see why, in the enumeration of Cain's posterity, after Enoch, in whose name the city was built, has been first of all mentioned, the rest are at once enumerated down to that terminus of which I have spoken, and at which that race and the whole line was destroyed in the deluge; while, after Enos the son of Seth, has been mentioned, the rest are not at once named down to the deluge, but a clause is inserted to the following effect: "This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made He him; male and female created He them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created." Genesis 5:1 This seems to me to be inserted for this purpose, that here again the reckoning of the times may start from Adam himself-a purpose which the writer had not in view in speaking of the earthly city, as if God mentioned it, but did not take account of its duration. But why does he return to this recapitulation after mentioning the son of Seth, the man who hoped to call on the name of the Lord God, unless because it was fit thus to present these two cities, the one beginning with a murderer and ending in a murderer (for Lamech, too, acknowledges to his two wives that he had committed murder), the other built up by him who hoped to call upon the name of the Lord God? For the highest and complete terrestrial duty of the city of God, which is a stranger in this world, is that which was exemplified in the individual who was begotten by him who typified the resurrection of the murdered Abel. That one man is the unity of the whole heavenly city, not yet indeed complete, but to be completed, as this prophetic figure foreshows. The son of Cain, therefore, that is, the son of possession (and of what but an earthly possession?), may have a name in the earthly city which was built in his name. It is of such the Psalmist says, "They call their lands after their own names." Wherefore they incur what is written in another psalm: "You, O Lord, in Your city wilt despise their image." But as for the son of Seth, the son of the resurrection, let him hope to call on the name of the Lord God. For he prefigures that society of men which says, "But I am like a green olive-tree in the house of God: I have trusted in the mercy of God." But let him not seek the empty honors of a famous name upon earth, for "Blessed is the man that makes the name of the Lord his trust, and respects not vanities nor lying follies." After having presented the two cities, the one founded in the material good of this world, the other in hope in God, but both starting from a common gate opened in Adam into this mortal state, and both running on and running out to their proper and merited ends, Scripture begins to reckon the times, and in this reckoning includes other generations, making a recapitulation from Adam, out of whose condemned seed, as out of one mass handed over to merited damnation, God made some vessels of wrath to dishonor and others vessels of mercy to honor; in punishment rendering to the former what is due, in grace giving to the latter what is not due: in order that by the very comparison of itself with the vessels of wrath, the heavenly city, which sojourns on earth, may learn not to put confidence in the liberty of its own will, but may hope to call on the name of the Lord God. For will, being a nature which was made good by the good God, but mutable by the immutable, because it was made out of nothing, can both decline from good to do evil, which takes place when it freely chooses, and can also escape the evil and do good, which takes place only by divine assistance.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c22"><b>BOOK XV</b> [XXII] Hoc itaque libero voluntatis arbitrio genere humano progrediente atque crescente facta est permixtio et iniquitate participata quaedam utriusque confusio civitatis. Quod malum a sexu femineo causam rursus invenit; non quidem illo modo quo ab initio (non enim cuiusquam etiam tunc fallacia seductae illae feminae persuaserunt peccatum viris;) sed ab initio quae pravis moribus fuerant in terrena civitate, id est in terrigenarum societate, amatae sunt a filiis Dei, civibus scilicet peregrinantis in hoc saeculo alterius civitatis, propter pulchritudinem corporis. Quod bonum Dei quidem donum est; sed propterea id largitur etiam malis, ne magnum bonum videatur bonis. Deserto itaque bono magno et bonorum proprio lapsus est factus ad bonum minimum, non bonis proprium, sed bonis malisque commune; ac sic filii Dei filiarum hominum amore sunt capti, atque ut eis coniugibus fruerentur, in mores societatis terrigenae defluxerunt, deserta pietate, quam in sancta societate servabant. Sic enim corporis pulchritudo, a Deo quidem factum, sed temporale carnale infimum bonum, male amatur postposito Deo, aeterno interno sempiterno bono, quem ad modum iustitia deserta et aurum amatur ab auaris, nullo peccato auri, sed hominis. Ita se habet omnis creatura. Cum enim bona sit, et bene amari potest et male: bene scilicet ordine custodito, male ordine perturbato. Quod in laude quadam cerei breviter versibus dixi: Haec tua sunt, bona sunt, quia tu bonus ista creasti. Nil nostrum est in eis, nisi quod peccamus amantes Ordine neglecto pro te, quod conditur abs te. Creator autem si veraciter ametur, hoc est si ipse, non aliud pro illo quod non est ipse, ametur, male amari non potest. Nam et amor ipse ordinate amandus est, quo bene amatur quod amandum est, ut sit in nobis virtus qua vivitur bene. Vnde mihi videtur, quod definitio brevis et vera virtutis ordo est amoris; propter quod in sancto cantico canticorum cantat sponsa Christi, civitas Dei: Ordinate in me caritatem. Huius igitur caritatis, hoc est dilectionis et amoris, ordine perturbato Deum filii Dei neglexerunt et filias hominum dilexerunt. Quibus duobus nominibus satis civitas utraque discernitur. Neque enim et illi non erant filii hominum per naturam; sed aliud nomen coeperant habere per gratiam. Nam in eadem scriptura, ubi dicti sunt dilexisse filias hominum filii Dei, idem dicti sunt etiam angeli Dei. Vnde illos multi putant non homines fuisse, sed angelos. ||When the human race, in the exercise of this freedom of will, increased and advanced, there arose a mixture and confusion of the two cities by their participation in a common iniquity. And this calamity, as well as the first, was occasioned by woman, though not in the same way; for these women were not themselves betrayed, neither did they persuade the men to sin, but having belonged to the earthly city and society of the earthly, they had been of corrupt manners from the first, and were loved for their bodily beauty by the sons of God, or the citizens of the other city which sojourns in this world. Beauty is indeed a good gift of God; but that the good may