God spoke of old by the prophets, but now by his Son, who is incomparably greater than the angels.
CHAP, I. God spake to their fathers by the Prophets: but to them selues by his ovvne Sonne, 14 vvho incomparably passeth al the Angels.
1God, who, at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all,Iddio, che molte volte, ed in molte guise parlò un tempo a' padri per i profeti: ultimamente,DIVERSELY and many vvaies in times past God speaking to the fathers in the prophets:Multifariam, multisque modis olim Deus loquens patribus in prophetis: 2In these days, hath spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world.In questi giorni ha parlato a noi pel Figliuolo, cui egli costituì erede di tutte quante le cose, per cui creò anche i secoli:last of al in these daies hath spoken to vs in his Sonne, vvhom he hath appointed heire of al, by vvhom he made also the vvorldes.novissime, diebus istis locutus est nobis in Filio, quem constituit hæredem universorum, per quem fecit et sæcula: 3Who being the brightness of his glory and the figure of his substance and upholding all things by the word of his power, making purgation of sins, sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high:Il quale essendo lo splender della gloria, e figura della sostanza di lui, e le cose tutte sostentando con la possente parola sua, fatta la purgazione de' peccati, siede alla destra della maestà nelle altezze:Vvho being the brightnesse of his glorie, and the figure of his substance, & carying al things by the vvord of his povver, making purgation of sinnes, sitteth on the right hand of the Maiestie in the high places:qui cum sit splendor gloriæ, et figura substantiæ ejus, portansque omnia verbo virtutis suæ, purgationem peccatorum faciens, sedet ad dexteram majestatis in excelsis: 4Being made so much better than the angels as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they.Fatto di tanto superiore agli Angeli, quanto più eccellente nome, che quegli, ebbe in retaggio.being made so much better then Angels, as he hath inherited a more excellent name aboue them.tanto melior angelis effectus, quanto differentius præ illis nomen hæreditavit. 5For to which of the angels hath he said at any time: Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten thee? And again: I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?Imperocché a qual mai degli Angeli disse: mio figliuolo se tu, oggi io ti ho generato? E di nuovo: io sarogli padre, ed ei sarammi figliuolo?For to vvhich of the Angels hath he said at any time, Thou art my sonne, to day haue I begotten thee? and againe, I vvil be to him a father, and he shal be to me a sonne.Cui enim dixit aliquando angelorum: Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te ? Et rursum: Ego ero illi in patrem, et ipse erit mihi in filium ?
6And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith: And let all the angels of God adore him.E di nuovo, allorché introduce il Primogenito nel mondo, egli dice: e lo adorino tutti gli Angeli di Dio.And vvhen againe he bringeth in the first begotten into the vvorld, he saith, And • let al the Angels of God adore him.Et cum iterum introducit primogenitum in orbem terræ, dicit: Et adorent eum omnes angeli Dei. 7And to the angels indeed he saith: He that maketh his angels spirits and his ministers a flame of fire.Quanto poi agli Angeli, dice: egli, che i suoi Angeli fa spiriti, e i ministri suoi fiamma di fuoco.And to the Angels truely he saith, He that maketh his Angels, spirites: and his ministers, a flame of fire.Et ad angelos quidem dicit: Qui facit angelos suos spiritus, et ministros suos flammam ignis. 8But to the Son: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of justice is the sceptre of thy kingdom.Al Figliuolo poi (dice:) il tuo trono, o Dio, pel secolo del secolo: scettro di equità, lo scettro del tuo regno.But to the Sonne: Thy throne ô God for euer & euer: a rod of equitie, the rod of thy kingdom.Ad Filium autem: Thronus tuus Deus in sæculum sæculi: virga æquitatis, virga regni tui. 9Thou hast loved justice and hated iniquity: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.Hai amato la giustizia, ed hai avuta in odio l'iniquità: per questo ti ha unto Dio, il tuo Dio, con olio di esultazione sopra de' tuoi consorti.Thou hast loued iustice, and hated iniquitie: therfore thee, God, thy God hath anointed vvith the oile of exultation aboue thy fellovves.Dilexisti justitiam, et odisti iniquitatem: propterea unxit te Deus, Deus tuus, oleo exultationis præ participibus tuis. 10And: Thou in the beginning, O Lord, didst found the earth: and the works of thy hands are the heavens.E: tu, Signore, in principio gettasti i fondamenti della terra: e opere delle mani tue sono i cieli.And, Thou in the beginning ô Lord didst found the earth: and the vvorkes of thy handes are the heauens.Et: Tu in principio, Domine, terram fundasti: et opera manuum tuarum sunt cæli. 11They shall perish: but thou shalt continue: and they shall all grow old as a garment.Questi periranno, ma tu durerai e tutti invecchieranno, come un vestito:They shal perish, but thou shalt continue: and they shal al vvaxe old as a garment.Ipsi peribunt, tu autem permanebis, et omnes ut vestimentum veterascent: 12And as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed. But thou art the selfsame: and thy years shall not fail.E quasi veste gli rivolterai, e saran rivoltati: ma tu se' l'istessissimo, e gli anni tuoi non verranno meno.And as a vesture shalt thou chaunge them, & they shal be changed: but thou art the self same, and thy yeres shal not faile.et velut amictum mutabis eos, et mutabuntur: tu autem idem ipse es, et anni tui non deficient.
13But to which of the angels said he at any time: Sit on my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool?Ed a qual degli Angeli disse egli mai: siedi alla mia destra, sino a tanto che io ponga i tuoi nemici sgabello a' tuoi piedi?But to vvhich of the Angels said he at any time: Sit on my right hand, vntil I make thine enemies the footestoole of thy feete?Ad quem autem angelorum dixit aliquando: Sede a dextris meis, quoadusque ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum ? 14Are they not all ministering spirits, sent to minister for them who shall receive the inheritance of salvation?Non son eglino tutti spiriti amministratori, che sono mandati al ministero in grazia di coloro, i quali acquisteranno l'eredità della salute?Are they not al, ministring spirits: sent to minister for them vvhich shal receiue the inheritance of saluation?Nonne omnes sunt administratorii spiritus, in ministerium missi propter eos, qui hæreditatem capient salutis ?
1:1
At different times,[Ver. 1. Multifariam, polumeros; which signifies, that God revealed the coming of his Son as it were by parts and parcels, or by degrees, first revealing some things and then others.] and in many ways. The first word signifies that God revealed the incarnation of his Son, as it were, by parcels, and by degrees, at different times, and to different persons, to Adam, to Abraham, to Moses, to David, etc. The latter word expresseth the different ways and manners, as by angels, by immediate inspirations, and revelations, by types, figures, and ceremonies.[Ver. 1. Novissimè, ep echatou, which reading Dr. Wells prefers before that in the ordinary Greek copies, which have ep echaton ton emeron, followed by the Protestant translation and Mr. N.]
Witham
Last of all, by his Son, this true, natural, eternal Son, of whom we must always take notice, that being both true God, and true man, by the union of the divine and human nature to one and the same divine person, St. Paul speaks of him sometimes as God, sometimes mentions what applies to him as man, sometimes as our Redeemer, both God and man. This must necessarily happen in speaking of Christ; but when we find things that cannot be understood of one that is a pure or mere man only, or that cannot be true but of him, who is truly God, these are undeniable proofs against the errors of the Arians and Socinians. (Witham)
1:2
Witham
Whom he hath appointed heir of all things. Heir is here not taken for one that succeeds another at his death, but for the same as Master or Lord. And though Christ be inseparably God and man, yet this applies to him, as man, because, as God, he was not constituted in time, but was always from eternity, Lord of all things, with the Father and the Holy Ghost: by whom also he made the world. That is, all created beings, and in such a manner, that all creatures were equally produced by the three divine persons. See the annotations on (John 1:3.) (Witham)
1:3
Witham
Who being the spendour,[Ver. 3. Splendor gloriae, apaugasma, refulgentia, effulgentia, etc.] or brightness of his glory, not as beams or rays are derived from a lightsome body, but by a necessary and eternal communication of the same substance, and of the whole light; in which sense the council of Nice[Nicaea] understood the eternal Son of God to be light of light. This partly helps us to conceive the eternal generation of the Son from the Father, because the brightness is at the same time with the sun, though all comparisons fall short of this mystery. (Witham)
We may here observe the two natures of Christ. As God, he is the Creator of all things; as man, he is constituted heir of the goods of God. Not content to possess the inheritance of his Father in his own person, he will have us as coheirs to share it also with him. May we so live as to hear one day that happy sentence: Come, ye blessed of my Father, etc.
Witham
And the figure of his substance.[Ver. 3. Figura substantiae, charakter tes upostaseos. Hypostasis signifies persona, subsistentia, and also substantia.] In the Greek is the character of his substance; which might be translated, the express image. There are different ways by which a thing may be said to be a figure or image of another: here it is taken for such a representation of the substance of the Father, that though the Father and the Son be distinct persons, and the Son proceed from the Father, yet he is such a figure and image, as to have the same nature and substance with the Father, as the Catholic Church always believed and declared against the ancient heretics, and particularly against the Arians. Their words may be partly seen in Petavius, lib. 2:de Trin. Hebrews 11.; lib. 4:chap. 6.; lib. vi. Hebrews 6., being too prolix for these short notes. And this may be understood by the following words concerning the Son: and upholding or preserving all things by the word of his power. As he had said before, that all things were made by him, so all things are preserved by him, equally with the Father. See Colossians 1:16, 17. See also ver. 10. of this chapter, and the annotations on John 1:3. (Witham)
Witham
Figure. This does not exclude the reality. So Christ's body in the eucharist, and his mystical death in the mass, though called a figure, image, or representation of Christ's visible body and sacrifice upon the cross, yet may be and is the self-same substance. (Bristow) ---Sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high. This also may be taken to express the equality of the Son with the Father, if considered as God; but this sitting on the right hand of God, both here, in St. Mark 16. and in the apostles' creed, express what agrees with Christ, as our Redeemer, God made man by his incarnation, and who as man is made the head of his Church, the judge of the living and of the dead; and so St. Stephen said, (Acts vii.) I see the heavens open, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God. (Witham)
1:4
Being made so much better, etc. The Arians pretended from hence that Christ was made, or created. But the apostle speaks of Christ as man, and tells us that Christ, even as man, by his ascension was exalted above the Angels.
Witham
As he hath inherited a more excellent name. That is, both the dignity and name of the Son of God, of his only Son, and of his true Son. See 1 John 5:20. (Witham)
1:5
Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. These words, though commonly expounded of the eternal generation of the Son of God in the day or moment of eternity, yet may be truly applied either to Christ made man by his incarnation, or to Christ risen from the dead, as they are used by St. Paul, (Acts 13:33.) because the same Christ both these ways is the Son of God. It was the only true and natural Son of God, who was made flesh, who was made man, who rose from the dead; and the eternal Father manifested his eternal Son by his incarnation, and shewed him triumphing over death by his resurrection.
Witham
I will be to him a father, etc. Although these words might be literally spoken of Solomon, yet in the mystical sense (chiefly intended by the Holy Ghost) they are to be understood of Christ, who in a much more proper sense is the Son of God. (Witham)
1:6
Witham
Let all the Angels of God adore him. These words seem to be cited out of Psalm 96:7., according to the Septuagint. And they seem to be an invitation, and a command to the Angels to adore Jesus Christ, when at the end of the world he shall come to judgment. This is one of the proofs which St. Paul here brings, to shew that the Angels are inferior to Christ, because they are commanded to adore him. (Witham)
God shews the superiority of his divine Son over the Angels, in ordering the latter to adore him. Wherever the person of Christ is, there it ought to be adored by both men and Angels, therefore in the blessed sacrament [of the Eucharist].
1:7
Witham
Maketh his Angels,[Ver. 7. O poion tous Aggelous autou pneumata, not ta pneumata, the Greek article being put before Angels, and not before spirits, may seem to favour that exposition, which compares Angels to the winds and to a flame of fire.] spirits: and his ministers, a flame of fire. St. Augustine, on Psalm ciii., and St. Gregory, hom. xxxiv. in Evang., would have the sense and construction of the words to be, who maketh the blessed spirits to be also his Angels, or messengers to announce and execute his will: (messengers and Angels signify the same in the Greek) Calvin and Beza by spirits, here understand the winds, as if the sense was only, who maketh the winds and flames of fire, that is, thunder and lightning, the messengers and instruments of his divine will, in regard of men, whom he punisheth. But this exposition agrees not with the rest of the text, nor with the design of St. Paul, which is to shew Christ above all the Angels, and above all creatures. St. Paul therefore is to be understood of Angels or angelic spirits: but then the sense may be, who maketh his Angels like the winds, or like a flame of fire, inasmuch as they execute his divine will with incredible swiftness, like the winds, and with a force and activity not unlike that of fire. (Witham)
1:8
But to the Son. That is, to his Son Jesus Christ, he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, and lasts for eternity.
Witham
A sceptre, or rod of equity, is the sceptre of thy kingdom. That is, O Christ, God and man, head of thy Church, judge of all mankind, thou shalt reward and punish all under thee with justice and equity, as thou hast loved justice, and hated iniquity: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee. Many here understand God first named, to be in the vocative case, and that the sense is: therefore thee, O God, thy God, hath anointed: thus Christ is called God. Others take God in both places to be in the nominative case, and to be only a repetition of God the Father; and the sense to be, thee Christ, God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above them that are partakers with thee: by which spiritual unction, some understand graces infused into Christ's soul at his incarnation, by a greater plenitude of graces than was ever given to any saints whom he made partakers of his glory in heaven; others expound it of an unction of greater glory given to Christ in heaven as man, because by his sufferings and merits he had destroyed and triumphed over sin. See Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, etc. (Witham)
1:10
etc. And again: thou in the beginning, O Lord, hast founded the earth, etc. The text, as well as the authority of interpreters, shew these words to be still spoken of the Son of God, of Christ, who was both true God and man. And though part of Psalm ci., from which these words are taken, contain a prayer to God for the restoring of the city of Jerusalem, yet in this psalm is chiefly signified the glory of Christ, and of his Church, which will be spread over all nations. See St. Chrysostom, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, etc.
Witham
As a vesture shalt thou change them, etc. The apostle, in the second verse of this chapter, had said that the world was made by the Son of God: now he tells us that all created things shall wax old like a garment, shall decay and perish, (at least from their present state and condition) shall be changed; but thou, who art both God and man, art always the same, without decay or change. (Witham)
The apostle here applies the work of the creation to the Son of God, and thus furnishes a clear and striking proof of his divinity, against the Unitarians. To elude this proof, some of them pretend that these verses have been fraudulently added; but they are found in all the Greek copies, and in all ancient versions of this epistle. Others try to give forced interpretations to these verses, but the words are convincingly clear to all who do not purposely shut their eyes.
1:13
Sit on my right hand, etc. The ancient Jews themselves understood this 109th psalm of their Messias, nor could they answer Christ's words, (Matthew 22:45.) when he shewed them by these same words, that their Messias was not only the Son of David, but also the Lord of David, of whom it was said: the Lord said to my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool. See also (1 Corinthians 15:25.; Hebrews 10:13.)
Witham
Are they not all ministering spirits? etc. The apostle, in this chapter, not only shews how much the dignity of Christ is superior to that of the highest Angels, but also his divinity; and that he is both true God and true man, as the ancient Fathers took notice against the Arians. (Witham)
The holy Angels, says St. Augustine, to whose society we aspire, help us without difficulty, because their notion is pure and free. (De Civit. lib. 11. ch. XXXI.) Having then Jesus Christ for our advocate and mediator at the right hand of God, and his Angels for our guardians, ministering spirits, what can we wish for more?
1:3
The figure ... that is, the express image, and most perfect resemblance. Making purgation.... That is, having purged away our sins by his passion.
1:1
In the liturgy The Epistle at the third masse on Christmas day.
1:2
Concordance Sap. 7, 26.
1:3
3. The figures.] 〈Greek〉 To be the figure of his substance, signifieth nothing els but that vvhich S. Paul speaketh in other vvordes to the Phillippians c. 2. v 6. that he is the forme and most expresse resemblance of his fathers substance. So S. Ambrose and others expound it, and the Greeke vvord Character is very significant to that purpose. The B. Sacrament a figure, and yet the true body. Note also by this place, that the Sonne, though he be a figure of his fathers substance, is notvvithstanding of the same substance. So Christes body in the Sacrament and his mystical death and sacrifice in the same, though called a figure, image, or representation of Christes visible body and sacrifice vpon the Crosse, yet may be and is the self same in substance.
〈Greek〉
〈Greek〉
The excellencie of Christ aboue Angels.
1:5
Ps. 2, 7. 2. reg. 7, 14.
1:6
6. Let al the Angels adore.] The Heretikes maruel that vve adore Christ in the B. Sacrament, vvhen they might learne by this place, The adoratiō of Christ in the B. Sacrament. that vvheresoeuer his person is, there it ought to be adored both of men and Angels. And vvhere they say it vvas not made present in the Sacrament nor instituted to be adored, vve ansvver that no more vvas he incarnate purposely to be adored: but yet straight vpon his descending from heauen, it vvas the duety both of Angels and al other creatures to adore him.
Concordance Ps. 96, 8.
1:7
Concordance Ps. 103, 4.
Concordance Ps. 44, 7.
1:9
Concordance Ps. 101, 26.
1:13
Concordance Ps. 109, 1
Concordance 1. Cor. 15, 25.
1:14
The holy Angels (saith S. Augustine) to the societie of vvhom vve aspire in this our peregrination, as they haue eternitie to continue, so also facilitie to knovv, and felicitie to rest: for they do helpe vs vvithout al difficultie, because vvith their spiritual motions pure and free, they labour or trauel not. De Ciuis. li. 11. c. 31.
1:1
Clement of Alexandria † AD 215 The Stromata, or Miscellanies fragments-of-clemens-alexandri
Heb. i. 1 . “At sundry times and divers manners.”
Origen † AD 254 A Letter from Origen to Africanus 1
… while in that writing of his which is universally received he is represented as prophesying in quite another manner, by visions and dreams, and an angel appearing to him, but never by prophetic inspiration. You seem to me to pay too little heed to the words, “At sundry times, and in divers manners, God spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 2.6
… And the Apostle Paul says in the Epistle to the Hebrews:
St Methodius † AD 311 The Banquet of the Ten Virgins; or Concerning Chastity 4.1
If the art of speaking, O virgins, always went by the same ways, and passed along the same path, there would be no way to avoid wearying you for one who persisted in the arguments which had already been urged. But since there are of arguments myriads of currents and ways, God inspiring us “at sundry times and in divers manners,”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 De Decretis. (Defence of the Nicene Definition.) 4
… Him was not anything made .’ And the Apostle, seeing that the Hand and the Wisdom and the Word was nothing else than the Son, says, ‘God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the Fathers by the Prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son, whom He hath appointed Heir of all things, by whom also He made the ages
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.13
… Now this will be readily seen, if one expounds properly the beginning of this lection. For the Apostle says, ‘God who at sundry times and divers manners spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 5
… Christ is the head of the Church we have learned in another passage, when the apostle says “gave him to be the head over all things to the Church,” and “of his fulness have all we received.” And the Lord Himself says “He shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.” In a word, the diligent reader will perceive that “of whom” is used in diverse manners.
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 7
… wherefore we offer the doxology to the Father with the Son. But we do not rest only on the fact that such is the tradition of the Fathers; for they too followed the sense of Scripture, and started from the evidence which, a few sentences back, I deduced from Scripture and laid before you. For “the brightness” is always thought of with “the glory,”
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 8
… At one time it uses terms descriptive of His nature, for it recognises the “name which is above every name,” the name of Son, and speaks of true Son, and only begotten God, and Power of God, and Wisdom, and Word. Then again, on account of the divers manners
St Basil the Great † AD 379 The Letters 114
… I think then that the one great end of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the Churches now “at sundry times and in divers manners”
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Answer to Eunomius' Second Book 1
… Yet perchance they would have done better to look to the sacred company of the Prophets and Patriarchs, to whom “at sundry times, and in divers manners
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 1.4
55. But no one will doubt that the Spirit is one, although very many have doubted whether God be one. For many heretics have said that the God of the Old Testament is one, and the God of the New Testament is another. But as the Father is one Who both spake of old, as we read, to the fathers by the prophets, and to us in the last days by His Son;
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 2.13
143. Take , O sacred Emperor, another strong instance in this question, and one known to you: “In many ways and in divers manners, God spake to the fathers in the prophets.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 1.1
6. Now this is the declaration of our Faith, that we say that God is One, neither dividing His Son from Him, as do the heathen, nor denying, with the Jews, that He was begotten of the Father before all worlds,
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 4.9
102. Besides this, there are other vain objections, such as persons of their glibness of tongue would readily urge. If, say they, the Son is the Word of the Father, then He is called “begotten,” inasmuch as He is the Word. But then since He is the Word, He is not a work. Now the Father has spoken “in divers manners,”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Ephesians 2
… Observe how he on all occasions speaks of Christ, as the Author of all things, and in no case gives Him the title of a subordinate agent, or a minister. And so again, elsewhere, in his Epistle to the Hebrews, he says, “that God, having of old time spoken unto the Fathers in the prophets, hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in His Son,” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 15
Since then we have been vouchsafed a larger and more perfect teaching, God having no longer spoken by the prophets, but “having in these last days spoken to us by His Son” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 12
[1.] Paul wishing to show the difference between the New and Old [Covenant], scatters it everywhere; and shoots from afar, and noises it abroad, and prepares beforehand. For at once even from the introduction, he laid down this saying, that “to them indeed He spake by prophets, but to us by the Son” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 3.7
… Is justice, then, various and changeable? Nay, but the times over which she presides are not all alike, because they are times.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 1.50
… who, being the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 45.5
… lest if it were left unsaid, even those who can follow should not be able. We have read where it is said in another Psalm, “God hath spoken once.” So often has He spoken by the Prophets, so often by the Apostles, and in these days by His Saints, and does He say, “God has spoken once”? How can He have spoken but “once,” except with reference to His “Word”?
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 50.3
3. “The God,” therefore, “of gods, the Lord hath spoken”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 62.11
… 12 ).…“Once hath God spoken.” What sayest thou, Idithun? If thou that hadst leapt over them art saying, “Once He hath spoken;” I turn to another Scripture and it saith to me, “In many quarters and in many ways formerly God hath spoken to the fathers in the prophets.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 108
… Since, “in many places, and in diverse manners,” as the Epistle to the Hebrews saith, “God spoke in former times to the fathers through the Prophets;”
St John of Damascus † AD 749 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4.17
… For He Himself worked out our salvation for which all Scripture and all mystery exists. And again, Search the Scriptures for they are they that testify of Me . And the Apostle says, God, Who at sundry times and in diverse manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son
1:2
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Life of Antony. (Vita Antoni.) 81
… But he made nothing very much of the letters, nor did he rejoice at the messages, but was the same as he had been before the Emperors wrote to him. But when they brought him the letters he called the monks and said, ‘Do not be astonished if an emperor writes to us, for he is a man; but rather wonder that God wrote the Law for men and has spoken to us
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.4
… And where the sacred writers say, ‘Who exists before the ages,’ and ‘By whom He made the ages
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 3.27
… For if all things are delivered unto Him, first, He is other than that all which He has received; next, being Heir of all things, He alone is the Son and proper according to the Essence of the Father. For if He were one of all, then He were not ‘heir of all
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 11.24
… all things have been created by Him and for Him; and He is before all, and in Him all things consist . Even if thou speak of the worlds, of these also Jesus Christ is the Maker by the Father’s bidding. For in these last days God spake unto us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 2.6
… we conclude that all things done in time are subject to the power of the Father), if, I say, it has been demonstrated that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit alike are in a position of power to do what They will, it is impossible to see what sense there can be in the phrase “having lot in His power.” For the heir of all things, the maker of the ages
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 2.10
… How then are we to dispose of the utterances of the Truth,—one which tells us that He shall be seen in the glory of the Father , and another which says, “All things that the Father hath are Mine ”? To whom ought the hearer to give ear? To him who says, “He that is, as the Apostle says, the ‘heir of all things
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Answer to Eunomius' Second Book 1
… No! the only reply that can be given by men of sense is this:—that He Who made all things in wisdom can alone furnish an account of His creation. For ourselves, “through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,” as saith the Apostle
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 1.1
6. Now this is the declaration of our Faith, that we say that God is One, neither dividing His Son from Him, as do the heathen, nor denying, with the Jews, that He was begotten of the Father before all worlds,
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 1.5
36. They say that the Son of God had a beginning in time, whereas He Himself is the source and ordainer of time and all that therein is.
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 1.7
… In another place also the Apostle has declared that God made the Son “heir of all things, by Whom also He made the worlds, Who is the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His substance.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 4.9
111. Let them cease therefore, and say no more that before He was begotten the Son was not. For the word “before” is a mark of time, whereas the Generation is before all times,
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 5.16
… Though this is a foolish suggestion, yet that I may satisfy thee on Scriptural grounds, learn that He made not only what is past, but also what is future, as it is written: “Who made things to come.” Elsewhere too Scripture says: “By whom also He made the ages, who is the brightness of His glory and the express Image of His Person.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Corinthians 7
As to the words, “before the worlds,” ( πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων ) they mean eternal. For in another place also He saith thus, “Who is before the worlds.” The Son also, if you mark it, will be found to be eternal in the same sense. For concerning Him he saith, (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on 1 Timothy 4
… For the glory of the Son is referred again to Him. And since He generated Him omnipotent and such as He is in Himself, it is not more the glory of the Son than of the Father, that He is self-sufficient, and self-maintained, and free from infirmity. It has been said of the Son, “By whom He made the worlds.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 2
How then does he this? When he is compelled to heal, then is he compelled also to utter lowly things: as for instance, “He appointed Him” (saith he) “heir of all things,” and “by Him He made the worlds.” ( Supra ,
Rufinus of Aquileia † AD 411 A Commentary on the Apostles' Creed 5
… But the Father possesses all things by His Son, as the Apostle says, “By Him were created all things, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers.” And again, writing to the Hebrews, he says, “By Him also He made the worlds,” and “He appointed Him heir of all things.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret 1.3
… They thus contradict the Scripture which declares Him to be ‘the firstborn of every creature .’ In consonance with this doctrine, Paul with his usual mighty voice cries concerning Him; ‘ whom He hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds
St John of Damascus † AD 749 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 2.1
He created the ages Who Himself was before the ages, Whom the divine David thus addresses, From age to age Thou art . The divine apostle also says, Through Whom He created the ages
1:3
Pope St Clement I † AD 99 The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians 36
… By Him are the eyes of our hearts opened. By Him our foolish and darkened understanding blossoms up anew towards His marvellous light. By Him the Lord has willed that we should taste of immortal knowledge, “who, being the brightness of His majesty, is by so much greater than the angels, as He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.”
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 2.30.9
… arranged and finished them, and His will is the substance of all things, then He is discovered to be the one only God who created all things, who alone is Omnipotent, and who is the only Father rounding and forming all things, visible and invisible, such as may be perceived by our senses and such as cannot, heavenly and earthly, “by the word of His power;”
Tertullian † AD 220 Five Books in Reply to Marcion 5
An Image, with the Father ever was,
St Hippolytus † AD 235 The Discourse on the Holy Theophany 7
… “This is my beloved Son”—He who is hungry, and yet maintains myriads; who is weary, and yet gives rest to the weary; who has not where to lay His head, and yet bears up all things in His hand; who suffers, and yet heals sufferings; who is smitten, and yet confers liberty on the world;
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 1.2.5
… The Apostle Paul says, that the only-begotten Son is the “image of the invisible God,” and “the first-born of every creature.” And when writing to the Hebrews, he says of Him that He is “the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 1.2.7
7. But since we quoted the language of Paul regarding Christ, where He says of Him that He is “the brightness of the glory of God, and the express figure of His person,”
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 1.2.8
8. But since He is called by the apostle not only the brightness of His glory, but also the express figure of His person or subsistence ,
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis iv.section24
… Nor, seeing He is called the Son of (His) love, will it appear absurd if in this way He be called the Son of (His) will. Nay, John also indicates that “God is Light,” and Paul also declares that the Son is the splendour of everlasting light.
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 8.12
… We worship, therefore, the Father of truth, and the Son, who is the truth; and these, while they are two, con sidered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will. So entirely are they one, that he who has seen the Son, “who is the brightness of God’s glory, and the express image of His person,”
Novatian † AD 258 A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity 18
… so that, being accustomed to look upon the Son, it may one day be able to see God the Father Himself also as He is, that it may not be stricken by His sudden and intolerable brightness, and be hindered from being able to see God the Father, whom it has always desired.
St Gregory Thaumaturgus † AD 270 Four Homilies 4
… I am but a man, and am a partaker of the divine grace; but Thou art God, and also man to the same effect: for Thou art by nature man’s friend. I have need to be baptized of Thee, and comest Thou to me? Thou who wast in the beginning, and wast with God, and wast God; Thou who art the brightness of the Father’s glory;
Archelaus † fl. AD 278 The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes 34
… but God Himself is His only Father by nature, who was pleased to make all things manifest in short space to us by His word. And our Lord Jesus Christ, making no tarrying, in the space of one year restored multitudes of the sick to health, and gave back the dead to the light of life; and He did indeed embrace all things in the power of His own word.
St Methodius † AD 311 Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna On the Day that They Met in the Temple 1
… Thou art the circumscription, so to speak, of Him who cannot be circumscribed; the root of the most beautiful flower; the mother of the Creator; the nurse of the Nourisher; the circumference of Him who embraces all things; the upholder of Him
St Alexander of Alexandria † AD 326 Epistles on the Arian Heresy and the Deposition of Arius 1.12
… For it is clear that He is the image fully containing all things by which the greatest similitude is declared, as the Lord Himself hath taught us, when He says, “My Father is greater than I.” And according to this we believe that the Son is of the Father, always existing. “For He is the brightness of His glory, the express image of His Father’s person.”
Constantine the Great † AD 337 The Oration of Constantine 11
… Conception was there, yet apart from marriage: childbirth, yet pure virginity: and a maiden became the mother of God! An eternal nature received a beginning of temporal existence: a sensible form of a spiritual essence, a material manifestation of incorporeal brightness,
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 3.23
… Our science cannot envelope body in body, or pour one into another, as water into wine; but we confess that in Both is equivalence of power and fulness of the Godhead. For the Son has received all things from the Father; He is the Likeness of God, the Image of His substance. The words, Image of His substance
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 7.15
… And this is the only possible origin of true equality; birth can only bring into existence a nature equal to its origin. But again, we can no more hold that there is equality where there is confusion, than we can where there is difference. Thus equality, as of the image
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Deposition of Arius 3
… And how can He be “made of things that were not,” when the Father saith, “My heart hath uttered a good Word,” and “Out of the womb I have begotten Thee before the morning star ?” Or again, how is He “unlike in substance to the Father,” seeing He is the perfect “image” and “brightness
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 De Decretis. (Defence of the Nicene Definition.) 3
… but, since ‘no one knoweth the Son but the Father, and no one knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him ,’ therefore the sacred writers to whom the Son has revealed Him, have given us a certain image from things visible, saying, ‘Who is the brightness of His glory, and the Expression of His Person
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 De Sententia Dionysii. (Defence of Dionysius.) 8
… 15 ) to add, ‘He is Prince of Life,’ while in the Gospel he confesses, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ But in his Epistle he calls Him Bishop of souls and Lord both of himself and of angels and Powers. Paul, again, who calls Christ a man of the seed of David, wrote thus to the Hebrews (
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 To the Bishops of Egypt 2
… If they hold this opinion, is not this passage also against them; and does not the blessed Paul write as blaming them? The Lord also says, ‘I and My Father are One:’ and ‘He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father ;’ and the Apostle who was sent by Him to preach, writes, ‘Who being the Brightness of His glory, and the express Image of His Person
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.4
… ;’ and Susanna said, ‘O Everlasting God ;’ and Baruch wrote, ‘I will cry unto the Everlasting in my days,’ and shortly after, ‘My hope is in the Everlasting, that He will save you, and joy is come unto me from the Holy One ;’ yet forasmuch as the Apostle, writing to the Hebrews, says, ‘Who being the radiance of His glory and the Expression of His Person
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.7
… Nay, one would fain not hear them disputing at all, that God was not always Father, but became so afterwards (which is necessary for their fantasy, that His Word once was not), considering the number of the proofs already adduced against them; while John besides says, ‘The Word was ,’ and Paul again writes, ‘Who being the brightness of His glory
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.12
… that those who had become under a curse, He Himself might set free. If then He was of nothing, He would not have been the Christ or Anointed, being one among others and having fellowship as the rest . But, whereas He is God, as being Son of God, and is everlasting King, and exists as Radiance and Expression
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.13
… manners spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son ;’ then again shortly after he says, ‘when He had by Himself purged our sins, He sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much better than the Angels, as He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent Name than they
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.18
… For they neither feared the voice of the Father, nor reverenced the Saviour’s words, nor trusted the Saints, one of whom writes, ‘Who being the Brightness of His glory and the Expression of His subsistence,’ and ‘Christ the power of God and the Wisdom of God
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 3.30
… Son;’ and by David He said, ‘My heart uttered a good Word;’ and John He bade say, ‘In the beginning was the Word;’ and David says in the Psalm, ‘With Thee is the well of life, and in Thy light shall we see light;’ and the Apostle writes, ‘Who being the Radiance of Glory,’ and again, ‘Who being in the form of God,’ and, ‘Who is the Image of the invisible God
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 History of Arian Opinions 1
… i. 18 ), by whom are all things, who was begotten before all ages from the Father, God from God, whole from whole, sole from sole , perfect from perfect, King from King, Lord from Lord, Living Word, Living Wisdom, true Light, Way, Truth, Resurrection, Shepherd, Door, both unalterable and unchangeable; exact Image
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Synodal Letter to the Bishops of Africa. (Ad Afros Epistola Synodica.) 4
… for it is, or in other words exists. This Paul also perceiving wrote to the Hebrews, ‘who being the brightness of his glory, and the express Image of his subsistence
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 44
… For He was truly the splendour of the light
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 6
… if I go down to hell thou art there also.” Now, to omit all proof of the ignorance of those who predicate place of incorporeal things, what excuse can be found for their attack upon Scripture, shameless as their antagonism is, in the passages “Sit thou on my right hand” and “Sat down on the right hand of the majesty of God”?
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 8
… Nay, by the divine energy is each one of these in speed further surpassed than is the slowest of all living creatures outdone in motion by birds, or even winds, or the rush of the heavenly bodies: or, not to mention these, by our very thought itself. For what extent of time is needed by Him who “upholds all things by the word of His power,”
St Basil the Great † AD 379 The Letters 38.6
6. It may however be thought that the account here given of the hypostasis does not tally with the sense of the Apostle’s words, where he says concerning the Lord that He is “the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person,”
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 14
… and the rest. And the Colossians he taught thus, If ye then be risen with Christ, seek the things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God . And in the Epistle to the Hebrews he says, When He had made purification of our sins, He sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 29
… “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life;” and “I am the Light of the World.” Wisdom and Power, “Christ, the Wisdom of God, and the Power of God.” The Effulgence, the Impress, the Image, the Seal; “Who being the Effulgence of His glory and the Impress of His Essence,”
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 1-2.25
… let it suffice for us, when we confess the ‘coming from Him,’ to admit also, bold as it may seem, the ‘living along with Him;’ for we are led by the written oracles to such a belief. For we have been taught by Wisdom to contemplate the brightness
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 1-2.39
… but when once thought has grasped one of these, it has admitted the associated Verity as well. “ Being ,” he says (not becoming), “the brightness of His glory
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 2.6
Mark, I pray you, the absurdity and childishness of this grovelling exposition of his articles of faith. What! He Who “upholds all things by the word of His power
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 2.7
… If, then, all things were made by Him, both visible and invisible, and if His will alone suffices to effect the subsistence of existing things (for His will is power), Eunomius utters our doctrine though with a loose mode of expression . For what instrument and what matter could He Who upholds all things by the word of His power
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 2.9
… since such a kind of generation was not sufficient to implant in us an adequate notion of the ineffable mode of subsistence of the Only-begotten, Scripture avails itself also of the third kind of generation to indicate the doctrine of the Son’s Divinity,—that kind, namely, which is the result of material efflux, and speaks of Him as the “brightness of glory
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 2.11
… Nay, on the contrary every inspired Scripture attests His independent and sovereign power, saying, “He spake the word and they were made: He commanded and they were created ”:—for it is plain that the Psalmist says this concerning Him Who upholds “all things by the word of His power
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 2.12
… What then saith the son of thunder? “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God .” And what saith he that came after him, that other who had been within the heavenly temple, who in Paradise had been initiated into mysteries unspeakable? “Being,” he says, “the Brightness of His glory, and the express Image of His person
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 2.15
… For He is called a light by David , and from thence the light of knowledge shines in them who are enlightened. In like manner also the cleansing of our thoughts of which the statement speaks is proper to the power of the Lord. For it was “the brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of His person,” Who “purged our sins
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 4.8
… But He Who is “in the form of God ” has been formed by no impression different from the Father, seeing that He is “the express image” of the Father’s Person
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 8.1
… And herein is His saying found true which tells us, “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father .” Moreover, it is in this way that those words of the Apostle, that the Son is “the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His Person
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 8.4
… And since this particular species of generation did not suffice to produce in us an adequate idea of the unspeakable existence of the Only-begotten, it employs also another species of generation, that which is the result of efflux, to express the Divine Nature of the Son, and calls Him “the brightness of glory
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 8.5
… Let this materialist and friend of the senses be persuaded therefore to correct the error of his conception by the other forms of generation. What will you say when you hear of the “brightness of glory” or of the “savour of ointment
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 On the Faith 1
… For bodies which do not exist, are generated, and God makes those things to be which are not, but does not Himself come into being from that which is not. And for this reason also Paul calls Him “the brightness of glory
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 2.12
138. In like manner, then, the Spirit is said to hear from the Father, and to glorify the Son. To glorify, because the Holy Spirit taught us that the Son is the Image of the invisible God, and the brightness of His glory, and the impress of His substance.
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 1.13
79. It will be asked: “In what sort was the Son begotten?” As one who is for ever, as the Word, as the brightness of eternal light,
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 1.18
120. “Those,” runs the decree, “who say that there was a time when the Son of God was not, and that before He was born He was not, and who say that he was made out of nothing, or is of another substance or οὐσια ,
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 3.11
78. In the first place, “having made purification, He sitteth on the right hand of Majesty on high, being made so much better than the angels.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 4.8
… objection, then, holds not together, that the Son cannot be equal to the Father, by reason of the Father having begotten the Son, whilst the Son has begotten no Son of Himself, for the spring begets the stream, though the stream begets no spring out of itself, and light begets radiance, and not radiance light, yet the nature of radiance and light is one.
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 4.9
… nay, indeed, temporal existences appear, in certain cases, to admit of no division of time. For instance, light generates radiance, but we can neither conceive that the radiance begins to exist after the light, nor that the light is in existence before the radiance, for where there is a light,
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 5.11
137. The Son is the Image of the Father’s Substance;
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 5.19
227. To Thee now, Almighty Father, do I direct my words with tears. I indeed have readily called Thee inapproachable, incomprehensible, inestimable; but I dared not say Thy Son was inferior to Thyself. For when I read that He is the Brightness of Thy glory, and the Image of Thy Person,
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Selections from the Letters of St. Ambrose sermon-against-auxentius-on-th.32
32. But in the church I only know of one Image, that is the Image of the unseen God, of Which God has said: “Let us make man in Our image and Our likeness;” that Image of Which it is written, that Christ is the Brightness of His glory and the Image of His Person.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 An Exhortation to Theodore After His Fall 1
… But where the king of all is concerned, he who holds not a portion of the earth but the whole circuit of it, or rather who comprehends it all in the hollow of his hand, and measures the Heavens with a span, who upholdeth all things by the word of His power,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 1
… ii. 6 .) or which you afterwards declared in that to the Hebrews, “the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of His substance;” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 3
… for Paul, reasoning with the Athenians, calls Him “Man” only, saying, “By that Man whom He hath ordained, whereof He hath given assurance to all men, in that He hath raised Him from the dead.” ( Acts xvii. 31 .) He speaks nothing concerning “the form of God” ( Philip. ii. 6 ), nor that He was “equal to Him,” nor that He was the “brightness of His glory.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 4
… why are you incredulous in the case of the invisible and ineffable Nature? This same thing there takes place, but in a manner suitable to That Substance. For it is for this reason that Paul too calls Him “Brightness” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 7
… None at all. For He is an Effulgence: but an effulgence is included in the idea of the nature whose effulgence it is. For this reason Paul has called Him so, that you may imagine no interval between the Father and the Son. (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 69
For since the Father is called by this name everywhere both in the Old (Testament) and in the New, Christ useth the same name also; therefore Paul also calleth Him, “Brightness” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 1
Ver. 3, 4 . “Who, (being the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power,) when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; being made so much better than the Angels as He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 15.3
3. Just now, I am sorry to say, those Arians, the Campenses, are trying to extort from me, a Roman Christian, their unheard-of formula of three hypostases.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 4.12
… O ye sons of men, how long so slow of heart? Even now, after the Life is descended to you, will ye not ascend and live?
