CHAPTER XX

OTHER CHRISTIAN DISCUSSION OF MAGIC BEFORE AUGUSTINE Plan of this chapter—Tertullian on magic—Astrology attacked—Resemblance to Minucius Felix—Lactantius—Hippolytus on magic and astrology—Frauds of magicians in answering questions—Other tricks and illusions—Defects and merits of Hippolytus’ exposure of magic and of magic itself—Hippolytus’ sources—Justin Martyr and others on the witch of Endor—Gregory of Nyssa and Eustathius concerning the ventriloquist—Gregory of Nyssa _Against Fate_—Astrology and the birth of Christ—Chrysostom on the star of the Magi—_Sixth Homily on Matthew_—The spurious homily—Number, names, and home of the Magi—Liturgical drama of the Magi; _Three Kings of Cologne_—Another homily on the Magi—Priscillianists answered—Number and race of the Magi again. [Sidenote: Plan of this chapter.] In this chapter we shall supplement the picture of the Christian attitude towards magic supplied us in preceding chapters by some accounts of magic in other Christian writers of the period before Augustine. After giving the opinions of a few Latin fathers, Minucius Felix, Tertullian, and Lactantius, we shall consider the exposure of magic devices in Hippolytus’ _Refutation of All Heresies_, then compare the utterances of other fathers concerning the witch of Endor with those of Origen, and finally discuss the treatment of the Magi and the star of Bethlehem in both the genuine and the spurious homily of Chrysostom on that theme, adding some account of the medieval development of the legend of the three Magi, although leaving until later the statements of medieval theologians and astronomers concerning the star of the Magi. This makes a rather omnibus chapter, but its component parts are too brief to separate as distinct chapters and they all supplement the preceding chapter on Origen and Celsus. [Sidenote: Tertullian on magic.] Some important features of Origen’s account of magic are duplicated in the writings of the western church father, Tertullian, who wrote at about the same time or perhaps a few years before Origen. Again the Jews are represented as calling Christ a magician,[2009] and when Tertullian challenges the emperors to allow a Christian exorcist to appear before them and attempt to expel a demon from someone so possessed and force the spirit to confess its evil character, he expects that his Christian exorcist will be accused of employing magic.[2010] Again divination and magic are attributed to the fallen angels; in fact, Tertullian follows the _Book of Enoch_ in stating that men were instructed by the fallen angels in metallurgy and botany as well as in incantations and astrology.[2011] The demons are represented as invisible and “everywhere in a moment.” Living as they do in the air near the clouds and stars, they are enabled to predict the weather. They send diseases and then pretend to cure them by the recommendation of novel remedies or prescriptions quite contrary to accepted medical practice.[2012] “There is hardly a human being who is unattended by a demon.”[2013] Magicians are described by Tertullian as producing phantasms, insulting the souls of the dead, injuring boys for purposes of divination, sending dreams, and performing many miraculous feats by their complicated jugglery.[2014] “The science of magic” is well defined as “a multiform contagion of the human mind, an artificer of every error, a destroyer of safety and soul.” As examples of well-known magicians Tertullian lists Ostanes and Typhon and Dardanus and Damigeron[2015] and Nectabis[2016] and Berenice. Tertullian states that a literature is current which promises to evoke ghosts from the infernal regions, but that in such cases the dead are really impersonated by demons, as was the fact when the pythoness seemed to show Samuel to Saul, a point on which Tertullian disagrees with Origen. Magic is therefore fallacious, a point which Tertullian emphasizes more than Origen did, although Tertullian is not very explicit. He avers that “it is no great task to deceive the outer eye of him whose mental insight it is easy to blind.” The rods of Pharaoh’s magicians seemed to turn into snakes, “but Moses’[2017] reality devoured their deceit.” [Sidenote: Astrology attacked.] Tertullian further diverges from Origen in definitely classifying astrology as a species of magic along with that other variety of magic which works miracles. Astrology is an art which was invented by the fallen angels and with which Christians should have nothing to do. Tertullian would not mention it but for the fact that recently a certain person has defended his persistence in that profession, that is, presumably after he had become a Christian. Tertullian states, again unlike Origen, that the Magi who came from the east to the Christ child were astrologers—“We know the union existing between magic and astrology”—but that Christ’s followers are under no obligation to astrology on their account, although he again implies the existence of Christian astrologers in the sarcastic remark, “Astrology now-a-days, forsooth, treats of Christ; is the science of the stars of Christ, not of Saturn and Mars.” As Origen affirmed that the power of the demons and of magic was greatly weakened by the birth of Christ, so Tertullian affirms that the science of the stars was allowed to exist until the coming of the Gospel, but that since Christ’s birth no one should cast nativities. “For since the Gospel you will never find sophist or Chaldean or enchanter or diviner or magician who has not been manifestly punished.”