not think it a great good, God dispenses it even to the wicked. And thus, when the good that is great and proper to the good was abandoned by the sons of God, they fell to a paltry good which is not peculiar to the good, but common to the good and the evil; and when they were captivated by the daughters of men, they adopted the manners of the earthly to win them as their brides, and forsook the godly ways they had followed in their own holy society. And thus beauty, which is indeed God's handiwork, but only a temporal, carnal, and lower kind of good, is not fitly loved in preference to God, the eternal, spiritual, and unchangeable good. When the miser prefers his gold to justice, it is through no fault of the gold, but of the man; and so with every created thing. For though it be good, it may be loved with an evil as well as with a good love: it is loved rightly when it is loved ordinately; evilly, when inordinately. It is this which some one has briefly said in these verses in praise of the Creator: "These are Yours, they are good, because You are good who created them. There is in them nothing of ours, unless the sin we commit when we forget the order of things, and instead of You love that which You have made."But if the Creator is truly loved, that is, if He Himself is loved and not another thing in His stead, He cannot be evilly loved; for love itself is to be ordinately loved, because we do well to love that which, when we love it, makes us live well and virtuously. So that it seems to me that it is a brief but true definition of virtue to say, it is the order of love; and on this account, in the Canticles, the bride of Christ, the city of God, sings, "Order love within me." Song of Songs 2:4 It was the order of this love, then, this charity or attachment, which the sons of God disturbed when they forsook God, and were enamored of the daughters of men. And by these two names (sons of God and daughters of men) the two cities are sufficiently distinguished. For though the former were by nature children of men, they had come into possession of another name by grace. For in the same Scripture in which the sons of God are said to have loved the daughters of men, they are also called angels of God; whence many suppose that they were not men but angels.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c23"><b>BOOK XV</b> [XXIII] Quam quaestionem nos transeunter commemoratam in tertio huius operis libro reliquimus insolutam, utrum possint angeli, cum spiritus sint, corporaliter coire cum feminis. Scriptum est enim: Qui facit angelos suos spiritus, id est eos, qui natura spiritus sunt, facit esse angelos suos, iniungendo eis officium nuntiandi. Qui enim Graece dicitur *a)/ggelos, quod nomen Latina declinatione angelus perhibetur, Latina lingua nuntius interpretatur. Sed utrum eorum corpora consequenter adiunxerit dicendo: Et ministros suos ignem ardentem, an quod caritate tamquam igne spiritali feruere debeant ministri eius, ambiguum est. Apparuisse tamen hominibus angelos in talibus corporibus, ut non solum videri, verum etiam tangi possent, eadem veracissima scriptura testatur. Et quoniam creberrima fama est multique se expertos vel ab eis, qui experti essent, de quorum fide dubitandum non esset, audisse confirmant, Siluanos et Panes, quos uulgo incubos vocant, inprobos saepe extitisse mulieribus et earum appetisse ac peregisse concubitum; et quosdam daemones, quos Dusios Galli nuncupant, adsidue hanc inmunditiam et temptare et efficere, plures talesque adseuerant, ut hoc negare inpudentiae videatur: non hinc aliquid audeo definire, utrum aliqui spiritus elemento aerio corporati (nam hoc elementum etiam cum agitatur flabello sensu corporis tactuque sentitur) possint hanc etiam pati libidinem, ut, quo modo possunt, sentientibus feminis misceantur. Dei tamen angelos sanctos nullo modo illo tempore sic labi potuisse crediderim; nec de his dixisse apostolum Petrum: Si enim Deus angelis peccantibus non pepercit, sed carceribus caliginis inferi retrudens tradidit in iudicio puniendos reservari; sed potius de illis, qui primum apostatantes a Deo cum zabulo suo principe ceciderunt, qui primum hominem per inuidiam serpentina fraude deiecit. Angelos autem fuisse etiam Dei homines nuncupatos eadem scriptura sancta locupletissima testis est. Nam et de Iohanne scriptum est: Ecce mitto angelum meum ante faciem tuam, qui praeparabit viam tuam, et Malachiel propheta propria quadam, id est proprie sibi inpertita gratia dictus est angelus. Verum hoc movet quosdam, quod ex illis, qui dicti sunt angeli Dei, et ex mulieribus, quas amaverunt, non quasi homines generis nostri, sed gigantes legimus esse natos. Quasi vero corpora hominum modum nostrum longe excedentia, quod etiam supra commemoravi, non etiam nostris temporibus nata sunt. Nonne ante paucos annos, cum Romanae urbis quod a Gothis factum est adpropinquaret excidium, Romae fuit femina cum suo patre et sua matre, quae corpore quodam modo giganteo longe ceteris praemineret? Ad quam visendam mirabilis fiebat usquequaque concursus. Et hoc erat maxime admirationi, quod ambo parentes eius nec saltem tam longi homines erant, quam longissimos videre consuevimus. Potuerunt igitur gigantes nasci, et prius quam filii Dei, qui et angeli Dei dicti sunt, filiabus hominum, hoc est secundum hominem viventium, miscerentur; filii scilicet Seth filiis Cain. Nam et canonica scriptura sic loquitur, in quo libro haec legimus, cuius verba ista sunt: Et factum est, postquam coeperunt homines multi fieri super terram, et filiae natae sunt illis; videntes autem angeli Dei filias hominum, quia bonae sunt, sumpserunt sibi uxores ex omnibus quas elegerunt. Et dixit Dominus Deus: Non permanebit spiritus meus in hominibus his in aeternum, propter quod caro sunt. Erunt autem dies eorum centum viginti anni. Gigantes autem erant super terram in diebus illis et post illud, cum intrarent filii Dei ad filias hominum, et generabant sibi; illi erant gigantes a saeculo homines nominati. Haec libri verba divini satis indicant iam illis diebus fuisse gigantes super terram, quando filii Dei acceperunt uxores filias hominum, cum eas amarent bonas, id est pulchras. Consuetudo quippe scripturae huius est, etiam speciosos corpore bonos vocare. Sed et postquam hoc factum est, nati sunt gigantes. Sic enim ait: Gigantes autem erant super terram in diebus illis et post illud, cum intrarent filii Dei ad filias hominum. Ergo et ante in illis diebus et post illud. Quod autem ait: Et generabant sibi, satis ostendit, quod prius, antequam sic caderent filii Dei, Deo generabant, non sibi, id est non dominante libidine coeundi, sed seruiente officio propagandi; non familiam fastus sui, sed cives civitatis Dei, quibus adnuntiarent tamquam angeli Dei, ut ponerent in Deo spem