or—what I see to be more credible—the firstborn 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 the line reached Abraham, and thence up to a certain juncture of time, as much as it was fitting to be marked, even in the generations recorded, of the course of that most glorious city sojourning in this world and seeking the heavenly fatherland. For what cannot be denied is that Cain, before all, was born of the union of male and female. For when he was born Adam would not have said what he is read to have said, «I have gotten a man through God,» unless he himself had been added as the first man by birth to those two.
After him followed Abel, whom the elder brother slew, who first showed forth a certain prefiguration of the sojourning City of God—because it was to suffer unjust persecutions from the impious and in some manner earth-born, that is, from those who love their earthly origin and rejoice in the earthly felicity of the earthly city. But of how many years Adam was when he begot them does not appear. Thenceforth other generations are set in order from Cain, and others from him whom Adam begot in succession to the one whom the 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—by distinct orders intimate these two cities of which we treat, one heavenly sojourning on earth, the other earthly gaping after or clinging to earthly joys as though they were the only ones: no one of the progeny of Cain—though it is enumerated, with Adam counted in, up to the eighth generation—is stated to have been of how many years 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 though they were more worthy of memory. Further, when Seth was born, the years of his father are not indeed left unspoken, but he had already begotten others;
and whether he begot Cain and Abel only, who would dare to affirm? For it does not follow, because they alone were named on account of the orders of generations which had to be recorded, that therefore only they were then begotten of Adam. For when, with the names of all the rest covered in silence, it is read that he begot sons and daughters: who would presume to assert what number this offspring of his was, if he avoids the fault of rashness? For Adam could, divinely admonished, say after Seth was born, «For God has raised up for me another seed in place of Abel,» because such a one was to be who would fulfill that one's holiness—not that he himself was born next after him in the order of time. Then, as for what is written:
«Now Seth lived two hundred and five years (or, according to the Hebrews, a hundred and five years), and begot Enos»: who could, unless thoughtless, assert that this was his firstborn? So that we might with reason wonder, in admiration, how through so many years he remained free from wedlock, without any purpose of continence, or did not beget though married—since indeed even of him 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 to begetting sons and daughters. And on this account it does not appear at all whether the one who is named as begotten was himself the firstborn;
nay rather, since it is not credible that those fathers, at so long an age, were either unmarriageable or lacked wives or offspring, neither is it credible that those sons of theirs who are named were the first born to them. But since the writer of sacred history was intent upon arriving, through the successions of generations with the times noted, at the birth and life of Noah, in whose time the flood took place, he assuredly recorded those generations—not such as were first to their parents, but such as came into the order of propagation. By way of example, that this may be made plainer, I will interpose something whereby no one may doubt that what I say could have happened.
The Evangelist Matthew, wishing to commend to memory the generation of the Lord's flesh through a 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 begot first? «And Isaac,» he says, «begot Jacob»—why did he not say Esau, who was his firstborn? Because, namely, through them he could not arrive at David. Then there follows: «And Jacob begot Judah and his brothers»—was Judah the firstborn? «Judah,» he says, «begot Perez and Zerah»—nor was either of these twins the firstborn of Judah, but before them he had already begotten three.
He therefore held those in the order of generations, through whom he might arrive at David, and thence whither he intended. From which it can be understood that the ancient men too, before the flood, were recorded not as firstborn, but as those through whom the order of succeeding generations might be led to Noah the patriarch—lest the obscure and unnecessary question of their late puberty weary us. CHAPTER XVI. On the law of marriages, namely that the first unions had a rule different from subsequent matrimonies. Since, therefore, the human race—after the first couple, the man made from dust and his wife from the man's side—had need of the joining of hand to woman, 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 thing, by so much as it is more ancient under compelling necessity, by so much was afterward more damnable when religion forbids it. For a most right account of charity was had, that men, to whom concord would be useful and honorable, might be bound together by the bonds of diverse kinships, and that one man might not have many bonds in one person, but that single bonds might be scattered upon single persons, and thus, for more diligently binding together social life, very many might hold very many. For father and father-in-law are names of two kinships. That each one therefore may have one as father, another as father-in-law, charity extends itself more numerously.
But one Adam was constrained to be both to his sons and daughters, when brothers and sisters were joined in wedlock. So too Eve his wife was both mother-in-law and mother to both sexes of her children; whereas if there had been two women, one the mother and the other the mother-in-law, social love would have bound itself together more abundantly. Finally, the sister herself, in that she also became a wife, held in one person two kinships; whereas if these were distributed among individuals, so that one might be sister, another wife, social kinship would be increased by the number of persons. But there was then no source whence this could come about, when there were no men except brothers and sisters born of those first two.