[2018] Tertullian rejoices that the _mathematici_ or astrologers are forbidden to enter Rome or Italy, the reason being, as he states in another passage,[2019] that they are consulted so much in regard to the life of the emperor. [Sidenote: Resemblance to Minucius Felix.] Tertullian’s account of magic is perhaps borrowed from the dialogue entitled _Octavius_ by M. Minucius Felix,[2020] which is generally regarded as the oldest extant work of Christian Latin literature and was probably written in the reign of Marcus Aurelius. Some of the words and phrases used by Tertullian and Minucius Felix in describing magic are almost identical,[2021] and a third passage of the same sort appears in Cyprian of Carthage in the third century.[2022] Ostanes, one of Tertullian’s list of magicians, is also mentioned as the first prominent magician by both Minucius Felix and Cyprian. Minucius Felix ascribes magic to demons and seems to regard it as a deceptive and rather unreal art, saying, “The magicians not only are acquainted with demons, but whatever miraculous feats they perform, they do through demons; under their influence and inspiration they produce illusions, making things seem to be which are not, or making real things seem non-existent.” [Sidenote: Lactantius.] A century after Tertullian Lactantius of Gaul treats of magic and demons in about the same way in his _Divine Institutes_,[2023] written at the opening of the fourth century. He denies that Christ was a magician and declares that His miracles differed from those attributed to Apuleius and Apollonius of Tyana in that they were announced beforehand by the prophets. “He worked marvels,” Lactantius says to his opponents, “and we should have thought Him a magician, as you think now and as the Jews thought at the time, had not all the prophets with one accord predicted that Christ would do these very things.”[2024] Lactantius believes that the offspring of the fallen angels and “the daughters of men” were a different variety of demon from their fathers and more terrestrial. Be that as it may, he affirms that the entire art and power of the magicians consist in invocations of demons who “deceive human vision by blinding illusions so that men do not see what does exist and think that they see what does not exist,”[2025] the very expression that we have just heard from Minucius Felix. More specifically Lactantius regards necromancy, oracles, liver-divination, augury, and astrology as all invented by the demons.[2026] Like Origen he emphasizes the power of the sign of the cross and the name of Jesus against the evil spirits,[2027] and he implies the power of the names of spirits when he states that, although demons may masquerade under other forms and names in pagan temples and worships, in magic and sorcery they are always summoned by their true names, those celestial ones which are read in sacred literature.[2028] [Sidenote: Hippolytus on magic and astrology.] From these accounts of magic in Latin fathers, which do little more than reinforce the impressions which we had already gained concerning the Christian attitude, we come to a very different discussion by Hippolytus who wrote in Greek although he lived in Italy. Eusebius and Jerome state that Origen as a young man heard Hippolytus preach at Rome; in 235 he was exiled to Sardinia; the next year his body was brought back to Rome for burial. In Hippolytus, instead of attacks upon astrology as impious, immoral, and fatalistic, and upon magic as evil and the work of demons, we have an attempt to prove astrology irrational and impracticable, and to show that magic is based upon imposture and deceit. In the first four of the nine books of his _Philosophumena_ or _Refutation of All Heresies_[2029] Hippolytus set forth the tenets of the Greek philosophers, the system of the astrologers, and the practice of the magicians in order later to be able to show how much the various heretics had borrowed from these sources. His second and third books are not extant; it is in the fourth book or what is left of it that we have portions of his discussion of astrology and magic.[2030] [Sidenote: Frauds of magicians in answering questions.] In exposing the frauds of magicians Hippolytus uses the word μάγος, and not γόης, a sorcerer. He tells how the magicians pretend that the spirits give response through a medium to questions which those consulting them have written on papyrus, perhaps in invisible ink, and folded up, after which the papyrus is placed on coals and burned. The magician, however, operating in semi-darkness and making a great noise and diversion and pretending to invoke the demon, is really occupied in sprinkling the burnt papyrus with a mixture of water and copperas (vitriol?) or fumigating it with vapor of a gall nut or employing other methods to make the concealed letters visible. Having by some such method discovered the question, he instructs the medium, who is now supposed to be possessed of demons and is reclining upon a couch, what answer to give by whispering to him through a long hidden tube constructed out of the windpipe of a crane or ten brass pipes fitted together. It will be recalled that it was by such a tube made of the windpipes of cranes that Alexander the false prophet, according to Lucian, caused the artificial head of his god to give forth oracles. Hippolytus adds that at the same time the magician produces alarming flames and liquids by such chemical mixtures as fossil salts and Etruscan wax and a grain of salt. “And when this is consumed, the salts bound upward and give the impression of a strange vision.”