suam, similes illius, qui natus est de Seth, filius resurrectionis, et speravit inuocare nomen Domini Dei; in qua spe essent cum suis posteris coheredes aeternorum bonorum et sub Deo patre fratres filiorum. Non autem illos ita fuisse angelos Dei, ut homines non essent, sicut quidam putant, sed homines procul dubio fuisse, scriptura ipsa sine ulla ambiguitate declarat. Cum enim praemissum esset, quod videntes angeli Dei filias hominum, quia bonae sunt, sumpserunt sibi uxores ex omnibus quas elegerunt, mox adiunctum est: Et dixit Dominus Deus: Non permanebit spiritus meus in hominibus his in aeternum, propter quod caro sunt. Spiritu Dei quippe fuerant facti angeli Dei et filii Dei, sed declinando ad inferiora dicuntur homines nomine naturae, non gratiae; dicuntur et caro desertores spiritus et deserendo deserti. Et septuaginta quidem interpretes et angelos Dei dixerunt istos et filios Dei; quod quidem non omnes codices habent, nam quidam nisi filios Dei non habent. Aquila autem, quem interpretem Iudaei ceteris anteponunt, non angelos Dei, nec filios Dei, sed filios deorum interpretatus est. Vtrumque autem verum est. Nam et filii Dei erant, sub quo patre suorum patrum etiam fratres erant; et filii deorum, quoniam diis geniti erant, cum quibus et ipsi dii erant iuxta illud psalmi: Ego dixi: Dii estis et filii Excelsi omnes. Merito enim creduntur septuaginta interpretes accepisse propheticum spiritum, ut, si quid eius auctoritate mutarent atque aliter quam erat quod interpretabantur dicerent, neque hoc divinitus dictum esse dubitaretur. Quamuis hoc in Hebraeo esse perhibeatur ambiguum, ut et filii Dei et filii deorum posset interpretari. Omittamus igitur earum scripturarum fabulas, quae apocryphae nuncupantur, eo quod earum occulta origo non claruit patribus, a quibus usque ad nos auctoritas veracium scripturarum certissima et notissima successione pervenit. In his autem apocryphis etsi invenitur aliqua veritas, tamen propter multa falsa nulla est canonica auctoritas. Scripsisse quidem nonnulla divine illum Enoch, septimum ab Adam, negare non possumus, cum hoc in epistula canonica Iudas apostolus dicat. Sed non frustra non sunt in eo canone scripturarum, qui servabatur in templo Hebraei populi succedentium diligentia sacerdotum, nisi quia ob antiquitatem suspectae fidei iudicata sunt, nec utrum haec essent, quae ille scripsisset, poterat inveniri, non talibus proferentibus, qui ea per seriem successionis reperirentur rite servasse. Vnde illa, quae sub eius nomine proferuntur et continent istas de gigantibus fabulas, quod non habuerint homines patres, recte a prudentibus iudicantur non ipsius esse credenda; sicut multa sub nominibus et aliorum prophetarum et recentiora sub nominibus apostolorum ab haereticis proferuntur, quae omnia nomine apocryphorum ab auctoritate canonica diligenti examinatione remota sunt. Igitur secundum scripturas canonicas Hebraeas atque Christianas multos gigantes ante diluuium fuisse non dubium est, et hos fuisse cives terrigenae societatis hominum; Dei autem filios, qui secundum carnem de Seth propagati sunt, in hanc societatem deserta iustitia declinasse. Nec mirandum est, quod etiam de ipsis gigantes nasci potuerunt. Neque enim omnes gigantes, sed magis multi utique tunc fuerunt, quam post diluuium temporibus ceteris. Quos propterea creare placuit Creatori, ut etiam hinc ostenderetur non solum,pulchritudines, verum etiam magnitudines et fortitudines corporum non magni pendendas esse sapienti, qui spiritalibus atque inmortalibus longe melioribus atque firmioribus et bonorum propriis, non bonorum malorumque communibus beatificatur bonis. Quam rem alius propheta commendans ait: Ibi fuerunt gigantes illi nominati, qui ab initio fuerunt staturosi, scientes proelium. Nos hos elegit Dominus, nec viam scientiae dedit illis; sed interierunt, quia non habuerunt sapientiam, perierunt propter inconsiderantiam. ||In the third book of this work (c. 5) we made a passing reference to this question, but did not decide whether angels, inasmuch as they are spirits, could have bodily intercourse with women. For it is written, "Who makes His angels spirits," that is, He makes those who are by nature spirits His angels by appointing them to the duty of bearing His messages. For the Greek word ???e???, which in Latin appears as "angelus," means a messenger. But whether the Psalmist speaks of their bodies when he adds, "and His ministers a flaming fire," or means that God's ministers ought to blaze with love as with a spiritual fire, is doubtful. However, the same trustworthy Scripture testifies that angels have appeared to men in such bodies as could not only be seen, but also touched. There is, too, a very general rumor, which many have verified by their own experience, or which trustworthy persons who have heard the experience of others corroborate, that sylvans and fauns, who are commonly called "incubi," had often made wicked assaults upon women, and satisfied their lust upon them; and that certain devils, called Duses by the Gauls, are constantly attempting and effecting this impurity is so generally affirmed, that it were impudent to deny it. From these assertions, indeed, I dare not determine whether there be some spirits embodied in an aerial substance (for this element, even when agitated by a fan, is sensibly felt by the body), and who are capable of lust and of mingling sensibly with women; but certainly I could by no means believe that God's holy angels could at that time have so fallen, nor can I think that it is of them the Apostle Peter said, "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment." 2 Peter 2:4 I think he rather speaks of these who first apostatized from God, along with their chief the devil, who enviously deceived the first man under the form of a serpent. But the same holy Scripture affords the most ample testimony that even godly men have been called angels; for of John it is written: "Behold, I send my messenger (angel) before Your face, who shall prepare Your way." Mark 1:2 And the prophet Malachi, by a peculiar grace specially communicated to him, was called an angel. Malachi 2:7 But some are moved by the fact that we have read that the fruit of the connection between those who are called angels of God and the women they loved were not men like our own breed, but giants; just as if there were not born even in our own time (as I have mentioned above) men of much greater size than the ordinary stature. Was there not at Rome a few years ago, when the destruction of the city now accomplished by the Goths was drawing near, a woman, with her father and mother, who by her gigantic size over-topped all others? Surprising crowds from all quarters came to see her, and that which struck them most was the circumstance that