Cornelius a Lapide
Table of Contents
Synopsis of the Chapter
Chapters 12 and 13 taught that true wisdom (which is the object and subject of this book, from which it also received its name) consists in faith and worship of the true God, and that therefore the worship of idols is diametrically opposed to it. Having digressed to idols, he laboriously demonstrated their vanity and faithlessness from chapter XIII up to this point. Now he returns to chapter XII, where he showed what great benefits the Israelites obtained through the providence and beneficence of the one God whom they worshipped; while the Egyptians, who worshipped crocodiles, serpents, and other animals, were punished through those same creatures or ones similar to them. He therefore repeats and pursues the same argument here, and teaches that the Egyptian idolaters were destroyed by the beasts they worshipped, while the Hebrews who worshipped God were freed from serpents in the desert and were fed with heavenly food, namely manna and quails.
Vulgate Text: Wisdom 16:1-29
1. For these reasons, and through things similar to these, they suffered deserved torments, and were destroyed by a multitude of beasts. 2. Instead of which torments, You dealt well with Your people, to whom You gave the desire of their delight, a new flavor, preparing for them quail as food: 3. so that those indeed, craving food, on account of the things shown and sent to them, would be turned away even from necessary appetite. But these, having been made poor for a brief time, tasted a new food. 4. For it was fitting that upon those exercising tyranny there should come destruction without excuse; but to these it was only shown how their enemies were being destroyed. 5. For indeed when the fierce wrath of beasts came upon them, they were being destroyed by the bites of twisted serpents. 6. But Your wrath did not remain forever; rather they were troubled briefly for correction, having a sign of salvation for the remembrance of the commandment of Your law. 7. For he who turned was not healed through what he saw, but through You, the Savior of all: 8. and in this You showed our enemies that You are He who delivers from all evil. 9. For the bites of locusts and flies killed them, and no healing was found for their life: because they were worthy to be destroyed by such things. 10. But Your children were not overcome by the teeth of venomous serpents: for Your mercy came and healed them. 11. For in memory of Your words they were tested, and were quickly saved, lest falling into deep forgetfulness, they should not be able to use Your help. 12. For indeed neither herb nor poultice healed them, but Your word, O Lord, which heals all things. 13. For You are, O Lord, He who has power over life and death: and You lead down to the gates of death and lead back. 14. But a man indeed kills through malice, and when the spirit has gone out, it will not return, nor will he call back the soul that has been received: 15. but to escape Your hand is impossible. 16. For the ungodly, denying that they know You, were scourged by the strength of Your arm: pursued by strange waters, and hailstones, and rains, and consumed by fire. 17. For what was marvelous was that in water, which extinguishes all things, fire prevailed all the more: for the world is the avenger of the just. 18. For at one time the fire was tamed, lest the animals that had been sent against the ungodly should be burned: but so that they themselves, seeing, might know that they suffer persecution by God's judgment. 19. And at another time fire blazed up beyond the power of water on every side, to destroy the nation of the wicked land. 20. Instead of these things, You nourished Your people with the food of angels, and provided them with ready-made bread from heaven without labor, containing every delight and the sweetness of every flavor. 21. For Your substance showed Your sweetness, which You have toward Your children: and serving the will of each one, it was converted to whatever each one wished. 22. But snow and ice endured the force of fire and did not melt: so that they might know that fire burning in hail and flashing in rain was destroying the fruits of the enemies. 23. This
again, so that the just might be nourished, even forgot its own power. 24. For creation, serving You its maker, is kindled into torment against the unjust: and becomes gentler to do good for those who trust in You. 25. Therefore also at that time, transfigured into all things, it served Your all-nourishing grace, according to the will of those who desired from You: 26. so that Your children, whom You loved, O Lord, might know that it is not the fruits of birth that feed mankind, but Your word preserves those who believe in You. 27. For what could not be destroyed by fire, immediately melted when warmed by a faint ray of the sun: 28. so that it might be known to all that one must anticipate the sun to receive Your blessing, and worship You at the rising of the light. 29. For the hope of the ungrateful will melt away like winter ice, and will perish like useless water.
1. FOR THESE REASONS (in Greek dia touto, that is, 'on account of this,' namely the crime of idolatry, or for this cause) AND THROUGH THINGS SIMILAR TO THESE THEY SUFFERED DESERVED TORMENTS, AND WERE DESTROYED BY A MULTITUDE OF BEASTS: so it should be read with the Roman and Greek editions; many codices therefore wrongly, having omitted 'per' ('through'), read 'propter haec et his similia.' For the sense is not, as if to say: On account of these and similar crimes the Egyptians were punished; but rather as if he said: On account of these animals, which the Egyptians worshipped as gods, and also, or likewise, through animals similar to those which they worshipped, namely through frogs, gnats, locusts, etc., they suffered deserved, that is just and fitting, torments and were destroyed: for because they worshipped beasts, they felt the beasts as avengers, 'because by what things a person sins, by these same things he is also tormented,' as I said at chapter XI, verse 17: for this is the law of retaliation decreed against sin by God's just providence and vengeance. He returns to the plagues inflicted on Egypt for idolatry through Moses, about which he treated in chapters XI and XII. For 'exterminati sunt' ('they were destroyed'), the Greek is ethanatothesan, that is, 'they were tortured,' namely to the extreme point of death and destruction: in this same sense this Greek word is often used in this book, and therefore is rendered by our translator as 'exterminati sunt' ('they were destroyed').
2. 2. INSTEAD OF WHICH TORMENTS YOU DEALT WELL WITH (in Greek, euepepesas, that is, 'You conferred a benefit upon': see what was said at chapter III, verse 5) YOUR PEOPLE, TO WHOM YOU GAVE THE DESIRE OF THEIR DELIGHT, A NEW FLAVOR, PREPARING FOR THEM QUAIL AS FOOD — as if to say: You, O Lord, punished the Egyptian idolaters, Your enemies, with frogs, locusts, flies, etc., for these animals filled all of Egypt and infected and contaminated all foods and waters, so that neither those who were hungry could eat, nor those who were thirsty drink anything without great horror and nausea; but to Your people, namely the Hebrews in the desert, You not only gave manna as food, but also when they craved meat, You gave them the desire of their delight, and the thing desired and delicious, namely the delicacies of meats which they had craved, namely the quail, that is, an abundance of quails. Hence in Greek it reads: 'for whom, for the craving of their appetite, You prepared a foreign taste (flavor), the quail.' Vatablus renders it: 'with their eager appetite, You prepared quail, or ortygometra, as food of a new flavor.' And so
the sense is: You gave and prepared food for those who eagerly desired it, instead of food of a new flavor not yet tasted by them before, namely the quail. The Hebrews sinned by gluttony and murmuring, for when manna was raining from heaven, they despised it as a light and insubstantial food, murmured against Moses, and demanded solid and rich meats. But God indulged their gluttony and drove by wind an army of quails into the camp of the Hebrews, so that they might catch, cook, and eat them; and He did this every day for the space of one month. After which He punished their gluttony and murmuring with a plague that killed many of them. Hence the place was called 'the graves of desire' (Numbers XI, 34). Whence tropologically, St. Augustine, Tractate 73 on John, wisely and elegantly teaches that it is a sign of God's wrath if our desires attain their wishes, but of His mercy if He denies them. For he speaks thus: 'The Apostle James says, chapter 1, verse 3: "You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, that you may spend it on your passions." Therefore he who would make bad use of what he wishes to receive, by God's mercy rather does not receive it. Accordingly, if something is asked of God whereby a person would be harmed if heard, one should rather fear lest what He could decline to give as a gracious God, He give in anger. Did we not see the Israelites obtain to their own harm what they sought with culpable desire? For they had craved to eat meat, though manna was raining down from heaven for them. They despised what they had, and shamelessly demanded what they did not have — as if it were not better to ask, not that the food which was lacking be provided to satisfy an improper desire, but that what was at hand be taken with healed appetite. For when evil things delight us and good things do not, we ought rather to ask God that good things may delight us, than that evil things be granted.'
A new flavor — of meats, namely of quails, because the lighter manna no longer pleased the Hebrews. Again, a 'new' flavor is not only one that you have not yet experienced, but also one that is precious and delightful. Thus a song is called 'new,' that is, beautiful and delightful; 'new wine,' 'a new commandment,' that we love one another: 'new,' that is, extraordinary and most sweet. So says our Lorinus. Add that when God sends food to someone, He is accustomed to send what is worthy of Himself, that is, not common and ordinary, but excellent and extraordinary, and therefore to impart a new flavor to them, so that they seem far sweeter and more savory than other similar foods. Thus the wine that Christ made from water at Cana of Galilee was the best and most flavorful (John II, 10).
A completely similar example is found in the Life of St. Columban, chapter 29: For St. Columban, reproving Theodoric, king of the Franks, for his concubinage, was driven by him into exile and suffered hunger with his companions. But although food was lacking, their inviolate and unshaken faith remained, which obtained necessary things from the Lord. And when they had now been suffering from a three-day fast, such an abundance of birds was offered to them as had covered the camp of the Israelites when the quails flew in, so that the birds filled that entire place. The man of God understood that these provisions were offered on account of his own and his companions' need, since they were found nowhere except in the place where he himself was staying. Therefore he first ordered his men to give praise and thanks to the Creator, and then to take the provisions. It was indeed a marvelous and astonishing miracle: the birds were caught as the father had commanded, nor did they escape by their feathered flight, but that manna of birds remained for three days. Then on the fourth day, a certain bishop from neighboring cities, by divine inspiration, sent an abundance of grain to blessed Columban. And so as soon as the grain arrived, all those birds flew away at God's command. Moreover, from the account of Eustachius, who at that time was under the obedience of the man of God along with others, we learned that there was no one among them who remembered having seen birds of that kind before that time. And their flavor was such that it surpassed royal banquets.' Thus far the author of the Life.
QUAIL (ORTYGOMETRA). Ortyges is the Greek name for quails, from the island of Ortygia, which is in Greece, where they were first seen, says Isidore, book XII of the Etymologies, chapter 7. But what does the added element 'metra' mean? First, Jansenius thinks 'metra' is derived from metron, that is, 'measure,' because the ortygometra is the measure and moderator of the other quails in flying when they change places. But metron is written with a short 'e,' while metra has a long 'a.' I say therefore that 'metra' is derived from metra, that is, 'matrix' (womb), or meter, that is, 'mother.' The ortygometra, then, is the mother of the quails, or the king, larger and darker than the other quails, who goes before and leads the flock of quails, whom therefore the rest follow as their leader, no differently than bees follow their king. So say Pliny, book X, 23, and Aristotle, book VIII of the History of Animals, chapter 12, Hesychius, Gaza, and others. Under 'ortygometra,' therefore, as under a leader, understand the entire army of quails, as is clear from Numbers XI, 31, where our translator renders the Hebrew selav as 'quails,' but the Septuagint renders it as 'ortygometra.' The Wise Man here follows the Septuagint as usual. Hence the Italians call the ortygometra 'il re delle quaglie' (the king of the quails); the French, 'le roi, ou mère des cailles' (the king, or mother of the quails). So says Aldrovandus in his work on the Quail.
Petrus Nannius adds at this place: 'I see,' he says, 'that the supplementary element "metra" is attached to certain animals when larger specimens of that kind are designated — such as echinometra, that is, a larger and more spiny sea-urchin, about which see Pliny, book IX, chapter 21; leonimetra, that is, a larger lion, about which see Gesner in his work on the Lion. Thus ortygometra is a larger and fatter quail.' For it is likely that those miraculous quails sent to the Hebrews, as a work of God, were larger, fatter, tastier, and more excellent than others. I said more about this entire history at Exodus chapter XVI, verse 12, and Numbers chapter XI, verse 31.
