ON ST. ABRAHAM THE PATRIARCH, IN PALESTINE,
CRITICAL-HISTORICAL COMMENTARY.
Abraham, patriarch, in Palestine. (Saint)
BHL Number: 0009
BY J. G.
§ I. The dignity and method of the subject to be treated:
the Saint's father and kinsmen: the state of the controversy over the year of his birth:
it is shown that this is to be fixed in the hundred and thirtieth year of his father.
The dignity and method of the subject to be treated are set out. How far from trifling, how far from idle a matter it is to draw out the deeds of the most holy Patriarch from the words of Moses and the other sacred sources, and to set them forth in order, is given us to understand amply and more than amply by that great bishop of the Milanese, Ambrose, who, although he had resolved to bring to light only a moral and simple Treatise on his deeds, as he says roughly in book 1, On Abraham, chapter 1, nevertheless did not hesitate to call this undertaking of his no trifling business; indeed, he asserted on the contrary that it was of such moment that it ought not to seem perfunctory or in the least idle, if he should also trace the footsteps of the same Patriarch more scrupulously. Of this matter, I read, St. Ambrose approved this threefold reason: namely, that the Lord God had endowed Abraham with the rich dowry of His blessing, so that by his grace He might provoke the rest, and his instruction might correct them; that Moses too had described him to us for imitation, so that by the sight of this Man he might raise up, as it were from some earthly tomb, the hearts of men slipping into vice; and finally, that Abraham was such and so great a man that Philosophy could not equal him with her wishes, and that what she feigned is less even than what he actually did. Indeed, the reasons recounted from the Work of Ambrose make it seem much less preposterous and much less foreign to the matter if we too, in this critical-historical Commentary, discuss at greater pains from time to time certain of the deeds of so great a Man, and even his very birth, so that thereby the truth may be illustrated more evidently, or the calumnies thrust upon the holy Man may be more and more restrained, nay even overturned from the root. But as regards those deeds of Abraham over which either no controversy, or only a lighter one, is agitated among the learned, we shall be briefer in relating them, and shall not join to the Mosaic narrative any other commentaries of the holy Fathers, historians and interpreters than those which seem both concise and more conformable to the literal sense of the sacred books, to right reason, and finally to the instruction of the reader. Now let us approach the matter itself, taking our beginning from the holy Man's birth.
[2] Of what father Abram was born (who, as we shall see in its place, was by divine appointment called Abraham), Of Abram, whose kinsmen and native country are assigned, what brothers he had, or what native soil, the Writer of the Pentateuch, whose trustworthiness it is impious to doubt, has handed down to memory plainly enough in chapter XI of Genesis, so that no prudent doubt can be raised about any of these things. And indeed that his father was Thara, and his brothers Nachor and Aran, he expressly testifies in the cited chapter, verse 26, speaking thus: And Thare lived seventy years, and begot Abram, and Nachor, and Aran; and again in verse 27: These are the generations of Thare: Thare begot Abram, Nachor, and Aran; and since he adds in verse 28 that this last died in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldeans, before his father, and writes in verse 31, and again in chapter 15, verse 7, that Abram went out from Ur of the Chaldeans as from his own native land, he demonstrates more clearly than daylight that the same native soil belonged to Abram as to his brother Aran, and that he was both born and brought up in Ur of the Chaldeans. Our Saint was thus by nation a Chaldean, and by family the grandson of Nachor the Elder, sprung from the stock of Sem; the brother of Nachor the Younger and of Aran; and the paternal uncle of Lot, who, as Scripture testifies in Genesis chapter XI, verse 27, was begotten of Aran; and, more probably, also through Aran the paternal uncle of Sarai, afterwards his wife, a matter of which there will be discussion below.
[3] Now there comes up for discussion a very perplexed question concerning Abram's birth, [On the year of his birth the opinions of the learned vary, arising from the words of Moses,] lying, namely, in this: whether the year of his birth on earth is to be tied to the seventieth year of his parent Thara, or rather to the hundred and thirtieth. Each opinion, as will appear below, has various weighty reasons by which it is defended, and has found patrons who are greatly to be commended for sacred learning; these are reviewed at length in his Prolegomenon to Genesis, page 473 and following, by the Rev. Fr. Wilhelm Smits, of the Order of Friars Minor Recollect, not moderately renowned for his learned studies on sacred Scripture; and although he is opposed to me on this argument, I present him setting forth in his own words the origin and difficulty of the whole controversy. Thus, then, he says in the cited Prolegomenon, number 103, page 472: If in this matter only the passage Genesis XI, 26, remained to us, "And Thare lived seventy years, and begot Abram, and Nachor, and Aran," we should not even hesitate that the holy Patriarch beheld this mortal light in the seventieth year of his father. For since Moses, as we argued roughly above (namely concerning Sem, son of Noe, in his own number 74), assigns a determinate year to the births of the other patriarchs, how should he have altogether neglected it when treating of Abraham, and in its place thrust upon his reader an enigma entirely like that of which we spoke in the number cited, by which the matter would be darkened rather than illustrated? When treating, I say, of Abraham; of the greatest, the worthiest of the patriarchs: of Abraham, to whom the first and most illustrious promise of the Messiah was made, and that one oft repeated; whose deeds the Sacred Writer pursues more broadly than the others', and whom alone he touches directly, where he recalls Nachor (namely the Younger) and Aran only indirectly, and touches on their acts only for this purpose, that the history of Abraham and his posterity might be elucidated.
[4] and from the narrative of St. Stephen, But (so the praised author continues) just as in a matter most clear in Moses the Seventy above (namely the translators, inserting Cainan the Younger between Arphaxad and Sale) and the Gospel of St. Luke cast darkness; so here likewise; so that, when you have passed from Moses to St. Stephen, you are at once in a fog. Let us weigh, he says, the words of the holy Protomartyr which he uttered to the Jews, Acts VII, 2 and following, while he stood in the council: "Men, brethren," he says, "and fathers, hear. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charan, verse 3; and said to him: Go forth out of thy country and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall show thee, verse 4. Then he went out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Charan. And from thence, after his father was dead, (μετῴκισεν ἀυτὸν εἰς τὴν γὴν ταύτην) he removed him into this land, wherein you now dwell. Verse 5. And he gave him no inheritance in it, not the pace of a foot: but he promised to give it him in possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no son." After which Smits proceeds thus: Note here only that, according to St. Stephen, Abraham set out from Haran into Chanaan after the death of his father, who lived in all two hundred and five years, Genesis XI, 32. But at the same place, chapter XII, 4, it is established that Abraham, setting out from Haran, was in his seventy-fifth year of age. Therefore after the death of his father Abraham was seventy-five years old; and when these are subtracted from the two hundred and five years which we said the father lived in all, there will remain one hundred and thirty for the year of Abraham's birth.
[5] arising, as Smits observes from St. Jerome: Then he adduces St. Jerome's words on the same difficulty, which in volume 2 of his Works, the edition of the year 1699, column 518, read thus: An insoluble question arises (namely from the words of Moses, Genesis chapter XI, verse 26, and chapter XII, verse 4, compared with each other): For if Thara, the father of Abraham, while he was still in the region of Chaldea, at seventy years of age begot Abram; and afterwards in Charra (or Haran) died in the two hundred and fifth year of his age; how is it now recorded that after the death of Thara, Abram, going out from Charra, was seventy-five years old: when, as St. Jerome adds, from the birth of Abraham to the death of his father there are shown to have been one hundred and thirty-five years? You have now, says the praised Smits again, the origin and difficulty of the present controversy, which, as is usual in obscure matters of this kind, has, besides various others, here notably produced two opinions, quite at variance with each other. The one, adhering more strictly to the words of Moses, asserts that Abraham was born in the seventieth year of Thara's age, and strives to reconcile this with what St. Stephen uttered. The other, conversely, led chiefly by the words of the holy Protomartyr, fixes the birth of Abraham in the hundred and thirtieth year of his father; and they believe that Moses indicated this sufficiently. * Thus far Smits, who not only defends the former opinion with all his strength in the cited Prolegomenon from number 108 onward, but also, what most others have not dared to declare,
pronounces it so certain to himself that he judges scarcely anything more certain than it.
[6] But in truth, with all respect to the learned man and his followers, I on the contrary, although I would not deny that that opinion is probable, nevertheless contend that the other is much more probable, [of which the more likely to us is the one that ties him to the 130th year of his father,] not indeed so obstinately as to contend, conversely, that scarcely anything is more certain than this, but confidently enough that I scarcely doubt that a great many learned men will agree that it rests on firmer arguments and reasons than the former. Here now is what serves me in this controversy as a foundation and, as it were, as an undoubted rule: if ever the testimonies of the sacred Books appear on the surface to oppose one another, they are not to be set in collision with one another, but reconciled, and indeed in such a way that the single testimony, and that not a lucid one, is to be brought back to the several testimonies uttered by different writers under divine inspiration, and those sufficiently clear; and not the latter to the former. I judge therefore that these words of Moses in Genesis chapter XI, verse 26: And Thare lived seventy years, and begot Abram, and Nachor, and Aran, are to be brought back to other words of Moses, extant in Genesis chapter 12, verse 4, and likewise to those which are read on this matter in Acts chapter 7, and expounded in that sense which these two testimonies display; and for this reason also, that Moses in chapter 12, verse 4, and Stephen in Acts chapter 7, verses 2, 3 and 4, speak specially and expressly of Abram alone, whereas Moses in the cited chapter XI, verse 26, mentioned Abram only mixed in with his brothers and in passing, and in such a manner that he must be judged to have wished, after his custom, to indicate rather the very time at which Thare applied himself to begetting children than to express the birth-year of each, or of one, of his sons. Therefore, since the literal and obvious sense of the words of Moses in Genesis chapter 12, verse 4, and of Stephen in Acts 7, verses 2, 3 and 4, displays that Abram, after the death of Thara, who died in the two hundred and fifth year of his age, counted only seventy-five years, from these two testimonies the birth-year of Abram is to be tied to the hundred and thirtieth year of his father, and not to the seventieth.
[7] Nor does the argument of those who dissent militate much against this opinion, [both on account of the words of Moses in Genesis chapter 12, and on account of the narrative of St. Stephen,] by which they contend that St. Stephen in the cited chapter 7 of Acts played the part of an orator, but Moses in Genesis chapter XI that of a historian, and that therefore in a historical matter one must adhere rather to the words of Moses in the cited chapter XI than to the words of St. Stephen. For if Moses in the cited chapter XI, verse 26, played the part of a historian, and must therefore be judged to have spoken in a plain and intelligible style, beyond doubt, whatever the adversaries may dissemble, he also played the part of a historian in chapter 12, verse 4, where, after having narrated in chapter XI the death of Thara when he was two hundred and five years old, he ties the departure of Abram his son from Haran to the seventy-fifth year of the age of the same Abram, speaking thus: Abram was seventy-five years old when he went forth from Haran; and therefore here too he must be judged to have spoken in a plain and intelligible style and to have indicated the time of Abram's birth, since it cannot be understood how Abram, in the two hundred and fifth year of his father, counted only seventy-five years, unless he was brought into the light in the hundred and thirtieth year of his father. Since, then, as the adversaries lay down, one must stand altogether by the words of Moses, as one who played the part of a historian, why may we not adhere to his words written in chapter 12, verse 4, equally with his words uttered in chapter XI, verse 26? Nay rather, why should we not adhere rather to the Mosaic narrative of chapter 12, as being approved and established by the narrative and testimony of St. Stephen, and by the consent even of the very pontiffs, judges and elders of the Jews?
[8] For what the adversaries retort, that St. Stephen played the part of an orator, does assuredly either nothing, or certainly little, to the purpose, to whom it is shown that credit must be given: since there is an enormous difference between a profane orator and a sacred one, especially if the latter be such as Stephen was, namely one through whose mouth the Holy Spirit, with whom he was filled, spoke; whose wisdom the pontiffs of the Jews and the most learned men of all could not resist, and who would not have neglected to refute the Orator if in the narrative he had undertaken he had strayed even so little from the genuine sense of Moses or from the most exact truth. Add that, even if the Acts of the Apostles had to be measured against Genesis, as Abraham Bucholcer would have it in his Chronological Isagoge, and not Genesis against the Acts, yet it would not follow from this that, with the words of Genesis chapter 12, verse 4, and the other sacred testimonies, of which we shall have to treat later, entirely neglected, they must necessarily be examined against the single and unique verse 26 of chapter XI. For I gladly grant them that the timber, as the adversaries say, is to be measured to the rule, and not the rule to the timber; but I do not see why, in designating the birth-year of Abram, that text should be held as the rule in which the three sons begotten of Thara are named mixed and confusedly, as happens in the cited verse 26, while those words of chapter 12, in which special and express mention is made of the age of Abram alone after the death of his father, no less than the words of St. Stephen pertaining to the same thing, are to be held as rough and unshaped timber.
[9] nor does the argument of Smits overturn this opinion, But, you will say, by these words of Genesis chapter XI, verse 26: And Thare lived seventy years and begot Abram, Nachor, and Aran, Moses intends precisely to denote the birth-year of Abram, whose genealogy he weaves, just as, when in chapter 5, verse 31 he says: But Noe, when he was five hundred years old, begot Sem, Cham and Japheth, he intends precisely to denote the year in which Sem was born; so that the time of Abram's birth is to be defined from the aforesaid chapter XI, verse 26, rather than from the following chapter of Genesis and the words of Stephen. But let us hear, before the rest, the praised Smits himself, attempting to establish his opinion from Bellarmine, On the Sacrament of Matrimony, chapter 28, column 1854 in my copy: Rightly, he says, does Bellarmine say in On the Sacrament of Matrimony, chapter XXVIII: Scripture in Genesis always indicates the time of the nativity of those whose genealogy it weaves, so that we may know the age of the world, the others being passed over who do not pertain to that chronology. Thus we see that Scripture in Genesis IV has set down in what year of Adam's age Seth was born, through whom the chronology is woven, but not in what year of the same Adam Abel or Cain was born: and in Genesis V Noe, when he was five hundred years old, is said to have begotten Sem, Cham and Japheth, where precisely the year is noted in which Sem was born, because through him the chronology is carried down: and the same may be observed in the rest. Since, then, Abraham alone among the sons of Thare is he whose genealogy is unfolded and through whom the chronology is woven, it is necessary to say that he was born in that year (namely the seventieth of his father), and the others before.
[10] Let us pause here a little and weigh each point. And first, indeed, what is discussed here if we hear the praised Smits discoursing at number 108, page 476, Abram's brothers were born earlier, that is, before him, and therefore by these words of Smits Abram was the youngest of his brothers, as having been brought into the light, according to the same man's opinion, in the seventieth year of his father, since the other brothers had been begotten before this year of their father; and yet, what I cannot sufficiently wonder at, that same Smits, in his annotations on Genesis chapter XI, verse 26, makes Abram, whom he again lays down as born in the seventieth year of his father, the eldest of the sons of Thara, in these words: We lay down Abram as the FIRSTBORN, and as born in the said seventieth year of his father. Let him who can reconcile this contradiction; I confess that I have found no other way to reconcile it than that Smits be said, although he made the words of Bellarmine his own indiscriminately by the very form of the type, yet not in actual fact to have wished to make them all his own. But let us come to examine the force of the argument proposed by Smits. I do not deny that the birth-year of Seth was designated by Moses, while the births of Abel and Cain were omitted; I confess too that, on the other hand, the time of birth both of Sem, son of Noe, and of Abram, son of Thara, was designated by Moses, and that this was done because these looked directly to the genealogy of the Messiah who was to come; nay, I will even admit that Moses would have strayed from his aim if he had altogether neglected the time of birth of the patriarchs whose genealogy he weaves, and above all of our Patriarch. All these things, I say, I gladly grant to the adversaries.
[11] But, I ask, does it follow on that account that he expressed, or could have expressed, the birth of Sem in no other place and it is refuted than Genesis chapter 5, verse 31, and the birth of Abram in no other than chapter XI, verse 26? Or must Moses be said to have entirely neglected the time of birth of the patriarchs Sem and Abram, unless he had defined it most exactly in those very places which the adversaries prescribe at their own pleasure? So indeed they would have it, but how undeservedly has already been shown. Let us suppose for a while either that the two cited verses were never written by Moses, or that they had dropped out of Genesis, in whatever manner or by whatever lapse of time you care to imagine; could not the time of birth of each be drawn out from elsewhere, likewise from Moses's own words? Certainly, beyond doubt. For, to grant that this is proved in a few words concerning Sem: since Moses in Genesis chapter 7, verse 6, expressly writes that the flood happened when Noe, the father of Sem, was six hundred years old, and again testifies in chapter XI, verse X, that Sem was a hundred years old two years after the flood; one need not be much skilled in the art of arithmetic to conclude from the Mosaic words that Sem was born in the five hundred and second year of his father, if the phrase after the flood designates, as is commonly admitted, time reckoned from the end of the flood.
[12] I now demonstrate the very same thing concerning the time of Abram's birth. from the very book of Genesis If Abram, when after the death of Thara, who, as Genesis chapter XI, last verse, testifies, died in the two hundred and fifth year of his age, he went out from the city of Haran into the land of Chanaan, was seventy-five years old, as Moses expressly testifies in Genesis chapter 12, verse 4, it follows most plainly from these two texts that he was brought into the world in the hundred and thirtieth year of his father, since after the death of his father, who died in the two hundred and fifth year of his age, Abram counted no more than seventy-five years; and these years, if they are added to the other hundred and thirty, the whole course of Thara's life, or
make up the 205 years most exactly. Gratuitously, therefore, do the adversaries assert that the time of Sem's birth was indicated by Moses in no other place than Genesis chapter 5, verse 31, and that of Abram in no other than chapter XI, verse 26; and no less groundlessly do they contend that the time of birth of each must be said to have been entirely neglected by Moses, unless both those verses, where Noe and Thare are each related to have begotten three sons, are so understood that he who is enumerated in the first place in each was in actual fact begotten in that same year in which the father is recorded to have applied himself to begetting children.
[13] and by the authority and reasons of St. Augustine: And that Genesis chapter XI, verse 26, need not necessarily be understood in the sense the adversaries wish, St. Augustine too indicated clearly enough, in question 25 on Genesis, edition of the year 1689, volume 3, column 384, commenting on the cited verse in these words: Scripture, which said: "When Tharra was seventy years old, he begot Abraham and Nachor and Arran," certainly did not wish this to be understood, that he begot all three in the same seventieth year of his age; but the year from which he began to beget (abstracting, namely, from which particular son), that year Scripture recorded. It may be, however (the genuine sense of the words being of course preserved), that Abraham was begotten later, but was named first by merit of the excellence for which he is greatly commended in Scripture: and that this happens elsewhere also in sacred Letters more than once, the holy Doctor declares in these words: Just as the prophet named the younger first, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated": and in Paralipomenon, though Judas is fourth in the order of birth, he is mentioned first, from whom the Jewish nation has its name on account of the royal tribe. Thus, in Augustine's judgment, those words of Genesis chapter XI, verse 26, can be expounded negatively, as the schools say, so that the sense is: whereas the other postdiluvian patriarchs, for example Arphaxad, Sale, Heber and the rest of Thara's forebears, had begotten children about the thirtieth year of their age, Thara himself did not beget sons before the seventieth year of his life, an example singular at that time, which Moses therefore judged worthy of special mention in this place, reserving for himself in the following chapter a more opportune place in which, since he had to treat of Abram apart from his brothers, he might indicate, not obscurely, the time of his birth.
[14] and in this opinion there is nothing unworthy of Moses, There is therefore no reason why certain of the adversaries should so confidently reply that in this opinion Moses has thrust upon us an entirely useless enigma, or is to be accused of inconstancy, which is far from praiseworthy even in a profane writer. For if Moses can neither be said to have thrust a useless enigma upon us, nor be deservedly accused of inconstancy, when at the end of chapter 4 of Genesis he relates, without adding any chronological mark, that Seth was begotten of Adam, and Enos of Seth, but in the following chapter, verses 3 and 6, defines the time of birth of each; why should he be called uselessly obscure or inconstant on the ground that in Genesis chapter XI, verse 26, he enumerates by name the three sons of Thara, from whom the nation of the Israelites drew its paternal and maternal descent, but without expressing the birth-year of each, while in the following chapter, verse 4, where namely he treats of him separately, he assigns plainly enough the time of Abram's birth? Assuredly there occur in sacred Letters innumerable statements which, uttered first more obscurely, afterwards receive light in an opportune place; and yet from these no one would deservedly call the sacred writers uselessly obscure or inconstant. Add that Moses nowhere declared, as the adversaries nevertheless would have it, that it had been his perpetual purpose in enumerating the sons of the patriarchs to take account of their age alone, and not also of their dignity; and therefore it does not sufficiently appear why the writer of the Pentateuch should be accused as of neglected duty when, having regard rather to Abram's dignity than to his lesser age, he enumerated him in the first place in the cited verse 26.
[15] nothing harsh, But you will say, as the adversaries argue in Gaspar Sanchez, in his Commentaries on the Acts of the Apostles, page 142, that it seems harsh that, whereas in the other generations throughout that chapter XI it is openly expressed in what year of his parent each was born, this should be noted more obscurely in the birth of Abraham. But with the same Sanchez I answer those objections that it is not necessary that the order of narration always be woven in the same manner: nor is this perpetual in Scripture, especially when the course of narration that has been undertaken is either interrupted or ended. Take an example, he says, from Genesis V, where, though all the generations from Adam down to Noe had been described in the same order, when it came to Noe, that is, to the last, the order of narration was changed; both because the manner of speaking is not the same, and because not one son, as in the others, but three sons are said by name to have been begotten. So also, because the order drawn down from Noe ceases in Thare, the manner of describing the generation was changed in him, yet in such a way that a little later Scripture defines the time of birth of both patriarchs, namely of Sem and of Abram, as we showed above at numbers XI and 12.
[16] Let us now hear here another argument of those who oppose us: nothing foreign to sacred chronology, Unless, they say, we say that sacred Scripture expressly stated the time of Abram's nativity in those words: "And Thare lived seventy years, and begot Abram and Nachor and Aran," just as it had stated the precise time of the nativity of each of the fathers of the first and second age of the world who had preceded Abram himself, it becomes altogether necessary that the sacred chronology of those times be thrown into confusion. So they say in Torniello, in the Sacred Annals of the Old Testament, volume 1, page 252, number 3. But to this old objection let this be the old reply, found in the same Torniello: It may be answered, he says at the cited number 3, that sacred Scripture, not only in the things which pertain to chronology, but also in those which look to history itself, and likewise to moral or spiritual doctrine, has not been accustomed always to express everything lucidly, but sometimes to hand down some things somewhat obscurely, as it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, so that even thus minds might be the more provoked to search out the truth more curiously and eagerly. And presently, having brought forward a few out of many testimonies of the holy Fathers to strengthen his reply, he dissolves the other objections thus: As regards the sacred chronology of which we are now treating, it will frequently become plain hereafter, as those who have commented on the books of Judges or of Kings or others cannot deny, how many things there are in the sacred Word (namely in one place or another) obscurely handed down and scarcely hinted at in any way, so that on that account they cannot be investigated and elucidated except with much labour and a diligent discussion of the texts and an accurate comparison of them.
[17] It must not therefore be said that the sacred chronology is thrown into confusion, nothing confused, or rendered uncertain, if we grant that Scripture did not express the year of Abram's birth as it did that of the other fathers who preceded him: for it is enough that from the things which it does hand down (namely in Genesis chapter 12) that year can become evidently known to us, as has already been shown at the beginning of this treatise, as also by us at numbers 6 and 12. It might also be said (adds Torniello, and this tells not a little against the cited Smits) that sacred Scripture intended indeed to draw down Abram's genealogy and likewise his chronology from the beginning of the world, but the genealogy chiefly, and the chronology not so principally. For we know that the genealogies of other excellent men too, for example of Esdras, Judith, Mardochai and finally of Christ Himself, were handed down for the sake of honour; but not their chronologies likewise. Wherefore if sacred Scripture indicated the times of the birth of our Redeemer only very obscurely, why do we wonder if it did not express the precise year of Abram's nativity, namely in that particular place where it treated of Abram and his brothers mixed together and confusedly, and left it to be gathered only from the following chapter, verse 4? In whatever manner therefore and wherever Scripture indicates that Abram was born in the hundred and thirtieth year of his father, that is, seventy-five years before his death, the chronology of the world, which is to be ordered from the flood down to the birth or the calling of Abram, suffers no detriment from this, as will be plain to one who considers it.
[18] [it is shown that nothing uncertain is asserted by us as regards the epoch of Abram's departure from Haran;] And thus indeed I judge that I have sufficiently met the principal argument on which Smits relies, and the others akin to it, so that I doubt whether one who has weighed the force of the reasons adduced in an even balance will agree with the praised Smits when he asserts that that first argument of his is entirely sufficient to settle the whole matter against us, and has even such strength that scarcely anything can be thought more certain than his opinion. Let us now weigh the second argument by which the writer already often mentioned strives to strengthen his opinion. Thus he speaks in the cited Prolegomenon to Genesis, number III, page 478: It is left uncertain, he says, from the words of Stephen, as they are taken by the adversaries, whether Abraham was born in the 130th year of his father, or later. The same is left from the narrative of Thara's death in Moses. It is consistent with propriety of speech that Abraham, at seventy-five years of age, went out and was transferred by God into another land after the death of his father, even if several years intervened after that death. It does not follow: Peter married a wife after the death of his father; therefore immediately after the death of his father. But the more years intervened, the later Abraham must have been born in that system. Thus Smits.
[19] To which I reply: If we are willing to acknowledge the death of Thara as the mark of Abram's going out from Haran, indicated in the obvious sense both by Moses and by Stephen; if we consider Abram's swiftness in carrying out the commands of God and his obedience impatient of all delay, so often commended in sacred Letters, no doubt is left that Abram withdrew elsewhere from Haran in the same year in which Thare died, since, namely, once the last rites had been paid to his parent, nothing could any longer hold him back from the most prompt execution of the divine command. Nor indeed does that scholastic argument drawn, by way of example, from the marriage of Peter favour Smits much; for although in logical rigour, as they say, and with no circumstances of the matter regarded, it does not necessarily follow that Peter, who is written to have married a wife after the death of his father, must be said to have married her immediately after his father's death, since that particle after of itself admits some latitude of time; yet, if Peter's most prompt disposition to carry out, after his father's death, all those things to which he was bound either by his own promise or by a lawful precept or for some other reason is otherwise known, and no cause for postponing the execution is known to have intervened; who is there who, as soon as he heard that such a man had married a wife after the death of his father, would not believe him first,
at the earliest time permitted, that is, in the same year, to have done so? Therefore, unless we wish to detract not a little from Abram's most prompt piety towards God and above all from his outstanding obedience, it is necessary for us to confess that, once the obstacles to pursuing his journey had been removed by the death of Thara, he betook himself as soon as possible to the place to which he knew himself called by God.
[20] But not to linger longer in confuting scholastic trifles of this kind, nor can anything be established against it from the deed and words of Abram, I should like now to examine, adducing the very words of Smits, whether the argument taken from Genesis chapter 17, verse 17, sufficiently establishes the adversaries' opinion. If Abraham, he says in the cited Prolegomenon, number 110, was born in the 130th year of his father, there would have been no room in Genesis XVII, 17, for Abraham's stupefaction and wonder: "Thinkest thou that a son shall be born to him that is a hundred years old, and shall Sara, that is ninety years old, bring forth?" He would surely have had a recent example in his father, whom he had known to be endowed with the power of begetting when far older than a hundred. And presently, so that the adversaries may not retort that Abraham did not wonder that a son should be born to him at a hundred, but that one should be born to him at a hundred from a wife of ninety, and she previously barren, the praised writer observes that the text adduced has two members, and indicates that Abraham's stupefaction turned not only on his wife's great age but also on his own, and that the thing was, comparatively, unusual for Abraham at that time. So he says: but I answer that Abraham, although he knew very well that he had been born in the hundred and thirtieth year of his father, nevertheless had more than one reason for wondering if offspring should be born to him, now a hundred years old, and from Sara at ninety.
[21] And first, indeed, he had found that from Agar, wondering that offspring would be born of himself at a hundred and of Sara, his secondary wife, and beyond all doubt fruitful, after Ismael had been begotten of her, he had raised up no offspring from the eighty-sixth year of his age, that is, through the whole space of thirteen years following; and therefore, when he was now a hundred years old, he could most justly wonder if he should then again beget offspring, especially from Sara, who, as Genesis chapter 16 testifies, had until then been shut up so as not to bear, nor even to conceive; to whom moreover, as is related in Genesis chapter 18, verse XI, it had ceased to be after the manner of women, and who therefore had entirely renounced conjugal intercourse, or, as Scripture says, pleasure, namely the conjugal, as having been fruitless for so many years. Moreover, even if Sara had been fifty years younger, nay even entirely fruitful in herself, nevertheless, since Abraham, now a hundred years old, had, as the Apostle teaches in Romans 4, verse 19, and Hebrews XI, verse 12, a body as good as dead, and therefore unequal to begetting offspring, Abraham could have had the greatest cause for wonder when he heard that offspring would be born to him at a hundred from Sara, even though he knew that three sons had been begotten by his father, a much more vigorous and robust old man, from his seventieth year up to his hundred and thirtieth.
[22] Finally, since it was thoroughly evident that the more remote from the flood men were born, can anything be proved. the shorter and feebler the old age they enjoyed, and indeed so much so that, whereas Sem had lived six hundred years and had begotten Arphaxad when nearly a hundred, Abraham's grandfather Nachor nevertheless did not prolong his life beyond a hundred and fifty years, nor waited beyond the twenty-ninth year of his age to beget offspring; Abraham surely had reason to despair that offspring would be born to him also, more remote than Nachor from the times of the flood, and a hundred years old besides; and therefore, although he had seen the single contrary example in his father Thare, he could justly wonder if, by no common favour, he should turn out like his father rather than like his grandfather and the other men generally of his time, with male offspring begotten at so advanced an age, and from a barren wife at that, whom the Lord God promised that He would bless in many ways. Let the learned reader now judge whether the arguments of those who oppose us, which we produced above, have in fact such weight as to incline a mind not labouring under a prejudiced opinion, nay almost of necessity to carry it off, to that side which lays down so over-confidently that Abram was born in the seventieth year of his father that scarcely anything can be held more certain than it. Now let the reader weigh with an even mind the reasons by which we strive to establish more firmly the opposite opinion.
Annotation* read: credit
§ II. Our opinion is further established,
and the various evasions of those who dissent are shut off.
Against the force of the argument by which our opinion is established, These three things, as I hinted above in passing as occasion offered, are ascertained for us by the authority of the divine Letters, and are therefore placed beyond controversy: namely, that Thara, Abram's father, did not die in Haran before the 205th year of his age, as Moses openly asserts in Genesis chapter XI, where, having said in verse 31 that Thara and his sons came as far as Haran and dwelt there, he presently adds in the following verse: And the days of Thare were two hundred and five years, and he died in Haran. The second is that Abram went out from Haran into the land of Chanaan, as is manifestly related in Genesis chapter 12, verses 4, 5 and 6: Abram was seventy-five years old when he went forth from Haran, and he took Sarai his wife and Lot, his brother's son, and all the substance which they had possessed, and the souls which they had gotten in Haran: and they went out to go into the land of Chanaan. And when they had come into it, etc. To which must be added the words of St. Stephen, Acts 7, verse 4: And from thence (namely from Haran), after his father was dead, he (the Lord) removed him (Abram) into this land, wherein you (Stephen is addressing the Jews) now dwell. The third is, as the words just recited clearly testify, that Abram, at his going out from Haran and on the journey he undertook to the land of Chanaan, was precisely seventy-five years old. Therefore, since Abram went out from Haran after his father's death, being himself 75 years of age; and since his father too lived no less than 205 years; it manifestly follows that, when the 75 years which constitute the age of Abram going out of Charan are subtracted, there remain 130 years of Thara's life, to the last of which the birth of Abram must be tied.
[24] among the various evasions the Samaritan text does not help the adversaries, What do the adversaries, who lay down that Abram was brought into the world in the 70th year of his father, say to this argument? It is wonderful into how various shapes they turn themselves in order to cast darkness over this reasoning, and how dissimilar the wedges are that they apply to loosen this knot. For some, in untying it, define nothing, as though the matter were given up for lost, or bring forward nothing that does not turn into a manifest injury to the Holy Spirit. Of these the eloquent witness is Smits, praised above, in the Prolegomenon to Genesis, numbers 112 and 115, whom the curious reader may consult about these men. Others do not fear to assert that Stephen, whom nevertheless the sacred books testify to have been full of the Holy Spirit, and whose wisdom the princes of the Jews could not resist, either slipped in memory, or spoke enigmatically and less properly, after the manner of a profane and inept declaimer; these I judge worthy of indignation rather than of serious confutation, nor do I observe anything else about them to our purpose, than that the argument drawn by us from the testimonies of Stephen and Moses is impregnable even in the judgment of the adversaries themselves, since they despair of being able to elude its strength in any other way than this most absurd one. Others finally, in order to free themselves from the weight of the same argument, assert that the Hebrew text, and therefore also the version of the Seventy translators, which agrees with it here, and the Latin Vulgate, as approved as authentic, are to be refashioned and reformed according to the Samaritan text, which assigns only 145 years to Thara's life; and, what I think some will wonder at with me, by the admission of Smits himself in the cited Prolegomenon, number 112, this is certainly preferred by them to leaving the text of Moses, Genesis XI, verse 24 (rather verse 26), in suspense together with the adversaries.
[25] Is it then here, lest it have to be confessed that light is added to verse 26 from verse 4 of the following chapter, [which certainly cannot be held as an undoubted rule for the Hebrew, Greek and Latin,] that the Samaritan text, whose faults (I use the words of Smits), corruptions, errors, mutilations of the original context, and other vices Smits himself expressly enumerates and sets before our eyes in the Prolegomenon to the Pentateuch from number 133, is to be held as the rule against which you are to compare the original Hebrew text, the Septuagint version, and also the Vulgate edition approved by decree of the Council of Trent, and restore them in this place? Let those who use no more accurate rule than that, or who apply now this rule, now that, at their pleasure, see to it that they do not forge for themselves an ill-cohering work, and one that can be taken apart with the same ease with which it was built. But indeed, if we hear the praised Smits at the cited number 112, besides others, Bochart at the end of his Sacred Geography, page 863, and most recently Whiston in his Attempt to restore the Hebrew Text, who also appeals to Philo On Dreams and to Josephus, book 1 of the Antiquities, chapter 7, attribute to Abram's father no more than 145 years. But what then? Even if these assertions were true, would one have to stand by the Samaritan rather than the old and genuine Hebrew text? By no means, I think. So, then, let Bochart have thought, for all I care, at the end of the Sacred Geography, page 863; in whom, however, in the edition I use, Caen, in the year 1651, made, so to speak, under his own eyes, I could not find even a single word bearing on this either in the cited place or elsewhere; let Whiston also think so, and appeal to Philo On Dreams and to Josephus, book 1 of the Antiquities, chapter 7; what does it matter to us, even if each ancient writer praised by Whiston had really inserted in his writings what Whiston attributes to them?
[26] But even that very thing is foreign to the truth, if indeed the older editions of the Works of Philo and Josephus are to be trusted. In the edition of the Works of Philo, and with which Philo and Josephus by no means agree here; Greek and Latin, from the translation of Sigismund Gelenius, published at Geneva in the year 1613, I find from page 440 to page 467 the book On Dreams, and another on the same argument from page 857 to 888; but to which of these books Whiston appeals Smits does not indicate, much less does he define closely enough the place that bears on this. When I searched for a place where Philo the Jew had written as Whiston, praised by Smits, would have it, none at all occurred that favours Whiston; but on the contrary these words of Philo presented themselves to me on page 445, which rather confirm our opinion: Λέγεται γὰρ ὃτι Αβραὰμ ἦν ἐτῶν ἑβδομήκοντα πέντε,
ὃτε ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ Χαῤῥάν· that is: For Abraham is read to have been seventy-five years of age when he went out of Charran (or Haran), his father Thara, namely, as Philo adds, having died; of whose span of life being contracted to 145 years he adds not even a single word. So far too is Josephus, in the cited chapter 7 of book 1 of the Antiquities, from contracting Thara's life to 145 years, that on the contrary, in the most express words, towards the end of the same chapter, he affirms that he lived 205 years. Ὃπου δὲ Θάῤῥον τελευτήσαντα θάπτουσιν ἐτη βιὤσαντα πέντε καὶ διακόσια: that is: Where (the talk is of Haran) they also buried Thare when he had died, having lived two hundred and five years. And so read all the editions of Josephus I could obtain, which I consulted anxiously on this matter. In vain, therefore, do the adversaries appeal to Philo and Josephus in order to be able to prove that the last verse of chapter XI of Genesis, in which Thare is asserted to have lived two hundred and five years, is to be brought back to and refashioned according to the Samaritan text, which bounds his life by only a hundred and forty-five years.
[27] nor does it profit the adversaries to assert a twofold departure of Abram But here too I should like it observed in passing that the adversaries themselves, while they seek everywhere chinks of this kind by which to escape, even so show, against their will, that the author of the Pentateuch in Genesis 12, verse 4, and Stephen in Acts 7, connected the seventy-fifth year of Abram's life, in which he departed from Haran, not enigmatically or improperly but lucidly and properly, with the last, that is the two hundred and fifth, year of Thara; which we too contend both here and above. But since Smits does not adhere so obstinately to that opinion which asserts that the Hebrew must be refashioned according to the Samaritan text, as not to turn presently to other expositions by which he believes the difficulty arising from the texts cited at number 23 can duly be resolved, it will be worth the trouble to hear and weigh those expositions too, passing over, namely, all those things which Smits prescribes in the cited Prolegomenon, number 112, as needing to be noted beforehand, since it is plain enough from what was said at number 8 that they do nothing against us. If we hear Smits speaking at number 113 and the two following, that opinion is not displeasing to him, and not undeservedly has it found its patrons, which affirms that Abram went out of Haran on two occasions: first, indeed, while his father was still living, when he sojourned in Chananaea for 60 years, as the patrons of this opinion are pleased to define; and second, when, having set out from Chananaea to Haran on account of the dying Thara, he returned thence again into Chananaea after the last rites had been paid to his father and the inheritance entered upon; and presently they decide that Moses is to be understood of the former going out and Stephen of the latter, judging that thus, namely, every difficulty is removed.
[28] from the city of Haran into Chananaea, not resting on the Scriptures, But may one inquire from what source the adversaries have drawn that the departure of Abram from Haran which Moses records in chapter 12, verse 4, is entirely different from that which Stephen, alluding to Moses, relates in Acts 7, and indeed in such a way that an interval of sixty years must necessarily be posited between the two? Here truly they are again at a standstill, nor do they find any testimony of sacred Scripture to prove that twofold departure. What? So far is sacred Scripture from anywhere supporting the asserted twofold departure, that on the contrary, if the various testimonies of Genesis are weighed, so many absurd and truly most unlikely consequences follow from that twofold journey that you cannot deny that the principle from which these flow is, no less than they themselves, foreign to the truth. For if Abram, born in the opinion of the adversaries in the 70th year of his father, and therefore counting a hundred and thirty-five years after his father's death, set out from Chanaan to Haran to pay the last rites to his father and enter upon the inheritance; why did he not then provide a wife for his Isaac, already 35 years old? It would certainly have been better that he should then either have brought Rebecca to his son, or have taken Isaac as the companion of his journey, to be joined at that same time to Rebecca, than that after a very few years, namely five, he should have sent his servant there for this purpose, not without great expense. Yet that provident Father, so solicitous for Isaac, is read to have done neither of these things then; and how this could be explained with sufficient likelihood in the opinion of the adversaries is not easy to say.
[29] Moreover, if Abraham, on the occasion of Thara's death, returned to Haran from the land of Chanaan, whither the adversaries would have it that he had first withdrawn before half a century, but rather contrary to it on more than one head, why five years later did Abraham's steward, concerning the affairs of his master, his wealth, the son he had received from Sara, things which could not but have been very well known in Haran, nevertheless speak as of entirely new and unknown things, as may be seen in Genesis chapter 24, from verse 35? And again, why was it announced to Abraham in chapter 22, verse 20, that sons had been born to Nachor his brother, and those by his principal wife, eight in number, among whom was Bathuel, the father of Rebecca, who was even then nearly marriageable, if Abraham himself, returning at some time to Haran from the land of Chanaan, as the adversaries would have it, could have seen them face to face and perceived all these things? Finally, if Abraham, as the Apostle testifies in Hebrews chapter XI, obeyed to go out into a place which he was to receive for an inheritance (which was certainly the land of Chanaan), and went out, not knowing whither he went, and therefore by faith abode in the land of promise as in a strange land, and indeed so steadfastly, as the Apostle indicates in verse 15, that Abram did not even any longer call to mind the land itself from which he had come out, though he had time to return; if moreover, when famine pressed, concerning which see Genesis chapter 12 from verse X, he preferred to go into Egypt, and not without danger of his life, rather than return to his own people; if finally, as is related in Genesis chapter 24, the pious Father anxiously took care that his beloved Isaac should not at any time return to the place from which he himself (namely Abram) had departed; with what show of truth, I beseech you, can it be affirmed without any sacred surety or witness that the holy Man, from the time he had once emigrated from Haran with all his people at God's command, returned there after sixty years?
[30] I know indeed that St. Augustine, in Question 25 on Genesis, the occasion of asserting which was indeed given by St. Augustine, and in book 16 of the City of God, chapter 15, gave some the occasion of asserting that twofold departure of Abraham; but, besides the fact that St. Chrysostom, in Homily 31 on Genesis, Paris edition of the year 1721, volume 4, page 308, expressly affirms that Abram did not withdraw from Charan before Thare his father had died, and therefore entirely rejects that other journey asserted by the adversaries; it must be carefully noted that St. Augustine in the former place disputed not so much by asserting as by inquiring after a way of resolving the difficulty, and asserted that twofold journey of Abraham into Chananaea in any way rather than confidently; so that, on the contrary, he judges that difficulty can be more rightly resolved if Abraham is laid down as the youngest of the sons of Thara, or at least as born not in that year in which Thare began to apply himself to begetting children, but rather in that interval of time which intervened between the seventieth and the hundred and thirty-first year of Thara; so that no support is furnished to the adversaries from this passage of Augustine. As for the words of the same Doctor in book 16 of the City of God, chapter 15, they do indeed, as they lie, tell for the adversaries more than the former; but against them may again be set the praised authority of Chrysostom, and besides this the following brief observation on Augustine's argument, or rather conjecture.
[31] [but from a not sufficiently accurate interpretation of the Greek text of the Acts of the Apostles.] The authority of Augustine in this matter cannot be judged firmer and stronger than the very version of chapter 7 of Acts on which he relies: since, therefore, as Smits must confess, and all who are well skilled in the Greek language agree, this verse of Acts 7: κἀκεῖθεν, μετὰ τὸ ἀποθανεῖν τὸν πατέρα ἀυτοῦ, μετῴκισεν ἀυτὸν εἰς τὴν γῆν ταύτην εἰς ἣν ὑμεῖς νῦν κατοικεῖτε, was only very improperly expounded by the translator whom Augustine used, in this manner: And from thence, after his father was dead, he (God) SETTLED him (Abraham) in this land, wherein you now dwell, seeing that that word μετῴκισεν is to be rendered by transferred, or by made to migrate or change his abode, and not by fixedly settled; it follows that the argument drawn from these words of Augustine is of slight weight. Nay rather, even if we grant the adversaries liberally and gratuitously, what however is by no right to be granted, that this verb μετοικίζειν is of itself indifferent, so that it signifies both to settle stably and simply to transfer, or to command someone to change his abode or migrate elsewhere; yet it can by no means be understood in the former sense if the subsequent words of St. Stephen are compared with these earlier ones. For since St. Stephen adds that Abraham, after he had gone out of Charan and been transferred into the land of Chanaan, did not yet have a son; it becomes necessary, if, as the adversaries would have it, μετῴκισεν in this place denotes Abraham's stable habitation in the land of Chanaan and his possession of the field and cave in that land, mentioned in Genesis chapter 23, that Isaac, who, as Genesis chapter 23 testifies, counted 37 years when his mother died, was brought into the light only after his mother's death; than which nothing more absurd can be said. It is evident, therefore, that Stephen cannot here be understood of Abraham's fixed habitation or settlement in Hebron, where namely he did not buy the field and the cave before his wife's death, and took possession of both, as is clearly plain from Genesis chapter 23, verse 2 and following.
[32] Another evasion of Smits, from a received, as he would have it, Thus the departure of Abram into the land of Chanaan before the death of Thara, asserted by the adversaries, falls to the ground, resting on no testimony of Scripture, nay contrary to it on more than one head; and likewise falls that exposition by which the adversaries twist the words of St. Stephen into a sense foreign to the Mosaic narrative, so as to persuade, namely, that one transfer or departure of Abram from Haran into the land of Chanaan is recorded by Moses, and another by Stephen. There remain to be examined two expositions with whose help the adversaries strive to make light of the argument drawn by us from the words of Moses and Stephen. The one, in which Smits, in the Prolegomenon to Genesis, number 115, confesses that he entirely acquiesces, he sets out in these words. We note, he says, from St. Jerome, that it is "the custom of the Scriptures for the historian so to relate the opinion of many as it was believed by all at that time," etc., although
the thing itself was not truly so. If this, adds Smits, can be said of the hagiographer himself without prejudice to the truth of Scripture, how much more of any other, even the most enlightened, whom he introduces as speaking? Therefore we can say without sin that St. Stephen uttered those things according to the opinion prevailing at that time among the Jews, especially the Hellenists, who accused him, Acts VI, verse IX and following, or which he had drawn from his masters. And that these did believe something of the sort about Abraham's departure, Philo, nearly contemporary with St. Stephen, openly testifies above, namely in Smits at number 105, where he recites these words of his from the Book On the Migration of Abraham: It can escape no one who has applied study to the Laws (that is, the Mosaic Books) that Abraham, first indeed coming from the land of the Chaldeans, dwelt in Charan: but there, his father having died, he set out from it also. Then the praised Smits concludes thus: We can by no means be accused of a slip or of error if we carry out and confirm what belongs to our purpose by means of probable opinions handed down by masters. Thus far he.
[33] But truly, let us be permitted to discuss what at length can be understood by the phrase Something of the sort, taken from an opinion of the times of St. Stephen, which Smits asserts was believed at that time by the Jews, especially the Hellenists. Was it perhaps believed at that time that Abram's father died in the 145th year of his age, and therefore that Abram, since after his father's death he set out from Haran in the 75th year of his age, was born in the seventieth year of his father? But so far were the Jews, and especially the Hellenists, from being persuaded at that time that Abram's father lived only 145 years, that on the contrary both the Hebrew text and the version of the Seventy Translators, most familiar and most received among them, show the opposite; and with these agree Josephus, book 1 of the Jewish Antiquities, chapter 7 (of Philo I shall speak below), and the other ancients, who prolong the life of Thara to two hundred and five years. Or did Smits wish to indicate by the phrase Something of the sort that a twofold departure of Abraham into the land of Chanaan was held as true by the Jews and especially the Hellenists? But by what witness or by what trustworthy monument will this be proved? For it can by no means be hammered out of the words of Philo which Smits praises; since in them Philo nowhere even most lightly hints that Abram, after he had migrated from Charan into the land of Chanaan, namely at 75 years of age, returned at any time to that former place, which Philo surely would not have omitted in his book On the Migration of Abraham if it had been commonly believed in his time.
[34] But perhaps by the phrase Something of the sort Smits wished to indicate only this, it is shown that it profits him nothing: that in Stephen's time that opinion was commonly received which lays down that Abram was born not in the seventieth year of his father but in the hundred and thirtieth, that is, seventy-five years before the death of the same Thara. Be it so, for all I care. Then even from this it follows that the birth-year of Abram, namely the hundred and thirtieth year of his father's life, was indicated by Moses so lucidly that even at that time there was no doubt about it, nor was a single one of those skilled in the law found who dared to clamour against Stephen as he asserted these things most confidently; which is surely a convincing indication of most manifest truth. Therefore, unless one wishes to accuse any ancient opinion whatever, and in particular that of Stephen, of falsehood on the very ground that the Synagogue constantly held it, and that a sacred Orator filled with the Holy Spirit manifestly asserted it in the council of the Jews, he must needs bring evident reasons by which to demonstrate its falsity; and when he has proved this, then at last he will be able to assert with Smits that Stephen, in order to accommodate himself to his hearers, uttered in the council of the Jews an opinion not true in fact but commonly held as true. But whatever at length that Something of the sort may be which the cited author wished to designate in the Prolegomenon, number 115, to me at least his reasoning recited above does not seem of such moment that one may rightly acquiesce in it, as he himself nevertheless wishes.
[35] nor the exposition of the words of St. Stephen employed by him, I proceed to his other exposition, by which, as always seemed to him, that knot (namely the argument drawn above from Genesis 12 and Acts 7) is fittingly untied. He proposes it in these words in the cited Prolegomenon, number 116: Let us say that the land of Chanaan in general is not hinted at by Stephen; but only that part which the Jews, at the time when that Levite of Christ was uttering these things, inhabited almost alone, as their own: or, if you will, in which the Jews of Jerusalem whom he is addressing lived. Abraham's habitation in Mambre is therefore regarded, and indeed, says Drusius, after he had fixed a firm abode there, having bought a field (near Hebron in the midst of the Tribe of Juda), Genesis XXIII, verse IV and following. Abraham was then 173 (rather CXXXVII) years old; for Sara, ten years younger, was then in the CXXVIIth year of her age, ibid. verse 1. If to the said sum of 173 (rather CXXXVII) you add the LXX years of the father when the holy Patriarch was born, there will come out CCVII years, which measure out the whole course of the father's life, so that two years still remain after the father's death. So again the oft-praised Smits, differing from Louis de Dieu, praised in Ussher, only in this, that whereas the latter had merely said that the land of Chanaan in general did not seem to be hinted at by the words of Stephen, but that that part was specially determined which had fallen to the Tribe of Juda, he himself asserts this not somewhat timidly but altogether confidently and affirmatively, and affirms that it is plainly hinted at by the emphatic locution which the Greek presents in this manner: Εἰς τὴν γὴν ταύτην, INTO THIS VERY LAND, as he himself expounds it. It would assuredly have sufficed, he says in the same place, to say Εἰς τὴν γὴν, INTO THE LAND, if he had wished it to be understood of the whole breadth of that land, as it was once inhabited by the Jews and ennobled by the sojournings of the fathers. Finally, after some things which will be weighed below, Smits speaks thus at number 118: We say therefore that the transfer of which Stephen speaks, if the terminus A QUO is regarded (which is Haran), was made while the father was still living and when Abraham was in his LXXVth year; otherwise if the terminus AD QUEM is regarded, at which the transfer itself is completed.
[36] which is proved to be contrary either to historical truth, Whether all these pronouncements of Smits rest on truth, it will not be beside the point now to inquire. And first, indeed, Moses testifies in Genesis chapter 13, last verse, that Abram, after he had returned from Egypt to Bethel, then moving his tent, DWELT by the vale of Mambre, which is IN HEBRON; and that this happened either in the very year immediately following Abram's migration from Charan, or at least before Abram was joined to Agar, Smits himself lays down in the cited Prolegomenon, number 126, and so far most rightly. I now ask whether he would have this habitation of Abram in Mambre to be what St. Stephen designated. If he affirms it, it follows not only that Abram set out from Haran into the land of Chanaan while his father was still living, but moreover that, while he was living, nay at least 50 years before his death, he had a fixed abode there; which altogether contradicts Stephen, who asserts that Abraham was transferred by God into that land which the Jews inhabited in Stephen's time only then, after his father was dead. But if he contends that Stephen must be understood not of the time at which Abram first dwelt in Hebron, but of another, namely that at which, after a long sojourn in Bersabee, he bought from Ephron the field and the cave in which to bury the body of his wife who had died in Hebron; I confess indeed that it does not follow from this that in that opinion Abram must be said to have been transferred by God into Chanaan before the death of Thara; but I ask by what words either Moses or Stephen, his most faithful interpreter, at least in any way hinted that Abram was only then led out or transferred by God from Haran into the land of Chanaan, or, to use Smits's words, that his transfer was only then completed, when, in the sixty-second year after his arrival from Haran into the land of Chanaan, he bought a sepulchre for his wife.
[37] I know indeed, and gladly grant Smits, that in every transfer from one place to another there are found the termini called in the schools a quo and ad quem; or to sound reason, but I do not see what support accrues to the Smitsian opinion from these scholastic trifles. For the lawful purchase of a sepulchre in which a man may lay his wife is not so involved in the idea of transfer that no one can be said to have been completely led out or transferred from one region into another without having bought a sepulchre for his wife. Why then could Abram not be said to have been transferred into Chananaea before he had bought from Ephron the field to possess and the cave in which to lay his dead wife? Assuredly Abram had not yet bought the field and the cave when he counted 75 years; and yet in Genesis 12, verses 4 and 5, he is asserted to have gone out of Haran and come into the land of Chanaan; and again Abraham himself, in Genesis 20, verse 13, professes that he had been led out by God from his father's house into Chanaan before he had thought of his wife's death or of buying a sepulchre for her in Hebron. Moreover, as Smits himself confesses in the Prolegomenon to the Pentateuch, number 217, page 125, it is more probable that Abram then retained his abode in Bersabee, since it is established from Genesis chapter 24, verse 62, that Isaac, whom we nowhere read to have used a habitation separate from his father's, dwelt even after Sara's death in the South country, namely in Bersabee, or certainly in a place situated not far from the well of the Living and Seeing.
[38] As for the words of St. Stephen vaunted by Smits, or even that it does not accord with the purpose of St. Stephen, I do not wish to dispute with him whether these words εἰς τὴν γὴν ταύτην (which, however, Smits's forerunner Louis de Dieu judged should be rendered no otherwise than the Vulgate presents) should be rendered by these Latin words into this very land, as he would have it, or whether at least they are rendered rightly enough; this grammatical dispute, I say, which could be decided against Smits by the version of the 70 Translators of Deuteronomy, last chapter, verse 4, and by other places whether sacred or profane, I by no means wish to raise, and I ask this one thing: since Stephen expressed by name neither the Tribe of Juda, nor Mambre, nor Hebron, by what indication, out of the hundreds of cities or places and lands of the land of Chanaan which the Jews inhabited in Stephen's time, should the sepulchral field of Sara near Hebron, rather than the other lands of the region, even in those parts which were afterwards called the Tribes of Juda and Simeon,
situated there and renowned by Abram's long habitation, be asserted to have been designated by St. Stephen undoubtedly, or at least clearly enough? Certainly not by these words Ἐίς τὴν γὴν ταύτην; since these of themselves no more designate Mambre or any single place in the Tribe of Juda than does the Greek version of Deuteronomy, last chapter, verse 4. But neither can it be replied that either the Tribe of Juda specifically or the field near Hebron was denoted by Stephen's subsequent words; since at that time those who were of the priestly race dwelt scattered not in the Tribe of Juda alone, but in the other Tribes too, which long before had been divinely promised to Abraham and granted to his posterity. Nay rather, since St. Stephen, standing in the Sanhedrin, was addressing chiefly the priests and leading men of the whole Jewish nation, and also those who were of the Synagogue of the Libertines, of the Cyrenians, of the Alexandrians, and of those of Cilicia and Asia (Acts 6), he must for that very reason, not without cause, be judged to have designated by those same words, with which he records the transfer made by God of Abraham, the common father of all the Jews, the whole land of Chanaan promised to him by God, rather than, as the adversaries would have it, the city of Hebron in particular or the Tribe of Juda alone.
[39] favours it in any way more, Finally, so that it may appear more manifestly that this exposition of the adversaries stands no more firmly than the others already refuted before, and that it cannot therefore be laid down from the words of St. Stephen that Abram was transferred from Haran into Chanaan only when he had bought Sara's sepulchral field, it has seemed good to go over again some of the things already said and propose them in a new way. Here it is: In whatever order events are narrated in the Scriptures, and especially in various places parallel to one another, as happens in Genesis chapter 12 from verse 4, chapter 15 from verse 3, chapter 17 from verse 8, Josue chapter 24, verses 3 and 4, and Acts chapter 7 from verse 4, in that order too they must be said to have actually happened, unless the contrary appears from elsewhere from a clearer text; nor are certain scholastic distinctions, or rather cavils, unusual to sacred writers and profane scholars alike and deservedly to be spurned, to be opposed to the obvious and simple order of the narrative. Therefore, since Abram's transfer from Haran into Chananaea is not only placed by St. Stephen before the promise of delivering the land of Chanaan, made by God at the time, namely, when he had no son, or, as the Greek text literally has it, there being no child born to him; but since likewise by Moses and by Josue Abram's migration into Chananaea is placed, purely and simply, in the cited places, before the promise mentioned and before the birth of Isaac; it follows that Abram's transfer or migration from Haran into Chananaea, of which there is question here, was completed before the purchase of the sepulchral field, when Isaac was then in his thirty-seventh year, nay, a good while even before the time of his birth; and therefore, since no clearer testimonies of Sacred Scripture are brought to the contrary, it also follows that the exposition of the adversaries falls to the ground, which asserts that Abram's transfer from Haran into Chanaan was completed at its terminus ad quem, as they themselves say, only when, after a habitation of nearly 60 years in the land of Chanaan, he bought a sepulchral field there for his dead wife.
[40] Nor does that evasion help the adversaries than some other arbitrary interpretation. by which they contend that the conjunction when, which denotes time, can be changed into the adversative although, and the verb he promised again, which indicates a determinate time of the deed, into although he had promised, with no designation of a certain time. For although we might grant the adversaries that elsewhere perhaps the words of Scripture could quite probably be thus inverted, yet here an exposition so discordant with the obvious sense of the words ought by no means to be admitted without the gravest authority either of another sacred text or of very many Fathers and interpreters, lest the order of all the deeds which Scripture narrates be ruined and turned upside down at each man's pleasure. And let these things disputed concerning Abram's birth-year suffice. Now I set about discussing another controversy, which also pertains to his birth and youth.
§ III. Whether Thare, Abram's father, was at some time an idolater, and whether Abram himself was too?
[The reader must be forewarned that, even if Thare and Abram had at some time been idolaters,] On this question too, no otherwise than on the preceding one, the opinion of grave and learned men is not one; and surely not without cause, since on either side can be brought forward the very words of Sacred Scripture, the pronouncements of the holy Fathers, and testimonies of the ancient historians by no means to be despised. Further, that not one single controversy is agitated here, but a twofold one, the one namely concerning Thara, Abram's father, the other concerning Abram himself, is plain enough from the very title of this §, nor is there need to give warning of it at greater length. But there will perhaps be not a few (and of some I speak from experience) whom I shall by no means vainly have forewarned, nay instructed, that there is not between this question and the Catholic doctrine of the indefectibility of the visible Church so necessary and close a connection that, even if not only Thare but also Abram himself when younger were said at some time to have served strange gods, it would necessarily follow from this that before the coming of the Messiah some time elapsed when there was no one who adored the true God with sacrifices or any other religious rite, or publicly professed the true faith in the true God. For, admitting for a while that opinion which lays down that in the course of the third century after the flood Thara alone, and in the following century both Thara and Abram, served strange gods, it will surely not be difficult to assign worshippers of the true God at that same time, with whom, therefore, the true faith in God must be said to have remained.
[42] And such altogether was Noe, a just and perfect man in his generations, yet that the Church of the Old Testament was on that account who walked with God, as is asserted in Genesis chapter 6, and who, even in that opinion which places Cainan the Younger in the middle between Arphaxad and Sale, lived together with Thara for ninety-eight years. Such beyond doubt was Sem, commended by his father's prophetic blessing, who not only survived Abram's father Thara by some years, but prolonged his life down to those times at which the faithful Abraham had long since been constituted the father of all the faithful and had obtained Isaac, whom the Lord had pledged that He would bless. Such finally were Arphaxad, Sale, and Heber, of whom the first was alive for not a few years together with Thare, while the others lived together with Abraham himself even when he was more than a hundred; and to condemn them of idolatry without any argument — I will not say certain and evident, but even in the slightest degree probable — would be rash and ridiculous. Since, then, each of them had a numerous household, of which at least a great part, as is otherwise wont to happen, followed the faith of its parent or master, it becomes manifest that at that time the number was not small of those who, acknowledging the majesty of the supreme Godhead by the light both of nature itself and of divine grace, and having either experienced in themselves the divine judgments in the general deluge of the earth and in the confusion of tongues, or been taught them by their parents or masters, adored the true God with constant piety.
[43] even if the chronology of the 70 Translators is admitted, But if anyone contends that all these things, although conformable to the chronological order of the Hebrew and the Latin Vulgate texts, can nevertheless have no place in that which the 70 Translators weave; I answer that from this latter indeed, inasmuch as in it more than a thousand years are laid down as intervening between the flood and Abram, it necessarily follows that neither Noe, nor Sale and Heber, can be laid down as contemporaries of Thara and his son; but besides the fact that one must stand rather by the chronological order which the primeval Hebrew text and the Vulgate hand down, and which all now generally follow, there are not lacking other reasons by which it can be shown that in that intermediate time, which flowed between the flood and the calling of Abram, the faith and worship of the true God remained with at least some. For although, as St. Augustine hints in book 16 of the City of God, chapter X, these words of Psalm 13, verse 3, looked to that time: They are all gone aside, they are become unprofitable together, there is none that doth good, no not one, and likewise these of Psalm 52, verse 3: God hath looked down from heaven upon the children of men: to see if there be any that understand or seek God; yet even in the chronological order of the 70 Translators, which St. Augustine follows, it could by no means be proved from this that there were then altogether lacking men who acknowledged the true God and adored Him with a truly religious rite; since it follows from the same Psalm 13, verse 7, that even then the people of God, that is, a folk devoted to the divine Godhead, which the wicked strove to devour, existed together with the unbelievers, as also from verse 9, in which the same Prophet records the just generation whose hope was the Lord.
[44] Let there have been, then, at that time among the sons of Cham despisers of God, deprived at some time of true believers and of just men and let there have been others too who, to use roughly the words of Augustine, lived according to man, not according to God; does it follow on that account that the whole race of men fell away not only from the right rule of morals but at the same time from the knowledge and worship of the true God? Or is it credible that all men were so infatuated by idolatry, which natural reason itself rejects, that not even those in whose household the memory of the judgments of God and of the divine Majesty could not but be frequent any longer acknowledged the true Godhead? Finally, since at the time when Abram entered the land of Chanaan there also existed worshippers of the true God, for example Melchisedech, king of Salem and priest of the most high God, and also Abimelech himself, king of Gerara (Genesis chapter 14 and chapter 20), of whom the former seems to have been much older than Abram, and the latter roughly his equal; it becomes necessary, unless one says against all likelihood that they were then for the first time converted with their people and household to the worship of the true Godhead and had been born of idolaters, that even in the land of Chanaan itself and before Abram's birth there were some faithful who had by no means fallen away from their ancestral religion, or at least, as St. Ephrem the Syrian says on Genesis, in volume 1 of his Works published in Syriac and Latin at Rome, page 160, who were pious worshippers of the true God among nations remote from piety.
[45] Nay rather, Augustine himself in the cited place of the City of God must by no means be said. plainly defines that both kinds, namely of the wicked and of the good, and therefore also of the faithful, were never lacking on the earth, however much the latter, from Sem, son of Noe, down to the age of Abram, are not commended by name in the Scriptures for true faith and piety; and in chapter XI, number 2, his
he openly sets out his opinion on that matter, speaking thus: Even if it is not evidently expressed (in the book of Genesis), as it was in the earlier chapters of this book concerning Abel, Enos and Noe, that there was some pious race of men when Babylon was being founded by the impious (nay, even thereafter), this obscurity did not serve to cheat the seeker, but rather to exercise his attention. The holy Doctor therefore judges, as natural reason also dictates, that although at that time morals had begun to be corrupted and superstitions to grow strong, yet neither vices nor superstitions had grown so strong everywhere that some true believers, nay even just and upright men, did not exist at the same time; which indeed is evident in the chronological order of the Hebrew and the Latin Vulgate text, and, as we have already shown, cannot be called in doubt even in the chronology which the 70 Translators wove. These things premised, I return to the road, and begin to discuss whether Abram's father was for some time an idolater.
[46] And first indeed, that Abram's father never served idols, Although it might be said, from the book of Judith and the words of Philo nay on the contrary that he would not follow the false gods of his fathers, for example Saruch and Nachor the Elder (in whose time Epiphanius places the beginning of idolatry), and therefore, despising the ceremonies of his fathers, which consisted in a multitude of gods, worshipped the one God of heaven, and was on that account commanded by God to go out from Chaldea with Abram and dwell in Charan, Achior, the leader of the Ammonites, seems to hint in nearly as many and the same words in his speech to Holofernes, the chief of the army of the Assyrians, protesting, in chapter 5 of the book of Judith, verse 5, that he would say nothing in it that was foreign to the truth. And hence St. Augustine, in book 16 of the City of God, chapter 13, at the end, concludes thus for the piety of Thara: Whence it is manifest that the house of Thara suffered persecution from the Chaldeans for the true piety by which the one and true God was worshipped by them. Moreover, Philo the Jew, in his book On Dreams, page 445 and following in my copy, depicts Thara as a good man and a lover of virtue, though not so perfect as Jacob, who had grasped virtue complete in every part. But if Thare had been a worshipper of idols, he could have borne nothing less than the type of a man desirous and eager for virtues, since true faith in God is the root and foundation of all virtues: it seems therefore to follow that Thare was a sincere worshipper of the true God.
[47] Finally, in the cited book of the City of God, throughout chapters 12 and 13, Augustine commends in wonderful fashion the piety of the house of Thara. that, in the judgment of St. Augustine, Thare was free of idolatry; Before I recite the words in which he does so, I should like the reader to be forewarned again that he is speaking according to the chronology of the 70 Translators, in which the most pious Sem cannot be placed as a contemporary of Thara; and finally that Augustine, when he praises the single house of Thara for the worship of God, is not to be understood as if outside it there had been no one faithful, since from what has already been said above the opposite is manifestly clear. Now hear his words: There was, he says in chapter 12, the one house of Thara, of whom Abraham was born, in which the worship of the one true God had remained, and, so far as is credible, in which alone the Hebrew language too had remained. And a little after: Just as through the deluge of waters the one house of Noe had remained for restoring the human race, so in the deluge of many superstitions throughout the whole world there had remained the one house of Thara, in which the planting of the city of God was guarded. And again in chapter 13, investigating the reason why Scripture did not mention Nachor, Abram's brother, when it relates in Genesis XI that Thara was led out of the land of the Chaldeans with Abram and Lot and Sara, he judges that this probably happened because Nachor had fallen away from his FATHER'S and his brother's piety, and had adhered to the superstition of the Chaldeans, and afterwards, either by repenting or having suffered persecution because he was held suspect, he too emigrated thence. All of which are surely such that it seems Thare must, not undeservedly, be said always to have been upright of life and pure of the crime of idolatry.
[48] yet if the words of Josue, of Flavius Josephus, On the opposite side, however, if with the narrative of Achior, the leader of the Ammonites, the words, few indeed but clear, of Josue himself, the leader of the Israelites after Moses, are weighed; if with Philo's book On Dreams the same man's book On Abraham, and the first book of Flavius Josephus On the Jewish Antiquities, and finally with Augustine Augustine himself, Ephrem the Syrian, Epiphanius, Chrysostom and others, are attentively compared, scarcely any room for doubt remains that Thare, as will appear from what is to be said, at some time served idols; so that therefore the testimonies indicated at numbers 46 and 47, both of Achior and of Philo and Augustine, which make him an adorer of the true God, are to be taken not of the whole span of his life, but only of that time from which Abram was born, or, as some judge, from which, having been drawn back from the worship of idols by the work of Abram himself and enlightened by the knowledge of the true God, he thereafter refused to adore the false gods of the Chaldeans. Let us now set forth the very testimonies of Josue and of others, both ancient historians and holy Fathers, which show that Thara at some time served idols. In that most weighty speech which Josue, towards the end of his life, held before the elders, princes, judges and masters of all the tribes of Israel, and finally the whole people, in which he recounts the benefits conferred by God on the Israelites, and by which he strives to deter them perpetually thereafter from the worship of empty gods, he has this, chapter 24, verse 2, to our purpose: Thus saith the Lord God of Israel: Your fathers dwelt of old on the other side of the river, Thare the father of Abraham, and Nachor: and they served strange gods. There was therefore at some time a time when Thare served strange gods; since Josue affirms no less that he served strange gods than that he dwelt on the other side of the river, namely the Euphrates; nor therefore can the one be denied of him any more than the other.
[49] and even those of St. Augustine himself are accurately weighed; Nor is there any reason why anyone should so disjoin what Josue joined that the habitation on the other side of the river should look to all the forebears of the Hebrews and even to Thare himself, while the worship of idols is to be referred not to Thara himself but to his forebears, namely Nachor and Saruch; for the obvious sense of the words by no means admits an exposition of this kind; nor is there any interpreter of any note who is found to have twisted the words of Josue into so foreign a sense in order to make Thara free of idolatry. Nay rather, even Augustine himself, while in the cited chapter 12 he teaches that the worship of the one true God remained in the house of Thara, most openly confesses that Thara in Mesopotamia, no less than the people of God in Egypt, at some time served strange gods. For thus he speaks after the words which we recited at number 47: Although HE too (Thare), just as the people of God, already more manifest, in Egypt, so in Mesopotamia is related, by the narration of Jesus Nave (that is, Josue), to have served strange gods. And although the edition of the Works of St. Augustine published at Paris by the labour of the Benedictines in the year 1685, volume 7, column 428, uses in place of the word ipse ("he"), which designates Thara himself, the word ipsa ("it"), which must be referred not so much to Thare as to his house, to me at least it seems scarcely to be doubted that the reading of the ancient manuscript codices, to which the most ancient editions of the Work On the City of God were conformed, and that also which our distinguished parchment manuscript codex presents, is certainly to be preferred in this place to the reading of those codices which lighted the way for the Benedictines; and for this reason above all, that the reading of the most ancient editions and of our manuscript codex is more conformable to the very words of Josue, by which he affirms that not the whole house of Thara but he himself served strange gods.
[50] Therefore, as is clear from the words of St. Augustine, Thare at some time served idols; served idols for some time, nay, if you will, I shall not object that a great part of his household too, following the example of their master, sacrificed for some while to strange gods, yet in such a way that in the other part of them the worship of the one true God meanwhile remained, as also happened at that time at which Augustine says the more manifest people of God served strange gods in Egypt, namely, as may be seen in Salian, in the Ecclesiastical Annals of the Old Testament, at the year of the world 2508, the worship of the true God meanwhile remaining with Moses, Josue, and all the sons of Levi, as is manifest from chapter 32 of Exodus, verse 26, and other places, to have happened in the adoration of the golden calf. Finally, to keep to the comparison drawn by Augustine, just as that part of the Israelite people which had served idols in Egypt and again in the wilderness of Mount Sinai was afterwards converted to the worship of the true God, so too Thare himself and that part of his house which had followed him in the worship of idols, converted to the worship of the true God either by the work of Abram himself or in some other way, thereafter refused to follow the strange gods of the Chaldeans in such a way that they even suffered persecution from them on that account, and on that occasion too Thare migrated from Chaldea into Haran together with his whole family, Nachor alone excepted, who afterwards joined his family in Haran. Here, then, that pronouncement of St. Augustine has place: Distinguish the times, and you will understand Scripture; since in this way the words of Achior and of Josue are easily reconciled, as looking not to the same but to an altogether different time of Thara's life; and in like manner vanishes the most manifest contradiction that may seem to be present in the words of St. Augustine.
[51] As for Philo's book On Dreams, as Philo himself hints in another place, and Flavius Josephus in which he makes Thara desirous and eager for virtue, it does indeed follow from this, if Philo wrote rightly, that at the time when Thare came with Abram to Charan he was also imbued with the knowledge of the true God and truly eager for virtue; but it by no means follows that at no earlier time was he addicted to the superstitions of the Chaldeans, and that he did not, according to their profane opinion, judge the world itself to be God, and so make the creature like the creator; which two things Philo himself indicates clearly enough in the book On Abraham, page 282 in my copy. Nay rather, since the writer already praised goes so far in that same place (whether rightly or otherwise we shall discuss below) as not to fear to say that Abraham himself was nourished on this dogma and for a long time imbued with the Chaldaic delirium, by these words too he openly declares that he by whom Abram was nourished, namely Thare, was for some while not free from the superstitions and impious deliriums of the Chaldeans. The very same of Thara
Flavius Josephus hints, in book I of the Jewish Antiquities, chapter 8, commending Abram's prudence and true faith thus, as to substance, though in Greek: In the virtue of prudence he was greater than others, and he prevailed to renew and change the opinion (that false one mentioned above) which all (the Chaldeans) then held concerning God. He therefore first ventured to pronounce that God the creator of all things is one; and he confessed that the remaining things tending to happiness are each given by the command of the giver, and do not subsist by their own power. Thus far Josephus, from whom also one may gather how not undeservedly Thare is said to have been well instructed by the solid reasons of his Son concerning the impiety of the Chaldean dogma, and converted by his work to the faith of the true God.
[52] and various holy Fathers affirm it. Nay, if credit is to be given to what St. Ephrem the Syrian handed down from the report of his own time on Genesis, pages 156 and 157, volume I of his Works printed at Rome in the year 1737, Thare not only at some time worshipped idols, but was also so vehemently addicted to their worship that he at first lent a by no means kindly ear to the salutary admonitions of Abram by which he was being called away from that superstition. What? St. Epiphanius, in book I of the Panarion, or Against 80 Heresies, chapter 6, page 8 of the edition prepared by Petau, makes Thara himself a craftsman of images, and relates that, because by the potter's art he had begun to provoke God, as if by setting up a kind of rival, he received a reward worthy of his deeds, when, namely, he himself was in his turn in a manner provoked by the loss of his son (Aran). With these agrees St. John Chrysostom, sermon 9 on Genesis, page 695, volume 4 of the Paris edition of the year 1721, speaking thus expressly, after his manner, of Abram's parents and of Abram himself: Were Abraham's parents just? Did they please God? … Were they not impious and idolaters and more than barbarians? I know it too, and therefore I praise the Just man (Abram), that having such parents he himself became such as he was. For it is very rare and admirable that sweet fruit should be produced from a wild root. And after some things he concludes thus: These things I have said so that you may not be troubled, beloved, when you hear that Abraham had an impious father. Similar things are written, together with Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus, in the Questions on Jesus son of Nave, page 73 of the Cologne edition of the year 1573, by other authors illustrious in learning and sanctity, whose words I judge it superfluous to recite here.
[53] Yet Abram himself was never an idolater, But, you will say, just as Chrysostom calls Thara, Abram's father, ἀσεβῆ, that is, impious, so St. Paul too, in Romans chapter 4, verse 5, seems likewise to address Abram himself as ἀσεβῆ, that is, impious, when he affirms in the cited verse that he believed in Him who justifies the impious. Must not Abram himself, then, also be said at some time to have served idols? I answer: although not a few writers are praised by Bonfrère on chapter 12 of Genesis, page 183, for the opinion which affirms this and rests on the argument drawn from these words of Paul, such as the Hebrew Rabbis, Philo in the book On Abraham, Augustine in book X of the City of God, last chapter, Cyril in volume 3 Against Julian, book 3, at the end, Genebrard in the Chronography, Andreas Masius and Serarius on Josue, nay again among the holy Fathers Clement in book 1 of the Recognitions, and Ephrem the Syrian in sermon 2 On Penance, whom Bonfrère himself judges perhaps to think more truly; nevertheless no testimonies sufficiently firm are produced, either from the divine Books or from the ancient writers, that Abraham, the father of all believers, should, or even could, more probably be said to have been at some time defiled by the impious superstition of the Chaldeans. And for this our opinion some writers also fight, such as Tostado, Pereira, Delrio, the Carthusian, Cornelius a Lapide and others; and Jacques Salian champions it in the Ecclesiastical Annals of the Old Testament, volume 1, from page 388, praising also for himself Josephus, Suidas, Augustine, Chrysostom, and likewise that same Genebrard cited by the adversaries.
[54] But it will be worth the trouble now to hear and examine by what sacred testimonies the adversaries contend that Abram served idols. nor do the adversaries prove this from the words of Josue, And before the rest, indeed, they bring forward those same words of Josue by which we proved that Thara was at some time an idolater, in order to prove from them that Abram likewise was at one time an idolater. And how convincing this testimony seems to them even concerning the Son of Thara, Andreas Masius openly shows in his Commentary on the last chapter of Josue, page 332, speaking thus: By name (among the forebears of the Israelites who on the other side of the river worshipped foreign gods) Thara and his two sons Abraham and Nahor are set before our eyes, because from these the whole stock of Israel was begotten. For from Nahor the maternal descent is drawn through Rebecca, Lia, Rachel. For I cannot listen to those who with great effort strive, by I know not what subtleties, to vindicate Abraham from this most shameful crime. As though the grace of God by which He embraced him were not so much the more illustrious as he himself was the more wicked and the less worthy of so great a favour. So he says. But with the reverence due to the hands of a learned man, may it be asked whether he did not rather himself strive, by I know not what subtleties, from a preconceived opinion, to rub this most shameful crime upon Abraham. For if these words of sacred Scripture: Your fathers dwelt of old on the other side of the river, Thare the father of Abraham, and Nachor: and they served strange gods, are taken in their obvious sense, they denote assuredly not that Abram, but that his father Thara and Nachor served strange gods; and therefore this will be the sense of the words, with the Latin ending applied: Your fathers dwelt of old on the other side of the river, Thara the father of Abraham, and Nachor: and they served strange gods; which are surely most different from these: Thara, Abraham, and Nachor; all of whose names, however, Josue should have uttered in the nominative case if he had wished to declare not only Thara and Nachor but also Abram an idolater. But now so far was he from uttering the name Abraham in the nominative case that, on the contrary, Masius himself, on pages 110 and 111, renders the name both of Nachor and of Abraham from the Hebrew and Greek text in the genitive case; although, as regards Nachor, less rightly, lest otherwise Josue be said to have used the plural number not properly enough.
[55] prove, From the aforesaid words, therefore, in which Thara, Abram's father, and Nachor, namely the brother of the same Abram, are asserted to have served strange gods in Chaldea, Abram is no more convicted of idolatry than, from the historical narrative of the Books of Kings in which Josias's forebears, for example Achaz, Manasses and Amon himself, Josias's father, are asserted to have been infected with idolatry, it must follow that Josias too, following the example of his father and forebears, sacrificed to idols. Nor indeed do the words of Josue or his mind tend to number Abram among the worshippers of strange gods; but Josue intends this one thing, to show that among the forefathers of the Israelites there were some idolaters, from whose number he does not exclude even the father and brother of Abram himself, but on the contrary designates them by name and before the rest, as by way of example, because the Israelites drew their paternal descent from Thara's son Abraham, and their maternal descent from Nachor through Rebecca his granddaughter and through Lia and Rachel his great-granddaughters. Abram therefore is mentioned in passing in the cited verse not for his own sake but on account of his father and brother, and therefore not in the nominative, as the praised Salian also observes, volume 1, page 389, but in an oblique case, like that Simon, father of Alexander and Rufus (Mark 15, verse 21), of whom, he says, it would be ridiculous to say that they too carried the cross after Jesus. And that Josue used the plural number in the cited verse, saying: they SERVED strange gods, he did not on account of Abram, but on account of Thara and Nachor, his son, who (see Augustine, book 16 of the City of God, chapter 13) at some time adhered to the superstition of the Chaldeans, and therefore, as is drawn from Genesis chapter XI, verse 31, and the Book of Judith chapter 5, verse 9, did not withdraw into Haran together with Thara and Abram.
[56] but neither from the sayings of the Apostle, Let us now call another argument of the adversaries to examination. St. Paul, they say, treating in the Epistle to the Romans, chapter 4, of the gratuitous justification of Abram, makes it credible in verse 5 that he believed in Him who justifies the impious (in Greek ἀσέβῆ), and that his faith was reputed to him unto justice according to the purpose of the grace of God: since, then, impiety is the service of idols, as piety towards God is His true worship, St. Paul hints plainly enough that Abram was an idolater before he was called by God. Add, they say, that thus the goodness and mercy of God appear so much greater, and the gratuitous calling of the great Patriarch shines out so much more clearly, if he came from idolatry to the true faith with the help of divine grace. So they say: to whom I answer with Salian, page 389, that this argument has no great force: for if it can be elicited from those words of the Apostle that Abram before his calling was an impious idolater, by equal right and manner I shall elicit from the following words of the Apostle that he was then dead, nay that he was altogether nothing, since in verse 17 he is also said to have believed Him who quickeneth the dead and calleth those things that are not as those that are. Then, says Salian, it is plain enough how inept the inference is: Abraham believed Him who justifies the impious; therefore he was impious. For thus it will be proved that he was an angel; for he believed in Him who glorifies the angels. Finally, the word impious signifies not only an idolater but any sinner whatever; and it is opposed to the just and innocent, as is assuredly manifest from Genesis chapter 18, verses 23 and 25, Psalms 1 and 50, and often elsewhere in the Scriptures. Nor indeed, when we vindicate Abram from idolatry, do we on that account make the divine mercy towards him less, or his calling less gratuitous; since the divine goodness towards him must not be called less because, born in the midst of a perverse nation and of a father who was at some time an idolater, chosen beforehand by no merit of his own, he was enlightened from a tender age by a special light of divine grace and thereafter preserved without crime, than if, having slipped into the abyss of idolatry and of the crimes which are brought in by it, he had been drawn out of it by the divine compassion.
[57] Here now is another argument by which the adversaries strive to prove Abram's idolatry. nor from the words of Isaias, Isaias, chapter 43, verses 26 and 27, introduces God speaking thus to the Israelite people: Put me in remembrance, and let us plead together; tell if thou hast anything to justify thyself. Thy first father sinned,
and thy teachers have transgressed against me. Since, then, they say, by the cited words Thy first father sinned Adam is not designated, inasmuch as he is the parent not of the Israelites only but of the whole human race, it follows that those words are to be referred to Abram, the parent of the Israelite people; and since, in our opinion, as will also be shown below, he in no way sinned when in Genesis chapter 15 he inquired of the Lord whereby he might know that he should possess the land of Chanaan, nor sinned when in Genesis chapters 12 and 20 he kept silent that Sara was his wife, they judge it to follow that these words of Isaias are to be understood of Abram's idolatry, or that he is shown to have offended by some other sin. But truly, may it be asked on what ground the adversaries so confidently assert that no other than our Patriarch can be understood by the cited words. Surely, if we consult the version of the 70 Translators, if we connect the subsequent words of Isaias with those already cited, it will be manifest that the Prophet speaks not of Abram but of the impious princes of the Israelites, or of wicked kings. For the cited version has thus: Οἱ πατέρες ὑμῶν πρῶτοι, καὶ οἱ ἄρχοντες ὑμῶν ἠνόμησαν εἰς ἐμέ, καὶ ἐμίαναν οἱ ἄρχοντες τὰ ἃγιὰ μοῦ. Your first fathers and your princes have dealt wickedly against me, and the princes have defiled my holy things; which assuredly do not fall upon Abram, the father of the Faithful, as is plain enough also from the following verse, where these words are read: And I have profaned the holy princes (that is, of the Sanctuary), I have given Jacob to slaughter, and Israel to reproach; for these most certainly do not regard Abram, since it was nowhere on his account that God threatened that He would destroy Jacob and Israel.
[58] But there will perhaps be those who would have one keep to the words of the Vulgate here also, as we do elsewhere. it can be proved, even as they stand in the Vulgate. Come, let us keep to them, and most closely indeed. But because Isaias, speaking to his nation in the name of God, says that the first father sinned, can he on that account be said straightway to have designated Abram and made him an idolater? To me at least, considering the words of the same prophet in which, chapter 41, verse 8, he calls Abraham the friend of God, and those in chapter 51, verse 2, in which he bids his nation look to Abraham their father, because (God) called him alone, and blessed him, and multiplied him, there seems no doubt that the Prophet designated as guilty of sin a father of the Israelite nation altogether other than Abraham. So I judge, because Isaias is accustomed everywhere to address our Patriarch by his own name and not without praise, and because he furnishes in the cited chapter 43 no indication at all whence those words thy first father sinned could be referred to Abram rather than to Adam, who was also the father of the Israelite nation, and truly the first; so that on the contrary, if these words are connected with verse 28, they can by no means be understood of Abram, as I warned in the preceding number. Let us now see whether the ancient writers who are praised by the adversaries are either of such great authority, or have put forth testimonies of such a kind, that from them, by greater right than from the places of Scripture objected above, the idolatry of Abram, which is here in controversy, can be affirmed.
§ IV. Whether the idolatry of Abram is solidly proved by the authority of Philo and of the Jewish Rabbis, and finally of not a few holy Fathers?
Philo's opinion on the idolatry of Abram Those who contend that Abram was for some while an idolater appeal not only to the arguments which we have already refuted, but presently to Philo, a Jewish writer contemporary with the Apostles, and to the Rabbis, and judge, not undeservedly, that one must stand by their testimony, as being by no means suspect to them in this matter. It must indeed be confessed that both Philo and the Rabbis whom the adversaries cite were of that opinion which asserts that Abram was at some time imbued with the delirium of the Chaldeans, and that for no brief space of time, and therefore was also an idolater. But, as what is to be said will reveal, it must by no means be confessed that their judgment here is of such moment as to extort belief and render the holy Patriarch's idolatry sufficiently certain. Before I show this, it will help to have indicated the testimonies of Philo and of the Rabbis. Thus he speaks in the book On Abraham, which he also entitled The Life of the Wise Man made perfect through instruction, or On the unwritten Laws, page 282 of the edition of Sigismund Gelenius which I use: The said migrations (of Abraham from Chaldea into Haran, and thence into Chanaan), according to the series of the Scripture, were those of a wise man: but according to the laws of allegory, those of a soul studious of virtue, seeking the true God. For the Chaldeans, being exercised above all in the science of the stars, attributing all things to the motions of the stars, by which they believed the powers of the world to be dispensed, which consist of numbers and their proportions, venerated these visible things, not perceiving the invisible and intelligible, searching out only their order: and so, from the circuits of the sun, the moon, the wandering and the fixed stars, and from the changes of the year divided into four seasons, and from the agreement of heavenly and earthly things, they judged the world itself to be God, by a profane opinion making the creature like the creator.
[60] and the agreement of certain Rabbis Nourished on this dogma and for a long time imbued with the Chaldaic delirium, as if after a deep sleep, having opened the eye of the mind, after he began to behold pure light in place of dense darkness, following its splendour, he perceived what he had not seen before, that there presides over the world a certain charioteer and governor, who provides for the safety of his work. Thus far Philo, who adds things akin to these on the following pages; and with these agree the Rabbis in the Talmud, where they discourse on Avodah Zarah; and that Abram adored the stars is said by Rambam, book 1, Halachah 4, chapter 1, and book 3, Halachah 1, chapter 8, and by Rabbi Gedaliah in the Shalsheleth, folio 8. But truly, since Philo, however assiduous he is in searching out the mystical significations of all manner of things, and however copious in words and rich in moral sentences, is not so diligent in scrutinizing and explaining the literal sense of Scripture, much less equally accurate in recounting historical facts, so that on the contrary, as Photius testifies, he not seldom sinned in transmuting ideas and in describing other things also foreign to the Jewish sect, nay elsewhere wrote not a few false things in historical matters, as our Stilting notes in the Commentary on the Life of St. Moses the Prophet, volume 2 of September, page 7, and demonstrates in various places; in this historical and most controverted question the words of one who throughout that whole book discourses paraenetically and symbolically rather than historically and plainly can by no means be of such weight that it can be said safely enough that Abram not only erred at some time concerning the knowledge of the true God, but also adored stars or idols with religious worship.
[61] To these are added two reasons on account of which Philo's opinion on this controversy is less to be adhered to: do not sufficiently prove that Abram was an idolater, the one, that Philo, in handing down such things, brings forward no testimonies from the sacred Letters or from profane ancient books; the other, that Josephus, more accurate than Philo in recounting the deeds of the Hebrews, and other Historians to be praised below, have either been altogether silent about that pretended idolatry of Abram, or have committed to writing testimonies of such a kind that you may gather from them with greater right that Abram, even when he lived in Chaldea, was always tenacious of the just and the true, and never worshipped either the sun or the moon or any other part of the universe as God, as Eusebius expressly teaches in book 1 of the Demonstration of the Gospel, chapter 5. As for the authority of the Rabbis who agree with Philo, it ought not to detain us here; since no one is unaware what fabulous and ridiculous things those insipid commentators on their Talmud have commonly blurted out, and how no account at all is therefore to be taken of writers of this kind, especially when, as happens here, they rest on no monuments of sufficiently approved credit.
[62] Dismissing these, then, let us turn to the Holy Fathers of the Church, [nor did St. Ephrem the Syrian teach it, since the words attributed to him by the adversaries] by whose authority the adversaries strive to prove that Abram was at some time an idolater. And among these indeed they would have St. Ephrem the Syrian, a pious and learned writer of the fourth century, to be a luminous witness of this matter, and they cite his second Sermon On Penance, whose beginning for them is Let us learn, O sinners, in which, as it was published under the care of Gerard Vossius at Cologne in the year 1603, page 149, these words are read: But if you have not heard or understood of the wicked actions and swelling evils of those who were afterwards converted to Christ, I will relate them to you: so that you may learn to imitate those also whom God healed from the error of demons. Abraham was at first a GENTILE and a Chaldean. The thief too bears witness concerning himself by his works. Nay, the great Moses also committed a murder. Paul was formerly a persecutor and an enemy. Therefore, they say, in the judgment of Ephrem the Syrian, Abram was at one time no more free from the errors of the gentiles and the Chaldeans than the others, who are thereafter set forth by him as most efficacious examples of penance, were free from other crimes. But let this be the answer: since in the most accurate Greek-Latin edition of the Works of St. Ephrem, accomplished at Rome in the year 1746, which by the care and study of the most learned Assemani was corrected and indeed enlarged from the Vatican and other manuscript codices, the said words are entirely absent from that second Sermon On Penance, as may be seen on page 81 of the third volume, printed in Greek and Latin; not undeservedly, even from this, doubt arises whether those are genuine words of Ephrem.
[63] are shown not really to be his, Nay rather, if the things that stand in that Sermon concerning Moses, as guilty of the crime of homicide, are attentively compared with what St. Ephrem says of Moses on Exodus, in volume 1, published in Syriac and Latin, page 199, scarcely any doubt will remain that the aforesaid words of the Sermon are not really his. For how, unless we lay down that Ephrem shamefully contradicted himself, could he pronounce that Moses was guilty of homicide and did penance for it, who in his Commentary on Exodus, on the same page 199, affirms that Moses had been constituted a prince by the lawful power of the king, set even over the Egyptian overseers, and could inflict even the extreme penalty on the guilty, adding likewise that he did not lay hands on that most cruel Egyptian before the man, often admonished and rebuked by him, had never learned wisdom? By these words he surely by no means makes Moses guilty of unjust homicide, nor therefore signifies that he ought to have done penance for it; so that those words cannot rightly be called Ephrem's which, in the Vossian edition of the aforesaid Sermon, lay down Abram as a gentile no less than Moses as a homicide strictly so called, and both as penitent for so grave a crime.
[64] St. Cyril too by no means of idolatry Let us now weigh whether, as the adversaries assert, St. Cyril of Alexandria, in book 3 Against Julian, towards the end, made Abram an idolater.
