That the Years in Those Ancient Times Were of the Same Length as Our Own.

Chapter 14.—That the Years in Those Ancient Times Were of the Same Length as Our Own.

Caput XIV. De parilitate annorum, qui eisdem quibus nunc spatiis et in prioribus saeculis cucurrerunt.

Let us now see how it can be plainly made out that in the enormously protracted lives of those men the years were not so short that ten of their years were equal to only one of ours, but were of as great length as our own, which are measured by the course of the sun. It is proved by this, that Scripture states that the flood occurred in the six hundredth year of Noah’s life. But why in the same place is it also written, “The waters of the flood were upon the earth in the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the twenty-seventh day of the month,” if that very brief year (of which it took ten to make one of ours) consisted of thirty-six days? For so scant a year, if the ancient usage dignified it with the name of year, either has not months, or this month must be three days, so that it may have twelve of them. How then was it here said, “In the six hundredth year, the second month, the twenty-seventh day of the month,” unless the months then were of the same length as the months now? For how else could it be said that the flood began on the twenty-seventh day of the second month? Then afterwards, at the end of the flood, it is thus written: “And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually until the eleventh month: on the first day of the month were the tops of the mountains seen.” But if the months were such as we have, then so were the years. And certainly months of three days each could not have a twenty-seventh day. Or if every measure of time was diminished in proportion, and a thirtieth part of three days was then called a day, then that great deluge, which is recorded to have lasted forty days and forty nights, was really over in less than four of our days. Who can away with such foolishness and absurdity? Far be this error from us,—an error which seeks to build up our faith in the divine Scriptures on false conjecture only to demolish our faith at another point. It is plain that the day then was what it now is, a space of four-and-twenty hours, determined by the lapse of day and night; the month then equal to the month now, which is defined by the rise and completion of one moon; the year then equal to the year now, which is completed by twelve lunar months, with the addition of five days and a fourth to adjust it with the course of the sun. It was a year of this length which was reckoned the six hundredth of Noah’s life, and in the second month, the twenty-seventh day of the month, the flood began,—a flood which, as is recorded, was caused by heavy rains continuing for forty days, which days had not only two hours and a little more, but four-and-twenty hours, completing a night and a day. And consequently those antediluvians lived more than 900 years, which were years as long as those which afterwards Abraham lived 175 of, and after him his son Isaac 180, and his son Jacob nearly 150, and some time after, Moses 120, and men now seventy or eighty, or not much longer, of which years it is said, “their strength is labor and sorrow.”

Nunc iam uideamus quonam modo euidenter possit ostendi. non tam breues, ut illi decem unus esset noster, sed tantae prolixitatis annos, quantae nunc habemus (quos utique circuitus conficit solis), in illorum hominum uita prolixissima conputatos. Sescentensimo nempe anno uitae Noe scriptum est factum esse diluuium. Quur ergo ibi legitur : Et aqua diluuii facta est super terram sescentensimo anno in uita Noe, secundi mensis, septima et uicensima mensis, si annus ille minimus, quales decem faciunt unum ‘nostrum, triginta sex habebat dies? Tantillus quippe annus, si antiquo more hoc nomen accepit, aut non habet menses, aut mensis eius est triduum, ut habeat duodecim menses. Quo modo igitur hic dictum est: Sescentensimo anno, secundi mensis, septima et uicensima mensis, nisi quia tales, quales nunc sunt, etiam tunc erant menses? Nam quo pacto aliter uicensimo et septimo die secundi mensis diceretur coeptum esse diluuium? Deinde postea in fine diluuii ita legitur: Et sedit arca in mense septimo, septima et uicensima mensis, super montes Ararat. Aqua autem minuebatur usque ad undecimum mensem; in undecimo autem mense prima die mensis paruerunt capita montium. Si igitur tales menses erant, tales profecto et anni erant, quales nunc habemus. Menses quippe illi triduani uiginti et septem dies habere non poterant. Aut si pars tricensima tridui tunc appellabatur dies, ut omnia proportione minuantur: ergo nec toto quadriduo nostro factum est illud tam grande diluuium, quod memoratur factum quadraginta diebus et noctibus. Quis hanc absurditatem et uanitatem ferat? Proinde remoueatur hic error, qui coniectura falsa ita uult adstruere scripturarum nostrarum fidem, ut alibi destruat. Prorsus tantus etiam tunc dies fuit. quantus et nunc est, quem uiginti quattuor horae diurno curriculo nocturnoque determinant; tantus mensis, quantus et nunc est, quem luna coepta et finita concludit; tantus annus, quantus et nunc est, quem duodecim menses lunares additis propter cursum solarem quinque diebus et quadrante consummant, quanti anni sescentensimi uitae Noe secundus erat mensis eiusque mensis uicensimus et septimus dies, quando coepit esse diluuium, in quo dies quadraginta continuatae ingentes pluuiae memorantur, qui dies non binas ac paulo amplius horas habebant, sed uicenas et quaternas die noctuque transactas. Ac per hoc tam magnos annos uixerunt illi antiqui usque amplius quam nongentos, quantos postea uixit Abraham centum septuaginta et post eum filius eius Isaac centum octoginta et filius eius Iacob prope centum quinquaginta, et quantos interposita aliquanta aetate Moyses centum uiginti, et quantos etiam nunc uiuunt homines septuaginta uel octoginta uel non multo amplius, de quibus dictum est: Et amplius eis labor et dolor.