neither of her parents were quite up to the tallest ordinary stature. Giants therefore might well be born, even before the sons of God, who are also called angels of God, formed a connection with the daughters of men, or of those living according to men, that is to say, before the sons of Seth formed a connection with the daughters of Cain. For thus speaks even the canonical Scripture itself in the book in which we read of this; its words are: "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair [good]; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the Lord God said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became the giants, men of renown." These words of the divine book sufficiently indicate that already there were giants in the earth in those days, in which the sons of God took wives of the children of men, when they loved them because they were good, that is, fair. For it is the custom of this Scripture to call those who are beautiful in appearance "good." But after this connection had been formed, then too were giants born. For the words are: "There were giants in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men." Therefore there were giants both before, "in those days," and "also after that." And the words, "they bare children to them," show plainly enough that before the sons of God fell in this fashion they begat children to God, not to themselves,-that is to say, not moved by the lust of sexual intercourse, but discharging the duty of propagation, intending to produce not a family to gratify their own pride, but citizens to people the city of God; and to these they as God's angels would bear the message, that they should place their hope in God, like him who was born of Seth, the son of resurrection, and who hoped to call on the name of the Lord God, in which hope they and their offspring would be co-heirs of eternal blessings, and brethren in the family of which God is the Father.But that those angels were not angels in the sense of not being men, as some suppose, Scripture itself decides, which unambiguously declares that they were men. For when it had first been stated that "the angels of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair, and they took them wives of all which they chose," it was immediately added, "And the Lord God said, My Spirit shall not always strive with these men, for that they also are flesh." For by the Spirit of God they had been made angels of God, and sons of God; but declining towards lower things, they are called men, a name of nature, not of grace; and they are called flesh, as deserters of the Spirit, and by their desertion deserted [by Him]. The Septuagint indeed calls them both angels of God and sons of God, though all the copies do not show this, some having only the name" sons of God." And Aquila, whom the Jews prefer to the other interpreters, has translated neither angels of God nor sons of God, but sons of gods. But both are correct. For they were both sons of God, and thus brothers of their own fathers, who were children of the same God; and they were sons of gods, because begotten by gods, together with whom they themselves also were gods, according to that expression of the psalm: "I have said, You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High." For the Septuagint translators are justly believed to have received the Spirit of prophecy; so that, if they made any alterations under His authority, and did not adhere to a strict translation, we could not doubt that this was divinely dictated. However, the Hebrew word may be said to be ambiguous, and to be susceptible of either translation, "sons of God," or "sons of gods."Let us omit, then, the fables of those scriptures which are called apocryphal, because their obscure origin was unknown to the fathers from whom the authority of the true Scriptures has been transmitted to us by a most certain and well-ascertained succession. For though there is some truth in these apocryphal writings, yet they contain so many false statements, that they have no canonical authority. We cannot deny that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, left some divine writings, for this is asserted by the Apostle Jude in his canonical epistle. But it is not without reason that these writings have no place in that canon of Scripture which was preserved in the temple of the Hebrew people by the diligence of successive priests; for their antiquity brought them under suspicion, and it was impossible to ascertain whether these were his genuine writings, and they were not brought forward as genuine by the persons who were found to have carefully preserved the canonical books by a successive transmission. So that the writings which are produced under his name, and which contain these fables about the giants, saying that their fathers were not men, are properly judged by prudent men to be not genuine; just as many writings are produced by heretics under the names both of other prophets, and more recently, under the names of the apostles, all of which, after careful examination, have been set apart from canonical authority under the title of Apocrypha. There is therefore no doubt that, according to the Hebrew and Christian canonical Scriptures, there were many giants before the deluge, and that these were citizens of the earthly society of men, and that the sons of God, who were according to the flesh the sons of Seth, sunk into this community when they forsook righteousness. Nor need we wonder that giants should be born even from these. For all of their children were not giants; but there were more then than in the remaining periods since the deluge. And it pleased the Creator to produce them, that it might thus be demonstrated that neither beauty, nor yet size and strength, are of much moment to the wise man, whose blessedness lies in spiritual and immortal blessings, in far better and more enduring gifts, in the good things that are the peculiar property of the good, and are not shared by good and bad alike. It is this which another prophet confirms when he says, "These were the giants, famous from the beginning, that were of so great stature, and so expert in war. Those did not the Lord choose, neither gave He the way of knowledge unto them; but they were destroyed because they had no wisdom, and perished through their own foolishness."