It ought therefore to have come about, when it could—namely, that when there was an abundance, wives might be drawn from those who were not now sisters; and not only that there was no necessity that it should be so done, but also that, if it were done, it would be wicked. For if even the grandsons of the first men, who could now take cousins as wives, were joined in matrimony to their sisters, then not two but three kinships would arise in one man—kinships which, for the sake of charity to be bound by more numerous nearness, ought single by single to be disseminated among individuals. For one man would be to his own children—that is, to his son and daughter who were spouses—both father and father-in-law and uncle; so too his wife to those same common children both mother and aunt and mother-in-law;
and the children themselves among one another would be not only brothers and spouses, but also cousins, since they would be the children of siblings. But all these kinships, which bound three men to one man, would bind nine if single by single they existed—so that one man might have one as sister, another as wife, another as cousin; one as father, another as uncle, another as father-in-law; one as mother, another as aunt, another as mother-in-law; and thus the social bond would not be confined into fewness, but would be diffused more broadly and more numerously by frequent kinships.
And as the human race grows and multiplies, we discern that this is so observed even among the impious worshippers of many false gods, that, even if by perverse laws fraternal marriages are permitted, yet a better custom prefers to shudder at the very license; and although in the first times of the human race it was wholly lawful to take sisters in marriage, it is so abhorred as though it could never have been lawful. For custom avails most for either enticing or offending human feeling; and since in this matter custom restrains the immoderation of concupiscence, to disregard and corrupt it is rightly judged to be wicked.
For if it is unjust, out of greed for possessing, to transgress the boundary of fields, how much more unjust is it, out of the lust of lying together, to overturn the boundary of morals! We have experienced, even in our own times, how rarely in marriages of cousins—on account of the degree of kinship nearest to the fraternal degree—was done through custom what was lawful to be done through the laws; for neither did divine law forbid it, nor had human law yet forbidden it. Yet even the lawful deed 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; because they too among themselves, on account of so near a consanguinity, are called brothers and sisters, and are almost true siblings.
But it was a matter of religious care to the ancient fathers, lest kinship itself, gradually sundering itself through the orders of offspring, should go further off and cease to be kinship, to bind it again, while not yet far removed, by the bond of matrimony, and in a manner to recall it as it fled. Hence, with the world now full of men, they loved to take wives of their own stock—not indeed sisters born of father or mother or of both their parents, but still of their own kindred. Yet who would doubt that it is more honorable in this age that even the marriages of cousins should be forbidden? Not only according to the things we have discussed—for the sake of multiplying affinities, that one person may not have two kinships when two persons can have them and the number of nearnesses be increased;
but also because, in some way I know not, there is in human modesty something natural and praiseworthy, whereby, to one to whom the cause of kinship owes a reverend honor, one restrains from her—though she be capable of childbearing—that lust at which we see even conjugal chastity itself blush. The coupling, then, of male and female, so far as pertains to the race of mortals, is a kind of seed-plot of the city; but the earthly city has need only of generation, while the heavenly has need also of regeneration, that it may escape the harm of generation. But whether there was any, and if there was, of what kind, a corporeal and visible sign of regeneration before the flood—as circumcision was afterward commanded to Abraham—sacred history is silent.
Yet it is not silent that even those most ancient men sacrificed to God; which was made clear both in the two first brothers, and in Noah, who after the flood, when he had gone forth from the ark, is read to have immolated victims to God. On which matter we have already said in the preceding books that the arrogant demons, claiming divinity to themselves and desiring to be believed gods, seek sacrifice for themselves and rejoice in honors of this kind for no other reason than because they know that true sacrifice is due to the true God. CHAPTER XVII. On the two fathers and chiefs procreated from one progenitor.
Since, therefore, Adam was the father of both kinds, that is, both of him whose line pertains to the earthly and of him whose line pertains to the heavenly city, after Abel was slain and in his slaying a wondrous sacrament was commended, there came to be two fathers of the individual kinds, Cain and Seth; in whose sons, whom it behooved to be recorded, the tokens of those two cities in the race of mortals began to shine forth more evidently. For Cain begot Enoch, in whose name he founded a city—an earthly one, namely, 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 is «dedication»; for here the earthly city is dedicated, where it is founded, since here it has that end which it aims at and craves. Further, that Seth is interpreted «resurrection,» and Enos his son is interpreted «man»—not as Adam. For the name «Adam» too is interpreted «man»; but it is reported to be common in that language, that is, Hebrew, to male and female. For thus is it written of him: «Male and female he made them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam.» Whence it is not doubted that the woman was so called Eve by her own proper name, that nevertheless «Adam,» which is interpreted «man,» was the name of both.