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 1.9
… But in order to intimate the Trinity, some things are separately affirmed, the Persons being also each severally named; and yet are not to be understood as though the other Persons were excluded, on account of the unity of the same Trinity and the One substance and Godhead of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Morals of the Catholic Church 16
… "With Thee is wisdom which knows Thy works, which was present at the time of Thy making the world, and knew what would be pleasing in Thine eyes?" And as Christ is called the truth, which is also taught by His being called the brightness of the Father
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 45.5
… We have read where it is said in another Psalm, “God hath spoken once.” So often has He spoken by the Prophets, so often by the Apostles, and in these days by His Saints, and does He say, “God has spoken once”? How can He have spoken but “once,” except with reference to His “Word”? But as the “Mine heart hath uttered a good Word,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 72.8
… Which also as followeth may not impertinently be taken, that whereas now, having humbled the false-accuser, He sitteth at the right hand of the Father, this is to endure with the sun. For the brightness of the eternal glory is understood to be the Son:
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 104.4
… The Church will totter if the foundation totter; but when shall Christ totter, before whose coming unto us, and taking flesh on Him, “all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made;” who holdeth all things by His Majesty,
Socrates Scholasticus † AD 440 The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus 1.6
… Or how can he be the only-begotten, if he is reckoned among created things? And how could he have had his existence from nonentities, since the Father has said, ‘My heart has indited a good matter’; and ‘I begat thee out of my bosom before the dawn’? Or how is he unlike the Father’s essence, who is ‘his perfect image,’ and ‘the brightness of his glory’
Socrates Scholasticus † AD 440 The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus 3.7
… It was there determined that such expressions as ousia and hypostasis ought not to be used in reference to God: for they argued that the word ousia is nowhere employed in the sacred Scriptures; and that the apostle has misapplied the term hypostasis
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret 1.3
… Who saith, ‘ I was by Him as one brought up with Him: I was daily His delight ?’ Or that once the power of God was not, or His Word, or anything else by which the Son is known, or the Father designated, defective? To assert that the brightness of the Father’s glory ‘once did not exist,’ destroys also the original light of which it is the brightness
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret 1.7
… namely, that the Son is by nature only-begotten of God, Word, Power, and sole Wisdom of the Father; that He is, as John said, ‘the true God ,’ and, as Paul has written, ‘the brightness of the glory, and the express image of the person of the Father
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret 2.17
… The wall which they set up against the weapons of the devil, and the antidote wherewith they repelled his deadly poisons, was their confession that the Father and the Son are of one substance, one godhead, one virtue, one power, one likeness
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 2
… Moreover the very law of truth announces this, for the bodiless spirit of wisdom is not conformed to bodily men, but the express image
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 83
… I believe that there is one God the Father and one Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father: so also that there is one Lord Jesus Christ, only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, brightness of His glory and express image of the Father’s person,
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 152
… world.” And the Lord Himself distinctly teaches us, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” And “I and my Father are one” and “I am in the Father and the Father in me,” and the blessed Paul in his epistle to the Hebrews says “Who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power”
St John of Damascus † AD 749 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1.8
… and when we say He was before all the ages we shew that His birth is without time or beginning: for the Son of God was not brought into being out of nothing , He that is the effulgence of the glory, the impress of the Father’s subsistence , the living wisdom and power , the Word possessing interior subsistence , the essential and perfect and living image
St John of Damascus † AD 749 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4.18
… for some of them declare the union of nature and the identity in essence with the Father, as this, I and My Father are one : also this, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father : and this, Who being in the form of God , and so forth. Others declare the perfection of subsistence, as these, Son of God , and the Express Image of His person
1:4
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 4.11
… They argue that He is a creature, because it is written, The Lord hath created Me for a beginning of His ways ; that He is the perfect handiwork of God, though different from His other works, they prove, as to the first point, by what Paul writes to the Hebrews, Being made so much better than the angels, as He possesseth a more excellent name than they
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 De Sententia Dionysii. (Defence of Dionysius.) 10
… For to the latter class belong the sayings, ‘I am the Vine and My Father the Husbandman’ ( Joh. xv. 1 ), and ‘faithful to Him that made Him’ ( Heb. iii. 2 ), and ‘He created me’ ( Prov. viii. 22 ), and ‘made so much better than the angels’ (
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 De Sententia Dionysii. (Defence of Dionysius.) 11
This then being the sense of the expression, it follows that it is of the vine, so understood, that it is written: ‘Who was faithful to Him that had created Him’ ( Heb. iii. 2 ), and ‘made so much better than the angels’ (ib.
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.13
Chapter XIII .— Texts Explained; Thirdly,
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.14.1
… it was when at the good pleasure of the Father the Word became man, that it was said of Him, as by John, ‘The Word became flesh ;’ so by Peter, ‘He hath made Him Lord and Christ ’;—as by means of Solomon in the Person of the Lord Himself, ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways for His works ;’ so by Paul, ‘Become so much better than the Angels
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 4.2
… and when again He bringeth the first-begotten into the world He saith, ‘And let all the angels of God worship Him.’ And of the angels He saith, ‘Who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire’: but of the Son He saith, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 2
… How? Because righteous men too were called sons; and the name son, if it be not a genuine son, doth not avail to show the “excellency.” When too he would point out that there is a certain difference between creatures and their maker, hear what he saith:
1:5
Pope St Clement I † AD 99 The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians 36
… “Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten Thee. Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession.”
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 4.22
… “unto Him shall ye hearken, as unto me.” “Every one who will not hearken unto Him, his soul shall be cut off from amongst his people.” So also Isaiah: “Who is there among you that feareth God? Let him hear the voice of His Son.” This voice the Father was going Himself to recommend. For, says he,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 29
… “Who are His witnesses,” he says, “unto the people”—the people that slew Him. Who would never have been so, were they not strengthened by a Divine Power: for they would never have borne such witness to blood-thirsty men, to the very persons that killed Him. But, “He hath raised up Jesus again: This day,” he says, “I have begotten thee.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 1
… but that none of them saw God, but the Only-begotten Son saw Him. He doth not indeed at once assert this, but by what he says afterwards he establishes it, when he speaks concerning His human nature; “For to which of the Angels said He, Thou art My Son,” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 2
… For when He hath taken hold of it, thenceforth he speaks out all boldly. For indeed the flesh partakes of the high things, just as the Godhead of the lowly. For He who disdained not to become man, and did not decline the reality, how should He have declined the expressions?
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Enchiridion 49
… For His baptism is not with water only, as was that of John, but with the Holy Ghost also; so that whoever believes in Christ is regenerated by that Spirit, of whom Christ being generated, He did not need regeneration. Whence that announcement of the Father which was heard after His baptism, “This day have I begotten Thee,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Concerning Faith of Things Not Seen 7
… demand of Me and I will give Thee nations as Thy inheritance, and as Thy possession the bounds of the earth.”
1:6
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.11
… Nay, certainly before He became man, the sacred writers invoke Him, ‘Save me, O God, for Thy Name’s sake ;’and again, ‘Some put their trust in chariots, and some in horses, but we will remember the Name of the Lord our God .’ And while He was wor shipped by the Patriarchs, concerning the Angels it is written, ‘Let all the Angels of God worship Him
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.13
… for the Father being on the right, the Son is on the right; and while the Son sits on the right of the Father, the Father is in the Son. And the Angels indeed minister ascending and descending; but concerning the Son he saith, ‘And let all the Angels of God worship Him
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.16
… Thus Manoah, the father of Samson, wishing to offer sacrifice to the Angel, was thereupon hindered by him, saying, ‘Offer not to me, but to God .’ On the other hand, the Lord is worshipped even by the Angels; for it is written, ‘Let all the Angels of God worship Him
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.21
… For so it is written, ‘When He bringeth the First-born into the world, He saith, Let all the Angels of God worship Him
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 On the Symbols 'Of the Essence' And 'Coessential.' 1
… by them, ‘And let all the Angels of God worship Him;’ and He is said to be Lord of Angels, for ‘the Angels ministered unto Him,’ and ‘the Son of Man shall send His Angels.’ The being honoured as the Father, for ‘that they may honour the Son,’ He says, ‘as they honour the Father;’—being equal to God, ‘He counted it not a prize to be equal with God’ (
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 2.8
… as here, calling Him, “first-born of all creation ,” another time, “the first-born among many brethren ,” again, “first-born from the dead ,” and on another occasion he employs the term absolutely, without combining it with other words, saying, “But when again He bringeth the first-born into the world, He saith, And let all the angels of God worship Him
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 4.2
… and when again He bringeth the first-begotten into the world He saith, ‘And let all the angels of God worship Him.’ And of the angels He saith, ‘Who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire’: but of the Son He saith, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 4.3
… for he speaks thus, “When again He bringeth the first-begotten into the world, He saith, ‘Let all the angels worship Him
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 11.3
… the Apostle proclaims that every angelic nature is subject to the Lord, and in witness of his doctrine invokes the sublime utterances of the prophets:—“When He bringeth the first-begotten into the world, He saith, And let all the angels of God worship Him,” and, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,” and, “Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 1.3
47. Lastly, of the Son it is written: “And let all the angels of God worship Him.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 3.11
75. And the apostles worshipped; and therefore they who bore the testimony of the faith received authority as to the faith. And the angels worshipped, of whom it is written: “And let all His angels worship Him.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 3.18
142. Or let them say where they have read that the Spirit worships. For it is said of the Son of God: “Let all the Angels of God worship Him;”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 4
… Yea, and in other testimonies also he doth this: as when he saith, “but when He bringeth in again the First-Begotten into the world, He saith, And let all the Angels of God worship Him. And again, I will be to Him a Father. And of the Angels He saith, Who maketh His angels spirits. And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundations of the earth” (
1:7
Pope St Clement I † AD 99 The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians 36
… By Him the Lord has willed that we should taste of immortal knowledge, “who, being the brightness of His majesty, is by so much greater than the angels, as He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.” For it is thus written, “Who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire.”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.13
… though, even if they have any such thoughts, Paul shall refute them, who speaks to the very point, ‘For unto which of the Angels said He at any time, Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee? And of the Angels He saith, Who maketh His Angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 62
At least Paul puts it as a peculiar privilege of the Only-Begotten, saying, “To which of the angels said He at any time, Sit thou on my right hand? And of the angels He saith, who maketh His angels spirits; but unto the Son, ‘Thy throne, O God.’”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 95.8
8. From this arises the question as to angels, whether they have bodies adapted to their duties and their swift motions from place to place, or are only spirits? For if we say that they have bodies, we are met by the passage: “He maketh His angels spirits;”
1:8
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 11.15
… He hath found out every way of knowledge, and given it to Jacob His servant, and to Israel His beloved. Afterwards He was seen on earth, and conversed among men . Seest thou herein God become man, after the giving of the law by Moses? Hear also a second testimony to Christ’s Deity, that which has just now been read, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever
1:9
St Hippolytus † AD 235 Against the Heresy of One Noetus 6
… For to this effect John also has said, “Which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” And well has he named Christ the Almighty. For in this he has said only what Christ testifies of Himself. For Christ gave this testimony, and said, “All things are delivered unto me of my Father;” and Christ rules all things, and has been appointed
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 11.15
… For lest, because of His presence here in the flesh, He should be thought to have been advanced after this to the Godhead, the Scripture says plainly, Therefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 3
Then again with respect to the flesh ( ver. 9 ) “Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity, therefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 2.6
… the Holy Spirit is less than God the Father, because the creature in which the Holy Spirit was to appear was not taken in the same way as the Son of man was taken, as the form in which the person of the Word of God Himself should be set forth not that He might possess the word of God, as other holy and wise men have possessed it, but “above His fellows;”
1:10
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.13
(6.) Moreover by saying that He it is who has ‘laid the foundation of all things
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 15.28
… David also says in one place, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever ; and in another place, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundations of the earth, &c., they shall perish, but Thou remainest, &c.; but Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail : words which Paul has interpreted of the Son
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 5.2
… For the Son Himself, Who is the Wisdom of God, says: “When He prepared the heavens I was present with Him.” And Paul declares that it was said of the Son: “Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Thy hands.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 2
[2.] And to prove this, mark how again going forward, and laying aside the “by whom,” he assigns to Him absolute power. For after he had effected what he wished by the use of it, thenceforward leaving it, what saith he? “Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of Thine hands.” ( Infra ,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 3
[3.] And again he saith ( ver. 10–12 ): “Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of Thine hands. They shall perish, but Thou remainest, and they shall all wax old as a garment, and as a vesture shalt Thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but Thou art the same and Thy years shall not fail.”
1:11
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 10.18
… But how these are sent back again after Jesus has ascended to Jerusalem seated upon them, it is somewhat dangerous to say; for there is something mystical about it, in connection with the change of saints into angels. After that change they will be sent back, in the age succeeding this one, like the ministering spirits,
1:12
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.10
… nay teaches that He changes everything else, and is Himself not changed, in saying, ‘Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Counter-statements of Theodoret 1
… for the Divine is immutable and invariable. Wherefore also the prophet David says, “Thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.” And this the great Paul, the herald of the truth, in his Epistle to the Hebrews, states to have been spoken of the Son.
1:13
Pope St Clement I † AD 99 The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians 36
… “Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten Thee. Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession.” And again He saith to Him, “Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.”
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 14
… And in the Epistle to the Hebrews he says, When He had made purification of our sins, He sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high . And again, But unto which of the Angels hath He said at any time, Sit thou at My right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 62
At least Paul puts it as a peculiar privilege of the Only-Begotten, saying, “To which of the angels said He at any time, Sit thou on my right hand?
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 1
… but that none of them saw God, but the Only-begotten Son saw Him. He doth not indeed at once assert this, but by what he says afterwards he establishes it, when he speaks concerning His human nature; “For to which of the Angels said He, Thou art My Son,” ( ver. 5 ), and, “Sit thou on My right hand”? (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 3
[4.] Ver. 13 . “But to which of the Angels said He at any time, Sit thou on My right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool?” Behold, again he encourages them, inasmuch as their enemies were to be worsted, and their enemies are the same also with Christ’s.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 4
“For,” he says, “in that He hath put all things in subjection under Him, He left nothing not put under Him: but now we see not yet all things put under Him.” What he means is this:—since he had said, “Until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 14
… And of the true Tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and not man.” Thou seest the condescension. Did he not a little before make a separation, saying: “Are they not all ministering spirits?” ( supra, i. 14 ) and therefore (he says) it is not said to them, “Sit thou on my right hand,” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 18
… Wherefore did He not put them under at once? For the sake of the faithful who should afterwards be brought forth and born. Whence then [does it appear] that they shall be put under? By the saying “He sat down.” He called to mind again that testimony which saith, “until I put the enemies under His feet.” (See above,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 3.11
… For it is said thus: “But to which of the angels said He at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Enchiridion 58
Now, what the organization is of that supremely happy society in heaven: what the differences of rank are, which explain the fact that while all are called by the general name angels , as we read in the Epistle to the Hebrews, “but to which of the angels said God at any time, Sit on my right hand?”
1:14
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 2.9
… Undoubtedly, when you demand for it an equality with God, that is, a freedom from fault, I contend that it is infirm. But when the comparison is challenged with an angel, I am compelled to maintain that the head over all things is the stronger of the two, to whom the angels are ministers,
Tertullian † AD 220 A Strain of Sodom 1
Were ministering spirits, carrying
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 1.5.1
… and the meaning of which we shall endeavour, in the second place, to the best of our ability, to ascertain. There are certain holy angels of God whom Paul terms “ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 3.3.5
… but every effort must be used that the ministers of God—those spirits, viz., who were sent to minister to them who are called to be heirs of salvation
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 5.4
… For we indeed acknowledge that angels are “ministering spirits,” and we say that “they are sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation;”
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 8.34
… “For they are all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for those who shall be heirs of salvation.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.13
… Let, then, the principalities and powers with which our wrestling is, be called gates of Hades, but the “ministering spirits”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 3.25
… and moreover being separate and divided from the only God, and other in nature, and being works, they can neither work what God works, nor, as I said before, when God gives grace, can they give grace with Him. Nor, on seeing an Angel would a man say that he had seen the Father; for Angels, as it is written, are ‘ministering spirits sent forth to minister
St Basil the Great † AD 379 The Hexæmeron 2.5
… If anything had existed before the formation of this sensible and perishable world, no doubt we conclude it would have been in light. The orders of angels, the heavenly hosts, all intellectual natures named or unnamed, all the ministering spirits,
St Basil the Great † AD 379 The Letters 125.3
… We are also bound to anathematize all who speak of the Holy Ghost as ministerial, inasmuch as by this term they degrade Him to the rank of a creature. For that the ministering spirits are creatures we are told by Scripture in the words “they are all ministering spirits sent forth to minister.”
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 16.23
… of Him Michael and Gabriel have need among Angels. Naught of things created is equal in honour to Him: for the families of the Angels, and all their hosts assembled together, have no equality with the Holy Ghost. All these the all-excellent power of the Comforter overshadows. And they indeed are sent forth to minister
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 2.8
… In what sense then does He become “the first-born among many brethren?” in what sense does He become “the first-born from the dead?” Assuredly this is plain, that because we are by birth flesh and blood, as the Scripture saith, “He Who for our sakes was born among us and was partaker of flesh and blood
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 11.3
… previously observed, is common to the Son with the Father, the Apostle having expressly ascribed such a title to Him, when he says, “Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, Who is God over all .” But this man degrades the Lord of angels to the rank of an angel, as though he had not heard that the angels are “ministering spirits,” and “a flame of fire
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 1.3
47. Lastly, of the Son it is written: “And let all the angels of God worship Him.” You do not find, Let the Holy Spirit worship. And farther on: “To which of the angels said He at any time, Sit thou on My right hand till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet? Are they not all,” says he, “ministering spirits who are sent to minister?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 26
… “But ran in,” etc. just as we are wont to do, she was eager to be herself the bringer of the good tidings, for good news it was indeed. “And they said unto her, Thou art mad: but she constantly affirmed that it was even so: then said they, It is his Angel.” ( v. 15 .) This is a truth, that each man has an Angel.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Ephesians 1
The fulness of the times, he calls it. Observe with what nicety he speaks. And whereas he points out the origination, the purpose, the will, the first intention, as proceeding from the Father, and the fulfillment and execution as effected by the agency of the Son, yet no where does he apply to him the term minister.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 3
… or rather it is the work of Christ Himself, for He indeed saves as Lord, but they as servants. And we, though servants are yet Angels’ fellow-servants. Why gaze ye so earnestly on the Angels (saith he)? They are servants of the Son of God, and are sent many ways for our sakes, and minister to our salvation. And so they are partners in service with us.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 5
… For when human nature was fleeing from Him, and fleeing far away (for we “were far off”— Eph. ii. 13 ), He pursued after and overtook us. He showed that He has done this only out of kindness, and love, and tender care. As then when he saith, “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 14
“A minister of the sanctuary,” not simply a minister, but “a minister of the sanctuary. And of the true Tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and not man.” Thou seest the condescension. Did he not a little before make a separation, saying: “Are they not all ministering spirits?” (
1:1
1. In many ways and in many manners God spoke in times past (Greek λαλήσας, that is, spoke) to the fathers in the Prophets, but in these last days He hath spoken to us by His Son, — that is, through His Son. See Can. 25. By three antitheses the Apostle here prefers the Gospel, that is, the doctrine of Christ, to the doctrine of Moses and the Prophets. The first antithesis is that this doctrine of the Prophets was delivered "in many ways and in many manners," that is, through various and manifold figures, visions and oracles; but that of Christ was given all at once and once for all through one Christ, when He delivered to us the evangelical law. Whence for "in many ways" the Greek is πολυμερῶς, that is, in many parts, through many parts and times, because namely God did not reveal all things to one Prophet, for example to Jeremias, but part of His truth, salvation and mysteries of Christ to Jeremias, part to Isaias, another part to other Prophets. Again, for "in many manners" the Greek is πολυτρόπως, that is, in many forms, as it were turning itself into various forms, modes, likenesses. Thus Homer calls Ulysses πολύτροπον, because he was of versatile genius and knew how to accommodate himself to every place, time and person. Thus God among the Prophets turned Himself into all forms and figures, that He might teach, soften and bend the hard and rude people of the Jews, when He appeared to Ezechiel in a chariot of Cherubim, to Jeremias in a watching rod and a seething pot, to Isaias in a lofty throne and Seraphim, to Daniel in the likeness of the Ancient of Days, where thousands of thousands ministered unto Him, and ten thousand times a hundred thousand stood before Him; to Osee, Joel, Zacharias and others He showed Himself in other symbols and forms. And this is what the Lord says through Osee, cap. xii: "I have multiplied visions, and I have used similitudes by the ministry of the Prophets," that is, through the visions, words and deeds of the Prophets, I have made myself like unto various persons and things. Thus St. Jerome there. The Prophets therefore through various parts and times, and through forms and likenesses, knew and taught others that which Christ, who is in the bosom of the Father, saw all at once in the Word, and taught us: for God exhibited to the Prophets as it were a part of Himself, but to Christ the whole clearly to be beheld and proclaimed. The second antithesis is that the Prophets taught in times past and spoke to the ancient Fathers, namely the Jews, and to them alone; but Christ has now in these last days spoken to us, to all men, I say, of the whole world, as if to say: The Prophets in the ancient and rude uncultivated age taught our rude and uncultivated fathers; but Christ taught us, instructed and polished by so many precepts of the law, so many rites of ceremonies, so many oracles of the Prophets, the very summit of truth, salvation, wisdom and perfection. Whence note: For "in these last days," the Greek is ἐπ' ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων, that is, in the last or final days; that is, in these times, as if to say: In times past one Prophet succeeded another, one law succeeded another, but now Christ, the last of all Prophets, has succeeded, and the law of Christ, the last of all laws, has succeeded, to which no other shall succeed. Whence it follows that the laws and doctrines of the Prophets were neither full nor perfect: but the law and doctrine of Christ is full and perfect, so that nothing is to be added to it. Secondly, by these words, says Chrysostom, Paul stirs up the Hebrews to hope and steadfastness in persecutions to be endured for the faith, as if to say: Come, endure yet a little longer, behold these are the last days, after which shall soon follow the end of labors and sufferings, and the beginning of rewards and joys; behold the day of eternity now draws near, behold that glorious and blessed life impends, the kingdom, namely, of Christ, which shall have no end. The third antithesis is that the Prophets taught as Prophets, that is, as men, foreseeing and foretelling obscurely future things concerning Christ and the Church of Christ; but now in the new law Christ the Son of God teaches us, who clearly sees and penetrates all the wisdom of God the Father: as therefore shadow yields to body, so the Prophets ought to yield to Christ and be silent in His presence, as if Paul were saying: See therefore, O Hebrews, and recognize your happiness; give immortal thanks to God the best and greatest, that He has reserved you for this age of the new law, in which it is permitted you to see not Prophets teaching and prophesying imperfectly, piecemeal in parts, and obscurely, but the very Son of God Himself, conscious of all the secrets of the Father, and teaching you most clearly and fully, and uttering forth things hidden from the foundation of the world. And consequently, observe how much you ought to believe in Christ before Moses and the Prophets, and to strengthen yourselves in His faith, so that namely you may willingly and steadfastly undergo the spoiling of goods, all evils, and even death and martyrdom for it: for the Apostle intends both, as I said in the preface.
1:2
Whom He appointed heir of all things, — not only of men, but of absolutely all things that have been created; for πάντων, that is, of all things, is here taken in the neuter gender, as is evident from what follows. Note the word appointed, namely God the Father appointed Christ as He is man. For Christ as He is God was born heir, lord and maker of all things: but as He is man, He was not born, but appointed by God to be heir, that is Lord, and equally with God the Father a sharer and possessor (for this is what κληρονόμος means) of all things, namely of creatures, and of men, and of the whole world. And this is what is said in Psalm ii, 8: "Ask of me, and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." And John xiii, 3: "Jesus knowing that the Father had given him all things into his hands." Note secondly: The Apostle calls Christ the heir in full of all the goods of the Father, so as to signify first, that Christ, as He is man, is the natural Son of God, on account of the grace of union by which He is united to the Word and Son of God. Christ therefore, as He is man, has a right to the inheritance of God the Father, namely so that He may be a partaker and sharer of divine beatitude and glory, and lord of all things. Secondly, by these words he signifies that Christ is the primary and necessary heir of God the Father, and therefore no one can be admitted to a share in the inheritance, beatitude and glory of God, unless through Christ he be adopted as a son; and therefore each one ought to strive that he be enrolled in this inheritance of Christ in the Church through faith and baptism, and persevere in it, as if to say: Without Christ no one can be saved and heir of God, no one can see the inheritance of eternal life. Persist therefore, O Hebrews, in the faith, grace and Church of Christ, and let no persecution separate you from Him: since you cannot be heirs of God, if you are not of Christ: for Christ is the full and adequate heir of the Father. Wherefore he whom Christ does not admit to this inheritance of His, cannot attain to it and be heir of the Father and blessed. By whom He made the ages. — The preposition by signifies a principal cause, not an instrumental one, nor a ministerial one, as the Arians wish, but a principal one, as is evident from verse 10 and verse 3, as if to say: God the Father through His Son, who is His eternal Word, as it were through an idea containing all the grades and species of things, and as it were through an uncreated architectonic wisdom, omniscient and omnipotent, in which are and live the eternal reasons of all things, "made," that is created and produced, "the ages," that is the times and all temporal things, namely the world and all things that are in the world. Where note: The Greek αἰών corresponds to the Hebrew olam, and properly signifies an age, an aeon and a time that passes and succeeds itself, which in the Scriptures is sometimes called a generation, as when Ecclesiastes, cap. 1, verse 4, says: "One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh." And Gen. xv, 16: "In the fourth generation (that is in the fourth age or aeon) they shall return hither." Thus we call the age or aeon of Noah, Abraham, Moses, that is the time in which Noah, Abraham, Moses lived. But metonymically αἰών, that is an age, signifies things which exist in that age and time, so that ages are the same as temporal things, aeonian things, temporal things: for instance the world, and all worldly things which were created or made in some age or time and subsist. And so olamim, that is ages, is put for hannibrahim vehannaasim, that is for things created and made in an age. Thus in cap. xi, the Apostle says that the ages were fitted, that is all worldly things were created, by the word of God, which he says here in almost the same words: "By whom He made the ages," as if to say: Christ is above and before the ages, from eternity He is creator, not creature: He is the maker of ages and of all things. Where note: The Apostle here impresses upon the Hebrews both natures of Christ: the human, when he says: "Whom He appointed heir of all things;" the divine, when he says: "By whom He made the ages." And lest you think He made them through the Son as through an instrument, he immediately adds:
1:3
3. Who being the brightness of his glory, and the figure of his substance, — that is to say, the Son is the brightness of his glory, that is of his glorious majesty, namely of the Father. For brightness in Greek is ἀπαύγασμα, which the Syrian translator rendered tsemcha, that is, a shoot or sprout. But he did not sufficiently express the force of the Greek word: for ἀπαύγασμα properly means the same as the Hebrew zohar, that is, brightness, splendor, radiance, refulgence, or that in which the paternal glory shines forth, that is, glorious majesty. For just as a ray proceeds from the sun, so the Son proceeds from the Father; and just as the sun displays its light, beauty and glory in its rays shining so brightly, and in them as it were gleams and shines: so the Father displays his glory in the generation of his Son so bright and glorious. The Apostle alludes to, or rather cites, Wisdom vii, 26, where it is said of eternal Wisdom, that is of the Son: "She is the brightness of eternal light, and the unspotted mirror." For there in place of brightness, the Greek word is the same as here, namely ἀπαύγασμα, that is, splendor. St. Augustine, in book IV of his work On the Trinity, chapter 2, interprets it: "light is of eternal light." But the word brightness more clearly signifies the radiance of eternal light. "Brightness" therefore is the same as bright, most luminous, most pure splendor and radiance. The Wise Man adds that the Son is the Father's "unspotted mirror," because in the Son as in the clearest mirror the glory and majesty of the Father shine forth. Note here that God the Father is most aptly compared to the Sun and to light, and this on account of great and many analogies, which St. Dionysius recounts in his work On the Divine Names, chapter IV; and consequently the generation of the Son is most aptly compared to the emanation of a ray from the sun. For by this similitude, as St. Ambrose notes in book I of his work On the Faith addressed to Gratian, chapter iv, and the Greek Fathers, three things are signified: first, that the generation of the Son is natural, and that the Son proceeds from the Father not freely, but naturally, just as a ray proceeds from the Sun. Whence Cyril, in book X of his Thesaurus, chapter viii, proves from this that the Son of God was generated by the Father not by a preceding act of will and choice, but according to nature. Second, by this similitude of the ray and the Sun is signified the immutability of the generation of the Son: for thus without change and immutably does the ray flow forth from the Sun. Third, is signified the eternity of this generation: for the ray or splendor is coeval with the Sun. Where then, says Chrysostom, are the Arians who say: "There was when he was not?" that is, there was a time when the Son was not. Again fourth, is signified the purity of this same generation, because light proceeds from the Sun without any dregs or mixture, as a spiritual and most pure quality. Fifth, from this John of Damascus concludes, in book I of his work On the Faith, chapter ix, that the Son is inseparable from the Father: for thus light and the ray are inseparable from the Sun. Again, the Son can never fail, because the light of the Sun cannot fail while the Sun endures. Finally, just as heat proceeds from the Sun and its splendor, so the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Beza therefore wrongly explains this passage of the Apostle concerning the humanity of Christ: for the Fathers everywhere explain it concerning the divinity, and what follows sufficiently proves this: "And the figure of his substance." For this cannot apply to the humanity. And again that passage from Wisdom vii, 26: "She is the brightness of eternal light," which is said of uncreated Wisdom. Which passage the Apostle cites here. I confess, however, that these things can secondarily be derived and applied to the humanity of Christ: for the humanity is the brightness of his glory, that is of his glorious divinity; because in the very humanity of Christ, as being so beautiful, glorious and august, the very divinity of that same substance shines forth. And the figure of his substance. — For figure in Greek is χαρακτήρ, that is, an expressed and as it were carved image, a sign and likeness, from which we may know and behold the archetype, or exemplar, that is God the Father, just as from an image impressed in wax we know and behold the seal which impressed it: for the Greek χαράσσω means the same as I engrave, I impress a mark or form; hence χαρακτήρ means the same as an engraved and impressed image. Character therefore here signifies that the Son is the image of the Father, not an empty, shadowy, fleeting and evanescent one; but a constant, expressed, engraved one, which represents the Father and the Father's countenance to the life. "For the Father hath sealed him (ἐσφράγισεν, that is, hath sealed, and as it were impressed with a seal)," says the Son himself, John vi, 27. The Son is the figure of the Father's substance, because he subsists by himself, and displays in himself the characteristics of the Father, says Theodoret; "so as to show complete likeness and the proper image of the exemplar," says St. Chrysostom. Note: For substance in Greek it is ὑποστάσεως: ὑπόστασις, however, says St. Jerome to Damasus, is the same as οὐσία, that is, essence and substance. And thus St. Jerome in God acknowledges one hypostasis, just as also one essence, nor does he dare to say that in God there are three hypostases, lest he appear to say that in God there are three substances. Thus also Epiphanius, in heresy 69, takes hypostasis here for essence, as if the Son here were said to be the figure of the hypostasis, that is, the figure of the essence of the Father. And he adds that the Son is called "figure," not because he lacks the truth of the substance of the Father, but because through his own substance he represents the Father. But this cannot be said: for the essence of the Father does not generate the essence of the Son. Nor does the Son have the image, figure and character of the essence of the Father, but identity. Therefore more correctly St. Basil, epistle 43 to Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylactus and others here take "hypostasis" for the person of the Father, whose image is the Son, so that namely he subsists as a hypostasis similar to the hypostasis and substance of the Father, in the manner which I said at II Corinthians iv, 4; for ὑπόστασις is the same as subsistence: but subsistence is nothing other than person. Whence it is clear that the name "figure," or image, belongs properly and personally to the Son alone, not to the Father, nor to the Holy Spirit, because the Son alone proceeds as Word from the Father. But the Word is "figure" and image of the one understanding and of the thing understood, which namely represents his concept and understanding plainly and fully to the one understanding, just as a mirror represents the form of the thing placed before it. Wherefore "figure" and image are relative names, and signify the relation of the Son to the Father: for figure is the figure of that which is figured, and image is the image of the exemplar, just as the Son is the Son of the Father. And this is the reason why the Son is distinguished from the Holy Spirit, because namely the Son, by virtue of his procession, proceeds from the Father as Word, that is as the image of the Father, and therefore is most similar to him in nature and consubstantial, and for this reason is said to be generated by the Father, and his procession is generation; but the Holy Spirit proceeds, not as Word, but as the love of the Father and the Son. But love is not an image, nor does it assimilate the lover to the beloved, but is an impulse, which impels and carries the lover toward the beloved as if outside himself to be loved; but because this love is in God himself, hence the Holy Spirit is God: because whatever is in God, this is immense, infinite, eternal, and therefore God. Thus St. Augustine, book VII On the Trinity, chapter 1; St. Thomas, I part., Question XXXV, article 2, and there Suarez and Vasquez. They note secondly, Theodoret and Theophylactus, that "hypostasis" here is opposed to the heresy of Photinus, who taught that the Son does not subsist by himself: for when the Apostle had said: "Who being the brightness of glory," lest anyone should think the Son to be such a brightness as is with us, which namely is an accident, immediately excluding this he added, saying: "And the figure of his substance," as if to say, the Son is brightness, but subsisting brightness, as it were a hypostasis and person similar to the hypostasis and person of the Father. Hence again the heresy of Sabellius is excluded, teaching that the hypostasis or person of the Father and Son is the same: for neither can an expressed and produced hypostasis be the same as the hypostasis expressing and producing, but must be distinguished from it, just as a seal is distinguished from the figure which it impresses upon wax. And upholding all things by the word of his power, — as if to say, the Son by his word and mighty command upholds all things, that is, sustains and bears by his subsistence, nod and power the whole weight of creatures, says Theophylactus, as if Atlas of the world. For this is what the Greek φέρων signifies, which the Syriac translator rendered achid, that is, embracing, containing, restraining all things as if omnipotent. For achid among the Syrians is an epithet of God, and denotes omnipotence. Secondly, φέρων can be translated with Erasmus as, acting, moving, moderating, governing all things, just as he created them: for φερόμενα, says Erasmus, are said to be those things which are acted upon by some impulse; whence also they call φοράν an impulse. Again, Paul does not say governs, but bears; indeed in the Greek he does not say bears, but φέρων, that is carries. For, as Chrysostom says, he who governs and bears does this with effort and labor; but he carries who without effort most easily moves a thing whither he will. And St. Anselm says: "He bears all things, that is, holds them up on high, lest they fall, and return to nothing, whence they were created by him; and he sustains them not by labor and difficulty, but by the command of his power." Both of these expositions are fitting and connected. For God, and the Son of God, who is the splendor and power of the glory of God, as the supreme king and ruler of all things, both bears and sustains, and also acts and moves this entire universe: hence His glorious providence, sustenance and governance was signified to Ezekiel, cap. 1, through the chariot of the Cherubim, which, as Ezekiel says, was a symbol of the glory of God. Just as Elisha, when Elijah was being taken up into heaven, cried out to him: "My father, my father, the chariot of Israel and the driver thereof." As if to say: You, O Elijah, were as it were a chariot bearing Israel, and at the same time you were as it were the driver of the same, ruling and directing it to all good. For a prince, prophet and prelate is as it were the chariot and driver of the people and the commonwealth; for he bears as it were the burdens of the people like a chariot, and as it were like a driver he rules the people, drives it and presides over it, and at the same time bears and carries it like a mother who bears and rules an infant. Hence concerning Christ the prince it is said: "Whose government is upon his shoulder," Isaiah ix, 6. For this reason also a prince in Hebrew is called nasi, as if you would say bearer or carrier, who namely lifts and bears the burdens of the people: from the root nasa, that is, he lifted, took, carried. Whence nasi is called bearer, and nose bearing: by which name the Apostle writing in Hebrew appears to have used here. Hence Moses, Num. 11, 12, complains to the Lord: "Why," he says, "hast thou laid the burden of all this people upon me; have I conceived all this multitude, or begotten them, that thou shouldst say to me: Carry them in thy bosom as the nurse is wont to carry a little child?" Just as therefore Elijah was the chariot of Israel and its driver, so God is as it were a chariot bearing the whole world, and sustaining all the creatures of the world, which otherwise would fall back into nothingness from which they came. And God is at the same time as it were a driver sitting upon and presiding over the chariot, and driving, moving and governing this chariot of the whole world. Secondly, this chariot, as Ezekiel testifies, is surrounded on all sides by the Cherubim angels, as it were God's ministers, whence also "the spirit of life was in the wheels" thereof, that is, the vital breath and animal spirit from God permeated and was diffused through the wheels, according to that saying of Virgil: "The spirit within nourishes, and the mind infused throughout the limbs moves the mass, and mingles itself with the great body." As if to say: This chariot, this vehicle of God, ran of itself with the Cherubim animals going before, and the wheels moved of themselves, from the force and impulse impressed upon them by God through the angels. For by this symbolic phrase nothing else is signified than that the heavens and the world are as it were the chariot of God presiding over them, running willingly under Him, and that God ruling over it through the angels turns the heavens, and most powerfully and most gently rules, moves and governs all times and things. And so Paul appears here to allude to this chariot of the Cherubim shown to Ezekiel, as Jerome Prado noted there. Whence also sitting and presiding in this chariot he was like unto the Son of man, says Ezekiel: which is the same as what Paul says here, that the Son bears all things by the word of His power. Thirdly, the Greek φέρων can be translated as bearing forth, nourishing, cherishing all things like a pious mother, so that φέρων is the same as the Hebrew mecalkel; but, as I have said, the Apostle appears rather to have used the word nose: for this properly signifies him who bears or carries something. "By the word of His power," that is, by the nod of His might (for power is the same as might, which the Greek δύναμις signifies), or by His powerful command and authority, as a most powerful prince, to whom it suffices to have opened His mouth, that whatever He wills may be done, for He spoke and they were made, as if to say: Just as through the Son God made the ages, that is, the world, and all worldly things: so through the same those things which have been made and created, not by His solicitude, care and industry, as men do when they rule their own, but by His power, word and mighty nod, He powerfully rules and administers. Isaiah signifies this power of God, chapter XL, verse 12, where he says that God weighs the mass of the earth with three fingers: "Who," he says, "hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and weighed the heavens with his palm? who hath poised with three fingers the bulk of the earth, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?" Who? none but God alone, and the Son of God? And the Wise Man, Wisdom XI, 12: "Against the power," he says, "of thy arm who shall resist? for the whole world before thee is as the least grain of a balance, and as a drop of the morning dew, that falleth down upon the earth." Where "grain" is the same as the least inclination or motion. For in Greek it is ῥοπὴ ἐκ πλαστίγγων, that is, the tipping or inclination from the pans of a balance, which indeed, because they are always in motion, hence always one part more or less hangs suspended, that is, is raised up, or is depressed, as if to say: Just as this inclination of the pan is minimal and of minimal moment, so also the world is minimal with respect to God. Secondly, just as this inclination can be tipped to the other side by the minimal motion of him who holds the balance in his hand: so also the whole world is in the hand of God as if in the hand of one holding a balance, so that he may turn and toss it whither he will at his pleasure, and therefore before God it is "as a drop of the morning dew." For just as this, once light and sun arise, is immediately dried up and absorbed by it, so the world can be overturned by God at any instant, indeed can be absorbed. Morally and piously St. Bernard comforts the labors and austerities of his Religious with these words of the Apostle, in the preface to the Psalm, He that dwelleth: "Mortify yourselves," he says, "all day long in many fastings, in frequent labors, in vigils beyond measure, besides those things which are within, contrition of hearts and a multitude of temptations. Mortify yourselves, but for him who died for you. And if your tribulation aboundeth for him, your consolation shall abound through him, so that the soul may delight in him, which in these things refused to be consoled. For in him even tribulation itself can be found to be a certain great consolation. Is it not certain that what you endure is above human strength, beyond nature, contrary to custom? Another therefore bears these things, he surely who according to the Apostle beareth all things by the word of his power. For what need we fear, if he is present who beareth all things? The Lord is the protector of my life, of whom shall I be afraid." Making purgation of sins, he sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high. — In Greek it is in the aorist καθαρισμὸν ποιησάμενος, that is, after he made purgation of sins, or after he expiated his sins by death: for our Interpreter is accustomed often to render Greek aorists by the present tense. Therefore Christ first purged sins, then afterwards by the merit of this expiation he sat down on the right hand of God. Thus Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylactus, Oecumenius. Note: In the Greek δι' ἑαυτοῦ is added, that is, by himself: by which the wonderful charity of Christ is insinuated, namely that he not only expiated, but also that by himself and his own blood he expiated the same. Thus Chrysostom. Here Paul returns from the divinity to the humanity of Christ. The Apostle here notes four forms and as it were faces of Christ, which Ezekiel, chapter 1, designated through the four faces of the Cherubim. For the first face of the Cherubim is that of a man. This signifies the human nature of Christ. The Apostle notes this when he says: "Whom he appointed heir of all things." The second face is that of an eagle. This signifies the divine nature of Christ. The Apostle notes this when he says: "Who being the brightness of his glory." The third face is that of a calf. This notes the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ. The Apostle notes this when he says: "Making purgation of sins." The fourth face is that of a lion. This signifies the kingdom and triumph of Christ, by which he, victorious over death, rose again and ascended into heaven. The Apostle notes this when he adds: "Sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high." The Apostle described these same four forms and faces of Christ, Philippians II, 6, as I said there. For Christ shows in himself the four faces of the four Cherubim: he himself is an eagle, because he is the Word of God; he himself is true man; he himself is a lion, because he is king; he himself finally is a calf, because he is a sacrifice and a priest. He himself therefore is a four-formed Cherub, in whom is hidden the manifold wisdom of God. Sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high. — Both because this most eminent place is owed to the most eminent man Christ, the expiator and victor over death and sin; and also that, sitting beside the Father, he may perpetually exhibit and offer to him his stigmata, wounds, cross and death for the daily expiation of the sins of men. Note: For majesty in Greek is μεγαλωσύνης, that is, greatness, magnificence, majesty, namely divine and paternal. Hence, so that some might express this, for in the highest places, understanding in Greek the article τῆς, as if to say μεγαλωσύνης τῆς ἐν ὑψηλοῖς, they translate it as the most exalted majesty, or that majesty which sits in the most exalted place and throne, which is none other than God the Father's. You may ask: how does Christ sit at the right hand of God the Father? I answer: To sit at the right hand of God signifies symbolically the supreme dignity, excellence and glory of Christ: for God does not properly have a right hand or a left hand; nor does Christ, as God, nor perhaps even as man, sit only in heaven, but both stands and sits. For just as sitting is the posture of a man at rest, reigning and judging, so standing is the posture of a man strong, robust, vigorous and blessed, such as Christ is. Christ is therefore said to sit at the right hand of God: first, because Christ, as God, is equal to God the Father both in essence and in dignity and glory; second and better, because Christ, as man, has been raised to equality with God, or to participation and communication of the divine, as hypostasis, so also of glory. Whence Gabriel Vasquez: To sit, he says, at the right hand of God who is in the highest places, denotes by metaphor the greatest honor which the humanity of Christ had, indeed even the sharing of that same dignity in the same seat: and thus by reason of the hypostatic union with the Word, the humanity of Christ from the beginning of its conception sat at the right hand of the Father. But because here and in the Creed Christ after his death, resurrection and ascension into heaven is said to sit at the right hand of God, hence third, and most rightly, the humanity of Christ after it ascended into the heavens is said to sit at the right hand of God, because it is exalted above all creatures both in place and in blessedness and glory, so that it far transcends the angels, Cherubim and Seraphim; and is nearest to God as ruling over all angels, men and other creatures, and as constituted judge, so that it may judge all the elect and the reprobate: for Christ merited this election through the expiation of sins, redemption and his death. I have said more about this session of Christ at Colossians III, 1. The Apostle accumulates these epithets of Christ so magnificent, says Chrysostom, so that the Hebrews and we may learn to make much of Christ before Moses and the angels, to hope great things from him, to do and suffer great things for him.