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c24"><b>BOOK XV</b> [XXIV] Quod autem dixit Deus: Erunt dies eorum centum viginti anni, non sic accipiendum est, quasi praenuntiatum sit post haec homines centum viginti annos vivendo non transgredi, cum et post diluuium etiam quingentos excessisse inveniamus; sed intellegendum est hoc Deum dixisse, cum circa finem quingentorum annorum esset Noe, id est quadringentos octoginta vitae annos ageret, quos more suo scriptura quingentos vocat, nomine totius maximam partem plerumque significans; sescentensimo quippe anno vitae Noe, secundo mense factum est diluuium; ac sic centum viginti anni praedicti sunt futuri vitae hominum periturorum, quibus transactis diluuio delerentur. Nec frustra creditur sic factum esse diluuium, iam non inventis in terra qui non erant digni tali morte defungi, qua in impios vindicatum est; non quo quicquam bonis quandoque morituris tale genus mortis faciat aliquid, quod eis possit obesse post mortem; verum tamen nullus eorum diluuio mortuus est, quos de semine Seth propagatos sancta scriptura commemorat. Sic autem divinitus diluuii causa narratur: Videns, inquit, Dominus Deus, quia multiplicatae sunt malitiae hominum super terram, et omnis quosque cogitat in corde suo diligenter super maligna omnes dies, et cogitavit Deus, quia fecit hominem super terram, et recogitavit, et dixit Deus: Deleam hominem, quem feci, a facie terrae, ab homine usque ad pecus et a repentibus usque ad volatilia caeli, quia iratus sum, quoniam feci eos. ||"But that which God said, "Their days shall be a hundred and twenty years," is not to be understood as a prediction that henceforth men should not live longer than 120 years,-for even after the deluge we find that they lived more than 500 years,-but we are to understand that God said this when Noah had nearly completed his fifth century, that is, had lived 480 years, which Scripture, as it frequently uses the name of the whole of the largest part, calls 500 years. Now the deluge came in the 600th year of Noah's life, the second month; and thus 120 years were predicted as being the remaining span of those who were doomed, which years being spent, they should be destroyed by the deluge. And it is not unreasonably believed that the deluge came as it did, because already there were not found upon earth any who were not worthy of sharing a death so manifestly judicial,-not that a good man, who must die some time, would be a jot the worse of such a death after it was past. Nevertheless there died in the deluge none of those mentioned in the sacred Scripture as descended from Seth. But here is the divine account of the cause of the deluge: "The Lord God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth; both man and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air: for I am angry that I have made them." Genesis 6:5-7
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c25"><b>BOOK XV</b> [XXV] Ira Dei non perturbatio animi eius est, sed iudicium quo inrogatur poena peccato. Cogitatio vero eius et recogitatio mutandarum rerum est inmutabilis ratio. Neque enim sicut hominem, ita Deum cuiusquam facti sui paenitet, cuius est de omnibus omnino rebus tam fixa sententia quam certa praescientia. Sed si non utatur scriptura talibus verbis, non se quodam modo familiarius insinuabit omni generi hominum, quibus uult esse consultum, ut et perterreat superbientes et excitet neglegentes, et exerceat quaerentes et alat intellegentes; quod non faceret, si non se prius inclinaret et quodam modo descenderet ad iacentes. Quod autem etiam interitum omnium animalium terrenorum volatiliumque denuntiat: magnitudinem futurae cladis effatur, non animantibus rationis expertibus, tamquam et ipsa peccaverint, minatur exitium. ||The anger of God is not a disturbing emotion of His mind, but a judgment by which punishment is inflicted upon sin. His thought and reconsideration also are the unchangeable reason which changes things; for He does not, like man, repent of anything He has done, because in all matters His decision is as inflexible as His prescience is certain. But if Scripture were not to use such expressions as the above, it would not familiarly insinuate itself into the minds of all classes of men, whom it seeks access to for their good, that it may alarm the proud, arouse the careless, exercise the inquisitive, and satisfy the intelligent; and this it could not do, did it not first stoop, and in a manner descend, to them where they lie. But its denouncing death on all the animals of earth and air is a declaration of the vastness of the disaster that was approaching: not that it threatens destruction to the irrational animals as if they too had incurred it by sin.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c26"><b>BOOK XV</b> [XXVI] Iam vero quod Noe homini iusto et, sicut de illo scriptura veridica loquitur, in sua generatione perfecto (non utique sicut perficiendi sunt cives civitatis Dei in illa inmortalitate, qua aequabuntur angelis Dei, sed sicut esse possunt in hac peregrinatione perfecti) imperat Deus, ut arcam faciat, in qua cum suis, id est uxore, filiis et nuribus, et cum animalibus, quae ad illum ex Dei praecepto in arcam ingressa sunt, liberaretur a diluuii uastitate: procul dubio figura est peregrinantis in hoc saeculo civitatis Dei, hoc est ecclesiae, quae fit salua per lignum, in quo pependit mediator Dei et hominum, homo Christus Iesus. Nam et mensurae ipsae longitudinis et altitudinis et latitudinis eius significant corpus humanum, in cuius veritate ad homines praenuntiatus est venturus et venit. Humani quippe corporis longitudo a vertice usque ad uestigia sexiens tantum habet quam latitudo, quae est ab uno latere ad alterum latus, et deciens tantum quam altitudo, cuius altitudinis mensura est in latere a dorso ad ventrem; velut si iacentem hominem metiaris supinum seu pronum, sexiens tantum longus est a capite ad pedes, quam latus a dextra in sinistram vel a sinistra in dextram, et deciens, quam altus a terra. Vnde facta et arca trecentorum in longitudine cubitorum et quinquaginta in latitudine et triginta in altitudine. Et quod ostium in latere accepit, profecto illud est uulnus, quando latus crucifixi lancea perforatum est; hac quippe ad illum venientes ingrediuntur, quia inde sacramenta manarunt, quibus credentes initiantur. Et quod de lignis quadratis fieri iubetur, undique stabilem vitam sanctorum significat; quacumque enim verteris quadratum, stabit; et cetera, quae in eiusdem arcae constructione dicuntur, ecclesiasticarum signa sunt rerum. Sed ea nunc persequi longum est; et hoc iam fecimus in opere, quod adversus Faustum Manichaeum scripsimus, negantem in Hebraeorum libris aliquid de Christo esse prophetatum. Et fieri quidem potest, ut et nobis quispiam et alius alio exponat haec aptius, dum tamen ea, quae dicuntur, ad hanc de qua loquimur Dei civitatem in hoc saeculo maligno tamquam in diluuio peregrinantem omnia referantur, si ab eius sensu, qui ista conscripsit, non uult longe aberrare, qui exponit. Exempli gratia, velut si quispiam, quod hic scriptum est: Inferiora bicamerata et tricamerata facies eam, non quod ego in