And when after the evening it had grown light, the first day was made, the night being passed, so that the night should follow the day. This is both fitting and commended by reason, that the inferior nature should in all things be subject to the superior. How, then, shall the night be said to be before the day, whose name you read after the day? For it would not have been called night nor evening, unless the made light had carried through the day; and when that was passed, evening was made, which is night: the day, that is, became evening, that you may know that night is a part of the day. For then the day is completed, when it passes by; and indeed we say thus: 'the year has 365 days,' surely not without nights. For when we say 'days,' we reckon in the same the nights also. For under the authority of the day we signify also the night;
for if the night preceded the day, the day also would be reckoned under the name of night. For what man would say: 'After five nights I shall see you,' and not 'after five days'? Nor do we remember to have read anywhere of the night being signified before the day. For 'Moses was,' it says, 'on the mountain forty days and forty nights'; and in the Psalm: 'the sun,' it says, 'shall not burn you by day, nor the moon by night'; and, to give an example from the very beginnings: 'Let there be,' it says, 'lights in the firmament of heaven, so that they may give light upon the earth; the greater light for the beginning of the day and the lesser light for the beginning of the night.' If the moon can be set before the sun, then so can the night before the day; but, just as the moon is under the sun, so also the night is under the day.
And in the Gospel we have nights signified under the authority and number of days. For the Lord says, among other things: 'There are some of those standing here who shall not taste death, until they see the Son of Man in His kingdom.' And He added: 'And it came to pass after eight days,' and the rest. Are not nights also contained in this number? And in another place: 'These things,' it says, 'were done in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing. On the next day he saw Jesus coming.' Did it say 'on the next night'? Again it follows: 'On the following day He wished to go forth into Galilee'; and in what follows: 'and on the third day a marriage took place in Cana of Galilee.' Behold, everywhere the day is proved to be in authority, having the night subject to it.
For if number were contained under the name of night, the night would precede the day. For just as, because the Romans hold the empire, the Spaniards and Gauls and Africans and the rest subject to them are called Romans under their name, so also the night, because it is subject to the day, is contained under its name. But here some are deceived, because the Jews are commanded to enter into the Sabbath in the evening, not considering why it was so commanded. For surely on the day before they must buy themselves food and prepare it for the Sabbath, and go washed. Could they do these things at night, so as to enter into the Sabbath when the day had risen? The Lord certainly rose in the evening, and it is reckoned to the day. For the resurrection is celebrated on the day, which is called the Lord's day — for so you read:
'This is the day which the Lord has made' — yet not the Lord's night, because the day holds the primacy. For whether to the day past or to the day future, the night is always subject, because it is both inferior in order and in nature, as the Apostle says: 'You are sons of the day and of the light, not of the night and of the darkness.' And if we make a conjecture from the consuls, we shall see that he is named first who is chosen first. In short, it is wont to be said: 'With whom will so-and-so be consul?' If, then, the night were also before the day, it would be named first as well. For the count begins so much from the day that, suppose we say: 'tomorrow is the sixth of the Kalends,' it is reckoned from the morning right up until another morning comes, so that the day and night being passed are reckoned. For the moon too was certainly made in its fourteenth day at the beginning, in the morning;
for having been made, it had to shine throughout the whole night, and at another morning it began its fifteenth day. Why, then, is it doubted that beginnings are reckoned from the day? Because of the contentions of certain people about a manifest matter, we have been compelled to speak more at length, although the reading itself explains it, in which the day is by an open reasoning signified before the night. All these things mentioned above we have said according to the origin of the world. But if we wish to speak more deeply, raising our understanding with spiritual vigour, we shall find it incongruous to assert that the darkness was created before the light.
For if the nature of light is heavenly and that of darkness earthly, it is surely absurd to think the light was made after the darkness, because Moses says that the light was indeed made, but in that part in which the world now is — not that it was then created, since all spiritual things were created before the carnal, so that the light which was in the heights might come to be in the lower things, like a lamp in a house. But for what reason is the darkness spoken of before the light, since it is always seen after the light? In short, heavenly and spiritual things are believed by nature to be light, earthly and carnal things to be of darkness, so that the nature of darkness seems to subsist by the power of light, because everything lowest belongs to the highest.
For if we inquire, we discover darkness in the sun itself. For when, if you are close beside it, it appears so very bright that it cannot be looked upon; but if at a distance, bright indeed, yet such that it can be gazed upon; but if far off, less bright; and whatever is farther off, a certain falling-away appears, which announces darkness — and so one arrives at the point that darkness seems to take its origin from light. And so He who made the light created the darkness in this way, just as, making water, He created the dry land at the same time; so that, as the earth is the firm part of the water, so the darkness is the falling-away of light.
