'But if two men shall strive, and shall strike a woman with child, and her infant shall come forth not yet formed, he shall suffer damage; as much as the woman's husband shall lay upon him, and he shall give with entreaty.' To me it seems that these things are said rather for the sake of some signification than that Scripture was occupied about deeds of this kind. For if it attended to this, that a pregnant woman being struck should not be forced into a miscarriage, it would not have set down two men striving, since this could be committed even by one, who quarreled with the woman herself, or even did not quarrel, but did it by wishing to harm another's posterity. But because it did not wish an unformed offspring to pertain to homicide, assuredly it did not reckon as a man what is carried in the womb in such a state.
Here the question about the soul is wont to be agitated, whether that which is not formed can be understood even as ensouled, and therefore it is not homicide because it cannot be said to be deprived of soul, if it did not yet have a soul. For it follows and says: 'But if it be formed, he shall give soul for soul.' Where what else is understood but 'he himself too shall die?' For this it also enjoins in the other cases from this occasion: 'eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, bruise for bruise,' by the equity of retaliation of course. Which law was therefore established that it might demonstrate what vengeance is owed.
For unless it were known through the law what was owed of vengeance, whence would it be known what pardon should remit, so that it could be said: 'and forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors?' Debtors, therefore, are shown by the law, so that when it is pardoned, it may appear what is remitted. For neither would we remit debts, unless we learned by the law's indication what was owed to us.
If therefore that unformed offspring had indeed already existed, but was as yet in some manner formlessly ensouled—since a great question about the soul is not to be precipitated by the rashness of an undiscussed opinion—the law therefore did not wish it to pertain to homicide, because a living soul cannot yet be said to be in that body which lacks sense, if it is of such a kind in flesh not yet formed and therefore not yet endowed with senses. But what it said, 'and he shall give with entreaty,' which it had appointed to be given to the husband of the woman upon the unformed offspring being cast out, is not readily to be understood. For 'axioma,' which the Greek has, is understood in several ways, and it was more tolerably said 'with entreaty' than if something else were said.
For perhaps he will demand that he give it, so as to satisfy God in that way, even if the husband or the wife does not require it. 'But if an ox gore a man or a woman so that he dies, the ox shall be stoned with stones and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be innocent.' It pertains to justice that an animal harmful to men be put to death. And what is set down concerning the ox is to be understood, from a part, of the whole: whatever among the beasts subject to human use is dangerous to men. But if it is necessary that it be killed, why stoned? For what does it matter, in the case of an animal that must be removed, by what death it is removed?
Next, as to what he added, that its flesh must not be eaten — to what does this pertain, unless all these things signify something, which Scripture is especially wont to regard? 'But if someone's ox gore his neighbour's ox so that it dies, they shall sell the living ox and divide its price, and they shall likewise divide the ox that has died.' Is this rule of justice to be observed in the case of an ox alone, and not in a like case involving any beast? Accordingly this too is to be understood from a part as the whole: but this cannot be done in the case of the flesh of a slaughtered beast, which is not eaten. What rule of justice is it, that for one calf five be repaid, but for a sheep four, unless it be understood to signify something?
'But if a thief be found breaking in, and being struck he dies, it is no murder for the man; but if the sun be risen upon him, he is guilty; he shall die for the death.' It is understood, then, that it does not amount to murder if a nocturnal thief is killed, but if a daytime thief, it does; for this is what he says: 'if the sun be risen upon him.' For it could be discerned that he had come to steal, not to kill, and therefore ought not to be killed. This is found also in the ancient secular laws — though this law is more ancient than they — that a nocturnal thief may be killed with impunity in whatever manner, but a daytime thief only if he defends himself with a weapon; for then he is already more than a thief. What is: 'he who has been convicted through God shall restore double'?
— unless because God sometimes wills, by a sign given, to expose the perjurer. 'Thou shalt not curse the gods.' It is asked whom he called gods: whether the princes who judge the people — as it was said of Moses that he was given as a god to Pharaoh — so that what follows may be said by way of explanation, as if pointing out whom he called gods, where he says: 'and thou shalt not curse the prince of thy people,' which the Greek has as: 'thou shalt not speak evil.' Or is it to be taken according to what the Apostle says: 'for even if there are those who are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, as there are many gods and many lords'? For by adding 'as there are' he wished those to be understood who are even worthily so called: just so, indeed.