illo opere dixi velit intellegi, quia ex omnibus gentibus ecclesia congregatur, bicameratam dictam propter duo genera hominum, circumcisionem scilicet et praeputium, quos apostolus et alio modo dicit Iudaeos et Graecos; tricameratam vero eo, quod omnes gentes de tribus filiis Noe post diluuium reparatae sunt; sed aliud dicat aliquid, quod a fidei regula non sit alienum. Nam quoniam non solas in inferioribus mansiones habere arcam voluit, verum etiam in superioribus (et haec dixit bicamerata) et in superioribus superiorum (et haec appellavit tricamerata), ut ab imo sursum versus tertia consurgeret habitatio: possunt hic intellegi et tria illa, quae commendat apostolus, fides spes, caritas; possunt etiam multo convenientius tres illae ubertates euangelicae, tricena, sexagena, centena, ut in infimo habitet pudicitia coniugalis, supra vidualis atque hac superior virginalis, et si quid melius secundum fidem civitatis huius intellegi et dici potest. Hoc etiam de ceteris, quae hic exponenda sunt, dixerim, quia, etsi non uno disseruntur modo, ad unam tamen catholicae fidei concordiam reuocanda sunt. ||Moreover, inasmuch as God commanded Noah, a just man, and, as the truthful Scripture says, a man perfect in his generation,-not indeed with the perfection of the citizens of the city of God in that immortal condition in which they equal the angels, but in so far as they can be perfect in their sojourn in this world,-inasmuch as God commanded him, I say, to make an ark, in which he might be rescued from the destruction of the flood, along with his family, i.e., his wife, sons, and daughters-in-law, and along with the animals who, in obedience to God's command, came to him into the ark: this is certainly a figure of the city of God sojourning in this world; that is to say, of the church, which is rescued by the wood on which hung the Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Timothy 2:5 For even its very dimensions, in length, breadth, and height, represent the human body in which He came, as it had been foretold. For the length of the human body, from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot, is six times its breadth from side to side, and ten times its depth or thickness, measuring from back to front: that is to say, if you measure a man as he lies on his back or on his face, he is six times as long from head to foot as he is broad from side to side, and ten times as long as he is high from the ground. And therefore the ark was made 300 cubits in length, 50 in breadth, and 30 in height. And its having a door made in the side of it certainly signified the wound which was made when the side of the Crucified was pierced with the spear; for by this those who come to Him enter; for thence flowed the sacraments by which those who believe are initiated. And the fact that it was ordered to be made of squared timbers, signifies the immoveable steadiness of the life of the saints; for however you turn a cube, it still stands. And the other peculiarities of the ark's construction are signs of features of the church.But we have not now time to pursue this subject; and, indeed, we have already dwelt upon it in the work we wrote against Faustus the Manichean, who denies that there is anything prophesied of Christ in the Hebrew books. It may be that one man's exposition excels another's, and that ours is not the best; but all that is said must be referred to this city of God we speak of, which sojourns in this wicked world as in a deluge, at least if the expositor would not widely miss the meaning of the author. For example, the interpretation I have given in the work against Faustus, of the words, "with lower, second, and third stories shall you make it," is, that because the church is gathered out of all nations, it is said to have two stories, to represent the two kinds of men,-the circumcision, to wit, and the uncircumcision, or, as the apostle otherwise calls them, Jews and Gentiles; and to have three stories, because all the nations were replenished from the three sons of Noah. Now any one may object to this interpretation, and may give another which harmonizes with the rule of faith. For as the ark was to have rooms not only on the lower, but also on the upper stories, which were called "third stories," that there might be a habitable space on the third floor from the basement, some one may interpret these to mean the three graces commended by the apostle.-faith, hope, and charity. Or even more suitably they may be supposed to represent those three harvests in the gospel, thirty-fold, sixty-fold, an hundred-fold,-chaste marriage dwelling in the ground floor, chaste widowhood in the upper, and chaste virginity in the top story. Or any better interpretation may be given, so long as the reference to this city is maintained. And the same statement I would make of all the remaining particulars in this passage which require exposition, viz., that although different explanations are given, yet they must all agree with the one harmonious catholic faith.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c27"><b>BOOK XV</b> [XXVII] Non tamen quisquam putare debet aut frustra haec esse conscripta, aut tantummodo rerum gestarum veritatem sine ullis allegoricis significationibus hic esse quaerendam, aut e contrario haec omnino gesta non esse, sed solas esse verborum figuras, aut quidquid illud est nequaquam ad prophetiam ecclesiae pertinere. Quis enim nisi mente peruersus inaniter scriptos esse contendat libros per annorum milia tanta religione et tam ordinatae successionis observantia custoditos aut solas res gestas illic intuendas, ubi certe, ut alia omittam, si numerositas animalium cogebat arcae tantam fieri magnitudinem, inmunda bina et munda septena intromitti animalia quid cogebat, cum aequalis numeri possent utraque servari? Aut vero Deus, qui propter genus reparandum servanda praecepit, eo modo illa, quo instituerat, restituere non valebat? Qui vero non esse gesta, sed solas rerum significandarum figuras esse contendunt, primum opinantur tam magnum fieri non potuisse diluuium, ut altissimos montes quindecim cubitis aqua crescendo transcenderet, propter Olympi verticem montis supra quem perhibent nubes non posse concrescere, quod tam sublime iam caelum sit, ut non ibi sit aer iste crassior, ubi venti nebulae imbresque gignuntur; nec adtendunt omnium elementorum crassissimam terram ibi esse potuisse. An forte negant esse terram verticem montis? Cur igitur usque ad illa caeli spatia terris exaltari licuisse, et aquis exaltari non licuisse contendunt, cum isti mensores et pensores elementorum aquas terris perhibeant superiores atque leviores? Quid itaque rationis adferunt, quare terra gravior et inferior locum caeli tranquillioris inuaserit per volumina