But God alone is He who suffers no falling-away, who, though He is everywhere — nay rather, has all things within Himself — is so exceedingly resplendent that He is seen by no one, unless He should will to temper Himself. In short, the Saviour, when He was in the body and was not shut in, was nevertheless not at all seen unless He had willed it. For surely that He was transfigured on the mountain and appeared in great brightness — this was as it were hidden in the body, which He manifested when He willed. How, then, was He hidden who was not shut in? For if with His body He entered to the disciples when the doors were shut, in what manner does His divinity not penetrate all things? That is, it cannot be shut in, because it suffers no falling-away. Since, therefore, God is nowhere absent, He is nevertheless said to be there where He appears and wills to be seen.
Since, therefore, all things are in God, because He exceeds all things, as the Apostle says: 'For in Him we live and move and have our being,' yet He Himself is in nothing except in that in which He has willed to be. For by a certain mystery He is in all things, and by a certain providence He appears in whom He wills. CVIII. ON THE HEBREW TONGUE, FROM WHAT IT RECEIVED ITS NAME. Everything that is from God is rational, and to each thing the cause gives its commencement, which is its own origin, so that it may seem to be named or to subsist not absurdly, but so that the appellation should display the thing which is understood to be the head of the very name. So then the reasoning of man is the cause by which he consists. And he consists of four elements, earth, air, water, fire — with God, of course, as their author;
the fifth is the mind, as it were a charioteer, that it might drive the compacted and figured body as its commander. From this we all took our beginning, and by its name we are designated. For we are called men (homines) on account of the ground (humum), whence our outward father has his origin. So then cause and reason bring it about that, from the name of someone, the rest who subsist under the same name are called, signifying him in themselves. For which reason let us see whether it fits, as some suppose, that the Hebrews were so called from Heber. For it seems, as far as concerns the name, that the origin of this name descends from there; for Heber is earlier than Abraham. But if this were true, those who are of the tribe of Heber ought to be called by the same name after him;
for from Heber, in the seventh generation, Abraham was born. If, then, from above Abraham, or Abraham himself, was called a Hebrew, without doubt the Hebrews are named from Heber; but if it is not read that those above Abraham were called Hebrews, but rather after Abraham, then assuredly they are not called Hebrews from Heber, but from Abraham, seeing that the sons of Abraham are known to have been first called by this name. For in Genesis Joseph and his brethren are called Hebrews.
For knowing that there was Abraham, who had come down from Syria into Canaan and had been multiplied, on account of his faith filled with all abundance, called a king and a prophet and the father of many nations, who with three hundred and eighteen of his home-born servants routed five kings — because these things were not done and said in a corner, so as to lie hidden — they named those who were of his seed Hebrews. It was, then, of the order and merit of Abraham that he should become the head of those who have their lineage from him. For by the judgement of God he was set as prince and origin in the land of Canaan, so that those begotten of him might be of another profession and manner of life than he himself had been before he came down into the land of Canaan;
for, being himself renewed, he might establish a new people in devotion to God. Hence it is that the Apostle Paul confesses himself a Hebrew of the Hebrews; for this seemed to be a surname of dignity. For it was a testimony and a nobility of birth that they should be surnamed after the name of him who had pleased God in many ways and who was their origin. Let it be denied, if it does not accord with reason; let it be despised, if it is unequal; let it be overthrown, if it is alien to the merits of Abraham, and let us be refuted as though we were his flatterers. What is this enmity against Abraham? what is this rivalry by which his enemies disparage him? and who are these, except those who are called his sons? What is there in which Abraham displeases, that this glory should be thought alien to him?
And what is there that pleases in Heber, that he should be said to hold this primacy? Whose manner of life, if it could be inquired into, would perhaps be found to have worshipped idols, like Terah and Nahor and the father of Nahor, who, it is agreed, were not far from him, as Joshua the son of Nun testifies, that these worshipped idols. Or else, let those who are on the opposite side show by what reasoning this is to be claimed for Heber, lest perchance his merit be suppressed by us; but there is none, because the Scriptures are common to us, and what is owed to each is in the open. For if they think this ought to be defended from the name alone, it is weak and improbable. For then it would rightly be claimed for his name, if there existed any witnesses of the causes which would confirm this;
for some might claim for themselves, on the score of an identical name, a thing not their own; and therefore this is true which is confirmed not by the name alone, but also by manifest reasoning. For since it was by the favour of God that in Abraham the human race should be visited and a saving form be made for men, it is doubtful to no one. Therefore in him was restored what had been lost by the fault of human frailty.