1:4
4. So much better than the angels made, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. — The word "better" here pertains not to morals, but to excellence, dignity and power. "Better" therefore, in Greek κρείττων, is the same as more powerful, more excellent, more worthy. Thus the Syriac. Second, for "more excellent" in Greek is διαφορώτερον, which can be translated both as more excellently, or more excellently, and as more differently. Thus the Syriac. Third, the word "made" does not signify that Christ was formerly less than the angels, and that afterwards he was made greater than them, as Erasmus wishes; but it signifies that Christ by the very fact that he was made man, incarnate and born, was made greater than the angels: for by being born he was made the Son of God, whose angels are only servants. And so Christ was always greater, was always preferred in honor to the angels. Whence also others explain it less correctly thus, "made greater," that is, was declared greater: for the Apostle speaks not of the declaration of Christ, but of his real excellence and preeminence. Fourth, for "hath inherited" in Greek is κεκληρονόμηκε, that is, obtained by lot, received by lot. By lot, that is, by inheritance: for inheritance was divided by lots, or by drawing lots among heirs, and from this a hereditary lot is called. And so "obtained by lot" is the same as "hath inherited." Namely, Christ as man by the very fact that he was born and united to the Word of God, just as he was made heir of all goods, so also of the name of God, so that he should be called, celebrated and invoked as the Son of God. Note: The Apostle on purpose compares and prefers Christ to the angels, so that he might show how much Christianity instituted by Christ surpasses Judaism and the old law, inasmuch as that was given only through angels.
1:5
5. For to which of the angels did He say at any time: Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? — Note that angels are called sons of God, but metaphorically, Job XXXVIII, 7: "When the morning stars praised me, and all the sons of God made a joyful noise." For in the same way God is said by Job to be the father of rain, of the sea, of the stars, and thus of all creatures, that is, the creator, producer, maker. But here Paul takes the name "son" properly for a natural and genuine son; for he adds: "This day have I begotten thee;" and thus not the angels, but Christ alone is the Son of God. Thus Chrysostom. This day have I begotten thee. — He cites Psalm II, 7, which Theodoret, Hilary, Origen and Cyril, in Psalm II; Ambrose, book III On the Sacraments, chapter II, and Athanasius in Oecumenius, understand of the human generation of Christ, as if to say: "This day," that is, in the present time and life, "have I begotten thee," O Christ, as man from the Blessed Virgin, and I have united thee as man to the person of the Word, so that thou mayest be to me a natural Son, just as the Word is. The preceding words in the psalm favor this, when it says: "But I am appointed king by him upon Sion, his holy mountain, declaring his commandment." For Christ, not as God, but as man, was appointed king of Sion; and "this day," that is, on this same day on which he was appointed king, namely on the day of the Incarnation, the Father begat him, so that he would be man, and man God; and this so that he might declare the commandment of God concerning the redemption and reconciliation of men prepared and promised to those believing in him. But truly and more aptly St. Augustine, in Psalm II, and Chrysostom, Theophylact, Anselm, St. Thomas, understand this passage here of the eternal and divine generation of the Son of God. Whence "this day" signifies the present duration, which is always present, indivisible and immobile, and embraces all time, past, present and future, such as is eternity. Whence he does not say: This day I beget thee, as if he were now beginning to beget, but "have I begotten thee," as if the generation were already perfect, and the Son perfect, inasmuch as he was already begotten from all eternity, as St. Thomas says: Thou art perfect, O Son, and yet thy generation is eternal, and thou art always begotten by me, just as light in the air is perfect, and yet is always as it were begotten and emanates from the sun. "This day" therefore, that is, in and from eternity, in which there is one Today, one instant, one now, namely one stable and perpetual present, I beget, and have begotten, and shall always beget thee, as my Word and Son. Hence it follows first, that this generation does not pass away, flow and go by, but always remains the same in number in God, so that he always begets the Son. The same reasoning applies to the spiration of the Holy Spirit: for the Father and the Son always spirate the Holy Spirit, just as the sun always pours forth from itself and produces light; and just as God always creates as it were the world, by this very thing, that by his continuous influx he preserves the same world created by him in its being: for this conservation is nothing other than the continuation of creation, and continuous creation. All which things in God proceed from the immensity of simplicity, immutability, fecundity and perfection of the divine essence: for from this the Father has the power and act of always begetting the Son, and of always spirating with the Son the Holy Spirit. It follows secondly, that in divine things to beget and to have begotten are the same, to spirate and to have spirated are the same, and conversely to be begotten and to have been begotten are the same, to be spirated and to have been spirated are the same: for divine actions are perfected in an instant, and eternity is perfected in one "today," nay in one instant; whence in eternity present, past and future are the same. It follows thirdly, that immanent actions, namely generation and spiration, and their terms, namely the Son and the Holy Spirit, are coeternal with God the Father, because they begin with the Today of eternity. It follows fourthly, that there is truly generation in God, namely through the intellect. For intellection, conception and utterance in the Father, by which he understands, conceives and speaks, that is, speaks within himself and produces a conception or word of his mind adequate to himself, that is, infinite and divine, is generation. For this divine Word adequate to the Father cannot be other than the Son. It follows fifthly, that Psalm II does not speak literally of David in himself, as the Rabbis wish; nor even of David insofar as he was a type of Christ, as Jansenius wishes; but properly, in itself, and primarily is spoken and written of Christ: for to Christ alone belongs "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." And: "Ask of me, and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession;" and many other things which are said in that psalm. Finally, Ambrose, Hilary, Chrysostom, and Jansenius interpret that passage, "I have this day begotten thee," not only of the human and divine generation of Christ, but also of the resurrection of Christ, as if to say, "I this day," that is, on this day of resurrection or Easter, "have begotten," that is, have regenerated and raised up, "thee." For thus St. Paul seems to interpret it, Acts XIII, 33. But the meaning and argumentation of St. Paul is different there, as I shall show in that place. And again: I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. — The Apostle cites II Kings VII, 14, which Lactantius, book IV, chapter XIII; Rupert, book II on the book of Kings, chapter XXX; Catharinus and Adam here judge to speak literally not of Solomon, but of Christ. But this is most clearly refuted both by Solomon himself in III Kings V, 3, where he interprets of himself the words which immediately precede this verse, pertaining to II Kings VII, concerning the building of the temple; and by David, I Paralipomenons XXII, 10, where dying he commends to his son Solomon, who was to succeed him in the kingdom, the worship of God and the building of the temple, because God had chosen Solomon for this, and had said of him: "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son." What could be said more clearly? Secondly, Lyra, Burgensis and Abulensis in II Kings chapter VII, wish this passage to be taken literally both of Christ and of Solomon. But this too is said incongruously, because Solomon was only a type of Christ: therefore if these things literally befit Solomon, they befit Christ not literally, but only typically. I say therefore, with Eucherius and Angelomus in II Kings chapter VII, that this verse speaks literally of Solomon, but allegorically of Christ. This is evident from the very passage in II Kings VII, and I Paralipomenons XXII. For there the reason is given why David was not permitted according to his desire to build the temple, but it was committed by God to Solomon, whom He raised up and exalted as king for this purpose, namely because David had shed much blood of enemies in wars: but Solomon was to be peaceful in his kingdom, and very dear and chosen by God. Whence David immediately adds, speaking of the same: "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son." Namely Solomon himself, whom after thee, O David, I shall raise up as king, to whom I decree and commit the building of the temple, of whom I have spoken hitherto. Who does not see that these things are indeed said of Solomon literally, but in such a way that they fit Christ more allegorically, and so much so that on account of Christ these things are said of Solomon, so that namely Solomon bore in these a type of the kingdom of Christ. You will say: If this passage fits Christ only allegorically, therefore the Apostle uses a weak argument, as one drawn from the mystical and allegorical sense. I answer: An argument drawn from the allegorical sense is equally firm as one drawn from the literal sense, if it be established that such is the allegorical sense of the passage, as it is established here; for allegory was equally, indeed more, intended by the Holy Spirit than the literal sense of Scripture. For allegory contains the mysteries of Christ and the Church, which are far more excellent and august than the deeds of David, Solomon and other Jews. Which deeds are signified and narrated literally in the histories of the books of Kings and others of the Old Testament, and this the Jews knew, especially those who had been converted to Christ. For they knew that Solomon was a type of Christ, and that these things said of Solomon were said not for his own sake, but for the sake of Christ, and so the kingdom of Solomon, quiet, peaceful, rich and opulent, was only a figure of the spiritual opulence and eternal happiness to be given to Christians in the kingdom of Christ. Now that these things apply to Christ at least allegorically, no one denies, or can deny: for there are certain things which apply more to Christ than to Solomon; such as what is said here: "I will be to him a father." And: "My mercy I will not take away from him." And: "Thy house shall be faithful," that is, thy royal family and offspring shall be stable. And: "I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever." Which words, although they apply in some manner thinly, and as it were by hyperbole to Solomon, in that God did not cast him down from his kingdom, as He cast down Saul, but continued and perpetuated his kingdom through his descendants for four centuries of years, namely until the Babylonian captivity, in which the state of Israel fell, and the people of the Jews was utterly overthrown, which is a kind of eternity. For the Hebrews call olam, that is "eternal," a long time, whose end is not yet perceived, but lies hidden, covered and concealed. For the root alam signifies to hide. Again they call "eternal" not absolutely, but relatively, namely that which always lasts with respect to this or that people or nation; that is, which lasts so long as that people or nation lasts, to which the thing itself is promised. Thus the old law is said to be eternal, and the old testament to be eternal; because namely it will last always, that is, all that time during which the Jewish people and the Jewish Church shall last; in the same way the kingdom of Solomon is said to be eternal, because the scepter of the kingdom remained in the line of Solomon all that time during which the kingdom of Judah itself remained, and the people of the Jews themselves; which if they should fail, or perish, or be scattered, what wonder if the kingdom and king of the same likewise fall and perish? But allegorically these things apply more fully and completely to Christ; for of Christ it is said most properly: "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son." Again, the kingdom of Christ, that is the Church, is absolutely and simply eternal. Whence it is clear. And it is fitting that the Apostle proposes here to the Hebrews harassed and despoiled on account of faith in Christ the type and example of Solomon, as if to say: Persist, O Hebrews, in faith in Christ, endure exiles, the plundering of goods, blows and stripes; remember how of old after the bloody reign of David, there succeeded the peaceful, rich, and flourishing in all good things reign of Solomon; know that after these tribulations such a reign of Christ shall succeed, shadowed forth by the reign of Solomon: which will not only restore to you the goods taken away, but will enrich you with immense treasures of heavenly glory and riches, and will bestow upon you and make blessed with eternal joys and abundance of all good things. In the same way from the allegorical sense of that place in Deuteronomy XXV, 4: "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn," the Apostle proves that apostles and preachers ought not to be denied sustenance, I Corinthians IX, 9; and John, chapter XIX, verse 36, proves that the bones of Christ on the cross ought not to have been broken, because concerning the paschal lamb, which was a type of Christ, it is written in Exodus XII, 46: "You shall not break a bone of it." And St. Matthew, chapter II, verse 15, proves that Christ ought to have gone and returned into Egypt, because Hosea XI, 1, concerning the Hebrew people, which was a type of Christ, it is said: "Out of Egypt have I called my son." Therefore it is not new, nor wonderful, if the Apostle here argues from the allegorical sense.
1:6
6. And when again he brings in the Firstborn into the world, he says: And let all the angels of God adore him. — The Syrian, Erasmus, Vatablus and Adams think there is a metathesis and transposition in the word again; for thus they translate it, and again, when he brings in the firstborn, as if again only signifies a new citation and new testimony of Scripture. But this is to invert the order of words without necessity, and this transposition is sufficiently harsh and violent. Hence secondly, others explain it thus, that is to say, Christ, being about to be man in the future and about to be born in the flesh, was first placed over the angels in their creation, and the angels were commanded by God to adore Christ, man about to be, by faith. "And again," that is, secondly, they were commanded to adore him, when he was actually incarnate and brought into the world. But in the creation of the angels Christ was not man brought into the world of the earth, which the Apostle says here; but only presented to the minds of the Angels, in the way that Antichrist is presented to our minds, while we think of him as about to come, of whom nevertheless it cannot yet be said that he is brought into the world. Thirdly, St. Chrysostom, Ambrose, Theophylactus, Oecumenius here, and Cyril, in the book On Faith to the Queens, explain it thus, that Christ as God is said to be first brought into the world through eternal generation: for when he was begotten by the Father, he immediately filled all these spaces, in which afterwards this world, that is, heaven and earth, were created; "again" however, or secondly, Christ is said here to be brought into the world through incarnation, when the Blessed Virgin bore him. This exposition yields to the others already mentioned, yet it is not the most apt: for the Apostle speaks throughout this discourse of Christ not as God, but as man, and signifies him as man brought into the world both first and secondly. Fourthly therefore and most aptly, Christ as man was first brought into the world through incarnation, passible and mortal; again however, or secondly, through resurrection from the dead, he was brought in glorious and impassible. Or rather again he brings in, that is, will bring in, God the Father Christ on the day of judgment as judge, that he may judge the world: then all the angels, who first adored him at his nativity, again or secondly will adore him publicly in glory. For then the Father will as it were inaugurate the Son, and will send him in reality into possession of the whole world of the earth: for this verse, as I shall presently say, is taken from Psalm XCVI, which treats of the final judgment and the majesty of Christ the judge. He says: And let all the angels of God adore him. — Some think Paul cites here Deuteronomy XXXII, 43, according to the version of the Septuagint. Thus Theodoret, Euthymius and Procopius in the canticle of Moses, which is found in Deuteronomy XXXII. But the Hebrew and Latin have nothing of the sort there. Whence perhaps in the Septuagint this verse has crept in there from elsewhere. Therefore others more rightly think this sentence is taken from Psalm XCVI, where in the Hebrew it is vehistachavu lo col elohim, which St. Jerome translated, "and adore him all gods"; you would translate more clearly, "and let all the angels adore him." For elohim signifies not only God, or gods, but also angels, as will appear at chapter II, verse 7. But rather in the Hebrew the word malache, that is "angels," seems to have been omitted. For thus it seems it should be read, vehistachavu lo col malache elohim, that is, "and adore him all angels of God." Thus the Septuagint translates it, and Paul here from them: for the Psalmist plays in that verse on the word elilim, that is "gods," or idols and images; and elohim, that is the true God: for he opposes those glorying in elilim, that is, in idols and images (whom on the day of judgment he wishes to be confounded and put to shame by Christ the judge); these, I say, he opposes to the angels, who adore and glory in elohim, that is in the living and true God. Note on Psalm XCVI, which the Apostle cites here, describing and as it were painting to the life both the last judgment and the kingdom and majesty of Christ coming to judgment with clouds, fire, earthquakes and lightnings preceding Him; whence thus it begins: "The Lord hath reigned," that is, the Messiah or Christ, once humble on earth, poor, abject and adjudged to death, but now after resurrection and ascension hidden in heaven, on the day of judgment shall appear conspicuous and glorious to the whole world, and as it were a king sitting on the throne of judgment shall reign: for which reason "let the earth rejoice, let the many islands be glad," all the faithful and elect, and let the whole Church rejoice and exult. "Clouds and darkness are round about Him," that is, Christ with a cloud, and sitting in a bright and glorious cloud shall execute judgment. "Justice and judgment are the correction of His throne." For correction in Hebrew is mechon, that is, rectitude and firmness, or, as St. Jerome translates it, the firmament of His throne is justice and equity. "Fire (of the conflagration of the world) shall go before Him, His lightnings have shone forth (with thunders, as it were trumpets, preceding the majesty of the judge) to the whole earth: the mountains melted like wax at the presence of the Lord, at the presence of the Lord all the earth," namely shall be seen to shake and flow in this commotion of the earth, or in a most violent earthquake, which at so great a majesty of the judge shall be seen to move wholly as if trembling and be torn from its center. "Let all be confounded (by Christ the judge let them be condemned) that adore graven things, and that glory in their idols" (in Hebrew in elilim). "Adore Him all ye His angels, Sion heard and was glad," that is, the Church of the saints and elect. From the adoration therefore of the angels Paul infers that Christ is superior to the angels, and is God and the Son of God. Hence it is plain that Christ, as man (specifically not reduplicatively) and as judge, is to be adored with latria, equally as Christ as God is, and consequently in the Eucharist for the same reason Christ present as man is to be honored and adored with latria; as the Council of Trent defines from the perpetual use of the Church, sess. XIII, cap. V, and can. 6. Therefore in this place and others in this chapter the Arians are plainly convicted of heresy. For David in that Psalm XCVI speaks of the true God of Israel, and says that He is adored by the angels; but this is the Son, namely Christ, as Paul here explains: therefore Christ is the true God of Israel to be adored by the angels.
1:7
7. And to the angels (that is, to angels: for the Hebrew el often signifies this, that is, to; for el is taken for al, that is, over, from) indeed he says: Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. — For ministers Tertullian, lib. II Against Marcion, cap. VIII, reads, apparitors. The Apostle cites Psalm CIII, 4, where the Hebrews and Calvin, indeed Vatable and Jansenius, by spirits understand winds; by a flame of fire, lightnings; and thus they explain: who "spirits," that is winds, and "a flame of fire," that is lightnings, "maketh his angels," that is, messengers and ministers of wrath, that is, of his vengeance. For the Psalmist had spoken immediately before of winds, saying: "Who walkest upon the wings of the winds." But this sense is repugnant to the version of the Septuagint and to St. Paul here, and it inverts the very words, because it makes the predicate, namely "spirits," the subject; and the subject, namely "angels," it makes to be the predicate. For that angels is the subject is evident, both from the order of words, and from the version of the Septuagint, who place before it as it were the subject the article when they translate, ὁ ποιῶν τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ πνεύματα, that is, who maketh his angels spirits. Where the article τούς designates ἀγγέλους to be the subject, and πνεύματα which lacks the article, to be the predicate. Thus in the following verse, where it is said, "the rod of justice, the rod of thy kingdom," from the Greek article τῆς βασιλείας it is evident that the rod of thy kingdom is the subject, and this is the sense: The rod, or scepter, of thy kingdom, is the rod or scepter of justice. Thus John I, 1, where it is said, "God was the Word," the Word is the subject, because it has the article; God is the predicate, because it lacks the article: for thus it is in Greek, Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, as if to say, The Word itself was God. Thus everywhere else the subject is denoted by the article, which the predicate lacks. Since therefore the article is added to angels here, it is evident that angels here is the subject, not the predicate. This sense is also repugnant to St. Paul: for he himself understands this verse of the psalm not of winds, but of angels: for if it were to be understood of winds, in no way, neither literally nor allegorically could it be understood of angels. For winds are not literally angels; nor do they allegorically signify angels, as is evident. Nor is it surprising that the Psalmist leaps from winds to angels, because in that Psalm CIII, he brings forward all creatures to the praise and commendation of God. And winds have a certain likeness with angels, and symbolically represent angels. Better therefore, secondly, others with St. Gregory, homil. 34 in the Gospel, explain this verse of angels in this way: who, namely God, those who by nature are spirits, maketh angels, that is, his messengers; but these too invert the order of words, and make the subject itself the predicate. I say therefore thirdly: The plain and genuine sense is this: "Who," namely God, "maketh his angels" swift and subtle, as it were spirits, that is, as it were winds. Again the same angels, who are his ministers, God maketh to be as it were "a flame of fire," that is, of most efficacious and as it were fiery nature. Whence the Chaldean translates, who maketh his messengers swift as spirits, and his ministers strong as fire. For by a customary Hebraism the note of likeness is understood as: "spirits," namely as spirits, and "a flame of fire," that is as a flame of fire. Finally Maldonatus in the Manuscript Notes thus explains: "Who maketh his angels spirits," etc., that is, who useth the ministry of his angels for stirring up winds and sending forth lightnings. Note first: By spirits can be understood spiritual nature: for thus God, soul and angels are said to be spirits, that is, of spiritual nature; yet more aptly the Hebrew ruchot, that is spirits, here signifies winds. For just as the Psalmist compares angels to flame, so also to winds. Note secondly: For "a flame of fire" in Hebrew it is es lohet, that is, a flaming and burning fire, as St. Augustine reads it, and as our Interpreter translates in Psalm CIII, "burning"; the Septuagint from the edition of Carafa translates, πῦρ φλέγον, that is, a burning fire; or, as other, namely the Royal, manuscripts have it, πυρὸς φλόγα, that is, a flame of fire; Aquila translates, πῦρ λάβρον, that is, an impetuous, vehement, devouring fire; Symmachus, πυρίνην φλόγα, that is, a fiery flame; the Roman Psalter, a shining fire. All of which signify that angels have an equal, indeed far greater agility, ignition, fervor, power of penetrating, activity, and acuteness regarding divine desire and ministry; again a greater purity carried upward from all material substance than fire and flame possess, as Damascus says, book II On the Faith, chapter III. Thus also Theodoret and Euthymius. See St. Dionysius, On the Celestial Hierarchy, chapter XV. Tropologically St. Augustine and Arnobius in Psalm CIII, "Angels," that is, legates and messengers of God, are the Apostles and apostolic men: Christ made these to be "spirits," when He said: "Receive the Holy Spirit. Going into the whole world preach the Gospel to every creature." He made these same to be a burning fire, when at Pentecost He sent upon them the Holy Spirit in the form of fiery tongues, which set their heart and tongue on fire. "For unless the preaching minister burns, he does not kindle him to whom he preaches," says St. Augustine, and then at the same time, as the Psalmist has it, He "founded the earth," that is, the earthly minds of men, "in stability" of His grace and charity. Hence, as St. Jerome says there, God made His angels properly so called spirits, so that they might inspire both the Apostles and other men to do the will of God, and in accomplishing it to be agile and expeditious. Thus He made these same angels to be as it were a burning fire, so that they might kindle and inflame all men with divine love.
1:8
8. To the Son (concerning the Son and at the same time to the Son himself) moreover (supply, says God, Psalm XLIV): Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of righteousness. There is an antithesis, that is to say, God speaks of the angels as it were of his ministers and messengers, but of the Son he speaks as it were of God and lord of the angels and of all things: therefore Christ far transcends the angels. Note: Erasmus here doubts whether God is in the nominative case or the vocative. "It is uncertain," he says, "whether the sense here is, O God, thy throne is for ever and ever; or whether it is: God himself is thy throne for ever and ever." But it is certain that God is in the vocative case: for Aquila and Symmachus translate it as O God. Again, the sense would be absurd and insipid if it were taken in the nominative; for what would be the sense if someone should interpret it thus: Thy throne, O Christ, is God himself? For God is not a throne, but one sitting on a throne or seat, and Christ does not sit in the Father, but at the right hand of the Father. Again, the divinity is not the throne of the humanity, but rather the reverse, the humanity is the throne, indeed the footstool of the divinity. It is therefore certain that the sense is this: O God, that is, O Son, who art true God, thy royal and divine throne is eternal, thou art an eternal king, thou hast an eternal kingdom and seat. Note secondly: Some Rabbis with Vatablus think that Psalm XLIV, which Paul cites here, is an epithalamium of Solomon and the daughter of Pharaoh, and therefore it is said of Solomon: "Thy throne God for ever and ever," that is, says Vatablus, thou, O Solomon, art God (in Hebrew elohim), that is, a prince and governor of the people of Israel, and thy throne, principality, and kingdom will be eternal, because it will always be propagated through thy descendants. But all Christians, even the more learned Rabbis, refute this: for it is certain from the very words of the psalm, so august, that it is not an epithalamium of Solomon, but of Christ and the Church: for the kingdom of Solomon was not absolutely eternal, which nevertheless is asserted here of the kingdom of Christ. For although "age" does not always signify absolute eternity, it always signifies it when it is doubled, that is, when it is said: "For ever and ever;" or, "for ever and ever;" or, as it is said here in the Hebrew for the sake of amplification, leolam vaed, that is, for ever, and beyond. Again, although the Hebrew elohim sometimes signifies a prince and judge, nevertheless the Greek ho Theos in the singular is said only of the one true God. Whence it follows that these things cannot befit Solomon, but only Christ, and that he is truly God. The sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of righteousness. — "Sceptre," that is, a sceptre; for in Hebrew it is scebet: for the sceptre of a king was formerly a rod or pastoral staff. For just as shepherds rule and direct their sheep with their rod, so a king ought to direct his subjects with his sceptre and royal power as it were sheep. Whence Homer calls King Agamemnon poimena laon, that is, shepherd of peoples. Secondly, for righteousness in Hebrew it is misor, that is, rectitude, justice, equity. Thirdly, the sceptre of thy kingdom is here the subject: for it has in Greek a double article he rabdos tes basileias sou; the predicate moreover is the sceptre of righteousness, which lacks the article, that is to say, The sceptre, that is, the sceptre of thy kingdom, O Christ, is most just, that is, thy kingdom is most full of rectitude, justice, equity and holiness, thou judgest most rightly and most equitably, promoting and rewarding the just, and punishing and condemning the wicked; which thou wilt most fully make manifest on the day of judgment. Thus Eusebius, Cyril, Basil in the Catena of the Greeks, on Psalm XLIV.
1:9
9. Thou hast loved justice, and hated iniquity. — He explains here in clearer words how "the rod of the kingdom of Christ is a rod of equity," namely because Christ in his rule loves justice and the just, but hates and punishes iniquity and the wicked. Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. — Note: He repeats the name "God" for amplification, saying "God, thy God," namely God the Father. For it appears that in both places God is in the nominative case, and pertains to the Father. However, it can be taken with Eusebius, lib. IV Demonstr., cap. XV, and St. Jerome, ad Principium, that "God" in the first place be taken in the vocative case, in the second in the nominative, as if to say: Thou hast anointed thee, O God, that is, O Son, God the Father. But the former sense is clearer. For Christ, as man, not as God, was anointed. You will ask, what is this "oil of gladness" with which Christ was anointed? I answer first, that it is the oil of grace, which gladdens the soul. On which account note, that to be anointed by God with oil is to be made a partaker of the power of God, which is mighty in all things, which bestows all good things, which penetrates all things like oil. For oil increases light, relieves the weary, soothes labors, makes men cheerful, bright and splendid; and the same is accomplished by divine grace and power, says Eusebius in the place cited. Hence kings, Prophets and priests were anointed with oil, that it might be signified that they were imbued with the power of God, for this end, that they might diffuse the same among the people, as oil diffuses itself and penetrates and imbues all things; and from this Christ, that is the anointed, are called, Psalm CIV, 15: "Touch not my anointed, and do not harm my prophets." And it signifies, that is: for the Psalmist in the latter hemistich explains the former in the manner of custom; for to "touch" the "anointed" of God is nothing other than to "harm" the "Prophets." Hence by excellence our Redeemer was called in Hebrew Maschiach, or Messias, in Greek Christos, in Latin Unctus: whence also in Punic messe (from the Hebrew maschah) signifies to anoint, says St. Augustine, tract. 15 in Joan. The Prophets therefore are the anointed of God, that is, anointed and imbued by God with the gift of prophecy. The name therefore of Jesus is proper to this man who is called Jesus Christ, as my name Cornelius is proper to me: but the name of Christ is not proper, but appellative, and is a name of dignity and office. Wherefore St. Peter, explaining this oil with which Christ was anointed, Acts X, 38, says: "God anointed him with the Holy Ghost and with power." This oil therefore of gladness is the Holy Ghost, and divine power which wonderfully gladdens the soul, by which Christ as man was anointed into the highest king, prophet, priest, and judge of all men, and that in the first instant of his incarnation. Of this oil, anointing and name of Christ a symbol and portent, which occurred at the nativity of Christ, is narrated by Paul Orosius, lib. VI, cap. XVIII and XIX: "In those days," he says, "(of Caesar Augustus) a most abundant fountain of oil flowed from a tavern throughout the whole day. By what sign is anything more evident than that in the days of Caesar reigning over the whole world the future nativity of Christ was declared? For Christ in the language of the nation in which and from which he was born is interpreted as the Anointed." In this sense already brought forward the word therefore does not signify a meritorious cause, but a final one; hence in Hebrew it is al ken, that is, as Aquila translates it, upon this, as if to say: For this end God the Father anointed thee, O Christ, with this oil of gladness, that namely thou shouldest love justice, hate iniquity, and thus have the rod and kingdom of equity and an eternal throne. Thus St. Thomas and others. I answer secondly, more aptly and better that "oil of gladness" is here called oil, that is abundance and excellence, not of grace, but of glory, which Christ merited and obtained through his justice and holiness, as if to say: The glory of thy body and the fame and celebrity of thy name, that thou mayest be recognized and worshipped by all as the savior of the world, thou didst merit, O Christ, from this, namely because thou didst love justice; and that thou mightest satisfy divine justice, thou didst humble thyself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Thus St. Jerome above, and Jansenius in Psal. XLIV. That this sense is more apt and simpler is evident first, because both the Psalmist and Paul speak of the throne of the kingdom: for Christ obtained this, not in the incarnation, when he was anointed with the oil of grace, but in the resurrection, when he was anointed with the oil of glory. Secondly, because the oil of glory is properly "oil of gladness," which Christ received on account of the merit of his justice. For this is what the word therefore properly signifies. Before thy partners. — In Hebrew mehabrecha, that is, before thy companions; and, as Aquila translated it, before thy friends. He calls the Apostles, and all the saints, the companions and friends of Christ, who, just as they participate in the sonship and grace of Christ, so also participate in the kingdom and glory of Christ from Christ himself, while they are adopted by him as sons, indeed as brothers, and are made heirs of his heavenly kingdom. David alludes to his own anointing, by which, before all his brothers, although they were older and by appearance and seeming more suitable, he himself, though the least of all and in appearance most abject, was chosen and anointed by Samuel as king, I Kings XVI, 7 and seq. For in like manner Christ, poor, ignoble, and in appearance abject, was preferred to all the Prophets, Patriarchs, and Apostles, and before all was thus anointed with the oil of grace and glory, so that all ought to receive from him this oil and share in it. Hence we are called Christians by Christ, that is, anointed ones from the Anointed One. Hence also the grace of Christ infused into us is called unction, I John cap. II, vers. 27. For this reason St. John said, cap. III, vers. 34, that Christ did not receive the "spirit by measure," namely so that to all men as his companions, partners and sharers, even if they were infinite, he might communicate some part and measure of his immense spirit: for this spirit and grace was to Christ as it were connatural, and in a certain way infinite. Whence St. Basil in the Catena of the Greeks, on Psalm XLIV, explains this verse thus: "Thou hast loved justice before thy partners. Others," he says, "men do good by labor and exercise, and turn themselves from evil, but to thee, O Christ, is implanted by nature (by virtue of the union of the human with the Word) a propensity toward good, and a separation and aversion from evil." The Apostle cites all these verses so extensively from Psalm XLIV, in order to encourage the Hebrews to constancy in the faith of Christ and to endurance of persecutions, as if to say: Endure manfully all adversities, O Hebrews, because Christ the most just judge will soon make you sharers in his glory, kingdom and joy; but he will consign your persecutors to eternal fires. For, as I have said, it is more true that the Apostle speaks of the unction of glory, not of grace, although that presupposes this.
1:10
10. And: Thou in the beginning, O Lord, didst found the earth. — He cites Psalm CI, in which, just as the Psalmist prays literally that Sion and the temple burned by the Chaldeans be rebuilt, so also allegorically and more earnestly he beseeches that the old Church, wavering in sins and overwhelmed by miseries, be restored by Christ the liberator, and be built anew and transformed into a new, namely Christian one, as is evident from vers. 14, 16, 23. He says therefore, "thou," namely O Messiah, in the "beginning" Hebrew lephanim, that is, already before, already long ago, namely from the beginning of the world and of time, "didst found the earth," in Greek, ethemeliosas, that is, thou didst lay the foundations of the earth, that is, from the first foundations thou didst make the earth, and at the same time didst found it firm and stable.
1:11
11. The works of thy hands (that is, of thy power, which man is accustomed to show through his hands, while he acts and works with them) are the heavens: they themselves shall perish, — not as to essence and external and accidental form, because namely they shall be changed as it were like a garment, as follows. But thou shalt remain — the same, eternal and immutable. Our reading is diameneis, with a circumflex accent, that is, thou shalt remain: for in Hebrew it is the future taamod, some read it with an acute accent diameneis, that is, thou remainest. And all (the heavens) shall grow old like a garment, — by their motion and continual agitation and change, as it were they shall wear away; so that they may be seen to grow old, just as a new garment which is worn and grows old.
1:12
12. And as a cloak thou shalt change them, and they shall be changed. — In Hebrew tachalipheme, that is, thou shalt change them. Whence in Greek one should read allaxeis; Chrysostom however and others read elixeis, that is, thou shalt wrap or weave them. But the sense comes to the same thing; for he wishes to say that Christ the savior of Sion on the day of judgment, just as he will make men blessed, so also will he free the heavens from their former vanity and servitude to alteration and change, to which after the original sin of man they were subjected (as the Apostle says, Rom. cap. VIII, vers. 21), and will invert and change them into a new light, stability and glory, just as a garment is accustomed to be inverted and changed, when its outer face worn away is inverted and becomes inner, and the inner face becomes outer, so that the inverted garment appears to be new. Thus Chrysostom, Theophylactus and others, as if to say: Thus likewise, O Hebrews, Christ will invert you and your bodies, which are now vexed, consumed and worn away by hunger, thirst, exile for the faith of Christ, and will make them splendid, glorious, immortal bodies in the resurrection.
1:13
13. But to which of the angels did He say at any time: Sit thou on my right hand. — Paul cites Psalm CIX, in which the Psalmist sings not of Abraham, nor of David, nor of Hezekiah, as the Jews wish, but of Christ born before the morning star, whose kingdom He obtained through His resurrection and ascension in heaven and on earth, and from Sion, that is from the Church, which began in Sion and in Jerusalem, He went forth to reign and to propagate the kingdom of His Church among all nations, and continues to do so, until He shall crush all His enemies, namely all the impious, on the day of judgment. David therefore says: "The Lord," namely God the Father, "said to my Lord," in Hebrew ladoni, in the singular, namely to Christ, not so much as God (for in that case it would have been said in the plural ladonai) as to man, who by the title both of hypostatic union and of the redemption and salvation of all men, and consequently of mine, is my Lord, that is the Lord of David: He said, I say, to Christ ascending in triumph into heaven; "Sit thou on my right hand," that is, sit thou near me, be a sharer in my honor and my kingdom, reign with me in my supreme glory. See concerning this session spoken of in Colossians III, 1. Until I make thy enemies thy footstool. — That is, until the end of the world and the general judgment: in which I shall completely subject to thee all both demons and tyrants and impious men, who vex thee, O Christ, and thy Christians and provoke them here. The Apostle adds this, so that the Hebrews may remember, if they persist in the faith of Christ, that on the day of judgment they shall judge with Christ their persecutors and as it were trample upon them as a footstool and condemn them. Note: The word until does not signify that Christ shall sit at the right hand of God only until that time, namely until the day of judgment, as if afterwards He were not to sit there: rather on the contrary it suggests the opposite, namely that then Christ, as completely triumphing over His enemies, shall begin to sit and reign most fully and most peacefully. Thus in Matthew I, 25, it is said that Joseph "knew not Mary until she brought forth Christ," where until signifies what happened before the birth, not what happened after the birth: for Matthew wished only to assert a wonderful thing and naturally incredible, namely the conception of Christ without a father, because His mother knew not a man, until, that is, up to the birth. Thus St. Jerome and others against Helvidius.
1:14
14. Are not all the angels ministering spirits, sent forth in ministry for the sake of those who shall receive the inheritance of salvation? — The word 'are not' does not so much ask a question as plainly assert: for the Hebrews use interrogation when they wish to establish and confirm a matter more firmly, as if to say: The angels do not sit at the right hand of Christ, as Christ does, because it is their office to minister to God, and to be sent for the procuring of the salvation of men, and thus to serve Christ. Note: Angels are not said here, nor should they be said, to be ministers of men, but ministers and messengers of God to men and for the sake of men's salvation. Paul therefore calls the angels here administrators of God, that is, officials, who administer the court of God, that is, this world, and human affairs for God; yet in such a way that in any administration and mission of theirs they never depart from God, but always enjoy His vision, and are blessed. "Their angels," says Christ, Matthew XVIII, 10, "do always see the face of my Father." Note secondly: For 'sent' the Greek is apostellomenoi, that is, "who are sent," namely even now and daily, not as if all are actually sent, since they are innumerable, but because they are destined and ready at God's nod, to be sent and to go, whenever and wherever it shall please God. Note thirdly, the angels are sent "for the sake of those who shall receive the inheritance of salvation," that is, for the sake of those who are to be saved, not as if the reprobate are destitute of the help of angels, or as if angels are not sent to all men whatsoever, even those who are to be damned on account of their sins: for the contrary is established from the common sense of the Church, which holds and teaches that to all men whatsoever, and thus to each reprobate, when he is born, a Guardian Angel is destined by God. But the fruit of the ministry of angels is chiefly evident and apparent in those who are saved, and whom the angels actually lead to salvation; and the ministry of angels is not efficacious, and does not obtain its effect, that is, salvation, except in those who, by hearing the angels and obeying them, are saved: for in the reprobate all the ministry of angels is inefficacious, and all their labour and care is lost. Again, by these words it is signified that the end and purpose of the ministry of angels is this, namely, to lead men to salvation. For the ultimate office of angels is to lead holy souls into heaven. Thus the soul of Lazarus was carried by angels into heaven, Luke XVI. Thus St. Anthony, as St. Jerome testifies, saw the soul of St. Paul, the first hermit, being borne by angels into heaven. Thus the angels carried the soul of St. Martin into heaven, as St. Severinus, bishop of Cologne, saw. Thus in St. Gregory, book IV of the Dialogues, XIV, St. Servulus at death heard the melody of angels inviting him to heaven. And when St. Romula was dying, before her door were heard two heavenly choirs singing. Thus St. Benedict saw the soul of Germanus, bishop of Capua, being borne by angels in a sphere of fire into heaven. Thus St. Mary Magdalene was elevated by angels into heaven seven times daily, and heard their heavenly music: there is no doubt that at her death she was elevated by them and heard the same. Thus the body of St. Catherine was translated by angels to Sinai, her soul to heaven. Thus the angels of St. Agatha cared not only for her soul, but also for her body: for after her martyrdom they placed this epitaph for her: "A holy mind and willing devotion to the honour of God and the liberation of her country." Wherefore St. Bernard deservedly says, sermon 41 on the Psalm "Who dwelleth": "We owe reverence to our angel for his presence, devotion for his benevolence, confidence for his guardianship. Walk carefully, so that, since angels are present with you (as it has been commanded them) in all your ways, in any lodging, in any corner, show reverence to your angel: would you then dare, with him present, what you would not dare with me seeing?" The same in sermon 2 on the Vigil of the Nativity of the Lord: "How much do you think the citizens of heaven desire to repair the ruins of their city? How do they run between us and God, most faithfully carrying to Him our sighs, and most devoutly bringing back to us His grace? Surely they will not disdain that we be their companions, whose ministers they have become. Are not all ministering spirits? etc. Let us hasten, I beseech you, beloved, let us hasten, the whole multitude of the heavenly court awaits us. We have made the angels rejoice when we turned to penance: let us make progress and hasten to complete their joy in us. Woe to you, whoever you are, who deliberate to return to the mire, to return to the vomit. Do you think you will have them placated in judgment, whom you wish to deprive of so great and so long-awaited a joy?" It is asked here whether all angels without exception are sent by God into ministry. St. Dionysius denies this in the Celestial Hierarchy, chapters VIII and XIII, and Gregory follows him, homily 14 in the Gospel; Anselm here, St. Thomas, I part., Question CXII, art. 4. For these teach that some angels are attendant, namely those who always stand before God and are never sent, and such are the four highest orders, namely the Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones and Dominions. Others are ministering, namely those who are sent to every ministry, and such are the remaining five lower orders. St. Dionysius proves this from Daniel VII, 10, where it is said: "Thousands of thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times a hundred thousand stood before him." Behold here Daniel distinguishes angels "standing before him" from "ministering," and says those are far more numerous than these, namely the ministering are some millions, for a thousand thousands is a million; but those standing before him are ten thousand times a hundred thousand, which amounts to a thousand millions: for a million are ten times a hundred thousand. Second, because this is required by the right order of nature and grace, that higher angels illuminate lower ones, and lower ones carry out what through the illumination of the higher ones they have learned God wills to be done. But the contrary opinion is more probable, namely that all angels without exception are sent by God: for the Apostle clearly says this here. St. Thomas responds in two ways, first, that the Apostle does not speak of all angels without exception, but only of those who gave the law to the Hebrews; for he prefers Christ to them, as he proves that the law of Christ is superior to the old law. But this does not satisfy. For it is doubtful from which order was the angel who gave the law to the Hebrews: indeed many Catholics also think he was not from the order of Angels, but was from the order of Seraphim, namely that he was Michael: for he is the prince of the Hebrews, as is said in Daniel, chapter X, last verse. If Michael, who is the highest among the attendant angels, is sent, therefore all others lower than him are sent. Second, the Apostle proves here that Christ is God, from the fact that he is superior to all angels without exception, and that he is to be adored by all angels: therefore he understands all angels here, even Cherubim and Seraphim. Third, because in like manner the Apostle, Ephesians I, 21, and Colossians I, 16, prefers Christ to all angels without exception, even to Thrones and Dominions. St. Thomas responds secondly that all angels without exception are sent, but the attendant ones are sent inwardly only, namely to illuminate the lower ones; the ministering ones, however, are sent outwardly, to carry out the commands. But this too is said more subtly than solidly: for to be sent into ministry, absolutely speaking, is to be sent outwardly to carry out God's will. Second, because in Isaiah VI, 6, one of the Seraphim, which is the highest order, is said to be sent to Isaiah. St. Dionysius responds that he was from a lower order of angels, yet is called "Seraphim" either because he was sent by some Seraphim, or by reason of his office, namely because he was sent to burn Isaiah's lips with a fiery coal and consume his sins. But since nothing compels us to depart from the proper meaning of words, it seems that here a true "Seraphim" should be understood just as true Angels, true Thrones and Dominions are understood elsewhere, especially since Seraphim are nowhere else found and named in Scripture. For if no Seraph flew to Isaiah, but he sent another lower one to fly: how could the Seraph himself, remaining in heaven, be said to have flown to Isaiah? Wherefore properly by "Seraphim" St. Cyril, Basil, Jerome, Chrysostom, Procopius and others understand an angel of the order of Seraphim in Isaiah chapter VI. Third, Genesis III, 24, a Cherubim, who is of the second order, was sent to guard paradise. Fourth, because Daniel X, 13 and 21, Michael was sent, whom many teach to be the first of the angels and guardian of the Church, as he once was of the Synagogue: hence the Church calls him the prince of the heavenly host. Fifth, because Matthew XXV, 31, all angels are said to come with the Son of Man to judgment, namely for the sake of ministry, just as it is also very probable that all angels met Christ ascending into heaven for the sake of honor. Finally, if the Son of God himself was not sent by angels, but by himself sent by the Father as a legate to men: why should not the Seraphim themselves be sent by themselves? To St. Dionysius I reply that he does not assert his own opinion, but only proposes it as probable (St. Gregory does the same, who confesses that nothing certain can be said in this matter), and moreover his foundation does not press the point. For many deny that in Daniel VII the attending angels are distinguished from the ministering angels, saying that they are the same, both ministering and attending; but for the sake of variety Daniel calls the same ones now "attending," soon "ministering." For in Apocalypse VII, 11, and III Kings, last chapter, verse 19, all the angels absolutely are said to stand or attend before God: whence also the Church prays saying: "Grant, O Lord, that by those who minister to Thee in heaven and always attend before Thee, our life on earth may be protected." This seems to be taken from Matthew XVIII, where it is said: "Their angels always see the face of my Father, who is in heaven." But even if Daniel distinguishes them, it does not follow from this that the "attending" are never sent: for they are called "attending" because they are sent more rarely, and almost always attend upon God. This is evident: for in the same chapter Daniel says that he approached one of the attending angels, and was taught by him the interpretation of the words. Raphael also, who was sent to Tobias, says that he is "one of the seven who stand before God," Tobias XII, 15. So also Gabriel sent to Zacharias: "I," he says, "am Gabriel who stand before God, and am sent to speak to thee," Luke I. To the second objection I reply that it is the common order of divine providence to reveal its decrees to the superior angels, who signify them to the inferior, so that they themselves execute them. Examples of this are in Zacharias II, 3; Daniel VIII, 16; Apocalypse VII, 2. But this does not prevent God, for just causes known to Himself, from sometimes changing this order, and sending one of the superior angels, who executes God's commands by himself, as we have already seen that a Seraph was sent to Isaias, a Cherub to paradise, Michael to Daniel, and to the Jews. The superior, or attending angels, therefore, are sent rarely indeed, but sometimes nevertheless. "For all are ministering spirits sent forth for service." Where note that "all" does not signify that all absolutely are sent at some time, but that from each order (even if from the supreme ones rarely) some are sent at times. For here in the word "all" there is a distribution, not for individuals of kinds or orders, but for kinds of individuals, as if to say: All angels are ministers of God, and His Sent ones, that is His Legates, because they attend God prepared for every service: but in reality all are sent forth for service. All, that is, some from all orders. Thus Molina, I part., Question CXII. Morally St. Chrysostom here from this ministry of angels teaches that zeal for souls and the study of converting and saving men is not a human work, but an angelic one: "This," he says, "is the office of angelic function, to render to God the ministry for the salvation of men. Therefore this is an angelic work to do all things for the salvation of neighbors, but this is more the work of Christ."