The words by which this could be contended I have found to be no others than these, in volume 6 of his Works, Paris edition of the year 1638, page 110: Therefore he (Abram) was also snatched out of the midst of those who erred and called to the light of the true knowledge of God; and those in which a little after he said that Abraham was called from the error of a multitude of gods to the knowledge of Him who is God in reality and truth. But truly, if we weigh the words of St. Cyril which are placed before these, and also those which are added after, it will become manifest that he indicated nothing else by the cited words than that Abram was preserved from idolatry by a singular favour of God, and then called out from the midst of those who erred, with whom he had never agreed, into the land of Chanaan, where he was enlightened with a more manifest knowledge of the true God than before. For after Cyril had related from common report that Belus, a man of haughty brow, was the first who took for himself the name of divinity from those subject to him, and that sacred rites began to be performed to him by the Assyrians and the neighbouring nations, and were continued under Ninus, son of Belus, while he held the kingdom of the land of the Assyrians, in whose time the divine Abraham lived; he presently adds concerning him: But he abominated the filth of the Assyrians and bore with a sick mind that the glory of God should be injured. And then, having said that in the whole region of the Assyrians there were worshippers of idols, he speaks thus of Abram, alluding to the words of Osee chapter 9: But, as I have already said, like a grape in the wilderness, and like the first-ripe fruit on the fig tree, the divine Abraham was snatched away, so namely that the malice of the idolaters should not at any time change his understanding, nor deceit beguile his soul, as St. Cyril indicates clearly enough both by these last words and elsewhere.
[65] accuses him, And so that it may appear how undeservedly the praised holy prelate of Alexandria is cited by the adversaries, I add words of his consonant with what I have just now said; they stand in book 1 Against Julian, page 10: When Ninus, then, held the kingdom of the Assyrians, and Europus that of the Sicyonians, they say the blessed Abraham was born, a man knowing and skilled in all things, and intimating that this above all was to be put first with all zeal, that one must know the truth, and who is the maker and lord of the universe; he therefore rejected as far as possible and dismissed the opinions of the Assyrians who erred concerning a multitude of gods, and, judging that the knowledge of the truth would amply suffice him for all happiness, he was most acceptable to God; and again on page 18, without giving any indication anywhere by which he hints that he thought otherwise at any other time, he continues thus concerning Abraham: The divine Abraham therefore knew for certain, as I was just teaching (ibid. page 17), that one God exists, and showed to Him alone a pure and sincere worship. But when in the progress of time his mind put itself forth to the advancement of those things which it had already rightly conceived within itself, then assuredly he set about speaking of the divinity much more effectively. The adversaries therefore have nothing from St. Cyril's books Against Julian whence to make Abram guilty of idolatry at some time.
[66] Nor do the words of the author of the XI books on Genesis prove it, much less does a certain book published under the name of St. Cyril prove it. which were published at Paris in the year 1572 under the name of St. Cyril; for whoever its author may finally be, he does not straightway make Abraham an idolater because on page 58 he asserts that he was brought up in the customs and institutions of the gentiles; since, as is plain from the context, he is treating of the political customs and civil institutions of the gentiles, and not of the impious superstitions of the idolaters; for if Abram had followed these, how could that author have asserted that, while he was still in uncircumcision and was being brought up in the customs and institutions of the gentiles, he afterwards received circumcision as a sign and seal of his true faith in God? Finally, even if he had asserted that Abram was brought up in the superstitious customs and institutions of the gentiles, which however his words by no means declare, the authority of this uncertain writer, especially when supported by no testimony either of sacred Scripture or of a more ancient and trustworthy author, is not so great as to create a sufficiently certain belief that Abram at some time sacrificed to idols.
[67] St. Augustine too is praised by the adversaries, speaking thus of our Patriarch in book X of the City of God, chapter 32: Nor can St. Augustine be said to have made Abram an idolater; Who was indeed by nation a Chaldean, but in order that he might receive such promises (namely, In thy Seed shall all nations be blessed), and that from him might be propagated the seed ordained by angels in the hand of the Mediator (Christ), in whom should be that universal way of freeing the soul, that is, the way given to all nations, he was commanded to depart from his land and from his kindred and from his father's house. Then he, first delivered from the superstitions of the Chaldeans, worshipped the one true God by following Him, and believed Him faithfully when He promised these things. From these words the adversaries are wont to argue thus: If Abram was first delivered from the superstitions of the Chaldeans, and worshipped the one true God by following Him, at the time when the said divine promise was made to him, it follows that Abram was entangled in the superstitions of the Chaldeans, that is, in idolatry, at least up to the 75th year of his life, and therefore was also at some time an idolater. But I answer that St. Augustine in the cited chapter is not treating professedly, as they say, of that question, whether Abram was ever an idolater or not; but wishes solely to demonstrate that the universal way of freeing, that is, eternally saving, the soul is the grace of the Mediator, and that the divine oracle concerning it became known to Abraham also, and found in him such faith that he obeyed without delay the divine voice by which he was called out of his land, where the superstitions of the Chaldeans had prevailed, and from his kindred and from his father's house into a land to be shown him, and so, by separating himself in place and habitation from the superstitious Chaldeans and following God who called him, worshipped the true God by an altogether singular example and in an outstanding manner.
[68] can be said; When, therefore, Augustine wrote that he was then first delivered from the superstitions of the Chaldeans and worshipped the true God by following Him, he did not intend to signify that he had previously been infected with Chaldaic idolatry, but on the contrary he asserts that he was then first called far away by divine command from the superstitions of the Chaldeans, his countrymen, lest it should happen that he be at some time infected by them, or for some other cause, and that he then gave an outstanding specimen of a religious mind, when, namely, Abram faithfully believed God as He promised, and most submissively allowed himself to be led away from his country whither God willed. And surely, unless the recited words are expounded in this manner (concerning which see also below, numbers 91 and 92), so that Abram is laid down as always free from idolatry, it will not be easy to understand on what ground the holy Doctor could affirm in book 16 of the City of God, chapter 12, that the worship of the one true God remained in the house of Thare, of whom Abraham was born. For how could it be said to have remained in it, if not only Thare but also the noblest part of his family, Abram, had at some time served idols? And again, how could it be said that the planting of the city of God was guarded in the house of Thara, and that in Abraham himself the advance of the city of God manifestly appeared, as St. Augustine affirms in the cited chapter 12, if, as the adversaries would have it, Augustine wished to make Abram an idolater in the cited book X? Finally, since the holy Doctor gives no other answer to Pelagius, who by name mentioned Abram among those who are related not only NOT TO HAVE SINNED but also to have lived justly, and laid him down as equal to Abel, Enoch and other saints in no way suspected of idolatry, in the book On Nature and Grace, number 42 and following, than one which altogether befits Abel, Enoch and the other Saints enumerated there, by this very fact, that he does not except Abraham from their number, he must be judged to have made him, no less than them, free from idolatry.
[69] nor from the Book of the Recognitions, Now let us discourse somewhat on the ancient writer of book 1 of the Recognitions, by whose authority the adversaries accuse Abram of idolatry. That the books of the Recognitions published under the name of St. Clement are not the genuine work of this holy Pontiff, but the offspring of some man, more a philologist than a theologian, and altogether unskilled in devising and connecting fictitious narratives, is abundantly established from Cotelier, volume 1 of the Holy Fathers who flourished in Apostolic times, page 484. Let this man, however, have lived, which I do not wish to dispute, in the second Christian century, and let him also have been a sufficiently eloquent man; yet he will not on that account be believed, because he said that Abram was an Astrologer by art or at some time lived in ignorance, if by these words he intended to make him an idolater. But I strongly doubt whether even this was the mind of the one writing such things, since he adds that he was such an astrologer as could, from the beginning, when all the others erred, … recognize the creator from the reason and order of the stars, and understood that all things are governed by His providence, as may be read in the cited volume, page 495. And when he presently adds: Whence also an angel standing by him (Abram) in a vision taught him more fully concerning those things which he had begun to perceive, he does indeed hint that there was previously some time at which Abram was less imbued with the knowledge of divine things, and at which he could in a certain manner be said to have lived in ignorance; but so far is that writer from affirming that his ignorance was such that he did not even acknowledge the true God, or adored idols in His place, that he rather seems to have handed down the opposite.
[70] And thus indeed I think it has been abundantly shown that the adversaries cited in Bonfrère, or from the words of St. Gregory of Nyssa, who in defence of their opinion appeal to Ephrem, Cyril, Augustine and the author of the book of the Recognitions as to faithful witnesses, are furnished with no support from them. But since certain other patrons of the same opinion strive to prop it up also with the authority of SS. Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom and Ambrose, it has seemed good likewise to weigh the testimonies they adduce, so that it may thus appear more manifestly that it was not of old the common opinion of the Church and of the holy Fathers which affirms that Abram was at some time an idolater. Let us consult first, then, the Nyssene, whom the adversaries would have to have championed their opinion in the Oration on St. Basil. He in the cited Oration, volume 2 of the Works published at Paris in the year 1615, page 913, commending the divine Providence, which does not allow the sickness of mortals to be without cure, and which at different times bestows on the world different men of outstanding virtue, enumerates by name among these, as illustrious proofs of the same Providence, Abraham, Samuel, Elias, John the Baptist, Paul, and his own brother, Basil the Great; then concerning Abraham, among other things, he utters these words bearing on the matter we are treating, which the adversaries eagerly snatch for themselves: As it were the way of faith which is in Him who is truly God came into being for posterity, since he himself, having left the error of his fathers,… had been the leader to that faith. From which they judge it to follow that Abram, before he left the error of his fathers, was an idolater.
[71] But if the adduced words of the Nyssene are connected with what precedes, of which an exposition is given, as will be done below, and if not so much the strictest grammatical signification of the Greek and Latin word, as the whole sequence and sense of the Discourse, is regarded, it will follow from that same Discourse that Abram did not leave an idolatry with which he had at some time been imbued, but rather with unconquered mind despised and turned aside from the philosophical error common to his countrymen. For the Nyssene, alluding, as it seems, to the words of the Apostle in Romans 1, verse 20, For the invisible things of Him (God) from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, says that he so applied his mind to contemplating the motions of the stars that, using as it were a ladder of discipline of this kind (astronomical), he searched out Him who is understood through the things that are seen, and became as it were a way of faith, which is in Him who is truly God, for posterity, since he himself, having left (or, as the sense of the words hints, having turned aside from or spurned) the error of his fathers, and that kinship which is said to exist between the instruments of the senses and the creature which appears in the stars, had been the leader to that faith. Which indeed I do not see could have been said aptly enough by the Nyssene if he had believed that Abram had at some time been of that opinion which denied that any supreme power presides over the stars, and held the world itself for God and venerated it with superstitious worship.
[72] I come now to Chrysostom, by whose authority the adversaries strive to make Abram an idolater, adducing these words of the sixth Homily On Penance, but neither from a certain Homily wrongly attributed to St. Chrysostom which they ascribe to the same Chrysostom: Abraham sinned by unbelief. But let us suppose for a while, what however we shall show below to be false, that this Homily, which begins thus: Behold for us today, is the genuine Work of the Constantinopolitan Prelate; not even so will it follow that Abram must be said at some time to have served idols; since besides idolatry there are also, as no theologian is unaware, other species of unbelief; so that from the genus of unbelief to a determinate species of it, namely idolatry, there is no philosophical consequence such as certain adversaries elicit. Further, that this Homily, which you may see in volume 5 of the Basel edition, page 870, cannot be ascribed to St. Chrysostom, and that therefore the brand of any unbelief whatever is wrongly burned upon Abram, is plain even from the very absurdity of the assertion into which the cited words are inserted, which by no means fits that most skilled interpreter of sacred Scripture. For when in Genesis chapter 15 God foretells to Abraham, already beyond doubt faithful and just, that his seed shall be a sojourner in a land not their own, and be afflicted four hundred years, and return into the land of Chanaan in the fourth generation, He records no other cause of so great a delay than this, that the iniquities of the Amorrhites were not yet complete; whereas the author of the cited Homily devises this cause, altogether different and opposed to God's words, that the holy Abraham had sinned by unbelief and therefore did not escape punishment from God, so that his seed should serve four hundred years. How contrary this reason is to that which St. Chrysostom, keeping after his custom to the words of Scripture, supplies in his Homily 37 on chapter 15 of Genesis, will become manifest to everyone who casts his eyes upon it.
[73] can Abram be accused of idolatry, What? The holy Doctor in very many places, and, to adduce one example for many, in Homily 32 on chapter 12 of Genesis, number 4, commends the faith of Abram even while he was in Chaldea, and asserts that he, as a kind of light lying hidden and concealed in the land of the Chaldeans, was called out thence by God in order to lead those who sat in the darkness of errors, for example the Palestinians generally and the Egyptians, into the way of truth; so that, unless you lay down that St. Chrysostom shamefully contradicted himself, the Homily is not his, but rather that of some sciolist Greekling who dreamed that Abraham sinned by unbelief and that therefore his seed was afflicted with dire servitude for four hundred years. Finally, in the most accurate Paris edition of the Works of St. Chrysostom of the year 1718, that sixth Homily On Penance which the adversaries praise has no place whatever among the genuine Homilies of St. Chrysostom On Penance, but another altogether different from it is found; which was done for no other cause than that the Homily Behold for us is to be held at the least suspect, nay rather openly spurious.
[74] nor does the authority of St. Ambrose sufficiently prove it. As for St. Ambrose, I confess that in sermon 17 on Psalm 118, number 6, and in other places too, he discoursed in such a manner that there is scarcely any doubt that he judged Abram to have been at some time entangled in certain errors of the Chaldeans. But truly, even if St. Ambrose, led by the authority of Philo the Jew, whom he commonly follows also in pursuing the mystical or allegorical signification of nearly all things, had judged that Abram was at some time polluted by the impiety of the Chaldeans, yet in this historical matter his authority has no greater weight than that of Philo his guide, and for this reason also, that he adduced no testimonies from the sacred Letters by which to establish his opinion, nor praised any ancient writer who, recounting Abram's deeds according to the laws of history or criticism, made him at some time an idolater. Finally, even if, besides Philo and St. Ambrose, one or another of the holy Fathers were shown to have agreed with Ambrose besides; yet the opinion of the adversaries would not on that account be established firmly enough by their judgment alone, nor could it on that account in any way be called the common opinion of the holy Fathers. Now, the clouds by which the truth of our opinion could be obscured having been dispersed, let us set it in the open sunlight.
§ V. That Abram was always pure of idolatry is shown by various arguments and testimonies.
From the deepest silence of sacred Scripture It is familiar, nay, so to speak, perpetual, with the writers of the books both of the old and of the new law, that of the men illustrious for piety whom they record they set before our eyes not only their virtues and splendid deeds, but also, if there were any, their graver falls or sins publicly committed, relating them expressly as if of set purpose. Thus in the books of the New Testament, to pass over other examples, we see the disgraces of Paul, the incredulity of Thomas, the crimes of the holy thief, the threefold denial of Peter, the sins of Matthew; and in the books of the old law the adultery of David with Bethsabee and the homicide of Urias which followed, the distrust of Moses at the Water of contradiction, the excessive compliance of Aaron in making the golden calf, the sin of certain sons of Jacob, the idolatry of Thara, the drunkenness of Noe and the offences of others, by no means dissembled in the sacred volumes. Of which Bellarmine, On the Office of a Prince, in the Life of St. Joseph the Patriarch, gives this most apt reason, that the voice of the Holy Spirit is truthful and most free, and that the Holy Spirit in His Scriptures neither flatters the wicked nor spares the just when they sin, and everywhere uncovers good works as well as evil, as St. Gregory teaches at the beginning of book 2 of the Morals. And hence, since Scripture has brought forward the sins of the sons of Jacob, such as the incest of Ruben, the cruelty of Simeon and Levi, the fornication of Juda, and the hatred of the sons of Jacob against their innocent brother Joseph, and yet relates no grave offence committed by Joseph, the praised Bellarmine most rightly gathers, and Pope Benedict XIV entirely agrees with him, volume 3 On the Canonization of Saints, chapter 39, number 4, that no sin (grave, namely) was committed by him (the Patriarch Joseph), since sacred Scripture records no sin of his.
[76] But to what end are these things, you will say, or in what way do they bear on the argument concerning the pretended idolatry of Abram, which is treated here? I answer that these things were disputed beforehand by me and set before the eyes for this reason, that I may in like manner prove that the crime of idolatry was never committed by Abram. For since sacred Scripture, as was shown above at number 54, does not number Abram among the forebears of the Israelite people who were idolaters, nor lays him down as a sharer in his father's error; he must no less be held free here of the most grave crime of idolatry than Joseph himself is to be vindicated from the suspicion of fornication or of any other offence of his brothers. Nay rather, the argument which is made out from the silence of the sacred books concerning the idolatry of Abram fights on more than one head for his innocence rather than for Joseph's. For, besides the fact that in them mention of Abraham is by far more frequent than of Joseph, and that their deepest silence concerning the idolatry of the former should therefore seem more wonderful than concerning the fornication or similar crime of the latter, if each had been guilty; there occur in the books both of the Old and of the New Testament very many places in which, if Abram had really at some time slipped into idolatry and been drawn back from it afterwards by divine grace, it seems mention of so memorable a deed could not have been omitted.
[77] likewise from the silence of the Prophets, who rebuke the idolatry of the Jews, And first indeed it must seem altogether wonderful why, out of so many prophets who strove, by setting forth so many and such various reasons, to bring the Israelites, who frequently fell into idolatry, to the worship of the true God and the detestation of their offence, not one is found who set before their eyes the example of the common father of them all, and exhorted them that, as they had followed Abram in his error by adoring strange gods or the host of heaven, they should follow him also penitent and thereafter most constantly devoted to the worship of the true God: which to those who gloried so greatly in their father Abraham could not but have been a most powerful incitement to detest impious superstitions, and an example no less efficacious by which they might thereafter be impelled to the constant and perpetual worship of the supreme Godhead. Moreover, although there were not lacking in the Israelite nation men powerful in a versatile and very subtle wit for making excuses, as Scripture says, excuses in sins; yet nowhere are they read, when they were most sharply rebuked either by the prophets or by other pious men for the worship they had for some while paid to strange gods, to have brought their minds to excuse their fault by the example of their common Parent, or to defend themselves by it even in the least.
[78] and of the Jews, who confess the sins of their forebears, Add to these that in the Acts of the covenant struck and sealed with God, by the work of Esdras and Nehemias, by the princes, priests and Levites of the Jews, in which they, as may be read in book 2 of Esdras, chapter 9, verse 2, confessed their sins and the iniquities of their fathers, and indeed so particularly that they pass over the pride and idolatry of their fathers in the desert, and the other outrages committed afterwards in the land of Chanaan itself, no mention is nevertheless made of Abram's fall into idolatry; so that on the contrary, since in verse 7 they assert that Abram was chosen by God and brought forth out of the fire of the Chaldeans, of which there will be treatment below, and in verse 8 that his heart was found faithful before God, they not obscurely vindicate him from every suspicion of idolatry. Which surely, to pass over other examples from the Old Testament, furnish no slight indication that the Holy Father of the faithful was never polluted by the most shameful crime of idolatry,
as Pereira also contends in this manner on chapter XI of Genesis, disputation 17, page 430 in my copy, adducing examples likewise from the New Testament: And truly, he says, if Abraham had at some time been bound and contaminated by the impious superstition of false gods, and had been drawn out of it by the grace of God, the example and proof of a thing so memorable and so signal for commending the divine mercy towards sinners would not have been passed over in silence in the sacred letters.
[79] Paul above all would have used that example in the Epistle to the Romans, when he disputes thus: "All have sinned and need the glory of God: being justified freely by His grace." nay also of St. Paul, discoursing of Abraham, And just as Paul argues from the example of Abraham that man is not held just before God by his own works, but through the grace of God freely pardoning sins and receiving man into His grace and friendship, so he would have used the example of the same Abraham to demonstrate the unspeakable kindness of God, who makes of the impious a just man, of an enemy a friend, of a slave of the devil a son of God. And when a little later he disputes: "But where sin abounded, grace did more abound," an example of this kind in Abraham would have been wonderfully suited either to prove or to illustrate it. Finally, just as he himself frankly confesses and displays that he was contumelious, a blasphemer and a persecutor of the church of Christ, but obtained mercy from God, so that through him God might show the inestimable riches of His goodness and clemency towards sinners: so too he would have confirmed that very thing by so illustrious an example as Abraham.
[80] Thus far the praised Pereira; to whose arguments I know not whether another from chapter 8 of the Gospel of John may not rightly be added. and from the words of Christ Abram must be laid down as pure of idolatry: For in it Christ, exhorting the Jews to believe Him the true Son of God, to acknowledge the truth, and to imitate by their deeds their common father Abraham, in whom they so greatly gloried in words, addresses them thus in verse 39: If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham, who namely, as is added in verse 56, rejoiced that he might see the day of Christ, and saw it and was glad: which things, said so absolutely and without any distinction among Abraham's works, seem in no way to cohere with that opinion which contends that the father of the Jews, for a fairly long space of time, not only did not acknowledge what is signed upon all men, the light of the Lord's countenance, but also, by pursuing the impious worship of idols, perpetrated grave crimes no otherwise than those which the Jews themselves were then meditating. Nor indeed do we lay down Abram as pure of the crime of idolatry solely from the constant silence of the sacred Books concerning his fall into impious superstitions, but this opinion of ours can also be established by not a few other testimonies of sacred Scripture and of the ancient writers.
[81] And first indeed let us hear the author of the book of Wisdom, whom no Catholic denies to have been divinely inspired, and by the testimony of the author of the Book discoursing to our purpose. This sacred author, at once prophet and doctor, intending to show in chapter X by the examples of the first Patriarchs that the divine Wisdom shines forth in preserving and protecting men, proceeds from Adam, whom he testifies in verse 2 to have been brought forth from his offence by the divine wisdom, to Noe, the just man, who, he affirms in verse 4, when the water of the flood destroyed the earth, was preserved by the same divine Wisdom; and presently, before he sets forth in verse 6 the example of the just Lot, delivered from the destruction of the perishing men of the Pentapolis, he speaks thus of the same Wisdom in verse 5: Moreover, when the nations had conspired together to consent to wickedness, she knew the Just man and preserved him without blame to God, and kept him strong against the compassion for his son: which words are to be understood of no other Just man than Abraham, as is demonstrated both by the aim of the sacred writer and the order he keeps in enumerating the patriarchs, and by the pre-eminence of Abraham, illustrated before the rest by so many and such great proofs of the divine Wisdom and Goodness, and finally by the sacred context itself, and indeed so clearly that Calmet himself on this place, although elsewhere he contends that Abram was at some time an idolater, has not denied that the discourse in the cited chapter of Wisdom is about him, judging, namely, most rightly that by the last words of the same verse the wonderful fortitude of Abraham in immolating his son is designated too clearly to be denied.
[82] of Wisdom, Since, then, Scripture most manifestly excepts Abram from the number of those who conspired together to consent to wickedness, that is, who after the attempted building of the tower of Babel slipped into idolatry and other sins, inasmuch as divine Wisdom knew him, or, as the Greek has it, found him just and preserved him without blame to God; what is there to prevent us from believing that, while idolatry grew strong, he was free of this wickedness and always a worshipper of the true God; especially since the author of the book of Wisdom, who a little before had related that Adam was brought forth from his offence, relates nothing similar of Abram, but on the contrary writes expressly, without any distinction of time, that he, as I have just said, was found by God just and without blame, while others everywhere fell away, and was preserved? Nor do I see why, as Calmet contends, these general words of Scripture are to be restricted to that span of Abram's life in which he was called by God out of his land and from his kindred; for since the sacred writer calls Abram just and preserved without blame to God in the same manner in which St. Luke, chapter 1, verse 6, calls the parents of John the Baptist Just and walking … without blame, it follows that Abram, equally with them, is to be laid down as Just and preserved without blame to God without any exception of time, and therefore as having been a true worshipper of God, and nothing less than at any time a mad idolater.
[83] which is confirmed also from St. Paul, And that the mentioned verse of chapter X of Wisdom is so to be understood, Lorenzo de A Ponte learnedly shows in volume 2 of the Commentaries on the Wisdom of Solomon, from page 140, adducing also various reasons to prove that Abram in no way fell into idolatry but was preserved without any blame to God, one of which it will not be irksome to transcribe here. Because, he says, he is the father of faith and of believers according to the Apostle, Romans chapter IV, verse XII; of believers, I say, not only of the Jews but of the gentiles; "That he might be the father," says the Apostle, "of all who believe in uncircumcision: that it may be reputed to them also unto justice, and he might be the father of circumcision, not to them only who are of the circumcision: but to them also who follow the steps of the faith;" as if he said, says the holy father Remigius here, in other words: "Abraham is father not only to those Jews, nor is the faith of Abraham reputed unto justification to them only, who descended from his progeny after he received Circumcision; but also to those gentiles who imitate the examples of the faith which is in the uncircumcision of our father Abraham." How then an idolater, he who is called the father of the faith of the gentiles too? For it seems dissonant from reason that the future father of the true faith of all the gentiles should himself previously have been [an] unbeliever and a gentile with them: it will therefore be more reasonably said that the holy Parent never fell away from the true faith and always held to the true worship of God.
[84] and of the author of the Book of Ecclesiasticus, The very same is also hinted by Jesus the son of Sirach, when, praising in Ecclesiasticus chapter 44 the glorious men and his forefathers distinguished for virtue, he makes Abram equal to Enoch and Noe in the observance of the law of the Most High, nay superior in glory, and writes that he, no otherwise than they, pleased God and was found just. For that these things must be understood of the earlier span of his life, in which he had not yet caused the covenant to stand in his flesh, Ecclesiasticus not obscurely indicates, speaking thus in verses 20 and 21: Abraham was the great father of a multitude of nations, and there was not found the like to him in glory: who kept the law of the Most High, and was in covenant with Him. In his flesh He made the covenant to stand, and in temptation he was found faithful. By which words the sacred Writer must surely be said to have removed the most shameful crime of idolatry from Abram no less than from Noe and Enoch, perpetual worshippers of God; and for this reason also, that he nowhere says he was at some time drawn out by divine grace from the superstitions of false gods, which otherwise, as may be gathered from chapter 47, verse 13, he would openly have recorded if, as David at one time, so Abram too had slipped into some grave crime, and if, as David's, so likewise Abram's sins the Lord had purged. To these I now add two testimonies, certainly no less lucid, which, although not drawn from the books which the sacred synod of Trent held as canonical, must nevertheless be of no small weight in this historical matter, as proceeding from very ancient authors whom some of the holy Fathers have praised even as sacred; so that therefore they deserve credit certainly equal to that of any ancient writer skilled in Jewish affairs, nay even much greater.
[85] I begin with that remarkable Prayer of Manasses, king of Juda, and both by the Prayer of King Manasses held in chains at Babylon and begging pardon for his sins, which a very ancient author, perhaps contemporary with that same king, committed to writing. In it the penitent king addresses God thus: Thou therefore, O Lord God of the just, hast not appointed penance for the just, Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, for those who have not sinned against Thee: but Thou hast appointed penance for me a sinner, because I have sinned above the number of the sand of the sea, namely by adoring all the host of heaven and worshipping idols, as is related in book 4 of Kings, chapter 21. Since, then, in that Prayer Manasses is not introduced excusing the idolatry he had practised by the example of Abram, as having been at some time an idolater too, but on the contrary Abram is commended there before the rest among the just who never needed penance; there is no one who does not see that Abram was held by the author of that Prayer, and more probably by the whole ancient synagogue of the Jews together with him, as free of the crime of idolatry through the whole span of his life, and endowed by divine gift with such justice that he had no need to do penance for any graver sin committed.
[86] Take now another testimony of this kind from book 4 of Esdras, chapter 3. and by the words of the 4th Book of Esdras, In it Esdras, having related the fall of Adam, through which death was brought in upon him and all his posterity, asserts in verses 8 and XI that at the very time when all the nations walked in their own will and despised the precepts of God, one of them was left (namely Noe with his house), and from him came forth all the just who existed after the flood; and then from verse 12 he adds, thus
likewise, at the very time when the nations had begun again to do impiety before God, Abram was chosen from among them, whom God loved, to whom also He showed His will and disposed an everlasting covenant. Therefore, since this author asserts that Abram, while impiety grew heavier among the nations, was chosen and loved by God in the same manner in which Noe before the flood had been left, that is, found just; it follows from this testimony that Abram after the flood was no more polluted by any grave crime, much less by idolatry, than Noe before it. And so too even the most ancient writers of the gentiles, whom Eusebius praises in book 9 of the Preparation for the Gospel from chapter 16, seem to have thought of Abram, since they commonly depict him not only as a stranger to the worship of stars and idols, but also as a man constantly endowed with the highest wisdom, integrity of morals and a singular zeal for piety, and relate that he won for himself by his virtues the divine favour or friendship.
[87] and finally of the ancient writers, whose words But let us transcribe here in part some of their testimonies too, so that authority, and that of a better mark, may be opposed to the authority of the writers whom the adversaries praise. Berosus, praised by Flavius Josephus in book 1 of the Jewish Antiquities, chapter 8, speaks of Abram in him in these words: But in the tenth generation after the flood (namely according to that chronology which the 70 Translators also followed) there WAS AMONG THE CHALDEANS A CERTAIN CULTIVATOR OF JUSTICE, a great man, and skilled in the science of the stars. And Alexander Polyhistor, praised in Eusebius in the cited book, chapter 17, writes of Abram from Eupolemus in this manner: The same (Eupolemus) relates that in the tenth generation, at Camarina, which is a city of Babylonia, and which some call Urie (otherwise Ur of the Chaldeans), the Greeks interpreting it Chaldaeopolis, Abraham was born, who, while he SURPASSED ALL in nobility and WISDOM, also discovered astrology and the Chaldean science (namely the science of heavenly things), and BY A SINGULAR ZEAL FOR PIETY WON FOR HIMSELF THE DIVINE FAVOUR. Further, that this man, having by divine command placed the abode of his affairs in Phoenicia, taught the Phoenicians the revolutions of the sun and moon and all the rest of that kind; which made him highly favoured with the king.
[88] are recounted here, Molon too, although he published an entire Work against the Jews, nevertheless testifies in Eusebius, cited book, chapter 19, that Abram was distinguished by the praise of wisdom, with no indication at all added from which you could conjecture that that Wise man ever came to such madness as to pay divine honours to creatures in place of the Creator. What? Orpheus, more ancient even than all these, praised by Eusebius in book 13 of the Preparation for the Gospel, page 665 in my copy, not obscurely removes every stain of idolatry from Abram, when he writes that God, the begetter and ruler of the world, was recognized by him from the motion of the sun and the stars, singing thus among other things, from the Latin version of François Viger:
Come then, take up the way; looking up to the sole Begetter of the world, who is without death. Whom, behold, the ancient records of old speak to us in such words. One is God, and from Himself; He the same founds all things, And pours Himself widely into all the parts of the world. He escapes mortal eyes, and is seen by the mind… One alone could know Him ruling mortal fates by His command, One sprung from Chaldean blood: For he knew by what path the great sun bends its way round the circle, etc.
[89] and is confirmed in particular by the authority of Flavius Josephus, Let us hear now what Flavius Josephus handed down to memory concerning the Father of the Israelite nation, in book 1 of the Jewish Antiquities, chapter 8. When (Abram) was now LXXV years old, warned by an oracle (of the true God), he exchanged the land of Chaldea for Chananaea, which he both inhabited himself and left to his posterity: a man wise and equally eloquent, and shrewd in conjecture. And since on account of his outstanding virtue (while still living among the Chaldeans) he was held wise beyond the rest, he dared to overthrow the persuasion concerning God commonly received, and turn it to the better. Therefore he first of all proclaimed with a clear voice that there is one God, the founder of the universe of things; for the rest, that if anything conduces to happiness, it befalls us not by our own powers but by His will; … wherefore that honour is due to Him alone (God), and to Him thanks must be given. On which account, when the Chaldeans and the other Mesopotamians rose up against him, he took the resolution to migrate, and, relying on the will and favour of God, he held the land of Chananaea: where, having fixed his abode, he built an altar to God and slew victims. By the testimony of Josephus, then, so far was Abram from at any time sacrificing to strange gods, that on the contrary, as soon as age and wisdom allowed, he began most confidently to overthrow the commonly received idolatry and to persuade the natives to the faith and religious worship of the one true God; which I know not whether he would have dared to attempt, if he himself, equally with his fellow-tribesmen, had been addicted to the worship of idols.
[90] Nor have we only the aforesaid gentile authors and Josephus, the writer of Jewish History, with the agreement of Eusebius, in the book of the Preparation for the Gospel but also, besides the holy Fathers of the Church, whom we showed in § IV, if you except Ambrose, not to oppose us but rather to favour us, we have other men also outstanding in age and learning agreeing with this opinion, of whom, not to be too long, I shall subjoin only three testimonies. And Eusebius first, enumerating in book 7 of the Preparation for the Gospel, chapter 8, those men whom God embraced with special love on account of their highest piety and integrity of morals, after he had spoken of Enos, Enoch, Noe and Melchisedech, continues thus concerning Abraham on page 309: And in this number (namely of those who, under the guidance of the one reason implanted by nature and of laws comprised in no writing, both happily kept the right way of virtue and … sped through life with singular wisdom as well as religion and divine worship) let that Abraham also, whom they proclaim the prince of the whole (Israelite) race, be rightly and deservedly reckoned by us. For his justice is commended by the testimony of the divine oracles also … and so great assuredly, if of any other, was his integrity and religion, that it is celebrated with the same proclamation as that of those earlier men (namely Enos and the rest). By which words Eusebius surely testifies lucidly that Abram, no less than Enos, Enoch and Noe, was a worshipper of the true God through the whole span of his life, and that his integrity and religion were always as great as those of those earlier patriarchs, and to be celebrated with equal proclamation.
[91] This very thing, as I hinted before, the praised Eusebius confirms elsewhere in the most express words, and again in the book of the Demonstration of the Gospel, namely in book 1 of the Demonstration of the Gospel, chapter 5, page 9, where, disputing on the nature of the new Testament, which he says rightly had to be so instituted that it could profit all nations unto life, so that those who wished to enter upon this institution of life should not be hindered in any way or by any reason at all, nor could be excused by reason of region, or race, or place, or of any other thing whatever, he presently adds this to our purpose: Such moreover plainly was both the law and the life which was instituted by our Saviour Jesus Christ, by which that ancient religion, older than Moses himself, is restored, according to whose rule both Abraham and his forebears (for example Heber, Sale, Sem, Noe, and the antediluvian patriarchs) are easily shown to have lived. But if you wish to compare the manner of life of the Christians, and that religion which Christ disseminated through all nations, with that institution both of religion and of justice which the divine Letters proclaim that both Abraham and those like Abraham used, and to set them side by side, you will easily recognize one and the same thing. For they, withdrawing from the worship and error of many gods, and turning themselves away from that superstition which was addicted to images, raised the eyes of the mind above every nature that can be discerned by the eyes: nor indeed did they ever worship either the sun or the moon or any other part of the universe as God: but they did not hesitate to raise themselves up to the one supreme, the most high maker of heaven and earth Himself.
[92] by St. John Chrysostom Thus far Eusebius, by this last manner of speaking clearly demonstrating in what sense are to be understood both the words which he himself elsewhere, and those which the holy Fathers at numbers 64 and following, wrote of Abram, in which they relate that he withdrew from the worship of images and was thence called out by God; namely, not that he was drawn back to the worship of the true God from an idolatry to which he had previously been addicted, but that, enlightened by the grace of the supreme Godhead and by natural light, while most men of his time held the creature for God, he himself acknowledged and worshipped the true God, and so withdrew from the worship of images and left the error of his fathers, or, as Augustine says, was delivered from the superstitions of the Chaldeans. Things consonant with the words of Eusebius recounted above are handed down by St. John Chrysostom, Homily 36 on chapter 14 of Genesis, volume 4 of the Paris edition, column 362 and following, discoursing thus of Abram: Attend, therefore, I beseech you, how FROM THE BEGINNING, after he had made good use of his native disposition and of the knowledge implanted in our nature, having obtained no external teacher, but even being brought up by unbelieving parents, he was granted a divine apparition. For BECAUSE IN HIS FIRST AGE he DID NOT FOLLOW HIS FATHER'S ERROR, but showed piety towards the Godhead, he therefore at once obtained the heavenly visitation, while he was still in Chaldea.
[93] and by Suidas in the Historical writings. Finally, things akin to these are handed down by Suidas in his Historical writings, that is, in the Lexicon, under the word Abraam, where he also makes Philo the surety of his statements, in the book which is entitled ΒΙΟΣ ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΟΥ, that is, the Life of the civil man. It must be confessed, however, that in all the editions of this book which I at least have seen, not a single word bearing on this was found by me. But whether Suidas had before his eyes an interpolated Work of Philo; or whether Philo really afterwards retracted what he had previously written about Abram's idolatry, and that study finally perished; the testimony of Suidas at least serves this purpose, that it manifestly appears how approved and established our opinion is by the judgment of writers of almost all ages, and how much more probable than the opposite it must therefore be called. Here now are the very words of Suidas, from the edition of the year 1619, page 24: But this, he says, which I say, Philo too, the Hebrew philosopher, will confirm by his testimony in the Life of the civil Man… And he will testify that the worship of images (rather of idols, as the Greek word sounds) began from Seruch, and flourished down to the times of Thara, the father of Abraham; which Abraham, being fourteen years old, and adorned and enlightened with the knowledge of God, admonished his father in these words: Why do you lead men astray, for the sake of pernicious gain, that is, for the sake of images? (rather idols.) There is no other God but He who is in the heavens and reigns, who also fashioned the whole world. To which Suidas adds other things also, whence Abram never at any
time served idols, but on the contrary, so far as in him lay, declared most fierce war upon them, he testifies.
§ VI. Abram takes a wife, who is not proved to have been his true sister.
Abram takes a wife, When the pious Servant of the true God was now of such an age that, according to the custom then received, he should apply himself to begetting children, at the persuasion, or at least with the consent, of his father Thara he took to wife a virgin ten years younger than himself, his kinswoman, conspicuous for outstanding beauty, who by command of the divine Godhead was afterwards called Sara. These things the sacred Letters in part expressly relate, Genesis chapter XI, verse 29, and chapter 17, verses 15 and 17, and in part they are suggested by Abram's accustomed piety towards God and by the reverence towards his father worthy of so holy a Son. But again there is great controversy among the interpreters of sacred Scripture concerning this marriage of Abram, some contending that Sara was a daughter of Thara strictly so called, that is, begotten of him immediately, though of a wife other than Abram's mother; others on the contrary that she sprang from Thare only through Aran, that is, was not Thara's daughter but his granddaughter. Nay, there are those who would have Sara the daughter neither of Thara, nor of Aran, nor of Nachor, but of I know not what brother of Abram; and others who, whatever be the case about the proper and natural father of the same Sara, make her the adoptive daughter of Thara, and so the sister of Abram. But since both these latter opinions rest only on obscure and uncertain conjectures, it has seemed best not to waste effort in confuting either; but rather to examine more studiously, and, because it conduces to the true understanding of a number of places of sacred Scripture and of the ancient writers, more deeply, which of the two former opinions seems more probable and therefore to be embraced: that which asserts that Abram took to wife his father's daughter, though born of another mother; or rather that which contends that he took to wife only the daughter of his brother Aran, that is, his niece, as they commonly call it.
[95] The former of these is defended, with Le Clerc, Calmet and some other more recent writers, by the oft-praised Wilhelm Smits in his Prolegomenon to Genesis, who is not sufficiently proved to have been his sister strictly so called, and he cites at number 119 Clement of Alexandria, book 2 of the Stromata towards the end, St. Jerome in the book of Hebrew Questions on chapter 20 of Genesis, and finally Lippomano in the Catena, Cajetan on Genesis XI and 20, and also Domingo de Soto, book 2 On Justice and Right; and presently at number 120 he attempts by this reasoning to render the opinion which asserts that Sara was begotten immediately of Thara more probable than the other. The words of Genesis XX, 12, he says, seem openly to hint it: But otherwise also she is truly my sister, the daughter of my father, and not the daughter of my mother; nor could Abraham use clearer words to designate that degree of consanguinity between himself and Sara. Hence St. Jerome, on the cited place in the Questions, rejecting the other opinion, says, "It sounds rather as if Sara was the sister of Abraham," and adds: "In his excuse we say that at that time such marriages were not yet forbidden by the Law." Abraham protests that he speaks truly, nakedly, openly, without circumlocution, without any equivocation, when he asserts that she is his sister and his father's daughter. What reason is there that we should explain this by circumlocutions, and not simply assent to the words of the holy Man as they sound? Thus far Smits, presently adding this from the same Calmet, whom he here chiefly follows as guide: We are taught by no law that marriages of this kind were at that time forbidden or void among the Hebrews.
[96] from the words of Abram, Genesis chapter 20 And these are the Achillean arms with which this opinion is wont to be defended; whether, however, they do not labour under some hidden flaw, or at least whether they do not yield in solidity to the arms of the opponents, I leave to fair arbiters to judge. And truly, when words of sacred Scripture occur of such a kind that they seem to admit two, nay even several, different literal senses, then, I think, no one who is even moderately versed in the study of the sacred Letters will deny that their genuine sense can be drawn out in no way better and more certainly than either from the aim of the divine writer, or from the purpose of the one whom he presents as speaking, and from the circumstances of things and times. Let us consider, then, in what state of affairs, or for what end, Abraham uttered those words But otherwise also she is truly my sister, when holding discourse with Abimelech about his wife. As Scripture testifies, the holy Man had persuaded his wife that in every place which they should enter together she should say that she was his sister; and in fact Sara, having entered Gerara, the royal city of Abimelech, had called her husband brother, and he in turn had addressed her as sister: whence it came about that Abimelech, captivated by Sara's beauty, ordered her to be taken to him as wife, by no means suspecting, because of the words of Abraham and Sara, that she who was called his sister could at the same time be his wife. But having been taught the truth of the matter in sleep, and smitten with no light plague on account of the wife taken from Abraham, he had nothing more urgent than to remonstrate with him as for an open lie. Therefore, since the holy Man in turn had nothing more urgent than to remove this stain from himself and to show that, when he called Sara sister, he had by no means lied, he answers the remonstrating king thus, chapter 20, verse 12: But otherwise also she is truly my sister; which words in that state of affairs sound as if he said: But otherwise too I could affirm without a lie that she is my sister, since, namely, she touches me in no more remote degree of consanguinity than Lot himself, whom by the received custom and usage of our race I also truly, that is without a lie, address as brother.
[97] is not sufficiently proved; And this indeed seems to have been the sole aim of Abraham in answering the king, and therefore the adverb truly was employed by him rather to make manifest the truth of what he had said before the taking of Sara, than because he wished to signify by it that he protested truly, nakedly, openly, without circumlocution and without any equivocation, that his wife had been begotten immediately, as they say, of Thara his father, though not of the same mother. Nor indeed do these subsequent words about his wife stand in the way of this exposition: The daughter of my father and not the daughter of my mother; for, as Martin Delrio rightly notes in the Literal Glosses on Genesis, chapter 20, the sense of these words is that she was joined to him by paternal, not maternal, blood; that by the same Thare, as he was called son, so she was called daughter: and in turn that Abraham's father was called father by Sara, but Abraham's mother was not called mother. As if to say: She is my cousin on the father's side, not on the mother's. And presently the praised author proves his assertion in this manner: Both because it was received among the Hebrews to use the names Ben and Bath for all descendants in the direct line, as the Germans, Belgians and French also call grandfathers Great or Good fathers, Grand père, Groote or Beste vader; and because in chapter XI, verse 31, Sara is called the daughter-in-law of Thara; and finally because marriages were lawful in the second degree of collaterals, but not in the first, not even through one parent. So he says, praising Augustine as witness, book 22 Against Faustus, chapter 35. Since, then, as is easy to gather from what has already been said, the particles And truly are not to be connected with the following word sister, but on the contrary with the preceding words of Abraham, so that the sense is: And I spoke truly, that is, And I did not lie at all; the argument of the praised Smits, recited at number 95, has not in reality as much weight as may appear at first sight, so as to render his opinion more probable than the more common opinion of the ancient historians and holy Fathers, which lays down Sara as the daughter of Aran and the cousin of Abraham on the father's side.
[98] Let us now see whether the patrons of his opinion praised by Smits lend more strength to that opinion, nor is it proved from Clement of Alexandria, either by their authority alone or by the reasons they adduce. And first, indeed, Clement of Alexandria, praised by Smits, although towards the end of book 2 of the Stromata he introduces Abraham speaking thus of Sara: She is my sister by the father, but not by the mother, and she was also given to me to wife; by no means intends by these words to affirm that Sara was begotten of Thare himself, but in this place does this one thing, to prove by some illustrious example that account must be taken of consanguinity in contracting marriages, and to show that kinship is the most ancient impediment of marriage; and hence he asserts that Abram would never have entered into marriage with Sara if she had been begotten of the same mother as Abram. Further, although in the cited place he contends this one thing from Abraham's deed and words, that those who are born of THE SAME MOTHER are not to be taken as wives; yet elsewhere, namely in book 6 of the Stromata, edition of the year 1616, page 478, he not obscurely indicates that she likewise who is born of the same father is not to be taken as a wife, when he affirms that a wife who, after children have been received, has decided to abstain from the conjugal right with her husband, is to be judged, that is, held, by him as one born of THE SAME FATHER, inasmuch as with her likewise no carnal union is to be had. And a little after, on page 479, he writes that Sara was indeed at one time named sister by Abraham, but was born neither of the same mother nor even of the same father, as these words of his: ἀλλ᾽ οὔτε ὁμομητρίαν οὐδέπω καὶ ὁμοπατρίαν openly testify. Therefore from Clement of Alexandria, as one who in book 2 of the Stromata does not speak lucidly and fully enough of the degree of consanguinity between Abram and Sara, only slender support, nay on the contrary, since in another place he assigns different parents to each, no support at all, is furnished to the adversaries.
[99] Nor indeed do the adversaries with better right prove St. Jerome, commenting on Genesis chapter 20, verse 12, much less from St. Jerome, to be a patron of their opinion. For since in that very place in which he seems to favour the adversaries he also says expressly that Sara was the daughter of Aran, who was Abraham's brother, and again, commenting on verse 29 of chapter XI of Genesis, teaches assertively that Aran, son of Thare, brother of Abraham and Nachor, begot two daughters, Melcha and Sarai, surnamed Jescha, δυώνυμον; of whom Nachor took Melcha to wife, and Abraham Sarai; even from these it follows that the judgment of St. Jerome, writing on Genesis, on this question is at least ambiguous. On the other hand, since, disputing against Helvidius on the perpetual virginity of Blessed Mary, he most expressly testifies, volume 4, part 2, column 140, that Sara was the daughter of Abraham's brother, that is, of Aran, and adds that the just Man would never have committed it that his father's
daughter should be taken by him as wife, because a marriage of this kind, now that the human race had been propagated, seems to be held a disgrace and a sin; it follows from this either that St. Jerome refuted Helvidius here wrongly, or that he contradicted himself in different places, or, if neither may be admitted, that the latter words of his writing on chapter 20 of Genesis, on which the adversaries so greatly rely, ought to be expounded hypothetically rather than absolutely, and that the sense of those words, and their connection with the preceding words, is therefore such as if the holy Doctor discoursed thus: If anyone wishes to hold that in that place of Genesis one must adhere to the sound of the Hebrew text rather than to the sense already twice expounded by me before and to the aim of Abraham in speaking, and so contends that Abraham took his sister to wife, we, hastening to explain other difficulties of Genesis, will not haul the rope of contention with him, but will answer him in excuse of Abraham that, if what is contended were true, at that time such marriages were not yet forbidden by law, namely written law, since it is impious to suspect that the just Man applied himself to unlawful marriages.
[100] nor by the reasons adduced both by Lippomano, As for the authority of the more recent interpreters of sacred Scripture and Theologians, that it is of no greater weight in a historical matter than are the reasons brought forward by them is too well known to need proof. Let us examine those, then. In the judgment of Lippomano, folio 240 verso of the Catena on Genesis, Unless we say that Sara was truly the sister of Abraham, we shall fall into many inextricable difficulties, in which both the Jews and our own labour very greatly and are compelled to invent many things not very likely. But gently, I pray. What at length are those inextricable difficulties, or what are those unlikely things which the patrons of the opposite opinion are compelled to invent? At least one of them Lippomano should have produced to win credit for his words; which, however, I do not see that either he or any of those who agree with him has done; nay, on the contrary, they themselves can scarcely invent a reason in any way plausible why Abimelech, if brothers could then be joined in marriage with sisters not born of the same mother, on hearing that Sara was Abraham's sister, at once judged that she could not be his wife; or, if he understood the words of Abraham on which the adversaries rely of a sister strictly so called, though not by the same mother, why the same king did not at once reply to him these words or words like them: Truly you are a singular man, Abraham, who thought that the fear of God was not in this place, that is, among us, and who by taking your sister as wife did not fear to do what we hold it impious to attempt.
[101] Nor indeed can what Cajetan, praised at number 95, contends from the words of Thamar, daughter of David, 2 Kings 13, verse 12, and by Cajetan, namely that not only before the Mosaic law, but even under the law itself, it could obtain that a brother should marry a sister not by the same mother, be proved in any way, since the Book of Leviticus, chapter 20, verse 17, where marriages of this kind are declared detestable in themselves and worthy of the punishment of death, shows altogether the contrary. And surely from these words of Thamar, dreading to be violated by her brother Amnon: Do not so, my brother, … do not this folly; … but rather speak to the king, and he will not deny me to thee, nothing else can be elicited than that she, confounded by the unexpected enormity of the deed, did not know what she was saying; or, if she judged that the king, as they commonly say, can do all things and is not bound by the law of Leviticus, that she was signally mistaken in it; or finally, if she was endowed with a readier presence of mind than the common run of women, that she uttered those words with no other intent than to ward off the disgrace hanging over her, while he, led by false hope, should restrain for a while the onset of his unbridled lust, intending to approach the king, from whom she knew he would receive a refusal according to the prescription of the law forbidding a marriage of this kind. These things therefore by no means help to demonstrate that marriages between brother and sister were lawful in the very times of Abraham, much less to show that Abraham in fact joined his sister to himself in marriage; which, however, Lippomano and Cajetan maintain.
[102] Further, since the principal reasoning of this latter writer against us does not differ in substance from the argument of Smits praised above, even when writing on Genesis, and by the reasons of Domingo de Soto, it is not necessary to repeat and refute it in this place, lest I do over again what was already done at number 97. The praised Cajetan does indeed add, page 87, on chapter 20 of Genesis: Just as he (Abraham, speaking to Abimelech) uses the name of MOTHER properly, so also that of FATHER; but I do not see well enough on what ground he proves this assertion of his, or why it should be said that the names of mother and father were used properly and in altogether the same sense in Genesis chapter 20, verse 12, rather than in chapter 2 of Luke, verse 48. If Mary could, by received usage, call St. Joseph the father of Jesus, why could not Abraham too, by received usage, call Thara the father of his wife, who was nevertheless in reality her grandfather? Moreover, by what argument will it be proved that the Hebrew word Bath, in Latin daughter, about which alone the question here ought to be, is not taken in an altogether different manner where Abraham calls Sara the daughter of his father, from where he denies that she is the daughter of his mother? And truly, that Abraham used this word Bath in a different manner in the cited verse, and that this different manner was also sufficiently understood by Abimelech, is easy to draw from what we said above at number 100. Domingo de Soto, following Cajetan here, and wishing to bring out from his own store too an argument by which to show more probably that our holy Patriarch was joined in marriage to his sister, though not by the same mother, wanders wonderfully astray, speaking thus in book 1 On Justice and Right, question 3, article 8, folio 42 verso: For it is harsh to use DAUGHTER OF MY FATHER for GRANDDAUGHTER OF MY GRANDFATHER.
[103] As though, among those who contend that by the phrase daughter of my father in the cited verse 12 the granddaughter of his father was designated by Abraham, the last of which has no force whatever. even one had been so unskilled as to confuse Nachor the Elder, Abram's grandfather, with his father Thara, and to assert that Sara was begotten not immediately of Aran but of the same Nachor or of his son. But if it seems harsh to Domingo de Soto that a girl bereft of her father was at times called among the Hebrews the daughter of her grandfather, who stood to her in the place of a father, it cannot but be most harsh to him that in the sacred Scriptures persons are not seldom mentioned under the name of father or mother who nevertheless were only the grandfathers or grandmothers, nay only among the forebears, of those whose fathers or mothers they are called. Let it be most harsh to him, then, that Jesus Christ is called the son of Abraham and the son of David, and each of these the father of Christ; let it be most harsh to him again that Elizabeth is said to be of the daughters of Aaron; and, to produce some examples from the old Testament also, let it be most harsh to him that Jair, in Numbers chapter 32, verse 41, is called the son of Manasse, who, as book 1 of Paralipomenon, chapter 2, verse 21, testifies, was only his great-great-grandson through his mother; and that Baltassar, in Daniel chapter 5, is called the son of Nabuchodonosor, who was only his grandson; and finally that Maacha, who had been the grandmother of King Asa, and who had brought him up in the place of a mother, as Thare brought up Sara in the place of a father, that she, I say, is addressed more than once in book 3 of Kings, chapter 15, as the mother of Asa. But if these things do not seem harsh to him, why, I ask, will it be so harsh to him that she should be called the daughter of Thara who was his granddaughter, that is, the offspring of his son?
[104] Nay, though Smits dissents, the marriages of brothers It remains now that we examine singly, as the gravity of the matter requires, whether the things which Smits produces in the cited Prolegomenon, page 485, towards the end, in order to demonstrate that the marriage of a brother with a sister not by the same mother was neither forbidden nor void, and therefore could have been entered into by Abram, actually stand. His words are these: For we are taught by no law that marriages of this kind were at that time forbidden or void among the Hebrews; on the contrary, it is clear that anciently among other peoples rightly ordered they were lawful and permitted. Philo relates this of the Athenians, in the book On the special laws. "Solon the Athenian," he says, "permitted the marrying of sisters by the same father, forbade it of those by the same mother." The same custom is attributed to the Phoenicians by Archilles (rather Achilles) Tatius, book 1. "That it was ordained among the Egyptians that, contrary to the common custom of other men, marriage should be entered into with sisters," Diodorus is witness, book 1. Of Jupiter Lucian speaks thus in the book On Sacrifices: "He married Juno his sister, and that according to the customs of the Assyrians and Persians." More in Le Clerc, Calmet and others. So Smits. Let us now approach the matter.
[105] with sisters, being forbidden by the law of nature outside the utmost necessity, And first indeed I do not deny that in Abram's lifetime that law had not yet been enacted in writing by which, as is done in Leviticus chapter 20, verse 17, the marriage of a brother with his sister, whether she be the daughter only of the same father but a different mother, or of the same mother but a different father, is declared wicked, iniquitous and worthy of public punishment by death, and is most severely forbidden by God. But in truth, although that law did not exist committed to bodily tablets, nevertheless there existed, inscribed in the minds of men, the natural law of modesty, forbidding every unseemly manner of life, and therefore prohibiting, outside the unavoidable necessity of propagating the human race, such as there was indeed at the beginning of the world but not in the time of Abram, that anyone should moreover be bound by the conjugal bond to her with whom he is united by so near and close a tie, at least through one or other parent, that they are reckoned as it were the same. For if, says Augustine in book 15 of the City of God, chapter 16, it is iniquitous through greed of possessing to transgress the boundary of fields, how much more iniquitous is it through lust of lying together to overturn the boundary of morals? Which boundary, namely, the very law of natural modesty and the custom of rightly ordered nations set so openly before the eyes that even impious worshippers of many and false gods acknowledge it, and, although it was altogether lawful in the first times of the human race to take sisters in marriage, so abhor it as if it could never have been lawful. So, roughly, the holy Doctor in the same place, disputing learnedly much more besides, in order to prove that before the divine law enacted in Leviticus chapters 18 and 20 all marriages between brother and sister were unlawful, that is, wicked. On which matter let the curious reader also consult St. Chrysostom, Homily 34 on the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, volume X of the new edition, page 315, St. Thomas in the Supplement, question 54, article 3, in the Conclusion, and Grotius On the Law
of War and Peace, book 2, chapter 5, number 13.
[106] As regards the authors cited above by Smits, by the ancient and wise writers, and by name by Philo, by whose testimony he contends that marriages of this kind were lawful among rightly ordered peoples, I should like the reader to be forewarned that all of them to a man, unless perhaps Achilles Tatius, whom I have not seen, is to be excepted in his most obscene and abominable Work, as Photius testifies in the Bibliotheca, column 206, either in the very place where they treat of marriages of this kind, or certainly in the course of their Work, manifestly disapproved of them, and were so disposed in mind that they either held those nations among which marriages of this kind were in use as corrupt and depraved in this matter, or called the laws by which these were tolerated perverse, or finally disapproved of those very marriages as unlawful and most foreign to a well-constituted commonwealth. That this may become manifest to anyone, I set before the eyes, in the first place too, the entire text, namely in Latin translation, from Philo's book On the Special Laws, which Smits praises for himself in the first place. Thus he speaks, on pages 601 and 602 in my copy: Next it is commanded that not even a sister is to be married; an honourable precept truly and fitting for continence; although Solon the Athenian observes this only in the case of siblings by the same mother, and leaves it free to those born of the same father; on the contrary the lawgiver of the Lacedaemonians does not forbid marriage to those by the same mother, but only to those begotten of the same father; marriages of which sort, however, as will presently appear, Philo too disapproves. But let us hear him as he pursues the rest.
[107] But the Egyptian, he says, laughing at the simplicity and half-perfect decrees of both (Solon and Lycurgus), whose words are recited, disapproved, loosed the reins of lust, and increased in bodies and souls the incurable evil of intemperance, by permitting the licence of marrying sisters, whether related through one or other parent or through both, older and younger alike or of equal age, not even twins excepted, whom nature separated at their very birth, but intemperance coupled together in an unsociable fellowship and an ill-contrived union. Then presently Philo adds what is most to the point here. These laws (of the Athenians, the Lacedaemonians and the Egyptians) the most holy Moses (nay God Himself, dictating the law to Moses) abominated AS MOST FOREIGN TO A WELL-CONSTITUTED COMMONWEALTH, AND INCITING TO EVERY TURPITUDE, and in every way forbade intercourse with sisters, whether having both or only one parent in common. For what need is there to disfigure the beauty of modesty, and to accustom virgins not to blush? And to what purpose is it to stand in the way of alliances being formed with others, and to shut up a most honourable thing within the narrow walls of the household? Thus far Philo, who also adduces other reasons whence you may perceive that marriages between brother and sister are foreign to right reason and to a well-constituted commonwealth.
[108] held as perverse by Diodorus Siculus, So too judged Diodorus Siculus, even in the very place which Smits praises. For although he writes that marriage with sisters was customary among the Egyptians, he nevertheless adds on page 23 that this was done contrary to the common custom of other men, and teaches that marriages of this kind are no more consonant with right reason and a well-constituted commonwealth than the unspeakable nuptials of Isis and Osiris, from which these took their origin, and the perverse custom which arose among the Egyptians on their occasion, whereby there is more power and honour with the queen than with the king, and whereby even among private persons dominion of the woman over the man is assigned in the marriage contracts, and the men are bound to profess that they will obey their wives in all things, as the same author presently adds almost word for word. To add to these one example for many, that author no more judges marriages between brother and sister fitting to sound reason and a well-ordered city than the custom born among the Egyptians on the occasion of Isis and Osiris of adoring brute animals, for example cats, dogs, wolves, and other things too whose names shame forbids me to set down. Let him who has a mind to it see the narrative of Diodorus in the same book 1, pages 74, 76 and 78, and in the edition of Stephanus from page 52, and judge thence whether the Egyptians ought then to have been reckoned among nations imbued with honourable morals, and whether from their depraved custom and licence, detested by the wise, it can be proved solidly enough that marriages between brother and sister are conformable to right reason and lawful by the law of nature outside necessity.
[109] [rejected as ridiculous and impious by Lucian himself, nor anciently customary among the Persians] As for Lucian, also praised by Smits, that author does indeed write in the Discourse On Sacrifices, folio 56 verso in my copy, that several wives were married by Jupiter, and in the last place Juno, his sister, and that according to the institution of the Persians and Assyrians; but even this very thing Lucian disapproves, and his aim in that whole Discourse is to demonstrate more clearly than daylight that those who believe such things of Jupiter and the other gods believe nothing but impious and ridiculous things about them. That this custom of the Persians, nay rather abuse, is moreover many centuries younger than Abram, and was not at that time permitted by any law either natural or positive, a luminous witness and here in no way suspect is Herodotus in Thalia, book 3, number 31, page 173 in my copy, where he speaks thus: Whereas before this the Persians had by no means been accustomed to take sisters in marriage, Cambyses, seized with love of one of his sisters, and desirous then of marrying her, since on account of the strangeness of the thing he laboured to bring it about, summons those who are called the royal judges: these are men chosen from among the Persians, and they hold office for life, unless they are found guilty of some offence. These give judgment among the Persians, and are the interpreters of the ancestral laws, and all things are referred to them. Of these Cambyses inquires whether there is any law which permits one who wishes to contract marriage with his sister. The judges, answering both justly and frankly, SAY THAT THEY FIND NO LAW WHICH PERMITS A BROTHER TO MARRY A SISTER; but that they find a certain law by which it is lawful for the king of the Persians to do whatever he pleases. Thus they neither abrogated the law out of fear of Cambyses: and LEST, BY DEFENDING THE LAW, they themselves should perish, they found another to aid him who wished to take his sister in marriage.
[110] Assuredly, if anciently, even from the times of Abram, marriages of this kind between brothers and sisters had at some time been customary among the Persians anciently customary, or other Eastern nations imbued with honourable morals, the wisest of the Persians would certainly have known it, and would not have omitted to put forward the ancient custom of the Easterners as a law permitting such marriages, so that thus they might both please the king and remove the danger of death farther from themselves. So far, then, is what Smits contends from becoming manifest from the testimony of the authors he praises, that on the contrary those very authors, to whom may be added Plutarch, the ancient Romans and other peoples of good morals, held marriages of this kind as unlawful and contrary to rightly constituted human society and custom, nay as impious and hateful to God, as may be fully seen in Grotius, On the Law of War and Peace, book 2, chapter 5, number 13, whose words I shall in part transcribe below. Moreover, even if, many centuries after the marriage of Abram with Sara had passed, marriages of brothers with sisters not by the same mother had been brought into use among the Eastern nations, nothing could be proved from this for the times of Abram. For if marriages of this kind had then been in use, however very rare, among the Egyptians, the Chananaeans or other Easterners, why did the pious and prudent Man call Sara his sister in order to conceal her as his wife and in this way place his life in safety? Did he perhaps believe Pharao, king of Egypt, and Abimelech, king of Gerara, to be men so simple or of so dull a nose that what they knew to be at some time customary among themselves and the Chaldeans they would not dare to suspect of a foreigner and stranger, or could not even scent it?
[111] Nay rather, on the contrary, if at that time marriages of brothers with sisters of whatever kind were believed lawful, nor are they proved to be likely in Abraham's regard; or were at times customary, would not Abraham have entered upon an altogether doubtful and thoroughly dangerous plan for protecting his life by calling Sara Sister, who by the usage of the nation could at the same time have been his wife, and who therefore, since he presumed in his mind that the princes inflamed with love of her would be by no means unskilled in conjecturing and investigating things of this kind, he could by no means have been unaware would give occasion for his capture and death even on the very first day of his arrival? What? Granting for a while that already in Abram's lifetime marriages between a brother and a sister not by the same mother were at times entered into among the Easterners, it would not on that account follow that Abram, a most holy man, also contracted marriages of this kind, which, after the propagation of the human race, were not first made unlawful when the law of Leviticus chapter 20 was given, but are declared by that same law to be in general, outside the extreme necessity of propagating the human race, unlawful, nay wicked and iniquitous, as also in Leviticus chapter 18, where from verse 25 both marriages of this kind, mentioned in verses 9 and XI, and other incestuous couplings of the sort are recounted by God among crimes, abominations and execrations.
[112] Hugo Grotius, praised above, deserves to be heard on this matter, and Grotius himself, whom Smits praised for himself, but beside the point, and for this reason also, that the reader may consider whether Smits at the cited number 120 rightly and deservedly made him a patron of his opinion. Thus speaks the most learned Man in the cited book 2 On the Law of War and Peace, chapter 5, number 13, page 133 in my copy: The ancient Hebrews, interpreters of the divine law in this part not to be spurned, and Moses Maimonides, who read all their works and digested them with the highest judgment, say that of those laws which were set forth in chapter XVIII of Leviticus concerning marriages (see, to our purpose, verse 9 and verse XI) there are two causes: the former a certain natural modesty, which does not allow the authors of birth to be mingled with their offspring, either in themselves or through persons most closely joined by blood or by the marital commingling of blood: the other, lest the cohabitation of certain persons, too daily and unobserved, should give occasion to debaucheries and adulteries, if such loves could be cemented by marriages. But everyone sees that these two causes have place in the highest degree also between a brother and a sister not by the same mother; it follows therefore either that Abram did not marry a sister strictly so called, or, if he did, that he acted against the law of nature, which assuredly no Christian or Jew will admit.
[113] of our opinion, various arguments being adduced, But let us follow Grotius as he discourses learnedly: These laws, however (of which he had just treated), and THAT BROTHERS SHOULD NOT BE MINGLED WITH SISTERS, the Hebrews judge to have been given together with the law of worshipping God, of administering justice, of not shedding blood, of not worshipping false gods, of not seizing what belongs to another: but in such a way that the conjugal laws should not put forth their force except after the human race had been already sufficiently multiplied
which at the very beginning could not come about without marriages of brothers and sisters. Nor do they think it matters that this was not related by Moses in its place: because it was enough for him to have indicated it tacitly in the law itself, when he condemns foreign nations on that account. Then a little after he transcribes these words of Michael of Ephesus on the fifth book of the Nicomachean Ethics concerning the marriage of brothers and sisters: For a brother to lie with a sister was from the beginning a thing indifferent: but (the necessity, namely, having ceased) once a law was laid down against such couplings, it now matters much whether the law is observed or not. Then Grotius continues thus: Diodorus Siculus (that same one of whom we treated at number 108) calls it κοινὸν ἔθος τῶν ἀνθρώπων, THE COMMON CUSTOM OF MEN, that brothers should not be joined to sisters, from which he exempts the Egyptians, Dio of Prusa the barbarians. Seneca had written: "We join marriages of the gods, and NOT EVEN PIOUSLY, namely of brothers and sisters." Plato in the eighth book of the Laws calls such marriages μηδαμῶς ὅσια, καὶ θεομισῆ, BY NO MEANS PIOUS, BUT HATEFUL TO GOD.
[114] has very greatly championed. All of which, he says, show the old report of a divine law against marriages of this kind, whence we see the word NEFAS also used of such things. And that ALL BROTHERS and SISTERS are comprehended the law itself indicates, comprehending AGNATES as well as COGNATES of that degree, whether born and brought up abroad or at home. Thus far Grotius, who, since he approves the opinion of the ancient Hebrews, must be said to have judged that the marriages of any brothers whatever with any sisters whatever were not only prohibited by the law of natural modesty and by right reason, but also, in the antediluvian time, when the necessity of propagating the human race no longer pressed, and likewise in the postdiluvian time, forbidden by the divine law of Leviticus chapter 18, or rather declared unlawful by solemn rite; contrary, however, to what Smits contends in number 20 of his cited Prolegomenon. And let these things now disputed suffice, both so that it be not believed as certain that Abram took to wife his father's daughter strictly so called, that is, his true sister, and so that it become manifest that marriages of this kind were held as unlawful even in the times of Abram.
§ VII. Abram's wife was more probably the daughter of his brother, namely Aran. It is inquired whether Abram, with Aran, was cast into the fire by the Chaldeans and miraculously brought out of it.
That Abram's wife was his brother's daughter, Although, as we have already shown, at the time when Abram was alive, nay long before, it was not lawful for children of different sex, born of the same parents or of one or other of them only, to be bound in marriage; yet custom, prohibited by no law and no power, bound the children of brothers and of other kinsfolk of more remote degree, as St. Augustine teaches almost word for word in book 22 Against Faustus the Manichaean, chapter 35, volume 8 of the edition of the year 1694, column 382, and all the learned agree. Abram therefore could without any guilt take to wife his brother's daughter or any other woman of the same degree. But whether Sarai, whom Abram took to himself as wife, was in reality the daughter of his brother, and of Aran indeed, is, as I warned before, not a little disputed among the learned. More probable to me, however, seems the affirmative opinion, as being more conformable to sacred Scripture and more firmly established by the testimonies of the ancient writers. And first, indeed, although Moses in chapter XI of Genesis did not expressly declare that our Saint's wife was his brother's daughter, yet he nowhere denies it, nor supplies anything from which it may rightly be denied that she was the offspring of Abram's brother. Nay rather, when in the cited chapter, verse 29, he relates that Abram and Nachor took wives, and presently adds that Nachor took the daughter of his brother Aran, he seems to hint that Abram too, whose marriage he records there, likewise married his brother's daughter. Hear the sacred words which bear on this from Genesis chapter XI, verse 27: Thare begot Abram, Nachor, and Aran. And Aran begot Lot. And verse 29: And Abram and Nachor took wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai: and the name of Nachor's wife Melcha, the daughter of Aran, father of Melcha and father of Jescha.
[116] Moreover, since Sarai was beyond all doubt a kinswoman of her Husband, Moses hints, by the name of Aran, and indeed such that by the custom then received she could be addressed by the name of Sister, it follows, since by what has been said she was not his true sister, that she must be asserted to have been the offspring either of one or other of Abram's brothers, or of some unknown kinsman of his. Therefore, since this last has no likeness of truth, and rests on not even the slightest authority, nothing remains but that Sarai be said to have been the daughter either of Nachor or of Aran; and therefore, since it is likewise not likely that Abram's wife was the daughter of Nachor, Abram's brother, nothing finally remains but that she be laid down as the daughter of his other brother, namely Aran. And truly, since Moses speaks thus in Genesis chapter XI, verse 29: And Abram and Nachor took wives, it is gathered from this not without cause that Nachor was not bound in marriage before Abram, and therefore that our Saint could not have married Nachor's daughter. On the contrary, since he writes not only in verse 27 that Lot had previously been begotten of Aran, Abram's brother, but also in verse 29 that two daughters were likewise begotten, one of whom, named Melcha, married Nachor; nothing surely prevents Abram's wife also having been the offspring of Aran, so that on the contrary everything suggests that this daughter of Aran was joined in marriage to her paternal uncle Abram, as the other, named Melcha, was to her paternal uncle Nachor.
[117] Flavius Josephus affirms, And so that it may be clear how ancient and how received this opinion is, it has seemed good to bring forward some testimonies of the ancients. And first, indeed, Flavius Josephus, more than once praised above, who without grave reason to the contrary is to be accused neither of ignorance, nor of fiction, nor of lying, writes in this manner in book 1 of the Antiquities of his nation, chapter 7, towards the end: Abraham, however, had brothers Nachor and Aran. Of these Aran, leaving a son Lot and daughters Sara and Melcha, died in the region of the Chaldeans in the city which is called Ur of the Chaldeans, and his sepulchre is shown to this day: and they took as wives their nieces by their brother, Nachor Melcha, Abraham Sara; and in chapter 8: But Abraham adopted Lot, the son of his brother Aran, the brother of Sara his wife, because he lacked a son of his own; and finally in chapter 12, making mention of Abraham's deed related in Genesis chapter 20, he has thus: When he (Abimelech) had said these things, Abraham said that the kinship was not altogether feigned: for she (Sara) was his brother's daughter, namely Aran's, as he openly declared above in chapter 7.
[118] St. Augustine teaches, With Josephus agrees St. Augustine, writing thus in book 16 of the City of God, chapter 19: Then, having built an altar there (in Sichem) and called upon God, Abraham set out thence and dwelt in the desert, and thence was compelled by the necessity of famine to go into Egypt. Where he called his wife his SISTER, lying in nothing. For she was this also, because she was near to him by blood: just as Lot too, BY THE SAME NEARNESS, since he was his brother's son, was called his brother. The holy Doctor therefore judged that, just as Lot was called Abraham's brother, since Abraham was his paternal uncle, so too Sara was called Abraham's sister, since the holy Patriarch was likewise her paternal uncle, and she only his near kinswoman, that is, his brother's daughter. From which, as it will help to note here in passing, it will be not difficult for anyone to understand into what a sense foreign to the mind of St. Augustine Calmet, on Genesis, page 449, has twisted certain words of his, in which, namely, the holy Doctor, disputing against Faustus, says it is just that in that matter which Abraham knew but we do not know, we should believe the Patriarch speaking what he knows, namely that Sara was his kinswoman through his father, that is, after the Hebrew manner his sister, rather than the Manichaean accusing what he does not know, and contending that Sara was not Abraham's kinswoman, and therefore that he lied. Where surely, as will be plain to one who weighs his words in the cited volume 8, column 382, he does not indicate by a single word that he believes Sara was Abram's sister strictly so called, and that this was openly signified by Abram.
[119] and St. Chrysostom hints; And not St. Augustine only, but also, although some think otherwise, St. Chrysostom likewise went over to our opinion in Homily 45 on Genesis, when, expounding those words She is my sister by the father, etc., he writes thus, volume 4 of the new edition, page 462: Because she (Sara) calls the same man father, says (Abraham), whom I also call so, therefore I also called her Sister; do not therefore condemn me; namely not because Sara was the natural daughter of Thara, but because she addressed him after the Hebrew manner by the name of father, especially since her father Aran was dead, therefore Abram too, after the manner of his nation, called her sister; and thus no lie was spoken by him, nor therefore is Abraham to be condemned of lying. Which opinion of Chrysostom agrees altogether with the recounted opinion of St. Augustine. Nor is there surely any reason why, because Moses, speaking of Sarai when already married to Abram, did not call her the daughter of Aran, but only said she was the daughter-in-law of Thare and the wife of Abraham, we should on that account deny that she was the daughter of Aran; for if this argument has any strength, it must certainly have it against our adversaries rather than against us; since by a similar reason it can be retorted by us against them that Sara was not the daughter of Thara, since, if she had been such, then on account of the greater bond and connection of blood which subsists between grandfather and granddaughter than between father-in-law and daughter-in-law, he would rather have called Sara the daughter or granddaughter of Thara than his daughter-in-law. But enough of this.
[120] Let us now consider whether it cannot also be shown by another reason that Abram's wife was more probably the daughter of Aran. nay, since it is more commonly believed that Sara was not different from Jescha, If Jescha, the daughter of Aran, as Moses testifies in Genesis chapter XI, verse 29, had two names, and was the same as Sarai, it will become altogether necessary that Abram's spouse was begotten of Aran. Since, then, not only by the authority of the Hebrews in the Seder Olam, of St. Ephrem the Syrian on Genesis, volume 1 of his Works, page 156, of St. Jerome in the book of Hebrew Questions on chapter XI of Genesis, of St. Augustine On the City of God, book 16, chapter 12, and of other learned men, but also by solid reasons it is altogether more probable that the said Jescha had two names and was the same as Sarai; it follows that it also becomes more probable that Abram's spouse was the daughter of Aran. Hear, for the rest, St. Jerome and St. Augustine, of whom the former speaks thus in the cited place: Aran, son of Thare, brother of Abraham and Nachor,
begot two daughters, Melcha, and Sarai, surnamed Jescha, δυώνυμον; of whom Nachor took Melcha to wife, and Abraham Sarai; and Augustine, likewise in the cited place, in this manner: This Aran was the father of Melcha and the father of Jesca, which Jesca is believed to be also Sara herself, the wife of Abraham. And surely several reasons suggest that she was not without cause believed to be the same. For to what end would Moses, who is accustomed to pass over in silence the genealogy, and even the very name, of men from whom the Hebrew people did not draw its origin in the direct line, have thrust into the genealogical description of the same people so express a mention of this woman, as he does in the cited verse 29, unless the Israelite people had drawn its maternal origin from her? Accordingly, since this Jescha was the wife neither of Thara nor of Nachor, much less of Aran, as all confess, it follows that, if she pertains, as can scarcely be doubted, to the maternal genealogy of the Israelite people, she was joined in marriage to Abram, who alone of the three children of Thara remains, and therefore, since Aran is read to have had only two daughters and one son, that that Jescha is the same as Sarai, Abram's wife.
[121] Moreover, if we suppose for a while that Jescha is different from Sarai, the daughter of Aran, as Moses too is shown to have hinted, what cause, I ask, shall we devise why Moses should have anxiously described the race and ancestors of Jescha, an otherwise unknown woman and one in no way pertaining, in the adversaries' opinion, to the stock of his people, rather than indicate by at least one word the stock or race of Sara, a far worthier person, who no less than Abraham was the true parent of the Israelite people? But if on the contrary we make that Jescha the same as Sara, that difficulty vanishes of itself, and the reason at once shows itself why Moses so anxiously recounted Jescha's grandfather, father and paternal uncles, and finally why he commended to the memory of posterity with no less diligence the different names which Sara bore at different times; namely because the dignity of the mother of the people chosen by God required it, and because it greatly concerned the Israelite nation to have known the different names both of its mother and of its Father and of his grandson Jacob. Wherefore Moses first designated her, in Genesis chapter XI, verse 29, under the name of Jescha, because from a tender age she had been conspicuous for beauty, as the Hebrews expound the etymology of Jescha, and as Genesis chapter 12, verses XI, 12 and 14 accords; and then, when she was already married to Abram, he expressed in verse 30 her name Sarai, in Latin my princess, because she was the mother of the household of Abram's house; then finally he celebrated, in chapter 17, verse 15, and often elsewhere, the name Sara given her by God's command, that is, princess absolutely, because she was namely to be the princess of all nations. However these things may be, at least if the Hebrew etymology of Jescha is regarded, and this name is believed to have been given, after the manner of the Hebrews, from the very character of the girl, it can be attributed to no woman among the posterity of Thara more aptly than to Sara, a most beautiful woman.
[122] our opinion must at least be held more probable than the opposite. From these things let the fair reader judge whether our opinion, which lays down that Abram took to wife the daughter of his brother Aran, after the custom then usual among the Hebrews, as is plain from the marriage of Nachor with Melcha, and therefore that Jescha is the same as Sarai, is not more probable than the opinion of the adversaries, who make Sara Abram's true sister; and, what follows from these things, whether it does not also become much more likely on this head that Abram was not the firstborn of the sons of Thara, nor born in the seventieth year of his father, since, if Aran is laid down as younger than he, it becomes necessary that the same Aran, a boy not yet ten years old, be likewise laid down to have begotten his daughter, as being only ten years younger than Abram; which surely no one will bring himself to believe. But let what has now been said and disputed above concerning Abram's birth and marriage in Chaldea suffice. It remains now that, before we follow the holy Man setting out by God's command from his own land into a strange one, we treat that question also which drew its origin from Genesis chapter XI, verse 28, where, however, express mention of Abram is not made.
[123] That Abram, given to the fire by the Chaldeans with his brother Aran, On this, namely, turns the hinge of the whole controversy: whether Abram, with Aran, because he would not adore fire after the manner of the Chaldeans, was cast by them into the fire, and snatched thence safe and unharmed by divine favour. The handle for asserting this prodigy was furnished by a different reading of the verse just cited, since in place of what is read in the Vulgate: And Aran died before Thare his father in the land of his nativity in Ur of the Chaldeans, the Hebrew has: In Ur Chesdim, which can also be rendered by the phrase In the fire, or In the burning, of the Chaldeans, as Jerome writes in the Book of Hebrew Questions on Genesis, column 517. To this was added a tradition of the Hebrews, arising on the occasion of this reading, which, as the same Jerome testifies at column 518, runs thus: that Thara went out with his sons from the fire of the Chaldeans, and … Abram, hemmed in by the Babylonian burning because he would not adore it, was delivered by the help of God, whereas Aran, Abram's brother, likewise refusing to adore the fire, was consumed by fire, as is related almost word for word at column 517 from the narrative of the Hebrews, which St. Jerome might be said not to have disapproved. To these, other arguments are added by some, in order to win credit for this narrative, which will find their place below.
[124] Nevertheless my settled opinion is that that Hebrew account, and that he alone was divinely delivered thence, however much at first sight it may seem strengthened by various support, is by no means to be admitted as true. For, as Salian well notes in the Ecclesiastical Annals of the old Testament at the year of the world 2086, number 3, it is by no means probable that in both brothers (namely Abram and Aran) there was such faith and charity towards God that both allowed themselves to be cast into the fire for Him, and yet that God allowed one of them (as that narrative asserts) to perish in the fire, to the most grave scandal of the pious and the impious. Moreover, since, as the praised author also observes in the same place, Josephus, the writer of Jewish History, namely in book 1 of the Antiquities, chapter 7, testifies that Aran died in the city which is called Ur of the Chaldeans, and that his sepulchre was shown down to his own time, and yet records nothing from which you might conjecture that he was burned up in a conflagration or killed in a violent manner, but on the contrary hints that he died a natural death before his father; who does not see that that narrative of the Hebrews, if indeed it was already then spread abroad, was not received by the learned, and was held in no greater esteem than any popular little tales, which learned historiographers do not deem worthy of even a light mention?
[125] Nor is there reason why it should be said that that deed was sufficiently indicated by Moses in chapter XI of Genesis, verse 28 or verse 31, is not sufficiently shown from chapter XI of Genesis; and therefore sufficiently established by his testimony; for although these Hebrew words Ur Chesdim, if regarded separately, can of themselves denote both the Fire of the Chaldeans and Ur, the city of the Chaldeans; yet in the verses of Genesis in question they designate the proper name of a city of the Chaldeans as manifestly as the following word Chanaan designates a region of Syria, and the word Haran a city of Mesopotamia. And truly, unless one prefers to expound the word Chanaan appellatively, as they call it, by merchant or lowly, and likewise to interpret the word Haran, or Charran, in this place by holes or wrath, as they sound when taken appellatively among the Hebrews; which assuredly would be exceedingly ridiculous; he must needs confess that Ur Chesdim, as well as Chanaan and Haran, are proper names of places. Moreover, if Ur Chesdim, or Ur of the Chaldeans, in the cited verse 31 of Genesis, contrary to the way in which Josue chapter 24, the Seventy Translators, Josephus and others expound it, is to be taken not for a place of Chaldea or of Mesopotamia taken in a broader sense, but for fire or burning, as the adversaries would have it, why, I beseech you, do they not add to Abram, thrown into the fire or burning of the Chaldeans, two companions, namely Lot and Sarai, whom Thara is read in the same verse 31 to have led out of Ur Chesdim equally with Abram?
[126] But if, in their judgment, neither Lot nor Sarai was cast into the fire of the Chaldeans, [since there by Ur of the Chaldeans not the punishment of fire but a region is designated,] why do they assert from that verse that Abram was cast into the fire of the Chaldeans? Let us rather say what the matter is. When Moses speaks thus in the cited verse: And Thare took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Aran, his son's son, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, the wife of Abram his son, and brought them out of Ur of the Chaldeans (in Hebrew Ur Chesdim) to go into the land of Chanaan, and they came as far as Haran and dwelt there, so far was he from wishing to narrate some singular prodigy of the omnipotent God or a strenuous contest of the Servant of God for the faith, that on the contrary he assigned only the termini from which and to which Thara betook himself with by far the greatest part of his family, which was necessary to know for understanding the history of Abram's calling. To this argument it will not be beside the point to join in this place other things which Pereira, on Genesis, book 16, Disputation 15, has skilfully gathered to our purpose, for this reason too, that the reasoning employed by us above has the greater force the more writers are adduced who, if Abram had really been cast into the fire for the sake of religion and divinely drawn out of it, would not have neglected to record it in a fitting place, namely where they treat of the excellence of Abraham's faith, whereas, as will presently appear, they have everywhere kept the deepest silence about it.
[127] and since the sacred writers were silent about the pretended prodigy, Thus, then, Pereira in the cited Disputation: The author also of the book of Ecclesiasticus, proclaiming the praises of Abraham in chapter 45, would not have passed over this deed of his (which is in question here), worthy of the highest proclamation. Nor indeed would Blessed Paul have kept silent about it in the Epistle to the Hebrews, chapter XI, where he extols with great praises the greatness and devotion of Abraham's faith, in that, obeying the divine commands and leaving his native soil, he came into the land of Chanaan, foreign and unknown to him: in that, believing in hope against hope, he begot a son from a barren wife beyond every course and order of nature: in that, finally, when God commanded the slaying of his son, he was most ready to immolate him. Since, then, if Abram had not refused to be burned alive in the flames for the confession and preaching of the one true God, the excellence of his faith would have shone forth most of all in this, Paul assuredly would not have left it among things passed over, but would have celebrated it before all things as worthy of the greatest admiration and commendation. What? Josephus, in the first book of the Antiquities,
plucking and gathering the things that were signal for the praise of Abraham not only from sacred but also from profane writers, said not a word about this deed of Abraham. For neither is a man most skilled in Jewish affairs to be believed to have been ignorant of it; nor, if he was not ignorant of it, to have wished to pass it over (since it was above all to be recorded). Philo too made no mention of this thing, who nevertheless published two books on Abraham, diligently setting forth his virtues and deeds.
[128] and the 2nd book of Esdras itself, contrary to what the adversaries contend, But perhaps there will be one who replies that the signal prodigy of which there is question here was sufficiently indicated by Esdras in Book 2, chapter 9, where he introduces certain Levites praying to God thus in verse 7: Thou thyself, O Lord God, who didst choose Abram and broughtest him forth out of the fire of the Chaldeans, etc. But I answer that, since in the cited verse 7 there is read in the primeval text Ur Chesdim, which St. Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, in Acts 7 interpreted not of the fire of the Chaldeans but of the land of the Chaldeans, and which the 70 Translators understood of the region of the Chaldeans, in Greek ἐκ τῆς χώρας τῶν Χαλδαίων, and Josephus in book 1 of the Antiquities, chapter 7, of a city of the Chaldeans named Ur, one must adhere to the version of these rather than to the opinion of those Levites (if indeed this opinion can be ascribed to them), since the authority of the former is much greater than that of certain Levites. I said just now: If indeed this opinion can be ascribed to them, because, even granting that the phrase Ur Chesdim was used by them appellatively, as they say, which however seems by no means to be admitted, it would not on that account follow any the more from this that those Levites believed that Abram was cast into the fire and brought out of it safe and unharmed by a singular prodigy.
[129] For, as the praised Pereira well notes on chapter XI of Genesis, page 423 in my copy, whose words can be expounded otherwise than of the punishment of fire. very often in the sacred Letters Fire is put for tribulation, as in the Psalms: Thou hast tried me by fire, and iniquity hath not been found in me: and in another place: We have passed through fire and water, and Thou hast brought us out into a refreshment; and in Jeremias in the Lamentations, chapter 1: From above He hath sent fire into my bones and hath instructed me. In this sense, then, Abram, having suffered grave persecution from the Chaldeans on account of the worship of the true God, and having for that cause been divinely called out of Chaldea, could truly be said by those Levites to have been brought forth from the Fire of the Chaldeans, although he was not cast by the Chaldeans into a burning pyre and drawn out of it, not without the highest prodigy, as the adversaries contend. And indeed this exposition of the Levites' prayer now given both reconciles the texts of our Vulgate that seem to conflict, and is not only not contrary to what Josephus in book 1 of the Antiquities, chapter 7, and St. Augustine in book 16 of the City of God, chapter 13, have related of the persecution brought upon the house of Thara by the Chaldeans, but rather adds no small light to them. Then too those words of the Levites, taken appellatively, as they would have it, can be so expounded that by the Fire of the Chaldeans, from which Abram was brought forth, the very idolatry of the Chaldeans (for fire was worshipped by them as God) was designated, and that their sense is therefore that Abram, with God as guide, was brought forth from the midst of the idolatry of the Chaldeans into another land, to be granted him at some time; which the Levites could rightly number among the singular benefits of God conferred on their fathers.
[130] Let us now call to examination another argument which our adversaries deduce from these words: [Nor was that vaunted prodigy indicated in chapter 15 of Genesis, as is shown by the recited argument of Pereira] I am the Lord, who brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldeans. By these aforesaid divine words to Abram in Genesis chapter 15, verse 7, God wished, they say, to signify that that transfer of Abram from Ur of the Chaldeans was wonderful above all, and to be held in the place of the highest benefit: but since, the same men say, to have brought him out of the land of the Chaldeans into the land of Chanaan is not very wonderful nor so signal a benefit, they argue that it follows that by those words no other singular benefit was signified by God than that by which he was divinely brought out of the burning of the Chaldeans. But, as Pereira, praised above, again most rightly notes in the cited Disputation 15, number 239, page 423, the meaning of God's words is assuredly other than the adversaries would have it. For, he says, in order to arouse and strengthen in Abraham's mind faith and confidence in that promise which He was then giving him concerning the innumerable multiplication of his posterity, and concerning the possession of the land of Chanaan, in which Abraham was then dwelling, He wished to renew in him the memory of that promise made when He commanded him to set out from Mesopotamia into the land of Chanaan. For thus He spoke to him, as Moses relates in chapter 12: "Go forth out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and out of thy father's house, and come into the land which I shall show thee: and I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and magnify thy name, and thou shalt be blessed: I will bless them that bless thee: and curse them that curse thee, and in thee shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed." These things God then said and promised to Abraham.
[131] By the commemoration of this first promise of God, then, He wished to strengthen Abraham's mind, so that he might believe and hope without any doubt that what He promised him would come to pass. Therefore the meaning of those words of God is this: I, who now promise thee the possession of the land of Chanaan and the multiplication of posterity, am that very God who commanded thee to migrate from Mesopotamia (namely taken more broadly) into the land of Chanaan, and then first gave thee these so magnificent promises, so that thou oughtest to be altogether certain of promises of this kind, often given and confirmed by Me. And lest this exposition of Pereira be said to be either altogether new or gratuitously devised, I should like to present St. John Chrysostom, in Homily 37 on Genesis, volume 4 of the Works, column 373, discoursing on the same words of God. See, he says, how God (saying to Abram: I am God, who brought thee out, etc.) tempers Himself to human weakness, how He wishes to strengthen his faith and persuade him not to doubt at all of the things which had been promised: as if He said: Be mindful that I called thee from thy house. Certainly, the things said by the Lord are consonant with the sayings of blessed Stephen, who says that he was called out both from his house and from Chaldea by the Lord's command, and not, as the adversaries would have it, brought forth divinely from a fire into which he had been cast.
[132] and by the authority of St. John Chrysostom is shown; And after a little St. Chrysostom continues thus: Therefore in this place He (God) recalls to his mind how great care He had of him from the beginning, declaring to him that in order to advance him to great things, and to promise and fulfil so many good things for him, He had commanded him to accomplish so long a journey. "I am God, who brought thee out of the region of the Chaldeans, to give thee this land, that thou mightest possess it as an inheritance." Did I call thee thence without cause? Did I bring thee out thence in vain and to no purpose? For this reason I commanded that thou shouldst betake thyself into Palestine and, leaving thy father's house, come into this land, that thou mightest possess it as an inheritance. Considering, therefore, how much thou enjoyest My providence from the time when thou didst leave Chaldea, … and how thou art illustrious and becomest daily more illustrious through My help and care, trust in My words. Thus far St. Chrysostom, who, while he asserts that the provident care of the supreme Godhead shone forth in him especially at the time when Abram had already left Chaldea, without introducing any mention at all of a punishment of fire from which he had previously been divinely snatched, even thus clearly indicates that that deed vaunted by some Hebrews seemed to him foreign to the truth, and that there is no other sense of God's words in Genesis chapter 15 than that which was related above by us from Pereira.