But that discrepancy of numbers which is found to exist between our own and the Hebrew text does not touch the longevity of the ancients; and if there is any diversity so great that both versions cannot be true, we must take our ideas of the real facts from that text out of which our own version has been translated. However, though any one who pleases has it in his power to correct this version, yet it is not unimportant to observe that no one has presumed to emend the Septuagint from the Hebrew text in the many places where they seem to disagree. For this difference has not been reckoned a falsification; and for my own part I am persuaded it ought not to be reckoned so. But where the difference is not a mere copyist’s error, and where the sense is agreeable to truth and illustrative of truth, we must believe that the divine Spirit prompted them to give a varying version, not in their function of translators, but in the liberty of prophesying. And therefore we find that the apostles justly sanction the Septuagint, by quoting it as well as the Hebrew when they adduce proofs from the Scriptures. But as I have promised to treat this subject more carefully, if God help me, in a more fitting place, I will now go on with the matter in hand. For there can be no doubt that, the lives of men being so long, the first-born of the first man could have built a city,—a city, however, which was earthly, and not that which is called the city of God, to describe which we have taken in hand this great work.

Illa uero numerorum uarietas, quae inter codices Hebraeos inuenitur et nostros, neque de hac antiquorum longaeuitate dissentit, et si quid habet ita diuersum, ut uerum esse utrumque non possit, rerum gestarum fides ab ea lingua repetenda est, ex qua interpretatum est quod habemus. Quae facultas cum uolentibus ubique gentium praesto sit, non tamen uacat, quod septuaginta interpretes in plurimis, quae diuersa dicere uidentur, ex Hebraeis codicibus emendare ausus est nemo. Non enim est illa diuersitas putata mendositas; nec ego ullo modo putandam existimo: sed ubi non est scriptoris error, aliquid eos diuino spiritu, ubi sensus esset consentaneus ueritati et praedicans ueritatem, non interpretantium munere, sed prophetantium libertate aliter dicere uoluisse credendum est. Unde merito non solum Hebraeis, uerum etiam ipsis, cum adhibet testimonia de scripturis, uti apostolica inuenitur auctoritas. Sed hinc me opportuniore loco, si Deus adiuuerit, - promisi diligentius locuturum; nunc quod instat expediam. Non enim ambigendum est ab homine, qui ex primo homine primus est natus, quando tamdiu uiuebant, potuisse constitui ciuitatem, sane terrenam, non illam, quae dicitur ciuitas Dei, de qua ut scriberemus, laborem tanti huius operis in manus sumsimus.

Chapter 15.—Whether It is Credible that the Men of the Primitive Age Abstained from Sexual Intercourse Until that Date at Which It is Recorded that They Begat Children.

Caput XV. An credibile sit primi saeculi uiros usque ad eam aetatem, qua filios generasse referuntur, a concubitu continuisse.

Some one, then, will say, Is it to be believed that a man who intended to beget children, and had no intention of continence, abstained from sexual intercourse a hundred years and more, or even, according to the Hebrew version, only a little less, say eighty, seventy, or sixty years; or, if he did not abstain, was unable to beget offspring? This question admits of two solutions. For either puberty was so much later as the whole life was longer, or, which seems to me more likely, it is not the first-born sons that are here mentioned, but those whose names were required to fill up the series until Noah was reached, from whom again we see that the succession is continued to Abraham, and after him down to that point of time until which it was needful to mark by pedigree the course of the most glorious city, which sojourns as a stranger in this world, and seeks the heavenly country. That which is undeniable is that Cain was the first who was born of man and woman. For had he not been the first who was added by birth to the two unborn persons, Adam could not have said what he is recorded to have said, “I have gotten a man by the Lord.” He was followed by Abel, whom the elder brother slew, and who was the first to show by a kind of foreshadowing of the sojourning city of God, what iniquitous persecutions that city would suffer at the hands of wicked and, as it were, earth-born men, who love their earthly origin, and delight in the earthly happiness of the earthly city. But how old Adam was when he begat these sons does not appear. After this the generations diverge, the one branch deriving from Cain, the other from him whom Adam begot in the room of Abel slain by his brother, and whom he called Seth, saying, as it is written, “For God hath raised me up another seed for Abel whom Cain slew.” These two series of generations accordingly, the one of Cain, the other of Seth, represent the two cities in their distinctive ranks, the one the heavenly city, which sojourns on earth, the other the earthly, which gapes after earthly joys, and grovels in them as if they were the only joys. But though eight generations, including Adam, are registered before the flood, no man of Cain’s line has his age recorded at which the son who succeeded him was begotten. For the Spirit of God refused to mark the times before the flood in the generations of the earthly city, but preferred to do so in the heavenly line, as if it were more worthy of being remembered. Further, when Seth was born, the age of his father is mentioned; but already he had begotten other sons, and who will presume to say that Cain and Abel were the only ones previously begotten? For it does not follow that they alone had been begotten of Adam, because they alone were named in order to continue the series of generations which it was desirable to mention. For though the names of all the rest are buried in silence, yet it is said that Adam begot sons and daughters; and who that cares to be free from the charge of temerity will dare to say how many his offspring numbered? It was possible enough that Adam was divinely prompted to say, after Seth was born, “For God hath raised up to me another seed for Abel,” because that son was to be capable of representing Abel’s holiness, not because he was born first after him in point of time. Then because it is written, “And Seth lived 205 years,” or, according to the Hebrew reading, “105 years, and begat Enos,” who but a rash man could affirm that this was his first-born? Will any man do so to excite our wonder, and cause us to inquire how for so many years he remained free from sexual intercourse, though without any purpose of continuing so, or how, if he did not abstain, he yet had no children? Will any man do so when it is written of him, “And he begat sons and daughters, and all the days of Seth were 912 years, and he died?” And similarly regarding those whose years are afterwards mentioned, it is not disguised that they begat sons and daughters.