3. SO THAT THOSE INDEED, CRAVING FOOD, ON ACCOUNT OF THE THINGS SHOWN AND SENT TO THEM, WOULD BE TURNED AWAY EVEN FROM NECESSARY APPETITE; BUT THESE, HAVING BEEN MADE POOR FOR A BRIEF TIME, TASTED A NEW FOOD. He continues to show the disparity between the foods of the Egyptians and the Hebrews, as if to say: Against the Egyptians You sent frogs, flies, locusts, etc., but to the Hebrews You gave manna and quail — 'so that those (namely the Egyptians, when they craved food because of hunger) on account of those (namely the animals already mentioned) which were shown to them (that is, exhibited and) sent' as punishment, to defile and contaminate their food — nauseated by this filth and foulness, 'would be turned away even from necessary appetite,' that is, from desired and necessary food, and would loathe and abhor it, and so waste away from hunger and starvation. 'But these (namely the Hebrews), having been made poor for a brief time' (in Greek, 'for a short time'), afflicted with want (that is, having experienced hunger for a short time), 'tasted a new food,' namely the quail, which wonderfully refreshed them with its new and pleasing flavor. As if to say: The Egyptians, on account of the frogs, flies, and gnats sent against them, which swarmed onto their tables and foods in droves and infected them, were not only not satisfied by them, but also lost their appetite for necessary food and were nauseated by it. But the Hebrews, by the sending of the new and heavenly food, namely the most delicate quails, felt a new appetite and perceived a new sweetness of novel flavor in eating. See what was said at Exodus VIII, 3: for quails are very fat and of the best flavor, and those sent by God to the Hebrews were fatter and more flavorful than the rest. For deikhtheisan, that is, 'shown,' namely trophen, that is, 'food' — since God showed and exhibited frogs to the Egyptians as if they were food — the Vatican codex reads more forcefully sidekhtheisan, that is, 'hateful and detestable deformity,' namely of the frogs and the foods which the frogs defiled. For on account of this, the Egyptians were averse to all desire and appetite even for necessary foods. For although hunger pressed them, nevertheless the foulness of the foods produced such nausea in them that they abominated everything, and so were killed by starvation. So say Cantacuzenus, Lyra, Dionysius, and others. Therefore St. Bonaventure and Hugo less accurately take the first part of this verse as referring not to the Egyptians but to the Hebrews, as if to say: God gave the Hebrews new food, namely the quail, so that through it He might remove from them the craving for the foods to which they had been accustomed in Egypt. For the antithesis is manifest when
he says, 'but these,' namely the Hebrews, whom he contrasts with the Egyptians, about whom he had just been speaking.
4. 4. FOR IT WAS FITTING THAT UPON THOSE EXERCISING TYRANNY THERE SHOULD COME DESTRUCTION WITHOUT EXCUSE; BUT TO THESE IT WAS ONLY SHOWN HOW THEIR ENEMIES WERE BEING DESTROYED — in Greek, ethanatizontos, that is, 'they were tortured,' about which I spoke at verse 1. The meaning is, as if to say: God sent against the Egyptians frogs and other noxious animals, which would destroy them through loathing of food and consequently through hunger and lack of necessary nourishment, because they tyrannically oppressed the Hebrews. But to the Hebrews, afflicted with moderate hunger, He gave fat and savory quails, so that from their moderate hunger they might gauge the long and deadly hunger of the Egyptians — how much it tormented them, since it killed many of them — and from this they might be refreshed and recognize God's providence toward them, and know that they were God's care and concern, indeed that God had fought and was fighting for them against the Egyptians and other enemies. 'Without excuse' (sine excusatione), that is, inexcusable, unavoidable, beyond appeal (for this is what the Greek aparaitesin signifies, as well as severe, cruel, fierce — which also fits this passage), as Gellius says, book VI, chapter 6. 'Destruction' (interitum), in Greek olethron, that is, want, namely of food, which causes death and destruction.
5, 6, and 7. FOR INDEED WHEN THE FIERCE WRATH OF BEASTS CAME UPON THEM, THEY WERE BEING DESTROYED BY THE BITES OF TWISTED SERPENTS. BUT YOUR WRATH DID NOT REMAIN FOREVER; RATHER THEY WERE TROUBLED BRIEFLY FOR CORRECTION, HAVING A SIGN OF SALVATION FOR THE REMEMBRANCE OF THE COMMANDMENT OF YOUR LAW. FOR HE WHO TURNED WAS NOT HEALED THROUGH WHAT HE SAW, BUT THROUGH YOU, THE SAVIOR OF ALL. The 'fierce wrath of beasts' is the fury of the serpents that God sent against the Hebrews on account of their murmuring. By another example he shows with how different a punishment God chastised the Hebrews and the Egyptians: for He unavoidably killed and destroyed the Egyptians by frogs, locusts, and gnats; but against the serpents sent upon the Hebrews, He provided a remedy. For when the Hebrews in the desert murmured against God and Moses on account of the hardship of the journey, God sent fiery serpents against the murmurers, which killed many by their bite. But when the rest were struck with fear by their example and repented, at Moses' prayer God immediately provided a remedy against the bite, commanding Moses to raise up a bronze serpent, and those who looked at it were healed (Numbers XXI, 4 ff.). See what was said there, for there is no need to repeat it here. God therefore did not wish to destroy the Hebrews with this plague, as He destroyed the Egyptians, but to recall them to duty and repentance by a moderate chastisement, and to establish His commands and public discipline by the punishment of a few. Fittingly He sent serpents against the murmurers, because one who murmurs and slanders hisses in secret like a serpent, and breathes out the pestilent poison of malediction with his pestilent tongue upon those who hear, according to Sirach X, 11: 'If the serpent bites in silence, the one who slanders in secret is no better.' See what was said there. For 'perversorum' ('twisted'), the Greek is skolion, that is, 'tortuous.'
FOR CORRECTION (eis nouthesian, that is, 'for admonition,' so that by this punishment they might be warned not to murmur, but to obey God and Moses patiently and steadfastly), HAVING A SIGN (in Greek, 'symbol') OF SALVATION. He notes, first, the bronze serpent erected by Moses at God's command, for healing the bites of serpents: for this serpent is called a sign and symbol, because it, being bronze and inanimate, could not itself be the cause of healing and confer it. Hence it was only a sign, and those who used it — having been bitten by fiery serpents, that is, serpents whose bite burned — namely by looking at it, were immediately healed by God. This is what he adds: 'for he who turned,' that is, who turned his face toward the bronze serpent by gazing at it, 'was not healed through what he saw,' that is, not through the serpent, 'but through You, the Savior of all.' This serpent, therefore, was a sign of salvation, and indeed 'for the remembrance of the commandment of Your law,' so that through it the Hebrews might be mindful and remember the divine clemency toward the penitent, and the vengeance upon the rebellious and disobedient to the law.
Second, it may be explained thus, as if to say: Just as those who obeyed the command of God ordering them to look upon the bronze serpent, if they wished to obtain salvation, were healed, so from this very fact they could and should have known that they could not be delivered from sufferings and from the evils being inflicted unless they looked to the law and obeyed its commandments, or unless they no longer spoke against the divine precepts but became accustomed to obeying God's ministers — or certainly that they could not obtain healing unless they looked to the author of the law and the deliverer from evils, Christ, because 'just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in Him may not perish but have eternal life' (John III, 14).
Allegorically, this serpent, similar in form to true and living serpents but lacking their venom, signified Christ the innocent one, yet considered harmful and wicked, crucified for us. Hence it was made of bronze, to signify the divinity and eternity of Christ; likewise the glory of Christ's cross, resounding throughout the whole world like sounding brass. So say St. Augustine, Theodosius, and Nyssen, indeed Christ Himself, John III, 14, whose words I have already recited. Wherefore Caesarius of Arles, Homily 4 On Easter, says: 'The remedy, if we wish, is fulfilled for us even now, when sin is cured by the recognition of sin itself, and crime is abolished by the confession of crime — as when a person says with the Prophet: "For I know my iniquities, and my sin is ever before me" — when he rightly looks upon his sin, he heals the serpent's bite through the sight of the serpent.'
Moreover, the true Ophites, that is, 'serpent-worshippers' (for ophis means 'serpent'), were ancient heretics who, from the fact that in Genesis III, 1, the serpent is said to have been most cunning, and by seducing Eve gave occasion for the knowledge of good and evil, worshipped the serpent as a god.
And they preferred it to Christ, constantly saying that wisdom itself became a serpent; wherefore Moses, admiring its power and majesty, made an image of it — the bronze serpent — so that whoever was bitten by a serpent and looked at it might be healed. Indeed, they said Christ imitated the power of this serpent and compared Himself to it, saying, John III, 14: 'Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up.' See Irenaeus, book I Against Heresies, chapter 36; Epiphanius, Heresy 37; Tertullian, Augustine, and others on the Ophite heresy.
8. 8. AND IN THIS YOU SHOWED OUR ENEMIES THAT YOU ARE HE WHO DELIVERS FROM ALL EVIL. For 'showed' (ostendisti), the Greek is epaisas, that is, 'You persuaded': for the ungodly and obstinate, such as the Egyptians were, do not believe words but believe plagues and blows continually repeated, so that even unwillingly and under compulsion they might believe that You, God and Savior, deliver Your own from evil and destroy their enemies. He continues to magnify God's severity and vengeance upon the Egyptians, and His clemency toward the Hebrews: for it is an equal act of beneficence to deliver from evil and death, and to confer good and life.
9. 9. FOR THE BITES OF LOCUSTS AND FLIES KILLED THEM (the Egyptians), AND NO HEALING WAS FOUND FOR THEIR LIFE: BECAUSE THEY WERE WORTHY TO BE DESTROYED BY SUCH THINGS. He reopens the wound of the plague of locusts and flies inflicted by God upon Pharaoh and Egypt through Moses, Exodus VIII, 24 and X, 6: see what was said there.
10. 10. BUT YOUR CHILDREN WERE NOT OVERCOME BY THE TEETH OF VENOMOUS SERPENTS: FOR YOUR MERCY CAME AND HEALED THEM — as if to say: But the Hebrews, who were Your worshippers and therefore most beloved children, bitten by serpents, shook off these bites by looking upon the bronze serpent, which Your mercy provided for healing them. He calls the Hebrews 'children,' both because of their profession of the true religion and worship of God, and because, repenting of their murmuring through the serpents' bite, they disposed themselves to righteousness and actually obtained it — whoever elicited a true act of contrition. 'Dragons' is the name for the larger, older, and therefore more fierce serpents, so fierce that they fight with elephants, as Pliny attests, book VIII, chapter 11. Such were those that bit the murmuring Hebrews. Hence Philostratus, book III of the Life of Apollonius of Tyana, chapter 2, reports that fiery dragons occupied the mountain overlooking the Red Sea (near which the Hebrews encamped), and hissed horribly, so that those hearing them from afar were terrified. For 'coming' (adveniens), the Greek is antiparelthe, that is, 'came from the opposite direction' — Your mercy came to meet and opposed itself to the lethal wounds inflicted by the serpents, and dispersed and healed them. Again, antiparelthe, that is, 'it interceded, brought help, came to their aid in peril' against the dragons, so that they would not bite fatally, or if they had bitten, Your compassion assigned them an immediate remedy — the bronze serpent, by the sight of which they were healed.
11. 11. FOR IN MEMORY OF YOUR WORDS THEY WERE TESTED, AND WERE QUICKLY SAVED, LEST FALLING INTO DEEP FORGETFULNESS, THEY SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO USE YOUR HELP. For 'in memory' (in memoria), Hugo, Dionysius, and Holcot wrongly read 'immemoria,' that is, 'forgetfulness,' as if to say: On account of forgetfulness of Your words, the Hebrews were tested and tormented by punishments. 'In memory' (in memoria), in Greek eis hypomneesin, that is, 'for admonition, for recollection, for remembrance' — so that, having forgotten Your words, they might remember them again. They were tested by punishments and roused to be mindful. 'Examinabantur' ('they were tested'): so it should be read with the Roman editions, not 'externabantur' as some read, or 'exanimabantur' as others read. The Greek is exekentrizontos, that is, 'they were goaded,' which amounts to the same as our 'examinabantur.' For to the forgetful an examination and questioning is added, like a goad to remembrance of the forgotten matter; while to the slow and lazy, like oxen and donkeys, a goad is applied to make them diligent and swift, so they proceed more quickly. The Complutensian edition and Cantacuzenus render exekentrizontos as 'they were grafted,' just as one branch of a tree is grafted and inoculated into another: for in a similar way God restored and re-grafted the memory of the law to the Hebrews, which had been as if removed and forgotten, through punishments. The meaning is, as if to say: The Hebrews, forgetful of their obedience to You and of Your precepts, were roused by the bites of serpents to remember them. For these bites were like stings and goads, by which they were pricked and awakened from the sleep and torpor of forgetfulness: 'for affliction gives understanding.'
