Augustine: DE TRINITATE

[1] Credant qui uolunt malle me legendo quam legenda dictando laborare. Qui autem hoc nolunt credere, experiri uero et possunt et uolunt, dent quae legendo uel meis inquisitionibus respondeatur uel interrogationibus aliorum quas pro mea persona quam in seruitio Christi gero et pro studio quo fidem nostram aduersus errorem carnalium et animalium hominum muniri inardesco necesse est me pati, et uideant quam facile ab isto labore me temperem et quanto etiam gaudio stilum possim habere feriatum. Quod si ea quae legamus de his rebus sufficienter edita in latino sermone aut non sunt aut non inueniuntur aut certe difficile a nobis inueniri queunt, graecae autem linguae non sit nobis tantus habitus ut talium rerum libris legendis et intellegendis ullo modo reperiamur idonei, quo genere litterarum ex his quae nobis pauca interpretata sunt non dubito cuncta quae utiliter quaerere possumus contineri; fratribus autem non ualeam resistere iure quo eis seruus factus sum flagitantibus ut eorum in Christo laudabilibus studiis lingua ac stilo meo quas bigas in me caritas agitat maxime seruiam.

[1] Let those who wish believe that I prefer to labor by reading rather than by dictating things to be read. But those who are unwilling to believe this, and yet both can and wish to make trial, let them supply materials to be read, to which either responses may be made to my inquiries, or to the interrogations of others which, on behalf of my persona that I bear in the service of Christ, and for the zeal by which I burn that our faith be fortified against the error of carnal and animal men, it is necessary for me to endure; and let them see how easily I abstain from that toil, and with how great joy I can have my stylus on holiday. But if those things which we might read on these matters, sufficiently published in the Latin tongue, either are not, or are not found, or at any rate can scarcely be found by us; and we have not such a habitus in the Greek language that we are discovered in any way suitable for reading and understanding books of such things—in which kind of letters, from the few that have been interpreted for us, I do not doubt that all the things we can usefully seek are contained—yet I am not able to resist the brethren, by the right whereby I have been made their servant, when they press that I most serve their laudable studies in Christ with my tongue and my pen—the bigae which charity most strongly drives in me.

Egoque ipse multa quae nesciebam scribendo me didicisse confitear; non debet labor hic meus cuiquam pigro aut multum docto uideri superfluus cum multis impigris multisque indoctis inter quos etiam mihi non parua ex parte sit necessarius. Ex his igitur quae ab aliis de hac re scripta iam legimus plurimum adminiculati et adiuti ea quae de trinitate uno summo summeque bono deo pie quaeri et disseri posse arbitror ipso exhortante quaerenda atque adiuuante disserenda suscepi, ut si alia non sunt huiusmodo scripta, sit quod habeamus, et legant qui uoluerint et ualuerint; si autem iam sunt, tanto facilius aliqua inueniantur quanto talia plura esse potuerint.

And I myself confess that by writing I have learned many things which I did not know; this my labor ought not to seem superfluous to anyone, whether slothful or very learned, since it is necessary for many industrious and many unlearned persons—among whom, too, for me, in no small part. Therefore, greatly supported and aided by the things which we have already read that have been written by others on this matter, I have undertaken, with him himself exhorting that they be sought and aiding that they be discussed, those things which, concerning the Trinity of the one highest and supremely good God, I judge can be piously inquired and discoursed: so that, if there are not other writings of this kind, there may be something we have, and let those read who have willed and have been able; but if they already exist, the more such things there may have been, by so much the more easily some may be found.

[2] Sane cum in omnibus litteris meis non solum pium lectorem sed etiam liberum correctorem desiderem, multo maxime in his ubi ipsa magnitudo quaestionis utinam tam multos inuentores habere posset quam multos contradictores habet. Verumtamen sicut lectorem meum nolo esse mihi deditum, ita correctorem nolo sibi. Ille me non amet amplius quam catholicam fidem; ille se non amet amplius quam catholicam ueritatem.

[2] Indeed, whereas in all my letters I desire not only a pious reader but also a free corrector, much more in these, where the very magnitude of the question—would that it could have as many inventors as it has contradictors. Nevertheless, just as I do not want my reader to be devoted to me, so I do not want the corrector to be devoted to himself. Let him not love me more than the catholic faith; let him not love himself more than catholic truth.

Sicut illi dico: Noli meis litteris quasi scripturis canonicis inseruire, sed in illis et quod non credebas cum inueneris incunctanter crede, in istis autem quod certum non habebas nisi certum intellexeris noli firme retinere; ita illi dico: Noli meas litteras ex tua opinione uel contentione sed ex diuina lectione uel inconcussa ratione corrigere; si quid in eis ueri comprehenderis, exsistendo non est meum at intellegendo et amando et tuum sit et meum; si quid autem falsi conuiceris, errando fuerit meum sed iam cauendo nec tuum sit nec meum.

Just as I say to that one: Do not serve my letters as if canonical Scriptures, but in those, even what you did not believe, when you have found it, believe unhesitatingly; in these, however, what you did not have as certain, unless you understand it as certain, do not hold it firmly; so I say to the other: Do not correct my letters from your opinion or contention, but from divine reading or from unshaken reason; if you have comprehended anything of truth in them, in its existing it is not mine, but by understanding and loving let it be both yours and mine; but if you have convicted anything of falsehood, by erring it was mine, but now by taking heed let it be neither yours nor mine.

[3] Hinc itaque tertius iste liber sumit exordium quousque secundus peruenerat. Cum enim ad id uentum esset ut uellemus ostendere non ideo minorem patre filium quia ille misit, hic missus est, nec ideo minorem utroque spiritum sanctum quia et ab illo et ab illo missus in euangelio legitur, suscepimus hoc quaerere cum illuc missus sit filius ubi erat quia in hunc mundum uenit et in hoc mundo erat, cum illuc etiam spiritus sanctus ubi et ipse erat, quoniam spiritus domini repleuit orbem terrarum, et hoc quod continet omnia scientiam habet uocis, utrum propterea missus sit dominus quia ex occulto in carne natus est et de sinu patris ad oculos hominum in forma serui tamquam egressus apparuit; ideo etiam spiritus sanctus quia et ipse corporali specie quasi columba uisus est et linguis diuisis uelut ignis; ut hoc eis fuerit mitti, ad aspectum mortalium in aliqua forma corporea de spiritali secreto procedere, quod pater quoniam non fecit tantummodo misisse non etiam missus esse dictus sit. Deinde quaesitum est cur et pater non aliquando dictus sit missus si per illas species corporales quae oculis antiquorum apparuerunt ipse demonstrabatur.

[3] Hence, therefore, this third book takes its exordium up to the point to which the second had come. For when it had come to this point that we wished to show that the Son is not for this reason lesser than the Father because that one sent, this one was sent, nor the Holy Spirit for this reason lesser than both because he is read in the Gospel to have been sent both by the one and by the other, we undertook to inquire this: since the Son was sent thither where he was, because he came into this world and was in this world, and likewise the Holy Spirit thither where he too was, since the Spirit of the Lord filled the orb of the lands, and that which contains all things has knowledge of voice, whether for this reason the Lord was sent because from the hidden he was born in flesh, and from the bosom of the Father to the eyes of men in the form of a servant he appeared as though having gone forth; for the same reason also the Holy Spirit, because he too was seen in a corporeal species as it were a dove, and in divided tongues as it were fire; so that this was for them to be sent: to proceed from the spiritual secret into the sight of mortals in some bodily form—since the Father did not do this, he was said only to have sent, not also to have been sent. Then it was asked why even the Father was not at some time said to have been sent, if through those corporeal species which appeared to the eyes of the ancients he himself was being shown.

Si autem filius tunc demonstrabatur, cur tanto post missus diceretur cum plenitudo temporis uenit ut ex femina nasceretur, quandoquidem et antea mittebatur cum in illis formis corporaliter apparebat. Aut si non recte missus diceretur nisi cum uerbum caro factum est, cur spiritus sanctus missus legatur cuius incarnatio talis non facta est. Si uero per illas antiquas demonstrationes nec pater nec filius sed spiritus sanctus ostendebatur, cur etiam ipse nunc diceretur missus cum illis modis et antea mitteretur.

If, however, the Son was then being demonstrated, why should he much later be said to have been sent when the plenitude of time came that he should be born from a woman, since even before he was being sent when he appeared in those forms bodily? Or if he would not rightly be said to have been sent except when the Word was made flesh, why is the Holy Spirit read to have been sent, whose such incarnation did not take place? But if by those ancient demonstrations neither the Father nor the Son but the Holy Spirit was being shown, why would even he now be said to have been sent, since in those modes he too was being sent before.

Deinde subdiuisimus ut haec diligentissime tractarentur, et tripertitam fecimus quaestionem cuius una pars in secundo libro explicata est, duae sunt reliquae de quibus deinceps disserere aggrediar. Iam enim quaesitum atque tractatum est in illis antiquis corporalibus formis et uisis non tantummodo patre nec tantummodo filium nec tantummodo spiritum sanctum apparuisse, sed aut indifferenter dominum deum qui trinitas ipsa intellegitur aut quamlibet ex trinitate personam quam lectionis textus indiciis circumstantibus significaret.