Dicet ergo aliquis: Itane credendum est hominem filios generaturum nec habentem propositum continentiae centum et amplius, uel secundum Hebraeos non multo minus, id est octoginta, septuaginta, sexaginta annos a concumbendi opere uacuisse, aut si non uacaret, nihil prolis gignere potuisse?’ Haec quaestio duobus modis soluitur. Aut enim tanto serior fuit proportione pubertas, quanto uitae totius maior annositas; aut, quod magis uideo esse credibile, non hic primogeniti filii commemorati sunt, sed quos successionis ordo poscebat, ut perueniretur ad Noe, a quo rursus ad Abraham uidemus esse peruentum, ac deinde usque ad certum articulum temporis, quantum oportebat signari etiam generationibus commemoratis cursum gloriosissimae ciuitatis in hoc mundo peregrinantis et supernam patriam requirentis. Quod enim negari non potest, prior omnibus Cain ex coniunctione maris et feminae natus est. Neque enim illo nato dixisset Adam, quod dixisse legitur: Adquisiui hominem per Deum, nisi illis duobus ipse fuisset homo nascendo additus primus. Hunc secutus Abel, quem maior frater occidit, praefigurationem quandam peregrinantis ciuitatis Dei, quod ab inpiis et quodam modo terrigenis, id est terrenam originem diligentibus et. terrenae ciuitatis terrena felicitate gaudentibus, persecutiones iniquas passura fuerat, primus ostendit. Sed quot annorum erat Adam, cum eos genuit, non apparet. Exinde digeruntur generationes aliae de Cain, aliae de illo, quem genuit Adam in eius successionem, quem frater occidit, et appellauit nomen illius Seth dicens, ut scriptum est: Suscitauit enim mihi Deus semen aliud pro Abel, quem occidit Cain. Cum itaque istae duae series generationum, una de Seth, altera de Cain, has duas, de quibus agimus, distinctis ordinibus insinuent ciuitates, unam caelestem in terris peregrinantem, alteram terrenam terrenis tamquam sola sint gaudiis inhiantem uel inhaerentem: nullus de progenie Cain, cum dinumerata sit connumerato Adam usque ad octauam generationem, quot annorum fuisset expressus est, quando genuit eum, qui commemoratur post eum. Noluit enim Spiritus Dei in terrenae ciuitatis generationibus tempora notare ante diluuium, sed in caelestis maluit, tamquam essent memoria digniores. Porro autem Seth quando natus est, non quidem taciti sunt anni patris eius, sed iam genuerat alios; et utrum solos Cain et Abel, adfirmare quis audeat? Non enim quia soli nominati sunt propter ordines generationum quas commemorare oportebat, ideo consequens uideri debet solos fuisse tunc generatos ex Adam. Cum enim silentio coopertis omnium nominibus ceterorum legatur eum genuisse filios et filias: quota fuerit ista proles eius, quis praesumat adserere, si culpam temeritatis euitat? Potuit quippe Adam diuinitus admonitus dicere, postea quam Seth natus est: Suscitauit enim mihi Deus semen aliud pro Abel, quoniam talis erat futurus, qui inpleret illius sanctitatem, non quod ipse prior post eum temporis ordine nasceretur. Deinde quod scriptum est: Vixit autem Seth quinque et ducentos annos (uel secundum Hebraeos quinque et centum annos), etgenuitEnos: quis possit nisi inconsideratus adseuerare hunc eius primogenitum fuisse? ut admirantes merito requiramus, quo modo per tot annos inmunis fuerit a conubio sine ullo proposito continentiae uel non genuerit coniugatus; quando quidem etiam de ipso legitur: Et genuit filios et filias, et fuerunt omnes dies Seth duodecim et nongenti anni, et mortuus est. Adque ita deinceps, quorum anni commemorantur, nec filios filiasque genuisse reticentur.

Consequently it does not at all appear whether he who is named as the son was himself the first begotten. Nay, since it is incredible that those fathers were either so long in attaining puberty, or could not get wives, or could not impregnate them, it is also incredible that those sons were their first-born. But as the writer of the sacred history designed to descend by well-marked intervals through a series of generations to the birth and life of Noah, in whose time the flood occurred, he mentioned not those sons who were first begotten, but those by whom the succession was handed down.

Ac per hoc non apparet omnino, utrum, qui nominatur genitus, ipse fuerit primogenitus; immo uero, quoniam credibile non est patres illos aetate tam longa aut inpuberes fuisse aut coniugibus caruisse uel fetibus, nec illos eorum filios primos eis natos fuisse credibile est. Sed cum sacrae scriptor historiae ad ortum uitamque Noe, cuius tempore diluuium factum est, per successiones generationum notatis temporibus intenderet peruenire, eas utique commemorauit, non quae primae suis parentibus fuerint, sed quae in propagationis ordinem uenerint.