tot annorum, et aqua levior ac superior permissa non sit huc facere saltem ad tempus exiguum? Dicunt etiam non potuisse capere arcae illius quantitatem animalium genera tam multa in utroque sexu, bina de inmundis, septena de mundis. Qui mihi videntur non conputare nisi trecenta cubita longitudinis et latitudinis quinquaginta, nec cogitare aliud tantum esse in superioribus itemque aliud tantum in superioribus superiorum, ac per hoc ter ducta illa cubita fieri nongenta per centum quinquaginta. Si autem cogitemus quod Origenes non ineleganter astruxit, Moysen scilicet hominem Dei eruditum, sicut scriptum est, omni sapientia Aegyptiorum, qui geometricam dilexerunt, geometrica cubita significare potuisse, ubi unum quantum sex nostra valere adseuerant, quis non videat quantum rerum capere illa potuit magnitudo? Nam illud quod disputant tantae magnitudinis arcam non potuisse conpingi, ineptissime calumniantur, cum sciant inmensas urbes fuisse constructas, nec adtendunt centum annos, quibus arca illa est fabricata; nisi forte lapis lapidi adhaerere potest sola calce coniunctus, ut murus per tot milia circumagatur, et lignum ligno per suscudines, epiros, clauos, gluten bituminis non potest adhaerere, ut fabricetur arca non curuis, sed rectis lineis longe lateque porrecta, quam nullus in mare mittat conatus hominum, sed leuet unda, cum venerit, naturali ordine ponderum, magisque divina providentia quam humana prudentia natantem gubernet, ne incurrat ubicumque naufragium. Quod autem scrupulosissime quaeri solet de minutissimis bestiolis, non solum quales sunt mures et stelliones, verum etiam quales lucustae, scarabei, muscae denique et pulices, utrum non amplioris numeri in arca illa fuerint, quam qui est definitus, cum hoc imperaret Deus, prius admonendi sunt, quos haec movent, sic accipiendum esse quod dictum est. Quae repunt super terram, ut necesse non fuerit conservari in arca, quae possunt in aquis vivere, non solum mersa, sicut pisces, verum etiam supernatantia, sicut multae alites. Deinde cum dicitur: Masculus et femina erunt, profecto intellegitur ad reparandum genus dici; ac per hoc nec illa necesse fuerat ibi esse, quae possunt sine concubitu de quibusque rebus vel rerum corruptionibus nasci; vel si fuerunt, sicut in domibus esse consuerunt, sine ullo numero definito esse potuisse; aut si mysterium sacratissimum, quod agebatur, et tantae rei figura etiam veritate facti aliter non posset impleri, nisi ut omnia ibi certo illo numero essent, quae vivere in aquis natura prohibente non possent, non fuit ista cura illius hominis vel illorum hominum, sed divina. Non enim ea Noe capta intromittebat, sed venientia et intrantia permittebat. Ad hoc enim valet quod dictum est: Intrabunt ad te; non scilicet hominis actu, sed Dei nutu; ita sane, ut non illic fuisse credenda sint, quae sexu carent. Praescriptum enim atque definitum est: Masculus et femina erunt. Alia sunt quippe quae de quibusque rebus sine concubitu ita nascuntur, ut postea concumbant et generent, sicut muscae; alia vero in quibus nihil sit maris et feminae, sicut apes. Ea porro quae sic habent sexum, ut non habeant fetum, sicut muli et mulae, mirum si fuerunt ibi, ac non potius parentes eorum ibi fuisse suffecerit, equinum videlicet atque asininum genus; et si qua alia sunt, quae commixtione diversi generis genus aliquod gignunt. Sed si et hoc ad mysterium pertinebat, ibi erant. Habet enim et hoc genus masculum et feminam. Solet etiam movere nonnullos, genera escarum, quae illic habere poterant animalia, quae non nisi carne uesci putantur, utrum praeter numerum ibi fuerint sine transgressione mandati, quae aliorum alendorum necessitas illic coegisset includi; an vero, quod potius est credendum, praeter carnes aliqua alimenta esse potuerunt, quae omnibus convenirent. Novimus enim quam multa animalia, quibus caro cibus est, frugibus pomisque uescantur et maxime fico atque castaneis. Quid ergo mirum, si vir ille sapiens et iustus, etiam divinitus admonitus, quid cuique congrueret, sine carnibus aptam cuique generi alimoniam praeparavit et condidit? Quid est autem, quo uesci non cogeret fames? aut quid non suave ac salubre facere posset Deus, qui etiam, ut sine cibo viverent, divina facilitate donaret, nisi ut pascerentur etiam hoc inplendae figurae tanti mysterii conveniret? Non autem ad praefigurandam ecclesiam pertinere tam multiplicia rerum signa gestarum, nisi fuerit contentiosus, nemo permittitur opinari. Iam enim gentes ita ecclesiam repleuerunt, mundique et inmundi, donec certum veniatur ad finem, ita eius unitatis quadam compagine continentur, ut ex hoc uno manifestissimo etiam de ceteris, quae obscurius aliquanto dicta sunt et difficilius agnosci queunt, dubitare fas non sit. Quae cum ita sint, [si] nec inaniter ista esse conscripta putare quisquam vel durus audebit, nec nihil significare cum gesta sint, nec sola dicta esse significativa non facta, nec aliena esse ab ecclesia significanda probabiliter dici potest; sed magis credendum est et sapienter esse memoriae litterisque mandata, et gesta esse, et significare aliquid, et ipsum aliquid ad praefigurandam ecclesiam pertinere. Iam usque ad hunc articulum perductus liber iste claudendus est, ut ambarum civitatum cursus, terrenae scilicet secundum hominem viventis et caelestis secundum Deum, post diluuium et deinceps in rebus consequentibus requiratur. ||Yet no one ought to suppose either that these things were written for no purpose, or that we should study only the historical truth, apart from any allegorical meanings; or, on the contrary, that they are only allegories, and that there were no such facts at all, or that, whether it be so or no, there is here no prophecy of the church. For what right-minded man will contend that books so religiously preserved during thousands of years, and transmitted by so orderly a succession, were written without an object, or that only the bare historical facts are to be considered when we read them? For, not to mention other instances, if the number of the animals entailed the construction of an ark of great size, where was the necessity of sending into it two unclean and seven clean animals of each species, when both could have been preserved in equal numbers? Or could not God, who ordered them to be preserved in order to replenish the race, restore them in the same way He had created them?But they who contend that these things never happened, but are only figures setting forth other things, in the first place suppose that there could not be a flood so great that the water should rise fifteen cubits above the highest mountains, because it is said that clouds cannot rise above the top of Mount Olympus, because it reaches the sky where there is none of that thicker atmosphere in which winds, clouds, and