For he was set as a certain image, so that after his likeness the race of men might return to God, that it might recover for men both the worship of God and the word which had before been given for men's use; because, just as in the beginning in Adam there was the image of God, so that the knowledge of Him might be on earth, so after the ruin of the human race and the forgetting of the truth, it was reformed in Abraham, so that from him faith in God, begun anew, might germinate into fruit. Whence it is not absurd that the people begun from him should obtain its appellation from his name. But lest perchance on account of the name Heber they should feel a scruple — because the name Heber sounds more like 'Hebrews,' since they are called Hebrews, not Abrahaeans — let them again recognize that they are called Hebrews, not Heberaeans;
for he was called Heber, not Hebrer. If, then, they think this is to be assailed from here, they suffer what they do, and neither of us will have the victory on this score, except him who, by reason rendered in order, shows that what he asserts is true. For he who is equal in one matter must be said to have lost, if in another he is found unequal; for on account of the sound the letter was changed, so that they should be called Hebrei instead of Habraei, because it sounds better; just as from Judah they are not called Judai, but Judaei. For wherever it seemed absurd, the letter was changed, so that the voice might have a well-composed sound. For instead of 'medidie' we say 'meridie,' and there are many such things. So then it fits, as has been shown, that both the tongue and the people should be named from the name of Abraham.
This, then, is the tongue which we say was first given to Adam and to the rest, which, on account of the presumption of the tower that was built, we believe was dispersed into many and confounded, so that this one no longer existed, but many came forth out of this by an alteration made in certain words, so that it should not retain its form, nor yet perish, but should be wholly confounded with the other tongues. For so it was then brought about, that men should not understand one another and dare greater things. So many tongues, then, are understood to have arisen then, as there were men, who, dispersed in the places in which they dwelt, each one established his own tongue.
But if it shall be supposed by no means to be that which is written to have been then one, this will remain: that it was gathered piecemeal out of the other tongues and fitted together into the form of a single tongue which Abraham used, so that — because he was the father of many nations — he might have a speech composed out of many tongues and be in all things renewed. But since those whom the book of Genesis mentions as being of one voice and speech are read to have migrated from the east, and from there again to have been dispersed by God over the face of the whole earth, surely it did not remain there — the tongue that was at first given would remain. In short, it has no land among men, as the other tongues do, nor a nation, the Jews excepted, because it was given to the first man in paradise.
And after the tongues were confounded, this language which is now called Hebrew is nowhere found. If, therefore, it has nowhere a place or a people of its own — yet Abraham was by birth a Syrian — whence came this tongue to Abraham or to the rest of his seed, unless either it is the older one, or at any rate was adapted from many? For we see that a good number of languages have features resembling it. But it does not so accord with reason, in the way that the other view does, if it be said to be the very first; for reason proves that this was not done idly.
For Abraham ought to have had that very language which the first man possessed, so that Moses, coming and describing both the creation and man made by God, might use that same speech in which God spoke and called the man Adam, and Adam's wife was called Eve — so that this speech should be in the book of Moses, the same as had been among those whom he describes; that thus he might truly teach that in all things the first cause and the divine benefit were renewed in Abraham. CHAPTER 109. CONCERNING MELCHIZEDEK. We read in the book of Genesis concerning Melchizedek, and likewise in the Epistle to the Hebrews, that, it says, Melchizedek the priest of the Most High God met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings, and brought forth bread and wine, and offered it to him, and blessed him, saying:
Blessed be you, Abraham, of the Most High God, who made heaven and earth, who delivered your enemies into your hands; and, to signify who this same Melchizedek was to be understood to be, he added: For without any doubt, he says, that which is less is blessed by the greater. This indeed he did not refer at all to the tradition of the ecclesiastical office. For who would doubt that the rule of the Lord's tradition, by which those subject to the Lord are blessed, is greater than those who are blessed by it? For in these words, which embrace and call to mind the Lord himself, the mystery of the Lord is at work. But he wished to demonstrate the proper merit and power of his person.