Let me make this clearer by here inserting an example, in regard to which no one can have any doubt that what I am asserting is true. The evangelist Matthew, where he designs to commit to our memories the generation of the Lord’s flesh by a series of parents, beginning from Abraham and intending to reach David, says, “Abraham begat Isaac;” why did he not say Ishmael, whom he first begat? Then “Isaac begat Jacob;” why did he not say Esau, who was the first-born? Simply because these sons would not have helped him to reach David. Then follows, “And Jacob begat Judah and his brethren:” was Judah the first begotten? “Judah,” he says, “begat Pharez and Zara;” yet neither were these twins the first-born of Judah, but before them he had begotten three other sons. And so in the order of the generations he retained those by whom he might reach David, so as to proceed onwards to the end he had in view. And from this we may understand that the antediluvians who are mentioned were not the first-born, but those through whom the order of the succeeding generations might be carried on to the patriarch Noah. We need not, therefore, weary ourselves with discussing the needless and obscure question as to their lateness of reaching puberty.

Exempli gratia, quo id fiat apertius, aliquid interponam, unde nullus ambigat fieri potuisse quod dico. Euangelista Matthaeus generationem dominicae carnis per seriem parentum uolens commendare memoriae, ordiens a patre Abraham adque ad Dauid primitus ut perueniret intendens: Abraham, inquit, genuit Isaac; quur non dixit Ismael, quem primitus genuit? Isaac autem, inquit, genuit lacob; quur non dixit Esau, qui eius primogenitus fuit? Quia scilicet per illos ad Dauid peruenire non posset. Deinde sequitur: Iacob autem genuit ludam et fratres eius; numquid ludas primogenitus fuit? ludas, inquit, genuit Phar-es et Zarat; nec istorum geminorum aliquis fuit primogenitus Iudae, sed ante illos iam tres genuerat. Eos itaque tenuit in ordine generationum, per quos ad Dauid adque inde quo intenderat perueniret. Ex quo intellegi potest, ueteres quoque homines ante diluuium non primogenitos, sed eos fuisse commemoratos, per quos ordo succedentium generationum ad Noe patriarcham duceretur, ne serae pubertatis illorum obscura et non necessaria quaestio nos fatiget.

Chapter 16.—Of Marriage Between Blood-Relations, in Regard to Which the Present Law Could Not Bind the Men of the Earliest Ages.

Caput XVI. De iure coniugiorum, quod dissimile a subsequentibus matrimoniis habuerint prima conubia.

As, therefore, the human race, subsequently to the first marriage of the man who was made of dust, and his wife who was made out of his side, required the union of males and females in order that it might multiply, and as there were no human beings except those who had been born of these two, men took their sisters for wives,—an act which was as certainly dictated by necessity in these ancient days as afterwards it was condemned by the prohibitions of religion. For it is very reasonable and just that men, among whom concord is honorable and useful, should be bound together by various relationships; and one man should not himself sustain many relationships, but that the various relationships should be distributed among several, and should thus serve to bind together the greatest number in the same social interests. “Father” and “father-in-law” are the names of two relationships. When, therefore, a man has one person for his father, another for his father-in-law, friendship extends itself to a larger number. But Adam in his single person was obliged to hold both relations to his sons and daughters, for brothers and sisters were united in marriage. So too Eve his wife was both mother and mother-in-law to her children of both sexes; while, had there been two women, one the mother, the other the mother-in-law, the family affection would have had a wider field. Then the sister herself by becoming a wife sustained in her single person two relationships, which, had they been distributed among individuals, one being sister, and another being wife, the family tie would have embraced a greater number of persons. But there was then no material for effecting this, since there were no human beings but the brothers and sisters born of those two first parents. Therefore, when an abundant population made it possible, men ought to choose for wives women who were not already their sisters; for not only would there then be no necessity for marrying sisters, but, were it done, it would be most abominable. For if the grandchildren of the first pair, being now able to choose their cousins for wives, married their sisters, then it would no longer be only two but three relationships that were held by one man, while each of these relationships ought to have been held by a separate individual, so as to bind together by family affection a larger number. For one man would in that case be both father, and father-in-law, and uncle to his own children (brother and sister now man and wife); and his wife would be mother, aunt, and mother-in-law to them; and they themselves would be not only brother and sister, and man and wife, but cousins also, being the children of brother and sister. Now, all these relationships, which combined three men into one, would have embraced nine persons had each relationship been held by one individual, so that a man had one person for his sister, another his wife, another his cousin, another his father, another his uncle, another his father-in-law, another his mother, another his aunt, another his mother-in-law; and thus the social bond would not have been tightened to bind a few, but loosened to embrace a larger number of relations.