[2031] [Sidenote: Other tricks and illusions.] Hippolytus also reveals how magicians secretly fill eggs with dyes, how they cause sheep to behead themselves against a sword by smearing their throats with a drug which makes them itch, how a ram dies if its head is merely bent back facing the sun, how they obstruct the ears of goats with wax so that they cannot breathe and presently die of suffocation, how out of sea foam they make a compound which, like alcohol, will itself burn but not consume the objects over which it is poured.[2032] He tells how the magician produces stage thunder, how he is able to plunge his hand into a boiling cauldron or walk over hot coals without being burnt, and how he can set a seeming pyramid of stone on fire. He tells how the magicians loosen seals and seal them up again, just as Lucian did in his _Alexander_ or _The Pseudo-Prophet_; how by means of trap-doors, mirrors, and the like devices they show demons in a cauldron; how they pretend to show flaming demons by igniting drawings which they have sketched on the wall with some inflammable substance or by loosing a bird which has been set on fire. They make the moon appear indoors and imitate the starry sky by attaching fish scales to the ceiling. They produce the sensation of an earthquake by burning the ordure of a weasel with the stone magnet upon an open fire. They construct a false skull from the caul of an ox, some wax, and some gum, make it speak by means of a hidden tube, and then cause it suddenly to collapse and disappear or to burn up.[2033] [Sidenote: Defects and merits of Hippolytus’ exposure of magic and of magic itself.] This exposition of the frauds of the magicians by Hippolytus is rather broken and incoherent, at least in the form in which his text has reached us.[2034] Also we do not have much more faith in some of the methods by which he says the feats of magic are really done than he has in the ways by which the magicians claim to perform them. But while his notions of the chemical action of certain substances and of the occult virtue of others may be incorrect, the noteworthy point is that he endeavors to explain magic either as a deception or as employing natural substances and forces to simulate supernatural action, and that his exposure of magic devices leaves no place for the action of demons. Moreover, we see that magic fraud involves chemical experiment and considerable knowledge or error in the field of natural science. Under the guise or tyranny of magic experimental science is at work. [Sidenote: Hippolytus’ sources.] The question then arises whether Hippolytus himself discovered these tricks of the magicians or whether he is simply copying his explanations of them from some previous work. An examination of the earlier chapters of his fourth book is sufficient to solve the question. His arguments against the practice of the Chaldean astrologers of predicting man’s life from his horoscope at the time of his birth are drawn from the pages of the sceptical philosopher, Sextus Empiricus, whom he follows so closely that his editors are able to rectify his text by reference to the parallel passage in Sextus. We are therefore probably safe in assuming, especially in view of the resemblances to the _Alexander_ of Lucian which have already been noted, that Hippolytus’ attack on magic is also largely indebted to some classical work, possibly to that very treatise against magic by Celsus to which both Origen and Lucian refer, or perhaps to some account of apparatus with which to work marvels like Hero’s _Pneumatics_. [Sidenote: Justin Martyr and others on the witch of Endor.] Turning back now to the subject of the witch of Endor, we find that some of the church fathers agree with Origen rather than Tertullian that the witch really invoked Samuel. Before Origen’s time Justin Martyr in _The Dialogue with Trypho_[2035] had mentioned as a proof of the immortality of the soul “the fact that the soul of Samuel was called up by the witch, as Saul demanded.” Huet, who edited the writings of Origen, lists other Christian authors[2036] who agreed with Origen on this question, and further informs us that the ancient rabbis were wont to say that a soul invoked within a year after its death as Samuel’s was, would be seen by the ventriloquist but not heard, and heard by the person consulting it but not seen, an observation which suggests that Saul was deceived by ventriloquism, while by others present the ghost would be neither seen nor heard. [Sidenote: Gregory of Nyssa and Eustathius concerning the ventriloquist.] Two ecclesiastics of the fourth century composed special treatises upon the ventriloquist or witch of Endor in which they took the opposite view from that of Origen. The briefer of these two treatises is by Gregory of Nyssa[2037] who states, without mentioning Origen by name, that some previous writers have contended that Samuel was truly invoked by magic with divine permission in order that he might see his mistake in having called Saul the enemy of ventriloquists. But Gregory believes that Samuel was already in paradise and hence could not be invoked from the infernal