So that what in Greek is called λατρεία, and in Latin is rendered 'servitude' — but that servitude which is understood to pertain to religion — is owed to none but the one true God, who is our God. But those who are called gods, even if there be any who are rightly so called, are forbidden to be cursed; they are not commanded to be honoured with sacrifices or with any observances of latria. 'Thou shalt not be with the many in wrongdoing.' Let no one thereby excuse himself, because he did it together with the many, nor for that reason think it no sin. 'And thou shalt not pity a poor man in judgement.' Unless he had added 'in judgement,' it would be a great problem; but it would have to be understood so, even had it not been written; for above he had said: 'thou shalt not join with the multitude to turn aside with the many, so as to pervert judgement.'
And by this, 'thou shalt not pity a poor man' could be understood as 'in judgement.' But since it has been added, there is no question that this is the precept: lest perchance, when we judge, we should see justice to be on the side of the rich against the poor, and think ourselves to act rightly if, against justice, we favour the poor for pity's sake. Mercy therefore is good, but it ought not to be against judgement. Now Scripture calls 'judgement' that which is just. But lest anyone, on account of this saying, should think that God forbids mercy, what follows most opportunely follows:
'But if thou meet the ox of thine enemy, or his beast of burden going astray, thou shalt bring it back and restore it to him' — so that thou mayest know thou art not forbidden to show mercy, do it even toward thine enemies, when the power is free of any judging. For when thou bringest back the straying ox of thine enemy and restorest it, thou dost not sit as judge between any parties. 'Six years thou shalt sow thy land and gather its fruit; but in the seventh year thou shalt make a remission and give it rest, and the poor of thy people shall eat, and what remains the wild beasts shall eat. So shalt thou do with thy vineyard and thy olive-grove.' It may be asked what the poor gather, if in the seventh year he so spares the land that it is not even sown — for what was said does not pertain to the vineyard and olive-grove:
'the poor of thy people shall eat' — because from unsown land they can take nothing, where crops cannot arise. But of the vineyard and olive-grove he afterward says the like must be done; and by this the former is understood of the fields which serve for grain. Or is it to be taken thus: 'six years thou shalt sow thy land and gather its fruit,' that is, 'six years thou shalt sow and gather'; but in the seventh thou shalt not gather — so that 'thou shalt sow' is understood, even though it is not said, so that sowing and gathering belong to the six years, but to the seventh belongs to leave alone whatever has been sown?
For what will the poor have from it, whose remainder he has given even to the wild beasts — namely to those which can feed on those crops, such as wild boars and stags and anything of that kind? Yet this would not be said except for the sake of some signification.
For if, as regards the precepts given to men, God has no care for oxen — which is not to be understood as though he himself did not feed those creatures which neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, but because it is no concern of his to admonish man by precept how he should provide for his ox — how much less is it his concern to give precept about the wild beasts, how they are to be provided for by men, since he himself feeds them with the riches of nature everywhere fruitful, he who feeds them also throughout the other six years, when the sown crops are gathered! 'Thou shalt not boil a lamb in its mother's milk' — how this is to be understood according to the proper sense of the words, I know not whether it can be found.
For if we take the boiling of a lamb in milk to be forbidden for the sake of some signification, there is no such use of cooking; but if it refers to the days in which it is being suckled, what Jew ever held it as an observance not to cook a lamb until it had ceased to suck? And what is 'in its mother's milk'? As if, even were this the meaning, it could be cooked without transgression of this precept, if, upon its being born, its mother having died, it were suckled by another ewe — since no one doubts that the precept exists for the sake of signifying something. But even those things which can be practised as observances were thus commanded not without cause; for they signify something. But how this is to be observed according to the proper sense of the words, either there is no way, or it is not clear.
Nevertheless I approve the understanding concerning Christ: that by this prophecy it was foretold that the infant should not be killed by the Jews, when Herod, seeking him to kill him, did not find him — so that the 'thou shalt boil' which was said may pertain to the fire of the passion, that is, of tribulation. Whence it is said: 'the furnace tests the potter's vessels, and the trial of tribulation tests just men.' Because then, therefore, the infant did not suffer, when, with Herod seeking him, such a danger seemed to threaten, it was foretold in these words: 'thou shalt not boil a lamb in its mother's milk,' meaning 'thou shalt not slay Christ'; for the prophecy seems to give warning beforehand, lest the good Israelites associate themselves with the wicked Jews by whom Christ suffered. For the tribulation of the passion is as it were fire. Whence it is written:
'As gold in the furnace he proved them, and as a whole burnt sacrifice he received them.' To this saying the Lord also bears witness, saying: 'I have a baptism to be baptized with, which ye know not.' For he said this when he had said: 'I am come to send fire upon the earth.' For John says: 'he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire,' which is understood both of the purgation of sanctification and of the proving of tribulation. He signified this same fire also when he was being led to the passion, where he said to those who were bewailing him, that they ought rather to bewail themselves. For thus he concluded, saying: 'if they do these things in the green wood, what shall be done in the dry?' The good, therefore, are admonished not to consent with the wicked to the crucifying of Christ.