Cum igitur genus humanum post primam copulam uiri facti ex puluere et coniugis eius ex uiri latere manum feminarumque coniunctione opus haberet, ut gignendo multiplicaretur, nec essent ulli homines, nisi qui ex illis duobus nati fuissent: uiri sorores suas coniuges acceperunt; quod profecto quanto est antiquius conpellente necessitate, tanto postea factum est damnabilius religione prohibente. Habita est enim ratio rectissima caritatis, ut homines, quibus esset utilis adque honesta concordia, diuersarum necessitudinum uinculis necterentur, nec unus in uno multas haberet, sed singulae spargerentur in singulos ac sic ad socialem uitam diligentius conligandam plurimae plurimos obtinerent. Pater quippe et socer duarum sunt necessitudinum nomina. Ut ergo alium quisque habeat patrem, alium socerum, numerosius se caritas porrigit. Utrumque autem unus Adam esse cogebatur et filiis et filiabus suis, quando fratres sororesque conubio iungebantur. Sic et Eua uxor eius utrique sexui filiorum fuit et socrus et mater; quae si duae feminae fuissent, mater altera et socrus altera, copiosius se socialis dilectio conligaret. Ipsa denique iam soror, quod etiam uxor fiebat, duas tenebat una necessitudines; quibus per singulas distributis, ut altera esset soror, altera uxor, hominum numero socialis propinquitas augeretur. Sed hoc unde fieret tunc non erat, quando nisi fratres et sorores ex illis duobus primis nulli homines erant. Fieri ergo debuit quando potuit, ut existente copia inde ducerentur uxores, quae non erant iam sorores, et non solum illud ut fieret nulla necessitas esset, uerum etiam si fieret nefas esset. Nam si et nepotes primorum hominum, qui iam consobrinas poterant accipere coniuges, sororibus matrimonio iungerentur, non iam duae, sed tres in homine uno necessitudines fierent, quae propter caritatem numerosiore propinquitate nectendam disseminari per singulos singulae debuerunt. Esset enim unus homo filiis suis, fratri scilicet sororique coniugibus, et pater et socer et auunculus; ita et uxor eius eisdem communibus filiis et mater et amita et socrus; idemque inter se filii eorum non solum essent fratres adque coniuges, uerum etiam consobrini, quia et fratrum filii. Omnes autem istae necessitudines, quae uni homini tres homines conectebant, nouem conecterent, si essent in singulis singulae, ut unus homo haberet alteram sororem, alteram uxorem, alteram consobrinam, alterum patrem, alterum auunculum, alterum socerum, alteram matrem, alteram amitam, alteram socrum; adque ita se non in paucitate coartatum, sed latius adque numerosius propinquitatibus crebris uinculum sociale diffunderet.

And we see that, since the human race has increased and multiplied, this is so strictly observed even among the profane worshippers of many and false gods, that though their laws perversely allow a brother to marry his sister, yet custom, with a finer morality, prefers to forego this license; and though it was quite allowable in the earliest ages of the human race to marry one’s sister, it is now abhorred as a thing which no circumstances could justify. For custom has very great power either to attract or to shock human feeling. And in this matter, while it restrains concupiscence within due bounds, the man who neglects and disobeys it is justly branded as abominable. For if it is iniquitous to plough beyond our own boundaries through the greed of gain, is it not much more iniquitous to transgress the recognized boundaries of morals through sexual lust? And with regard to marriage in the next degree of consanguinity, marriage between cousins, we have observed that in our own time the customary morality has prevented this from being frequent, though the law allows it. It was not prohibited by divine law, nor as yet had human law prohibited it; nevertheless, though legitimate, people shrank from it, because it lay so close to what was illegitimate, and in marrying a cousin seemed almost to marry a sister,—for cousins are so closely related that they are called brothers and sisters, and are almost really so. But the ancient fathers, fearing that near relationship might gradually in the course of generations diverge, and become distant relationship, or cease to be relationship at all, religiously endeavored to limit it by the bond of marriage before it became distant, and thus, as it were, to call it back when it was escaping them. And on this account, even when the world was full of people, though they did not choose wives from among their sisters or half-sisters, yet they preferred them to be of the same stock as themselves. But who doubts that the modern prohibition of the marriage even of cousins is the more seemly regulation—not merely on account of the reason we have been urging, the multiplying of relationships, so that one person might not absorb two, which might be distributed to two persons, and so increase the number of people bound together as a family, but also because there is in human nature I know not what natural and praiseworthy shamefacedness which restrains us from desiring that connection which, though for propagation, is yet lustful and which even conjugal modesty blushes over, with any one to whom consanguinity bids us render respect?

Quod humano genere crescente et multiplicato etiam inter inpios deorum multorum falsorumque cultores sic obseruari cernimus, ut, etiamsi peruersis legibus permittantur fraterna coniugia, melior tamen consuetudo ipsam malit exhorrere licentiam, et cum sorores accipere in matrimonium primis humani generis temporibus omnino licuerit, sic auersetur, quasi numquam licere potuerit. Ad humanum enim sensum uel adliciendum uel offendendum mos ualet plurimum; qui cum in hac causa inmoderationem concupiscentiae coherceat, eum dissignari adque corrumpi merito esse nefarium iudicatur. Si enim est iniquum auiditate possidendi transgredi limitem agrorum, quanto est iniquius libidine concumbendi subuertere limitem morum! Experti autem sumus in conubiis consobrinarum etiam nostris temporibus propter gradum propinquitatis fraterno gradui proximum quam raro per mores fiebat, quod fieri per leges licebat, quia id nec diuina prohibuit et nondum prohibuerat lex humana. Verum tamen factum etiam licitum propter uicinitatem horrebatur inliciti et, quod fiebat cum consobrina, paene cum sorore fieri uidebatur; quia et ipsi inter se propter tam propinquam consanguinitatem fratres uocantur et paene germani sunt. Fuit autem antiquis patribus religiosae curae, ne ipsa propinquitas se paulatim propaginum ordinibus dirimens longius abiret et propinquitas esse desisteret, eam nondum longe positam rursus matrimonii uinculo conligare et quodam modo reuocare fugientem. Unde iam pleno hominibus orbe terrarum, non quidem sorores ex patre uel matre uel ex ambobus suis parentibus natas, sed tamen amabant de suo genere ducere uxores. Verum quis dubitet honestius hoc tempore etiam consobrinorum prohibita esse coniugia? non solum secundum ea, quae disputauimus, propter multiplicandas adfinitates, ne habeat duas necessitudines una persona, cum duae possint eas habere et numerus propinquitatis augeri; sed etiam quia nescio quo modo inest humanae uerecundiae quiddam naturale adque laudabile, ut, cui debet causa propinquitatis reuerendum honorem, ab ea contineat, quamuis generatricem, tamen libidinem, de qua erubescere uidemus et ipsam pudicitiam coniugalem.