Then we subdivided, so that these things might be handled most diligently, and we made a tripartite question, one part of which has been explained in the second book; two remain, about which I will next set about to discourse. For already it has been inquired and treated that in those ancient bodily forms and visions there appeared not only the Father, nor only the Son, nor only the Holy Spirit, but either indifferently the Lord God, who is understood as the Trinity itself, or whatever person of the Trinity the text of the reading, by the surrounding indicia, signified.

[I 4] Nunc ergo primum quaerimus quod sequitur. Nam secundo loco in illa distributione positum est utrum ad hoc opus tantummodo creatura formata sit in qua deus, sicut tunc oportuisse iudicauit, humanis ostenderetur aspectibus; an angeli qui iam erant ita mittebantur ut ex persona dei loquerentur, assumentes corporalem speciem de creatura corporea in usum ministerii sui; aut ipsum corpus suum cui non subduntur sed subditum regunt mutantes atque uertentes in species quas uellent accommodatas atque aptas actionibus suis secundum attributam sibi a creatore potentiam. Qua parte quaestionis quantum dominus dederit pertractata postremo erit uidendum id quod institueramus inquirere, utrum filius et spiritus sanctus et antea mittebantur, et si ita est quid inter illam missionem et eam quam in euangelio legimus distet; an missus non sit aliquis eorum nisi cum uel filius factus est ex Maria uirgine uel cum spiritus sanctus uisibili specie siue in columba siue in igneis linguis apparuit.

[1 4] Now therefore first we inquire what follows. For in the second place in that distribution it was posited whether for this work only a creature was formed in which God, as he then judged it ought, would be shown to human aspects; or whether the angels who already existed were thus being sent so that they spoke from the persona of God, assuming a corporeal species from a corporeal creature for the use of their ministry; or whether they were changing and turning their own body—unto which they are not subjected, but, as subjected, they rule—into species which they would wish, accommodated and apt to their actions according to the power attributed to them by the Creator. With this part of the question, so far as the Lord shall have granted, having been treated, finally it will have to be seen that which we had undertaken to inquire: whether the Son and the Holy Spirit also beforehand were being sent, and if it is so, what differs between that mission and that which we read in the Gospel; or whether none of them was sent unless either when the Son was made from Mary the virgin, or when the Holy Spirit appeared in a visible species either in a dove or in fiery tongues.

[5] Sed fateor excedere uires intentionis meae utrum angeli manente spiritali sui corporis qualitate per hanc occultius operantes assumant ex inferioribus elementis corpulentioribus quod sibi coaptatum quasi aliquam uestem mutent et uertant in quaslibet species corporales etiam ipsas ueras sicut aqua uera in uerum uinum conuersa est a domino, an ipsa propria corpora sua transforment in quod uoluerint accommodate ad id quod agunt. Sed quodlibet horum sit ad praesentem quaestionem non pertinet. Et quamuis haec quoniam homo sum nullo experimento possim comprehendere sicut angeli qui haec agunt, et magis ea norunt quam ego noui quatenus mutetur corpus meum in affectu uoluntatis meae siue quod in me siue quod ex aliis expertus sum; quid horum tamen ex diuinarum scripturarum auctoritatibus credam nunc non opus est dicere ne cogar probare et fiat sermo longior de re qua non indiget praesens quaestio.

[5] But I confess it exceeds the strength of my intention to determine whether the angels, with the spiritual quality of their body remaining, operating more hiddenly by means of it, assume from the lower, more corpulent elements something coapted to themselves and, as though some garment, mutate and turn it into whatever corporeal species—even truly real ones, as true water was converted into true wine by the Lord—or whether they transform their very own bodies into whatever they will, accommodated to that which they do. But whichever of these it be does not pertain to the present question. And although, since I am a man, I can by no experiment comprehend these things as do the angels who perform them, and they know them more than I know to what extent my body is changed by the affect of my will—whether from what I have experienced in myself or from others—yet which of these I should believe on the authorities of the divine Scriptures it is not now necessary to say, lest I be compelled to prove it and the discourse become longer about a matter wherewith the present question has no need.

[6] Illud nunc uidendum est utrum angeli tunc agebat et illas corporum species apparentes oculis hominum et illas uoces auribus insonantes cum ipsa sensibilis creatura ad nutum seruiens conditoris in quod opus erat pro tempore uertebatur sicut in libro sapientiae scriptum est: Creatura enim tibi factori deseruiens extenditur in tormentum aduersus iniustos, et lenior fit ad benefaciendum his qui in te confidunt. Propter hoc et tunc in omnia se transfigurans omnium nutrici gratiae tuae deseruiebat ad uoluntatem horum quia te desiderabant. Peruenit enim potentia uoluntatis dei per creaturam spiritalem usque ad effectus uisibiles atque sensibiles creaturae corporalis.

[6] Now this is to be considered, whether an angel was then doing both those species of bodies appearing to the eyes of men and those voices sounding in the ears, when the sensible creature itself, serving at the nod of its Founder, was being turned, as the work required for the time, into what was needed, as it is written in the book of Wisdom: For the creature, serving thee its Maker, is extended into torment against the unjust, and becomes gentler for benefacting those who trust in thee. For this reason even then, transforming itself into all things, it was serving, as the nurse of all, your grace according to their will, because they were desiring you. For the potency of the will of God reaches, through the spiritual creature, even unto the visible and sensible effects of the bodily creature.

Vbi enim non operatur quod uult dei omnipotentis sapientia quae pertendit a fine usque ad finem fortiter et disponit omnia suauiter?

Where, indeed, does the wisdom of God the Omnipotent not work what it wills, which extends from end to end mightily and disposes all things sweetly?

[II 7] Sed alius est ordo naturalis in conuersione et mutabilitate corporum qui quamuis etiam ipse ad nutum dei seruiat perseuerantia tamen consuetudinis amisit admirationem, sicuti sunt quae uel breuissimis uel certe non longis interuallis temporum caelo, terra, marique mutantur siue nascentibus siue occidentibus rebus siue alias alter atque aliter apparentibus; alia uero quamuis ex ipso ordine uenientia tamen propter longiora interualla temporum minus usitata, quae licet multi stupeant ab inquisitoribus huius saeculi comprehensa sunt et progressu generationum quo saepius repetita et a pluribus cognita eo minus mira sunt, sicuti sunt defectus luminarium et raro exsistentes quaedam species siderum et terrae motus et monstrosi partus animantium et quaeque similia, quorum nihil fit nisi dei uoluntate sed plerisque non apparet. Itaque licuit uanitati philosophorum etiam causis aliis ea tribuere uel ueris sed proximis, cum omnino uidere non possent superiorem ceteris omnibus causam, id est uoluntatem dei, uel falsis et ne ab ipsa quidem peruestigatione corporalium rerum atque motionum sed a sua suspicione et errore prolatis.

[2 7] But there is another natural order in the turning and mutability of bodies which, although it too serves at the nod of God, has nevertheless, through the persistence of custom, lost its power to amaze, as are those things which at very short, or at any rate not long, intervals of times are changed in sky, earth, and sea, whether with things rising or setting, or otherwise appearing now in one way and now in another; but others, although coming from that very order, are nevertheless less customary because of longer intervals of times—things which, although many marvel, have been comprehended by the inquisitors of this age; and by the progress of generations, whereby being more often repeated and known by more people, they are so much the less wondrous—such as defects of the luminaries, and certain kinds of stars that rarely come to be, and motions of the earth, and monstrous births of living beings, and whatever similar things, of which nothing happens except by the will of God, but to most it does not appear. And thus it was permitted to the vanity of the philosophers to assign these things also to other causes, either true but proximate—since they could not at all see the cause superior to all the rest, that is, the will of God—or to false ones, brought forth not even from the very investigation of corporal things and motions, but from their own suspicion and error.

[8] Dicam si potero quiddam exempli gratia quo haec apertiora sint. Est certe in corpore humano quaedam moles carnis et formae species et ordo distinctioque membrorum et temperatio ualetudinis. Hoc corpus inspirata anima regit eademque rationalis, et ideo quamuis mutabilis tamen quae possit illius incommutabilis sapientiae particeps esse ut sit participatio eius in idipsum, sicut in psalmo scriptum est de omnibus sanctis ex quibus tamquam lapidibus uiuis aedificatur illa Hierusalem mater nostra aeterna in caelis.

[8] I will say, if I can, something by way of example whereby these things may be clearer. There is certainly in the human body a certain mass of flesh and an appearance of form and an order and distinction of the members, and a temperament of health. This body an inspired soul rules, and the same is rational; and therefore, although mutable, yet such as can be a participant of that immutable wisdom, so that there may be a participation of it into the selfsame, as in the Psalm it is written concerning all the saints, from whom, as from living stones, that Jerusalem, our mother eternal in the heavens, is built.