But Enos is interpreted «man» in such a way that those skilled in that language assert it cannot designate a woman—as it were the son of resurrection, where they neither marry nor are given in marriage. For there will be no generation there, when regeneration shall have brought them thither. Wherefore I judge that this too is not to be noted in vain: that in those generations which are propagated from him who is called Seth, though they are said to have begotten sons and daughters, no daughter born is there expressed by name; but in those which are propagated from Cain, at the very end to which they extend, the last woman born is named. For thus it is read: «Methushael begot Lamech; and Lamech took to himself two wives, the name of the one Adah and the name of the second Zillah; and Adah bore Jabal;»
«he was the father of those dwelling in tents, herdsmen. And the name of his brother was Jubal; he it was who showed forth the psaltery and the harp. And Zillah also herself bore Tubal; and he was a forger in brass, of brass and iron. And the sister of Tubal was Naamah.» Thus far the generations from Cain are extended, which are all from Adam eight, counting Adam himself—seven, namely, down to Lamech, who was the husband of two wives, and the eighth is the generation in his children, among whom a woman too is recorded. Wherein it is elegantly signified that the earthly city, even to its end, would have carnal generations, which come forth by the joining of males and females.
Whence also these very wives of that man who is here named as the last father are expressed by their proper names—a thing which, except for Eve, is nowhere found before the flood. But just as Cain, which is interpreted «possession,» the founder of the earthly city, and his son, in whose name it was founded, Enoch, which is interpreted «dedication,» indicate that this city has both its beginning and its end on earth—where nothing more is hoped for than what can be seen in this world: so Seth, which is interpreted «resurrection,» since he is the father of the generations recorded apart, what this sacred history says of his son is to be considered. CHAPTER XVIII.
What was signified in Abel and Seth and Enos, which appears to pertain to Christ and his body, that is, the Church. «And to Seth,» it says, «was born a son, and he called his name Enos; he hoped to call upon the name of the Lord God.» Surely the attestation of the truth cries aloud. In hope, therefore, lives the man who is the son of 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,» the death of Christ and his life from the dead are figured. From which faith is here begotten the City of God, that is, the man who hoped to call upon the name of the Lord God.
«For by hope we were saved,» says the apostle. «But hope that is seen is not hope. For what a man sees, why does he hope for it? But if we hope for what we do not see, by patience we await it.» For who would think this void of the depth of a sacrament? For did not Abel hope to call upon the name of the Lord God, whose sacrifice the 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 in place of Abel»?
Why, then, is that attributed properly to this one, which is understood to be common to all the godly, except because it behooved that in him who, from the father of the generations separated into the better part—that is, of the supernal city—is recorded as first to have arisen, there should be prefigured the man, that is, the society of men, which lives not according to man in the matter of earthly felicity, but according to God in the 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 mean for itself: «He hoped to call upon,» except that it is a prophecy that a people would arise who, according to the election of grace, would call upon the name of the Lord God?
This is what the apostle, through another prophet, understands to have been said concerning this people pertaining to the grace of God: «And it shall be, everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.» For this very thing which is said, «And he called his name Enos,» which is interpreted «man,» and then 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 is read elsewhere) who places his hope in man, and on this account not even in himself, that he may be a citizen of that other city, which is dedicated not according to the son of Cain in this time—that is, in the fleeting passage of this mortal age—but in that immortality of everlasting blessedness. CHAPTER XIX.
On the signification which is shown in the translation of Enoch. For this offspring too, whose father is Seth, has in that generation the name of dedication, which is the seventh from Adam, Adam being counted in. For seventh from him was born Enoch, which is interpreted «dedication.» But he himself is that one who was translated, since he pleased God, and in a notable number in the order of generations, that number whereby the sabbath was consecrated—the seventh, namely, from Adam. But from the very father of these generations which are distinguished from the progeny of Cain—that is, from Seth—he is the sixth; on which day man was made and God consummated 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 shall die no more. But whether it be called the house of God, or the temple of God, or the city of God, it is the same thing, nor is it abhorrent to the usage of Latin speech. For Virgil too calls the most imperious city the «house of Assaracus,» wishing the Romans to be understood, who derive their origin from Assaracus through the Trojans; and he calls those same ones the «house of Aeneas,» because, under his leadership, when the Trojans had come to Italy, Rome was founded by them.