The sexual intercourse of man and woman, then, is in the case of mortals a kind of seed-bed of the city; but while the earthly city needs for its population only generation, the heavenly needs also regeneration to rid it of the taint of generation. Whether before the deluge there was any bodily or visible sign of regeneration, such as was afterwards enjoined upon Abraham when he was circumcised, or what kind of sign it was, the sacred history does not inform us. But it does inform us that even these earliest of mankind sacrificed to God, as appeared also in the case of the two first brothers; Noah, too, is said to have offered sacrifices to God when he had come forth from the ark after the deluge. And concerning this subject we have already said in the foregoing books that the devils arrogate to themselves divinity, and require sacrifice that they may be esteemed gods, and delight in these honors on no other account than this, because they know that true sacrifice is due to the true God.

Copulatio igitur maris et feminae, quantum adtinet ad genus mortalium, quoddam seminarium est ciuitatis; sed terrena ciuitas generatione tantummodo, caelestis autem etiam regeneratione opus habet, ut noxam generationis euadat. Utrum autem aliquod fuerit, uel si fuit, quale fuerit corporale adque uisibile regenerationis signum ante diluuium, sicut Abrahae circumcisio postea est imperata, sacra historia tacet. Sacrificasse tamen Deo etiam illos antiquissimos homines non tacet; quod et in duobus primis fratribus claruit, et Noe post diluuium, cum de arca fuisset egressus, hostias Deo legitur immolasse. De qua re in praecedentibus libris iam diximus, non ob aliud daemones adrogantes sibi diuinitatem deosque se credi cupientes sibi expetere sacrificium et gaudere huius modi honoribus, nisi quia uerum sacrificium uero Deo deberi sciunt.

Chapter 17.—Of the Two Fathers and Leaders Who Sprang from One Progenitor.

Caput XVII. De duobus ex uno genitore procreatis patribus adque principibus.

Since, then, Adam was the father of both lines,—the father, that is to say, both of the line which belonged to the earthly, and of that which belonged to the heavenly city,—when Abel was slain, and by his death exhibited a marvellous mystery, there were henceforth two lines proceeding from two fathers, Cain and Seth, and in those sons of theirs, whom it behoved to register, the tokens of these two cities began to appear more distinctly. For Cain begat Enoch, in whose name he built a city, an earthly one, which was not from home in this world, but rested satisfied with its temporal peace and happiness. Cain, too, means “possession;” wherefore at his birth either his father or mother said,” I have gotten a man through God.” Then Enoch means “dedication;” for the earthly city is dedicated in this world in which it is built, for in this world it finds the end towards which it aims and aspires. Further, Seth signifies “resurrection,” and Enos his son signifies “man,” not as Adam, which also signifies man, but is used in Hebrew indifferently for man and woman, as it is written, “Male and female created He them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam,” leaving no room to doubt that though the woman was distinctively called Eve, yet the name Adam, meaning man, was common to both. But Enos means man in so restricted a sense, that Hebrew linguists tell us it cannot be applied to woman: it is the equivalent of the “child of the resurrection,” when they neither marry nor are given in marriage. For there shall be no generation in that place to which regeneration shall have brought us. Wherefore I think it not immaterial to observe that in those generations which are propagated from him who is called Seth, although daughters as well as sons are said to have been begotten, no woman is expressly registered by name; but in those which sprang from Cain at the very termination to which the line runs, the last person named as begotten is a woman. For we read, “Methusael begat Lamech. And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of the shepherds that dwell in tents. And his brother’s name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. And Zillah, she also bare Tubal-cain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.” Here terminate all the generations of Cain, being eight in number, including Adam,—to wit, seven from Adam to Lamech, who married two wives, and whose children, among whom a woman also is named, form the eighth generation. Whereby it is elegantly signified that the earthly city shall to its termination have carnal generations proceeding from the intercourse of males and females. And therefore the wives themselves of the man who is the last named father of Cain’s line, are registered in their own names,—a practice nowhere followed before the deluge save in Eve’s case. Now as Cain, signifying possession, the founder of the earthly city, and his son Enoch, meaning dedication, in whose name it was founded, indicate that this city is earthly both in its beginning and in its end,—a city in which nothing more is hoped for than can be seen in this world,—so Seth, meaning resurrection, and being the father of generations registered apart from the others, we must consider what this sacred history says of his son.