[133] nor finally from the title of Martyr given to Abraham, Nor does Chrysostom favour the adversaries in Oration 8 against the Jews, volume 1 of the Works of the new edition, page 686, where he calls Abram a Martyr; for he makes our Patriarch a martyr in no other sense than that in which he calls Noe, Isaac and Jacob martyrs, namely, not because he was given over to death for the name or honour of the divine Godhead, or suffered those torments which were of themselves apt to inflict death, but because he so adhered to God that he would rather choose death with piety than the preservation of life with any impiety. Finally, even if we granted the adversaries altogether that God, in Genesis chapter 15, wished to strengthen Abram's mind, so that he might join the fullest faith to the divine promises, not in the manner and sense in which Pereira would have it, but by the recounting of some outstanding benefit, and that He therefore recalled to his memory the transfer from Ur of the Chaldeans divinely made; it would not on that account follow that Abram was cast into the fire by the Chaldeans and snatched from it by God by a singular prodigy, since without this prodigy it was a singular enough benefit to him to have been brought forth from the midst of iniquities and from the idolatry of the Chaldeans, so as to receive the land of Chanaan to be possessed as an inheritance; nor would that transfer, which had been made by the special command of God appearing to Abram, on that account have to be said to have been less divinely made, because Abram had not been snatched by God from the fiery punishment of the Chaldeans.
[134] It remains now that we observe some things upon the words of St. Jerome in which he teaches that the mentioned narrative of the Hebrews is true. nor is it proved solidly enough from the words of St. Jerome. And among other things, indeed, it is to be noted that St. Jerome wrote his Hebrew Questions on Genesis at a time when he was not yet exercised in every part in the sacred Letters, and that not only sixteen years later, when he translated the book of Genesis into Latin, he did not approve his former opinion in the Hebrew Questions, but on the contrary interpreted Ur Chesdim both in verse 28 of chapter XI of Genesis and in verse 31 by Ur of the Chaldeans, in which land of his nativity he writes that Aran died, whose sepulchre Josephus writes in book 1 of the Antiquities was shown even in his own time, and following him Jerome himself in the Book On the Sites and Names of Hebrew places, volume 2 of the new edition of the Works, column 491. Moreover, if Jerome, a little later, namely at column 518, in the same Hebrew Questions, asserted that that tradition of the Hebrews, which he had previously, namely at column 517, held as a fable, or certainly as a little tale commonly spread abroad, could be held as true, he gave such a vote only very unwillingly and timidly, ready
otherwise to change his opinion, if another and more suitable way of resolving the question he was then treating should open itself to him. For since the holy Writer then judged that Abram was born in the seventieth year of his father, and yet read in Genesis 14, verse 4, that Abram was seventy-five years old when he went forth from Haran, he was obliged to seek from somewhere some epoch, different from Abraham's birth, from which those 75 years could be reckoned; and since in this opinion about Abram's birth-year no other way of explaining the difficulty remained to him than that by which he could reckon those years from some signal deed of Abram, pressed by the difficulty, he snatched for a while at that narrative which supplied a deed of this sort, adding, however, that he permitted anyone who brought another solution of the difficulty to disapprove what he had said; and thus he indicated clearly enough that that narrative of the Hebrews did not seem to him such that credit could be given it with sufficient safety.
§ VIII. The first calling of Abram, made divinely in Chaldea: Abram's going out from Ur of the Chaldeans: various things bearing on this.
Abram is divinely called out of Ur of the Chaldeans, Abram had now reached the seventieth year of his life, as most hold, exercised now by prosperous, now by adverse things, as human affairs commonly are: having obtained, namely, a wife above all beautiful, and worthy of him in morals and piety, but one who gave daily more certain proofs of her barrenness; on the other side likewise rejoicing not moderately at his father, already then drawn back to the worship of the true God, as is more likely from the words of Achior in the Book of Judith, chapter 5, verse 7, but consumed with grief at the untimely death of his brother Aran; finally, to pass over other things, hateful to his idolatrous countrymen on account of the worship of the true God, but for the same reason loved in the highest degree by the supreme Godhead and by the upright members of his household. In such a state of affairs, then, was Abram living in Chaldea, when God, or an angel holding the place of God, in that glory and majesty which could confirm one to be struck by a grave announcement, showed Himself visible to him and enjoined on him by a precept hitherto unheard of that he should forsake his land, namely Ur of the Chaldeans, which was a city of Mesopotamia taken in a broader sense, and the idolaters who touched him either by consanguinity or by affinity, and his brother, and his father himself, if these wished to remain in Chaldea; if they preferred to go away thence with him, he should not reject them as companions of the way; and should come into a land to be indicated to him according to the divine good pleasure.
[136] and with Thara his father, his wife, and Lot he sets out for Haran, So, roughly, we may conceive the whole matter from what Moses at the end of chapter XI of Genesis and St. Stephen in Acts chapter 7 have handed down to memory concerning the divine calling of Abram and his going out from Chaldea; the latter, namely, when, in that celebrated speech to the Jewish people, setting forth the cause of Abram's departure, he discourses in this manner from verse 2: Men, brethren and fathers, hear: The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charan, and said to him: Go forth out of thy country and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall show thee; and the former, when, narrating the manner of the same departure, he speaks thus in Genesis chapter XI, verse 31: And Thare (as being the father and head of the whole family) took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Aran, his son's son, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, the wife of Abram his son, and brought them out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to go into the land of Chanaan. That Abram at once obeyed God calling him, St. Stephen does not allow us to doubt, adding presently after the relation of God's command: Then he went out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Charan, namely in that same city of Mesopotamia strictly so called which Moses in the cited chapter XI calls Haran, when, relating that Abram did not go out from Chaldea unaccompanied, he adds this of Thara, of Abram himself, and likewise of Lot and Sarai: They came as far as Haran and dwelt there.
[137] Further, that this habitation of Abram in Haran lasted up to the seventy-fifth year of his age, where he dwells until the death of his father. in which at length, after his father's death, he went out thence with Sarai his wife and Lot, his brother's son, towards the land of Chanaan, is clearly understood from the narrative of Moses and of Stephen. Hear the words of the former, Genesis chapter 12, verses 4 and 5: Abram was seventy-five years old when he went forth from Haran. And he took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all the substance which they had possessed, and the souls which they had gotten in Haran: and they went out to go into the land of Chanaan. Hear also the words of St. Stephen, Acts chapter 7, verse 4: And from thence (namely from Charan, or Haran), after his father was dead, He (the Lord) removed him (Abram) into this land, wherein you now dwell. But before we follow Abram further as he sets out hither from Haran, some things compel us to halt for a while which can be brought into controversy concerning his divine calling and his going out from Chaldea, and which need fuller commentary.
[138] And before other things, indeed, since Moses, in relating this divine calling, That calling was made by an angel of God, under visible form, nowhere testifies that God, or an angel as God's vicar, then appeared to Abram, the question can not without cause be raised whether Abram was called by God and commanded to depart from Chaldea by an interior voice alone by which his mind was affected; or whether, on the contrary, God, or an angel holding God's place (for we understand him here by the name of God), appeared to Abram under a visible and perceptible form, and also made known to him by an external voice the command to leave Chaldea. If we consider more attentively the chronological series of apparitions made under a visible or perceptible form in the old Testament, which the most learned Cardinal Lambertini wove in book 3 of the Beatification of the Servants of God, etc., chapter 50, number 2, it will be necessary to confess either that the writer just praised was mistaken in recounting apparitions of this kind in chronological order, or that the angel of God did not appear to Abram under visible form until he had already dwelt twenty-four years in the land of Chanaan. For if, as the most eminent author writes, the first of apparitions of this kind in order is that made to our first parents: the second, that to Cain; the third, that to Noe; the fourth, that made to Agar in Genesis chapter 16; and the fifth, that to Abraham; it altogether follows from this that God gave Himself visible to Abram only when he was a hundred years old and was commanded to change the name Abram into Abraham, as is related in Genesis chapter 27.
[139] But whatever be the case about the most learned writer's assertion on this matter, however much His Eminence Lambertini may seem to oppose it, appearing to him, I judge that from these words of St. Stephen: The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, and said to him, etc., these two things are made out clearly enough: the one, that God appeared to Abram there in a certain visible glory and majesty; the other, that He struck not his mind only with an interior voice, but also the ears of his body with an external voice, by which He commanded him to go out of his land. Thus, besides others, St. Chrysostom, Homily 31 on Genesis, volume 4, page 308, writes that God, when He commanded Abram to migrate from the land of the Chaldeans, was seen by him, and hints that He at the same time spoke to him with an external voice, which last the praised most eminent Cardinal openly confesses at number 2. Nor, because Moses in Genesis chapter XI, hastening to other things, did not narrate these and the other circumstances of this apparition, does the clear narrative of St. Stephen deserve less credit, or are his words to be taken in another sense than that which they display; and most certainly by no means in that in which a certain sectary contends that not God, or an angel as God's vicar, but the patriarch Sem showed himself visible to Abram and spoke by God's command.
[140] it was made not in Mesopotamia strictly so called, Concerning the region too in which this apparition was made, the opinion of the interpreters of sacred Scripture is not one; and there was one among them who contended that the land from which God first commanded Abram to go out was not Chaldea, or Ur, a city of this region, but the city of Haran, and that he was born and brought up in this latter city. But since it is more than certain that Abram was born in Chaldea, and came thence first to Haran, and set out thence into Chanaan, it is not worth the trouble to dwell on refuting this opinion, which its author himself afterwards abandoned. A different opinion too from that which we followed at the beginning of this § is defended by St. Augustine, book 16 of the City of God, chapter 15, and he asserts that God appeared and spoke to Abram not in Chaldea, but in Mesopotamia more strictly so called, namely when he had already gone out from the Chaldeans together with his father, but had not yet arrived at Haran. But because these words of God to Abram could be opposed to this opinion: Go forth out of thy country, etc., he discourses on them in this manner in the cited chapter: But that God says to him, when already established in Mesopotamia, that is, when already gone out of the land of the Chaldeans, "Go forth out of thy country and from thy kindred and from thy father's house," is said not that he might cast out his body thence, which he had already done, but that he might tear away his mind. For he had not gone out thence in mind, if he was held by the hope and desire of returning; which hope and desire, by God's command and help and by his obedience, had to be cut off.
[141] but in Chaldea, or Mesopotamia taken in a broader sense, But, be it said with all reverence for the holy Doctor, he did not perceive rightly enough the genuine sense of the words of St. Stephen on which he builds his opinion. For the holy Levite, using the word Mesopotamia in Acts chapter 7, verse 2, did not wish to designate that Mesopotamia which is a region different from Chaldea, but that whole tract of lands situated between the Tigris and the Euphrates which comprised Mesopotamia of Syria, in Hebrew Paddan Aram, Chaldea and other lesser regions; and this is clearly drawn from the very words of St. Stephen. For having related that God appeared to Abram when he was in Mesopotamia and commanded him to go out of his land, he presently, to show that this command was fulfilled by him, adds this: Then he (Abram) went out of the land of the Chaldeans; which surely would not be true unless St. Stephen had comprehended under the word Mesopotamia the land of the Chaldeans, Abram's native soil; as Josephus too, in book I of the Antiquities, chapter 8, and others with him comprehend it.
This sense of St. Stephen, then, being admitted as the genuine one, every apparent contradiction between him and Moses vanishes; and this advantage too arises from it, that it is not necessary to take refuge in that hard and not sufficiently probable interpretation by which these words of Genesis: Go forth out of thy country, etc., are expounded in Augustine not of a bodily going out, as the letter nevertheless sounds, but of a certain spiritual going out not sufficiently honourable to Abram. Let it remain fixed and certain, therefore, what we said before, that God appeared to Abram while he was still in Chaldea itself, and commanded him to go out thence and come into the land which God would show him, as St. Stephen also narrates in the same chapter of Acts.
[142] But another difficulty again arises from the words of Moses and Stephen compared together; whence towards the land of Chanaan, namely, since Moses says in Genesis chapter XI, verse 31, that Thare, Abram, Lot and Sarai went out of Ur of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Chanaan, while Stephen relates only that Abram was called out into a land to be afterwards divinely shown him, one may not undeservedly be in doubt whether God expressly named to Abram, while he was still in Chaldea, the land of Chanaan into which he was to go, or whether, on the contrary, with no terminus of the journey to be undertaken designated by name, He only commanded him to depart from Chaldea. Torniello in the Sacred Annals, at the year of the world 2113, number 3, page 279, judges it more probable that already before they went out of Ur of the Chaldeans God revealed to Abram himself, and Abram to his father Thare, that they should go into the land of Chanaan. So too with him judge certain learned interpreters of sacred Scripture, both because they do not seem likely to have directed their journey to the land of Chanaan, as Moses writes in chapter XI, unless this terminus of the way had been indicated by God; and also because Abram, unless he had understood from God the name and situation of the region to which he was to go, would have been uncertain whether he should set out towards the East or other quarters of the world rather than towards the West.
[143] Nevertheless, with Pereira, volume 3 on Genesis, yet not yet indicated to him by name, Commentary on chapter 12, number 7, page 5 in my copy, and several others, I judge that God, when He gave this command to Abram, did not indicate to him the name of the land of Chanaan. What makes me think so is the Apostle Paul, Hebrews chapter XI, verse 8, commending Abram's faith and blind obedience to the divine voice in these words: By faith he that is called Abraham obeyed to go out into a place which he was to receive for an inheritance: and he went out, not knowing whither he went. But if God, when He first appeared to him, had already expressed by name the land of Chanaan, Abram would most certainly have known the place to which he was going; nor would there be any reason why Abram's blind obedience should be so greatly commended by the Apostle on this head; it follows, therefore, that the land of Chanaan, to which he was at some time to come under God's guidance, had not yet been designated by God to him as he hastened to withdraw from Chaldea, and that on that title the holy Man's faith and his alacrity of mind, prompt to carry out any commands of God, became the more illustrious, and therefore the more worthy to be set forth to posterity for imitation. Moreover, if God, first appearing to Abram, had said to him: Come into the land of Chanaan, as the adversaries would have Him have said, why did St. Stephen not express this, as being both briefer and more express and more suited to the nature of a historical narrative; nay, on the contrary, employed that vague and at the same time longer phrase: Come into the land which I shall show thee?
[144] I for my part judge that He spoke in the latter manner for no other cause he conducted himself, not without a quite singular proof of obedience, than that God, wishing from the beginning to exercise the obedience of the just Man, did not at once designate a definite region to which he was to go, as St. Chrysostom too, after his manner, learnedly and expressly asserts in the cited Homily 31 on Genesis, page 308, writing thus among other things: Consider how from the beginning the Just man (Abram) is exercised, that he may choose things not apparent before things apparent, and things to come before those which are in hand. For it was no common or small thing which God commanded him to do: namely, that he should leave the land which he had inhabited for so long a time, and all his kindred and his whole father's house, AND GO NOT KNOWING AND IGNORANT WHITHER. For He did not tell him into what region He wished to transfer him, but exercised the pious Patriarch with an indefinite command. For COME, He says, INTO THE LAND WHICH I SHALL SHOW THEE. And after a little, on page 309, he adds: Whom would these words not trouble? He designates to him neither a place nor a definite region, but tests the mind of the Just man by an indefinite precept. For if it had been anyone else, and one of the common sort, who received the command, he would surely have said: Be it so, Thou commandest that I leave the land which I inhabit, my kindred, my father's house: why dost Thou not also declare the place into which Thou biddest me set out, so that Thou mayest make me more certain how long a journey is to be made… But the Just man neither said nor thought any of these things: but, regarding the greatness of the things commanded, he preferred the uncertain to what he had in hand.
[145] although some arguments, which are answered here, But that Moses writes in Genesis XI that Abram and Thare went out of Ur of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Chanaan assuredly does not much hinder our opinion; since those words seem to have been used by the sacred Writer by anticipation, so that their sense is that they directed their journey into the land which, as was afterwards revealed by God, was in fact the land of Chanaan, although they did not yet have it conceived in mind under the particular or determinate notion of the land of Chanaan. By those words, then, Moses wished only to indicate the terminus of their journey, that is, the end intended by God, though not yet explored by name by the travellers themselves when they first migrated. Nor should it seem wonderful that Moses used anticipation in this place, since this conduced much to the greater brevity and clarity of his narrative, and in this way he was not compelled to use that longer phrase of words by which he would say that they went into the land which God had promised that He would show to Abram, which, as afterwards appeared, was no other than the land of Chanaan itself. But, you will say, if Abram, girding himself for the journey, did not know the name of the place to which he was being called out, why did he enter upon the journey towards Chanaan rather than towards the Eastern or Northern quarters?
[146] seem to suggest that the land of Chanaan had already then been indicated to him, I answer that this came about either because God, calling him out into a land afterwards to be expressly indicated, then openly manifested to him only the way he was to keep to; or because Abram was moved by some unusual interior instinct or other divine indication to commit himself to the way leading to the West rather than to any opposite ways, and to serve the divine will concerning him. Next now is that we illustrate somewhat the remaining circumstances of this pilgrimage, and for this reason also, that some of them are not without their difficulty. And first, since Abram was commanded by God not only to go out of his land, but also from his kindred and from his father's house, someone will ask on what ground he can be said to have fulfilled this command of God, who came to Haran together with his father and his brother's son Lot, and, as it seems, with the very household of his father's house, and did not depart thence, as Moses writes in Genesis chapter 12, until Thara was dead, when he himself was 75 years old, so that he spent nearly five years there with his father.
[147] To these let this be the answer: Abram, enlightened by divine light, had a very thorough knowledge of the will of God commanding him; and, although he had his father also as companion of the journey, and since he well understood that it had not been divinely enjoined on him to keep away from himself, by words or by deeds, the kinsfolk who desired to withdraw with him from the fellowship of the idolaters, but that the force of the divine precept looked to this, that he should not allow himself to be hindered or delayed from undertaking the journey by desire for anything, nor by love of country, kindred and father's house, he must be said, by this very fact that he was so disposed in mind and in fact went out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to have fulfilled the command of God truly and in every part; nor can his obedience on that account be judged less entire and perfect because Thare and Lot with their household joined themselves to him as companions of the way as he departed from Chaldea, and he himself thereafter, now established outside Chaldea, dwelt together with them in Haran, as St. Stephen testifies. For there were most just reasons for his doing so: both that he might give his father, weary from the road, leisure to breathe, and that he might be a solace and support to an old man of two hundred, and finally that he might pay the last rites to him when dead; all of which testimonies of a noble and most pious love towards a parent he knew were by no means forbidden him by God. Nor indeed does this delay of Abram in Haran in any way accuse him of slowness or hesitation in carrying out the first command, but rather proves his most prompt obedience, as Salian notes in the place cited above, number 3, inasmuch as, commanded to go out of Chaldea, he went out; to stay in Haran, he stayed; to set out into Chanaan, he set out; as will appear more manifestly from what has been and is further to be said.
[148] But another difficulty again arises from what has been said above, not undeservedly mentioned by Moses as the leader of the departure; namely why Moses, if Abram, impelled by the divine command, was the author of this journey and admitted his father, who wished to cling to him, as companion of the way, ascribed the departure from Chaldea not to Abram himself but to Thara, his father, writing namely thus in Genesis chapter XI, verse 31: And Thare took Abram his son and Lot the son of Aran, his son's son, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, the wife of Abram his son, and brought them out of Ur of the Chaldeans? Whatever others may think on this matter, I judge that Moses spoke thus in the cited chapter because Thara departed from Chaldea with his son Abram of his own accord, either captivated by love of his son, whose companionship and solace he was unwilling to lack, or so disposed in mind that, even if his Son had not been divinely called out of Chaldea, he would nevertheless himself have led him out thence with the rest of the household, both to flee the impiety and idolatry of the Chaldeans, as Achior, the leader of the Ammonites, hints in chapter 5 of the book of Judith, and to withdraw himself and his family from the hatred and persecution of the Chaldeans, as the Greek text of the same chapter likewise indicates, relating that Thare and Abram were cast out by the Chaldeans from the face of their gods, and as St. Augustine most expressly
teaches. But for whatever cause at length Thare is said to have departed from Chaldea with Abram, he certainly departed with him; and therefore Moses, observing propriety, not undeservedly ascribed that going out to his auspices and leadership, as father and chief of the whole family; yet in such a way that he does not deny that the divine calling of Abram was the principal cause of his departure from Chaldea, but on the contrary elsewhere expressly affirms that Abram went out of Chaldea on account of the divine calling.
[149] Now, the circumstances of Abram's first calling and of his departure from Chaldea having been explained, which signal obedience of Abram Philo it will not be beside the point to add, by way of a finishing flourish, the words of Philo in which, illustrating this deed in general, he wonderfully commends Abram's eager obedience to the divine voice. Thus, then, he speaks in the book which he entitled On the Life of the Wise Man made perfect through instruction, or On Abraham, edition of the year 1613, page 281: Struck (Abram) by the oracle by which he was commanded to migrate, forsaking country, kindred and father's household, no otherwise than if he had been commanded to return home from a sojourn abroad, he hastened his journey into a foreign region, thinking the thing done if he carried out the command speedily. Who else, do you think, would have been so constant and stubborn, * as not to be bent by affection for kindred and country, the desire for which is innate in each and has grown together with him more, or at least not less, than the members of the body? Witnesses are the lawgivers, who appointed exile as the second penalty after capital punishment for those convicted of the most atrocious crimes: assuredly not the second, so far as I can truly judge, but somewhat graver: since death is the end of calamities, but exile is not the end but the beginning of new evils, whereby, one death without sensation being escaped, innumerable deaths are felt. Some sail for the sake of trade and increasing their substance, others for an embassy: some, drawn to travel abroad by love of seeing foreign regions, or of acquiring learning, by desire of gain, or of helping their country in difficult times, or of knowing what they had not known before, for the sake of delighting and aiding the mind. For as much as the blind yield to those who see, so much do those who have travelled surpass those who have never gone out of their country.
[150] wonderfully praised. After which he continues thus: Yet all, hastening to their native soil, long to see and greet it, to embrace their household, to enjoy the far most pleasant mutual sight of their countrymen and friends: so much so that sometimes, when the business for which they left their household delays them, they break it off, unable to bear the longing for their dearest relationships. But this Man of ours, with a slender or almost no retinue, departed as soon as he was commanded, having set out to the new colony in mind before in body, the desire for mortal things yielding to the love of heavenly ones. Putting aside, therefore, all care of countrymen, fellow-tribesmen, household, friends, kinsfolk by father's and mother's blood, besides these of country, of accustomed manners, of those brought up together with him and companions of his life, each of which has great power to draw one back from a purpose, he departs with free and unencumbered effort as soon as he can, first from Chaldea, at that time a very fortunate region, into the territory of Carrhae: then not long after from here too into another place, of which we shall speak. Thus far Philo, whose following words, as pertaining to the moral or allegorical understanding of these things and to Abram's departure from Haran into the land of Chanaan, I pass over in this place, and proceed to other deeds of Abram, the reader being warned in passing, however, that one must not adhere so closely to the words of Philo, both those already transcribed and those to be transcribed hereafter, that, when in the circumstances of historical matters they do not fully accord with undoubted documents, or at least documents of better mark, and with solid reasons, credit should be given to Philo rather than to them.
Annotation* read: immotus ("unmoved")
§ IX. The divine calling of Abram related in Genesis chapter XII is different from the one already mentioned before: the promise made to Abram in the same chapter XII was on many counts most ample: His departure towards the land of Chanaan: its epoch.
[The divine calling of Abram related in chapter 12 of Genesis differs from the former,] Not a few, I think, will be moved to wonder why, in the preceding §, setting out in detail the divine calling of Abram made in Ur of the Chaldeans and its principal circumstances, I made no mention at all of the words of God by which Moses, in Genesis chapter 12, verses 1, 2 and 3, relates that he was called out, since nevertheless a great many interpreters of sacred Scripture assert that these words: And the Lord said to Abram: Go forth out of thy country… And I will make of thee a great nation, etc., pertain to that calling, nay teach that they must so necessarily be referred to it that they do not fear on that account to transfer the words just cited from their obvious and common sense into a foreign one, and to expound the verb said by the verb had said. The cause which impelled me not to follow in their footsteps, but on the contrary to treat of those words only afterwards, is this: that that divine calling of Abram which Moses relates in the cited chapter 12 seems to me altogether different from that which St. Stephen in Acts chapter 7 writes was made in Ur of the Chaldeans, that is, before (Abram) dwelt in Charan; and that I see no sufficiently urgent reason why this calling of Abram, which Moses undertook to narrate in the cited chapter 12 from verse 1, after relating Thara's death in chapter XI, should be said to have been placed there by hysterology. And that I do not depart rashly from the opinion of those interpreters of sacred Scripture, the reasons now to be brought forward will, unless I am mistaken, make plain.
[152] And the first indeed is this, that the calling of Abram both in place and in time, namely in Abram's 75th year, related by St. Stephen in Acts chapter 7, verse 2, of which we treated above, differs in place from that which Moses recounts in Genesis chapter 12, verse 1 and verse 4 and following. For the former, as Stephen testifies, was made to Abram before he dwelt in Charan, and therefore, as was shown in the preceding §, in the very city of Ur of the Chaldeans; but the latter, which Moses relates in chapter 12 of Genesis, verse 1 and verse 4 and following, is by no means asserted to have been made in Ur of the Chaldeans; so that on the contrary, since Moses places it after Thara's death in the city of Haran, and immediately after the narration of this calling adds in verse 4: So Abram went out, as the Lord had commanded him, and Lot went with him, namely from Haran, as he hints in the same verse by these words: Abram was seventy-five years old when he went forth from Haran; by this manner of speaking the same sacred writer not obscurely indicates that this calling of Abram of which he treats came about in the very City of Haran. There is added also a second reason, namely that, as can in some way be gathered even from what has been said, the calling of Abram related by Stephen also differs in time from that which Moses narrates in the cited chapter 12 of Genesis. For the former, as having been made before Abram dwelt in Charan, came about while Thare was still alive, with whom namely, as Moses testifies in Genesis chapter XI, verse 31, Abram came to Haran; the latter, on the contrary, which Moses recounts in chapter 12 from verse 1, is narrated to have been made when Thare had died in the two hundred and fifth year of his age, as the same divine writer testifies in chapter XI, last verse, and as St. Stephen discloses plainly enough in Acts chapter 7, verse 4, in these words: And from thence (from Charan), after his (Abram's) father was dead, He (God, namely by calling and command) removed him into this land, namely Chanaan, in which the Jews then dwelt.
[153] and in the companions of the journey that followed upon the calling, Moreover, if we turn our attention to the companions of the departure of Abram undertaken by divine mandate, or, to use the words of Moses, as the Lord had commanded him, we shall find these too to be different. In the former, Abram, setting out by divine command from Ur of the Chaldeans, has joined to him as companions of the way Thare his father, Lot and Sarai; and, what is worthy of note, Moses makes not so much Abram as his father Thara the author of this departure, speaking thus in Genesis chapter XI, verse 31: And Thare took Abram … and Lot … and Sarai, etc.; but in the other, in which Abram withdraws from Haran into the land of Chanaan as the Lord had commanded him, Thare nowhere appears, and, what likewise deserves to be noted here, Moses makes no other than Abram alone the author of this pilgrimage undertaken by divine mandate, speaking thus in chapter 12, verses 4 and 5: Abram was seventy-five years old when he went forth from Haran. And he took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all the substance which they had possessed, and the souls which they had gotten in Haran (that is, the slaves whom they had acquired, or perhaps servants and dependants whom they had gained for God by converting them to the worship of the true God), and they went out to go into the land of Chanaan.
[154] and in other circumstances too, Add that both Moses in Genesis chapter XI, verse 31, and Stephen in Acts chapter 7, verses 2 and 3, relating Abram's departure from Ur of the Chaldeans into Haran, introduce not even a single word of mention of any divine promise that had been made to him beforehand, whereas the same divine writer testifies in the most express words that to that divine calling which Moses places in Haran after Thara's death a divine promise, and that most ample in every part, was joined. Finally, since Moses in the same chapter 12 of Genesis, verse 4, says in set words of Abram withdrawing from Haran with Sarai and Lot: So Abram went out, as the Lord had commanded him, etc., it must be laid down that the divine command to go out of Haran was likewise given to him there, since a command to go out of Haran cannot be understood to have been given in Ur of the Chaldeans, a city which he perhaps did not then know to exist in the nature of things, or at least into which he had not yet set foot; so that the one calling is as different from the other as the departure from Ur into Haran is different from that which was made from Haran into the land of Chananaea.
[155] as St. Chrysostom too teaches, Let St. Chrysostom be heard here again, in Homily 36 on Genesis, volume 4, pages 362 and 363, speaking thus to our purpose: Because in his first age (Abram) did not follow his father's error, but showed piety towards the Godhead, he therefore at once obtained the heavenly visitation while he was still in Chaldea: and this blessed Stephen sets forth to us more manifestly, saying thus: "The God of glory was seen by our father Abraham, when he was still in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran." Have you seen how the vision removed him THENCE? For it is likely that he, together with diligent piety towards God, showing reverence to his parents also
won his father to himself by so great a love that he was moved by love of his son to leave his own country and to dwell in a strange one. But see diligently, I beseech you, how this visitation too, which came from God on account of his former virtue, again made his virtue more illustrious. For he chose TO LEAVE HIS FATHER'S REGION and to dwell in a strange one, that he might fulfil the command of God: and he was ready even without his kinsfolk, as it seems to me, to undertake the pilgrimage: but, as I said, the virtue of the Man and his signal piety towards his parents brought it about that his father became the companion of the journey. Then, when they had arrived at Charran, they pitched their tent there. And after Tharra had died, for that was his father's name, it was again commanded him by God that he should go out thence. "Go forth," He says, "out of thy country and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall show thee." Thus far that great Prelate of Constantinople, illustrious no less for learning than for sanctity.
[156] But truly, you will say, by the words of Genesis related in chapter 12, verse 1, Abram is commanded to go forth from his land and from his father's house; nor do the words of Genesis chapter 12, verse 1, indicate the contrary, and therefore, since the city of Haran was not his native soil, and since Abram does not seem able to be said to have then gone out of his father's house, the father having already, in our opinion, died in Haran, it becomes necessary that those words of Genesis chapter 12: And the Lord said to Abram: Go forth out of thy country, etc., be said to have been related there by Moses by hysterology, and that that verb said is therefore to be expounded by had said. But I answer that, although the city of Haran was not Abram's native soil, nevertheless this city was designated by those words: Go forth out of thy country, both on account of the abode of Thara, Abram's father, fixed there for some while, and on account of the stable habitation of Abram himself, which Achior in the book of Judith, chapter 5, verse 9, and St. Stephen in Acts chapter 7, verse 4, mention, and on account of the substance, as Moses says in Genesis chapter 12, verse 5, which he possessed there by full right, for example fields, pastures, flocks, herds, home-born and purchased slaves, and other goods of the kind; on account of which everyone sees that Abram could not undeservedly hold the city of Haran as his fixed abode, that is, as his land.
[157] And surely, not only at the time when, before his second calling, since Abram himself held the city of Haran as his land he was living in Haran, but also long after he had gone out thence by divine command, that Abram was so disposed in mind as to hold that city as his land is luminously plain from chapter 24 of Genesis, where, when he was about to send Eliezer, his steward, to that city, he is related in verse 4 to have addressed him in these words: but that thou go TO MY OWN COUNTRY AND KINDRED and take a wife from thence for my son Isaac; and so likewise Eliezer understood and afterwards declared his Master's meaning, when, in his speech to Laban and Bathuel in which he sets forth the cause of his embassy, he recounts his mandate in this manner from verse 37: And my master made me swear, saying: Thou shalt not take a wife for my son of the daughters of the Chananaeans, in whose land I dwell: but thou shalt go TO MY FATHER'S HOUSE, etc. From which words, since no better interpreter of his meaning than Abram himself, and after him his most faithful and intimate steward, can be had, it becomes clear that Abram held this city as his land, and the family of his brother Nachor, then fixed in it, as his father's house, and that the words of God by which he was commanded to leave this city and his brother's family must likewise be understood in that sense in which Abram understood this city as his land and Nachor's family as his father's house.
[158] and as his father's house, But, you will retort, can Abram be said to have gone out of the house of his father, who had already died before? But why not, I ask? Was not Thare his father already dead long enough at the time when Abram was very old and his son Isaac, born to him at a hundred, was already forty years old? Nay rather, most certainly indeed; nevertheless, does not Abram, in the cited chapter 24, verse 38, send his steward to his father's house in the city of Nachor, or Haran, to take thence a wife for his son? When Isaac married Rebecca, was not Sara his mother already dead before? And altogether undoubtedly; yet hear what Moses relates of him in the same chapter, verse 67: Who (Isaac) brought her into the tent of Sara his mother, and took her to wife, and he loved her so much that it moderated the sorrow which was occasioned by the death of his (Isaac's) mother. Finally, to pass over examples of other locutions of this kind, had not Manasses her husband died long before Judith? And undoubtedly again; and yet in the book of Judith, chapter 16, verse 28, this widow is related to have remained in her husband's house a hundred and five years, that is, up to the hundred and fifth year of her age, in which at length she died. There is no reason, then, why on account of those words of Genesis chapter 12, Go forth out of thy country, it should be denied that the divine calling of Abram was made in Haran, or why on account of these: from thy father's house, it should be laid down to have been made only while his father was still alive, or before Abram had gone out of Ur and dwelt in Haran.
[159] and the same words could be said to him divinely both in Haran and in Ur: Nor does St. Stephen, in Acts chapter 7, verse 3, overturn this second calling of Abram asserted by us, setting out the calling of Abram made in Ur of the Chaldeans in almost the same words in which Moses, in chapter 12 of Genesis, sets out that which we assert came about in Haran and was different from the former. For when St. Stephen asserts that these words were spoken by God to Abram while he was in Ur, that is, before he dwelt in Charan: Go forth out of thy country and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall show thee, he by no means denies on that account that almost the very same divine words which Moses relates in Genesis chapter 12, namely: Go forth out of thy country and from thy kindred and from thy father's house, and come into the land which I will show thee, were also uttered when God called Abram out of Haran and he went out thence as the Lord had commanded him, as is asserted in the same chapter, verse 4. I confess that if the words, whether Hebrew, Greek or Latin, by which this command of God is expressed in the sacred Books, were such that they could designate only Abram's native land, then the words recited both from Moses and from Stephen would necessarily have to be referred to the divine calling made in Ur alone; but since they openly designate in general every land which could by any title be called Abram's land, as well as his native one, I see no necessity why on that account, especially when so many reasons fight to the contrary, we should deny that Abram was divinely called in Haran and went out thence by a new command of God, or confound into one his twofold calling, which we have proved by so many arguments.
[160] Let the Mosaic statement, then, which stands at the beginning of chapter 12 of Genesis, remain in its obvious and genuine sense, The occasion of this calling, and let the verb said be, without any hysterology, the beginning of that narrative which I now set about illustrating, and on which, as will appear below, the order or chronological arrangement of the things afterwards done by the holy Patriarch depends by a firm connection. Abram, then, had already piously paid the last rites, according to the custom then received, to his father Thara, who, it is credible, after a habitation of about five years in the city of Haran, rendered his soul to God in faith, hope and charity towards the Messiah to come, between the hands of his most pious Son; and, having entered together with his brother Nachor upon the most ample inheritance which his father had left in Haran, he could on more than one title persuade himself that he had been called by God in Ur of the Chaldeans to this city, since God had not yet shown him another land; when to him, not ceasing on that account to inquire diligently into the further will of the divine Godhead concerning himself and his affairs, and often perhaps saying in his heart: Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do? the Lord, or an angel holding God's place, manifested Himself a second time, either in a glory and majesty similar to that in which He had given Himself visible to him in Ur of the Chaldeans, or certainly in such a manner that Abram could not doubt that God was in fact present to him and speaking with him.
[161] And what manner of word of the Lord then came to him and the divine promise joined to it, on many counts the sacred Writer, at the beginning of chapter 12 of Genesis, narrates in this manner, in words which are now to be recited and, by the same labour, illustrated by us in passing: And the Lord said to Abram: Go forth, or, as it is in Hebrew, go, or go forth for thyself, no longer, as before, under thy father's guidance, but under thine own, out of thy country, that is, from thy father's abode now established in Haran, which is thine by hereditary right, and from thy kindred, namely the family of thy brother Nachor, now brought thither, and from thy father's house, which thou inhabitest, and come into the land which I will show thee, when it shall so seem good to Me. But know that this will be the reward of thy eager and in no way curious obedience, which I bestow on thee of My own accord though thou askest it not: I will make … of thee a great nation, not carnal only, to be equalled in number to the stars of heaven and the sands of the sea, but in renown and glory to all the other nations, but spiritual also, to be adopted as the people of God, of which therefore I too will be the God, and which I, the great Lord, will magnify and honour before the other peoples; And I will bless thee, with an abundance of all good things both temporal and spiritual, and with dignity, bodily safety and long life, and will magnify thy name, with that fame and glory and celebrity of name which shall be propagated through the whole world for ever, whereby the excellence of thy faith, religion, piety and obedience shall be praised by all with full mouth, and thou shalt be blessed, or, as it is in the Hebrew, and be thou a blessing, not merely in some way and in part happy, but so heaped with all good things that thou mayest in a manner be called blessing itself.
[162] Nor did the bounty of the supreme Godhead stop here. Hear from Moses promises yet more ample: most ample, is recounted, I will bless them that bless thee, being about to be
for thy sake a friend and benefactor to thy friends; and on the contrary I will curse them that curse thee, being about to be their enemy too, and to punish them according to their deserts, so that the same men shall be friends or enemies to Me as to thee. Finally, what is by far the highest and most excellent of all the good things which I now promise thee, in thee, that is, in thy seed, shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed, namely, as the Apostle Paul says in Ephesians chapter 1, verse 3, with every spiritual blessing in heavenly places, in Christ, through whom the blessing of Abraham might come upon the gentiles…, that we may receive the promise of the spirit through faith, as the same Apostle also sets forth in Galatians chapter 3, verse 14. When the most pious Man, enlightened by divine light, had understood these things, he presently gave a second proof of his most prompt zeal in carrying out the commands of God, and, as soon as it could be done, all that was needed for the journey having been rightly arranged, he went out… (namely from Haran, as Moses asserts in the same verse 4, and as has been shown more broadly by us above) as the Lord had commanded him, and besides Sarai, the inseparable companion of his life and his dearest wife, Lot went with him; when namely Abram was seventy-five years old, and Sarai his wife sixty-five, as being ten years younger than her husband, and Lot, as is quite likely, counted sixty-six years of life.
[163] and Abram's departure itself towards the land of Chanaan is set out. However this last may be, Abram certainly (verse 5) took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all the substance which they had possessed, for example flocks, herds, silver and gold, and other movable goods, and the souls which they had gotten in Haran, namely maidservants, home-born and purchased slaves in no small number, as is gathered from Genesis chapter 14, verse 14, and the home-born children sprung from them, whom Abram and Lot had acquired, perhaps also dependants and men of lower lot, whom, brought over to the worship of the true God, they had bound to their household; and they went out to go into the land of Chanaan, not indeed as already then shown to them by God or expressed by name, as though Abram, the leader of the journey, already then knew that this was that region which God had promised that He would show him, and which he was at some time to receive from God as an inheritance; but he so kept to the way leading into Chanaan that, as the Apostle roughly says in Hebrews chapter XI, verse 8, he obeyed to go out into a place which indeed he was to receive as an inheritance, yet knew not whither he went, nor what that place by name was; which Moses too seems to have expressed in the words recited above by the particle to, employed in this place not as denoting the cause and intention of Abram, but as denoting the outcome of the matter. But I think what has now been disputed concerning the divine calling of Abram in the city of Haran, and the most ample promise then made to him, is sufficient for anyone easily to judge whether our opinion on this matter or that of the adversaries is more consonant with sacred Scripture and right reason; especially when I shall also have proved that nothing was asserted above, as regards the chronological arrangement, which does not either cohere excellently with the divine Books or cannot most easily be reconciled with them.
[164] [The reason is given why between the calling made in Ur and the other in Haran, in his 75th year,] And truly, although neither Moses, nor Stephen, nor any other sacred Writer expressly determined the very year in which Abram's calling in Ur of the Chaldeans was made, and it therefore cannot be asserted as undoubted that it came about in his seventieth year; yet the same sacred authors supply some things from which we may rightly gather that between Abram's withdrawal from Charan, or Haran, made in his seventy-fifth year, and his calling in Ur of the Chaldeans, no short interval of time ought to be laid down. But is it on that account about five years? I answer: since it is undoubted, both from Moses in Genesis chapter XI, verse 31, and from St. Stephen in Acts chapter 7, verse 4, that Abram in that intermediate time dwelt in Haran, that is, had a fixed domicile there; and since it is also manifest from Moses in Genesis chapter 12, verse 5, that he acquired in the city of Haran itself no small substance, for example flocks, fields, pastures, menservants, maidservants, and sons and daughters conceived and born of them there, or souls, as the same writer says, which they had gotten in Haran; it becomes altogether likely, as we said before, that Abram's stay in Haran, that is, his fixed habitation there, was prolonged to about five years; especially if at the same time we turn our attention to the fact that the city of Haran was held by Abram as his land and as it were a second country, for which no apter reason seems able to be given than that he had fixed his abode in Haran for a notable time, such as a five years' habitation of a stranger in the same city is, and that in the meantime, in that space of time, both his household and his other goods had increased not moderately.
[165] I know indeed that St. Augustine, in book 16 of the City of God, chapter 16, and various interpreters of Scripture have tied to one and the same seventy-fifth year of Abram his first calling, five years intervened, as has been said above; his arrival in Haran, and his departure thence into Chanaan, with this design, namely, that they might exactly assign the space which the Apostle writes intervened between the divine promise made to Abram and the giving of the Law; but since in our opinion too, which lays down far more probably that that first promise was made not in Ur of the Chaldeans but in Haran, that space of time can be assigned equally accurately, as will appear below, I find no cause why I should depart from the opinion already established, or why too, against the testimony of Achior in the Book of Judith, chapter 5, in which, as the 70 Translators have it, he testifies that Abram dwelt ἡμέρας πολλάς, that is, many days, in Haran, I should persuade myself that within the course of a single year, as the adversaries contend, Abram was called in Ur, went out thence with his father, came to Charan, fixed his abode there, acquired much substance, quite a number of children were begotten there by his servants, Thara died there, and, his funeral completed, Abram gathered his whole family and all his movable goods, and finally entered the land of Chanaan. Since, then, so far are sacred Scripture and sound reason from compelling us to heap into one year so many various deeds, not a few of which of themselves require a fairly ample space of time, that on the contrary they suggest that these came about in the space of some years; and since on the other hand there fights for the five-year interval between Abram's calling in Ur and his arrival in the land of Chanaan not only the common tradition of the Hebrews, which Genebrard relates, but also the opinion of learned interpreters of sacred Scripture, resting, as it seems, on solid reasons, I forbear to prove our assertion further, and take a step towards illustrating another chronological question, and one indeed of much greater moment than the preceding.
[166] Quite a number of learned men, and those of no common fame, and it is shown that this calling and divine promise is not placed by Eusebius hold this opinion, that the calling of Abram just mentioned, and his going out from Haran, are to be tied not to the seventy-fifth year of his age as it drew to its end, but to his seventy-sixth year, begun a few months before, as some hold, or quite a good many months, as others would have it; and therefore that the words of Moses in which he writes that Abram, going out of Haran, was seventy-five years old, are to be understood of so many completed years, so that Abram was commanded by God to go out of Haran not in the seventy-fifth year of his age but in the seventy-sixth, and did not actually go out thence until then, as the Lord had commanded him. As author of this opinion Eusebius is put forward by Salian in the Ecclesiastical Annals of the Old Testament at the year of the world 2114, number 1, and, as he himself teaches in the same place, by Marianus Scotus, Joannes Lucidus and others whom there is no leisure to recount here. But as regards the Chronicle of Eusebius, either I am blind, or the editions of the Eusebian Chronicle, and the manuscript codices which I consulted, besides the once distinguished Vallicella manuscript codex, are faulty to a man; or else Salian himself and the others praised by him, nay also Wilhelm Smits, already often cited by us, in his Prolegomenon to Exodus, page XXIX, number 31, are mistaken when they assert that the first year of God's promise to Abraham was marked by Eusebius at the beginning of Abraham's seventy-sixth year.
[167] to Abram's seventy-sixth year, as some would have it, So that this controversy may be decided the more certainly forthwith, let the skilled reader see the fairly well-known edition of the same Chronicle prepared by Arnaud de Pontac, bishop of Bazas, from 28 French, Italian and Spanish manuscripts, eight old editions and other documents; or, if this is not at hand, let him consult the edition of the same Chronicle made under the care of Joseph Scaliger in the year 1606 at Leiden, page 10 and page 60, and the Chronicle of Eusebius itself published in Greek, page 19 and page 78; and when he has seen that in the cited places nothing is noted by this author about it at Abram's seventy-sixth year, but on the contrary has perceived that the divine calling in question is connected by him with the divine address and that promise which, as Eusebius sets down immediately before, was made to him in the seventy-fifth year of his age, from which down to … the going out of the Hebrew nation from Egypt are reckoned CCCCXXX years, which Paul mentions … and Moses himself also in Exodus, etc.; then let him bring a fair judgment whether I am mistaken, who adjudge that opinion to Eusebius, or on the contrary those already mentioned authors who ascribe this one to him. But, you will say, everywhere in Eusebius the eighty-fifth year of the Hebrews is marked as the tenth of the repromise, or ἐπαγγελίας: So the matter stands. But so far is it from becoming manifest from this, as Salian would have it, that Abram's going out from Charan is to be tied to his seventy-sixth year, that rather the contrary is drawn from it.
[168] nor is it shown to be proved from another place; For let us suppose, as will appear from what is to be said below, that God declared to Abram, while he was in Haran, the command to go out thence and the most ample promises mentioned above, about two months before Abram completed the seventy-fifth year of his age; and let us fix the epoch of this event at the first day of the month Tisri, or the seventh, afterwards called the first, which corresponds in part to our September and October; thus the first year of the repromise, or ἐπαγγελίας, will run from the first day of the month Tisri up to the first day of the same month of the following year, that is, the seventy-sixth, and will consist partly of the eleventh and twelfth month
of Abram's seventy-fifth year and of the first ten months of his seventy-sixth year, and so the remaining years will flow on thereafter up to the eleventh month of Abram's eighty-fifth year; and therefore with the eleventh month of Abram's eighty-fifth year the tenth year of the repromise made to him in Haran will coincide, as will become plain to one who weighs these calculations.
[169] How well this opinion of mine coheres with the chronological arrangement of the things done by Abram thereafter, [nay on the contrary, it is proved that the narrative of Moses accords excellently with this opinion of ours] I should like now to demonstrate from the book of Genesis itself. As Moses testifies in Genesis chapter 16, verse 16, Abram was eighty-six years old when Agar BORE him Ismael; but he did not take this handmaid of his to wife until ten years after he had begun to dwell in the land of Chanaan, ibid. verse 3. Therefore between the calling of Abram made in Haran and the birth of Ismael, which happened when Abram was eighty-six years old, there most certainly intervened, first, nine months, during which Ismael was carried by his mother in the womb; second, a whole ten years of previous habitation in Chanaan; third, besides, one or two months, which probably lay between his calling in Haran and his arrival in the land of Chanaan. There arise, then, ten years and ten or eleven months more or less completed, which undoubtedly intervened between the calling of Abram and the birth of Ismael. Let us carry these back in retrograde order from Abram's eighty-sixth year, completed less some weeks, to his seventy-fifth year, completed less one or two months; by the most exact calculation there will come out eleven completed years, which Moses seems to lay down as intervening between the birth of Ismael in Abram's 86th year and his calling made in Haran in the seventy-fifth year; and in this way it will not be necessary that, where Moses, and following him Eusebius and others, make Abram 86 years old at the birth of Ismael, you should say that he had already then begun his 87th, or that, where they assert that he was seventy-five years old when he went forth from Haran, you should likewise be compelled to lay down that his seventy-sixth year was already in course.
[170] And surely, besides the fact that one who has lived so many years less one or two months is more commonly said to be seventy-five years old in various places, than one who has already for some while completed seventy-five years and is in his seventy-sixth, Moses manifestly shows in chapter 17 that, when he says that someone, for example Abram, was LXXV years old, he does not count those years as completed in every part, and therefore that Abram's going out from Haran is not to be connected with his 76th year. For in the cited chapter 17, treating of the circumcision of Abraham, he speaks in this manner in verse 24: Abraham was ninety and nine years old when he circumcised the flesh of his foreskin, namely as soon as this had been enjoined on him by God. If you would have these too completed, in the same way in which you contend the others are, you have Moses contradicting you in the same chapter, verse 1, where he speaks thus: but after he had BEGUN to be ninety and nine years old, the Lord appeared to him, who namely commanded circumcision as a sign of the covenant entered into with Abraham, which the most obedient Abraham at once put into execution. You have also Josephus contradicting you, book 1 of the Jewish Antiquities, chapter XI, where he records that Abram had reached the ninety-ninth year of his age only at the time when God appeared to him and commanded him to be circumcised in the flesh. And finally, to pass over the Alexandrian Chronicle, page 125, you have Eusebius contradicting you in the Chronicle, where he writes that Sodom and Gomorrha were burned in Abraham's 99th year, which, as may be seen in Genesis chapter 17 and chapter 19, happened only after Abraham's circumcision. But if, so as not to contradict Moses, Josephus and Eusebius, you admit those 99 years as completed not in every part, yet in by far the greatest part, why not also the other seventy-five or eighty-six related above, which the sacred Writer expressed in a similar manner of speaking, and which, in so far as they are incomplete, being joined with the number of months running beyond the completed years, make up whole years?
[171] and chapter 17 of Genesis is proved not to oppose it. Nor does it matter that Abram calls himself a hundred years old in Genesis chapter 17, verse 17; since by an equal and received manner too a man is called a septuagenarian or octogenarian old man who is only one or two months short of the beginning of his seventieth or eightieth year. And so that it may appear even more evidently that Abram, when he called himself a hundred years old, was not in the ninety-ninth year of his age already completed, that is, had not yet then begun his hundredth year, hear Moses again testifying in Genesis chapter 21, verse 5, that Isaac was born when (his father) was a hundred years old; for at this age of his father Isaac was born. Since, then, between the divine apparition mentioned in Genesis chapter 17 and the birth of Isaac there intervene, first, that time in which Abraham circumcised himself and healed the wound; second, that in which, having set out into the Southern quarter, he dwelt between Cades and Sur and sojourned in Gerara; third, that in which Sara, certainly not yet carrying in her womb, was held to be Abraham's sister, and, after she had been taken away by the king's command, was restored untouched to her Husband; and fourth, finally, that in which she carried in her womb the offspring conceived of Abraham, namely nine or ten months; it becomes altogether necessary either that Isaac, contrary to what Moses in the cited verse 5 and Eusebius in the Chronicle testify, was not born in the hundredth year of his father, or that Abraham, when in chapter 17 he called himself a hundred years old after the received manner, had not yet then begun the hundredth year of his age, but was only in his ninety-ninth, advanced by about ten months. And it has seemed good to dispute these things more fully concerning Abram's divine calling in Haran and the promise made to him, and also concerning the epoch of each, so that the curious reader may thereafter follow with me, with a firmer and readier step, the other things that are connected with these.
§ X. On the CCCCXXX years which intervened between the divine promise made to Abram and the going out of his posterity from Egypt: the time of their habitation in Egypt is defined: various Readings of the celebrated verse of Exodus chapter 12.
The state of a twofold, most difficult question is set out, That the divine calling which summoned Abram out of Ur of the Chaldeans is altogether different from that which was made to him when he was in Haran, and which had joined to it the promise of the Gospel covenant, I have now, I think, shown manifestly enough, so that we may now proceed to that celebrated question, arising from the epoch of his calling and of the Israelites' going out from Egypt, from which the beginning and end of the third age of the world must be defined. That this matter is of no small moment St. Jerome very anxiously warned, in book 2 of the Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians, volume 4 of the most recent edition, column 262; and how difficult it likewise is, that same most skilled interpreter of the sacred Letters presently makes plain when he says that it has been sought by many, but that he doubts whether it has been found by anyone. And surely not undeservedly; for if we hear the Apostle discoursing on that third age of the world, that is, on the space of time which elapsed between the divine promise made to Abram and the Law given on Mount Sina, that space must necessarily be contracted, by his sayings, to four hundred and thirty years. For thus he speaks in the Epistle to the Galatians, chapter 3, verses 16 and 17: To Abraham were the promises made, and to his seed… Now this I say, that the testament which was confirmed by God: the Law which was made after four hundred and thirty years doth not disannul, to make the promise of no effect.
[173] For, as Cornelius a Lapide observes on this place, [concerning the 430 years which Sacred Scripture teaches intervened between the promise made to Abram] the words of the Apostle are worth as much as if he discoursed thus: If, as I said in verse 15, no one dares or is able to make void the testament and covenant of a man: much less, then, could a law far later, inasmuch as it was given on Sina only CCCCXXX years after this promise, make void the testament, that is, the covenant of God entered into with Abraham unto Christ (as the Greek adds), that is, concerning Christ, who was to bless all nations. Nor does Moses himself lay down a longer space than 430 years between that same divine promise, and Abram's going out from Haran which followed it, and the going out of the children of Israel from Egypt, relating in Genesis 15 from verse 13 that it was divinely foretold to Abram that his seed (by which name Isaac, born in the 25th year after the promise made in Haran, and his posterity must be understood) should be a sojourner in a land not their own for four hundred years, and should return from it, after servitude and affliction, with great substance in the fourth generation into the land of Chanaan, to be granted them by God as an everlasting inheritance.
[174] But while we believe we behold here the firmest midday light, and the going out of the Israelites from Egypt that same Moses, at whose stretching out of his hand to heaven horrible darkness was made, and so thick that it could be felt (Exodus chapter X, verse 22), presently seems to draw over it the thickest cloud and to drive away all light, writing thus in Exodus chapter 12, verse 40: And the abode of the children of Israel that they made in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years. For if, as the words of the Hebrew codices which were at hand for St. Jerome, and of our Vulgate and of the Chaldee Paraphrase sound, the children of Israel remained in Egypt four hundred and thirty years, and the Law was promulgated on the fiftieth day after their going out; since from the entry of Jacob into that region back to the divine promise made to Abram there must also be reckoned altogether two hundred and fifteen years, which preceded that descent into Egypt, namely from the promise just mentioned to the birth of Isaac twenty-five years, Genesis chapter 21, verse 5; from the birth of Isaac to the birth of Jacob sixty, Genesis chapter 25, verse 26; from the birth of Jacob to his descent into Egypt with his family a hundred and thirty years, Genesis chapter 47, verse 9; those same 215 years, joined to the 430 of which Moses speaks in the cited chapter 12 of Exodus, make up a sum of six hundred and forty-five years, and therefore many more than we have seen designated by the Apostle and by Moses himself elsewhere.
[175] and of the former question And these indeed are the thickest darknesses; and when you have dispersed them by the light of the divine word coming from elsewhere, another fairly obscure cloud follows. For since the Apostle in the cited chapter 3 to the Galatians speaks not only of that divine promise by which in the seed of Abraham all the kindreds
of the earth were to be blessed, but also makes express mention of a certain testament confirmed by God, he by no means at once makes it clear whether the beginning of those four hundred and thirty years, which the same Apostle writes ran on thence down to the Law given on Mount Sina, is to be drawn from the promise made to Abram in Haran, of which treatment was had in the preceding §, or from another, made to him when a hundred years old, of which Genesis chapter 17 speaks, or finally from a third, which, as is related in Genesis chapter 22, was made to him after the ram had been immolated in place of his son Isaac. It is wonderful how varied are the efforts which various interpreters of sacred Scripture have put forth to bring light to these things and at the same time to keep the authority of the sacred Books safe and sound; these I pass over here in silence, since there is no need to enumerate them, and, setting aside all circumlocutions, I disclose my opinion on this difficult question, ready gladly to embrace another if a better should come forth from anyone.
[176] [it is laid down thus: Although Moses, in Exodus chapter 12, verse 40, may seem to have assigned 430 years to the habitation of the Israelites in Egypt alone] I lay it down thus, then: Although the words of Exodus chapter 12, verse 40, if taken barely, as they lie, and in Logical rigour, seem to prolong the habitation in Egypt of the sons and posterity of the patriarch Jacob alone to four hundred and thirty years; yet not on that account must more than so many years be placed between Abram's seventy-fifth year, which preceded that sojourn by 215 years, and the Law given on Mount Sina after the going out of the children of Israel from Egypt: and again: Although the Apostle, in Galatians chapter 3, verse 17, may seem to reckon those same 430 years from the Testament confirmed by God, nevertheless the beginning of the four hundred and thirty years which he mentions, that is, of the Abrahamic era, must be taken from that same seventy-fifth year of Abram, that is, from the first divine promise made to him in Haran, and not from the confirmation of it made afterwards. I make my beginning from establishing the former assertion, because the other is much more difficult and because it depends on the former; intending to strengthen the other with its own testimonies in the following §, lest otherwise this one be too prolix, as soon as there has been disputation, as the gravity of the matter requires, on the various ways of reconciling that celebrated verse with the other words of Scripture.
[177] [yet no more years are reckoned by St. Paul, rightly, between the calling of Abram made long before] Since the volumes both of the new and of the old Testament were written at the dictation of the same Spirit of truth, it cannot be that their writers are in reality contrary to one another, or that suspicion of either negligence or error should fall upon either set. When, therefore, they seem to disagree with one another, the testimonies apparently opposed are not to be set in collision with one another but reconciled, as I also taught above at number 6, in such a manner, namely, that, when one text seems to oppose several, these are not to be measured against that one, other things, as they say in the schools, being equal, but on the contrary that one is to be measured against the several and expounded through them; in nearly the same way in which civil laws apparently opposed to one another are wont to be brought into concord or expounded by jurists, and statements of approved historiographers dissonant at first sight by learned critics. Therefore, since there is only the verse of Exodus chapter 12 cited above which, if we consider the words as they lie rather than the sense latent in them, attributes 430 years to the habitation of the children of Israel in Egypt alone, and which therefore places between the promise divinely made to Abram and the promulgation of the Law on Mount Sina an interval of six hundred and forty-five years, as I showed at number 174; while on the other hand not only the Apostle in Galatians, but Moses himself in Genesis chapter 15 and in various places of the Book of Exodus, and likewise St. Stephen in Acts chapter 7, either openly affirm or at least not obscurely hint that between the aforesaid divine promise and the going out of the Israelites from Egypt, and therefore the Law given on the fiftieth day after, only four centuries and certainly not more than thirty years intervened; from the rule already laid down, which both sound reason dictates and prudent criticism supports, it altogether follows that that single text of the book of Exodus must be measured against so many and such lucid testimonies, as against the true norm of its signification, and brought into concord with them in the best manner that can be done.
[178] But since those various testimonies of sacred Scripture which I have just touched on briefly will perhaps seem to some not so decisive, the habitation of the Israelites in Egypt and their going out, it will not be beside the point to have illustrated them in some measure before we set about weighing the cited verse of Exodus against them, as against its genuine norm, and indicating, or at least investigating, the sense latent in it. I return, then, to St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, praised at number 172. And first, indeed, that its author, even before he was converted to Christ, was most skilled in Hebrew matters and very skilled in the law, is beyond all controversy. Moreover, what is the chief point, that, being theopneustic, that is, inspired by the Holy Spirit, he spoke nothing but in truth, and used no argument that was inept or false, no one can call in doubt. Since, then, in the cited Epistle to the Galatians, as St. Jerome notes on it at column 262, the Apostle intends to teach that the promises made beforehand to Abraham cannot be destroyed by the Law which was given afterwards, nor the later things prejudice the earlier; since the promises to Abraham, that all nations should be blessed in him, were given four hundred and thirty years before; while the observance of the Law, that he who did it should live in it, was given to Moses on Mount Sina four hundred and thirty years after; it follows that, if the sojourn alone of the children of Israel in Egypt was of 430 years, and therefore 645 years intervened between that promise and the promulgation of the Law, the argument which the Apostle draws from those four hundred and thirty years only is inert, nerveless, nay altogether false.
[179] It must necessarily be understood, therefore, in another sense than that which the cited verse 40 of chapter 12 displays at first sight. nor are more to be reckoned if, with St. Augustine, This too is altogether urged by the divine promise made to Abraham, of which we treated briefly above. For, as St. Augustine observes in the Questions on Exodus, book 2, question 47, number 6, column 436, when God says to Abram in Genesis chapter 15, verse 13: "Know thou beforehand that thy seed shall be a sojourner in a land not their own, and they shall bring them under bondage and afflict them four hundred years," it is not to be taken as though the people of God were in that most harsh servitude for four hundred years: but because it is written: "In Isaac shall thy seed be called," from the year of the nativity of Isaac to the year of the going out from Egypt four hundred and five years are reckoned. When, then, from four hundred and thirty (years) you have subtracted twenty-five, which are from the promise to the birth of Isaac, it is no wonder if Scripture wished to call four hundred and five years by the round sum of four hundred, since it is accustomed so to name times that what slightly exceeds or falls below the sum of a more perfect number is not counted.
[180] the true sense of the words of Moses, Not therefore is what He says: "They shall bring them under bondage and afflict them" (or, as our Vulgate has: They shall bring them under servitude and afflict them) to be referred to the four hundred years, as though they held them in servitude for so many years: but the four hundred years are to be referred to what was said: "Thy seed shall be a sojourner in a land not their own" (or not theirs), because whether in the land of Chanaan or in Egypt, that seed was a sojourner before they took the land as an inheritance according to the promise of God, which came about after they were delivered from Egypt: so that a hyperbaton is to be understood here, and the order of the words is: "Know thou beforehand that thy seed shall be a sojourner in a land not their own four hundred years;" but that "And they shall bring them under bondage and afflict them" is to be understood as interposed, so that this interposition does not pertain to the four hundred years. For in the last part of the years of this sum, that is, after the death of Joseph, it came about that the people of God underwent harsh servitude in Egypt. Thus far St. Augustine, and quite aptly to the sense of the Mosaic narrative in which are recounted the descent of Jacob, Abraham's grandson, into Egypt, the servitude of his posterity there, and their going out from the same region.
[181] and the span of the servitude of the Israelites in Egypt, For, as the holy Doctor also notes in the cited place, number 3, the years of the servitude of the Israelites in Egypt can be reckoned only from the death of Joseph; for while he lived the Israelites not only did not serve there, but even reigned. Since, then, from the time when, as Moses testifies in Exodus chapter 1, verse 8, There arose … a new king over Egypt, that knew not Joseph, down to the going out of the children of Israel from Egypt scarcely a hundred years, as Bonfrère shows on chapter 1 of Exodus, nay scarcely ninety, as is given to understand from Acts chapter 7, verse 20, intervened; it altogether follows that the aforesaid four hundred years, about which there is question here, are to be referred not to the Egyptian servitude of Abraham's seed alone, but for the greatest part to the sojourning of Isaac and Jacob and to the habitation of their posterity in a land not theirs, and that therefore the true and genuine sense of the divine prediction related in Genesis chapter 15 is that which Augustine recounted above, and which accords most fully with the words of the Apostle to the Galatians.
[182] and the genealogical table of the children of Israel And surely, so far is it from being the case that four hundred and thirty years elapsed from the death of Joseph, who from the thirtieth year of his age (see Genesis chapter 41, verse 46) up to the hundred and tenth (see Genesis chapter 50, verse 25) was viceroy of Egypt and almost held the supreme power, down to the going out of the children of Israel from Egypt; that on the contrary from the very descent of Jacob into Egypt, which Moses in Genesis chapter 47, verse 9, ties to the hundred and thirtieth year of his age, not more than two hundred and fifteen years elapsed, namely from the aforesaid descent to the death of Joseph 71 years, thence to the birth of Moses 64 years, and finally from the birth of Moses to the going out of the Israelites from Egypt 80 years, and therefore in all 215 years, as Ussher, page 171 of the Sacred Chronology, from Genesis chapter 50, verse 22, and
Exodus chapter 7, verse 7, rightly shows. To these are added not a few arguments which can be taken from the genealogical tables described by Moses in the books of Genesis and Exodus, of which I shall here subjoin only one, by way of specimen, from the praised Ussher. Caath, son of Levi, went down into Egypt with his grandfather Jacob, as is manifest from Genesis chapter 46, verse 11. The years of his life were 133, as likewise becomes undoubted from Exodus chapter 6, verse 18. Amram, son of Caath, lived 137 years, as Moses testifies in Exodus chapter 6, verse 20; Moses, son of Amram, was eighty years old when with his brother Aaron he went to Pharao to lead the children of Israel out of Egypt, Exodus chapter 7, verse 7.
[183] All these years, joined together, make up a sum of only 350 years, are weighed with attentive mind; from which quite a number must be subtracted, and first of all those which Caath lived after the birth of his son Amram; second, those which Amram spent after the birth of Moses (for without an ancient witness it is not credible that they begot at so advanced an age, or at least did not beget until the last year of their life); third, likewise to be subtracted are the years which Caath counted when he went down into Egypt, lest otherwise the same years be counted twice. Let us now lay down that all these years make up a sum of a hundred and thirty-five; namely twenty-five of Caath's age already passed when he went down into Egypt together with his father Levi and his grandfather Jacob; about ninety in which Caath, having been increased by male offspring in the forty-third year of his age, lived partly with his son Amram, partly with Moses his grandson; and about twenty in which, after Caath's death, Amram alone was alive with his son Moses; that former sum of three hundred and fifty years will, by what has been said, have to be contracted to only two hundred and fifteen years, and so the constant sojourn of Jacob and of his sons and grandsons in Egypt will be not of four hundred and thirty years, but of two hundred and fifteen; while their servitude and affliction, as not having begun until a good while, as Bonfrère shows on chapter 1 of Exodus, after the hundred and tenth year of Joseph, the viceroy of Egypt, lasted scarcely a whole century, much less 430 years.
[184] Other arguments of this kind, which the genealogical series nor does St. Stephen in Acts chapter 7 lay down more years between; expressed in the books of Genesis and Exodus supply, let the curious reader see in Ussher in the Sacred Chronology from page 124, and in Sanchez on chapter 7 of the Acts of the Apostles from page 145, and let him also consult the praised Bonfrère on chapter 1 of Exodus, page 344, learnedly disputing on the duration of the Egyptian persecution. It remains now that we elucidate somewhat the words of St. Stephen too, in Acts 7. That most holy orator, full of the divine Spirit, in the cited chapter 7, treating purposely of both the sojourning and the servitude of the Seed of Abraham, and therefore not bringing into the reckoning that space of 25 years which preceded the birth of Isaac, Abraham's son, in the same manner in which God, in Genesis chapter 15, assigns four hundred years in a round number to the future sojourning and servitude of the seed of Abraham, himself also, as the most faithful interpreter of the word of God, ascribes as many to both together, and uses almost the same words and letters as Moses in the cited chapter 15 of Genesis. Hear the words of Acts 7 from verse 6: And God spoke to him (Abram): That his seed should sojourn in a strange country, and that they should bring them under bondage, and treat them evil four hundred years: And the nation which they shall serve will I judge, said the Lord. And after these things they shall go out and shall serve me in this place, namely in the land of Chanaan, divinely promised to Abram.
[185] so that the celebrated verse 40 of chapter 12 of Exodus, Since, then, these words (see St. Augustine at numbers 179 and 180), no otherwise than those of chapter 15 of Genesis, must be so understood that they admit no greater interval than four hundred and five years between that prophecy and the going out from the Egyptian servitude, it becomes evident that from the descent of Jacob into Egypt down to the going out just mentioned four hundred and thirty years cannot be laid down as intervening, and much less can so many years be ascribed to the Egyptian servitude and affliction of the Israelites alone; which nevertheless those are compelled to ascribe to it who wish to measure and weigh the sacred words by the prescriptions of Grammar and Dialectic rather than by the usage received among the sacred writers and the end they intended. I forbear from further arguments which could be heaped up and urged here both from the Old and from the New Testament, and which would most fully persuade that between the divine promise made to Abram before the birth of Isaac and the Law given on Mount Sina no longer space than four hundred and thirty years elapsed, and at the same time would prove that that celebrated verse 40 of Exodus chapter 12 must be expounded in a sense other than that which it displays at first sight, whereby it may be brought into concord with the testimonies already recited. Before we attempt this in the following §, it will not be beside the point to have set down beforehand some things concerning the varied reading of the same verse in the sacred Books.
[186] whose various readings and interpretations Since the Hebrews lack cases, and therefore the Hebrew pronoun corresponding to the Latin relative qui is of ambiguous reference, hence that verse was not rendered into Latin by all in one manner. In the present Vulgate it has thus, as we warned before: And the abode of the children of Israel, IN WHICH they remained in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years; but on the contrary St. Jerome rendered the Hebrew text thus, volume 1 of the Works, edition of the year 1693, column 76: And the abode of the children of Israel, WHO remained in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years; and so also read the Polyglot Bibles, the Royal Antwerp and Le Jay's Paris: in which latter sense, which is also an apt interpretation of the Hebrew text, a chronography is not determined whereby 430 years are attributed to the habitation of the Israelites in Egypt alone, but only a prosopography is expressed, that is, a description of that people, namely the Israelite, whose whole παροικήσις, or sojourning, reached to 430 years. But the Seventy Translators, as is clear from that most ancient manuscript codex to which the Sixtine edition was conformed, rendered the said verse in such a way that they expressed not so much word from word as sense from sense, adding for the sake of clarity these words: καὶ ἐν γῃ Ξάνααν; so that from the Greek version the cited verse of Exodus sounds thus: And the abode of the children of Israel, which they abode in the land of Egypt and in the land of Chanaan, was four hundred and thirty years.
[187] [are recounted here, needs exposition in order to be reconciled with other sacred testimonies.] The Samaritan text adds much more, and such things indeed as, had they been received in the time of St. Jerome, the doctor most skilled in the Eastern languages, and long before, as genuine words of Moses, or written in Samaritan or Hebrew codices of any note, would have left no matter at all, or certainly little, for disputing about that text; since, once it is admitted, as is done by Jerome and others, that these words of the Apostle, the Testament confirmed by God, signify nothing else than the covenant first entered into by God with Abram concerning the blessing of all the kindreds of the earth in his seed, not even a shadow of difficulty will remain on that side for reconciling the Samaritan text with the other testimonies adduced above, as is manifest from what has been and is to be said. Hear now the Samaritan text itself, or rather a gloss on the primeval Hebrew text, sounding thus in Latin to the letter: And the sojourning of the children of Israel and of their fathers, which they abode in the land of Chanaan and in the land of Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years. But enough now of the variant readings of this text. I proceed now to investigate the very sense of the Hebrew text, as it was read in Jerome's times and long before, and of our Vulgate, by which it may be reconciled with the testimonies of the sacred Books so often cited, and the authority both of the Hebrew text and of our Vulgate may meanwhile remain safe and unharmed; which certain more recent writers, accusing it in this place of a fault or error, have dared, too rashly in my judgment at least, to overthrow.
§ XI. The celebrated verse of the book of Exodus concerning the Patriarch's posterity is expounded, even without admitting a fault in it. The epoch of the Testament mentioned by St. Paul is tied to Abram's 75th year.
In that celebrated verse a certain idiom, Among the various ways in which that famous verse seems able to be reconciled with the other testimonies of the divine Books, the truthfulness of the sacred Writer being preserved, the first that offers itself to me and pleases me more is that by which a certain Hebrew idiom is laid down as lying in the cited place, the nature or force of which idiom is such that it indicates more than the words themselves sound at first hearing, so that, while it ascribes certain deeds by name to the posterity, it nevertheless signifies that their forebears, who had some part in these things, are by no means to be excluded thence. And so, when Moses in the cited verse relates that the habitation of the children of Israel in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years, he will have to be judged to have by no means wished to exclude thence the habitation of their fathers, and of Abraham especially, nor in fact to have excluded it by his words. And lest that idiom be said to have been gratuitously devised and fictitious on my part, it has seemed good to range a little more widely through the various sacred Books, so that these two things may become manifest: the one, that not only prophecies or promises, but even historical deeds themselves, are ascribed by a similar idiom to forefathers, in which nevertheless the posterity themselves had some part, nay at times the chief part; the other, that the same promises or deeds are conversely ascribed to the posterity, in which nevertheless they had no part through themselves, that is, in their own person, as they commonly say, but only in one of their forebears or in the head of their nation, to whom either the promise was made or by whom something was begun and in great part continued.
[189] Whether this was done on account of the very close bond of relationship examples of which which subsists between forebears and posterity, or for any other special cause known to the sacred Writers themselves, there is no need to inquire here. It is enough for our purpose to have produced examples of each idiom. To begin from the former, it is thus related more than once in the book of Genesis that God said to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: To thee will I give this land, namely Chanaan, for a perpetual inheritance, or, as David relates in Psalm 104, verse XI, To thee will I give the land of Chanaan, the lot of your inheritance; whereas those Patriarchs were always sojourners and strangers in that land, and the divine promise was fulfilled only in their posterity, as in the Book
of Josue may be seen. So again in Genesis chapter 12, verse 3, God says to Abram: In THEE shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed; which promise, however, as is plain enough, must be understood to have been fulfilled in reality in Christ, the son of Abraham. I pass over more idioms of this kind, since those few abundantly suffice to establish the former assertion. I proceed to the other, which bears more nearly on the matter we are treating.
[190] very many, and those most to the point here, And first, indeed, in Deuteronomy chapter 26 the Israelite people is commanded perpetually to profess before the priest who shall be in those days, and to ascribe to themselves, those deeds which befell their forebears in Egypt: have the words: And thou shalt speak in the sight of the Lord… The Egyptians afflicted US and persecuted us, laying on most grievous burdens: and WE CRIED to the Lord God… And He brought US out of Egypt with a strong hand… And He gave to US a land flowing with milk and honey. And therefore NOW I offer the firstfruits of the fruits of the land which the Lord hath given ME. So too the author of the Book of Judges, chapter X, verses XI and 12, introduces God speaking thus to the Israelites, so as to attribute to those present those deeds in which only their forebears had part. Hear the sacred words: And the Lord said to them: Did not the Egyptians and the Amorrhites, and the children of Ammon and the Philistines, the Sidonians also and Amalec and Chanaan oppress you, and YOU CRIED to Me, and I delivered you out of their hand? And again in book 1 of Kings, chapter 12, verse XI, Samuel, in his most weighty exhortation to the people of Israel, in which he also proves his integrity in the administration of the Hebrew commonwealth, speaks thus: And the Lord sent Jerobaal, and Badan, and Jephte, and Samuel, and delivered you from the hand of YOUR enemies round about, and YOU DWELT securely; which things assuredly had place not in the Israelites alone whom Samuel was addressing, but in their forebears too.
[191] are set forth from Holy Scripture, So likewise the prophet Osee, chapter 12, verse 4, attributes to himself and his countrymen the Discourse which the angel held with the patriarch Jacob in Bethel (see Genesis chapter 28), speaking thus: In Bethel he found him, and there He spoke WITH US. So again the prophet Amos, chapter 5, verse 25, ascribes to the Israelites living with him those things in which they had no part, but their fathers, who had died about eight hundred years before, had every part. His words are these: Did YOU OFFER victims and sacrifices to Me in the desert for forty years, O house of Israel? Finally Achior, leader of the Ammonites, informing Holofernes who that people was which was besieging the mountains against him, affirms in chapter 5 of the Book of Judith, first, that THEY would not follow the gods of their fathers; second, that THEY worshipped the one God of heaven, who also commanded THEM to go out thence, namely from Chaldea; third, that THEY, pressed by famine, went down into Egypt; whereas in all these things the Israelites who had shut the ways of the mountains against Holofernes had no part at all, except in the sole head and patriarch of their nation, Abraham, and then in Jacob.
[192] These things being so, why should we not likewise explain the cited verse 40 of Exodus by an idiom of this kind, that is, by a formula of speaking familiar enough to the Hebrew writers, is shown to lie, and so that verse is reconciled with the others; indicated at number 188, so that by the children of Israel, whose habitation or sojourning in Egypt is asserted to have been of 430 years, not the posterity of Jacob alone, whether born in the land of Chanaan or in Egypt, were designated there by Moses, but also their forebears, namely Jacob, Isaac and Abraham, of whom the last, in the same year, as it seems, in which he had come into Chanaan, went down into Egypt to sojourn there, Genesis chapter 12, verse X; where Isaac too, had God not commanded otherwise, had resolved likewise to sojourn, Genesis chapter 26, verse 2; and whither finally Jacob himself, on account of a famine that arose in Chanaan, betook himself with his whole family, where it grew immensely up to the two hundred and fifteenth year from the said descent of Jacob. And surely that famous verse of Exodus itself furnishes a special foundation for understanding their forebears also as designated under the name of the children of Israel, since, as no one can deny, Jacob himself can by no means be excluded from that name in the cited verse, as having been the prince and leader of this journey into Egypt. But if he cannot be excluded here, why should Abram be excluded, the head of the whole people, who himself also, as Moses testifies in Genesis chapter 12, verse X, went down into Egypt to sojourn there, and whom Isaias, chapter 52, verse 4, seems to have designated under the name of the whole people, speaking thus: My people went down into Egypt at the beginning to sojourn there?
[193] Against every explanation of this kind, although sought from the very nature of the text and established by many idioms of sacred Scripture, [although every exposition of this verse whatever, by a certain argument, but a faulty one,] Houbigant rises up vehemently, and with him, following him here, Smits praised above, both asserting that under the name of the children of Israel the patriarchs, that is, their forebears, cannot be understood here. Hear Houbigant speaking thus, roughly, on this matter in the praised Smits, number 45 of the Prolegomenon to Exodus, page XXXVIII: In that interpretation, he says, which in whatever manner comprehends under the name of the children of Israel the patriarchs, that is, their forebears, there is, together with open mockery, a false and almost puerile argumentation. Truly, a good many darts at one cast! If these things are done at the first onset, who will be able to sustain the remaining assaults, unless they be feeble ones? But there is no reason for the spirit to shrink. Let us see how gravely, or, to speak more rightly, how in no way and only in appearance, Houbigant's darts strike his adversaries. For, he says in the cited place, all know that in every affirmative proposition the subject and the attribute are of the same comprehension, as they say, and that the subject extends no more widely than the attribute itself. (Let Dialecticians hear these things, and learn hence to discourse in sublime fashion on the idioms and the genuine sense of the sacred Letters!) Since, then (they are his words), of this proposition: "The children of Israel dwelt in Egypt," the subject is "The children of Israel," the attribute "Dwelt in Egypt," it is clear that no other children of Israel are understood, namely in the cited verse 40, than those very ones who dwelt in Egypt: and as Chanaan is excluded from Egypt, so too from those children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt are excluded the parents of those children who had sojourned in Chanaan.
[194] Thus far he: to whom I, if it pleased me to contend after the manner of the Dialecticians, and from which many absurd things follow, Houbigant rejects, would presently reply that that pretty subtlety rests on a false supposition, as they say, and that Houbigant does not prove the very thing which is chiefly in controversy, but rashly and gratuitously assumes it as if it had already been sufficiently proved before: whence it follows that the whole falls to the ground. Let Houbigant then first show that these words Children of Israel were used by the sacred historiographer Moses so strictly and with such dialectical rigour to designate the posterity of Jacob, or Israel, alone, that not even Jacob, or Israel, himself can be comprehended by them. But since, by what has been said, Jacob himself, the leader and standard-bearer of those who went down into Egypt, and who for 17 years dwelt with them in Egypt as their head, cannot be excluded from the Egyptian habitation, he must needs confess that the argument taken from Dialectical trifles is of no strength.
[195] For the rest, how ridiculous it is and contrary to the dignity of the sacred Books to measure the words of the hagiographers, whether of the Old or of the New Testament, by the prescriptions of contentious Dialectic, I now show in a similar matter in almost the very words of Houbigant: All know (see Houbigant's argument above) that in every affirmative proposition the subject and the attribute are of the same comprehension, as they say, and that the subject extends no more widely than the predicate itself. Since, then, of this proposition uttered in the book of Judith: The Hebrews who prepared themselves to resist Holofernes would not follow the gods of their fathers, who were in the land of the Chaldeans, and were commanded to go out thence, since, I say, the subject of this proposition is The Hebrews who prepared themselves to resist Holofernes; and the attribute: Would not follow the gods of their fathers, who were in the land of the Chaldeans, and were commanded to go out thence, etc., it is clear that no other Hebrews are understood in the Book of Judith than those very ones who would not serve strange gods in Chaldea, and who were commanded to go out thence; and as Chanaan and the city of Bethulia are excluded from Chaldea, so too their parents must be excluded from those Hebrews who prepared themselves to resist Holofernes. Therefore, if Houbigant's reasoning stands, the sense of the assertion recorded in the book of Judith will be that those Hebrews who endeavoured to resist Holofernes were the very same who thirteen hundred years before dwelt in Chaldea and were commanded to go out thence. Since Houbigant will by no means admit this, why should we admit as true his pronouncement from which this consequence flows?
[196] many things follow, Moreover, if anyone, in expounding the texts cited at numbers 190 and 191, would rather have recourse to Houbigant's principle than to the idiom asserted by us, he must needs confess that the prophet Osee, to whom the word of the Lord came in the days of Ezechias, was contemporary (see his words at number 191) with the patriarch Jacob, and that the angel spoke in Bethel to him equally with Jacob; and again that the Israelites whom Amos was addressing in the cited chapter 5, verse 25, were the same who eight hundred years before had lived in the desert for the space of 40 years; and, to pass over other arguments which can be drawn in like form from the texts recited at number 190, that the Jews who, while Christ was living, and the others who thereafter, down to the promulgation of the Gospel, offered the firstfruits of the fruits at the feast of Pentecost according to the law of Deuteronomy chapter 26, either lied by divine precept when in the formula of their confession they said: The Egyptians afflicted US … and He (God) brought US out of Egypt, etc.; or, if they did not lie, as they certainly by no means lied, that they were therefore, namely on Houbigant's principles, the very same who about two thousand years, and even much before, were brought out of Egypt and sent into possession of the land of Chanaan. See whither that excessive subtlety leads, and that singular refinement in expounding the sacred Books, in which more account is taken of captious Dialectic than of the quite common idioms of sacred Scripture.
[197] Let us say, then, rather, that in the cited book of Exodus,
inasmuch as in it the annals of the whole Hebrew people are continued, Some things are explained which may be opposed to the exposition by the phrase children of Israel the entire Hebrew nation, that is, the chosen people of God, both in its head and in its members, was designated by Moses, namely by the same, or at least by a like, idiom by which in the texts already produced were designated not only the Israelites living in the time of Christ, of the prophet Osee, of Moses and of other hagiographers, but also their forebears, in so far as these constituted one and the same nation with them, and whose deeds, therefore, as pertaining to the whole people, were ascribed to the posterity. But indeed, someone will say, since Abram, having set out into Egypt on account of famine, namely in the four hundred and thirtieth year before the going out of his posterity, did not remain there long, but shortly after returned into the land of Chanaan; and since Isaac did indeed contemplate going into Egypt but in fact did not go there; not even to the whole Hebrew people, that is, regarded both in its head and in its members, can a habitation or sojourning of 430 years in Egypt rightly be ascribed. To these things I answer that in Dialectical rigour it cannot indeed be said that the Hebrew people dwelt continuously in Egypt for so many years; but that nevertheless 430 years were not undeservedly attributed to the habitation, or sojourning, of the Hebrews in Egypt by Moses, who acts not as a reasoner or scrupulous calculator but as a historiographer.
[198] So I judge, both because Abram made the beginning of these years in Egypt, of the said verse given by us, who, as Moses testifies in Genesis chapter 12, verse X, went down thither to sojourn there; and because Isaac too, after his Father's example, at one time held Egypt as it were the land of his sojourning; and because the habitation of Jacob and his posterity, uninterrupted for 215 years, put an end to the Egyptian sojourning. Moreover, besides the fact that from the years of the sojourning of the three patriarchs in the land of Chanaan must be subtracted those years which Jacob spent in Mesopotamia with his maternal uncle, by which it comes about that from Abram's descent into Egypt down to the going out of his posterity the Hebrew nation lived many years longer in Egypt than in the land of Chanaan; other reasons also are available why the time of the whole sojourning could be ascribed to Egypt rather than to the land of Chanaan. First, indeed, that sojourning of the patriarchs in the land of Chanaan, even with their servants and the servants' children brought into the count, was, compared with the sojourning of their posterity living in Egypt, one of only a very few men, and less conspicuous (concerning which see Psalm 104, verses 12 and 13), whereas on the contrary the Egyptian sojourn comprised an innumerable multitude of men and was most celebrated among all.
[199] Then too, as Pereira observes on chapter 12 of Exodus, Disputation 19, number 116, may be opposed; the Egyptian habitation of the posterity of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was marked and ennobled in wonderful fashion by three things, namely by Joseph's rule in Egypt for eighty years, and the great prosperity of the Hebrews in that space of time; then, after he had been dead a good while, by a most signal and admirable multiplication, although they were meanwhile oppressed by most laborious servitude; and finally by their deliverance and going out from Egypt, memorable above all for so many and such great prodigies. To these let us add that it is the custom of the Scriptures, as is plain from the last chapter of the Book of Judith, verse 28, and from the version of the 70 Translators of Genesis chapter XI, last verse, that to that place where some number of years was completed the whole number is ascribed, although the whole was not spent there. From all of which it becomes manifest that Moses, by the custom received among the Hebrews, rightly and deservedly attributed that space of 430 years to the Egyptian sojourning of his nation rather than to the Chananaean. Besides the way already handed down of reconciling that celebrated verse with the other testimonies of sacred Scripture, another also is available whereby, account being taken of the preceding words of Moses, that verse can also be brought into concord with the aforesaid testimonies, even on the very hypothesis, gratuitously admitted for a while, which holds that in the cited verse 40 by these words Children of Israel no others than the posterity of Jacob are designated.
[200] and another way is assigned, Here it is. In the same chapter 12 of Exodus, verse 25, Moses, the author of the Pentateuch, had spoken thus to the Israelites by divine command: And when you have entered into the land which the Lord will give you, AS HE HATH PROMISED (namely to Abraham in Genesis chapter 12, verse 7, and afterwards elsewhere), you shall observe these ceremonies, namely those prescribed shortly before for the eating of the Paschal lamb and the other things to be observed at the return of the Paschal time each year. To what end, I beseech you, shortly before the Israelites were to set out from Egypt towards the land of Chanaan, does Moses recall to their memory the divine promises, and therefore above all that most celebrated and first of all promises, which God, appearing to Abram when he had first entered the land of Chanaan, had made, saying in Genesis chapter 12, verse 7: To thy seed will I give this land, unless that the Israelites might acknowledge that they were to be led out of servitude by divine guidance and help, as promised to them, much more than by human effort, and might most firmly place their trust in the God of their Fathers? When therefore in the same chapter 12 of Exodus, as soon as he had said that the children of Israel set out from Ramesse to Socoth and were compelled by the Egyptians themselves to go out, he adds this in verse 40: And the abode of the children of Israel in which they remained in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years; he may not without cause be judged to have wished to hint by these words that the divine promise mentioned shortly before, which was as it were the prince and standard-bearer of all the others mentioned in chapters 3 and 6 of Exodus and very often in the book of Genesis, had now in fact begun to be fulfilled by that going out.
[201] whereby that celebrated verse can be rightly expounded, The sense of this most celebrated verse, then, will be this: that the habitation in which the Israelites remained in Egypt was the end, or completion, of those 430 years which, according to the divine promise made to Abram in chapters 12 and 15 of Genesis and most celebrated among his nation, had to run their course before his posterity should go out from their servitude and affliction towards the land of Chanaan, to occupy it at the appointed time as a perpetual inheritance. Moses therefore uses an Ellipsis in the cited verse 40, but such a one that what he keeps silent, since it was sufficiently plain from elsewhere, can easily be understood, that is, supplied in mind; and which therefore can no more render Moses inept, absurd or trifling than the frequent ellipses elsewhere make their authors inept or frivolous. And to this exposition, by which it is laid down that the Egyptian habitation of the Israelites was designated in the cited verse as the end and completion of the 430 years which God had foreshown to Abram, there agree in substance Grotius, Cajetan and a Lapide, men surely learned above all, whom the reader may consult if he pleases.
[202] But if anyone is unwilling to admit either exposition of the cited verse given by me, [even without admitting a certain fault in it, contrary to what some more recent writers would have.] or any other found among the more distinguished interpreters of sacred Scripture, because he holds as undoubted that a fault lay in that same verse as it was read in the time of St. Jerome and long before, I will not haul the rope of contention with him; but I will admit an old fault and error in that verse only when I shall have seen it manifestly proved that the sacred oracles were entrusted by God to the Samaritans rather than to the Jews, that the accuracy of the former in copying out the Pentateuch was greater than the diligence of the Jewish priests; and also that the Samaritan codices, so much vaunted now, are in reality older than the Hebrew and Samaritan codices which St. Jerome consulted, in which, namely, that pretended primeval text of Moses recited towards the end of number 187 was nowhere found by him; or, to speak more openly, I will believe that in the cited verse there lies not a Hebrew idiom or an Ellipsis, but a fault and error, only when I shall have seen it demonstrated that the masters in Israel of our time, who either used common teachers or lacked convenient aids for thoroughly learning the sacred languages, in skill in the sacred languages and in the use of codices of the best mark ought either to snatch the palm from that most learned doctor Jerome and the skilled masters he obtained, or at least by no means to yield it to them.
[203] I come now to another difficulty, which arises from the very words of St. Paul to the Galatians. The Testament confirmed by God, of which If, contrary to the pronouncement of St. Gregory the Great, the words of the Apostle transcribed at number 172 were to be measured by the rules of Donatus, by the tenets of Porphyry's Isagoge, or by the formulas of the contentious law-court, it would altogether follow that the 430 years which he writes ran from the Testament confirmed by God to the Law given on Mount Sina could by no means be reckoned from Abram's seventy-fifth year, as that in which God first promised him that in his seed all the kindreds of the earth should be blessed. But truly, in that Epistle of St. Paul of which we are treating, the rules of Donatus and the tenets of Porphyry's Isagoge built upon them, and the formulas of the contentious law-court, have no place at all; for St. Paul, in chapter 3, verse 17, by these primeval words διαθήκην προκεκυρωμένην ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ, wished to express nothing else than that which, as St. Jerome notes on this place, is called in Hebrew speech Berith, in Latin pactum, covenant; namely that gratuitous one, as Ussher notes in the Sacred Chronology, page 131, which God first entered into with Abraham, and by entering into it sanctioned and made valid and authentic, the subsequent repetitions of it adding no further authority to the primeval promise.
[204] And lest this seem gratuitously asserted, let us hear Cornelius a Lapide [St. Paul treats, is not different from the divine covenant mentioned in Genesis chapter 12,] writing thus on that same verse, page 454, from the opinion of the ancients: Here and elsewhere, he says, these three, namely the Hebrew Berit (or Berith), the Greek διαθήκη and the Latin testamentum, are the same, and signify any covenant whatever. For this is what the Hebrew Berit (or Berith) adequately signifies in Scripture, which the Seventy render διαθήκη, namely, so that it is the same as συνθήκη. So Jerome, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius. Budé shows the same from Aristophanes and Demosthenes. St. Augustine, however, takes the Testament of God here properly: "Because," he says, what the death of the testator avails to confirm a testament, this the unchangeableness of the promise of God avails to make firm His promise. Which last things do our opinion no harm. And surely the Apostle himself makes it plain enough that he is not treating in that place of the promises or covenants mentioned in Genesis chapter 13 from verse 15, chapter 15 from verse 4, and chapter 17 from verse 2, when in the preceding verse he expressly indicates that divine promise according to which in the seed of Abraham, which is Christ,
all the nations, or kindreds of the earth, were to be blessed, of which namely he had spoken in the same chapter, verses 8 and 14, and which is therefore altogether different from the later promises divinely made to our Saint in the cited Genesis chapter 13 from verse 15, chapter 15 from verse 4, and chapter 17 from verse 2, inasmuch as in them no word is to be found about the blessing of all nations in the seed of Abraham.