Machine translation from the Latin, not reviewed.
1:1
Scripsit autem epistolam istam contra errores quorumdam, qui ex Iudaismo ad fidem Christi conversi, volebant servare legalia cum Evangelio, quasi non sufficeret gratia Christi ad salutem. Unde et dividitur in duas partes. Primo enim multipliciter commendat excellentiam Christi, ut per hoc praeferat novum testamentum veteri; secundo agit de his per quae membra iunguntur capiti, scilicet de fide infra, XI cap., ibi est autem fides. Intendit autem ostendere excellentiam novi ad vetus testamentum per excellentiam Christi, quantum ad tres personas solemnes in ipso veteri testamento contentas, scilicet Angelos, per quos lex tradita est. Gal. III, 19: ordinata per Angelos in manu mediatoris, et cetera. Quantum ad Moysen, a quo, vel per quem data est. Io. I, 17: lex per Moysen data est, et Deut. ult.: non surrexit ultra propheta, et cetera. Quantum ad sacerdotium per quod ministrabatur, infra: in priori tabernaculo semper introibant sacerdotes sacrificiorum, officia consummantes, et cetera. Unde primo praefert Christum Angelis; secundo Moysi, III cap., ibi unde fratres; sed tertio, sacerdotio veteris testamenti, V cap., ibi omnis namque pontifex. Circa primum duo facit, quia primo praefert Christum Angelis in isto capite; secundo concludit qualis reverentia exhibenda sit novae legi, II capite, ibi propter hoc abundantius. Adhuc circa primum duo facit, quia primo excellentiam Christi ostendit; secundo probat, quod hoc verum sit de Christo, et sic Angelos deficere ab illa excellentia, ibi tanto melior. Hoc autem est in hac epistola singulare quod singula verba habent singulas sententias, et servant ordinem suum. Excellentiam vero Christi denotat quantum ad quatuor. Primo quantum ad proprietatem originis, vocando eum verum Dei filium naturalem, cum dicit locutus est nobis in filio; secundo quantum ad magnitudinem dominationis, ibi quem constituit haeredem universorum; tertio quantum ad virtutem operationis, ibi per quem fecit et saecula; quarto quantum ad sublimitatem dignitatis, ibi qui cum sit splendor gloriae. Quia vero intendit commendare Christum, ut hoc redundet in novum testamentum, per hoc praefert novum testamentum veteri. Circa autem vetus testamentum quinque ponit. Primo modum tradendi, quia multifarie multisque modis, etc.; secundo tempus, cum dicit olim; tertio auctorem, sive datorem, quia Deus; quarto quibus sit traditum, quia patribus nostris; quinto quibus ministris, quia in prophetis. Dicit ergo multifarie, et hoc quantum ad divisionem, quae attenditur quantum ad tria. Primo quantum ad diversas personas, quia non uni personae, sed pluribus, scilicet Abrahae, Noe, et sic de aliis. Secundo quantum ad diversa tempora, et hoc totum ad eius certitudinem. Unde Matth. c. XX, 1 ss.: exiit primo mane (...) et circa horam tertiam, et cetera. Item quantum ad ea, quae ibi ostensa sunt, quia divina. Ex. III, v. 14: ego sum, qui sum, et cetera. Item eventus futuri. Sap. VIII, 8: signa et monstra scit antequam fiant, et cetera. Item promissiones futurorum bonorum, saltem in figura. Eccli. III, v. 25: plurima super sensum hominum monstrata sunt tibi. Item multifarie quantum ad diversas figuras, quia modo in figura leonis, modo in figura lapidis, sicut Dan. II, 34: abscissus est lapis de monte sine manibus. Iob XI, 6: et quod multiplex sit lex oris eius. Sequitur multisque modis, quod refertur ad tria diversa genera visionum, scilicet ad visionem corporalem, sicut Dan. V, 5: apparuerunt digiti quasi manus scribentis in pariete, et cetera. Aliquando aliquibus per visionem imaginariam. Is. VI, 1: vidi dominum sedentem, et cetera. Aliquibus vero apparebat per visionem intellectualem, sicut David. Ps. CXVIII, 100: super senes intellexi. Unde de istis dicitur Oseae XII, 10: ego visionem multiplicavi eis. Refertur etiam ad diversos modos loquendi, quia aliquando plane loquebatur, aliquando vero obscure, nec est aliquis modus loquendi, quo Scriptura veteris testamenti non loquatur. Prov. XXII, 20: ecce descripsi eam tibi tripliciter, in cogitationibus et scientia, et cetera. Tertio, quia arguendo malos, alliciendo iustos, instruendo ignorantes. II Tim. III, 16: omnis Scriptura divinitus inspirata utilis est ad docendum, ad arguendum, et cetera. Secundo tangit tempus traditionis huius doctrinae, quod est tempus praeteritum, quia olim, id est, non subito, quia tam magna erant quae de Christo dicebantur, quod non poterant credi, nisi cum incremento temporum prius didicissent. Unde dicit beatus Gregorius: per successiones temporum crevit divinae cognitionis augmentum. Is. c. XLVIII, 3: priora ex tunc annuntiavi, et ex ore meo exierunt, et audita feci ea, et cetera. Tertio tangit auctorem, quia Deus, qui loquitur. Ps. LXXXIV, 9: audiam quid loquatur in me dominus. Hic est autem, qui non mentitur. Num. XXIII, 19: non est Deus quasi homo, ut mentiatur. Ex his autem tribus commendat vetus testamentum, scilicet ab auctoritate, quia est a Deo, a subtilitate et a sublimitate, quia multifarie multisque modis, a firmitate, quia olim. Quarto ostendit quibus traditum sit, quia patribus. Et ideo est nobis familiare, et acceptum. Act. XIII, 32: annuntiamus vobis eam, quae ad patres nostros repromissio facta est, et cetera. Sed quinto ostendit quibus ministris, quia non ioculatoribus, sed in prophetis, id est per prophetas. Rom. I, 2: quod ante promiserat per prophetas. Act. X, 43: huic omnes prophetae testimonium perhibent. Deinde cum dicit novissime, describit doctrinam novi testamenti, et ponit quinque, quorum quatuor sunt diversa a quatuor praemissis; unum autem est idem utrobique. Quod enim dixerat, multifarie multisque modis, etc., ostendit quia omnis multitudo ordinata, ad unum debet referri. Ideo dicit, quod licet sit modus multiplex, tamen totum ordinatum est ad istud novissimum. Prov. XXIII, 17 s.: in timore domini esto tota die, et habebis spem in novissimo. Is. c. X, 22 s.: consummatio abbreviata inundabit iustitiam. Consummationem enim et abbreviationem dominus Deus exercituum faciet in medio omnis terrae. Item illud olim in tempore expectationis et tenebrarum, sed istud in diebus istis, id est, tempore gratiae. Rom. c. XIII, 12: nox praecessit, dies autem appropinquavit, et cetera. Ubi notandum est, quod ibi dicit loquens, hic autem dicit locutus est, ut designet locutionem novi testamenti perfectiorem illa, quae fuit in veteri. Ad cuius evidentiam sciendum est, quod tria requiruntur ad locutionem nostram. Primo, verbi conceptio, qua scilicet praeconcipiatur in mente id quod ore loquendum est; secundo ipsius verbi concepti expressio, qua insinuetur quod conceptum est; tertio ipsius rei expressae manifestatio, qua res expressa evidens fiat. Deus ergo loquendo, primo concepit, cuius conceptio una fuit, et ab aeterno Iob c. XXXIII, 14: semel loquitur Deus, et haec aeterna fuit filii generatio, de qua in Ps. II, v. 7: dominus dixit ad me: filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te. Secundo, huiusmodi conceptum expressit, et hoc tripliciter. Primo in creaturarum editione, cum scilicet verbum conceptum similitudo patris existens, sit etiam similitudo ad quam omnes creaturae factae sunt. Gen. I, 3: dixit Deus: fiat lux, et cetera. Secundo per quasdam notiones, puta in mentibus Angelorum, in quibus species omnium rerum, quae in verbo latebant indidit, et in mentibus hominum sanctorum: et hoc per revelationes sensibiles, vel intellectuales, vel imaginarias. Et ideo omnis talis manifestatio procedens a verbo aeterno, locutio nuncupatur. Ier. I, 2: factum est verbum domini, et cetera. Tertio per carnis assumptionem, de qua dicitur Io. I, 14: verbum caro factum est, et vidimus gloriam eius, et cetera. Et ideo dicit Augustinus, quod hoc modo se habet verbum incarnatum ad verbum increatum, sicut verbum vocis ad verbum cordis. Prima autem expressio, scilicet in creatione, non ordinatur ad manifestationem, sed ad esse, Sap. I creavit Deus ut essent omnia. Cum ergo expressio non habeat rationem locutionis nisi prout ordinatur ad manifestationem, manifestum est, quod illa expressio non potest dici locutio, et ideo numquam dicitur, quod Deus loquatur creando creaturas, sed quod cognoscatur. Rom. I, 20: invisibilia Dei per ea quae facta sunt, intellecta conspiciuntur. Secunda vero expressio, quae est editio specierum in mente angelica, vel humana, ordinatur tantum ad cognitionem sapientiae divinae, et ideo potest dici locutio. Tertia vero, quae est per assumptionem carnis, ordinatur ad esse, et ad cognitionem, et ad expressam manifestationem, quia per assumptionem carnis, et verbum factum est homo, et nos in cognitionem Dei perfecit. (Io. XVIII, 37: ad hoc natus sum, ut testimonium perhibeam veritati). Et se nobis expresse manifestavit. Bar. c. III, 38: post haec in terris visus est, et cum hominibus conversatus est. Sic ergo, licet Deus loquatur in novo et veteri testamento, perfectius tamen in novo nobis loquitur, quia ibi per revelationes in mentibus hominum, hic per incarnationem filii. Vetus vero testamentum traditum est patribus, aspicientibus a longe et intuentibus Deum procul; istud autem nobis, scilicet apostolis, qui vidimus eum in propria persona. I Io. I, 1: qui audivimus, et vidimus oculis nostris, et manus nostrae contrectaverunt de verbo vitae. Deut. V, 3 s.: non cum patribus nostris iniit pactum, sed nobiscum, qui in praesentiarum sumus, et vidimus, et facie ad faciem locutus est nobis. Unde patet quod illa locutio fuit promissoria. Gal. III, 16: Abrahae dictae sunt repromissiones. Ista locutio est exhibitoria. Io. I, 17: gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est. Item, ibi locutus est in prophetis, hic in filio, qui est dominus prophetarum. Io. I, 18: unigenitus, qui est in sinu patris, ipse nobis narravit. Sed numquid omnes, per quos loquitur Deus, sunt prophetae? Ad quod dicendum est, quod quinque requiruntur ad hoc quod aliquis sit verus propheta. Primum est revelatio eorum, quae excedunt humanam cognitionem, alias non dicitur propheta, sed sapiens, sicut Salomon, cuius mens illuminata est ad ea quae sunt secundum rationem humanam. Unde nec a Iudaeis propheta dicitur, sed sapiens. Secundum est intelligentia revelatorum, alias, nisi revelata intelligeret, non esset propheta. Intelligentia opus est in visione, Dan. X, 1, et inde est, quod Nabuchodonosor revelationem sibi factam non intelligens, propheta non dicitur, sed Daniel, qui eam intellexit. Tertium est, quod propheta in rebus visis, quibus alienatur, non detineatur in ipsis rebus, sed tamquam in figuris, alias non esset propheta, sed phreneticus, qui imaginata apprehendit, ut ipsas res. Ier. XXIII, v. 28: qui habet somnium, narret somnium, et qui habet sermonem meum, narret sermonem meum. Quartum est, ut cum certitudine revelata percipiat, quasi per demonstrationem sciens, alias esset somnium, et non prophetia. Is. l, v. 5: dominus aperuit mihi aurem, ego autem non contradico, retrorsum non abii. Quintum est, ut adsit voluntas annunciandi quae revelata sunt; unde et Daniel a quibusdam dicitur quod non est propheta, quia non accepit revelata per modum enunciabilem; unde non dicitur, quod factum est verbum domini ad Danielem, sicut de aliis prophetis dicitur. Ier. XX, 8 s.: factum est verbum domini mihi in opprobrium, et in derisum tota die, et dixi: non recordabor eius, neque loquar ultra in nomine illius, et factus est in corde meo sicut ignis aestuans. Sed rursum quaeritur quare dicit in prophetis, cum potius debuisset dicere per prophetas. Ad hoc dicendum est, quod hoc fecit, ut excluderet quorumdam errorem. Primo quidem errorem Porphyrii dicentis, quod prophetae ea, quae dixerunt fingendo, non ex spiritu sancto dixerunt. Et contra hoc dicit in prophetis, quasi non ipsi locuti sunt ex se, sed Deus locutus est in eis. II Pet. I, 21: non enim voluntate humana allata est prophetia, sed spiritu sancto inspirati, locuti sunt sancti Dei homines. Secundo ad excludendum errorem quorumdam, dicentium prophetiam esse quid naturale et haberi per naturalem dispositionem, sicut cum aliquis melancholicus est adeo fortis imaginationis, quod imaginata apprehendat ut certa et res ipsas. Et ideo dicit locutus est in prophetis; quasi dicat: non habetur prophetia per modum naturalis dispositionis et passionis, sed per locutionem internam a Deo. Io. III, 8: spiritus ubi vult spirat. Tertio contra errorem dicentium haberi prophetiam per modum habitus sicut scientiam, ut scilicet quandocumque vult homo prophetet. Quod non est verum, cum prophetiae spiritus non adsit prophetis semper, sed cum eorum mens illustratur divinitus. Unde, IV Reg. IV, 27 dicit Eliseus: anima eius in amaritudine est, et dominus celavit a me. Et ideo dicit in prophetis, quasi dicat: non habetur ab omnibus, et semper, ut habitus, sed ab illis, in quibus placet Deo loqui. Quarto ad excludendum errorem Priscillae, et Montani, dicentium prophetas non intelligere ea quae dicebant, quod non est verum. Unde dicitur Aggaei I, 3: factum est verbum domini in manu Aggaei prophetae; in manu, id est, in potestate. Et I Cor. XIV, 32: spiritus prophetarum prophetis subiecti sunt. Et ideo dicit in prophetis, id est, in intellectu et potestate prophetarum. Sic ergo patet Christi proprietas, quia filius est naturalis. Io. XIV, 10: pater in me est, et ego in patre. Sed numquid est de illis filiis, de quibus dicitur in Ps. LXXXI, 6: ego dixi: dii estis, et filii excelsi omnes? Absit, quia illi dicuntur filii cum universitate, iste est constitutus haeres, et dominus universorum. Numquid est de illis filiis, de quibus dicitur Io. I, 12: dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri? et cetera. Non quidem, quia illi dicuntur facti filii, iste vero est filius, per quem fecit et saecula. Numquid est de illis filiis, qui gloriantur in spe gloriae filiorum Dei? Rom. V, 2. Non quidem, quia illi sunt filii per spem gloriae Dei, quam habent, iste vero ipsius gloriae splendor. Alii dicuntur filii, quia facti ad imaginem huius filii. Rom. VIII, 29: quos praescivit conformes fieri imaginis filii eius; iste autem est ipsa imago, et figura substantiae eius. Alii dicuntur filii, ut in se verbum Dei continentes, secundum illud Phil. II, 15: ut sint sine querela, et simplices filii Dei, sine reprehensione in medio nationis pravae et perversae, inter quos lucetis sicut luminaria in mundo, verbum vitae continentes. Iste autem filius portat omnia verbo virtutis suae. Ergo patet Christi excellentia quantum ad proprietatem originis, et diffuse quantum ad alios filios Dei; per quod ostenditur eminentia novi testamenti ad vetus. Sed tamen utrobique dicit locutus est, vel loquens, et denotat eumdem esse actorem veteris et novi testamenti contra Manichaeum. Eph. II, 18: per ipsum habemus accessum ambo in uno spiritu, et cetera. Rom. III, v. 29: an Iudaeorum Deus tantum? Nonne et gentium? Item illud fuit traditum patribus nostris, sed istud nobis, id est, apostolis, qui Christum in propria persona vidimus. Deut. V, 3: non cum patribus nostris inivit pactum, sed nobiscum, qui in praesentiarum sumus et vivimus. Item illud per prophetas, sed istud in filio, id est, per filium, qui est dominus prophetarum. Io. I, 18: unigenitus, qui est in sinu patris, ipse enarravit. Et ista occasione apostolus introducit eum esse filium. Consequenter ostendit magnitudinem dominationis Christi, cum dicit quem constituit haeredem; quia, ut dicitur Gal. IV, 7: si filius, et haeres per Deum. In Christo autem sunt duae naturae, scilicet divina et humana. Secundum ergo, quod est filius naturalis, non est constitutus haeres, sed est naturalis; sed inquantum homo, factus est filius Dei. Rom. I, 3: qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem. Et secundum hoc est constitutus haeres universorum, sicut verus filius patris. Matth. ult.: data est mihi omnis potestas. Et hoc quantum ad totam creaturam in qua accepit dominationem. Item non tantum quo ad unum genus hominum, sed universorum, scilicet tam Iudaeorum, quam gentium. Ps. II, 8: postula a me, et dabo tibi gentes haereditatem tuam, et cetera. Quem constituit haeredem universorum. Ostensa excellentia Christi quantum ad proprietatem originis, hic ostendit excellentiam eius quantum ad maiestatem dominii, et quidem congrue coniungit locutus est in filio, et constitutus est haeres, quia si filii, et haeredes, Rom. VIII, 17. Sciendum est autem, quod in Christo sunt duae naturae, divina scilicet et humana; sed secundum divinam naturam, sicut non est constitutus filius cum sit filius naturalis ab aeterno; ita nec est constitutus haeres, sed ab aeterno est haeres naturalis. Secundum vero naturam humanam, sicut est factus filius Dei Rom. I, 3: qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem ita et factus est haeres universorum. Et quantum ad hoc dicit quem constituit haeredem, id est, dominum, universorum. Matth. XXI, 38: hic est haeres, venite et occidamus eum. Mich. I, 15: adhuc haeredem adducam tibi, qui habitas in Maresa, usque ad Odollam, veniet gloria Israel. Et quidem secundum divinam naturam competit Christo, quod sit haeres genitus, et dominus. Et primo quidem, quia ipse est Dei virtus, et Dei sapientia, I Cor. I, 24, per quem pater omnia facit. Et ideo si pater dicitur dominus omnium, ratione creationis, similiter et filius, per quem omnia producuntur in esse, dominus est. Prov. VIII, 30: cum eo eram cuncta componens. Secundo quia filius est patris sapientia, qua omnia gubernat. Sap. VIII, 1 dicitur de sapientia: attingit a fine usque ad finem, et cetera. Si ergo pater dicitur dominus ratione gubernationis Sap. XIV, 3: tu autem, pater, gubernas omnia, etc., et filio competit dominium. Item pater est dominus, inquantum ad ipsum omnia ordinantur, sicut ad primum principium, et finem omnium; similiter et filius, qui est Dei sapientia, praecedens omnia, dominus est. Eccli. I, 3: sapientiam Dei praecedentem omnia, quis investigabit? Prov. XVI, v. 4: universa propter semetipsum operatus est dominus. Secundum humanam vero naturam competit etiam Christo, quod sit constitutus haeres et dominus universorum. Primo quidem ratione unionis, ex hoc scilicet ipso, quod assumptus est homo ille in persona filii Dei. Act. V, 31: hunc Deus dominum salvatorem constituit. Eph. I, 21: constituit eum super omnem principatum, et potestatem, et cetera. Secundo ratione potestatis, quia omnia ei obediunt, et serviunt. Matth. ult.: data est mihi omnis potestas in caelo, et cetera. Tertio ratione subiectionis. Phil. II, 10: in nomine Iesu omne genu flectatur, et cetera. Sed dicit universorum, quod refertur ad totius naturae universitatem, in qua accepit dominium, secundum illud Ps. VIII, 8: omnia subiecisti sub pedibus eius. Item refertur ad omne genus hominum, ut sit sensus: universorum, id est, tam Iudaeorum, quam etiam omnium aliorum hominum, secundum illud Ps. II, 8: postula a me, et dabo tibi gentes haereditatem tuam, et cetera. Et de hoc dicitur Esth. XIII, 11: dominus omnium tu es.
1:2
Consequenter cum dicit per quem fecit et saecula, ostendit virtutem operationis Christi, quare sit constitutus haeres universorum, non quod ipse sit factus in tempore et hoc meruerit merito bonae vitae, sicut dicit Photinus, sed quod aeque omnia facta sunt per ipsum, sicut et per patrem. Per ipsum enim fecit pater saecula. Sed sciendum est, quod ista praepositio per denotat causam actus. Sed hoc est dupliciter: uno modo, quia est causa factionis ex parte facientis, ut cum scilicet causale cui adiungitur, est causa actionis secundum quod exit ab agente. Semper enim factio est medium inter faciens et factum. Potest ergo denotare circa agens causam finalem, ut artifex operatur per lucrum; aliquando causam formalem, ut ignis calefacit per calorem; aliquando vero causam efficientem, ut balivus operatur per regem. Nullo istorum modorum est filius causa patris, quod per illum operetur, sicut nec quod ab ipso sit. Aliquando vero causale est causa actionis, secundum quod terminatur ad factum, ut artifex operatur per martellum. Martellus enim non est causa artificis, quod agat; sed est causa artificiato, quod ab artifice procedat, ut ferro, quod recipiat operationem ab artifice, et sic filius est causa facti, et pater operatur per filium. Sed numquid filius est minor patre? Videtur quod sic, quia illud quod est causa facti, ut fiat, videtur habere rationem instrumenti. Sed ad hoc dicendum est, quod si non esset eadem virtus numero in filio et patre, et eadem operatio, teneret obiectio. Nunc ergo eadem est virtus et operatio patris et filii, sicut et eadem natura et esse, et dicitur pater per eum facere saecula, quia genuit eum operantem saecula. Io. V, 19: quaecumque pater facit, et filius facit. Saeculum dicitur spatium rei temporalis. Saecula ergo sunt successiones temporum; non ergo fecit tantum tempora sempiterna, secundum quod philosophi aliqui dixerunt Deum tantum fecisse sempiternum, et Angelos creasse temporalia, sed etiam fecit temporalia, quae vocat hic saecula. Infra XI, 3: fide intelligimus aptata esse saecula. Io. I, 3: omnia per ipsum facta sunt. In hoc ergo removet errorem Manichaei dupliciter. Primo in hoc quod dicit eum actorem veteris testamenti; secundo quod dicit ipsum fecisse temporalia.
1:3
Superius ostendit apostolus Christi excellentiam quantum ad originis proprietatem, quantum ad dominii maiestatem, et quantum ad operationis virtutem, hic autem ostendit eius excellentiam quantum ad gloriae et dignitatis sublimitatem. Et pars ista dividitur in duas. Primo enim ostendit Christum esse idoneum ad dignitatem istam; secundo ponit ipsam dignitatem, ibi sedet ad dexteram. Idoneitatem vero ostendit ex duobus, quae reddunt aliquem idoneum ad aliquid magnum: unum est facilitas administrandi, aliud est industria et strenuitas exequendi. Primo ergo ostendit eius facilitatem; secundo eius strenuitatem, ibi purgationem peccatorum faciens. Circa primum sciendum est, quod tria requiruntur, quae faciunt facilitatem ad dignitatem aliquam ministrandam. Primum quidem sapientia, ne erret gubernando. Eccle. c. X, 5: est et malum quod vidi sub sole, quasi per errorem egrediens a facie principis: positum stultum in dignitate sublimi. Prov. c. VIII, 15: per me reges regnant. Secundum est generis prosapia, ne contemnatur praecipiendo. Prov. ult.: nobilis in portis vir eius, cum sederit cum senatoribus terrae. Tertium, virtutis potentia in exequendo. Eccli. c. VII, 6: noli quaerere fieri iudex, nisi valeas virtute irrumpere iniquitates. Et quantum ad ista tria apostolus ostendit in Christo facilitatem ad dignitatem praedictam. Primo quia non solum est sapiens, sed etiam ipsa sapientia; unde dicit cum sit splendor gloriae. Secundo quia non solum est nobilis, sed est ipsa nobilitas, quia est figura substantiae eius. Tertio quia non solum est potens, sed est ipsa potentia portans omnia verbo, et cetera. Tria autem sunt, ut supra dictum est, quae faciunt hominem idoneum ut magnam dignitatem assequatur. Primum est sapientiae claritas. Prov. c. III, 35: gloriam sapientes possidebunt. Et ideo ostendit Christi sapientiam, dicens qui cum sit splendor gloriae. Ubi est considerandum, quod, secundum Ambrosium, gloria est clara cum laude notitia, quasi quaedam manifesta notitia, quae de bonitate alicuius habetur. Sed, sicut dicitur Matth. XIX, 17: nemo bonus, nisi solus Deus, et etiam Lc. XVIII, 19, unde ipse est bonitas antonomastice et per essentiam. Alia vero bona sunt per participationem, et ita soli Deo convenit gloria antonomastice. Is. XLII, 8: gloriam meam alteri non dabo. I Tim. I, 17: regi autem saeculorum immortali, invisibili, soli Deo honor et gloria. Cognitio ergo divinae bonitatis, excellenter et antonomastice dicitur gloria, id est, clara cum laude notitia bonitatis divinae. Ista aliqualiter habetur ab homine, quia nunc cognosco ex parte, I Cor. XIII, 12, sed habetur excellentius ab Angelis, sed a solo Deo perfecte. Deum enim nemo vidit unquam, Io. I, 18, verum est, nec Angeli comprehensive, sed ipse solus seipsum comprehendit. Ergo sola cognitio Dei de seipso perfecte dicitur gloria, quia perfectam notitiam habet et clarissimam de seipso. Quoniam autem splendor est illud quod a fulgente primo emittitur, sapientia vero est quiddam fulgens Eccli. VIII, 1: sapientia hominis lucet in vultu eius inde est quod prima conceptio sapientiae est quasi quidam splendor. Verbum ergo patris, quod est quidam conceptus intellectus eius, est splendor sapientiae, qua se cognoscit. Et ideo apostolus filium vocat splendorem gloriae, id est, divinae clarae notitiae. In quo ostendit ipsum non solum sapientem, sed sapientiam genitam. Is. LXII, 1: donec egrediatur ut splendor iustus eius, et cetera. Secundum quod facit hominem idoneum ad magnam dignitatem, est generis nobilitas. Et hoc ostendit esse in Christo, quia dicit, quod est figura substantiae eius. Decet enim cum sapientia esse nobilitatem in principe. Deut. I, 15: tulique de tribubus vestris sapientes et nobiles, et constitui eos principes, et cetera. Figura hic ponitur pro charactere, vel imagine; quasi dicat: imago substantiae. Sciendum tamen, quod licet imago dicat similitudinem, non tamen quaelibet similitudo est imago. Albedo enim in pariete non est imago albedinis meae, sed imago et similitudo in specie. Illud ergo proprie dicitur esse imago alicuius, quod habet similitudinem speciei eius, vel expressum signum speciei. Inter accidentia vero nihil ita est expressum signum, sicut speciei est figura. Unde qui describit figuram animalis, describit imaginem eius. Filius ergo, qui est imago invisibilis Dei, Col. I, 15, proprie dicitur figura. Sed cuius? Substantiae eius. Imago enim alicuius est multiplex. Aliquando enim est signum repraesentans speciem in nullo cum ipsa conveniens, sicut imago hominis in pariete, quae in nullo habet veram speciem hominis. Aliquando vero assimilatur ei in specie, non tantum in repraesentando, sed etiam in essendo, sicut filius est imago vera patris. Gen. V, 3: Adam genuit filium ad imaginem suam, id est, in natura speciei. Et ideo addit substantiae eius, quia, secundum Augustinum, filius dicitur imago patris, quia est eiusdem naturae cum ipso. Dicit ergo, quod est figura substantiae. Sed quare non dicit quod est figura naturae? Quia possibile est, quod natura speciei multiplicetur ad multitudinem individuorum in compositis ex materia et forma. Unde filius Socratis non habet eamdem naturam numero cum patre suo. Substantia vero numquam multiplicatur. Non enim alia est substantia patris, alia filii. Nec enim dividitur secundum diversa individua. Quia ergo una et eadem est numero natura in patre et filio Dei, ideo non dicit naturae, quae dividitur, sed substantiae indivisibilis. Io. X, 30: ego et pater unum sumus. Et c. XIV, 10: ego in patre, et pater in me est. Tertium quod facit hominem idoneum, est virtus et potestas. Unde Eccli. VII, v. 6: noli quaerere esse iudex, nisi valeas virtute irrumpere iniquitates. Et ideo ostendit virtutem, cum dicit portansque omnia verbo virtutis suae. Proprium autem principum et potentum est portare. Iob IX, 13: sub quo curvantur, qui portant orbem. Ipse ergo portat. Sed videndum est quid portat, et quo, vel per quid. Quantum ad primum sciendum est, quod id, quod de se nec stare nec ambulare potest, indiget portari. Omnis autem creatura de se nec subsistere, nec operari potest. Primum patet, quia remota causa, removetur effectus, Deus autem est causa omnis substantiae, quia non minus est causa substantiae rei quantum ad fieri, quam domificator est causa fieri domus, inde, sicut ad absentiam domificatoris cessat fieri domus et ad absentiam solis cessat fieri et esse luminis in aere: ita ad subtractionem virtutis divinae cessat et esse, et fieri, et subsistere omnis creaturae. Portat ergo omnia quantum ad suum esse. Portat etiam omnia quantum ad operari, quia subtracta influentia eius, cessat omnis motio causarum secundarum, cum ipse sit causa prima, et causa prima plus influit, quam secunda. Iob XXXVIII, 6: super quo bases illius solidatae sunt. Sic ergo patet, quod omnia portat. Sed per quid portat? Verbo virtutis suae. Quia enim apostolus loquens de creatione rerum dixit, quod Deus omnia fecit per filium, quia scilicet dixerat, per quem fecit et saecula. Ille autem per quem aliquis operatur, non videtur virtute sua operari, sed virtute eius, qui per eum operatur; sicut balivus, per quem rex operatur, non operatur virtute propria. Ergo per hoc videtur, quod filius non operetur virtute propria. Ideo dicit apostolus quod portat verbo virtutis suae, quia, cum idem sit causa essendi et conservandi, cum dicit quod filius virtute sua est causa conservationis, ostendit quod etiam est causa essendi. Sed numquid non virtute patris? Utique, et eius virtute, quia eadem est virtus utriusque. Operatur ergo et virtute propria, et virtute patris, quia virtutem suam habet a patre. Nec tamen dicit apostolus virtute sua, sed verbo virtutis suae, ad ostendendum quod sicut pater omnia per verbum produxit Ps. XXXII, 9: ipse dixit et facta sunt, etc., in quo ostenditur maxima virtus patris ita filius eodem verbo, quod est ipse, omnia fecit. Et in hoc ostendit apostolus potentiam virtutis suae, quia eamdem habet cum patre, quia eadem operatur et per idem, quo ille. Sed tunc est dubium: quia pater, cum dicit, producit verbum. Ergo filius cum dicit, produceret verbum, et sic verbum patris esset verbum filii. Et ad hoc dicunt Graeci, quod sicut filius est imago patris, ita spiritus sanctus est imago filii. Et sic exponit Basilius portans verbo virtutis suae, id est, spiritu sancto. Nam sicut filius est verbum patris, ita ut dicunt spiritus sanctus est verbum filii. Et ideo per ipsum facit filius, sicut per filium pater. Verumtamen proprie loquendo, verbum non dicitur nisi quod procedit ut conceptus ab intellectu, ad quod sequitur procedere in similitudinem speciei. Spiritus autem sanctus, et si sit similis, non tamen habet hoc ex modo suae processionis, quia non procedit ut conceptus ab intellectu, sed ut amor a voluntate. Aliter autem exponit Glossa verbo virtutis suae, id est, imperio suo. Sed hic adhuc est dubium de isto verbo quid sit, quia imperium hominis vel est exterius per vocem prolatum: et hoc non potest dici in divinis, quia nihil est extrinsecum a natura divina, procedens a filio, per quod omnia portentur; vel illud imperium est interius in corde conceptum: sed nec etiam hoc potest stare, quia nihil in mente Dei concipitur, nisi verbum aeternum. Ergo istud imperium, sic conceptum in mente filii, esset verbum aeternum, et sic essent duo verba aeterna, quod nefas est dicere. Ideo ad argumentum est dicendum, sicut exponit Augustinus illud Io. XII, 48: sermo quem locutus sum, ille iudicabit eum, id est, ipse ego, qui sum verbum patris, iudicabo eum. Et similiter, in proposito, verbum virtutis suae, id est, seipso, qui est verbum virtuosum. Per ista ergo tria, ostendit tria de Christo. Per hoc enim quod est splendor, ostendit eius coaeternitatem cum patre. In creaturis enim splendor est coaevus, sed ille est coaeternus. Et hoc est contra Arrium. Sed cum dicit imago substantiae, ostendit eius consubstantialitatem. Quia enim splendor non est eiusdem naturae cum resplendente, ne forte aliquis credat, quod non sit similis in natura, dicit quod est imago, vel figura substantiae. Sed quia filius, et si sit eiusdem naturae cum patre, si tamen sit infirmus, deficit a virtute patris; ideo subdit portans omnia verbo virtutis suae. Apostolus ergo in his tribus commendat Christum a tribus, scilicet a coaeternitate, a consubstantialitate, et ab aequalitate potestatis. Deinde cum dicit purgationem peccatorum faciens ostendit, secundum, quod facit ad idoneitatem dignitatis eius, scilicet strenuitas, et industria, quam habuit in operando. Fuit enim hoc magnae industriae, ut quod ei competebat ex natura, qua Deus est, ipse meruerit per passionem in natura assumpta. Unde Phil. II, 8 s.: factus est obediens usque ad mortem, propter quod et Deus exaltavit illum. Purgare ergo peccata, etsi conveniat ei ex natura divina, tamen convenit ei etiam ex merito passionis. Unde Eccli. XLVII, v. 13: Christus purgavit peccata eius, et exaltavit in aeternum cornu eius, et cetera. Matth. I, v. 21: ipse enim salvum faciet populum suum a peccatis eorum. Convenit etiam Christo purgare, ratione divinae naturae, et ratione proprietatis filii. Ratione divinae naturae, quia culpa seu peccatum proprie est malum rationalis creaturae. Hoc autem malum, sive peccatum non potest reparari nisi per Deum. Nam peccatum in voluntate consistit, voluntatem autem solus Deus potest movere. Ier. XVII, 9 s.: pravum est cor hominis et inscrutabile, quis cognoscet illud? Ego dominus, et cetera. Et huiusmodi ratio est, quia quod est immediatius fini, non reducitur ad ipsum finem, nisi a prima causa agente. Voluntas autem est ultimi finis, quia scilicet ad fruendum Deo: et ideo a Deo tantum movetur et reducitur. Cum ergo Christus sit verus Deus, manifestum est, quod purgationem peccatorum facere potest. Is. XLIII, 25: ego sum qui deleo iniquitates vestras propter me, et cetera. Lc. c. II, 7: quis potest peccata dimittere, nisi solus Deus? Ratione vero proprietatis competit etiam Christo. Ad cuius evidentiam sciendum est, quod in peccato, primo quidem est transgressio legis aeternae et iuris divini, cum omne peccatum sit iniquitas, quae est transgressio legis. Is. c. XXIV, 5: mutaverunt ius, dissipaverunt foedus sempiternum. Cum ergo lex aeterna et ius divinum sit a verbo aeterno, manifestum est quod ad Christum competit purgatio peccatorum, inquantum est verbum. Ps. CVI, 20: misit verbum suum, et sanavit eos. Secundo est in peccato amissio luminis rationis, et per consequens sapientiae Dei in homine, cum huiusmodi lumen sit participatio quaedam divinae sapientiae. Bar. III, 28: et quia non habuerunt sapientiam, ideo perierunt. Prov. XIV, 22: errant omnes qui operantur malum. Et secundum philosophum, omnis malus est ignorans. Rectificatio autem ad divinam sapientiam, competit ei qui est divina sapientia. Hic autem est Christus. I Cor. I, 23 s.: praedicamus Christum, Dei virtutem, et Dei sapientiam. Sap. IX, 19: nam per sapientiam sanati sunt, quicumque placuerunt tibi, domine, a principio. Tertio in peccato est deformatio similitudinis Dei in homine. Prov. XV, 7: cor stultorum dissimile erit. Unde dicitur Lc. XV, 13 de filio prodigo, quod abiit in regionem longinquam. De filio prodigo, quod abiit in regionem longinquam. Et ideo competit huiusmodi deformationi rectificari per filium, qui est imago patris. I Cor. XV, 49: sicut portavimus imaginem terreni, portemus imaginem caelestis. Quarto amissio aeternae haereditatis, in cuius signum homo post peccatum exclusus est a Paradiso, Gen. III, 23. Reparatio autem ad hoc proprie convenit filio, qui est haeres. Rom. VIII, 17: si filii, et haeredes. Gal. c. IV, 4 s.: misit Deus filium suum, natum ex muliere, factum sub lege, ut eos, qui sub lege erant, redimeret, et adoptionem filiorum Dei reciperemus. Sic ergo patet, quod Christo competit purgare peccata, et ratione humanae naturae, et ratione divinae. Sed quomodo fecit purgationem peccatorum? Ex hoc patet. In peccato enim primo est perversitas voluntatis, qua homo recedit a bono incommutabili, et ad hanc rectificandam, exhibuit Christus gratiam iustificantem. Rom. III, 24: iustificati gratis per gratiam ipsius. Secundo est macula relicta in anima ex perversitate voluntatis, et ad hanc lavandam praebuit sanguinem suum. Apoc. I, 5: dilexit nos, et lavit nos a peccatis, et cetera. Tertio est reatus poenae cui homo addicitur ex culpa, et ad satisfaciendum per hanc obtulit semetipsum Dei hostiam in ara crucis. Eph. V, 2: Christus dilexit Ecclesiam, et tradidit semetipsum pro ea, ut illam sanctificaret. Quarto servitus Diaboli, cui homo efficitur obnoxius peccando, quia qui facit peccatum servus est peccati, et ad eripiendum nos ab hac, redemit nos. Ps. XXX, 6: redemisti me, domine Deus veritatis. Consequenter cum dicit sedet ad dexteram, subiungit ipsam dignitatem, quasi dicat: non videtur indecens si sedet, et cetera. Quia ipse est splendor et figura, et portat omnia, et cetera. In verbo autem sessionis tria solent importari. Unum est sedentis auctoritas. Iob c. XXIX, 25: cumque sederem quasi rex circumstante exercitu, et cetera. In divina autem curia multi assistunt, quia Dan. VII, 10: millia millium ministrabant ei, et decies centena millia assistebant ei. Sed nullus legitur ibi sedere; quia omnes sunt ibi servi et ministri. Infra eodem: omnes sunt administratorii spiritus in ministerium missi. Sed solus iste habet regiam dignitatem. Dan. VII, v. 22: et usque ad antiquum dierum venit, et postea sequitur: et dedit ei potestatem, et honorem, et regnum, et cetera. Matth. XXV, 31: cum venerit filius hominis in maiestate sua, et omnes Angeli eius cum eo, tunc sedebit super sedem maiestatis suae, et post sequitur: tunc dicet rex his, et cetera. Secundum est sedentis stabilitas. Lc. ult.: sedete in civitate, et cetera. Dan. VII, v. 14: potestas eius potestas aeterna, etc. et infra XIII, 8: Christus Iesus heri et hodie, ipse in saecula. Item aliquando sedere importat humilitatem, quia sedens inferior est stantibus. Ps. CXXXVIII, 2: tu cognovisti sessionem meam. Et sic non accipitur hic, sed primis duobus modis. Sed contra, Act. VII, 56: ecce video caelos apertos, et Iesum stantem, et cetera. Et dicendum est, quod sedere, et stare, et huiusmodi dispositiones de Deo dicuntur, secundum similitudinem. Et ideo secundum diversa, dicitur et sedens, et stans. Sedens quidem propter immobilitatem; sed stans propter utilitatem ad fortiter resistendum. Unde stabat quasi paratus iuvare Stephanum, in agone constitutum. Sed addit apostolus, quod sedet ad dexteram. Quod, si referatur ad divinam naturam, est sensus: ad dexteram, id est ad aequalitatem patris. Si vero ad humanam, est sensus: ad dexteram, id est in potioribus bonis patris. Mc. ult.: sedet a dextris Dei. Ps. CIX, 1 et Matth. XXII, 44: dixit dominus domino meo: sede a dextris meis. Sed inter eos qui habent assessores, quidam sunt simpliciter maiores, ut rex vel imperator; quidam vero non simpliciter maiores, sed secundum quid, ut praepositi, vel balivi. Sed Christus non sedet ad dexteram alicuius inferiorum iudicum, sicut alicuius praepositi, ut balivi, sed simpliciter maioris, quia ad dexteram maiestatis. Maiestas proprie est summa potestas. Is. VI, 3: plena erat omnis terra maiestate eius. Prov. XXV, 27: qui scrutator est maiestatis, opprimetur a gloria. Christus autem etsi sic sedeat ad dexteram maiestatis, habet tamen et ipse maiestatem, quia habet eamdem cum patre. Matth. XXV, v. 31: cum venerit filius hominis in maiestate sua. Lc. IX, 26: hunc filius hominis erubescet cum venerit in maiestate sua et patris. Dicit etiam non solum maiestatis, sed etiam in excelsis, id est, super omnem creaturam. Eccli. XXIV, 7: ego in altissimis habito. Sic ergo sedet in excelsis, quia elevatus est super omnem creaturam. Ps. VIII, v. 2: quoniam elevata est magnificentia tua super caelos. Et secundum quod dicit Chrysostomus, apostolus in loco isto tenet modum volentis instruere parvulum, qui non statim proponit ei summa, sed paulatim perducit eum, modo loquendo ardua, modo proponendo infima; ita etiam modo proponit divina, cum dicit in filio, modo humana, cum dicit quem constituit haeredem, et cetera. Et sic de aliis, ut patet in Glossa.