Cum ergo esset Adam utriusque generis pater, id est et cuius series ad terrenam, et cuius series ad caelestem pertinet ciuitatem, occiso Abel adque in eius interfectione commendato mirabili sacramento facti sunt duo patres singulorum generum, Cain et Seth, in quorum filiis, quos commemorari oportebat, duarum istarum ciuitatum in genere mortalium euidentius indicia clarere coeperunt. Cain quippe genuit Enoch, in cuius nomine condidit ciuitatem, terrenam scilicet, non peregrinantem in hoc mundo, sed in eius temporali pace ac felicitate quiescentem. Cain autem interpretatur possessio; unde dictum est, quando natus est, siue a patre siue a matre eius: Adquisiui hominem per Deum. Enoch uero dedicatio; hic enim dedicatur terrena ciuitas, ubi conditur, quoniam hic habet eum, quem intendit et adpetit, finem. Porro ille Seth interpretatur resurrectio et Enos filius eius interpretatur homo; non sicut Adam. Et ipsum enim nomen homo interpretatur; sed commune perhibetur esse in illa lingua, id est Hebraea, masculo et feminae. Nam sic de illo scriptum est: Masculum et feminam fecit illos et benedixit illos et cognominauit nomen eorum Adam. Unde non ambigitur sic appellatam fuisse feminam Euam proprio nomine, ut tamen Adam, quod interpretatur homo, nomen esset amborum. Enos autem sic interpretatur homo, ut hoc non posse feminam nuncupari periti linguae illius adseuerent, tamquam filius resurrectionis, ubi non nubent neque uxores ducent. Non enim erit ibi generatio, cum illuc perduxerit regeneratio. Quare et hoc non incassum notandum arbitror, quod in eis generationibus, quae propagantur ex illo qui est appellatus Seth, cum genuisse filios filiasque dicantur, nulla ibi genita nominatim femina expressa est; in his autem, quae propagantur ex Cain, in ipso fine, quo usque, pertendunt, nouissima femina genita nominatur. Sic enim legitur: Mathusael genuit Lamech; et sumsit sibi Lamech duas uxores, nomen uni Ada et nomen secundae Sella, et peperit Ada Iobel; hic erat pater habitantium in tabernaculis pecuariorum. Et nomen fratris eius Iobal; hic fuit qui ostendit psalterium et citharam. Sella autem peperit et ipsa Tobel; et erat malleator aerarius aeramenti et ferri. Soror autem Tobel Noemma. Huc usque porrectae sunt generationes ex Cain, quae sunt omnes ab Adam octo adnumerato ipso Adam, septem scilicet usque ad Lamech, qui duarum maritus uxorum fuit, et octaua est generatio in filiis eius, in quibus commemoratur et femina. Ubi eleganter significatum est terrenam ciuitatem usque in sui finem carnales habituram generationes, quae marium feminarumque coniunctione proueniunt. Unde et ipsae, quod praeter Euam nusquam reperitur ante diluuium, nominibus propriis exprimuntur uxores illius hominis, qui nominatur hic nouissimus pater. Sicut autem Cain, quod interpretatur possessio, terrenae conditor ciuitatis, et filius eius, in cuius nomine condita est, Enoch, quod interpretatur dedicatio, indicat istam ciuitatem et initium et finem habere terrenum, ubi nihil speratur amplius, quam in hoc saeculo cerni potest: ita Seth, quod interpretatur resurrectio, cum sit generationum seorsus commemoratarum pater, quid de filio eius sacra haec historia dicat, intuendum est.

Chapter 18.—The Significance of Abel, Seth, and Enos to Christ and His Body the Church.

Caput XVIII. Quid significatum sit in Abel et Seth et Enos, quod appareat ad Christum et corpus eius, id est ecclesiam, pertinere.

“And to Seth,” it is said, “there was born a son, and he called his name Enos: he hoped to call on the name of the Lord God.” Here we have a loud testimony to the truth. Man, then, the son of the resurrection, lives in hope: he lives in hope as long as the city of God, which is begotten by faith in the resurrection, sojourns in this world. For in these two men, Abel, signifying “grief,” and his brother Seth, signifying “resurrection,” the death of Christ and His life from the dead are prefigured. And by faith in these is begotten in this world the city of God, that is to say, the man who has hoped to call on the name of the Lord. “For by hope,” says the apostle, “we are saved: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.” Who can avoid referring this to a profound mystery? For did not Abel hope to call upon the name of the Lord God when his sacrifice is mentioned in Scripture as having been accepted by God? Did not Seth himself hope to call on the name of the Lord God, of whom it was said, “For God hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel?” Why then is this which is found to be common to all the godly specially attributed to Enos, unless because it was fit that in him, who is mentioned as the first-born of the father of those generations which were separated to the better part of the heavenly city, there should be a type of the man, or society of men, who live not according to man in contentment with earthly felicity, but according to God in hope of everlasting felicity? And it was not said, “He hoped in the Lord God,” nor “He called on the name of the Lord God,” but “He hoped to call on the name of the Lord God.” And what does this “hoped to call” mean, unless it is a prophecy that a people should arise who, according to the election of grace, would call on the name of the Lord God? It is this which has been said by another prophet, and which the apostle interprets of the people who belong to the grace of God: “And it shall be that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” For these two expressions, “And he called his name Enos, which means man,” and “He hoped to call on the name of the Lord God,” are sufficient proof that man ought not to rest his hopes in himself; as it is elsewhere written, “Cursed is the man that trusteth in man.” Consequently no one ought to trust in himself that he shall become a citizen of that other city which is not dedicated in the name of Cain’s son in this present time, that is to say, in the fleeting course of this mortal world, but in the immortality of perpetual blessedness.