[205] nor is the epoch of that Testament to be taken from a deed of uncertain time, I confess indeed that the promise of which there is talk here was repeated by God as soon as Abram had offered the ram caught among the briers as a holocaust for his son Isaac, nay rather that it was described by Moses in such words that the Apostle might seem to have looked to this one rather than to that which is related in chapter 12 of Genesis: for thus the angel of the Lord speaks in the cited chapter 22 from verse 16: By My own self have I sworn, saith the Lord: because thou hast done this thing, and hast not spared thy only-begotten son for My sake: I will bless thee and I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand that is by the sea shore: thy seed shall possess the gates of their enemies, And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed My voice. But although the covenant entered into by God with Abram in Genesis chapter 12 was really confirmed at that time, yet the Apostle cannot be said to have numbered those 430 years from that confirmation of the covenant; since the time at which Abraham was commanded to immolate Isaac his son is altogether uncertain, some asserting that it was done in Abraham's hundred and tenth year, others in his hundred and fifteenth, others in his hundred and twenty-fifth, others finally in his hundred and thirty-third, or sixth.
[206] related in Genesis chapter 22, it may be repeated, but on the contrary It follows, therefore, either that the Apostle, beginning an era from an uncertain starting point, must be said to have been unskilled in this kind of writing, which it is impious even to suspect; or that he employed not a time altogether unknown, but on the contrary one expressly marked in the divine Scriptures and most known to all, such as is the seventy-fifth year of Abram's age, most celebrated by the first promise of God, as the certain and fixed beginning of the Abrahamic era established by him; and that therefore he reckons from that covenant, which God then first entered into with Abram concerning the blessing of all the kindreds of the earth in him, and which by entering into it He sanctioned, those years which he affirms ran from thence down to the Law given on Mount Sina. Moreover, if the four hundred and thirty years designated by the Apostle were to be numbered from that confirmation of the covenant mentioned in Genesis chapter 22, verse 18, which seems to have to be placed between Abraham's hundred and fifteenth and hundred and thirty-seventh year, down to the Law given on Mount Sina; it would likewise follow that the seed of Abraham was a sojourner in a land not its own not merely four hundred and five years, or, the small number being neglected, four hundred years, as is nevertheless asserted in Genesis chapter 15, verse 13, but altogether four hundred and twenty-five years, nay four hundred and thirty-six years, if that confirmation of the covenant is laid down as having been made in Abraham's hundred and thirty-sixth year. What? If the 430 years were reckoned from that confirmation, it would become altogether necessary that the Chronological arrangement fixed by Moses from the birth of Abram to the giving of the Law be turned upside down in almost every part, and every way shut off by which the testimonies of sacred Scripture adduced from number 177 could be reconciled with the words of the Apostle so understood.
[207] Rightly, therefore, does Josephus, in book 2 of the Jewish Antiquities, chapter 6, take the beginning of the 430 years of which there is treatment here from Abram's entry into the land of Chanaan, [it must be taken, with the ancients, from the covenant of certain time, namely that made in Abram's 75th year.] and therefore also from the divine apparition and Gospel promise which presently followed, speaking thus of the Hebrews: And they left Egypt in the month Xanthicus, on the fifteenth day of the moon, in the four hundred and thirtieth year after our father Abraham came into Chananaea. To which, as I should like noted here in passing, it ought by no means to be an obstacle that in chapter 5 of the same book there lies a copyist's fault, by which namely in place of the Greek numeral sign o, which sounds two hundred, the sign u has crept in, which wrongly attributes four hundred years to the Egyptian servitude. With Josephus agrees Eusebius in the former book of the Chronicles, page X in my copy, speaking thus: When he (Abram) was LXXV years old, he is held worthy of the divine address and of that promise which was made to him: from which time down to the return of the Hebrew nation from Egypt are reckoned CCCCXXX years, which Paul mentions, saying thus: "The testament confirmed by the Lord the law which was made after four hundred and thirty years doth not weaken, to make void the promise." Things consonant with these he repeats in the latter book of the Chronicles at the first year of God's repromise to Abraham, whose beginning, whatever others may contend otherwise, he places in his seventy-fifth year, and not in his seventy-sixth, as we taught above at number 167. To these I add, for all the rest, the no less express testimony of St. Augustine, book 16 of the City of God, chapter 24, number 3, framed in these words: There are reckoned … from the seventy-fifth year of Abraham, when the first promise was made to him, down to the going out of Israel from Egypt, four hundred and thirty years, which the Apostle mentions thus: "Now this I say," he says, "the testament confirmed by God, the law which was made after four hundred and thirty years doth not weaken, to make void the promise." But let what has now been said on that very difficult question suffice for our purpose. Let us now return to the deeds of Abram.
§ XII. Abram's arrival in the land of Chanaan: his sojourning there: his departure towards Egypt: the plan he employed lest he be slain in Egypt.
Abram, from Haran, of whose situation That Abram, when he was in his seventy-fifth year, completed less about two months, was called out of Haran by a divine oracle, and with his wife Sarai and Lot, his brother's son, and all his own and Lot's household and all their substance betook himself towards the land of Chanaan, appears undoubted from the words of Moses in Genesis chapter 12 from verse 4 and from what was said in § IX from number 162. And that he could easily have reached the land of Chanaan before that same year had entirely elapsed, what is now to be said will disclose. If the city of Haran, from which the most obedient Man departed towards the land of Chanaan, is laid down, with St. Jerome in the book On the Situation of Hebrew places, volume 2 of the Works, column 427, to be that city of Mesopotamia which to this day is called Charra, where the Roman army was cut down and the general Crassus captured, and which, as may be seen in the geographical map by M. d'Anville, the royal geographer, set out more accurately than the others in volume 2 of the Oriens Christianus at column 669, is distant about three hundred Roman miles, or seventy-five Flemish leagues, from the land of Chanaan; Abram, if he covered two and a half Flemish leagues a day, could have arrived in Chanaan within the space of one month, and therefore while the seventy-fifth year of his age was still running.
[209] there is treatment here, arrives in the land of Chanaan, But if one pleases, with Friedrich Spanheim, whom Cellarius praises in part 2 of the Ancient World, page 445, to place Haran, as a city situated, according to Genesis chapter XI, verse 31, on the route which leads from Chaldea into Chanaan, in a more southerly land, namely more than forty thousand paces below Carrhae, yet above the latitude of the city of Nicephorium; then, as the interval of lands between this city and the land of Chanaan is so much narrower, so too Abram must have spent a so much shorter space of time to reach the land of Chanaan. However it may be with the true situation of the city of Haran, which, however, I should not wish, with a few more recent writers, to place at Palmyra or in the tract of Coele-Syria quite near to the land of Chanaan; nothing at least contrary arises from the interval of places, as is plain from what has been said, to prevent the holy Traveller from having arrived in the land of Chanaan while the seventy-fifth year of his age was still running.
[210] not having first occupied, contrary to what Nicolaus But a difficulty of some sort emerges from another head, namely from the words of Nicolaus of Damascus, an ancient writer whom Josephus praises in book 1 of the Jewish Antiquities, chapter 8. Hear his words from him: Abraham reigned at Damascus as a stranger, having come with his army from the region situated above Babylon, which is called that of the Chaldeans: and not long after, migrating from here too with his people, he transferred his abode into the land then called Chananaean, now named Judaea: and his posterity grew there to an immense number, whose affairs I shall narrate elsewhere. And the name of Abraham (these I judge to be the words of Josephus commenting on the sayings of Nicolaus) is celebrated even now among the Damascenes, and a village is shown which they call the dwelling of Abraham. Since, then, it cannot be said that Abram, from the time he once entered the land of Chanaan, ever transferred his abode thence to Damascus, it becomes necessary, if Nicolaus of Damascus wrote rightly, that Abram remained at least one or two months in that city while he set out from Haran by that way into Chananaea.
[211] of Damascus teaches, in the city of Damascus I confess that, since it is not sufficiently established that Abram kept to the same way, when he came from Haran into Chananaea, which Jacob afterwards kept when returning from his uncle's house into Chanaan, it can be said quite probably that he then made his journey through the territory of Damascus and through the city itself, and even stayed there a day or two, perhaps to refresh his family weary from the road; and that hence it also came about that his name thereafter remained celebrated among the Damascenes; moreover, since not long afterwards Abram is read to have had three hundred and eighteen home-born servants equipped for war, with whom he routed the victorious army of four kings, I do not deny that Nicolaus of Damascus wrote things in some way true when he gave this band the name of army; but when he asserts that Abram, the master and leader of this band, reigned for some while at Damascus, I cannot but dissent from him here. I am led chiefly by these reasons, not to recount others. It is contrary to the likeness of truth that a stranger should have received that kingdom, whether by force or on sufferance, and, having received it, should not long after have left it, and then, pressed by famine, should have set out into Egypt, not without the most present danger to his life, rather than return to Damascus, where he had held supreme power and could easily have held it again, and where too, though not indeed without some hardship on account of the famine that had arisen in Syria, he would have spent his life
but far from danger to his life and from the other much greater hardships to which, making for Egypt, he was compelled to subject himself.
[212] Moreover, if Abram had at any time reigned at Damascus, why did neither Moses nor any sacred Writers mention so illustrious a deed, a kingdom which he would then have forsaken; since both to have reigned, as Salian, often praised above, rightly notes at Abram's year 76, number 9, and to have voluntarily left a kingdom for the sake of undertaking a pilgrimage divinely commanded, would furnish a great harvest of true commendation, which the sacred Writers, who record things of lesser moment done by him, do not seem likely to have neglected? Finally, since that Nicolaus lived ever so far removed from the times of Abram, being, as Suidas testifies, a familiar of Herod, king of the Jews, and of Augustus Caesar, and adduces no more ancient witness or surety for himself, his authority in so singular a matter is not so great as to deserve credit, especially while sacred Scripture not only does not favour him but even opposes him on more than one head. Similar things indeed are also related by Justin in book 36 of the Epitome of the History of Pompeius Trogus, pages 309 and 311 in my copy, asserting that not only Abram but also Israhel, that is Jacob, and Moses himself, whom he wrongly makes the son of Joseph, viceroy of Egypt, were kings of Damascus; but that all these things are fabricated, that is, just as true of Abram as of Jacob and Moses, only an unskilled man would doubt.
[213] When the most obedient Traveller had, while the seventy-fifth year of his age had not yet entirely elapsed, [but, walking through the land of Chanaan, from the angel of God appearing to him he understands that he had been divinely called before to this determinately,] as is altogether credible from what has been said, first set foot in the land of Chanaan, he did not stay in any place there for many days, but on the contrary, as is related in Genesis chapter 12, verse 6, he passed through the land, or, as the LXX Translators have more expressly, he walked through the land in its length, that is, from the Northern tract, for example from the city of Emath, or from that near it afterwards called Dan, towards the South, as far as the borders of Sichem, that is, as far as the noble vale, on the side where it is near the place Sichem; which region was then inhabited by the Chananaean, that is, by one of the eleven peoples sprung from Chanaan, grandson of Noe, as Moses writes in these words in the cited chapter 12, verse 6: Abram passed through the country into the place of Sichem, as far as the noble vale: now the Chananaean was at that time in the land. There, as Abram stayed for a little while, the Lord, or an angel holding God's place, appeared to him, saying to him: To thy seed will I give this land, Genesis chapter 12, verse 7. From which words the holy Man at length understood that the land of Chanaan, in which he now was, was the very one to which he had been called out by God from Ur of the Chaldeans and then from Haran, that is, which the Lord had promised that He would show him according to His good pleasure.
[214] and accepts its possession, to be entered upon at some time, Therefore, in acknowledgement of so great a benefit, as a sign of the possession accepted, to be entered upon by his posterity, and as a monument of the region to be one day consecrated to God, he built there an altar to the Lord, who had appeared to him, as is partly read in Genesis chapter 12, verse 7, and partly most rightly observed by our Salian, commenting on this place at the year of the world 2114, but of Abram's age the seventy-sixth, number 13. It will not be irksome to transcribe here his words, which elucidate this apparition and the occasion of the altar erected. Abraham, he says at the cited number, page 408, had already traversed much land since he went out of Charan, and was sojourning among the Chananaeans without hearth, without soil, without dwelling; when the Lord, wishing to console him, deigns him a third apparition; for the first was in Chaldea, to command the migration from his country; the second in Mesopotamia, to renew the same after his father's death (see what we have said from number 151); the third to console him in the pilgrimage he had undertaken. The first had a bare command to go out, as St. Stephen related it in Acts chapter 7; the second (besides the command to go out of Haran) had manifold promises, but universally and in general; the third has a particular promise of this land in which he was sojourning, which He disposes of, as Lord of the whole earth, according to His will and power; in the first He showed Himself to Abraham as Lord, in the second as parent, in the third as the magnificent rewarder of his posterity.
[215] and erects an altar to God, And the most holy Patriarch so accepts that region in the name of his posterity that already then, as if he were being put into possession, he erects an altar, to be a signal monument of a mind grateful towards God, and at the same time a sign of the possession accepted and acquired, finally a proof of the region consecrated to the true God. This is the land which He had promised that He would show him; now, more liberal in deeds than in promises, He pledges that He will hand over its dominion to his posterity. Thus far he, following partly St. Chrysostom, Homily 32 on chapter 12 of Genesis, and partly our Pereira, discoursing learnedly on the same chapter, Disputation 2, number 71, whom the curious reader may consult if he pleases. But whether Abram then immolated victims to God upon the altar erected by him and poured forth public prayers might in some way be doubted, because Moses in the cited verse 7 does not add that he there called upon the name of the Lord; but if we turn our attention to the following verse, in which he mentions another altar erected by Abram, we shall not with difficulty be persuaded that Abram, just as he marked with the name of God the altar erected by him in the second place, of which below, and called upon the name of the Lord upon it (which in the phrase of Scripture is to slay victims to God and exercise public worship), so too would by no means have wished to omit that same thing when he set up the first altar to God in Chananaea; so that what Moses adds in verse 8 about calling upon the name of the Lord is rather an exposition of the former verse, by which he makes plain what it is to build an altar to God, than an indication of a sacrifice previously omitted by Abram.
[216] namely in the noble vale For the rest, since it concerns the reader not a little to know more accurately what that place of Chananaea was where Abram first stayed for some while and built an altar to the true God, as soon as the promise of delivering the land of Chanaan to his posterity had been made to him, we too shall make some delay here. To those crossing the land of Chanaan from the Northern to the Southern quarter, that is, lengthwise, there meets them at about the middle of the journey, and at a nearly equal distance between the Western Sea and the river Jordan, a mountain, afterwards called mount Ephraim, having two ridges, to one of which some contend the name Garizim was given, to the other the name Hebal. However it may be with these names, on this mountain, or, as others would have it, at its foot, a city was built by Hemor the Hevite, which from the name of his son, concerning whom see Genesis chapter 34, verse 2, was called Sichem, and to which afterwards the names Salem, Sichima, Sichar, and also Neapolis and Naploza clung. Bordering on this place is the noble vale, deservedly so called, as Bonfrère observes on Genesis chapter 12, verse 6, on account of its pleasantness and length, of which St. Jerome speaks thus in the book On the Situation and Names of Hebrew places, volume 2, column 394: Aulon (it is not a Greek word, as some think, but a Hebrew one) is the name given to … a great and level valley, stretching out to an immense length, which is surrounded on both sides by mountains succeeding one another and cohering, which, beginning from Libanus and beyond, reach as far as the desert of Pharan. And there are in that Aulon, that is, the Level Valley (in Hebrew it is called Elon More), noble cities, Scythopolis, Tiberias and the lake beside it; and also Jericho, the Dead Sea and the regions round about, through the midst of which the Jordan flows, rising from the springs of Paneas and dying in the Dead Sea.
[217] For a clearer knowledge of this word Elon More, the praised Bonfrère adds this on page 184: not far from Sichem; Hence also you may understand why Jerome, in Deuteronomy chapter XI, verse 30, when in the Hebrew there is had beside Elon more, himself rendered "which is beside the valley that stretcheth and entereth far," that is, beside the valley stretched out lengthwise, by which words nothing else than the valley Aulon is indicated periphrastically. In that part, then, of this very widely stretched valley which touched the place afterwards called Sichem, and near a place planted with lofty oaks (for so the Hebrew Elon More can also be expounded from the LXX Translators), an angel holding God's place gave himself visible to Abram, and promised that the whole region then inhabited by the posterity of Chanaan, in about the middle of which he then was, would be granted to his seed, that is, his posterity. After the pious Traveller had consecrated the place where these things had happened by erecting an altar to the supreme Godhead, and had abundantly paid to God the offices of outstanding religion, he did not rest there long, as Moses hints in the cited chapter 12, verse 8, and as St. Chrysostom believes following him, Homily 32 on chapter 12 of Genesis.
[218] Passing on thence, then (always towards the South), to the mountain which was on the East of Bethel, whence he passes towards Bethel, where he also erects an altar to God, he came, and pitched his tent there, having Bethel on the West and Hai on the East, where he also marked with the name of God another altar erected by him and offered victims upon it to God, as Moses seems to indicate by these words: He built there also an altar to the Lord and called upon His name; already then, as St. Chrysostom observes in the cited Homily, fulfilling in deed what the Apostle warned in the 1st Epistle to Timothy, chapter 2, verse 8, that in every place pure hands are to be lifted up and thanks given for benefits received from God. Bethel, moreover, as St. Jerome testifies in the cited book On the situation of Hebrew places, column 410, is a village at the twelfth milestone from Aelia (otherwise Jerusalem), on the right of those going to Neapolis, which was first called Luza, that is, Almond: and it fell into the lot of the tribe of Benjamin beside Betham and Gai (otherwise Hai), which Jesus (otherwise Josue) stormed, its king having been slain. And Hai, or, as St. Jerome also writes in the cited book, column 447, the city of Gai, as Masius testifies on Josue chapter 7, verse 2, and chapter 8, verse XI, is about two thousand five hundred paces distant from Bethel, and is therefore by an equal space nearer than Bethel to the Jordan; while on the contrary Bethel is likewise by an equal interval nearer than Hai to the Mediterranean sea, which washes the Western region of the land of Chanaan; so that, though they differ in words, they nevertheless agree altogether in sense with our Vulgate, the Hebrew
and Greek codices, which in place of this: Having Bethel on the West, render thus: Having Bethel towards the sea; which it will perhaps profit not a few to have noted in passing.
[219] and stays for a while; At this mountain, lying, as we said, midway between Luza, or Bethel, and Gai, or Hai, Salian, praised above, number 16, page 409, judges quite probably that Abram stayed somewhat longer than in the other places of Chananaea, led namely by this reason, that in Genesis chapter 12, verse 8, express mention is made of a fixed tent, whereas it is certain that in the other places too he set up his tent, but only for a slight space of time, and therefore not worthy of special mention. There are those who would have it that the holy Man in this place not only worshipped God with public rite, but also preached the true God to the inhabitants, and they judge that these sacred words And called upon the name of the Lord must be understood and even rendered in that sense. But I, with Salian, should wish that a thing which could be affirmed with sufficient safety had a much greater and more solid foundation in either the Hebrew or the Greek text. For what St. Chrysostom writes in Homily 32 on Genesis, number 4, page 321, volume 4, that the Lord provided that Abram should be a teacher not only to those inhabiting Palestine, but also to those who were in Egypt, does not make it certain that he preached the true God to the idolaters by words as well as by examples; although both the one and the other, as altogether consonant with his piety, are not contrary to likelihood.
[220] thence he advances towards Egypt, But why, you will say, did Abram not stay there longer, having found a place pleasant enough and convenient enough for himself and his people? Or why, as Moses writes in verse 9, did Abram go on, going and proceeding further to the South, or, as the LXX have, why did he encamp in the desert, for example of Maon or of Sin, both of which are situated in the Southern tract of Chananaea? That the cause of this journey was not, as Torniello alleges in the Sacred Annals at the year of the world 2114, number 6, some divine command by which Abram had been commanded to Arise and walk through the land in the length and breadth thereof, is luminously plain from this, that God did not give him a command of this kind until the famine in Chanaan had already ceased and he himself had already returned there from Egypt, as will become plain to one who reads through chapter 13 of Genesis. I should rather believe, therefore, that Abram advanced ever towards the South from the place midway between Bethel and Hai, partly by divine instinct, partly by human counsel: by divine instinct indeed, so that, the necessity of migrating from place to place arising from one quarter or another, his faith in God and his constancy in adversity might shine forth more daily, and his posterity might have an example of a more perfect life to imitate, and finally that he might give lessons of good living to the Southern as well as to the Northern inhabitants of Chananaea; and by the human counsel of Abram himself, so that, since it was to be feared that on account of the inclemency of the weather then raging, corn and the other fruits would grow in Chananaea much more sparingly than usual, and that famine would arise there in consequence, he himself, meanwhile advancing more and more to the South, might become daily nearer to Egypt, a region most celebrated for the abundance of its fruits, and, if his own and his people's safety required it, might betake himself into it and protect both himself and the companions of his pilgrimage from famine.
[221] However these things may be, what the prudent Abram certainly could foresee, in order to avoid the famine in the land of Chanaan; and in fact, as it appears to me at least, did foresee, presently followed: a famine in Chanaan, and such a one indeed as surpassed human industry struggling with it, arising, if credit is given to Philo, in the book On Abraham, page 284 in my copy, now from unusual droughts, now from excessive rains, which, as may be gathered from his words, not only in Abram's seventy-sixth year, already begun, but also not a little before, or at least in the preceding year, had either prevented the sowing in Syria or had consumed by far the greatest part of the fruits of the earth that had sprung up, before they ripened. And there came, says Moses in verse x, a famine in the country, namely in Chanaan; and since Abram was already experiencing it even before the month Nisan, corresponding in part to our March and April, at which time, as may be gathered from Leviticus chapter 23, verses 5 and X, some fruits are otherwise wont to be ripe in Palestine, and not without grave loss to his household and his flocks, and saw moreover that little, or rather no, hope remained again of gathering new fruits by which the preceding dearth of provisions could in any way be relieved, he decided to set out into Egypt, a very fertile region, from which he was then not far distant, driven namely by the sole necessity of the famine, which, as Moses testifies in verse x, had prevailed, and not also with this design, contrary to what Josephus in book 1 of the Jewish Antiquities, chapter 9, wrongly contends, of learning the opinion of the (Egyptian) priests concerning the divinity, intending to follow their opinion if it should be better, or himself to show them better things.
[222] But while he is most of all girding himself and his people for the Egyptian sojourn, the Just man is pressed by no moderate anguish of mind and fear, yet before he enters Egypt he takes counsel with his wife, and so much the more vehemently the nearer he approaches Egypt and is made daily more certain of the morals of the Egyptians. For since the vivacity of men and the vigour of bodies were then much greater than now, and his wife Sarai had suffered no loss of her native sap either by bearing or suckling children or by a freer licence of living, she was in the sixty-fifth year of her age still endowed with so vigorous a body and so elegant a comeliness that she would, even against her will, allure the Egyptians, given over to the love of women, to love of her. Abram had therefore to fear lest, if he went into Egypt and disclosed himself as Sarai's husband, the Egyptians should inflict death upon him, and so, the fear of the husband being removed by his death, should foully use his wife as a harlot. On the other hand, the famine prevailing daily in Chananaea did not so much urge as extort the entry into Egypt, so that he must either perish by famine with his family in the land of Chanaan, or go away thence into Egypt. In this crisis of affairs, let us hear from Moses himself, Genesis chapter 12 from verse XI, what the holy Man did: And when he (Abram) was near to enter into Egypt, he said to Sarai his wife: I know that thou art a beautiful woman: and that when the Egyptians shall see thee, they will say: She is his wife: and they will kill me, and keep thee. Say, therefore, I pray thee, that thou art my sister, that I may be well used for thee, and that my soul may live for thy sake.
[223] which various men have variously censured, Thus far the sacred Writer, who adds in the same chapter that this plan of Abram turned out most rightly for him. But before we too come to that, the opinions of various men concerning this plan of Abram are to be examined here, and the calumnies with which they visit him on that account are to be dissolved. There are those who would have it that the holy Man not only resolved to lie in this matter, but also induced his wife to lie. Others, going further, assert that he decided to betray his wife's chastity and served adultery to her dishonour. And so thought not the Manichaeans alone, or most certainly their keenest champion Faustus, but also Origen himself. What? SS. Chrysostom and Ambrose spoke of that deed in such a way that, if their bare words are regarded, both could be said to have agreed in that matter with the Manichaeans and Origen. Nevertheless I assert that Abram, when he decided to call himself Sarai's brother, neither resolved to lie; nor, when he persuaded her to call him her brother, induced her to a lie; nor finally that anything was decided or done by him in that pitiable necessity which could not be decided or done with God's law preserved.
[224] and that it is nevertheless of a lie And first, indeed, Abram can rightly be said neither to have wished to lie nor to have induced his wife to lie, unless either he himself knowingly and willingly uttered something false, or asserted something against his mind, or unless he was the author to his wife of her doing some such thing. But since, by resolving to call himself Sarai's brother after the custom of his fathers, and by inducing her likewise to call him her brother, he decided to utter nothing at all, nor persuaded her to utter anything, that was foreign to the truth, as he himself testifies in a similar case in Genesis chapter 20, verse 12, in these words: But otherwise also she is truly my sister, as if to say: Her who was begotten of my father's blood I truly call sister; where surely Abram is rather to be believed speaking what he knows than the Manichaeans and others accusing what they do not know; it follows that he must be said to be free of a lie on both heads, no otherwise than when he called Lot, joined to him by an equal tie of blood, brother in Genesis chapter 13, verse 8; nor is there any reason why he should be accused of a lie in that matter more than Tobias in chapter 8, verse 9, and the Evangelists themselves, who addressed those joined by consanguinity by the name of brothers or sisters. I confess that, if it were established from the sacred Books or from another document of undoubted credit that Abram was so disposed in mind that, asked whether Sarai was his wife, he would deny her to be his spouse; or if it were established by equal authority that he had required of her that, to those asking whether she was his wife, she should deny that she was his wife; then certainly he would not be excused from a lie, as one who had fixed in his mind not merely to conceal the truth but to utter a falsehood.
[225] the fault, being called, But since, as Scripture testifies, he wished to say, and in fact said, only that which was true, and at the same time decided for a most just cause to keep silent another thing which was true; there was in these words of Abram no denial of the truth nor affirmation of a falsehood, but the mere concealment of a truth which would otherwise harm him if it were disclosed, that is, a mere reticence, much like that which is related in book 1 of Kings, chapter 16: and therefore, since, as all confess, Samuel by no means lied when he affirmed that he had come to Bethlehem to sacrifice to the Lord, though he had also, and indeed principally, come there by God's command to anoint as king of Israel one of the sons of Isai whom God should show him; by equal reason Abram, by resolving partly to disclose, partly to conceal what was true, cannot be accused of a lie, nor therefore be said to have induced his wife to a lie any more than God Himself induced Samuel to it, when, sending him to Bethlehem, He commanded that the one thing, which was true, should be made manifest; the other, which was likewise true,
but which could not be disclosed without grave danger, should be kept silent. Just as, therefore, it pertained not to dissimulation but to prudence that Samuel made manifest a true cause of his coming to Bethlehem, but not the only nor the principal one, so too it must be said to pertain not to lying but to prudence that Abram disclosed his true consanguinity with Sarai, yet did not openly profess the whole, much less the principal, bond that was between himself and her.
[226] But, another will say, although in that case Abram can be said neither to have resolved to lie nor to have induced his wife to a lie, and free from attempted adultery since it is lawful to keep silent the truth in its time and place not only without fault but even with praise; yet, since he wished it to be hidden from the Egyptians that Sarai was his wife, he must be said to have wished also to give them a handle for believing her free, and therefore that she could, even against his will, be sought and taken as wife by the king of the Egyptians. He therefore intended to deceive the Egyptians, and, what is the chief point, if in fact, as he had to fear, she were compelled by the king to marriage, since this would have been true adultery, he will have to be said at least to have served adultery to the dishonour of his wife. But I answer that Abram's plan did not look to this, that is, that he did not positively intend, as the schools say, to lead the Egyptians into error or to entice their king to enter into marriage with Sarai; but only wished to take precaution lest he himself be slain by the Egyptians, and, he being slain, Sarai be kept captive by foreigners, or thereafter be held in the place of a harlot. For just causes, therefore, he held himself merely permissively, as we commonly say, towards that error into which their own inconsiderateness or blind impulse of mind might lead the Egyptians.
[227] Moreover, Abram not only did not wish that Sarai should please the eyes of the Egyptians, and from pandering, but most vehemently feared that it should happen; and so far was he from inducing her to enter into marriage with the Egyptians or to consent to their lust, that on the contrary he must altogether be judged to have strengthened by whatever reasons he could his chaste wife, cleaving to him with chaste heart, in the purpose of keeping conjugal fidelity, and to have implored the divine help and protection whereby she might remain untouched; unless otherwise, in the teeth of the sacred Letters, we are compelled to call him a slothful husband and an impious man, and anything rather than the friend of God. It will help to hear St. Augustine, book 22 Against Faustus the Manichaean, chapter 33, volume 8 of the Works, edition of 1694, column 381 and following, disputing on this plan of Abram. This deed of Abraham, he says, seems like pandering, but to those who cannot, by the light of that eternal law, discern right deeds from sins: to whom constancy too may seem obstinacy, and the virtue of confidence be thought the vice of audacity, and whatever things are similarly objected, as against those not acting rightly, by those not discerning rightly. For Abraham did not consent to the shameful deed of his wife, and sell her adultery; but just as she did not give over her handmaid to her husband's lust, but of her own accord brought her to the duty of begetting, the natural order being in no way disturbed, commanding, where she had the power, one who obeyed rather than yielding to one who lusted, so he too, as to his chaste wife, cleaving to him with chaste heart, of whose mind, where the virtue of modesty dwelt, he in no way doubted, kept silent that she was his wife, said that she was his sister, lest, he being slain, she should be possessed captive by foreigners and impious men, certain of his God that He would suffer her to undergo nothing base and shameful. Nor did his faith and hope deceive him.
[228] and that he was entirely removed from the stain of avarice is shown, Far be it, then, that we should understand those words of Abram, Say, therefore, I pray thee, that thou art my sister, that I may be well used for thee, and that my soul may live for thy sake, as though he wished by them to persuade his wife to consent to other nuptials or to comply with the lust of the Egyptians, not only that he himself might be preserved alive, but also enriched by the Egyptians with honourable gifts; since neither does the literal sense of the words admit an exposition of this kind, nor the plan of the most pious Man, busy about this one thing, that he should not be slain by the Egyptians, and that, he being slain, his wife should not suffer the losses of her modesty. For he who, as is related in Genesis chapter 14, verse 23, would not be enriched by spoils most justly acquired, nor take anything of them from a woof-thread even to a shoe-latchet; he certainly cannot with any likelihood be judged to have wished to prostitute the chastity of his dearest wife in order to be presented with gifts by the Egyptians. These things being so, the assertion of Origen in Homily 6 on Genesis, resting on no reason at all, in which he asserts that Abraham in a similar case, of which afterwards, not only lied to the king but also betrayed the chastity of his wife, can be of no weight at all. As for the calumnies of this kind of Faustus the Manichaean, most fully crushed and pounded by Augustine, there is no need to say anything here.
[229] although two holy Fathers seem to have said the contrary, But what of the words of SS. Chrysostom and Ambrose, the latter of whom, in book 1 On Abraham, chapter 2, writes that Sara lied about the sisterhood; and the former, in Homily 32 on Genesis, that she played a fable, and that Abram from fear of death consented to his wife's adultery and as it were served adultery to the woman's dishonour? I answer that, since the Greek word δρᾶμα, which Chrysostom uses, does not always denote a lie, or a fable as it is commonly taken, but sometimes any most true thing whatever, though arranged with art and industry; and since the very verb lie in Ambrose seems to be used for the verb to pretend or to put forward the sisterhood; it cannot be concluded for certain from these manners of speaking that they wished to accuse either Abram or Sarai of a lie, especially if we consider that a little after they followed this same deed with praises, which it is by no means likely they would have done if they had believed it liable to a lie strictly so called. The very same is to be thought of the other saying of St. Chrysostom; so that he wished to hint nothing else than that Abram did that on account of which anyone else, who was not so certain as Abram of his wife's virtue and constancy and of the special help of God that would be present, could deservedly come under suspicion of having given consent, nay ministry, to his wife's adultery. However these things may be, the authority of St. Augustine is surely to be held weightier in this matter, and our opinion consonant with it, as more conformable to the sacred Scriptures and fortified with solid reasons.
[230] It remains now that we set before the eyes, from the cited book 22 Against Faustus, chapter 36, the other difficulty which the holy Doctor objects to himself and by the same labour disposes of. and others too accuse this deed of Abram of sin on other grounds. Someone will say, he says at column 383, why did Abraham not rather so presume upon God as not to fear to confess his wife? For was God not able to drive away from him the death he feared, and to protect him with his wife from every harm in that sojourning, so that neither his wife, though she was most beautiful, should be sought by anyone, nor he be killed on her account? God could surely do this: who is so mad as to deny it? But if Abraham, being asked, had declared that woman his wife, he would have committed two things to God's protection, both his own life and his wife's chastity. But it pertains to sound doctrine that, when a man has something he can do, he should not tempt the Lord his God. And after various testimonies and examples taken from the sacred Letters, by which he most firmly establishes this assertion, he concludes thus: Accordingly, since among strangers, on account of the most excellent beauty of Sara, both her chastity and her husband's life were in doubt, and Abraham could not protect both, yet could protect one of them, that is, life; lest he should tempt his God, he did what he could: and what he could not (namely of himself prevent the Egyptians from seeking his wife Sarai and taking her as wife) he committed to Him (namely God). He, then, who could not hide himself as a man, hid himself as a husband, lest he be slain; his wife he entrusted to God, lest she be defiled. Thus far St. Augustine.
[231] And surely, if, as is quite probable from St. Jerome in the book of Hebrew Questions, column 518, accuse him of sin from another quarter. it was the custom among the Egyptians equally as among the Persians that no woman should be brought into the king's chamber who had not first for six months been anointed with oil of myrrh and for as many months also used various cosmetics, Abram could rightly trust that, if by chance Sarai should be carried off by royal command, then to be taken as wife by the king of Egypt, in the course of that year some opportune time would shine forth in which, if not by human art and industry, at least by some special help of God, he would recover his wife untouched, as the event too showed. Away, then, with Rivet, when in Exercitation 73 on chapter 12 of Genesis, page 350, he confesses that Abram's end in these things was indeed right, but contends that he nevertheless strayed in the way, and cannot be cleared of the fault of distrust and of human frailty. But why so, I ask? Because, namely, in Rivet's judgment, page 349, since Abram feared for his life only on account of his wife, if he had asked of God (that is, rather ought to have asked) that He would turn away the eyes of men from desiring Sarai's beauty, then certainly, the cause being removed, the effect also would have been removed. As though this would not have been to tempt God, that He should divinely close or darken the eyes of all the Egyptians into whose sight Sarai should come, and bridle their desires, and therefore work as many miracles as there were Egyptians whom it should happen she would meet either on the journey or during her stay among the Egyptians. Abram, then, did in so great a crisis of affairs what both sound reason and prudence urged to be done, nor is there any reason why we should pronounce him guilty of even the least sin in it. Whoever wishes more on these things, let him consult Pereira on chapter 12 of Genesis, Disputation 5, number 102 and following, disputing learnedly, after his manner, on this deed.
§ XIII. The Saint's entry into Egypt: he recovers untouched the wife taken from him: his return into the land of Chanaan: the land of Chanaan is divinely promised to him.
The Saint, having entered Egypt, Abram had now so arranged his plans that, since he was compelled on account of the famine prevailing in the land of Chanaan to go down into Egypt, lest otherwise he expose himself and his people to manifest destruction, he might providently ward off the danger to his life threatening him from the Egyptians on account of his wife, so far as could be done by him with God's law preserved. Trusting, then, that the powerful and kindly Godhead would favour the human aids which he had judged he should use, he enters Egypt, with Sarai his wife and Lot his brother's son and his whole family and substance, about the beginning of the month Nisan, namely, as one may conjecture, into that part of the region most fertile in corn where the Nile, through the Pelusiac mouth,
discharges its waters into the Mediterranean sea. That entry, as being one of men perhaps never seen before, singular in race, and quite unusual in the multitude of servants and flocks, could not but turn upon itself the eyes and the admiration first of the Egyptian common people and presently of the governors of the region, and above all that woman who excelled the rest in dignity and beauty.
[233] presently he sees his wife taken from him; By these Egyptians, then, the report of so unusual a thing, which is wont at other times too to carry things greater than the truth, is at once brought to the princes and courtiers of King Pharao, also called by another name Apophis; who, both aroused by the novelty of the event and presently themselves beholding with their own eyes the company and its mistress, report everything to the king, extol the woman's beauty beyond measure, and, as can quite safely be believed of Egyptian courtiers eager to flatter the king, to serve his lust and to pander to his pleasures, impel him to command, against every right of hospitality, that the woman be taken even against her will and brought into the royal palace. But let us hear the sacred Writer again on these things. Thus he speaks in Genesis chapter 12, verse 14 and following: And when Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians saw the woman (Sarai) that she was very beautiful. And the princes told Pharao, and praised her before him: and the woman was taken into the house of Pharao. While she was being softly and delicately cultivated in the royal women's quarters, after the manner of the Egyptian women, for entering afterwards into marriage with the king, the Egyptians seem to have spared no care that he who was held to be the brother of the king's future wife should lead a comfortable and honourable life among them and be increased with many goods; all of which Moses indicated not obscurely in these words: And they used Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep and oxen and he-asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she-asses, and camels.
[234] and while he himself, though honourably received, grieves at her seizure, But these very attentions which were paid by the Egyptians to Sarai as well as to Abram not only did not relieve the anguish of mind of either, but on the contrary so heaped them daily with bitterer cares that, had not both trusted that God would be present to them in time, there would seem already then to remain humanly no way of defending and vindicating conjugal chastity from the king's lust. But God, who is wont to be the guardian and avenger of conjugal chastity which the husband cannot protect, and who had foretold that He would afflict those who afflicted Abram, or, to use the words of Scripture, that He would curse them that cursed Abram, brought to both spouses at that most difficult time the most powerful help, whereby He turned away from them infamy and all disgrace. For the Lord scourged Pharao and his house with most grievous stripes for Sarai, Abram's wife, as is related in Genesis chapter 12, verse 17. But what by name were those stripes with which God, both to ward off injury from His own and to chastise the mind of the Egyptians too prone to Venus, afflicted not Pharao only but his house too, since Moses is silent, who can render undoubted? Some have devised pestilence, others seditions, others in the men a most troublesome flux of seed mingled with grievous torment, others in the women most bitter and fruitless pains of childbirth, others other kinds of torments.
[235] But whatever those stripes were singly, and the Egyptians, because his wife was taken from him, are divinely chastised, they seem to me to have been such that God tormented the Egyptians through the very things through which they had sinned, so that both the king himself and the courtiers who had assented to his lust, forgetting loves and pleasures, now thought of far different things, and were anxious about this one thing, how they might escape from the torments by which they were afflicted. With Philo, from whom these things are partly taken, agrees St. Chrysostom in the Homily already often cited, page 326, where he also supplies at the same time the reason why Pharao alone was not chastised by God. Have you seen, he says, how they (Pharao's courtiers) played the part of panders to curry favour with the king, by carrying off the Just man's wife? Wherefore not he alone, but all his household too were sharers in the punishment, that they might learn that they had exercised their fury not simply upon a stranger, nor upon a man from the midst of the common people, but upon a man most dear to God, who deemed him worthy of so great care. And therefore, shaking his mind by a most bitter punishment, He drew him away from the abominable outrage, restrained him from the irrational onset, checked the incontinent mind, bound the untamed concupiscence, bridled the madness of his fury.
[236] Pharao, restrained by these stripes, and taught their cause either by the Egyptian priests, he recovers his wife untouched, or by Sarai herself, or divinely in sleep, and at the same time made certain that she whom he had before thought only Abram's sister was at the same time his wife, had nothing more urgent than to summon the Husband to himself and restore her to him preserved from the outrage of violation. Somewhat moved in mind, however, when Abram came into his sight, he addressed him in these words: What is this that thou hast done to me? Why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife? For what cause didst thou say she was thy sister, that I might take her to me to wife? Now therefore behold thy wife, take her and go thy way. Which, in the judgment of St. Chrysostom in the cited Homily, page 327, are to be understood roughly as if the king said: What hast thou done to me, Abram? Thou hast made God my enemy, thou hast brought His wrath upon me, thou hast made me liable to punishment, thou hast caused my whole house to pay the penalty of the things committed against thee. I commanded that she whom I thought thy sister be taken to me, to be received as the partner of my chamber; but now, because I know she is not only thy sister but truly thy wife, as I received her, so I restore her to thee. Take her therefore, affected with no injury by me, and depart far from my court with all thine. These things said, the king does not seem to have allowed Abram to give an account of his deed and make plain why he had called Sarai his sister but kept silent that she was his wife; but presently he gave command to the Egyptians that no one should be troublesome to the friend of God as he departed from the court, and finally as he set out from Egypt, nor anyone inflict even the slightest violence on him or on any of his household.
[237] and, conducted from the royal city, stays in Egypt for some time, And that this command of the king was forthwith put into execution by the Egyptians, Moses indicates clearly enough, when in verse 20, after he had said that Pharao gave his men orders concerning Abram, or, as the LXX Translators have, gave orders to the men concerning Abraham, he adds this: And they led him away and his wife and all that he had. And hence Artapanus is easily convicted of error, when in his History of Jewish Affairs, praised by Eusebius in book 9 of the Preparation for the Gospel, chapter 18, he writes that Abram spent twenty continuous years there (in Egypt) and migrated back into Syria; nor does Eupolemus, likewise praised by Eusebius in chapter 17, seem free from error here, asserting that Abram had very much intercourse with the Egyptian priests at Heliopolis, and that under him as master they learned many things, and also Astrology and all things that pertain to it. For, although it might be granted altogether gratuitously that Pharao was then living in that or another city near it, and that Sarai had been brought to it by the king's command; yet the Mosaic narrative does not allow that Abram should be said to have remained in Egypt, after recovering his wife, for so great a space of time as is necessary for him to have been able to teach men ignorant of Astronomy that science. And that this was done by him at the time when he was passing days and nights in the highest anxiety and the greatest cares on account of his wife, seized but not yet restored, is by no means likely.
[238] yet not for several years, as some would have it; Wherefore not even Josephus is to be believed here, asserting without an ancient witness, in book 1 of Jewish Affairs, chapter 9, that after his wife had been restored to Abram, power was granted him by the king to converse with all the most distinguished and learned of the Egyptians, and that he was held in great esteem both on account of the disputations by which he showed their opinions and rites to be most vain, and also on account of the science of numbers and of the stars communicated to them. For it will easily become manifest to anyone who considers it that all these things, in order to be said with any likeness of truth to have been done, require a space of time much longer even than that in which Abram, having recovered his wife, lived in Egypt. Nor indeed is this opinion of Josephus strengthened by the common opinion which asserts that disciplines of this kind passed from the Hebrews, who were Chaldeans by origin, to the Egyptians, and thence came to the Greeks; since it by no means follows from this that the Egyptians were imbued with disciplines of this kind by Abram, who stayed among the Egyptians only a little time, rather than by the patriarch Joseph, whom another Pharao made lord of his house and ruler of all his possession, that he might instruct his princes as himself, as is also plain of itself: although I should not wish on that account to deny that Abram greatly profited the Egyptians, equally with the Palestinians, by the splendour of his piety and his other virtues, nay that, when occasion offered, he also showed by words the way by which they might be led from the darkness of errors to the light of truth.
[239] But, someone will say, if what we contend from the Mosaic narrative is true, hence, after a stay of nearly one year that Abram sojourned in Egypt for so slight a space, say only nine or ten months, it follows that, when he went up out of Egypt, as Moses testifies in Genesis chapter 13, verse 1, to the Southern quarter of the land of Chanaan, either the famine in Chananaea had, against likelihood, already then ceased, or he imprudently exposed himself and his people to the same peril on account of which he had before been compelled to go into Egypt. But I answer that what we have not seldom seen happen in our own times must not be called foreign to truth, namely that, when a great scarcity of fruits has arisen in one year from the frequency of rains or from excessive heat of the sun, presently, a life-giving mildness of the weather succeeding, an abundance of all fruits also succeeds in a land fertile of itself; and therefore, since perhaps even in that very year in which Abram went down into Egypt there was no mean store of late fruits, and the greatest hope also shone forth that there would be a most abundant harvest of barley, wheat and the other fruits of the earth, to be gathered in the month Nisan of the following year or a little after, the pious Traveller exposed himself and his people to only a lighter danger, or scarcely any, when, before a whole year had elapsed from his departure into Egypt, he migrated back into Chananaea. Moreover, there seems to be little or no doubt at all that Pharao, in order to appease Abram's God, who was angry with him, commanded that there be given him, among other gifts, no small store of corn and other provisions, or at least did not forbid that he who by his command, far from the court, and then about to emigrate from Egypt,
was, should buy provisions with his own gold and silver and, loading them on his camels and asses, carry them with him into the land of Chanaan.
[240] Increased, then, in household, of which no lowest part seems to have been Agar, increased in household and riches, he returns into the land of Chanaan, the Egyptian handmaid to be mentioned below, and made richer also in gold, silver, flocks and herds, Abram went up out of Egypt towards the Southern quarter of Chananaea, taking with him his wife Sarai and everything that he had both brought into Egypt and acquired there by royal favour, and also his brother's son Lot himself, as Moses narrates in Genesis chapter 13, verses 1 and 2, in these words: And Abram went up out of Egypt, he and his wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him, into the south. And he was very rich in possession of gold and silver, or, as the LXX rendered, very rich in cattle and silver and gold. And although Moses, as one writing of set purpose the history of the Hebrew nation, made no mention here of the wife of Lot, the grandmother of the Moabites and Ammonites; yet it is altogether credible that that woman went down into Egypt together with her husband Lot, and thence, when Abram departed, set out likewise with him, probably already increased by one or two little daughters, which also could have been the cause why she, who was otherwise not so beautiful, had much less, or nothing at all, to fear for herself from the lust of the Egyptians than Sarai. But let these things said in passing about Lot's wife suffice, as she does not touch so nearly on the history of Abram. Leaving aside, then, the questions which could be raised on this argument, let us follow our holy Traveller's journey in Chananaea and his splendid deeds.
[241] Of him Moses speaks thus in the cited chapter 13 of Genesis, verses 3 and 4: And he (namely Abram) returned by the way that he came, namely to the place midway between Bethel and Hai, from the south to Bethel, to the place where before he had pitched his tent between Bethel and Hai: in the place of the altar which he had made before, and there he called upon the name of the Lord; fulfilling already many centuries before, as St. Chrysostom observes in Homily 33 on Genesis, page 333, that saying of David: I have chosen to be an abject in the house of my God rather than to dwell in the tabernacles of sinners. Further, that Abram stayed in that same place for some months, after the proofs of his solid piety had been given, concerning which see what was said at numbers 215 and 218, is suggested by the history of Lot's separation from Abram which Moses presently subjoins. For it is not sufficiently likely that, as soon as the herdsmen of both had pitched their tents between Bethel and Hai, and each had led his flocks and herds to pasture, strife arose between them; or, if some arose some time after, when the pasture had begun to diminish, that it was at once reported to Abram and Lot; or that before it grew serious, and every hope of a longer stay there had vanished, Abram raised the subject of separating the households, and that it was at once put into execution. Wherefore the separation of the one household from the other, which the sacred Writer recounts in the cited chapter 13, verse 5 and verse 7 and following, seems to have to be placed not before Abram's seventy-seventh year, already begun some months.
[242] where after some months he is separated from Lot; His words are these: But Lot also, who was with Abram, had flocks of sheep, and herds of beasts, and tents. Neither was the land able to bear them, that they might dwell together: for their substance was great, and they could not dwell together. Whereupon also there arose a strife between the herdsmen of the cattle of Abram and of Lot. And at that time the Chananaean and the Pherezite dwelt in that country. Abram therefore said to Lot: Let there be no quarrel, I beseech thee, between me and thee, and between my herdsmen and thy herdsmen: for we are brethren. Behold the whole land is before thee: depart from me, I pray thee: if thou wilt go to the left hand, I will take the right: if thou choose the right hand, I will pass to the left. And Lot, lifting up his eyes, saw all the country about the Jordan, which was watered throughout, before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrha, as the paradise of the Lord, and like Egypt as one comes to Segor. And Lot chose to himself the country about the Jordan, and he departed from the east: and they were separated one brother from the other. Abram dwelt in the land of Chanaan: and Lot abode in the towns that were about the Jordan, and dwelt in Sodom.
[243] on which deed some things Thus far Moses, on whose narrative it will help to have noted some things too. And first, indeed, when the sacred Writer says that Abram and Lot could not dwell together, this is not to be understood as though their flocks and other goods had previously been common to both but then could no longer be common, or as though they themselves could not live together between Bethel and Hai for even a little time; but it must be expounded thus: that each had his own flocks and his own household; and since these were very ample and copious, and at that time two peoples sprung from Chanaan, namely the Chananaean and the Pherezite, occupied the better part of that region, hence it came about that, as the flocks and herds, which needed wider pastures, grew daily, and on that occasion strife arose between the herdsmen of Abram and of Lot, those two so ample and numerous households could not fix a stable abode there, so that therefore the one had to be separated in place from the other. But someone will ask: since God, as St. Stephen testifies in Acts chapter 7, verse 5, gave Abram no inheritance in the land of Chanaan, not even the pace of a foot, on what ground could he say to Lot: Choose whatever land you will to inhabit, I will hold a different one? I answer with Bonfrère that the sense of Abram's words is that Lot should select a part of the land to inhabit not as possessor or lord of the land (for its dominion lay with the Chananaean and Pherezite people), but as a mere tenant; as if he said: if you like to rent for a price from the natives the pastures and fields situated on your right, I will see to it that those situated on the left are let to me, lest otherwise, if we both continue to stay in this narrower place, a quarrel at length arise even between me and you.
[244] Finally, since Lot chose for himself the region situated about the Jordan, are observed here. which, as Moses testifies, on the side by which one comes from the rest of the land of Chanaan to Segor and proceeds thence further to the bank of this river, was before the destruction of the Pentapolis watered throughout as the paradise of the Lord, or as Egypt by the Nile, divided into seven channels and mouths; it may not undeservedly be asked in what way Lot can be said in verse XI to have departed from the east? To this Bonfrère again answers in this manner: He departed, he says, from the east, not because he went to a more Western part, for the Pentapolis was equally or more Eastern than the place where Abraham was; but because the place where Abraham was living was regarded from Palestine as more directly towards the East, whereas the Pentapolis, though absolutely equally Eastern, was yet, in respect of the same Palestine, not regarded as directly towards the East, but to the side and towards the angle of the south. But might not Lot be said by another reason also to have departed from the east, although the greater part of the Pentapolis stretches further to the East than the place midway between Bethel and Hai? To me at least it seems that this can altogether be said, if Moses, as is quite likely, in asserting that Lot departed from the east, looked to the terminus of his departure, which was the city of Sodom, and which, as becomes clear from the more accurate geographical table of Chananaea attached to volume 2 of the Works of St. Jerome, lies about five miles of an hour each more to the West than the place where Abram, with the highest equanimity, wonderful liberality and singular zeal for keeping peace, made Lot, his brother's son, the arbiter of choosing the land that seemed to him the better.
[245] For the rest, on account of the so outstanding humility of our holy Traveller, Then the land of Chanaan is divinely promised to Abram, his signal gentleness, and his other virtues which shone forth in that separation, St. Chrysostom not undeservedly asserts in Homily 34 on Genesis that it came about that Abram won for himself an ampler benevolence from heaven, and obtained greater rewards from God, such as is the divine apparition and the promise made of delivering the land of Chanaan to his copious posterity, which is related in this manner in Genesis chapter 13 from verse 14: And the Lord said to Abram, after Lot was separated from him: Lift up thy eyes, and look from the place wherein thou now art, to the north and to the south, to the east and to the west. All the land which thou seest I will give to thee and to thy seed for ever. And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: if any man be able to number the dust of the earth, he shall be able to number thy seed also. Arise and walk through the land in the length and in the breadth thereof: for I will give it to thee. So again the author of the Pentateuch. But since some of these words contain a question neither light nor to be dissembled in this place, we must again halt here for a while. For there is no doubt that God, when He refreshed Abram with this vision and these promises, wished to signify that He would give to his posterity the whole land of Chanaan, as great as it is. What then, you will say, do these words of verse 15 mean: All the land which thou seest I will give to thee and to thy seed? Could he, from the place where Abram then was, behold with his eyes even those regions of Chananaea which were situated beyond the higher mountains and in the valleys? Or was the whole land graphically represented to him in some image?
[246] which he did not then behold whole with his eyes, So indeed some seem to think; but the sacred words by no means compel us to have recourse either to a prodigy or to an imaginary vision; since, for the whole land of Chanaan to be said to have been promised to him, it is by no means necessary that it should all then have been surveyed in its several parts with bodily eyes; and it altogether suffices that God promised Abram all of it which he saw, yet not that alone, but also that which lay further on every side towards the four cardinal points of the world, which Abram grasped in mind as it was circumscribed by its own limits. But, as was also said above at number 243, Abram never possessed in that land even the print of a foot given to him freely. What then is said in the same verse 15: To thee will I give and to thy seed?
Is God, then, unfaithful in carrying out His promises? Far be it, truly, far be it! For the Hebrew particle vav, and the Latin and corresponding to it, is in this place not copulative, as we commonly say, but exegetic, and the sense of these words is this: I will give to thee, THAT IS, to thy seed, all the land which thou seest. If, however, anyone obstinately insists that the and is to be expounded in no other way than copulatively; not even so will it follow that God did not stand by His promises; since the sense of the aforesaid clause will be that there was promised to Abram a right to the thing, such as he really had to the land of Chanaan, but to his posterity a right in the thing, such as no one can deny that they had under the government of Josue, and above all under David and Solomon.
[247] [it is shown that he possessed it not through himself but in his posterity; where he then, near Hebron,] Finally, since the region of Chananaea was promised and granted to his posterity in regard of Abram, that promise could also be referred to him, as to the head and origin of the Israelite nation, nay as the chief cause of the promise made, and therefore the possession of the land could be said to have been promised to him too, which was promised and granted for his sake to his posterity for ever, that is, for a very long time, provided they performed their duty and showed themselves sons of Abraham not in words only but in deeds also. Lastly, it can also be asked here on what ground Abram is said always to have complied most accurately with the divine words, who, after God had said to him in verse 17: Arise, that is, come now, and walk through the land in the length and in the breadth thereof, did indeed move his tent from where the Lord had deigned to address him, but a little after, as is related in the following verse, Dwelt by the vale of Mambre, which is in Hebron, where also, after his custom, he built an altar to the Lord?
[248] began to dwell, and built an altar to God. To this let this be the answer: those words Arise and walk through were uttered divinely not by way of precept or command, but after the manner of a granted faculty or invitation, so that, if he pleased, he might draw from the sight of the greatness of the promised land great pleasure of mind and solid solace in his pilgrimage, as Tostado and Pereira agree, whom St. Chrysostom not a little favours, Homily 34 on Genesis, volume 4 of the Works, column 345, whom you may consult. For the rest, it is to be noted here that that vale of Mambre, so called from a certain Amorrhite man, and, as is gathered from the version of the LXX Translators, partly planted with oaks, is situated not in the city of Hebron itself, inasmuch as that is set upon a mountain, but in the neighbourhood or territory of this city, and is distant about eleven miles of an hour each towards the South and Southwest, as may be seen in the geographical map praised above, from the place midway between Bethel and Hai, which we believe was left by Abram in the same seventy-seventh year of his age.
§ XIV. Abram makes a covenant with Mambre and his brothers: having first routed the army of Chodorlahomor, the conqueror of the men of the Pentapolis, he recovers unharmed Lot, who had been captured by him.
Although the holy Traveller, always hanging on the nod of God, was most ready to betake himself, Abram, having made a covenant with Mambre and his brothers, either unaccompanied or with all his people, wherever he should be called; yet, as soon as he came to the vale of Mambre, he seems to have resolved to fix his abode there for longer than usual. Wherefore, when after his custom he had erected there an altar to the true Godhead, and had besought the divine protection for himself and his people by slaying victims, not spurning human aids, he struck a covenant, as Moses relates in Genesis chapter 14, verse 13, with the very powerful lords of this region, namely Mambre, from whom that vale bore its name, and his brothers Escol and Aner, men, as appears, to be commended not moderately for courtesy and uprightness. And that that covenant of alliance, by which each seems to have resolved to ward off all injury from the family and goods of the other and to protect one another, was not uselessly sanctioned, was shown after more or less seven years by an event memorable above all, related by Moses in chapter 14 of Genesis, in which, as may be said here beforehand, there shone forth Abram's greatness of soul in attacking huge forces of the enemy with a slender band, his fortitude in vanquishing them, his highest good fortune in routing them without any loss of his own men, and his admirable contempt for his private advantage in dividing the justly won spoils: virtues to be celebrated by the proclamation of all ages thereafter. That event I should like to recount from the beginning, after the example of Moses, whose words too I shall illustrate in passing.
[250] The kings, or dynasts, of the Pentapolis, namely Bara king of Sodom, and from the kings of the Pentapolis Bersa king of Gomorrha, Sennaab king of Adama, Semeber king of Seboim, and the king of Bala, which city is called by another name Segor, had twelve years before served Chodorlahomor, king of the Elamites, who, as some hold, was either himself the supreme monarch of the Assyrians, who then ruled widely, or, as I rather prefer, was a prince tributary under Ninyas, the ruler of the Assyrians, yet renowned with royal dignity among his Elamites, so called from Elam the son of Sem, and set with the highest power over the military affairs of the Assyrians and over the subject nations; that such kings once existed under the Assyrians is manifest from book 4 of Kings, chapter 24, and Isaias chapter X, verse 9. When the men of the Pentapolis, in the thirteenth year of their servitude, had refused either to pay tribute to this prince or to bear any longer the yoke laid upon them, he, intending to reduce the recalcitrants to order by force, called out as partners in his expedition Amraphel king of Sennaar, or Babylon, as Bonfrère and others judge; Arioch king of Pontus, perhaps of Cappadocia, situated not so far from the Euphrates, as may be seen in Cellarius, volume 2 of the Ancient World, table 1, or, as it is in the Hebrew, king of Ellasar, which region some would have to be Thalassar at the source of the Tigris; and Thadal king of Nations, that is, set over no one nation but over various fugitives collected from all sides.
[251] from Chodorlahomor, the subduer of the neighbouring nations, In the fourteenth year, then, from the time the Pentapolis had been brought into servitude, but the second from its revolt, Chodorlahomor and the three kings just mentioned, having completed a fairly long journey, arrived in the land of Chanaan, and smote the Raphaim, men of gigantic size, perhaps also rebels against them or attached to the men of the Pentapolis, who dwelt in Astaroth-Carnaim, a place to the East of the lake of Genesareth, distant about five miles of an hour each from the same lake; and presently they vanquished the Zuzim with them, or, as some would have it, other giants called Zomzommim, who lived in Cham or Ham, a region afterwards called that of the Ammonites; then they inflicted like slaughter on the Emim, giants like those who were of the stock of the Enacim, whose seat was in Save Cariathaim, in the region afterwards called Moabite, situated nearly opposite the Pentapolis to the East; thence, advancing ever towards the South, they likewise smote the Chorrhites living in the mountains of Seir, or of what was afterwards called Southern Idumaea, as far as the plains of Pharam, which is in the wilderness. Hence, lest they should leave behind them or at their flank nations rebellious or suspect to them equally with those already vanquished, the victors came to the place to which the name of the Fountain of Misphat, or Cades, afterwards clung, and brought devastation upon the whole region which at one time fell to the Amalecites, and returning thence they at last routed with like success the Amorrhites themselves, who dwelt in Asasonthamar, called by another name Engaddi, situated beside the Dead Sea.
[252] vanquished and put to flight, The peoples which girded the men of the Pentapolis on the South and East having been thus destroyed, they had now penetrated almost into the very middle of the Pentapolis, intending to attack with no less force the very dynasts of this region, for whose sake chiefly the military expedition had been undertaken; when the king of Sodom and the four other allied kings of the Pentapolis, having at length gone out of their cities, at last came together into the Woodland Vale, or Siddim, which is now the Dead Sea, and in that place drew up their battle-line against the attackers, relying on the place, and hoping that they would by some stratagem entice the enemy, less acquainted with it, into the pits of bitumen which were there in great number, and so would conquer at least by art and guile those whom they despaired of being able to overcome by valour (for the men of the Pentapolis were men more accustomed to luxury and delights than to arms). But since they had to do with enemies no less wary than outstanding in military valour, the battle went for them altogether otherwise than the men of the Pentapolis had hoped. For when the Assyrians had made one or two charges upon them at an opportune place, the effeminate and soft men felt themselves unequal to withstanding, and presently, their line thrown into confusion and broken, the kings of Sodom and Gomorrha and the other allied dynasts and soldiers turned their backs, and those who escaped the hostile sword or the pits of bitumen fled headlong in most shameful flight to the mountains.
[253] The army of the Pentapolis being laid low, the Assyrians did not long press upon the backs of the fugitives, hearing that Lot had been captured by the victorious army, but at once turned to plunder, and they took all the substance of Sodom and Gomorrha, and all things that pertain to food; … and also Lot, the son of Abram's brother, who dwelt in Sodom, and his substance; not because, as Josephus would have it in book 1 of Jewish Affairs, chapter X, he had come to the aid of the Sodomites, but because he had fixed his abode in that city; and the victors went away towards the North, keeping, as it seems, along the right bank of the Jordan. When these things had been announced on the same or the following day, as is credible, by one of Lot's household who had escaped the slaughter, to Abram the Hebrew, who dwelt by the vale of Mambre, situated ten or twelve miles of an hour each from the place of the battle or slaughter, he at once, in order to snatch the innocent Lot and his family from the hands of the enemy, chose out three hundred and eighteen of his home-born servants who were readier for combat; and since he judged that the human means which were at hand were not to be spurned, he took to his aid Mambre, Escol and Aner, lords of that land where he had fixed his abode, already joined to him before by covenant, and therefore also their subjects fit for war, who, it is quite likely, joined Abram the more willingly because a greater hope shone forth of thus drawing back from servitude men of their own nation, friends and kinsmen, who had been captured by the Assyrians in Asasonthamar.
[254] Following, then, with what speed he could, the departing victors, Abram with his own warriors and those of his allies [presently he attacks the hostile forces, and, having put them to flight, recovers Lot.] reached them near that source of the Jordan which has the name of Dan, on the fifth night, if we believe Josephus, chapter XI, after he had set out from the vale of Mambre. Here again, although with firm faith in God he judged that the deficiency of his forces would be supplied, and expected victory above all from the God of hosts, he did not neglect military prudence; but, his allies divided, suddenly in the night-time, when the enemy, sunk in sleep or heavy with drunkenness,
were not prepared to resist, he rushed upon them from various sides. When, therefore, the enemy camp was thrown into confusion everywhere by so unforeseen an onset, with shouts, disordering of ranks and slaughter, and it was not at hand to them in what way they might resist those rushing in, the foreign kings and soldiers had nothing more urgent than, abandoning their camp and the spoils previously won, to consult their safety by headlong flight; and when the Victor perceived this, at once, as could be done, ordering some to remain to guard for a while the enemy camp and the spoils won and recovered, he himself with the rest pursued the fugitives as far as Hoba, or Choba, which is a village situated on the left hand of Damascus, and finally, the enemy having been driven far enough out of the land of Chanaan, he returned to the captured camp, whence he brought back all the substance, namely money, gold, silver, flocks and herds, and Lot his brother (that is, his brother's son) with his substance, the women also and the people of the Pentapolis whom the enemy had led away into servitude.
[255] I should be too long if I were to enumerate here even cursorily, or myself to unfold in very few words, the several things which stand learnedly observed by various men Some things on the Mosaic narrative on the Mosaic narrative of this war and of the victory won in so singular a manner. Let whoever wishes read these in the compilers of the Annals of the old Testament and the sacred interpreters. I cannot, however, refrain from illustrating somewhat a few things which either touch Abram himself most nearly or are subject to difficulties. And first, indeed, someone may ask why Moses, relating in the cited chapter 14 of Genesis, verse 13, that the captivity of Lot was announced to Abram, wished to add in that place, contrary to his custom, the name of Hebrew, speaking namely thus: And behold one that had escaped (namely the slaughter of the men of the Pentapolis) told Abram the Hebrew; and again, what is the origin of this name. As regards the former question, Wilhelm Smits answers in his notes on this place that this was beyond doubt done by Moses in order to teach the antiquity of that national name which always clung to Abraham's posterity. But, if there is room here for conjectures, was not the name of Hebrew added by Moses also, nay more likely, because, since Abram was living among the Amorrhites allied with him, he believed it necessary, or at least to the purpose, to use some caution lest anyone should in any way be able to confuse with the Amorrhites the head of the Hebrew nation, then having in a manner a fixed abode among them; or because he judged it fitting that he who was the author of so glorious an expedition as he presently narrates should be addressed not by his proper name alone but also by his patronymic, whereby he might teach his readers that the honour of so signal a deed was to be ascribed not to the stock of Chanaan but to the posterity of Sem, blessed by the Lord.
[256] [and of this deed and its circumstances, and on the origin of the name Hebrew mentioned there,] As regards the other question, although quite a number of writers, and those most outstanding in learning, would have Abram called Hebrew from the Hebrew word Habar, which in Latin sounds he passed over, as one who came into the land of Chanaan from a region situated across the river Euphrates, to which opinion the LXX Translators also lean, when in this place they render τῷ περάτῃ, that is, to the passer-over or crosser; yet more probable to me seems the opinion of Josephus, book 1 of the Jewish Antiquities, chapter 7, of Augustine, book 2 of the Retractations, chapter 14, and book 16 of the City of God, chapters 3 and XI, and of very many others, asserting that Abram was called Hebrew from Heber, who is found fifth from Sem in the series of forebears, from whom too Abram drew his origin in direct line. Nor assuredly should that argument seem slight, by which this is proved, which St. Augustine uses in book 16 of the City of God, chapter 3, number 2. For there, elucidating those words of Genesis chapter X, verse 21, in which Sem is asserted to be the father of all the children of Heber, he says thus: Sem certainly did not beget this Heber: but he is found fifth from him in the series of forebears. For Sem among other sons begot Arphaxat, Arphaxat begot Cainan, Cainan begot Sala, Sala begot Heber. Not for nothing, surely, is he named first in the progeny coming from Sem, and preferred even to the sons, though he is a fifth descendant; unless because what is handed down is true, that from him the Hebrews were named, as it were Heberaeans.
[257] Then, after a few things in which he says there can be another opinion, which however is by no means to be approved, he proceeds thus: But this indeed is true, that from Heber they were called Heberaeans, and then, one letter being taken away, Hebrews; by which name Moses honours Abram in chapter 14, verse 13. From these things Pereira concludes in Disputation 2 on chapter 14 of Genesis, number 31, in this manner: Therefore Moses, calling Sem the father of the children of Heber, wished to say something very signal to the praise of Sem and to declare the excellence of his dignity; namely that Sem was the father of the people of God, and of so many and such great men who were renowned in that people; who were not only the children, that is, the posterity, of Heber, but were also named Hebrews from him, and their language was called Hebrew. Whence it further appears, to be concluded with the same Pereira, since the origin and reason of the naming of the Hebrew language and nation seem to have been the same, that both Abram and his posterity, who drew their descent from him through Jacob, and the language itself, received the name of Hebrew from Heber, in whose family it remained. Add, with Eugubinus and Pereira, that the Hebrew name Hibri, which in Latin sounds Hebrew, is pronounced with the Hebrew Iod in the last syllable, and therefore, as having the ending proper to patronymic names, ought to be judged gentile or patronymic rather than appellative.
[258] There remain two difficulties of much greater moment than the preceding, as also on the covenant struck by Abram with the Amorrhites, the first of which turns on this, whether Abram, by sanctioning a covenant with the Amorrhites named above, did not gravely offend against the law of God, since we read in Exodus chapter 34, verse 15, that it was strictly forbidden by God that the Hebrews should enter into a pact with the Amorrhites and the other inhabitants of the land of Chanaan, and moreover in various places of sacred Scripture those are divinely reproved who had sanctioned alliance with idolaters or foreign nations. But if we consider Abram's deed more attentively, and turn our attention to the time at which that law of Exodus was given, Abram will not be able to be said to have sinned in that matter even lightly. For, besides the fact that it is established on no head that those Amorrhite princes were infected with idolatry, since for four hundred years and more, before the iniquities of the Amorrhites and the other Chananaeans were complete, there existed some among them who were worshippers of the true God, such as Melchisedech, priest of the most high God, and Abimelech, king of Gerara, and such as they themselves might therefore also have been; even on the hypothesis, admitted however gratuitously, that Mambre and his two brothers were strangers to the worship of the true God, Abram could nevertheless, when the safety of himself and his family required it, lawfully and by the law of nature enter into a merely political covenant with them, which namely was by no means apt to inflict any harm on the religion of himself and his people or to propagate idolatry.
[259] Nay rather, since God had imposed on him as it were a certain necessity of migrating from one place of the land of Chanaan to another, the covenant, which is proved not to have been forbidden him, are observed here, and therefore Abram had to live now in these, now in other towns or villages of this region, he could scarcely refrain from either himself seeking political alliance with the Chananaeans or showing himself compliant to those who of their own accord sought a covenant, so as in this way to protect himself and his people from enemies and to keep every injury far from his family. Nor can this deed of Abram be said to have been forbidden by the divine law promulgated in Exodus chapter 34, verse 15, inasmuch as that was not of the law of nature but positive, and bound only his posterity, four hundred and more years after the covenant sanctioned by Abram with Mambre and his brothers, when namely the iniquities of the Amorrhites were already complete, and they were already hateful to God and subject to the divine interdict. And that the Israelites are from time to time rebuked in the Scriptures for covenants entered into with unbelievers, in appearance or in reality merely political, no one who has attentively turned over the sacred volumes will call in doubt that this happened after the law of the cited chapter of Exodus had been given, and also on account of a vice of mind, or on account of the danger of perversion which lay beneath pacts and agreements of this kind.
[260] [and it is shown that it was likewise lawful for Abram to attack the victorious army] I come now to the other question, by which it seems not undeservedly possible to doubt whether Abram lawfully made war on Chodorlahomor and his allies; and first, indeed, because Abram did not possess in the land of Chanaan even the print of a foot as a private man, much less a kingdom or any city as supreme lord; then because he himself had received no injury from those kings; and finally because, even if we lay down that Lot had been unjustly carried off by them, yet Abram did not try all other means before provoking them by war. But truly these things do not stand in the way of Abram's being said to have attacked them lawfully in hostile fashion, nay even to have fallen upon them unawares. For, as seems not to be doubted, Abram himself, as well as Mambre and his brothers, had supreme power over his own people, and therefore the right of waging war belonged no less to him than to them, both for protecting the folk entrusted to him and for exercising jurisdiction, if force should be met with, especially against those princes to whom neither he nor they were subject. Moreover, even if Abram is laid down for a while to have been destitute of that authority which is now wont to be required for one to make war on another in his own name; yet, since he had been received into a lawful covenant of alliance by those who then held power in the vale of Mambre and who acknowledged no one as their superior, and was also acknowledged by them as a prince of God, Genesis 23, verse 6, that is, as a man of the highest rank; it was certainly altogether lawful for him, in their name and with their consent and help, to repel force by force and to ward off injury from foreign princes.
[261] with arms, and indeed even unawares; But those foreign princes had inflicted no injury on Abram himself. So it is; but they had inflicted a most grave one on his brother, that is, his brother's son, most closely joined to him, by seizing all his goods and leading him into captivity; whence all rights permitted him to ward it off, lest otherwise, by not repelling injury from an ally and indeed from his nearest kinsman, when it was in his power, he himself should be as much at fault as those who had inflicted the injury. Nor was there here room for Abram to remonstrate with the foreign princes, since no hope shone forth
that the injury could be repaired in that way, while on the other hand there was present danger that, if one waited longer, the occasion of recovering what had been carried off would be lost; Abram therefore could, without previous remonstrance or declaration of war, demand back what had been violently snatched, and to that end use such means, for example an unforeseen nocturnal irruption into their camp, or another stratagem, which no sane man denies to be lawful in solemn as well as in non-solemn war. Perhaps also the pious Man, enlightened by God, had regard to the things which Solomon afterwards committed to writing in Proverbs 24, verse XI and following: Deliver them that are led to death: and those that are drawn to death forbear not to deliver. If thou say: I have not strength enough: He that is the inspector of the heart, He understandeth, and nothing deceiveth the keeper of thy soul, and He shall render to a man according to his works; as indeed it came about in fact, as the most happy outcome of this military expedition, undertaken by Abram not without, as one may believe, a singular divine instinct, demonstrated.
[262] the epoch of which deed is in some measure determined. For the rest, as to the year of Abram in which these things are to be placed, the opinion of the ancients and the more recent is not one. This war is referred in the Alexandrian Chronicle to about his seventy-fourth year; but altogether wrongly, since at that time Abram had not yet first come from Chaldea into Chananaea, as is altogether manifest. Others place it in the same month, or at least year, in which Lot was separated from Abram; but too hastily, as it seems to most. Epiphanius on the contrary, in the Panarion, Heresy 55, Petau's edition, page 472, would have the meeting with Melchisedech, of which below, and therefore the war itself of which there is question here, to have happened about Abram's eighty-eighth or ninetieth year of age, more or less; but later than is right, since in that year of his age Abram had already two years before taken Agar to wife and received Ismael from her, which, as is openly gathered from the order of the Mosaic narrative, happened not before that war but a good while after. There are those who would have Abram already then circumcised when Melchisedech met him returning from the battle; but this appears written by a slip of memory, since the precept of circumcision was not given to Abram until his ninety-ninth year, as is clearly taught in Genesis chapter 17. In what year, then, you will say, do you place that war? I answer that by what has been said it must be tied to that intermediate time which flowed between Abram's seventy-seventh and his eighty-sixth year, and quite probably to Abram's eighty-fifth year as it began; although, to confess the truth, nothing much stands in the way of its being tied, with Salian, to Abram's eightieth year. Now let us pursue, in a separate §, as the gravity of the matter requires, with Moses as guide, the things which followed this signal battle.
§ XV. The Saint's return from the slaughter of the enemy: the meeting of Melchisedech, priest of God: the tithes given to him by Abram: the oblation of bread and wine made by Melchisedech: various things bearing on this.
[Melchisedech blesses Abram with priestly rite as he returns from the slaughter of the enemy,] To the Victor returning from the slaughter of Chodorlahomor, and leading with him the spoils of the enemy, and the rich booty scraped together by them from peoples previously vanquished, and the people of the Pentapolis, there came to meet him, In the vale of Save, which is the king's vale, and which seems to have been not far from the city of Salem, or more probably, as I shall show below, Jerusalem, with congratulations, the king of Sodom, the same one whose army had been cut down by Chodorlahomor, or, if in fact, as some would have it, he fell there in the battle (which however I scarcely believe), the son of the same king of Sodom, who had obtained his father's kingdom by hereditary right. But not only the king of Sodom went out with some of his people to meet Abram, but also Melchisedech, king of Salem, or Jerusalem; and since he was a public priest of the most high God, that is, of the true God, and therefore, as the Apostle testifies in Hebrews chapter 8, verse 3, appointed to offer (namely to God) gifts and sacrifices, he brought forth first not any ordinary food with which to refresh the bodies of Abram and his allies, but, as the sacred words signify, bread and wine strictly so called, and consecrated them with priestly rite to God, whom he acknowledged as the bestower of the victory obtained; then he blessed the Victor, that is, prayed for good upon him, saying after the manner of one making a vow: Blessed be Abram by the most high God, who created heaven and earth: and blessed be the most high God, by whose protection the enemies are in thy hands. As if he said: Mayest thou be blessed, O Abram, by the most high God, who created heaven and earth, and be heaped by Him with all good things: and may the same most high God be praised, and solemn thanks be rendered to Him, by whose protection and aid thou hast vanquished and routed such powerful enemies.
[264] to whom the Saint gives tithes of all, And the pious Victor at once acknowledged the priest, sacrificing to the Godhead and praying good upon him in the name of the most high God, as a sacred minister of the true God, and, so that after his custom he himself in turn might render due thanks to God for the victory won over the enemy, and at the same time prove himself grateful to Melchisedech, by whom he had been received both religiously and honourably, he most munificently offered some of the spoils which he had snatched from the enemy, and to which neither his allies nor the men of the Pentapolis could arrogate any right to themselves, either to be likewise consecrated to God by his sacred ministry or to go to priestly use; as is most plainly gathered from these words of Moses, Genesis chapter 14, verse 20: And he gave him the tithes of all, and from those of the Apostle to the Hebrews, chapter 7, verses 1 and 2: For this Melchisedech, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him: to whom also Abraham divided the tithes of all. There are added the LXX Translators, in whom, in the Roman and royal codex, it is read thus expressly: Abram gave him (namely Melchisedech) a tenth of all; and with these agrees Josephus, book 1 of the Jewish Antiquities, chapter XI, where, having said that Melchisedech sang the due hymns to God, by whose favour the victory had come, as was worthy of his piety, he presently adds this: Abraham on his side gave him as a gift the tithes of the booty. Philo too, in the book On Congress for the sake of seeking learning, page 342 in my copy, testifies that Abram, on account of the victory which he had obtained with God's favour, offered tithes for gratitude's sake to the supreme Godhead, namely in the person of His sacred minister.
[265] and to the king of Sodom his recovered subjects and their goods When the king of Sodom saw this magnanimity and munificence of the Victor, he conceived the greatest hope that he could recover by prayers his subjects, snatched from him by Chodorlahomor but drawn back from captivity by Abram; wherefore he earnestly asked that these be granted him by the Victor, and, content with these, most willingly consented that Abram should keep the rest, both his own goods and his subjects', setting it down as the highest gain even to have recovered these, saying: Give me the souls, that is, the men formerly subject to me, the rest take to thyself. But he who had undertaken this war not from desire of gain or booty, but for the sake of drawing his brother's son back from unjust servitude, would not convert even the least thing of all the goods which had been the Sodomites' to his own use or advantage, and expressly professed this by oath, his hand lifted to heaven according to the custom then received, speaking thus: I lift up my hand to the Lord God the most high, the possessor of heaven and earth, that from the very woof-thread unto the shoe-latchet I will not take of any things that are thine, lest thou say: I have enriched Abram. Which words must be judged neither spoken proudly by Abram nor confirmed by oath without cause; but uttered with this end, that he might indicate that he had not attacked the victorious kings from desire of booty, as Bonfrère rightly notes; and asserted by oath for this reason, that he might show that he spoke seriously and sincerely, and that he might declare the supreme majesty of the true God, whose name he invoked, and refute the emptiness of the false Gods, as Pereira also skilfully noted at number 85 on chapter 14 of Genesis.
[266] There were, however, two things among the recovered goods of the men of the Pentapolis [he bestows what had been recovered, a few things however being deservedly excepted,] which Abram by no means wished to be comprehended in his oath, namely those which had been used as food both by his home-born servants and by his allies in the war, Aner, Escol and Mambre, and their subjects; and moreover those of which these could demand a share for themselves by the right of war or by received custom. For it was not fair that what had been consumed for food by soldiers who had engaged the enemy for the advantage of the men of the Pentapolis too should be made good by them; nor would it have been consonant with equity that Abram should prescribe that his most liberal munificence be held as law by his allies; nay, as the praised Bonfrère partly notes, since these were not subject to Abram, but had accompanied him voluntarily and by the law of friendship alone, he could not deprive them, perhaps absent or unwilling, of their portion of the spoils recovered from the enemy, as being due either in place of pay or by another just title, even in the least thing, as is altogether clear to one who considers it. Hence, after he had refused to the king of Sodom that he would take anything of the goods of the men of the Pentapolis for himself, Abram presently adds: Save the things which the young men have eaten, and the shares of the men that came with me, Aner, Escol and Mambre: these shall take their shares. And with these words indeed the sacred Writer concludes chapter 14 of Genesis and his narrative of the war waged by Abram, and at once proceeds to that celebrated vision divinely presented to Abram, in which God promised him offspring and a copious posterity, and foretold what would befall it.
[267] But since some things which occur in the narrative just woven by us, partly in the very words of Moses, The circumstances of this deed are discussed, and first the place, are wont to be brought into controversy, we must halt here a little while, until they have been either elucidated or established by us, as the matter shall require. And they are, before the rest, these three: the situation of the vale of Save, in which the king of Sodom and Melchisedech met Abram returning from the battle; the royal, and especially the priestly, dignity of the same Melchisedech, exercised by a solemn sacrifice; and finally the division of the spoils, and the offering of a tenth part of them made by Abram. I take my beginning from the first controversy, although it is of less moment than the others, lest I invert the order of the Mosaic narrative. As Bonfrère testifies, some have judged that this vale of Save, which is the king's vale, is not different from Save Cariathaim, where Moses asserts in verse 5 of the same chapter 14 that the giants Emim were vanquished by Chodorlahomor and his followers. But this opinion rests on a weak, or rather on no, foundation. For since Melchisedech dwelt on this side of the Jordan, and
no mention is made anywhere of this river being crossed by him, and finally since this Save Chariathaim, as being situated in the region afterwards called Moabite and across the Jordan, did not lie on the road of Abram returning from the slaughter of the four kings; it is altogether contrary to truth that Abram was met in this place by Melchisedech and the king of Sodom.
[268] St. Jerome judges that that vale of Save, which is the king's vale, namely the vale of Save, is that long valley which lies on this side of the Jordan and is called Aulon, concerning which see what was said at number 216. But since this, as may be seen at the cited number, is too ample and stretched out lengthwise, the place where the victor was met is not determined closely enough by this name Aulon alone. I should prefer, therefore, from the version of the LXX Translators, in which after the phrase in the vale of Save it is read thus: This was the plain of king Melchisedech, to place this valley towards the North not far from the city of Salem; which city is not Salim of the Sichemites, near Bethsan or Scythopolis, but the same as Jerusalem, also called Jebus and Salem, as ancient authors both sacred and profane, and St. Jerome himself too, although he at one time thought the contrary, affirm with great consent; whom, if you please, see praised by name in Bonfrère on this place, page 192, column 2.
[269] which is shown to have been situated near Jerusalem; Nor does it matter that Jerome, in the Critical Epistle to the priest Evangelus, volume 2 of the Works, column 573, writes that in the city of Salim near Scythopolis there was shown even in his time the palace of Melchisedech, or rather its ruins; since he himself simply recounts this tradition of the natives, but does not approve it, but on the contrary leaves to the reader to pass judgment on the credibility of the witnesses whom he praised. Moreover, since, as is read in the book of Judges, chapter 9, that city was overthrown from the foundations, and indeed so that salt was scattered in it, it seems much more likely that the ruined walls which were seen in Jerome's time were rather the remains of a palace afterwards built there by Jeroboam and then also overthrown, than the ruins of a palace which Melchisedech had once built there, as that tradition of the natives, such as it is, holds, to which Josephus and most learned men rightly and deservedly give no credit. But let these things disputed concerning the place where Abram, returning from the slaughter of the kings, was honourably received by two kings suffice. I return to Melchisedech, not to discuss laboriously or to elucidate fully each and every thing which is wont to be brought into controversy concerning him (for these pertain to the interpreters of the whole book of Genesis or to the writers of the Annals of the old Testament), but to demonstrate that those things alone which are more nearly connected with the history of Abram, and which were briefly indicated by me above, are by no means absurd.
[270] then the dignity of Melchisedech, which was not royal alone Let not the reader, then, expect from me here that I should recount and refute from head to heel the deliriums of those who dreamed that Melchisedech was some heavenly power superior to Christ, or the Holy Spirit Himself, or the Son of God, or an angel visible in human form, or a man indeed but not different from Enoch, or from Cham the son of Noe. Nor is this the place either to prove at length that Melchisedech, whose father and genealogy are wrapped in silence in the Scriptures, cannot be the same as Sem, whose father and grandfathers and great-grandfathers are recounted by name in the sacred Volumes. All these things, I say, I dismiss, and I hold it as certain, and abundantly proved and established by the authority of the holy Fathers and by solid reasons met with everywhere, that Melchisedech was a true man, and by race indeed a Chananaean, yet by divine grace a worshipper of the true God. But whether that pious king or dynast of the city of Salem, whose very name in Hebrew sounds king of justice, was at the same time also a priest, properly so called, of the true God, and offered to the supreme Godhead, by whose protection the enemies were in Abram's hands, a sacrifice of bread and wine, this truly is what bears most on the matter here, and what cannot be passed over altogether untouched here.
[271] but also priestly, is demonstrated; As regards the priestly dignity of Melchisedech, it must indeed be confessed that the Hebrew word cohen, which Moses used in Genesis chapter 14, verse 18, does not everywhere in the sacred Letters denote an ecclesiastical ministry, but sometimes universally, that is, in general, a degree of some signal honour or dignity; in which latter sense, in book 2 of Kings, chapter 8, verse 18, the sons of David are called Cohanim, who it is manifest, since they were not of the tribe of Levi, were not priests strictly so called. Nevertheless, even those very men who left nothing untried in order to be able to deny the sacrifice of bread and wine offered by Melchisedech affirm with one mouth that in the cited place of Genesis the Hebrew word Cohen, as also in most places elsewhere, signifies a priest properly so called, pressed by the authority not only of Moses, but also of David in Psalm 109, verse 4, and of the Apostle Paul to the Hebrews, chapter 7, verse I. And surely, unless one most impiously says that Moses in the cited place of Genesis played the part of an inept babbler, he must needs confess that he would not presently make him whom he had just before called king notable for I know not what profane dignity, and that much less than the royal. Moreover, what will you make of this word Heljon, that is, of the most high God, unless you lay him down as truly a priest of the true God? And again, why would David in the cited Psalm have called his Lord, that is, the Son of God, a priest according to the order of Melchisedech, if the latter had not been a priest; or by what right or with what likeness of truth would the Apostle have said in the cited place: For this Melchisedech, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him: to whom also Abraham divided the tithes of all, unless he had held as undoubted that he was distinguished not only by royal but also, and chiefly, by priestly dignity?
[272] But, say the more recent heterodox, especially the followers of Calvin, and the oblation made by him, which is shown to have been a true sacrifice, even if it were most certain that Melchisedech was a priest of the true God, yet it would not straightway follow from these words of Moses, Bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high God, he blessed him, etc., that he sacrificed bread and wine to God in thanksgiving for the victory won by Abram over what was in a manner the common enemy of the Chananaeans. Why so? Because, namely, as they assert, the Hebrew verb hotsi, which Moses uses, does not there signify the same as offered or immolated, but brought forth, led out, drew out, caused to come or go forth. They add that in place of the causal particle for, which is read in the Vulgate, there is read in the Hebrew codex vav, which is sometimes rightly rendered by and or but: whence, in their judgment namely, there is no other sense of Moses's words than that Melchisedech, who was king and priest, brought forth, or rather ordered to be brought forth, certain things to eat and drink, with which he royally refreshed Abram and his home-born servants returning from the battle. So, roughly, they. But truly, do those who would have no Eucharistic sacrifice remain in the Church of Christ, and who prefer to accuse the very prophets of the old Testament and the whole Church of Christ of lying or error rather than desert their pseudo-doctors, thus strive to abolish the very type and figure of the unbloody sacrifice? To this indeed they have strained every nerve already from the times of their first pseudo-master; but how wretchedly and how unhappily, what is now to be said will reveal.
[273] I will not deny, indeed, that the Hebrew verb Hotsi, against certain heterodox, and the participle bringing forth which the Vulgate uses with the same sense preserved, can by its nature, that is, by the common force of the word, be fitted to a profane as well as to a sacred offering; but what the adversaries most confidently assert, that that Hotsi in this place bears no other notion than that of a profane offering, I deny and utterly deny. And truly, when a question is agitated about the signification of some Hebrew word, the adversaries, if they are wise, must grant me that the opinion of many, especially if these are not only ancient but also learned and either knew by themselves even the latent force of the foreign idiom or had it at hand to learn it from the skilled, concerning the true notion of the word in the verse in question, ought to be much weightier than that of a few more recent men who were destitute of those aids. But it is undoubted that all the ancients, as many as mentioned Melchisedech and his priesthood, expounded with wonderful consent that Hebrew verb Hotsi by the Greek ἐξήνεγκεν and the Latin protulit, brought forth, or words akin to these, as they denote a sacred and priestly act; as is altogether manifestly and invincibly demonstrated from the testimonies recited in long order in Noël Alexandre in the History of the Old Testament, Dissertation 3 On Melchisedech, proposition 4, and in Smits, volume 2, part 1, on Genesis, from page CLXIII. Therefore, unless the heterodox wish to overthrow the common consent of the Church and of the holy Fathers and all venerable antiquity, and falsely to pretend themselves more skilled than all the ancients in the Hebrew tongue and more exercised and sharp-sighted in drawing out the true sense of the sacred Books, they must needs confess that in the cited verse of Genesis the verb Hotsi has in reality in this place the signification of sacred offering, which by the force of the word it undoubtedly can have, and therefore that not a profane offering of bread and wine, taken by synecdoche, as they also wrongly contend, for any provisions whatever, but of bread and wine strictly so called, as these words sound, and that an altogether sacred, that is, priestly, offering was designated by Moses.
[274] by various arguments, Moreover, no one who is skilled even in his own vernacular idiom can call in doubt that the true signification of a word is to be drawn out and defined not from the word itself regarded in itself, but compared with what precedes and follows, that is, from the consideration of the circumstances. And so, to illustrate our matter by one or two examples, whether the Hebrew verb hebi, which signifies to cause to come or to cause to be brought forth, and which can therefore of itself be fitted to profane as well as to sacred bringing forth, is to be understood in a sacred rather than a profane signification in Leviticus chapter 2, verse 8, chapter 4, verses 23 and 32, and likewise in 2 Paralipomenon chapter 29, verse 21; whether likewise in various places the Hebrew verbs higgish and hikrib, which are of a notion akin to hebi and hotsi, denote a sacrificial rather than a profane act, is to be decided from the sequence of the context. It is necessary, therefore, that whoever is of sound brain should grant that the true sense of the aforesaid verb Hotsi is to be drawn out and defined by the same rule. But the whole sequence of the words of Genesis chapter 14, verse 18 and the 2 following, altogether requires that the verb Hotsi be understood of a sacred, that is, priestly, bringing forth; it follows therefore that Melchisedech not
must be said to have offered to Abram, for necessity's sake, certain profane provisions, of which he had by no means need, but to the true God, whose priest he was, bread and wine strictly so called, with a certain religious rite.
[275] and drawn from sacred Scripture itself, And truly, unless that bringing forth of bread and wine was ordered to sacrifice, or unless it was priestly, why is express mention made there of the priest of the most high God? Or why is the Hebrew particle vav placed before the priesthood of Melchisedech, which, unless it is causal in that place and rendered by for or a like particle, will constitute an altogether inept apposition, and one which cannot be proved by any example; since the accent Soph pasuq, which is placed after those words priest of the most high God, and therefore by its function closes the sentence, altogether forbids that the word priest be connected with the blessing alone mentioned in the following verse, as the venerable servant of God Robert Cardinal Bellarmine skilfully observes, volume 3 of the Controversies, Book 1 On the Mass, chapter 6, edition of the year 1601 revised by himself, column 951, and with him Wilhelm Smits. Besides, if this offering of Melchisedech is said to be merely profane, or lay, as they call it, the heterodox must confess that it was extrinsic to his priesthood and pertained to royal munificence, not to the priestly office. But if this is so, on what ground could David, in Psalm 109, verse 4, derive from a merely profane act the order of Melchisedech's priesthood as different from the Aaronic, speaking thus of Christ in the person of the Eternal Father: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech?
