Joshua Chapter I

Divine Promise of Assistance.1After Moses, the servant of the Lord, had died, the Lord said to Moses’ aide Joshua, son of Nun:2* Moses my servant is dead. So now, you and the whole people with you, prepare to cross the Jordan to the land that I will give the Israelites.3a Every place where you set foot I have given you, as I promised Moses.4* All the land of the Hittites, from the wilderness and the Lebanon east to the great river Euphrates and west to the Great Sea, will be your territory.b5No one can withstand you as long as you live. As I was with Moses, I will be with you:c I will not leave you nor forsake you.6Be strong and steadfast, so that you may give this people possession of the land I swore to their ancestors that I would give them.7d Only be strong and steadfast, being careful to observe the entire law which Moses my servant enjoined on you. Do not swerve from it either to the right or to the left, that you may succeed wherever you go.8Do not let this book of the law depart from your lips. Recite it by day and by night,e that you may carefully observe all that is written in it; then you will attain your goal; then you will succeed.9I command you: be strong and steadfast! Do not fear nor be dismayed, for the Lord, your God, is with you wherever you go.

10f So Joshua commanded the officers of the people:11“Go through the camp and command the people, ‘Prepare your provisions, for three days from now you shall cross the Jordan here, to march in and possess the land the Lord, your God, is giving as your possession.

The Book of Joshua (Hebrew: סֵפֶר יְהוֹשֻׁעַ‎ Sefer Yəhōšūaʿ, Tiberian: Sēp̄er Yŏhōšūaʿ) is the sixth book in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament, and is the first book of the Deuteronomistic history, the story of Israel from the conquest of Canaan to the Babylonian exile.: 42  It tells of the campaigns of the Israelites in central, southern and northern Canaan, the destruction of their enemies, and the division of the land among the Twelve Tribes, framed by two set-piece speeches, the first by God commanding the conquest of the land, and, at the end, the second by Joshua warning of the need for faithful observance of the Law (torah) revealed to Moses.

The book of joshua holds little historical value for early israel and most likely reflects a much later period. the earliest parts of the book are possibly chapters 2–11, the story of the conquest; these chapters were later incorporated into an early form of joshua likely written late in the reign of king josiah (reigned 640–609 bce), but the book was not completed until after the fall of jerusalem to the neo-babylonian empire in 586 bce, and possibly not until after the return from the babylonian exile in 539 bce.

I. Transfer of leadership to Joshua (1:1–18)

A. God\’s commission to Joshua (1:1–9)
B. Joshua\’s instructions to the people (1:10–18)
II. Entrance into and conquest of Canaan (2:1–12:24)
A. Entry into Canaan
1.Reconnaissance of Jericho (2:1–24)

  1. Crossing the River Jordan (3:1–17)
  2. Establishing a foothold at Gilgal (4:1–5:1)
  3. Circumcision and Passover (5:2–15)
    B. Victory over Canaan (6:1–12:24)
  4. Destruction of Jericho (6)
  5. Failure and success at Ai (7:1–8:29)
  6. Renewal of the covenant at Mount Ebal (8:30–35)
  7. Other campaigns in central Canaan. The Gibeonite Deception (9:1–27)
  8. Campaigns in southern Canaan (10:1–43)
  9. Campaigns in northern Canaan (11:1–15)
  10. Summary of lands conquered (11:16–23)
  11. Summary list of defeated kings (12:1–24)
    III. Division of the land among the tribes (13:1–22:34)
    A. God\’s instructions to Joshua (13:1–7)
    B. Tribal allotments (13:8–19:51)
  12. Eastern tribes (13:8–33)
  13. Western tribes (14:1–19:51)
    C. Cities of refuge and levitical cities (20:1–21:42)
    D. Summary of conquest (21:43–45)
    E. De-commissioning of the eastern tribes (22:1–34)
    IV. Conclusion (23:1–24:33)
    A. Joshua\’s farewell address (23:1–16)
    B. Covenant at Shechem (24:1–28)
    C. Deaths of Joshua and Eleazar; burial of Joseph\’s bones (24:29–33)



1 The Parentage of Mary. Joachim her father, and Anna her mother, go to Jerusalem to the feast of the dedication.
Issachar, the high priest, reproaches Joachim for being childless.
THE blessed and ever glorious Virgin Mary, sprung from the royal race and family of David, was born in the city of Nazareth, and educated at Jerusalem, in the temple of the Lord.
2 Her father\’s name was Joachim, and her mother\’s Anna. The family of her father was of Galilee and the city of Nazareth. The family of her mother was of Bethlehem.
3 Their lives were plain and right in the sight of the Lord, pious and faultless before men; for they divided all their substance into three parts;
4 One of which they devoted to the temple and officers of the temple; another they distributed among strangers, and persons in poor circumstances; and the third they reserved for themselves and the uses of their own family.

5 In this manner they lived for about twenty years chastely, in the favour of God, and the esteem of men, without any children.
6 But they vowed, if God should favour them with any issue, they would devote it to the service of the Lord; on which account they went at every feast in the year to the temple of the Lord.
7 And it came to pass, that when the feast of the dedication drew near, Joachim, with some others of his tribe, went up to Jerusalem, and at that time, Isachar was high−priest;
8 Who, when he saw Joachim along with the rest of his neighbours, bringing his offerings, despised both him and his offerings, and asked him,
9 Why he, who had no children, would presume to appear among those who had? Adding, that his offerings could never be acceptable to God, who was judged by him unworthy to have children; the Scripture having said, Cursed is every one who shall not beget a male in Israel.
10 He further said, that he ought first to be free from that curse by begetting some issue, and then come with his offerings into the presence of God.
11 But Joachim being much confounded with the shame of such reproach, retired to the shepherds who were with the cattle in their pastures;
12 For he was not inclined to return home, lest his neighbours, who were present and heard all this from the high−priest, should publicly reproach him in the same manner.
1 An angel appears to Joachim, 9 and informs him that Anna shall conceive and bring forth a daughter, who shall be called Mary, 11 be brought up in the temple, 12 and while yet a virgin, in a way unparalleled, bring forth the Son of God: 13 Gives him a sign, 14 and departs.


BUT when he had been there for some time, on a certain day when he was alone, the angel of the Lord stood by him with a prodigious light.
2 To whom, being troubled at the appearance, the angel who had appeared to him, endeavouring to compose him, said:
3 Be not afraid, Joachim, nor troubled at the sight of me, for I am an angel of the Lord sent by him to you, that I might inform you that your prayers are heard, and your alms ascended in the sight of God.
4 For he hath surely seen your shame, and heard you unjustly reproached for not having children: for God is the avenger of sin, and not of nature;
5 And so when he shuts the womb of any person, he does it for this reason, that he may in a more wonderful manner again open it, and that which is born appear to be not the product of lust, but the gift of God.
6 For the first mother of your nation, Sarah, was she not barren even till her eightieth year: and yet even in the end of her old age brought forth Isaac, in whom the promise was made of a blessing to all nations.
7 Rachel, also, so much in favour with God, and beloved so much by holy Jacob, continued barren for a long time, yet afterwards was the mother of Joseph, who was not only governor of Egypt, but delivered many nations from perishing with hunger.
8 Who among the judges was more valiant than Sampson, or more holy than Samuel? And yet both their mothers were barren.
9 But if reason will not convince you of the truth of my words, that there are frequent conceptions in advanced years, and that those who were barren have brought forth to their great surprise; therefore Anna your wife shall bring you a daughter, and you shall call her name Mary;
10 She shall, according to your vow, be devoted to the Lord from her infancy, and be filled with the Holy Ghost from her mother\’s womb;

