Works (City of God, On the Trinity, etc.) 16 part 3/5

And although this resource is at hand everywhere for those who wish it among all nations, nevertheless it is not without significance that no one has dared to emend from the Hebrew codices the Seventy translators in the very many places where they seem to say something different. For that diversity was not accounted a defect; nor do I in any way think it should be accounted so: but where there is no scribal error, it is to be believed that they, by the divine Spirit, where the sense was consonant with the truth and proclaiming the truth, wished to say something otherwise — not by the function of translators, but by the liberty of prophets. Whence the apostolic authority is found to use, not only the Hebrew texts, but also these very ones, when it adduces testimonies from the Scriptures.

But I have promised to speak of this more diligently in a more opportune place, if God shall help me; now let me deal with what is pressing. For it is not to be doubted that by a man who was the first born of the first man, when they were living so long, a city could be founded — an earthly one, to be sure, not that which is called the City of God, about which, that we might write, we have taken into our hands the labor of so great a work. Someone, then, will say: 'Is it so to be believed that a man begetting sons, and having no purpose of continence, remained for a hundred and more years — or according to the Hebrews not much less, that is, eighty, seventy, sixty years — abstaining from the work of intercourse; or, if he did not abstain, could beget no offspring?' This question is solved in two ways.

For either puberty was later in proportion, in the same measure as the length of the whole life was greater; or — what I rather see to be credible — the first-born sons were not here recorded, but those whom the order of succession required, so that one might arrive at Noah, from whom again we see it was arrived at Abraham, and thereafter down to a certain fixed point of time, as far as it was fitting to signify, even by the generations recorded, the course of that most glorious City sojourning in this world and seeking the heavenly fatherland. For what cannot be denied is that Cain, prior to all, was born of the union of male and female. For Adam would not, at his birth, have said what he is recorded to have said — 'I have gotten a man through God' — unless he himself had been the man for those two.

being added first by birth. Following him was Abel, whom his elder brother slew, and who first showed a certain prefiguration of the sojourning City of God, in that it was to suffer unjust persecutions from the impious and in a certain manner earth-born — that is, from those who love their earthly origin and rejoice in the earthly felicity of the earthly city. But how many years old Adam was when he begot them does not appear. Thereafter are set forth other generations from Cain, and others from him whom Adam begot into the succession of the one whom his brother slew, and he called his name Seth, saying, as it is written: 'For God has raised up for me another seed in place of Abel, whom Cain slew.'

Since, therefore, these two series of generations — one from Seth, the other from Cain — intimate by distinct orders these two cities of which we treat, one heavenly sojourning on earth, the other earthly gaping after or clinging to earthly things as though they were the sole joys: not one of the progeny of Cain, when it is enumerated with Adam counted in, up to the eighth generation, has it expressed how many years old he was when he begot the one who is recorded after him. For the Spirit of God was unwilling to note the times in the generations of the earthly city before the flood, but preferred to do so in those of the heavenly, as being more worthy of remembrance. Moreover, when Seth was born, the years of his father are indeed not passed over in silence, but he had already begotten others;

and whether he had begotten only Cain and Abel — who would dare to affirm? For it should not therefore seem to follow that only they were then generated from Adam, merely because they alone were named on account of the orders of generations which had to be recorded. For since, with the names of all the rest covered in silence, it is read that he begot sons and daughters, who would presume to assert — if he avoids the fault of rashness — how numerous this his offspring was? For Adam, divinely admonished, could indeed say, after Seth was born: 'For God has raised up for me another seed in place of Abel,' because such a one he was to be, who would fulfill the holiness of that other, not that he himself was born after him first in order of time. Then, as to what is written:

'And Seth lived two hundred and five years (or according to the Hebrews a hundred and five years), and begot Enos' — who, unless inconsiderate, could assert that this was his first-born? So that we may with reason, in wonder, ask how through so many years he remained free from wedlock without any purpose of continence, or, being married, did not beget; since indeed of him too it is read: 'And he begot sons and daughters, and all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years, and he died.' And so thereafter, those whose years are recorded are not passed over in silence as having begotten sons and daughters. And by this it does not at all appear whether he who is named as begotten was himself the first-born:

Nay rather, since it is not credible that those fathers, at so long an age, were either unripe for procreation or lacked wives or offspring, neither is it credible that those sons of theirs were the first ones born to them. But since the writer of the sacred history was intent on arriving, through the successions of generations with the times noted, at the origin and life of Noah, in whose time the flood happened, he assuredly recorded those generations which were not the first to their parents, but which came into the order of propagation. For the sake of example, that this may be made clearer, I shall interpose something whereby no one may doubt that what I say could have happened.