[276] For, as is admitted by all, the priesthood is ordered necessarily and by its nature to sacred offering, is proved and, the Sacrifice being changed in kind, the priesthood itself must needs vary. It follows, therefore, that that offering of bread and wine related in Genesis chapter 14, verse 18, to which David points his finger, was not profane but priestly, and that from it is to be derived the difference between the Aaronic and the Melchisedechian priesthood, that the former consecrated primarily the blood and flesh of clean animals, but the latter primarily bread and wine to the supreme Godhead. Our assertion is confirmed by the Venerable Servant of God just praised, in the cited book, column 950, by the following reasoning: Since Scripture, he says, in so many places describes to us the priesthood of Melchisedech as distinct from the Aaronic and as most like to the priesthood of Christ, it ought assuredly to have taught somewhere what manner of sacrifice Melchisedech's was. For the priesthood is ordered to sacrifice, and, the sacrifice being unknown, the priesthood too must needs be unknown. But nowhere is mention made of a sacrifice which Melchisedech offered except in this place (Genesis chapter 14, verse 18); one must therefore understand by bread and wine not profane foods, but sanctified and first offered to God.
[277] To these it has seemed good to add two out of the several reasons which Vasquez brings forward on the same matter, [and by the reasons brought forward by Vasquez himself, whatever some may say against it,] for this reason too, that it may become clear to anyone from this that he by no means agreed with the heterodox on the subject in hand; and that the wickedness of those may thus also appear who, in order to have something by which to traduce the Jesuits under any title, either wretchedly tear apart or foully adulterate their sayings. This assertion, then, he lays down in volume 1 of the Commentaries on the third part of St. Thomas, published at Antwerp in the year 1621, page 677, chapter 3: That the sacrifice of Christ was likened to the priesthood of Melchisedech in the offering of bread and wine is shown against the heretics of our time. And then, among the various reasons by which he establishes his assertion, he produces this in the second place: If Melchisedech wished only to refresh the soldiers of Abraham returning from the battle, Melchisedech would not have brought forth only bread and wine for those who were returning so laden with spoils (among which, namely, were all the things previously destined for the food of the Sodomites and the Gomorrhaeans) and so very gloriously from the battle, but would have offered them other more precious foods too (I add, and gifts of another kind), especially since the whole region had received so huge a benefit from them. So the truly learned Vasquez.
[278] Then immediately in the third place, to show that that bringing forth of bread and wine was not merely civil but sacred, is not a little established, he teaches this: Third, since Melchisedech is introduced as giving the bread to the soldiers as it were with his own hand and blessing them, just as he also blessed them with his own hand: for Scripture said: "Bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high God, he blessed," etc. Where it is denoted that at the same time he brought forth and in bringing forth blessed, it seems to be gathered that that bread and wine were consecrated in sacrifice, and so distributed by the priest himself with his own hand; otherwise, since he was a king, he would have distributed it not with his own hand but through servants. Thus far he, contending namely that Melchisedech not only offered bread and wine to God but also presented that sanctified bread to Abram and his home-born soldiers, that they might be refreshed by that sacred banquet and feast before the Lord their God; such, roughly, as we read Eucharistic Sacrifices were customary among the Hebrews, Genesis chapter 31, verse 54, Deuteronomy chapter 27, verse 7, and elsewhere. More on the priesthood and Sacrifice of Melchisedech the curious reader may see in Bellarmine and Vasquez in the cited places, in Noël Alexandre, Ecclesiastical History of the old Testament, Dissertation 3 from page 206, and in Wilhelm Smits, part 1, volume 2, on Genesis, Dissertation 9, where he will also find an Alphabetical catalogue drawn up, from page LXXXIX, of the authors who have devoted their labour with singular care to Melchisedech, whom too he may read through if he pleases.
[279] and finally the division of the spoils made I proceed now to the third difficulty, which turns on the division of the spoils and on the offering made to Melchisedech of a tenth part of what fell to Abram. For either, someone will say, that war on the part of the Assyrians who invaded the men of the Pentapolis was just, or unjust. If just, by what right could Abram attack them in hostile fashion and deprive them of the spoils they had won, nay snatch from them even the goods they had brought from their own country? If unjust, then those spoils, unjustly snatched from the men of the Pentapolis, were to be restored to their former owners, nor was it in Abram's power to decree a share of them to his allies. To this difficulty, which Bonfrère had proposed to himself in much the same way on Genesis, page 194, I answer with the same that the cause of the war is altogether unknown to us, but that the war could have been just on both sides, and consequently that Abram, by the right of alliance and friendship, and certainly by the authority of the Amorrhite princes, could pursue them, especially in order to draw back from captivity Lot, unjustly carried off with his family, and that he could therefore acquire for himself and his allies spoils and other goods too which had already become the enemy's by full right.
[280] and the offering of their tithes is elucidated. But if the war was unjust on the part of the invading kings, Abram could not indeed assign to his allies spoils from the goods of the men of the Pentapolis against their will, and we showed above that he did not do this very thing; but he could nevertheless, they either yielding their right or being obliged to yield a part of their goods in compensation for the expenses incurred, the labour, and the affair well conducted in their favour, assign to his allies a fitting or due part of the spoils; or at least he ought not to have prescribed to them that they should restore to the men of the Pentapolis what they could demand in place of pay or by another just title, and imitate his liberality. Nor can there be a grave question about the tenth part of the goods offered to Melchisedech, if we consider, as was said before, that Abram had the right of attacking the Assyrians, and had acquired for himself their own goods snatched from them, and therefore had the most ample power of disposing of them at his pleasure without injury to anyone.
§ XVI. Abram's mind is divinely strengthened: a great reward and numerous posterity are promised him: the outstanding faith of Abram: the covenant entered into by God with Abram.
The angel of God, appearing to Abram, takes away all his fear, After the vanquishing, then, of those four kings in the manner shown above, and the altogether wonderful victory won over them, by which also the captive Lot was snatched from their bonds, and which was followed by the honourable congratulation of Melchisedech and the sacrifice of bread and wine offered to God; and finally after the tithes of the booty offered to the same Melchisedech in regard of his priesthood, and the most opulent booty, which the king of Sodom had freely granted, spurned with generous mind; after all these things, I say, or, to use the words of Moses, Genesis chapter 15, verse 1, Now when these things were done, the word of the Lord came to Abram by a vision, saying: Fear not, Abram, I am thy protector, and thy reward exceeding great. Truly, it must be that no light fear had come upon the mind of the Victor, which the Lord, or an angel holding God's place and showing himself to be seen by him, wished to dispel by the recited words. But, you will say, what cause for fear could Abram have after so signal a victory over the enemy? This, I confess, Moses does not express in the cited place; but what if Abram, as he was most knowing of human affairs, judged a victory not secure where an armed enemy still survives and can easily restore his strength? What if he therefore dreaded lest those kings, moved by grief or shame at the defeat received, should renew war against him with greater forces? This fear could certainly fall upon him, however constant a man otherwise, and that it did in fact fall upon him seems scarcely doubtful.
[282] Opportunely, therefore, there met him from heaven a consolation, and promises him an ample reward, in which God promises that He is, and thereafter will be, his protector, or, as the Hebrew has, his shield against his enemies; so that he could now say himself most confidently: The Lord is the protector of my life, of whom shall I be afraid? But since the Lord is not slow to reward, but on the contrary, when it is expedient, heaps His athlete with benefits at once and as it were following on his very footsteps, and so strengthens him with new vigour, the Lord presently adds that He Himself would be to Abram, for things well done, a reward exceeding great, that is, far greater than the human reward which he had refused; which words, although they can also be understood in this sense, as though God promised that He Himself would be to Abram a most abundant reward, to be possessed in eternal beatitude in heaven; yet that they were understood by Abram in another sense, namely of a reward to be obtained on earth, he himself indicates sufficiently, speaking thus in verse 2: Lord God, what wilt Thou give me? I shall go without children: and the son of the steward of my house is this Damascus Eliezer. As if he said: Of Thy protection indeed, O Lord God, I am secure, as one who has experienced it more than once, nor do I doubt of some great reward to be granted me by Thee on earth; but since I have no son who can be heir of the things which Thou promisest, and am therefore, so that all human things
bear the indications, about to die without children, may I be permitted, with fitting reverence and submission of mind, to inquire what that thing is by name which can have the character of this most ample reward, so that I may write down as heir of so great a good Damascus Eliezer, the son of my steward or manager, born in my house, whom I am thinking to adopt for myself, and so Thy promises may be fulfilled in him.
[283] nay also offspring And that this is the sense of Abram's words is not obscurely indicated by verse 3 of the same chapter, sounding thus: And Abram added: But to me Thou hast not given seed, and lo my servant born in my house shall be my heir. So far, then, was this speech of Abram from being joined with some struggle and human weakness, and finally, as a certain not unlearned Calvinist would have it, with a temptation of distrust not sufficiently excusable, that rather by the words just transcribed Abram proved by a signal proof his compliance with the divine will, certain, namely, that the divine promise of the reward and of the blessed seed would at some time be fulfilled, but doubtful and anxious only about the manner in which this would come about, whether through a son whom he should beget beyond all human hope, or through someone whom he should adopt for himself. But truly God, or an angel holding God's place, did not keep Abram's mind long in suspense, and at once, as Moses testifies in the same chapter, verse 5, the word of the Lord came to him, saying: He (namely Damascus Eliezer) shall not be thy heir: but he that shall come out of thy bowels, him shalt thou have for thy heir. By which words the Lord, who desired that Abram's faith and confidence should be exercised and increased by augmenting His promises at intervals and by degrees to greater and better, dispelled all anxiety, having promised him male offspring from his loins, that is, to be begotten of himself, whom he should have as heir of all his goods.
[284] and a most numerous posterity, Further, that these mutual colloquies of God and Abram were held in his very tent or some chamber, and indeed at the time when night was coming on, is given to understand from the following words: And He brought him forth abroad, and said to him: Look up to heaven and number the stars, if thou canst. For the rest, since God presently adds to these words So shall thy seed be, He not only confirms to him the carnal posterity already promised before, but also promises him one so numerous that it would equal the almost immense number of the stars, both those which can be distinctly perceived at first glance, and those which, on account of their smallness or their very great distance from the earth, can be seen only confusedly even with whatever aids are applied; which too was really fulfilled at some time in Abram's posterity, not only the spiritual and in a mystical sense, but also the carnal and in the historical and literal sense, as the sacred Books show in Deuteronomy chapter 1, verse X, and chapter X, verse 22, and in very many other places. But truly, although at the time when this promise was made to him it might seem to him little likely that he would beget offspring, as one who, as Moses testifies in Genesis chapter 16, verse 1, was joined to a wife seventy years old and hitherto barren; yet, as the same sacred Writer relates in the cited chapter 15, verse 6, Abram believed God, and here too, as the Apostle says in chapter 4 to the Romans, against hope, namely of nature, he believed in hope, that is, in a thing set apart for grace; in the promise also of God he staggered not by distrust, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God: most fully knowing that whatsoever He has promised, He is able also to perform.
[285] Thus not only did Abram believe that the promises of God given to him would be true; but also, as Pereira observes, to which promise Abram joins the firmest faith, he leaned upon God and cast himself wholly upon Him, most certainly hoping that He would fulfil whatever He had promised, and therefore trusting that he would both be enriched with a most numerous offspring, and that in him, that is, in his seed, all the kindreds of the earth should be blessed. A proof of faith so prompt and eager and of so signal observance of and confidence in God, put forth with the help of divine grace, wonderfully pleased God, and it was reputed to him (Abram) unto justice; by which he, who, as the Apostle testifies in Hebrews chapter XI, verse 8, was already before faithful, just, and, as we also saw above, pleasing to God, was now by so great an increase of faith made more just and more pleasing to God. And so that the kindly God might strengthen and confirm this faith of Abram, most acceptable to Him, He forthwith, as Chrysostom expounds the sacred words in Homily 37 on Genesis, page 373 and following, recalls to his mind in this place how great care He had of him from the beginning, declaring to him that in order to advance him to greater things, and to promise and fulfil so many good things for him, He had commanded him to accomplish so long a journey (namely from Ur of the Chaldeans to the land of Chanaan). Let us hear the divine words themselves in verse 7: And He said to him: I am the Lord who brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to give thee this land, and that thou mightest possess it, namely in thy posterity, as had been said in chapter 12, verse 7. And that by these words it is not signified that Abram was divinely brought out of the burning of the Chaldeans, but out of a certain place of Chaldea named Ur, has, I think, been sufficiently shown in § VII, so that it suffices to have mentioned it here only in passing.
[286] But truly it may seem wonderful that Abram, so greatly commended for his outstanding faith in God, yet he asks to be taught the manner, order and time of carrying out the promise, as soon as God repeated to him His promise of delivering the land of Chanaan, used these words: Lord God, whereby may I know that I shall possess it? Did Abram perhaps not know that God had promised this to him? But his faith, commended by the divine oracle, forbids this to be said, which could not be elicited without knowledge of the thing promised. Did he doubt whether God could in fact perform what He had promised? But this is diametrically opposed to the recited words of the Apostle. Did he then hesitate whether God was willing to carry out His promises? But in this way he would have called in doubt the kindness and truthfulness of God, which it is impious even to suspect of Abram. What, then, shall we say was the cause why, if he hesitated in none of these things, he nevertheless spoke to God in this manner: Lord God, whereby may I know that I shall possess it? Or, as the version of the LXX Translators has: Master, Lord God, by what shall I know that I shall inherit it?
[287] I answer: since Abram was indeed certain of the promise of God, and not unlawfully, as Theodoret yet had not been taught the manner, order and time of fulfilling the promise, that twofold anxiety with which he was affected both concerning his own and concerning his posterity's future lot brought it about that he asked that an indication of the divine promise being at some time fulfilled should be divinely given him beforehand, from which it might become clear in what way or at what time the very possession of the land of Chanaan, previously promised to him only in general, was to be entered upon; so that Abram, who had most promptly believed God when just before He promised greater things, did not now distrust Him even in the least when He promised lesser ones, but on the contrary asked only that those things be divinely made manifest to him which were to precede the execution of the promise; in a manner not unlike that in which the Apostles Peter, James, John and Andrew, having heard Christ's prediction of His coming and of the future destruction of the temple of Jerusalem, inquired after the sign and the time of the fulfilment of the prophecy, as may be read in Matthew chapter 24 and Mark chapter 13. Theodoret deserves to be heard here, in the Questions on Genesis, page 18 in my copy, commenting thus on verse 8 of chapter 15 to our purpose: That WHEREBY SHALL I KNOW THIS is not the word of one distrusting, but of one desiring to know the manner of possessing. For when he (namely Abram) saw many thousands of men inhabiting Palestine, he wished to learn in what way he would receive the dominion of that land, whether by right of war or without arms: and whether while they lived, or when they had been expelled or entirely cast out.
[288] most rightly shows. Then he continues in this manner: For this cause, the sacrifice (of which we shall treat more broadly below) being finished, the God of all says: "Know thou beforehand that thy seed shall be a sojourner in a land strange and not their own: and they shall bring them under bondage, and afflict them and humble them four hundred years. But the nation which they shall serve I will judge: and afterwards they shall come out hither with much baggage. And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace, buried in a good old age. But in the fourth generation they shall return hither. For as yet the iniquities of the Amorrhites are not at the full until this present time." From the divine response one may know the form of the question, that is, the sense of the words of Abram questioning God, as the praised author most rightly observes and shows by these words: For after he said: "Whereby shall I know that I shall possess it;" he learned how long a time they were to be sojourners, and how miserably they were to be treated, and with how great providence of God they were at length to be received, both by punishment being taken on those who would wage war on them, and by their enjoying their goods; and that Abraham, having received no experience of these things, would depart from life in peace.
[289] He learned also the reason of the delay, lest anyone should suspect that on account of the numerous multitude of inhabitants the Lord God could not deliver to them the Dominion of that land. And He said thus: "As yet the sins of the Amorrhites are not at the full until this present time." Not yet, He says, have they perpetrated things worthy of destruction. But it is not fitting to inflict punishment before sin out of foreknowledge. And that there were in those times pious men is established from Melchisedech and Abimelech, and from those who inhabited the land of Hebron. For they greatly venerated the Patriarch. They are heard, therefore, crying: "Thou art a king from God among us. Bury thy dead in our choice sepulchres." Thus far Theodoret. Since, then, Abram, not as an unbeliever, but as a pious father providing for his future children, used, in the sense just indicated, these words to God: Lord God, whereby may I know that I shall possess it; the Lord, not delaying, of His own accord offered him even something beyond what his faithful mind desired yet did not dare to ask, namely a covenant to be sanctioned with Abram, and that with solemn rite and the employment of a sacrifice of certain animals, which themselves too would not obscurely indicate the future state and condition of his posterity.
[290] For the use of the covenant to be sanctioned by God, Abram prepares victims, Let us hear the sacred words again: And the Lord answered and said: Take Me, that is, both for the use of the covenant which I wish to strike with thee with solemn rite, and that through these things I may foreshadow what shall befall thy posterity, a cow of three years old, and a she-goat of three years, and a ram of three years, a turtle also and a pigeon. Abram was quick to comply with God's command, who, taking all these, divided them in the midst, that is, cleft them from head to tail, and laid the two pieces of each one against the other, that is, laid the one part turned towards the other, leaving however, whereby it might easily be passed between the parts,
a sufficient interval, namely after the custom of the Chaldeans and other Easterners, with whom it was solemn to establish oaths by passing through the midst of the divided pieces, which Jeremias, chapter 34, verse 18, testifies was afterwards customary among the Hebrews too. And why Abram did not likewise divide the birds, but placed them whole, though first killed, perhaps upon each part of the slain ram, can plausibly be said to have been done for this reason, that these pertained not to the covenant, which was wont to be sanctioned by the division of the cut-up victim, but to the sacrifice. These things then done, the fowls came down, as Moses writes in verse XI, upon the carcasses, and Abram drove them away; or, as the version of the LXX Translators sounds in Latin, The fowls came down … upon the bodies and their divided pieces: and Abram sat with them, namely not with the birds but with the bodies of the slain animals, taking care, namely, lest the carnivorous birds should after their custom fly to them and either befoul or tear them.
[291] But now someone will perhaps ask, first, whether that aforesaid division of the animals, yet not on the same night, but on the following day, before sunset, and the other things which followed it, came about on that very night on which God commanded Abram to look up to the stars of heaven; and then especially, in what sense those animals can be called symbols of the things that were to befall Abram's posterity. As regards the first, I answer that the part of that same night which followed Abram's colloquy with God mentioned above, and the whole following day up to sunset, were spent by him in bringing those animals by divine command, slaughtering them, dividing them, placing the divided parts opposite each other, and driving away the carnivorous birds gaping at them. For since Moses adds in verse 12 that, these things done, a deep sleep fell upon Abram when the sun was setting, or, about the setting of the sun, as the LXX Translators signify, it can in no way be understood how those things, which require some delay of time to be accomplished, were accomplished on that same night and most of all about sunset, which God commanded to be prepared only after the divine vision presented in the night-time, when the stars were already shining, and the colloquy which followed. And to this opinion indeed altogether that Moses expressly says that a deep sleep fell upon Abram when the sun was setting, as being apt to creep upon those who have passed the preceding night, or the greatest part of it, sleepless, and, very weary from the labour of the whole following day, sit down.
[292] As regards the other question, I answer which victims were symbols of the things that were to befall his posterity, that no sense seems to me more likely, in which those animals can be called symbols of the things that were to befall Abram's posterity, than that very one which Martin Delrio teaches in his Literal Glosses on Genesis chapter 15, and which the divine words in verse 13 and 13 following establish not a little. Have the words of the praised Delrio: These quadrupeds, he says, are prepared for covenant and sacrifice: the birds for sacrifice only: but all together signify the future state and condition of the posterity. The untamed heifer signifies the first generation, in which the Israelites lived freely and delicately in Egypt. The she-goat the second generation, on which the Egyptians were already imposing some servitude and so were receiving some fruit from them. The ram, which, whatever its size, is useful to its master, denotes the time of the third generation, in which the Hebrews served a hard and unjust servitude there; the two Birds the time when in the four hundredth year they burst forth out of Egypt; the turtle the time of the plaintive sojourn in the desert; the Pigeon, a social animal, the time in which they fixed their dwellings in the land of promise; the cutting up of the quadrupeds the various afflictions which they endured in Egypt; the birds whole the end of these afflictions; the flight of the fowls to the carcasses the Egyptians and Amalecites, troublesome to Israel on its journey; Abram driving them away the providence of God defending His own.
[293] and hears from the angel of God the future lot of his posterity, Let us now hear the divine words themselves, consonant with this exposition, from our Vulgate. And it was said to him: Know thou beforehand that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land not their own, and they shall bring them under bondage, and afflict them four hundred years. But I will judge the nation which they shall serve: and after this they shall come out with great substance. And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace, buried in a good old age. But in the fourth generation they shall return hither: for as yet the iniquities of the Amorrhites are not at the full until this present time. And that these words were spoken to Abram when, namely, weary from the labour of the preceding night and the following day, he yielded to sleep about sunset, and was seized with a great and darksome horror, the sacred Writer is witness in the same chapter, verse 12 and following. And that to this sleep of the bodily senses there was added an ecstasy, in which Abram's mind, inspired by the divine spirit, most fully perceived and understood the things then said to it by God, besides the surely most weighty authority of the LXX Translators, who expressly write that an ecstasy fell upon him, sound reason itself also persuades, lest otherwise the angel holding God's place be said to have spoken to him in vain and beaten the air.
[294] in the space of four hundred years, I forbear here to unfold from head to heel that prolix controversy which has very often been agitated concerning the four hundred years assigned above and concerning the fourth generation, because it has already been discussed before, namely in §§ X and XI, so far as it is connected with the deeds of Abram or their chronological arrangement, while the rest does not pertain closely to my purpose. Let it suffice, then, to have noted here briefly and in passing that those four hundred years were marked in verse 13 in a round number for 405 to be reckoned from the birth of Isaac; and, lest otherwise the same thing be said to have been foretold twice by God in that same discourse, that by the fourth generation is more probably designated not four centuries, that is, in a round number 400 years to elapse from the birth of Isaac, but the number four of Abram's descendants succeeding one another in genealogical series in Egypt; so that the sense is: When from the entry into the land of servitude the fourth generation shall be reckoned, then Abram's posterity shall return thence, to occupy the land now divinely promised to them.
[295] and the divine covenant entered into with him then with solemn rite When God had revealed to him in ecstasy these and the other things that were to befall Abram's posterity, and meanwhile the sun had now set, there arose, as Moses testifies in verse 18, a dark mist, and there appeared a smoking furnace, and a lamp of fire passing between those divisions, that is, the parts of the victims placed opposite each other, as we saw above. Whether this mist was true and real, or only imaginary, Bonfrère on this place holds uncertain; yet he inclines to believe that both that mist and the following vision of the smoking furnace and the fiery lamp were represented only in ecstasy and merely in the nocturnal imagination of one sleeping. But I on the contrary judge it truer that the smoking furnace and the fiery lamp were beheld by Abram, his sleep dispelled by the smoke of the furnace and the gleam of the fire, with bodily eyes, no less than those words were perceived with the very ears of the body by which on that day after sunset God struck a covenant with him, saying: To thy seed will I give this land from the river of Egypt even to the great river Euphrates; for it does not seem to me sufficiently likely that so solemn a covenant, and of such moment, was struck without the mutual, likewise solemn and simultaneous passing of both contracting parties between the cut-up animals, and without Abram's deliberate assent and words expressing it. But to say that the angel, in the figure of a fiery lamp, really passed between those divisions and truly uttered the recited words, while Abram, then sleeping deeply, only seemed to himself to pass, but in reality neither moved a foot from his place nor uttered a single word by which to testify his assent to the covenant, I know not whether it is not to divine, and the same as to assert a maimed covenant, or rather none at all, the usual rite of contracting and Abram's free assent being lacking.
[296] and confirms it with a Sacrifice; on the sense of which covenant, For the rest, although Moses is silent that the victims were consumed by fire and the sacrifice thus completed; yet, since those things tended to this by their nature, and covenants were not judged to be confirmed without sacrifice and the consuming of victims, there is scarcely any doubt that those victims were kindled and consumed either by that burning torch or lamp, or by fire applied by Abram himself, now awake. Now let us diligently inquire in what sense the divine words of this covenant, To thy seed will I give this land from the river of Egypt even to the great river Euphrates, and the other things comprised in verses 19, 20 and 21, ought to be understood. There are those who judge that by the river of Egypt, which God fixes as the Southern boundary of the promised land, the river Nile was indicated by God, inasmuch as it is wont by antonomasia to be called the river of Egypt. But since the Hebrews never held under their dominion a good part of Egypt, nor Arabia, the land of Madian and the other regions situated between the Nile and the land of Chanaan; it becomes necessary, unless, against sound reason, we say that God spoke altogether hyperbolically in describing the boundaries of the promised land, that some river other than the Nile was certainly designated in this place. But which? I answer that it is the river Sichor, elsewhere in the sacred letters called the torrent of Egypt, which, not derived from the Nile, as some would have it, but rising not far from Mabsara in Idumaea, which is called Gabalene, flows into the Great or Mediterranean Sea beside the city of Rhinocorura, and, as is indicated in the book of Josue chapter 15, verse 4, 3 Kings chapter 8, verse 65, and 2 Paralipomenon chapter 7, verse 8, divides the dominions of Egyptian jurisdiction from the land of Chanaan, and which perhaps for that reason too was called the river of Egypt; unless you would have this name given it because it was subject to the Egyptians alone on both its banks, that is, in each part of it.
[297] I proceed now to the Eastern and partly Northern boundary of the promised land, on its nature and fulfilment namely the Euphrates, by antonomasia called the Great River or even simply the River, on which no light question could be raised here, which nevertheless it has seemed good to touch on briefly. The hinge of the difficulty, then, turns on this: whether the divine promise of delivering to Abram's posterity the land of Chanaan from the river of Egypt mentioned above as far as the Euphrates must be said to have been partly absolute, partly conditional, and therefore, because the Hebrews did not stand by the condition, never entirely fulfilled; or whether on the contrary that promise must be said to have been simply absolute and to have had its outcome and effect in its time. The former opinion was championed by St. Jerome in his Epistle to Dardanus, volume 2, edition of the year 1699, column 609, and in his Commentary on Ezechiel, volume 3, column 832, likewise by Andreas Masius on Josue chapter 1, Serarius and others, relying on more than one argument, and that by no means to be despised, as may be seen in the cited places. On the other side, the latter opinion was embraced by St. Augustine in his Questions on Josue, volume 3, edition
of the year 1689, part 1, column 589 and following, by Cajetan, Pereira and other men of great name, whose opinion seems to me to be preferred, and for this reason too, that verse 18 of Genesis chapter 15, of which there is talk here, displays no word which hints at some tacit condition, and that this condition, if it were admitted for a while, would have to affect not one single part of the promise but the whole of it, as great as it is; from which it would follow that Abram's faith could not rest on a solid foundation, unless God, which however He is not read to have done, had made him altogether certain of his posterity's perseverance in the pursuit of piety, as being a condition without which the promise was not to be fulfilled.
[298] some things are discussed here. But, you will say, at what time, or in what manner, did that absolute promise of God obtain its effect? I answer that this came about under Solomon, when namely Abram's posterity not only peacefully inhabited the land of Chanaan from Dan to Bersabee, that is, from the entrance of Emath to the Torrent of Egypt, as their own inheritance, but also held subject and tributary to their rule the regions situated on this side of the Euphrates and their princes, as the Hebrew text of book 3 of Kings, chapter 4, verse 21, shows in these words: And Solomon had dominion over all the kingdoms from the river (namely the Euphrates) to the land of the Philistines and to the border of Egypt, and they brought gifts and served Solomon all the days of his life; with which also Book 2 of Paralipomenon, chapter 9, verse 26, altogether agrees, speaking thus expressly of Solomon: And he exercised power over all the kings from the river Euphrates to the land of the Philistines and to the borders of Egypt; or, as the version of the LXX Translators sounds, And he was leader of all the kings from the River and as far as the land of the foreigners and as far as the borders of Egypt. What? In the same book 3 of Kings, chapter 4, verse 24, Solomon is asserted to have held all the region from Thaphsa, which seems not different from Thapsacus, a city situated on the Euphrates, as far as Gaza. Which surely seem to suffice for Abram's posterity to be said to have extended their dominion as far as the Euphrates, and to have had subject to their rule the Cineans, Cenezites, Cedmonites, Hethites, Pherezites, Raphaim, Amorrhites, Chananaeans, Gergesites and Jebusites, inhabitants of the land of Chanaan, and some neighbours; so that the promise made to Abram was both absolute and fulfilled in its time, although that dominion of the Hebrews was very brief, as is abundantly clear from the 3rd and 4th Books of Kings and other divine Writings.
§ XVII. By the counsel of Sarai his wife, Abram takes to himself as secondary wife the handmaid Agar: he afterwards allows her to be sent away from his house by Sarai: the calumnies thrust upon Abram on account of this marriage are dissolved: a son, Ismael, is born to him of Agar.
At the persuasion of Sarai his wife, Abram Just as it seems not at all to be doubted that Abram presently informed his wife Sarai of the divine promise already mentioned which had been made to him and of the covenant entered into with God, so it is altogether credible that she at first came into the hope that both she herself would become the genuine mother, and Abram the true father, of a most ample and most illustrious nation. But when some while after, nay perhaps (if namely that promise is to be tied to Abram's year 81, as some would have it) even after four years had elapsed from then, she found herself no less barren than before, and now persuaded herself that the effect of the divine promise was to be accomplished not through herself, since she was not comprehended by name in it, but through some other woman much younger and vigorous, she, whether at God's admonition, as Josephus asserts, or from some natural affection towards her husband, entered upon the plan of increasing her Husband with children, namely to substitute in her place as wife Agar, her handmaid, acquired in the Egyptian sojourn, on this condition, that whom she should bear of Abram should be reckoned her own son. And these things Moses indicates not obscurely in chapter 16 of Genesis, speaking thus: Now Sarai, the wife of Abram, had brought forth no children: but having a handmaid, an Egyptian, named Agar, she said to her husband: Behold, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing: go in unto my handmaid, if perhaps at least I may have children of her.
[300] Thus far the sacred Writer, touching in a few words the speech of Sarai, for the sake of begetting offspring which Philo, in the book On Abraham, page 300 and following in my copy, sets out rightly enough, speaking thus: Since (Sarai) lacked offspring, being barren, fearing lest a house so dear to God should on that account become deserted, she addressed her husband thus: Long now have we lived together in mutual love; but that which was the chief cause of our marriage, on account of which nature coupled man to woman, children are lacking to us; nay, not even for the future is any hope left, on account of my age now declining: it is not fair that the disadvantages of my barrenness should touch you too. You may, saving our love, become a father. For far from me be jealousy, since far from you is brute concupiscence, as you are about to satisfy the necessity of nature. Wherefore I will not delay to adorn a new bride who may supply what is lacking in me. And if the matter succeeds according to our wish, your natural children will be my adopted ones; and, that every suspicion of jealousy may be absent, take, if you please, my maidservant, a slave in body but a woman of liberal and generous disposition, long since tried and examined by me from the time she first entered my house, Egyptian indeed by race, but Hebrew in religion. We have an ample possession, and riches greater than for our present lot: for already we yield not even to the richest of the natives, and still we lack an heir, although it is permitted to provide one, if only you obey my admonitions.
[301] [takes to himself as secondary wife the handmaid Agar, and afterwards, when she grew insolent,] To his wife earnestly entreating such things Abram, although he by no means desired polygamy, which was not forbidden at that time, at length acquiesced, as the sacred text presently adds: And when he agreed to her request, she (namely Sarai) took Agar the Egyptian, her handmaid, ten years after they first began to dwell in the land of Chanaan: and gave her to her husband to wife, namely secondary, that is, for use, one who should enrich her husband with offspring, not who should vie with herself in equal dignity. Having come together with her, not from lust but from desire of obtaining offspring, Abram found her fruitful not much before he learned from his wife that she was glorying more than was right in her good fortune, nay was swollen with arrogance. For thus Moses in verse 4: But she (Agar), seeing that she had conceived, despised her mistress, trusting beyond doubt that she would now be more pleasing to Abram than Sarai herself, and was to be presented, even against her will, with liberty, and also with the very title of mother of the household. Hence arose the remonstrance of the principal wife with Abram, which the sacred Writer relates in these words: And Sarai said to Abram: Thou dost unjustly with me: I gave my handmaid into thy bosom, and she, perceiving herself to be with child, despiseth me. The Lord judge between me and thee; or, as it is in the Hebrew, My wrong is upon thee, so that this contempt of the handmaid concerns no more me than you yourself, joined to me by blood and marriage; who, brought over by me not without signal kindness from the wool-basket to the fellowship of your chamber, as soon as she felt herself pregnant, despised and made a laughing-stock of me as unworthy of the promised seed; whether it is fair that this be overlooked by you I leave to God to judge, who will punish the offender, whether me or you.
[302] he allows her to be sent away from his house by Sarai. What to these things did the just Man and fair spouse say? Behold, he says, thy handmaid is in thy hand, use her as it pleaseth thee; or, as it is in Hebrew, do to her what is good in thine eyes, and in just measure restrain by thy authority thy handmaid, who is growing too insolent. The things which pertain to the subsequent flight of Agar, restrained by her mistress, to the desert, and the amendment of her acknowledged error, and finally to the angel's prediction of the condition of the son to be born of her and Agar's return to the house of Abram, these, as having nothing to do with the deeds of Abram, I shall not pursue here, intending to discuss only those things which come into controversy concerning the deed of the just Man already mentioned. And before the rest, indeed, Faustus the Manichaean inveighed here more bitterly against the holy Man, and wished to arraign him as guilty of a twofold crime, namely of an insane lust for having offspring, from which he wallowed with a concubine, and of unbelief, from which he did not believe that what God had already promised him concerning Sarai would come to him. But how rashly, and with what a lust for calumny, the insane Faustus leapt to objecting this twofold crime to Abram, St. Augustine shows no less lucidly than copiously in book 22 Against Faustus, chapter 30 and following, volume 8, edition of the year 1694, from column 380; whose entire reasoning there the studious reader may consult if he will.
[303] And this marriage of Abram, the reasons of St. Augustine being adduced, It will suffice to add to what I have already said some more compressed arguments of the same holy Doctor by which the crimes thrust upon Abram may be dissolved. Thus, then, he speaks of Abram in book 16 of the City of God, chapter 25: He used her (namely Agar, the secondary or for-use wife) for begetting offspring, not for satisfying lust; not insulting, but rather obeying his wife, who believed it would be a solace of her barrenness if she made her own by will, since she could not by nature, the fruitful womb of her handmaid… There is here no desire of wantonness, no turpitude of wickedness. By the wife the handmaid is handed over to the husband for the sake of offspring, by the husband she is received for the sake of offspring: by both is sought not the luxury of guilt but the fruit of nature. Finally, when the handmaid, being pregnant, grew proud against her barren mistress, and Sara with womanly suspicion rather imputed this to her Husband, even there Abraham showed that he had been not an enslaved lover but a free begetter, and that in Agar he had guarded chastity for his wife Sara; that he had fulfilled not his own pleasure but her will; had received, not sought; had approached, not clung; had sown, not loved. For he says: "Behold thy handmaid is in thy hands, use her as it pleaseth thee." O man who used women manfully, his wife temperately, his handmaid compliantly, none intemperately.
[304] Abram therefore did not burn with an insane lust for having offspring, nor wallow shamefully with a concubine; was free from the vice of lust, but on the contrary, since he had understood divinely that offspring would be born of himself, yet did not know certainly of what woman, he honourably used a marriage then lawful, as will be shown below, and, keeping the order of nature, did nothing by human intercourse except that the longed-for offspring, which he then suspected was promised him from the for-use wife, might be born. For as for Faustus, that this offspring already then from
Sarai had been promised him, as he asserts, that is assuredly empty and most openly false. For if we look into the sacred Books, we shall see that a son from Sara was not promised to Abram until after he had begun to be ninety-nine years old, as is asserted in manifest words in Genesis chapter 17; and therefore, since Abram could not then offend by unbelief concerning what was revealed to him only thirteen years later, it becomes evident that Faustus the Manichaean either was imprudently mistaken or impudently deceived, as Augustine most rightly pronounces of him in the cited book 22, column 381.
[305] This Manichaean was partly followed in the sixteenth century, whatever the writers of the Calvinist sect may protest, and that polygamy, although Calvin contradicts it, by the assailant of the saints John Calvin, namely in his Commentary on Genesis, Geneva edition of the year 1564, page 123, where in French words he carped at Abram thus: Although polygamy, that is, the licence of marrying several wives, was then fairly frequent, yet it was never placed in the free will of men to abolish or infringe that law by which two are mutually joined. Abram therefore cannot be excused in this, that he complied with the insane and perverse counsel of his wife; and, just as Sarai's precipitancy was faulty, so Abram's compliance is worthy of reproof. Both therefore limped in faith, not as to substance, but in the means and manner by which offspring ought to be awaited from God. Whether the master who fought against the saints drew these things from a pure spring and from the sacred Scriptures themselves, as the Calvinists boast, it will be worth the trouble now to investigate, and to wash away the stains sprinkled on Abram's sanctity.
[306] I gladly grant Calvin, indeed, that God the author of nature, was not prohibited at that time, when He established matrimony at the beginning of the world, instituted it between one man and one woman; so that it was by no means granted to men to abolish that law, or the institution of marriage, at their own pleasure, or to abrogate it by infringing it; but since the same God, the author of nature, can not only in His Wisdom remove whatever in polygamy hinders the secondary end of matrimony, and the very danger both of sin and of scandal, but also, by His supreme dominion over all created things and for just causes, permit that the use of the husband's body, which one woman acquired through the prior contract, become common to another through a subsequent contract, and so amplify the husband's right for the sake of a more ample propagation of offspring; it follows that, since the sacred Books show that God in fact did these things in the postdiluvian time down to the times of Christ, not Faustus only, but Calvin too either was imprudently mistaken or impudently deceived, when he branded this deed of Abram and the counsel of his wife with so black a mark.
[307] arguments and examples drawn from sacred Scripture And truly, that polygamy, that is, the conjugal bond of one man with two or more women, was at that time without guilt, that is, that the right of husbands was in fact amplified in the manner indicated above, I thus demonstrate from the Scriptures. Since in the postdiluvian time which preceded the promulgation of the Mosaic law all things which pertain to matrimonial unions and contracts and also to moral and civil discipline were much more lax, loose and free than afterwards under the Mosaic law itself, inasmuch as this, as may be seen in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, restrained all those same things by more than one constraint; it follows that, since after the promulgation of the Mosaic law polygamy was permitted to the Hebrews, it was much more without guilt before the Mosaic law was given; and for this reason above all, that the moving causes on account of which it was conceded from the time of Moses down to the promulgation of the Gospel, namely the increase of the human race and especially of the faithful people, and the propagation of divine worship, were much more numerous and urgent while Abram lived, and he not yet enriched with children, than at the time when Abram's posterity had increased almost immensely and held the land of Chanaan under their rule, as we read came about in the time of David and Solomon.
[308] by arguments and examples If, then, under the Mosaic law David, who, as book 3 of Kings, chapter 15, testifies, did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, save the matter of Urias the Hethite; if, I say, that Man after God's heart, and who meditated on the law of the Lord day and night, innocently had many wives at once, and could, by God's permission and grant, have in his bosom even the very wives of Saul, as the Prophet Nathan indicates in book 2 of Kings, chapter 12, verse 8; and finally, to pass over other examples, if in that matter Solomon is to be censured only because, not content with a few wives, he increased their multitude immoderately and even loved foreign women; assuredly with much greater right could Abram, who, as Ecclesiasticus testifies in chapter 44, verse 20, kept the law of the Most High and to whom none was found like in glory, without sin take his handmaid to wife, solely for the sake of having offspring, as was shown above; so that therefore neither was his marriage with Agar worthy of reproof, nor was Sarai's counsel about it insane and perverse, contrary to what Calvin blurted out.
[309] and by the words of Moses himself in Deuteronomy, Here now is another argument to the same effect, sought from the sacred Letters. In Deuteronomy chapter 21, verse 15 and following, Moses ordains thus: If a man have two wives, one beloved, and the other hated, and they have had children by him (you have an example in Lia, Rachel, Bala and Zelpha, wives of the patriarch Jacob), and the son of the hated be the firstborn, and he will divide his substance among his sons, he may not make the son of the beloved the firstborn and prefer him before the son of the hated, but he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, and shall give him a double portion of all he hath: for this is the first of his children, and to him are due the first birthrights. By which words so far is Moses from condemning polygamy as a crime contrary to absolute natural law, that on the contrary he recounts it as lawful and in its time honourable, and holds the children born of two wives of one man as received in lawful matrimony and heirs of their father's goods, and commands that they be so held. Nor is there assuredly any reason why anyone should say that the discourse there is about a man who married successively, as they call it, that is, the first wife having died, another; for since Moses recounts in the first place the beloved wife and as it were married before the other, it cannot be understood how the son of the hated, that is the less beloved, could be older than the son of the beloved, if that man had married the hated one only after the former had died and left children by her already then. But on the contrary these things are plain to understand if we attribute to that man two wives at once, as the literal sense of the words also displays, of whom the one who was first remained barren for some while, while on the other hand the second very soon enriched her husband with lawful offspring, which therefore, as the first of his children, ought to enjoy the right of the firstborn.
[310] What? St. Jerome, most knowing in Hebrew matters, testifies that polygamy was permitted under the Mosaic law not to laymen only but to the priests themselves, and by the common practice of the Jews, in his Epistle to Oceanus, which you have in volume 4 of the Edition of the year 1706, column 645 and following, where, expounding these words of the Apostle, the husband of one wife, he speaks thus at column 649: The Apostle was of the Jews. The first church of Christ was gathered from the remnants of Israel. He knew it was conceded by the law and by the example of the patriarchs and of Moses; he knew it was familiar to the people to scatter children among many wives: to the priests themselves too the choice of this licence lay open. He commanded therefore that the priests of the church should not claim the same licence for themselves: that they should not obtain two and three marriages at the same time; but that they should have single wives at one time. It was lawful, therefore, a fortiori, for Abram, the patriarch of the Hebrews, while Sarai lived, to take his handmaid to wife, both for the reason alleged at number 307, and because, as St. Augustine observes, if you consult nature, Abram did it for the sake not of wantonness but of begetting; if custom, because at that time and in those lands it was commonly done; if precept, because it was forbidden by no law, at least written or binding at that time.
[311] And surely, if that marriage of Abram with Agar had to be held as adultery or as damned nuptials, finally it is demonstrated by more than one reason. no one will easily grasp in mind why God promised that He would do good to Ismael, the son born of these same nuptials, for that very reason, that he was the seed of Abraham from Agar; for thus God said in Genesis chapter 21, verse 13: But I will make the son also of the bondwoman a great nation, because he is thy seed. Would God, then, have wished to do good to Ismael with so liberal a hand for Abram's sake, if he in begetting him had bound himself by adultery or by another outrage against the law of nature? This, indeed, it is not lawful to believe of the most equitable Godhead; and therefore it must be altogether asserted that Ismael was born of Abram and Agar not of damned intercourse or of an accursed sowing, but of a marriage then lawful. Finally, since Abram's marriage with Agar was not of a different character from that which the patriarch Jacob afterwards entered into with Bala and Zelpha, the handmaids of his two wives; it follows that, since this was lawful, and the sons born of the handmaids were held as legitimate sons of Jacob, and therefore had their share in the promised land by hereditary right no otherwise than the sons of Lia, our Patriarch's marriage with Agar must also be called lawful and honourable; so that in that matter nothing at all was committed by him, or by his wife Sarai, which is worthy of reproof, much less which can with any likeness of truth be traduced under the name of unbelief.
[312] Nor is this marriage, from the name of concubine by which Agar is called, It remains now that we set forth in order and at the same time confute some arguments which can be taken and urged against this deed of Abram from elsewhere than from the accusations of Faustus the Manichaean and Calvin. And first, indeed, it can be argued against it thus: in Genesis chapter 25, verse 6, both Agar and Cethura, who afterwards, as will appear below, was joined to Abraham, are called concubines, and the former, as such, was cast out of the house by him with her son Ismael, as is related in Genesis chapter 21 from verse X. Therefore, since a concubine is not a true and lawful wife, it follows that Abram's union with her was not lawful matrimony but true adultery. Add that St. Leo the Great, in his Epistle to Rusticus, bishop of Narbonne, volume 1 of his Works, Edition of the year 1675, page 408, distinguishing the free woman from the bondwoman, and the true wife from the concubine, uses the example of Sara and Agar, the former as free
and a lawful wife; the latter as a bondwoman and concubine. Finally St. Ambrose himself too, in book 1 On Abraham, chapter 4, speaking of this union of Abram with Agar, calls it by the name of adultery. But truly, as regards the word concubine, I answer that the reason drawn from the cited Genesis chapter 25 is of no weight, since Agar in Genesis chapter 16, verse 3, is expressly called Abram's wife, and was no less his true spouse than Bala was Jacob's, who nevertheless in Genesis chapter 35, verse 22, is also called his concubine; as also the wife of the Levite man mentioned in chapter 19 of Judges, to whom too the name of concubine is read to have been given in verses 24 and 25.
[313] inasmuch as it here denotes a lawful but secondary wife, It must therefore be known that the word concubine in the cited places of Scripture does not designate a mistress or a loose and corrupt woman whom one keeps at home or elsewhere for carnal and illicit habitual commerce, as the Canonists say, but a true and lawful wife, received into wedlock, however, by a less solemn rite than she who is wont to be called matron and mother of the household, and married without the ordinary privileges and favours which belong to the mother of the household or principal wife, such as equal fellowship with the husband in living and in the administration of the household, and the right of the sons born of her to enter upon an equal inheritance with the sons of the mother of the household, that is, of the principal wife. And this very thing Moses indicated not obscurely in Genesis chapter 25, verses 5 and 6, speaking thus: And Abraham gave all his possessions to Isaac (as the son of the principal wife and mother of the household), and to the children of the concubines (namely of Agar and Cethura, as not enjoying the dignity and privileges of mother of the household) he gave gifts, and separated them from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, to the east country. And as for his sending Agar away from his house with Ismael by divine admonition in Genesis chapter 21, verse 12, this assuredly was done for no other cause than that God wished it to be thus shown that the name of the seed of Abraham was to be propagated not through Ismael, though begotten lawfully by Abram in the first place, but through Isaac, the son of the principal wife, though younger by birth than Ismael, and that from him would arise the Messiah and the blessing of the nations, as is indicated in verses 12 and 13. In which matter indeed it will suffice to have noted here in passing that no injury was done by Abram either to Agar or to Ismael: not to Agar, for just as the Church now for just causes sometimes separates spouses from bed and cohabitation, so Abram then, at God's admonition, separated Agar from himself, the bond of marriage remaining, only as to bed; not to Ismael either, since Abram could leave off the care of the son, which, as Scripture testifies in Genesis chapter 17, verse 20, and chapter 21, verses 13 and 18, God had taken up in his stead. But more of this afterwards.
[314] I return to the objected testimonies of SS. Leo and Ambrose. nor from the sayings of St. Leo And indeed, as regards the sayings of the former, I answer that he nowhere called Abram's union with Agar wicked or to be held as adultery, and that he wishes only to show professedly in chapter 4 of the cited epistle that it is not lawful for a priest or deacon of the new law to give his virgin daughter in marriage to a man who already had a woman joined to him, from whom he had also received sons. Which things surely by no means, not even remotely, look to the condemnation of Abram's marriage with Agar. Nor does it matter that, to prove that the covenant of nuptials is not to be entered into between a freeborn man and a bondwoman, he adduces the comparison mentioned above. For in the cited response, otherwise fairly obscure and not sufficiently worked out, he either intends to prove this one thing, that that marriage of Agar, if measured against the perfect and primeval character of matrimony instituted in Paradise, is in some part of it less perfect; or, if his mind and sense be other, I do not fear to say that he used the example of Agar's marriage, by no means suitable and accommodated, to prove what he wished, and that this chapter, or fourth response, of his epistle is to be held in the number of those Responses which, as St. Leo indicates at the beginning of the epistle, seemed to exceed the measure of diligence, and could have been discussed and solidly established, according to the gravity of the matter, by a long treatment and a studious colloquy between himself and bishop Rusticus rather than at once and with the help of a single epistle.
[315] And that St. Ambrose in the cited place calls this marriage of Abram with Agar adultery, and by the words of St. Ambrose, though then not yet forbidden, I cannot at all deny; but I desire it observed, with the most recent editors of his Works, that by the name of adultery he understood nothing else than polygamy, and used that harshness of word in order the more effectively to deter from concubinage thereafter certain catechumens who before their conversion to the faith had been polygamists. And truly, since the holy Doctor presently adds that God in paradise, though He praised marriage, did not condemn adultery, and since he is copious in defending this deed of Abram, it becomes necessary either that we lay down that Ambrose, since he elsewhere teaches that adultery of the strict name is to be shunned by natural and divine law, fought with himself here, which assuredly cannot be done without the gravest injury to so great a man; or that we confess that he spoke only of that conjugal bond which after the flood down to the Gospel time was granted by God on account of the scarcity of the human race and especially of the faithful people, as was shown above from number 307, and as St. John Chrysostom also expressly confirms in Homily 56 on Genesis, page 542, in these words: For then, because they were the beginnings, it was permitted to be united with two or three or more wives, that the human race might be propagated. But now, because by the grace of God the human race has been greatly multiplied, virtue too has received increase: for Christ, coming and planting virtue in men, and making, so to speak, angels out of men, abolished all that old custom.
[316] much less by the example of the antediluvians, But indeed someone will still argue against our assertion in this manner: That polygamy was not lawful in the first times of the world should be sufficient proof from this, that before Abram no upright and pious man used it. Add that polygamy, God's grant and indulgence being removed, that is, without divine dispensation, as some say in the schools, is by no means good and lawful, and yet nowhere in the sacred Letters is express mention found of that divine grant or indulgence before the Mosaic law; whence it follows that Abram offended, if not by open wickedness, at least by an error of judgment not sufficiently excusable, when, while Sarai his wife lived, he admitted another to his bed. To these let this be the answer: first, that it can by no means be known certainly and clearly, as Pereira observes on Genesis chapter 16, from the sacred Letters or from elsewhere, whether Seth, Enos and the other just and pious men down to Abram had several wives at once, or not; since Moses did not undertake to write all the deeds of that time, nor pursued in such detail the very things which he records that it can be affirmed that what he did not write was not done. But be it so, says Pereira on chapter 16 of Genesis, that they did not have many wives: yet there was a special and just cause why Abram had them: for he was to be the father of the people of God, in which alone, of all the nations of the earth, the faith and worship of the True God was to be propagated and kept until the coming of the Messiah. To him too had been singularly promised by God an innumerable multiplication of posterity into many nations and kings.
[317] as being sufficiently doubtful and of slight moment, Therefore, even if it were true that in the antediluvian time the polygamy in question was prohibited, that is, that the husband's right had not yet been amplified by God the author of nature, and the power over a human body was not permitted by God to another otherwise than through the indissoluble bond of one man with one woman; yet it would by no means follow from this that in the postdiluvian time, when the paucity of pious men was extreme, and especially at the time when God constituted Abram the father of many nations, polygamy was not permitted by God, but on the contrary was always so prohibited that Abram, when, while Sarai lived, he married Agar, must on that account be said to have fallen from that degree of piety and faith in which the sacred Books commonly place him. Now to the following argument of the adversaries I answer that polygamy indeed, God's grant and indulgence being removed, that is, without divine dispensation, can by no means be called good and lawful; nay, I also confess not unwillingly that the time cannot be certainly established from the Scriptures at which God first permitted polygamy, that is, by His supreme dominion over created things so amplified the husband's right that he might grant the use of his body to several wives, in the manner stated above.
[318] [nor is it proved to have been unlawful from the uncertain time of the divine dispensation granted,] But whether this was done before the flood, or, as the more probable opinion holds, immediately after the flood, when namely God in Genesis chapter 9, verse 1, blessed Noe and his sons, and said to them: Increase and multiply and fill the earth, and at the same time, either by some exterior revelation or by interior inspiration alone, taught them that the use of moderate polygamy, until that time perhaps granted to no one or to very few, would thereafter be lawful for them and their posterity; certainly, since Sarai, surely a prudent and pious woman, proposed and urged polygamy to Abram without any scruple and hesitation, and not as a new thing, but as one long customary and altogether consonant with the divine promise; and since Abram himself, a just man and a most exact cultivator of conjugal chastity, judged without, as appears, any anxiety or scruple of mind that he should obey his wife's admonitions, though not at once, out of very reverence for his wife; there seems scarcely to be any doubt that that faculty of marrying two or more wives at once, which we see customary among the postdiluvian fathers for the propagation of the faithful people and of divine worship, took its beginning much further back than the times of Abram, and that polygamy had already long since passed into a custom, blameless in the judgment of all the pious, when Abram acquiesced to his wife's entreaty and admitted to his chamber Agar the handmaid, given to him as wife by Sarai, with a view to obtaining the offspring divinely promised him; namely after he had begun to dwell ten years in the land of Chanaan, and had already for very many years experienced the barrenness of Sarai.
[319] I forbear to recount other arguments of this kind, which are found commonly among the Theologians and Canonists against polygamy, nay on the contrary by more than one reason also and could be twisted against this deed of Abram in question, since they can easily be repelled from what has already been said, or certainly altogether weakened by this following dilemma. Either to the postdiluvian fathers, for example
Abram, Jacob, David and the other pious men, that law prohibiting polygamy for its time was known, or unknown. If known, then they sinned against conscience; and since the state of polygamy does not seem to have displeased them even until death, or at least it is not established that penance was done by them for polygamy, it follows that those whom the sacred Books commend for piety, justice and good morals must on the contrary be defamed, and also that the way to heaven lies open even without penance done for the gravest sins; which two things are altogether contrary to the sacred Letters and to right reason, and can in no way be admitted.
[320] If on the contrary that law was unknown to them, and therefore did not bind them, It is shown that polygamy was then free of guilt. then they could not offend against it, since where there is no binding law there is no sin. For although it may be objected that such a law existed then and truly bound, but that they were ignorant of it, this truly can by no means be reconciled with that frequent familiarity with God which they enjoyed, who certainly would not have allowed His beloved servants to live through the whole span of their life in the utmost ignorance of a law of so great moment: nor is it credible that God would have permitted that, since it was the ancestral custom of the Jews, as Josephus testifies in the Antiquities, book 17, chapter 1, to have several wives together at the same time, neither the prophets sent to the people to declare to them their sins, nor the holy priests, who rebuked them for lighter faults, should have disapproved this custom by even one little word, but on the contrary should have seemed to approve it by their perpetual silence, especially in so great a multitude and frequency of those thus sinning, if it had then been sin. But enough now of this marriage of Abram with Agar, that I may now proceed to the son born of it and the name given by him, and finally to the epoch of this event; all of which Moses expressed forcibly thus in the same Genesis chapter 16, verses 15 and 16: And Agar (namely now amended and returned to her Husband's family) brought forth a son to Abram: who called his name Ismael. Abram was eighty and six years old when Agar brought him forth Ismael.
[321] Certain things are observed on the birth of Ismael. Concerning these things, however, it is to be observed first that not immediately after Agar returned from the wilderness to her master's house at the angel's admonition, but after some months had elapsed, a son was born of her to Abram, to whom he presently gave the name Ismael, which sounds the hearing of God. But indeed, you will say, in the cited chapter 16 of Genesis, verse XI, the Angel of the Lord had enjoined not Abram but Agar to call the name of the son to be born of her Ismael. Altogether so; but since among the Hebrews it was an ancient custom that the father should give the name to the son, which can be confirmed also from the Gospel of Matthew chapter 1, verse 21, and of Luke chapter 1, verses 62 and 63, therefore Abram too, by paternal right, gave the name to his son; and since Agar beyond doubt had indicated to him the name by which her son was to be called by the angel's precept, the just Man, always most compliant with the divine will, would not give him another name than that which had been indicated by the angel and was apt to preserve the memory of the event. It is to be noted secondly that the birth of Ismael, whatever some may think to the contrary, is to be tied not to the eighty-seventh year of Abram's age already begun, but, as we showed above from number 169, and as the very words of Scripture hint, to his eighty-sixth year, brought almost to its end; since otherwise it could not be that Ismael had already completed thirteen years when Abram had begun to be ninety-nine years old, as is related in Genesis 17, verses 1 and 24, and will be expounded more broadly below.
§ XVIII. The promises made to Abram are confirmed: the change of his name from Abram to Abraham: circumcision commanded him as a sign of the covenant sanctioned: various things bearing on this are discussed.
The Lord appears to Abram in his 99th year, Abram had now dwelt about twenty years, as is gathered from what was said above at numbers 241 and 248, by the vale of Mambre, which is in Hebron, and there, while after his custom he frequently paid the offices of his outstanding piety to the supreme Godhead on the altar erected by him, he had not seldom stretched suppliant hands to heaven for the longed-for safety of his Ismael, whom he held in the place of the son and heir divinely promised him; when, as he was now in the ninety-ninth year of his age, or, as Moses says in Genesis chapter 17, verse 1, after he had begun to be ninety-nine years old, the Lord again gave Himself to be seen by him in visible form and spoke in this manner: I am the almighty God: walk before Me and be perfect. And I will make My covenant between Me and thee, and I will multiply thee exceedingly. As if to say: I who speak to thee am the almighty God, or, as the Hebrew el shaddai sounds, I am the strong God, sufficient to Myself and needing nothing: but do thou ever behold Me present, and fulfil the offices of all virtues and every part of uprightness; and I will hold valid and put into execution the covenant entered into with thee before, so that I shall at some time increase thee with an innumerable posterity and as it were immensely.
[323] Nor had the Lord said more, when Abram fell flat on his face, and to him, falling on his face out of reverence, He repeats the promises made, seeing namely, as Chrysostom observes in Homily 39 on Genesis, page 398, so great an indulgence of God and stupefied at His care for His servant, and turning over in mind both his own nature and the goodness and immense power of God; HE FELL, he says, ON HIS FACE, declaring in this way his grateful mind. For not only was he not then more arrogant, nor proud on account of the favour of God which he experienced, but he was much more humbled. AND HE FELL, he says, ON HIS FACE. For so a grateful mind, the greater the confidence it enjoys, the greater the reverence it shows to God. For HE FELL, he says, ON HIS FACE. And because after so great a confidence the Just man, considering himself and the weakness of his nature, did not dare even to raise his eyes, but, prostrate on his face, declared great reverence: see again the ineffable kindness of the good God. So Chrysostom, commenting on this same third verse of chapter 17, to which he presently subjoins the divine words which are read in the Vulgate in the same chapter 17 of Genesis, verse 4 and the two following, in this manner: And God said to him: I am, and My covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. Neither shall thy name be called any more Abram; but thou shalt be called Abraham: because I have made thee a father of many nations. And I will make thee increase exceedingly, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
[324] Thus far the beginning of this divine discourse and promise to Abram, as He changes the name Abram into Abraham, and enters into a covenant, whose sense is this: I am that same almighty God who in the present confirm the covenant entered into with thee, and I will bring it about that from thee, both according to the flesh and according to the spirit, many nations shall arise; wherefore, that thy name may accord with so signal a thing, thou shalt be called no longer Abram, that is, high father, but, for the sake of good omen, Abraham, that is, high father of a multitude, because in very deed I, who am the Lord of all things and the almighty God, have made thee the father of many nations. Thee, therefore, although hitherto increased only by one son from Agar, and, if you consider nature, unequal to begetting other offspring, I will nevertheless make to increase exceedingly, so that from thee not one nation only, but several, as I have just now promised, and those renowned, shall arise, nay that most powerful kings shall come forth from thee. Presently in verses 7 and 8 God discloses the remaining promises, and pursues the manner of the covenant to be established with Abraham and the other circumstances in these words: And I will establish My covenant between Me and thee, and between thy seed after thee in their generations by a perpetual covenant: to be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee. And I will give to thee and to thy seed the land of thy sojournment, all the land of Chanaan for a perpetual possession, and I will be their God.
[325] Which are indeed to be understood as if God said: regarding not Abraham only but also his posterity, That covenant, then, shall regard not thee alone, O Abraham, but also thy posterity, and not for a short time only but for a very long space of time, and it shall be fulfilled in all its parts at the appointed time, provided only that I be thy God and the God of thy posterity after thee, and be zealously worshipped by them. Both to thee, then, and to them I will deliver to be possessed the land in which thou now dwellest as a sojourner, all, I say, the land of Chanaan, so that thou mayest have a right to it, they a right in it and the very possession of the land; and finally I will embrace thy posterity with so special a care that, although I am the God of all mortals, I shall commonly have to be called their God by a special title, on account of the greatness and frequency of the benefits to be conferred on them by Me. Having promised Abraham so many and such signal benefits, God presently set out to him the condition under which these promises were to be understood, or, as Moses writes in verse 9, God said again to Abraham: And thou therefore shalt keep My covenant, and thy seed after thee in their generations; so that the sense is that those magnificent promises would obtain their effect only on a certain condition; namely, if both Abraham himself and his posterity, mindful of the covenant entered into with them, should comply with the divine will and should accurately keep the things which had been divinely prescribed to them or should afterwards be enjoined, and therefore the very sign of the covenant entered into which was to be designated.
[326] of which He appoints circumcision as the sign, And when the Man most obedient to God showed himself most ready to receive and keep all things on which God wished the execution of this covenant to depend, and said beyond doubt in his heart: Speak, Lord, for thy servant heareth; forthwith the Lord, wishing to make those to be born of Abraham, together with himself, His own peculiar people, and at the same time, as Chrysostom observes in the cited Homily, page 400, to take precaution lest they should at some time be mingled with those nations among which they were one day to sojourn, or whose inheritance they were to occupy, commanded the just Man circumcision as a sign and as a constant seal of the covenant entered into, in these words, saying in verse X: This is My covenant (namely taken by metonymy for the sign of the covenant) which you shall observe between Me and you, and thy seed after thee: all the male kind of you shall be circumcised. And this indeed is the sum of the law, which in the following verse is explained more openly by the indication of the part of the body in which circumcision was to be made and of the end intended. And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, that it may be for a sign of the covenant between
Me and you, whereby namely, as was hinted above, it may be established that you are a people allied with Me, separated from the other nations which do not serve the true God nor have Him as father from whom they may receive an inheritance, as Salian observes, volume 1 of the Annals of the Old Testament, page 446, adding that to this look those divine pronouncements: You shall be My peculiar possession above all people; Thou art a holy people to the Lord thy God. The Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be His peculiar people of all peoples that are upon the earth; and others of the kind which are met with in the sacred Books.
[327] which sign Bonfrère skilfully explains on various heads. With Salian agree in the matter the most learned interpreters of the sacred Letters, and above all Bonfrère, expounding the cited verse X and the part of verse XI akin to the former verse, whom it will not be beside the point to present speaking in his own words. Thus, then, he says: Circumcision was not only the sign of this covenant (mentioned above), namely recalling it to the memory of the Jews, but also, what followed from the former, a sign by which they might be distinguished from other nations, lest at any time they should stain their paternal nobility by the mingling of marriages or of morals. It was likewise a sign of the justice of the faith which Abraham had received in uncircumcision, that is, while he was still uncircumcised, as the Apostle teaches in Romans IV. It was moreover a sign of original sin contracted, since circumcision was made in that part in which the effects of original sin were most discerned, that is, in which concupiscence most puts itself forth. It was finally a figure and allegorical sign of the Baptism to be instituted by Christ, and a moral sign of the cutting away of all evil desires. But let it suffice us to have recounted here these things concerning circumcision, so far as among the Theologians it has the manifold character of a sign; we who have undertaken to write a critical-historical Commentary on the Life of Abraham, not a Theological Treatise on the Sacraments of the Old Testament.
[328] We proceed, then, to discuss other and less trite matters, and such as bear much more nearly on the history of Abraham than certain scholastic disputations. [That circumcision was employed by the Egyptians before the Hebrews some wrongly contend from the words of Sanchuniathon,] And before the rest, indeed, before we discourse on the circumstances of the aforesaid law expressed in verse 12 and following, two things are to be investigated here: the one, whether the rite of circumcision which God prescribed to Abraham must be called altogether new in the world at that time or previously unused, or whether on the contrary it was previously employed by the Egyptians, as, after Celsus the Epicurean, who, as Origen testifies in book 1, number 22, preferred to give credit to the Egyptians rather than to Moses, John Marsham, Jean Le Clerc and most recently a most impious pseudo-historian of our time have laboriously contended; and the other, why God commanded that besides Abraham only males be circumcised, and that in the foreskin rather than another part of the body. As regards the first, some testimonies of the ancient gentile historians do certainly seem to favour the opinion of Celsus and his followers; but whether they are of such authority that credit can rightly be given them, the reader will easily determine from what is now to be said. I too take my beginning from the sayings of Sanchuniathon in the Theology of the Phoenicians, which the cited Marsham adduced in the first place. They stand thus in Eusebius, book 1 of the Preparation for the Gospel, page 38 in my copy: Τὰ αἰδοῖα περιτέμνεται ταυτὸ ποιῆσαι καὶ τοὺς ἃμ᾽ ἀυτῶ συμμάχους καταναγκάσας, that is: Then he himself (namely Saturn, whom Marsham makes much more ancient than Abraham) cut round his privy parts, and by force drove all his companions to a like deed. Therefore, in Marsham's judgment, the rite of circumcising was not unused when God prescribed circumcision to Abraham.
[329] But truly, besides the fact that Eusebius himself declares that the Theology of the Phoenicians handed down by Sanchuniathon is to be fled from with ever-averted eyes, and calls it on page 42 the madness of the ancients, as some contend from the words of Sanchuniathon, so far is he from asserting that any credit whatever can be had here to that writer, of whom more presently, that on the contrary in book 7, page 309 and following, he teaches altogether the opposite. Hear his words: That Abraham therefore … after the sights of the divine Godhead to which the sacred Letters bear witness, being about to receive a lawful son in extreme old age, WHEN HE FIRST OF ALL, AS HE HAD BEEN COMMANDED BY THE DIVINE VOICE, CIRCUMCISED HIMSELF, then he himself commanded the same to be done by his posterity. And truly, even if Sanchuniathon were not a masked and counterfeit author, that is, impudently substituted by Porphyry in order to create ill-will against the authority of the sacred books of the Old Testament, which most learned men surely contend not without cause; yet, since, if that author ever existed, he must be placed many centuries more recent than Abraham and Moses himself, and since in various places, as Marsham himself cannot deny, he talks most shameful nonsense, nay even confuses Abraham with Jacob, or Israel, his grandson through his son, by a most shameful error; he would be altogether inept who should dare from so futile a testimony to contend that the rite of circumcision is more ancient than Abraham. Let us now hear the testimonies of Herodotus praised by Marsham, if perchance these can establish his outlandish opinion better than the words ascribed to Sanchuniathon.
[330] nor less groundlessly from Herodotus, Thus first the cited Herodotus speaks to our purpose in his Euterpe, that is, book 2, chapter 36, page 103 in my copy: Others leave their privy parts such as they are by nature, except those who have learned from them (namely the Egyptians): the Egyptians circumcise. And again in chapter 91, page 121: They (the Egyptians) refuse to use Greek institutions, and, to say it once for all, they will use the institutions of no other men. Finally in chapter 104, page 127, he strives to prove from this that the Colchians are sprung from the Egyptians, that they were circumcised. For brevity's sake I recite his reasoning only in Latin. For the Colchians, he says, seem to be Egyptians: which I report as known to myself before it was heard from others. When a desire of this matter had come upon me, so that I questioned both, the Colchians remembered the Egyptians more than the Egyptians the Colchians. And the Egyptians said that they thought the Colchians were from the army of Sesostris. I myself took a conjecture from this, that they are of a black colour and of curly hair (although this might be thought nothing, since others too are of this kind), but that these especially. Besides, that alone of all men the Colchians and the Egyptians and the Ethiopians circumcise their privy parts from the very beginning. For both the Phoenicians and the Syrians who are in Palestine themselves confess that they learned this from the Egyptians. But the Syrians who dwell by the river Thermodon and the Parthenius, and the Macrones bordering on them, say that they learned it recently from the Colchians. For these alone of men are those who are circumcised: and in doing this they are recognized to be Egyptians. But the Egyptians and the Ethiopians, I cannot say which learned from which; for it seems to be very ancient. But that they learned it from Egypt when they had commerce there, this is a great testimony to me, that those Phoenicians who have commerce with the Greeks no longer imitate the Egyptians as regards the privy parts, nor circumcise the privy parts of those who are born.
[331] as being much younger than Moses, and not accurate enough in these matters, Thus far Herodotus, who, as Du Pin observes in his Universal Library of the Historians, page 105, flourished in the fourth year of the ninety-first olympiad, or, as is drawn from the computation of Labbe, in the year 1057 after the death of Moses. Nor indeed is Herodotus inferior to Moses by ten and more centuries in age only, but also in credit and authority, even if Moses, certainly enlightened by divine light, be considered for a while as a merely human writer. For, as Josephus wrote against Apion, book 1, page 1034 and following in my copy, just as Ephorus showed Hellanicus to be a liar in very many things, and Timaeus Ephorus, and those who came after him Timaeus; so all show Herodotus; namely in those narratives which in any way regard the history of the Jewish nation; which surely no prudent or sane man would say of Moses. The same Flavius Josephus confirms these things, speaking thus on page 1039: Manetho, an Egyptian man by race, learned in Greek discipline, … having interpreted the history of his ancestral religion from the sacred books (as he himself says), frequently accuses Herodotus of having lied in Egyptian matters through ignorance. There is no reason, then, for us to wonder that Herodotus was so little consistent with himself here that, after he had written in the cited chapter 36 that the Egyptians never wished to use the institutions of other men, he nevertheless in chapter 104 calls in doubt whether the ancient Egyptians did not learn circumcision from the Ethiopians, and therefore whether they did not wish to use their institutions.
[332] Moreover, when Herodotus asserts that alone of all men the Colchians and the Egyptians and the Ethiopians from the very beginning, nor did he speak lucidly enough, in Greek ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, circumcise their privy parts, he either understands those words ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς so that the sense is that at the time when he himself was writing boys among those nations were circumcised immediately from their birth; or that circumcision was brought into use by the Colchians and the Egyptians and the Ethiopians as soon as they coalesced into distinct nations, that is, immediately from the origin of those nations. If Herodotus meant the first, it by no means follows from this that the rite, customary in Herodotus's time, of circumcising boys presently after their birth prevailed among the Egyptians before it did among the Hebrews, and that the latter are to be asserted to have learned this custom from the Egyptians. Nay rather, if we grant to Herodotus that the Egyptians, tenacious of their ancient custom, would not use the institutions of other men, but at the same time cast our eyes upon the customs of the Egyptians as they existed for some centuries before and after Christ; it will become evident that among them not absolutely all males, much less the newborn, were circumcised, but only somewhat older boys, youths and men who were destined to, and desired to devote themselves to, either the secrets of Geometry, or of Astronomy, or of Astrology and Genethlialogy, than which they thought nothing more divine, or the ministry of the priests, the soothsayers or of any sacred rites, and to hieroglyphic letters; as is made out from the case of the philosopher Pythagoras, concerning which Clement of Alexandria, book 1 of the Stromata, page 143 in my copy, and from Origen on the Epistle to the Romans, volume 4, edition of the year 1759, page 495; so that again there is here no authority of Herodotus against a greater antiquity of circumcision among the Hebrews than among the Egyptians.
[333] But if he would have it that circumcision also prevailed among the Colchians, Egyptians and Ethiopians as soon as they coalesced into a nation, and which Moses and others also contradict he likewise deserves no credit, unless he brings forward an ancient monument, which however he does not do. For since Herodotus lived more than fifteen hundred years removed from the times at which the Egyptians began to constitute a special people, what prudent man could give credit to him asserting, without an ancient surety or witness, a deed so ancient and singular; especially since not only does Artapanus, praised by Eusebius in book 9 of the Preparation for the Gospel, chapter 27, page 433, affirm that the Ethiopians received the rite of circumcision from Moses, but
above all, since Moses, many centuries more ancient than Herodotus and Artapanus, manifestly hints that circumcision was instituted by God and prescribed to Abraham and his posterity with this end, that by this sign the descendants of Abraham should be distinguished from the other nations of the whole world which then existed; which God would surely have done in vain if already then, as the adversaries contend from Herodotus, circumcision had been common to the Egyptians, the Ethiopians and the Colchians. To which these words of Josephus also look, book 1 of the Jewish Antiquities, chapter XI: Προσέταξε δὲ (ὁ Θεὸς) τὸ ἀπ᾽ ἀυτοῦ γενος, βουλόμενος μένειν τοῖς ἄλλοις μὴ συμφερόμενον, περιτέμνεσθαι τὰ αἰδοῖα, καὶ τοῦτο ποιεῖν ὀγδόῃ ἡμέρᾳ μετὰ τὸ γεννηθῆναι. He (God) also commanded his (Abraham's) race, WISHING IT TO REMAIN UNMINGLED WITH THE OTHER NATIONS, to be circumcised in the privy parts, and that on the eighth day from birth.
[334] Finally, to pass over the testimonies of other ancients, Tacitus himself agrees that circumcision was employed by the Jews for this reason, that they might be known by the difference, speaking namely thus, volume 3 of the edition lately prepared by Gabriel Brotier, the same thing can be asserted by ancient writers, page 299: They instituted the circumcising of the genitals, that they might be known by the difference; on which words the learned editor rightly writes thus: Tacitus by no means thought that the Jews received circumcision from the Egyptians. Which afterwards pleased some learned men; but undeservedly indeed, as will appear from what has been and is to be said. And these things now disputed by me, although I shall not bring forward here the other errors committed by Herodotus in this matter and refuted singly by Noël Alexandre in the Ecclesiastical History of the Old Testament, Dissertation 6, page 223, make abundantly plain how little, nay rather how no, support accrues to the opinion of Marsham and his followers from the ill-cohering words of Herodotus, which have certainly not been weighed on the balance of truth. Nor indeed did the cited Marsham more successfully strive to establish his opinion by that testimony of Diodorus Siculus in which, from the account of the Egyptians, in book 1 of his Historical Library, page 24 in my copy, he relates that the Colchians and the Jews, lying between the Arabs and the Syrians, were led out of Egypt, that is, sprung from the Egyptians, and therefore reports that by ancient tradition it is in use among these nations to circumcise boys born among them by a rite derived from the Egyptians, as do the Troglodytes too, of whom he speaks in book 3, page 165.
[335] nor does the authority of Diodorus Siculus prove it, For besides the fact that this heathen writer too is several centuries more recent than Moses, as being contemporary partly with Julius Caesar, partly with the emperor C. Octavius Augustus, he himself testifies in book 1, page 26 in my copy, that the Egyptians attribute to themselves many things more ambitiously than truly, which rest neither on firm arguments of demonstration nor on the testimonies of suitable authors; from whose number he nowhere excepts that antiquity of circumcision among the Egyptians higher than the times of Abraham, which some invent for it. And truly, even if we grant gratuitously for a while that Diodorus Siculus wished to assert that the rite of circumcision was more ancient among the Egyptians than among the Hebrews, because these were namely at some time led out of Egypt; nothing else would follow from this than that Diodorus Siculus himself too is of that same class of authors who, as Josephus writes in book 1 Against Apion, page 1051 in my copy, either were disappointed of the truth of ancient (Hebrew) affairs, or, wishing to gratify the Egyptians, attempted to corrupt the truth, and neither confessed the coming of our (Hebrew) progenitors into Egypt as it happened, nor again spoke of their going out with truth. However you may determine here about Diodorus, greater credit in this matter is certainly deserved by Theodotus, likewise a heathen author, praised by Alexander Polyhistor and Flavius Josephus, who was both much more ancient than Diodorus Siculus and nearer in place to the things he records.
[336] [than which certainly weightier here is the testimony of Theodotus, more ancient than he] He himself, then, in Eusebius, book 9 of the Preparation for the Gospel, chapter 22, after he had related on page 427 that the marriage of Dina sought by Sichem was refused by Jacob before all the inhabitants of the Sichemites had received both circumcision and the Abrahamic rites, presently on page 428 composes four Greek verses on the origin of circumcision, which sound thus in Latin:
He who led great Abraham out from his ancestral shores Commanded him from heaven, with all his stock, with curved Steel to take away the foreskins beneath the furthest glans. He obeyed, and clung unmoved to the words of God.
Why should I record here more ancient authors, most worthy of credit, who derive the origin of circumcision not from the Egyptians but from God, that is, by divine institution, from Abraham, when Christ the Lord Himself, the eternal truth, in John chapter 7, verse 22, most expressly assigns its beginning in these words: Moses gave you circumcision (not because it is of Moses, BUT OF THE FATHERS); to wish to number the Egyptians among whom is the same as to be mad. What? Did not that divine herald of eternal truth, the great Apostle Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, chapter 4, verse 12, most expressly also call Abraham the father of circumcision, that is, the author and institutor among men of the circumcision commanded by God?
[337] Finally, does not Moses too, in Genesis chapter 17, relating the divine words recited at number 326, and the argument drawn from the Mosaic narrative, make it manifest that circumcision was divinely commanded to Abraham and his posterity not with this end, that it should be common with other nations, for example the Egyptians, Ethiopians or Colchians, but on the contrary that it should be a sign (pardon the word) characteristic of the covenant which God had struck with Abraham alone and his posterity alone, the other nations of the whole world being excluded, to whom, namely, at that time the rite of circumcision was not only not customary but not even known; which also is abundantly plain from the Sichemites themselves, inhabitants of Palestine, who admitted circumcision only in the time of Jacob, Abraham's grandson through Isaac, and seem to have been altogether ignorant of its bitterness and most grievous inconveniences, as is easy to understand from Genesis chapter 34. Away, then, with John Marsham, the restorer of the error of Celsus, with his witnesses of no authority here, and with Jean Le Clerc himself too, with that futile reasoning in which he says it seems to some little credible that the rite of circumcision, so inconvenient and not conducing to good morals, was instituted by God Best and Greatest. For even for this reason, that that rite, of its nature conducing nothing to good morals, was otherwise very inconvenient and troublesome, and had nothing in itself by which it could humanly allure Abraham, already nearly a hundred years old; it must altogether be asserted that that truly wise man, familiar with God, could have been brought not by any human counsel, much less by a feeble emulation of the Egyptians, but by the sole command of God, to undertake with so prompt a mind a rite unused among the Hebrews and so singular, upon himself and his people, as is related in Genesis chapter 17 from verse 22.
[338] Further, when, or by whose work, circumcision began to obtain among the Egyptians, [and finally the words of Origen discoursing on the circumcision of the Hebrews and of other nations.] whether a very few centuries after Abraham's death and by the work of the Ismaelites or Arabs, who acknowledge our Patriarch as the author of their race; or rather about the going out of the children of Israel from Egypt, on account namely of the opinion about a certain angel hostile to all the uncircumcised, concerning which see Origen, book 5 Against Celsus, page 614 and following, perhaps then openly received by the Egyptians no otherwise than by the Hebrews; or finally whether it flowed to the Egyptians only in the age of Solomon, on the occasion of the courtiers of the queen of Saba, or even later, whom however it did not all bind; all these and other things of the kind I leave to others to dispute and decide, and I put an end to this question with the words of the praised Origen, on which I shall at the same time observe some things. Thus he speaks in volume 1, book 5 Against Celsus, number 47, page 613: As regards circumcision, the cause of using it is not the same among the Jews as among the Egyptians and Colchians. For among the Jews, by the prescription of the law, circumcision was exercised on all males and males only on the eighth day; but among the Egyptians it had place neither by the mandate of a certain law, nor on absolutely all males, nor on the eighth day, but also, as we shall see below, in women themselves. From which it is effected that the circumcision is not the same, much less the origin. For just as it does not follow from the fact that someone performs sacred rites in the same manner that he performs them to the same one, or offers prayers to the same one, who asks the same things in his prayers; so, even if someone is circumcised, it by no means follows that his circumcision does not differ from another's circumcision. For a different purpose, a different law, a different intention of the one circumcising make the circumcision different, not as to the practice only, but as to the very institution and origin. And after a little he concludes thus: That the Jews, then, may glory in circumcision, they will certainly show it to be other not only than the circumcision of the Colchians and Egyptians, but also than that of the Ismaelite Arabs, although Ismael drew his origin from their patriarch Abraham and was circumcised with him.
[339] But why circumcision was enjoined on males alone, that is not the true reason, As regards the former part of the other question at number 328, there were some who inquired somewhat curiously why circumcision was enjoined not on the Abrahamic women too, but on males alone, and produced this reason for the matter, that in women there is at no time anything that can be circumcised. But this cannot be the true reason of the exception just mentioned. For that in the Eastern regions almost innumerable women, either compelled by necessity or moved to it by false religion, were in fact circumcised, or, as Strabo, to be cited below, says, excised, of old, and that very many are circumcised even today, is testified by many authors most worthy of credit, of whom I shall bring forward at least some, lest I myself seem to speak paradoxical or false things. And first, indeed, a luminous witness of this matter is Strabo, book 17 of the Geographical Matters, page 951 in my copy, speaking thus of the Egyptians of his time: Καὶ τοῦτο δὲ τῶν ζηλουμένων μάλιστα παῤ ἀυτοῖς τὸ πάντα τρέφειν τὰ γεννώμενα παιδία καὶ τὸ περιτέμνειν, καὶ τὰ θήλεα ἐκτέμνειν, that is: They are most zealous for this, that they rear every infant born, that they also circumcise them, BUT EXCISE THE FEMALES, namely κατὰ την κλείτοριδα, as the more skilled anatomists say. And not only in Strabo's age, but also in the fourth century, the custom of circumcising women obtained in Egypt, as the most holy doctor of the Church Ambrose writes in Book 2 On Abraham, chapter XI, column 348. Finally, he says, the Egyptians circumcise males in the fourteenth year, and the women among them are said to be circumcised in the same year; because, namely, from that year the virile passion begins to burn, and the menses of women take their beginning.
[340] which some derive from the structure of the female body, but others Surely those two outstanding ancient physicians,
Paulus Aegineta, book 6 On Medicine, chapter 70, edition of Henri Estienne, column 581, and Aetius, Tetrabiblos, book 4, Sermon 4, chapter 103, column 834, not only testify to the circumcision of women, especially of the East, but also set out in a good many words and lucidly the manner in which in them ἡ κλειτορίς, called by them ἡ νύμφη, can be cut out without very grave danger, and sometimes in some must, nature compelling, be cut off; of whom the latter continues thus at the cited column 834: Wherefore it seemed good to the Egyptians that it (ὴ κλειτορίς) be amputated before it grows too large, especially at the time when marriageable virgins are to be given in marriage. For the rest, that this custom of circumcising women among the Egyptians, the Persians, the Copts too in Ethiopia, although professing the name of Christ, and other Eastern nations, did not fall away with the lapse of time, is testified by Belon, book 3 of the Observations, chapter 28, Leo Africanus, book 8, and, from the historical Records of Benoît de Maillet, envoy of the king of France to the king of the Ethiopians, the abbé Le Mascrier in the Description of Egypt, which came out in print at Paris in the year 1735, Letter ten, page 71*, relating that in the year 1689 a Coptic virgin destined for marriage was rejected by her betrothed, a nobleman, for this reason, that she had not yet undergone the circumcision customary for her sex. Therefore another reason must be sought why God prescribed circumcision for the Abrahamic males alone than that which seemed evident to some. But what at length? I answer, as Cajetan answered to a question of this kind, that the freedom of God alone is the sufficient reason of this, yet that some not improbable reasons can be assigned; and first indeed those which St. Ambrose, praised above, expressed at the cited column in commenting on the aforesaid verse of Genesis.
[341] Let us hear them, then: But the Giver of the eternal Law (God) requires the seal of carnal circumcision in males alone, those which are recounted here are altogether different. because for the use of intercourse the man is more vehement than the woman; and therefore He wished to break his impetus by the seal of circumcision. Or because men believe they err lawfully if they abstain from adultery alone: but think that harlotries are, as it were, supplied by the law of nature; whereas outside marriage it is lawful neither for man nor for woman to be united to another. Other reasons will perhaps seem no less plausible than these, namely that God, from whom nothing that is to be can be hidden, foreseeing that Abraham's male descendants would be ever so much more prone than the females to be mingled with foreigners, as is gathered from the deed of Solomon and especially from book 1 of Esdras, last chapter, prescribed circumcision to males only for this reason, that it might be to them a kind of bridle against the untamed impetus of corrupt nature and at the same time a living memorial by which they might be perpetually admonished never to contract marriages with foreign women, but on the contrary, content with the women of their own nation, to keep unmingled the seed of their Patriarch, so that the divine promises might be fulfilled in them. Or finally, that, since in men there is the active, as they say, principle of the generation and propagation of men, and God had determined that from the stock of Abraham, not through women but through males, in perpetual series, the Messiah should at some time be born, who would not refuse to be called the son of Abraham and to bear in His body the mark of a son of Abraham, therefore God sanctioned that circumcision, which He wished to be the sign of the covenant entered into with Abraham, should be perpetual for the old law for men alone, as being also the heads of women and of families and the principal sex of His chosen people.
[342] And hence the answer offers itself of its own accord to the other part of the question proposed at number 328, whence also it is understood why it was commanded to be made in the virile part. which answer, however, I should like to recount in the very words of Cajetan cited above. But why, he says on chapter 17 of Genesis, page 76, God chose this sign and IN SUCH A MEMBER, the freedom of God alone is a sufficient reason. Many accommodations, however, can be brought forward. The principal reason, however, is that the Messiah was to be produced carnally from the race of Abraham: for unless account had been taken of this mystery, any character, or any mark in any part of the body whatever, would have sufficed to distinguish and keep distinct Abraham and his race from the other nations of the world. So he says. Perhaps also the circumcision of the aforesaid member was divinely prescribed to the Hebrews as a remedy for and detestation of the turpitude and obscene idolatry which had its origin from the Egyptians and was afterwards propagated through other nations by perverse emulation, in which namely an infamous honour was paid to phalli and ithyphalli, concerning which Hamer on Genesis, folio 93, is to be consulted.
[343] Finally the obligation of this law of circumcision, Let us now return to the very circumstances of this law. The Lord continues, then, in these words in verse 12 and the two following: An infant of eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every manchild in your generations: he that is born in the house, as well as the bought servant, shall be circumcised, and whosoever is not of your stock: and My covenant shall be in your flesh for a perpetual covenant. The male whose flesh of his foreskin shall not be circumcised, that soul shall be destroyed out of his people: because he hath broken My covenant. From which we have defined both the time of imparting circumcision to infants, and the various conditions or qualities of the men whom the law of circumcision bound, and the threats held out against its transgressors. It was not lawful, therefore, either for Abraham or for his posterity, this law being preserved, to defer the circumcision of an infant to the ninth day from its birth, much less longer, without just cause, for example without grave infirmity of the infant to be circumcised, or the necessity of making a journey; but neither was it lawful for them under any pretext, on account of the usual weakness of the newborn, to anticipate the time fixed by God for circumcision, not even on account of death threatening the boy, since little ones before this eighth day, like women and gentiles, could be saved by the ceremonies of the law of nature duly applied to them, as Pereira, page 295, and Delrio on chapter 17 of Genesis, page 263, observe.
[344] binding the Hebrews, and other things bearing on it are briefly touched here. Nor indeed were only the freeborn children of Abraham and his posterity, whom this covenant regarded, bound to be circumcised and to bear in their flesh this mark of the covenant entered into, but also their servants, both home-born, that is, born in the house, and bought, that is, acquired with money, and finally all to a man who, born of another than the Abrahamic stock, for example foreign hirelings, should be taken into his or his posterity's household; and if they did not do so, they were to know that, by the divine threat held out, they were to be destroyed out of their people, as having violated the covenant itself by violating the condition of the covenant entered into, and therefore that any of them who were adults, and the infants themselves when they had grown up, were to be condemned by the judge to the penalty of death, as not a few interpreters expound from various places of Scripture, and certainly not to be numbered among that people which the so magnificent promises made to Abraham regarded, and of which they therefore could not become partakers. Whoever wishes to know more about the law of circumcision, let him consult Bonfrère on chapter 17 of Genesis, or Pereira discoursing diligently and copiously on the same chapter; I turn to the discourse undertaken by the Lord with Abraham and to the things which presently followed it.
§ XIX. To the Saint the birth of Isaac from his wife Sarai, whom he is divinely commanded to call Sara, is foretold: his laughter on hearing this news: the precept of circumcision put into execution by Abraham: its epoch.
[Abraham receives with wonder the news of the son to be born to him of Sarai, now divinely commanded to be called Sara,] The law of circumcision having been established in this manner, the divine Goodness did not delay, in order to soften the hardness of that precept, to supply the most obedient Man with an immense matter of joy. For since God, the Searcher of hearts, saw that nothing more pleasant and welcome could happen to Abraham on earth than that a son should at length be born to him unexpectedly of Sarai, his dearest wife, in whom those magnificent promises already made before were to be fulfilled, He presently spoke in this manner to the holy Man, who beyond doubt, to show his zeal for observing the law of circumcision, had already raised himself a little, or perhaps even to his feet: Sarai thy wife thou shalt not call Sarai (that is, My lady), but Sara (that is, lady of a multitude), namely so that her very name too might accord with the signal benefit which God was preparing to confer on her. And so that Abraham might judge that this benefit was to be referred to the progeny to be born of her, by which progeny that wife of his should at some time become lady of a multitude, that is, the genuine mother of many nations, God adds these words, which Moses relates in the same chapter 17 of Genesis, verse 16: And I will bless her, namely Sara, and of her I will give thee a son, whom I will bless, and he shall become nations, and kings of peoples shall spring from him.
[346] Struck by so unexpected a promise, Abraham fell again upon his face, and is commanded to call him Isaac, and, for very great joy and wonder at so great a benefit, and not, as we shall also show below, out of faulty incredulity or distrust, he laughed, saying in his heart: Shall a son, thinkest thou, be born to him that is a hundred years old? And shall Sara that is ninety years old bring forth? As if he said: Does so great a felicity, then, await me, that to me at a hundred offspring is to be born of a wife of ninety, and such indeed as I have just now heard promised me? O Lord God! Of Thy power indeed, or of the truth of Thy promise, I by no means doubt; but am I not perhaps mistaken, and flatter myself too much, when these words of Thine, which perhaps Thou wishest to be understood by me only in a mystical sense, I on the contrary understand in too literal a sense? However it may be, O Lord, it will be to me in place of the highest benefit if that Ismael of mine may live before Thee, if he be pleasing to Thee and show himself not unworthy of Thy favour and protection, which also I most earnestly desire; O that Ismael may live before Thee! What God answered to these so pious sentiments and wishes of Abraham, Moses sets out thus in verse 19 and the two following: And God said to Abraham: Sara thy wife shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name Isaac, and I will establish My covenant with him for a perpetual covenant, and with his seed after him. And as for Ismael I have also heard thee. Behold, I will bless him, and increase and multiply him exceedingly: he shall beget twelve chiefs, and I will make him a great nation. But My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sara shall bring forth to thee at this time in the next year.