regions; but that it was a demon from the infernal regions who predicted to Saul, “To-morrow you and Jonathan shall be with me.” The longer treatise of Eustathius of Antioch is a direct answer to Origen’s argument as its title, _Concerning the Ventriloquist against Origen_,[2038] indicates. Eustathius holds that it was illegal to consult ventriloquists in view of Saul’s own previous action against them and other prohibitions in Scripture, and that Origen’s remarks are to be deplored as tending to encourage simple men to resort to arts of divination. Eustathius contends that the witch did not invoke Samuel but only made Saul think that she did, and that Saul himself did not see Samuel. Pharaoh’s magicians similarly deceived the imagination with shadows and specters when they pretended to turn rods into snakes and water into blood. Eustathius does not agree with Origen that Samuel was in hell. He holds that the predictions made by the pseudo-Samuel were not impossible for a demon to make, and indeed were not strictly accurate, since Saul did not die the very next day but the day after it, and since not only Jonathan but his three sons were slain with him.[2039] Furthermore, David was already so prominent in public affairs that a demon might easily guess that he would succeed Saul. [Sidenote: Gregory of Nyssa _Against Fate_.] Gregory of Nyssa also composed a treatise, entitled _Against Fate_,[2040] in the form of a disputation between a pagan philosopher and himself at Constantinople in 382 A. D. His opponent holds that the life of man is determined by the constellations at his nativity, upon whose decree even conversion to Christianity would thus be made dependent. Gregory assumes the position of one hitherto ignorant of the principles of the art of astrology, of which the philosopher has to inform him, but on general grounds it seems very unlikely that he really was as ignorant as this of such a widespread superstition. Furthermore, he is sufficiently read in the subject to incorporate some of Bardesanes’ arguments, of whose treatise both Gregory’s title and dialogue form are reminiscent. Some of Gregory’s reasoning, however, might well be that of a tyro and is scarcely worth elaborating here. [Sidenote: Astrology and the birth of Christ.] When the writer of the Gospel according to Matthew included the story of the wise men from the east who had seen the star, there can be little or no doubt that he inserted it and that it had been formulated in the first place, not merely in order to satisfy the ordinary, unlearned reader with portents connected with the birth of Jesus, but to secure the appearance of support for the kingship of Jesus from that art or science of astrology which so many persons then held in high esteem. To an age whose sublimest science was star-gazing it would seem fitting and almost inevitable that God should have announced the coming of the Prince of Peace in this manner, and the account in the Gospel of Matthew is in a sense an attempt to present the birth of Christ in a way to comply with the most searching tests of contemporary science. But the early Christians were relatively rude and unlettered, and this effort to construct a royal horoscope for Jesus is a crude and faulty one from the astrological standpoint. For this, however, the author of the Gospel and not the art of astrology is obviously responsible. As a result, however, of the Gnostic reaction against astrological fatalism or of an orthodox Christian opposition to both Gnostics and astrologers, most of the early fathers of the church denied that this passage implied any recognition of the truth of astrology and attempted to explain away its obvious meaning. In doing this they often made the crude and imperfect astrology of the Gospel a criterion for criticizing the art of astrology itself. [Sidenote: Chrysostom on the star of the Magi.] Of patristic commentaries upon the passage in the Gospel of Matthew dealing with the Magi and the star of Bethlehem one of the fullest and most frequently cited by medieval writers is that attributed to Chrysostom. I say “attributed,” because in addition to his genuine sixth homily upon Matthew[2041] there was generally ascribed to Chrysostom in the middle ages another homily which is extant only in Latin[2042] and has been thought to be the work of some Arian. The famous St. John Chrysostom was born at Antioch about 347 A. D. and there studied rhetoric under the noted sophist Libanius. From 398 to 404 he held the office of patriarch of Constantinople; then he was exiled to Cappadocia where he died in 407. One detail of his boyhood may be noted because of its connection with magic. When he was a lad, the tyrants in the city became suspicious of plots against them and sent soldiers to search for books of magic and sorcery. One of the men who was arrested and put to death had tried to rid himself of the damaging possession of a book of magic by throwing it into the river. Chrysostom and a playmate later unsuspectingly fished an object out of the water which turned out to be this very book, and when a soldier happened to pass by just then, they were very frightened lest he should see what they had and they should be severely punished for it.