Ita enim canitur: Hierusalem quae aedificatur ut ciuitas, cuius participatio eius in idipsum. Idipsum quippe hoc loco illud summum et incommutabile bonum intellegitur quod deus est atque sapientia uoluntasque ipsius, cui cantatur alio loco: mutabis ea et mutabuntur; ut autem idem ipse es.

For thus it is sung: Jerusalem, which is being built as a city, whose participation is in the selfsame. For the selfsame, in this place, is understood to be that supreme and incommutable good which God is, and his wisdom and will, to whom it is sung in another place: you will change them and they will be changed; but that you are the very same.

[III] Constituamus ergo animo talem sapientem cuius anima rationalis iam sit particeps incommutabilis aeternaeque ueritatis quam de omnibus suis actionibus consulat, nec aliquid omnino faciat quod non in ea cognouerit esse faciendum ut ei subditus eique obtemperans recte faciat. Iste si consulta summa ratione diuinae iustitiae quam in secreto audiret aure cordis sui eaque sibi iubente in aliquo officio misericordiae corpus labore fatigaret aegritudinemque contraheret, consultisque medicis ab alio diceretur causam morbi esse corporis siccitatem, ab alio autem humoris immoderationem; unus eorum ueram causam diceret, alter erraret, uterque tamen de proximis causis, id est corporalibus pronuntiaret. At si illius siccitatis causa quaereretur et inueniretur uoluntarius labor, iam uentum esset ad superiorem causam quae ab anima proficisceretur ad afficiendum corpus quod regit; sed nec ipsa prima esset.

[3] Let us therefore set before the mind such a wise man, whose rational soul is already a participant in the incommutable and eternal truth, to which he consults about all his actions, and let him do absolutely nothing which he has not recognized in it as to be done, that, being subject to it and obeying it, he may act rightly. If this man, with the supreme reason of divine justice having been consulted, which in secret he would hear with the ear of his heart, and with it bidding him, in some office of mercy should weary the body with labor and contract sickness, and with physicians consulted it were said by one that the cause of the disease was dryness of the body, but by another the immoderation of humor: one of them would speak the true cause, the other would err; yet each would pronounce concerning proximate causes, that is, corporeal ones. But if the cause of that dryness were sought and the voluntary labor were found, by now one would have come to a higher cause, which proceeds from the soul to affect the body which it rules; yet not even this would be the first.

Illa enim procul dubio superior erat in ipsa incommutabili sapientia cui hominis sapientis anima in caritate seruiens et ineffabiliter iubenti obediens uoluntarium laborem susceperat. Ita non nisi dei uoluntas causa prima illius aegritudinis ueracissime reperiretur.

For that was, beyond doubt, superior—in that very incommutable Wisdom, to whom the soul of the wise man, serving in charity and obeying the Ineffably-Commanding, had undertaken voluntary labor. Thus nothing but the will of God would be most truthfully found to be the first cause of that sickness.

Iam uero si in labore officioso et pio adhibuisset ille sapiens ministros conlaborantes secum in opere bono, nec tamen eadem uoluntate deo seruientes sed ad carnalium cupiditatum suarum mercedem peruenire cupientes uel incommoda carnalia deuitantes; adhibuisset etiam iumenta si hoc exigeret illius operis implendi procuratio, quae utique iumenta irrationalia essent animantia nec ideo mouerent membra sub sarcinis quod aliquid de illo bono opere cogitarent sed naturali appetitu suae uoluptatis et deuitatione molestiae; postremo adhibuisset ipsa etiam corpora omni sensu carentia quae illi operi essent necessaria, frumentum scilicet, uinum, oleum, uestem, nummum, codicem, et si qua huiusmodi. In his certe omnibus in illo opere uersantibus corporibus siue animatis siue inanimis quaecumque mouerentur, attererentur, repararentur, exterminarentur, reformarentur, alio atque alio modo locis et temporibus affecta mutarentur — num alia esset istorum omnium uisibilium et mutabilium factorum causa nisi illa inuisibilis et incommutabilis uoluntas dei per animam iustam sicut sedem sapientiae cunctis utens et malis et irrationalibus animis et postremo corporibus, siue quae illis inspirarentur et animarentur siue omni sensu carentibus, cum primitus uteretur ipsa bona anima et sancta quam sibi ad pium et religiosum obsequium subdidisset?

Now indeed, if in a dutiful and pious labor that wise man had employed ministers co-laboring with him in the good work, yet not serving God with the same will, but desiring to arrive at the wage of their carnal cupidities or avoiding carnal incommodities; he would also have employed beasts of burden, if the procuration of accomplishing that work required this, which beasts, to be sure, would be irrational living beings and would not therefore move their limbs under the loads because they were thinking anything about that good work, but by the natural appetite of their own pleasure and by the avoidance of trouble; finally, he would have employed even the bodies themselves altogether lacking sense which would be necessary for that work, namely grain, wine, oil, garment, coin, codex, and whatever of this kind. In all these bodies certainly engaged in that work, whether animate or inanimate, whatever might be moved, be worn down, be repaired, be exterminated, be re-formed, being changed in one way and another, affected by places and times — would there be any other cause of all these visible and mutable doings except that invisible and immutable will of God, through the just soul, as the seat of wisdom, using all things, both evil and irrational souls and, finally, bodies, whether those which should be inspired and ensouled, or those lacking all sense, since first of all He would be using that good and holy soul itself which He had subjected to Himself for devout and religious obsequium?

[9] Quod ergo de uno sapiente quamuis adhuc corpus mortale gestante, quamuis ex parte uidente, posuimus exempli gratia, hoc de aliqua domo ubi aliquorum talium societas est, hoc de ciuitate uel etiam de orbe terrarum licet cogitare si penes sapientes sancteque ac perfecte deo subditos sit principatus et regimen rerum humanarum.

[9] What, therefore, we have set forth by way of example about a single wise man, although still bearing a mortal body, although seeing in part, this it is permitted to think about some household where there is a society of some such persons; this about a city, or even about the orb of lands, if the principate and the regimen of human affairs were in the hands of the wise, holy and perfectly subject to God.

[IV] Sed hoc qui nondum est (oportet enim nos in hac peregrinatione prius mortaliter exerceri et per uires mansuetudinis et patientiae in flagellis erudiri), illa ipsam supernam atque caelestem unde peregrinamur patriam cogitemus. Illic enim dei uoluntas qui facit angelos suos spiritus et ministros suos ignem ardentem, in spiritibus summa pace atque amicitia copulatis et in unam uoluntatem quodam spiritali caritatis igne conflatis tamquam in excelsa et sancta et secreta sede praesidens uelut in domo sua et in templo suo. Inde se quibusdam ordinatissimis creaturae motibus primo spiritalibus deinde corporalibus per cuncta diffundit et utitur omnibus ad incommutabile arbitrium sententiae suae, siue incorporeis siue corporeis rebus, siue rationalibus siue irrationalibus spiritibus, siue bonis per eius gratiam siue malis per propriam uoluntatem.

[4] But since this is not yet (for it behooves us in this pilgrimage first to be exercised mortally, and by the powers of meekness and patience to be schooled by scourges), let us think upon that very supernal and celestial fatherland from which we are on pilgrimage. For there the will of God, who makes his angels spirits and his ministers a burning fire, presides in spirits coupled in highest peace and friendship and fused into one will by a certain spiritual fire of charity, as though in an exalted and holy and secret seat, as in his house and in his temple. From there he diffuses himself through all things by certain most-ordered motions of creation, first spiritual then bodily, and he uses all things unto the incommutable arbitrium of his sentence, whether incorporeal or corporeal things, whether rational or irrational spirits, whether good by his grace or evil by their own will.

Sed quemadmodum corpora crassiora et inferiora per subtiliora et potentiora quodam ordine reguntur, ita omnia corpora spiritum uitae, et spiritus uitae irrationalis per spiritum uitae rationalem, et spiritus uitae rationalis desertor atque peccator per spiritum uitae rationalem pium et iustum, et ille per ipsum deum, ac sic uniuersa creatura per creatorem suum ex quo et per quem et in quo etiam condita atque instituta est; ac per hoc uoluntas dei est prima et summa causa omnium corporalium specierum atque motionum. Nihil enim fit uisibiliter et sensibiliter quod non de interiore inuisibili atque intellegibili aula summi imperatoris aut iubeatur aut permittatur secundum ineffabilem iustitiam praemiorum atque poenarum, gratiarum et retributionum, in ista totius creaturae amplissima quadam immensaque republica.

But just as the grosser and lower bodies are governed, in a certain order, by the subtler and more powerful, so all bodies by the spirit of life, and the spirit of irrational life by the spirit of rational life, and the spirit of rational life, a deserter and sinner, by the spirit of rational life that is pious and just, and that one by God himself; and thus the whole creation by its Creator, from whom and through whom and in whom it was also created and instituted; and by this the will of God is the first and highest cause of all corporeal species and motions. For nothing happens visibly and sensibly which is not, from the inner invisible and intelligible hall of the supreme Emperor, either commanded or permitted according to the ineffable justice of rewards and punishments, of graces and retributions, in this most ample and immense commonwealth of the whole creation.