Who then is this, and how great, in comparison with whom Abraham is called the lesser — Abraham who, it is agreed, holds among all the faithful the sign of the testimony of his nobility and faith! Therefore this Melchizedek is by no means understood to have blessed Abraham as men who are priests do, namely, that by delegation he gave the blessing with solemn words; but as something proper to himself, which he received not through words but through his nature, substantially, so that it is his own. But the priests, whom we call prelates, have a rule ordained in solemn words and handed down to them, which they lay upon men and so bless — not those whom they will, but sometimes even those whom they do not will, because the Giver of the rule himself knows to whom the most holy blessing ought to be given or poured out.
But he who has the blessing in his nature substantially, whom he calls the priest of the Most High God, gives the blessing by his will. For the words of his blessing, and his nature, agree with his will. Nor does he err, so as to will where he ought not, nor to be unwilling where he ought; but to whomever he has given the words, to him he has given the effect. Our priests, however, lay the name of the Lord and the words of blessing daily upon many, yet the effect is in few; and again there are times when men better than themselves bless. For although a man be holy, nevertheless he bows his head to receive the blessing, because it is not the priest's own, but God's invention.
For Eli the priest blessed Hannah, and the effect followed — not indeed by the priest's merit, but by Hannah's own, whose pure heart God beheld. Therefore Melchizedek is said to be greater than Abraham not on account of the priestly office alone, but he is set above him also by nature, so that he is to be understood as more than man. For it can in no way come to pass that one who is set before the friend of God, and so faithful a friend, that out of love for him he would not even hesitate to kill his own most beloved son — that such a one should be thought a man. For by what righteousness, by what works, could one merit more than Abraham merited? For there was nothing more that could be done for the commendation of merits than what Abraham did.
For first, when he did not know God nor had seen any sign by which he might be persuaded, when God said to him: Go forth from your land and from your kindred and from your father's house, he did not delay, but at once obeyed, fulfilling the will not only of the God then present, but also of the Lord to come. For the Lord says: Whoever loves house or parents or brothers or kinsmen more than me, is not worthy of me. What manner of man, then, is Abraham, and of what merit, who fulfilled the Savior's commands before they were proclaimed! The Apostle teaches that hospitality is to be earnestly pursued: this Abraham cultivated so devotedly, that the Apostle seems to have learned from him that it was to be commended.
Next, advanced in years, he believed that his seed would be so multiplied — a thing which seems foolish to the wise of the world — even as are the stars of heaven; so that, before the judgment was pronounced upon the wise of this age, they might be seen to be condemned by him. For afterward it was said: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise. By God's command he is circumcised — which surely is not done without pain — and he does not take it ill, that he might give to posterity a pattern of patience.
From Sarah his wife, now an old woman, a son is promised him, and he does not doubt; that he might show to those to come that one must yield so far to the authority of God, that even if he command or promise things that seem unreasonable, there should be no hesitation, because his person is rather to be regarded than the words: so that what in the words seems weak or impossible, his person should confirm and make to appear possible. For it is God who promises, concerning whom it must be believed that he can do what seems impossible to men. For what offense can be reckoned, when one thinks more highly of God than human nature feels concerning itself?
Wherefore, when God commanded him to kill the very son God had given him, Abraham does not hesitate, nor put off the time, nor wonder at God's will — that he should command to be slain the son whom he had given by the grace of so great a benefit and admiration — being sure that God's will ought not to be reconsidered by man, and that God's command and deed are not without providence. And that he might fulfill this with all devotion in haste, he does not disclose it to the boy's mother, his own wife, being not unaware that women are more frail concerning their children, and that she might, by the pity of her tears, bring some hindrance to this devotion;
and likewise it is kept hidden from the boy himself until the hour of slaying, that with the whole compliance of his mind he might obey God's command — not reckoning this a parricide, but a holocaust, which was being done by the authorship of a righteous Judge. What greater things, then, could Melchizedek perform, in which he might surpass Abraham, who, as we see, is agreed to have been in nothing disobedient? For Moses, to whom we read the Lord spoke face to face, when sent to a people, even his own brethren, was unwilling to go. Jonah likewise, a prophet, broke away from the charge given him to preach to the Ninevites, that he might go to another place to which he had not been sent. Job, plainly excellent in all things, was nevertheless shaken by the loss of his sons, tore his garments, and shaved the hair of his head:
but Abraham is not read to have grieved even over the death of his most beloved son, whom he himself had been commanded to kill; nor anywhere, when God commanded him, is he read to have trembled. Therefore by these things it appears that Melchizedek is more than man, since there was nothing whereby he could be greater than Abraham, unless nature alone went before him. For the impassible nature has its blessedness through its substance, but human nativity acquires blessedness through deeds. For since it does not possess the perfection of deity, it advances through exercise and struggle so as to become better, when it conquers more than it is conquered. For if it were to act — which is impossible — so as never to sin, it would become better than God — which God forbid! —
because the nature which is able to sin, just as also not to sin, if it always conquered, would have to be set before that nature which therefore does not sin because it is impassible. For it would not seem a great thing not to sin, because it cannot; but it is a magnificent thing if, when it could sin, it did not sin. This, then, is the difference between the substance of God and of man: that the substance of God is ever blessed in the security of its own invincible eternity; but the substance of man becomes blessed otherwise, through labor. And of necessity one blessedness is impassible, the other belongs to him who is worn down by tribulations, that he may at length be able to rejoice. For impassible blessedness consists in this, that it is ever blessed; but the passible rejoices, after great exercises, that it has escaped death.