LEST FALLING INTO DEEP (in Greek, batheian, that is, 'profound' — for thus elsewhere 'deep' things are often called 'high,' because they are high not upward but downward) FORGETFULNESS (of Your promises and precepts) THEY SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO USE YOUR HELP. In Greek: ina me aperispastoi genontai tes ses euergesians, that is, 'lest they become immovable, or irrecoverable, or rather unable to be drawn back by Your kindness,' namely those who could not be drawn back by it — which our translator clearly renders as 'they should not be able to use Your help.' Perhaps also our translator, says Jansenius, read anyperispasta, that is, 'undefended,' namely those who would not be covered by the shield of Your beneficence, O Lord, nor defended from the assault of evils.
The meaning is, first, as if to say: By the bite of serpents, and their miraculous healing through the bronze serpent, You roused, O Lord, the Hebrews to remember You and Your law, lest falling into deep forgetfulness of it, they could not be recalled to virtue by either past or future benefits of Yours, and so their salvation would be desperate, unable to avail themselves any longer of Your help. For deep forgetfulness of God and the divine law induces impenitence, hardness of heart, and despair of salvation, whereby God abandons such people and withdraws His help from them. Thence they cannot be drawn back from sins, and from the death and hell into which they rush headlong: for 'when the ungodly comes into the depth of sins, he is contemptuous' (Proverbs XVIII, 3).
Second, it could be explained as if to say: Lest having forgotten God, and therefore in turn being consigned to forgetfulness by God, as if already condemned and lost, they could no longer
experience God's help, in the way that it is said of the dead, Psalm LXXXVII, 6: 'Like the wounded sleeping in tombs, whom You remember no more, and they have been cast out from Your hand.' Third, Cantacuzenus explains it as if to say: Lest, being forgetful, they could not think of Your benefits, and be drawn away from reflecting on them, nor be drawn by them to the thought and remembrance of those benefits and of God the benefactor. Fourth, others explain: Lest, having forgotten You, they could no longer use Your help, that is, the benefit by which You healed them — for God did not heal those struck by the serpents unless they, roused by this goad, shook off forgetfulness and had recourse to God in penitence for help; for the impenitent were unworthy of God's help.
Fifth, our author a Castro explains aptly and connectedly: By these words, he says, the reason is given for the new benefit contained in the adverb 'they were quickly saved.' For God was not content with the benefit He was conferring on His children — namely, that being goaded they should come to remember the commandments they had transgressed — nor did He delay the healing for a long time, as He could have done. But He added this further abundance, lest healing be deferred through many and protracted medicines being applied, as humans are accustomed to do, delaying the cure and healing for many days. Rather, immediately, quickly, by a single look at the bronze serpent, they were healed. The reason for this was lest, if healing were delayed for a long time, they might become forgetful of the law of God and then be difficult to draw back from that forgetfulness by the benefit of health — which they would then attribute not to God but to medicines. This interpretation is supported by the reason that follows.
From a natural perspective, it could be further explained thus, as if to say: They were quickly healed from the bite of serpents, lest, if they were healed slowly and tardily, the burning poison of the serpents (for they were fiery and burning serpents) might invade the brain and drive them into frenzy, madness, and fury — just as those bitten by rabid dogs, unless the wound is immediately treated, are driven into rabies. For once driven into frenzy they would have been incurable, since in their madness they would not have wanted to look upon the bronze serpent, and even if sane they would not have been able to, especially because this gaze had to be made by a person acting freely, repenting of his murmuring, and seeking God's pardon and help — which those in frenzy could not do. And so, falling into deep forgetfulness of the remedy and their own cure, they would not have been able to use God's help, namely the bronze serpent given to them as a remedy for the evil.
Of all these explanations, the first seems the most straightforward; and if you add both of the last two to it, it becomes full and complete, as if to say: 'In memory,' or, as the Greek has it, 'for remembrance,' 'of Your words they were tested,' that is, so that the murmuring Hebrews might become mindful of Your precepts and of the obedience owed to You, O Lord, they were goaded by the bites of serpents, as by a certain testing and stinging stimulus of Yours, as the Greek has it; but the penitent were also quickly healed, so that they might recognize and know that this plague of serpents was sent by You, both to be inflicted on the murmurers and to be
recalled for the penitent. For if You had delayed the healing longer, they would have thought that this punishment of serpents was either not sent by You but had occurred by chance from the nature of the place, or was not healed by You but by the bronze serpent or the atmosphere or some other chance. Or certainly, with the burning venom of the serpents quickly penetrating the brain, they would have been driven into frenzy, fallen into forgetfulness of You and of all things, and could not have been recalled from either, nor could they have availed themselves any longer of Your help and the benefit of the bronze serpent, being now through frenzy incapable of reason, delirious and insane.
12. 12. FOR INDEED NEITHER HERB NOR POULTICE HEALED THEM, BUT YOUR WORD, O LORD, WHICH HEALS ALL THINGS. He proves that the Hebrews were quickly healed from the bites of serpents in the desert by God alone, so that they might acknowledge and worship Him — because in the arid and barren desert there were no medicinal herbs, for example, dragonwort and serpentaria, from which poultices and plasters are made for curing such bites. And even if there had been, they could not have cured the bites quickly and suddenly, but only slowly and gradually. Much less could the bronze serpent itself do this, for it was only a sign of the cure, not its cause. The cause of the healing, therefore, was the word, that is, the command of God, who, just as He gives man being and life by a single word, so also restores it by His word and nod alone when afflicted by disease or plague, whenever it pleases Him — according to Psalm CVI, 20: 'He sent His word and healed them.'
Mystically, the word of God, especially of Sacred Scripture, cures the wounds and diseases of the soul. For as St. Augustine says on Psalm XXXVI: 'Every disease of the soul has its remedy in Scripture.' St. Chrysostom teaches the same in Homily 42 on Genesis. Hence St. Paula healed whatever passions and afflictions of her soul arose by turning over in her mouth and mind the appropriate sentences of Sacred Scripture, as St. Jerome reports in her Epitaph. St. Basil asserts the same in his first Epistle to Gregory the Theologian, and confirms it with examples: if someone, he says, is tempted by lust, he has in the Scriptures Joseph, who fought for chastity even to imprisonment, to imitate. If he is troubled by illness, he has the patience of Job set before him as a mirror. If he is assailed by the injuries of enemies, he has David enduring the persecutions of Saul. If he is harassed by insults from subordinates, he has the most gentle Moses to emulate.
'Malagma' (Poultice). This is a Greek word signifying a soothing medicine or fomentation, from malasso, that is, 'I soften, soothe, knead, foster.' Hence Galen, book V of Simple Remedies, teaches that poultices are softening medicines that soften hardened masses. These concretions and tumors, he says, occur especially around the heads of muscles and their tendons. He adds that these medicines should comfortably dissolve what is hardened and gradually disperse it by evaporation, and should be neither too hot nor too dry. Such are ammoniac, bdellium, and butter. Moreover, there are different kinds of poultices, and of different
parts adapted to manifold effects: for some digest matter, some extract, and these together are called one type; some have the power of opening, and therefore are called anoiktika ('opening remedies'); most are fitted to particular body parts, such as the liver, spleen, and joints. There are poultices for scrofulous tumors, abscesses, parotid swellings, for dropsy, for stopping blood, and other things of that kind.
Furthermore, physicians distinguish poultices from plasters: the former are properly softening agents, and therefore are chiefly made from flowers and their shoots — for poultices are fomentations placed upon a hard thing, for example, upon an abscess, to soften it. Plasters, however, are medicines that close up, obstruct, and seal the pores of the skin, and therefore are composed of crushed metallic substances or viscous and tenacious material, such as almond paste, pompholyx (zinc oxide), white lead, washed lime, Cimolian earth, and the like — about which see Galen, books IV and V of Simple Remedies. 'Emplastrum' (plaster) is from emplasso, that is, 'I knead, form into a mass, smear on, stuff, solder, close up, fill.' But other writers often use 'malagma' for any plaster, and vice versa — and so it seems to be used here.
From what has been said, it is concluded that God did not wish the bronze serpent to be worshipped, but only to be looked upon as a sign, so that all praise and honor for the cure would be given to God. Therefore, although Catharinus and Sanders, book II On Images, chapter 3, think the Hebrews showed veneration to the serpent by bowing their head and submitting their body, it is more true that they did this not to the serpent but to God before the serpent. Indeed, our Vasquez, III part, Question 21, disputation 104, denies that they bowed before the serpent, maintaining that they merely looked upon it. However, St. Augustine, book III On the Trinity, chapter 10, asserts that some veneration could have been shown to it.
13. 13. FOR YOU ARE, O LORD, HE WHO HAS POWER OVER LIFE AND DEATH, AND YOU LEAD DOWN TO THE GATES OF DEATH AND LEAD BACK — as if to say: You, O Lord, healed the Hebrews who were lethally wounded by the serpents, because You alone have full right and authority over life and death, and consequently over the living and the dying, or the dead. Therefore at Your pleasure You can change life into death and death into life, and lead the living to the gates, that is, to the threshold of death, and from there lead them back to life and health, as You led back the Hebrews. For 'the gates of death' is a metaphor for certain and imminent dangers of death, such as are brought by lethal illnesses, plagues, and wounds — for through these, as through gates, one enters into death itself and the region of the dead, namely the grave and the underworld, just as we enter a house or city through gates. He alludes to the words of David, Psalm IX, 14: 'You who lift me up from the gates of death,' that is, You who free me from dangers close to death; and: 'They drew near even to the gates of death,' which we commonly call 'the jaws of death.' Moreover, he says 'gates' in the plural, because there are very many ways and means by which we enter into death. Again, just as there are various entrances to
death, so too the various and disparate [destinies exist]: for the fathers who died before Christ went to the bosom of Abraham, infants to limbo, sinners to hell, the just infected with venial guilt to purgatory, and in each of these places there are various states, degrees, orders, and locations according to each person's merit or demerit. Now literally, death here, as well as life, is understood as bodily; mystically, spiritual: for spiritually the soul lives to God through grace, and blessedly through glory; but it dies through sin, and is condemned to the second death through the punishments of hell. Hence Cantacuzenus thinks that anagogically the resurrection is indicated here, because he says: God is the Lord of death and life, and hence will raise His elect from death in the resurrection to blessed and eternal life.
The antistrophe to this maxim is that of Hannah, mother of Samuel, I Kings (1 Samuel) II, 6: 'The Lord kills and gives life, He leads down to the underworld and leads back.' And prior to both is that of Moses, Deuteronomy XXXII, 39: 'See that I alone am He, and there is no other God besides Me: I will kill and I will make alive, I will strike and I will heal.' Hence Christ is also said to have the keys of death and hell, Apocalypse I, 18: see what was said there.
TO THE GATES OF DEATH — in Greek, Hadou, that is, 'of the underworld,' because in ancient times before Christ all who died went to the underworld, at least to the limbo of the fathers. Hence the underworld is called the region of the dead, or the place inhabited by the dead. Moreover, our author a Castro takes 'the gates of the underworld' as death itself: for death is like a gate through which one enters the underworld. Hence he explains Christ's words in Matthew XVI, 18 thus: 'And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it' — as if to say: There is no kind of death that can abolish Peter's confession and the faith of the Church, so that there would not be in the Church a faithful and holy person who would not willingly face death to defend it. But the more genuine meaning of that passage is different: and here 'the gates of hell,' or, as our translator renders it, 'of death,' signify not death itself but the dangers of death and hell. For the Hebrews were brought back to health not from death itself, but from the dangers of death.