11 She shall neither eat nor drink any thing which is unclean, nor shall her conversation be without among the common people, but in the temple of the Lord; that so she may not fall under any slander or suspicion of what is bad.
12 So in the process of her years, as she shall be in a miraculous manner born of one that was barren, so she shall, while yet a virgin, in a way unparalleled, bring forth the Son of the most High God, who shall, be called Jesus, and, according to the signification of his name, be the Saviour of all nations.
13 And this shall be a sign to you of the things which I declare, namely, when you come to the golden gate of Jerusalem, you shall there meet your wife Anna, who being very much troubled that you returned no sooner, shall then rejoice to see you.
14 When the angel had said this, he departed from him.
1 The angel appears to Anna; 2 tells her a daughter shall be born unto her, 3 devoted to the service of the Lord in the temple, 5, who, being a virgin, and not knowing man, shall bring forth the Lord, 6 and gives her a sign therefore. 8 Joachim and Anna meet, and rejoice, 10 and praise the Lord. 11 Anna conceives, and brings forth a daughter called Mary.
AFTERWARDS the angel appeared to Anna his wife, saying; Fear not, neither think that which you see is a spirit;
2 For I am that angel who hath offered up your prayers and alms before God, and am now sent to you, that I may inform you, that a daughter will be born unto you, who shall be called Mary, and shall be blessed above all women.
3 She shall be, immediately upon her birth, full of the grace of the Lord, and shall continue during the three years of her weaning in her father\’s

house, and afterwards, being devoted to the service of the Lord, shall not depart from the temple, till she arrive to years of discretion.
4 In a word, she shall there serve the Lord night and day in fasting and prayer, shall abstain from every unclean thing, and never know any man;
5 But, being an unparalleled instance without any pollution or defilement, and a virgin not knowing any man, shall ring forth a son, and a maid shall bring forth the Lord, who both by his grace and name and works, shall be the Saviour of the world.
6 Arise therefore, and go up to Jerusalem, and when you shall come to that which is called the golden gate (because it is gilt with gold), as a sign of what I have told you, you shall meet your husband, for whose safety you have been so much concerned.
7 When therefore you find these things thus accomplished, believe that all the rest which I have told you, shall also undoubtedly be accomplished.
8 According therefore to the command of the angel, both of them left the places where they were, and when they came to the place specified in the angels prediction, they met each other.
9 Then, rejoicing at each other\’s vision, and being fully satisfied in the promise of a child, they gave due thanks to the Lord, who exalts the humble.
10 After having praised the Lord, they returned home, and lived in a cheerful and assured expectation of the promise of God.
11 So Anna conceived, and brought forth a daughter, and, according to the angel\’s command, the parents did call her name Mary.

1 Mary brought to the temple at three years old. 6 Ascends the stairs of the temple by miracle. 8 Her parents sacrifice and return home.
AND when three years were expired, and the time of her weaning complete, they brought the Virgin to the temple of the Lord with offerings.
2 And there were about the temple, according to the fifteen Psalms of degrees, fifteen stairs to ascend.
3 For the temple being built in a mountain, the altar of burnt− offering, which was without, could not be come near but by stairs;
4 The parents of the blessed Virgin and infant Mary put her upon one of these stairs;
5 But while they were putting off their clothes, in which they had travelled, and according to custom putting on some that were more neat and clean,
6 In the mean time the Virgin of the Lord in such a manner went up all the stairs one after another, without the help of any to lead her or lift her, that any one would have judged from hence, that she was of perfect age.
7 Thus the Lord did, in the infancy of his Virgin, work this extraordinary work, and evidence by this miracle how great she was like to be hereafter.
8 But the parents having offered up their sacrifice, according to the custom of the law, and perfected their vow, left the Virgin with other virgins in the apartments of the temple, who were to be brought up there, and they returned home.
2 Mary ministered unto by angels. 4 The high priest orders all virgins of

fourteen years old to quit the temple and endeavour to be married. 5 Mary refuses, 6 having vowed her virginity to the Lord. 7 The high−priest commands a meeting of the chief persons of Jerusalem, 11 who seek the Lord for counsel in the matter. 13 A voice from the mercy−seat. 15 The high−priest obeys it by ordering all the unmarried men of the house of David to bring their rods to the altar, 17 that his rod which should flower, and on which the Spirit of God should sit, should betroth the Virgin.
BUT the Virgin of the Lord, as she advanced in years, increased also in perfections, and according to the saying of the Psalmist, her father and mother forsook her, but the Lord took care of her.
2 For she every day had the conversation of angels, and every day received visitors from God, which preserved her from all sorts of evil, and caused her to abound with all good things;
3 So that when at length she arrived to her fourteenth year, as the wicked could not lay any thing to her charge worthy of reproof, so all good persons, who were acquainted with her, admired her life and conversation.
4 At that time the high−priest made a public order, That all the virgins who had public settlements in the temple, and were come to this age, should return home, and, as they were now of a proper maturity, should, according to the custom of their country, endeavour to be married.
5 To which command, though all the other virgins readily yielded obedience, Mary the Virgin of the Lord alone answered, that she could not comply with it,
6 Assigning these reasons, that both she and her parents had devoted her to the service of the Lord; and besides, that she had vowed virginity to the Lord, which vow she was resolved never to break through by lying with a man.
7 The high−priest being hereby brought into a difficulty,

8 Seeing he durst neither on the one hand dissolve the vow, and disobey the Scripture, which says, Vow and pay,
9 Nor on the other hand introduce a custom, to which the people were strangers, commanded,
10 That at the approaching feast all the principal persons both of Jerusalem and the neighbouring places should meet together, that he might have their advice, how he had best proceed in so difficult a case.
11 When they were accordingly met, they unanimously agreed to seek the Lord, and ask counsel from him on this matter.
12 And when they were all engaged in prayer, the high−priest according to the usual way, went to consult God.
13 And immediately there was a voice from the ark, and the mercy seat, which all present heard, that it must be enquired or sought out by a prophecy of Isaiah, to whom the Virgin should be given and be betrothed;
14 For Isaiah saith, there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a flower shall spring out of its root,
15 And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the Spirit of Wisdom and Understanding, the Spirit of Counsel and Might, the Spirit of Knowledge and Piety, and the Spirit of the fear of the Lord shall fill him.
16 Then, according to this prophecy, he appointed, that all the men of the house and family of David, who were marriageable, and not married, should bring their several rods to the altar,
17 And out of whatsoever person\’s rod after it was brought, a flower should bud forth, and on the top of it the Spirit of the Lord should sit in the appearance of a dove, he should be the man to whom the Virgin should be given and be betrothed.

1 Joseph draws back his rod. 5 The dove pitches on it. He betroths Mary and returns to Bethlehem. 7 Mary returns to her parents\’ house at Galilee.
AMONG the rest there was a man named Joseph of the house and family of David, and a person very far advanced in years, who kept back his rod, when every one besides presented his.
2 So that when nothing appeared agreeable to the heavenly voice, the high−priest judged it proper to consult God again.
3 Who answered that he to whom the Virgin was to be betrothed was the only person of those who were brought together, who had not brought his rod.
4 Joseph therefore was betrayed.
5 For, when he did bring his rod, and a dove coming from Heaven pitched upon the top of it, every one plainly saw, that the Virgin was to be betrothed to him.
6 Accordingly, the usual ceremonies of betrothing being over, he returned to his own city of Bethlehem, to set his house in order, and make the needful provisions for the marriage.
7 But the Virgin of the Lord, Mary, with seven other virgins of the same age, who had been weaned at the same time, and who had been appointed to attend her by the priest, returned to her parents\’ house in Galilee.


For not thinking rightly they said among themselves. Brief and troubled is our lifetime there is no remedy for our dying nor is anyone known to have come back from Hades.

For by mere chance were we born
and hereafter we shall be as though we had not been.

Because the breath in our nostrils is smoke and reason a spark from the beating of our hearts. And when this is quenched our body will be ashes and our spirit will be poured abroad like empty air.

Even our name will be forgotten in time and no one will recall our deeds
So our life will pass away like the traces of a cloud and will be dispersed like a mist.

Pursued by the sun’s rays
and overpowered by its heat
For our lifetime is the passing of a shadow.

Land our dying cannot be deferred
because it is fixed with a seal and no one returns.

With violence and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience
Let us condemn him to a shameful death for according to his own words God will take care of him.

Come therefore let us enjoy the good things that are here and make use of creation with youthful zest.

Let us have our fill of costly wine and perfumes and let no springtime blossom pass us by let us crown ourselves with rosebuds before they wither.