The evangelist Matthew, wishing to commit to memory the generation of the Lord's flesh through the series of forebears, beginning from father Abraham and intending first to arrive at David, says: 'Abraham begot Isaac' — why did he not say Ishmael, whom he first begot? 'And Isaac,' he says, 'begot Jacob' — why did he not say Esau, who was his first-born? Because, namely, through them he could not arrive at David. Then follows: 'And Jacob begot Judah and his brothers' — was Judah the first-born? 'Judah,' he says, 'begot Perez and Zerah' — nor was either of these twins the first-born of Judah, but before them he had already begotten three.

And so he retained in the order of generations those through whom he might arrive at David and thence at what he intended. From this it can be understood that the ancient men before the flood too were recorded, not as first-born, but as those through whom the order of succeeding generations might be led down to the patriarch Noah, lest the obscure and unnecessary question of their late puberty should weary us. Since, therefore, the human race, after the first coupling of the man made from dust and his wife made from the man's side, had need of the union of males and females that it might be multiplied by begetting, and there were no men except those who had been born of those two: the men took their sisters as wives;

which, to be sure, the more ancient it was under the compulsion of necessity, the more damnable it afterward became when religion forbade it. For a most right reasoning of charity was had, that men, to whom useful and honorable concord was to be desired, should be bound together by the bonds of diverse kinships, and that one should not have many kinships in himself alone, but that they should be scattered severally among individuals, and thus, for binding together the social life more diligently, that many should hold many. For father and father-in-law are the names of two kinships. So that each may have one man as father, another as father-in-law, charity extends itself more numerously. But one Adam was forced to be both to his sons and daughters, when brothers and sisters were joined in wedlock.

So too Eve his wife was to both sexes of her children both mother-in-law and mother; whereas, if there had been two women, one the mother and the other the mother-in-law, social affection would have bound itself more copiously. The sister herself, finally, in that she also became a wife, held in one person two kinships; and if these had been distributed among individuals, so that one were a sister and another a wife, the social kinship would have been increased by the number of persons. But at that time there was no source whence this could be done, when there were no men except brothers and sisters from those first two. It ought, therefore, to be done when it could — that, when abundance existed, wives should thence be taken who were not already sisters; and not only should there be no necessity for it to be done, but even, if it were done, it would be a wickedness.

For if the grandchildren also of the first men, who could now take their female cousins as wives, were joined in matrimony to their sisters, then not two but three kinships would arise in one man — which, for the sake of charity to be bound by more numerous kinship, ought severally to have been disseminated through individuals. For one man would be to his sons — that is, to a brother and sister who were spouses — both father and father-in-law and maternal uncle; likewise his wife would be to those same common children both mother and paternal aunt and mother-in-law; and their sons among themselves would be not only brothers and spouses, but also cousins, since also children of siblings.

But all these kinships, which bound three persons to one man, would bind nine, if they were severally distributed among individuals, so that one man might have one woman as sister, another as wife, another as female cousin, one man as father, another as maternal uncle, another as father-in-law, one woman as mother, another as paternal aunt, another as mother-in-law; and thus he would spread the social bond, not confined within fewness, but more widely and more numerously, by frequent kinships.

This, as the human race grew and multiplied, we see is thus observed even among the impious worshippers of many false gods, so that, even if by perverse laws fraternal marriages are permitted, yet a better custom prefers to shudder at that very license; and although in the first times of the human race it was altogether lawful to take sisters in matrimony, it is now so abhorred as if it could never have been lawful. For, to allure or to offend human feeling, custom avails very much; and since in this matter it curbs the immoderateness of concupiscence, whoever violates and corrupts it is rightly judged to be doing a wicked thing.