[10] Si ergo apostolus Paulus quamuis adhuc portaret sarcinam corporis quod corrumpitur et aggrauat animam, quamuis adhuc ex parte atque in aenigmate uideret, optans dissolui et esse cum Christo et in semetipso ingemiscens, adoptionem exspectans redemptionem corporis sui, potuit tamen significando praedicare dominum Iesum Christum, aliter per linguam suam, aliter per epistulam, aliter per sacramentum corporis et sanguinis eius; nec linguam quippe eius nec membranas et atramentum nec significantes sonos lingua editos nec signa litterarum conscripta pelliculis corpus Christi et sanguinem dicimus, sed illud tantum quod ex fructibus terrae acceptum et prece mystica consecratum rite sumimus ad salutem spiritalem in memoriam pro nobis dominicae passionis, quod cum per manus hominum ad illam uisibilem speciem perducatur non sanctificatur ut sit tam magnum sacramentum nisi operante inuisibiliter spiritu dei, cum haec omnia quae per corporales motus in illo opere fiunt deus operetur mouens primitus inuisibilia ministrorum siue animas hominum siue occultorum spirituum sibi subditas seruitutes; quid mirum si etiam in creatura caeli et terrae, maris et aeris, facit deus quae uult sensibilia atque uisibilia ad se ipsum in eis sicut oportere ipse nouit significandum et demonstrandum, non ipsa sua qua est apparente substantia quae omnino incommutabiliis est omnibusque spiritibus quos creauit interius secretiusque sublimior?

[10] If therefore the apostle Paul, although he still carried the burden of the body which is corrupted and aggravates the soul, although he still saw in part and in an enigma, desiring to be dissolved and to be with Christ and groaning in himself, awaiting adoption, the redemption of his body, nevertheless could by signifying preach the lord Jesus Christ—one way by his tongue, another by his epistle, another by the sacrament of his body and blood—indeed we do not call either his tongue, or the parchments and ink, or the significative sounds emitted by the tongue, or the signs of letters written on little skins, the body and blood of Christ, but only that which, taken from the fruits of the earth and consecrated by a mystic prayer, we duly receive for spiritual salvation in memory of the Lord’s passion on our behalf; which, although it is brought by the hands of men to that visible appearance, is not sanctified to be so great a sacrament unless the spirit of god operates invisibly, since god works all these things which are done in that work through bodily motions by first moving the invisible things of the ministers, whether the souls of men or the services of hidden spirits subject to himself; what wonder if also in the creature of heaven and earth, sea and air, god makes what he wills, sensible and visible, with reference to himself in them, as he himself knows it ought to be signified and shown—not his own substance itself appearing as it is, which is altogether more incommutable and more inward, more secret, and more sublime than all the spirits which he created?

[V 11] Vi enim diuina totam spiritalem corporalemque administrante creaturam omnium annorum certis diebus aduocantur aquae maris et effunduntur super faciem terrae. Sed cum hoc orante sancto Helia factum est quia praecesserat tam continua et tam longa serenitas ut fame deficerent homines, nec ea hora qua ille dei seruus orauit aer ipse aliqua humida facie mox futurae pluuiae signa praetulerat, consecutis tantis et tam uelociter imbribus apparuit uis diuina quibus illud dispensabatur dabaturque miraculum. Ita deus operatur solemnia fulgura atque tonitrua.

[5 11] For by divine force administering the whole spiritual and corporeal creation, on certain days of all the years the waters of the sea are summoned and are poured out upon the face of the earth. But when this was done as the holy Elijah was praying—because there had been preceded so continuous and so long a serenity that men were failing with famine—and at that hour when that servant of God prayed the air itself, with no moist aspect, had borne signs of the rain soon to come, with such and so very swiftly ensuing downpours the divine force appeared by which that miracle was dispensed and given. Thus God operates the customary lightnings and thunders.

Sed quia in monte Sina inusitato modo fiebant uocesque illae non strepitu confuso edebantur sed eis quaedam signa dari certissimis indiciis apparebat, miracula erant.

But because on Mount Sinai things were occurring in an unusual way, and those voices were not being uttered with a confused din, but it was apparent by most certain indications that certain signs were being given to them, they were miracles.

Quis attrahit humorem per radicem uitis ad botrum et uinum facit nisi deus qui et homine plantante et rigante incrementum dat? Sed cum ad nutum domini aqua in uinum inuisitata celeritate conuersa est, etiam stultis fatentibus uis diuina declarata est. Quis arbusta fronde ac flore solemniter uestit nisi deus?

Who draws the moisture through the root of the vine to the cluster and makes wine, if not God, who also gives the increase with man planting and watering? But when at the nod of the Lord the water was converted into wine with unprecedented celerity, the divine power was made manifest, even fools confessing it. Who solemnly clothes the arboreta with leaf and flower, if not God?

Verum cum floruit uirga sacerdotis Aaron, conlocuta est quodam modo cum dubitante humanitate diuinitas. Et lignis certe omnibus et omnium animalium carnibus gignendis atque formandis communis est terrena materies, et quis ea facit nisi qui dixit ut haec terra produceret et in eodem uerbo suo quae creauit regit atque agit? Sed cum eandem materiam ex uirga Moysi in carnem serpentis proxime ac uelociter uertit, miraculum fuit, rei quidem mutabilis sed tamen inusitata mutatio.

Truly, when the rod of the priest Aaron blossomed, divinity in a certain manner conversed with doubting humanity. And assuredly, for the begetting and the forming of all woods and of the flesh of all animals, the earthly material is common; and who makes them except the one who said that this earth should produce these things, and in the same word of his he governs and acts upon the things he created? But when he turned that same material from the rod of Moses into the flesh of a serpent forthwith and swiftly, it was a miracle, a change indeed of a changeable thing, yet nevertheless an unusual change.

Quis autem animat quaeque uiua nascentia nisi qui et illum serpentem ad horam sicut opus fuerat animauit?

But who animates each nascent living thing, if not he who also animated that serpent for the hour, just as there was need?

[VI] Et quis reddidit cadaueribus animas suas cum resurgerent mortui nisi qui animat carnes in uteris matrum ut oriantur morituri? Sed cum fiunt illa continuato quasi quodam fluuio labentium manantiumque rerum et ex occulto in promptum atque ex prompto in occultum usitato itinere transeuntium, naturalia dicuntur; cum uero admonendis hominibus inusitata mutabilitate ingeruntur, magnalia nominantur.

[6] And who restored to cadavers their souls when the dead rose again, if not he who animates flesh in the wombs of mothers so that those destined to die may be born? But when those things come to be by a certain continuous, as it were, river of things gliding and flowing, and pass by the accustomed path from the hidden into the manifest and from the manifest into the hidden, they are called natural; whereas when they are introduced, for the admonishing of human beings, with an unusual mutability, they are named magnalia.

[VII 12] Hic uideo quid infirmae cogitationi possit occurrere, cur scilicet ista miracula etiam magicis artibus fiant. Nam et magi pharaonis similiter serpentes fecerunt et alia similia. Sed illud amplius est admirandum quomodo magorum illa potentia quae serpentes facere potuit ubi ad muscas minutissimas uentum est omnino defecit.

[7 12] Here I see what can occur to a feeble cogitation, namely, why these miracles are also wrought by magical arts. For the magi of Pharaoh likewise made serpents and other similar things. But this is more to be admired: how that potency of the magi, which was able to make serpents, when it came to the most minute flies, altogether failed.

Scinifes enim musculae sunt breuissimae qua tertia plaga superbus aegyptius populus caedebatur. Ibi certe deficientes magi dixerunt: Digitus dei est hoc. Vnde intellegi datur ne ipsos quidem transgressores angelos et aerias potestates in imam istam caliginem tamquam in sui generis carcerem ab illius sublimis aetheriae puritatis habitatione detrusas, per quas magicae artes possunt quidquid possunt, ualere aliquid nisi data desuper potestate.

For sciniphs are the very tiny little flies by which the proud Egyptian people was smitten in the third plague. There, indeed, the magi, failing, said: This is the finger of God. Whence it is given to be understood that not even the transgressor angels themselves and the airy powers—thrust down into that lowest gloom as into a prison of their own kind, from the habitation of that sublime ethereal purity—through whom the magic arts can do whatever they can, are able to avail anything unless power has been given from above.

Datur autem uel ad fallendos fallaces sicut in aegyptios et in ipsos etiam magos data est ut in eorum spirituum seductione uiderentur admirandi a quibus fiebant, a dei ueritate damnandi; uel ad admonendos fideles ne tale aliquid facere pro magno desiderent, propter quod etiam nobis scripturae auctoritate sunt prodita; uel ad exercendam probandam manifestandamque iustorum patientiam. Neque enim parua uisibilium miraculorum potentia Iob cuncta quae habebat amisit et filios et ipsam corporis sanitatem.