Let no meadow be free from our wantonness everywhere let us leave tokens of our merriment for this is our portion and this our lot.

Let us oppress the righteous poor
let us neither spare the widow
nor revere the aged for hair grown white with time

But let our strength be our norm of righteousness for weakness proves itself useless

Let us lie in wait for the righteous one because he is annoying to us
he opposes our actions
Reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training

He professes to have knowledge of God
and styles himself a child of the LORD
To us he is the censure of our thoughts
merely to see him is a hardship for us
Because his life is not like that of others
and different are his ways

He judges us debased he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the righteous and boasts that God is his Father.

Let us see whether his words be true
let us find out what will happen to him in the end.

For if the righteous one is the son of God God will help him
and deliver him from the hand of his foes.

These were their thoughts but they erred for their wickedness blinded them. And they did not know the hidden counsels of God neither did they count on a recompense for holiness nor discern the innocent souls reward

For God formed us to be imperishable
the image of his own nature he made us
But by the envy of the devil death entered the world
and they who are allied with him experience it

GENESIS VI [Vulgate Bible]


English Translation

1 And when men had begun to multiply upon the earth, and had brought forth daughters,
2 When the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, they took for themselves wives of all whom they had chosen.
3 And God said: My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, because he is flesh: and his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.
4 And there were giants upon the earth in those days: for after the sons of God had gone in unto the daughters of men, and they had borne them, these are mighty men of renown for ever.
5 And God seeing that there was much wickedness among men in the earth, and that every thought of the heart was intent on evil at all times,
6 He repented of what he had done to men on earth. And touched by the inner pain of the heart,
7 I will wipe out, says he, the man whom I have created, from the face of the earth, from man to the animals, from the reptiles to the birds of the sky: for he repents that I have made them.
8 But Noah found favor before the Lord.
9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just and perfect man in his generations; he walked with God.
10 And he begat three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth.
11 Now the earth is corrupt before God, and is filled with iniquity.
12 And when God saw that the earth was corrupt (for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth),
13 He said to Noah: The end of all flesh has come before me: the earth is filled with iniquity from their presence, and I will scatter them with the earth.
14 Make yourself an ark of hewn wood; You shall make the little houses in the ark, and line them with bitumen inside and outside.
15 And you shall make it thus: the length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits.
16 You shall make a window in the ark, and you shall finish the top of it in a cubit; below, the upper room and the sad faces in it.
17 Behold, I will bring the waters of the flood upon the earth, that I may slay all flesh in whom is the spirit of life under heaven: all that are on the earth shall be consumed.
18 And I will make my covenant with thee: and thou shalt enter into the ark, thou and thy sons, thy wife, and the wives of thy sons with thee.
19 And of all living creatures of all flesh you shall bring two into the ark, that they may live with you: male and female.
20 Of fowls according to their kind, and of beasts according to their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth according to its kind: two of all shall go in with thee, that they may live.
21 You shall therefore take with you all the food that can be eaten, and you shall carry it with you: and it shall be for you as well as for food for them.
22 So Noah did all that God commanded him.


Vulgate (Latin): Genesis Chapter 6

1 Cumque cœpissent homines multiplicari super terram, et filias procreassent,
2 videntes filii Dei filias hominum quod essent pulchræ, acceperunt sibi uxores ex omnibus, quas elegerant.
3 Dixitque Deus: Non permanebit spiritus meus in homine in æternum, quia caro est: eruntque dies illius centum viginti annorum.
4 Gigantes autem erant super terram in diebus illis: postquam enim ingressi sunt filii Dei ad filias hominum, illæque genuerunt, isti sunt potentes a sæculo viri famosi.
5 Videns autem Deus quod multa malitia hominum esset in terra, et cuncta cogitatio cordis intenta esset ad malum omni tempore,
6 pœnituit eum quod hominum fecisset in terra. Et tactus dolore cordis intrinsecus,
7 Delebo, inquit, hominem, quem creavi, a facie terræ, ab homine usque ad animantia, a reptili usque ad volucres cæli: pœnitet enim me fecisse eos.
8 Noë vero invenit gratiam coram Domino.
9 Hæ sunt generationes Noë: Noë vir justus atque perfectus fuit in generationibus suis; cum Deo ambulavit.
10 Et genuit tres filios, Sem, Cham et Japheth.
11 Corrupta est autem terra coram Deo, et repleta est iniquitate.
12 Cumque vidisset Deus terram esse corruptam (omnis quippe caro corruperat viam suam super terram),
13 dixit ad Noë: Finis universæ carnis venit coram me: repleta est terra iniquitate a facie eorum, et ego disperdam eos cum terra.
14 Fac tibi arcam de lignis lævigatis; mansiunculas in arca facies, et bitumine linies intrinsecus et extrinsecus.
15 Et sic facies eam: trecentorum cubitorum erit longitudo arcæ, quinquaginta cubitorum latitudo, et triginta cubitorum altitudo illius.
16 Fenestram in arca facies, et in cubito consummabis summitatem ejus: ostium autem arcæ pones ex latere; deorsum, cœnacula et tristega facies in ea.
17 Ecce ego adducam aquas diluvii super terram, ut interficiam omnem carnem, in qua spiritus vitæ est subter cælum: universa quæ in terra sunt, consumentur.
18 Ponamque fœdus meum tecum: et ingredieris arcam tu et filii tui, uxor tua, et uxores filiorum tuorum tecum.
19 Et ex cunctis animantibus universæ carnis bina induces in arcam, ut vivant tecum: masculini sexus et feminini.
20 De volucribus juxta genus suum, et de jumentis in genere suo, et ex omni reptili terræ secundum genus suum: bina de omnibus ingredientur tecum, ut possint vivere.
21 Tolles igitur tecum ex omnibus escis, quæ mandi possunt, et comportabis apud te: et erunt tam tibi, quam illis in cibum.
22 Fecit igitur Noë omnia quæ præceperat illi Deus.


God can be known.

It is the clear doctrine of the Scriptures that God can be known. Our Lord teaches that eternal life consists in the knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ, whom He hath sent. The Psalmist says, “In Judah is God known” (Ps. lxxvi. 1). Isaiah predicts, that “the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord” (Is. xi. 9). Paul says even of the heathen, that they knew God, but did not like to retain that knowledge (Rom. i. 19, 20, 21, 28).

A. State of the Question.
It is, however, important distinctly to understand what is meant when it is said, God can be known.