For if it is unjust, out of greed to possess, to overstep the boundary of fields, how much more unjust is it, out of lust to lie together, to overturn the boundary of morals! We have experienced, even in our own times, how rarely, by custom, marriages of female cousins came about — because of a degree of kinship next to the fraternal degree — which by the laws was permitted to happen, since neither did the divine law forbid it, nor had human law yet forbidden it. Yet the deed, even when lawful, was shuddered at because of its nearness to the unlawful; and what was done with a female cousin seemed almost to be done with a sister; for they too, on account of so near a consanguinity, are called brother and sister among themselves, and are almost siblings. And it was a matter of religious care to the ancient fathers,

lest the kinship itself, gradually severing itself through the orders of the offspring, should depart too far and cease to be kinship — and to bind it again, while not yet far removed, by the bond of matrimony, and in a certain manner to recall it as it fled. Whence, when the world was now full of men, they loved to take wives of their own kindred — not indeed sisters born of father or mother or of both their parents, but yet of their own stock. But who could doubt that in this time even the marriages of cousins have been more honorably forbidden? not only according to what we have discussed, on account of multiplying affinities, lest one person should have two kinships, when two persons could have them and the number of kinship be increased;

But also because, in some way, there is present in human modesty a certain natural and praiseworthy quality, whereby, even toward one to whom the bond of kinship owes reverent honour, it withholds from her—though she be a mother—the lust of which we see even conjugal chastity itself blush. The union, therefore, of male and female, so far as concerns the race of mortals, is a kind of seedbed of the city; but the earthly city has need of generation only, whereas the heavenly city has need also of regeneration, that it may escape the injury of generation. Whether, however, there was any corporeal and visible sign of regeneration before the Flood, and if there was, what it was—such as circumcision was afterward commanded to Abraham—sacred history is silent.

Yet it is not silent that even those most ancient men offered sacrifice to God; which was made manifest both in the first two brothers, and in Noah after the Flood, who, when he had gone forth from the ark, is read to have offered victims to God. On which matter we have already spoken in the preceding books: that the demons, arrogating divinity to themselves and desiring to be believed gods, seek sacrifice for themselves and rejoice in honours of this kind for no other reason than because they know that true sacrifice is owed to the true God.

Since therefore Adam was the father of both kinds—that is, both of the line that pertains to the earthly and of the line that pertains to the heavenly city—after Abel was slain, and in his murder a wondrous sacrament was commended, there came to be two fathers of the several kinds, Cain and Seth; and in their sons, whom it behoved to be recorded, the tokens of these two cities among the race of mortals began to shine forth more evidently. For Cain begot Enoch, in whose name he founded a city—an earthly one, not sojourning in this world, but resting in its temporal peace and felicity. Now Cain is interpreted 'possession'; whence it was said, when he was born—whether by his father or his mother—'I have gotten a man through God.'

But Enoch means 'dedication'; for here the earthly city is dedicated, where it is founded, since here it has that end which it intends and desires. Seth, moreover, is interpreted 'resurrection,' and his son Enos is interpreted 'man'—not as Adam is; for that name Adam also is interpreted 'man,' but in that tongue, namely Hebrew, it is held to be common to male and female. For thus it is written of him: 'Male and female he made them, and he blessed them, and he called their name Adam.' Whence there is no doubt that the woman was called Eve by her own proper name, yet in such wise that Adam, which is interpreted 'man,' was the name of them both.

Enos, however, is so interpreted 'man' that those skilled in that tongue affirm it cannot be applied to a woman—as being a son of the resurrection, where they neither marry nor take wives. For there will be no generation there, when regeneration shall have brought us thither. Wherefore I think this too is to be noted not in vain: that in those generations which are propagated from him who was called Seth, although they are said to have begotten sons and daughters, no woman there is expressed by name as born; but in those which are propagated from Cain, at the very end to which they extend, a last woman born is named. For thus it is read: 'Mathusael begot Lamech. And Lamech took to himself two wives, the name of the one Ada and the name of the second Sella, and Ada bore Jobel;'

he was the father of those who dwell in tents, keepers of cattle. And the name of his brother was Jubal; he it was who invented the psaltery and the harp. But Sella also bore Tubal; and he was a hammerer and a smith in bronze-work and iron. And the sister of Tubal was Noemma. Thus far were the generations from Cain extended, which are in all, from Adam, eight, counting Adam himself—seven, that is, down to Lamech, who was the husband of two wives, and the eighth is the generation among his children, in whom a woman also is recorded. Wherein it is elegantly signified that the earthly city would have carnal generations even to its very end, which arise from the conjunction of males and females.