[2043] [Sidenote: Sixth homily on Matthew.] In his sixth homily upon Matthew Chrysostom recognizes the difficulties presented by the Scriptural account of the Magi and the star, and approaches the task of expounding it with prayers to God for aid. Some, he informs us, take the passage as an admission of the truth of astrology. It is this opinion which he is concerned to refute. He argues that it is not the function of astronomy to learn from the stars who are being born but merely to predict from the hour of birth what is going to happen, which seems a quite fallacious distinction upon his part. He also criticizes the Magi for calling Jesus the king of the Jews, when as Christ told Pilate His kingdom was not of this world. He further criticizes them for coming to Christ’s birthplace when they might have known that it would cause difficulties with Herod, the existing king, and for coming, making trouble, and then immediately going back home again. But these shortcomings would seem to be those of the Scriptural narrative rather than of the art of astrology, although of course Chrysostom is trying to make the point that the Magi had not foreseen what would happen to themselves. He further argues that the star of Bethlehem was not like other stars nor even a star at all,[2044] as was proved by its peculiar itinerary, its shining by day, its rare intelligence in hiding itself at the right time, and its miraculous ability in standing over the head of the child. Chrysostom therefore concludes that some invisible virtue put on the form of a star. He thinks that the star appeared to the Magi as a reflection upon the Jews, who had rejected prophet after prophet, whereas the apparition of a single star was sufficient to bring barbarian Magi to the feet of Christ. At the same time he believes that God especially favored the Magi in vouchsafing them a star, a sign to which they were accustomed, as the mode of announcement. Thus he comes dangerously near to admitting tacitly what he has just been denying, namely, that the stars are signs of the future and that there is something in the art of astrology. In short, the star appeared to the Magi because they as astrologers would comprehend its meaning. Chrysostom denies this openly and does his best to think up arguments against it, but he cannot rid his subconscious thought of the idea. [Sidenote: The spurious homily.] The other homily ascribed to Chrysostom repeats some of the points made in the genuine homily, but adds others. The preacher has read somewhere, perhaps in Origen where we have already met the suggestion, that the Magi had learned that the star would appear from the books of the diviner Balaam, “whose divination is also put into the Old Testament: ‘A star shall arise from Jacob and a man shall come forth from Israel, and he shall rule all nations.’” But the preacher does not state why it is any better to have such a prediction made by a diviner than by an astrologer. The preacher has also heard some cite a writing, which is not surely authentic but yet is not destructive to the Faith and rather pleasing, to the effect that in the extreme east on the shores of the ocean live a people who possess a writing inscribed with the name of Seth and dealing with the appearance of this star and the gifts to be offered. This writing was handed down from father to son through successive generations, and twelve of the most studious men of their number were chosen to watch for the coming of the star, and whenever one died, another was chosen in his place. They were called Magi in their language because they glorified God silently. Every year after the threshing of the harvest they climbed a mountain to a cave with delightful springs shaded by carefully selected trees. There they washed themselves and for three days in silence prayed and praised God. Finally one year the star appeared in the form of a little child with the likeness of a cross above it; and it spoke with them and taught them and instructed them to set out for Judea.[2045] When they had set out, it went before them for two years, during which time food and drink were never lacking in their wallets. On their return they worshiped and glorified God more sedulously than ever and preached to their people. Finally, after the resurrection, the apostle Thomas visited that region and they were baptized by him and were made his assistant preachers. This tale is indeed pleasing enough, and it saves the Magi from all imputation of magic arts and employment of demons and even denies that they were astrologers. But as a device to escape the natural inference from the Gospel story that the birth of Christ was announced by the stars and in a way which astronomers could comprehend it is certainly far-fetched, and shows how Christian theologians were put to it to find a way out of the difficulty. The homily goes on to advance some of the usual arguments against astrology, such as that the stars cannot cause evil, that the human will is free, and that a science of individual horoscopes cannot account for all men worshiping idols before Christ and abandoning idolatry and other ancient customs thereafter, or for the perishing in the deluge of all men except the family of Noah, or for national customs such as circumcision among the Jews and incest among the Persians. Here we again probably see the influence of Bardesanes. [Sidenote: Number, names, and home of the Magi.] We have already noted that Origen seems to have been the first of the fathers to state the number of the Magi as three, whereas the homily just considered implies that there were twelve of them. Their representation in art as three in number did not become general until the fourth century,[2046] while the depiction of them as kings was also a gradual and, according to Kehrer, later growth.