  1. This does not mean that we can know all that is true concerning God. There were some among the ancient philosophers who taught that the nature of God can be as fully understood and determined as any other object of knowledge. The modern speculative school teaches the same doctrine. Among the propositions laid down by Spinoza, we find the following: “Cognitio æternæ et infinitæ essentiæ Dei, quam unaquæque idea involvit, est adæquata et perfecta.”Ethices, ii. prop. xlvi. edit. Jena, 1803, vol. ii. p. 119. Hegel says, that God is, only so far as He is known. The sin against the Holy Ghost, according to Hegel, is to deny that He can be known.See Mansel’s Limits of Religious Thought, Boston, 1859, p. 301. Cousin holds the same doctrine. “God in fact,” he says, “exists to us only in so far as He is known.”Sir William Hamilton’s Discussions, p. 16. Princeton Review on Cousin’s Philosophy, 1856.
    According to Schelling, God is known in his own nature by direct intuition of the higher reason. He assumes that there is in man a power which transcends the limits of the ordinary consciousness (an Anschauungs Vermögen), which takes immediate cognizance of the Infinite. Hegel says that “Man knows God only so far as God knows Himself in man; this knowledge is God’s self-consciousness, but likewise a knowledge of the same by man, and this knowledge of God by man is the knowledge of man by God.”Werke, xii. p. 496, edit. Berlin, 1840. Cousin finds this knowledge in the common consciousness of men. That consciousness includes the knowledge of the Infinite as well as of the finite. We know the one just as we know the other, and we cannot know the one without knowing the other. These philosophers all admit that we could not thus know God unless we were ourselves God. Self-knowledge, with them, is the knowledge of God. Reason in man, according to Cousin, does not belong to his individuality. It is infinite, impersonal, and divine. Our knowledge of God, therefore, is only God knowing Himself. Of course it is in no such sense as this that the Scriptures and the Church teach that God can be known.
    God Inconceivable.
  2. It is not held that God, properly speaking, can be conceived of; that is, we cannot form a mental image of God. “All conception,” says Mr. Mansel,Prolegomena Logica, edit. Boston, 1860, p. 34. “implies imagination.” To have a valid conception of a horse, he adds, we must be able “to combine” the attributes which form “the definition of the animal” into “a representative image.” Conception is defined by Taylor in the same manner, as “the forming or bringing an image or idea into the mind by an effort of the will.” In this sense of the word it must be admitted that the Infinite is not an object of knowledge. We cannot form an image of infinite space, or of infinite duration, or of an infinite whole. To form an image is to limit, to circumscribe. But the infinite is that which is incapable of limitation. It is admitted, therefore, that the infinite God is inconceivable. We can form no representative image of Him in our minds. The word, however, is often, and perhaps commonly, used in a less restricted sense. To conceive is to think. A conception is therefore a thought and not necessarily an image. To say, therefore, that God is conceivable, in common language, is merely to say that He is thinkable. That is, that the thought (or idea) of God involves no contradiction or impossibility. We cannot think of a round square, or that a part is equal to the whole. But we can think that God is infinite and eternal.
    God Incomprehensible.
  3. When it is said that God can be known, it is not meant that He can be comprehended. To comprehend is to have a complete and exhaustive knowledge of an object. It is to understand its nature and its relations. We cannot comprehend force, and specially vital force. We see its effect, but we cannot understand its nature or the mode in which it acts. It would be strange that we should know more of God than of ourselves, or of the most familiar objects of sense. God is past finding out. We cannot understand the Almighty unto perfection. To comprehend is (1.) To know the essence as well as the attributes of an object. (2.) It is to know not some only, but all of its attributes. (3.) To know the relation in which these attributes stand to each other and to the substance to which they belong. (4.) To know the relation in which the object known stands to all other objects. Such knowledge is clearly impossible in a creature, either of itself or of anything out of itself. It is, however, substantially thus that the transcendentalists claim to know God.
    Our Knowledge of God Partial.
  4. It is included in what has been said, that our knowledge of God is partial and inadequate. There is infinitely more in God than we have any idea of; and what we do know, we know imperfectly. We know that God knows; but there is much in his mode of knowing, and in its relation to its objects, which we cannot understand. We know that He acts; but we do not know how He acts, or the relation which his activity bears to time, or things out of Himself. We know that He feels; that He loves, pities, is merciful, is gracious; that He hates sin. But this emotional element of the divine nature is covered with an obscurity as great, but no greater, than that which rests over his thoughts or purposes. Here again our ignorance, or rather, the limitation of our knowledge concerning God, finds a parallel in our ignorance of ourself. There are potentialities in our nature of which, in our present state of existence, we have no idea. And even as to what we are now, we know but little. We know that we perceive, think, and act; we do not know how. It is perfectly inscrutable to us how the mind takes cognizance of matter; how the soul acts on the body, or the body on the mind. But because our knowledge of ourselves is thus partial and imperfect, no sane man would assert that we have no self-knowledge.
    The common doctrine on this subject is clearly expressed by Des Cartes:Epistolæ, I., cx., edit. Amsterdam, 1682. “Sciri potest, Deum esse infinitum et omnipotentem, quanquam anima nostra, utpote finita, id nequeat comprehendere sive concipere; eodem nimirum modo, quo montem manibus tangere possumus, sed non ut arborem, aut aliam quampiam rem brachiis nostris non majorem amplecti: comprehendere enim est cogitatione complecti; ad hoc autem, ut sciamus aliquid, sufficit, ut illud cogitatione attingamus.”
    Even SpinozaEpistola, lx., vol. i. p. 659, edit. Jena, 1802. says: “Ad quæstionem tuam, an de Deo tam claram, quam de triangulo habeam ideam, respondeo affirmando. Non dico, me Deum omnino cognoscere; sed me quædam ejus attributa, non autem omnia, neque maximam intelligere partem, et certum est, plurimorum ignorantiam, quorundam eorum habere notitiam, non impedire. Quum Euclidis elementa addiscerem, primo tres trianguli angulos duobus rectis æquari intelligebam; hancque trianguli proprietatem clare percipiebam, licet multarum aliarum ignarus essem.”
    While, therefore, it is admitted not only that the infinite God is incomprehensible, and that our knowledge of Him is both partial and imperfect; that there is much in God which we do not know at all, and that what we do know, we know very imperfectly; nevertheless our knowledge, as far as it goes, is true knowledge. God really is what we believe Him to be, so far as our idea of Him is determined by the revelation which He has made of Himself in his works, in the constitution of our nature, in his word, and in the person of his Son. To know is simply to have such apprehensions of an object as conform to what that object really is. We know what the word Spirit means. We know what the words infinite, eternal, and immutable, mean. And, therefore, the sublime proposition, pregnant with more truth than was ever compressed in any other sentence, “God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and immutable,” conveys to the mind as distinct an idea, and as true (i.e., trustworthy) knowledge, as the proposition “The human soul is a finite spirit.” In this sense God is an object of knowledge. He is not the unknown God, because He is infinite. Knowledge in Him does not cease to be knowledge because it is omniscience; power does not cease to be power because it is omnipotence; any more than space ceases to be space because it is infinite.
    B. How do we know God?
    How does the mind proceed in forming its idea of God? The older theologians answered this question by saying that it is by the way of negation, by the way of eminence, and by the way of causality. That is, we deny to God any limitation; we ascribe to Him every excellence in the highest degree; and we refer to Him as the great First Cause every attribute manifested in his works. We are the children of God, and, therefore, we are like Him. We are, therefore, authorized to ascribe to Him all the attributes of our own nature as rational creatures, without limitation, and to an infinite degree. If we are like God, God is like us. This is the fundamental principle of all religion. This is the principle which Paul assumed in his address to the Athenians (Acts xvii. 29): “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.” For the same reason we ought not to think that He is simple being, or a mere abstraction, a name for the moral order of the universe, or the unknown and unknowable cause of all things, — mere inscrutable force. If we are his children, He is our Father, whose image we bear, and of whose nature we partake. This, in the proper sense of the word, is Anthropomorphism, a word much abused, and often used in a bad sense to express the idea that God is altogether such a one as ourselves, a being of like limitations and passions. In the sense, however, just explained, it expresses the doctrine of the Church and of the great mass of mankind. Jacobi“Von den göttlichen Dingen,” Werke, iii. pp. 422, 423, edit. Leipzig, 1816. well says: “We confess, therefore, to an Anthropomorphism inseparable from the conviction that man bears the image of God; and maintain that besides this Anthropomorphism, which has always been called Theism, is nothing but atheism or fetichism.”
    C. Proof that this Method is Trustworthy.
    That this method of forming an idea of God is trustworthy, is proved, —
  5. Because it is a law of nature. Even in the lowest form of fetichism the life of the worshipper is assumed to belong to the object which he worships. The power dreaded is assumed to possess attributes like our own. In like manner under all the forms of polytheism, the gods of the people have been intelligent personal agents. It is only in the schools of philosophy that we find a different method of forming an idea of the Godhead. They have substituted τὸ ὃν for ὁ ὢν, τὸ θεῖον for ὁ Θεός, τὸ ἀγαθόν for ὁ ἀγαθός. It is here as with regard to the knowledge of the external world. The mass of mankind believe that things are what they perceive them to be. This philosophers deny. They affirm that we do not perceive the things themselves, but certain ideas, species, or images of the things; that we have, and can have, no knowledge of what the things themselves really are. So they say we can have no knowledge of what God is; we only know that we are led to think of Him in a certain way, but we are not only not authorized to believe that our idea corresponds to the reality, but, say they, it is certain that God is not what we take Him to be. As the people are right in the one case, so are they in the other. In other words, our conviction that God is what He has revealed Himself to be, rests on the same foundation as our conviction that the external world is what we take it to be. That foundation is the veracity of consciousness, or the trustworthiness of the laws of belief which God has impressed upon our nature. “Invincibility of belief,” according to Sir William Hamilton, “is convertible with the truth of belief,”Philosophy, edit. Wight, New York, 1854, p. 233. although, unhappily, on this subject, he did not adhere to his own principle, “That what is by nature necessarily believed to be, truly is.”Ibid. p. 226. No man has more nobly or more earnestly vindicated this doctrine, which is the foundation of all science and of all faith. “Consciousness,” he says, “once convicted of falsehood, an unconditioned scepticism, in regard to the character of our intellectual being, is the melancholy but only rational result. Any conclusion may now with impunity be drawn against the hopes and the dignity of human nature. Our personality, our immateriality, our moral liberty, have no longer an argument for their defence. ‘Man is the dream of a shadow.’ God is the dream of that dream.”Ibid. p. 234. The only question, therefore, is, Are we invincibly led to think of God as possessing the attributes of our rational nature? This cannot be denied; for universality proves invincibility of belief. And it is a historical fact that men have universally thus thought of God. Even Mr. ManselLimits of Religious Thought, edit. Boston, 1859, pp. 56, 57. exclaims against the transcendentalists, “Fools, to dream that man can escape from himself, that human reason can draw aught but a human portrait of God.” True, he denies the correctness of that portrait; or, at least, he asserts that we cannot know whether it is correct or not. But this is not now the question. He admits that we are forced by the constitution of our nature thus to think of God. And by the fundamental principle of all true philosophy, what we are forced to believe must be true. It is true, therefore, that God really is what we take Him to be, when we ascribe to Him the perfections of our own nature, without limitation, and to an infinite degree.