Whence also these very women—which, apart from Eve, is nowhere found before the Flood—are expressed by their proper names as the wives of that man who is here named as the last father. But just as Cain, which is interpreted 'possession,' the founder of the earthly city, and his son Enoch, in whose name it was founded, which is interpreted 'dedication,' indicate that this city has both its beginning and its end earthly, where nothing more is hoped for than what can be seen in this age: so Seth, which is interpreted 'resurrection,' since he is the father of the generations recorded apart, we must observe what this sacred history says of his son. 'And to Seth,' it says, 'a son was born, and he called his name Enos;'

'he hoped to call upon the name of the Lord God.' Assuredly the testimony of truth cries aloud. In hope, therefore, lives the man who is the son of the resurrection; in hope lives, so long as it sojourns here, the city of God, which is begotten of faith in the resurrection of Christ. For from those two men—Abel, which is interpreted 'mourning,' and his brother Seth, which is interpreted 'resurrection'—are figured the death of Christ and his life from the dead. Of which faith the city of God is here begotten, that is, the man who hoped to call upon the name of the Lord God. 'For by hope we are saved,' says the Apostle. 'But hope that is seen is not hope; for what a man sees, why does he also hope for? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.'

For who would judge this to be void of any depth of mystery? Did not Abel, indeed, hope to call upon the name of the Lord God, whose sacrifice Scripture records to have been so acceptable to God? Did not Seth himself hope to call upon the name of the Lord God, of whom it was said, 'For God has raised up for me another seed instead of Abel'? Why then is that attributed to this man as proper to him, which is understood to be common to all the pious, unless because it behoved that in him who is first recorded as sprung from the father of the generations set apart unto the better part—that is, of the supernal city—there should be prefigured the man, that is, the fellowship of men, which lives not according to man in earthly felicity, but according to God in hope of eternal felicity? Nor was it said,

'He hoped in the Lord God,' or 'He called upon the name of the Lord God,' but 'He hoped,' it says, 'to call upon the name of the Lord God.' What does this 'He hoped to call upon' mean for us, save that it is a prophecy that a people would arise which, according to the election of grace, would call upon the name of the Lord God? This is what the Apostle understands to be said through another prophet concerning this people that pertains to the grace of God: 'And it shall come to pass, everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.' For this very thing that is said, 'And he called his name Enos,' which is interpreted 'man,' and then it is added, 'He hoped to call upon the name of the Lord God,' sufficiently shows that man ought not to place his hope in himself;

'for cursed is everyone' (as it is read elsewhere) 'who places his hope in man,' and thereby not even in himself, that he may be a citizen of that other city which is not dedicated after the manner of the son of Cain in this present time—that is, in the fleeting passage of this mortal age—but in that immortality of everlasting blessedness. For this offspring also, whose father is Seth, has the name of 'dedication' in that generation which is the seventh from Adam, counting Adam. For seventh from him was born Enoch, which is interpreted 'dedication.' But he is that one who was translated, because he pleased God, and by a notable number in the order of the generations, namely the seventh from Adam, by which the sabbath was consecrated.

But from that very father of these generations which are distinguished from the progeny of Cain—that is, from Seth—he is the sixth; the number of the day on which man was made and God completed all his works. But the translation of this Enoch is a prefiguration of the deferral of our dedication. Which indeed has already been accomplished in Christ our head, who so rose again that he dies no more, but was himself also translated; yet there remains the other dedication of the whole house, of which Christ himself is the foundation, which is deferred to the end, when there shall be the resurrection of those who die no more. But whether it be called the house of God, or the temple of God, or the city of God, it is one and the same, nor is it repugnant to the usage of Latin speech.