Sicut supra dictum est, apostolus in toto capitulo intendit praeferre Christum Angelis quantum ad excellentiam, unde posuit quatuor pertinentia ad excellentiam Christi, scilicet quantum ad originem quia filius, quantum ad dominationem quia haeres, quantum ad operationem quia ipse fecit saecula, quantum ad honorem quia sedet ad dexteram maiestatis. Modo apostolus in parte ista ostendit, quod Christus quantum ad ista quatuor excedit Angelos; et primo quantum ad filiationem; secundo quantum ad dominationem, ibi et cum iterum introducit; tertio quantum ad operationem creationis, ibi et tu in principio, domine, terram fundasti; quarto quantum ad patris confessionem, ibi ad quem autem Angelorum. Circa primum duo facit, quia primo praemittit intentum; secundo propositum probat, ibi cui enim dixit. Dicit ergo tanto melior Angelis, id est sanctior, et ideo propinquior, in quo proponit excellentiam Christi ad Angelos. Eph. c. I, 20: constituens eum ad dexteram suam in caelestibus super omnem principatum et potestatem. Sed tunc oritur quaestio quomodo apostolus hoc intelligit, utrum secundum divinam naturam, vel humanam, quia secundum divinam non videtur verum, quia secundum illam genitus est, non factus; secundum vero humanam non est melior Angelis, ut infra, II cap.: eum autem, qui modico quam Angeli, et cetera. Sed dicendum est, quod Christus secundum humanam naturam duo habuit in vita ista, scilicet infirmitatem carnis, et sic fuit minoratus ab Angelis. Infra II cap.: eum qui modico, et cetera. Item, habuit gratiae plenitudinem, et sic etiam in humanitate maior fuit Angelis in gratia et gloria. Io. I, 14: vidimus eum quasi unigenitum a patre, plenum gratiae et veritatis. Sed hic non est intellectus. Apostolus enim non intelligit, quod melior fuerit quantum ad gratiam, sed propter unionem humanae naturae ad divinam: et sic dicitur factus, inquantum per illius unionis factionem pervenit ad hoc quod esset melior Angelis, et diceretur et esset filius Dei.
1:4
Et ideo subdit quanto differentius prae illis nomen haereditavit. Et quantum ad hoc nomen, ostendit differentiam quantum ad tria, scilicet quantum ad nominis significationem, quia proprium nomen Angelorum est quod dicuntur Angeli, quod est nomen ministri. Angelus enim idem est quod nuntius. Nomen autem proprium Christi est, quod dicitur filius Dei. Et hoc nomen est valde differentius ab illo, quia quantamcumque differentiam ponis, adhuc est maiorem dare, cum distent in infinitum. Prov. c. XXX, 4: quod nomen eius? Et quod nomen filii eius, si nosti? Est enim nomen filii eius sicut et patris incomprehensibile. Phil. II, 9: et dedit illi nomen, quod est super omne nomen. Sed forte dices, quod etiam Angeli dicuntur filii Dei. Iob I, 6 et II, 1: cum assisterent filii Dei coram domino, et cetera. Dicendum est, quod si dicuntur filii Dei, hoc non est essentialiter et per naturam, sed per quamdam participationem. Ipse autem est essentialiter filius Dei, et ideo habet nomen differentius prae illis: et hoc est secundum, quia differunt quantum ad modum. Ps. LXXXVIII, 7: quis est similis Deo in filiis Dei? Quasi dicat: nullus per naturam. Quantum ad tertium dicit, quod illud nomen haereditavit. Haereditas enim consequitur originem. Unde Christus, quod filius sit, habet ex origine, et per naturam; Angeli autem ex dono gratiae. Matth. XXI, 38: hic est haeres. Unde ipse nomen haereditavit, non autem Angeli, et haec est tertia differentia. Deinde cum dicit cui enim dixit aliquando Angelorum, probat quod dixit; et primo agit de nomine secundum quod convenit Christo secundum divinitatem; secundo secundum humanitatem, ibi et rursum, ego ero, et cetera. Quantum ad primum inducit auctoritatem Ps. II, 7: dominus dixit ad me, et cetera. Et hoc est cui enim Angelorum, etc., quasi dicat: nulli Angelorum dicta sunt haec verba, sed tantum Christo. Ubi tria possunt notari. Primo modus originis in verbo dixit; secundo singularitas filiationis, ibi filius meus es tu; tertio eius auctoritas, ibi ego hodie. Modus iste non est carnalis, sed spiritualis et intellectualis. Deus enim spiritus est, Io. c. IV, 24, et ideo non generat carnaliter, sed spiritualiter et intellectualiter. Intellectus autem dicendo, generat verbum, quod est conceptus eius, et ideo signanter dixit, quod dominus dixit ad me, id est, pater dixit filio. Dicere ergo intellectus patris, nihil aliud est, quam in corde verbum concipere. Ps. XLIV, v. 2: eructavit cor meum verbum bonum. Iob XXXIII, 14: semel loquitur, et secundo idipsum non repetit. Eccli. XXIV, 5: ego ex ore altissimi prodii. Sed quantum ad secundum, generatio ista est singularis, quia dicit filius meus es tu, quasi dicat: etsi multi alii filii dicuntur, tamen esse filium naturalem est sibi proprium; alii autem dicuntur filii Dei, quia sunt participes verbi Dei. Io. X, 35 illos dixit deos ad quos sermo Dei factus est; sed Christus est ipsum verbum. Matth. XVII, 5: hic est filius meus dilectus. Sed quantum ad tertium, ista generatio non est temporalis, sed aeterna, quia hodie genui te. Differt autem tempus ab aeternitate, quia tempus variatur sicut motus, cuius mensura est in variatione et successione. Et ideo nominatur per successionem praeteriti et futuri. Aeternitas autem est mensura rei immobilis, et ideo non est ibi variatio per successionem, sed semper est praesens; et ideo notatur per adverbium praesentis temporis, scilicet hodie, id est, in aeternitate. Verum quia illud quod fit, quia nondum est, incompletum per consequens est; quod autem factum est, completum est, et ita perfectum; ideo non dicit genero te sed genui, quia perfectus est. Sed tamen ne putetur esse generatio eius tota in praeteritione, et per consequens in defectione, addit, hodie. Et coniungit praesenti praeteritum, scilicet hodie et genui, ut scias ipsam generationem semper esse, et perfectam esse, et sic in hodie permanentia, in genui vero perfectio designatur. Ut sit sensus: perfectus es, fili, et tamen generatio tua aeterna est, et semper a me generaris: sicut lumen in aere perfectum est, et tamen semper procedit a sole. Mich. V, 2: egressus eius a principio a diebus aeternitatis. Ps. CIX, 3: ex utero ante Luciferum genui te. Posset etiam hoc exponi de generatione temporali, ut dicat hodie, id est in tempore, genui te.
1:5
Consequenter cum dicit et rursum: ego ero illi in patrem, etc., propositum ostendit, secundum quod convenit Christo secundum humanitatem, et hoc per aliam auctoritatem. Secundum Glossam istud dicitur in Isaia ego ero illi in patrem, sed tamen non invenitur aliquid huic simile in Isaia nisi illud: et filius datus est nobis. Sed II Reg. c. VII, 14 et I Par. XXII, 10 habentur ista eadem verba domini dicentis ad David de Salomone, per quem figurabatur Christus. Sciendum est autem, quod in veteri testamento quaedam dicuntur de eo quod est figura, non inquantum quaedam res, sed inquantum est figura, et tunc non exponitur de illo, nisi inquantum refertur ad figuratum. Verbi gratia in Ps. LXXI quaedam dicuntur de David, vel de Salomone, inquantum figurabant Christum tantum. Quaedam vero etiam secundum quod sunt homines quidam, et istorum dicta de ipsis possunt exponi et de Christo; sicut illud: Deus, iudicium tuum regi da: quia illud potest convenire Salomoni. Illa vero quae dicuntur de ipsis inquantum sunt figura, numquam de ipsis possunt exponi, sicut illud: et dominabitur a mari usque ad mare, etc.; quia nullo modo verificari potest de Salomone. Sic et in proposito, licet ista dicta sint de Salomone, tamen possunt exponi de Christo, qui praefigurabatur per illum. Dicit ergo ero quod est futuri temporis, ad denotandum quod incarnatio filii futura erat in tempore. Gal. IV, 4: at ubi venit plenitudo temporis, et cetera. Supra vero cum loquebatur de aeterna generatione, dixit es tu, quasi sine motu; hic autem cum loquitur de temporali, dicit in filium, quod denotat terminum alicuius motionis. Assumptio enim importat motum in filiationem. Et quia omnis motio fit per operationem alicuius terminatam ad aliquem effectum, ideo primo ponit operationem facientis, quia non virtute humanitatis facta est assumptio, sed divinitatis, cum dicit ego ero illi in patrem, id est, assumam eum ad unionem personae filii. Et subiungit effectum consecutum, quia scilicet est susceptus in unitatem personalem filii, erit mihi in filium. De primo dicitur Lc. I, 35: virtus altissimi, scilicet facientis assumptionem, obumbrabit tibi. De secundo Rom. I, 3: qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem. Iterum ego ero illi, id est, ad honorem et utilitatem suam clarificabo ipsum. Io. XVII, 5: clarifica me, pater. Et ipse erit mihi, id est, ad honorem meum, manifestando nomen meum hominibus. Io. XVII, v. 6: manifestavi nomen tuum, et cetera. Deinde cum dicit et cum iterum, etc., agit de dominatione Christi, qua est haeres universorum. Ubi tria facit, quia primo ostendit dominium eius, et praecipue super Angelos; secundo ponit rationem dominii illius ex parte Angelorum, ibi et ad Angelos; tertio ex parte Christi, ibi ad filium autem. Quantum ad primum inducit auctoritatem Ps. XCVI, 7 cum dicit: adorate eum, omnes Angeli eius; hoc habetur in Ps. XCVI, v. 1: dominus regnavit, exultet, et cetera. Adoratio enim non fit nisi domino; ergo si Angeli eum adorant, dominus illorum est. Volens apostolus inducere hanc auctoritatem, primo tangit intentionem Psalmistae, cum dicit et cum iterum introducit, etc., ut Psalmista loquatur de adventu Christi in mundum. Et ideo dicit: et cum Scriptura introducit, id est introducendum, dicit primogenitum, etc.; quasi dicat: iam dictum est, quod Christus est filius prae Angelis; ergo est principaliter a patre genitus. Est ergo dicendus primogenitus. Rom. VIII, 29: ut sit ipse primogenitus in multis fratribus. Hic autem primogenitus debebat introduci in orbem, et cetera. Et vide quam ordinate loquatur apostolus. Primo enim dicit ipsum esse a patre, ibi ego ero illi in patrem; secundo assumptum in unitate personae, ibi et ipse erit mihi in filium; sed modo proponit eum in notitiam hominum. Vocat autem incarnationem introductionem in mundum. Sed contra. Ipse Christus vocat eam exitum. Io. XVI, 28: exivi a patre, et veni in mundum. Et dicendum est, quod exitus est etiam introductio. Sicut si aliquis reconciliandus sit principi, primo exit ad eum mediator et post introducit eum. Simile habetur I Reg. XX, 5 ss. de David ad Ionatham. Sic Christus mediator Dei et hominum, primo exiit ad homines, et postea introduxit eos reconciliatos. Infra II, 10: qui multos filios adduxerat in gloriam, et cetera. Vel introducit, id est, inducit eum usque in corda hominum, quia Scriptura loquens de adventu Christi, dicit eum suscipiendum intra corda hominum. Ista autem receptio fit per fidem. Eph. III, 17: habitare Christum per fidem in cordibus vestris. Ps. XCV, 3: annuntiate inter gentes gloriam eius. Quando enim Scriptura dicit, quod gentes debent credere, dicit quod Christus intraturus est in corde ipsorum. Hoc autem quod dicit iterum, multipliciter exponitur. Dicit enim Chrysostomus, quod de incarnatione verbi, quae dicitur introductio, non loquitur Scriptura semel, sed iterum atque iterum. Vel aliter, quia ipse primo erat in mundo per potentiam divinitatis invisibiliter, sed iterum introducit eum in mundum, secundum praesentiam humanitatis visibiliter. Vel aliter, quia supra dixerat ero illi in patrem, id est, assumam in unitatem personalem mei. Et cum iterum introducit, eum, scilicet istum primogenitum et assumptum ad unitatem personae: quia non sufficeret dicere, quod introducitur, nisi dicatur qualiter introducatur, quia non quasi unus de mundo, nec sicut Angeli, sed super omnes.
1:6
Ideo dicit adorent eum omnes Angeli. Nehem. IX, 6: exercitus caeli te adorat. Apoc. VII, 11: omnes Angeli stabant in circuitu throni, et ceciderunt, et adoraverunt, et cetera. Deinde cum dicit et ad Angelos, etc., ponitur ratio ex parte Angelorum, quare eum adorant, quasi dicat: iustum est quod adorent, quia sunt ministri.
1:7
Unde dicit qui facit Angelos suos spiritus, et ministros suos flammam ignis. Deus enim aliquando operatur illuminando intellectum. Io. I, 9: illuminat omnem hominem, et cetera. Aliquando vero movet ad opus. Is. XXVI, 12: omnia opera nostra operatus es in nobis. Et primum facit Deus in nobis, mediantibus Angelis. Ps. LXXV, 5: illuminans tu mirabiliter a montibus aeternis. Secundum etiam facit in nobis ipsis mediantibus, sicut dicit Dionysius IV cap. caelestis hierarchiae. Inquantum ergo illuminat per ipsos, dicuntur nuntii. Nuntii enim est nuntiare ea quae sunt in corde domini sui. Inquantum vero sunt mediatores operum divinorum, dicuntur ministri. Ps. CII, 21: ministri eius, qui faciunt voluntatem eius. Sunt ergo et nuntii et ministri. Sed quales sint, describit eos per duas res corporales maxime ad hoc idoneas. Una est aer, cuius proprietas multum convenit nuntio, ministro autem proprietas ignis. Aer enim est receptibilis luminis et impressionis; item optime reddit recepta; item habet velocem motum. Haec autem debet habere bonus nuntius, ut scilicet bene recipiat dicta, bene referat recepta, et utrumque velociter faciat. Ista bene conveniunt Angelis. Optime enim recipiunt divinas illuminationes. Sunt enim Angeli specula munda, secundum Dionysium. Matth. XVIII, 10: et Angeli eorum in caelis, et cetera. Item optime reddunt, quod significatum est Apoc. I, 1: significavit Deus, quae oportet fieri cito; loquens per Angelum suum servo suo Ioanni, et cetera. Item sunt veloces. Is. XVIII, v. 2: ite, Angeli veloces, et cetera. Isti autem dicuntur spiritus, quia omnis substantia invisibilis dicitur spiritus. Unde et aer dicitur spiritus. Item sunt ignis, inquantum ministri. Ignis autem, inter omnia elementa, est maxime activus et efficax ad agendum. Unde in Ps. CIII, 4 de Angelis ubi dicuntur ministri eius, ibi additur et ministros tuos ignem urentem. Item ignis calorem causat, per quod designatur charitas. Cant. VIII, 6: lampades ignis atque flammarum. Unde describuntur in igne, et dicuntur Seraphim, Is. VI, 2. Item ignis semper movetur sursum; ita Angeli et boni ministri, omnia quae agunt, semper referunt in gloriam Dei, sicut patet de Angelo Tob. XII, 6: benedicite Deum caeli, et cetera. Non dicit: benedicite me, sed Deum caeli. Non sic de malo Angelo, qui dicit Matth. IV, 9: si cadens adoraveris me. Sed Angelus bonus tamquam bonus minister dicit Apoc. ult.: vide ne feceris, et sequitur: Deum adora.
1:8
Supra probavit apostolus per auctoritatem Angelos esse ministros, hic probat hoc per rationem sumptam ex parte ipsius Christi. Unde intendit hic probare regiam dignitatem Christi; ubi duo facit. Primo enim commendat regiam dignitatem ipsius Christi; secundo eius ad illam dignitatem ostendit idoneitatem, ibi propterea unxit te Deus. Circa primum tria facit; primo commendat Christi regiam auctoritatem; secundo eius regiminis aequitatem, ibi virga aequitatis; tertio regiminis bonitatem, ibi dilexisti iustitiam. Dicit ergo: ad filium autem dicit thronus tuus, et cetera. Et sunt verba Dei patris loquentis per linguam prophetae, sicut per calamum Scribae. Dicit ergo: o Deus fili, thronus tuus, et cetera. In quo denotatur regia maiestas. Est enim thronus regis sedes, sed cathedra magistri, tribunal autem sedes iudicis. Quae omnia conveniunt Christo, quia ipse est rex noster: Lc. I, 32: regnabit in domo Iacob et ideo convenit ei thronus. Ps. LXXXVIII, v. 30: thronus eius sicut sol. Ipse est magister, Io. III, 2: scimus, quia a Deo venisti magister, ideo competit ei cathedra. Ipse iudex noster, Is. XXXIII, 22: dominus iudex noster, dominus legifer noster, et ideo congruit sibi tribunal. II Cor. V, 10: omnes nos oportet manifestari ante tribunal Christi et cetera. Competit autem thronus Christo secundum naturam divinam, inquantum est Deus, Ps. XLVI, 8: rex omnis terrae Deus, sed secundum quod homo, convenit sibi ex merito passionis, victoriae, et resurrectionis. Apoc. c. III, 21: qui vicerit, dabo ei sedere mecum in throno meo, sicut ego vici et sedi in throno patris mei cum eo. Hic thronus est perpetuus. Lc. I, 33: et regni eius non erit finis. Dan. VII, 14: potestas eius potestas aeterna, quae non auferetur. Patet autem quod regnum illud est aeternum, et inquantum sibi convenit ex natura, quia est Deus. Ps. CXLIV, 13: regnum tuum, regnum omnium saeculorum. Item, inquantum sibi convenit ut homo, et hoc duplici ratione. Una, quia regnum illud non ordinatur ad temporalia, sed ad aeterna. Io. XVIII, 36: regnum meum non est de hoc mundo. Ad hoc enim regnat, ut homines dirigat ad vitam aeternam. Non autem sic est de regno hominum; unde regnum illorum finitur cum vita praesenti. Alia ratio est, quia Ecclesia, quae est regnum eius, durat usque ad finem mundi, et tunc tradet Christus regnum Deo et patri consummandum et perficiendum. Consequenter commendat regnum eius ab aequitate, cum dicit virga aequitatis, et cetera. Convenienter autem describitur regnum per virgam. Differt enim regimen tyrannicum a regimine regis, quia regimen tyrannicum est ad utilitatem suam cum gravamine subditorum; regimen autem regis principaliter ordinatur ad utilitatem subditorum. Et ideo rex est pater et pastor. Pastor enim non corrigit cum gladio, sed cum virga. Ps. LXXXVIII, 33: visitabo in virga iniquitates eorum. Item pastor utitur virga in directione gregis. Mich. c. VII, 14: pasce populum tuum in virga tua. Virga etiam sustentat infirmos. Ps. XXII, 4: virga tua et baculus tuus ipsa me consolata sunt. Item virga conturbat hostes. Num. XXIV, v. 17: consurget virga de Israel, et percutiet duces Moab. Sed est haec virga aequitatis. Is. XI, 4: arguet in aequitate pro mansuetis terrae. Sed sciendum est, quod aliquando aliquis regit in rigore iuris, sicut quando servat ea quae iusta sunt secundum se. Contingit autem, quod aliquid de se iustum est, quod tamen comparatum ad aliquid inducit detrimentum si servetur; et ideo oportet, quod ius commune ad hoc applicetur, et si hoc fiat, tunc est regimen aequitatis. Regnum veteris testamenti erat secundum rigorem iustitiae. Act. XV, 10: onus quod nec nos, nec patres nostri portare potuimus. Sed regnum Christi est regnum aequitatis et iustitiae, quia in ipso non imponitur nisi suavis observantia. Matth. XI, v. 30: iugum enim meum suave est et onus meum leve. Et Ps. XCV, 13: iudicabit orbem terrae in aequitate. Consequenter cum dicit dilexisti, etc., bonitatem regentis commendat. Quidam enim servant aequitatem, non tamen propter amorem iustitiae, sed magis propter timorem, vel gloriam, vel metum, et tale regimen non durat. Sed iste servat aequitatem propter amorem iustitiae. Dicit ergo dilexisti iustitiam, quasi dicat: hoc quod virga est aequa et directa, hoc est quia dilexisti iustitiam. Sap. I, 1: diligite iustitiam, qui iudicatis terram. Non autem est iustus, qui non amat iustitiam. Matth. V, 6: beati qui esuriunt et sitiunt iustitiam. Sed aliqui quidem diligunt iustitiam, sed sunt remissi in correctione iniquitatis; sed Christus odit, id est, reprobat iniquitatem. Ps. CXVIII, 113: iniquos odio habui. Sap. XIV, v. 9: similiter odio sunt Deo impius et impietas eius. Eccli. XII, 3: altissimus odio habet peccatores, et misertus est poenitentibus. Et ideo dicit et odisti iniquitatem.
1:9
Deinde cum dicit propterea unxit te Deus, ostendit Christi idoneitatem ad exequendum et gubernandum, ubi dubitatio est de hoc, quod dicit propterea, et cetera. In verbis istis agitur de spirituali unctione, quia Christus est repletus spiritu sancto. Numquid enim ideo repletus est, quia dilexit iustitiam? Ergo meruit gratiam, quod est contra illud Rom. XI, 6: si ex operibus, iam non ex gratia; et haec est ratio communis. Sed specialiter ad propositum, quia Christus in ipsa conceptione fuit plenus spiritu sancto, Io. I, 14: plenum gratia et veritate, non ergo meruit. Respondeo. Hic est cavendus error Origenis. Voluit enim, quod omnes spirituales creaturae, etiam anima Christi, a principio creatae fuerunt, et secundum quod plus vel minus adhaeserunt Deo, vel diverterunt ab ipso per libertatem arbitrii sui, facta est distinctio inter Angelos et etiam animas. Unde in periarchon dicit, quod anima Christi quia vehementius adhaesit Deo, diligendo iustitiam, et odiendo iniquitatem, quod meruit maiorem plenitudinem gratiae prae cunctis substantiis spiritualibus. Sed hoc est haereticum dicere, quod scilicet quaecumque anima, vel etiam anima Christi, creata fuerit ante corpus, quod etiam specialem rationem in Christo habet, quia in primo instanti simul creata fuit anima, et formatum corpus, et totum est assumptum a filio Dei. Quid ergo dicit propterea? Una Glossa videtur sentire cum Origene. Sed si volumus eam salvare, dicemus quod in Scriptura dicitur aliquid fieri quando innotescit; sicut cum dicitur Phil. II, 8 s.: factus est obediens, etc., propter quod et Deus exaltavit illum, et dedit illi nomen, et cetera. Numquid Christus merito passionis meruit esse Deus? Absit: hic enim est error Photini. Dicendum est ergo, quod Christum esse Deum, excedit omne meritum, sed per passionem meruit, quod manifestetur ubique esse Deum, et quod Deus dederat illi tale nomen, et cetera. Ita hoc quod dicit hic propterea unxit te Deus, et cetera. Ut sit sensus: ex hoc quod tu dilexisti iustitiam, meruisti quod hoc innotescat. Vel aliter et melius ita quod ly propterea, non dicat causam meritoriam, sed finalem; quasi dicat: ad hoc quod illa haberes, scilicet thronum perpetuum, virgam aequitatis, etc., quae dicta sunt, propterea unxit te Deus oleo, scilicet sanctificationis, quod dominus mandavit fieri, Ex. XXX, 24 ss.: quo ungebantur vasa et sacerdotes, Lev. VIII, 2 et IX, v. 1 s., et reges, ut patet de David, I Reg. c. XVI, 13, et Salomone, III Reg. I, 39; item prophetae, ut patet de Eliseo, III Reg. XIX, v. 16. Sed quare fiebat ista sanctificatio per unctionem? Ratio est litteralis. Homines enim Orientales pro celebritate ungebantur, ne consumerentur, eo quod sunt in regione multum calida. Pauperes etiam ungebantur ad festivitatem. IV Reg. IV, 2: non habeo ancilla tua nisi parum olei quo ungar. In Scriptura autem divina traduntur nobis per modum quo homines solent uti. Quia ergo tunc ungebantur homines, vel propter celebritatem festi, vel propter celebritatem personae, ideo ad ostendendum excellentiam Christi, dicit eum unctum oleo exultationis. Ipse enim est rex. Is. XXXII, 1: ecce in iustitia regnabit rex. Et XXXV: dominus enim iudex noster, dominus legifer noster, dominus rex noster, ipse veniet et salvabit nos. Est etiam sacerdos. Ps. CIX, 4: tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Fuit etiam propheta. Deut. c. XVIII, 15: prophetam de gente tua et de fratribus tuis sicut me suscitabit tibi dominus. Et convenit sibi ungi oleo sanctificationis et exultationis. Ab ipso autem sunt sacramenta, quae sunt vasa gratiae. Is. XXII, 24: suspendam super eum omnem gloriam domus patris eius vasorum diversa genera, et cetera. Convenit etiam ista unctio Christianis. Sunt enim reges et sacerdotes. I Petr. II, 9: vos estis genus electum, regale sacerdotium. Apoc. c. V, 10: fecisti nos Deo nostro regnum et sacerdotes. Item habet spiritum sanctum, qui est prophetiae spiritus. Ioel II, 28: effundam de spiritu meo super omnem carnem, et cetera. Et ideo omnes uncti sunt, invisibili unctione. II Cor. I, 21: qui autem confirmat nos vobiscum in Christo, et qui unxit nos Deus, et qui signavit nos, et dedit, et cetera. I Io. II, 20: vos unctionem habetis a sancto, et nostis omnia. Sed quae comparatio est inter Christum unctum, et Christianos unctos? Ista, scilicet quia ipse habet eam principaliter et primo, nos autem et alii ab ipso effusam. Ps. CXXVII: sicut unguentum in capite, et cetera. Et dicit prae participibus tuis. Io. c. I, 16: de plenitudine eius omnes accepimus. Unde alii dicuntur sancti, ipse vero sanctus sanctorum. Ipse enim est radix omnis sanctitatis. Dicit autem oleo laetitiae, vel exultationis, quia ex ista unctione procedit spiritualis laetitia. Rom. XIV, 17: non est regnum Dei esca et potus, sed iustitia et pax et gaudium in spiritu sancto. Gal. V, 22: fructus autem spiritus est charitas, pax, gaudium. Ps. CIII, v. 15: ut exhilaret faciem in oleo. Is. LXI, v. 3: oleum gaudii pro luctu, et cetera. Illud autem, quod bis dicit Deus, Deus, dupliciter exponitur. Uno modo, quod repetatur nominativus casus, ut sit sensus: unxit te Deus per seipsum Deum, nos autem per te, mediatorem Dei et hominum, hominem Christum. II Pet. I, 4: per quem magna et pretiosa nobis promissa donavit. Alio modo, quia, secundum Augustinum in Glossa, alterum est nominativi casus, alterum vocativi, ut sit sensus: o Christe, qui es Deus filius, Deus pater unxit te, et cetera. Et quod debeat sic exponi magis patet in Graeco. Sed cum Christus non sit unctus secundum quod Deus, quia sic non convenit sibi recipere spiritum sanctum, sed magis aliis dare, secunda expositio non videtur esse vera. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod idem est in persona et Deus et homo, tamen unctus est inquantum homo. Et cum dicitur: o Deus, etc., et ungens est Deus et homo, et unctus similiter est Deus et homo, et unum cum ipso in persona.
1:10
Supra praemiserat apostolus quatuor, in quibus Christus excellit Angelos, et probavit duo illorum, scilicet et quod excedit eos, quia est filius, et quia est haeres, nunc probat tertium, scilicet quod excedit eos in virtute operationis, quia per eum pater fecit et saecula. Hoc autem probat apostolus ex auctoritate eiusdem prophetiae, et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ostendit virtutem operationis inquantum creator; secundo quantum ad differentiam creatoris ad creaturam, ibi ipsi peribunt. Circa primum duo facit, quia primo ponit creationem terrae; secundo caelorum, ibi et opera manuum. Sciendum est autem circa primum, quod hoc potest dupliciter legi: uno modo, ut sit sermo prophetae directus ad patrem, ut sit sensus tu, domine, scilicet Deus pater, fundasti terram in principio, id est in filio tuo, qui est principium. Io. VIII, 25: ego principium, qui et loquor vobis. Et hoc tantum valet ac si dixisset: tu fundasti terram per filium: Ps. CIII, 24: omnia in sapientia fecisti. Filius autem est sapientia genita, unde supra dixit eum splendorem gloriae. Et hoc quod dicit hic, respondet huic quod supra dixit per quem fecit et saecula. Alio modo, quod sit sermo directus ad filium, sic: et tu, domine, scilicet fili, fundasti terram in principio, scilicet temporis, ut excludat opinionem ponentium aeternitatem mundi; vel in principio, scilicet productionis rerum, ut excludat opinionem dicentium, corporalia non fuisse creata cum spiritualibus, sed post. Gen. I, 1: in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram. Eccli. XVIII, 1: qui vivit in aeternum, creavit omnia simul. Sciendum est autem, quod tripliciter potest distingui terra a caelo. Uno modo et ad litteram quod per terram intelligatur elementum terrae, per caelum autem superiora corpora; ut sicut Moyses non facit mentionem de aere, quia est cum aqua, ita hic intelligit per caelum, ipsum caelum et alia duo elementa, scilicet aerem et ignem, quae magis accedunt ad naturam caeli, quod patet ex loco ipsorum. Sic etiam accipit Moyses. Et dicit fundasti, ut ostendat tria ad terram pertinere, primo quidem terrae quietem; omnia enim alia participant motum, sola autem terra secundum totalitatem suam immobilis perseverat, ut sit sensus fundasti, id est, firmasti. Ps. CIII, 5: qui fundavit terram super stabilitatem suam. Secundo, ut ostendat terrae perpetuitatem, nam fundamentum aedificii inter alias eius partes stabilius est. Terra autem in aeternum stat, Eccle. I, 4. Et secundum hoc dicit fundasti terram, id est, perpetuo solidasti. Tertio, ut ostendat terrae ordinem, quia sicut fundamentum, quod est prima pars aedificii, est in imo, ita terra inter omnia elementa tenet locum imum. Is. XLVIII, v. 13: manus mea fundavit terram. Ps.: aridam fundaverunt manus eius. Non autem dicit fecisti caelos, sed opera manuum tuarum sunt caeli, quia illud quod aliquis facit manibus, magis diligenter videtur facere. Et ideo sic loquitur ad designandum nobilitatem et pulchritudinem ipsorum. Is. XLVIII, 13: dextera mea mensa est caelos. Aliter vero quod per terram intelligat totam naturam corporalem. Et sic terram fundasti, quia materia est locus et fundamentum formarum; per caelos autem, spirituales substantias. Ps. CXLVIII, 4: laudate eum, caeli caelorum. Et hi sunt opera manuum eius, quia fecit eos ad imaginem et similitudinem suam. Vel per terram imperfecti in Ecclesia, quia sunt fundamentum aliorum; quia nisi esset activa in Ecclesia, contemplativa non subsisteret. Per caelos contemplativi. Et haec facta in Ecclesia in principio, id est per filium. Is. LI, 16: posui verba mea in ore tuo, ut fundes terram, id est, imperfectos, et plantes caelos, id est, perfectos. Quantum autem ad caelos dicit opera manuum tuarum sunt caeli. Dicit autem opera manuum tuarum, et non simpliciter, caelos fecisti, propter quatuor rationes. Primo, ut excludat errorem dicentium Deum esse animam caeli, et per consequens totum mundum et partes eius debere coli ut Deus, quod et idololatrae faciebant; et hoc excludit, cum dicit opera manuum tuarum sunt caeli, quasi dicat: non sunt proportionati tibi, ut corpus animae, sed subiecti et proportionati virtuti, et voluntati tuae. Deut. IV, 19: ne forte oculis ad caelum elevatis, videas solem et lunam et omnia astra caeli, et errore deceptus, adores ea. Secundo ut designet caelorum dignitatem et pulchritudinem, quia illud dicimus manibus facere, quod diligenter facimus; ut ergo ostendat caelos excellentiori modo quam alias creaturas corporales divina sapientia conditos esse, dicit opera manuum tuarum sunt caeli. Et hoc patet; quia diversitas in istis inferioribus potest reduci ad dispositionem materiae, sed diversitas corporum caelestium nullo modo potest reduci nisi ad sapientiam divinam. Et inde est, quod quandocumque fit mentio de creatione caeli, additur ibi, prudenter, vel intellectus vel aliquid huiusmodi, secundum illud Ier. IV: stabilivit caelos prudenter, et secundum illud Ps. CXXXV, 5: qui fecit caelos intellectu. Tertio ut ostendat, quod in caelis magis refulget virtus divina creatoris, secundum Glossam; nihil enim est in creaturis, in cuius conditione appareat tantum virtutis Dei, et hoc propter magnitudinem ipsorum et ordinem. Sap. XIII, 5: a magnitudine enim speciei et creaturae, cognoscibiliter poterit horum creator videri. Quarto ad ostendendum, quod inter omnia corpora, corpus caeleste immediatius recipit influentiam a Deo, et per ista derivatur in ista inferiora. Iob XXXVIII, 33: numquid nosti ordinem caeli, et pones rationem eius in terra? Quasi dicat: si bene consideras dispositionem caeli, non potes attribuere causam dispositionis eius alicui rei terrenae, sed Deo. Alio modo potest exponi, ut per terram accipiatur tota materia corporalis, per caelos vero spirituales substantiae. Et sic est sensus: in principio temporis terram, id est, materiam corporalem, fundasti, id est, quasi fundamentum formarum stabilisti; et sic intelligitur illud Ps. CXLVIII, 7: laudate dominum de terra, et cetera. Sed caeli, id est substantiae spirituales, Ps. CXLVIII, 4: laudent illum caeli, etc., sunt opera manuum tuarum, quia scilicet fecisti eos ad imaginem et similitudinem tuam. Tertio modo potest exponi, ut per terram intelligantur infimi in Ecclesia, per caelos vero supremi, et sic est sensus in principio, id est per filium, terram fundasti, id est activos et infimos in Ecclesia; et dicuntur fundati, quia sunt quasi fundamentum aliorum, nam nisi essent activi in Ecclesia, viri contemplativi non sustentarentur. Sed caeli, id est contemplativi et perfectiores, sunt opera manuum tuarum, id est, excellentiori praeeminentia praediti. Ps. XVIII, 2: caeli enarrant gloriam Dei; et Is. I, 2: audite, caeli, id est, maiores; auribus percipe, terra, id est, minores. Consequenter cum dicit ipsi peribunt, ostendit differentiam inter creatorem et creaturam, et hoc quantum ad duo, quae sunt propria creatori; primum est aeternitas; secundum est immutabilitas, de qua ibi et omnes ut vestimentum veterascent, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit, quia primo ponit terminationem creaturae; secundo interminationem Dei, ibi tu autem permanebis. Dicit ergo primo: ipsi, scilicet caeli, peribunt. Sed contra Eccle. I, 4: terra in aeternum stat; ergo videtur, quod multo plus caeli. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod secundum Augustinum et philosophum, in qualibet mutatione est generatio et corruptio. Unde quicquid mutatur, perit a statu in quo erat. Ergo quod dicit quod caeli peribunt, non intelligitur quantum ad substantiam, de qua Iob XXXVII, 18: qui solidissimi quasi aere fusi sunt, sed quantum ad statum quem nunc habent. Apoc. XXI, 1: vidi caelum novum et terram novam. I Cor. VII, 31: praeterit figura mundi huius. Sed quomodo mutabunt statum? Diversimode, quia caeli superiores moventur quidem secundum locum, sed non alterantur. Inferiores vero, scilicet ignis et aer, et moventur et alterantur, et corruptioni sunt subiecti. Sic ergo status omnium caelorum est mutabilis; sed tunc motus cessabit in superioribus, et corruptio in inferioribus, quia aer igne conflagrationis purgabitur. II Pet. III, 7: caeli qui nunc sunt et terra eodem verbo repositi sunt, igni reservati in diem iudicii, et cetera. Omnes peribunt a statu in quo nunc sunt, et sic quodammodo peribunt, sed tu, domine, permanebis. Ps. ci, 13: tu autem, domine, in aeternum permanebis. Hic ostendit permanentiam creatoris, quasi dicat: in te nulla est transmutatio nec vicissitudinis obumbratio, ut Iac. I, 17 dicitur, et Thren. V, 19: tu autem, domine, in aeternum permanebis, solium tuum in generatione et generationem, quod potest etiam intelligi de Christo homine. Infra ult.: Iesus Christus heri et hodie ipse et in saecula. Deinde cum dicit et omnes, etc., ostendit differentiam Dei ad creaturam quantum ad immutabilitatem. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo enim ponit mutabilitatem creaturae; secundo immutabilitatem Dei, ibi tu autem idem. Et adhuc circa primum duo facit, quia primo describit rationem mutabilitatis creaturae; secundo subdit illam mutabilitatem, ibi et velut amictum. Circa primum autem sciendum est, quod vetus et novum consequuntur tempus. Unde veterascere non potest, nisi quod aliqualiter mensuratur tempore. Motus autem caelorum mensuratur tempore, sed ipsum mobile mensuratur ipso nunc temporis; ergo in caelo possunt inveniri novitas et vetustas. Unde non veterascent caeli, quasi substantia eorum minuatur, vel corrumpatur in aliquo, sed tantum quantum ad diuturnitatem temporis, quo amplius non mensurabuntur. Et ideo dicit sicut vestimentum, etc., quia causa mutationis caelorum non erit propter defectum virtutis ipsorum, quae in aliquo minuatur. Quia si motus ipsorum cessaret propter defectum virtutis, iam cessatio haberet causam naturalem, et posset deprehendi ratione naturali, cuius contrarium dicitur Matth. c. XXIV, 36: de die autem et hora illa nemo scit, neque Angeli in caelo, et cetera. Ergo erit propter necessitatem finis: quia omnes creaturae corporales ordinantur ad spirituales, et totus motus deserviens generationi et corruptioni ordinatur ad generationem hominis. Cessante ergo generatione hominis, quod erit quando completus erit numerus electorum et praedestinatorum, cessabit motus ille. Et ideo dicitur vestimentum, quod sumitur ad usum, et cessante usu deponitur, sicut homo calidum vestimentum deponit, veniente aestate, et frigidum, veniente hieme. Sic ergo status mundi, qui nunc est commodatus isti fini, cum completus fuerit numerus ille electorum, iam amplius non erit accommodatus nec necessarius, et ideo sicut vestimentum deponetur. Lc. XXI, 33: caelum et terra transibunt. Consequenter ponit ipsam mutabilitatem, cum dicit et velut amictum mutabis eos, scilicet caelos. Et bene dicit, mutabis tu, Deus, quia non propria virtute, nec per se, sed virtute Dei mutabuntur a motu, sicut amictum, qui ad usum sumitur, et post usum deponitur secundum congruentiam temporis et finis. Et dicit amictum, quia per amictum gloria hominis et manifestatur et tegitur. Ita etiam Deus per creaturas et occultatur nobis et manifestatur. Rom. I, 20: invisibilia Dei per ea quae facta sunt intellecta conspiciuntur. Sap. XIII, 5: a magnitudine enim speciei et creaturae cognoscibiliter poterit horum creator videri, et cetera. Et dicit mutabuntur, quia in perpetuum mutati permanebunt. Item quantum ad caelos spirituales, qui pereunt a vita praesenti per mortem corporis. Rom. XIV: omnes morimur, et quasi aquae dilabimur in terram, quae non revertentur. Is. LVII, 1: iustus perit, et nemo est, et cetera. Item veterascent, quia, ut dicitur infra VIII, v. 13, quod antiquatur et senescit, prope interitum est. Et mutabis, scilicet secundum corpora, quando corporale hoc induet incorruptionem. I Cor. XV, 54. Et mutabuntur secundum mentem, quando a visione aenigmatica assumentur ad speciei visionem. Iob c. XIV, 14: cunctis diebus quibus nunc milito, expecto donec veniat immutatio mea. Deinde subiungit immutabilitatem Dei, cum dicit tu autem idem ipse es. Ubi duo facit. Primo enim ponit intentum; secundo ostendit hoc per signum, ibi et anni tui.