    Our Moral Nature demands this Idea of God.
  6. It has already been shown, when speaking of the moral argument for the existence of God, that all men are conscious of their accountability to a being superior to themselves, who knows what they are and what they do, and who has the will and purpose to reward or punish men according to their works. The God, therefore, who is revealed to us in our nature, is a God who knows, and wills, and acts; who rewards and punishes. That is, He is a person; an intelligent, voluntary agent, endowed with moral attributes. This revelation of God must be true. It must make known to us what God really is, or our nature is a lie. All this Mr. Mansel, who holds that God can not be known, admits. He admits that a sense of dependence on a superior power is “a fact of the inner consciousness;” that this superior power is “not an inexorable fate, or immutable law, but a Being having at least so far the attributes of personality, that He can show favour or severity to those dependent upon Him, and can be regarded by them with the feelings of hope, and fear, and reverence, and gratitude.”Limits of Religious Thought, etc., p. 120. No man, however, is, or can be grateful to the sun, or to the atmosphere, or to unintelligent force. Gratitude is a tribute of a person to a person. Again, the same author admits that “the moral reason, or will, or conscience of man, call it by what name we please, can have no authority save as implanted in him by some higher spiritual Being, as a law emanating from a law-giver.”Ibid. p. 121. “We are thus compelled,” he says, “by the consciousness of moral obligation, to assume the existence of a moral [and of course of a personal] Deity, and to regard the absolute standard of right and wrong as constituted by the nature of that Deity.”Ibid. p. 122. Our argument from these facts is, that if our moral nature compels us to believe that God is a person, He must be a person, and consequently that we arrive at a true knowledge of God by attributing to Him the perfections of our own nature.
    Our Religious Nature makes the same Demand.
  7. The argument from our religious, as distinct from our moral nature, is essentially the same. Morality is not all of religion. The one is as much a law and necessity of our nature as the other. To worship, in the religious sense of the word, is to ascribe infinite perfection to its object. It is to express to that object out acknowledgments for the blessings we enjoy, and to seek their continuance; it is to confess, and praise, and pray, and to adore. We cannot worship the law of gravity, or unconscious force, or the mere order of the universe. Our religious nature, in demanding an object of supreme reverence, love, and confidence, demands a personal God, a God clothed with the attributes of a nature like our own; who can hear our confessions, praises, and prayers; who can love, and be loved; who can supply our wants, and fill all our capacities for good. Thus again it appears that unless our whole nature is a contradiction and a falsehood, we arrive at a true knowledge of God when we ascribe to Him the perfections of our own nature.
    Mr. Mansel admits that our nature does demand a personal and moral Deity; but, he says, “the very conception of a moral nature is in itself the conception of a limit, for morality is the compliance with a law; and a law, whether imposed from within or from without, can only be conceived to operate by limiting the range of possible actions.”Limits of Religious Thought, etc., p. 127. In like manner he says, “The only human conception of personality is that of limitation.” Therefore, if God be infinite, he can neither be a person, nor possess moral attributes. This is the argument of Strauss, and of all other pantheists, against the doctrine of a personal God. Mr. Mansel admits the force of the argument, and says we must renounce all hope of knowing what God is, and be content with “regulative knowledge,” which teaches not what God really is, but what He wills us to think Him to be. We are thus forbidden to trust to our necessary beliefs. We must not regard as true what God by the constitution of our nature forces us to believe. This is to subvert all philosophy and all religion, and to destroy the difference between the rational and the irrational. Why is this contradiction between reason and conscience, between our rational and moral nature, assumed to exist? Simply because philosophers choose to give such a definition of morality and personality that neither can be predicated of an infinite Being. It is not true that either morality or personality imply any limitation inconsistent with absolute perfection. We do not limit God when we say He cannot be irrational as well as rational, unconscious as well as conscious, finite as well as infinite, evil as well as good. The only limitation admitted is the negation of imperfection. Reason is not limited when we say it cannot be unreason; or spirit, when we say that it is not matter; or light, when we say it is not darkness; or space, when we say it is not time. We do not, therefore, limit the Infinite, when we exalt Him in our conceptions from the unconscious to the conscious, from the unintelligent to the intelligent, from an impersonal something to the absolutely perfect personal Jehovah. All these difficulties arise from confounding the ideas of infinite and all.
  8. The fourth argument on this subject is, that if we are not justified in referring to God the attributes of our own nature, then we have no God. The only alternative is anthropomorphism (in this sense) or Atheism. An unknown God, a God of whose nature and of whose relation to us we know nothing, to us is nothing. It is a historical fact that those who reject this method of forming our idea of God, who deny that we are to refer to Him the perfections of our own nature, have become atheists. They take the word “spirit,” and strip from it consciousness, intelligence, will, and morality; and the residue, which is blank nothing, they call God. Hamilton and Mansel take refuge from this dreadful conclusion in faith. They say that reason forbids the ascription of these, or of any other attributes, to the Infinite and Absolute, but that faith protests against this conclusion of the reason. Such protest, however, is of no account, unless it be rational. When Kant proved that there was no rational evidence of the existence of God, and fell back from the speculative to the practical reason (i.e., from reason to faith), his followers universally gave up all faith in a personal God. No man can believe in the impossible. And if reason pronounces that it is impossible that the Infinite should be a person, faith in His personality is an impossibility. This Mr. Mansel does not admit. For while he says that it is a contradiction to affirm the Infinite to be a person, or to possess moral attributes, he nevertheless says that, “Anthropomorphism is the indispensable condition of all human theology;”Limits of Religious Thought, etc., p. 261. and he quotes from Kant“Kritik der Praktischen Vernunft.” Works, edit. Rosenkranz, vol. viii. p. 282. this passage: “We may confidently challenge all natural theology to name a single distinctive attribute of the Deity, whether denoting intelligence or will, which, apart from anthropomorphism, is anything more than a mere word, to which not the slightest notion can be attached, which can serve to extend our theoretical knowledge.” It is greatly to be lamented that men should teach that the only way in which it is possible for us to form an idea of God, leads to no true knowledge. It does not teach us what God is, but what we are forced against reason to think He is.
    Argument from the Revelation of God in Nature.
  9. A fifth argument is from the fact that the works of God manifest a nature like our own. It is a sound principle that we must refer to a cause the attributes necessary to account for its effects. If the effects manifest intelligence, will, power, and moral excellence, these attributes must belong to the cause. As, therefore, the works of God are a revelation of all these attributes on a most stupendous scale, they must belong to God in an infinite degree. This is only saying that the revelation made of God in the external world agrees with the revelation which He has made of himself in the constitution of our own nature. In other words, it proves that the image of himself which He has enstamped on our nature is a true likeness.
    Argument from Scripture.
  10. The Scriptures declare God to be just what we are led to think He is, when we ascribe to Him the perfections of our own nature in an infinite degree. We are self-conscious, so is God. We are spirits, so is He. We are voluntary agents, so is God. We have a moral nature, miserably defaced indeed, God has moral excellence in infinite perfection. We are persons, so is God. All this the Scriptures declare to be true. The great primal revelation of God is as the “I am,” the personal God. All the names and titles given to Him; all the attributes ascribed to Him; all the works attributed to Him, are revelations of what He truly is. He is the Elohim, the Mighty One, the Holy One, the Omnipresent Spirit; He is the creator, the preserver, the governor of all things. He is our Father. He is the hearer of prayer; the giver of all good. He feeds the young ravens. He clothes the flowers of the field. He is Love. He so loved the world as to give his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him might not perish but have everlasting life. He is merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth. He is a present help in every time of need; a refuge, a high tower, an exceeding great reward. The relations in which, according to the Scriptures, we stand to God, are such as we can sustain only to a being who is like ourselves. He is our ruler, and father, with whom we can commune. His favour is our life, his loving-kindness better than life. This sublime revelation of God in his own nature and in his relation to us is not a delusion. It is not mere regulative truth, or it would be a deceit and mockery. It makes God known to us as He really is. We therefore know God, although no creature can understand the Almighty unto perfection.
    Argument from the Manifestation of God in Christ.
  11. Finally, God has revealed Himself in the person of his Son. No man knoweth the Father but the Son; and he to whom the Son shall reveal Him. Jesus Christ is the true God. The revelation which He made of Himself was the manifestation of God. He and the Father are one. The words of Christ were the words of God. The works of Christ were the works of God. The love, mercy, tenderness, the forgiving grace, as well as the holiness, the severity and power manifested by Christ, were all manifestations of what God truly is. We see, therefore, as with our own eyes, what God is. We know that although infinite and absolute, He can think, act, and will; that He can love and hate; that He can hear prayer and forgive sins, that we can have fellowship with Him, as one person can commune with another. Philosophy must veil her face in the presence of Jesus Christ, as God manifest in the flesh. She may not presume in that presence to say that God is not, and is not known to be, what Christ himself most clearly was. This doctrine that God is the object of certain and true knowledge lies at the foundation of all religion, and therefore must never be given up.