It grieves, therefore, that it may be able to rejoice, nor is it ever secure because of the passibility of its nature; but the impassible is ever blessed, because it neither knows sadness nor suspects that it can be made sad. For even the nature of men, although it attain blessedness through labor, will nevertheless not be untouched, nor will scars be lacking to it. For how can it come to pass that what has often joined battle and at times been overcome should not be wounded? But the impassible ever remains untouched, unharmed, inviolable. Therefore Abraham would not be called the lesser in comparison with Melchizedek, unless Melchizedek's nature were more powerful than Abraham's. For these things which we have said may perhaps seem to be matters of mere reasoning; but if we look to the Law, many more and weightier things will be said.
For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and who blessed him, is first interpreted King of Righteousness, then King of Salem, that is, King of Peace, without father, without mother, and without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life; but, being made like to the Son of God, he abides a priest forever. And that he might commend these things by the passages in which he had signified them, he added concerning him: You see, he says, how great this man is, to whom Abraham, the chief of the patriarchs, gave a tenth of the spoils. For, that he might show with what power and how great Melchizedek is, he praises Abraham, saying that he is the chief of the fathers — that is, Abraham is better than all the rest, yet the lesser in comparison with Melchizedek.
Is it not manifest that this one is not a man, but greater? For what is it that he says of him, that he is King of Peace and King of Righteousness? Draw nearer and see. For seeing the sun from afar you take it for a lamp, and beholding silver you reckon it tin. Can any man be called King of Peace and of Righteousness? For peace is proclaimed to men, and likewise righteousness; but this one is therefore called King of Peace and Righteousness, that righteousness and peace might be known to have their origin from him. For that cannot be said to be above him, which is governed by him. For men are instructed by righteousness as a teacher, and by peace, to win God's favor. These things, then, which are the teacher of men, Melchizedek has as his subjects.
How much better, then, than man is Melchizedek, when she who is the governess of men is beneath him! This is to be a king of kings. And so, when he is called King of Righteousness and of Peace, he is signified to be their author; that, just as the Lord Jesus is the author of life, so also Melchizedek is the author of righteousness and peace, because those who live through Christ are governed by the dispensing of righteousness and peace. For he pours righteousness and peace into the hearts of God's servants, to adorn the Lord's discipline. We read it written in the eighty-fourth psalm, that righteousness and peace have embraced each other, and truth is sprung up out of the earth; and, that he might show of what righteousness he was speaking, he says that righteousness has looked down from heaven.
Scripture shows that this is concerning the time of the Savior, in which the righteousness of God was given to the world through Christ in the knowledge of the mystery of the one God, which he had promised beforehand — for it is just that the creature should know the truth of its Creator. This righteousness, made manifest on earth, did away with the discord which had been born from the unrighteousness of an unknown God, and made the discordant peaceable, when it established in one faith those who were long diverse. Thus righteousness and peace embraced each other, and the truth of the one God sprang up out of the earth — righteousness being the teacher. For the incarnation of Christ showed what was the truth to be known concerning God himself. Therefore this is assuredly the righteousness of God. Likewise also peace, as the Apostle says: But the God of peace shall crush Satan.
How this can be distinguished I do not perceive: that, since the God of peace is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Christ himself is also so — for he says: My peace I give to you — it should be said of Melchizedek that he is King of Righteousness and of Peace; by what reasoning he is to be set apart, I do not understand. For I think that, as far as the matter is concerned, there is no difference between the King of Peace and the God of Peace. For because no one in the world ought to be called god, that this name might be reserved for the one alone, from whom are all things, he nevertheless appointed a king who should bear his image, who, save for the name of God, should have all his power. But because he is earthly, he is a king of men, yet not of peace and righteousness, because he too has righteousness as his leader, which he is not permitted to despise.