1:11
Dicit ergo ipsi peribunt, tu autem, scilicet Dei filius, et hoc contra Arrianos, idem ipse es, id est, idem perseveras, et numquam mutaris. Mal. III, 6: ego Deus, et non mutor. Iac. I, 17: apud quem non est transmutatio, et cetera.
1:12
Et signum huius immutabilitatis ponit, cum dicit anni tui non deficient. Ubi sciendum est, quod anni Dei dicuntur duratio eius, sicut anni hominis duratio hominis: duratio autem hominis deficit dupliciter, scilicet secundum partes, et secundum totum; secundum partes quidem, quia cum sit temporalis, una pars succedit alteri, et una adveniente, deficit altera. Deficit etiam secundum totum, quia ex toto desinit esse. In duratione vero Dei neutrum horum est, quia non deficit secundum totum, quia est semper. Ps. XCI, 9: tu autem altissimus in aeternum, domine. Item nec secundum partes, quia aeternitas est tota simul, et quid stans. Iob XXXVI, 26: numerus annorum eius inaestimabilis, et cetera. Sed cum sit una et immutabilis, quare anni vocantur in plurali, et non annus in singulari? Ratio huius est, quia intellectus noster accipit cognitionem intelligibilium per sensibilia, quia omnis nostra cognitio incipit a sensu. Unde et Deus, qui est omnino simplex, describitur sub similitudine corporalium, Is. VI, v. 1: vidi dominum sedentem, et cetera. Ita etiam duratio eius a nobis describitur per aliqua nobis nota, cum tamen sit uniformis et simplex. Unde aliquando dicitur annus, aliquando dies et mensis, quia omnes differentias temporis includit.
1:13
Supra probavit apostolus tria de Christo, in quibus excedit Angelos, hic probat quartum, quod praemiserat de ipso, scilicet quod sedet ad dexteram maiestatis, quod pertinet ad dignitatem eius. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo enim inducit auctoritatem David hoc ostendentem; secundo ostendit Angelos ab hac dignitate deficere, ibi nonne omnes sunt administratorii spiritus? Circa primum duo facit, quia primo describit dignitatem Christi; secundo ostendit per signum, ibi quoadusque ponam. Dicit ergo ad quem autem Angelorum dixit aliquando Deus, quasi dicat: non invenitur, quod hoc Deus dixerit Angelo, sed dixit Christo. Et ipse Christus, Matth. XXII, v. 43 ss., inducit hoc de se dictum. Hoc autem, quod dicit sede a dextris meis, potest referri ad divinam naturam, in qua Christus aequalis est patri, quia habet et iudiciariam et regiam potestatem aequalem patri. Io. XVI, 15: omnia quae habet pater, mea sunt. Ipse vero pater ab aeterno dixit, quia dicendo filium generavit, et generando dedit ei aequalitatem patris. Potest etiam referri quantum ad humanam naturam, secundum quam sedet in bonis potioribus patris. Tunc autem pater dixit, quando humanae naturae verbum suum univit. Hoc autem magis supra expositum est, ubi dixerat sedet ad dexteram. Consequenter cum dicit quoadusque, ostendit per signum dignitatem Christi; ubi occurrit duplex dubitatio. Una, quia ab aeterno omnia sunt subiecta filio inquantum Deus. Item, quia in resurrectione Christus dicit: data est mihi omnis potestas. Quid ergo expectat subiiciendum scabello suo? Et sciendum est, quod aliquid potest esse in potestate alicuius dupliciter. Uno modo quantum ad auctoritatem, et sic omnia ab aeterno quantum ad praeordinationem fiendorum et in tempore quo fuerunt, subiecta sunt filio Dei inquantum Deus, sed a principio conceptionis inquantum homo. Alio modo quantum ad exercitium potestatis, et sic non sunt ei omnia subiecta, sed tantum in fine mundi, quia nondum exercet potestatem in omnia, subiiciendo sibi omnia. Phil. c. III, 21: secundum operationem qua possit etiam subiicere sibi omnia. Sed quid est quod dicit scabellum? Potest dici quod per hoc nihil aliud intelligitur quam plena et perfecta subiectio. Illud enim dicitur perfecte subiectum alicui, quod ipse potest conculcare pedibus. Aliter etiam, et faciendo vim in verbo, quia sicut Deus est caput Christi I Cor. XI, 3: caput Christi Deus ita pedes Christi, humanitas eius. Ps. CXXXI, v. 7: adorabimus in loco ubi steterunt pedes eius. Ponam ergo scabellum, id est, non solum subiiciam inimicos tuos tuae divinitati, sed etiam humanitati tuae. In hoc autem erravit Origenes. Ipse enim voluit et intellexit tantum unum modum subiectionis, dicens: sicut enim nihil aliud est subiici luci, quam illuminari, ita cum Christus sit veritas, iustitia, et bonitas, et quicquid tale potest dici, nihil est aliud subiici salvatori, quam salvari. Et ideo voluit, quod in fine omnia, etiam Daemones, salvarentur, quia aliter non subiicerentur omnia Christo. Sed hoc est contra illud quod dicitur Matth. c. XXV, 41: ite, maledicti, in ignem aeternum. Unde sciendum est, quod duplex est modus subiectionis. Unus per voluntatem subditorum, sicut boni ministri subiiciuntur domino suo, puta regi, et sic soli boni subiiciuntur Christo. Alius per voluntatem domini, et sic est quaedam violentia ex parte subditorum. Et sic mali subiicientur Christo, non quod velint dominium eius, sed quia Christus faciet de ipsis voluntatem suam, puniendo eos, qui noluerunt hic facere voluntatem suam. Et hoc proprie designatur per scabellum, quia quod calcatur, comprimitur. Is. LXVI, 1: caelum mihi sedes est, id est, caelestes et boni, sed terra, id est, terreni et mali, scabellum pedum meorum. Alia dubitatio est de hoc, quod dicit quoadusque, etc., quia si sedebit quoadusque ponat, ergo cum posuerit, non sedebit. Respondeo quod huiusmodi dictiones, donec, et quoadusque, quandoque ponuntur finite, quando scilicet designant terminum eius cui coniunguntur, sicut cum dico: sede hic donec veniam. Aliquando autem tenentur infinite, quando scilicet non ponitur terminus, ut cum dicitur: iste non poenituit donec vixit, quia nec post mortem poenituit. Sicut enim dicit Hieronymus, illud oportet designari de quo posset esse dubium. Illud autem, quod non est dubium, relinquitur intelligenti. Dubium autem est de aliquo utrum in vita sua poeniteat, sed quod non post mortem suam, nulli est dubium. Sic et in proposito; cum enim modo multi impugnent et blasphement Christum, videtur dubium utrum modo sedeat; sed non est dubium, utrum sedeat, quando omnia subiecta erunt ei, et ideo non exprimitur illud.
1:14
Consequenter ostendit quod dignitas haec Angelis non convenit, cum dicit nonne omnes sunt administratorii spiritus, et cetera. Ubi tria facit, quia primo ostendit ipsorum officium; secundo executionem officii, ibi in ministerium; tertio fructum executionis, ibi ut haereditatem. Dicit ergo nonne omnes, et cetera. Ps. CII, 21: ministri eius qui facitis voluntatem eius. Sed contra Dan. VII, 10: millia millium ministrabant ei, etc., ubi dicit Gregorius: aliqui ministrant, alii sunt qui assistunt. Non ergo omnes ministrant. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod sicut videmus in artificibus quod duplex est genus artificum, quidam enim sunt quasi manu exequentes ut manu artifices; alii autem non exequuntur nec operantur manu, sed sunt artifices disponentes, et quasi praecipientes quid agendum sit. Ita et in Angelis est, quia quidam sunt quasi exequentes ea quae a divina iussione procedunt circa nos agenda, quidam vero quasi praeceptores, praecipientes ea quae agenda sunt. Accipiendo ergo largo modo administratores, tam pro exequentibus quam etiam pro imperantibus, sic omnes sunt administratores vel administratorii, inquantum superiores exequuntur Dei voluntatem circa medios, medii circa infimos, infimi circa nos. Sed si dicantur administratorii qui exequuntur, alii autem qui immediate accipiunt a Deo assistentes, sic quidam ministrant, quidam assistunt et tradunt aliis. Assistentes igitur sunt qui immediate accipiunt illuminationes divinas ab ipso Deo; unde et nominibus relatis ad Deum nuncupantur, sicut Seraphim, id est, amantes Deum, Cherubim cognoscentes, throni portantes. Ministrantes non sunt qui ab istis accipiunt, et aliis tradunt. Sed contra hoc esse videtur illud quod dicit Gregorius, quod assistere dicuntur, qui intima Dei contemplatione fruuntur. Cum ergo omnes Angeli videant Deum per essentiam, secundum illud Matth. XVIII, 18: Angeli eorum semper vident faciem patris mei; ergo videtur quod omnes sint assistentes. Respondeo. Dicendum quod quidam de primis studentibus in libris Dionysii, volens salvare et dictum apostoli et dictum Gregorii, dixit quod Angeli inferiores non vident Deum per essentiam, cum non sint assistentes. Et iste fuit Ioannes Scotus, qui primo commentatus est in libros Dionysii. Sed haec opinio haeretica est, quia cum beatitudo perficiatur in visione Dei, sequeretur quod Angeli inferiores non videntes Deum per essentiam, non essent beati. Est etiam dictum domini dicentis, Matth. XVIII, 10: Angeli eorum, et cetera. Et ideo dicendum quod omnes vident Deum per essentiam, non tamen omnes assistunt. Ad cuius evidentiam sciendum est, quod sicut Deus cognoscendo essentiam suam, etiam seipsum cognoscit, et omnia alia a se, ita et Angeli videntes Dei essentiam, et ipsum cognoscunt, et res omnes in ipso; in qua quidem visione, ideo solum sunt beati, quia Deum vident, non ideo quia res in ipso cognoscunt. Unde Augustinus in libro confessionum: beatus qui te videt, etiam si illa non videat. Qui autem te et illa cognoscit, non propter illa beatior, sed propter te solum beatus. Visio autem qua Deum vident per essentiam, est omnibus beatis communis. In visione autem qua res cognoscunt in Deo, unus Angelorum praeeminet aliis; nam superiores, utpote altioris naturae et intellectus, plura vident in Deo, quam medii; et medii quam infimi. Unde isti vident omnia quae ad eorum officium pertinent, et quae sunt exequenda per alios, quae non ita perfecte vident inferiores, et ideo aliis exequenda tradunt, et propter hoc isti solum assistunt, et tamen omnes vident Deum, et in huius signum dicit Dionysius, quod quibusdam Angelis quaerentibus ipse Deus immediate respondet, sicut Is.: quis est iste qui venit de Edom? Et respondet ipse: ego qui loquor iustitiam. Quibusdam vero respondet per Angelos, sicut illud Ps. XXIII, 8: quis est iste rex gloriae? Respondent Angeli, et non Deus, et dicunt: dominus virtutum ipse est rex gloriae. Sic ergo patet Angelorum officium. Sed contra hoc est, quia hic tangitur executio officii cum dicit in ministerium missi; ergo videtur per hoc quod omnes exequantur. Ps. XXXIII, 8: immittit Angelus domini in circuitu eius, et cetera. Is. VI, 6: volavit ad me unus de Seraphim, qui sunt in supremo ordine. Ergo si illi mittuntur, multo fortius alii. Sed contra hoc est Dionysius, qui dicit quod accepit ab apostolo, quod soli inferiores mittuntur, et non superiores. Respondeo. Quidam dicunt quod superiores mittuntur et exeunt aliquando aliquibus causis subortis ad exteriora. Sed videtur mihi quod superiores quatuor, scilicet Seraphim, Cherubim, throni, et dominationes numquam mittuntur, sed inferiores mittuntur, quod patet ex eorum nominibus. Virtutes enim mittuntur ad mirabilia facienda; potestates ad arcendum potestates aereas; principatus ad gubernandum communitatem vel regnum, et sic de aliis. Dominationes autem dicuntur, quia ordinant omnia haec inferiora; alii autem tres ordines accipiunt nomina ex operatione, quam immediate exercent circa Deum, et illam dispensant in alios. Quod ergo dicit, missi, dicendum est quod duplex est missio: una quae motum localem importat, et sic mittuntur solum inferiores. Alia est missio, quae fit per applicationem et directionem novi effectus in creatura, et sic mittuntur filius et spiritus sanctus; et hoc modo mittuntur superiores, quia virtus eorum immittitur in inferiores immittenda aliis. Et quod dicit volavit, etc., dicendum quod inferiores utuntur nominibus illorum quorum virtute et auctoritate agunt, et eis attribuunt operationes suas. Et quia ille inferior officium suum exequebatur in virtute Seraphim, ideo vocatus est nomine Seraphim, non quod esset natura Seraphim. Deinde subiungit fructum officii, cum dicit qui haereditatem capiunt salutis. Et licet omnes sint vocati, non tamen omnes capiunt haereditatem. Qui ergo capiunt, illi percipiunt fructum missionis. Ier. LI, 9: curavimus Babylonem, et non est sanata. Vel rursus cum dicit propter eos qui haereditatem, etc., ponitur executionis fructus, qui est, ut homines haereditatem capiant salutis. Propter hoc enim est totus ordo actionis circa nos, ut compleatur numerus electorum. Ps. XC, 11: Angelis suis Deus mandavit de te, et cetera. Et dicit propter eos, non propter omnes, quia licet omnes sint vocati, pauci tamen sunt electi, ut dicitur Matth. cap. XXIV. Et dicit haereditatem, quia ad ipsam soli filii perveniunt; quod si filii, et haeredes. Dicit vero capiunt, quia oportet quod labore, et studio, et sollicitudine acquirant regnum Dei. Matth. XI, 12: regnum caelorum vim patitur. Illi ergo capient qui student in se dominicas illuminationes et inspirationes immissas per Angelos bonos custodire, et effectui demandare, alias dicetur eis quod dicitur Ier. LI, 9: curavimus Babylonem, et non est sanata.
1:1
1. Multifariam multisque modis olim Deus loquens patribus in Prophetis. Exordium hoc Epistolae quibusdam abruptum videtur, quod animis Hebraeorum nulla salutatione praeparatis, irruat in ipsam materiam principalem. Quibus respondendum est, Apostolum, qua ratione nomen suum consulto praetermisit, ut dictum est in praecedentibus, eadem nec salutationem adscribere debuisse. Nam usus non habet, nec honestatis ratio patitur, ut salutatio cum iis, quae salutationi solent annecti, mittatur suppresso nomine salutantis. Est autem exordium rei, de qua tractare instituit, aptissimum; utpote grave atque sublime, quo dignitatem incipit exponere illius, cujus legem, testamentum, sacerdotium supra Mosem et Aaron tota Epistola commendat. Primum igitur hoc capite divinitatem Christi statuit, ostendens eum esse filium Dei, et per hoc angelis longe superiorem, inde probaturus, quanto lex Christi praestet legi Mosaicae, tametsi per angelos ministratae. Quod ait multifariam, Graece est, iioXu|i£pd)(;, ut si dicas: multipartite, Non enim omnia, nec eadem, omnibus Prophetis revelata sunt, sed quasi partibus mysteriorum distributis, alia aliis inspirata: exempli causa, Jesaiae, partus virginis et passio Christi; Danieli, tempus adventus ejus; Jonae, ejusdem sepultura; Malachiae, adventus praecursoris; ac rursum, aliis plura, aliis pauciora. Quod additur multis modis, Graece est TcoXuTpOTCcoc, id estmultimodef multiformlter ', ut significetur varia fuisse visionum genera, modos ac formas, quibus illuminati Prophetae ventura praedicerent: velut per somnia, per ecstases, per aenigmala, per figuras, per ailocutiones, per apparitiones sensibiles atque corporeas. Breviter hoc est quod Apostolus dicit: Multipliciter ac varie Deus olim locutus patribus, id est majoribus nostris Israelitis, per Prophetas. Porro Mosem in numero Prophetarum fuisse, per quos patribus locutus estDeus: nemini dubium est. Itaque statim hic, in ipso limine, Moses in ordinem redigitur eoi-um, qui Christo sunt minores. Verum id, ne offendat, tacite facit Apostolus ac tantum sub nomine generali. Non enim prius de Mose quidquam expresse dicendum erat, quam de angelis sermonem interposuisset.
1:2
2. Novissime diebus istis locutus est nobis in Filio. Graece et Syriace novissimis, quod et in Latinis quibusdam MSS. legitur: tametsi non desunt codices Graeci, qui hic legant sax'iTOO, inter quos Complutensis. Sed alterum videtur potius: nam et alibi legimus novissimos dies, novissima tempora, novissimam horam; per quae omnia significatur illud tempus, post quod jam non aliud quam mundi finis et adventus judicis sit exspectandus; utpote completo primo Christi adventu, omnibdsque mysteriis ad ipsum pertinentibus. Hoc, inquit, novissimo tempore locutus est nobis per filium suum Jesum Christum. Filium, utique non alium quam naturalem. Nam per adoptionem filii fuerant etiam Prophetae et omnes justi. Nobis, id est Hebraeis, IsraSlitis. Ipse enim Filius testatur se non fuisse missum, nisi ad oves perierant domus Israel. Ex quo statim collige, scriptorem Epistolae Hebraeum esse, non gentilem, ut vel hinc constet falsos fuisse, qui Clementi Romano tribuerunt. Est autem hic observanda multiplex antithesis, eo spectans, ut appareat, quantum praecellat novum institutum veteri. Lex enim vetus per Prophetas annuntiata est, qui non aliud erant quam homines: lex nova, data per Christum Dei filium ac Dominum Prophetarum. Et per illos quidem multifariam locutus est Deus, per Filium autem, tanquam per suum ipsius verbum, simpliciter et plane. Multis enim figurarum ac visionum varietatibus obumbranda erat veritas per Christum patefacienda. Denique patribus vetera tradita sunt; nobis, nova servata: quibus advenientibus vetera merito projicienda sint. Verumtamen observacontra Manichae- 08, quod non dicit alium Deum locutum fuisse patribus, alium nobis, sed eundem illis et nobis, ut intelligamus unum eundemque Deum esse auctorem utriusque testamenti. Illud sane, quod ait: locutus est nobis in Filio, mirifice valet ad benevolentiam provocandam, quasi diceret: 0 quanto nos patribus feliciores! Quam beati oculi nostri, qui viderunt; et aures nostrae, quae audierunt, ea quae videre et audire patribus nostris non est datum! Hac enim ratione suos discipulos Christus beatos praedicat Matth. 13. et Luc. 10.
Quem constituit haeredem universorum, Quo majorem Christi reverentiam excitet, illustribus quibusdam ac praecipuis eum encomiis exornat. Ac primum dicit eum a Patre constitutum universorum haeredem, id est factum esse omnium dominum. Est enim catachresis in vocabulo haeredis, idque juxta morem in Scripturis usitatipsimum. Non enim haeredem vocat quasi patri demortuo successerit aut successurus sit, sed quod, instar haeredis, aPatreconstitutus sit omnium dominus. Id autem, ut quo sensu dictum sit intelligatur, respiciendum ad quae alias Scripturas, in quibus est hujus dominii significatio, velut Psalm. 2. Postula a me, et dabo tibi gentes haereditatem tuam et possessionem tuam terminos terrae. Matth. 11. Omnia mihi tradita sunt a Patre meo, et ultimo: Data est mihi omnis potestas in coelo et iri terra. Joan. 13. Omnia dedit ei Pater in ma~ nus, et 17. Dedisti ei potestatem omnis carnis. Item 1 Cor. 15. Omnia subjecit sub pedibus ejus, quod et repetitur Eph. 1. et hujus Epist. cap. 2. Quamvis igitur Dei Filius una cum Patre sit omnium Dominus ab aeterno, quatenus scilicet ab aeterno potestatem a Patre accepit dominativam respectu totius craaturae: non tamen de eo dominio agitur hoc loco, ut nec in aliis Scripturis jam allegatis, sed de dominio quodam, quod ei competit secundam naturam assumptam. Apposite autem dicit haere^ dem, quia de filio loquitur. Atquaeres, quorum universorum hac ratione dominus sit Christus? Alii ad personas, alii ad res referunt genitivum universorum; utpote tam in Graeco quam in Latino generis ambigui. Sed qui ad res, longe probabilius sentiunt, \\t facile docent Scripturae memoratae, ita tamen, ut etiam personae sub amplitudine rerum comprehendantur. Regnum enim ac dominum Christi in primis subjectos habet omnes electos, horaiues et angelos; deinde etiam adversarias potestates atque omnes reprobos; ac postremo reliquam omnem creaturam, quatenus ea regno Christi quocunque modo subservire idonea est. Unde Chrysostomus hae^ redem universorum interpretatur dominum totius mundi. Similiter etB. Thomas universalem hanc Christi haereditatem esse dicit dominationem, quam accepit ia totam creaturam. Ita et nos exposnimus vocabulum omnia, 1 Cor. 15. et Eph. 1» Sed adhuc quaeres, quando Christus a Patre constitutus fuerit hoc pacto universorum haeres ac dominus. Sunt, qui putent id factum post passionem ejus et resurrectionem, quando per Apostolos sibi congregare coepit Ecclesiam ex omnibus gentibus. Alii factum dicunt, tunc quando Verbum caro factum est, quod magis probamus. Sicut enim ille homo ab initio suae conceptionis fuit Christus, Propheta, Sacerdos, ita Rex et Dominus: tametsi regni ac dominii sui possessionem, ut postea meruit, ita paulatim ac progressu temporis accepit; plenissime accepturus in secundo suo adventu, quando perfecte ei subjicientur omnes inimici. Kesponsionem hanc probant illa Petvi verba Act. 2. Dominum eum et Christum fecit, hunc Jesum, quem vos crucipxistis; videlicet tuncDominum, quando Christum. Probant etiam Jesaiae verba, quibus de parvulo nato dicit cap. 9. Et factus est principatus swper humerum ejus. Denique probant angeli verba loquentis ad pastores: Quia natus est vobis hodie Salvator, qui est Christus Dominus, Luc. 2.
Per quem fecit et saecula. Ab humana Christi natura ad divinam progreditur, ut utramque Hebraeis suis ob oculos ponat. Non solum, inquit, eum constituit omnium haeredem, verum etiam, quod est multo majus, per eum ipsum saecula condidit. Saecula vocat ea, quae 2 Tim. 1. et Tit. 1. dixit tempora saecularia, id est longas et continuas temporum revolutiones, sed in his omnino comprehendi vult atque intelligi res ipsas, quaecunque tempore mensurantur, id est, mundnra ct quidquid in eo continetur. Quo sensu rursus infra cap. 11. dicit aptata esse saecula verbo Dei. Idem ergo docet his locis Paulus, quod Joannes initio sui Evangelii: Omnia per ipsum facta sunt. El iterum: Mundus per ipsum factus est. Hac autem phrasi, qua dicitur Deus per Filium fecisse mundum, non tantum insinuatur communis virtus et operatio Patris et Filii, sic enim etiam Filius diceretur perPatrem fecisse mundum, quod usus Scripturae non admittit, aut certe satis fuisset dicere: cum quo fecit et saecula^ sed praeteroa significatur aliquid simile cum actione artificis operantis per instrumentum. Sicut enim instrumentum ab artifice movetur ad actionem, non contra: ita filius vim et operationem suam omnem accipit a patre, non pater a filio, ut proinde filius quodammodo medius sit inter patrem et creaturam, sicut instrumentum medium est inter artificem et opus. Quae tamen comparatio non eo trahenda est, ut filium cogitemus patre minorem: non enim filius est instrumentum patris, sed quomodo per eum pater operetur, hac instrumenti similitudine ex parte declaratar. Alii, cum Augustino, comparationem adhibent ideae sive exemplaris in mente repositi, per quod artifex operatur. Sic enim pater per filium operatur, tanquam per ideam, in qua rationes sunt omnium agendorum. Quae expositio quandam habet probabilitatem ex sequentibus.
1:3
3. Qui cum sit splendor gloriae et figura substantiae ejus. Haec quoque ad superiorem Christi naturam pertinent. Pro splendore, Graece est auauYao^a, quod significat refulgentiam: quomodo radius a sole resplendet. Unde nonnulli deradiationem vertunt. Eadem vox est Sap. 7., ubi nos de Sapientia legimus: Candor est enim lucis aeternae. Vocatur ergo filius splendor gloriae seu clarita' tis paternae; quia lumen est de lumine, sicut de eo Ecclesia canit in symbolo. Sciendum est autem, in hujusmodi metaphoris ad res divinas applicandis, omne id removendum esse, quod est imperfectionis. Unde ex eo, quod splendor aut radius non exaequat lucem, a qua diffunditur, non recte coUigat Arianus Filium esse minorem Patre. Non enim ad hoc significandum assumpta est metaphora; sed potius, ut quicquid ibi perfectionis invenitur, ad rem propositam applicemus, iis dumtaxat, quae imperfecta sunt, omissis. Itaque recto Patres ex eo, quod Filius dicitur splendor gloriae Patris, ostendunt eum a Patre procedere sine mutatioQe, passione, fluxu, defectu; et quidem ab aeterno. Sol enim emittens radium nullam patitur mutationem, non fluxum, non defectum luminis. Neque vero radium a se emanantem tempore antecedit; imo si sol aeternus esset, radium haberet sibi coaeternum. Quanquam videtur Apostolus hoc elogio, quo filium vocat splendorem gloriae patris, potissimum voluisse significare processionem Filio propriam, qua nimirum a Patre gignitur, ut verbum a mente. Hoc est enim, in natura intellectuali, splendorem a claritate, et lumen a kimine procedere. Qua explicatione, verbis a symbolo Nicaeno acceptis, hic utitur Chiysostomus. Altera metaphora est, qua Filium vocat figuram substantiae Patris. Pro figura Graece est X'^?'^'^'^"^? 5 quod alii verterunt expressam imaginem, alii insculptam formam. Pro substantia vero Graece legitur UTiooTaoig; cujus vocabuli in rebus divinis, apud veteres Theologos, duplex est significatio, sicut et Latinae vocis substantia. Aut enim essentiam significat, aut subsistentiam, id est personam. Qua de re disserunt Basilius Epist. 43. ad Greg. Nyssenum fratrem suum, Hieron. in Epist. ad Damasum num. 57., Theodoretus in primo dial. et Damascenus lib. 3. de fide cap. 4. et 6. Et quidem Basihus, necnon Gregorius Nyssenus a Theophylacto citatus, et Cajetanus in commentario, per hypostasin hoc loco personam volunt intelligi; ut Filius dicatur character, id est, expressa repraesentatio non essentiae, sed personae Patris. Nam essentia utrique eadem est; personae secundum essentiam similes. Huic sententiae nonnihil favere videtur, quod uuoaxaat^; iu hac eadem Epist. cap. 3. et 11., quamvis translatitie, sic tamen usurpatur, ut magis cum subsistentia, quam cum essentia convenire videatur. Verba prioris loci sunt: Si tamen initium mbstantiae ejus usque ad finem firmum retineamus. Verbaposterioris: Estautem fides sperandarum substantia rerum. At vero aliis plerisque magis placet, essentiam, quam ouatav Graeci vocant, hoc nomine significari. Nam hypostasis ad personam significandam nondum, quum haec scriberet Apostolus, erat usu recepta; vel ipso Hieronymo teste, quum ait in EpistoJa memorata, de tribus hypostasibus loquens: Qui quaeso ista Apostoli prodidere? Quis novus magister gentium Paulus haec docuit? Denique addit, totam saecularium literarum scholam nihil aliud uTioaTaotv nisi oooiav novisse. Quod etiamnum hodie nobis Latinis accidit, quibus substantia fere idem est, quod essentia; licet veteres, ut dixi, de nomine substantiae non uno modo fuerint locuti. His adde, quod Syrus interpres characterem hypostaseos vertit imaginem essentiae. Juxta hanc acceptionem substantiae, Filius est figura et expressa imago substantiae Patris, quia sic Patrem repraesentat, ut essentia sou natura Patris in ipso perfectissime reluceat. Unde non est consequens, aliam esse Patris essentiam, aliamFilii: repraesentat enimFilius essentiam Patris prout iu Patre est; non prout in sei})So: licet eadem sit essentia Patiis et Filii. Quomodo nos Catholici fatemur Eucharistiam esse figuram ac signum corporis Christi; cum ipsa sit corpus Christi. Nihil enim vetat idem esse signum sui ipsius, praesertim si seipsum significet ac repraesentet quatenus ratione diversum est; ut in Eucharistia contingit. Sic ergo Filius Dei, secundum Apostolum, non quidem gui ipsius est imago, sed substantiae Patris: in quantum ejus substantiam, quae eadem in ipso est, aeterna generatione ab illo sibi impressam perfectibsime refert. Nec obstant huic hypostasis significationi alia loca hujus Epistolae, quae producta sunt, sed magis conveniunt. Nam in illis translatio non est sumpta a persona, sed a substantia, id ost re per se subsistente, sive ea pluribus communicabilis sit, sive non. Hoc autem absque dubio etiam in essentiam competit, maxime divinam. Jam quod nonnulli commentatores filium Dei interpretantur splendorem gloriae Patris, et figuram substantiae ejus, quia gloria et substantia Patris per heipsum invisibilis per Filium, velut radium paternae claritatis, et imaginem substantiae ejus, conspicienda nobis praebetur; id praeter mentem Apostoli esse videtur, qui de aeterna Filii natura disserit, secundum quam Filius aeque atque Pater est nobis invisibilis. Tametsi verum est, id fuisse congruentissimum, ut Filius, qui secundum naturam divinam splendor est et imago Patris, in assumta natura, qua nobis visibilis apparuit, Patrem suum quodammodo videndum nobis exhiberet.
Portansque omnia verbo virtutis suae. Contextus sermonis exigebat, ut verteretur: portetque. Graecum verbum cpspetv significat f erre, portare, sustinere. Quo pofitremo modo vertit interpres Syrus. Sentit Apostolus, Filium Dei, per quem dixerat a Patre facta esse saecula, eundem omnia, quae facta sunt, sustinere et conservare verbo et imperio suae potestatis; id est omnipotenti sua voluntate; quod ni faceret, omnia relaberentur in nihilum. Hoc quoque Filii elogium, perinde ut superiora, divinam ejus naturam apertissime declarat. Erasmus hic maluit verbum moderari; quod etsi consequens sit ex eo, quod Apostolus dicit, ejusdem enim est rem conservare, et moderari seu gubernare: non tamen id proprie ab Apostolo significatum arbitror, sed illud, quod diximus. Porro quidam ex Latinis significari putant, Filium esse verbum Patris, sic enim exponunt: Portans omnia seipso, qui est verbum virtutis seu verbum virtuosum Patris. Sed refellitur hic sensus ex Graeco textu, ubi pro verbo non est XoyoQ, qua voce usus est Joan. cap. 1. sui Evangelii, qua et alibi semper utitur Scriptura, cum filium Dei designat: sed estp^^fjta, quod eum in Scripturis usum non habet, sed tantum in genere verbum significat. Eadem ratione etiam ii refelluntur, qui ex hoc loco doceri putant Spiritum S. in sacris literis aliquando vocari verbum Filii, sicut Filius vocatur verbum Patris. Contra quos egimus in 1. Sent. dist. 27. illud tamen non abs re est, quod quidam observant verti posse, verbo virtutis ejus; ut Graecum auTou, mutato duntaxat spiritu prioris syllabae, ad Patrem ref eratur, sicut in parte praecedenti; ac sensus sit, Filium, per quem Pater omnia fecit, eadem omnia continere, conservare et regere imperio ac virtute Patris sui, sed ita, ut ea virtus intelligatur etiam communis Filio. Quod satis admonet ipsum vocabulum por^ tandi, non enim portare potest, nisi vires portandi habeat, licet ab alio acceptas. Hic sensus nequaquam est alienus; tametsi prior expositio magis recepta.
Purgationem peccatorum faciens. In Graeco plus est. Sic enim habet: Per semetipsum purgatione facta peccato^ rum nostrorum. Consonat editio Syriaca, nisi quod pronomen nostrorum non addat. Hic jam a divina Christi natura ad humanam Apostolus redit; simul hac parte complectens summam argumenti totius Epistolae. Christus enim, uthomo, passione sua remissionem et abolitionem omnium peccatorum nostrorum promeruit; ac pio iis plenissime satisfecit; offerendo semetipsum Deo Patri pro nobis in sacrificium. Quod significat illa particula, a Graecis interpretibus diligenter expensa, per semetipsum, quasi dicat: Non per sanguinem hircorum aut vitulorum, sed per proprium sanguinem peccata nostra purgavit, et aeternam nobis redemptionem invenit: ut infra dicitur cap. 9. Atque in hoc argumento totam Epistolam versari praecipue diximus. Dicuntar autem purgari peccata, phrasi Scripturae, quando homines a peccatis purgantur: quomodo et illud Jes. 1. intelligendum est: peccata vestra quasi nix dealhahuntur. Ita lepra mundari, morbus sanari dicitur. Sic et David precatur Psalm. 1 7. Deus illumina tenebras meds, id est, mentem meam depulsis ignorantiae tenebris illumina. Latine quoque dicitur quis crimen objeclum purgare, id est diluerOt
Sedet ad dexteram majestatis in eX' celsis. Postquam, inquit, purgationem fecit peccatorum nostrorum, adscendit in coel'im, ibique sedet ad dextoram majestatis. Ita Chrysostomus et caeteri. Quod in quibusdam codicibus Graecis legitur, in dextera throni majestatis; additio facta est ex cap. 8. hujus Episf olae, ubi sic habetur: Qui consedit in dextera sedis magnitudinis in coelis. Ex quo loco etiam admonemur, id quod hic dicitur in excelsis, idem esse quod in coelis, sive in coelo. Cum enim coeli in Hebraea lingua tantum plurali numero dicantur; saepe fit, ut sacri auctores etiam, qui Graece scripserunt, Graecam vocem efferant eodem numero, ut Lucas Act. 7. Yideo coelos apertos, id est coelum apertum. Porro idem locus cap. 8. ostendit, interpreti nostro e.-^dem esse sedet et consedit; cum utrumque vertat ex eodem verbo Graeco praeteriti temporis sxaOiaev, quo tamen non tam praeterita sessio significatur, quam permanens et continua, quomodo qui mensae jam assident dicuntur consedisse. Sentit itaque Paulus, Christum consedisse atque etiamnum sedere ad dexteram majestatis seu magnitudinis in excelsis, id est ad dexteram Dei, in eo loco ubi magnitadinem suam et gloriam Deus ostendit, hoc est, in coelo. Repetit idem praeteriti temporis verbum Apostolus, de Christo loquens, infra cap. 10. et 12. Tale est et illud Marc. 16. Fiedit a dextris Dei. Legitur etiam Matth. 23. Super cathedram Mosi sederunt, id est, ut alii verterunt, sedent scribae et pharisaei. Est autem in vocabulo sedendi hoc loco metaphora, qua significetur veljadiciaria potestas: nam Christus jam con- Btitutus est a Deo patre judex omnium secundum scripturas, etsi nondum judicat, sed, uti symbolum nos docet: Inde venturus est judicare vivos et mortuos; vel illa Christi metaphorica sessio quietam felicitatis et regni, quod adeptus est, poBsessionem designat. Nam eo spectabant filii Zebedaei, quando petebant, ut Chriato assiderent in regno Marc. 10. Satis etiam constat ex eodem fidei nostrae symbolo, quemadmodum et ex aliis scripturae locis, hanc sessionem attribui Christo, ut homini; sicut et alia, quae in symbolo hunc articulum praecedunt, necnon id quod pruxime sequitur: Inde venturus est. Undeperhoc, quod dicitur sedere ad dexteram Dei, proprie non significatur eum esse Deo Patri aequalem. Sic enim et Pater ad dexteram Filii sederet, et SpirituB S. ad dexteram utriusque: imo sic Filius ab aetemo sederet ad dexteram Patris: quae omnia sunt praeter sensum Scripturae, et a symbolis fidei nobis ab Ecclesia traditis dissonant. At neque significari videtur assumptio naturae humanae in hypostasin divinam: id enim factum est, quando incarnatus est Christus, non postquam ascendit in coelum. Sed ad dexteram Dei sedere dicitur, quia secundum naturam assumptam quietus jam possidet summam illam dignitatem et gloriam regni, quam habet Bupra omnem creaturam, proximus Deo. Hoc enim est, quod Patres non solum Christo homini, sed etiam ipsi naturae ejus humanae passim tribuunt, dicentes eam elevatam esse ad consessum dexterae Dei: quodque in festo Dominicae adscensionis infra actionem a sacerdote dicitur in haec verba: Diem celebrantes, quo Dominus noster unigenitus filius tuus unitam sibi fragilitatis nostrae substan" tiam in gloriae tuae dextera collocavit, Hoc ipsum significare voluit B. Stephanus, quando dixit se videre filium homi" nis, id est Christum secundum naturam humanam, stantem a dextris Dei. Act. 7. Denique eam rem dilucide probat ipsa phrasis, ad dexteram Dei. Non quod, ut quidam putant, apud antlqnos sinister locus in consessu vel incessu fuerit honoratior dextro, ut qua ratione Christus sedet ad dexteram Dei, vicissim intelligatur Deus sedere ad sinistram Christi. Quod nullo modo concedendum est. Quamvis enim illa fuerit olim honoris consaetndo Romanis, quibus sinistra vocabatur interior, dextera exterior, ut bene docet ex Latinis auctoribus Antonius Nebrissensis, et Joannes Geropius: non tamon idem censendum de aliis populis, praesertim Aegyptiis et Hebraeis, qui Romanos antiquitate longe superant. Apud hos enim dextram fuisse honoratiorem vel ex sacris literis discere licet. Nam Gen. 48. Joseph filiam suum majorem nata coUocat ad dexteram tanquam digniori loco; minorem vero ad sinistram. Quem ordinem studio commutans Jacob, quod minorem majori praeferre vellet, dexteram suam minori, sinistram majori benedicturus imposuit. Tta Matth. 25. oves statuuntur a dextris, haedi a sinistris. Et Marc. 10. filii Zebedaei postulantes a Christo sibi dari, ut alter ipsorum ad dextram ejus, alter ad sinistram cederet in gloria ejus; utique dextram priori loco nominant, velut digniorem. Dices: ergo Christus, cum sedeat ad dexteram Dei, Deum honore antecedit? Minime vero. Non enim Deum rsspicit tanquam sinistrum, quod jam exclusimus, sed tanquam medium, excelso ac regio throno collocatum, caeterisque omnibus digniorem: cui, qui sit honore proximus, ad dextram assideat. Sic enim oves statuuntur ad dexteram judicis: et filiis Zebedaei respondetur, alios ad dextram Christi sessuros, alios ad sinistram, scilicet eos, quibus id praeparatum est a Patre. Nec secus accipiendum, quod Psalm. 44. scriptum est: Astitit regina a dextris tuis, Et quod S Reg. 2. legitur Salomon matrem suam sibi ad dextram collocasse; scilicet, ut primo et honoratissimo post regem loco. In hanc fere sententiam docte et diserte rem istam explicat in suo commentario Franciscus Ribera. Nos quoque eandem dedimus explicationem ad similia loca Scripturae Rom. 8. et Eph. 1.