GENESIS V [Vulgate Bible]


English Translation

1 This is the book of the generation of Adam. In the day that God created man, he made him in the likeness of God.
2 He created them male and female, and blessed them: and he called their name Adam in the day they were created.
3 And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years: and he begat in his own image and likeness, and called his name Seth.
4 And the days of Adam, after he begat Seth, were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters.
5 And all the time that Adam lived was accomplished, nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.
6 Seth also lived a hundred and five years, and begat Enos.
7 And Seth lived, after he begat Enos, eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters.
8 And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years, and he died.
9 And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan.
10 After his birth he lived eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters.
11 And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years, and he died.
12 And Cainan lived seventy years, and begat Malaleel.
13 And Cainan lived, after he begat Malaleel, eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters.
14 And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years, and he died.
15 And Malaleel lived sixty-five years, and begat Jared.
16 And Malaleel lived after he begat Jared, eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters.
17 And all the days of Malaleel were eight hundred and ninety-five years, and he died.
18 And Jared lived one hundred and sixty-two years, and begat Enoch.
19 And Jared lived after he begat Enoch eight hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.
20 And all the days of Jared were nine hundred and sixty-two years, and he died.
21 And Enoch lived sixty-five years, and begat Mathusalam.
22 And Enoch walked with God: and lived after he begat Mathusalam three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.
23 And all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years.
24 And he walked with God and did not appear, because God took him.
25 And Methuselah lived one hundred and eighty-seven years, and begat Lamech.
26 And Methuselah lived, after she begat Lamech, seven hundred and eighty-two years, and begat sons and daughters.
27 And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred and sixty-nine years, and he died.
28 And Lamech lived one hundred and eighty-two years, and begat a son:
29 And he called his name Noah, saying: This will comfort us from the works and labors of our hands on the earth, which the Lord has cursed.
30 And Lamech lived, after he begat Noah, five hundred and ninety-five years, and begat sons and daughters.
31 And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred and seventy-seven years, and he died. But when Noah was five hundred years old, he begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.


Vulgate (Latin): Genesis Chapter 5

1 Hic est liber generationis Adam. In die qua creavit Deus hominem, ad similitudinem Dei fecit illum.
2 Masculum et feminam creavit eos, et benedixit illis: et vocavit nomen eorum Adam, in die quo creati sunt.
3 Vixit autem Adam centum triginta annis: et genuit ad imaginem et similitudinem suam, vocavitque nomen ejus Seth.
4 Et facti sunt dies Adam, postquam genuit Seth, octingenti anni: genuitque filios et filias.
5 Et factum est omne tempus quod vixit Adam, anni nongenti triginta, et mortuus est.
6 Vixit quoque Seth centum quinque annis, et genuit Enos.
7 Vixitque Seth, postquam genuit Enos, octingentis septem annis, genuitque filios et filias.
8 Et facti sunt omnes dies Seth nongentorum duodecim annorum, et mortuus est.
9 Vixit vero Enos nonaginta annis, et genuit Cainan.
10 Post cujus ortum vixit octingentis quindecim annis, et genuit filios et filias.
11 Factique sunt omnes dies Enos nongenti quinque anni, et mortuus est.
12 Vixit quoque Cainan septuaginta annis, et genuit Malaleel.
13 Et vixit Cainan, postquam genuit Malaleel, octingentis quadraginta annis, genuitque filios et filias.
14 Et facti sunt omnes dies Cainan nongenti decem anni, et mortuus est.
15 Vixit autem Malaleel sexaginta quinque annis, et genuit Jared.
16 Et vixit Malaleel, postquam genuit Jared, octingentis triginta annis, et genuit filios et filias.
17 Et facti sunt omnes dies Malaleel octingenti nonaginta quinque anni, et mortuus est.
18 Vixitque Jared centum sexaginta duobus annis, et genuit Henoch.
19 Et vixit Jared, postquam genuit Henoch, octingentis annis, et genuit filios et filias.
20 Et facti sunt omnes dies Jared nongenti sexaginta duo anni, et mortuus est.
21 Porro Henoch vixit sexaginta quinque annis, et genuit Mathusalam.
22 Et ambulavit Henoch cum Deo: et vixit, postquam genuit Mathusalam, trecentis annis, et genuit filios et filias.
23 Et facti sunt omnes dies Henoch trecenti sexaginta quinque anni.
24 Ambulavitque cum Deo, et non apparuit: quia tulit eum Deus.
25 Vixit quoque Mathusala centum octoginta septem annis, et genuit Lamech.
26 Et vixit Mathusala, postquam genuit Lamech, septingentis octoginta duobus annis, et genuit filios et filias.
27 Et facti sunt omnes dies Mathusala nongenti sexaginta novem anni, et mortuus est.
28 Vixit autem Lamech centum octoginta duobus annis, et genuit filium:
29 vocavitque nomen ejus Noë, dicens: Iste consolabitur nos ab operibus et laboribus manuum nostrarum in terra, cui maledixit Dominus.
30 Vixitque Lamech, postquam genuit Noë, quingentis nonaginta quinque annis, et genuit filios et filias.
31 Et facti sunt omnes dies Lamech septingenti septuaginta septem anni, et mortuus est. Noë vero cum quingentorum esset annorum, genuit Sem, Cham et Japheth.


List of Catholic philosophers and theologians

This is a list of Catholic philosophers and theologians whose Catholicism is important to their works. The names are ordered by date of birth in order to give a rough sense of influence between thinkers.