But it is granted either to beguile the beguilers—just as it was granted upon the Egyptians and even upon the magi themselves—so that, in the seduction of their spirits, they might seem admirable to those by whom they were being done, yet be condemned by the truth of God; or to admonish the faithful, lest they desire to do such a thing as something great, for which cause also they have been brought forth to us by the authority of Scripture; or to exercise, prove, and manifest the patience of the just. For it was not by a small potency of visible miracles that Job lost all he had—both his sons and even the health of his body.

[VIII 13] Nec ideo putandum est istis transgressoribus angelis ad nutum seruire hanc uisibilium rerum materiam, sed deo potius a quo haec potestas datur quantum in sublimi et spiritali sede incommutabilis iudicat. Nam et damnatis iniquis etiam in metallo seruit aqua et ignis et terra ut faciant inde quod uolunt, sed quantum sinitur. Nec sane creatores illi mali angeli dicendi sunt quia per illos magi resistentes famulo dei ranas et serpentes fecerunt; non enim eas ipsi creauerunt.

[8 13] Nor therefore is it to be thought that the matter of visible things serves at the nod to those transgressing angels, but rather to God, by whom this power is given, in such measure as, in the sublime and spiritual seat, the Immutable judges. For even to condemned wicked men, even in the mines, water and fire and earth serve, so that they may make from them what they wish, but only insofar as it is permitted. Nor, to be sure, are those evil angels to be called creators because through them the magi, resisting the servant of God, made frogs and serpents; for they themselves did not create them.

Omnium quippe rerum quae corporaliter uisibiliterque nascuntur occulta quaedam semina in istis corporeis mundi huius elementis latent. Alia sunt enim haec iam conspicua oculis nostris ex fructibus et animantibus; alia uero illa occulta istorum seminum semina unde iubente creatore produxit aqua prima natatilia et uolatilia, terra autem prima germina et prima sui generis animalia. Neque enim tunc in huiuscemodi fetus ita producta sunt ut in eis quae producta sunt uis illa consumpta sit, sed plerumque desunt congruae temperamentorum occasiones quibus erumpant et species suas peragant.

For of all things which are born corporeally and visibly, certain hidden seeds lie latent in these corporeal elements of this world. For some of these are already conspicuous to our eyes from the fruits and living beings; but others are those hidden seeds of these seeds whence, at the Creator’s bidding, the water produced the first swimmers and fliers, and the earth the first sprouts and the first animals of its own kind. For neither then were such offspring so brought forth that, in the things produced, that power was consumed; but for the most part the fitting occasions of temperaments are lacking, by which they burst forth and accomplish their species.

Ecce enim breuissimus surculus semen est; nam conuenienter mandatus terrae arborem facit. Huius autem surculi subtilius semen aliquod eiusdem generis granum est et huc usque nobis uisibile. Iam uero huius etiam grani semen quamuis oculis uidere nequeamus, ratione tamen conicere possumus quia nisi talis aliqua uis esset in istis elementis, non plerumque nascerentur ex terra quae ibi seminata non essent, nec animalia tam multa nulla marium feminarumque commixtione praecedente siue in terra siue in aqua, quae tamen crescunt et coeundo alia pariunt, cum illa nullis coeuntibus parentibus orta sint.

Behold, for a very brief shoot is a seed; for, when suitably committed to the earth, it makes a tree. But the more subtle seed of this shoot is a grain of the same kind, and up to this point visible to us. Now indeed even the seed of this grain, although we cannot see it with the eyes, yet we can by reason conjecture it; because unless some such force were in these elements, things would not for the most part be born from the earth which had not been sown there, nor would so many animals, with no commixture of males and females preceding, either on land or in water—who nevertheless grow and by coition beget others—since those themselves have arisen with no parents coming together.

Et certe apes semina filiorum non coeundo concipiunt sed tamquam sparsa per terras ore colligunt. Inuisibilium enim seminum creator ipse creator est omnium rerum quoniam quaecumque nascendo ad oculos nostros exeunt ex occultis seminibus accipiunt progrediendi primordia et incrementa debitae magnitudinis distinctionesque formarum ab originalibus tamquam regulis sumunt.

And certainly bees do not conceive the seeds of offspring by coition, but, as if scattered through the lands, they gather them with the mouth. For the creator of invisible seeds is himself the creator of all things, since whatever by being-born comes forth to our eyes receives from occult seeds the primordia of advancing and the increments of due magnitude, and takes the distinctions of forms from the originals as if from rules.

Sicut ergo nec parentes dicimus creatores hominum nec agricolas creatores frugum, quamuis eorum extrinsecus adhibitis motibus ista creanda dei uirtus interius operetur, ita non solum malos sed nec bonos angelos fas est putare creatores si pro subtilitate sui sensus et corporis semina rerum istarum nobis occultiora nouerunt et ea per congruas temperationes elementorum latenter spargunt atque ita et gignendarum rerum et accelerandorum incrementorum praebent occasiones. Sed nec boni haec nisi quantum deus iubet, nec mali haec iniuste faciunt nisi quantum iuste ipse permittit. Nam iniqui malitia uoluntatem suam habent iniustam; potestatem autem non nisi iuste accipiunt siue ad suam poenam siue ad aliorum uel poenam malorum uel laudem bonorum.

Thus, therefore, just as we do not call parents creators of human beings nor agriculturists creators of fruits, although, with their motions applied from outside, the virtue/power of God works within to create these things, so it is not lawful to think not only evil but not even good angels to be creators, if, in proportion to the subtlety of their sense and body, they know the seeds of these things more hidden from us and scatter them covertly through suitable temperings of the elements, and thus furnish occasions both for things to be engendered and for the accelerating of growths. But the good do these things only insofar as God commands, nor do the evil do these things unjustly except insofar as He justly permits. For the iniquitous by malice have their will unjust; but they receive power only justly, either for their own punishment or for that of others—either the punishment of the wicked or the praise of the good.

[14] Itaque apostolus discernens interius deum creantem atque formantem ab operibus creaturae quae admouentur extrinsecus et de agricultura similitudinem assumens ait: Ego plantaui, Apollo rigauit, sed deus incrementum dedit. Sicut ergo in ipsa uita nostra mentem iustificando formare non potest nisi deus, praedicare autem extrinsecus euangelium et homines possunt non solum boni per ueritatem sed etiam mali per occasionem; ita creationem rerum uisibilium deus interius operatur, exteriores autem operationes siue bonorum siue malorum uel angelorum uel hominum, siue etiam quorumcumque animalium, secundum imperium suum et a se impertitas distributiones potestatum et appetitiones commoditatum ita rerum naturae adhibet in qua creat omnia quemadmodum terrae agriculturam. Quapropter ita non possum dicere angelos malos magicis artibus euocatos creatores fuisse ranarum atque serpentium, sicut non possum dicere homines malos segetis esse creatores quam per eorum operam uidero exortam.

[14] And so the apostle, discerning the God within creating and forming from the works of the creature which are applied from without, and taking a similitude from agriculture, says: I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. Therefore, just as in our very life the mind cannot be formed by justifying except by God, yet to preach the gospel from without men also are able, not only the good through truth but even the evil by occasion; so God inwardly works the creation of visible things, while the exterior operations whether of good or of evil, whether of angels or of men, or even of whatever animals, according to his command and the distributions of powers imparted by himself and the appetitions of commodities, he thus applies to the nature of things in which he creates all things, just as agriculture to the earth. Wherefore I cannot so say that evil angels, invoked by magical arts, were creators of frogs and serpents, as I cannot say that evil men are creators of the crop which I have seen spring up through their agency.

[15] Sicut nec Iacob creator colorum in pecoribus fuit quia bibentibus in conceptu matribus uariatas uirgas quas intuerentur apposuit. Sed nec ipsae pecudes creatrices fuerunt uarietatis prolis suae quia inhaeserat animae illarum discolor phantasia ex contuitu uariarum uirgarum per oculos impressa, quae non potuit nisi corpus quod sic affecto spiritu animabatur ex compassione commixtionis afficere unde teneris fetuum primordiis colore tenus aspergeretur. Vt enim sic ex semetipsis afficiantur uel anima ex corpore uel corpus ex anima, congruentiae rationis id faciunt quae incommutabiliter uiuunt in ipsa summa dei sapientia quam nulla spatia locorum capiunt; et cum sit ipsa incommutabilis, nihil eorum quae uel mutabiliter sunt deserit quia nihil eorum nisi per ipsam creatum est.