For Virgil too calls the most imperious city 'the house of Assaracus,' meaning thereby the Romans to be understood, who trace their origin from Assaracus through the Trojans; and 'the house of Aeneas' he calls those same men, because under his leadership, when the Trojans had come into Italy, Rome was founded by them. For that poet imitated the sacred writings, in which the numerous people of the Hebrews is called 'the house of Jacob.' Someone will say:

'If the writer of this history intended this in recording the generations from Adam through his son Seth, that through them he might reach Noah, under whom the Flood took place, from whom again the order of those being born was woven, so as to reach Abraham, from whom Matthew the evangelist begins the generations by which he arrives at Christ the eternal king of the city of God—what did he intend in the generations from Cain, and whither did he wish to lead them?' The answer is: Down to the Flood, by which that whole race of the earthly city was consumed, but it was restored from the sons of Noah. For neither can this earthly city and the fellowship of men living according to man be wanting until the end of this age, concerning which the Lord says:

'The children of this age beget and are begotten.' But regeneration leads the city of God, sojourning in this age, to the other age, whose children neither beget nor are begotten. Here, therefore, to be begotten and to beget is common to both cities; although the city of God has even here many thousands of citizens who abstain from the work of begetting; but the other city has such too, by a certain imitation, albeit of erring ones. For to it belong also those who, deviating from its faith, have founded diverse heresies; for they live according to man, not according to God. And the gymnosophists of the Indians, who are said to philosophize naked in the solitudes of India, are its citizens, and they refrain from begetting.

For this is not good, except when it is done according to faith in the highest good, who is God. Yet no one is found to have done this before the Flood; since even Enoch himself, the seventh from Adam, who is reported to have been translated, not to have died, begot sons and daughters before he was translated—among whom was Mathusalam, through whom passes the order of the generations to be remembered. Why, then, is so small a number of successions recorded in the generations from Cain, if they had to be carried down to the Flood, and there was no long age preceding puberty which for a hundred years or more would be free from offspring?

For if the author of this book did not intend some person to whom he must of necessity carry down the series of generations—as in those which come from the seed of Seth he intended to reach Noah, from whom again a necessary order would follow:

what need was there to pass over the firstborn sons, in order to reach Lamech, in whose children that connected series ends—namely in the eighth generation from Adam, the seventh from Cain—as though there were something thence to be further connected, whereby one might reach either the people of Israel, in whom even the earthly Jerusalem afforded a prophetic figure to the heavenly city, or Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed forever, the builder and ruler of the heavenly Jerusalem, since the whole progeny of Cain was destroyed by the Flood? Whence it may be seen that in that same order of generations the firstborn were recorded. Why, then, are they so few?

For they could not have been so few down to the Flood, if the fathers were not free from the office of begetting until their hundredth year of puberty—unless there was then, in proportion to that longevity, also a late puberty. For supposing they were uniformly thirty years old when they began to beget sons, eight times thirty (since there are eight generations counting Adam and those whom Lamech begot) makes two hundred and forty years: did they then, through all the following time down to the Flood, not beget? For what cause, at last, did he who wrote these things refuse to record the generations that follow? For from Adam down to the Flood there are reckoned, according to our codices, two thousand two hundred and sixty-two years;

but according to the Hebrews, one thousand six hundred and fifty-six. So that, even if we believe the smaller number to be the truer, from the one thousand six hundred and fifty-six years let two hundred and forty be subtracted: is it then credible that through one thousand four hundred years and more, which remain down to the Flood, the progeny of Cain could have been free from begetting? But let him who is troubled by this remember that, when I asked how it is to be believed that those ancient men could cease from begetting sons through so many years, this question was solved in two ways:

either by a late puberty, in proportion to so long a life, or by the fact that the sons recorded in the generations were not the firstborn, but those through whom one could reach him whom the author of the book intended—as Noah in the generations of Seth. Accordingly, in the generations of Cain, if there does not occur one who ought to be intended, to whom, passing over the firstborn, it behoved to reach through those who are recorded, then a late puberty will remain to be understood: namely, that they were made able and fit for begetting somewhat after a hundred years, so that the order of generations might run through the firstborn and, down to the Flood, might arrive at a number of years of so great a magnitude.

Although it may be that, for some more hidden cause which escapes me, this city which we call earthly was commended by the connected series of generations reaching down to Lamech and his children, and then the writer of the book ceased to record the others which might have existed down to the Flood. There may also be this cause why the order of generations was not led through the firstborn, so that it need not be believed that in those men puberty was so late: namely, that this same city, which Cain founded in the name of his son Enoch, could reign far and wide and have kings—not several at once, but singly in their several ages, whom those who had reigned had begotten to succeed themselves.