For that poet imitated the sacred letters, in which the house of Jacob is called even now a vast people of the Hebrews. CHAPTER XX. That the succession of Cain is closed within eight generations from Adam, while among the descendants from the same father Adam, Noah is found to be the tenth. Someone will say: 'If the writer of this history intended, in recounting the generations from Adam through his son Seth, to arrive through them at Noah, under whom the flood took place, from whom again the order of those being born was woven onward until it should reach Abraham, with whom the evangelist Matthew begins the generations by which he comes to Christ, the eternal king of the City of God: what did he intend in the generations from Cain, and to what point did he wish to bring them?' The answer is given:
Up to the flood, by which that whole race of the earthly city was consumed, but was restored from the sons of Noah. For this earthly city and the society of men living according to man cannot fail to exist until the end of this age, of which the Lord says: 'The children of this world beget and are begotten.' But regeneration leads the City of God, sojourning in this age, on to another age, whose children neither beget nor are begotten. Here, then, 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, yet that other city also has some who do so out of a certain imitation, though they err.
For to that other city belong even those who, deviating from its faith, have founded diverse heresies; for they live according to man, not according to God. And the Indian gymnosophists, who are said to philosophize naked in the solitudes of India, restrain themselves both from eating food and from begetting. Yet this is not good unless it is done according to faith in the highest good, who is God. None, however, is found to have done this before the flood; since even Enoch himself, the seventh from Adam, who is reported to have been translated rather than to have died, begot sons and daughters before he was translated; among whom was Methuselah, through whom runs the order of the generations to be recorded.
Why, then, is so small a number of successions recorded in the generations from Cain, if they were to be carried down to the flood, and there was no long span of life preceding puberty which would keep men free from offspring for a hundred years or more? For if the author of this book was not aiming at someone to whom he must necessarily bring down the series of generations—as in those which come from the seed of Seth he was aiming to reach Noah, from whom again the necessary order would follow—
what need was there to pass over the firstborn sons, in order to arrive at Lamech, in whose sons that chain ends—namely in the eighth generation from Adam, the seventh from Cain—as though something were thereafter to be linked on from there, whence one might arrive either at the people of Israel, in whom even the earthly Jerusalem offered a prophetic figure to the heavenly city, or at Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed forever, the builder and ruler of the Jerusalem above, when the whole offspring of Cain was destroyed by the flood? Hence it can seem that in that same order of generations the firstborn were the ones recorded. Why then are they so few?
For up to the flood they could not have been so few, since the fathers would not be kept from the office of begetting until they were a hundred years old—unless at that time, in proportion to that longevity, puberty too came late. For supposing they were all evenly thirty years old when they began to beget sons, eight times thirty (since there are eight generations counting Adam and counting those whom Lamech begot) makes two hundred and forty years: did they then beget no more throughout all the remaining time up to the flood? For what reason, finally, did he who wrote these things refuse to record the generations that follow? For from Adam 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. Supposing, then, that we believe this smaller number to be the truer, let two hundred and forty be subtracted from the one thousand six hundred and fifty-six years: is it then credible that throughout the one thousand four hundred years and more that remain up to the flood, the offspring of Cain could have been free from begetting? But let whoever is troubled by this remember that, when I asked how it was to be believed that those ancient men could have ceased from begetting children through so many years, this question was resolved in two ways:
either by late puberty, in proportion to so long a life, or by the fact that the sons who are recorded in the generations were not the firstborn, but those through whom one could arrive at him whom the author of the book had in view—just as at Noah in the generations of Seth. Accordingly, in the generations of Cain, if there occurs no one who ought to be aimed at, to whom—the firstborn being passed over—one had to arrive through those who are recorded, then late puberty will remain to be understood, so that somewhat after a hundred years they became capable and fit for begetting, so that the order of generations might run through the firstborn and reach down to the flood at a number of years of such great magnitude.
Although it may be that, for some more hidden reason which escapes me, this city which we call the earthly was commended by the chain of generations reaching down to Lamech and his sons, and that the writer of the book then ceased to record the rest which there might have been up to the flood. There may also be this reason why the order of generations was not led through the firstborn—so that it need not be believed that puberty was so late in those men—namely, that the very city which Cain founded in the name of his son Enoch could have reigned far and wide and had kings, not many at once, but single ones in their own ages, whom they had begotten to succeed them, whoever might have reigned.
The first of these kings could have been Cain himself; the second, his son Enoch, in whose name, where men reigned, the city was founded; the third, Gaidad, whom Enoch begot; the fourth, Mauia, whom Gaidad begot; the fifth, Mathusael, whom Mauia begot; the sixth, Lamech, whom Mathusael begot, who is the seventh from Adam through Cain. But it did not follow that the firstborn of the kings should succeed their reigning fathers, but rather those whom either merit for reigning—on account of virtue useful to the earthly city—or some lot might find; or that one should chiefly succeed his father by a certain hereditary right of reigning, whom he had loved above his other sons.