[15] Just as Jacob was not the creator of the colors in the flocks, because he set before the mothers, while drinking at conception, variegated rods for them to gaze upon. But neither were the beasts themselves creatresses of the variety of their offspring, because to their soul there had adhered a discolored phantasy, impressed through the eyes from the contemplation of the various rods, which could not but affect the body that was animated by a spirit so affected, by the sympathy of commixture, whereby the tender first-beginnings of the fetuses would be sprinkled, to the extent of color. For that they are thus affected from themselves, whether the soul from the body or the body from the soul, the reasons of congruence bring about—reasons which live unchangeably in the very supreme wisdom of God, which no spaces of places contain; and since it is itself unchangeable, it deserts none of the things which exist mutably, because none of them has been created except through it.

Vt enim de pecoribus non uirgae sed pecora nascerentur, fecit hoc incommutabilis et inuisibilis ratio sapientiae dei per quam creata sunt omnia; ut autem de uarietate uirgarum pecorum conceptorum color aliquid duceret, fecit hoc anima grauidae pecudis per oculos affecta forinsecus et interius secum pro suo modulo formandi regulam trahens quam de intima potentia sui creatoris accepit. Sed quanta sit uis anima ad afficiendam atque mutandam materiam corporalem (cum tamen creatorix corporis dici non possit quia omnia causa mutabilis sensibilisque substantiae omnisque modus et numerus et pondus eius unde efficitur ut et sit et natura ita uel ita sit ab intellegibili et incommutabili uita quae super omnia est exsistit et peruenit usque ad extrema atque terrena), multus sermo est neque nunc necessarius. Verum propterea factum Iacob de pecoribus commemorandum arbitratus sum ut intellegeretur si homo qui uirgas illas sic posuit dici non potest creator colorum in agnis et haedis, nec ipsae matrum animae quae conceptam per oculos corporis phantasiam uarietatis seminibus carne conceptis quantum natura passa est asperserunt, multo minus dici posse ranarum serpentiumque creatores angelos malos per quos magi pharaonis tunc illa fecerunt.

For, in order that from the flocks there should be born not rods but flocks, the immutable and invisible reason of the wisdom of God, through which all things were created, accomplished this; but in order that from the variegation of the rods the color of the conceived cattle might derive something, the soul of the pregnant beast, affected from without through the eyes and inwardly drawing with itself, according to its own measure, a rule of forming which it received from the inmost power of its Creator, accomplished this. But how great the power of the soul is for affecting and changing corporal matter (although it cannot be called the creatress of the body, because the whole cause of mutable and sensible substance, and every mode and number and weight of it, whereby it is brought about both that it is and that its nature is thus or thus, arises from the intelligible and immutable life which is above all things and reaches even to the lowest and earthly), is a long discourse and not now necessary. Truly, for this reason I have thought Jacob’s deed concerning the flocks should be recalled, in order that it might be understood that if the man who thus set those rods cannot be called the creator of the colors in lambs and kids, nor yet the souls of the mothers themselves, who sprinkled upon the seeds conceived in the flesh the phantasy of variety conceived through the eyes of the body, so far as nature allowed, then much less can the evil angels, through whom Pharaoh’s magi then did those things, be said to be the creators of frogs and serpents.

[IX 16] Aliud est enim ex intimo ac summo causarum cardine condere atque administrare creaturam, quod qui facit solus creator est deus; aliud autem pro distributis ab illo uiribus et facultatibus aliquam operationem forinsecus admouere ut tunc uel tunc sic uel sic exeat quod creatur. Ista quippe originaliter ac primordialiter in quadam textura elementorum cuncta iam creata sunt sed acceptis opportunitatibus prodeunt. Nam sicut matres grauidae sunt fetibus, sic ipse mundus grauidus est causis nascentium quae in illo non creantur nisi ab illa summa essentia ubi nec oritur nec moritur aliquid nec incipit esse nec desinit.

[9 16] For one thing is to found and administer a creature from the inmost and highest pivot of causes—a thing which he who does is God alone, the Creator; but another is, according to the powers and faculties distributed by him, to apply from without some operation, so that then or then, thus or thus, what is created may come forth. For all these things have already been created, originally and primordially, in a certain texture of the elements, but, when opportunities are received, they come forth. For just as mothers are pregnant with fetuses, so the world itself is pregnant with the causes of things being born, which in it are not created except by that supreme essence, where nothing arises nor dies, nor begins to be nor ceases.

Adhibere autem forinsecus accedentes causas quae tametsi non sunt naturales tamen secundum naturam adhibentur ut ea quae secreto naturae sinu abdita continentur erumpant quodam modo et foris creentur explicando mensuras et numeros et pondera sua quae in occulto acceperunt ab illo qui omnia in mensura et numero et pondere disposuit, non solum mali angeli sed etiam mali homines possunt sicut exemplo agriculturae supra docui.

To apply causes coming from outside, which, although they are not natural, are nevertheless applied according to nature, so that the things which are contained hidden in the secret bosom of nature may, in a certain way, burst forth and be created outwardly by unfolding their measures and numbers and weights—which they received in secret from Him who disposed all things in measure and number and weight—not only evil angels but also evil men are able to do, as I taught above by the example of agriculture.

[17] Sed ne de animalibus quasi diuersa ratio moueat quod habent spiritum uitae cum sensu appetendi quae secundum naturam sunt uitandique contraria, etiam hoc est uidere quam multi homines nouerint ex quibus herbis aut carnibus aut quarumque rerum quibuslibet sucis et humoribus uel ita positis uel ita obrutis uel ita contritis uel ita commixtis quae animalia nasci soleant. Quorum se quis tam demens audeat dicere creatorem? Quid ergo mirum si quemadmodum potest nosse quilibet nequissimus homo unde illi uel illi uermes muscaeque nascantur, ita mali angeli pro subtilitate sui sensus in occultioribus elementorum seminibus norunt unde ranae serpentesque nascantur, et haec per certas et notas temperationum opportunitates occultis motibus adhibendo faciunt creari non creant?

[17] But lest, about animals, a different rationale should move one, on the ground that they have the spirit of life with a sense of seeking the things that are according to nature and avoiding their contraries, this too is to be observed: how many men have known from which herbs or meats, or from the juices and humors of whatsoever things, whether thus set, or thus buried, or thus crushed, or thus commixed, what animals are wont to be born. Of which who would be so demented as to dare to call himself the creator? What, then, is marvelous if, just as any most wicked man can know whence such-and-such worms and flies are born, so evil angels, by reason of the subtlety of their sense, know in the more hidden seeds of the elements whence frogs and serpents are born, and, by applying these through certain and known opportunities of temperations with hidden motions, they make [them] to be created—they do not create?

Sed illa homines quae solent ab hominibus fieri non mirantur. Quod si quisquam celeritates incrementorum forte miratur quod illa animantia tam cito facta sunt, attendat quemadmodum et ista pro modulo facultatis humanae ab hominibus procurentur. Vnde enim fit ut eadem corpora citius uermescant aestate quam hieme, citius in calidioribus quam in frigidioribus locis?

But humans do not marvel at those things which are wont to be done by humans. And if anyone perchance marvels at the celerities of increments, because those living beings were made so quickly, let him consider in what way even these things, according to the measure of human faculty, are procured by humans. For whence does it come about that the same bodies become wormy more quickly in summer than in winter, more quickly in hotter places than in colder?

Sed haec ab hominibus tanto difficilius adhibentur quanto desunt sensuum subtilitates et corporum mobilitates in membris terrenis et pigris. Vnde qualibuscumque angelis uicinas causas ab elementis contrahere quanto facilius est tanto mirabiliores in huiusmodi operibus eorum exsistunt celeritates.

But these things are applied by human beings with so much greater difficulty, the more the subtleties of the senses and the mobilities of the body are lacking in earthly and sluggish limbs. Hence, for angels of whatever sort, the more easily they draw adjacent causes from the elements, by so much the more marvelous their celerities appear in works of this kind.

[18] Sed non est creator nisi qui principaliter ista format, nec quisquam hoc potest nisi ille penes quem primitus sunt omnium quae sunt mensurae, numeri et pondera et ipse est unus creator deus ex cuius ineffabili potentatu fit etiam ut quod possent hi angeli si permitterentur ideo non possint quia non permittuntur. Neque enim occurrit alia ratio cur non potuerint facere minutissimas muscas qui ranas serpentesque fecerunt nisi quia maior aderat dominatio prohibentis dei per spiritum sanctum, quod etiam ipsi magi confessi sunt dicentes: Digitus dei est hoc. Quid autem possint per naturam nec possint per prohibitionem, et quid per ipsius naturae suae conditionem facere non sinantur homini explorare difficile est, immo uero impossibile nisi per illud dominum dei quod apostolus commemorat dicens: Alii diudicatio spirituum.

[18] But there is no creator except the one who principally forms these things, nor can anyone do this except the one with whom, in the first place, are the measures, numbers, and weights of all things that are; and he himself is the one Creator God, from whose ineffable power it also comes about that what these angels could do, if they were permitted, for that very reason they cannot, because they are not permitted. For no other rationale occurs why those who made frogs and serpents could not make very tiny flies, unless because a greater dominion of the God who forbids was present through the Holy Spirit—which even the magi themselves confessed, saying: This is the finger of God. But what they can by nature and cannot by prohibition, and what by the very condition of their own nature they are not allowed to do, for a human being to explore is difficult—nay rather, impossible—except through that gift of God which the Apostle commemorates, saying: To another, discernment of spirits.