Ancient (born before 500 AD)

Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35/50 – between 98 and 110)
Papias of Hierapolis (c. 60 – c. 163)
Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 69 – c. 155)
Justin Martyr (100–165)
Irenaeus (130–202)
Clement of Rome (died 99)
Clement of Alexandria (150–215)
Tertullian (155–222)
Origen of Alexandria (184–253)
Cyprian of Carthage (200–258)
Aphrahat (270–345)
Athanasius of Alexandria (296–373)
Hillary of Poitiers (300–368)
Ephrem the Syrian (306–373)
Basil of Caesarea (329–379)
Gregory Nazianzus (329–390)
Gregory of Nyssa (335–395)
Ambrose (340–397)
Jerome (347–420)
John Chrysostom (347–407)
Augustine of Hippo (354–430)
Cyril of Alexandria (378–444)
Isaac of Antioch (451–452)
Boethius (477–524)

Early Medieval (born between 500 AD and 1100 AD)

Pope Gregory I (540-604)
Isadore of Seville (560-636)
Maximus the Confessor (580-662)
Bede (672/3-735)
John of Damascus (675/6-749)
Radbertus (785-865)
John Scotus Eriugena (800-877)
Anselm of Canterbury (1033/4-1109)
Peter Abelard (1079-1142)
Adelard of Bath (1080-1152)
Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153)
Peter Lombard (1096-1160)
Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179)

High Medieval (born between 1100 AD and 1450 AD)

Robert Grosseteste (1175-1253)
Francis of Assisi (1181/2-1226)
Alexander of Hales (1185-1245)
Albertus Magnus (1193-1280)
Henry of Ghent (1217-1293)
Roger Bacon (1219/20-1292)
Bonaventure (1221-1274)
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
Ramon Llull (1232-1315)
Giles of Rome (1243-1316)
Godfrey of Fontaines (1250-1306/9)
James of Viterbo (1255-1307)
Gertrude of Helfta (1256-1302)
Meister Eckhart (1260-1328)
Dante Alighieri (1265-1321)
John Duns Scotus (1266-1308)
William of Alnwick (1275-1333)
William of Ockham (1287-1347)
William of Ware (1290-1305)
Henry Suso (1295-1366)
Jean Buridan (1300-1358/61)
Bridget of Sweden (1303-1373)
Albert of Saxony (1320-1390)
Nicole Oresme (1325-1382)
Catherine of Siena (1347-1380)
Jean Gerson (1363-1429)
John Capreolus (1380-1444)
Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464)

Renaissance and Early Modern (born between 1450 AD and 1750 AD)

Sylvester Mazzolini (1456/7-1527)
Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463-1494)
Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536)
John Mair (1467-1550)
Thomas Cajetan (1469-1534)
Francesco Silvestri (1474-1528)
Thomas More (1478-1535)
John Fisher (1469-1535)
Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543)
Francisco de Vitoria (1483-1546)
Ignatius of Loyola (1491-1556)
Peter Faber (1506-1546)
Teresa of Ávila (1515-1582)
Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592)
Domingo Báñez (1528-1604)
Franciscus Patricius (1529-1597)
Luis de Molina (1535-1600)
John of the Cross (1542-1591)
Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621)
Justus Lipsius (1547-1606)
Francisco Suárez (1548-1617)
Lawrence of Brindisi (1559-1619)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Péter Pázmány (1570-1637)
John of St. Thomas (John Poinsot) (1589-1644)
Michael Wadding (1591-1644)
René Descartes (1596-1650)
Matthias Tanner (1630-1692)
Nicolas Malebranche (1638-1715)
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Noel Alexandre (1639-1724)
Giambattista Vico (1668-1744)
Giovanni Battista Scaramelli (1687-1752)
Peter Dens (1690-1775)
Alphonsus Liguori (1696-1787)
Febronius (Johann Nikolaus von Hontheim) (1701-1790)

Doctor of the Church (Latin: doctor \”teacher\”), also referred to as Doctor of the Universal Church (Latin: Doctor Ecclesiae Universalis), is a title given by the Catholic Church to saints recognized as having made a significant contribution to theology or doctrine through their research, study, or writing.

Christian writers [Doctors of The Church] of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries are usually referred to as the Ante-Nicene Fathers

Fathers of the Church attained this honour in the early Middle Ages: Gregory the Great, Ambrose, Augustine of Hippo, and Jerome. The \”four Doctors\” became a commonplace notion among scholastic theologians, and a decree of Boniface VIII (1298) ordering their feasts to be kept as doubles throughout the Latin Church is contained in his sixth book of Decretals (cap. \”Gloriosus\”, de relique. et vener. sanctorum, in Sexto, III, 22).

In the Byzantine Church, three Doctors were pre-eminent: John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, and Gregory of Nazianzus. The feasts of these three saints were made obligatory throughout the Eastern Empire by Leo VI the Wise. A common feast was later instituted in their honour on 30 January, called \”the feast of the three Hierarchs\”. In the Menaea for that day it is related that the three Doctors appeared in a dream to John Mauropous, Bishop of Euchaita, and commanded him to institute a festival in their honour, in order to put a stop to the rivalries of their votaries and panegyrists. This was under Alexius Comnenus (1081–1118; see \”Acta SS.\”, 14 June, under St. Basil, c. xxxviii). But sermons for the feast are attributed in manuscripts to Cosmas Vestitor, who flourished in the tenth century. The three are as common in Eastern art as the four are in Western. Durandus remarks that Doctors should be represented with books in their hands. In the West analogy led to the veneration of four Eastern Doctors, Athanasius of Alexandria being added to the three hierarchs.

The Four Great Doctors of the Western Church were often depicted in art, here by Pier Francesco Sacchi, c. 1516. From the left: Saint Augustine, Pope Gregory I, Saint Jerome, and Saint Ambrose, with their Cultural attributes.

The Church Fathers, Early Church Fathers, Christian Fathers, or Fathers of the Church were ancient and influential Christian theologians and writers who established the intellectual and doctrinal foundations of Christianity. The historical period in which they worked became known as the Patristic Era and spans approximately from the late 1st to mid-8th centuries, flourishing in particular during the 4th and 5th centuries, when Christianity was in the process of establishing itself as the state church of the Roman Empire

The Church Fathers, an 11th-century Kievan Rus\’ miniature from Svyatoslav\’s Miscellany

In traditional religious theology, authors considered Church Fathers are treated as authoritative, and a somewhat restrictive definition is used. The academic field of patristics, the study of the Church Fathers, has extended the scope of the term, and there is no definitive list. Some, such as Origen and Tertullian, made major contributions to the development of later Christian theology, but certain elements of their teaching were later condemned.

Great Fathers

In the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church traditions there are four Fathers each who are called the \”Great Church Fathers”. In the Catholic Church, they are collectively called the \”Eight Doctors of the Church\”

Western Church
Ambrose (A.D. 340–397)
Jerome (347–420)
Augustine of Hippo (354–430)
Pope Gregory I (540–604)
Eastern Church
Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296 or 298 – 373)
Gregory of Nazianzus (329 – c. 390)
Basil of Caesarea (c. 330 – 379)
John Chrysostom (347–407)
In the Eastern Orthodox Church, three of them (Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus and John Chrysostom) are honored as the \”Three Holy Hierarchs\”.

Apostolic Fathers

Main article: Apostolic Fathers
The Apostolic Fathers were Christian theologians who lived in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, who are believed to have personally known some of the Twelve Apostles, or to have been significantly influenced by them. Their writings, though popular in Early Christianity, were ultimately not included in the canon of the New Testament once it reached its final form. Many of the writings derive from the same time period and geographical location as other works of early Christian literature that did come to be part of the New Testament, and some of the writings found among the Apostolic Fathers\’ seem to have been just as highly regarded as some of the writings that became the New Testament. The first three, Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, are considered the chief ones.

Clement of Rome

Pope Clement I
The First Epistle of Clement (c. 96), is the earliest extant epistle from a Church Father. In the epistle, Clement calls on the Christians of Corinth to maintain harmony and order.

Copied and widely read in the Early Church, First Clement had been considered by some as part of the New Testament canon, e.g., listed as canonical in Canon 85 of the Canons of the Apostles, among other early canons of the New Testament, showing that it had canonical rank in at least some regions of early Christendom. As late as the 14th century Ibn Khaldun mentions it as part of the New Testament.