14. 14. BUT A MAN INDEED KILLS THROUGH MALICE (some codices add 'his own soul,' but this should be deleted following the Greek and Roman editions), AND WHEN THE SPIRIT HAS GONE OUT, IT WILL NOT RETURN, NOR WILL HE CALL BACK (Hugo wrongly reads 'revolabit' [will fly back], and the Gloss reads 'revelabit' [will reveal]) THE SOUL THAT HAS BEEN RECEIVED. He compares, contrasts, and subordinates man to God, as if to say: God has power over life and death, whence at His pleasure He can deliver the living to death and call the dead back to life. A man can indeed kill another through malice and take away his life and vital spirit, but he cannot bring back the spirit after it has departed, nor recall the soul and life 'which has already' been 'received' by God into another life and assigned to its place for eternity according to merits — according to Ecclesiastes XII, 3: 'Man shall go to the house of his eternity.'
For 'it will not return' (non revertetur), the Greek is ouk anastrephei, which Jansenius renders actively: 'he will not make it return,' namely the killer [will not make] the soul [return] into the body of the slain person — so that it corresponds to the Hebrew hiphil conjugation, which gives to
intransitive verbs an active meaning. For 'nor will he call back' (nec revocabit), our translator perhaps read ou de anakabisei; the current reading is ou de analyei; or, as the Aldine edition has it, oude analysei, which can be rendered 'he will not call back,' namely the killer [will not call back] the soul of the slain. But properly, many render it 'he does not dissolve,' that is, 'he does not extinguish the soul' — as if to say: The killer by killing dissolves the body and separates it from the soul, but he cannot dissolve the soul. For the soul is simple and uncomposed, and therefore incorruptible and eternal, according to Christ's words, Matthew X, 28: 'Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; but rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.'
Moreover, St. Jerome, on Daniel chapter 7, and St. Ambrose, Epistle 21, hold that the souls of all the dying, both good and evil, are received by angels. But it seems more true that the souls of the good are received by angels and led to heaven, as the soul of Lazarus was led by them to Abraham's bosom (Luke XVI); while the souls of the wicked are seized by demons, to drag them with themselves to the lower depths. St. Gregory, book IV of the Dialogues, recounts the examples of Chrysaorius and others.
15. 15. BUT TO ESCAPE YOUR HAND IS IMPOSSIBLE — as if to say: The soul of a slain man escapes the hand of the killer, who can kill the body but not the soul; but it cannot escape Your hand, O Lord, for by it the soul is received and assigned according to its merits either to heaven or to hell; or it is returned to the body, if it so pleases You, so that the man may rise and live again; or if he has been lethally injured, as were those bitten by serpents, he may be healed by You, O Lord. Likewise, the killer and every ungodly person cannot escape Your avenging hand: for You are the absolute Lord of all things, and therefore of life and death. Hence with the most ample arms of Your providence You embrace all the ends of the world and everything in them; indeed, You suspend the mass of the earth on three fingers and hold it as if hanging in the air, and encompass it with Your palm (Isaiah XL, 12). Whence the Psalmist, Psalm CXXXVIII, 7: 'Where shall I go from Your spirit? And where shall I flee from Your face? If I ascend to heaven, You are there; if I descend to hell, You are present; if I take my wings at dawn and dwell in the farthest parts of the earth, even there Your hand will lead me, and Your right hand will hold me.' Following which, the poet Ovid thus sings: 'Where do you flee, Enceladus? Whatever shores you reach, you will always be under Jupiter.'
16. 16. FOR THE UNGODLY, DENYING THAT THEY KNOW YOU, WERE SCOURGED BY THE STRENGTH OF YOUR ARM: PURSUED BY STRANGE WATERS, AND HAILSTONES, AND RAINS (the Greek adds anaparaitetos, that is, 'inevitably,' so that they could not avoid them nor escape God's hand), AND CONSUMED BY FIRE. He proves that no one can escape God's hand by the example of Pharaoh and the Egyptians, who, rebelling against God, when the seventh plague of terrible hail was sent upon them — so severe that it struck down not only plants but also men and animals, whatever was in the fields — were compelled to acknowledge His power, might, and divinity. So much so that Pharaoh, who had previously said to Moses (Exodus V, 7): 'I do not know the Lord, and I will not let Israel go,' after the plague of hail, humbled and coming to his senses, said (ibid. IX, 27): 'I have sinned again; I and my people are the ungodly.' For although in verses 23 and 24 there only hail is mentioned, it is clear from this passage and from Psalm CIV, 32: 'He gave them hail for rain,' and from Philo, book I of the Life of Moses, who adds to the hail: showers, storms, whirlwinds, clashing of clouds, continuous lightning, and thunder of prodigious appearance — that waters and rain were mixed with the hail. He reports that trees and crops were devastated and perished in the extraordinary storms, and not a few animals were killed, partly by cold, partly by hail the size of stones, partly by lightning. And whatever animals survived carried about burned wounds, to the terror of those who saw them.
For 'strange waters' (novis aquis), the Greek is novis hyetois, that is, 'rains'; for 'rains' (pluviis), the Greek is ombrois, that is, 'downpours.' For from the Greek ombros the Latin word imber ('downpour') is derived. He calls them 'new,' both because in Egypt it rains either rarely or never — therefore these rains sent upon Egypt by Moses were new and unusual — and because they were immense and terrifying, completely flattening the crops and everything else. Moreover, hyetos, that is, 'rain,' differs from ombros, that is, 'downpour,' in that rain is gentler, finer, and lighter, while a downpour is more violent, heavier, and denser. Hence ombros is said to come from omou, that is, 'flowing together,' because in a downpour the waters stream and pour down in torrents.
AND CONSUMED BY FIRE. For fire was mixed with the hail, which burned everything, as is clear from Exodus IX, 24: 'And hail and fire were borne together'; and Psalm CIV, 32: 'He gave their rain as hail, a burning fire in their land.' Philo and others add that this fire was fiery lightning bolts, which hurled and shot forth fire — that is, fiery arrows, embers, and burning coals — mixed with storms and tempests against the Egyptians. See what was said at Exodus IX, 24.
17, 18, and 19. FOR WHAT WAS MARVELOUS WAS THAT IN WATER, WHICH EXTINGUISHES ALL THINGS, FIRE PREVAILED ALL THE MORE: FOR THE WORLD IS THE AVENGER OF THE JUST. FOR AT ONE TIME THE FIRE WAS TAMED, LEST THE ANIMALS THAT HAD BEEN SENT AGAINST THE UNGODLY SHOULD BE BURNED; BUT SO THAT THEY THEMSELVES, SEEING, MIGHT KNOW THAT THEY SUFFER PERSECUTION BY GOD'S JUDGMENT. AND AT ANOTHER TIME FIRE BLAZED UP IN WATER BEYOND THE POWER OF FIRE ON EVERY SIDE, TO DESTROY THE NATION OF THE WICKED LAND. He now magnifies the already-mentioned plague of hail, and recounts its wonders and near-miracles: namely that in it, things utterly contrary to each other — water and fire — entered into an alliance and conspired against the ungodly Egyptians, so that heaven and all the elements, namely
fire, air, water, and earth seemed to have conspired together for their destruction. He therefore says: 'For what was marvelous' (in Greek paradoxotaton, that is, 'supremely paradoxical, supremely new and wonderful, surpassing all expectation as well as the power of nature') was that 'in water, which extinguishes all things, fire prevailed all the more' — as if to say: In the plague of hail, the water that normally extinguishes fire so far from extinguishing it that it was overcome by the fire; indeed, the water actually added strength and power to the fire. For in it the fire blazed with greater force, as if the water fed it like oil — according to that line from the Tragedy: 'And feeds the flames.' So in the sacrifice of Elijah, fire blazed forth from a victim drenched with water (III Kings XVIII, 34), just as from the watered sacrifice of Nehemiah (II Maccabees I, 20). Similarly, by nature, artificial fires — commonly called 'Greek fires' — are not extinguished by water but rather nourished by it. Indeed, lime is not quenched but ignited by water — which St. Augustine marvels at as a miracle of nature, book XXI of the City of God, chapter 4.
Moreover, his statement that this was paradoxotaton ('supremely paradoxical') is true, for naturally all fire burns and consumes frogs, flies, and other animals. Therefore, although Aristotle, Pliny, and after them St. Augustine, book XXI of the City of God, chapter 4, assert that the salamander lives in fire, this must be understood to mean that because of its cold and moist temperament it resists fire for some time and endures in it. For if it persists in fire too long, it is finally consumed by it, as Galen explicitly teaches, book III On Temperaments, chapter 4, Dioscorides, book II, chapter 16, Albert the Great, book XXV On Animals, and others. However, pyraustae (fire-moths), which are winged creatures very similar to large flies, naturally live and dwell in burning furnaces, as Aristotle, Pliny, and others report — but in such a way that they are neither generated from fire nor nourished by it: for fire begets no animal, says Aristotle, book V of the History of Animals, chapter 19. In short, all animals are not simple bodies but mixed, and therefore composed from a mixture of the four elements. Hence they can neither be generated nor nourished from a single element alone.
Therefore what St. Thomas writes, on virtues and vices — that the chameleon lives from air, the mole from earth, the herring from water, the salamander from fire — seems to be taken from common popular speech and is strictly false. But in this sense it is true: that the chameleon, content with little food, lives from dew and flies flitting about in the air; the herring feeds on water not pure but mixed with earthy vapors and other substances; the mole feeds on the roots of the earth; the salamander endures in fire for some time.
FOR THE WORLD IS THE AVENGER OF THE JUST. He gives the reason for the wonder or miracle just described — the conspiracy of water and fire against the Egyptians — namely, that the world and everything in it serves the avenging God at His nod for the punishment of the ungodly, who were afflicting the just, namely the faithful Hebrews. See what was said at chapter V, verse 18.
FOR AT ONE TIME THE FIRE WAS TAMED (in Greek eprayneto, that is, 'it became gentle, mild, was softened') LEST THE ANIMALS THAT HAD BEEN SENT AGAINST THE UNGODLY SHOULD BE BURNED. Some explain it thus, as if to say: The fire sent from heaven with the hail upon the Egyptians burned the Egyptians, but not the animals — namely the frogs, locusts, and flies — which God had sent upon them as punishment through Moses. But in fact, by the time of the seventh plague (the hail), the preceding plagues of frogs, locusts, and flies had already ceased at Moses' prayers. I say therefore that the Wise Man speaks not of heavenly fire but of natural fire — as if to say: When the Egyptians lit fires everywhere to drive away the frogs, flies, gnats, and other beasts that God was sending through the agency of Moses to smite and plague them, then the fire exercised no power against those animals, but by divine power restrained itself from burning them, so that they might obey God's will in all things and continue to torment the Egyptians. Now this wonder or miracle, though not recorded by Moses in Exodus, is here supplied and expressed by the Wise Man, just as he supplies the detail about the manna in verse 20 — that it had every sweetness of flavor according to the pleasure of those eating. Therefore one may not doubt that it truly happened. So say Dionysius, Jansenius, and others — for this entire discourse concerns the plagues of the Egyptians. St. Bonaventure also understands it of the Egyptians, but in this sense: the animals of the Egyptians that were in the fields were consumed by hail and fire, but those that were at home in stables remained untouched by both. But this would not have been paradoxical or marvelous.
From what has been said it is clear that Lyra less correctly applies these words to the Hebrews, as if to say: The Hebrews looking upon the bronze serpent were not harmed by fire, that is, by the fiery serpents. Holcot goes even further astray, who by 'animals' understands the three young companions of Daniel, who remained unharmed by the fire in the Babylonian furnace, Daniel III, 24.