1:4
4. Tanto melior angelis effectus, quanto differentius prae illis nomen haereditavit Planius ex Graeco: Tanto potior seu praestantior factus angelis, quanto excellentius etc. Quod hic differentius, cap. 8. vertit melius. Nunc autem, ait, melim sortitus est ministerium. Non contentus Apostolus Christum praetulisse Prophetis, inter quos Moses, nunc eum ipsis etiam angelis anteponit. Siquidem et per angelos olim locutus est Deus patribus, et angelorum ministerio legem eis dedit. Est autem tacita collectio ex parte praecedenti. Si enim sedet Christus ad dexteram Dei, igitur et angelis praelatus est. Quem enim rex ad dexteram suam collocat, aliis omnibus anteponit, ut jam ostensam est. Hujus collectionis vim infra explicat, ubi dicit nuUi angelorum aliquando dictum esse a Deo: Sede a dextris meis. Alioqui in ipsa hac sententia proprium argumentum continetur, ductum a nomine filii Dei, quasi dicat: Filius Dei est, ergo multo major angelis. Dicitur autem hoc nomen haereditasse phrasi Scripturae, quia illud velut proprium ac jure debitum obtinet atque possidet. Neque enim placet Erasmi versio, sortitus est. Nam etsi haereditas Graecis a sorte dicatur, significatio tamen et proprietas vocum est diversa; praesertim cum phrasis ipsa non a Graecis ducta sit, sed ab Hebraeis. Caeterum oflfendit quosdam prior sententiae pars: tanto melior angelis effectus, tanquam hic sermo aut Arianis faveat, qui filium Dei factum dicunt et inter cre^iuras reponunt: aut Nestorianis, qui Christum meritis suis consecutum asserunt, ut fieret filius Dei. Hic igitur inter alios unus est locus, ex quo coeperunt ansam adversarii minuendae auctoritatis hujus Epistolae. Sed prorsus inique. Nam pari ratione Joannis Evangelio detraheretur auctoritas, cum in eo legamus a Baptista tertio repetitum de Christo cap. 1. Ante me factus est. Porro cum Graecum verbum utriusque loci non solum significet fieri, sed etiam esse; existimat Stapulensis apud Joannem ita vertendum: Ante me fuit, et hoc loco: tanto melior angelis cum sit, quanto etc. Quae si bona est versio, jam per se evanescit objectio sumpta ex verbo factus est. Verum id, quod apud Joannem est, eo modo verti non posse, bene probat Jansenius cap. 16. comment. evang. ex eo, quod ibirlem seqnitnr: quia prior me erat. Nugaciter enim dixeris: Ante me fuit, quia prior me fuit, cum idem non sit ratio sui ipsius. Est igitur alius sensus tam a Graecis quam a Latinis redditus: Ante me factus est, id est mihi praelatus, quamvis post me venerit. Ita et hoc loco: major angelis factus, id est tanquam major et excellentior prae angelis honoratus, aut, ut Theophylactus post Chrjsostomum exponit, major angelis declaratus. Juxta quem sensum respicit Apostolus ad glorificationem Christi, quam sua passione promeruit; qua nimirum ut verus Dei filius ubique fuit praedicatus et agnitus, eodem Apostclo testante Phil. 2, Propter quod et Deus exaltavit eum, et dedit illi notnen etc. Tertium sensum huc adfert Cajetanus, dicens Christum, secundum quod esthomo, meliorem angelis effectum, in quantum personaliter effectus est Filius Dei, Deus, et dominus atque creator coelorum. ]^a~ dem enim, inquit, factione, qua verbum factum est caro, homo factus est Deus personaliter. Quem commentarium accepisse videtur ex S. Thoma, qui Chri- Btnm meliorem angelis factum interpretatur propter unionem humanae naturae ad divinam; in quantum per illius unionis, ut ait, factionem ad hoc pervenit, ut esset filius Dei. Christum vero nomen illud haereditasse, Cajetanus quidem exponit per unionem, D. Thomas autem per naturam atque ab aeterno, propterea quod haereditas naturalem originem consequatur. Hic commentarius, etsi subtili's, habere tamen videtur aliquid offensionis. Non enim concedunt Theologi, hominem esse factum Deum aut Filium Dei, sicut concedunt et docent, Deum et Dei filium factum hominem, juxta illud: Verbum caro factum est. Quae ipsius etiam B. Thomae doctrina est 3. p. q. 16. art. 7. Quare retinendus est prior sensus, maxime quod ille textui magis congruat, ut significetur, tunc Christum angelis majorem effectum, id est excrevisse supra angelos in hominum aestimatione et fide, postquam coepit sedere ad dexteram Dei. Nam et Baptista simili sensu dixit: Illum oportet crescere, me autem minui. Ad idem tempus aptissime refeitur haereditatio nominis. Nam possessionem nominis filii Dei, velut jure debiti, tunc sibi vendicavit Christus, quando eo nomine coepit apud homines palam et passim agnosci.
1:5
5. Cui enim dixit aliquando angelorum? Id est cui angelorum legitur Deus usquam dixisse hoc, quod sequitur: Filius meus es tu: ego hodie genui te, Locus est notissimus Psalm. 2. Non probat Apostolus, Christum haereditasse, id est apudhomines consecutum hoc nomen; id enim satis docebat experientia praedicati et crediti Evangelii: sed probare vult, illud nomen ei vere competere, et quidem prae angelis. Id autem facit hac parte et deinceps usque ad finem capitis. Ex hoc loco docet Chrysostomus hom. 22. in Gen. 6. angelos nusquam in Scriptura vocari filios Dei. Cui si objicias Scripturam Job 1. et 2., ubi filii Dei, id est angeli, venisse dicuntur: ut assisterent coram Domino, et cap. 38., ubi de iiedem dicitur: Et jubilarent omnes filii Dei. Et illud Psalm. 88. Quis in nubibus aequabitur Domino, similis erit Domino in filiis Dei, id est inter angelos? pro Chrjsostomo responderi poterit, eum loqui de Scriptura juxta versionem, quae tunc illi erat in manibus, scilicet interpretem LXX., quae etsi hodie in quibusdam codicibus habeat filios Dei, in aliis tamen legimus angelos Dei, dumtaxat in locis ex Job adductis; ut omnino verisimile sit, etiam Chrysostomum ita legisse. Versiculum autem Psalmi, in quo omnes ccdices legunt fiUos Dei, fortassis intellexit de hominibus, quomodo non solum Euthymius Graecus exposuit, verum etiam alii ex Hebraeo interpretati sunt. Attamen cum ex originali constet, angelos in libro Job vocari filios Dei, non poterit abeolute sententia Chrysostomi defendi, qua negat usquam in Scriptaris i id reperiri. Nec pro eo facit liic locus Apostoli, quasi sentiat nuUum in Sciipturis exstare locum, ubi angeli vocentur filii Dei. Nam quid mirum angelos co nomine vocari interdum, quando illud toties hominibus attributum legitur in Scripturis utriusque testamenti? Sed sensus est: Quis angelorum tam excellentis est naturae aut dignitatis, cui dictum aliquando legatur a Deo: Tu es filius meus? nimirum singulariter ac peculiariter: quomodo hoc a patre dici solet filio, quem de se genuit, maxime si sit unigenitus. Etenim ei dives aliquis plures sibi adoptasset filios, sed unicum haberet filium naturalem, huic uni et soli diceret: Filius meus es tu, praesertim si et illud adderet, quia ego te genui. Quanquam non est necesse sic interpretari Apostolum, quod facit Cajetanus, quasi tantum velit totum illud: Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te, esse angelis incommunicabile, non autem priorem partem seorsim sumptam, quandoquidem, ut ait, etiam de populo Israelitico dixit Deus: Primogenitus meus Israel, Exod. 4. Sed id non est dicere cuiquam singulariter, Filius meus es tUj quomodo locum hic citatum ostendimus intelligendum. Jam quod additur: Ego hodie genui te, ad aeternam Filii Dei generationem pertinere plerique existimant, Augustinum secuti. Nam aeternitas optime denotatur adverbio hodie, quo praesens dies significatur, quia aeternitas unus dies est, idemque totus semper praesens, in quo non est aliud post aliud, sicut in nostro tempore. Secundum hunc igitur intellectum, Deus Pater non fantum significat se Filium genuisse ab aeterno, sed se eum gignere immutabiliter in tota aeternitate. Et tamen utitur verbo praeteriti temporis: genui, ut quamvis praesentem, tamen perfectam intelligas generationem, qua filius Dei semper et gignitur et genitus est, quemadmodum lumen in aere perfectum est, et tamen semper a sole procedit. Hac enim similitudine rem explicat B. Thomas. Sensum hunc flagitare videtur particula praecedens: Filiusmeus es tu, frequens enim est in Psalmis, ut posterius membrum versiculi sit repetitio quaedam et explicatio prioris. Quod quidem in praesenti versu verba etiam ipsa videntur exigere. Porro alii aliter hanc partem interpretantur. Nonnulli quidem de temporali Christi generatione, qua ex virgine natus est, ut Athanasius, Fulgentius, Theodoretus et Euthymius, quibus et Genebardus applrtudit. Secundum quos hodie significat tempus vitae praesentis; sicut et infra cap. 3. et 4. exponitur in illo versu: Hodie si vocem meam audieritis; gignere autem secundum eundem hunc sensum est producere quocunque modo; non enim Deus Christum ut hominem de sua substantia genuit. Et tamen generatione factum est, ut ille homo esset Dei filius naturalis. Rursus alii contendunt intelligi oportere de resurrectione Christi ex mortuis; quoniam ad eam comprobandam idem Apostolus Act. 13. in concione ad Judaeos habita citaverit hunc Psalmi versiculum, dicens: Deum adimplesse pro^ missionem palribus eorum factam, quando resuscitavit Jesum; sicut et in Psalmo secundo scriptum est: Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te; id est ad vitam te revocavi. Nam et alibi resurrectionem Scriptura regenerationem vocat, ut Matth. 19., et propter resurrectionem Christus appellatur primogenitus mortuorum Col. 1. et Apoc. 1. Hic igitur sensus alibi monstratus a Paulo, nisi etiam hoc loco recipiatur, ajunt viam patere calumniae eorum, qui negant hanc Epistolam vel Paulinam esse, vel sacram; quod ojus auctor non eodem sensu, quo alibi Paulus, et per eum Spiritus S. propheticum testimonium protulerit. Adducuntur autem pio hoc sensu Origenes, Hilarius et Chrysostomus in suis Psalmorum enarrationibus, et Abrosius lib. 3. de sacramentis cap. 1. Quibus accodunt Sasboldus, Jansenius, aliique ex neotericis. Denique sunt, qui hanc particulam ita exponant: Hodie genui te, id est nunc postquam ad dexteram meam collocatus es, Filium meum te esse mundo manifestavi, scilicet per Evangelii propagationem. Neque ab hoc sensu alienus est Jansenius. Nam post alia dicit in annotatione ad banc partem Psalmi, usitatum esse, ut tunc aliquis fieri quippiam dicatur, quando talis incipit agnosci et mundo patefieri. Id vero quoniam in Ciiristo coepit impleri post ejus resurrectionem, ac multo magis etiam post ascensionem in coelum; inde est quod, juxta hunc censum, toto eo tempore Pater eura genuisse dici possit, initio facto ab ipsa resurrectione, per quam corpore glorificatus, coepit etiam paulatim mundo inclarescere, ac velut in possessionem nominis, quo Filius Dei vocatur, induci: ut resurrectio quidem respondeatmorti, quam passus fueiat; exaltatio autem et celebritas nominis compenset ignominiam crucis. Atque huc pertinere volunt locum ad Rom. 1., ubi Christus, juxta Graecorum expositionem, dicitur declaratus esse Filius Dei in virtute per resurrectionem ex mortuis. Quae quidem omnia salis ostendunt, postremum hunc sensum, qui tamen a tertio non est omnino diversus, haud longe rejiciendum esse. Cum igitur hic sensus ipsam quoque resurrectionem Christi complectatur, velut initium temporis, de quo Psalmista dicit hodie: nihil vetat, quo minus etiam Actorum locus ad istum modum ihtelligatur. Si enim Pater Filium genuit glorificando eum in se et apud homines: igitur ante omnia a morte eum resuscitavit: maxime cum se resuscitandum ipse praedixisset. Movetur hic a nonnullis quaestio, num versiculus ille ac totus Psalmus scriptus sit ad literam de Christo, an de Davide, quatenus typum Christi gessit. Nos ea altercatione nunc seposita, tantum id adjicimus, si ad literam de Davide scriptus est, quod cum Jansenio alii quidam non putant improbabile, magnum inde sumi argumentum pro sensu novissimo, quem dedimus. Nam si de Davide interpreteris, sensus erit, eura postquam in regem Israel fuisset evectus, et in monte Sion regiam sibi collocasset, introducere Deum sic ad se loquentem: Ego te in filium meum pecaliarem recepi, ac veluti genui, quando te ex obscuro loco ad tantam dignitatem et gloriam provexi. Qui typus, ut Christo congruat, aptissimus erit sensus, FiJius meus es tu, quem novo quodam modo rursus hodie genui, quando te mortuum et ab hominibus reprobatum, ad vitam immortalem suscitavi, et ad tantam gloriam extuli, ut te filium meum esse, coeli terraeque dominum, et regem super Sion montem sanctum meum, id est sv.per Ecclesiam constitutum, omnes agnoscant. Verum hic occurrit scrupulus. Nam ei haec ad Davidem dicta recte secundum literam accipiantur: jam quod de angelo negat Apostolus, de puro homine concedemus dictum ei esse a Deo: Filius meus es tu etc. Breviter responderi posset, nec ipsi Davidi dictum esse, nisi quatenus gerebat typum et imaginem Christi. Quo remoto, nequaquam tam magnificis titulis fuisset a Deo honoratus. Quale est et illud Psalm. 88., ut nonnuUi existimant, de Davide scriptum ad literam: Ipse invocabit me, Pater meus es tu: et ego primogenitum ponam illum. Ac talia quidem plura sunt in scriptis propheticis. Denique haec responsio confirmatur ex altero Scripturae testimonio, quod ad eandem rem consequenter adducit Apostolus.
Et rursus: Ego ero illi in patrem: et ipse erit mihi in filium. Sensus est: Item, de quo angelorum legitur aliquando Deus pater dixisse: Ego ero ei Pater, et ille erit mihi filius? Sic enim exponendus est Hebraismus, in patrem, in filium. Non quod Paulus Hebraismum affectet hoc loco, tanquam ad Hebraeos scribens: sed quia testimonium ipsum sic habet, non solum in Hebraeo, verum etiam in eo quod LXX. verterunt, quoe in citandis Scripturae testimoniis hic assidue sequitur. Leguntur haec verba dicta ad Davidem 2 Reg. 7. Sed quaeritur, de quo dicta secundum sensum literalem et historicum: utrum de Salomone an de Christo. Quidam ita referunt ad Christum, ut ad Salomonem nullo modo pertinere credant. Idque convincere se putant ex ipsis verbis, quibus Davidem Deus alloquitur. Primum enim dicit: Cum dormieris cum patribus tuis, suscitabo semen tuum post te. Constat autem, Salomonem non fuisse natum post mortem Davidis, sed multo ante, quin etiam vivente Davide unctum fuisse in regem. Dicit deinde: Stabiliam thronum regni ejus usque in sempiternum. Quod et postea aliis verbis repetit. Atqui regnum Salomonis statim, in filio ejus, decem partibus diminutum, tandem in Sedecia fuit exstinctum. Tertio dicit: Misericordiam meam non auferam ab eo, sicut abstuli a Saul. Quod de Salomone non apparet, qui cultu Dei derelicto adeo graviter peccavit, ut de ejus salule merito dubitetur. Auctores hujus sententiae sunt Lactantius div. instit. lib. 4. cap. 13. et Rupertus in libros Reg. lib. 2. cap. 30. et inter neotericos Sixtus Senensis, Catharinus, Sasboldus, Galenus atque alii nonnulli. Porro diversum docent D. Thomas, Liranus, Abulensis, Cajetanus et Franciscus Ribera, quorum sententia nobis etiam maxime probatur, ut quam verissimam esse, ex ipsa Scriptura liquido constet. Cum enim David Deo templum exstruere vellet, idque facere prohiberetur, quod multum in bellis fudisset sanguinem, promittit ei Deus filium, qui id faciat, cum ait: Ipse aedificabit domum nomini meo. Qui profecto secundum literam non alius est quam Salomon. Unde Paralip. lib. 1. cap. 22. et 28. haec de Salomone ad se dicf.a esse, David ipse apertissime declarat, ut nullus sit relictus dubitandi locus. Quando et Salomon ipse promissiones has ad se spectare non semel affirmat, ut 3 Reg. 5. et 8., 2 Par. 6. et Psalm. 131. Ut non hoc etiam addam, nuUo modo in Christi personam competere, quod in iisdem Domini ad Davidem verbis habetur: Qui si inique aliquid gesserit, arguam eum in virga virorum etc. 2 Reg. 7. Nec est, quod quis tergiversetur, et dicat ea saltem verba, quae hic ab Apostolo citantur: Ego ero illi in patrem etc, ad Salomonem non pertinere. Cum ea ipsa diserte Salomoni David attribuit in utroque loco 1. Par. jam alle gato. Restat ergo, ut argumenta prioris sententiae diluamus. Ad primum resp. verba illa: Suscitabo semen tuum post te, non de exortu seu nativitate filii accipienda esse, sed hunc habere sensum: Postquam obdormieris, suscitabo filium tuum in regem, qui tibi succedat, eique regnum stabiliam. Quamvis enim Salomon ante patris obitum et natus fuerit, et patris in regno successor designatus, regnum tamen illi confirmatum et stabilitum non fuit nisi patre mortuo. Unde 3 Reg. 2. statim post commemoratam Davidis mortem dicitur: Salomon autem sedit super thronum David patris sui. Et cap. 3. Confirmatum est igitur regnum in manu Salomonis. Secunda objectio tribus modis solvi potest. Primum, si dicamuspromissionem illam perpetuitatis regni fuisse suspensam a conditione, si perseverarent Salomon et posteri ejus in cultu et obedientia Dei. Quae conditio aliis in locis exprimitur, ut 3 Reg. 8., 1 Par. 28. et Psalm. 131. Altero modo, si quod in Scriptura veteris testamenti frequens est, sempiternum pro longo tempore positum dicamus, ut pro saeculo uno aut pluribus. Tertia solutio est, eaque caeteris melior ac bene notanda: Regnum Davidis ac Salomonis stabilitum esse a Deo usque in aeternum, quatenus illud temporale tandem in spirituale commutatum est, quando scilicet ex illis natus est Christus, collocandus super sedem David patris sui, et regna^ turus in aeternum Luc. 1. Ex his etiam patet ultimi argumenti solutio. Non enim abstulit Deus misericordiam suam a Salomone sicut a Saule, quantum attinet ad regni durationem, tum quia Saulis regnum fere sfcatim ut mortuus est ab ejus stirpe fuit ablatum, Salomonis aatem regnum in ejus posteritate diu permansit; tum vero, quia regnum Salomonis in ejus semine, quod est Christus, aeternum permanet. Cum ergo planum atque perspicuum sit, memoratam Scripturam historico sensu de Salomone loqui, consequens est eam ad Christum non nisi mystico sensu pertinere. Cui tamen non omnes ejus partes aptandae sunt, sed ea tantum, quae sunt sublimius dicta. Nam a Christi persona alienum esse illud: Qui si inique aliquid gesserit, jam superius admonui: nisi quis secundum regulam primam Tychonianam, de qua August. de doctr. Chiist. lib. 3. cap. 31., etiam illam partem Christo accommodet, ut in capite membra intelligantur. Quod vero Liranus et Abulensis aliique nonnulli Scripturam, de qua agimus, tam de Christo quam de Salomone ad literam interpretantur, absque ratione faciunt, quandoquidem sensus mysticus non minus est proprius ac verus vereque intentus a Spiritu sancto, imo magis etiam ac principalius intentus quam literalis. Unde notis admodum probabile est, nullam esse Scripturam, in quam plures simul historici seu literales sensus concurrant: cum oporteat semper alterum sensum in altero fundari, solus autem ille literalis sit, in quo alius aliive fundentur. Igitur citati ab Apostolo testimonii hic quidem de Salomone sensus est literalis: Ego illum paterna cura fovebo, multisque beneficiis cumulabo, magnum et illustrem apud homines reddam, ut si pater filium, quem summopere diligit, omni studio evehat ad opes, honores et dignitates, omnique scientiarum genere instructum curet. Qua ratione Salomon etiam Idida, id est dilectus Deo vocatus est, 2 Reg. 12. Mysticus vero de Christo sensus est: Ego ero ei vere et proprie pater, et ille erit mihi vere ac proprie fiiius, utpote naturalis ac de mea substantia genitus, eumque ut talem immensis honoribus augebo, omnique charismatum et scientiarum gouere absolutum reddam, omnia denique daturus in manus ejus. Dicit autem ero et erit, non quod ab aeterno non sit ille pater, hic filius, sed quia mysterium hoc antea latens et paucis cognitum, tunc patefaciendum erat, quando inciperet aedificare domum, id est, Ecclesiam congregare patri suo, quando et caeterae partes promissionis impleri coeperunt. Poterat hic objici: Si literali sensu verba illa competunt in Salomonem, quale est argumentum Apostoli, de nullo angelorum hoc dictum est, ergo Christus est major angelis? Sed hunc scrupulum jam anteremovimus in explicatione testimonii praecedentis. Nunquam enim haec tam grandia et magnifica de Salomone dicerentur, nisi in eo velut typo quodam et imagine Christus fuisset praesignatus. Est enim bene notandum, fere ubicunque in Scripturis aliquid dicitur secundum historiam, quod literae modum excedit ac fidem humanam superare videtur, hujusmodi sermone nos invitari ad investigandum sensura aliquem reconditum, velut de Christo ac regno ejus aut regni ejus adversariis. De Christo quidem et regno ejus complura talia sunt in Scripturis, praesertim in Psalmis. De diabolo Christi regnique ejus adversario insigne exemplum est apud Job. 40., ubi Behemoth et Leviathan, id est elephas et balaena literali sensu pulchre describuntur, sed ea figurarum hyperbola, quae cogat lectorem aliquid majus quaerere, quod sub illo verborum cortice lateat, sicut feceiunt Gregorius et alii. Sed jam superest, ut Cajetano respondeatur, qui inter alia adducit hunc Epistolae locum, quo probet eam nec Pauli esse, nec divinae auctoiitatis; propterea quod hujus allegatio testimonii sit parum efiicax ad probandum. Minus, inquit, decet in re tanta tantum Apostolum uti tali argumento, eum potuissent Hebraei facile respondere, quod non de filio Dei, sed de puro homine, et qui potuit peccare, et de facto postea peccavit, dicta sint haec verba a Deo per Nathan ad Davidem. Unde ex tali filiatione non probatur superioritas ad angelos. Uti autem his verbis in sensu mysticOj minorem reddit auctoritatem probantis, praesertim in principio Epistolae et apud Hebraeos. Haec ille. Ad quae respondeo, nos fateri, quod ex sensu mystico procedat haec Apostoli probatio, sicut panlo ante docuimus: neque tamen per hoc minuitur auctoritas probantis. Alioqui nusquam hujusmodi probatione utendum esset. Quod tamen Apostolum Paulum alibi fecisse manifestum est, ut 1 Cor. 9. et 1 Tim. 6., dum citat illud ex Deut. Non aUigabis os bovi trituranti, et 1 Cor. 8., ubi allegat ilhid Exodi: Qui multum y non abundavit; et qui modicum, non minoravit. Et apertissime ad Gal. 4., ubi profitetur se historiam de duobus Abrahae filiis secundum allegoriam exponere. Taceo, quae Evangelistae juxta mysticum sensum testimonia protulerunt. Neque enim existimandum est, infirmam aut inutilem toto genere esse argumentationem ex sensu mystico ductam, sed ita demum. si vel sensus ille sit dubius vel ab eo, cum quo disputatur, minime concessus. Quod et in literali sensu non infrequenter, imo frequentissime contingit, ut quoties de germano sensu Scripturae disccptatur. Ubi autem sensus adfertur probabilis, sive ille mysticus sit, sive literalis; legitima disputatio est, maxime si cum iis agas, qui rationes suasorias non aegre admittant, quales erant Hebraei, ad quos haec Epistola scribitur, utpote fideles, et pro Christo multa passi. Non enim hic instituitur disputatio cum adversariis, qui omnia sibi liquido demonstrari volunt; sed cum sociis ejusdem religionis, qui tamen ex infirmitate et tarditate quadam intelligendi, minus assequebantur fidei mysteria; quemadmodum patet ex iis, quae cap. 5. et 6. dicuntur. Illud enim, quod paulo ante monuimus, diligenter est notandum, quaedam in Scripturis literaliter dici, sed sublimiter et supra modum literae; idque propter mysterium, quo litera turgens et gravida sui ipsiusmodum excedit. Cujusmodi mysterium nisi subesp.et, nequaquam tam sublimiter et magnifice Scriptura secundum literam loqueretur. Itaque nisi Christus mystice fuisset significatus; nunquam Davidi dictum fuisset: Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te, nec de Salomone: Ipse erit mihi in filium, et ego ero illi in Patrem. Quod intelligentes Hebraei, facile sen.yus my,sticos hujusmodi recipiebant: atque eo magis, quod tempore Apostolorum multi erant Judaei, qualis Philo et Ensaei a Philone laudati, qui studiose exercebantur mysticis scripturarum interpretationibus, iisdemque mivifice delectabantur. Porro velle contendere, quod omnia testimonia hoc capite allata secundum literam significent id, quod Paulus vult docere, sic enim quidam Cajetano respondendum putant: nihil habet utilitatis. Nam sic multo etiam magis Hebraei potuissent tergiversari, et dicere Paulum sensus a litera et contextu Scripturae abhorrentes adferre. Quocirca manendum omnino in responsione data: quam et Franciscus Ribera probat ac late prosequitur.
1:6
6. Et cum iterum introducit primogenitum in orbem terrae, dicit. Multi interpretes transponunt vocabula, cum iterum. Putant enim rectum ordinem esse: Et iterum cum introducit etc., ut illud iterum sit nota adjungeutis ad superiora aliud testimonium. Sic enim et in secundo {estimonio fecerat; et sequenti capite facit semel et iterum. Ita quidem verii^imile est Graecos expositores intellexisse. Non enim exponunt, quomodo iterum introduxerit: quin potius referunt Apostoli verba ad primum Christi adventum. His consonat Syra versio, quae sic habet: Rursum autem, quando inducit, primogenitum in mundum. Idipsum sequitur Erasmus et Hentenius: idemque Jansenio placet in annot. Psalmi hoc loco citati. Verum aliis violenta videtur haec metathesis, ac minime necessaria; cum facile possit explicari, quo sensu Deus pater iterum, id est secundo, primogenitum suum introducat in orbem terrae. Primum enim introduxit, quando verbum carnem factum fecit habitare in nobis, de quo infra cap. 10. loquitur Apostolus, cum ait: Ideo ingrediens mundum, dicit etc. Rursus autem introduxit, vel tunc quando post ejus ascensionem in coelos et missionem Spiritus sancti, per Apostolorum praedicationem effecit, ut mundus eum fide reciperet et dominum suum agnosceret; vel secundum alios, quando eum in consummatione saeculi de coelo adducet, ut mundum judicet, omnibusque sibi subjectis plenam ac perfectam totius regni sui possessionem accipiat, fiatque illud, quod canit Psalmus hic citatus: Dominus regnavit. Nunc enim, ut dicitur cap. sequenti, necdum videmus omnia subjecta ei. Posteriorem hunc sensum, praeter id quod jam dixi, probabilem nobis facit, quod cum Apostolus, in duobus prioribus testimoniis, de dignitate Christi per Apostolicam praedicationem mundo manifestata locutus fuisset; hic jam, velut de diverso tempore loquens, non utitur conjunctione copulante; sed sic ait, secundum Graecam lectionem: Quando autem iterum introducit etc. Eodem spectare videtur testimonium ipsum, quod hic citatur. Id enim secundum Scripturas in secundo adventu Dominico implebitur, ut mox docebimus. Adde, quod juxta hunc sensum magis apparet evepysia vocis introducere; quatenus ea significatur id, quod Jurisperiti vocant inducere seu mittere in possessionem. Denique sensum hunc confirmat illud capitis sequentis: Non enim angelis subjecit Deus orbem terrae futurum. Quod ad futurum saeculum pertinere, eo loco docebimus. Porro si cui magis videlur adverbium iterum hic sicut alibi servire novo testimonio citando: poterit is hocmodo textum non incommode exponere: Et cum iterum, id est alio Scripturae loco, testatur se introducere primogenitum etc. Qup.eres, qvLomodo primogenitum vocet Dei Filium, quem unigenitum in symbolo fidei confitemur. Respondeo eum unigenitum esse, quia solus est Dei Filius naturalis: primogenitum autem vocari, non tantum per allusionem, ut quidam existimant, eo quod apud Hebraeos primogeniti essent haeredes et omnium rerum domini, sed quia vere primogenitus est inter multos fratres, ut dicitur Rom. 8. Qui quamvis sola sint adoptione filii Dei: non tamen confunditur eos fratres vocare, dicens: Nunciabo nomen tuum fratribus meis; ut habes cap. sequenti. Horum ergo filiorum Dei comparatione primogenitus est, utpote quos omnes et aetate praecedit, quia aeternus; et dignitate, quia naturalis. Vide quae diximus ad locum memoratum Rom. 8.
Et adorent eum omnes angeli Dei. Sumptum est testimonium ex Psalm. 96., de quo variant interpretum opiniones, utrum ad literam de Christi regno scriptus cit, an mystico tantum sensu illuc referendus; quod posterius bonis argumentis a Jansenio suadetur. Verumtamen jam supra satis ostendimus etiam ex mystico sensu valere probationem. Quoniam autem Psalmo illo 96. etiam de secundo Christi adventu agitur, quo venturus est ad judicium: idcirco apte quadrat haec citatio ad praecedentia verba Apostoli, quibus de introducendo iterum Filio Dei in orbem terrae loquebatur. Plus habet difiicultatis, quomodo testimonium hoc ad rem praesentem legitime proferatur ab Apostolo, quum in Hebraeo non angelos Dei, sed elohim legamus, id est Deos. Unde Hieronymus vertit: Adorate eum omnes dii. Quidam suspicatur Hebraicum textum vitiatum esse a Rabbinis, erasa dictione malaki, id est angeli, cum prius haberetur: Adorate eum omnes angeli Dei, idque conformiter cum eo, quod LXX. verterunt: Adorate eum omnes angeli ejus. Sed inanis est haec suspicio. Non enim in hoc loco tantum, sed in multis aliiy, LXX. seu vere seu apparenter discrepant a fonte Hebraeo, quem proinde reformare velle ad illorum versionem, praeposterum sit et infiniti negotii. Dicimus ergo: Paulum quidem more perpetuo hujus Epistolae testimonium hoc referre secundum versionem LXX. interpretum. Nec tamen illud, si bene expendatur, ab Hebraeo discordare. Nam si in Scripturis interdum homines potentia ac dignitate excellentes appellantur dii, ut Psalm. 83. Deus stetit in synagoga deorum, in medio autem deos dijudicat, et iterum: Ego dixi: dii estis et filii excelsi omnes, quid mirum, si et angeli interdum idem nomen participant? Unde est illud Psalm. 8. Minuisti eum paulo minus ah angelis, Hebr. a diis. De cujus versiculi intellectu proximo capite accuratius erit agendum. Recte autem ex Hebr. tam Hieronymus quam alii interpretes in Psalm. 96. vertunt: omnes dii, non solum in hemistichio, quod allegat Apostolus, sed etiam in alio ejusdem Psalmi, ubi dicitur: Nimis exaltatus es super omnes deos, ubi sic et LXX. Id enim repererunt infonte, sed commentatoris eat quaerere, quinam ibi deorum nomine intelligantur. Alii deos falsos, ut solem, lunam aut etiam daemones; alii, judices et principes; alii, angelos intelligi putant. Sane probabile est eo nomine comprehendi tam angelos quam homines, quotquot potentia atque dignitate super alios eminent. Vult enim Psalmista, nuUam esse tam sublimem potentiam, quae non incurvare se debeat ac submittere Domini regnantis imperio. Hanc generalitatem LXX., quorum versione Paulus utitur, restrinxerunt ad excellentissimum genus creatae potestatis, id est ad angelos. Ex quo liquet, testimonium ab Apostolo rite produci, cum a genere universe sumpto ad certam speciem legitima sit argumentatio. Quin verisimile est, si ad sensum Psalmi tam literalem quam mysticum respiciamus, etiam malos angelos comprehendi, quos passim principatus et potestates appellat Scriptura, de quorum principe scriptum est Job 41. Non est super terram potestas, quae comparetur ei. Nam et hi Deum credunt et con" tremiscunt Jac. 2., et eosdem Christo perfecte subjiciendos, eumque adoraturos esse, quod male Catharinus negat, multae Scripturae docent, ut Rom. 14., 1 Cor. 15., Phil. 2., Apoc. 5. Ex his denique valde probabile fit, Apostolum hic loqui de eo, quod futurum est in secundo Christi adventu, sicut supra monuimus. Tunc enim Christum universalem omnium hominum et angelorum judicem ac dominum, in regni sui plenissimam possessionem inducendum a Patre, boni quidem angeli gaudentes ac venerabundi, daemones autem, dolentes atque inviti, potentiam ejus ac divinitatem regnique magnitudinem agnoscentes adorabunt, ea nimirum adoratione et cultu, qui soli Deo debetur. Aptissime autem utitur hoc testimonio Trid. Synodus ad comprobandam adorationem Christi in Eucharistia. Nam si angeli Christum adorant: quanto magis homines etiam in Eucharistia, ubi fideles eum sciunt vere esse praesentem? Nam ubicunque Christus est, recte adoratur. Porro sensum jam datum confirmant Scripturae, quae de secundo Christi adventu agentes, testantur eum venturum cum potestate magna et majestate, stipatum agminibus angelorum ac virtutum coelestium, ut Matth. 16. 24. 25. et aliae.
1:7
7. Et ad angelos quidem dicit. Ad angelos, id est de angelis, ut bene vertit Faber. Quod enim hic citatur, non ad angelos, sed de angelis dicit, vel Deus vel Scriptura. Nam utrumvis suppleri potest. Sic infra cap. 4. Ad quem nobis sermo, id est de quo. Et Rom. 10. Ad Israel autem dicit, id est de Irael. Item Luc. 18. Dixit ad quosdam, qui in se confidebant, id est de quibusdam; et cap. 19. Ait Jesus ad eum, nempe Zachaeum; cum non ad eum, sed de eo loqueretur; et cap. 20. Cognoverunt, quod ad ipsos, id est, de ipsis dixerit similitudinem hanc; quemadmodum et Marcus loquitur cap. 12. Quibus omnibus locis est quidem Graeca praepositio Tcpoc accusativo juncta, sed quae interdum rem, de qua agitur, designat.
Qui facit angelos suos spiritus, et ministros suos flammam ignis. Locus est Psalm. 103. secundum LXX., nec Hebraea discrepant, nisi quod pvo flammam igniSf habent Ignem urentem, quod et in vulgata est versione Psalmorum. Nam quod eadem vulgata secundam reddit personam: facis et tuos, nec cum Graeco nec cura Hebraeo convenit, quamvis sententiam non mutet. At vero de sensu versiculi ab Apostolo citati, prout in Psalmo habetur, non levis est controversia. Quidam enim, ut Vatablus, Jansenius aliique literalis intelligentiae Psalmorum studiosiores, ordine constructionis inverso sic exponunt: Qui spiritus, id est ventos, facit nuntios suos, hoc est, utitur iis tanqwam nuntiis, ita ut iram ipsius hominibus denuntient, quoties terris ac mari vehementius incumbunt, et tempestates excitant. Item qui flammam ignis sive ignem urentem, hoc est, fulgura flam mantia ministros suos facit; cum videlicet iis velut ministris utitur, quotiescunque voluerit, ad ultionem de impiis sumendam: quomodo legimus Pentapolim coelesti igne consumptam. Hic sensus optime congruit cum iis, quae in eodem Psalmo praecedunt de lumine, coelo, aquis, nubibus et pennis ventorum, velut subservientibus osteudendae magnificentiae Dei. Estque persimile, quod legitur Psalm. 148. Igtiis, grando, nix, glacies, spiritus procellarum, quae faciunt verbum ejus. Sed hic sensus nihil ad institutum Apostoli. *i*>«w^h^>'^ Quocirca alii plerique locum Psalmi, juxta citationem Apostolicam de iis, qui proprii secundum Scripturam angeli dicuntur, et de quibus Apostolum hic agere constat, interpretantur: quanquam id faciunt non uno modo. Nam alii quidem, ut Augustinus in Psalmos et Gregor. hom. 3. super Evangelia, multique post eos, similiter ordine verborum immutato sensum hunc reddunt: Qui eos, quorum natura spiritualis est et ignea, id est vehementer activa, facit nuntios et ministros 8U08. Seu: Qui pro nuntiis, cursoribus et ministris utitur spiritualibus et immaterialibus substantiis. Quem sensum instituto Paulino quam maxime quadrare, non est dubium. Nam discrimen inter Christum et angelos ex eo potissimum statuit Paulus, quod ille sit Dei filius; hi ministri, quod et paulo post clare exprimit, dicens: Nonne omnes sunt administratorii spiritus etc.? Nam et infra cap. 3. idem discrimen ponit inter Christum et Mosem. Sed tamen hic sensus aliis quibusdam non placet, idque propter articulos Graecos in utroque versiculi membro appositos priori vocabulo, non posteriori. Quoties enim occurrunt duo nomina ejusdem casus cum verbo, quorum alterum ab anteriori parte construi debeat, alterum a posteriori; illud praeconstrui debere dicunt, cui additus est articulus. Exempli gratia, quod dicit Joannes: SeoQ ^v 6 Aoyog, Deus erat Verbum, propter articulum additum illi Verbum, non huic Deus, ita construendum est: Verbum erat Deus. Igitur praesentis versiculi hunc sensum esse volunt: Qui angelos suos facit sicut ventos et ministros suos sicut ignem. Frequens enim Hebraeis est notam similitudinis reticere ac subintelligere, ut Psalm. 10., ubi nos habemus: Transmigra in montem sicut passer, in Hebraeo tantum est: Transmigra in montem passer. Ajunt autem angelos comparari ventis propter summam celeritatem, et igni propter summam naturae subtilita,tem ac vim operandi. Ita docent Theodoretus etEuthymius in Psalmos, et latius explicat Dionjsius lib. de coelest. hier. cap. 15. Jam ex istis, si quaeras, quid sententia sic exposita faciat ad rem praesentem, cum proprietates illae angelis attributae Christo secundum naturam divinam vel maxime conveniant, ut patet ex epithetis Sapientiae divinae Sap. 7., nam et in hac Epistola cap. 4. prorsus similia Verbo Dei tribuuntur: Vivus est, inquit, Sermo Dei et efficax, et penetrabilior omni gladio ancipiti etc, respondent ex Graecorum commentariis, Apostolum urgere verbum facit. Ex eo namque sequi angelos esse creaturas; et per hoc a Filio Dei, qui non factus est aut creatus, sed genitus, manifeste distingui. Atqui hac latione satis erat dixisse: Qui facit angelos y nec caetera addenda erant; deinde, Scriptura creationem rei alicujus ab initio mundi productae significare volens, non solet uti verbo praesentis temporis, sed praeteriti. Nusquam enim legitur: Deus facit coelum et terram, solem et lunam; sed fecit, creavit. Apparet itaque, sensum secundo loco allatum ex Augustino et Gregorio eum esse, quem Paulus hic spectaverit. Ad id vero, quod objiciebatur de articulis, responderi potest eam regulam non esse perpetuam. Varie enim Graeci articulis utuntur, ut est notissimum. Additio B. P. Et ut, quod illi de articulis dicunt, etiam hic verum esse concedatur: poterit nihilominus sensus esse ejusmodi: Qui quos decreverat esse suos nuntios ac ministros, eosdem fecit substantias penitus immateriales seu plane spirituales; eosdem fecit quasi ignem urentem, lucidos nimirum cognitione, et charitate ardentes. Quae expositio aliquid habet a secunda, aliquid a tertia explicationum allatarum. Et cum ab auctoribus tertiae quaeritur, quid ea faciat ad rem praesentem: potest responderi, magnopere facere; propterea quod illi spiritus hic vocentur Dei nuntii ac ministri, quae nomenclatura Filio Dei nusquam in sacris literis tribuitur, nisi secundum naturam humanam. Quod autem Hebraeum nomen ruach etiam spiritualem substantiam planeque immaterialem significet, licet Jansenius in annotat ad Psalm. 103. negare videatur, idem tamen concedit in Psalmum ult. annot. ultima, et concedendum esse liquet ex Gen. 41, 38. cap. 45, 27. Exod. 28, 3. cap. 31, 3. cap. 35,.31. et aliis locis multis. Qaod hic adversus tertiam expositionem objicitur de verbo praesentis temporis, solvi potest, dicendo quod in Hebr. et Graeco sunt participia hoc loco aliquot praesentis temporis, sed quae propter verbiiui principale praeteriti temporis, ex quo pendent, possint ad illud tempus ampliari. Et fundamentum hujus additionis reperimus in annotatione quadam ipsius auctoris.