For he was called the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world. 'Thou shalt not, therefore, boil a lamb in its mother's milk': thou shalt not bring upon Christ the fire of the passion on that day on which he was conceived; for on that day too he is recorded to have suffered, namely the eighth of the Kalends of April, from which day to the eighth of the Kalends of January, on which his birth is commemorated, nine months are reckoned, the tenth being begun. Now the breasts of women are said to gather milk from the day of conception. But there is another, easier sense. 'Thou shalt not boil a lamb in its mother's milk': thou shalt not send into premature passion one still little and suckling — such as those to whom the Apostle says: 'I gave you milk to drink, not meat' — as if it were said to Christ, who spared such disciples as yet, offering himself for whom he says:
'If therefore ye seek me, let these go their way.' And that it might be understood that they were as yet weak and not fit for the passion, like lambs in their mother's milk, the evangelist adds: 'that the word might be fulfilled which he spoke, that of those whom thou gavest me I have lost none.' Whence it appears that those who then suffered would have perished; for they did not then suffer what they afterward suffered — no longer lambs in milk, but now rams in the flock. That too which others say is perhaps not absurd: that this was commanded through the prophet, lest the good Israelites associate themselves with the wicked Jews, by whom Christ suffered as a lamb in its mother's milk, that is, at the time in which he was conceived. For women are said,
from the time they conceive, gather milk; and that in that month Christ was <conceived and> suffered is shown both by the observance of the Pasch and by the day, most well known to the churches, of his nativity. For he who was born in the ninth month, about the eighth of the Kalends of January, was assuredly conceived in the first month, about the eighth of the Kalends of April. Which time was also that of his passion, in his mother's milk, that is, in the days of his mother's milk. 'Behold, I send my angel before thy face, to keep thee in the way, to bring thee into the land which I have prepared for thee. Give heed to thyself and hearken to him. Do not disbelieve him: for he shall take nothing from thee; for my name is upon him.' This is doubtless understood of him whose name was changed, that he might be called Jesus;
for he it was who led the people into the land of promise. 'And thou shalt serve the Lord thy God: and I will bless thy bread and thy wine and thy water, and I will turn away infirmity from you. There shall be none that fails to beget, nor barren, upon thy land. The number of thy days I will fulfil. And I will send fear which shall go before thee, and I will make maddened all the nations into which thou shalt enter,' and the rest. Although these promises can also be understood spiritually, yet when they are understood according to the temporal felicity of men, they pertain to the Old Testament: where, although the precepts — except those which signify something in a sacrament — are found to be the same, pertaining to good morals, yet the promises are carnal and earthly.
Whence in the seventy-second psalm the man <of God> says that his steps were almost slipped and poured out, when he was zealous against sinners, beholding the peace of sinners. For he saw those things abound to the ungodly which he himself, according to the Old Testament, expected from the Lord God, whom he served for this reward. And when from this an ungodly thought began to creep upon him — that he should suppose God did not care for human affairs — he says he was corrected, since he did not dare disapprove the authority of the saints, and he undertook to understand, and says: 'this is labour before me, until I go into the sanctuary of God and understand in the last things.' For there rewards will be given that pertain to the New Testament, which the ungodly will not receive;
and then there will be the punishments of the ungodly, which none of the godly shall feel. 'And I will send hornets before thee, and it shall cast out the Amorites and the Hivites and the Canaanites and the Hittites from before thee.' It is asked concerning these hornets what is to be understood. For God both promises this, and the book of Wisdom says it was fulfilled, where it says: 'and he sent hornets before the vanguard of his host.' But we do not read that it was done, neither in the times of Moses nor under Joshua son of Nun nor under the judges nor under the kings. And by this these hornets are perhaps to be understood as the stings of fear, by which the aforesaid nations were driven, so that they gave way to the children of Israel.