[347] namely in the manner which is set out here. Let us now illustrate briefly the recited words. When in verse 19 God says to Abraham: Sara thy wife shall bear thee a son, or, as is more expressly and significantly in Hebrew: Truly, or assuredly, Sara shall bear thee a son, God confirms what in verse
16 He had promised concerning Sara, and shows Abraham that these words: Of her I will give thee a son, are to be understood not mystically or parabolically, but in the literal and obvious sense, and therefore that truly of her, though a woman already worn out and previously barren, from whom, the course of nature being regarded, offspring was by no means to be expected, the impediments of nature being removed, a son would be born at the appointed time, whom He commands to be called by the name Isaac, which sounds laughter; not because Sara afterwards laughed, nor because, as Le Clerc would have it, Abraham had laughed at the promises of God, but because, reverently prostrate on his face at so joyful a message and the novelty of so great a benefit, he had received the divine promises with the highest joy and cheerful laughter. And when God had presently added that He would establish His covenant with Isaac for a perpetual covenant and with his seed after him, and Abraham might thence fear, as love is a thing full of anxious fear, lest Ismael, the divine blessings being transferred from him to Isaac, should either not live long according to his wishes or not prosper, God forthwith pledges to him that Ismael too would be a partaker of the divine favour, as Abraham had wished, and would have a most numerous offspring, to be divided into twelve most populous tribes, over which as many princes of the same stock would preside, as Strabo and other writers are witnesses that in fact came about in the twelve phylarchies of the Ismaelites, or Arabs. Nevertheless, as regards the covenant entered into by God with Abraham, God repeats and confirms that it is to be fulfilled in its time not in Ismael or his posterity, but in Isaac, whom Sara was to bear in the following year, and in his posterity.
[348] and not without pious sentiments of mind; although some These words, then, which Moses related in the cited chapter, verse 1 and following, having been uttered by God, or, as the same sacred Writer says in verse 22, And when He had left off speaking with him, God went up from Abraham, and the form under which the angel holding God's place had lain hidden, gradually seeking higher regions, at length ceased to be seen by Abraham. How sweet, how pious were the sentiments which then arose in the holy Man from such magnificent promises, no one will easily grasp in mind, much less express in words. Yet from his deed which presently followed we understand that a most ardent desire of obeying God held not the lowest place among them, and that thence it came about that, although God had not prescribed a time for carrying out the precept of circumcision, he himself nevertheless strove to fulfil it without delay and in fact fulfilled it at once, as is related in verse 23 and following. But before we proceed there, the place requires that we redeem the pledge given above at number 346, and vindicate the just Man from every fault of incredulity and irreverence when he laughed in his heart and uttered the words recounted in verse 17. Those who would arraign him here as guilty of defects of this kind argue roughly thus, as Pereira notes: The very words of verse 17 seem openly to show that Abraham did not believe the divine promise as he ought. For that, they say, is what this signifies: And he laughed, saying in his heart: Shall a son, thinkest thou, be born to him that is a hundred years old? As though that promise of God was not only not credible, but was to be taken as something jocular and worthy rather of laughter than of faith.
[349] And they add that this is declared more vehemently by these words of Abraham: accuse him in this deed of incredulity O that Ismael may live before Thee; which in their judgment is just as if he said: It will be enough and more than enough for my wish if Thou preserve and prosper Ismael, whom Thou hast given me: for offspring from Sara, since I can in no way hope for it, I neither wish nor ask. And lest Abraham's censors seem to have rashly expounded his words in the aforesaid sense, they call to the defence of their cause the sixth Homily On Penance cited at number 72, which they adjudge to Chrysostom, where towards its end the author speaks thus: God permitted just men to be bent by human errors according to their own will: not indeed Himself impelling them to sin, but permitting each to his own will, and allowing him to walk according to his own inclination. Thus therefore the holy Abraham sinned by unbelief; and therefore he did not escape punishment from God, so that his seed served four hundred years. To this testimony they join the words of St. Jerome, book 3 of the Dialogue against the Pelagians, which stand thus in volume 4 of the edition of the year 1706, part 2, column 541: Though one be a patriarch, though a prophet, though an Apostle, it is said to them by the Lord the Saviour: "If you, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children: how much more will your Father, who is in heaven, give good things to them that ask Him?"
[350] Finally Abraham too, to whom it was said: "Be without blame and without stain," and of irreverent laughter towards God, in consciousness of his frailty fell prostrate to the ground. And when God had spoken to him: "Sarai thy wife shall no more be called Sarai; but Sara shall be her name: and I will give thee a son of her, and I will bless him, and he shall become nations, and kings of nations shall be from him," it is at once inferred: "Abraham fell on his face, and laughed and said in his mind: If a son shall be born to him that is a hundred years old, and if Sara of ninety years shall bring forth? And Abraham said to God: May Ismael live in Thy sight. To whom God answered: Yea. Behold Sara thy wife shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name Isaac," and the rest. Certainly he had heard from God: "I am thy God, be pleasing in My sight, and be without stain;" why did he not believe what God promised, but laughed in his heart, thinking to hide himself from God, and not daring to laugh openly? Finally, setting forth the causes of his incredulity, he says in his heart: How can it come about that a man of a hundred should beget a son of a wife of ninety? "May Ismael live," he says, "in Thy sight," whom Thou hast once given. I seek not difficult things; I am content with the benefit which I have received. Whom God, reproving him with a hidden answer, says: "Yea." And the sense is: That shall come about which thou thinkest will not be. Sara thy wife shall bear thee a son: and before she conceives, before he is born, I will give the boy a name. For from thy error, in which thou didst silently laugh, thy son Isaac shall receive the name of laughter. Than which, they say, what can be said more clearly on the subject in hand?
[351] But truly, since the testimony of St. Paul is more expressly opposed both to the interpretation of Abraham's words just adduced by the adversaries and to the two testimonies just recited, against which the authority of the Apostle, lucidly demonstrating his faith, that namely in which he praises in his Epistle to the Romans, chapter 4, the outstanding faith of Abraham in this deed, and affirms in verses 19 and 20 that he was not weakened in faith, nor considered his own body now dead, … and the dead womb of Sara … nor in the promise … of God … staggered by distrust; it assuredly follows that the interpretation of Abraham's words which cannot be reconciled with this oracle of St. Paul, no otherwise than the testimonies dissonant with the same oracle, forthwith loses all force. Nor is there any reason why anyone should object that this divine eulogy of Abraham's faith does not regard the deed which is in question here, but that faith which he had many years before when God promised the multiplication of his seed like the stars, concerning which also it is written: Abram believed God and it was reputed to him unto justice: For since St. Paul in the cited chapter, verse 19, expressly says that Abraham was then nearly a hundred years old when he gave that outstanding specimen of his faith which he praises, he openly shows that he is speaking of the deed of Abraham related in Genesis chapter 17, and therefore, since he asserts that Abraham was not then weakened in faith nor staggered by distrust, he also makes plain that that laughter and those words Shall a son, thinkest thou, be born to him that is a hundred years old were by no means those of a man incredulous or distrustful towards God, much less of one mocking the divine promises, contrary to what the adversaries contend.
[352] [and more than one reason is deservedly opposed, against which the testimonies adduced by the adversaries prove nothing at all,] Moreover, besides the fact that it is not likely that God would have imposed on such a boy, with whom He had decided to establish His covenant, a name taken from the faulty sneer of his father, it can be added with Pereira that it does not appear why, if Abraham's laughter and the words related above had proceeded from incredulity or distrust, he himself was not rebuked by God equally with Sara his wife, or why he was not likewise reproved as was Zacharias, who, not believing the angel announcing in like manner the generation of a son from a barren wife, was on that account not only seized with reproof but also deprived of the use of speech. As regards the testimonies praised by the adversaries, I answer, as I have already shown at number 72, that the first of them is to be attributed not to St. Chrysostom but to I know not what not sufficiently skilled writer, and that nothing can be solidly proved from it against the outstanding faith of Abraham. As much, with the reverence due to St. Jerome, I do not fear to pronounce of the second testimony, since he himself in book 1 of the Dialogue against the Pelagians, column 505, spoke thus of Abraham and Sara: Not because they laughed are they condemned of distrust, but because they afterwards believed they received the palm of justice; so that the things which St. Jerome related in book 3 of the same Dialogue against Abraham's prompt faith may be regarded as words of one disputing rather than of one asserting.
[353] as being contrary also to that of St. Ambrose But truly, let us grant that St. Jerome thought less favourably of this deed of Abraham and seemed to himself to find nothing in it from which to extol his faith; assuredly it would not follow from this that we should stand here by his words rather than by the words of St. Paul and the testimonies of many Holy Fathers; of which let these few stand for many; and first indeed that of St. Ambrose, book 1 On Abraham, chapter 4, column 294, speaking thus of this deed: But that, when a son was promised from her (Sara), Abraham laughed, was a sign not of incredulity but of exultation. Finally he fell on his face, who adored and believed, and added: "If a son shall be born to me of a hundred years, and if Sara of ninety years shall bring forth. And he said: May this Ismael live in Thy sight." He is not incredulous in the promises, nor greedy in his wishes. That is: I do not doubt that Thou dost it, so that Thou givest a son even to an old man of a hundred years, and, as the author of nature, loosenest the bounds of nature. Hear Augustine too, in the Questions on Genesis, volume 3, part 1, column 388, discoursing on Genesis chapter 18, verse 13, in which Sara is related to have laughed: It is asked, he says, why the Lord reproves her (Sara), since Abraham too laughed, unless because his laughter was of wonder and gladness,
but Sara's of doubt; and this could be discerned by Him who knows the hearts of men.
[354] And again in volume 7, book 16 of the City of God, chapter 26, column 439: [and contrary to the authority of St. Augustine; much less are they an obstacle to what we have said before.] The laughter of Abraham is the exultation of one rejoicing, not the derision of one distrusting. His words too in his mind, "If a son shall be born to me having a hundred years, and if Sarra of ninety years shall bring forth," are not those of one doubting but of one wondering. But, you will say, we ourselves at number 346 admitted some hesitation and distrust in Abraham, when we presented him speaking thus: But am I not perhaps mistaken, etc., which see. But I answer that by these words we did not wish to assert any positive hesitation in him, much less such as either followed or accompanied a sufficient declaration of the words of God promising, and which would therefore have been contrary to faith, but a curiosity arising together with the highest joy and wonder, or some anxiety, namely whether the sense of the words of the promise intended by God was in fact such as Abraham wished it to be and flattered himself it was; which previous curiosity, or anxiety, surely by no means harms the perfection of the subsequent act of faith concerning an object then only sufficiently revealed, nor in the least argues that Abraham was for some while weak in faith or irreverent towards God.
[355] These things now dispatched, I proceed to the signal proof of Abraham's obedience, [Abraham puts into execution the circumcision commanded to himself and his people,] which the sacred Writer narrates in these words in verse 23 and following: And Abraham took Ismael his son, and all that were born in his house: and all whom he had bought, every male among the men of his house: and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskin forthwith the very same day, as God had commanded him. Abraham was ninety and nine years old when he circumcised the flesh of his foreskin. And Ismael his son had completed thirteen years at the time of his circumcision. The selfsame day was Abraham circumcised and Ismael his son. And all the men of his house, as well they that were born in his house as the bought servants and strangers, were circumcised with him. Thus far Moses, concluding with those words the seventeenth chapter of Genesis, on which some things remain to be discussed here.
[356] And concerning the day, indeed, on which Abraham circumcised all his household of the male sex and himself, on the same day according to our manner of reckoning days this question can be raised, whether that divine apparition and the circumcision which followed are to be placed on the same day, that is, daylight, also according to our country's manner of reckoning, or only on the same day after the Hebrew manner, that is, reckoned from one evening to the next. This latter opinion is defended by Jean Le Clerc, and he contends that by these words of Moses the very same day the next day according to our manner of reckoning days ought to be understood; but to me it is much more likely that between the divine apparition and the beginning of the circumcision not a whole night, nay not even a notable part of a night, flowed between, and therefore that not on the day after the apparition, but on the same day, that is, daylight, both the apparition and the circumcision were accomplished. For since Moses not only affirms that all of Abraham's household were circumcised on the very day of the apparition, but also expressly relates that this was done by Abraham forthwith on the very same day; by this manner of speaking he shows that he wished altogether to exclude a whole night, or even a notable part of one, which the cited Le Clerc lays down as intervening; and even from this, that he hints by no indication at all that the divine apparition and the discourse with Abraham which followed happened towards evening or in the night-time.
[357] puts into execution, I judge, then, that the whole matter stood thus: When Abraham, beyond doubt after his custom, was watching from the dawn unto the Lord his God, and had perhaps already offered to God the morning sacrifice on the altar erected by him, behold, the Angel of the Lord gives himself to be seen by him as he expected nothing of the kind, and in that discourse, of which we have treated fully enough above, prescribes circumcision as a perpetual sign and stable condition of the covenant entered into with him, both for him and for the males of his household and all his posterity. This law and condition the holy Man accepts freely and willingly, and without delay; as soon as the angel holding God's place had vanished from his eyes, he gathers Ismael his son and all his household into one place, promulgates to all the law handed down to him by God and the condition of the covenant entered into; and since he found them to a man, no otherwise than he himself was, most intent upon God's nod, he has nothing more urgent than to carry out the divine commands upon them and also upon himself on the spot, or, as Moses roughly says, to circumcise the flesh of their foreskin forthwith the very same day, as God had commanded him, and to carry out the same upon his own body. Whether all these things do not display a much greater likeness of truth than Le Clerc's narrative, I leave to the reader to judge.
[358] and indeed, as it seems, with his own hand, But whether Abraham circumcised Ismael, all his household and himself with his own hand, or only by his command and through more skilled ministers designated by him for this, namely in much the same manner in which Josue (concerning whom see the book of Josue chapter 5, verse 3) seems to have circumcised the children of Israel on the hill of the Foreskins, the learned interpreters do not all agree; since, however, if we weigh the whole matter maturely, nothing seems to stand in the way of the holy Man's having been able to carry out these things himself on the same day, that is, daylight, and having left only the care of healing the wound to some ministers, I see no cause why the words expressed in verses 23 and 24 of our Vulgate, with which both the Hebrew text and the version of the seventy Translators and the Chaldee Paraphrase agree, should be understood in any other than an altogether literal and obvious sense, and why Abraham should not therefore be laid down as having been the one minister of the circumcision prescribed by God to himself and his people.
[359] not, as Salian would have it, in the hundredth year of his life, There now returns in its place the controversy, raised before in passing as occasion offered, concerning the age of Abraham, that is, the determinate year of his age in which circumcision was undertaken by him. Salian, often praised above, to pass over the many others who agree with him, ties this to Abraham's hundredth year, and strives to establish his opinion at the year of the world 2138, number 2, in these words. We seem, he says, to oppose Scripture, which says that these things happened "After Abraham had begun to be ninety and nine years old." But by this Phrase Scripture in no way opposes us, unless we wish it to fight with itself, which presently calls Abraham a hundred years old, which, properly and exactly speaking, befits only him who has completed ninety-nine years and entered upon the hundredth; and that Scripture here speaks exactly in numbers is plain, since it does not pursue round numbers, as they call them, by decades, but broken ones by units below the decades; that is, it recounts not only the joints of numbers but more subtly the digits also; hence it is that a little before it reported eighty-six years, and in this place ninety-nine; and below thirteen.
[360] So he, contending namely that these words of the sacred Writer: but in the ninety-ninth After Abraham had begun to be ninety and nine years old, are necessarily to be understood of so many years of Abraham completed in every part, nay extended by some days into his hundredth year. But truly, on how slight, nay on no, foundation Salian and his followers assert this, I show in this manner. When sacred Scripture speaks thus of Noe in Genesis chapter 7, verse 6: And he was SIX HUNDRED YEARS OLD when the waters of the flood overflowed the earth; and again, to pass over other examples, when it relates thus of the boy Joas in book 4 of Kings, chapter XI, verse 21: AND JOAS WAS SEVEN YEARS OLD when he began to reign; so far is it from indicating that the six hundred years of Noe and the seven years of king Joas were then completed in every part, that is, extended by some days of the six hundred and first year of Noe's life or of Joas's eighth year, that on the contrary it expressly teaches in Genesis chapter 7, verse XI, that while the six hundredth year of Noe's life was still running all the fountains of the great deep were broken up and the floodgates of heaven opened, and in the cited book 4 of Kings, chapter XI, verse 4, that while the seventh year of Joas was likewise in course he was made king through Joiada. Since the adversaries cannot deny these things, they must needs also confess that by these words of sacred Scripture, After (Abraham) HAD BEGUN TO BE NINETY AND NINE YEARS OLD, the Lord appeared to him, etc., not ninety-nine completed years of Abraham, much less his hundredth year already begun, are designated.
[361] And truly, unless the adversaries say that Moses deliberately, still running, whatever in order to be obscure, departed from the common and received manner of speaking in designating the epochs of events, I do not well understand on what ground they can contend that by these words of his, After he had BEGUN TO BE ninety and nine years old, not Abraham's current ninety-ninth year but his hundredth begun was designated by Moses. And that these words of Abraham, Shall a son, thinkest thou, be born to him that is a hundred years old? And shall Sara that is ninety years old bring forth? by no means conflict with the epoch established by us, namely Abraham's ninety-ninth year not yet completed in every part, is plain enough, whatever the adversaries may clamour, even from this, that, granting for a while that Abraham in his discourse with the angel of God wished to play the scrupulous chronographer (which however is altogether unlikely), it would still not follow from his cited words that that divine apparition must be fixed a little after the beginning of his hundredth year, since those words of Abraham, uttered during the divine apparition, look not to the time of the promise made to him, and, what is more, not to the conception of the promised son in the mother's womb, but to the birth of the same son, which was to follow nine months after the conception, that is, to Sara's delivery, which in our opinion too, and as Moses relates in chapter 21, verse 5, in fact came about when (our Patriarch) was a hundred years old.
[362] But let us now hear the other arguments of Salian and his followers. the same Salian may say against it, Ismael, he says in the cited place, is said to have been circumcised when he had completed thirteen years; but he could not have completed thirteen years unless his father had completed ninety-nine, since his first year coincides with his father's eighty-seventh, as we said above. Then, those who think otherwise do not seem to notice that there is a great difference between TO BEGIN NINETY-NINE YEARS and TO BEGIN TO BE NINETY-NINE YEARS OLD, for the former phrase posits the last year begun, the latter completed. Finally, St. Jerome wished to lay no stress on the word HAD BEGUN, since in the Hebrew there is only: "And Abraham was a son of ninety years and of nine years," or, as
the Zurich version has it in Vatable, "when Abraham was now born ninety-nine years:" with which the Greek and Chaldee agree. Finally, if Isaac was begotten in the ninety-ninth year of his father, then Abraham's hundredth will be Isaac's first, and the father's hundred and first will be the son's second, and so on, which is against the common arrangement of the Chronologers. At length, after a little, he concludes roughly thus: Since Scripture, in the very place in which Isaac is promised, says that he will be born in the following year; therefore Isaac was born about the beginning of his father's hundred and first year; and so Abraham's hundred and first is Isaac's first.
[363] to whose arguments But let us weigh these things too. As regards Ismael's thirteenth year when he was circumcised, I answer that this year can be shown to have been completed no less in our opinion than in that of the adversaries, namely from this, that, as we showed above, he was born in his father's eighty-sixth year, advanced by ten or eleven months, while the circumcision was made when Abraham's ninety-ninth year was indeed still in course, but was drawing to its end and was less than two months, or one whole month, from its close. What Salian adds to these things is too light to be confuted at length. Let it suffice, then, to have replied that the difference of the two phrases alleged by him may have place among dialectical cavils, but not among historical phrases and the usual manners of speaking in sacred Scripture, which, to confirm what I have said by one example, would with much greater right be judged to have indicated the seventh year of king Joas as still running if it had said: After Joas HAD BEGUN TO BE seven years old, than when it speaks simply thus: AND JOAS WAS SEVEN YEARS OLD when he began to reign.
[364] is here altogether answered. Nor is there any reason why Salian should say that St. Jerome wished to lay no stress on the word had begun, since in the Hebrew there is only: And Abraham was a son of ninety years and of nine years; for if this reason of his has any force here, it will also have force in the argument which he himself makes out about Ismael's age, who is similarly called in the Hebrew a son of thirteen years, from which phrase, if Salian is to be consistent with himself, he cannot make it follow that Ismael's thirteen years must be held as altogether completed. Either, then, one must stand here by both places of the Vulgate, or a solid reason must be assigned why the word had completed in chapter 17, verse 25, concerning Ismael, rather than the word had begun in verse 1 concerning Abraham, is to be understood in the obvious sense. Finally, as regards Salian's conclusion, I answer that it rests, as they commonly say, on a false supposition, and that we do not lay down that Isaac was born in his father's ninety-ninth year, but on the contrary that he was then merely promised by the angel, and certainly not born before Abraham had begun the hundredth year of his life by about eight or more months. Which method of ordering the chronology is indeed much more conformable to the words of Scripture, and to the Chronicles of Eusebius and others, which tie Isaac's birth to his father's hundredth year, than that which ties his wife's delivery, or the birth of his son Isaac, to Abraham's hundred and first year already begun.
§ XX. Abraham receives with hospitality three angels hidden under the form of travellers: from one of them he is informed of the son to be born to him within the year, and of the impending destruction of the Pentapolis: he strives to avert it by prayer.
[Abraham receives with hospitality and a banquet, in the Vale of Mambre, three travellers whom he did not then know to be angels,] Abraham had now recovered from the wound of the circumcision put upon him, and was sitting at midday at the door of his tent, which he had long since fixed in the vale of Mambre, watching for the arrival of travellers and looking out anxiously lest any should pass by that way towards whom he had not first exercised the office of hospitality; when behold the Lord, not the Son of God Himself, contrary to what some have contended, but an angel holding God's place, suddenly gave himself to be seen by him, yet in such a way that Abraham did not at once recognize as angels either him, veiled under the form of a traveller, or his two companions hidden under the same form. As soon, then, as the holy Man saw these, thinking them to be young strangers, he hastens to meet them, and, his body bent to the ground, courteously greets them; presently he earnestly asks him who seemed more honourable than the others that, if he has any favour with him, he should not thus pass by his tent, saying that he would order water to be brought with which the feet of them all might be washed for the sake of relieving weariness and wiping off dust, while they rested under the shade of a neighbouring tree, and that a meal would be prepared without delay, refreshed by which they might pursue their journey; doubtless saying repeatedly that it had come about by a singular providence of God that they were making their journey that way at that hour, so that they might be made partakers of his hospitality and in turn bless their host by their presence. They answer that they will gladly avail themselves of the courtesy of so benevolent a man, and rest under the tree near the tent.
[366] Glad at the compliance of guests so conspicuous, Abraham, receives, while they allow their feet to be washed, himself flies into the tent to Sara, and anxiously enjoins on her to make haste with hearth-cakes, from three satas, that is, measures, of the choicest flour, for the guests' meal, or even, if they wished, for their provision for the journey, namely in a covered pot with live coals and hot ashes put beneath and above. He himself meanwhile betakes himself with quick step to the nearest herd, intending to take thence a calf most tender and best, for the most skilled of his servants to cook. The veal, prepared as quickly as could be done, with butter and milk added, he sets before the guests, standing himself during their meal for the sake of courtesy and duty, nay as if their servant, and counting it the highest honour to himself that he should minister in a servant's stead to those present, whom however he did not yet know to be angels of God, and solace the labour of their journey, as St. Chrysostom roughly says in Homily 41 on Genesis, page 420. But let us now also hear, as is fair, the very words of the sacred Historiographer.
[367] in the Vale of Mambre, Thus, then, Moses in Genesis chapter 18, verse 1 and 7 following: And the Lord appeared to him (namely Abraham) in the vale of Mambre as he was sitting at the door of his tent in the very heat of the day. And when he had lifted up his eyes, there appeared to him three men standing near him: and as soon as he saw them, he ran to meet them from the door of his tent, and adored down to the ground (namely honouring them with civil adoration or honour). And he said: Lord, if I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away from thy servant: but I will fetch a little water, and wash ye your feet, and rest ye under the tree. And I will set a morsel of bread, and strengthen ye your heart; afterwards you shall pass on: for therefore are you come aside to your servant. And they said: Do as thou hast spoken. Abraham made haste into the tent to Sara, and said to her: Make haste, temper together three measures of flour, and make cakes upon the hearth. And he himself ran to the herd, and took from thence a calf very tender and very good, and gave it to a young man: who made haste and boiled it. He took also butter and milk, and the calf which he had boiled (namely by his command and the work of his servant), and set before them: but he stood by them under the tree. Thus far the sacred Writer.
[368] They, then, the meal finished, not that they had really converted the foods into the substance of the body they had assumed, and of the son to be born of Sara within the year but had only appeared to have eaten, now intending to make return to the kindness of their Host, inquire of him with obliging word and cheerful countenance where Sara his wife is. When Abraham answered that she was near at hand in the tent, presently the angel who was more conspicuous than the others pledges that he will return to him within a year at this very time, and that Sara will then have a son. Nothing more welcome or more pleasing could be promised to the holy Man and his spouse; but she, both because perhaps she had not yet been informed of the last promise made to her Husband, and above all because she held her guests for urbane and witty men, and by no means for divine messengers, received these words of the angel with secret laughter, saying within herself: Shall I, now so old a woman, who have long since abstained from the marital embrace, now again give myself to pleasure with a man so aged? And shall I believe that from this union of ours a son will be born of me, after my courses have so long ceased to flow? These things are assuredly worthy of laughter rather than of prudent faith.
[369] and of Sara's secret laughter, for which she is reproved, Sara would have sworn that these sentiments of her mind and her secret laughter were altogether hidden from her guests; but she was presently untaught her error when she heard the angel, who seemed to play the principal part as God's representative, speaking thus to her husband: Why did Sara laugh, and does not believe that she will bear within the year? Is there anything that surpasses the divine power? Do thou, O Abraham, continue more rightly to give credit to what is said, and I solemnly promise and confirm that I will return to thee at this same time according to the appointment, and that Sara shall then have a son. Sara, hearing these things and seeing herself detected, could not but be affected with shame and fear, especially since, as it seems, summoned by her husband, she had come into the sight of the guests, and seemed to herself to behold in them a certain more than human majesty of countenance; troubled in mind, therefore, she denied that she had laughed, thinking she could thus cover what she was now ashamed of; but this little lie of hers the angel refuted in a few words, and showed not obscurely that he had penetrated her inmost thoughts and knew her secrets. Finally, Sara having been confirmed in faith, as is credible, he rises from table with his two companions, and, thanks having been rendered for the office of hospitality shown, turns his journey with his own towards Sodom.
[370] Have again the very words of Moses which bear on this, from verse 9 to 16: he is divinely informed, And when they (the divine messengers) had eaten, they said to him: Where is Sara thy wife? He answered: Lo, she is in the tent. And he said to him: I will return and come to thee at this time, life accompanying, and Sara thy wife shall have a son. Which when Sara heard, she laughed behind the door of the tent. Now they were both old, and far advanced in years, and it had ceased to be with Sara after the manner of women. And she laughed secretly, saying: After I am grown old, and my lord is an old man, shall I give myself to pleasure? And the Lord said to Abraham: Why did Sara laugh, saying: Shall I who am an old woman bear a child indeed? Is there anything hard to God? According to appointment I will return to thee at this same time, life accompanying, and Sara shall have a son. Sara denied, saying: I did not laugh: for she was afraid. But the Lord said: Nay, but thou didst laugh. And when the men rose up from thence, they turned their eyes towards Sodom: and Abraham walked with them, bringing them on the way.
[371] I should believe that not so much from mere urbanity
did he accompany the departing guests, then, having accompanied the departing guests for some while, as from zeal to pay the honour due to those whom he now knew to be angels veiled in human form, nay also from a desire to learn from them something which might be useful either to himself or to his posterity. However it may be, the sequence of the matter now to be related shows clearly enough that it came about not without the nod of God, who disposes all things providently, that Abraham joined himself to them for a little as companion. For they had not yet proceeded very many paces together when that same angel who seemed to play the principal part as God's representative, beyond doubt in the hearing of the holy Man, and perhaps directing his discourse not to the angels alone, his companions on the way, but also to him, began to speak thus: Can I hide from Abraham what I am about to do: seeing he shall become a great and a very mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth shall be blessed? For I know that he will command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord and do judgment and justice: that for Abraham's sake the Lord may bring to effect all the things He hath spoken unto him.
[372] Which are just as if the angel said: Is it fair that I should not disclose to the singular friend of God, already for some time privy to much higher counsels of God, that which I am now about to carry out? Is it right, I say, that I should exercise a notable judgment of God in Abraham's neighbourhood without his knowledge, from one of these he understands the wickedness of the men of the Pentapolis who is destined by God to be the father of a most numerous and most powerful nation, from which the Messiah, the author and origin of every blessing, shall at the appointed time take His origin? Finally, shall I not indicate it to a man whom I know to be not only outstandingly pious and religious towards God, but also to bear the highest care of rightly ordering his household, and who will anxiously see to it that both his household and his posterity exercise the offices of true justice towards God and neighbour, so that thus whatever was divinely promised him may be fulfilled? Let Abraham hear, then, and understand, so that he may also tell his own, that they may learn always to fear the supreme Godhead: The cry of Sodom and Gomorrha is multiplied, and their sin is become exceedingly grievous. I will go down and see whether they have done according to the cry that is come to Me, or whether it be not so, that I may know.
[373] And by this anthropopathy the angel indicated that the infamy of the Sodomites and Gomorrhaeans was the highest above the other men of the Pentapolis, and such that, if their wickedness was equal to it, and their impending destruction, it could no longer be dissembled by God, nor vengeance be any longer delayed; and that therefore he would presently go down into the plain region of the Pentapolis, so that he himself might discern whether the gravity of their wickedness had gone as far as report carried, and had in truth come to its height; and so, if it was so, might use most just punishment against them. There seems no doubt that Abraham well understood that the angel of God, who had shown that he knew the inmost things of the heart, had also sufficiently perceived the public and most notorious crimes of the men of the Pentapolis, and that he had therefore spoken to him of the wickedness of the Sodomites and Gomorrhaeans in the manner as it were of one doubting, and with expressions borrowed from the manner of mortal judges, to this end, that he might make plain how often with slow step the divine wrath proceeds to the vengeance of sins, and with how terrible a gravity of punishment on the contrary it compensates long patience. When, then, the pious Man, having heard this counsel of God, saw the two angels turning towards Sodom, and did not doubt that they would be the executors of the divine judgment unless he himself could avert the punishment by prayer, he approached reverently nearer to him whom from the signs he knew to be the principal minister of God, and began earnestly to entreat that he would spare the multitude for the sake of Lot, his brother's son, and of some other just men whom he thought to be living there.
[374] which, by reverently proposing the proofs of the divine clemency But let us again learn these things, and the first prayer of Abraham itself, from Moses himself. Thus he speaks in the same chapter 18: And they (the two angels) turned themselves from thence and went their way to Sodom: but Abraham as yet stood before the Lord. And drawing nigh he said: Wilt Thou destroy the just with the wicked? If there be fifty just men in the city, shall they perish withal? And wilt Thou not spare that place for the sake of the fifty just, if they be therein? Far be it from Thee to do this thing, and to slay the just with the wicked, and for the just to be in like case as the wicked; this is not beseeming Thee: Thou who judgest all the earth wilt not make this judgment. Abraham hints, then, that he believes the divine decree of destroying the Sodomites is not absolute, and that among them there could be found some just men besides Lot and his household, for whose sake God might still wish to moderate the rigour of justice; hence, thinking in goodness of the divine justice and equity, which does not punish the pious equally with the impious, he submissively inquires whether God, if fifty just men should exist within the city, would not spare the whole place. What the Lord, or the angel holding God's place, answered to this request of the holy Man, Moses narrates in these words: And the Lord said to him: If I find in Sodom fifty just within the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake.
[375] the divine clemency Then Abraham, who had already begun to perform the office of intercessor, suppliantly asked leave to plead further the cause of the Sodomites, and, as St. Chrysostom expounds in Homily 42 on Genesis, page 429, taking confidence and having recognized the clemency of God, again brought another petition, speaking thus in verses 27 and 28: Seeing I have once begun, I will speak to my Lord, whereas I am dust and ashes. What if there be five less than fifty just? Wilt Thou for five and forty destroy the whole city? That is, in the judgment of the same Chrysostom, as if Abraham said: Do not think, Lord, that I am ignorant of myself, and transgress measure and use so great a confidence. For I know that I am earth and ashes: but as I know this, and manifestly know it, so too I am not ignorant of this, that the greatness of Thy clemency is copious, and that Thou art rich in goodness and willest all men to be saved. For those whom Thou didst produce from nothing, how wouldst Thou destroy them once made, unless the abundance of sins were great? Therefore again I pray and beseech: "If fewer than fifty be found, and there be five and forty just in the city, wilt Thou save the city?" To which the Lord presently answered in the cited verse 28: I will not destroy it, if I find there five and forty, namely just men; indicating at the same time, however, that not so many would be found in Sodom.
[376] Allured by this familiarity of God, and made as it were bolder, Abraham again descended from the number fifty first proposed, and in every way and, hoping that at least forty just men could be found in Sodom, again inquired in this manner in verse 29: But if forty be found there, what wilt Thou do? But when the angel answered that he would not strike the city for the sake of forty just men, and again indicated that not even so many were to be found there, there seems no doubt that Abraham was gravely struck and afflicted by this sad news; nevertheless, since he was ever borne by an equal desire of snatching his neighbours from destruction, and continued to have before his eyes the copious greatness of the divine clemency, he dared to cut off a whole decade from the number forty, and to ask for the preservation of the whole place for the sake of thirty just men, a speech being first made, however, by which he might avert the wrath of God and obtain pardon for his importunity. Be not angry, I beseech Thee, he says, O Lord, if I speak: What if thirty shall be found there? The angel answering that he would spare the city for the sake of thirty just men, Abraham presently took away another decade, and asked for the safety of the city for the sake of twenty just men, with ever equal submission of mind and equal confidence. Seeing, he says, I have once begun, I will speak to my Lord. What if twenty be found there?
[377] When the angel again assented to these prayers, and promised that he would not slay the Sodomites for the sake of twenty just men, having attempted to avert, Abraham, wondering at so great an indulgence and clemency of God, but fearing on the other hand lest he should at length move the wrath of God against himself if he went on more stubbornly interceding for a most abandoned city, sought and found a manner by which he might make a last supplication for the Sodomites without offence to the angel. I beseech Thee, he says, be not angry, Lord, if I speak yet once more: What if ten should be found there? To which the angel replied that for the sake of ten just men the city would not perish, speaking thus in verse 32: I will not destroy it for the sake of ten; but at the same time showed that the corruption of the place was so great that out of so many thousands of inhabitants not even ten could be found who were good and just. This decisive answer then given, the angel of God vanished from Abraham's eyes, and he returned to his tent, or, as Moses says in the last verse, And the Lord departed, after He had left speaking to Abraham: and he returned to his place; beyond doubt wondering at the highest clemency of God, which would have been content to weigh the crimes of five cities and of so many men against only ten blameless ones, but at the same time grieving not moderately that among so many men not even ten just could be found, and therefore by no means doubting of the destruction of the Pentapolis now about to follow.
[378] Nor indeed did the event deceive Abraham's fear. For when on the same day at evening time two of those angels whom he had received with hospitality, to be put into execution on the following day, having entered Sodom, had lodged for the night with Lot, and on the morrow at earliest dawn had led their kindly host out thence with his wife and two daughters, presently, as Moses testifies in Genesis chapter 19, verses 24 and 25, the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven, or, as the Hebrew sounds, from Himself, that is, by His own power with no natural causes intervening, and He destroyed these cities, namely together with the cities of Adama and Seboim, as is established from Deuteronomy chapter 29, verse 23, and other places of sacred Scripture, and all the country about, the city of Segor however excepted, which was spared for Lot's sake, and consumed also all the inhabitants of the cities and all things that spring from the earth. And of this extreme punishment Abraham too was an eyewitness, when in the morning, having gone forward to the place where the day before he had stood with the Lord, as the sacred Writer again testifies in verse 28, he looked towards Sodom and Gomorrha, and the whole land of that country: and he saw the ashes rise up from the earth as the smoke of a furnace.
[379] he sees with his own eyes from a certain higher place. Nor does it stand in the way of this narrative that, as Adrichomius testifies, the vale of Mambre, where Abraham had fixed his tent, is distant about seven leagues of an hour each from the Asphaltite lake; for not from the vale of Mambre itself, but from the place where he had stood before with the Lord, which place, as from the angel's word I will go down in verse 21 of chapter 18
is established, was higher than the Pentapolis and nearer to it, he is asserted by Moses to have beheld Sodom and Gomorrha and the ashes rising from the earth. In which matter I see nothing difficult to understand, especially if those infamous cities stood not in the very place where the Dead Sea, or the Asphaltite lake, now is, but on its Western bank, nearer to the vale of Mambre, as is not obscurely shown from St. Jerome in the book On the situation and names of Hebrew places, and from the testimonies adduced by Calmet on chapter 19 of Genesis, page 428, and from other more recent writers. A somewhat greater difficulty at first sight is presented by verse 29 of chapter 19, in which Moses, having just before said of Abraham He looked towards Sodom … and he saw the ashes rise up from the earth, continues at once thus: FOR when God destroyed the cities of that country, remembering Abraham, He delivered Lot out of the destruction of the cities wherein he had dwelt. But if we hear Bonfrère discoursing here, that difficulty will vanish forthwith.
[380] yet he obtained by his prayers that Lot Thus, then, he speaks on page 216: In the Hebrew, he says, there is, as also the Seventy and the Chaldee rendered it, AND IT CAME TO PASS IN DESTROYING, or WHEN HE DESTROYED, etc. From which it is plain enough that that FOR in our text has not causal force, but is worth the same as MOREOVER or BUT, as often elsewhere; and that the reason is given here not of what immediately precedes, but at most of more remote things, namely what moved God to deliver Lot. For although Lot was also delivered on account of his justice, nothing yet forbids that this other also was a cause, and that both were intended by God, although either by itself would have been sufficient; even if perhaps Lot's justice was not so great that he deserved to be delivered unless the merits of Abraham had been added, as Augustine indicates in the Questions on Genesis, question 45: for many things in this history indicate that Lot was not very perfect. I add also that it is plain enough that that WHEN HE DESTROYED is not taken here according to the proper signification of that tense, but with some extension: for Lot was delivered before that destruction happened. Therefore WHEN HE DESTROYED signifies either WHEN HE WAS NOW ABOUT TO DESTROY, or ABOUT THE TIME OF THE DESTRUCTION, or WHEN HE HAD DECREED TO DESTROY.
[381] Thus far Bonfrère, most rightly praising St. Augustine, was led out with his family from the burning of the Pentapolis, who speaks thus in the cited place: Scripture (namely in the same verse 29) commends that Lot was delivered rather by the merits of Abraham, that we may understand that Lot was called just in a certain manner, chiefly because he worshipped the one true God, and by comparison with the crimes of the Sodomites, living among whom he could not be inclined to a like life. I could wish, however, that Bonfrère and the others who have commented on this place had also adduced here the words of St. John Chrysostom, Homily 44 on Genesis, so that it might appear more evidently what part Abraham had in the deliverance of Lot from the burning of Sodom. Those words, then, I bring forward: It will be worth the trouble now, he says on page 448, to keep to the interrupted sequence, and to speak a few things to your charity, that you may again see the charity and compassion of the Patriarch, and the benevolence of God towards him. For when, at sunrise, the just Lot was preserved in Segor, but those who were in Sodom paid the penalty; the Patriarch, at once pitying their destruction, which they underwent on account of their sin, and very anxious for the just man, coming in the morning looked upon what had been done there.
[382] Then, having adduced verses 27 and 28 from the version of the 70 Translators, as St. Chrysostom also teaches, he continues thus: In that place, he says, in which he conversed with the Lord and prayed for the Sodomites, he saw the traces of that terrible punishment, and wished to learn something of the just man (namely Lot). For this is the custom of the Saints, that they are moved by affection very much and suffer with others. And, that divine Scripture may teach us that the grace of the Spirit at once granted him knowledge of this matter, and that He delivered (Lot) on account of the care which the Just man (namely Abraham) bore for Lot, it says: "When the Lord destroyed the cities of that country, God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the destruction." What is "God remembered Abraham?" It is of the petition which he made, saying: "Do not destroy the just together with the wicked." Why then, someone will say, was the just man preserved on account of the prayer of the Patriarch, and not on account of his justice? So indeed, on account also of the prayer of the Patriarch: for when we bring at the same time what is from ourselves, the very intercession of the Saints too confers very much on us. But if we ourselves are negligent and place the hope of our salvation in them alone, it profits us nothing further; not because the just avail less, but because by our sloth we betray ourselves. So St. Chrysostom, indicating that there contributed very much to Lot's deliverance from Sodom not only the merits of Abraham, but most of all the prayer, full of pious anxiety and most fervent, which he poured forth for his safety.
[383] But, you will say, Moses nowhere teaches that Abraham supplicated God for Lot's deliverance. although Moses did not expressly record this. On what foundation, then, is this ascribed to his prayers? I answer that, although Moses, relating in Genesis chapter 18 Abraham's supplication to God, did not make express mention of Lot, yet by the cited words Wilt Thou destroy the just with the wicked, and likewise by these, Remembering Abraham, He delivered Lot, he not obscurely indicates that Lot had surely no very small part in his uncle's prayers, and ought partly to have credited to them that by the work of the angels he was led out safe and unharmed from the city about to be destroyed. And why Moses, in relating Abraham's prayer, did not make express mention of Lot, this not improbable reason can be given, partly from Pereira, namely that Moses did not think it would seem so great and memorable that Abraham supplicated God by name for Lot, a man joined to him by great relationship and very dear to him on account of the fellowship of long pilgrimage and long cohabitation, as that he was most greatly anxious for those almost innumerable people who inhabited the Pentapolis, and omitted nothing in his prayer to God by which he could avert their destruction; which, as it is much greater and more excellent than the other, so also the sacred Writer wished to commit to memory and letters this rather than the other, particularly and expressly, for the commendation of Abraham's piety and charity, and for the instruction and imitation of posterity. The other things which pertain to the destruction of the Pentapolis and to the history of Lot and of his wife and daughters, as foreign to my purpose, I here altogether dismiss, and now take a step to chapter 20 of Genesis, which comprises Abraham's sojourn from the vale of Mambre into Gerara and the deeds which presently followed it.
§ XXI. Abraham sojourns in Gerara: the occasion and epoch of this journey are discussed. Abraham recovers untouched his wife Sara, taken away by command of Abimelech, and by his prayers frees him from sickness.
Into the city of Gerara, whose situation is set out here, Concerning the city of Gerara, into which, as Moses testifies in Genesis chapter 20, verse 1, Abraham withdrew with his wife Sara after the destruction of the Pentapolis, Cellarius wrote learnedly thus, volume 2 of the Notitia of the Ancient World, page 359: Near Bersabee also was Gerar, or Gerara. In Genesis chapter X, verse XIX, it is set down together with Gaza as the Southern boundary of Chananaea: which the LXX Translators clearly expressed. It was situated between Cades and Sur, well-known wildernesses, of which the former looks to Egypt, the latter to Arabia Petraea, Genesis XX, verse 1. Jerome with his Eusebius excellently: "Gerara, from whose name the region beyond Daroma is now called Geraritica, twenty-five miles distant from Eleutheropolis to the South. And it was once the boundary of the Chananaeans on the Southern side, and the metropolis City of Palestine" that is, of Philistia. "Scripture records that it was between Cades and Sur, that is, between two wildernesses, of which one is joined to Egypt, to which the people came across the strait of the Red Sea: but the other, Cades, stretches as far as the desert of the Saracens." He called it Metropolis because it furnished a royal seat to Abimelech the Philistine: although it seems also to have been situated outside Philistia, since it lay between the wildernesses of Sur and Cades; but then in the power of the Philistines. In later time it seems to have belonged to the king of the Ethiopians, that is, of the Southern Arabs, since Asa, king of Juda, having conquered that king, is said to have laid waste all things about Gerara, 2 Paralipomenon XIV, verse 14. The Samaritan translator, in Genesis XX, verse 2, and chapter XXVI, I and VI, renders it Ascalon; and the Jerusalem Targum, in Genesis XX, verse 2, Arad: neither of which agrees with the situation between Sur and Cades.
[385] And concerning the situation of the city of Gerara and of the region of the same name the learned agree well enough, Abraham withdraws from the vale of Mambre, not for the reasons nor did Moses leave it altogether untouched, when in Genesis chapter 20, verse 1, he related thus: Abraham removed from thence (from the vale of Mambre and the neighbourhood of Hebron) to the south country, and dwelt between Cades and Sur, and sojourned in Gerara; or, as it is in Latin from the version of the LXX Translators, And Abraam moved thence to the South; and dwelt between Cades and between Sur and dwelt in Gerara; but there is not likewise agreement among authors concerning the cause or occasion of that sojourn undertaken; nay there are those who would have Abraham's departure from the vale of Mambre into the region of Gerara to have happened not after the destruction of the Pentapolis, much less on any occasion of it, but many years before; of whom we shall now discourse in their order. As regards the various opinions of authors concerning the cause or occasion of Abraham's change of abode, that one indeed seems to me altogether frigid, not to say anything worse, which teaches that the holy Man departed from the vale of Mambre because, the Sodomitic region having now been overthrown, all occasion of exercising hospitality, of which he was most eager, now seemed likely to be lacking to him. As though from the regions which afterwards fell to the tribes of Juda, Simeon, Benjamin, Dan and others, very many could not make their journey through the mountains of Hebron and the vale of Mambre equally after the overthrow of the Pentapolis as before it, whom Abraham could have received with hospitality no otherwise than others before?
[386] Not so foreign to the truth is the opinion of Benedict Pereira, more often praised, alleged by some more recent writers, which asserts that some famine arising in the vale of Mambre and the neighbouring region gave Abraham cause for going away thence, and expounds verse 1 of chapter 26 of Genesis, in which mention is made of a barrenness in the days of Abraham, in such a way that this barrenness can be said to be different from that famine which compelled the holy Man to go into Egypt. But since Pereira does not sufficiently prove the difference of that barrenness mentioned in chapter 26 from the famine related in chapter 12, verse X; nor by any
argument proves that Isaac, a famine having afterwards arisen, set out to the king of the Palestinians in Gerara for no other cause than that Abraham had done this before for a similar cause, which things nevertheless he had to prove solidly enough in order to establish his opinion; I leave that opinion undecided and commit it to the judgment of the learned reader. An opinion altogether different from these is defended by Salian in the Ecclesiastical Annals of the Old Testament, speaking thus at the year of the world 2138, number 85, page 465: I for my part should believe that there was no other cause for him (Abraham) of migrating from a place in which he flourished in glory and riches and in the benevolence and alliance of the inhabitants, than the divine command, which wished to exercise his virtue and to have him lead his life abroad; which Chrysostom signifies not obscurely, when namely, as he at least thinks, he says thus: "That he at one time pitched his tents in Bethel, at another by the oak of Mambre, at another went down into Egypt, and now set up his tents in Gerara, and bore all things easily, that he might manifestly declare in all things his gratitude towards his benefactor and his obedience towards his Lord."
[387] Since, then, says Salian again, the whole pilgrimage of the Patriarch from his going out from Ur of the Chaldeans until his death hung on the nod and direction of God, as these seem not sufficiently solid, this too must be ascribed to Him who first said to him: "Go forth out of thy country." Especially since this stay in Gerara was to be longer; and the Lord wished not only to increase his merits, but to set forth to various peoples as an example the virtue and piety of the holy Man in the worship of the true God. But truly, although Abraham migrated from the vale of Mambre into the region of Gerara not without the nod and disposition of God, and submitted himself willingly to the divine Providence in all things whatever, which we too freely confess and maintain; yet it does not follow from this that he set out from the vale of Mambre into the region of Gerara merely on account of a divine command, as Salian asserts, and not on account of some natural cause directed by divine Providence to the same end; since there stands absolutely no mention in the sacred Letters of that special divine command, nor ought this to be asserted without the testimony of a sacred author or a most grave reason.
[388] [but more probably on account of the air then infected in the neighbourhood of the Pentapolis.] I should prefer, then, to believe that Abraham, God so ordering all things without a new prodigy, withdrew with his people far from the neighbourhood of the Pentapolis for this reason, that a stench and pestilent exhalation, noxious to men equally with cattle, arising partly from the sulphurous and fiery rain, partly from the burned buildings, trees and plants of the Pentapolis and the kindled pits of bitumen, spread itself far and wide, and through the vale of Mambre itself, and continued for not a few days to infect the surrounding tracts. For since, as Adrichomius testifies on page 53, the Asphaltite Lake even now, as he speaks of his own time, boils up with perpetual vapours after the manner of an infernal furnace, and by their exhalation the shores and mountains on both sides lie barren and squalid for five miles; it is not to be doubted that, while the Pentapolis was burning and long after was smoking, that pestilent exhalation spread itself much more widely through the air and vitiated by its contagion the fields and meadows of the vale of Mambre, which Abraham's family and flocks needed for sustenance; so that, until with the lapse of time its former wholesomeness was restored to the air in that vale, Abraham had to withdraw elsewhere; which opinion surely has nothing contrary to the genuine words of Chrysostom, inasmuch as these differ in more than one place from those recited above, as will become manifest to one reading his Homily 45 on Genesis, page 457.
[389] And that sojourn of Abraham in Gerara I proceed now to the other dispute, which turns on the epoch of this departure, whose hinge namely turns on this: whether Abraham, as Jean Le Clerc, cited above, judges with some others in his Commentary on Genesis, page 143, went away from the tract near Hebron into Gerara not long after he had returned from Egypt, say in about the seventy-eighth year of his age; or whether, on the contrary, as the common opinion holds, the Gerara sojourn of our Patriarch was narrated by Moses in its order, that is, whether the holy Man set out into that Southern region of Palestine only when the whole Pentapolis, if you except the little city of Segor, had already been destroyed, and he himself was about to complete the ninety-ninth year of his age, or had already begun the hundredth some days before. Let us hear from Le Clerc himself the reasons by which he strives to establish his opinion. Having affirmed in his Paraphrase, page 142, that Abraham, long before the discourse held with the angel concerning the justice of God and before Lot's deliverance from Sodom, could have known the equity of the Supreme Godhead from the deed of Abimelech, king of Gerara, he goes on to speak thus on the following page, at verse 2 of chapter 20, concerning Sara carried off by the same king: This seems to have happened after Abraham had returned from Egypt, although the year cannot be indicated.
[390] And presently he continues thus: Meanwhile we must beware contends indeed that it happened shortly after his return from Egypt, lest we believe that these things are narrated in their order: for after God promised Isaac to Sara in chapter 18, there intervened only a year from that promise to his birth, in which Sara could not have been led into the palace of Abimelech and stayed there long enough, as we showed at verse XVII, without their recognizing that she was pregnant. Nor is it credible either that Sara, being pregnant, would have said that Abraham was her brother, or would have concealed that she was joined to a husband; not to say now that a woman of ninety could scarcely have kept such remains of her former beauty as to inflame young men with love. Thus far he. But I do not well see that these reasons are so urgent that this event must be drawn back to the younger age of Sara, and that Moses must be said to have altogether inverted the order of his narrative and to have related in an altogether foreign place, either from supine negligence or from I know not what preposterous design, those things which by the series of the times were to be placed under chapter 13 or 14 of Genesis and could easily have been narrated in those places; as altogether follows from Le Clerc's opinion, if namely it be true. But it is well that it rests on very weak arguments.
[391] For what that writer asserts, that only one year intervened between the promise of Isaac to be born and his birth, Jean Le Clerc, but by not sufficient reasons we too freely confess with Holy Scripture; but what the same man asserts, that Sara could not at that time have been led into the palace of Abimelech, nor stayed there until the cause of the sickness of the king and his wife and handmaids became known, without being recognized as pregnant, that truly is what we altogether deny. For let us suppose with Procopius that Sara, after the space of three months following the promise of offspring had run, conceived Isaac, and that he was therefore born when Abraham was a few days short of completing the hundredth year of his age, or, as Moses says in chapter 21, verse 5, when he was a hundred years old, namely almost completed, as surely all these things cohere with the words of Scripture; it will assuredly be easy to understand how Sara, at the end of her husband's ninety-ninth year, or even, if you will, some days into his hundredth, began about four days after the promise of a son to be born within the year to set out from the vale of Mambre with her Husband, and a few days after arrived with the family in the region of Gerara, distant from the vale of Mambre, as Adrichomius testifies, only a fourteen hours' journey; and finally how, carried off presently into the palace by the king's command, she could stay there even for the space of two months under the specious name of Abraham's sister, without being recognized by any indication to be married.
[392] Nor is there assuredly any reason why a space longer than two months should be admitted and by his arguments for Abimelech to feel himself incapable of conjugal commerce, and for his wife and handmaids to find themselves constrained by a most bitter difficulty either of coming together, or, those who were near childbirth, of bringing forth; since this evil, as will be plain to one considering the matter, could easily be discerned even in the course of one or two weeks. As for what J. Le Clerc says: Nor is it credible either that Sara, being pregnant, would have said that Abraham was her brother, or would have concealed that she was joined to a husband, I willingly admit it, if Sara had then in fact been pregnant, and above all if her belly had already begun to swell from the fetus; but both of these I deny with equal ease and with much greater right than that with which Le Clerc asserts them, and I add that Sara could not even then have conceived Isaac, unless, which cannot be gratuitously admitted, she had carried him in her womb beyond nine or ten months. What? Moses again, in verse 1 of chapter 21, says that Sara was visited by the Lord and conceived of Abraham only when she had been restored to him untouched by Abimelech.
[393] proves it, But, says the adversary, it is hard to believe that a woman of ninety could have kept such remains of her former beauty as to inflame young men with love. I answer that, if we measure those ancient times by our own, in which the comeliness and vigour of women commonly does not extend beyond forty-five years, this would be hard to believe, especially if it were asserted without the testimony of a most grave writer; but if we note that women in that postdiluvian time lived about a hundred and thirty years and longer, we shall not unwillingly believe the most grave and divine Writer that such was the vigour of the face of Sara at ninety, such the condition of her flesh, and such the beauty of her features, that she could still allure to love of her a man already settled in age (for that Abimelech was then a young man by no means appears). Assuredly I wonder that these things were seriously brought forward by Le Clerc against the more common opinion, after he himself, writing on chapter 12 of Genesis, had objected the same difficulty to himself and presently solved it on page 100.
[394] one of which he himself elsewhere Hear Le Clerc himself: Since Abraham at the time when he entered the land of Chanaan was LXXV years old,… and Sara … only ten years younger; when they went into Egypt she was at least LXV years old, at which age women are not wont to excel so in beauty that they can excite the lust of men. But as they lived longer at that time, in those advanced in age not only did the strength remain, but also that vigour of the face and condition of the flesh in which, besides the features, beauty consists, were entire. On this account too the poets of the Greeks, who knew that in the first ages the life of men was longer, feign that their Helen, whom Theseus had carried off, in the third generation after created war for the Greeks and Trojans by her ill-starred beauty. There are also women, says the writer praised there, who are beautiful longer than others, such as those who have not borne many children and have lived more delicately; but Sara had not yet borne, nor is there any doubt that the wife of a rich man
loving her had always studiously taken care of her complexion. It is no wonder, therefore, if Sara was among those, to use the words of Plato concerning Archaeanassa of Colophon: Ὡν καὶ ἐπὶ ῥυτίδων ἕζετο δριμὺς ἔρὼς, Upon whose very wrinkles bitter love sat.
[395] but not modestly enough, So Le Clerc, who, although he spoke more jestingly than befitted the gravity of the matter, nevertheless himself satisfies the difficulty which he afterwards proposes on page 143. What? Even the most impious pseudo-philosopher-historian of our century has openly confessed that not so long ago there was found in France a notorious little woman who, although she had previously led a life infamous for the stains of many lusts, was nevertheless, when already sixty, of such comeliness that she turned upon herself the loves of men of no common sort; concerning whom see the Supplement to the Philosophy of History, published in French in the year 1769, page 190. Why then (let the reader pardon that I compare so profane an example with a sacred one for the sake of demonstrating the truth), why then, I say, should either Le Clerc or the cited pseudo-historiographer deny that very thing of Sara at ninety, who at that time was about forty years distant from her last day, and who, besides having led a frugal life free from lusts, is not read to have been tried by sicknesses, nor had been vexed either by the suckling of infants or by the pains of childbirth, nor had experienced those disorders of women which most greatly harm their comeliness?
[396] But let us grant Le Clerc for a while that Sara at ninety was not so beautiful but Salian solves it more modestly and in another manner. that the king of Gerara wished to have her as wife for the sake of her beauty alone: it would not yet follow from this that the departure of Abraham with Sara into the region of Gerara, and her being carried off into the royal palace, must be placed more or less twenty-two years before the destruction of Sodom; since the king could have desired her as wife for other causes too, as Salian teaches at the year of the world 2138, number 90, in these words: For princes are wont to seek after marriages by which they may become more powerful, since otherwise women outstanding in beauty are not lacking to them in their kingdoms. Therefore no mention is made in this place of the beauty of Sara, which nevertheless is celebrated in that Egyptian sojourn. Abimelech desired Sara as a venerable matron, as skilled in ruling a household, whom he certainly believed a widow: for her age could rightly give that suspicion; finally as endowed with a form which would easily bear witness to past beauty (yet still, as I judge, surviving in great part): but, what was the chief point, he desired the sister of Abraham, that he might have Abraham as brother, that is, as comrade in war, if the occasion should require, an outstanding warrior; in peace as counsellor, a man of ancient uprightness and prudence; in scarcity as a kinsman whose resources were by no means to be despised; finally one who in prosperity and adversity would be a protection and an ornament.
[397] What more? Did not Moses by these words of chapter 20: In this sojourn, which is shown to be placed about Abraham's 100th year, Abraham removed FROM THENCE, indicate manifestly enough that he went away then into Gerara from the tract near Hebron, or the vale of Mambre, designated by him as Abraham's last abode? And beyond doubt indeed, as Le Clerc himself confesses in his Paraphrase on verse 1, page 142. Either, then, Le Clerc must prove that Abraham had already then twice fixed his tent in the vale of Mambre, and likewise twice moved it elsewhere from there; or, since he cannot prove this with the narrative of Scripture preserved, he must needs confess that the holy Man, from the vale of Mambre, where most certainly, when he had begun to be ninety-nine years old, he still dwelt, did not set out into Gerara before he had already received with hospitality in the same vale the angels, messengers of the destruction of the Pentapolis, and on the following day had seen the ashes rising up from the land of the Pentapolis as the smoke of a furnace, as Moses relates in chapter [ ], verse 1 and following, and chapter 19, verse 28; so that therefore this history, which I now set about illustrating, was narrated by Moses not out of order, as Le Clerc contends, but in its own proper and native place, and is therefore to be tied in great part to the beginning of Abraham's hundredth year.
[398] At this age, then, and more probably for the reason brought forward at number 388, the holy Man sees Sara, whom he had again called his sister, taken from him, Abraham, having left the vale of Mambre, came after a few days with his family to the region of Gerara, and there, in the part where this land lies midway between the wildernesses of Cades and Sur, he determined in mind to dwell, that is, to sojourn; and since the holy Man not without cause doubted both whether the fear of God, that is, reverence for the true Godhead and the divine laws, flourished in that place, and whether the men of Gerara would not sooner or later plot death for himself, a foreign man, in order thus to possess his wife, a most excellent woman, he entered into the same plan with her which had once succeeded excellently for him in Egypt, that she should be called by him sister, and he by her brother, there, and no mention be thrown in of the marriage contracted by them. With good leave, then, of the king of Gerara, as Salian judges on page 365 at the cited year of the world, number 88, he penetrated the territory of Gerara with all his people, and presently, being asked either by the king himself or at least by the courtiers what that splendid woman, the companion of his journey, was to him, he had to profess her his sister, or, to use the very words of Moses, And he said of Sara his wife: She is my sister. And when Abimelech had either contemplated her somewhat curiously with his own eyes, or at least had been wonderfully delighted by the description of her form and endowments given him by the courtiers, he had nothing more urgent than to send some of his nobles to carry off the praised sister of Abraham into his palace, to be married by him at some time according to the ancestral custom. Abimelech, then, the king of Gerara, as Moses says in verse 2, sent, and took her.
[399] taken, namely, by command of Abimelech, by whom afterwards, warned in sleep But before the time came for taking her into the royal chamber, God, as St. Chrysostom roughly says in Homily 45 on Genesis, page 460, declared His providence, by which He both made the Just man more illustrious and freed Sara from injury and the king from sin. For besides the fact that Abimelech, his wife and his handmaids, as is given to understand from the same chapter, verse 17, presently felt their genitals hindered by some unusual disease, God came… as the same sacred Writer testifies in verse 3, to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him: Lo, thou shalt die for the woman that thou hast taken: for she hath a husband. Abimelech at once recognized the cause of the trouble of himself and his household, and although, by the most express testimony of Moses, he had not touched her, he was nevertheless seized with no small fear on account of the untimely death divinely threatened him for her sake, and hence, as he was a man by no means bad, he began both to excuse his deed and to avert the destruction hanging over him in these words: Lord, wilt Thou slay a nation that is ignorant and just? Did not he himself (namely Abraham) say to me: She is my sister: and she say: He is my brother? In the simplicity of my heart and cleanness of my hands have I done this.
[400] and divinely rebuked And these words, in the interpretation of St. Chrysostom in the cited Homily, page 460, are just as if he said: Did I do this knowing… that she was his wife? Wishing to inflict injury on a stranger? As taking away his wife? I did this as intending to receive her as his sister, thinking that by this name both he and she were honoured… Wilt Thou destroy me, who have performed the office of a just man? … Did not… he himself (Abraham) say this to me (namely She is my sister), and she agreed with his words?… Not as about to do an unjust thing, but as a lawful and licit and irreprehensible one, did I act, that Sara might at some time fall to me as wife. What the Lord answered to these things Moses sets out in these words in verse 6: And God said to him: And I know that thou didst it with a sincere heart: and therefore I withheld thee from sinning against Me, and I suffered thee not to touch her. That is: I know indeed that, although thou didst carry off Sara into thy palace, she not willingly suffering it, and drawn by thy authority rather than by voluntary consent, thou didst not wish in this way to snatch a wife from her husband, and therefore, lest thou shouldst unknowingly commit a thing in itself not just, I hindered thee by the evil which thou feelest, and brought it about that thou shouldst not become unwittingly guilty of violating another's bed; but now, being warned, come, restore to her husband his wife, because he is a prophet, and above all dear and familiar to Me: and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live, and shalt obtain thy former health: But if thou wilt not restore her, know that thou shalt surely die, thou and all that are thine; or, as the oft-praised St. Chrysostom expounds these words on page 461, not only shalt thou pay the penalty of disobedience, but death shall destroy all that is thine on thy account.
[401] Having had, then, this terrifying dream, by which the king clearly understood what God wished done by him, Abraham, summoned into the palace, as quickly as could be done, and, as Moses relates in verse 8, Abimelech forthwith … rising up in the night, called all his servants (understand also the courtiers of free condition): and spoke all these words in their hearing, and all the men were exceedingly afraid, as those whom the threats heard in sleep and held out also regarded, and which rightly kept them anxious about the whole state of things unless the king should obey the divine commands. What the king determined with his servants, that is, his nobles, Moses has not declared in this place, but it is given to understand from the following sequence of his narrative that it was decreed by them that Abraham should be summoned as soon as possible into the palace, and that not only should his wife be restored to him, but also, if he should show himself offended by the seizure of his spouse, full satisfaction should be made him, and indeed so that they might win favour with him and have him as patron with God and the most efficacious intercessor against all punishment, both inflicted and to be inflicted. Abimelech judged, however, that he might first use some remonstrance with Abraham, by which namely he might signify to him that through the dissembling of his wife Sara it had all but come about that they should undeservedly pay the penalties of adultery.
[402] Hear again the king's words from the cited chapter of Genesis: and having freely had And Abimelech called also Abraham, and said to him: What hast thou done to us? What have we offended thee, that thou hast brought upon me and upon my kingdom a great sin? By this name, namely, designating adultery, which, even if it had been only material, as they call it, had come within little of being committed by him, and would have exposed himself and the whole people to punishment. Thou hast done to us what thou oughtest not to do. And again remonstrating,
he says: What sawest thou that thou wouldst do this? That is, what cause hadst thou which induced thee to do it? To which Abraham, about to give an account of his plan, or the cause of dissembling his wife, answered Abimelech reverently thus in verses XI, 12 and 13: I thought with myself, saying: Perhaps there is not the fear of God in this place: and they will kill me for the sake of my wife: howbeit otherwise also she is truly my sister, the daughter of my father, and not the daughter of my mother, and I took her to wife. And after God brought me out of my father's house, I said to her: Thou shalt do me this kindness: in every place to which we shall come, thou shalt say that I am thy brother.
[403] As if he said: since I was uncertain whether at least most of the men of this place so revered the supreme Godhead and words on both sides, that they would dare neither to snatch wives from their husbands, nor to violate the sacrosanct right of marriage, nor to plot death for a foreign man for the sake of a beautiful woman, I used this most just caution, that, lest I be slain on account of Sara, I should indicate to none of you that she was my wife; but while I hid this truth from you and called Sara only my sister, know that in this I by no means lied, since I said truly that she is my sister, who through Aran my brother is the daughter (in Hebrew bath) of my father Thare, though she is not the daughter of my mother; and by this title I called her sister before no less truly than I now profess her my wife. And this was agreed between me and her not some few days ago (see § XII), but long since, from the time I left Chaldea: that, wherever it was not found certain by us that I could safely be called her husband, she should address me by the name of brother and I her by the name of sister; in which matter, as you sufficiently perceive, nothing at all was decided or done by me which is not consonant with truth and human prudence.
[404] he recovers untouched, together with some gifts Abimelech, having nothing to reply to these reasons of Abraham, and desiring to earn his favour and patronage, by which he might both turn aside the threats of God and at once drive away that grave evil from which both he himself and the women of his court were then suffering, took… sheep and oxen, and menservants and maidservants, and gave them to Abraham: and restored to him Sara his wife, untouched namely, as was said in verse 4; And he said: The land is before you, dwell wheresoever it shall please thee. Then, turning his speech to Sara, with an irony added not without wit, he went on to speak thus: Behold I have given thy brother, that is, him whom thou didst call brother, thy husband, a thousand pieces of silver; this shall be to thee for a covering of the eyes to all that are with thee, and whithersoever thou shalt go: and remember thou wast taken. Thus far the speech of Abimelech in Moses, verse 15 and following, on which some things are first to be investigated before we proceed to the former health restored to him and to the women of his court. And first, indeed, it may be asked here whether the thousand pieces of silver which Abimelech mentions in verse 16 he gave as the valuation and price of the aforesaid gifts, as Cajetan would have it, page 87, or whether on the contrary he added a thousand pieces of silver to the sheep and oxen and menservants and maidservants mentioned above, as Martin Delrio, Benedict Pereira and others judge.
[405] some, concerning which, I answer that this latter opinion pleases me more, not only because it is more conformable to the version of the LXX Translators, in which χίλια δίδραχμα, that is, a thousand didrachms, namely Alexandrian, are expressly reckoned, but also because it is not unusual in the Hebrew codex that what is not expressed in detail in a preceding place is expressly added in a following place in which mention of the same deed occurs, as becomes evident from verse 2 of this twentieth chapter compared with verse 5, and from verse 3 compared with verse 17. Add that the Mosaic narrative, even as it stands in the Vulgate, not obscurely hints that the animals mentioned above were given to Abraham by Abimelech for his own advantage, but the thousand pieces of silver for the use of Sara. But what were these pieces of silver, or what was their value? To this let the answer be that by the name of pieces of silver here, no otherwise than in Genesis chapter 37, verse 28, and 2 Paralipomenon 1, verse 17, silver shekels are understood; and that their value is roughly equal to 1679 Brabant florins, or of Dutch money, by the valuation of the purest silver, to five hundred ducatoons, as they call them. Whoever wishes more on these things, let him consult the praised Delrio, Salian, Bonfrère, Le Clerc and others commenting on this place of chapter 20 of Genesis, and above all the various authors, ancient and more recent, whom these adduce, who have pursued this matter most laboriously.
[406] Let us come now to the sense of the words of Abimelech in verse 16. Of these, as Bonfrère rightly notes, as there is everywhere a wonderful obscurity, so there is a huge variety of interpretations. as also concerning the sense of Abimelech's words, Since, however, of them all none appears more plausible than that which was given by him himself on page 219 of his Commentary on Genesis, I recite it here in his own words. All things considered, then, he says, this seems to me to be the sense of the whole sentence: These pieces of silver I give thee, that thou mayest have wherewith to buy a veil, if one is lacking, and mayest remember to veil thy face and eyes before those who are more familiarly with thee, lest they be moved by the sight of thee; and not before these only, but before any whatever, wherever in the world thou shalt go; and remember that thou wast caught in a pretence, so that thou mayest always speak true things without circumlocution, nor call him thy brother who is thy husband, lest anyone on this occasion meditate adultery. To this look the things which Pineda teaches on the Proverbs of Solomon, book 5, chapter 3, number X, namely that Hebrew virgins were accustomed to be bareheaded (which custom is asserted to be kept even today by the unmarried Jews living at Prague and in other cities), but married women, or those betrothed, that is, destined for marriage, used veils and wraps; hence Sara is reproved here because by her manner of going about she had pretended that she was not yet married, and therefore could have furnished to many an occasion both of error and of adultery; which Bonfrère judges not improbable.
[407] However these things may be, Abimelech's speech being finished, [and concerning the kind of sickness from which he was freed by Abraham's prayers there is discourse here.] in which he strove not to exasperate the mind of his intercessor, but to demonstrate in every way his will foreign to adultery, Abraham prayed to God for him, and at once the Lord, wishing to render the Just man more illustrious in all things, as the oft-praised Chrysostom notes on page 464, granted at the prayers of the Patriarch health to the king and to all who were in his house; so that now Abimelech, in so far as he was a man, felt himself cured, and his wife and handmaids felt themselves freed from the straitness and pains of the womb, and again becoming fit for intercourse, nay and for childbirth, whichever of them were near to it, not without wonder. And this I judge to be the genuine sense of the words of Moses with which he concludes chapter 20 of Genesis in this manner: And when Abraham prayed, God healed Abimelech and his wife and his handmaids, and they bore children: for the Lord had closed up every womb of the house of Abimelech on account of Sara, the wife of Abraham. For although it is evident that a woman's punishment does not befit Abimelech, it does not follow from this that he was affected by no other sickness or trouble in so far as he was a man, from which at length, as Moses asserts in verse 17, he was freed and healed by the prayers of Abraham. This would be the place for vindicating the holy Man from the various calumnies thrust upon him by the raving Calvin; but since all the things which that assailant of the saints blurted out in this place against him and Sara are of the same bran as those which we discussed and confuted in § XII, number 231 about the middle, and in § XVII, numbers 305 and 306, I have thought the curious reader should be referred there, lest I be otherwise too prolix here, so that I may proceed the more quickly to the unusual joy in the house of Abraham, sought by many prayers.
§ XXII. Abraham calls the son born to him of Sara Isaac, and circumcises him: he sends away Agar with Ismael from his house: he enters into a covenant with Abimelech.
Abraham the son born to him of Sara When Abraham now, his wife having been restored to him untouched by Abimelech, had chosen in the land of Gerara, by the faculty granted him by the king, a place most suitable for his stay, and together with his people was celebrating the divine benevolence towards him; there forthwith came the awaited day of the wonderful works of God, on which Sara, though ninety years old, conceived in her womb, nature standing amazed, from the holy Man, now completing about the second month of his hundredth year, the offspring so long and so greatly desired, to bring it into the light after nine months, that is, as the first year from the angelic prediction was elapsing. These things Moses teaches us, speaking in this manner in Genesis chapter 21, verses 1 and 2: And the Lord visited Sara, as He had promised, and fulfilled what He had spoken. And she conceived and bore a son in her old age, at the time that God had foretold her, namely when Abraham, as we showed above, still living in the vale of Mambre, had received with hospitality the three angels. But whether these words of Moses, And the Lord visited Sara, are to be understood so that the Lord not only blessed her in a special manner by granting her fruitfulness beyond every course of nature, but moreover that at the same time at which she had conceived, or was about to conceive, offspring of Abraham, an angel of God visited her and announced the conception of a son, this I leave to others to dispute laboriously. Whichever may be laid down concerning Sara, this at least seems almost undoubted, that the same angel of God who in the preceding year had pledged that he would return to Abraham at this same time when he should be increased with offspring, in fact showed himself to be seen by him also in bodily form, although Moses does not expressly declare this in chapter 21, and perhaps, as friends are wont to friends, congratulated him on the son born to him.
[409] he gives the name Isaac and circumcises him, With how many and various joys the Patriarch was then filled is easier to understand than to say. But however great the joy both of himself and of Sara and of the whole family be laid down to have been, no less than it was the Patriarch's alacrity to fulfil exactly the things which God had commanded him concerning this son of blessing. By the divine precept, then, mentioned in Genesis chapter 17, verse 19, Abraham called… the name of his son, whom Sara bore him, Isaac, which, as we also observed above, signifies laughter and was of itself most suitable for preserving the memory of the benefit conferred by God and of the things previously done; and because God in the same chapter 17, verse X, had commanded that all males of the seed of Abraham be circumcised, and that on the eighth day from their birth, as in the same place
verse 12, the holy Man gave another proof of his most perfect obedience, and, as Moses testifies in the cited chapter 21, verse 4, he circumcised him (Isaac) on the eighth day, as God had commanded him. And lest the sacred Writer should leave us a handle for doubting in what year of Abraham's age Isaac was both born and circumcised by his father, he presently in verse 5 affirms in set words that both happened when (Abraham) was a hundred years old, almost, as we have said more than once already, completed; for at this age of his father, as he adds, Isaac was born; not, therefore, as Salian and others hold, in his father's hundred and first year, that is, when he had ceased to be of precisely a hundred completed years.
[410] Further, what the spouse of the holy Patriarch did when Isaac was born, it is fair that we do not pass over untouched. the aged mother rejoicing greatly at the birth of her son She, then, seeing herself, beyond the common laws of nature, at so advanced an age the happy mother of a son blessed by God, broke forth into praises of the author of all things and Lord of nature, and exclaimed with a most sweet feeling of mind: God hath made a laughter for me: whosoever shall hear of it will laugh with me: and again: Who would believe that Abraham should hear that Sara gave suck to a son, whom she bore to him in his old age? That is: God has given me a most ample matter of laughing, nay of exulting, when He enriched me, an old woman, with offspring; whoever shall hear of this prodigy will be amazed, nor will anyone who does not hate me be able not to congratulate me on so signal a beneficence of the Lord towards me, not to join his joys to mine. And surely not without cause, since that benefit of God is so singular that not a single person brought himself to think that such news would ever truly be brought to Abraham, that Sara at ninety had not only borne a son to her Husband, now an old man of a hundred, but had also been divinely endowed with so great a store of milk that she nursed him at her own breasts.
[411] But someone will ask, since Abraham afterwards, and deservedly wondering that a son was born of Abraham, and indeed when he was much more than a hundred, begot several sons of Cetura, as is established from chapter 25 of Genesis, what cause Sara had, wondering that a son was born to her at ninety and previously barren, to recall at the same time the old age of Abraham, as though it too had been wonderful that he, already a hundred, had been fit for begetting children, who remained capable even long after. To these I answer that Sara was altogether ignorant, and could not even know, that after her death her Husband would marry another wife and beget sons of her: nay, even if she had known most certainly that this would happen, could it not, because this would have been vehemently to be wondered at, for that very reason seem wonderful to her that she had begotten a son of Abraham, who had certainly for thirteen years raised up no offspring from Agar, and was now by as many years more advanced; especially since, as the Apostle testifies in Romans chapter 4, verse 19, she knew that not only her own body but also her Husband's had been dead a little before. In which matter I should prefer to adhere to the wife of the Patriarch and to the testimony of St. Paul, as it sounds to the letter, rather than to the exposition of others, who admit only a respective, as they say, impotence of Abraham to beget of Sara.
[412] Whatever, then, certain leading interpreters of the sacred Letters may think otherwise, inasmuch as his body, as is proved from the Apostle, from St. Chrysostom, I judge nevertheless that the procreation of Isaac was wonderful on Abraham's part too, and that by a singular benefit of God his youth was so renewed and vigour restored to his withered body that he again became equal to begetting sons. And so indeed, besides others, SS. John Chrysostom and Thomas Aquinas understood the cited words of the Apostle to the Romans, writing on this place: when namely the former, in volume 9, page 504, recounting one by one the impediments of nature which seemed to stand in the way of the execution of the divine promise, expressly counts among them the dead body of Abraham, which he says was the second impediment, and then, separately from it, the dead womb of Sara, which he lays down as the third and fourth impediment; and St. Thomas, when, commenting on chapter 4 of the Epistle to the Romans, he disputes thus on page 19 in my copy: He (the Apostle) sets down the difficulties from which it is shown that his (Abraham's) faith was not weak. And first indeed on the part of Abraham himself, when he says, HE DID NOT CONSIDER, namely so as to disbelieve the promise, HIS OWN BODY NOW DEAD, namely because the generative power was already deadened in him on account of old age.
[413] and from St. Thomas, had previously been unequal to generation. And this the holy Doctor presently confirms in these words: Some say, then, that the generative power was dead in him as regards this, that he should beget of an old woman, not as regards this, that he should beget a son of a young girl… But it seems better to be said that the power of begetting had been miraculously restored to Abraham, both as regards Sara and as regards all women. Nor indeed did St. Thomas think so without cause, since the phrase the dead body of the Husband surely denotes something more than a respective impotence or barrenness of the wife, which however the adversaries contend. For what? Shall we say that the body of a young man or a man otherwise apt of himself for begetting is dead because he is joined in marriage to an old or barren woman? Therefore, unless the adversaries admit that the Apostle spoke in that place most improperly, they must needs confess that the birth of Isaac was altogether wonderful not only on the part of Sara but also on that of Abraham. I do not deny, however, that it was more wonderful in regard of Sara on more than one head, both because she herself, as Pereira skilfully notes on this chapter of Genesis, page 429, was in a manner older than her Husband and nearer to death, and because she had always been barren and had long since been destitute of the menstrual blood. And I said with the same Pereira In a manner older, because, although she was then ninety and Abraham a hundred, yet in the female sex that age, as regards generation, seems more advanced than a hundred in the male sex. But enough of this. Let us return to the deeds of Abraham.
[414] Afterwards Abraham, Isaac having been weaned, There is no doubt that, as Isaac grew, Abraham's joy grew at the same time, and likewise his paternal care that the boy should drink in the seeds of virtues together with his mother's milk; which last indeed no one will wonder at who knows that the boys of the ancient Hebrews were not wont to be weaned from the milk of mother or nurse before some use of reason, that is, before the fifth year of their age. When, then, the fifth year of Isaac was now rolling, Abraham made, according to the custom then usual, a great feast, by which he celebrated with his friends, in common joy, both the growth of the boy and his capacity for eating more solid food. But the Father's joy was not a little diminished by the play of Ismael with Isaac which followed, so insolent namely and wanton that the Apostle Paul in Galatians chapter 4, verse 29, did not hesitate to call it persecution. Whence it came about that Sara, who bore most grievously that her Isaac was again and again treated contemptuously and maliciously by the handmaid's son, or, as regards the entering upon his Father's inheritance at some time, was insultingly set behind by the same, approached her Husband and demanded that Ismael and his mother be expelled from his family and house, using, namely, as Moses testifies in Genesis chapter 21, verse X, these words: Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with my son Isaac.
[415] This could not but fall grievous and burdensome upon the Patriarch, both because he loved Agar and Ismael not moderately, at Sara's request Agar with Ismael and for this reason too, that it seemed at first sight foreign to paternal charity to expel from the paternal house a natural and legitimate son, whom, as Pereira roughly notes, he ought both to nourish and to educate, and to disinherit him from paternal care, instruction and governance; and finally because to deprive Agar, a true wife, of his bed and cohabitation, and to expose her whom he ought to sustain and protect to any danger whatever of losing chastity or life, could seem an enormous outrage. Nevertheless, when he learned in sleep that Sara's demands proceeded not from inconsiderate womanly anger but from a singular instinct of the Lord of all things, and understood that none of the evils which otherwise would have had to be feared would befall either Ismael or Agar, but on the contrary that the handmaid's son would be divinely preserved unto a great nation, he presently resolved to comply with Sara as she repeated her demands, and, overcoming his marital and paternal affection, he undertook to separate Agar, whom God wished for just causes to be separated for a while from her Husband's cohabitation, together with Ismael her son, the future father at some time of a numerous nation, from Isaac, through whom alone he had understood that the name of his seed was to be propagated, casting all his anxiety for the rest upon God, of whose infinite goodness he had before experienced proofs both many and above all singular. He gave, then, to Agar bread and a bottle of water and put it upon her shoulder, and committed to her care his son Ismael, certainly more than sixteen years old.
[416] But concerning these things, which we have just now in some measure illustrated in the two preceding numbers, sends away from his house, as Moses relates, let us hear the sacred Writer himself again speaking in Genesis chapter 21 from verse 8: And the child grew (says Moses of Isaac) and was weaned, and Abraham made a great feast on the day of his weaning. And when Sara had seen the son of Agar the Egyptian playing with Isaac her son, she said to Abraham: Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with my son Isaac. Abraham took this grievously for his son. To whom (namely Abraham) God said: Let it not seem grievous to thee for the boy and for thy bondwoman: in all that Sara hath said to thee, hearken to her voice: for in Isaac shall thy seed be called; but I will make the son also of the bondwoman a great nation, because he is thy seed. So Abraham rose up in the morning, and taking bread and a bottle of water, put it upon her shoulder, and delivered the boy, and sent her away. Thus far the Mosaic narrative, which, although on account of what we have already said it may seem to some plain and lucid enough, will nevertheless seem not without cause quite arduous and obscure to others looking into it more deeply, so that for the sake of explaining or elucidating it we make delay here for a while.
[417] And first indeed, since, as St. Stephen testifies in Acts 7, verse 5, God gave Abraham no inheritance, whose narrative, on various not even the pace of a foot, in the land of Chanaan, but on the contrary the holy Man, as the Apostle testifies in Hebrews chapter XI, verse 9, abode in the land of promise as in a strange country, dwelling in cottages with Isaac; it may not idly be asked
what that inheritance of Abraham was which before the birth of Isaac the pious Parent had destined entire to his son Ismael, and which Sara now wished to be entered upon at the appointed time by Isaac alone. To this let the answer be that Abraham did indeed receive from God by hereditary right no fixed goods in the land of Chanaan, not cities or villages, as Pereira roughly writes in Disputation 1 on chapter 21 of Genesis, not fields or estates, not forests or groves, not palaces or houses; yet that he, even at the time when he was staying in the land of Chanaan as in a strange land and dwelling in tents, was outstandingly furnished with gold, silver, manifold and precious household goods, an abundance of flocks and herds, and an immense multitude of menservants, maidservants and labourers; and that it was of these latter goods, and of others which afterwards came to her Husband, which can rightly and deservedly be called the inheritance of Abraham, that Sara treated in the cited chapter 21, verse X, when she said to her Husband: Cast out this bondwoman (Agar) and her son (Ismael): for the son of the bondwoman shall not be HEIR with my son Isaac.
[418] head There is also another difficulty in the Mosaic narrative just recited, lying, namely, as St. Augustine observes in the Questions on Genesis, question 51, volume 3 of the new edition, part 1, column 390, in this: why, when Sara said to her Spouse Cast out the bondwoman and her son, etc., Abraham was saddened, and took his wife's demands grievously, as our Vulgate says, since this demand of Sara was a prophecy, which he himself certainly ought to have known better than Sara? But it is to be understood (the words are St. Augustine's) either that Sara said this from revelation, because it had been revealed to her first; but that he, whom the Lord afterwards instructs about this, was moved by paternal affection for his son; or that both at first did not know what that was, and that it was said prophetically (see the Apostle in Galatians chapter 4 from verse 24) through Sara not knowing it, when she had been moved by a womanly mind on account of the pride of the handmaid. To this response of St. Augustine the praised Pereira adds another on page 435, namely that the spirit of prophecy is not always present to the Prophets themselves, so that they can either prophesy whenever they will, or know certainly and judge whether the sayings of others are prophecies or not, as the interpreters of sacred Scripture and the Theologians commonly teach. Moreover, it can not undeservedly be said that Abraham did not then at all judge that it would be contrary to the promises already made before concerning Isaac if Ismael with Agar remained in his house, the right of each being preserved; which judgment certainly, before God had revealed what needed to be done, was free of all fault.
[419] is explained here, The third difficulty, finally, turns on the provision for the journey given by Abraham to Agar as she was about to depart, concerning which Tostado and Cajetan by no means agree. The former, namely, judged, folio 278 in my copy, that Abraham gave nothing else to the departing Agar than bread and a bottle of water, as is expressed in Genesis chapter 21, verse 14, and that this was done in order to fulfil the will of Sara, because God had said to him: In all that Sara shall say to thee, hearken to her voice: and Sara, in Tostado's judgment, did not wish anything besides bread and water to be granted to Agar then. But afterwards, says the same writer, Abraham gave Ismahel many goods, as is plain from Genesis chapter 25, verse 6, and not only then, but also immediately after Agar withdrew from Abraham's house, because they were near enough, since Ismahel dwelt in the wilderness of Pharan, and Abraham then by the border of the land of promise on the Southern side. Cajetan on the contrary strives to prove by more than one plausible reason that by the appellation of bread and wine in the cited verse 14 all things pertaining to sustenance are to be understood, and that with these, nay also with beasts of burden and servants, Agar was copiously and prudently provided for by Abraham. But to which opinion should one rather assent? To me at least, to confess the truth, the latter seems not improbable; yet the former, which is Tostado's, pleases me more, because it is both more conformable to the literal sense of the words and superior in antiquity, as being championed also by Theodoret, and because, provided it is rightly understood, it contains nothing from which you might deservedly accuse Abraham of excessive parsimony or harshness; for Abraham could not foreknow that Agar would stray from the way, or that the water would fail her before she arrived at the destined place where he knew that provision would be made for her of all things necessary and useful for life. But let what has now been said of this deed of Abraham, related from verse X to 14, suffice.
[420] The things which the sacred Writer records in the same chapter 21 from verse 15 to verse 21 The Saint is met by Abimelech I pass over here, because they look closely to the history of Ismael and his mother, not to that of Abraham. Therefore I pass on to verse 22 and the following verses of the same chapter, where Moses speaks in this manner: At the same time Abimelech, and Phicol the general of his army, said to Abraham: God is with thee in all that thou dost. Swear therefore by God that thou wilt not hurt me and my posterity and my stock (or, as it is in Hebrew, that thou wilt not hurt me, and my son and my grandson): but according to the kindness that I have done to thee, thou shalt do to me, and to the land wherein thou hast lived a stranger. And Abraham said: I will swear. The prince of Gerara just mentioned had namely learned by more than one experience how great were Abraham's resources, how great his felicity, how outstanding his wisdom and virtue, and therefore how much it concerned him to establish true friendship and a covenant with him. Accompanied, then, by the general of his army, named Phicol, he meets Abraham in friendly fashion, and discloses to him roughly thus the cause of his coming and his designs: From the time thou hast been living in my kingdom, O Abraham, I have found that all thy undertakings are prospered by God; I have therefore come to thee this day intending to strike a covenant, if it please thee, and I ask that, just as I have kindly received thee within the borders of my dominion, and permitted thee to stay and pasture thy flocks wherever thou wouldst, opposing thee in nothing ever, so thou too, invoking the name of the true God, promise me that thou wilt by no means hurt me and my posterity and my stock, or, as it is in Hebrew, me and my son and grandson, if ever thou shouldst survive them, and that thou wilt deal thus with me and mine as we have already dealt with thee.
[421] What did the holy Man, most loving of equity and peace, say to these or similar things? and at his request enters into a covenant with him He answered indeed that he was ready to enter into the covenant and would swear, but that first he could not dissemble the injury done to himself and his people, not for the sake of seeking revenge, but for the sake of perpetually guarding against offence. And presently he complained that the use of a well which he himself had caused to be dug had been snatched by force from himself and his people by the servants of Abimelech. When the prince of Gerara, having heard this, had said that this had been done without his knowledge at all, and that he would on the spot give satisfaction to the complainant, Abraham forthwith took some sheep and oxen and presented them to the king for the sake of honour, or as a token of his promise, and struck a covenant with him, as Abimelech had demanded. These things the divine Writer teaches us in the cited chapter from verse 25, speaking thus: And he (namely Abraham) reproved Abimelech for a well of water which his servants had taken away by force. And Abimelech answered: I knew not who did this thing: but neither didst thou tell me, and I heard not of it till today. And Abraham took sheep and oxen, and gave them to Abimelech: and both of them made a covenant, the solemnities beyond doubt being observed which were wont of old to be employed in any public covenant, namely that some animals should be slain, perhaps those just mentioned and brought by Abraham to that end, and that the parties should pass between the divided pieces on both sides, as has already been said by us in § XVI, number 290.
[422] of not offending one another, For the rest, to meet the little subtleties of certain pseudo-critics, two things are to be observed here. The one is that the covenant just mentioned, even if Abimelech were then laid down to be a stranger to the worship of the supreme Godhead, which however from what has been said is by no means likely, was nevertheless lawfully entered into by Abraham, since it was a mere stipulation of not offending one another, which ought to be denied by no one to his neighbour asking it, of whatever Religion he may be. And this too was proved by Grotius, praised before, in book 2 On the Law of War and Peace, chapter 15, which he entitled On treaties and sponsions, numbers 8 and 9, speaking in this manner: Concerning treaties the question is frequent whether they may lawfully be entered into with those who are strangers to the true religion: which matter has no doubt in the law of nature. For that law is so common to all men that it does not admit the difference of Religion. But the question is asked concerning the divine law, on which not only Theologians (for example St. Thomas, St. Antoninus, Cajetan, Toledo, Molina, Malderus) treat this question, but also some of the jurisconsults, among whom Oldradus and Decianus. And presently, disputing on the divine law, he lays down thus: To contract a treaty for the sake of not doing harm with those who are strangers to Religion was lawful before the law of Moses. An example is in the treaty of Jacob with Laban: not to say anything now of Abimelech, since it is not sufficiently established that he was an idolater. Nor did the law given through Moses change this. Let the Egyptians be an example, beyond doubt idolaters at that time. Yet the Hebrews are forbidden to abhor them. The seven peoples are to be excepted, condemned by divine sentence, of which sentence the Israelites were the delegated executors. For they are forbidden to spare these while persisting in idolatry and refusing rule.
[423] by which covenant, however, the posterity of Abraham were not bound, The other is that the aforesaid covenant, although Jean Le Clerc in his Paraphrase on chapter 21 of Genesis asserts that it regarded Abraham's posterity too in general, did not in reality bind them all, and much less those who afterwards occupied the land of Chanaan given them by God. For if the very words of the covenant, as they stand in the Vulgate, are considered, Abraham made no pact for his posterity, but bound himself only as to his own deed, that he would not hurt either Abimelech, or his posterity, or his stock. Nay rather, since the holy Man knew that his posterity would at some time possess the region of Gerara too, he could by no means make a pact for his posterity with Abimelech. But if the words of the same covenant are considered as they stand in the Hebrew text, in which namely Abimelech speaks thus, Swear therefore by God that thou wilt not hurt me, and my son, and my grandson, that pact would not have bound even Abraham himself, if he had survived Abimelech's grandson; and therefore much less could it bind his posterity, who
took possession of the land of Gerara when even the third successors of Abimelech had long since died. Far, then, from Abraham and from his remote descendants was the stain of perjury in the occupation of that region.