Ignatius of Antioch

Ignatius of Antioch
Ignatius of Antioch (also known as Theophorus) (c. 35 – c. 110) was the third bishop of Antioch and a student of the Apostle John. En route to his martyrdom in Rome, Ignatius wrote a series of letters which have been preserved. Important topics addressed in these letters include ecclesiology, the sacraments, the role of bishops, and the Incarnation of Christ. Specifically, concerning ecclesiology, his letter to the Romans is often cited as a testament to the universal bounds of the Roman church. He is the second after Clement to mention Paul\’s epistles.

Polycarp of Smyrna

Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 69 – c. 155) was a Christian bishop of Smyrna (now İzmir in Turkey). It is recorded that he had been a disciple of \”John\”. The options/possibilities for this John are John, the son of Zebedee, traditionally viewed as the author of the Gospel of John, or John the Presbyter. Traditional advocates follow Eusebius of Caesarea in insisting that the apostolic connection of Polycarp was with John the Evangelist and that he was the author of the Gospel of John, and thus the Apostle John.

Polycarp tried and failed to persuade Pope Anicetus to have the West celebrate Passover on the 14th of Nisan, as in the Eastern calendar. Around A.D. 155, the Smyrnans of his town demanded Polycarp\’s execution as a Christian, and he died a martyr. The story of his martyrdom describes how the fire built around him would not burn him, and that when he was stabbed to death, so much blood issued from his body that it quenched the flames around him. Polycarp is recognized as a saint in both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.

Papias of Hierapolis

Papias of Hierapolis
Very little is known of Papias apart from what can be inferred from his own writings. He is described as \”an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp\” by Polycarp\’s disciple Irenaeus (c. 180). Eusebius adds that Papias was Bishop of Hierapolis around the time of Ignatius of Antioch. In this office, Papias was presumably succeeded by Abercius of Hierapolis. The name Papias was very common in the region, suggesting that he was probably a native of the area. The work of Papias is dated by most modern scholars to about A.D. 95–120.

Despite indications that the work of Papias was still extant in the Late Middle Ages, the full text is now lost; however, extracts appear in a number of other writings, some of which cite a book number.

Alexandrian (Egypt) Fathers

Those who wrote in Greek are called the Greek (Church) Fathers. In addition to the Apostolic Fathers, famous Greek Fathers include: Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, the Cappadocian Fathers (Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa), Peter of Sebaste, Maximus the Confessor, and John of Damascus

Modern Church: In the Western Catholic Church, the patristic era is believed to have passed and The The Eastern Orthodox Church does not consider the age of Church Fathers to be over.

Orthodox view is that men do not have to agree on every detail, much less be infallible, to be considered Church Fathers; whereas after the Nicene councils the new church of the west decided that the Father of the church is infallible [inability to be wrong; even if he is]

NICENE: [Root word meaning) From 14c., \”of or pertaining to Nicaea (Greek Nikaia, modern Turkish Isnik), city in Bithynia where an ecclesiastical council of 325 C.E. dealt with the Arian schism and produced the Nicene Creed. A second council held there (787) considered the question of images. The name is from Greek nikaios \”victorious,\” from nikē \”victory\” (see Nike) greek goddess Nike Athena

Nike: literally \”upper hand\” (in battle, in wars, and in civil court) connected with neikos \”quarrel, strife,\” neikein \”to quarrel with,\” As the name of a type of U.S. defensive surface-to-air missiles, attested from 1952. The brand of athletic shoes and apparel, based near Portland, Oregon, has been so known since 1971, named for the Greek goddess, having been founded in 1964 as Blue Ribbon sport.

Nicaea: Nicaea or Nicea (/naɪˈsiːə/; Greek: Νίκαια, Níkaia) was an ancient Greek city in northwestern Anatolia and is primarily known as the site of the First and Second Councils of Nicaea (the first and seventh Ecumenical councils in the early history of the Christian Church), the Nicene Creed (which comes from the First Council), and as the capital city of the Empire of Nicaea following the Fourth Crusade in 1204, until the recapture of Constantinople by the Byzantines in 1261.

325 AD

First Council of Nicaea, (325), the first ecumenical council of the Christian church, meeting in ancient Nicaea (now İznik, Turkey). It was called by the emperor Constantine I, an unbaptized catechumen, who presided over the opening session and took part in the discussions.

Meeting at Nicaea in present-day Turkey, the council established the equality of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the Holy Trinity and asserted that only the Son became incarnate as Jesus Christ. The Arian leaders were subsequently banished from their churches for heresy.





The son, was born of the Holy Spirit, thus making him true a God. Without sin as he was made by the power of the Holy Spirit. Mary The Mother of God the Incarnate Word (Logos) gave birth to The Son Incarnate Word (Logos) by The Almighty Father (Supreme Logos)

He took on the flesh of Mankind, as Did His Mother as Mother of God, so that The Word could be revealed through them. And The New Covenant could be made, by the last sacrifice- one in which closed the chapter for the old not taking away one dot or tittle, from the laws of God, but to establish the Children of God that would then be made. As Christs Children. Although, through the passion after the 3rd day, he was risen into his ascension to His Father, to sit at His right hand, where he says he was from the beginning. (Before Abraham WAS, I AM) – he sits on the judgment seat, until the fullness of the righteous are complete and then he’s coming with the Sword. Not to bring peace, but to punish those who has done abominations against the Word (Logos) those who choose not to do the physical and spiritual works that was instructed of us. The ones who have done them to the T (Tee), according to how they are and firmly established will gain eternal life, granted new bodies made in the image of the one The Son of God was in. As ascension calls for the bodies to be of a higher spiritual essence. (haven’t you read; YE are Gods, Gods Children) —Psalm 82. Thus says the Lord, Ye are gods and children of the Most High. If we are gods, as children of God, then we should act like this. But, if we take away the divinity of us as children and that of His Son and Mother, then we go against the Commandment that says: Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” (Ex. 20:12) – this commandment wasn’t just for our Earthly Parents, but our Heavenly Ones as well.

What the Nicene Council above, thought to create was a newer thought: different from all ancient culture and knowledge: they believe—

All are equal and that There’s ONLY one God, The Father and his only begotten Son, and He was Born through the immaculate conception which shows his divinity, but only half, so he’s not technically a full God, only God the Father is God. And The Holy Spirit is God as The Fathers Spirit that is in them all. Which makes the trinity. But, since The Son in this case would be half flesh of a Mother as a Human and not divine, he suffers and is condemned then raised up and then will come again to judge the living and the dead. And in the second coming he will lift those up and condemn the rest, and those he lifts up they don’t have to keep all the laws and commandments because they have been saved by grace and not by their physical and spiritual works to deserve it.

Similar stories, but one seems to gain the prize without the hard work to suffer the gain. And the other suffered until the end, for fear (respect) of their Creator. By making all 3 (1) entity instead of Gods (3) —3 as Gods Family— they have made the perfect imperfect by imperfecting the original Word of God.

Which in John 1:1 says:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Seems very clear that The Word is Gods Son, seated on the Right Side, and The Word his Son was God. (A God, because His Father is God (A God) & The Holy Spirit His Mother (A God)

Commandment 3 \”Therefore I say to you, every blasphemy said from the mouths of wicked men will be forgiven, but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Wisdom) will not be forgiven of men who do this\” (Matthew 12:31).

[Jesus speaking] —Like do whatever you want, but never speak against My Mother [Blessed are you Mary The Mother of All.

Please check out the book of Wisdom books 1-19

Last thing to consider: Is a Man a Woman? And is a Woman a Man? Or is a Child of them their equal? Or is there some kind of hierarchy to the Family Unit? Not based on demeaning behavior or what being the Head of the Son or Wife they don’t honor, but the true nature of the roles one of Honor. Is The Father a Mother? Or a Mother a Father or a Child both their parents Mother and Father? Wouldn’t that create some type of problem if there’s no one to answer to for the repercussions of actions? If everyone’s the parent, then who does what when? Is this order or chaos? Asking ourselves by our real life experiences do we find ourselves wondering which of the two paths we find to be more righteous in building moral character and charitable nature? And which seeks death? By the unrighteous acts to never to be condemned?