rains have their origin. They do not reflect that the densest element of all, earth, can exist there; or perhaps they deny that the top of the mountain is earth. Why, then, do these measurers and weighers of the elements contend that earth can be raised to those aerial altitudes, and that water cannot, while they admit that water is lighter, and liker to ascend than earth? What reason do they adduce why earth, the heavier and lower element, has for so many ages scaled to the tranquil ether, while water, the lighter, and more likely to ascend, is not suffered to do the same even for a brief space of time?They say, too, that the area of that ark could not contain so many kinds of animals of both sexes, two of the unclean and seven of the clean. But they seem to me to reckon only one area of 300 cubits long and 50 broad, and not to remember that there was another similar in the story above, and yet another as large in the story above that again; and that there was consequently an area of 900 cubits by 150. And if we accept what Origen has with some appropriateness suggested, that Moses the man of God, being, as it is written, "learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians," Acts 7:22 who delighted in geometry, may have meant geometrical cubits, of which they say that one is equal to six of our cubits, then who does not see what a capacity these dimensions give to the ark? For as to their objection that an ark of such size could not be built, it is a very silly calumny; for they are aware that huge cities have been built, and they should remember that the ark was an hundred years in building. Or, perhaps, though stone can adhere to stone when cemented with nothing but lime, so that a wall of several miles may be constructed, yet plank cannot be riveted to plank by mortices, bolts, nails, and pitch-glue, so as to construct an ark which was not made with curved ribs but straight timbers, which was not to be launched by its builders, but to be lifted by the natural pressure of the water when it reached it, and which was to be preserved from shipwreck as it floated about rather by divine oversight than by human skill.As to another customary inquiry of the scrupulous about the very minute creatures, not only such as mice and lizards, but also locusts, beetles, flies, fleas, and so forth, whether there were not in the ark a larger number of them than was determined by God in His command, those persons who are moved by this difficulty are to be reminded that the words "every creeping thing of the earth" only indicate that it was not needful to preserve in the ark the animals that can live in the water, whether the fishes that live submerged in it, or the sea-birds that swim on its surface. Then, when it is said "male and female," no doubt reference is made to the repairing of the races, and consequently there was no need for those creatures being in the ark which are born without the union of the sexes from inanimate things, or from their corruption; or if they were in the ark, they might be there as they commonly are in houses, not in any determinate numbers; or if it was necessary that there should be a definite number of all those animals that cannot naturally live in the water, that so the most sacred mystery which was being enacted might be bodied forth and perfectly figured in actual realities, still this was not the care of Noah or his sons, but of God. For Noah did not catch the animals and put them into the ark, but gave them entrance as they came seeking it. For this is the force of the words, "They shall come unto you," Genesis 6:19-20 -not, that is to say, by man's effort, but by God's will. But certainly we are not required to believe that those which have no sex also came; for it is expressly and definitely said, "They shall be male and female." For there are some animals which are born out of corruption, but yet afterwards they themselves copulate and produce offspring, as flies; but others, which have no sex, like bees. Then, as to those animals which have sex, but without ability to propagate their kind, like mules and she-mules, it is probable that they were not in the ark, but that it was counted sufficient to preserve their parents, to wit, the horse and the ass; and this applies to all hybrids. Yet, if it was necessary for the completeness of the mystery, they were there; for even this species has "male and female."Another question is commonly raised regarding the food of the carnivorous animals,-whether, without transgressing the command which fixed the number to be preserved, there were necessarily others included in the ark for their sustenance; or, as is more probable, there might be some food which was not flesh, and which yet suited all. For we know how many animals whose food is flesh eat also vegetable products and fruits, especially figs and chestnuts. What wonder is it, therefore, if that wise and just man was instructed by God what would suit each, so that without flesh he prepared and stored provision fit for every species? And what is there which hunger would not make animals eat? Or what could not be made sweet and wholesome by God, who, with a divine facility, might have enabled them to do without food at all, had it not been requisite to the completeness of so great a mystery that they should be fed? But none but a contentious man can suppose that there was no prefiguring of the church in so manifold and circumstantial a detail. For the nations have already so filled the church, and are comprehended in the framework of its unity, the clean and unclean together, until the appointed end, that this one very manifest fulfillment leaves no doubt how we should interpret even those others which are somewhat more obscure, and which cannot so readily be discerned. And since this is so, if not even the most audacious will presume to assert that these things were written without a purpose, or that though the events really happened they mean nothing, or that they did not really happen, but are only allegory, or that at all events they are far from having any figurative reference to the church; if it has been made out that, on the other hand, we must rather believe that there was a wise purpose in their being committed to memory and to writing, and that they did happen, and have a significance, and that this significance has a prophetic reference to the church, then this book, having served this purpose, may now be closed, that we may go on to trace in the history subsequent to the deluge the courses of the two cities,-the earthly, that lives according to men, and the heavenly, that lives according to God.
| |
| − | | |
| − | |}
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Category:Logic Museum Parallel Texts]]
| |