[424] and then makes a pact with him concerning a well of water, From the pact just mentioned, by which it had been agreed that neither should harm the other, the Patriarch passes to another agreement, which regarded in particular the well of water dug at his command and taken from him by force by Abimelech's servants; of which matter the sacred Writer makes mention thus in the same chapter 21 from verse 28: And Abraham set apart seven ewe-lambs of the flock. And Abimelech said to him: What mean these seven ewe-lambs which thou hast set apart? But he said: Thou shalt take seven ewe-lambs at my hand: that they may be a testimony for me that I dug this well. Therefore that place was called Bersabee: because there both of them did swear. And they made a league for the well of the oath. Thus far Moses. But, you will ask, was a well of water, then, of so great moment that Abraham on that account entered into an agreement with Abimelech, and demanded, or at least permitted, that it be confirmed by oath on both sides? Nay rather, as that well was in a region of itself very arid and thirsty, it was of altogether the highest moment, since otherwise Abraham's flocks, herds and their very keepers could not have been watered without very much labour and the greatest inconveniences. Not without cause, then, did the Patriarch offer Abimelech seven ewe-lambs, so that the king, by accepting them from his hand, should by this rite, as by a public document, acknowledge and profess by oath that this well had been dug by him, and that its use would therefore be free to him and by no means of disputed right in the future.
[425] When, then, Abraham himself had likewise confirmed that agreement by oath, these things done, in the region of Gerara, Abimelech, the matter now concluded, rose up thence with Phicol, the general of his army, and returned with him and his retinue to Gerara, the city of the region of the Philistines, where he held his royal seat; but Abraham, since by the agreements made it was now free and safe for him to pitch his tents in the region of Gerara and in Bersabee, that is, near the well of the oath, as long as he wished, planted a grove there, and in it, or at least not far from it, having erected an altar according to his piety, called upon the name of the Lord, the eternal God, with solemn rite, and stayed there a long time, as ever a sojourner and stranger. But on these things let Moses again be heard, cited chapter 21, verses 33 and 34: And Abimelech and Phicol the general of his army rose up and returned into the land of the Palestines. But Abraham planted a grove in Bersabee, and there called upon the name of the Lord God eternal. And he was a sojourner in the land of the Palestines many days; or, as the Seventy rendered: And Abraam planted a field by the well of the oath: and there called upon the name of the Lord, the eternal God. And Abraam dwelt in the land of the Philistines many days.
[426] Further, although this version of the seventy Translators is a little different from our Vulgate, where he is shown to have planted a grove without any sin, it by no means hinders it from being asserted that Abraham planted larger trees after the manner of a wood, that is, a grove, with this end namely, that he might pitch his tent beside it, as he is read before to have stretched it by trees in Genesis chapter 18, verses 4 and 8; or also, as Pereira roughly judges on page 440, not only for the sake of a more convenient and pleasant habitation, but also that it might be a place sacred to divine worship: to which he might frequently withdraw to sacrifice to God, and to be able to apply himself assiduously with quiet and attentive mind to celebrating the divine praises and meditating on divine things; or, as Cajetan expounds, that it might be as it were an oratory and temple for worshipping God, both for Abraham himself and for his household and other companions who worshipped the true God. The tradition of the ancient Hebrews surely favours this exposition, and it contains nothing not very probable. I could wish, however, that the things so piously handed down by the Hebrews and asserted in the Jerusalem Targum were as well proved by testimonies of venerable antiquity and authority, so that namely greater and safer credit might be given them.
[427] is shown to have planted, But, you will say, since scarcely anything was more severely forbidden by God to the Israelites than to plant groves or any trees near the altar of the Lord their God, is it likely that that was done by the most pious Patriarch which was divinely forbidden to his posterity? I answer that, since to plant a grove and in it to adore the Founder of all things is by no means forbidden by the law of nature, but on the contrary is of its nature very praiseworthy, this could surely be done by Abraham without any guilt, nay with the highest praise, both because the law of Deuteronomy chapter 16, verse 21, forbidding it to the Israelites, had not yet been given, and because no reason for which that law of Deuteronomy chapter 16 was given had place in regard of Abraham. For the holy Patriarch was altogether a stranger to idolatry and all superstition, and under shady trees would never have wished to adore any other than the true and eternal God, although he had seen the opposite done by others. Moreover, it was by no means to be feared that he would, after the example of idolaters, attribute any divinity to groves or woods, since he used only their shade, to protect himself and his people, living under the open sky, against the heat of the sun, and so that he might devote himself more conveniently, nay more becomingly, to sacred rites while temples had not yet been erected to God. On the other hand, the Israelites living under Moses were prone to idolatry and the superstition of the gentiles; prone likewise to attribute divinity, after the opinion of idolaters, to the groves and woods themselves, and after their manner to honour with religious worship the very trees dedicated to false gods together with the idols; which were the cause why God by a positive precept, as the Theologians call it, warned and forbade the Israelites through Moses to plant groves thereafter, and on the contrary commanded them to devote themselves to solemn sacred rites only in that place which had been divinely designated to Moses.
[428] he lived quite a number of years. For the rest, when Moses says in the cited verse 34 that Abraham was a sojourner in the land of the Philistines many days, this is not to be understood as if the Patriarch had lived there only some weeks and a few years; but, as the Hebrew idiom and the very chronological arrangement of Abraham's deeds shows, a fairly long time was indicated by Moses with the recited words. For if the divine Writer in the cited verse 34 also comprehended the time in which the Saint stayed in the region of Gerara before the birth of Isaac, and therefore also that which intervened between his birth and the covenant mentioned with Abimelech, as in fact he seems to have comprehended it, even so it will be necessary to extend the many days designated by Moses to about six years. However that may be, beyond all doubt those years must come into the count in which Isaac reached such an age that, when he was led by his Father to the Mount of Vision to be immolated to God, he could easily carry the wood of the holocaust; and finally there will have to be reckoned that space of time which Abraham, returned from the Mount of Vision to Bersabee, spent there, as will appear more broadly from what is to be said below. Now I proceed, with the author of the Pentateuch, to a deed of our Patriarch most of all to be admired in all ages.
§ XXIII. Abraham, divinely commanded to immolate his son Isaac to God, prepares to carry out the command: but is divinely forbidden to complete it. The excellence of this deed is shown against the pseudo-critics.
Abraham, called by a divine voice from heaven, When, after the things we saw done in the region of Gerara in the preceding §, Isaac had grown under the anxious and pious care of Abraham and Sara so far in good morals, virtues and years that he was an example of piety to the dwellers and household, the delight and solace of his aged parents, and, by the divine promises, the certain and best hope of the Abrahamic nation, it pleased God, the lord of all things, for His glory and to manifest to all nations the virtue of His Friend, to exercise the outstanding faith and obedience of the Patriarch, on the occasion of the same Isaac, by a command surely the gravest and most difficult of all; of which Moses begins to speak thus in Genesis chapter 22, verse 1. After these things (namely those mentioned above) were done, and above all after Abraham had divinely understood that in Isaac his seed was to be called, and in him his family was to be established, God tempted Abraham, not in order to know the excellence of his faith and obedience (for the all-seeing God had perceived this from eternity), but in order to sharpen, perfect and crown the virtue of His Friend. By his own name, then, and that repeated, God, or an angel as God's vicar, addressed him, or, as the divine Historiographer narrates, He said to him: Abraham, Abraham. The holy Man at once recognized the divine voice, and immediately answered God who called: Here I am, namely most ready in every way to receive and carry out the commands of the supreme Godhead.
[430] Then the angel of God, as Moses testifies in verse 2, announced the divine commands to him thus: and commanded Isaac, Take thy only-begotten son, whom thou lovest, Isaac, and go into the land of vision: and there thou shalt offer him for a holocaust upon one of the mountains which I will show thee. Truly, as many words as the angel of God here utters, so many wounds nearly does he inflict on the father's breast, and he sets as many obstacles, far most grave, to carrying out the precept. And the first of them, as Pereira rightly notes on chapter 22 of Genesis, Disputation 4, is this: Thy son; for the mention of him was of itself apt either altogether to recall or certainly vehemently to retard Abraham's paternal mind from fulfilling a command of this kind, since the remembrance of a son is wont to be to parents the closest bond of relationship and the most burning fire of love, whence it comes that fathers would rather die themselves than their sons, and most bitterly grieve to survive their sons. The second is this: Only-begotten: namely of his mother Sara, and as regards the divine promises, which were to be fulfilled in Isaac alone, as in the only son of Abraham, namely by these divine words of Genesis chapter 21, verse 12, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. The third is this: Whom thou lovest, or, as it is in Hebrew, whom thou hast loved, namely with perpetual love, and for many causes surely: because he was of the best and sweetest disposition and morals; because he was most reverent towards his parents; because he was begotten in their advanced old age, and not without a most illustrious testimony of the immense power of God and of His singular benevolence; and because through him a most numerous and most illustrious posterity had been promised by God.
[431] his most beloved son, The fourth is this: Isaac. For to hear the proper name of him who is exceptionally and uniquely loved arouses a certain singular and vehement burning of love, and the fear of losing him, and grief when he is lost, is so much the more bitter the more ardent the love for him is. The name Isaac surely signified laughter and joy; but by this precept of God
all the Parent's joys, past and present and those thereafter to be hoped for, seemed to be overwhelmed and utterly blotted out, as the praised Pereira notes in the same place. But since Origen deserves to be heard here before the rest, I transcribe here the words of his eighth Homily on Genesis from volume 2 of the Paris edition of the Works of the year 1733, page 81: It had not sufficed, he says, to have said SON, but there is added also MOST DEAR. Be it so with this too; what is yet added, and WHOM THOU LOVEST? But see the weight of the temptation. By dear and sweet appellations repeated again and often, the paternal affections are aroused, so that, the memory of love awakening, the paternal right hand might be retarded from immolating the son, and the whole warfare of the flesh might fight against the faith of the mind; there is added in the time of temptation: "Take," He says, then, "thy most dear son, whom thou lovest, Isaac." Be it so, Lord, that Thou remindest the father of the son; Thou addest also MOST DEAR, whom Thou commandest to be slaughtered. Let this suffice for the torment of the father. Thou addest again, and WHOM THOU LOVEST. Let there be in this too triple torments for the Parent. What need is there yet that Thou shouldst mention also ISAAC? … That Abraham might remember that Thou hadst said to him that "in ISAAC shall thy seed be called," that in ISAAC shall thy promises be. There is made also the mention of the name, so that despair also of the promises which were made under this name might steal upon him. But all these things, because God was tempting Abraham, namely in that manner which we assigned at number 429.
[432] on some mountain to be shown him, Now let us weigh the fifth with the same Origen: thus he speaks in the same place: What after these things? "Go," He says, "into the high land, upon one of the mountains which I shall show thee, and there thou shalt offer him for a holocaust." Look at each point, how the increases of the temptation come about. "Go into the high land." Could not Abraham have first been led with the boy to that high land, and first set upon the mountain, whichever the Lord had chosen, and there been told that he should offer his son? But first it is said to him that he must offer his son, and then he is commanded to go into the high land and to ascend the mountain. To what does this look? That, while he walks, while he makes his journey, through the whole way he may be torn by thoughts, that he may be tortured, here by the precept pressing, there by the affection for his only son struggling against it. For this reason, therefore, a journey too is enjoined, the ascent of a mountain too, that in all these affection and faith, the love of God and the love of the flesh, the grace of the present and the expectation of things to come, may receive a space for the contest. He is sent, then, into the high land, and a high land does not suffice for the Patriarch about to accomplish so great a work for the Lord, but he is commanded to ascend a mountain too, namely that, lifted up by faith, he may leave earthly things and climb to those above. Thus far Origen. Let us now recount from Pereira, already often praised, the remaining things which contribute to showing the difficulty of this divine precept.
[433] Of the obstacles mentioned above, the fifth for him, to immolate as a holocaust with his own hand, but the sixth for me, is this: Thou shalt offer, of which he himself writes thus: He did not say (namely God, or the angel of God): Thou shalt give him to others to be immolated, but thou thyself shalt lead him to be immolated: thou shalt be the witness and spectator of his immolation: thou with thy hands shalt slaughter and burn him. What is the sixth for the writer already praised, this I pass over here, as not expressed by Moses in the cited verse, and pass to the seventh, namely to this: for a holocaust. For a sacrifice of this kind must have burned Abraham's mind with a singular and incredible pain, as the learned man rightly observes there. The principal reason of which pain seems to me to have been this, that there is no species of sacrifice in which the victim offered was dispatched in so many ways, as being first to be slaughtered, then cut into parts, and finally consumed by fire. And although God wished this to be done by Abraham in order to testify to the supreme dominion of the Creator of all, it could not but fall upon him most hard that, after the sword had been bloodied with blood, the Father should with his own hands lay the body of so beloved a son upon the pyre and consume it with fire to the point that nothing should remain of that most dear Isaac but a little worthless ash.
[434] What, then, did our Patriarch at the announcement of so arduous, so grave and so singular a precept? to the divine command at once He does not deliberate, says Origen in the cited Homily, he does not refuse, he does not take counsel with any man; nay in so grievous a business he does not even open his mouth; he is not troubled in mind, as St. Chrysostom observes in Homily 47, page 474, he is not confused in mind, he is not destitute of counsel at so stupendous a precept, he does not consider, he does not reason with himself how it can come about that, Isaac being slain, the divine promises should be fulfilled, the root being cut out, the branches should sprout, the tree being felled, fruits should come forth, the spring being dried up, rivers should gush forth; but he is wholly borne towards the swift execution of the precept; he rises silently in the night, saddles his ass, calls two young men of his household and his most dear Isaac, and bids them be companions of the journey to be undertaken at once, cuts the wood to be used for the holocaust, and without delay hastens to the place which God had commanded, that is, designated, to him. Lest these things, as singular as they are, should seem to anyone to be incredible, I present the divine Writer himself speaking. So Abraham (the words of Moses are, verse 3, chapter 22 of Genesis) rising up in the night, saddled his ass: taking with him two young men, and Isaac his son: and when he had cut wood for the holocaust, he went his way to the place which God had commanded him.
[435] Nor indeed did this swiftness, diligence and alacrity of Abraham in carrying out God's command have even the least imprudence mingled with it. he strives to obey, sufficiently perceived by him, For since the holy Man well knew that with God lies supreme and most absolute dominion over the life and death of men, and that it is not difficult for Him to convert death itself, even if it had not been commanded by Him, in a single moment into a much ampler and more desirable good for him who dies; by this very fact that he clearly knew that precept had in fact proceeded from God, and was therefore persuaded of the equity of the precept, he acted not imprudently but on the contrary most prudently when he obeyed the will of the most equitable Godhead and strove to fulfil the divine command with what alacrity could be shown. For it is in no way to be doubted that, when the angel of God gave himself visible to the waking Abraham and announced the Divine commands, God so flooded and enlightened his mind with so great an abundance of light, and confirmed it by so great an evidence of His oracle, that he could in no way doubt of either, nay knew more certainly that it was the oracle and precept of God than that the words were those of Sara his wife or Isaac his son which he heard with his ears uttered from the mouth of each. For God is wont, as is admitted among all Theologians, so to enlighten the mind, so to affect the will of those to whom He discloses His mysteries, so to make them certain of the trustworthiness and truth of His revelation, that they recognize, most firmly judge and without any doubt believe that He Himself is the author of that revelation, as the most often praised Pereira most skilfully observes in Disputation 5 on chapter 22 of Genesis, number 26. Let us now see Abraham pursuing his journey to the mount of Vision.
[436] [and, his servants commanded to stay on the third day, pledges without any lie that he with Isaac] The region of Gerara, where the holy Man was then living, was distant from the land of Vision, to which he was hastening, a journey of three days; or, as may be seen in the geographical map prefixed to column 505 of volume 2 of the Works of St. Jerome, the city of Gerara was distant from mount Moria, that is, the seat of the temple afterwards built at Jerusalem, and from the mount of Calvary near it, altogether twenty-three miles of one hour each, whatever Tostado may assert to the contrary, and Bersabee altogether fifteen miles of one hour each; when, then, the Patriarch was on the third day of his journey, he saw afar off the land called in Hebrew Moria, in Greek καταφανην, that is, clear, or, as Symmachus rendered, τῆς ὀπτασίας, that is, of Vision, and by interior admonition and divine indication, of which you have an example in I Kings chapter 9, verse 17, he at once knew that this was the place destined for the immolation of Isaac. He therefore commands the two young men of his household, whom he had taken as companions of the journey, to stay and not go away from the place where they then were, promising that he would hasten with his Isaac to the place seen from afar, and after paying adoration there to the supreme Godhead would return to his people. Of these things Moses speaks thus in verses 4 and 5: And on the third day, lifting up his eyes, he (Abraham) saw the place afar off: and he said to his young men: Stay you here with the ass: I and the boy will go with speed as far as yonder, and after we have worshipped, will return to you.
[437] [will return, and presently gives the wood of the holocaust to Isaac to be carried, and with him] Further, since the things which the praised Origen wrote on these words of Abraham in the cited Homily are also most worthy of note, I transfer them too here word for word. Thus he speaks on page 82, addressing our Patriarch: Tell me, Abraham, dost thou speak truly to the young men, that thou wilt adore and return with the child (that is, the son Isaac), or dost thou deceive? If thou speakest truly, then thou wilt not make him a holocaust. If thou deceivest, it does not become so great a Patriarch to deceive. For what mind in thee does this speech indicate? I speak truly, he says, and I offer the boy as a holocaust. For this reason I carry the wood with me, and with him I return to you. For I believe, and this is my faith, "that God is able to raise him up even from the dead." Those therefore did not judge rightly enough, with whom Melchior Cano, book 2 On Theological places, chapter 4, writes that he vehemently agrees, that Abraham lied on the ground that he spoke against his mind for the sake of dissembling, but prophesied because he said what was true, which he did not then know. As though not only the same thing had happened here to Abraham as afterwards to Caiphas, but even something worse; since Caiphas (see the Gospel of John chapter XI, verse 50) by no means spoke against his mind, which however Cano does not fear to hint was done by the most holy Patriarch. Away, then, with this rash opinion, since Abraham can, nay must, be excused here from a lie not only by that reason which Origen suggests, but also in other ways, which see in Pereira, Disputation six on chapter 22 of Genesis. I continue, then, to recount the Mosaic narrative.
[438] After, then, as we related at number 436 from verse 5 of chapter 22 of Genesis, Abraham had commanded his two servants to stay for a while in that place, he took, as Moses testifies from verse 6, the wood for the holocaust, and laid it upon Isaac his son: and he himself carried in his hands fire and a sword. And as they two went on together, Isaac said to his father: Father
mine. And he answered: What wilt thou, son? Behold, he said: fire and wood: where is the victim for the holocaust? And Abraham said: God will provide Himself a victim for the holocaust, my son. So they went on together. There are in this narrative of Moses, and in the dialogue entered upon between the Father and the son, very many things surely which serve most greatly to commend the fortitude and constancy of our Patriarch. For what father, unless the most pious Abraham, without a groan, without tears, but with serene face and countenance, with unshaken body and unconquered mind, would have laid upon the shoulders of his son the wood prepared for the holocaust of its very bearer? Who could have looked without sobs upon his son laden with the instruments of his own consumption? What father would have endured with dry eyes to seize sword and fire with his own hands and, having seized them, carry them a good way? Yet these things that great Patriarch did, and even in this matter accomplished something greater and more illustrious than antiquity and profane philosophy ever feigned.
[439] But if one turns his mind to the dialogue just mentioned, having conversed on the way, not without wonderful fortitude of mind, he certainly cannot but wonder most greatly with Chrysostom, Homily 47 on Genesis chapter 22, how Abraham could bear to hear with his ears the words of his son just recited, how he could answer him to these things, how he was not confused in mind, with what fortitude he could hide from his son what was to come, and with so generous a spirit answered his son as he inquired about the victim of the holocaust: God will provide Himself a victim for the holocaust, my son. For, as St. Ambrose notes on this matter in book 1 On Abraham, chapter 8, column 306 in my copy, The paternal affection is struck by the words of piety, and is beaten by certain waves from this side and that. The son calls FATHER: the father says SON; so that by the very sound of the words the father may recognize himself… These names are wont to work the grace of life, not the ministry of death: these words are wont to incite to piety, not to death. And after a little he commends in this manner the incredible greatness and constancy of Abraham's mind from these words of his, God will provide Himself a victim for the holocaust, my son: The minister, inflexible in the zeal of devotion, does not fear to call his son often; so founded was he in the solidity of his intention: and by this he thought himself the better father, by this he judged that his son would remain to him for ever, if he immolated him to God. Whoever desires more on these things, let him consult the holy Fathers and the interpreters of sacred Scripture commonly met with, who illustrate this place excellently; I proceed with Moses from the remote preparation of the holocaust to the proximate, and to the holocaust itself.
[440] [now standing in the very place of the sacrifice, he sets forth to him the precept of God,] Now at length, on the third day of their journey, Father and son, as Moses says, had proceeded together so far that both had reached the very place shown to Abraham by God, and the hand had now to be put to the work. The Father, then, undaunted and ever constant with himself, builds an altar of turf and some stones heaped together from somewhere on the mountain, and arranges the wood upon which the most beloved victim was to be laid, perhaps using for this the very help of Isaac, who until now, as one may conjecture, had altogether not known what victim was destined for the holocaust. But truly the Patriarch could not hide it longer from his son. Therefore, before he bound Isaac and laid him on the altar upon the pile of wood, he was obliged to make manifest to him the divine oracle and precept, and, if Flavius Josephus is to be believed, book 1 of the Jewish Antiquities, chapter 14, he addressed him thus: Son, sought by a thousand prayers, after thou camest into this life I brought thee up with the greatest care and anxiety, thinking nothing more blessed than if it were granted me to see thee a man, and at length to leave thee heir of my dominion (that is, of all my goods). But since it has seemed good to God that I should receive thee, and now again that I should lose thee, bear this sacrifice generously. For I yield to God, who demands of us this honour in return for the perpetual favour with which He has attended us in time of war and peace. Now, since thou wast born by the law of nature to die, thou shalt have no common end of life, but offered by thine own father with sacrificial rite to God the Father of all, He Himself, as it is fitting to believe, judging thee unworthy to depart from life by disease, or war, or any other human calamity.
[441] he lays him, consenting, upon the altar Thus far Josephus, from whom I do not transcribe the other words which he attributes to Abraham, because some of them seem not to agree well enough with the testimony of the Apostle in Hebrews chapter XI, verse 19. But truly, however it may be with that discourse which Josephus ascribes to the holy Patriarch, it is altogether credible that that last act, in which Isaac was to be bound by his Father, laid upon the altar and immolated to God, was not performed without mutual conversation, exhortation and consolation. Nor is my mind so averse as not to believe the praised Josephus that Isaac, by no means degenerate from so great a parent, received these words willingly, and professed that he would be by no means worthy ever to have been born if, resisting the decree of God as well as of his Father, he did not eagerly offer himself to the pleasure of both. Isaac, then, of his own accord offers his hands and feet to be bound by his most dear Parent according to the rite of sacrifice, and willingly and gladly composes himself to receive the deadly stroke upon the altar, doubting nothing of the truth of the oracle, and busy about this one thing, after the example of his Father, that he might comply with the divine will. These things Moses partly teaches us expressly, partly hints to us not obscurely, speaking thus in verse 9: And they came (namely Abraham and Isaac) to the place which God had shown him (namely Abraham), where he (our Patriarch) built an altar, and laid the wood in order upon it: and when he had bound Isaac his son, he laid him on the altar upon the pile of wood.
[442] Now the religious Parent, victor over himself and over nature, had stretched out his hand and had seized the sword with which to immolate his most beloved son to the supreme Godhead; when behold, unexpectedly, the same divine voice to which he had long since been accustomed, and prepares to immolate him, but is divinely commanded to stop. repeating Abraham's name, bids him abstain from the slaying of his son and from all harm, proclaiming that it was enough that so arduous and immense a proof of signal faith and obedience towards God had been given by him, that by divine command he would not have spared even his most dear Isaac, if God had wished the work to be completed. But let us hear Moses himself again narrating these things from verse XI: And he (Abraham) put forth his hand and took the sword, to sacrifice his son. And behold an Angel of the Lord from heaven called to him, saying: Abraham, Abraham. And he answered: Here I am. And he said to him: Lay not thy hand upon the boy, neither do thou anything to him: now I know that thou fearest God, and hast not spared thy only-begotten son for My sake. Which words, in the judgment of St. Chrysostom, Homily 47 on Genesis, page 477 in my copy, sound thus, as if the Angel said in the name of God: I did not command this that the work should be completed, nor do I wish that thy son be slain: but that thy obedience might be manifest to all. Therefore do nothing to him. I am content with thy will, and from this I crown thee and proclaim thee. For now I have known that thou fearest God.
[443] Further, that in these last words now I know, etc., [the faith and fortitude of Abraham manifested in this deed, and divinely commended,] there is an anthropopathy, and that these signify nothing else than that that very faith and obedience of Abraham, known from eternity by the infinite knowledge of God, had now been manifested by him by an external and signal proof, the Theologians, the interpreters of sacred Scripture and the holy Fathers commonly teach, one of whom I present here speaking for many. See, says the praised Chrysostom on this place, how humbly He (God) tempers Himself to our weakness by this word. What then? Was the Lord of all ignorant before this of the virtue of the Just man, and did He know it now? It does not signify this, he says, that He now came to know. But what does He wish to say? Now, He says, thou hast declared to all how thou worshippest God with sincere fear. For I knew My servant: but the things which have now been done by thee are matter of teaching both for those present and for those to come. For thou hast now made known to all that thou fearest God, and takest care to fulfil His commandments in deed: "And thou hast not spared thy beloved son for My sake." Him who is so beloved, whom thou lovest so ardently, thou hast not spared for My sake, for My commandment and order: but thou hast preferred My commandment to thy son; therefore receive thy son too. For on this account I promised that thy seed should be extended: go, then, wreathed with the crown of thy obedience. For I am wont to crown the will and to bestow rewards on account of the mind.
[444] And this indeed was the most joyful catastrophe of that funereal apparatus and of the sacrifice by its excellence, whatever some may object, altogether all now about to be performed upon the son by the Father, God rewarding, as Philo too notes in the Book On Abraham, the piety of the Patriarch, and vying with His Friend in mutual services, of which we shall say more in the following §, where I shall relate here, against the ancient and more recent calumniators of this deed, not a few things from the same Philo, by which its excellence may be demonstrated more clearly than daylight. This deed, he says on page 293 in my copy, although it lacked effect, is nevertheless not only related in the sacred volumes as whole and complete, but is engraved in the minds of the readers. But to malicious calumniators, accustomed to condemn rather than praise our things (consider this said also of the pseudo-philosophers of our time), this commanded work (that is, that deed of Abraham) will not seem so great and wonderful as it seems to us. For they say that many others too, bound by their affections and loving their children, have presented their sons to be immolated, either for the safety of their country, or to avert wars, droughts, floods, pestilences; others likewise for the sake of a domestic religion, however false. Certainly the most illustrious of the Greeks, not only private citizens but also kings, taking no great account of those born of them, by slaughtering these destroyed the greatest forces of the enemy at the first onset, and preserved the greatest armies of their allies.
[445] surpasses deeds of that kind celebrated by the profane, Barbarous nations too, the same men say, have through many ages made offerings by slaughtering their sons, which crime even the most holy Moses mentioned, when, accusing them as polluted, he says: They burn their sons and daughters to their gods. The Gymnosophists of the Indians too even today (understand this of Philo's time), at the beginning of old age, or of a long and incurable disease, before it grows strong, kindle a pyre and burn themselves up, although they could perhaps hold out for a long time. Nay their little women too, when their husbands have died, cast themselves with joy into their pyres, and so are burned alive with the beloved corpses. Of these women, they say,
you may rightly wonder at the daring, who so greatly despise death that they run to it as to immortality. But to what purpose is it to praise this man (Abraham), as though he had attempted some new deed, which has more than once been heard of in report concerning private citizens, concerning kings, concerning whole nations? Thus far Philo the Jew, speaking from the mind of the envious and of the calumniators of this deed; whose answer, no less elegant than solid, to this attack of theirs and to other arguments of the kind drawn from profane histories and the fictions of the Poets against the excellence of this deed of Abraham, surely deserves a place here above all.
[446] as by more than one reason Those who slaughter their children, he says in the same place, page 294, do it partly from custom, as is reported of some barbarians, partly because they cannot otherwise ward off from their cities great evils, obstinate against human help. Of these some present their own unwillingly, compelled by the more powerful. Others, driven by fear of men, others by desire of glory and fame, of glory for the present, of fame with posterity. Those, then, who slaughter from custom seem to do nothing great. For inveterate custom is for the most part as powerful as nature, so that it renders all the gravest things easy to bear, every terror being removed. And those who yield to fear deserve no praise. For voluntary deeds are praised; involuntary ones are referred to the necessity of affairs, or of chances, or of times. But if anyone from love of glory betrays either son or daughter, he is worthy of blame rather than praise, preparing for himself honour by the death of his dearest, which, even if he had had it before, he ought to have cast away for the safety of his children. Accordingly it is to be considered whether he was compelled to slaughter his son by any of the necessities just mentioned, either custom, or honour, or fear. But in truth, as Philo adds in the same place, speaking of Abraham, the custom of immolating children was certainly received neither at Babylon, nor in Mesopotamia, nor among the Chaldeans, among whom he was brought up and spent a great part of his life with them, lest anyone think that the imagination of that evil seemed lighter to him through habituation.
[447] But neither did any fear from men hang over him, adduced by Philo and recounted here nor did anyone else know the command of the oracle. No public calamity pressed, for which he should seek a remedy by the death of his most approved son. But he was roused to this deed by desire of winning praise among the common people. But what praise was being sought in solitude, where there was no one to applaud, the two servants too having been deliberately left far behind, lest he should seem to show himself off before witnesses? Wherefore, their unbridled mouth stopped, let the accusers moderate their envy, and not mangle those who have finished an honourable life, whom they ought rather to proclaim with others. For among all who are rightly wise nothing is held more honourable, nothing more desirable, than to obey God; which he (Abraham) studied above all, so that he never neglected any command, however full of vexations and ignominies, and also of labours and pains. Wherefore that too which he was commanded by the oracle concerning his son he bore bravely and constantly. Then, since there was in that region no custom, as perhaps among some, of immolating children, he himself was to be the first author of a new and unusual example, which it seems to me no one would have borne, even if he had had a mind of iron or adamant. For it is difficult, as someone says, to fight with nature. He had become the father of this only legitimate son (namely from Sara), whom he presently attended with a singular love beyond the measure of common benevolence, nay even of that celebrated by fame.
[448] There was present also another vehement incitement of love, that the boy had been born to him in old age. is lucidly shown For parents love more immoderately those born late, either because long desired, or because they hope for no offspring afterwards, nature being now worn out, as having reached its last limit. For to offer to God some one out of a numerous offspring, as the firstfruits of one's children, would be nothing to be wondered at, since there is at hand from the survivors no moderate solace and remedy of the grief conceived for the one slaughtered. But when an only beloved one is offered, the thing is explicable by no speech, having no regard to domestic custom, but wholly inclined to the office of piety, surely exceptional and scarcely attempted by anyone else. For others, although they grant their own to be slaughtered for the safety of their countries or armies, yet either remain at home meanwhile, or stand far off from the altars, or, if it happens that they are present at the sacred rites, turn away their eyes, not enduring even to watch the ministry of death performed by another. But this man (Abraham), as a priest, himself a most loving father, approaches the slaughter of an outstanding son, whom perhaps he was even about to cut limb from limb with sacrificial rite, to be burned in the fires of the altar. So far had he taken care not to be drawn away by piety towards his son from the piety owed to God, and had devoted his whole mind, as great as it was, to holiness, caring little for kindred blood. Which of the things we have said is common with others? What is not exceptional, which no eloquence could equal? Thus far Philo. More on this matter the curious reader may see studiously collected and digested by Noël Alexandre in the Ecclesiastical History of the Old Testament, Dissertation 8, On the sacrifice of Abraham, in which he learnedly proves against Marsham that this deed of our Patriarch cannot be obscured by any previous example of the Egyptians or of other nations. I now come, in the following §, to the things which either immediately followed this signal deed of Abraham or have connection with it.
§ XXIV. Abraham immolates a ram to God in place of his son Isaac: most ample divine promises are confirmed to him in illustrious manner: having returned to Bersabee, he is informed of the children born to his brother.
When Abraham had immolated to God, in place of his son Isaac, a ram Abraham, commanded by the angelic oracle to spare Isaac, had now desisted from what he had begun, and beyond doubt, having at once freed him from his bonds, had embraced him with a most tender kiss, when no light care came upon him, namely how, the victim having now been withdrawn from him, he was to offer a holocaust on that mountain to the Lord of all things, as he had resolved in mind. But the Most Kind God took away that anxiety from him. For there was found behind the religious Man a ram separated from the flock, caught by the horns among the briers, and so entangled in them that it could by no means escape; which Abraham beholding, did not hesitate to offer it as a holocaust to the supreme Godhead on that same altar on which he would have immolated his Isaac had God not commanded otherwise. So singular a proof of divine Providence could not but affect the religious mind of the Patriarch with a most sweet and most grateful feeling; wherefore, as he was accustomed elsewhere to render immortal among posterity the memory of the divine kindness towards him by giving a fitting name to the very places where he had experienced it, so to that mountain, from the thing divinely accomplished, he gave a new name, namely in Hebrew Jehovah-jireh, which in Latin according to the Vulgate is, The Lord seeth, or, as it can also be rendered, The Lord will provide.
[450] found on the mount of Vision, On these things I again present the sacred Writer himself speaking, intending presently to subjoin some things on his narrative, so that it may become more manifest and plain. Thus he speaks in the cited chapter 22 of Genesis, verses 13 and 14: Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw behind his back a ram amongst the briers sticking fast by the horns, which he took and offered for a holocaust instead of his son. And he called the name of that place: The Lord seeth. Whereupon even to this day it is said: In the mountain the Lord will see. And first indeed it seems to me not to be doubted that Abraham received the ram presented to him in a desert place as from the hand of God, whose are all things, as Elias too afterwards, in book 3 of Kings, 17, verses 4 and 6, received the flesh brought to him by a raven in the desert, not inquiring whence it had been brought. Or, if anyone would have it that he thought of a private and lawful owner of the ram, and nevertheless offered it to God; to him I do not fear to answer that nothing was sinned by the holy Man in that matter, since he so used a lost thing for the holocaust that he was otherwise ready to restore to its lawful owner, if perchance he appeared, a ram even of better quality, and abundantly to make good every loss, if he had caused him any. However it may be, it is by no means to be doubted that the holy Man was moved in that matter by a peculiar divine instinct, and did not depart even a nail's breadth, as they say, from a right conscience.
[451] Moreover, it deserves to be noted with Pereira that that instead of his son can be expounded in a threefold sense, and that one altogether apposite to the matter, namely, first: Abraham offered the ram as a holocaust just as he himself had wished to immolate his son, instead of his son Isaac, namely as to affection and effect. Then instead of his son, that is, in the place of the son, whom God had before commanded to be immolated, and whom he himself would have immolated, had not God afterwards forbidden it to be done. Moreover instead of his son, that is, for the deliverance of his son: giving thanks namely to God that He had delivered his son from death by substituting a ram in his stead, and at the same time praying God that He would accept the immolation of that ram just as if he had immolated his son to Him. So, roughly, Pereira. Finally, Ambrose and John Chrysostom and various other holy Fathers observe here that all these things which have now been related from Moses were a figure of the mystery of human redemption, and that to this also look these words of Christ to the Jews in John chapter 8, verse 56: Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see My day: he saw it and was glad. Namely, as St. Chrysostom writes in Homily 47 on Genesis, page 478, he saw it through a figure, through a shadow. For as here a sheep was offered for Isaac, so also the rational lamb was offered for the world. And a little after, to show that the mystery of human redemption was prefigured in that deed of Abraham, he goes on to speak thus: An only-begotten there, and an only-begotten here: beloved there and true-born, beloved here too and true-born … the one was being offered by his Father as a holocaust, and this one too the Father delivered up. Nay rather, that the redemption of the human race through the Messiah to come was demonstrated to the holy Man not only through figure and shadow but also through express divine revelation, Christ the Lord Himself not obscurely indicates in the cited verse 56, and Ambrose most expressly affirms, book 1 On Abraham, chapter 8, whom, if you please, consult.
[452] I pass over here the things which have been learnedly disputed by various men concerning the various reading or Latin interpretation of the cited verse 14, most ample promises are divinely made to him and concerning the proverb which arose among the Hebrews from these words of Abraham, since these do not bear so nearly on the history of our Patriarch which we have undertaken to illustrate. I continue, then, to recount from Moses the things which were divinely said to him either during or just after the holocaust of the ram. As Moses testifies from verse 15 to 19, And the Angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven, saying: By My own self
have I sworn, saith the Lord: because thou hast done this thing, and hast not spared thy only-begotten son for My sake: I will bless thee, and I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand that is by the sea shore: thy seed shall possess the gates of their enemies, And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed My voice. Thus far the Mosaic narrative, which, since the Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Hebrews, chapter 6, from verse 13, wonderfully illustrates it, I cannot refrain from transferring his words here. For God, he says, making promise to Abraham, because He had no one greater by whom He might swear, swore by Himself, saying: Unless blessing I shall bless thee, and multiplying I shall multiply thee. And so, patiently enduring, he (Abraham) obtained the promise. For men swear by one greater than themselves: and an oath for confirmation is the end of all their controversy. Wherein God, meaning more abundantly to show to the heirs of the promise the immutability of His counsel, interposed an oath: that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have the strongest comfort, who have fled for refuge to hold fast the hope set before us.
[453] And from these words of the Apostle we have expressly stated both the formula of the oath understood by Moses, and are confirmed by oath, namely this, Unless blessing I shall bless, etc. (concerning which see Cornelius a Lapide on this place), and the reason of the oath added to the divine promise. It will help now, for clarity's sake, to have heard St. John Chrysostom expounding the words recited at number 452. Thus he speaks in Homily 47 on Genesis, page 479 in my copy: Consider, I beseech you, he says, the clemency of the Lord. "Thou hast not spared thy beloved son for My sake." And yet He brings him back alive. Do not regard the outcome, beloved, but learn the will and the mind, with which without any reasoning he fulfilled the commands. For as regards the will, the Patriarch had bloodied his right hand, and had driven the sword through the boy's neck, and had offered a completed sacrifice: therefore the Lord, as though the sacrifice had in fact been consummated, praises the Just man and says: "Thou hast not spared thy beloved son for My sake." Thou indeed didst not spare him on account of My command, but I have spared him on account of thy obedience. Rewarding thee for this thy obedience, "Blessing I will bless thee and multiplying I will multiply thee." See the heaped-up blessing: that is, I will multiply thy seed more abundantly. For this one, who was slain by thy will, shall propagate thy seed into so great a multitude that it shall be equalled to the stars and the sand, "and all nations shall be blessed in thy seed, because thou hast heard My voice." All these things, He says, shall be thine in reward for so great an obedience.
[454] the chief of which he can be said to have merited de congruo. But since among the divine promises confirmed to Abraham by oath by far the highest and most excellent is that concerning the Messiah to be born of his seed, or, as St. Zachary says in Luke chapter 1, verse 73, the oath which He (namely God) swore to Abraham our father, that He would grant to us, it will not be beside the point to have investigated briefly here whether the most pious Patriarch can be said to have merited it by his eager obedience, rendered not without the help of divine grace. Those heterodox deny it who deny every character of merit to the pious works of the just, even those done with divine grace. But truly I do not fear to affirm that Abraham by that outstanding deed of his merited de congruo, as the Theologians say, that that most excellent promise should be confirmed by divine oath, the promise mentioned by Moses in the cited verse 18, by St. Paul in Galatians chapter 3, verse 16, and elsewhere in the sacred Scriptures, by which in the seed of Abraham, that is, in Christ, all the nations of the earth were to be blessed. And surely, if anyone with a mind not preoccupied considers in the cited verse 16 the Hebrew causal particle ki, in Latin because, and in verse 18 that Hebrew ekeb asher, which in Latin sounds forasmuch as, and can also be rendered thus, In reward of it, namely of obedience; truly he, unless he confesses that the genuine sense of all words can be twisted into a foreign one at anyone's pleasure, will not be able to doubt that on account of our Patriarch's obedience, as a meritorious dispositive cause, that promise was confirmed by divine oath, nay was even made before from the foresight of it, by which the Son of God, about to take human flesh altogether gratuitously, was to assume it from no other than the stock of Abraham. Whoever desires more on these things, let him consult the Theologians and Controversialists disputing on supernatural merit; I proceed to two other questions pertaining to this critical-historical Commentary.
[455] The first of them turns on this: whether the four divine promises But those promises, as to substance, not new, recorded in the cited chapter 22 of Genesis, verses 17 and 18, are to be said to be old as to substance, but confirmed, or on the contrary altogether new, that is, made to Abraham then for the first time. As regards that first promise, I will bless thee, verse 17, it is undoubted that it had been made to Abraham long before, as may be seen in Genesis chapter 12, verse 2, and § IX. As regards the second, I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is by the sea shore, in the same verse 17, we read that this too had been made to Abraham before, in Genesis chapter 13, verse 16, where God addresses him thus: And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: if any man be able to number the dust of the earth, he shall be able to number thy seed also; and in chapter 15, verse 5: Look up to heaven and number the stars, if thou canst… So shall thy seed be; and finally in chapter 17, verse 6: And I will make thee increase exceedingly, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee; which is read repeated also in chapter 18, verse 18. Altogether the same is to be said of this third promise related in the cited verse 17 of chapter 22 of Genesis, Thy seed shall possess the gates of their enemies, since in Genesis chapter 13, verses 14 and 15, God had spoken thus to Abraham: Look from the place wherein thou now art, to the north and to the south, to the east and to the west. All the land which thou seest I will give to thee and to thy seed; and again in chapter 15 from verse 18: To thy seed will I give this land from the river of Egypt even to the great river Euphrates, the Cineans, and Cenezites, Cedmonites, etc.
[456] But as regards the fourth and most excellent promise, And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, although someone most combatively defends the opposite, Paul of Burgos, in the fifth Addition on chapter 22 of Genesis, most combatively maintains that it was altogether new, that is, never made to Abraham before: but, as will now appear, not successfully enough. For God had already before promised Abraham that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed, namely speaking thus in Genesis chapter 12, verse 3: In thee shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed; and in chapter 18, verses 17 and 18, saying thus: Can I hide from Abraham what I am about to do: seeing he shall become a great and a very mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth shall be blessed? For since in these latter texts the phrase in thee and the phrase in him signify altogether the same as in thy seed, or in his seed, as is gathered from chapter 13 of Genesis, verse 15, and also from this, that otherwise the divine sentence uttered in Genesis chapter 12, verse 3, and chapter 18, verse 18, would be false; even from this it is clearly enough plain that the promise made to Abraham in Genesis chapter 22, verse 18, cannot be called altogether new. And as for what Burgos asserts, that this single promise confirmed by oath was indicated by St. Paul in Galatians chapter 3; in that, as we showed above in § XI, number 206, and as is clear from the computation of years added, that author was mistaken, as also when he asserts that one Hebrew verb was used by Moses in Genesis chapter 12, verse 3, and another in chapter 22, verse 18, whereas in both places the Hebrew verb Barach, which sounds to bless, is found, differing only in Hebrew conjugation, as the Grammarians say.
[457] Nor indeed does Burgos rightly contend that the divine promise of the cited chapter 22 of Genesis, 18, is altogether new on that head, but it is shown that they were only confirmed in a new and illustrious manner, that this alone, as he pleases, was confirmed by divine oath, the others not likewise. For, as will presently become manifest to anyone who casts his eyes upon the Mosaic narrative recited at number 452 and the order of the divine words, the oath of God precedes not this last promise alone, but also the three other divine promises mentioned above, and comprehends them all to a one; so that not only the promise of the blessing of all nations in the seed of Abraham, but also the three others were confirmed by divine oath. From all of which it follows that in the cited chapter 22 of Genesis the divine promises already made to Abraham before were renewed, that is, repeated, but not increased by one or another. But indeed, you will say, if the divine promises made to Abraham after the display of the highest fortitude of mind and singular obedience contain, as to substance, nothing more ample or more excellent than those which had already been made to him before, what more reward, then, is now given him? I answer that the character of a more ample reward consists in this: that the promises made before are now given in a new and more illustrious manner, and that God, by interposing an oath (see the words of the Apostle at number 452), showed more abundantly to Abraham and his heirs the immutability of His counsel, so that both he and they might have the strongest solace in their pilgrimage; and finally that the angel of God here most manifestly declares that on account of the merit of Abraham's faith and obedience that was confirmed by divine oath which had before been barely foretold by a simple promise, and, as regards the dispositive cause mentioned at number 454, not explained.
[458] but the epoch of this deed I come now to the other of the two questions indicated at number 454. It turns on the year of Abraham to which that memorable holocaust ought to be tied, and took its origin from this, that neither Moses in the cited chapter 22 of Genesis, nor St. Paul writing of Abraham in Hebrews chapter XI, nor any other sacred author expressly stated the age either of the Father about to immolate his son or of the victim about to be immolated. Hence it came about that, as I have already said before at number 205, some have asserted that this happened in Abraham's hundred and tenth year, others in his hundred and fifteenth, others in his hundred and twenty-fifth, others in another year of his. This is certain in this matter, that Isaac, who, as we showed in § XXII, was born in his Father's hundredth year, already then of such an age
to have been such that he was able to carry on his shoulders up a lofty mountain a by no means small bundle of wood, needed for burning the victim. From which it may be gathered that Isaac was not at that time a boy of ten or twelve years. Moreover, if we turn our mind to the sequence of the Mosaic narrative, which relates Abraham's return to Bersabee and his dwelling there before the death of Sara, it will become all but indubitable that that signal deed took place while Sara was still living; and therefore, since she bore Isaac at ninety years of age, and died in the hundred and twenty-seventh year of her age, as will be said below, the epoch of this deed cannot be put off beyond the thirty-seventh year of Isaac.
[459] not in the twelfth year of Isaac, I know indeed that some Hebrews, and those of no common note, assigned to Isaac at that time not more than twelve years, and therefore tied that deed to the hundred and twelfth year of Abraham, led namely by these reasons: that Isaac in Genesis chapter 22, verse 5 is called a boy, and that he would not have suffered the bonds cast upon him for his death if he had had strength enough to resist; or else, if he offered himself willingly, he would be said to have surpassed Abraham in merits, which seems absurd to them. But in truth those reasons prove nothing whatever. For Benjamin too, in Genesis chapter 43, verses 8 and 9, is called a boy, who had without doubt reached the twentieth year of his age; and in book 2 of Kings, chapter 2, verse 14, soldiers outstanding in strength are called boys; and finally, to pass over other examples, in the same book, chapter 18, verses 5 and 12, Absalom is called a boy, who nevertheless in chapter 14, verse 25 is called a man, and who even before he rose up against David his father had begotten three sons and one daughter, as may be read in the same place, verse 27. Since therefore in the sacred Letters the name of boy is in general opposed to an old man, and comprehends also adolescence and youth, it confers no help whatever on those Hebrews for demonstrating a younger age of Isaac. Then, to answer the other reason of the Hebrews, I most willingly grant them, nay I myself maintain, that Isaac allowed himself willingly to be bound; but whence is it established that he thereby merited more with God than his Father, and that the faith and obedience toward God of the son was greater than that of the Father?
[460] Nay rather, as Pererius, already often praised, shows at length in disputation 15 on chapter 22 of Genesis, although some Hebrews contend it for various reasons, Abraham's deed concerning that immolation of his son was of greater virtue, of fuller merit and praise. For first, Abraham loved the life of his son Isaac more than his own, and more than Isaac himself loved his own life, namely because he was the only-begotten of a most beloved wife, because he was most loving and most reverent toward him, because he had been begotten in old age not without a miracle, because he was most innocent and most holy in his manners, and because on his life alone all the promises of God given to him rested. Next, Abraham weighed the bitterness of that event better than Isaac: for the whole three days he was tormented with the thought of that most dreadful event. Moreover, he is believed to have had the greatest temptations concerning faith. Besides, it was more horrible to Abraham, and his paternal affection and feeling recoiled more vehemently from it, to kill his son with his own hands than it would have been for Isaac to be slain. For he, cut down with one stroke, would have drunk death as it were in a point of time; but Abraham would have been tormented with a threefold and lingering grief: first in cutting his son's throat, then in cutting him limb by limb according to the sacrificial rite, and finally in burning him with fire, no remains of so beloved a son being left except a little ash. Thus, roughly, that author; whence it is plainly enough evident that the reason of those Hebrews recited above, from which they argue that Isaac was at that time only ten or twelve years old, is also of no weight.
[461] Must then, you will say, the opposite opinion of some Jews in their Greater Chronicle, nor does it seem it should be set in his 36th year, but about the 25th year. or Seder Olam Rabba, rather be embraced, which affirms that Isaac, when he was bound upon the altar, was in his thirty-sixth year, and therefore that this happened in the hundred and thirty-sixth year of Abraham? I answer that, although this opinion is not so directly repugnant to the Mosaic narrative and to what was said at number 458 that it could not be reconciled with them in some fashion, it nevertheless does not seem probable enough: both because the authority of the cited Chronicle, especially, as we shall see presently, with Flavius Josephus opposing it, is not by itself alone sufficient to produce a sufficiently certain or safe belief; and because Moses, in narrating from verse 19 that Abraham, having returned with Isaac to Bersabee, dwelt there, and afterwards received news from Nachor his brother, and then adding in chapter 23 that he moved from there to Hebron, seems to have indicated a much longer space than one year between that celebrated holocaust and the death of Sara, which took place in the hundred and thirty-seventh year of Abraham and the thirty-seventh of Isaac. I would rather, therefore, follow the middle opinion between the extremes, namely that which ties that wholly singular deed to the twenty-fifth year of Isaac and the hundred and twenty-fifth of his Father: both because nothing occurs in it which is in the least contrary to the Mosaic narrative, and because Josephus, the most expert writer of Jewish Antiquities, book 1, chapter 14, page 23 in my copy, affirms in the most express words that it happened when Isaac was in his twenty-fifth year. It must be confessed, however, that not even this opinion, though more probable than the others, can be held as certain; and therefore, as was said above at number 206, the beginning of the Abrahamic era, or of the 430 years of the sojourning of the Hebrews, was not reckoned by the Apostle from that year. These matters having been despatched as well as could be done, I return to Moses.
[462] [The sacrifice accomplished, Abraham, having returned home, learns that children were born to his brother,] Thus then he narrates the things which were done after the most joyful outcome of the holocaust, in the cited chapter 22, from verse 19 to the end of the same chapter: Abraham returned to his young men, and they went to Bersabee together, and he dwelt there. After these things were so done, it was told Abraham that Melcha also had borne sons to Nachor his brother: Hus the firstborn, and Buz his brother, and Camuel the father of the Syrians, and Cased, and Azau, Pheldas also and Jedlaph, and Bathuel, of whom was born Rebecca. These eight did Melcha bear to Nachor the brother of Abraham. And his concubine, named Roma (in Hebrew Reuma, namely his secondary wife), bore Tabee, and Gaham, and Tahas, and Maacha. Lest anyone should think these things were recorded here by Moses to no purpose, I shall now illustrate them somewhat. And first indeed the sacred Writer not without reason added that Abraham, after he had returned to his servants, whom he had ordered to stay far from the mountain of Vision, as was said at number 436, set out together with them and with his Isaac to Bersabee, whence he had come, so that the place where the Patriarch had lived before that extraordinary deed, and where afterwards he continued to dwell for some time, God, as Josephus writes in the same chapter 14, prospering all his endeavours, should not be uncertain to posterity. And Moses recounted the offspring begotten by Nachor of Melcha for this reason, that the family of Isaac's future wife, and therefore also the maternal stock of the Israelites, should not be unknown.
[463] he learns, probably on the occasion which is here related, It now remains that we set out here, at least from a probable conjecture, on what occasion Abraham was informed by a messenger of the sons born to his brother Nachor. Rupert, on chapter 22 of Genesis, judges that it was told the most holy Patriarch of Nachor's children when he was unwilling to take a wife for his son Isaac from the daughters of the Chanaanites, among whom he dwelt, and was anxious whence a daughter-in-law worthy of his son might be hoped for; and he thinks this anxiety to be a fitting occasion why Holy Scripture narrates in this place that it was told him. But whence did these things become known at that time to Nachor, living in Haran, a city of Mesopotamia? Salianus, at the year of the world 2164, of Abraham 126, number 1, page 488, thinks that Abraham, after Isaac had been delivered from death, exulting with joy at his hopes divinely confirmed even by an oath, wished to make his kinsmen who were in Mesopotamia sharers of his joy, and first sent certain messengers to them toward the end of the 125th year of his age; and that toward the beginnings of his 126th year Nachor in turn sent messengers to his brother Abraham about his affairs, and therefore also about the offspring born of one of his sons, Rebecca by name — so the same author judges, but, in keeping with his modesty, only by conjecture; whether, however, this is not more probable than all the others which can be made on this matter, I leave to the reader to judge.
[464] For the rest, by way of a crowning remark, I would wish it observed here, with Torniello and Salianus already praised, whence too the birth-year of Abraham asserted above is confirmed. that from the Mosaic narrative recited at number 462 our opinion about the birth-year of Abraham and about the time of the death of Thare his father is not a little confirmed. For from the words of Moses it is manifestly gathered that Abraham, from the time he had departed from Haran, namely about fifty years before, had had no intercourse with Nachor and his family. But it is not credible that Abraham, if he had departed from Haran while his father was still living, would in the space of about 50 years have shown no special tokens of love and reverence to a very aged old man and most dear parent, who could also be in no small need of his Son's help, and who, moved also by love of him, had left his native land and undertaken a long journey. It follows, therefore, that Thare had died there before our Saint departed from Haran, namely in the seventy-fifth year of his age. For otherwise it cannot be conceived why Abraham did not travel there several times, or how he could have been ignorant of what increase had come to his brother's family, if he had seen it face to face, such as it was, more than once while visiting his father.
§ XXV. The Saint mourns his wife Sara, deceased in Hebron: he buries her in the double cave, which he had bought from Ephron with approved money: various matters about this purchase of the sepulchre.
Abraham, his wife Sara having died in Hebron, Abraham, after the sacrifice on Mount Moria of which we treated above, had returned safe to Sara with his dearest Isaac and his two companions of the journey, and from that time, as can be understood from Flavius Josephus, book 1 of the Jewish Antiquities, chapter 14, our Patriarch had led a very blessed and tranquil life with his family in Bersabee, God, namely, prospering in a wonderful manner all the endeavours of this holy family, when it seemed good to him, for what reason is uncertain, or in what determinate year after that sacrifice, out of the land of the Palestines, where, as Moses witnesses in Genesis chapter 21,
verse 34, he had been a settler for many days, or for not a few years, to transfer his tents and his whole household into the city of Arbee, which is Hebron. But in this place, in the hundred and thirty-seventh year of his age, a very bitter event befell him. For here his most beloved wife Sara made an end of living, in the hundred and twenty-seventh year of her age, or in the thirty-seventh year from the time she had enriched her Husband with the male offspring so long desired, as Moses has witnessed, partly in the places already cited before, partly in chapter 23 of Genesis, verses 1 and 2, speaking thus: And Sara lived a hundred and twenty-seven years. And she died in the city of Arbee, which is Hebron, in the land of Chanaan, or in that part of the Chananite country which the Hethites then inhabited.
[466] And these things indeed are plain enough: but what does the divine Writer mean in the same verse 2, continuing in this manner: he mourns her with funeral rite, And Abraham came to mourn and weep for her? Is it then true, what certain Hebrews have said, that Abraham came from the immolation, and on his return found Sara dead, killed by the news of the immolation? By no means: both because Moses expressly witnesses, in the above-cited chapter 22 of Genesis, verse 19, that Abraham, after the holocaust had been accomplished in the land of Vision, returned to Bersabee and dwelt there; and because at that time Sara was living not in the city of Arbee but in Bersabee; and finally because it is not sufficiently likely that any of the things which were to be done on Mount Moria by divine command had been disclosed to her. Did then Abraham's wife, while he was planning to go from Bersabee to Hebron, go before him there by some days, and could the Patriarch not arrive there until after he learned that Sara had been carried off by death from a sickness contracted on the journey? That indeed is not foreign to the truth; but at the same time it is destitute of the testimony of the ancients. To me it is more likely that Abraham came from his own tent, already pitched in Hebron, and proceeded with the funeral rite then customary to another tent, where the body of his dead wife lay deposited, in order to pay there his wife her due by a mournful speech and solemn lamentation, as well as by a public proclamation of the virtues of the deceased; of which the curious reader may see more in Pererius on chapter 23 of Genesis from number X, and in Salianus in the Annals at the year of the world 2175 from number 3, as also in William Smits writing on the same chapter of Genesis.
[467] not without fair and just grief, But perhaps it will come to mind to wonder what it is that this same Patriarch, who, when about to immolate his only-begotten, dearer to him than his own life, shed no tears, uttered no groan, drew no sighs from a heart wounded by so grave a wound, and was wholly intent on the immolation of his son, should now on the contrary, on account of the death of his wife, be of so tender and soft a mind that he dissolved into tears and poured himself out in lamentation, and seems now changed into another man. Whence, you will ask, so great a diversity of the same man, with a mind so diversely affected? Doubtless, as Pererius on chapter 23 of Genesis, number 9, aptly answers, there the regard and contemplation of the divine majesty and will, and the supreme zeal for obeying the heavenly commands, shut out all tears, restrained groans, checked sighs, and suppressed every feeling of paternal mind or grief. But here the regard of conjugal charity and the loss of a wife, with whom he had lived very long and in the greatest concord, and whom he had always found most loving and most reverent toward him, stirred up truly just sorrow and grief in his mind. He was, namely, a man, and did not think what is human foreign to himself. For sadness and grief and mourning over the death of the most closely joined and dearest persons are human and natural affections: which, if reason moderates them, no one can rightly blame; which the same author also learnedly shows from the sacred words of Ecclesiasticus chapter 38, verse 16, and from profane History, from the words of the emperor Antoninus Pius.
[468] and desiring to bury her in an honourable place, from the Hethites This office of the funeral fulfilled, the most pious Patriarch, wishing to bury the body of his dead wife in a suitable and honourable place, since he did not yet possess any field or estate among the Hethites, met the sons of Heth, or the Hethite people, with this design, that he might procure for himself, by a lawful contract of purchase, from Ephron the Hethite, son of Seor, the double cave which he possessed at the far end of his field, and might by his own right lay his deceased wife in it. At first, however, he does not open the whole tenor of his design to the chief men of the Hethites, but with singular modesty and lowliness of mind, having first said that he is a stranger and sojourner among them, earnestly asks them not to deny him the right of a sepulchre, or some place in which he may bury his wife. They, as they were very humane, and especially devoted to Abraham, whom they venerated as a prince of God and a very great man, at once assent to the wishes of the petitioner and of their own accord offer their sepulchres, even the most choice and honourable, so that he might lay his dead wife in whichever of them he pleased. Moses teaches us this not obscurely in the cited chapter 23, verse 3 and the three following, speaking thus: And when he (namely Abraham) had risen up from the office of the funeral, he spoke to the sons of Heth, saying: I am a stranger and sojourner among you: give me the right of a sepulchre with you, that I may bury my dead. The sons of Heth answered, saying: Hear us, lord, thou art a prince of God among us: bury thy dead in our choice sepulchres: and no one shall be able to prevent thee from burying thy dead in his monument.
[469] Having heard so humane an answer, the holy Man, about to give thanks to the Hethites, and by name from Ephron the double cave rises from the place where he had sat, and with body bowed salutes the chief men and the people of the Hethites, and soon discloses his desire to them more openly: namely, that he does not so much desire that he be permitted, out of their mere benevolence, to bury his dead wife in any of their sepulchres, as that he may obtain the double cave possessed in full ownership by Ephron, son of Seor, at the far end of his field, upon paying him the just price, and that he may be put into possession of it for sepulchral use by lawful rite; and therefore he humbly beseeches them that they would be his helpers in prevailing upon Ephron to sell him the double cave publicly at a just and customary price. This Ephron, opportunely, as some hold, was sitting among his fellow-countrymen, but doubtless not recognized by Abraham. So he, before all who were with him in the assembly of the Hethite people, or who had gathered according to custom at the gate of the city, where justice was wont to be rendered, declares to Abraham, whom he desired to bind to himself by a favour, in open but very humane words, that he did not need his money, and that he most willingly gave him not only the cave into which he might bring his wife's body, but also the whole field. But the holy Man on the contrary, having again saluted the Hethites, replies that he would accept what was offered on this condition, that Ephron accept from his hand the just price of the field and the cave.
[470] To which Ephron again said that the land requested was worth four hundred sicles of silver, having offered the price, he asks and obtains it, as Moses yet that it was not of so much account to him that the gift should be made much of; but, since he clearly saw that it was settled and fixed with Abraham not to accept the field and cave offered unless the just price of both had first been handed over, he would accept it in order to gratify him. When the pious Patriarch had heard these things, to whom nothing was more at heart than to defraud no one of his own, to grow rich at no one's expense, but on the contrary to keep the most exact equity in contracts, he forthwith brings out four hundred sicles of silver of approved public money, and in that same assembly of the Hethites weighs it out and pays it to Ephron; and so he acquires for himself the field surrounded with trees and the double cave, the chief men of the Hethites bearing witness, and the others who entered the gate of that city and were present at the public session. This done, the holy Man buries his dead wife in that cave with the customary funeral rite, the Hethites doubtless accompanying the funeral, by whom the contract of purchase and sale entered into between Abraham and Ephron was both confirmed and so established with fixed right that no controversy could be raised about it in time to come. I now subjoin the very Mosaic words by which this deed is narrated in Genesis chapter 23, about to add soon some disquisitions on them. Thus then Moses speaks in the cited chapter from verse 7: Abraham rose up and bowed down to the people of the land, namely the sons of Heth: And he said to them: If it please your soul that I should bury my dead, hear me, and intercede for me with Ephron the son of Seor: That he may give me the double cave which he has in the far end of his field: let him hand it over to me for its full worth before you, for a possession of a sepulchre. Now Ephron dwelt in the midst of the sons of Heth.
[471] narrates in these words here recited; And Ephron answered Abraham, in the hearing of all who went in at the gate of that city, saying: Let it by no means be so, my Lord, but rather do thou hearken to what I say: The field I deliver to thee, and the cave which is in it, in the presence of the sons of my people: bury thy dead. Abraham bowed down before the people of the land. And he spoke to Ephron, the people standing around: I pray thee to hear me: I will give money for the field: take it, and so I will bury my dead in it. And Ephron answered: My lord, hear me: The land which thou askest is worth four hundred sicles of silver: this is the price between me and thee: but what is this? Bury thy dead. And when Abraham had heard this, he weighed out the money which Ephron had asked, in the hearing of the sons of Heth, four hundred sicles of silver of approved public money. And the field that was once Ephron's, in which was the double cave, looking toward Mambre, both it and the cave, and all its trees in all its borders round about, was made sure to Abraham for a possession, in the sight of the sons of Heth and of all who went in at the gate of that city. And so Abraham buried Sara his wife in the double cave of the field, which looked toward Mambre: this is Hebron in the land of Chanaan. And the field was made sure, and the cave that was in it, to Abraham for a possession of a monument by the sons of Heth.
[472] in which purchase of a sepulchre by Abraham Thus far the Mosaic narrative, concerning which this controversy can first be raised: whether it was lawful for Abraham to buy the right of burial from Ephron, nay even in a manner to compel him to accept money for the sepulchral place, or double cave, and for the very field in which it was situated. For if, as St. Jerome holds in the book of Hebrew Questions, column 527, Ephron was covertly reproved for this, that he sold the memorials of the dead, and that he accepted, though unwillingly, the price of a sepulchre, by what reasoning can he be absolved here of all fault
Abraham, who was unwilling to accept the place of a sepulchre offered freely and of Ephron's own accord, and did everything so that Ephron should accept the whole price of it from his hand, and so enter with him into a true contract of purchase and sale concerning the right of burial? But if Abraham is to be wholly excused in that matter, by what reasoning did Ephron deserve to be reproved in any way? To these things various authors bring various answers, which, so as not to be too prolix, I pass over here, and decide this controversy thus: since it is established on no ground, nay is not even probable, that sepulchres among the Hethites were truly sacred, or that that field had been duly consecrated for the burial of the dead, much less bought or sold for more on account of a consecration, Ephron was no less free of all fault of simony in selling the double cave than Abraham himself in buying it; and therefore with the greatest reverence I depart from the opinion of those who have thought that Ephron was worthy of reproof in that matter.
[473] And indeed on what ground could it be maintained that that place was sacred? it is shown that nothing sinful was done, Because Adam, the parent of all mortals, was buried in it? But that is by no means proved from chapter 14 of the book of Josue; nay rather, the far more common opinion of the Holy Fathers holds that Adam was buried on Mount Calvary. Moreover, setting aside the positive laws of the Church and the ecclesiastical consecration of sepulchres, which certainly did not obtain in the times of Abraham, a dead man is no more sacred than a living one, nor is a house which even a just man inhabits more sacred than the sepulchre in which the deceased is laid. Besides, if anyone may justly buy and sell a temple of idols, because an idol is nothing, as St. Paul witnesses in the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 8, verse 4, and the rites of idolaters are not truly sacred, why could not Abraham too buy a sepulchre, disregarding rites of that kind? And if he could buy it on this title, why could not Ephron also sell it to him? And finally, even if it be granted for the moment that that place was truly sacred, not even so could either Ephron or Abraham be accused of simony, unless it were proved either that the former exacted, or the latter granted, anything beyond the just price of the field for the sake of religion; and since this cannot be proved, it becomes evident, inasmuch as the positive laws which forbid a sacred place to be sold of itself and directly had not yet been passed at that time, that neither Ephron nor Abraham can deservedly be reproved, when, namely, after they had vied with each other in humanity and courtesy, the one accepted the price of his property which he was alienating, the other, in order to possess lawfully the thing bought, weighed out four hundred sicles of silver of approved public money, and so paid the just price of the merchandise.
[474] I pass now to the other question, which is raised by some learned men concerning the very price of the field and double cave that were sold, as also, that the 400 sicles spent by him on that purchase who assert, namely, that these Hebrew words of Moses in verse 16, Secel (or Schekel) ceseph ghober lesocher, were less suitably rendered by Jerome by these Latin words, Sicles of silver of approved public money, as they are also read in our Vulgate, since in reality, as they at least contend, they signify nothing other than sicles of silver passing to the merchant, or, as the same men would have it, plates of silver weighed out at the weight of a sicle, yet not marked with any character which would be the index of public money; and hence they do not fear to affirm that St. Jerome, according to the usage of his age, in which namely there was no money fit for commerce that was not stamped with the index of public authority, interpreted less accurately an ancient thing, or one customary in the time of Abraham. And the reasons for which they here reprove Jerome's version, or at least approve it less, I find expressed among them as these three: that the Hebrew word Schekel is primarily the name of a certain weight, since its root Schakal has no other notion than that of weighing out, balancing, weighing, or one wholly akin to this; next, that the custom of the Hebrews of weighing out silver in the balance lasted even up to the Babylonian captivity; and finally that, if the use of stamped silver had prevailed in the age of Abraham, this could by no means have escaped the neighbouring nations, whence that practice, most convenient in commerce, would at once have been propagated through the whole world; nor surely would the Romans and Greeks have so long lacked struck coins. Thus, roughly, they.
[475] were not a kind of weight, but coins properly so called, But I, saving the reverence which is due to them, consider these reasons not valid and pressing enough to make me depart even in the least from the opinion of Jerome, or from the reading of our Vulgate, which indicates money struck and approved by public authority. And first indeed it must be observed with J. B. Villalpando S.J., tome 3 of the Apparatus of the city and temple of Jerusalem, part 2, book 2, disputation 4, chapter 24, page 386, that although the sicle was a weight, and by its first institution the norm and standard of weights, nothing however prevented that same weight from being sometimes struck, and, reduced into the form of a coin, as it was the common measure of all things which were weighed out by weight, so also it became both the appraiser and the price both of those same things and of the rest. And that this indeed took place in the ancient sicles which the praised Villalpando exhibits on page 380, and Erasmus Frœlich S.J. at the end of the Annals of the kings and affairs of Syria, table 18, and certainly in the age of the Machabees, no one, I think, will call into doubt. But that sicles which were a kind of coin existed not only at that time, but much before, Flavius Josephus is authority, book 3 of the Jewish Antiquities, chapter 9, page 88 in my copy, where, having testified that Moses, the tabernacle being completed, conferred by God's command the office of priest on Aaron his brother, he goes on to speak of it thus: After these things, having called together the people, he commanded that they should again contribute a half sicle a head. And presently, so that there can be no doubt whether these words are to be understood of a mere weight of rough silver, or on the contrary of a stamped silver coin, he adds at once that the sicle is a kind of COIN among the Hebrews.
[476] although certain men strive to prove the contrary from the etymology of the word Nor indeed is the authority and credibility of Fl. Josephus, who maintains that sicles were a kind of coin in the Mosaic age, overturned by the alleged Hebrew root of the word Schekel, or by the very custom of the Hebrews of weighing out silver in the balance, on which William Smits, praised more than once, discourses in his Prolegomenon to the Pentateuch, §2, number 415 and following. For if in our matter a legitimate argument could be formed from the Hebrew etymology of the word alone, in like manner I could demonstrate from the — I do not say etymology, but even the most open signification — of Latin words that in the most flourishing times of the Roman republic and of the first emperors there existed no coined silver, no stamped coin, whether of gold or of silver, inasmuch as the words then in use, tributum pendere to pay tribute, vectigalia pensitare to pay taxes, expensa, impendia expenses, libripendes weighers, and other words of that kind, have the notion of weighing out, balancing and weighing. Nay from these Latin phrases, suscipere æs alienum to take on debt, æs alienum facere to incur debt, in ære meo esse to be in my debt, and other phrases of that kind, I could by like reasoning prove that no other metal than mere bronze, which Pliny calls Regulare and Coronarium, was ever stamped by public authority under the Romans, and that therefore the most expert goldsmiths and moneyers are wonderfully deluded by their own eyes when they believe that they see gold or silver coins stamped with the effigy of the Caesars, which nevertheless, if indeed the reason brought by the adversaries has any strength, can be nothing but plates and a kind of mere weight and rough Regulare or Coronarium bronze.
[477] As for the custom of the Hebrews of weighing out coins, and from the custom of the Hebrews of weighing out money which the praised Smits in the cited §, page 286, contends lasted up to the Babylonian captivity, I willingly grant him that the Hebrews in carrying on commerce were commonly accustomed to weigh coins. But does it follow from this that under those ancient Hebrews there existed no stamped coin, and no money of approved public mint? Surely, if a consequence of this sort is valid, it will by like reasoning be proved that the gold coins of today, which are commonly called quadruples, Albertins, Guineas, ducats, are a kind of mere weight, and marked with no public character, inasmuch as merchants and others who diligently attend to their business are accustomed to weigh these in the balance. Moreover, if the four hundred sicles given by Abraham to Ephron the Hethite, and the others of which there is frequent mention in the Scriptures, were nothing other than plates of silver, marked with no character of money or coin, but weighed out only by the weight of a sicle, why do the adversaries everywhere call those plates not weights but coins? Or why does the praised Smits translate the recited words of Moses thus in Dutch: vier hondert sikelen zilvers, GEKEURDE GANGBAERE MUNTE four hundred sicles of silver, ASSAYED CURRENT COIN? Why likewise does some more recent French interpreter, whom perhaps Smits followed here, likewise translate thus: quatre cent sicles d'argent en BONNE MONNOYE & reçue de tout le monde four hundred sicles of silver in GOOD MONEY and accepted by everyone? Indeed, if they may employ these forceful words, most proper to the matter of coinage, to designate a kind of mere weight, what words will they use, pray, to signify that the coins of this century, for example those commonly called French Crowns, are true money?
[478] Finally, so that it may be manifestly evident that among the Hebrews before the Babylonian captivity there were in use coins strive to prove, by whose arguments which were paid out not by weight but by number, which is proper to stamped money, and which bore a certain mark of their value, it has seemed good to bring here a few testimonies out of many from the sacred Books. In book IV of Kings, chapter 12, verse X, it is read thus: And when they saw (namely the Hebrew priests living under the pontiff Joiada and king Joas) that there was very much money in the Treasury, the king's scribe and the pontiff went up (he wished him to be present as an inspector, lest he be sprinkled with any suspicion) and they poured out and COUNTED THE MONEY which was found in the house of the Lord; and in the following verse: And they gave it ACCORDING TO NUMBER and measure into the hands of those who were over the masons, etc. Again, in the same book, chapter 22, verse 7, king Josias is read to have commanded that to the carpenters and masons employed for restoring the temple of the Lord the money necessary for it should be supplied, which they should have in their power and trust; yet he expressly ordains that the silver should not be reckoned to them. To what purpose, I ask, does king Josias forbid the silver to be reckoned to his faithful servants, if otherwise in ancient times it had been customary not to be reckoned, but only to be weighed out in the balance? To what purpose also did the scribe of king Joas and the Pontiff Joiada count the money, and give it to the workmen according to number, if it was not stamped money but, as the adversaries would have it, a mere kind of weight, which would therefore first have had to be weighed out in the balance? More,
which bear on this, and testimonies even older than those already mentioned, drawn and confirmed from the very Hebrew or Greek text, the curious reader may see in the Critical Dissertation on Hebrew Coins which the Rev. Fr. Souciet S.J. published at Paris in the year 1715.
[479] it is satisfied here. And to these the reasons recited at the end of number 474 are by no means an obstacle. For by what records, pray, will it be made out, as the adversaries would have it, that the use of stamped silver, or money, was wholly unknown to the Madianites and Ismaelites, who were certainly neighbours of the Hebrews, and therefore that it was not silver coins, but rough plates of silver, or, as some love to define them, pieces of silver exactly cut to the weight of a sicle, with which, however, as may be seen in Genesis chapter 37, as with true money plainly distinct from their merchandise, they bought the patriarch Joseph from his brothers? And it is no wonder that this practice, most convenient in commerce, was not at once propagated through the whole world, since at first no commerce was carried on by the Hebrews and the neighbouring nations with the Europeans, nor did the one travel to the other. And indeed that practice could in no way be propagated to the Romans before the times of the kings of Israel, inasmuch as these did not exist in the nature of things before the fifty-first year of Ozias, king of Juda, by which time certainly money had long since begun among the Hebrews to be counted and distributed according to number, so that on this side the argument of the adversaries is wholly invalid. Nothing more forcibly does that argument press which they draw from the use of coins among the Greeks. For so far is it from being true that the Greeks lacked struck coins for a very long time, that on the contrary they had struck coins already from the very times of Moses, inasmuch as Erichthonius, contemporary of Aaron, as Eusebius witnesses in the Chronicle, struck coins for the Athenians and Lycians, as Julius Pollux relates in his Onomasticon, book 9, chapter 6. Since these things are so, why should we not believe that among the Hebrews, from whom the good arts and sciences passed to the Egyptians and thence to the Greeks, struck coins prevailed long before the times of the Machabees, nay even before those of Moses, and finally, as St. Epiphanius relates in the book On Measures and Weights, page 183, that Abraham brought the figure of the silver coin into Chanaan, and that its use therefore flourished there in the age of Abraham?
[480] To the narration of Moses recited It remains that we now likewise discuss, so far namely as concerns our purpose, the much-agitated question that has arisen from the words of Moses in Genesis chapter 23, recited above, and from what St. Stephen says in Acts chapter 7, verse 16. If we adhere closely, as is altogether fitting, to the Mosaic narrative, there is no doubt that Abraham bought from Ephron, son of Seor, the double cave looking toward Mambre for four hundred sicles, as his grandson Jacob witnesses to that very thing in these words to his sons, Genesis chapter 49, verses 29 and 30: Bury me with my fathers in the double cave which is in the field of Ephron the Hethite, over against Mambre, … which Abraham bought with the field from Ephron the Hethite for a possession of a sepulchre. Moses confirms the same thing again in Genesis chapter 50, verses 12 and 13, writing thus of the sons of the patriarch Jacob: So the sons of Jacob did as he had commanded them: and carrying him into the land of Chanaan they buried him in the double cave which Abraham had bought with the field for a possession of a sepulchre from Ephron the Hethite, over against Mambre. But on the contrary, if we hear St. Stephen, Acts 7, verse 16, speaking to the chief men of the Jews, Abraham bought a sepulchre for a price of silver from the sons of Hemor, son of Sichem, namely near the city of Sichem, where the twelve patriarchs were buried. And again, in Genesis chapter 33, verses 18 and 19, not Abraham but Jacob is narrated to have bought for a hundred lambs part of a field situated at Sichem from the sons of Hemor, the father of Sichem.
[481] Did then St. Stephen, speaking thus, as we have just heard, the speech of St. Stephen in Acts chapter 7 does not contradict it, suffer a slip of memory, or discourse not so much from his own judgment and historical faith as from a false opinion of the common people? Or must not rather an error be admitted in our Vulgate in this place? So indeed some, who wished to have an easy wedge at hand everywhere for loosing knots, have not feared to pronounce, and as it were to define from the tripod; but (as I showed before in a similar matter) not reverently enough nor on any sufficiently solid foundation. Must we then, in order to bring Stephen into concord with Moses, carry Mambre back into Sichem, and at the same time confuse Ephron, son of Seor, with one of the sons of Hemor, son of Sichem? But neither is this a sufficiently fit way of loosing the knot. Must then, with Gaspar Sanctius, commenting on chapter 7 of Acts, verse 16, page 152, Jacob, the grandson of Abraham, be understood under the name Abraham mentioned there, so that the word Abraham in the cited verse 16 of Acts is put in an oblique case and taken patronymically, or else, though it be used in the nominative case, it yet has the force of a patronymic? So that author decides, and contends therefore that with the help of this exposition the rest of what St. Stephen narrates in the cited verse 16 about the purchase of the sepulchre runs on without offence, since, as he adds on page 157, St. Stephen only said τοῦ Σιχὲμ, to which can be understood either son or father. But whether Sanctius established all these things happily enough, do you, reader, judge.
[482] But it will be worth the effort to inquire whether that knot cannot also be untied in another, and that a more simple, manner. [since it is not certain that the same purchase of a sepulchre was indicated by St. Stephen,] Almost all the writers who have commented on verse 16 of chapter 7 of Acts seem to have assumed as certain and indubitable that St. Stephen meant to indicate no other purchase of a sepulchre than that which was described by Moses in chapter 23 of Genesis. But truly it has been proved or demonstrated by none of them that he in fact pointed his finger at this purchase; nor indeed do I sufficiently see by what reasons they could have proved it, had they wished. For nowhere does the holy Orator promise that he will say nothing which is not expressly stated and narrated in the Pentateuch or the other sacred Books. And indeed, things which are found nowhere in the Pentateuch or the other sacred Volumes, namely the very divine words by which Abram was called by God before he dwelt in Charan, these he himself recounted in his celebrated speech to the Jews, as we showed above in §§ VIII and IX. If therefore Stephen in that speech of his recorded other circumstances of the divine call of Abram than those which had been expressly set out by Moses, why can he not be said also to have indicated in the cited verse 16 a different purchase of a sepulchre, made by Abraham at some time, yet nowhere expressly stated by Moses; having been taught it, namely, by divine revelation or from records worthy of credit, or certainly in the same manner in which he had ascertained the divine words to Abram in Ur of the Chaldees?
[483] Nay rather, if the words both of Stephen and of Moses, [so that on the contrary, if the different circumstances of the purchase are considered, St. Stephen seems to have designated the purchase of a different] as they stand in the Vulgate, are taken in their obvious and literal sense, which ought always to be done in any historical books unless a most weighty reason stands in the way, it will follow that the purchase of a sepulchre mentioned by St. Stephen must be set down as entirely different from that which Moses committed to writing. For in this purchase of a sepulchre, or of the double cave and field, there appears the seller Ephron the Hethite, son of Seor; but in the purchase mentioned by St. Stephen there appear not one but several sellers, and those not sons of Seor but sons of Hemor, son of Sichem, who is certainly entirely different from Sichem the Hevite who carried off Dina, the daughter of Jacob. Moreover, the sepulchre whose purchase is related by Moses in the cited chapter 23 was situated near Hebron; but that of which St. Stephen speaks was situated at Sichem, which place is distant from the other about fifteen hours' journey. Finally, if all the circumstances of each sale and purchase are carefully weighed, the obvious and literal sense of the words being kept, the one purchase will appear as different from the other as the Abrahamic purchase of the double cave is entirely other than the purchase of part of a field at Sichem, where Jacob had pitched his tents, and which part of a field he acquired for himself from the sons of Hemor for a hundred lambs, as may be seen in Genesis chapter 33 from verse 18.
[484] sepulchre, In this opinion of ours, therefore, Abraham bought from Ephron the Hethite, son of Seor, the double cave and the neighbouring field looking toward Mambre for four hundred sicles of approved public money, as Moses most expressly witnesses in Genesis chapter 23; and besides the double cave and the field he also bought a sepulchre at Sichem from the sons of Hemor, son of Sichem — of that Sichem, namely, who was not by race a Hevite, such as Sichem the ravisher of Dina was, as Moses witnesses in Genesis chapter 34, verse 2, but by race a Chananite, according as that word signifies a particular people descended from Chanaan and distinct from all the other Chananite peoples, on which see Bonfrerius, writing learnedly on chapter 12 of Genesis, verse 6. But after Abraham, as St. Stephen narrates, had bought a sepulchre in Sichem from the sons of Hemor and grandsons of Sichem the Elder, or the Chananite, the patriarch Jacob, returning from Mesopotamia, as Moses witnesses in chapter 33 of Genesis, verse 18 and following, bought for a hundred lambs, from the sons of Hemor the Hevite, the father of Sichem the Younger, part of the Sichemite field in which he had pitched his tents for some time; and so indeed he imitated Abraham in part, in that, just as the latter at Hebron joined a neighbouring field to the sepulchral place, so he himself joined to the sepulchre already bought before by the same Abraham at Sichem a neighbouring field, or part of a field, acquired for himself by a lawful contract of purchase.
[485] although the epoch of the purchase mentioned by St. Stephen is uncertain. But, you will ask, when did Abraham buy that sepulchre in Sichem in which, as St. Stephen narrates, the twelve patriarchs, the sons of Jacob, were at length laid after death? I answer that, since Moses passed over the purchase of this sepulchre in silence, and St. Stephen did not play the chronographer in his celebrated Speech to the Jews, the epoch of this purchase cannot be assigned most exactly, nay neither ought it to be so assigned in order that credit be given to the thing done. Indeed, must not other deeds too, recorded in the books of the New Testament, be held as wholly indubitable and most certain, although their epoch cannot be accurately assigned? And undoubtedly so; such are, to pass over many, the things which in the Catholic Epistle of Bl. Jude Thaddeus, verse 9, are said about the altercation that arose over the body of Moses, and in verse 14 about the prophecy of Enoch, and in the 2nd Epistle of Bl. Peter
chapter 2, verse 5, about the preaching of Justice made by Noe, and finally the things which are narrated in Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, chapter XI, verse 34 and following, about certain men renowned for the virtue of faith. Since therefore those deeds, although not expressly marked with their epochs, nay for the greater part not expressed in the books of the Old Testament, nevertheless merit the fullest belief for this reason, that they were handed down by men full of the Holy Spirit; why should we not likewise believe St. Stephen, who asserts in express words that a sepulchre in Sichem was bought by Abraham, and that its sellers were the sons of Hemor, son of Sichem, although it is clear on no ground whether that purchase was made when Abraham, having entered the land of Chanaan, built an altar to the Lord near Sichem and stayed there some time, or rather long afterwards, or toward the end of his life; on which matter it would be superfluous to dispute.
§ XXVI. Abraham, about to provide a wife for his Isaac, sends into Mesopotamia the steward of his house, first bound by an oath to seek him a wife from his master's kindred. The happy success of this embassy.
Abraham, dwelling again in the Southern land Although Abraham was in the highest esteem among the Hethites, the inhabitants of Hebron, and was held by them, as we have seen above, as a prince of God, yet he did not stay in this place many years after he had paid the last rites to his deceased wife. Certainly, when Isaac took a wife three years after the death of Sara, Abraham's tents were pitched in the Southern land, or at Bersabee, as is gathered from Genesis chapter 24, verse 62; and there too, unless I am very much deceived, took place those things which Moses, in the cited chapter 24 of Genesis, verse 1 and the eight following, when about to narrate the marriage of Isaac, judged must be set forth first, one by one, concerning our Saint. On these, according to our purpose, it will be fair to dwell somewhat more fully than on the other matters which concern the marriage of Isaac itself. Let us therefore hear the sacred Writer, before others, speaking in the cited chapter: Now Abraham, he says, was old, and of many days: and the Lord had blessed him in all things. And he said to the elder servant of his house, who was over all that he had: Put thy hand under my thigh, that I may make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven and earth, that thou take not a wife for my son of the daughters of the Chanaanites, among whom I dwell: but that thou go to my country and kindred, and take from there a wife for my son Isaac. Thus far the opening of the Mosaic narrative, concerning which some things come up for discussion.
[487] And first indeed, since Moses in verse 1 declares only that Abraham was then old and of many days, three years after the death of Sara but does not expressly mark there the very year in which the holy Patriarch seriously thought about and acted on giving a wife to his Isaac, the opinion of the learned about the epoch of this deed is not one. Among these Lippomanus judged that Abraham was then a hundred and thirty-seven years old, and survived his son's marriage by thirty-eight years: whence it would wholly follow that the things narrated in the cited chapter 24 of Genesis must be said to have happened soon after the death of Sara. But since Moses expressly affirms in chapter 25 of Genesis, verse 20, that Isaac, when he WAS FORTY YEARS OLD, took to wife Rebecca, daughter of Bathuel the Syrian of Mesopotamia, sister of Laban, there can be no doubt that between the death of Sara, which certainly took place, from what has already been said before, in the hundred and twenty-seventh year of her age, or the thirty-seventh of Isaac, and the hundred and thirty-seventh of Abraham, and the marriage of Isaac, almost three years intervened; so that Abraham could have survived his son's marriage not by 38 years, as Lippomanus would have it, but only by 35, and that his conversation with his steward about taking a wife for his Isaac, and the embassy of the same steward into Mesopotamia, and finally his return from Mesopotamia into Chanaan with Isaac's bride, must all be tied to the same hundred and fortieth year of Abraham, or fortieth of Isaac — unless someone should prefer to maintain, against every appearance of truth, that almost three whole years were spent on business of this kind, which could easily be completed in the space of two months.
[488] about to provide a wife for his son, Nor indeed does it tell anything against our opinion that the aged Abraham doubtless desired nothing more than to see grandsons from Isaac his son as soon as could be done: for if this reason proves anything against us, it will likewise prove that the marriage of Isaac must be set long before the death of Sara, or long before the thirty-seventh year of Isaac; which surely, saving the authority of the sacred Books, no one at all will admit. I confess indeed, with Salianus in the Ecclesiastical Annals of the Old Testament at the year of the world 2178, number 2, that the lateness of this marriage, at least at first sight, is not without cause for wonder; but with the same author I would also believe that the Patriarch in that matter awaited a divine admonition, so that the seed divinely promised should be dispensed by the special providence and administration of God, and that the holy Man was not divinely admonished to provide a wife for his son before she whom God had destined for him was already marriageable. However that may be, since it was settled and fixed with Abraham to give his son no wife from the daughters of Chanaan, for the reasons to be indicated below, and since he wished therefore to take for him some one of the girls related to him by blood living in Mesopotamia, he found it necessary to put off Isaac's marriage so long, until the daughters of Bathuel or of his brothers, and by name Rebecca, of whose birth and age he had been informed after Isaac was brought back from the land of Vision, had grown up sufficiently to be able to be placed in marriage without danger to life or health. Finally, whether the reasons now alleged or any others moved Abraham to put off his marriage until the fortieth year of Isaac, it will always be most true from the testimony of Moses that Isaac took a wife only in that year, and that there must be no departure at all from our chronological order fixed at the end of number 487.
[489] he prepares to send the steward of his house into Mesopotamia, But you will ask why Abraham employed a minister for arranging his son's marriage, and that the elder servant of his house; and then to what end he exacted from him an oath, and that to be taken with so singular a rite, namely that he should not take a wife for Isaac from the Chananite virgins, but on the contrary should fetch him a wife from the family of Nachor, then still living in Mesopotamia. To the first of these let this be the answer: that Abraham himself, even on account of his declining age alone, not to recount other reasons, neither could go into Mesopotamia, nor, even if he could conveniently have gone there, would it have been in keeping with his dignity to do so with that design. And since it was not expedient either to commit his most beloved Isaac to the dangers of the roads on this account, and to be deprived of his daily company, nothing surely was more fitting in that state of affairs than that Abraham should send some envoy in his name into Mesopotamia, who would bring to Isaac — doubtless consulted on the matter beforehand by his Father, and consenting — the desired wife. And since no one could seem more fit to accomplish a business of such moment than the steward of his house, whose faithfulness, prudence, industry and diligence had been seen and tested by the experience of a very long time, therefore the Patriarch, by a plainly wise counsel, chose him before the others to take from among the kindred living in Mesopotamia the wife destined for Isaac, and to bring her safe and sound into Chanaan.
[490] But if the faithfulness, prudence, industry and diligence of that servant had been wholly proved to Abraham, yet he first exacts an oath from him, entirely lawfully, did not the Patriarch make him swear by the Lord, the God of heaven and earth, in vain, or exact an oath from him to no purpose? By no means. For since the business which the holy Father of the family was committing to his steward was most weighty on many counts, and since therefore it concerned him very greatly that it should be carried into execution exactly according to his will, he could certainly, as having lawful power over his servant, and impelled by a most weighty cause, make him swear by the Lord, the God of heaven and earth, whom the servant himself also acknowledged and adored, or exact an oath from him with the name of God invoked, so that he, bound by that bond of religion, should attempt nothing imprudent, nor through human carelessness or culpable ignorance omit anything which did not most perfectly accord with his most equitable and holy wishes. What therefore some insinuate from Origen, that it is unbecoming that perfect men should exact an oath from others, can be turned only against those who have no lawful and as it were supreme power over the very persons from whom they demand an oath; inasmuch as, where this is present and a just reason intervenes, it redounds to the honour of the divine Name as much to exact an oath as to take it, as is clear enough and more than enough from very many examples, and by name from those which are related in book 4 of Kings, chapter XI, of Joiada, in book 1 of Esdras, chapter X, of Esdras himself, and in book 2 of Esdras, last chapter, of Nehemias.
[491] But with what purpose Abraham ordered so singular a rite to be employed, and that with a very singular rite, or ordered his steward, when about to swear, to put his hand under his thigh, the opinions of the learned vary very much; the chief of these Pererius, already often praised, has recounted in Disputation 1 on Chapter 24 of Genesis, page 540 and following, which the curious reader may see there if he wishes. To me, of all these, nay and of the others which it has been possible to see in more recent writers, the most probable seems to be that which, as the cited Pererius more or less writes, asserts that by the mentioned rite, or ceremony of the oath, the holy Man foreshadowed and signified the mystery of the generation of the Messias, who was to be propagated from the thigh, that is, from the stock and race of Abraham; and that Abraham himself by that sign wished to profess and attest the most firm faith which he had about the Messias to be begotten of his seed, according to that promise given him by God, In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; so that the most pious Patriarch understood that such a seed, in which all nations were to be blessed and made happy, would be not only man but at the same time also God; and, to signify this, ordered his servant to put his hand under his thigh, designating the flesh which the Messias was to take from him, and at the same time himself made him swear by the Lord of heaven and earth, indicating that he would be man in such a way as at the same time to be truly God.