1:8
8. Ad filium autem. Hoc est, de filio dicit Scriptura. Nam verba, quae hic adducuntur, non ex persona Dei, sed Prophetae dicta sunt. Thronus tuus, Deus, in saeculum saeculi. Testimonium hoc acceptum est ex Psalm. 44. Quem totum de Messia scriptum esse, etiam Rabbinorum commentarii testantur. Est autem velut epithalamium, quo nuptiae Christi sponsi et sponsae ejus Ecclesiae ex gentibus congregandae celebrantur. Nulla igitur esse potest dubitatio, quin versus hic allegati etiam secundum literam ad Christum verum Salomonem pertineant. Continet autem haec pars manifestam assertionem divinitatis Chiisti. Quanquam hoc eludere volentes Judaei et Ariani, qui Christum proprie Deum negant, varia commenti sunt effugia. Quidam enim dicunt vocabulum Deus non esse vocativi casus, sed nominativi; ut sensus sit: 0 Christe, thronus, id est, sedes ac solium tuum aeternum est Deus. Verum nimis contorta est haec expositio et a consuetudine Scripturae aliena. Nam saepe quidem legimus coehim, terram, angelos, homines justos esse sedem Dei; ut Jes. 66. Coelum mihi sedes est. Col. 1. Sive throni, sive dominationes, etiUud apud veteres frequentatum: Anima justi sedes sapientiae. At Deum esse sedem hominis, nulla Scriptura prodidit. Nec vero pro hac interpretatione facit textus Apostoli, qui secutus LXX. nominandi casu scripsit 6 Sb6q. Sic enim in Psalmis passim scribitur, pro vocativo. Et alioqui familiare Graecis est, Atticis praesertim, nominandi casum vocative sumere. Certe Aquila Judaeus, Hieronymo teste, vocativum vertit, 0£S. Porro ah"i Hebraicum Elohim vertunt in genitivum, et sententiam repetitione throni supplent; hoc modo: Thronus tuuSj thronus Dei. Sed et hoc non minus coactum est. Neque enim mos Scripturae habet, ut nomen, a quo genitivus regitur ac dependet, supprimatur ac supplendum relinquatur. Nihilo plus apparentiae est in eorum expositione, qui verbum addunt de suo, et hanc faciunt constructionem: Thronum tuum Deus firmavit seu sta^ bilivit in saeculum saeculi. Neque enim ullo exemplo talis additio probari potest. Quartum ac postremum effugium est, quo dicunt Messiam sic appellari, quomodo Judices et Angeli in Scripturis interdum Elohim, id est Diij nominantur. Sed neque hoc valet: licet enim de pluribus angelis aut hominibus interdum Scriptura sic loquatur, ut eos vocet Elo^ Kim: id tamen nusquam obtinet, ubi nomen illud legitur uni alicui simpliciter attributum. Sic enim non de alio quam de vero Deo dictum invenitur. Maneat ergo certum et constitutum, Christum hic vere ac proprie Deum vocari: quod tam Graeci quam Latini patres, adversus haereticos et Judaeos, ex hoc loco confirmarunt: nominatim Eusebius lib. 4. demonst. Evang. cap. 15. et Hieronymus in Epist. ad Principiam. Est igitur hic sensus: 0 Deus, id est, Christe sponse Ecclesiae, qui es Deus et Dei filius, eolium regni tui permanebit in saeculum saeculi. Hebr. in aeternum et ultra. Qua phrasi significari solet aeternitas interminabilis et absoluta; quam et Hieronymus in sua versione expressit Exod. 15. et Mich. 4., utrobique reddens ex Hebraeo, in aeternum et ultra. Hinc est quod eandem aeternitatem aliae Scripturae designant negatione finis ant interitus, ut Dan. 2. Regnum ejus regnum aeternum, quod non dissipabitur, et cap. 7. Potestas ejus potestas aeterna, quae non auferetur; et regnum ejus, quod non corrumpetur. Item Luc. 1. dicente angelo ad Virginem: Dabit illi Dominus Deus sedem David Patris ejus, et regnabit in domo Jacob in ae^ ternum, et regni ejus non erit finis. Quod ipsum et in symbolo canit Ecclesia. Ex his etiam liquet, nomine throni seu solii in hujusmodi Scripturis regiam potestatem significari; tametsi Psalmista maxime respicere videtur ad potestatem judiciariam. Nam eo pertinent sequentia:
Virga aequitatis virga regni tui. Graece, virga rectitudinis, id est justitiae. De virga regia sermo est, quae sceptrum vocatur, et regiae potestatis est insigne. Unde Hieronymus vertit ex Hebraeo: Sceptrum aequitatis sceptrum regni tui. Neque vero hic inter aequitatem et justitiam distinguunt interpretes. In Graeco articulus posteriori loco positus vult hunc ordinem: Virga regni tui est virga aequitatis, id est, sceptrum tuum regale sceptrum est justitiae. Tu regnum tuum summa justitia et aequitate administrabis.
1:9
9. Dilexisti justitiam et odisti ini" quitatem. Hae partes sunt justi principis, amantem esse justitiae et odio prosequi injustitiam, nec id solo affectu animi, sed reipsa; videlicet bonos tuendo et praemiis afficiendo, malos autem pro meritis puniendo. Ubi tamen non carere videtur mysterio, quod abstracta posuit non concreta. Peculiare enim illud Christo regi est, ita diligere justitiam, ut nobis etiam ipsius justitiae auctor atque largitor sit, et ita odisse iniquitatem, ut nos merito ac virtute sua ab omni iniquitate mundatos sanctificet. Unde in eo justitia et misericordia pulcherrimo foedere connectuntur, juxta illud Psalm. 84. Misericordia et veritas obviaverunt sibi, justitia et pax osculatae sunt.
Propterea unxit te DeuSy Deus tuus oleo exultationis prae participibus tuis, sive prae consortibus tuis, ut in Psalmo legimus. Deus, priori loco, nominativi casus sit an vocativi, dubium esse potest. Etenim sunt, qui contendant vocativum esse, ut Eusebius loco supra citato et Augustinus in Psalm. 44. Qui proinde affirmat etiam hac parte Christum a Propheta Deum appellari. Sed sciendum est frequenter hoc nomen Deus in Scripturis eodem casu geminari, causa majoris expressionis, idque potissimum iu Psalmis. Exempla sunt: Deus Deus meus respice in me, Deus Deus meus ad te de luce vigilo. Bene~ dicat nos Deus Deus noster. Quibus locis eundem casum retineri constat, modo voeativxim, modo nominativum. Qaare et hic locus similiter videtur accipiendus. Nam et in officio ecclesiastico, ubi cuipiam sanctae virgini idem versus adaptatur, non aliter accipi potest. Sed quaeritur, de qua Christi unctione Propheta loquatur. Primum, certum est, spiritualem non corporalem unctionem intelligi. Non enim visibiliter unctus est Christus a Patre, sed invisibiliter. Dubitatur autem, quando et quomodo facta sit haec spiritualis et invisibilis unctio. Multi putant hic agi de gratia Spiritus sancti, quae copiosissime effusa est in Christum, quando natura ejus humana conjuncta est cum divina. Nam in illius unionis et humanae conceptionis articulo, Deus Pater filium suum perfudit oleo, id est, donavit abundantia gratiae supra omnes ejus consortes, id est, fratres ac filios Dei, qui ad eandem haereditatem ac regni participationem vocantur, quique de ejus plenitudine omnes accipiunt. Attamen huic sensui videtur obstare conjunctio propterea. Si enim propterea Christus unctus est gratia Spiritus sancti, quia dilexit justitiam et odio habuit iniquitatem: non ergo statim in ipsa conceptione unctus est, sed postquam illis actibus hanc unctionem meruit. Unde et Nestoriani sumunt argumentum, quo probent Christum non natura filium Dei esse, sed adoptionis praerogativam operum excellentia promeruisse. Ad hanc objectionem, a quibusdam resp., voculam propterea non semper adjungi ei, quod ex aliquo priori sequitur, sed interdum ei, quod ad aliud refertur ut ad causam finalem. Ita Luc. 4. dicit Dominus: Aliis civitatibus oportet me evangelizare regnum Dei, quia ideo missus sum. Sic et vulgo loquimur: Deus nobis colendus, propterea enim conditi sumus. Haec Augustini et B. Thomae expositio est, ut sit sensus: Ad hoc Deus unxit te oleo gratiae suae, ut diligeres justitiam et odio haberes iniquitatem. Juxta hanc expositionem subaudiri hic poterit conjunctio causalis, quasi dicat: Nam propterea unxitteDeus, scilicet ut hoc, quod praecedit, significetur hujus esse causa finalis. Posset etiam sic accipi: Dilexisti justitiam etc, eo quod unxerit te Deus. Huic sensui valde favet locus isti similis Jes. 61. Spiritus Domini super me, eo quod unxerit me. Quae verba plane significant unctionem esse causam, quare super eum sit spiritus Domini. Denique sunt alii, quibus non placet, voculam propterea deduci a propria significatione: caeterum unctionem intelligunt non eam, quae facta est in conjunctione duarum in Christo naturarum, sed quae multo post, quamque suis meritis sibi Christus comparavit. Ea est unctio ad gloriam, quando scilicet post passionem immortalitate donatus et ad dexteram Patris collocatus, regni possessionem et gloriae consummationem accepit. Sicut enim David non semei, sed tertio legitur unctus in regem: ita et Christus primum quidem unctus est in sua conceptione. Natus est enim Chri» stus Dominus Luc. 2., idemque natus rex Judaeorum Matth. 2. Iterum autem unctus quodammodo, quando super eum baptizatum vox Patris audita est: Hic est filius meus dilectus, quando et Spiritus sanctus super eum in specie columbae descendit. Unctus tertio, quando per resurrectionem atque in coelos ascensionem exaltatus a Patre, rex coeli et terrae declaratus est. Juxta hanc sententiam iste erit sensus: Quoniam dilexisti justitiam et odisti iniquitatem: ideo te Deus unxit ea unctione, qua jam stola gloriae et immortalitatis indutus, ac regio diademate coronatus, in regni possessionem venires. Congruit hic sensus tam cum ejusdem Psalmi superioribus, ubi de gloria et regno Christi multa dicta sunt, quam cum iis, quae sequuntur, nt mox apparebit. Annuit his etiam locus Phil. 2., ubi post descripfam Christi humilitatem et obedientiam subjungitur: Propter quod et Deus exaltavit illum etc. Probatur hic commentarius Jansenio tam in paraphrasiPsalmi quamin annotat. Quem tamen etiam consule scribentem in cap. 54. concord. evang. Porro notandum est, oleum _sjiiedochice pro unguento sumi. Non enim nudo oleo reges et sacerdotes ungebantur, eed praestantissimis etodoratissimis aromatum generibuscomraixto; velutmyrrha, stacte, casia, quae proximo versu nominantur. Qua ratione etiam chrisma, quo baptizati imguntur, interdum oleum appellatur. Quoniam autem ejusmodi unguentum sua fragrantia mirum in modum recreabat eos, in quos effundebatur; idcirco vocatur oleum exultationis seu laetitiaej id est, unguentum laetificans atque exhilarans. Quanquam etiam oleum per se vim habet exhilarandi, juxta illud Psalm. 103. Ut exhilaret faciem in oleo. Id vero spiritualiter multo magis praestat sive unctio gratiae Spiritus sancti, quam in sua conceptione Christus accepit; sive unctio, qua in gloriam introductus et regni sui possessor factus est. Participes autem ejus sive consortes qui sint, dictum est, et plenius intelligetur ex cap. 2. et 3. Jam bre\'iter ex his colligamus antithesim, quam inter angelos et Christum spectat Apostolus. Angelos, inquit, Scriptura nuntios et ministros Dei vocat; Christum vero, (juod ad anam ejus naturam attinet, Deum appellat; quod ad alteram, regni aeternitatem ei attribuit, et supra omnes participes eum extoUit. Qua parte rursus tacite Christus anteponitur Mosi, qui unus erat ex participibus.
1:10
10. Et: Tu in principio Domine terram fundasti. Et, non est pars testimonii hic citati, sed hoc Scriplurae testimonium praecedenti conjungit. Et, scilicet iterum ad filium dicit Scriptura. Leguntur hi versus Psalm. 101. Sed quomodo ad Christum pertineant, quaerendum est, cum Psalmus ille non aliud esse videatur quam oratio seu populi seu Prophetae, Deo supplicantis pro restauratione civitatis Jerosolymitanae a Chaldaeis eversae; nec ad Christum proprie dirigatur, sed absolute ad Deum coeli terraeque conditorem. Resp. sicut terrena Jerusalem figura fuit Ecclesiae Christi; sic ea, quae in Psalmo de restauratione terrenae Jerusalem dicantur, mystice referenda esse ad aedificationem spiritualis ac supernae Jerusalem, hoc est Ecclesiae, quae Christi civitas ac regnum est. Etenim non nisi in Christo et Ecclesia perfecte implentur ista hujus Psalmi: Tu exurgens Domine misereberis Sion; quia tempus miserendi ejus, quia venit tempus. Et: timebunt gentes nomen tuum Domine, et omnes reges terrae gloriam tuam: quia aedificavit Dominus Sion et videbitur in glcria seu majestate sua. Et: Dominus de coelo m terram aspexit etc. Item: In conveniendo populos in unum, et reges, ut serviant Domino. Quare et reliqua, quae de Deo in hoc Psalmo dicuntur, ad Christum pertinent; adeo ut plerique, tam veteres, quam recentiores, ea omnia secundum literam de Christo et ejus Ecclesia interpretentur. Quod tamen aliis minus placet; et nobis non videtur necessarium. Sed ad sensum veniamus. Tu Domine, inquit, terram fundasti, id est terram fecisti firmam, stabilem atque immobilem, idque in principio, hoc est, omnium primo, quum scilicet ante eam nihil factum esset. Hoc enim secsu scriptum est: In principio creavit Deus coelum et terram. Nam et de coelo hic sequitur:
Et opera manuum tuarum sunt coeli. Per manus Dei, virtus ejus ac potentia significatur. Et coeli, inquit, tuae virtutis sunt opera. Sic alibi: Videbo coelos opera digitorum tuorum. Plurali numero coelos dicit, non tam ad numerum significandum, quam quia vocabulum Hebraeum singulari numerocaret. Coelorum autem nomine, juxta morem Scripturae, comprehenditur quicquid supra nos expansum est usque ad extima mundi. Prophetam non facere vim in numero, inde liquet, quia non opera, sicut Apostolus refert ex LXX., sed opus dixit, numero singulari; quemadmodum etiam Hieronymus vertit. Explicat autem Apostolus hoc testimonio id, quod supra de Christo dixit: per quem fecit et saecula, ne quis suspicetur, sic per eum omnia a Deo facta, quomodo per ministros aut instrumenta solent artifices opera sua fabricare. Ostendit enim sie per eum omnia a Deo facta, ut tamen ipse non minus vere ac proprie ea fecerit. Quaecunque enim Pater facit, haec et Filius similiter facit. Joan. 5.
1:11
11. Ipsi peribu7it. Meminit corruptibilitatis rerum creatarum, ut ex earum collatione Dei creatoris aeternitatem magis illustret, coelos autem nominat velut partem creaturae praecipuam, et quae maxime videri posset ab interitu ac mutabilitate libera. Alibi terra adjungitur, ut Matth. 24. Domino dicente: Coelum et terra transibunt; verba autem mea non transibunt. Sed cum naturalis philosophia tradat coelos incorruptibiles esse; quomodo verum est eos perituros? Quidam haec interpretantur dicta per concessionem, non per affirmationem; quasi sensus sit: Etiamsi contingeret coelum et terram transire; mea tamen verba non transibunt. Rursus: Etiamsi contingeret coelos perire; tu tamen permanebis. RefelJitur hic intellectus: primum, ex hoc ipso loco. Nam verba statim sequentia: Et omnes ut vestimentum veterascent etc, non nisi coacte admodum ad illam intelligentiam trahi possunt. Tum vero, quia scriptura alibi simpliciter et constanter affirmat coelos perituros ac mutandos esse; uti mox ostendemus. iisdem rationibus improbatur aliorum expositio, qui subaudiunt, suapte natura, vel, si ita volueris, quasi dicat psalmographus: Ex ec sunt corruptibiles et interirent revera, nisi tu eos conservares. Plus enim velle Prophetam et Apostolum, jam monstratum est. Verum itaque sensum ex ipsa Scriptura petamus. Petrus Apostolus 1 Epist. 3. de die Domini ita scribit: In quo coeli magno impetu transient, elementa vero calore solventur; terra autem, et quae in ipsa sunt opera, exurentur. Et infra: Per quem coeli ardentes solventur, et elementa ignis ardore tabescent. Novos vero coelos et terram novam, secundum promissa ipsius, exspectamus etc. Item Joannes Apoc. 21. Vidi, inquit, coelum novum et terram novam. Primum enim coelum et prima terra abiit. Ex his ostenditur, coelos et terram, qua parte conflagrabunt igne, perituros esse: qua parte autem ab igne non consumentur, in melius esse mutandos; quae mutatio secundum Scripturas renovatio mundi vocatur. Et conflagratio quidem solum attinget coelum aereum; de eo namque coelo B. Petrum loqui constat ex verbis paulo superioribus, quibus dicit, eosdem coelos, qui perierunt aquis diluvii, quique verbo Dei repositi sunt, igni reservari iu diem judicii. At renovatio etiam coelis stelliferis ac toti mundo corporeo communis erit; ut satis probant loca Apoc. 21. Jes. Potest autem quod hic dicitur: Ipsi peribunt, ad omnes coelos referri, ut refert B. Augustinus de civit. lib. 20. cap. 24., quandoquidem mutatio communis erit omnibus; quicquid autem mutatur, secundum aliquid corrumpitur et perit. Atque hoc est, quod ahis verbis dici solet, coelos non secundum substantiam interituros, sed secundum qualitates ac praesentem rerum statum, ut et Graeci exponunt. De his phira qui volet, legat commentarios in 4. d. 47.
Tu autem permanebis. Graece, permanes. Atque ita habet editio vulgata in Psalmo, tametsi inter praesens et futurum in Graeco vocabulo sola est accentus diversitas, Sia^svstc, <5ta/i£V£lg. In Sjriaco quidem etiam praesens est: at in Hebraeo futuram: Et tu stabis, id est nunquam mutaberis, quod enim aliquo modo mutatur, non omnino stat aut permanet.
Et omnes, ut vestimentum veterascent. De coeli's adhuc loquitur. Et sensus est: Sicut vestis assiduo usu et tempore veterascit, ut proinde renovari debeat; ita coeli omnes velut usu longi temporis attriti, et ad votustatem perducti, interitum subibunt, hoc est, eam mutationem, qua renovandi sint iu alium ac meliorem statura.
1:12
12. Et velut amictum mutabis eos, et mutabuntur. Amictum, Graece TrspiPo- Xaiov, id est, vestem quae circumjicitur corpori; quamque facile sumas et de])onas, ut pallium. Eadem est significatio vocis Hebraeae. Pro mutabis, nonnulli codices habent, involves: idque significat Graeca vox IXiieiQ, quae et hoc loco et in Psalmo legitur, tam in codicibus, qui nunc in manibus habentur, quam apud Chrysostomum aliosque Graecos expositores. Sed et Syrus interpres vertit, complicabis eos. Hoc autem varie exponunt. Aliqui sic: Quemadmodum amictus seu pallium deponitur, et complicatur, ut cum opus est, iterum somatur, ita tu coelos, qui sunt vehit pallium extensi, quasi complicabis, ut reformati iterum extendantur. Alii ad hunc modum: Sicut vestis detrita solet inverti, ut nova appareat, ita tu coelos invertes, id est, renovabis. Sed sciendum est, nec Graeco verbo nec Syriaco proprie significari versionem, qua quod interius erat, exterius fiat, aut contra; sed convolutionem seu complicationem, qua id agitur, ut quod apparebat jam non appareat. Unde, si germana est lectio Graeca, quam diximus, videbitur hoc significari, quod in Apoc. dicitur cap. 6. Et coelum recessit, sicut liber involutus, ut sicut in h'bro convoluto, nam membranis volubilibus pro libris utebantur Hebraei, nihil legi potest, priusquam evolvatur; ita coeli facies, in qua sunt astra, velut literae nobis enarrantes gloriam Dei, penitus obducatur, ut nihil appareat, donec renovatione sua. explicetur. Caeterum quia nec desunt Graeci codices, qui pro IXt^stg habeant aXXa^stg, id est mutabis 'j quomodo non hic solum, sed et in Psalmo vulgatus interpres transtulit: certe plus quam verisimile est eos codices, quibus usus est interpres, hanc, quam dixi lectionem habuisse, ex quo deinde consequens fiat, etiam LXX. interpretesidipsum Graece reddidisse, quod in Hebraeo legerant. Id autem est: mutabis eos, non autem involves aut complicahis, praesertim quando et id, quod sequitur: et mutabuntur, aeque in Hebraeo, ut in nostra versione respondeat priori verbo, cum alioqui conformiter esset dicendum: Involves eos et involventur. Itaque videtur hic essesensus: Sicut amiculum vetus facile novo commutari solet, ita tu coelos summa facilitate mutabis ac renovabis. Statim enim, ut volueris, fiet.
Tu autem idem ipse es. Id est, idem semper et immutabilis. Et anni tui non deficient. Catachresis est in vocabulo anni. Nam annus coeli ac solis revolutione peragitur. At in tempore, quod Deo competit, nullus est circulus, nulla mutatio, nullus defectus. Significatur ergo Dei stabilis et immutabilis aeternitas. Porro totum hoc testimonium ex Psalm. 101. sumptum eo spectat, ut demonstretur, quanto Christus sit angelis eminentior, ut qui creator sit omnium, idemque aeternus et immutabilis, cum caetera omnia, in quibus etiam angeli', mutationi sint obnoxia. Asserit autem manifeste hic locus Christi divinitatem: Deo namque proprium est, semper esse et non mutari juxta id, quod ait per Prophetam: Ego Dominus et non mutor. Mal. 3.
1:13
13. Ad quem autem angelorum dixit aliquando: sede a dextris meis. Aliud testimonium adfert, quo Christi supra omnes angelos excellentiam probet. Neque enim ulli angelorum Deus alioubi dixisse legitur, quod Christo Psalm. 109. Sede a dextris meis. Jam supra dixit: Christum sedere ad dexteram majestatis in excelsis; id nunc confirmat Scripturae testimonio, et ita quidem, ut Christo proprium esse doceat. Quod nec Scribae nec Pharisaei, qui Christi tempore erant, ignorabant; licet non eum pro Christo reciperent, sed alium exspectarent; interrogati enim quomodo David Christum, qui filius ejus est, Dominum suum appellet; ideo nihil respondere potuerunt, quia Psalmum hunc, cujus initium: Dixit Dominus Domino meo, de Christo scriptum esse videbant negari non posse. At id negare non verentur Rabbini posteriores, qui ut hoc tara praeclarum de Christo testimonium Christianis eripiant, eum, cui in hoc Psalmo dicitur: Sede a dexteris meis, varie interpretantur, ut Abrahamum, Saulem, Davidem, Salomonem, Ezechiam, Zorobabelem. Sed haec Rabbinorum protervia facile ex ipso Psalmo retunditur. Nullus enim est istorum, quos nominant, in quem, ut caetera taceani, competdtille versus ejusdem Psalmi: 2\i es sacerdos in oeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech, ut nec certe in alium competere potest quam in Christum, quem illi rejecerunt. Quanquam nec istud: Sede a dextris meiSj cuiquam hominum, uno Christo excepto, dictum a Deo sane accipi potest; si ea phrasis bene expendatur, sicut eam expendimus, cum alibi tum superius in hoc capite. Is enim sedet a dextris Dei, qui Deo proximus assidet, hoc est, qui supra omnem creaturam elevatus, quietam felicitatis ac regni cum Deo possessionem obtinet, honoratissimo post eum loco. Quem sensum pluribus verbis ac docte Genebrardus in Psalmi exposit. prosequitur. Eundem uno verbo significavit ipse Apostolus 1 Cor. 15., quando pro eo, quod est sedere ad dextram Dei, regnandi v^ocabulumposuit, dicens: Oportet illum regnare, donec ponat omnes inimicos sub pedibus ejus. Regnum autem intelligit, de quo ibidem: Cum tradiderit regnum Deo et Patrij regnum videlicet Christi hominis. Ex quibus omnibus jam satis intelligitur, praesens testimonium pertinere ad humanam Christi naturam, qua minor et inferior est Patre; non ad divinam, qua Patri est aequalis. Id quod etiam a Theodoreto disertis verbis annotatum est. Hac igitur parte Apostolus Christum, etiam ut hominem, angelis anteponit.
Quoadusque ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum? Metaphoricus sermo, quo significatur inimicorum perfecta subjectio. Sensus enim est: Donec omnes inimicos tuos, tam daemones quam homines reprobos, qui in sorte daemonum sunt, ita tibi subjecero, ut sint quasi scabellum pedibus tuis calcandum. Id complebitur in die extremi judicii, quando evacuabitur omnis principatus et potestas et virtus adversaria, quemadmodum declarat Apostolus loco memorato 1 Cor. 15., et nos ibi plenius exposuimus, sicut et illud, quam vim in hac Scriptura habeat adverbium donec. Dicens enim Apostolus: quoadusque vel donec, non utique negat Christum peracta ea subjectione sessurum a dextris Dei, sed eo usque sessurum affirmat; simul indicans, eara rem, cui particula donec adjungitur, hoc est, inimicorum Christi perfectam sub pedibus ejus subjectionem, certissime suo tempore eventuram. Nunquam autem futurum, ut sedere desinat, idem Apostolus hujus Epistolae cap. 10. clare testatur his verbis: In sempiternum sedet in dextra Dei, de caetero exspectans, donec ponantur inimici ejus scabeUum pedum ejus. At nec ratio permittit, ut subactis hostibus regnare desinat, qui nondum subactis regnabat: sedere autem ad dexteram Dei, regnare est, ut jam ex Apostolo ostendimus. Caeterum adverte, hac etiam parte testimonii prophetici nobis insinuari, quod ad dexteram Dei sedere Christo competat secundum humanam ejus naturam; utpote cujus pedibus Deus inimicos subjecturum se poUiceatur. Alioqui dicendum videretur: Quoniam assides mihi aequalis, ipse per eam potentiam, quam mecum habes communem, pones inimicos scabellum pedum tuorum.
1:14
14. Nonne omnes sunt administratorii spiritus? Adeo nullus est, inquit, angelorum, cui Deus aliquando dixerit: sede a dextris meis, ut potius juxta testimonium supra positum ex Psalm. 101. omnes sint administratorii spiritus, quorum officium sit, non assidere, sed ministrare. Utitur autem interrogatione, quae responsionem postulet affirmantem, velut loquens de re, quae apud omnes fideles in confesso sit et negari non possit; quasi dicat: Quis enim fidelium ignorat, omnes angelos esse spiritus ad ministerium deputatos? et quidem ejusmodi ministerium, de quo consequenter subjicit.
In ministerium missi propter eos, qui haereditatem capient salutis. Missi participium est praesentis temporis, in Graeco aTcooTsXXo/jisva, qui mittuntur, ut significetur missionem hanc et ministerium angelorum continuum esse, quamdiu durat hoc saeculum. Semper enim mittuntur in mioisterium; nunc hi, nunc alii. Quidam codices pro futuro capient, unius literulae mutatione legunt praesens capiunt, sed eam mutationem Graeca non admittunt. Sic enim habent: 5ia xouc lieAXovTag xXyjp&vo^jisTv o(OTrjp''av^ hoc eet, ad verbum: Propter eos, qui futuri sunt haereditare salutem. Qua forma etiam Augustinus citat, de Trinit. lib. 3. cap. 11., nisi quod haereditare resolvit in haereditatem possidere, Est igitur vera lectio capient, quam etiam nobis exhibent codices fide digniores et editio Clementina. Applaudit Syriaca versio. Denique sensus respuit tempus praesens. Non enim angeli mittuntur in ministerium propter eos, qui jam capiunt et possident haereditatem salutis, id est vitae aeternae; sed qui possessuri sunt, id est propter electos, qui ad eam haereditatem adhuc sunt adducendi. Bene limitatur hoc ministerium ad causam electorum; quia sicut Apostolus omnia sustinebat yropter electos 2 Tim. 2., ita angeli ad quaecunque mittuntur ministeria, propter electos mittuntur, et mitti se sciunt. Verumtamen non ex eo consequens est, solis electis hominibus angelos a Deo custodes adhiberi: si.juidem et ea, quae circa reprobos, tam custodiendos, quam puniendos, aguntur ab angelis, omnia ad electorum salutem et gloriam ordinantur. Jam vero multo minus ex his Apostoli verbis sequitur angelos esse hominum ministros; quod imperite quidam autumant, Non enim dicit Apostolus eos mitti in ministerium hominum, sed propter homines: quod est longe diversum. Sunt enim angeli ministri Dei, et unius hominis Chiisti ad dexteram Dei sedentis: irittuntur autem a Deo et a Christo ejus, ad procurandam hominum electorum salutem. Ea major quaestio est, an ex hoc Scripturae loco consequens sit, omnes angelos sine exceptione mitti aliquando in ministerium. Id enim multi, nominatim B. Thomas, et ejus sequaces, negant; partim auctoritate Dionysii et Gregorii permoti, partim inducti ratione, quae sumitur ab ordine naturae et gratiae, quem, ut ajunt angelorum respublica constantissime et invariabiliter retinet. Juxta quem ordinem, de iis, quae foris agenda sunt, inferiores a superioribus semper illuminantur; ut proinde superiores nunquam per seipsos extra prodeant, sed tantum per inferiores angelos, velut subjecta ministeria, Dei jussiones exsequantur. Adducunt etiam e diverso testimonium Scripturae, quo probent non omnes angelos ministrare, sed multo plures esse, qui Deo semper assistant. Dicit enim Daniel capite secundo: Millia millium ministrabant ei; et decies millies centena millia assistebant ei. Ad hunc vero Pauli locum varias ad-* bibent responsiones. Una est, omnes quidem angelos mitti, sed alios exteriori missione; alios interiori tantum, qua nimirum ad hoc ordinentur, ut accepta a Deo mandata per viam illuminationis ad eos transmittant, a quibus sunt exsequenda. Hunc autem missionis modum competere superioribus angelis. Verum id proprie non est mitti in ministerium; nisi fjuis contendat omnem eum in ministerium mitti, cuicunque aliquid, seu domi, seu foris, agendum injungitur, etiamsi loco se non moveat. Quod non habet usus loquendi. Nec sane quis dixerit regem misisse scribam suum ad Indos; sed tabellarium, si per scribam tabellario det mandata ad Indos perferenda. Nec filius Dei missus ad nos vere diceretur, si non ipse per se opus, ad quod missus est, obivisset. Adde, quod Graeca non simpliciter sonant angelos in ministerium mitti, sed emitfi, sive emandari; quomodo verterunt alii interpretes, id est foras mitti; a qua voce et Apostoli dicti sunt. Id autem non consistit, nisi qui mittuntur, foras exeant. Ex his etiam refellitur Cajetani responsio, dicentis angelos inferiores immediate mitti, superiores mediate. Vocat autem mediatam missionem, qua non per peipsos, sed per alios a se illuminatos, et ut ait, subdelegatos, venturi ad nos mittuntur. Refellitur, inquam; jam enim patet missionis proprietatem, maxime ut Graeco verbo significatur, eo pacto non subsistere. Quanquam Cajetanus eam responsionem magis ex aliorum sententia, quam ex propria adferre videtur. Ipse enim quid de quaestione sentiat, non aperit. Alii quidam respondent, Apostoli verba non de omnibus in universum angelis accipienda esse, sed de omnibus certi generis, iis scilicet, quorum ministerio lex data fuerat. Id enim agere Apostolum, ut novam legem veteri anteponendam demonstret eo argumento, quia Christus auctor novae legis praestantior sit angelis, per quos vetus lex data est. Sed haec responsio rocipi nuUo modo potest. Primum, quia Paulus quoties Christum confert cum angelis, cum toto genere conferre solet, non cum parte aliqua. Loca manifesta sunt Eph. 1. et Col. 1. Et quid magnum erat ostendisse Christum inferioribus angelis esse majorem; quando et alii sancti homines diversis angelorum ordinibus inserendi sunt, et per hoc quibasdam angelis futuri majores? Deinde, perabsardum est existimare, quod supradicta Scripturae testimonia tantum eo adduxerit Apostolus, ut angelis, quos infimorum ordinum esse censent, Christum probet majorem; cum sine controversia veritatem habeant universalem, minimeque restrictam. Prorsus enim ad omnes pertinent illa: Adorent eum omnes angeli Dei. Et: Qui facit angelos suos spiritus, et ministros suos ignem urentem. Et: Cui angelorum dixit aliquando: Filius meus es tu? Aut: ad quem eorum dixit: Sede a dextris meis? Esse autem Apostoli mentem in hoc capite, ut Christi doceat excellentiam super omnes angelos, tam supremos, quam medios, et infimos: aperte monstrant illa verba, quae praemiserat: Tanto melior angelis effectusj quanto differentius prae illis nomen haereditavit. Hinc vero palam sequitur etiam illis esse majorem, per quos lex data est; sive hi fuerint ex inferioribus, sive, quod Scripturis et sensui Ecclesiae magis consentaneum arbitramur, ex superioribus. Etenim Michaelem omnium angelorum esse supremum, eundemque olim Israelitico populo, nunc Christiano, praefectum, cujus principali ministerio vetus ille popuhis ex Aegypto ductus in desertum, legem acceperit, ac in terram promissam perductus fuerit; ex variis Scripturae locis inter se collatis ac bene expensis, denique ex iis, quae de illo in Ecclesiasticis officiis leguntur, ostendere non est difficile. Quod nos conati sumus, partim ad dist. 10. lib. 2. Sent., partim ad illud 1 Cor. 10. Et perierunt ab exterminatore. Jam si lex per Michaelem angelorum principem data est; cur non etiam per alios primi ordinis? Quod quidem fieri non potuit, nisi ad hoc a Deo mitterentur. Quocirca nihil efficiunt, qui locum praesentem exponunt de angelis legis ferendae ministris; ne concedere cogantur, aut supremos, aut omnes omnino mitti. Nam si supremi mittuntur; quanto magis reliqui? Fateamur ergo, quod Apostoli verba diserte sonant, omnes angelos emitti ad ministeria. Neque enim tali uteretur interrogatione: Nonne omnes etc, nulla deinceps addita probatione, nisi significaret eam esse velut notionem fidelium animis impressam, omnes angelos in ministeria mitti. Sed ad ea, quae pro diversa sententia adferebantur, superest, ut breviter respondeamus. Ad auctoritatem Dionysii dicimus, quamvis ea magna sit, ei tamen praeferendum esse communem Ecclesiae sensum, sacris etiam Scripturis congruentem atque in iis fundatum. Nam praeter id, quod de Michaele archangelo dictum est, alios etiam aliquos ex Cherubim et Seraphim, qui supremi sunt ordines, aliquando missos fuisse, nos docent Scripturae, Gen. 3. et Jes. 6. Quod vero dicunt, Dionysium ea, quae de angelorum hierarchiis et ministeriis scribit, a Paulo magistro suo accepisse: non ita est, si de omnibus intelligatur. Neque enim Dionysius id affirmat: et in eo opere saepe ita loquitur, ut non certa, sed quae probabilia putet, se scribere significet. Quin et Gregorius, qui Dionysii sententiam eecutus creditur, in hom. 34. in Evang. tandem concludit, ac profitetur se de his affirmare velle, quod apertis testimoniis approbare nequeat. Argumentum quoque sumptum ex constantia ordinis inter angelos constituti minime convincit; quia tam ordo naturae, quam ordo gratiae in angelis servire debet regno Christi, quem etiam angelorum caput et dominum esse constat. Qui cum a Patre missus, per seipsum ad haec infima descenderit; non utique debet indignum aut inordinatum videri, si etiam angeli, quantavis naturae aut gratiae dignitate praecellentes, ad externa ministeria a Deo missi per seipsos ea expleant. Ad locum Scripturae de ministrantibus et assistentibus, resp. eosdem significari utroque nomine. Quod tum ex aliis Scripturis, quae inter ea duo non distinguunt, tum vero perspicue probatur ex oratione Ecclesiae, in qua de angelis ita precatur: Vt quibus tibi ministrantibus in coelo sernpsr assistitur, ab his in terra vita 7iostra muniatur. Sunt igitur iidem assistentes et ministrantes: assistentes quidem, ut semper parati ad exsequenda Dei jussa; ministrantes, dum eadem opere exsequuntur. Hujus porro sententiae pleniorem explicationem petat, qui volet, ex commentario F. Riberae et ex nostris in 2. Sent.
1:1
They indeed report or presuppose the various elements from which it results that the sacred writer is a "prophet" (Mt. 26, 56; Lk. 18, 31; 24, 25; Rom. 16, 26; Heb. 1, 1-2, etc.), that he writes under the influence of God who fills him with the Holy Spirit (Hos. 9, 7; Mic. 3, 8; Ezek. 2, 2; 3, 12; 8, 13; 11, 5, 24; Zech. 7, 12; II Sam. 23, 2; Eccl. 39, …
… (Hebr. 1:1); In Sexagesima, ad Timotheum I sub titulo
… There is no record of other prophets (cf. I Mach. 14:41) until John the Baptist (Mt. 11:9 ff.; Le. 7:26 ff.), precursor of the prophet par excellence, Jesus (Act. 3:20 ff. = Deut. 18:15-19; Io. 1:21, 45; 6:14; 7:40; Act. 7:37; Hebr. 1:1 ff.; A. Clamer, Ste Bible, II, Paris 1940, p. 634 ff.).
… 1:12-13; Eph. 3:1-9). The author of the letter to the Hebrews summarizes the common thought: "At many moments and in many ways, in times past, God spoke to the fathers through the prophets; last of all, in these days, he spoke to us through the Son" (Heb. 1:1).
2. The New Testament. - The mystery of salvation was revealed in its integral concept, according to the divine good pleasure, at the hour willed by God (Col. 1:26), with Christianity, which is a great announcement and message of salvation (Luke 2:11; Rom. 8:3; Col. 1:13-14; Heb. 1:1-3; John 1:29, 36). Jesus came as Savior (Matt. 1:21; Luke 2:25, 30), and presented himself as such (Matt. 15:24; Mark 2:17; Luke 19:10; cf. Matt. 18:12-23; Luke 15:1-8). This is the …
1:2
Furthermore, tradition and Scripture have demonstrated the divinity of Christ starting from the fact that the Word created all things (John 1:3-4; Heb. 1:2; St. Athanasius, Oratio II contra Arianos, n. 21: PG 26, 190); but the argument would be worthless if a creature could create. …
… essence and sustaining all things by the word of his power, having accomplished purification, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much superior to the Angels, as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs" (Hebr. 1, 2-4): here twice over are summarized the principal prerogatives of the Son of God in his eternal preexistence, in his historical existence and in his glorified survival. …
3. Christian revelation. — The disciples of Christ had a most vivid sense of the newness of the Christian revelation with respect to the Hebrew revelation (cf. Jn. 1:18; Eph. 3:1 ff.; Heb. 1:2). Jesus himself emphasized the newness of his teaching, particularly as regards the mystery of the Trinity (Jn. 15:15), the mystery of the Church (Mt. 13:11), the perfection of …
1:3
… In St. Paul it means precisely foundation ("hypostasis of things hoped for," Heb. 11:1), principle ("image of his principle," ibid. 1:3) and also essence.
image applied to the divine Wisdom in Sap. 7:25-26 is taken up in Hebr. 1:3, applied to the Son of God made man, and more clearly in II Cor. 4:4 and Col. 1:15. This last text has, in its entire context (Col. 1:13-17), undeniable affinities with the book of …
… Even in his humanity, which makes him like us and inferior to the angels, Christ transcends all creation because that humanity is proper to the Word « splendor of the glory (of the Father) and impress of his substance » (Hebr. 1, 3). Preexisting, as God, in the bosom of the Father from eternity, already creator of the world, he comes into the world for the definitive revelation of the Father and clothes himself …
… raccontare tutte le sue meraviglie...; perché il Signore sa ogni cosa e osserva i segni dei tempi, annunzia il passato e il futuro e rivela le tracce delle cose occulte » (Eccl. 42, 17-19). « Egli tutte le cose porta con il verbo della sua potenza » (Hebr. 1, 3). « In lui noi viviamo e ci muoviamo e siamo » (Act. 17, 28). The problem of p. is therefore resolved in the active presence of God in nature and in history; it is an ordinary presence …
… the answer has been given unanimously, identifying it with the intellectual knowledge of God. Sacred Scripture itself, presenting the Son of God as the Word (prologue of the Gospel of John), as the living image and splendor of the Father (Col. 1:15-19; Hebr. 1:3), leads one to think that he proceeds by way of intellection. …
1:5
3. Uniqueness of the literal sense. - The rather rare fact that an Old Testament text in the New Testament is applied and explained in different ways (for example, Ps. 2:7, in Acts 13:33 and Heb. 1:5 and 5:5; or Is. 53:4, in Mt. 8:17 and 1 Pt. 2:24), has led various theologians, particularly from the 16th century onward, to admit and defend the theory of pluriliteralism — …
… Son (Ps. 2:7; Heb. 1:5) and equal of Yahweh (Ps. 99 [100]:1: Yahweh invites him to sit at his right hand = Heb. 1:13; Mt. 22:41-46), sovereign of Israel and of the peoples (Ps. 2:6, 8; 71:8-11); priest forever …
… although there is a strong warning against the misunderstood cult of the Angels, to which, among others, certain circles of Colossae seem to have been inclined (cf. Col. 1, 9-20; 2, 18-23) and their subordination to Christ is strongly emphasized (e.g.: Hebr. 1, 5-2, 18), nevertheless the general principle of the lawfulness and usefulness of their veneration is not in the least affected.
1:6
When God introduces "again" into the world, no longer in figure but in reality, the "Firstborn of all creatures" and commands his angels to adore him (Heb. 1:6), it will not be a surprise for these, since they already awaited this event, nor will they hesitate, since they had already, at the time of their trial, demonstrated submission with …
1:7
… In the mosaics of St. Mary Major the angel has a face, hands and feet red as fire (Hebr. 1, 7; Sedulius, Carm. …
1:10
… in the proem (1:8) and in the conclusion (21:6 and 22:13) that God's salvific counsel will be fulfilled to the end, when the Almighty (1:8) will vanquish his antagonists in the "judgment" of Jesus Savior and Sovereign, beginning (Ps. 101 [102]:26 and Heb. 1:10; 12:2; Jn. 1:1) and end (Rom. 10:4). "A-Ω" expresses the divine transcendence, in its attributes of infinity, eternity, universal causality (both efficient and final), including within …
1:13
… Son (Ps. 2:7; Heb. 1:5) and equal of Yahweh (Ps. 99 [100]:1: Yahweh invites him to sit at his right hand = Heb. 1:13; Mt. 22:41-46), sovereign of Israel and of the peoples (Ps. 2:6, 8; 71:8-11); priest forever (Ps. 109:4 = Heb. 5:6; 7) = exemplar of righteousness (Ps. 71:7), he will perfectly realize …
1:14
… the Son. In the Epistles, especially in those of Paul, against the danger of certain gnostic-Judaic tendencies that exaggerated the importance and the cult of the a., insistence is placed on their subordination to Christ (Col. 2, 14 ff.; Gal. 3, 19; Heb. 1, 14 ff.). …
Douay-Rheims (Challoner) · Vulgata Clementina · original Douay-Rheims (Rheims 1582), transcription by EEBO-TCP (CC0) · La Sacra Bibbia, tradotta dalla Volgata da Antonio Martini (1769-1781) (LaParola (laparola.net), Martini OSIS text, Public domain (LaParola's electronic edition marks it 'Dominio pubblico')). Public domain.