BUT SO THAT THEY THEMSELVES (the Egyptians), SEEING (that flies and frogs were not consumed by fire), MIGHT KNOW THAT THEY SUFFER PERSECUTION BY GOD'S JUDGMENT (in Greek, elaunontai, that is, 'they are harassed, vexed, tormented' by frogs, flies, locusts, etc.) — as if to say: God preserved the frogs and flies He had sent unharmed in the fire, so that they might continue to infest and punish the Egyptians who rebelled against Him, so that the Egyptians seeing this might recognize that it was happening not by the power of nature but by God's miracle, and therefore would fear and worship God, and release His people, namely the Hebrews.
AND AT ANOTHER TIME FIRE BLAZED UP IN WATER BEYOND THE POWER OF FIRE ON EVERY SIDE, TO DESTROY THE NATION OF THE WICKED LAND — as if to say: The fire, obedient to God for the punishment of the Egyptians, turned itself to all parts and modes of punishing. For it spared the frogs and flies that were tormenting the Egyptians, as was said in the preceding verse; but indeed in the seventh plague, the fire mixed with hail blazed beyond all the power of nature, to destroy the Egyptians and their crops. By 'nation' (nationem), some understand men and animals struck by hail and fire; better to understand the grains and crops growing from the earth, which in the fields
hail and fire, or rather fiery hail, consumed. For the Greek is gennemata, that is, 'produce' or 'growth,' namely plants and crops, which the hail struck so as to afflict the Egyptians with lack of grain and famine. So say Jansenius, a Castro, and others. Holcot less correctly takes this as the fire by which Pentapolis was consumed, and the nation of the Sodomites was destroyed and burned.
20 and 21. INSTEAD OF THESE THINGS, YOU NOURISHED YOUR PEOPLE WITH THE FOOD OF ANGELS, AND PROVIDED THEM WITH READY-MADE BREAD FROM HEAVEN WITHOUT LABOR, CONTAINING EVERY DELIGHT AND THE SWEETNESS OF EVERY FLAVOR. FOR YOUR SUBSTANCE SHOWED YOUR SWEETNESS, WHICH YOU HAVE TOWARD YOUR CHILDREN: AND SERVING THE WILL OF EACH ONE, IT WAS CONVERTED TO WHATEVER EACH ONE WISHED. For 'the sweetness of every flavor,' the Greek reads: 'harmonion for every taste,' that is, 'adapted,' or 'so as to suit every taste.' He contrasts God's beneficence toward the devout Hebrews with His maleficence and vengeance upon the ungodly Egyptians, as if to say: You, O Lord, just as You punished the Egyptians with barrenness and famine by devastating their crops through the plague of fiery hail mixed with fire, so conversely to the Hebrews, laboring in the desert under the want of all things, You gave heavenly and most sweet manna. Hence he calls manna 'the bread of angels' — not of those eating it, but of those producing it from matter prepared for that purpose in the clouds by the angels themselves. For this reason it is called 'bread of heaven,' that is, of the air and clouds, in Psalm LXXVII, 24, because manna was formed in the air by angels. Hence it is also called 'bread without labor,' namely of men plowing, sowing, and reaping — it was prepared by angels applying active agents to passive matter.
Note that this miraculous manna: First, was like small grains of frost or frozen dew. Second, was round like coriander seed. Third, had the taste of honey. Fourth, was white in color and similar to crystal, as the Septuagint has it. Fifth, after being collected, they pounded it with a pestle and millstone and ground it into flour, from which they made cakes or loaves and baked them with fire, as we make bread from wheat flour and bake it in an oven. Sixth, every day manna rained down from heaven, that is, from the air, except on the sabbath; hence the Hebrews collected a double portion of manna on Friday, enough for two days, Friday and Saturday. On other days, if anyone kept manna until the next day, it swarmed with worms. Seventh, whether anyone collected much or little manna, when he returned home and measured it, he found the same measure — namely a gomer — God secretly removing from the manna what exceeded this measure, or adding what fell short of it. Therefore God at that time measured out the same portion of manna to men, children, and women, and children ate just as much as men. Eighth, when the sun grew hot, it melted and consumed the manna, just as it absorbs and consumes dew; hence they had to collect it before sunrise. See what was said at Exodus XVI, where I treated everything pertaining to manna extensively and thoroughly, and showed it clearly
to have been a type of the Eucharist, especially as to the reality contained and the effect, as I showed from Saints Cyril, Nyssen, Ambrose, and others. For why should I repeat here what has already been said?
Note that manna is called 'the bread of angels' because it was the work of angels, and because it was the most delicate and excellent food — for whatever belongs to angels is most excellent, and accordingly if angels ate bodily food, they would eat manna. Allegorically, the manna of the Eucharist is the food of angels, because the same Christ who feeds us in the Eucharist feeds and blesses the angels in the beatific vision. Hence angels reverently attend and minister to the celebrating priest, as I showed with many examples at Numbers chapter IV, at the end.
It is memorable what we read about St. John, bishop of Ravenna, who was surnamed Angeloptes, that is, 'beholder of angels,' because he was familiar with angels. Namely, while he was celebrating, an angel attended him and snatched the chalice of Christ's blood from the deacon's hand, and while all watched and marveled, presented it to him in ministering. Hence he was received into heaven by angels in the year of the Lord 432. So report Hieronymus Rubeus, Philippus Ferrarius, and others, from the Ecclesiastical Monuments of Ravenna.
St. Gregory beautifully and truly says, Dialogues IV, chapter 58: 'Who among the faithful could doubt that at the very hour of the sacrifice, at the priest's words, the heavens are opened; that in that mystery of Jesus Christ the choirs of angels are present; that the lowest things are united with the highest; earthly things are joined to heavenly things; and one reality is made from the visible and the invisible?' St. Chrysostom asserts the same in books III and VI of On the Priesthood, and provides examples, such as also exist in the Life of St. Chrysostom himself and of St. Basil.
Tropologically, manna is prayer, for with this as heavenly bread the heavenly angels partake, as well as the earthly ones, namely devout and holy men. Prayer also produces a wonderful sweetness in the soul, while it draws from God heavenly consolations, inspirations, and promptings of all virtues. St. Bernard truly says in On Consideration, to Eugenius: 'Prayer purifies the fountain, that is, the mind from which it rises; then it governs the affections, directs the actions, corrects excesses, orders the habits, adorns and beautifies life.' Accordingly, after the children of Israel who were nourished with real manna, we read of certain saints devoted to prayer and contemplation, especially hermits, such as Gerard, who at the urging of St. Lydwina, withdrawing into the desert, was nourished by nothing but manna that rained from heaven into his cell. See the Life of St. Lydwina, some way before the end. See also our Alvarez de Paz, Treatise On Prayer, Part I, chapters 6 ff., where he extensively adapts all the qualities of manna to prayer.
Again, manna is wisdom and Sacred Scripture, especially the Psalms, which offer us the sweetness of all the affections. So St. Ambrose, book I, Epistle 1: 'The food,' he says, 'and the delight of heavenly nourishment is wisdom, on which those placed in paradise fed — this was the unfailing food of the soul, which the divine word called manna.' And St. Gregory, book XXXI
of the Morals, chapter 10: 'Manna,' he says, 'is the word of God, and whatever the goodwill of the recipient desires, that indeed it tastes like in the mouth of the one eating.' And book VI, chapter 9: 'Manna had in itself every delight and every sweetness of flavor, because the divine word fits all circumstances and, not differing from itself, condescends to the quality of its hearers.' And St. Augustine, Sermon 91 On the Seasons: 'Let us therefore hasten now to receive the heavenly manna. For this manna, as each person wishes, takes on that flavor. For hear also the Lord saying to those who approach Him: "Let it be done to you according to your faith." And so if you receive the word of God, which is preached in the Church, with complete faith and complete devotion, that word will become for you whatever you desire. For example, if you are troubled, it consoles you saying: "A contrite and humble heart God will not despise." If you rejoice, it heaps up joys for you prosperously, saying: "Rejoice in the Lord and exult, you just." If you are angry, it soothes you saying: "The Lord heals all your ailments." If you are consumed by poverty, it consoles you saying: "The Lord raises the needy from the earth, and lifts the poor from the dunghill." So then the manna of God's word renders in your mouth whatever flavor you wish.' Finally, St. Jerome on Psalm CXLVII: 'Whatever you wish,' he says, 'is born from the divine word, just as the Jews hand down, that when they ate manna, it tasted in the mouth according to the wish of each person.'
Anagogically, manna signifies the ineffable delights of the heavenly kingdom, which the saints taste in advance while fighting for them in this life, according to Apocalypse II, verse 17: 'To him who conquers I will give the hidden manna.' See what was said there.
CONTAINING EVERY DELIGHT AND THE SWEETNESS OF EVERY FLAVOR. Others render it: 'powerful for every pleasure, and fitting, adapted, and suited to every taste.' For as follows, manna offered to each person the flavor that he desired to taste and savor. Hence the Syriac renders it: 'sweeter than all sweetness, and more delightful than all delightful things.' The Arabic renders it: 'bread more powerful in sweetness (that is, sweeter) and surpassing all delightful things.' Hence also in chapter XIX, 20, manna is called 'ambrosia' in Greek, because it is said by the poets to be the sweetest food of the gods.
FOR YOUR SUBSTANCE SHOWED YOUR SWEETNESS, WHICH YOU HAVE TOWARD YOUR CHILDREN: so it should be read with the Greek and Roman editions. Many codices therefore wrongly have the accusative: 'Your substance and Your sweetness, which You have toward Your children, You showed.' St. Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 49, reads: 'My substance is my sweetness,' and from this proves against the Arians that there is substance in God, and that the Son is homoousios, that is, consubstantial with the Father. 'For what,' he says, 'is the substance of God, if not that which God is: simple, singular, pure, mixed with no composition, clear, good, perfect, blessed, integral, holy, complete? Do you think that what God is, is something empty and void? To say this is blasphemy — that He should be thought empty, through whom all things consist, who brought forth all things by His word, arranged them by reason, perfected them by power, by whose nod and command all things are governed and all things serve. And rightly it is written of God in the law, Exodus III, 14: "I am who I am"; and ibid.: "He who is sent me to you."'
Gregory Nazianzen therefore understands by 'the substance of God' the divine nature, which is most sweet and delightful, and indeed is uncreated and immense sweetness and delight itself. This nature, accordingly, communicating itself to the Hebrews, provided them with the most sweet manna, which contained every sweetness of flavor. This sense fits well with the Greek: 'Your hypostasis, that is, Your subsistence, showed Your sweetness toward Your children.' For it gives the reason why he said 'ready-made bread.' For one might ask: How did the Hebrews in the arid desert find manna every day, as ready-made food, for forty continuous years? He answers that the cause was the hypostasis (subsistence) of God — namely, that God, always the same and consistent with Himself, abiding and subsisting, daily and continuously prepared this food for the Hebrews.
To this add Victor of Utica, in his book On the Catholic Faith, and St. Fulgentius, Against the Arians, at the fourth objection, who by 'substance' understand the most sweet Son of God, because He prepared this manna for the Hebrews. Hence manna was His type and figure, according to John VI, 32: 'Moses did not give you bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven.' Explaining which, in verses 35 and 51, He says: 'I am the living bread who came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I will give is My flesh, for the life of the world.' Similarly, Optatus, cited by the Gloss, explains this passage of the Son of God, who is the substance of the Father, and says that in figure and image the heavenly bread seemed to flow down from heaven for the people of Israel. Yet generally interpreters — such as Cantacuzenus, Hugo, Jansenius, Vatablus — by 'substance' understand manna, and not unfittingly: for manna is called 'the substance of God' because at God's command it was formed by the angels and given to the Hebrews. Hence shortly before, he called manna 'the food of angels' and 'ready-made bread from heaven.' The word 'substance' indicates that manna was of solid substance, so that it did not delude the palate of the Hebrews, as the devil deludes witches and sorcerers when he presents them with a phantasmal banquet of all kinds of dishes, in which they seem to themselves to eat and drink sumptuously, but after the banquet they feel just as empty and are just as hungry and thirsty as before — as a certain nobleman in Belgium, invited to such a banquet by a sorcerer, is accustomed to relate happened to him. But manna was not a phantom, but a substance and truly subsisting thing, which therefore truly fed, nourished, and strengthened the Hebrews, so that they remained healthy, vigorous, and strong. Hence its sweetness and flavor were likewise real and, so to speak, substantial, not phantasmal and fictitious. Thus for 'Your substance,' the Greek is hypostasis sou, that is, 'Your subsistence.'