[492] It will now be to the purpose to have heard the very testimonies of the Holy Fathers on which that opinion rests. And Jerome indeed, commenting on the cited place of Genesis, namely the mystery of the Messias to be born of his stock, writes thus in the book of Hebrew Questions, column 527: The Hebrews hand down that he (namely Abraham) *swore by his sanctification, that is, by circumcision. But we say that he swore
in the seed of Abraham, that is, in Christ, who was to be born of him, according to the Evangelist Matthew, saying: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." And again, tome 4, book 1 against Jovinian, column 153: Abraham makes his servant swear by his thigh, that is, by Christ, who was to be born of his seed, that he should not bring a foreign wife to his son Isaac. And again, tome 2, in his Epistle to the virgin Principia, column 685 and following, he says thus: That the thigh signifies the works of marriage, you will be taught briefly by these examples. Abraham, sending to seek a wife for his son Isaac, says to the elder of his house: "Put thy hand upon my thigh" (read: under my thigh) "and I will make thee swear by the Lord God of heaven." No doubt, by him who was to be born of his seed. Hear things consonant with these from St. Ambrose, Book 1 On Abraham, chapter 9, column 309 in my copy: An elder was found among the servants, however, to be chosen for providing a wife for his younger master, and he was constrained, in order to swear, to put his hand under the thigh of his Lord. By the thigh we understand generation: and the generation of Abraham is Christ. Whence the Apostle says: "To Abraham were the promises made and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many: but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ;" showing that through him there would be a holy sacrament for us, through him a safe help.*
[493] as the Holy Fathers commonly teach, foreshadowed and professed, And so also St. Augustine judged, in his Questions on Genesis, tome 3, part 1, column 393, speaking in this manner: That Abraham bids his servant put his hand under his thigh, and so makes him swear by the Lord God of heaven and the Lord of earth, is wont to disturb the unskilled: not attending that there existed in this a great prophecy about Christ, that the Lord God of heaven and Lord of earth himself would come in that flesh which was propagated from that thigh. And in book 16 of the City of God, chapter 33, after he had said that Isaac, when he was forty years old, took Rebecca to wife, namely in the hundred and fortieth year of his father's life, three years after the death of his mother, as we too showed at number 487, he continues thus: But that he (Isaac) should marry her, when a servant was sent by his father into Mesopotamia, what else was shown, when Abraham said to that same servant, "Put thy hand under my thigh, and I will make thee swear by the Lord God of heaven and the Lord of earth, that thou take not for my son Isaac a wife of the daughters of the Chanaanites," than that the Lord God of heaven and Lord of earth would come in the flesh which was drawn from that thigh? Are these small indications of the truth foretold, which we see fulfilled in Christ? I pass over the other testimonies of the Holy Fathers, since those already recounted can stand for very many, nay for all.
[494] but not from the common custom of that time, I do not deny, indeed, that St. Chrysostom by no means supports this common opinion of the Holy Fathers, when in Homily 48 on Genesis, page 483, he indicates that this rite was employed by Abraham rather from the then accepted custom of the more ancient people than for the sake of designating a hidden Mystery, relying doubtless on a certain narrative of Flavius Josephus, who, in book 1 of the Jewish Antiquities, chapter 16, treating of this deed, describes thus the manner in which the Hebrews were wont to bind one another by an oath: Having put their hands one under the other's thighs, they thus invoke God as witness of the things they had determined. But truly, saving the authority of both writers, let it be permitted to observe a few things on this assertion. If the custom or rite indicated above was really accepted among the ancients, and Abraham ordered his servant to put his hand under his thigh for that reason alone, why is neither Abimelech, king of Gerara, read to have put his hand under Abraham's thigh when he confirmed a covenant and friendship with Abraham by an oath, as we related above at number 424, nor Abraham to have done the same to Abimelech? Why was that rite not observed in Genesis chapter 26 by Isaac and Abimelech, or at least by one of the two, when they swore to each other? Why was it not kept by Jacob, Abraham's grandson, when, in Genesis chapter 31, verse 53, he swore by the fear of his father Isaac that he would not harm his father-in-law Laban? And finally, why in the various places of scripture cited at the end of number 490 is not even the slightest mention of a rite of this sort introduced? These things being so, why should we not agree with most of the Holy Fathers that this rite was at first peculiar to Abraham, and was employed by him in this business with this intention, that he might solemnly profess his faith concerning the Messias, true God and true man, to be born of his seed through Isaac?
[495] Further, although that great mystery of the generation of the Messias was most secret, to be performed by the same steward, though ignorant of the mystery, and hidden from all at that time except very few prophets of God and men most dear and most familiar to God, and was therefore probably unknown to our Saint's steward; yet, as the praised Pererius more or less says in the cited Disputation 1 on chapter 24 of Genesis, number 16, nothing at all absurd or inept or incongruous was done here by Abraham when, about to make his servant swear, he ordered him to put his hand under his thigh and himself intended by that rite to foreshadow that hidden mystery. For it was enough, says the same author, that the servant should know, and believe, and worship that by which he was made to swear, I mean God the Lord of heaven and earth: but about the inner and hidden meaning of that ceremony of placing the hand under the thigh, he was by no means curiously and anxiously to inquire, holding namely as persuaded and certain that nothing was done by his Lord otherwise than wisely and religiously. For that many things are commanded by God to be religiously observed by those who are ignorant of the mystical significations of those things, the law of Moses gives us a most clear argument and certain proof, according to which many things were prescribed to the Hebrews to be kept and observed which bore the shadow and figure of Christ the Lord and his Church, and had been instituted principally to prefigure these: yet the knowledge of these mysteries fell to very few of that people, and not except through some singular revelation of God.
[496] Thus he, disputing learnedly, as is his wont, about the substance of the aforesaid rite and the end intended by Abraham. namely in a manner, as is explained here, by no means unbecoming, To these, so that nothing may be lacking to this disquisition, deserve to be joined the things which Salianus aptly observed about the manner of the same rite, in the Ecclesiastical Annals of the Old Testament at the year of the world 2178, number 6, writing thus: But just as, he says, in the naming of the thigh the expression is modest, like that, "The sceptre shall not be taken away from Juda, nor a ruler from his thigh," and, "All the souls of those who came out of the thigh of Jacob, seventy," so it is fair to believe that the action was modest, whatever the lewd Jews may invent; and I do not think that Abraham sat upon the servant's hand, but rather that he lightly touched with it the thigh of Abraham, standing or sitting, and that covered with a garment, or even only moved it toward it; just as those who for honour's sake move the hand toward their own mouth or toward another's knees, or, in swearing, toward the breast, neither touch the mouth outright, nor the breast or knees, but only move the hand toward those parts of the body, and signify a touch rather than make it.
[497] [and anxiously forbids him to take a wife for Isaac from the daughters of Chanaan,] It remains that we now likewise inquire why the holy Patriarch so anxiously took care that a wife should not be given to his Isaac from the daughters of Chanaan. Some contend that the cause of this was the idolatry and impiety of the Chananites then prevailing; but, as appears sufficiently from what has already been said before, that evil was not of all of them at that time; nor do I think it would have been so difficult to find among the kinswomen or subjects of Abimelech, king of Gerara, or of Ephron the Hethite, some virgin who both worshipped the true God and was imbued with honest manners, or at least who would not have refused consent to the divine worship, if she had previously been estranged from it through a fault of upbringing or some other defect. Others maintain a divine law by which, namely, marriages with the Chananites were forbidden to the Hebrews; but in vain, since a law of that kind was passed by Moses almost four centuries after that time, by which therefore Abraham and Isaac could by no means be bound. Others finally allege other reasons, some more probable than others; but to me the truer, nay the chief, reasons for Abraham's avoiding a marriage of Isaac with the Chananite women seem to have been these: both that he judged their race, on account of the curse of Cham, who was too irreverent toward his father Noe, too base and ignoble to coalesce with his own race, so often divinely blessed, through Isaac's marriage and the children who would spring from it, into one most ample and most noble nation at some time; and that the prudent Man did not think it should be allowed that Isaac should contract affinities with those whom he had long since learned were, by divine decree, to be expelled and exterminated by the work of his posterity.
[498] but on the contrary from his own kindred, which the steward swears he will do, And since these and other reasons of that kind had no place in the posterity of Nachor, which on the contrary had also obtained the divine blessing in their common parent Sem, and which was both well-mannered and imbued with the knowledge of the true God, as is gathered from the same chapter, verse 18 and the 3 following, verse 31 and following, and verse 50 and elsewhere, Abraham with fullest right wished to bind the steward of his house by the religion of an oath not to take a wife for Isaac from the daughters of Chanaan, but on the contrary to go to his own country and kindred in Haran, to bring from there the wife destined for his Isaac, as Moses narrates in the cited chapter of Genesis, verses 3 and 4. What the faithful and prudent steward answered to so circumscribed a command of the Patriarch and to the exact religion of the oath, and how at length, the oath having been taken, he pledged his service to executing his Master's orders, it will be helpful to have learned again from Moses himself. Thus then he pursues his narrative in verse 5 and the 4 following: *The servant answered: If the woman will not come with me into this land, must I bring back thy son to the place from which thou camest out? And Abraham said: Beware that thou never bring my son back thither. The Lord God of heaven, who took me from my father's house and from the land of my nativity, who spoke to me and swore to me, saying, To thy seed will I give this land: he will send his angel before thee, and thou shalt take from thence a wife for my son: but if the woman will not follow
thee, thou shalt not be bound by the oath: only bring not my son back thither. The servant therefore put his hand under the thigh of Abraham his lord, and swore to him upon this word.*
[499] Thus far the Mosaic narrative, which it will not be irksome to have recounted as illustrated by the very words of Chrysostom. as St. Chrysostom, commenting on the words of Moses, Thus then he speaks in Homily 48 on Genesis, page 483: But let us now see, he says, the uprightness also of the servant (namely the one to whom Abraham gave that command), how he imitated his Master's piety. For after he saw that the Just man commanded him so seriously, he says to him: "If the woman will not come with me, wilt thou have me bring thy son into the land from which thou camest out?" So that, he says, I may not transgress thy commands if some difficulty should occur, I ask what I shall be obliged to observe: and does it please thee that Isaac go there and, having received his bride, return, if she will not, as thou hast commanded, come with me? What then does the Just man? He refuses this, and says: "Take heed to thyself: bring not my son thither." Thou wilt have no need of this. For he who promised me this, and promised that my seed should be so multiplied, will also take care that this succeeds prosperously. "Do not" therefore "lead my son thither." And presently, on these words of the Patriarch, The Lord God of heaven and God of earth, he observes thus: See how above, making the servant swear, he instructed him about the Creator of all: and now, about to pray again, he says the same words: teaching the servant in everything to undertake the journey full of confidence in him, and to hope well for the good outcome of the matter. For he teaches how great a benevolence of God he had found of old from the beginning, and that he who had called him out of his father's house, and had so governed him up to this time, and had now given him Isaac in so advanced an old age, would also make prosperous the things which still remained.
[500] Then, having recited the other words of the Patriarch which stand in the same chapter of Genesis, verse 7, shows at length. he presently brings Abraham in speaking thus: He (namely God) who has shown such kindness and care toward me, "He will send his angel before thee, and from thence thou shalt take a wife for my son." Go … confident: for I am certain that he who has thus far followed me with such great benefits will add this too to the former ones, and will send his angel before thee. He … will prepare the way for thee in all things, and will make the wife known to thee, so that, having received her, thou mayest return hither. But if it should happen, which God forbid, that the wife should be reluctant to come here, thou shalt be free of the curse of the oath. Only lead not my son thither. For I have no doubt that the Lord will make all things prosper for thee. Declaring how much he trusts in the divine power, he forbids the servant to bring his son there. When therefore, in this manner, as St. Chrysostom notes, Abraham had opened his counsels and commands to the faithful servant, and in this way had freed him from every scruple of perjury and anxious solicitude, he soon found him obedient to him; or, as Moses says in verse 9, The servant … put his hand under the thigh of Abraham his lord, and swore to him upon this word, namely that he would not take a wife for Isaac except from his Master's kindred in Mesopotamia, and that, if she would not come from there into Chanaan, he himself would not attempt at any time to bring Isaac back there, nor pledge that he would go there.
[501] [about to arrange the marriage of Isaac, whom his Father had forbidden to be brought back into Mesopotamia,] But, you will say, since Isaac was born in the land of Chanaan, and is never read to have set foot out of it, by what reasoning or in what sense did Abraham forbid him to be brought back into Mesopotamia? Smits, already often praised, answers in tome 2, part 1, on Genesis, page 268, that Isaac had been there (namely in Mesopotamia) in the loins of his parents, and at once goes on to speak thus: Because families are sometimes held as one man, to whom the things which happened to the individuals are attributed, Isaac would be said to be BROUGHT BACK to where Abraham had come from. The learned man judged in this place, namely, that the very thing which we contended in § XI, number 188 and following, about the Hebrew idiom, is by no means foreign to the truth, and that therefore in the sacred Books, even the historical ones, something is sometimes ascribed by name to posterity in which they nevertheless had no part except in their forefathers. And so, if Isaac could be said to be brought back into Mesopotamia because he had earlier been there in the loins of his Father, why could not the Israelites also be said to have dwelt 430 years in Egypt, who had been there in Abraham's loins so many years before, and had afterwards themselves sojourned for a very long time? But let these things be touched on briefly, as the occasion offered. Now I proceed to the very execution of the command mentioned above — not because this whole history, such as it is, bears directly on the deeds of Abraham, but so that it may become manifest from it how far from vain was the holy Man's confidence, and so that it may be clear to what extent the kind God assented to his prayers and so disposed everything as both he himself and his servant had wished it to be done.
[502] the faithful steward, by his Lord's command, goes into Mesopotamia, Here then is the genuine narrative of the whole matter, woven in the very words of Moses from verse X: And he (Abraham's servant) took ten camels of his lord's herd, and departed, carrying with him of all his goods, and he set forth and went on to Mesopotamia, to the city of Nachor. And when he had made the camels lie down outside the town beside a well of water in the evening, at the time when women are wont to come out to draw water, he said: O Lord, God of my lord Abraham, meet me, I beseech thee, today, and show mercy to my lord Abraham. Behold, I stand near the spring of water, and the daughters of the inhabitants of this city will come out to draw water. Therefore the girl to whom I shall say, Let down thy pitcher, that I may drink, and she shall answer, Drink, and I will give thy camels drink also: she is the one whom thou hast prepared for thy servant Isaac: and by this I shall understand that thou hast shown mercy to my lord. He had not yet finished the words within himself, and behold Rebecca came out, the daughter of Bathuel, son of Melcha, the wife of Nachor, Abraham's brother, having a pitcher on her shoulder: a girl exceedingly comely, and a most beautiful virgin, and not known by man: and she had gone down to the spring, and had filled her pitcher, and was coming back. And the servant met her, and said: Give me a little water to drink from thy pitcher. And she answered: Drink, my lord; and quickly she let down the pitcher upon her arm, and gave him drink. And when he had drunk, she added: I will draw water for thy camels also, until they all drink. And pouring out the pitcher into the troughs, she ran back to the well to draw water, and having drawn it she gave to all the camels.
[503] and in a singular manner, and not without thanks given to God, he finds But he gazed at her in silence, wishing to know whether the Lord had made his journey prosperous or not. And after the camels had drunk, the man brought out golden earrings weighing two sicles, and as many bracelets of ten sicles' weight. And he said to her: Whose daughter art thou? Tell me: is there room in thy father's house to lodge? And she answered: I am the daughter of Bathuel, the son of Melcha, whom she bore to Nachor. And she added, saying: We have also very much straw and hay, and a large place to lodge. The man bowed himself, and adored the Lord, saying: Blessed be the Lord God of my lord Abraham, who has not taken away his mercy and his truth from my lord, and has brought me by a straight way into the house of my lord's brother. So the girl ran and told in her mother's house all that she had heard. Now Rebecca had a brother named Laban, who went out in haste to the man where the spring was. And when he had seen the earrings and bracelets on his sister's hands, and had heard all the words of her reporting, This the man said to me, he came to the man who stood beside the camels, and near the spring of water: and he said to him: Come in, thou blessed of the Lord: why standest thou outside? I have prepared the house and a place for the camels. And he brought him into the lodging: and he unloaded the camels, and gave straw and hay, and water to wash his feet and the feet of the men who had come with him.
[504] And bread was set before him. He said: the bride destined for Isaac, and her I will not eat until I tell my message. He answered him: Speak. And he said: I am Abraham's servant: And the Lord has blessed my lord greatly, and he has become great: and he has given him sheep and oxen, silver and gold, menservants and maidservants, camels and asses. And Sara, my lord's wife, bore my lord a son in her old age, and he has given him all that he had (that is, he has made him heir of all his property). And my lord made me swear, saying: Thou shalt not take a wife for my son of the daughters of the Chanaanites, in whose land I dwell: but thou shalt go to my father's house, and of my kindred thou shalt take a wife for my son: But I answered my lord: What if the woman will not come with me? The Lord, he said, in whose sight I walk, will send his angel with thee, and will direct thy way: and thou shalt take a wife for my son of my kindred, and of my father's house. Thou shalt be innocent of my curse when thou comest to my kinsmen, and they will not give her to thee.
[505] So I came today to the spring of water, and said: from her brothers and mother for Isaac *O Lord God of my lord Abraham, if thou hast directed my way in which I now walk, Behold, I stand beside the well of water, and the virgin who shall come out to draw water shall hear from me, Give me a little water to drink from thy pitcher, And she shall say to me, Both drink thou, and I will draw for thy camels also: She is the woman whom the Lord has prepared for my lord's son. And while I was turning these things over silently within me, Rebecca appeared coming with a pitcher, which she carried on her shoulder: and she went down to the spring and drew water. And I say to her: Give me a little to drink. And she in haste let down the pitcher from her shoulder, and said to me: Both drink thou, and I will give drink to thy camels. I drank, and she watered the camels. And I asked her, and said: Whose daughter art thou? And she answered: I am the daughter of Bathuel, the son of Nachor, whom Melcha bore to him. So I hung the earrings to adorn her face, and put the bracelets on her hands. And bowing down I adored the Lord, blessing the Lord God of my lord Abraham, who has brought me by a straight way to take the daughter of my lord's brother for his son. Wherefore, if you show mercy and truth to my lord, tell
me: but if something else pleases you, tell me this also, that I may go to the right or to the left.*
[506] obtains, and into the land of Chanaan And Laban and Bathuel answered: The word has proceeded from the Lord: we cannot speak anything else with thee beyond his good pleasure. Behold, Rebecca is before thee: take her, and depart, and let her be the wife of thy lord's son, as the Lord has spoken. When Abraham's servant heard this, falling down he adored the Lord upon the ground. And bringing out vessels of silver and of gold, and garments, he gave them to Rebecca for a present; to her brothers also and to her mother he offered gifts. A banquet being made, they remained there eating and drinking together. And rising in the morning, the servant spoke: Let me go, that I may go to my lord. And her brothers and mother answered: Let the girl stay with us at least ten days, and afterwards she shall depart. Do not, he said, keep me back, because the Lord has directed my way: let me go, that I may go on to my lord. And they said: Let us call the girl, and ask her own will. And when she was called and had come, they inquired: Wilt thou go with this man? And she said: I will go.
[507] brings her safe to him. So they let her go, and her nurse, and Abraham's servant and his companions, wishing prosperity to their sister, and saying: Thou art our sister: mayest thou increase to thousands of thousands, and may thy seed possess the gates of their enemies. So Rebecca and her maids, having mounted the camels, followed the man: who returned in haste to his lord. Now at that time Isaac was walking along the way that leads to the well whose name is Of the Living and Seeing One: for he dwelt in the Southern land: And he had gone out to meditate in the field, the day now declining: and when he had lifted up his eyes, he saw camels coming afar off. Rebecca also, having seen Isaac, got down from the camel, and said to the servant: Who is that man who comes through the field to meet us? And he said to her: He is my lord. And she, quickly taking her mantle, covered herself. And the servant told Isaac all that he had done. And he brought her into the tent of Sara his mother, and took her to wife, and loved her so much that he tempered the grief which had come upon him from the death of his mother. And this indeed was the success of Abraham's wishes, and the most joyful fruit of his fatherly care and firm trust in God; for which, that he presently gave the highest thanks to the divine Majesty, although Moses does not add it to the words just recited, the ancient piety of the Patriarch nevertheless by no means allows us to doubt, together with his most fervent and most constant will of always showing a grateful mind to God for benefits received.
§ XXVII. Abraham marries Cetura: the circumstances of this marriage are discussed: the sons born of it: these, as also Ismael, presented with gifts, Abraham separates from Isaac, who was now increased with two sons: the death and burial of the Saint.
Abraham married a secondary wife, Sara being now dead, About three years had elapsed since the death of Sara, as may be seen from what has been said already and will be said below, and a space of three months more or less since the marriage of Isaac with Rebecca, when our Patriarch — who, although he had handed over the dwelling of his deceased wife and all her furniture to Isaac's bride, as the new mother of the family, or the one substituted in Sara's place, had nevertheless not changed his mind about taking another wife for himself — did in fact take a wife, named Cetura: not indeed one who was of the same rank and dignity as his already deceased wife Sara, but one who, enjoying the name and reality of a lawful wife, might increase her Husband with children, if so it pleased God, might have singular regard for his old age, and might undertake the care of the household. Moses teaches us this not obscurely, partly when, having related the marriage of Isaac, he next subjoins the narrative of Abraham's marriage with Cetura, speaking thus in chapter 25 of Genesis, verse 1, But Abraham took another wife named Cetura, and so signifying that this followed the marriage of Isaac just mentioned after a short interval of time; partly when, in the same chapter, verse 6, he calls the offspring both of Cetura and of Agar sons of the concubines, that is, sons not of some primary wife, but of wives of secondary rank, yet legitimate — by which name he would otherwise not have called them, if Abraham had joined Cetura to himself by the nuptial bond rather than Agar, as mistress and mother of the household.
[509] But since what I have now said is liable to more than one doubt, although some, whose reasons are recited here, whether the asserted epoch of the deed be considered, or the thing itself with its circumstances, I think it will not be foreign to my purpose if I weigh all the difficulties and the various reasons of those who here oppose us, and by the same effort satisfy them. I begin from the epoch of the mentioned marriage. Smits, already often praised, after he had fixed this marriage of Abraham a little after Isaac's marriage in his Prolegomenon to Genesis, page 492 and page 496, and had first spoken thus in his Notes on chapter 25 of Genesis, If we follow here the order of the narrative, it follows that Abraham entered into these nuptials when Isaac was already joined to Rebecca, while he was 140 years old, presently goes on to speak in this manner in the same tome 2 on Genesis, part 2, page 282: Some nevertheless believe that Moses here, as often elsewhere, used a hysterology, and that this marriage with Cetura was entered into long before, and while Sara was still living; so that the sense is: "But Abraham had taken another," etc. And, that you may see that he was by no means averse to this latter opinion, he adduces diligently and vigorously enough all the reasons by which this opinion could be established. Hear him again: Thus surely, he says, miracles are not multiplied. Cetura is also called Abraham's concubine in book 1 of Paralipomenon I, verse XXXII. She seems therefore to have been added while Sara was living. Nay immediately below, in verse VI, there is talk of his concubines in the plural number: as if he lived at the same time with Agar and Cetura; or rather as if he took Cetura after he dismissed Agar. Finally, Eliezer in the preceding chapter, verse XXXVI, indicates not obscurely that the sons of the concubines, as is said in the same place, had been separated long before. But neither would Abraham have given all his property to Isaac, if he had still had the intention of entering into another marriage.
[510] and are refuted one by one, But in truth I by no means see that these reasons adduced by Smits are pressing enough for it to be asserted that Abraham's marriage with Cetura was entered into long before Isaac's marriage and while Sara was still living. For since, when Abraham was already almost a hundred years old, his youth had been divinely renewed like the eagle's, and vigour restored to his body, why should miracles need to be multiplied here in order that Abraham should have been able, thirty-five years more or less before his death, to beget some children from a young wife? Surely, if in present times, in which the life of the more robust men is circumscribed by seventy or eighty years, old men sometimes beget offspring from a vigorous and younger woman one or two years before their death, and most certainly without any miracle whatever, why could the same not likewise be done by Abraham, when he was thirty years away from his departure from life? Nor indeed can anything be hammered out in support of our opponents from the name of concubine by which Cetura is called, inasmuch as it is manifest that that word in the sacred books of the Old Testament, and by name in the places just designated, signifies only a wife lawfully taken, whether the primary wife be living or dead, but who does not enjoy the ordinary privileges and favours which belong to the mother of the household or primary wife, as we showed above at number 313; and it is given to be understood sufficiently from the book of Judges chapter 19, in which, namely, a Levite's wife is called a concubine, although it is nowhere recorded that she was taken by him while another, primary, wife was living.
[511] contend that it happened before Sara's death, But Eliezer, in the cited chapter, verse 36, indicates that the sons of Abraham's concubines were separated from Isaac before Isaac's marriage. How so, I ask? Because in the cited verse he related that Abraham had given Isaac all that he had? But if you understand these words of his as though the Patriarch had already then stripped himself of the ownership, usufruct and possession of all his goods, what will you at length keep left for him which he could afterwards, namely in Genesis chapter 25, verse 5, give to Isaac and to his brothers by Agar and Cetura, when nevertheless Moses expressly speaks thus there: Abraham gave all that he HAD POSSESSED to Isaac: but to the sons of the concubines he gave gifts, … while he himself was still living, or while he still enjoyed his senses and mind intact, but was little distant from the end of his life, as the sacred Writer insinuates in the following verses 7 and 8. These things being so, nothing else seems to be able to be drawn from the words of Eliezer in the cited chapter 24, verse 36, than that Isaac, before he took a wife, was constituted by Abraham lawful lord, or heir, of such goods as were then reckoned hereditary, from his father's death, the ownership and possession of all the goods however remaining meanwhile with the testator while he lived. From which it surely cannot follow that Abraham took Cetura long before Isaac's marriage, nay even had already grown-up sons by her, whom, enriched with some gifts, he had separated from his Isaac. And hence too flows the answer to the reasons recounted from Smits at the end of number 509, and it is easily understood how Abraham could take a wife again, but only a secondary one, and could honourably maintain her and their common children, and then abundantly provide, out of the fruits of his goods received before, for the fitting establishment of each after his death.
[512] Here now are the things which are an argument to us, to whose opinion not one for judging with Pererius, already often praised, that our Patriarch's marriage with Cetura was entered into after the death of Sara. If Abraham took Cetura to wife while Sara was still living, he did it either of his own accord or by the persuasion and urging of Sara. But it is not credible that the same Abraham who, when he had no offspring at all and was 50 years younger, had to be urged, nay as it were compelled, by Sara to take Agar as a wife of secondary rank, would of his own accord, two sons Isaac and Ismael having already been begotten, have taken a secondary wife while Sara was living, especially since he had already been taught by the example of Agar (on which see § XVII and § XXII) that some inconveniences and stumbling-blocks were to be feared for him from a doubled wife; but neither is it likely that that same Sara, who would not even have urged the marriage with Agar on her Husband except because she herself was at that time destitute of all offspring and of hope of generating offspring, and who afterwards had her twice driven out of her husband's house, it is not,
I say, likely that that same Sara would have induced her Husband to take afterwards another wife of secondary rank. Abraham must therefore be judged not to have taken Cetura to wife except after Sara was already dead, and when nothing at all of inconvenience and stumbling-block was to be feared from this third marriage of his.
[513] Moreover, the order of the Mosaic narrative wholly favours this opinion of ours, reason, but it is shown to favour our opinion. which records that marriage only after the death of Sara and the marriage of Isaac: and it is fitting to judge that that order is right and agrees with the order of the thing done, so long as there is nothing that compels us to think otherwise; or, as Pererius, already often praised, also notes, it must always be judged that the sacred Historiographers narrate deeds in right order, except when a manifest reason persuades us of the contrary opinion. But, as we have already shown above, no manifest reason at all is brought forward for which it should be said that Abraham's marriage with Cetura was entered into before Sara's death. It follows therefore that it must be set down that it in fact took place after Sara's death and Isaac's marriage, or in that order in which it is related by the sacred Historiographer. There agrees with this the well-known opinion, commonly received, of the older Fathers who have treated of the epoch of this marriage, from which surely the more recent should by no means depart without a weighty reason to the contrary, and especially indeed when one would thus depart from their authority, and with that design, that some divine Historiographer could be accused of hysterology, or be said to have narrated deeds in inverted order.
[514] And so much about the time of this marriage. But about the thing itself two matters especially come up for examination: Mystical reasons for entering into this marriage, the one, what was the cause of this marriage; the other, who Abraham's bride was. As regards the first, St. Augustine discourses of it thus in Question 70 on Genesis, tome 3 of his Works, part 1, column 395: This deed of Abraham, that after the death of Sara he begot sons of Cethura, is not to be taken as if it was done merely by human custom and thought, for the sake of providing a more numerous offspring. For men could take in this way also what was done concerning Agar, if the Apostle did not admonish that those things were done prophetically, so that in both persons of the women and of their sons an allegorical signification might figure the two testaments for the foretelling of future things. Whence in this deed of Abraham also something of the kind is to be sought. He hands down things consonant with these in book 16 of the City of God, chapter 34, speaking thus: But what does it mean that Abraham after the death of Sarra took Cethura to wife? Far be it from us to suspect incontinence here, especially at that age, and in that holiness of faith. Or were sons still being sought for begetting, when already, by God's promise, so great a multiplication of sons from Isaac, by the stars of heaven and the sand of the earth, was held by most approved faith? But surely, if Agar and Ismael, as the Apostle teaches, signified the carnal men of the old Testament, why should not Cethura also and her sons signify the carnal men who think themselves to belong to the new Testament?
[515] or allegorical, and also certain natural or historical ones, Then, after some things by which he strives to establish this assertion of his, or exposition of the mystical and allegorical sense, he continues thus: For neither do I see why Cethura too, taken after the death of his wife (namely Sara), was called a concubine, except on account of this mystery. But whoever does not wish to take these things in these significations, let him not calumniate Abraham. For what if this too was provided against the heretics who would be adversaries of second marriages, so that in the very Father of many nations it might be shown that to marry again after the death of a spouse is not a sin? Augustine therefore judges that the chief cause of the marriage entered into by Abraham at that age was a certain great mystery to be prefigured by that marriage, and that the Patriarch was therefore moved by divine instinct to take Cetura to wife after Sara's death. But truly, although I would not dare deny that that mystical and allegorical cause for entering into marriage with Cetura was the principal one, and also that it is the one which the Holy Spirit wished us chiefly to search out and consider, I do not know, however, whether plausible natural or historical causes of it cannot also be assigned. What then if Abraham took Cetura not from the heat of lust, which it is wicked to suspect of the most holy Old man, but from love of a more numerous offspring and desire of having a support for his old age, so that thus, namely, not only should peoples be multiplied from his seed even outside the people of God, the heir of Chanaan, and the promise made to him in Genesis chapter 17, verse 6, about nations and kings who would spring from him, be more abundantly fulfilled, but also so that he himself, while he was alive, might have an inseparable companion of life, who would faithfully administer his household, and cherish him, an aged old man, and relieve him in all the ways she could?
[516] But who and of what sort was this new wife of his? likewise the name of Abraham's new wife, If the author of the Hebrew Questions on the Books of Paralipomenon — whom some have wrongly thought to be St. Jerome — is to be believed in this matter, Cetura is by no means different from Agar, the Egyptian handmaid, of whom it was treated above. But if we hear Jerome himself, in the book of Questions on Genesis, column 529, it is uncertain whether Cetura, the name being changed, is the same as Agar, or different from her. Cetura, he says, in the Hebrew language is interpreted COUPLED, or JOINED. For which cause the Hebrews suspect that, the name being changed, she is the same Agar, who, Sara having died, passed from concubine into wife. And the age of Abraham, already decrepit, seems to be excused: lest the Old man be accused of having wantoned in new nuptials after the death of his aged wife. We, leaving what is uncertain, say this: that the sons of Abraham born of Cetura … occupied the Troglodyte country and Arabia. But since the reason just adduced does not stand solidly enough, inasmuch as that new marriage does not argue wantonness, but rather shows Abraham's customary obedience to divine instinct and his aged prudence, and since also reasons by no means to be despised stand in the way from elsewhere of Cetura being said to have been the same as Agar, why, I ask, should we depart here from the common opinion, which sets down the one as different from the other?
[517] And indeed, when the Hebrew text speaks thus word for word: her difference from Agar, And Abraham ADDED and took a wife whose name was Cetura, it indicates sufficiently by so emphatic an expression that not some old marriage renewed, but an entirely new marriage was added to the former ones. Moreover, as Cajetan observes on this place, page 99, in the cited verse not the surname but the name of the woman, Cetura, is explained; and in this same chapter Agar is named by her own name Agar, and, what is more, it is clearly subjoined that Abraham had not one only but many concubines. Thus, roughly, he. And although in the Vulgate the words And he added are not read, yet, since in it Abraham is said to have taken another wife, named Cetura, it is concluded even from the Vulgate itself that the wife taken by Abraham after Sara's death was different from the former ones, and that therefore Sara, Agar and Cetura were women no less different than their very names are different. Besides, since Agar, marrying Abraham certainly before the end of his eighty-sixth year, was more probably at least twenty years old, it follows that, if she was received into his bed in the hundred and fortieth year of Abraham's age, she herself would then have been almost eighty; so that she could not, without a prodigy, have borne six sons at that age, and that therefore she must be set down as wholly other than Cetura, the mother of so many sons, who, when she married our Patriarch, was doubtless still flourishing in sound and vigorous age.
[518] Further, some think that she was a Chananite by race, her race, probably not Chananite, by no means deterred by this reason, that Abraham so greatly abhorred marriages with Chananite women that he most severely took care that a wife should not be taken for his son from the daughters of Chanaan. For they answer that this latter was done on account of the election of the people of God, so that it should wholly descend from the stock of Abraham and not be mixed with idolatrous nations; and since the whole people of God was to be propagated through Isaac, if he had taken a wife from the Chananite nation, the people of God, in their judgment, would certainly have been bound and mingled with the idolatrous Chananites by natural kinship and close relationship. But, they say, Abraham in taking Cetura to wife did not intend to increase the people of God; for he knew that the promises and blessings of God pertaining to his seed were to be fulfilled in Isaac alone and his posterity; and therefore, since all the other sons of Abraham except Isaac alone were reckoned outside the people of God and that chosen seed of Abraham, it mattered not at all whether Abraham took a wife from the Chananites or from any other nation. Thus, roughly, they. But since sacred Scripture nowhere insinuates that Cetura was a Chananite by race, I would rather believe that she was the daughter or granddaughter of some handmaid brought by Abraham at one time out of Chaldea or Mesopotamia, and that she was chosen as his wife before the others on account of her gifts of nature and grace, so that she might duly cherish Abraham's old age, administer his household, and, as Salianus writes at the year of the world 2179, number 6, strive to preserve and enlarge the worship of God in it, and at the same time increase her Husband with children, from whom nations and kings were one day to spring.
[519] her sons and their time of birth, Now I undertake to determine from the words of Moses how many children Abraham received from this third wife of his, and in what space of time. And first indeed, as the sacred Historiographer assures us in Genesis chapter 25, verse 2, it is indubitable that Cetura bore Abraham six sons, namely Zamran and Jecsan, and Madan and Madian, and Jesboc and Sue, whose descendants it is not my purpose to recount. But as regards their time of birth, it seems to me at least nearest to the truth that those six sons of Abraham and Cetura were brought into the world between the hundred and fortieth year of their Father and the hundred and fifty-fifth year. What moves me to judge so is Moses in verse 6, when he writes in this manner about the sons of Cetura no otherwise than about the son of Agar: But to the sons of the concubines, or of those who had not been endowed with the dignity of a primary wife, he (namely Abraham) gave gifts, and separated them from Isaac his son, while he himself was still living, toward the Eastern country. For since it is not sufficiently credible that any of them was separated far from his brother's and father's dwelling by a most equitable and most loving Father before he was already grown up and could manage his affairs by himself, it follows that, since this, from what has already been said, can be set no later than the hundred and seventy-fifth year of Abraham,
no one of them was born later than the hundred and fifty-fifth year of his Father; lest otherwise Abraham should have to be said, against every appearance of truth, to have cast off the care and instruction of his sons before the twentieth year of their age.
[520] and finally the epoch at which Abraham, after twin offspring were born to Isaac, But from these matters now disputed, and at the same time from verse 26, where Isaac, when two little ones were born to him at Rebecca's first and only delivery, is narrated to have been sixty years old, it is manifestly gathered that Abraham's rather frequent joy at Cetura's happy deliveries had some grief mixed with it, on this account namely, that he saw not even one offspring arise to his Isaac, from whom he expected a numerous progeny, while meanwhile the sons of the handmaid were multiplied in a wonderful manner. Nevertheless, with Salianus at the year of the world 2189, I judge that the pious Patriarch did not so grieve over his daughter-in-law's barrenness as not at the same time to hope faithfully and constantly that he would not see death until he saw the progeny of Isaac, through whom the divine promises would be transmitted from him to his posterity, the possessors of Chanaan. And indeed the outcome did not deceive his hope. For when Isaac had already for about nineteen years besought the Lord for his wife, because she was barren, as the sacred Writer more or less says in verse 21, the Lord heard his most earnest prayers, and exceeded the very wishes of our Patriarch, granting namely to Isaac in the sixtieth year of his age, and in the hundred and sixtieth year of Abraham himself, twin male offspring, about the birth and manners of both of whom the reader may, if he wishes, go to the cited chapter 25 of Genesis, verse 22 and following.
[521] Nor indeed ought it to stand against what has just been said that Flavius Josephus, book 1 of the Jewish Antiquities, chapter 18, writes that Isaac's wife conceived after Abraham had died; since it is evident that a parachronism lies in this place, the sons of the concubines from Isaac, inasmuch as he himself in chapter 17 asserts that Abraham lived 175 years; and therefore, since Isaac was only a hundred years younger than his father, and in the sixtieth year of his age, as Moses witnesses in chapter 25 of Genesis, verse 26, was increased with twin offspring from Rebecca, it wholly follows that the things which the cited author narrates about the sons of Isaac at the beginning of the same chapter 18 must be set while Abraham was still living, nay fifteen years before his death. But when, or in what determinate year, our Patriarch gave gifts to the sons of his secondary wives, and sent them away separated from Isaac toward the East, or to regions lying more toward the sunrise than Chanaan, cannot be declared for certain. Salianus places these things at the hundred and sixty-third year of Abraham, not so confidently, however, as not to insinuate that they could be referred to another year. To me it is much more likely that the six sons of Cetura, together with Ismael, were not presented by Abraham with gifts from which they could live honourably, and separated far from Isaac's dwelling, before the aged Patriarch had learned that the end of his pilgrimage was approaching and that the time for declaring and executing his last will was at hand — which indeed seems to be tied to the beginning of his hundred and seventy-fifth year, which was also the year of his death.
[522] But why, you will say, did Abraham then give Isaac all that he HAD POSSESSED, and put him into possession of all the goods of which he had long before constituted him heir? having first put him into possession of the paternal inheritance, And again, for what cause did he remove his other sons from the land of Chanaan, namely into those very regions to which afterwards the names of Madianitis, Idumea and Arabia Felix attached themselves? As regards the first, I answer that the most prudent Father of the family wished to cut off every occasion of envy, disturbances and quarrels, and to provide carefully that none of the sons of the concubines should dare after his death to contend with Isaac about the most ample inheritance granted to him, inasmuch as it had been entered upon by him with solemn rite and lawfully vindicated while his father was still living, nay with the same father so ordaining. As regards the other question, I answer that, besides the reasons recounted by Salianus, another can also be brought forward: namely, since Abraham knew for certain from the divine promises that about four hundred years after the birth of Isaac the land of Chanaan was to be occupied by the posterity of the same Isaac, he found it necessary to send away his other sons into those regions, doubtless then empty, so as in this way to take precaution lest their posterity should hold Chanaan, divinely promised to the chosen people of God, together with that people, which would surely have been against the divine ordinance; or lest otherwise, if they had fixed their seats among the Chananites, they should have to be exterminated together with them, which surely would have been inhuman and too atrocious. And Abraham wished this most prudent counsel of his to be carried into execution while he himself was still living, so that, thus secure about the lot and safety of all his sons, he might depart from life whenever it should seem good to God.
[523] It remains that we here observe a few things, partly with Salianus, about the inheritance entered upon by Isaac and about the gifts granted by Abraham to his other sons. [it is here indicated that he separated them and presented them with quite generous gifts.] When Abraham is said in Genesis chapter 25, verses 5 and 6, to have given Isaac all that he had possessed, but to have given gifts to the sons of the concubines, these things are to be understood thus: that to the most beloved son of Sara, the primary wife, went all the immovable goods, such as the sepulchre in Hebron with the surrounding field, the well of Bersabee with the grove, likewise the sepulchre at Sichem, on which see what was said from number 480; and then the most ample part of the movable goods, gold, silver, sheep, oxen, camels, asses, menservants and maidservants, and one at least equal to that which the Patriarch possessed when he first constituted Isaac his heir; but on the contrary, that to Ismael and the six sons of Cetura went only ready money, gold, silver, garments, tents, and some cattle, which he had acquired by divine kindness from the time the inheritance was assigned to Isaac, and from which these might most honourably and most comfortably sustain themselves and theirs. Surely, although these goods come in the cited verse 6 only under the name of gifts, it seems by no means to be doubted that they were not at all unworthy of so opulent a Patriarch and most loving father of sons, and ample enough that, had they been granted by any other parent, they would have deserved the name of an inheritance. Now at length I proceed with the sacred author of the Pentateuch to the end of Abraham's pilgrimage.
[524] Abraham, having died in peace and a good old age Thus then he speaks in the cited chapter 25, verses 7 and 8: And the days of Abraham's life were a hundred and seventy-five years. And failing he died in a good old age, and of advanced years, and full of days: and he was gathered to his people. Thus namely was fulfilled that which God had foretold to Abraham almost ninety years before, in Genesis chapter 15, verse 15, in these words: But thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace, buried in a good old age. For truly it was a good old age, which embraced a hundred and seventy-five years of life without the ordinary ills of old age, and which, as Pererius more or less writes on this place of Genesis chapter 25, had a certain perfect maturity in speech, judgments, counsels, manners, pursuits and actions, and, being honourable and venerable on account of the esteem of his virtue, prudence and learning, merited the greatest credit and authority among all. It will be helpful to hear Torniello commenting vigorously as well as lucidly on the recited words of Moses, pages 325 and 326 of the Sacred Annals: In the hundred and seventy-fifth year of his life, he says, nearly completed, as is gathered from Genesis chapter XXV, verse VII and following, Abraham died, full of days, which he had surely spent not idly nor in vain, but filled with very many and most holy works and examples: at an age not premature, but ripe and advanced: in an old age not troublesome and morose to himself and his own, but peaceful, quiet and venerable: failing not by any violence of pain or disease, but by a natural dissolution, gradually and gently, not to say in a manner pleasantly.
[525] [in the 175th year of his life, passes in soul to the assembly of the holy fathers,] Further, it is to be noted here against the pseudo-philosophers of our time that these words of Moses, and he was gathered to his people, ought to be understood not of our Patriarch's body (for this was laid not in the sepulchre of his fathers or countrymen, but in the one formerly bought by himself), but of his soul; namely in this way, that it went out from the body and was joined to the assembly of those like it, for example Adam, Abel, Seth, Enos, Noe and other just men, who had died before him in the grace of God and were awaiting in the limbo of the Saints the Redeemer of the world, by whom, death being overcome, they would one day be led to the heavenly kingdoms. Finally, so that the chronology of Abraham's deeds already fixed by us before may come out more manifest and firmer, I would wish it observed here that Salianus himself and his followers, who altogether insist that the words of Moses in Genesis chapter 12, verse 4, chapter 17, verse 1, chapter 21, verse 5, are to be explained of years wholly completed, nay even exceeded by some days or weeks, nevertheless admit with us that the death-year of Abraham was not the hundred and seventy-sixth year of his age already begun, but the hundred and seventy-fifth of his age still running, as the same Salianus expressly writes on page 509 in this manner: There is at hand the hundredth year of the Abrahamic pilgrimage and of the divine promise, and the hundred and seventy-fifth and last of his life. If therefore, by the agreement of the praised author with his followers, these words of Moses, And the days of Abraham's life were a hundred and seventy-five years, do not designate so many years completed in every part, why should other words of the same Moses, for example these, Abraham was seventy-five years old when he went out from Haran, be understood of years wholly entire, finished and completed?
[526] It remains that we likewise recount here the things which are narrated in the cited chapter 25, verses 9 and X, about Abraham's burial: in body is buried at Hebron by Isaac and Ismael. And Isaac and Ismael his sons buried him (namely Abraham, who had died near Bersabee, where he had continued to live) in the double cave, which is situated in the field of Ephron, son of Seor the Hethite, over against Mambre, which he had bought from the sons of Heth: there was he buried, and Sara his wife. And so the care which Abraham had taken of his wife, the same his sons Isaac and Ismael took of him; nor is it to be doubted that these paid the best of Parents his dues most abundantly. For although at one time there had not been good agreement between them, nevertheless it can scarcely, or not even scarcely, be doubted that the solicitous Father, at least some time before his death, reconciled the one to the other, so that the son of the handmaid no longer envied the son of the free woman, and
the greatest tranquillity and concord flourished in Abraham's house and family when he gave back his spirit to his Creator and was gathered to his people. But whether the sons of Cetura also stood by their dying Father and took care of his funeral, as Salianus thinks at the year of the world 2213, number 13; or on the contrary whether these, having set out into more remote lands while their father was still living, could neither return in time to Bersabee nor accompany their Father's funeral when he was carried from there into the neighbourhood of Hebron, I leave to others to dispute, inasmuch as this controversy, on account of the silence of Moses and of other authors of equal credit, and the reasons contending on both sides, cannot be decided beyond all doubt.
[527] And these matters, disputed about the birth, deeds and death of St. Abraham, Why certain little stories scattered about Abraham are neglected here. and, as the matter allowed, drawn out from the divine writers, ancient historiographers, holy Fathers, and learned interpreters of the sacred Letters, I think are sufficient for us to proceed to the singular memory and veneration of the same holy Patriarch — neglecting, namely, as they wholly deserve, the almost innumerable little stories which, by the work either of Rabbis or of Muslims or of any unskilled persons, have been cast onto paper about Books written, if you please, by him, such as a certain Apocalypse, a Treatise on idolatry, Psalms, Morning Prayers, a book or Treatise on Dreams, etc.; likewise about the invention of the Hebrew language and its letters, as well as of the Syrian and Chaldean characters; about temples erected or restored by him, and miracles wrought to prove the resurrection of human bodies, and other deeds of that sort; and which will today find no credit among sensible men. On these matters, whoever has a mind for it must go to Peter Lambeck in the Prodromus of Literary History, book 1, chapter 6, Scipio Sgambati in book 2 of the Archives of the Old Testament, title 2, from page 190, and Augustin Calmet in the Biblical Dictionary, under the word Abraham, in the Latin edition prepared at Augsburg in the year 1738, page 16 and following.
§ XXVIII. The ancient memory and veneration of the Saint: the finding of his body in the 12th century by Canons Regular: Relics preserved under his name.
The memory of the Saint was celebrated before the Evangelical law, The memory of our holy Patriarch was commended in no ordinary way by Jesus, son of Sirach, when in chapter 44 of Ecclesiasticus, enumerating glorious men and the forefathers of his nation, renowned for virtue, distinguished for prudence, whose name would live from generation to generation, whose wisdom the peoples would tell and whose praise the assembly would proclaim, he recounts our Patriarch among these first of all, and with no common eulogy, in verse 20 and following: Abraham, he says, the great father of a multitude of nations, and there was not found the like to him in glory: who kept the law of the Most High, and was in covenant with him. In his flesh he made the covenant to stand, and in temptation he was found faithful. Therefore by an oath he gave him glory in his nation, that he should increase as the dust of the earth, and that he would exalt his seed as the stars, and that they should inherit from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth. And with Isaac he did in like manner for the sake of Abraham his father. And that the Hebrews' trust in their Father was equal to their signal veneration of him, these and similar formulas of praying to God, customary among the ancient Hebrews, Remember, O Lord, thy servant Abraham, God of Abraham, have mercy, and finally, to pass over many others, this very sentiment of the Jews in Matthew chapter 3, verse 9, we have Abraham for our father, manifestly demonstrate.
[529] at the very beginnings of the Evangelical law, Nor indeed was the memory of the Father of the Faithful less honourable in the very preaching of the Evangelical law, as is abundantly gathered from the frequent mention of him in the Gospels, and from the parable, or rather the history woven with parabolic circumstances, which Christ the Lord related in Luke chapter 16 from verse 19, about the beggar carried into Abraham's bosom and about the rich man begging Abraham's protection and help. The esteem of our Patriarch and the veneration conceived for him the Apostle of the gentiles increased and propagated not a little, when, writing to the Romans, the Galatians and the Hebrews, he extolled to the utmost his singular faith, obedience and holiness; so that it ought not to be a wonder that a Man of such great virtue was celebrated as if in rivalry with an immense proclamation of praises both by Hebrew writers and by outsiders as well, both gentiles and faithful, and especially by the greatest fathers of the Christian Church. What of the fact that the emperor Alexander Severus himself, admiring the glory of Abraham, learned either from his mother, who was initiated into the mysteries of the Christian Religion, or from the report of Jews or Christians, placed him among the gods of his lararium no otherwise than Christ, as Aelius Lampridius relates in the Alexander Severus, page 930 in my copy, from a contemporary author? Whether that emperor did this in emulation of the Christians who venerated Abraham, or of his own accord and with superstitious rite, I would not dare to define.
[530] However this last stands, we learn indeed from Sozomen, book 2 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 4, likewise in the time of the emperor Constantine the Great, who in the place that of old, and certainly up to about the year of Christ 326, it was the established custom that every year in summertime Jews together with Christians and Gentiles from Palestine, Phoenicia and Arabia gathered at the Vale of Mambre, or at the place afterwards called the Terebinth, where Abraham had received the angels of God, partly for the sake of commerce, partly for the sake of religion, and that each celebrated the festival in his own manner. But when Constantine the Great had heard that that most holy place, most celebrated for the memory of Abraham, was defiled by Gentiles and superstitious men with various impious rites, he presently, by a letter written to Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem, and other prelates, commanded that, the altar of the Gentiles which had formerly stood there being overturned, and the statues on which the Gentiles had wrongly bestowed divine worship being consumed by fire, they should mark out a church in the same place befitting the antiquity and holiness of the place, and should take care that in future that place should be free of libations and sacrifices (namely of the Gentiles); so that nothing else than the worship of the true God according to the laws of the Church should be celebrated there. By which words surely Sozomen designates clearly enough that there was not forbidden by Constantine the Great that pious and religious custom by which Christians, according to the laws of the Church, were wont to worship God in his Saints, and, for benefits to be obtained from God through Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of the world, to have recourse to the prayers, aid and help of his Friends.
[531] Further, besides Eusebius, book 3 of the Life of Constantine, venerable for the memory of Abraham, had a church built, Nicephorus Callistus mentions the erection of this church in the Ecclesiastical History, book 8, pages 597 and 598, where, about that annual festivity and the gathering of the peoples at the Vale of Mambre, though with differing purpose and not equally religious rite, he hands down these things: And the gathering and festivity had been pleasing to all: to the Jews indeed, because they boasted of Abraham as patriarch and founder of their race: to the Gentiles, on account of the coming of the angels to that place: to the Christians, moreover, because that had been foretold to that man beloved of God (Abraham) which many centuries afterwards was to come about from a virgin. When Constantine learned of this — namely, as the same Nicephorus had narrated before, that certain persons had built in that place altars of the old heathen superstition, had performed heathen sacrifices there, had poured libations of wine, etc. — he imputed it as a fault to the Bishops of Palestine, … that they had so despised so Holy a place. And so he commanded the bishops of Phoenicia that the altars be overturned from their very foundations, the images burned with fire, and a temple built there befitting the name of so great antiquity, in which the divine Majesty might be worshipped with the received rite of the church, and the place be for the rest free of all contamination… And these commands, applied to the matter, attained their lawful outcome, doubtless with the lawful cult of the Friend of God and most holy Patriarch remaining, together with the church erected to the Divine Majesty.
[532] But when the monastery mentioned by Quaresmius, tome 2 of the Elucidation of the Holy Land, page 773, was added to this church, erected by Helena, mother of Constantine the Great, to which a monastery was afterwards added. but at her son's urging, I have found nowhere handed down to memory. But I conjecture that it is quite ancient even from this, that its beginnings escaped Boniface Stephani, bishop of Stagno in the Ragusan territory, and the praised Quaresmius, both most diligent investigators of the sacred buildings of the Holy Land. Hear the latter speaking on the cited page: In the place of this cave (namely the double one, where Abraham and Sara, and then Isaac and Rebecca, and finally Jacob and Lia were buried), peace having been restored to the Church, a church was built by Helena, the pious mother of Constantine the Great, in honour of those illustrious men and women, beside which there was a monastery for those who served it, says Boniface… The structure of the whole building is wonderful, built of very large squared and hewn marbles. The church is beautiful and of sufficient size: on the right side of the entrance there are three chapels, under which the sepulchres of Abraham, Sara, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Lia are asserted to be. Entrance into the church is commonly forbidden to Christians, and to the sepulchres even to the Moors themselves… This church, although it has been made a den of thieves, namely the dwelling of the unclean Turks, is nevertheless held by them in great veneration on account of the memory and honour of the holy Patriarchs; to it, therefore, they come from various parts, and on account of it Hebron is one of the chief sanctuaries, or memorable places, of the Turks, to which they make pilgrimage for piety's sake: and many bring their sons there to be circumcised.
[533] Of the church of Hebron, which, by an author worthy of credit, But so that the reader may lack nothing by which the sepulchral place of the holy Patriarch and the veneration shown him of old can be illustrated more and more, it has seemed good to transcribe here some things from a certain Ms. Treatise, sent in the year 1671 to our Papebroch from the library of the monastery of St. Martin at Tournai, and hitherto, so far as I know, unpublished. That Treatise, inscribed On the finding of the holy Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and which nevertheless also includes a sufficiently prolix narrative of the finding of the body of Joseph, viceroy of Egypt, has for its author, as appears, a Canon Regular of the church of Hebron, who affirms that the things he relates about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob he learned from Arnulf and Odo, Canons Regular, the finders of the body of St. Abraham in the 12th century, and therefore he can be judged worthy of credit. Thus then he, before he begins to narrate the finding of the bodies of Sts. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, describes the church set over their sepulchre, on page 2 of our copy: Of how great authority and how great reverence and excellence that venerable place, in which the bodies of the Saints (mentioned above) rest, was among the ancients, the very fabric of the building testifies. For a wall surrounds it, high and strong and wonderful to behold, of great squared and unpolished stones, put together in a wonderful manner. Of this the inside is XVIII cubits in height, XLIX in breadth; the pavement too is seen, namely inside, beautifully and admirably constructed of great squared stones,
so solid and strong that any great building could be founded upon it.*
[534] is described here, in an underground place, But the hardness of the stones of both buildings exceeds every kind of marble; and the whole work is so joined together and bound into itself that the smallest stone there cannot be removed without laborious heaviness. Further, there are contained within six pyramids, built in honour of the Holy Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their wives, and set alternately opposite one another, that is, the pyramids of the men opposite the pyramids of the women, namely each opposite its own partner. Those which are spoken of under the name of St. Abraham and blessed Sara are in the middle; those of St. Isaac and Rebecca, toward the Eastern side; and those indeed which are called by the name of Jacob and Lia, toward the Western. But the double cave is situated deep down under the pyramid of St. Abraham, being almost fourteen cubits from the pavement. Some suppose Esau and Jacob to have been the builders of this so wonderful work, but it is very dangerous to affirm what is not known in truth. This one thing we surely know, that it was made out of reverence for the Saints. Thus far the Canon Regular of Hebron, who at length, after a prolix narrative which contributes nothing to our matter, sets out on page 9, in a style by no means embellished, to narrate the finding of the Holy Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the place just described.
[535] In the year therefore, he says, XXI of the kingdom of the Franks (begun, namely, in the month of July of the year 1099), [in the 21st year of the Frankish kingdom of Jerusalem, or the year of Christ 1119,] in which Jerusalem was taken by the Franks, there presided over Cariatharbe, or the church of Hebron, a certain man of pious memory, named Raynerus, the first Prior of the Latins, venerable in virtue and praiseworthy in all things, and for God's sake so lowly that, though he was thought to exercise prelacy over others, he nevertheless seemed to himself to be the minister of his subjects, imitating namely the pious Master who said, I came not to be ministered unto, but to minister. And so some flocked to him, desiring to serve the Lord under his teaching, among whom were Odo and Arnulf, priests of the Lord, by whose narration I learned what I narrate. These three aforesaid, namely the Prior and the two men named before, applied themselves before the others to prayers and nightly vigils, and continually afflicting themselves with tearful sighs they besought the almighty Lord that he would grant them what he had hitherto denied to so many and so great groanings. At length God heard them, and gave what they had asked of him.
[536] Then, after a brief digression, the praised author continues thus: begun to be uncovered by a rather singular chance, On a certain day in the month of June, while, as is the custom of Canons Regular, they were resting in their beds after midday, a certain brother of the same church, a scribe by craft, avoiding the summer heat, entered the church, and lay down on the pavement beside the pyramid which is called by the name of St. Isaac. Now there between two stones of the pavement there was a certain little crack, from which a light and pleasant wind, yet cold, came out through an underground passage; and for this reason he had lain down in that place, to be cooled by the wind. While therefore he was there and was receiving with open bosom the breeze coming from below, he began, as if in play, to throw little stones in through that crack, and hearing them fall into the depth, he judged that there was a cistern or some cavern there; and taking a certain small rod, he tied at its top a long and strong thread, and at the end of the thread a little lead weight, and letting it down he measured eleven cubits in depth. The Prior then happened to be away, for, detained by certain business, he had gone to Jerusalem. When the brothers had been roused from sleep and None had been sung, that brother told what he had found; and they, hearing it, suspected that it was the entrance of the double cave. Waiting two or three days and continually praying God that he would direct their labour to good, meanwhile they prepared the iron tools which were necessary for cutting the stones; for they were hard and almost invincible by any iron.*
[537] and after many prayers, So, when the space of two or three days had elapsed, by the common counsel of all the brothers and with the assent of the Tribune who at that time held rule in that same place, named Baldwin (he was perhaps Baldwin of Rames, of whom mention is made in William, archbishop of Tyre, at the year of Christ 1120, book 12 of the History, chapter 13), they took up that laborious work in the name of the holy Trinity, yet rather timidly. For they feared lest on account of their sins the Lord of the heavens and the world should be unwilling to help them. And therefore they afflicted themselves more and more, the priests by celebrating the solemnities of Masses, the other clerics by reading Psalters, the laymen too no less by praying the Ruler of all creation that he would be propitious to their iniquities, and, appeased by their supplications, would deign to bring to effect, according to their prayers, what they had begun. But those who were cutting, while in cutting they were weighed down through many days with inmost fatigue, at length, the stones being cut and removed, the mouth and entrance of the cave appeared. When it was opened, as they were all in burning desire, they wished with one mind to enter. But because that place could not hold all at once, they wished that the already mentioned Odo, who seemed older than all, and had been a canon of that same place before the Prior, should enter first of all, judging it fitting that, if fortune should bring it, the Fathers of many nations should be found by the more ancient one, and their father according to age.
[538] after various labours He, gladly accepting this, was let down by them with a rope, and, not finding a passable way by which he could go in further, he cried out for them to draw him out. When he had been drawn out, on the following day they let down Arnulf, and, a light having been given him (for the place was dark), he began within to wonder what this could have been. For he saw both walls so united that you would think them made of one stone, and that whole work quite like the upper wall. Now he did not know what to do, and was vexed with incredible grief of mind, especially since no access lay open to him. At length, taking heart again, as he was a skilful man, he took an iron hammer to strike both walls, in case he might hear something hollow. And striking that wall which looks to the West, he heard a sound as though resounding hollow from within. Then, having recovered a little hope, he ordered men to be let down who would remove a great stone by which the underground way was closed; and when they had been let down, they could scarcely move it in the space of four days. The stone at length being removed, there appeared as it were a great water conduit, yet dry. Of this the height XI cubits, and XVII of length, and one of breadth. Entering it and looking more carefully, but finding nothing whatever, they wondered at the work and were affected with heavy grief. A wonderful thing: each wall, on the right and left side, is composed of squared and polished stones, and equal to the upper one.*
[539] and many efforts Those therefore who were present were failing more from languor of mind than from pain of body. But Arnulf, whose mind was already as it were conscious of finding the relics of the Saints, taking a hammer, as above, began to strike here and there, in case he might perchance hear what he had heard above. Having heard beyond himself a sound of hollowness, he exhorted those who were with him that they should labour there, showing another stone which they should remove. And when they had sweated through another four days in order to remove it too, looking through the hole which they had made they saw a little house, built in the manner of a basilica, of admirable and round workmanship, holding about thirty men, which one continuous stone closes from above. Having seen it, weeping for excessive joy they gave glory to God; but they did not at all presume to enter. For they thought that the relics of the Saints were there; and therefore they waited until their prelate should return from Jerusalem. When he had returned, they informed him of the things which had been done. O with how great exultation of heart was he filled on hearing what he wished; but, because he had not been present at the beginning of the deed, he cried out that he was wretched.
[540] So on the same day, the counsel of the brothers being summoned, they decided at length happily opened, that on that very day, all being roused from sleep after None, they should go in there, and having diligently inquired whether there was anything there, they should know what they ought to do afterwards; and so it was done. For coming to the place at the appointed hour, and the stone being removed from the door of the basilica that had been found, they entered; but they by no means found what they thought. Whence, greatly astonished, they wondered at that little dwelling. For it is to be wondered at, since such a one can scarcely or never be found, especially under the earth. But those who had gone in there with the Prior, and the Prior himself too, while he considered whether they could anywhere recognize the entrance of the double cave, Arnulf, having returned to the door of the basilica and looking more carefully, noticed in its very entrance a not large stone inserted in the native rock in the manner of a wedge, which he ordered to be removed; and when it was removed, the entrance of the so-desired cave appeared. Then all with tears gave thanks to God, beseeching him that he would deign to reveal to them what was within, having become like the wise woman who, having lost a drachma, lights a lamp, sweeps the house, and searches diligently until she finds it…*
[541] The cave therefore being opened, on the seventh day before the Kalends of July the Prior enjoined on Arnulf under the name of obedience, and first, was found together with the Relics of the patriarchs Jacob that he who had laboured more should enter, and so carry his labour through to the end. Without delay, taking candles in his hands, fortifying himself with the sign of the holy Cross, singing Kyrie eleison with a very loud voice, yet not without fear, he entered; and thinking to himself lest perhaps Baldwin, the defender of that same place, should suspect that there was a treasure of gold or silver there, he exhorted the Prior to remind him to enter there with him, and besought him; and he, assenting to his prayers, entered, but seized with fear at once went out. But Arnulf, searching, went round the cave, to see whether he might find the bones of the Saints, and in that hour found nothing but earth, as it were sprinkled with blood; and returning he reported to those who were waiting for him outside. Hearing this, they all went out filled with great sadness. But on the following day the Prior admonished Arnulf to enter the cave again, and, digging the earth with the greatest diligence, to search all around. And he, carrying out his master's orders, taking a staff in his hand, went in; and when he was digging the earth with the staff, he found the bones of St. Jacob, and not yet knowing whose they were, he gathered them into one heap.
[542] Then, going further and looking more carefully, he saw at the head of St. Jacob the door of another cave, and Isaac, the body of St. Abraham, *in which were the bones of the blessed Abraham and Isaac, but yet closed; and when he had opened it, having looked into the hollow and entered it, he found at its bottom the body of St. Abraham the patriarch, marked, and at his feet the bones of blessed Isaac his son. For not, as some suppose, were all laid in one cave,
but Abraham and Isaac in the inner one, and Jacob in the outer. And Arnulf, who had found this supreme and incomparable treasure, going out of the cave announced to the Prior and the brothers that he had found the relics of these Patriarchs. And they, hearing what they had so long awaited with the greatest desire, glorified God, praising him in hymns and canticles. And Arnulf, taking water and wine, washed the bones of the sacred relics, and placed the relics of each Father separately upon separate wooden boards. Then the Prior, all having gone out, carefully sealed the entrance, lest anyone should enter without his leave…*
[543] and the Prior of Hebron solemnly showed it, together with them, to the faithful. These things having been so done, the Prior set out for Jerusalem, to make known the finding of the Saints to Guarmund, the patriarch of holy memory, who at that time (as may also be seen in tome 3 of the Oriens Christianus, column 1248) presided there, and to beseech him to come to Cariatarbe to raise the bodies of the Patriarchs. Why say more? He promised with kindly mind that he would come, but, following no good counsel, he disappointed him to whom he had promised that he would come. The Prior therefore, seeing that he had been deluded by the Patriarch, in the presence of a great multitude of people who had gathered from Jerusalem and the neighbouring cities for the solemnity of the Saints, on the day before the Nones of October, the clerics chanting with high-sounding voices and singing the Te Deum laudamus, brought forth with becoming honour the precious relics of the holy Patriarchs, and, having solemnly gone in procession round the cloister, showed them to the peoples who desired to see them. Blessed art thou, O Lord God, who hast hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to little ones! O how great was the exultation of all, how great the weeping for excessive joy, while they kissed those blessed bones, which was never permitted to any other people. All things therefore being duly accomplished, all, commending themselves to the patronage of the Blessed Patriarchs, returned home with joy.
[544] About the epoch of this deed With this narrative of the Canon of Hebron there agrees, so far as the substance goes, the Mahometan writer Ben-Schohnah, surnamed the prince of doctors and called the master of the Muslims, who, as the learned Monsieur d'Herbelot de Molainville indicates in his Bibliothèque Orientale under the word Schohnah, wrote a sufficiently accurate History of affairs in Palestine and the neighbouring regions, carried from the year 1 of the Hegira up to the year 806, or up to the year of Christ 1403. This Mahometan author, then, in the praised d'Herbelot, page 16, at the year of the Hegira 513, or the year of Jesus Christ 1119, under the Caliph Mosterasched, the nineteenth prince of the family of the Abbasids, hands down to memory that Abraham's sepulchral place, namely the double cave, where the bodies of the aforesaid Patriarch and of Isaac and Jacob had been buried, was opened; and presently affirms that the bodies of the same Saints were found quite intact, and also that very many lamps of gold and silver were found there, and finally that each of these things was seen by a huge number of men. If that author has handed down these last things truly, I do not know whether these sacred offerings were not brought into that sacred place by Catholics many centuries before, and perhaps even before Palestine was subdued by the Persians in the year of Christ 614 with a huge slaughter of Christians, to be either memorials of the divine favour bestowed on them through the patronage of St. Abraham, or perpetual tokens of their piety toward that Saint.
[545] However these things stand, it follows indeed from the narrative of the Canon Regular of Hebron and of the already praised Ben-Schohnah and another circumstance asserted by the anonymous Hebronite, that the Usuardine addition of the Florentine codex, which maintains at the 6th day of October that the bodies of Sts. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were found by the Canons of Hebron in the year of Christ 1120, has erred by one year from the true epoch of this deed; which surely anyone will readily believe who has believed our Sollerius asserting that the age of that codex does not seem to be earlier than the 15th century. Moreover, from the words of the Canon of Hebron recited at number 543 it is not obscurely drawn out that the church of Hebron, when the relics of St. Abraham were found in it, was not yet presided over by a bishop, but only by a Prior of the Canonical Order; which is also demonstrated sufficiently and more than sufficiently both from the words of William, archbishop of Tyre, book 20 of the History, number 3, and from James of Vitry, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, chapter 57 of the Eastern History. Hear the first writer speaking at the year of Christ 1167: In the same year almost nothing worthy of memory happened in the kingdom, except that about the season of Lent two churches in the kingdom were ordained, having received bishops: of which the one, namely that of Petra, had not had a Latin Pontiff since the entry of the Latins into the land of Promise; … but the other, namely that of Hebron, never, as is said; but in the time of the Greeks it had been a Priory. But … in regard of the servants of God whose memory is in benediction, namely Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, it then first merited to be distinguished with that same dignity (namely the episcopal). Hear also the second Writer: Similarly the church of Hebron, which had formerly been a Priory, on account of the dignity of the place … and on account of reverence for the Servants of God (namely Abraham, Isaac and Jacob), was raised to the episcopal dignity; over which the Tyrian praised above witnesses that the lord Rainald, nephew of Fulcher, patriarch of Jerusalem of pious memory, on whom see tome 3 of the Oriens Christianus, column 1269, was set.
[546] Finally, from the testimonies recited at numbers 534 and 542 it becomes manifest that Relics preserved in Europe under the name of the Patriarch Abraham are by no means to be held as spurious and fictitious on this sole ground, [and finally concerning the Relics preserved in Europe under the name of the Patriarch Abraham] that Abraham departed from life some twenty centuries before the coming of the Messias; since on the contrary, inasmuch as the finding of his sepulchre and body is established, they can with full right be preserved as genuine Relics of the Father of the Faithful and be accorded the customary honours of the Catholic Church, if authentic instruments worthy of credit attest that they were duly taken out of the sepulchral place of Abraham, already described above, by the prelates of the church of Hebron or by other prelates. But whether each and every one of the Relics which have long since been preserved in various places under the name of St. Abraham the Patriarch — for example at Rome in the church of St. Mary above Minerva, at Salerno in the Metropolitan church, in the church of Cefalù in Sicily, at Prague in the Cathedral, at Aachen in the monastery of Cistercian nuns called Porcetum, likewise at Antwerp and Mechelen and elsewhere — were furnished with testimonies of that kind, that truly it is safe to define only for those who have been permitted to see and peruse the original and authentic testimonies of these Relics.
[547] Meanwhile I do not fear to declare that those relics of Abraham are wholly suspect to me, not to say anything worse, which, as some would have it, some things are observed here. were brought into Europe and formerly preserved there by certain persons together with the spurious remains of the ram which the pious Patriarch offered to God as a holocaust in place of Isaac, or with a particle of the stone on which he wished to immolate Isaac; since it is certain that the ram offered with the rite of a holocaust was wholly consumed by fire, nor is it in any way likely either that some particles of that ram, even if it be supposed for the moment that it was not consumed by fire, or certain fragments of the aforesaid stone, were carried by Abraham to Bersabee and transmitted by him to his posterity, by whom at length, by a wholly singular chance, after about thirty centuries, they were handed over to certain European pilgrims when these were returning from Syria to their homeland. If any today, which I by no means think, glory either in the remains of that ram or in monuments of Abraham of this kind, I advise them to peruse the third book of the venerable abbot Guibert, inscribed On the pledges of the Saints; and I shall surely be very much mistaken unless they will agree that they have exceeded the fairness of just credulity in that matter. I now undertake to record the remaining things which bear on the veneration of St. Abraham.
Annotata* supply: measures or the like.
* read: waiting exspectantes
* supply: measured or the like.
* read: there illuc
§ XXIX. The announcement of the holy Patriarch in the sacred Calendars: his lawful cult also in the Latin Church: proper Office and Mass.
[St. Abraham is announced not only in the Eastern sacred Calendars, such as the Greek,] Besides the Sirletian Menology of the Greeks, which announces the holy Patriarch Abraham on the 9th day of October together with Lot, the printed Great Menaea of the Greeks celebrate him on the same day, likewise with Lot, and then on the 13th day of December, or rather on the second or third Sunday of Advent, separately from Lot but jointly with Isaac and Jacob; adding in this latter place a rather singular observation, which, as contributing not a little to illustrating the Saint's cult, it has seemed good to recount here from Rader's Ms. Latin version of the Menaea. It runs thus: Him (namely Abraham), as the progenitor of Christ, our divine Fathers and doctors, judging worthy of remembrance, handed down to us also this commemoration, to be performed not at a long interval of many days from the Birth of the Lord Jesus Christ; and this, perhaps by the instinct of the Holy Spirit, they surely decided not imprudently, and left in a manner sealed. For since our most clement Saviour, most loving of our salvation, out of singular grace deigned to have him (and those born of him) as his progenitor, they judged it fair that not far from the Birth of him who showed and presented himself to us as man in humanity, we should celebrate on a Sunday the solemn memorial feast of Abraham, as the author and progenitor of Christ himself.
[549] the Coptic, Abyssinian and others, On a wholly different day, namely the 28th of the month Baune, which corresponds to the 22nd day of our month of June, the Coptic and Abyssinian Calendars announce the Holy Father of Believers, Isaac his son, and his grandson Jacob, and give assurance that the cult of these Saints is most solemn among the Ethiopians every month on the same 28th day. St. Abraham the patriarch is also commemorated on the 9th day of the month Tuba, or the 4th of January, among the feasts of the Egyptian Christians transmitted to posterity by the Mahometan Calcasendius, which Selden recounts in the book On the Sanhedrins of the ancient Hebrews from page 348; and again on the 28th day of the month Musre, or the 21st of August, a feast of Sts. Abraham and Isaac is indicated. Finally, in the same Selden, page 394, at the 11th day of February, a memory and feast of the same holy Patriarch occurs. With the Greek Menaea and Menology praised at the beginning of number 548 I have found, so far as the day of the cult goes, among the Eastern Calendars only the Calendar of the proper feasts of the church of Jerusalem to agree, which Wadding exhibits in the Annals of the Minors at the year of Christ 1342, number 48, and which indicates that the feast of our Patriarch was already then customarily celebrated there on the 9th day of October with the double rite of the Latins, as is evident from these words of the same Calendar: October … IX St. Abraham, Patriarch, Confessor, double.
[550] In celebrating the memory of our holy Patriarch the Western Christians were no slower than the Eastern, [but also in the Western, such as the little Roman Martyrology and other ancient ones,] as will be manifest from what is now to be said
. And first indeed the Old Roman Martyrology and the genuine Usuard commemorate Abraham the patriarch on the 9th day of October, on which Sollerius writes thus, page 588: The author of the Little Roman furnishes a more fruitful crop of the ancient Patriarchs of the old Testament, from whom on this day Abraham, on the following day Lot was taken by many; on other days others. Ado copied his words, and from him Usuard and Notker have the same. Moreover, of our Abraham Wandelbert sang thus at this day:
Example of faith, and healthful norm of obeying, Called first by the name of exalted father, Thence named by heavenly lot father to the nations, Blessed Abraham hallows and holds the seventh.
The three codices of the Adonian Martyrology, of fairly good note, praised by Domenico Giorgi on page 521, agree with the Old Roman and other ancient Martyrologies as regards the 9th day of October, differing from the rest only in this, that they mark Abraham's death on this day, namely in this manner: The death of Abraham the patriarch.
[551] Finally, the present-day Roman Martyrology on the same 9th day of October commemorates our Patriarch thus: then also in the present-day Roman, with Baronius's annotation, On the same day, the memory of St. Abraham, Patriarch and father of all believers. On which Baronius annotated thus: On this same day, as we have just shown, both the Latins and the Greeks treat of him, and the latter add Lot also. Of Abraham, who is deservedly called the Father of believers, besides the things most richly written of him in the divine Scriptures, there treat Josephus in the Antiquities, Philo the Jew, and others of the Hebrews, Latins and Greeks, whom to recount one by one is both long and tedious. Of the places made illustrious by noble memorial buildings of Abraham, such as the oak of Mambre, the little cell of Sara, the cradle of Isaac, and the place of the sacrifice where he wished to immolate the same Isaac his son, there treat Sozomen, History, book 2, chapter III; Jerome in the Epitaph of Paula, Epistle XXVII; and Bede On the holy Places; whom the reader will find cited above where they served our purpose, or, if otherwise passed over here, he can easily consult them elsewhere if he wishes. I omit also the announcement in our Ms. Florarium at this same day, and the eulogy subjoined to it, both so as not to be too prolix in recounting Martyrologies, and because that eulogy, as not sufficiently consonant with the truth, no one will miss here.
[552] [and he is invoked in some ancient Canons of the Mass, in the Litanies for the dying,] I cannot, however, refrain from adding to the announcements of the Calendars of the Latin Church at least some testimonies of the cult long since shown in it to St. Abraham, and for this reason too, that certain heterodox persons may thus be refuted who deny that the Saints of the old Testament are invoked in the Catholic Church, and especially in the Western. A very ancient codex of the library of Fulda — whose beginning, as Witzel testifies in his Exercises of sincere piety published in the year 1555, could not be read for its age — exhibits, among various things pertaining to the liturgy of the Catholic Church, an ancient Canon of the Mass, in which after the commemoration, Remember also, O Lord, those who have gone before us with the sign of faith, these words follow: With all the holy and venerable priests in the whole world offering a spiritual sacrifice to God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit … and for recalling the athletic rank of the venerable Patriarchs, Prophets, that they may deign to entreat the Lord our God for us: of Abel, Seth, Enos, Enoch, Noe, Melchisedech, Abraham, etc. Moreover St. Cyril of Jerusalem, describing the sacred synaxis in the fifth mystagogic Catechesis, affirms on page 539 that the priest makes commemoration in it first of the Holy Patriarchs, among whom the Father of all the faithful certainly holds a distinguished place, then of the Prophets, Apostles and Martyrs, that God, by their prayers and intercessions, may receive our petitions. What of the fact that Abraham's patronage is also implored by name in the Mass, or universal Canon, of the Ethiopians, namely with this formula: O Lord, deliver thy people … keep them in the right faith … through the prayers of our fathers the Holy Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as may be seen in tome 6 of the Library of the Fathers published at Paris in the year 1610, column 65? Finally, to pass over others, in those Litanies by which a soul about to go out of the body is commended to its Creator, St. Abraham too is invoked by name, as is most well known to all.
[553] [nay, in certain places he was long since honoured with the cult of an Office and Mass,] But although, for the reasons alleged by Pope Benedict XIV in book 4 of the Beatification of the Servants of God and Canonization of the blessed, part 2, chapter 29, the Saints of the Old Testament are not wont in the Western Church universally to be accorded the special cult of an Office and Mass, this custom has not, however, prevented the holy Patriarch from being honoured with a particular Office in quite a number of places, as is established both from the Breviary and Missal of the Order of the Brothers of Bl. Mary of Mount Carmel, partly to be transcribed just below, and from the ancient Missals of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, of the church of Utrecht in the Low Countries and of Mainz in Germany, and also from the Ceremonial of Fontevrault, which was compiled in the year 1461 by the authority of William, bishop of Paris, delegated by Pope Pius II to visit and reform the said monastery and order, and in which an Office of St. Abraham the Patriarch is found. The same thing also becomes manifest from the Breviary of the Congregation of the Oratory of the Lord Jesus, which, by virtue of a faculty obtained from Pope Paul V through Cardinal de Bérulle, after a previous examination of so great a matter in general assemblies, and also with the express licence of the Ordinaries, was arranged and ordered, and in which an Office with Mass of St. Abraham the Patriarch is prescribed for recitation on the 12th day of October, and on other days other Offices of the Saints of the Old Testament. On these the curious reader may go to the praised Pope Benedict XIV in the cited place, number 13, and to tome 7 of May of our Work, page 668.
[554] Here now, although it is not sufficiently accurate in every part, as the old Breviary of the Rev. Carmelite Fathers, from which the Chapter, is the Office of IX Lessons of the Holy Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as it stands in the old Breviary of the Rev. Carmelite Fathers, printed in the year of Christ 1480, and preserved in the library of the same Fathers at Antwerp.
At Vespers, the Chapter.
For it is written: That Abraham had two sons, one by a bondwoman, and one by a free woman: but he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh: but he of the free woman, by promise; which things are said by an allegory.
℞. While Abraham stood at the foot of Mambre, he saw three young men coming down: He saw three and adored one.
℣. For then Abraham saw the day of the Lord, when in the figure of the supreme Trinity he received three angels in hospitality.
He saw three.
Hymn.
[555] Grant, O Christ, Lord of the ages, To us through his merits dear to thee, Hymn at Vespers, That we, who have gravely sinned before thee, May be loosed by his glorious prayers.
Save, Redeemer, thy noble handiwork, Sealed with the holy light of thy countenance; Suffer it not to be torn by the fraud of demons, For whom thou didst pay the price of death.
Grieve that thy servants are captives, Absolve the guilty, raise up the fettered, And those whom thou hast redeemed with thine own blood, Good King, make to rejoice with thee for ever.
To thee, Jesus, blessed Lord, Be glory, power, honour and dominion, Together with the Father and the holy Paraclete, With whom thou reignest, God, before the ages. Amen.
[556] ℣. Rejoice in the Lord and exult, ye just.
Versicle, Antiphon, Prayer, ℞. And glory, all ye right of heart.
At the Magnificat.
Prayer.
O God, who didst will that we should be instructed by the examples of thy Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; grant us, by their intercession, to follow their teachings in all things; so that by their merits we may deserve to come where they rejoice that they have come by thy grace. Through the Lord.
At Matins, the Invitatory.
557] The Lord, King of the Patriarchs, come let us adore. [and also the Hymn at Matins,Hymn.
Princes of the Churches, Triumphant leaders of the war, Soldiers of the heavenly court, And true lights of the world:
The devoted faith of the Saints, The unconquered hope of believers, The perfect charity of Christ, Triumphs over the prince of the world.
In these the Father's glory, In these the will of the Spirit, In these the Son exults; Heaven is filled with joys.
Thee now, Redeemer, we beseech, That to their fellowship Thou join thy praying servants For everlasting ages. Amen.
In the first Nocturn.
[558] Antiphons of the first Nocturn, the first Lesson and Responsory, Antiph. Beside the running waters, etc., as of Martyrs. Psalm. Blessed is the man, etc.
Antiph. As gold, etc. Psalm. Why have the nations raged, etc.
Antiph. The peoples tell the wisdom of the Saints, and the Church of the Saints proclaims their praise. Psalm. Lord, why are they multiplied, etc.
℣. Rejoice, etc.
First Lesson.
These are the generations of Thare. Thare begot Abraham, Nachor and Aram. And Aram begot Lot, and Aram died before Thare his father in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees. And Abraham and Nachor took wives. The name of Abraham's wife was Sarai, and the name of Nachor's wife was called Melcha, daughter of Aram, father of Melcha and father of Jescha. But thou, etc.
Responsory.
The Lord spoke to Abraham, saying: Go forth from thy land and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall show thee. And I will make thee grow into a great nation. ℣. Blessing I will bless thee and will multiply thee. And
Second Lesson.
[559] likewise the second with its Responsory And Sarai was barren, and had no children. So Thare took Abraham his son, and Lot, the son of Aram his son, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, the wife of Abraham his son, and led them out of Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Chanaan. So they came as far as Haran, and dwelt there. And the days of Thare were two hundred and five years, and he died in Haran. But thou, etc.
Resp. While Abraham stood at the foot of Mambre, he saw three young men coming down by the way. He saw three, and adored one. ℣. For then Abraham saw the day of the Lord, when in the figure of the supreme trinity he received three angels in hospitality. Three, etc.
Third Lesson.
[560] and the third with its Responsory, The Lord said to Abraham: Go forth from thy land, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, and come into the land which I shall show thee: and I will make thee grow into a great nation. Blessing I will bless thee, and will magnify thy name, and thou shalt be blessed. I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee; and in thee shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. So Abraham went forth, as God had commanded him, and Lot went with him. But thou, etc.
Resp. God tempted Abraham, and said to him: Take thy son, whom thou lovest, Isaac, and thou shalt offer him there as a holocaust Upon
one of the mountains which I shall show thee.
℣. Offer to God the Sacrifice of praise and pay thy vows to the Most High. Upon, etc.
In the second Nocturn.
[561] [also the Antiphons of the second Nocturn, and the fourth Lesson with its Responsory,] Antiph. I will give my Saints a renowned place in the kingdom of my father, says the Lord. Psalm. Lord, who shall dwell, etc.
Antiph. To the Saints who are in his land he has made wonderful all my desires among them. Ps. Preserve me, O Lord.
Antiph. The Saints who hope in the Lord shall renew their strength, they shall take wings as eagles, they shall fly and not fail. Psalm. The earth is the Lord's. ℣. Let the Just exult, etc.
Fourth Lesson.
Abraham was seventy-five years old when he went forth from Haran. And he took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all the substance which he had possessed, and the souls which he had made in Haran, and they went forth to go into the land of Chanaan. And when they had come into it, Abraham passed through the land as far as the place of Sichem, and as far as the noble vale. Now the Chananite was at that time in the land. But thou, etc.
Resp. The Angel of the Lord called Abraham, saying: Stretch not forth thy hand upon the boy, because thou fearest the Lord. ℣. And when he had stretched forth his hand to immolate his son, behold the angel of the Lord cried from heaven, saying: Stretch not.
Fifth Lesson.
[562] the fifth likewise God tempted Abraham, and said to him: Abraham, Abraham. And he answered: Here I am. Take thy only-begotten son, whom thou lovest, Isaac, and go into the land of vision, and there thou shalt offer him as a holocaust upon one of the mountains which I shall show thee. So Abraham, rising in the night, saddled his ass, taking with him two young men and Isaac his son. But thou, etc.
Resp. God of my Lord Abraham, Direct my ways, that I may return in safety to the house of my Lord. ℣. God, in whose sight my fathers walked, God, who feedest me from my youth. Direct.
Sixth Lesson.
[563] and the sixth, And when he had cut wood for the holocaust, he went to the place which God had commanded him. And on the third day, lifting up his eyes, he saw the place afar off, and said to his young men: Wait here with the ass; I and the boy, hastening as far as yonder, after we have worshipped, will return to you. And he took the wood of the holocaust, and laid it upon Isaac his son. And he himself carried in his hands the fire and the sword. But thou, etc.
Resp. I came today to the spring of water and prayed the Lord, saying: O Lord God of Abraham, thou hast made my desire prosperous. ℣. Therefore the girl to whom I shall say, Give me water from thy pitcher that I may drink, and she shall say, Drink, Lord, for I will give drink to thy camels also, she is the one whom the Lord has prepared for my lord's son. Lord, etc.
In the third Nocturn.
[564] and also the Antiphons of the third Nocturn with the Gospel Lesson, Antiph. Rejoice in the Lord, and exult, ye just, and glory, all ye right of heart. Psalm. Blessed are they whose, etc.
Antiph. But the just shall live for ever, and their reward is with the Lord. Psalm. Exult, ye just.
Antiph. The princes of the peoples are gathered together with the God of Abraham. Psalm. All ye nations. Versicle. But the just.
Gospel. When Jesus had entered Capharnaum, etc.
Resp. When Jacob went out from his land, he saw the glory of God and said: Terrible is this place, this is no other but the house of God and the gate of heaven. ℣. Truly the Lord is in this place, and I knew it not.
Eighth Lesson.
[565] the eighth And as the two went on together, Isaac said to his father: My father. And he answered: What wilt thou, son? Behold, he said, the fire and the wood: where is the victim of the holocaust? And Abraham said: God will provide himself a victim for the holocaust, my son. So they went on together, and came to the place which God had shown him, in which he built an altar, and laid the wood upon it. But thou, etc.
Resp. Jacob prayed and said: O Lord, who saidst to me, Return into the land of thy nativity, Deliver me from the hand of my brother, for I fear him greatly. ℣. God, in whose sight my fathers walked, Lord, who feedest me from my youth. Deliver.
Ninth Lesson.
[566] and of the ninth, And when he had bound Isaac his son, he laid him on the altar upon the pile of wood, and stretched forth his hand and seized the sword to immolate his son. And behold the angel of the Lord cried from heaven, saying: Abraham, Abraham. And he answered: Here I am. And he said to him: Stretch not forth thy hand upon the boy, neither do thou anything to him. Now I know that thou fearest the Lord, and hast not spared thy only-begotten son for my sake. Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw behind his back a ram caught by the horns among the briers, which he took and offered as a holocaust instead of his son, and he called the name of that place: The Lord sees. Whence even to this day it is said: In the mountain the Lord will see.
Resp. Grant us, O Lord, we beseech thee, pardon of our offences, and by the intercession of the Saints whose solemnities we celebrate today, Grant us such devotion that we may deserve to come to their company. ℣. May their merits help those whom their own crimes hinder; may intercession excuse those whom their action accuses; and thou who hast granted them the palm of heavenly triumph, deny not to us the pardon of sin. Grant us such, etc.
Te Deum laudamus, etc.
℣. The Saints shall exult.
At Lauds.
[567] as also the Antiphons and Hymn at Lauds, Antiph. The souls of the just. Psalm. The Lord has reigned.
Antiph. With the Palm.
Antiph. The bodies of the Saints.
Antiph. Spirits and souls.
Antiph. The Saints shall exult.
Chapter: It is written.
Hymn.
You, just judges of the world, And true lights of the world, We pray with the vows of our hearts: Hear the prayers of your suppliants.
You who close heaven by a word, And unloose its bolts, Loose us from all sins By your command, we beseech you.
To whose precept is subject The health and sickness of all, Heal those sick in their ways, Restoring us to virtues.
That, when the Judge shall come, Christ, at the end of the world, He may make us sharers Of everlasting joy.
To God the Father be glory.
Versicle. God is wonderful, etc.
At the Benedictus.
[568] Antiph. Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day; and the other parts of the Office are exhibited here, manifestly shows, he saw it and was glad.
Prayer, as above.
At the Hours, Antiphons from Lauds. Chapter, Responsories, Versicles, as of many Confessors, with the Prayer as above.
At Vespers.
Chapter: The Just shall shine.
Hymn.
Let heaven exult with praises, Let the earth resound with joys; The glory * of the Patriarchs The sacred solemnities sing.
You, just judges of the world, etc., as above.
Vers. Rejoice in the Lord.
At the Magnificat.
Antiph. Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip * the tip of his finger in water, to cool my tongue.
Prayer, as above.
[569] To this Ecclesiastical Office of Sts. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, communicated to me with the greatest kindness by the Rev. Fr. Boniface of St. Anthony, prefect of the Library of the Rev. Carmelite Fathers of the Antwerp Convent, and also clearly demonstrates the old Missal of the same Fathers, it will not be out of place to subjoin, one in place of the rest, a proper Mass, which was formerly wont to be celebrated every year by the Religious of the same Order on the feast day of these Patriarchs, as it stands in a notable manuscript parchment codex of the aforesaid library, most skilfully executed in England about the 14th century; with which, if you take away the orthography in some words and a few differences of slight moment, there wholly agrees the Ordinal of Masses (for so this book is inscribed) of the Brothers of the sacred Order of the most glorious Mother of God and ever Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel, extracted and excerpted from the approved usage of the Lord's sepulchre of the holy church of Jerusalem, printed at Venice in the year 1509 and preserved in the same library. Thus then that Mass runs:
Introit.
Let us all rejoice in the Lord, celebrating a festal day in honour of the Patriarchs, at whose solemnity the angels rejoice and together praise the Son of God. Psalm. Exult, ye just, in the Lord: praise becomes the upright. ℣. Glory.
Gloria in Excelsis.
Prayer.
Lesson from the Book of Wisdom.
[570] from which the Mass of the Patriarchs Abraham, Abraham, the great father of a multitude of nations, and there was not found the like to him in glory; etc., as in Ecclesiasticus chapter 44 to the end of the same chapter.
Gradual.
Fear the Lord, all ye his Saints, for there is no want to them that fear him. ℣. But they that seek the Lord shall not be deprived of any good. Alleluia. Alleluia. ℣. The Saints shall judge nations, and shall rule over peoples, and their king shall reign for ever. Alleluia.
Gospel according to Matthew.
At that time: When Jesus had entered Capharnaum, etc., as in Matthew chapter 8 up to verse 14.
Offertory.
[571] Isaac and Jacob is recounted here. Moses prayed in the sight of his God and said: Moses prayed in the sight of his God and said: Why, O Lord, art thou angry with thy people? Spare the anger of thy mind: remember Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to whom thou didst swear to give a land flowing with milk and honey; and the Lord was appeased from the evil which he had said he would do to his people.
Secret.
O God, sanctifier of all sanctification, sanctify the offerings and those offering the Sacrifice, for the merits of thy Holy Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and grant to those offering so to receive the offerings sanctified, that through this reception they may be acceptable to thee. Through the Lord.
Communion.
Postcommunion.
May the reception of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, at the commemoration of the holy Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, obtain that it be to those who receive it for the remission of sins, and for attaining the everlasting duration of heavenly life. Through the same Lord.
Annotata* glory gloriam
* dip intingat