For it is God who speaks, in whose discourse, if something is said figuratively which is not fulfilled according to the proper sense, it does not impede the faith of the history, in which the truth of the narration is discerned. Just as neither is the narration of the evangelists, according to its proper sense, impeded, if something is said by Christ figuratively. 'If thou serve their gods, they shall be a stumbling-block to thee.' Here the Greek has δουλεύσῃς, not λατρεύσῃς; whence it is understood that δουλεία too is owed to God as to a lord, but λατρεία to none but God as to God. 'And to Moses he said: Come up to the Lord, thou and Aaron and Nadab and Abihu and seventy of the elders of Israel: and they shall worship the Lord from afar. And Moses alone shall draw near to the Lord, but they shall not draw near:
but the people shall not come up with them.' Then Moses went in and recounted to the people all the words of God and the ordinances of justice. And all the people answered with one voice, saying: 'all the words which the Lord has spoken we will do and hear.' Up to this place of Scripture are understood the ordinances of justice which were given to the people to observe. And they begin, so far as the very words of Scripture indicate — whence this name of 'ordinances of justice' took its beginning — from that Hebrew servant whose ear is bored through to the doorpost. In all these ordinances of justice it is to be considered what things among them can be applied to the leading of life and the preservation of good morals.
For there are among them many sacraments signifying something rather than instructing our life. The Latin translators indeed called those 'ordinances of justice' which the Greeks call δικαιώματα. It is to be noted that again the people so answers: 'all the words which the Lord has spoken we will do and hear,' when the order would seem to require that it be said: 'we will hear and do.' But it is strange if some meaning does not lie hidden here. For if 'we will hear' is put for that which is 'we will understand,' one must first render to the words of God the servitude of doing, so that unto the understanding of those things which are done at his own bidding — by the merit of that devotion whereby they were not despised but done — he himself may lead.
But it is to be seen whether this people be found like that son who said to his commanding father, 'I will go into the vineyard,' and went not. For the Gentiles, who utterly despised the Lord, being afterward justified through the obedience of the one, laid hold of justice — they who did not follow after justice. It is to be noted that Moses built an altar under the mountain and twelve stones for the twelve tribes of Israel. For it is understood that the altar built of twelve stones signified that the people itself is the altar of God, just as it is the temple of God. 'And they offered a victim of salvation to God.' He did not say 'a saving victim,' but 'a victim of salvation,' which the Greek has as σωτηρίου.
Whence also in the psalm, 'I will take,' he says, 'the cup of salvation,' he did not say 'the saving cup.' Where it is to be seen whether perhaps He is signified of whom Simeon said: 'for mine eyes have seen thy salvation.' For the psalm too commends this same one, where it is read: 'proclaim well from day to day his salvation.' For what else is it — if we attend more diligently to what he says, 'day from day' — but light from light, that is, God from God, which is the only-begotten Son? 'And Moses, taking half of the blood, poured it into a bowl; and the remaining part of the blood he sprinkled at the altar. And taking the book of the testament, he recited it in the ears of the people.'
It is to be noted that Scripture now clearly says Moses sacrificed for the first time, from the point when the people was led out of Egypt. For first it had been said of Jethro his father-in-law — though with some ambiguity — that he offered sacrifice to God. And it is to be observed that the book of the testament is recited together with the blood of the victim; in which book we ought to take those ordinances of justice to have been written. For that the decalogue of the law was written on tablets of stone was afterward made manifest. 'And they said: all things whatsoever the Lord has spoken we will do and hear.' They answer no otherwise — behold, now for the third time. 'And Moses went up, and Aaron and Nadab and Abihu and seventy of the elders of Israel, and they saw the place where the God of Israel had stood.'
It is agreed among those who understand rightly that God is contained in no place, nor places the members of a body in any sort of bodily posture, as is the case with our body — to sit, to lie, to stand, and anything of that kind. For these are only of bodies, but God is spirit. What, therefore, shows itself in a bodily appearance or in signs bodily expressed, is not his substance appearing, whereby he is that which he is, but the assumption of visible forms lies subject to his omnipotence. 'And of the chosen of Israel not one dissented: and they appeared in the place of God, and ate and drank.' Who would doubt that those whom he named individually, and the seventy elders, are now called the 'chosen of Israel'?