The meaning, then, is as if to say: 'Your substance (that is, the manna, which was a substance and solid thing formed by You, O Lord) showed Your sweetness, which You have toward Your children' — that is, by its sweetness it testified, indeed represented and in reality displayed, the sweetness of love and benevolence with which You embrace Your children, that is, Your faithful Hebrews. He adds the cause and explains the manner, saying: 'And serving the will of each one, it was converted to whatever each one wished.' Thus Christ in the Lord's Prayer, Luke XI, 3, teaches us to ask for daily bread — in Greek epiousion, that is, 'essential' and 'substantial,' that is, necessary for man's substance. In the same way, manna is here called 'substance,' that is, 'substantial bread,' because it nourished and sustained the Hebrews for forty years in the desert.
Finally, Osorius takes hypostasis, that is, 'substance,' as the constancy of divine kindness, goodness, and beneficence, by which He continuously nourished the Hebrews with manna for forty years. For hypostasis is like a base and a solid and constant foundation. Pineda, however, on Job chapter 22, verse 3, in the Digression, takes 'substance' as the power of sustaining — and so do many others.
AND SERVING THE WILL OF EACH ONE (in Greek, epithymia, that is, 'desire, craving'), IT WAS CONVERTED TO WHATEVER EACH ONE WISHED. For 'each one' (uniuscujusque), the Greek is prospheromenou, that is, 'of the one who presents himself, or approaches, takes, and eats' — which our translator aptly renders as 'each one,' namely one who takes and eats manna. For 'was converted' (convertebatur), the Greek is metekirneto, that is, 'was blended or tempered.' The Syriac has: 'and according to each person's desire it was mixed,' just as foods are mixed and seasoned with honey, salt, sugar, and other condiments to make them more flavorful and suited to the palate of the eater — and just as harsh wines are mixed and sweetened with water or another sweeter wine. The Arabic clearly says: 'and it ministered the perfection of his desire in whatever food they wished.'
From this passage some hold that manna changed not only its flavor but also its substance according to each person's pleasure, so that manna was truly converted into fish for one who wished to taste fish; into partridge for one who wished to taste partridge; into egg for one who wished to taste egg — and thus manna perfectly and, as it were, equally represented the Eucharist, in which the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ takes place, with only the species or accidents of bread and wine remaining. For in a similar way they hold that the accidents of manna remained, but the internal substance was changed according to the pleasure and taste of each person eating it. So hold Claudius de Sainctes, On the Eucharist, repetition 7, chapter 3; Nicolas Villagagnon, book III Against Calvin, chapter 52; Thomas Bosius, book XII On the Marks of the Church, final chapter; Gregory de Valencia, volume IV, disputation 6, Question III, §4. St. Augustine somewhat favors this view, book III On the Trinity, chapter 1, as does St. Ambrose in On Those Who Are Initiated into the Mysteries, chapter 9 — but obscurely and remotely. They argue from verse 25: 'Therefore also at that time, transfigured into all things, it served Your all-nourishing grace according to the will of those who desired from You.'
But the contrary is far more true — namely, that manna changed only its flavor, not its substance, according to the pleasure of those desiring. This is proved first, because it is only said here that manna had in itself every delight and every sweetness of flavor, and that it converted itself into various flavors to exhibit this to those desiring, according to their appetite. Second, because transubstantiation is the greatest of all miracles, and therefore proper to the Eucharist alone. Third, because otherwise manna would not have been similar to, but dissimilar from, the Eucharist. For by bodily taste in the Eucharist we taste only the flavor of bread, while by mental taste we taste only the body of Christ. But in manna the Hebrews did not taste only the flavor of manna itself, which was that of oiled bread and honey, but fish, partridge, egg — according to each person's wish.
If, therefore, manna had been continually converted into the different substance of fish, partridge, egg, etc., at the pleasure of those eating, it would have been dissimilar to the Eucharist, in which there is no substance other than that of Christ's body. Fourth, these substantial transubstantiations in the manna would have been very many and continuous miracles, performed by God without necessity or reason. For to exhibit to each person the flavor he wished, it was not necessary to change the substance but only the accident — it sufficed to impart to the manna that flavor which each person desired. Fifth, because the Hebrews were nauseated by the manna, longing for the onions and pots of meat of Egypt. Hence they said, Numbers XI, 4, and XXI, 5: 'Our soul is nauseated with this most worthless food.' Therefore manna was not truly changed into onions and meat for them: for if they had had these, they would not have longed for them.
You will say, and turn this argument back: The same holds for flavor — for in manna onions and meats were tasted, and yet they still longed for them. I respond: They longed for them because they were carnal and gluttonous, for whom flavor alone is not enough; rather, beyond flavor, they require the actual tasty and solid things — namely real meat, real fish, etc.
Furthermore, sixth: if manna had only the external appearance of manna but was inwardly changed into fish, meat, or egg at the pleasure of the eaters, this would have been done in vain. For those eating saw the external appearance of manna, not the internal substance of fish or meat hidden under the manna — just as we in the Eucharist see the species of bread but do not see Christ hidden beneath them; rather, we believe by faith. But the earthly-minded Jews did not have this faith in manna. If you say that manna was completely and in every respect changed into fish, meat, etc. — even as to external appearance, so that manna entirely ceased both in substance and in external appearance — this contradicts Sacred Scripture, which everywhere asserts that the Hebrews ate, saw, and tasted manna, and that manna contained every sweetness of flavor. For otherwise manna could not have been a type of the Eucharist, in which bread passes
into the body of Christ, but with the species of bread remaining. Finally, just as the authors of the contrary opinion, through the change of manna into the substance of fish or meat, better represent the transubstantiation in the Eucharist, so we, saying that the same substance remained in the manna but the accidents of flavor were varied, better demonstrate through this that in the Eucharist the accidents of bread and wine remain and nourish man without their substance. Furthermore, that the Eucharist, one and the same, exhibits to the communicant every flavor and taste of the virtues and heavenly things according to his desire. Verse 25, moreover, I will explain shortly in its proper order.
Note: for 'was converted' (convertebatur), the Greek is metekirneto, that is, 'was tempered' (blended), 'was transfused by mixing.' The Syriac has 'was mixed'; others, 'was tempered.' For the root kernaō means the same as 'I mix, infuse, temper, pour in wine.' Hence physicians call eukraton a drink mixed and tempered from vinegar and water; so unmixed and pure wine is called akraton and akeraton, while what is properly diluted and tempered is so named. The word metekirnato therefore signifies the manner of the variety of flavors in manna: just as wine, if mixed with water or any other wine, exhibits whatever flavor of wine you wish — for if you pour sharp, bitter, or differently flavored wine into sweet wine, you will bend the wine's sweetness toward sharpness, bitterness, or another flavor — so likewise God bent the natural honeyed flavor of manna, by adding another flavor toward the taste of fish or meat, according to the desire of each person eating. The natural flavor of manna therefore remained, but was tempered, diluted, and bent toward the flavor of whatever thing each person desired to taste. For this is what the murmuring Hebrews imply when they say: 'Our soul is nauseated with this most worthless food.' They felt and tasted, therefore, the lightness and softness of manna, and in addition the flavor of the foods they desired, and that lightness, softness, and sweetness of manna caused them nausea.
Imagine pouring sugar or honey over fish, meats, and other foods, and you will grasp how the honeyed sweetness of manna was mixed, poured, and blended with the flavor of fish, meats, and other foods — but in such a way, and therefore sparingly or generously, as suited the palate and desire of those eating. For manna adapted its flavor to each person. And this seems to have been the cause of the Hebrews' nausea and murmuring about the manna: namely, that although they could taste in it every flavor they wished, they also simultaneously tasted the flavor of honey, which was native to the manna itself. For honey, sugar, and other sweet things, if eaten for too long, easily produce nausea and disgust. Finally, manna by itself everywhere retained its own flavor, but in the palate of those eating it produced whatever flavor each person desired, and so was quasi-transformed according to his wish — that is, it took on and assumed another form and character of flavor.
Therefore what Holcot thinks seems less true — namely, that this variety of flavors was not in the manna itself but only in the palate of those eating, according to the appearance and judgment of the same persons. For then the flavor of manna would have been deceptive and phantasmal, not real and substantial, as was said in verse 21. Nor would manna have had in itself every delight and every sweetness of flavor, nor would it have been converted, serving each person's will, to what each one wished — which verse 21 nonetheless asserted. Finally, manna would thus not have been a fitting type of the Eucharist, which substantially offers us Christ, rich in every grace and spiritual delight, and communicating the same to those who receive it. So say the other interpreters.
Therefore when any Hebrew desired to eat fish, meat, or egg, God imparted to his manna the flavor of fish, meat, or egg, which the eater would taste just as if he were eating fish, meat, or egg.
Tropologically, the bread containing every delight and every sweetness of flavor is prayer and contemplation. Anagogically, it is heavenly glory. Allegorically, it is the flesh of Christ in the Eucharist. Hence St. Thomas, Opuscule 57, in the Office of the Venerable Sacrament at the Magnificat, assigns to it these verses: 'You provided them bread from heaven, containing every delight.' And immediately this antiphon: 'O how sweet is Your spirit, O Lord, who, to show Your sweetness to Your children, filling the hungry with good things by the most sweet bread provided from heaven, send away the disdainful rich empty!' And at Lesson IV: 'No one suffices to express the sweetness of this Sacrament, through which spiritual sweetness is tasted at its source, and the memory is recalled of that most excellent charity which Christ showed in His passion.' And before the lesson he prefixes these verses: 'He fed them from the fat of wheat, and satisfied them with honey from the rock.'
Hence we read of certain saints who communicated devoutly that in the sacred communion they tasted what seemed like a honeycomb. The same in the antiphon at the Magnificat at Second Vespers: 'O sacred banquet, in which Christ is received, the memory of His passion is recalled, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us!' The same in the hymn at Lauds: 'Being born, He gave Himself as companion; dining with us, as food; dying, as ransom; reigning, He gives Himself as reward.'
Do you want examples? Take these. In the Lives of the Fathers, book VI, Booklet 18 On Providence, chapter 17: 'Abbot Pastor said: It is written, Psalm XLI, 2: "As the deer longs for the springs of water, so my soul longs for You, O God." Since therefore deer in the wilderness swallow many serpents, and when they are inflamed by their ve-
nom, they long to reach the waters. Yet while drinking they are tested by the burning of the serpent's venom. So too monks dwelling in solitudes are inflamed by the poison of malignant demons, and therefore long to come on the Lord's day to the springs of water, that is, to the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, so that they may be purged of all the bitterness of malignant demons.'
St. Mary of Egypt, after having lived an angelic life in the desert for 47 years, receiving the sacred communion from St. Zosimas near death, stretching her hands to heaven and groaning, cried out with tears of joy: 'Now You dismiss Your handmaid, O Lord, according to Your word in peace: for my eyes have seen Your salvation.' And so, having tasted in advance the heavenly delights, dying soon after, she flew to heaven to drink them in with her whole mind. So her life, written by the same Zosimas, records. We read something similar of St. Mary Magdalene at her passage to Christ.
It is reported that St. Monica, after receiving holy communion, as if intoxicated with delights, exclaimed: 'My heart and my flesh have rejoiced in the living God. What am I doing here? Let us fly to heaven!' St. John the Hermit felt such delights in the Eucharist, as well as strength and vigor, that receiving it only on the Lord's day, he ate nothing else throughout the entire week, as Palladius attests in the Lausiac History, chapter 61.