[2047] Bouché-Leclercq, citing an earlier monograph,[2048] states that the royalty of the Magi was invented towards the sixth century to show the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies,[2049] and that Bede is the first who knows their names. But Mâle says, “Their mysterious names are first found in a Greek chronicle of the beginning of the sixth century translated into Latin by a Merovingian monk,” and are “Bithisarea, Melichior, Gathaspa.”[2050] The provenance of the Magi was variously stated by the Christian fathers:[2051] Arabia according to Justin Martyr, Epiphanius, and Tertullian or Pseudo-Tertullian; Persia according to Clement of Alexandria, Basil, and Cyril; Persia or Chaldea according to Chrysostom and Diodorus of Tarsus; Chaldea according to Jerome and Augustine and the philosopher Chalcidius in his commentary upon Plato’s _Timaeus_.[2052] The homily which we were just considering gave the impression that they came from India. [Sidenote: Liturgical drama of the Magi: _The Three Kings of Cologne_.] In the middle ages the Magi appeared in liturgical drama as well as in art. An early instance is a tenth century lectionary from Compiègne, now preserved at Paris,[2053] where after homilies by various fathers there is added in a hand only slightly later the liturgical drama of the adoration of the Magi. In the later middle ages there came into existence the _History_ or _Deeds of the Three Kings of Cologne_, as the Magi came to be called from the supposed translation of their relics to that city. Their bodies were said to have been brought by the empress Helena from India to Constantinople, whence they were transferred to Milan, and after its destruction by Barbarossa, to Cologne. This “fabulous narration,” as it has well been entitled,[2054] also has much to say of the miracles of the apostle Thomas in India and of Prester John, to whom we shall devote a later chapter. It asserts that the three kings reached Jerusalem on the thirteenth day after Christ’s birth by a miraculously rapid transit by day and by night of themselves and their armies to the marvel of the inhabitants of the towns through which they passed, or rather, flew.[2055] After they had returned home and had successively migrated to Christ above, another apparition of a star marked this fact.[2056] The treatise exists in many manuscripts[2057] and was printed more than once before 1500. [Sidenote: Another homily on the Magi.] Finally we may note the contents of the homily on the Magi which immediately precedes the liturgical drama concerning them in the above mentioned tenth century lectionary.[2058] The Magi are said to have come on the thirteenth day of Christ’s nativity. That they came from the Orient was fitting since they sought one of whom it had been written, _Ecce vir oriens_. It was also fitting that Christ’s coming should be announced to shepherds of Israel by a rational angel, to Gentile Magi by an irrational star. This star appeared neither in the starry heaven nor on earth but in the air; it had not existed before and ceased to exist after it had fulfilled its function. Although he has just said that the star appeared in the air and not in the sky, the preacher now adds that when a new man was born in the world it was fitting that a new star should appear in the sky. He also, in pointing out how all the elements recognized that their Creator had come into the world, states that the sky sent a star, the sea allowed Him to walk upon it, the sun was darkened, stones were broken and the earth quaked when He died. [Sidenote: Priscillianists answered.] Since the heretics known as Priscillianists have adduced the star at Christ’s birth to prove that every man is born under the fates of the stars, the preacher endeavors to answer them. He holds that since the star came to where Jesus lay He controlled it rather than vice versa. Then follow the usual arguments against genethlialogy that many men born under the sign Aquarius are not fishermen, that sons of serfs are born at the same time as princes, and the case of Jacob and Esau. The star was merely a sign to the Magi and by its twinkling illuminated their minds to seek the new-born babe. It seems scarcely consistent that a star which the preacher has called irrational should illuminate minds. [Sidenote: Number and race of the Magi again.] The homily goes on to say that opinions differ as to who the Magi were and whence they came. Owing to the prophecy that the kings of Tarsus and the isles offer presents, the kings of the Arabs and Sheba bring gifts, some regard Tarsus, Arabia, and Sheba as the homes of the Magi. Others call them Persians or Chaldeans, since Chaldeans are skilled in astronomy. Others say that they were descendants of Balaam. At any rate they were the first Gentiles to seek Christ and they are well said to have been three, symbolizing faith in the Trinity, the three virtues, faith, hope and charity, the three safeguards against evil, thoughts, words and works, and the three Gentile contributions to the Faith of physics, ethics, and logic, or natural, moral, and rational philosophy. The preacher then indulges in further allegorical interpretation anent Herod and what was typified by the gifts of the Magi.[2059]