who without doubt bore the person of those who are chosen among the people of God. For not all men have faith, and the Lord knows who are his; but in a great house there are some vessels unto honour, others unto dishonour. Since therefore 'whom he foreknew, them he also predestined; and whom he predestined, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified' — assuredly of the chosen of Israel not one dissented. And they are signified by the quaternary number in Moses and Aaron and Nadab and Abihu, on account of the four Gospels and the promise of the whole world, which is divided into four parts;
and the seventy of the elders of Israel — namely by the number seven multiplied tenfold, which pertains to signifying the Holy Spirit. By the sapphire, moreover, the heavenly life is signified, especially because it was said: 'like the appearance of the firmament.' And who does not know that the firmament is called heaven? And the form of the brick in that same sapphire figures the very squareness, or the stability, or the sacrament of that same quaternary number. But that they eat and drink in the place of God signifies sweetness and satiety in that kingdom of eternity. For 'blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice, for they shall be satisfied.' Whence also the Lord says that many shall come — whom, indeed? None but the chosen, the foreknown, the predestined, the called, the justified,
the glorified — and shall recline with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. For in another place too he himself promises this to his faithful: that he will make them recline, and passing by, will minister to them. What does it mean that Joshua son of Nun, not commemorated among those four, suddenly appears with Moses and goes up with him into the mountain to receive the tablets of the law; and suddenly again Joshua is hidden, that is, is passed over in silence; and Moses received the law on two tablets and appears again with him? Or does it perhaps signify that the New Testament, under the name of Jesus, is both hidden in the law and at times appears to those who understand?
But as to the fact that he is already called Jesus (Joshua), whereas Scripture testifies that he received that name in the book of Numbers — when it was already near that they should enter the land of promise — by prolepsis, that is, by anticipation, Scripture anticipates what was afterward done. For all these things were written after they were done; and by this, when that was done which is here commemorated, he was not yet called Jesus, but when it was written he was already so called. 'And thou shalt make on it wave-mouldings of gold, wreathed, round about.' He said 'wave-mouldings,' which stand out in the squaring, on the four sides, as square tables are wont to be made.
Nor ought we to take 'wreathed' as meaning movable — for they are fixed, as I said the tables are wont to have them — but by 'wreathed' he meant 'twisted,' which in Greek are called στρεπτά, either by fluting, as twisted columns are, or by two little rods interwoven in the manner of a cord, as necklaces too are wont to be made. But as to what he says: 'and thou shalt make for it four rings of gold and set them upon the four sides: two rings on one side and two rings on the second side,' the four rings, one at each of the four corners, meet, and by the number of the corners it comes about that what is set on two sides is set on all four. For one corner is common to two sides;
otherwise it does not work out that two rings be set on the four sides, since there are four rings; for there ought to have been eight, if it is understood otherwise than as I said — being done by the number of the corners. For to this end are the rings set at the corners, that the supports or carrying-poles may be inserted, by which the ark is carried by four men, on this side and on that. What the 'propitiatory' (mercy-seat) may mean, which is to be set over the ark, is commonly asked about.
But since he commands it to be made of gold, and states its length and breadth to be as great as that of the ark itself, without doubt he directs that a kind of golden plate of such a form be made, by which the ark should be covered, in such a way that upon the propitiatory itself there should be two cherubim, on this side and on that, attending each to the other, so that their faces should be toward the propitiatory and with their wings they should overshadow the propitiatory: which is a great sacrament. For the gold signifies wisdom, the ark signifies the secret of God. In the ark were commanded to be placed the law and the manna and the rod of Aaron: in the law are the precepts, by the rod is signified power, by the manna grace — because there is no power of doing the precepts except with grace.
Nevertheless, because the law is not fulfilled in every part by anyone who makes progress, the propitiatory is above: for to this end there is need that God be propitious, and therefore it is placed above, because mercy exalts itself above judgement. And the two cherubim with their wings overshadow the propitiatory, that is, they honour by veiling, since these mysteries are there; and they attend to each other, because they agree — for the two testaments are figured there — and their faces are toward the propitiatory, because they greatly commend the mercy of God, in which alone is hope. Finally, from thence God promised he would speak to Moses, from the midst of the cherubim, from above the propitiatory.
Further, if the rational creature — in a multitude of knowledge, since this is the interpretation which the cherubim bear — is signified by those two very animals, they are two for this reason, that they may commend the fellowship of charity; they overshadow the propitiatory with their wings for this reason, because they ascribe their wings to God, not to themselves — that is, they honour God with the virtues in which they excel; and their faces are toward none but the propitiatory, because for whatever advancement toward a multitude of knowledge there is no hope save in the mercy of God. As to what he says: 'the rings shall be in the sheaths for the supports, for carrying the table,' this is to be understood, that the rings should be as it were the sheaths of the supports; that is, that the supports are inserted as into sheaths.