Et Seth, inquit, natus est filius, et nominauit nomen eius Enos; hic sperauit inuocare nomen Domini Dei. Nempe clamat adtestatio ueritatis. In spe igitur uiuit homo filius resurrectionis; in spe uiuit, quamdiu peregrinatur hic, ciuitas Dei, quae gignitur ex fide resurrectionis Christi. Ex duobus namque illis hominibus, Abel, quod interpretatur luctus, et eius fratre Seth, quod interpretatur resurrectio. mors Christi et uita eius ex mortuis figuratur. Ex qua fide gignitur hic ciuitas Dei, id est homo, qui sperauit inuocare nomen Domini Dei. Spe enim salui facti sumus, ait apostolus. Spes autem quae uidetur, non est spes. Quod enim uidet quis, quid sperat? Si autem quod non uidemus speramus, per patientiam exspectamus. Nam quis uacare hoc existimet ab altitudine sacramenti? Numquid enim Abel non sperauit inuocare nomen Domini Dei, cuius sacrificium scriptura tam acceptum Deo fuisse commemorat? Numquid ipse Seth non sperauit inuocare nomen Domini Dei, de quo dictum est: Suscitauit enim mihi Deus semen aliud pro Abel? Quur ergo huic proprie tribuitur, quod piorum omnium intellegitur esse commune, nisi quia oportebat in eo, qui de patre generationum in meliorem partem, hoc est supernae ciuitatis, separatarum, primus commemoratur exortus, praefigurari hominem, id est hominum societatem, quae non secundum hominem in re felicitatis terrenae, sed secundum Deum uiuit in spe felicitatis aeternae? Nec dictum est: <Hic sperauit in Dominum Deum’, aut: ‘Hic inuocauit nomen Domini Dei’, sed: sperauit, inquit, inuocare nomen Domini Dei. Quid sibi hoc uult: Sperauit inuocare, nisi quia prophetia est exorturum populum, qui secundum electionem gratiae inuocaret nomen Domini Dei? Hoc est, quod per alium prophetam dictum apostolus de hoc populo intel- • legit ad Dei gratiam pertinente: Et erit, omnis qui inuocauerit nomen Domini saluus erit. Hoc ipsum enim quod dicitur: Et nominauit nomen eius Enos, quod interpretatur homo, ac deinde additur: Hic sperauit inuocare nomen Domini Dei, satis ostenditur, quod non in se ipso spem ponere debeat homo; maledictus enim omnis (sicut alibi legitur), qui spem suam ponit in homine, ac per hoc nec in se, ut sit ciuis alterius ciuitatis, quae non secundum filium Cain dedicatur hoc tempore, id est mortalis huius saeculi labente transcursu, sed in illa inmortali tate beatitudinis sempiternae.

Chapter 19.—The Significance Of Enoch’s Translation.

Caput XIX. De significatione, quae in Enoch translatione monstratur.

For that line also of which Seth is the father has the name “Dedication” in the seventh generation from Adam, counting Adam. For the seventh from him is Enoch, that is, Dedication. But this is that man who was translated because he pleased God, and who held in the order of the generations a remarkable place, being the seventh from Adam, a number signalized by the consecration of the Sabbath. But, counting from the diverging point of the two lines, or from Seth, he was the sixth. Now it was on the sixth day God made man, and consummated His works. But the translation of Enoch prefigured our deferred dedication; for though it is indeed already accomplished in Christ our Head, who so rose again that He shall die no more, and who was Himself also translated, yet there remains another dedication of the whole house, of which Christ Himself is the foundation, and this dedication is deferred till the end, when all shall rise again to die no more. And whether it is the house of God, or the temple of God, or the city of God, that is said to be dedicated, it is all the same, and equally in accordance with the usage of the Latin language. For Virgil himself calls the city of widest empire “the house of Assaracus,” meaning the Romans, who were descended through the Trojans from Assaracus. He also calls them the house of Æneas, because Rome was built by those Trojans who had come to Italy under Æneas. For that poet imitated the sacred writings, in which the Hebrew nation, though so numerous, is called the house of Jacob.

Nam et ista propago, cuius est pater Seth, in ea generatione habet dedicationis nomen, quae septima est ex Adam adnumerato Adam. Septimus enim ab illo natus est Enoch, quod interpretatur dedicatio. Sed ipse est ille translatus, quoniam placuit Deo, et insigni numero in ordine generationum, quo sabbatum consecratum est, septimo scilicet ab Adam. Ab ipso autem patre istarum generationum, quae discernuntur a progenie Cain, id est a Seth, sextus est; quoto die factus est homo et consummauit Deus omnia opera sua. Sed huius Enoch translatio nostrae dedicationis est praefigurata dilatio. Quae quidem iam facta est in Christo capite nostro, qui sic resurrexit, ut non moriatur ulterius, sed etiam ipse translatus est; restat autem altera dedicatio uniuersae domus, cuius ipse Christus est fundamentum, quae differtur in finem, quando erit omnium resurrectio non moriturorum amplius. Siue autem domus Dei dicatur siue templum Dei siue ciuitas Dei, id ipsum est nec abhorret a Latini eloquii consuetudine. Nam et Vergilius imperiosissimam ciuitatem domum appellat Assaraci, Romanos uolens intellegi, qui de Assaraco per Troianos originem ducunt; et domum Aeneae eosdem ipsos, quia eo duce Troiani cum Italiam uenissent ab eis condita est Roma. Imitatus namque est poeta ille litteras sacras, in quibus dicitur domus Iacob iam ingens populus Hebraeorum.