St. Francis, says St. Bonaventure in his Life, chapter 9, 'burned toward the Sacrament of the Lord's body with a fervor in every fiber of his being, marveling with the greatest amazement at that most dear condescension and most worthy charity. He often received communion, and so devoutly that he made others devout, for at the sweet tasting of the immaculate Lamb, as if drunk in spirit, he was generally carried away into an ecstasy of mind.' Hence he desired to be totally transformed into the crucified Christ through the fire of excessive love — as indeed happened to him, when through the seraph holding a crucifix under its wings, he received the sacred stigmata of Christ's five wounds impressed upon his flesh, by a rare gift of Christ.
St. Catherine of Siena, as Raymond, her own confessor, writes in her Life, 'frequently saw in the hands of the priest an infant, sometimes a somewhat larger child, sometimes a burning furnace, and often perceived fragrances of inestimable sweetness. And as often as she either saw or received that supreme Sacrament, a new and ineffable joy arose in her soul, so that not infrequently her heart leaped in her breast, and with such a sound that her companions standing nearby heard it most clearly — nor was it an ordinary sound, but quite singular and beyond the course of nature. The holy virgin was accustomed to say to Thomas, her confessor: "Such great joy possesses my mind that I greatly marvel that the soul can endure in the body." And she added: "I feel such ardor in my soul that material fire seems to me to be cold rather than hot. And from this ardor arises a certain
renewal of purity and humility in my soul, so that I seem to myself to have returned to the age of four or five years. And so great a fraternal love is kindled in me thereby, that I would willingly, even gladly, face death for any neighbor whatsoever." And after some intervening matter: 'When she received the sacred Eucharist from his hands, her face was red and radiant, and she received it with such devotion that it brought the greatest amazement and devotion to the confessor himself. And she was so absorbed in God that for that entire day, even after she had come back to herself, she could not utter a single word. She later told Brother Thomas, her confessor, that when she received the sacred Eucharist from his hands, she saw something that so drew her mind to itself that all other things found here seemed to her like abominable filth — not only the riches and pleasures of the body, but even spiritual consolations. And then God granted her in prayer what we have described — namely, a mind unmoved amid all things, which is truly an excellent and extraordinary gift.'
22, 23, and 24. BUT SNOW AND ICE ENDURED THE FORCE OF FIRE AND DID NOT MELT: SO THAT THEY MIGHT KNOW THAT FIRE BURNING IN HAIL AND FLASHING IN RAIN WAS DESTROYING THE FRUITS OF THE ENEMIES. BUT HERE AGAIN, SO THAT THE JUST MIGHT BE NOURISHED, IT EVEN FORGOT ITS OWN POWER. FOR CREATION, SERVING YOU ITS MAKER, IS KINDLED INTO TORMENT AGAINST THE UNJUST: AND BECOMES GENTLER TO DO GOOD FOR THOSE WHO TRUST IN YOU. He returns to the seventh plague of Egypt, which was hail mixed with fire, that is, with lightning, by which God struck the crops and harvests of the Egyptians, and thus punished them with barrenness and famine. For just as he said in verse 17 that in this plague the fire was not extinguished by the water, that is, by hail and rain, so conversely here he says that the fire did not melt the snow and ice, but both, as if laying aside their natural contrariety, entered into a pact with each other and conspired for the destruction of the Egyptians.
Hence Philo, book I of the Life of Moses: 'The hail,' he says, 'intermixed with fires, neither melted itself nor extinguished the lightning, but both were borne with the same force.' Thus snow and ice in this passage are the same as hail: for hail seems to be nothing other than frozen water or snow. Perhaps also, as rain was mixed with the hail, so too was snow, as we often see these three things occur together and descend from the sky simultaneously — because these three are born from water and soon return to water. Hence Symposius gives this riddle about ice: 'I was once a wave, which I believe I shall soon be again; now bound by the hard chains of rigid heaven, I can neither endure being trodden upon nor be held when bare.'
SO THAT THEY MIGHT KNOW — as if to say: So that the children of Israel, for whose benefit these things are related and amplified, might understand that the fruits of the Egyptians had been consumed by fire flashing amid the hail and rain. Hence, with their food taken away, the wretched Egyptians fell into great famine.
FIRE BURNING IN HAIL, AND (repeat with Dionysius the word 'in') RAIN FLASHING — for this was what was marvelous in the plague of hail: that fire burned in it, and the same flashed and blazed in the rain mixed with the hail, even though by nature fire is diametrically opposed to hail as well as to rain, and either destroys the hail or is extinguished and destroyed by it.
BUT HERE (hic), namely 'fire'; the Greek is touto, neuter, that is, 'this,' because it refers to pyr, that is, 'fire,' which in Greek is likewise neuter gender. He compares the fire by which manna was cooked with the fire mixed with hail that struck Egypt — and fittingly so, because manna was like frozen dew, and therefore in external appearance resembled grains of hail or sugar. The meaning, then, is as if to say: Just as in favor of the Hebrews You caused, O Lord, that fire conspiring with hail would destroy the crops of the Egyptians, so conversely You caused that fire, conspiring with manna — which was like hail — would not melt and consume it, but cook and solidify it, so that as bread cooked by fire it might feed the Hebrews. For manna, ground or pounded, was formed into loaves or cakes, which they baked with fire, as is clear from verse 27 and Numbers XI, 4. So manna, dew-like and constricted and frozen like hail, endured the force of fire, whether boiled in hot water, fried in a pan, or baked under ashes or in an oven into bread. Therefore at that time fire, 'so that the just might be nourished' (traphosi — others less aptly read straphosi, that is, 'might be turned'), namely the faithful Hebrews, 'even forgot its own power,' by which it normally melts and consumes hail and ice, which the manna resembled — yet the fire did not melt or consume it, but hardened and solidified it.
FOR CREATION. He gives the reason why fire did not consume the hail that struck the Egyptians, nor the manna that fed the Hebrews — namely, that fire was a creature of God, and therefore serves and obeys Him as its Creator in all things. Hence, at His command, it conspired with the ice to torment the unjust, and becoming as it were slower and gentler in the manna, it warmed and cooked it so that the Hebrews, who believed and trusted in God, might be fed by it. So says our author a Castro. He gives, he says, the general reason for two such contrary effects of the same fire, which harmed the Egyptians and benefited the Israelites: for creation, obedient to its Creator, exerts and relaxes its power according to His will, and works to afflict the unjust with punishment while preserving and treating the just with the greatest kindness. Hence from the Greek you may clearly translate word for word: 'For creation, serving You its maker, is intensified' — that is, intensified for punishment against the unjust — 'and is relaxed' — that is, relaxed for the benefit of those who trust in You.
25 and 26. THEREFORE ALSO AT THAT TIME, TRANSFIGURED INTO ALL THINGS, IT SERVED YOUR ALL-NOURISHING GRACE, ACCORDING TO THE WILL OF THOSE WHO DESIRED FROM YOU: SO THAT YOUR CHILDREN, WHOM YOU LOVED, O LORD, MIGHT KNOW THAT IT IS NOT THE FRUITS OF BIRTH THAT FEED MANKIND, BUT YOUR WORD PRESERVES THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN YOU. He repeats and emphasizes what he said about manna in verse 21 — namely, that it changed its flavor according to the desire of those eating. 'Transfigured,' namely the creature, which was mentioned before — but there by 'creature' he meant fire, while here by it he means manna cooked by fire. The Greek is metallevomene, that is, 'transformed, changed into something else, transfigured.' St. Augustine, book III On the Trinity, chapter 11, renders it 'transfiguring itself' — as if to say: For this reason, namely to show Your beneficence toward the faithful Hebrews, You caused Your creature, that is, the manna created by You, to transform and quasi-transfigure itself into all things — that is, into all forms, varieties, and kinds of flavors according to the appetite of each person eating. Because manna, like all other creatures, 'served Your all-nourishing grace (that is, beneficence and beneficent providence) according to the will of those who desired from You,' so as to exhibit to each the flavor which each one wished and desired to be provided for him in manna by God.
Morally, note here that creatures are transfigured for the just — that is, they display a different form and appearance than they display to the ungodly. For to the just they show the form and serene face of a friend and benefactor; but to the ungodly they show the form and stern face of an enemy and avenger. Thus the Red Sea saved the Hebrews and drowned the Egyptians; thus the Flood swallowed up the ungodly and preserved Noah; thus the fire that destroyed Sodom spared Lot — because creatures conform themselves to their Creator, who shows Himself benign to the devout and fierce to the ungodly.
YOUR ALL-NOURISHING GRACE — in Greek, te pantotropho sou dorea, that is, 'Your all-nourishing gift,' for which our translator renders 'grace.' For dorea means 'gift, grace, dowry, bounty.' Grace here therefore signifies God's gracious will, providence, and beneficence, or every benefit of grace proceeding from it. Hence St. Augustine, on Psalm CXLIV and in Epistle 93, teaches that there is a twofold grace: one of creation, the other of salvation — one natural, the other supernatural. See Suarez, volume I On Grace, Prologue III, chapter 2, number 2, and chapter 3, number 5, where by 'nourishing grace' he understands the gratuitous love of God, or God's charity itself, which is God's first gift toward us and the most generous, flowing from God's mercy alone. Hence the same St. Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints, chapter 15, calls grace 'God's gratuitous will, freely bestowing benefits.' Hence some render it here: 'all things served Your nourishing' (or 'fostering') kindness (for almus means 'nourishing,' from alere, 'to nourish,' says Festus; hence alma Ceres, alma parens, alma tellus — 'nourishing Ceres, nourishing mother, nourishing earth' — because it nourishes all things). For all of this is nourishment, and therefore the earth is full of God's kindness,
according to Psalm CXLIV, 16: 'You fill every living thing with blessing'; and Hosea XI, 3: 'I was like a nurse to Ephraim, I carried them in my arms, and they did not know that I healed them.' Wherefore God rightly complains of ungrateful men, Isaiah I, 2: 'I have nourished and raised up children, but they have despised Me'; and Baruch IV, 8: 'You have forgotten God who nourished you, and you have saddened your nurse, Jerusalem.'
ACCORDING TO THE WILL OF THOSE WHO DESIRED FROM YOU — namely, the Hebrews who were hungry and desirous of food. Some wrongly read 'who were desired by You,' that is, 'whom You desired and loved.' The Greek is deomenon, which can be rendered both as 'those in need' and 'those desiring': for need makes one desire, and desiring makes one pray in order to obtain, that is, to relieve one's need. Hear St. Jerome on Psalm CXLVII: 'When they ate manna, it tasted in the mouth according to the wish of each person; as if to say: If anyone ate manna and desired apples, or fish, or grapes, or bread, or meat, according to the disposition and wish of the eater, so was the flavor in the manna for him. So too in the flesh of Christ, which is the word of doctrine, that is, the interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures — as we wish, so we receive food. If you are holy, you find refreshment; if you are a sinner, you find torment.' With these last words, St. Jerome implies that only the just sensed in manna this variety of flavor at will, while the unjust only tasted the native flavor of manna, which was like oiled and honeyed bread. St. Augustine, book II of the Retractations, chapters 9 and 20, St. Gregory, book VI of the Morals, chapter 9, Abulensis, Dionysius, and others express the same view more explicitly.
But that this grace was granted to the bad as well as the good — as were also the quails, the pillar of fire, the water from the rock, etc. — is implied by the word 'each one' (uniuscujusque) in verse 21, which embraces the bad as well as the good. So holds St. Caesarius of Arles, Homily 7 On Easter, Hugo of St. Victor, Torniellus, Lorinus, and others, for the reasons I reviewed at Exodus XVI, 31. A truly divine power and goodness worthy of God, and unless it were clearly established by Sacred Scripture, utterly incredible — that God should so accommodate Himself to the innumerable multitude of men daily, indeed at every single hour and moment, as to produce in the temperament of one food a hundred different flavors, and from the most difficult harmonies of the primary qualities so often varied, produce them on the palates of the Hebrews, and generate nourishment in their stomachs and all their members.