Nouimus enim hominem posse ambulare et neque hoc posse si non permittatur, uolare autem non posse etiamsi permittatur. Sic et illi angeli quaedam possunt facere si permittantur ab angelis potentioribus ex imperio dei; quaedam uero non possunt nec si ab eis permittantur, quia ille non permittit a quo illis est talis naturae modus, qui etiam per angelos suos et illa plerumque non permittit quae concessit ut possint.

For we know that a human can walk, and cannot even do this if he is not permitted; but to fly he is not able even if he be permitted. So also those angels can do certain things if they are permitted by more-powerful angels by the command of God; but certain things they cannot do, not even if they are permitted by them, because He does not permit it by whom there is to them such a mode of nature, who also through His angels for the most part does not permit even those things which He has conceded that they can do.

[19] Exceptis igitur illis quae usitatissimo transcursu temporum in rerum naturae ordine corporaliter fiunt, sicuti sunt ortus occasusque siderum, generationes et mortes animalium, seminum et germinum innumerabiles diuersitates, nebulae et nubes, niues et pluuiae, fulgura et tonitrua, fulmina et grandines, uenti et ignes, frigus et aestus, et omnia talia; exceptis etiam illis quae in eodem ordine rara sunt, sicut defectus luminum et species inusitatae siderum et monstra et terrae motus et similia; exceptis ergo istis omnibus quorum quidem prima et summa causa non est nisi uoluntas dei — unde et in psalmo cum quaedam huius generis commemorata essent: ignis, grando, nix, glacies, spiritus tempestatis, ne quis ea uel fortuitu, uel causis tantummodo corporalibus uel etiam spiritalibus tamen praeter uoluntatem dei exsistentibus agi crederet, continuo subiecit: Quae faciunt uerbum eius.

[19] Therefore, with those things excepted which, in the most customary course of times, are done corporeally in the order of the nature of things—such as the risings and settings of the stars, the generations and deaths of animals, the innumerable diversities of seeds and sprouts, mists and clouds, snows and rains, flashes and thunders, lightning-bolts and hails, winds and fires, cold and heat, and all such things; with those also excepted which in the same order are rare, such as eclipses of the luminaries and unusual appearances of stars and portents and earthquakes and the like; with all these, then, excepted, whose first and highest cause indeed is nothing but the will of God—whence also in the Psalm, when certain things of this kind had been commemorated: fire, hail, snow, ice, stormy wind, lest anyone should believe that these are brought about either by chance, or by merely corporeal causes, or even by spiritual ones nevertheless existing outside the will of God, he immediately subjoined: Which perform his word.

[X] Sed his ut dicere coeperam exceptis, alia sunt illa quae quamuis ex eadem materia corporali ad aliquid tamen diuinitus annuntiandum nostris sensibus admouentur, quae proprie miracula et signa dicuntur, nec in omnibus quae nobis a domino deo annuntiantur ipsius dei persona suscipitur. Cum autem suscipitur, aliquando in angelo demonstratur, aliquando in ea specie quae non est quod angelus quamuis per angelum disposita ministretur; rursus cum in ea specie suscipitur quae non est quod angelus, aliquando iam erat ipsum corpus et ad hoc demonstrandum in aliquam mutationem assumitur, aliquando ad hoc exoritur et re peracta rursus absumitur. Sicut etiam cum homines annuntiant, aliquando ex sua persona uerba dei loquuntur sicuti cum praemittitur: Dixit dominus, aut: Haec dicit dominus, aut tale aliquid; aliquando autem nihil tale praemittentes ipsam dei personam in se suscipiunt sicuti est: Intellectum dabo tibi et constituam te in uia hac qua ingredieris.

[10] But these, as I had begun to say, being set aside, there are other things which, although from the same corporeal matter, are nevertheless brought close to our senses to announce something divinely, which are properly called miracles and signs; nor, in all the things that are announced to us by the Lord God, is the person of God himself assumed. But when it is assumed, sometimes it is shown in an angel, sometimes in that form which is not what an angel is, although, being disposed, it is ministered through an angel; again, when it is assumed in that form which is not what an angel is, sometimes it already was the body itself, and for the purpose of demonstrating this it is taken up into some mutation; sometimes it arises for this, and, the matter having been accomplished, it is again withdrawn. Just as also when men announce, sometimes they speak the words of God from their own person, as when there is prefixed: “The Lord said,” or, “Thus says the Lord,” or something of the sort; at other times, however, prefixing nothing of the sort, they assume in themselves the very person of God, as in: “I will give understanding to you, and I will set you on this way by which you shall go.”

Sic non solum in dictis uerum etiam in factis dei persona significanda imponitur prophetae ut eam gerat in ministerio prophetiae, sicut eius personam gerebat qui uestimentum suum diuisit in duodecim partes et ex eis decem seruo regis Salomonis dedit regi futuro Israhel; aliquando etiam res quae non erat quod propheta et erat iam in terrenis rebus in huiusmodi significationem assumpta est, sicut somnio uiso euigilans Iacob fecit de lapide quem dormiens habebat ad caput; aliquando ad hoc fit eadem species uel aliquantum mansura, sicut potuit serpens ille aeneus exaltatus in heremo, sicut possunt et litterae; uel peracto ministerio transitura sicut panis ad hoc factus in accipiendo sacramento consumitur.

Thus not only in words but also in deeds the person of God, to be signified, is imposed upon the prophet that he may bear it in the ministry of prophecy, just as His person was borne by the one who divided his garment into twelve parts and from them gave ten to the servant of King Solomon, to the future king of Israel; sometimes also a thing which was not what the prophet was, and already existed among earthly things, was assumed for such a signification, as Jacob, upon awaking with a dream seen, made from the stone which, while sleeping, he had at his head; sometimes for this the same form is made, either to last for some time, as that brazen serpent exalted in the wilderness could, just as letters can; or, with the ministry completed, destined to pass away, as bread made for this is consumed in the receiving of the sacrament.

[20] Sed quia haec hominibus nota sunt quippe quia per homines fiunt, honorem tamquam religiosa possunt habere, stuporem tamquam mira non possunt. Itaque illa quae per angelos fiunt quo difficiliora et ignotiora eo mirabiliora sunt nobis, illis autem tamquam suae actiones notae atque faciles. Loquitur ex persona dei angelus homini dicens: Ego sum deus Abraham et deus Isaac et deus Iacob, cum scriptura praedixisset: Visus est ei angelus domini; loquitur et homo ex persona dei dicens: Audi populus meus et loquar, Israhel, et testificabor tibi: Deus, deus tuus sum ego.

[20] But because these things are known to human beings—indeed because they are done through human beings—they can have honor as things religious, but they cannot have stupefaction as marvels. Accordingly, those things which are done through angels, the more difficult and unknown, by so much the more marvelous are they to us, but to them, as their own actions, known and easy. An angel speaks from the person of God to a human being, saying: I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, although Scripture had premised: An angel of the Lord appeared to him; and a human being also speaks from the person of God, saying: Hear, my people, and I will speak, Israel, and I will bear witness to you: God, I am your God.

Assumpta est uirga ad significationem et in serpentem angelica facultate mutata est; quae facultas cum desit homini, assumptus est tamen et ab homine lapis ad talem aliquam significationem. Inter factum angeli et factum hominis plurimum distat. Illud et mirandum est et intellegendum, hoc autem tantummodo intellegendum.

A rod was assumed for signification and, by angelic faculty, was changed into a serpent; and since that faculty is lacking to man, nevertheless a stone too has been assumed by a man for some such signification. Between an angel’s deed and a man’s deed there is the greatest difference. The former is both to be marveled at and to be understood; the latter, however, only to be understood.

Quod ex utroque intellegitur fortassis unum est, at illa ex quibus intellegitur diuersa sunt, tamquam si domini nomen et auro et atramento scribatur. Illud est pretiosius, illud uilius; quod tamen utroque significatur idipsum est.

What is understood from both, perhaps, is one and the same, but the things from which it is understood are diverse, as if the Lord’s name were written both in gold and in ink. The one is more precious, the other cheaper; yet that which is signified by both is the selfsame thing.

Et quamuis idem significauerit serpens ex uirga Moysi quod lapis Iacob, melius tamen aliquid lapis Iacob quam serpentes magorum. Nam sicut unctio lapidis Christum in carne in qua unctus est oleo exsultationis prae participibus suis, ita uirga Moysi conuersa in serpentem ipsum Christum factum obedientem usque ad mortem crucis. Vnde ait: Sicut exaltauit Moyses serpentem in heremo, sic oportet exaltari filium hominis ut omnis qui credit in eum non pereat sed habeat uitam aeternam, sicut intuentes illum serpentem exaltatum in heremo serpentium morsibus non peribant.