SO THAT YOUR CHILDREN (the faithful Hebrews) MIGHT KNOW THAT IT IS NOT THE FRUITS OF BIRTH (in Greek geneseis ton karpon, that is, 'the birth or generations of fruits,' namely fruits begotten and born, or natural fruits) THAT FEED MANKIND: BUT YOUR WORD (in Greek rhema sou, that is, 'Your word,' namely Your command, Your decree) PRESERVES THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN YOU — since they saw that they had lived in the desert without bread, on heavenly manna alone, for forty years, just as Christ in a similar desert, fasting and devoting Himself to prayer, lived without bread for forty days. Therefore to the devil tempting Him and saying, Matthew IV, 3: 'Tell these stones to become bread,' He answered: 'It is written (Deuteronomy VIII, 3): Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God' — that is, by every thing that God has commanded and ordained, just as He commanded the Hebrews to be nourished by manna. For Moses speaks of manna in Deuteronomy VIII, 3.
Finally, to one who was not thinking about another flavor or food, manna exhibited the flavor of oiled bread or honeyed flour. But to one who was thinking and desiring any other flavor, it exhibited that very flavor. Therefore the virtuous, when they felt nausea creeping upon them from the native honeyed flavor of manna and consequently the urge to murmur, resisted by reflecting that they could taste anything they wished in the manna if they conceived the desire for it. But the wicked and ungrateful yielded to the nausea and therefore murmured. See what was said at Exodus XVI, 43.
27. 27. FOR WHAT COULD NOT BE DESTROYED BY FIRE IMMEDIATELY MELTED WHEN WARMED BY A FAINT RAY OF THE SUN. Cantacuzenus explains this of the plague of hail: for the hail, mixed with fire, conspired with it to devastate the crops of the Egyptians, yet the same melted under the rays of the sun. But others generally take this as referring to manna — for this whole passage is about manna — as if to say: It was a wonder, indeed a miracle, in manna that it was cooked and solidified by fire, yet melted when warmed by the rays of the sun, just as hail and ice, which manna resembled, naturally melt by the same rays. Therefore this latter effect was not a miracle — although Abulensis claims otherwise at Exodus XVI, Question 8 — but the former was: for that ice-like manna should not melt by fire, when it did melt by the sun, is certainly a miracle, since fire is hotter than the sun. See what was said at Exodus XVI, 21 and Numbers XI, 8.
28 and 29. SO THAT IT MIGHT BE KNOWN TO ALL THAT ONE MUST ANTICIPATE THE SUN TO RECEIVE YOUR BLESSING, AND WORSHIP YOU AT THE RISING OF THE LIGHT. FOR THE HOPE OF THE UNGRATEFUL WILL MELT AWAY LIKE WINTER ICE AND WILL PERISH LIKE USELESS WATER — as if to say: Because manna melted as the sun grew warm, therefore before sunrise or at sunrise it was necessary to collect it. By this God signified that we must anticipate the sun to receive God's blessing and in turn render thanksgiving to Him, and at early dawn, at the rising of the light, praise, worship, and invoke God. For whoever is lazy and ungrateful regarding this divine offering — whereby God offers grace to those who pray in the morning, just as He offered manna to the Hebrews in the morning — and hopes that after sleep and laziness he will find God's grace whenever it suits him, is deceived, just as the sleeping Hebrews were deceived when they sought manna after sunrise. For they found it melted and dissolved by the sun's rays: it melted, just as ice in winter melts and wastes away as the sun grows warm — that is, it turns to vapor and vanishes. In like manner, the hope of the ungrateful 'will perish like useless water' — that is, as the Greek has it, it will flow away like useless water.
TO RECEIVE YOUR BLESSING. 'Blessing' here is understood reciprocally — namely, both God's own beneficence, by which He gave manna to the Hebrews in the morning and gives grace to those who pray in the morning, and the blessing of the Hebrews and ours — namely, the thanksgiving by which thanks should be rendered to God by us for the manna and for all grace. So say Lucas of Bruges in his Notes here, Vatablus, Jansenius, Clarius, and others. Hence the Greek is epi eucharistian sou; and eucharistia signifies both grace and thanksgiving. Hence the Venerable Sacrament is called the Eucharist, because it contains the greatest grace — namely Christ, the source of all grace — and therefore requires the greatest thanksgiving from the good. Hence by antithesis he adds: 'For the hope of the ungrateful,' etc., where he manifestly opposes euchariston (grateful) to acharisto (ungrateful).
Moreover, by this word eucharistia, he foreshadows and alludes to the mystical manna of the new law, namely the body of Christ in the Eucharist.
AND WORSHIP YOU AT THE RISING OF THE LIGHT — the Greek is entynchanein, that is, 'to meet (God), to appeal, to pray, to intercede for matters both private and public.' As if to say: If God is so diligent as to offer us manna and His grace early in the morning, surely it befits us with similar diligence to meet God, so that we may gratefully receive His grace. The 'rising' here does not mean the position of the sky, namely the east and the eastern region of heaven. For the Hebrews prayed facing not the east, as Christians do, but looking toward the Holy of Holies, which was to the west, as St. Jerome teaches on Ezekiel chapter 8. The 'rising' here therefore means the beginning of the sun and light — namely morning and dawn. For at that time the manna had to be collected, since after sunrise it was melted by the sun's rays, so that the Hebrews might learn not to be idle but to rise early for prayer and to prepare food. For God meets and helps the diligent. For God by His right wishes to be placed before all other cares and affairs, and desires the first-fruits of the day to be dedicated to Him, so that from Him we may obtain the happy course of the entire day.
Hence St. Athanasius on Psalm V: 'It is a great glory of struggle to present oneself to God from the very bed, and to anticipate the sun in thanksgiving.' And St. Chrysostom on Psalm V, on the words 'In the morning You will hear my voice,' says: 'From the beginning of the day David was giving God the first-fruits. "One must," he says, "anticipate the sun to give You thanks, and appeal to You before the rising of the light. Yet before the emperor you would by no means allow an inferior to worship before you; but now, when the sun is rising, you yourself sleep and yield first place to a creature, and you do not anticipate every creature that was made for you, nor give thanks to it [God]. But when you rise, you wash your hands and face, yet neglect your unclean soul,"' etc.
Moses ordained the same, Deuteronomy VI, 7: 'You shall meditate on them, etc., when you lie down and when you rise up' — where I gathered more on this topic. Be therefore, O Christian, O priest, O religious, a nightingale of the dawn; indeed 'be a nocturnal cicada,' as St. Jerome writes and prescribes to Eustochium. For just as birds sing at dawn, and the nightingale with its melody anticipates the sun and, as it were, invites and greets it as it comes, so likewise the faithful ought to greet the Sun of Justice with their hymns and prayers in the morning. The Essenes and the first Christians did this, who, as Pliny attests, sang pre-dawn hymns to Christ. Indeed, the Jews daily offered the perpetual sacrifice in the morning, just as the faithful even now say or hear the sacrifice of the Mass in the morning.
Moreover, for this reason Christians pray not only in the morning at dawn, at sunrise, but also turned toward the east, or toward the eastern region of the world. And they do this according to apostolic tradition, as St. Basil says in On the Holy Spirit, chapter 27; Athanasius, or rather Anastasius of Nicaea, in his Questions on Sacred Scripture, Question 18; and others. First, so that they may acknowledge the benefit of the sun, which by rising brings light, cheerfulness, warmth, life, and fruitfulness to men and to the whole world, and give thanks to God. Second, because the east is the nobler part of the world: for from the east arise light and the sun, which is a symbol and hieroglyph of God. Hence 'orient' is also taken for 'light.' This reason is given by St. Justin, Book of Questions, Question 118; St. Dionysius, On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, Part II, chapter 2; and St. Cyril, Mystagogical Catechesis I.
Since, therefore, the east was regarded as a kind of light, and the west was a hieroglyph of darkness, from this also there was an ancient observance in the Church that one about to be initiated into baptism, intending first to renounce the devil, was positioned facing the west, and so positioned, three times pronounced the words of renunciation. Then afterward, about to profess Christ the Lord, turned toward the east, he did the same an equal number of times. And not only St. Dionysius but also Cyril attests to this. Third, because paradise, from which we were expelled in Adam and for which we long, was situated in the east. So says Damascene, book IV On the Faith, chapter 13; St. Cyril at the place already cited; and St. Basil and Nyssen, cited by Moses Bar Cepha, Book on Paradise, Part I, chapter 14.
Fourth, because Christ crucified was facing the west, for His back was turned to Jerusalem and the east, while His face was turned toward the west — namely toward Rome and Europe. Therefore when we pray facing the east, we look upon Christ crucified and go to meet Him. Again, Christ ascending to heaven was carried toward the east, and there was worshipped by the disciples, and from there He will come for the judgment, just as the apostles saw Him ascending there into heaven, according to Zechariah XIV, 4: 'His feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem toward the east.' And Psalm CXXXI, 7: 'We will worship in the place where His feet stood.' Hence Christ Himself is called 'the Orient' (the Rising One), Zechariah VI, 12. All these reasons St. Athanasius gives in the Questions to Antioch, Question 37, but especially the first: 'We worship toward the east,' he says, 'because God is the true light, and for this reason, turned toward the created light, we worship not that created light but the Creator of that light, and from the most splendid of all elements we venerate God, the most splendid Creator of all elements.'
Note, however, that these Questions are not by St. Athanasius of Alexandria: for in Question 23 the author cites St. Athanasius of Alexandria, and in Question 129 he cites St. Gregory Nazianzen, who was later than St. Athanasius. Indeed, in the same work St. Chrysostom, the Ladder of John Climacus, Maximus, and Nicephorus are cited. Hence it is clear that the author was of a much later age, as Bellarmine, Sixtus of Siena, Possevinus, and other ecclesiastical writers rightly note.
Moreover, from this practice of praying toward the east, it happened that some uneducated Christians and the Priscillianist heretics worshipped the rising sun. Rebuking them, St. Leo, Sermon 7 On the Nativity, says: 'From such practices (namely of the Priscillianists) that impiety also arises, that the sun, rising at the beginning of daylight, is worshipped by certain less wise persons from elevated places. Some Christians think they do this so religiously that before they reach the Basilica of the Blessed Apostle Peter, which is dedicated to the one true and living God, having climbed the steps by which one ascends to the platform of the upper area, with body turned they bend toward the rising sun and, with necks bowed, incline in honor of the shining orb. We greatly grieve and lament that this is done partly through the fault of ignorance, partly through the spirit of paganism — because even if some perhaps venerate the Creator of the beautiful light rather than the light itself, which is a creature, one must nevertheless abstain from this kind of observance.' He says this so that the faithful would have nothing in common with the Priscillianists and pagans. See Baronius, volume I, year of Christ 58, number 86.
Moreover, the pagans were accustomed to announce the first hour to the gods, as if morning and first greetings were most pleasing to them. They also thronged the doors of princes in the morning, so as to go out to meet those departing and wish them well, as our Pineda shows with many examples in his commentary on Job, chapter 31, verse 36, number 9.
FOR THE HOPE OF THE UNGRATEFUL WILL MELT AWAY LIKE WINTER ICE. St. Thomas, II-II, Question 107, article 4, notes that this maxim signifies what the ungrateful person deserves to suffer, and what often befalls him by God's just judgment — namely, that on account of ingratitude for the prior benefit, he is deprived of the subsequent one he hopes for, and his hope is frustrated. For otherwise, he says, it is the part of a faithful and generous man to do good even to the ungrateful, unless through the benefits the person would become worse and more ungrateful: for then, to avoid this evil, one must cease from the benefit.
He proves this by the example of God, who does good to the ungrateful continually, 'making His sun rise on the good and the bad, and raining on the just and the unjust' (Luke VI and Matthew VI). He confirms it also by reason, because, he says, the faithful person should aim to make the ungrateful grateful: and if he cannot do so by the first benefit, perhaps he will by the second, third, or fourth. And he cites Seneca, book On Benefits, chapter 7, who also in chapter 5 assigns the cause of ingratitude — which the Wise Man touches on here — saying: 'He gives least to memory, whoever gives most to hope' — as if to say: The ungrateful are forgetful of past benefits because they are entirely filled with hope for future ones. For since they are wholly panting and gaping for new gifts, which they pursue and hope for, they therefore forget past ones.