And although the serpent from the rod of Moses signified the same as Jacob’s stone, nevertheless Jacob’s stone signified something better than the magi’s serpents. For just as the unction of the stone [signified] Christ in the flesh, in which he was anointed with the oil of exultation above his fellows, so the rod of Moses turned into a serpent [signified] Christ himself made obedient unto the death of the cross. Whence he says: As Moses exalted the serpent in the desert, so it is necessary that the Son of Man be exalted, that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life, just as those looking upon that serpent exalted in the desert did not perish from the bites of serpents.

Vetus enim homo noster confixus est cruci cum illo ut euacuetur corpus peccati. Per sepentem autem mors intellegitur quae facta est a serpente in paradiso modo locutionis per efficentem id quod efficitur demonstrante. Ergo uirga in serpentem, Christus in mortem, et serpens rursus in uirgam, Christus in resurrectionem totus cum corpore suo quod est ecclesia, quod in fine temporis erit quem serpentis cauda significat quam Moyses tenuit ut redigeretur in uirgam.

For our old man has been fastened to the cross with him, that the body of sin might be evacuated. By the serpent, however, death is understood, which was made by the serpent in paradise, a mode of locution pointing out, through the efficient cause, that which is effected. Therefore the rod into a serpent—Christ into death; and the serpent back into a rod—Christ into resurrection, whole with his body, which is the church, which he will be at the end of time, whom the serpent’s tail signifies, which Moses held so that it might be brought back into a rod.

Serpentes autem magorum tamquam mortui saeculi nisi credentes in Christum tamquam deuorati in corpus eius intrauerint resurgere in illo non poterunt. Lapis ergo Iacob, ut dixi, melius aliquid significauit quam serpentes magorum; at enim factum magorum multo mirabilius. Verum haec ita non praeiudicant rebus intellegendis tamquam si hominis nomen scribatur auro et dei atramento.

However, the serpents of the magicians, as the dead of the age, unless, believing in Christ, they shall have entered, as if devoured, into his body, will not be able to rise again in him. Therefore the stone of Jacob, as I said, signified something better than the serpents of the magicians; yet indeed the deed of the magicians was much more marvelous. In truth, these things do not prejudice matters to be understood, as if a man’s name were written in gold and God’s in ink.

[21] Illas etiam nubes et ignes quomodo fecerint uel assumpserint angeli ad significandum quod annuntiabant etiam si dominus uel spiritus sanctus illis corporalibus formis ostendebatur, quis nouit hominum: Sicut infantes non nouerunt quod in altari ponitur et peracta pietatis celebratione consumitur unde uel quomodo conficiatur, unde in usum religionis assumatur. Et si numquam discant experimento uel suo uel aliorum et numquam illam speciem rerum uideant nisi inter celebrationem sacramentorum cum offertur et datur, dicaturque illis auctoritate grauissima cuius corpus et sanguis sit, nihil aliud credent nisi omnino in illa specie dominum oculis apparuisse mortalium et de latere tali percusso liquorem illum omnino fluxisse.

[21] Those clouds and fires also—how the angels made or assumed them to signify what they were announcing, even if the Lord or the Holy Spirit was being shown in those corporeal forms—who among human beings knows: Just as infants do not know, concerning that which is placed on the altar and, the celebration of piety having been completed, is consumed, from what or how it is fashioned, for what purpose it is taken up into the use of religion. And if they never learn by experience, either their own or others’, and never see that appearance of things except during the celebration of the sacraments when it is offered and given, and it is said to them on most weighty authority whose body and blood it is, they will believe nothing else except that altogether in that appearance the Lord appeared to the eyes of mortals, and that from such a side, having been pierced, that liquid altogether flowed.

Mihi autem utile est ut meminerim uirium mearum, fratresque meos admoneam ut meminerint suarum, ne ultra quam tutum est humana progrediatur infirmitas. Quemadmodum enim haec faciant angeli uel potius deus quemadmodum haec faciat per angelos suos, et quantum fieri uelit etiam per angelos malos siue sinendo siue iubendo siue cogendo ex occulta sede altissimi imperii sui, nec oculorum acie penetrare nec fiducia rationis enucleare nec prouectu mentis comprehendere ualeo ut tam certus hinc loquar ad omnia quae requiri de his rebus possunt quam si essem angelus aut propheta aut apostolus. Cogitationes enim mortalium timidae, et incertae prouidentiae nostrae.

Mihi, however, it is useful that I remember my own powers, and that I admonish my brothers to remember theirs, lest human infirmity advance beyond what is safe. For in what manner the angels do these things, or rather in what manner God does these things through his angels, and how much he wills to be done even through evil angels, whether by permitting or by commanding or by compelling from the hidden seat of his most high imperial rule, I am not able to penetrate by the keenness of the eyes, nor to enucleate by the confidence of reason, nor to comprehend by the advancement of the mind, so that I might speak hence as sure on all the things that can be asked concerning these matters as if I were an angel or a prophet or an apostle. For the cogitations of mortals are timid, and our counsels uncertain.

Corpus enim quod corrumpitur aggrauat animam, et deprimit terrena inhabitatio sensum multa cogitantem. Et difficile aestimamus quae in terra sunt, et quae in prospectu sunt inuenimus cum labore. Quae in caelis sunt autem quis inuestigauit?

For the corruptible body aggravates the soul, and the earthly inhabitation depresses the sense thinking many things. And we with difficulty estimate the things that are on earth, and the things that are in prospect we find with labor. But the things that are in the heavens—who has investigated?

Sed quia sequitur et dicit: Sensum uero tuum quis scit nisi tu dederis sapientiam et miseris spiritum sanctum tuum de altissimis?, quae in caelis sunt quidem non inuestigamus quo rerum genere et corpora angelica secundum propriam dignitatem et eorum quaedam corporalis actio continetur; secundum spiritum tamen dei missum nobis de altissimis et impertitam eius gratiam mentibus nostris audeo fiducialiter dicere nec deum patrem nec uerbum eius nec spiritum eius, quod deus unus est, per id quod est atque idipsum est ullo modo esse mutabilem ac per hoc multo minus uisibilem. Quoniam sunt quaedam quamuis mutabilia non tamen uisibilia, sicut nostrae cogitationes et memoriae et uoluntates et omnis incorporea creatura; uisibile autem quidquam non est quod non sit mutabile.

But because it follows and says: “And who knows your mind except you should give wisdom and send your Holy Spirit from the heights?”, the things that are in the heavens indeed we do not investigate, by what genus of things both the angelic bodies, according to their proper dignity, and a certain bodily action of theirs are contained; yet according to the Spirit of God sent to us from the heights, and his grace imparted to our minds, I dare confidently to say that neither God the Father nor his Word nor his Spirit—which is one God—in respect of that which he is and that selfsame being, is in any way mutable, and therefore much less visible. For there are certain things, although mutable, yet not visible—such as our thoughts and memories and wills and every incorporeal creature; but there is nothing visible which is not mutable.

[XI] Quapropter substantia uel si melius dicitur essentia dei, ubi pro nostro modulo ex quantulacumque particula intellegimus patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum, quandoquidem nullo modo mutabilis est, nullo modo potest ipsa per semetipsam esse uisibilis.

[XI] Wherefore the substance, or if it be better said the essence, of God, where according to our measure, from however small a particle, we understand the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, since it is in no way mutable, in no way can itself by itself be visible.

[22] Proinde illa omnia quae patribus uisa sunt cum deus illis secundum suam dispensationem temporibus congruam praesentaretur per creaturam facta esse manifestum est. Et si nos latet quomodo ea ministris angelis fecerit, per angelos tamen esse facta non ex nostro sensu dicimus ne cuiquam uideamur plus sapere praeter quam oportet sapere, sed sapimus ad temperantiam sicut deus nobis partitus est mensuram fidei, et credimus propter quod et loquimur. Exstat enim auctoritas diuinarum scripturarum unde mens nostra deuiare non debet, nec relicto solidamento diuini eloquii per suspicionum suarum abrupta praecipitari ubi nec sensus corporis regit nec perspicua ratio ueritatis elucet.

[22] Accordingly, all those things which were seen by the fathers, when God presented himself to them, according to his dispensation, in a manner congruent to the times, are manifest to have been done through a creature. And if it is hidden from us how he accomplished them by ministering angels, yet we say that they were done through angels not out of our own sense, lest we seem to anyone to be wiser beyond what it is right to be wise, but we are wise unto temperance, as God has apportioned to us the measure of faith, and we believe, for which cause also we speak. For the authority of the divine Scriptures stands forth, from which our mind ought not to deviate, nor, leaving behind the solid foundation of the divine discourse, be cast headlong through the precipices of its suspicions, where neither bodily sense rules nor the perspicuous reasoning of truth shines out.

Apertissime quippe scriptum est in epistula ad hebraeos, cum dispensatio noui testamenti a dispensatione ueteris testamenti secundum congruentiam saeculorum ac temporum distingueretur, non tantum illa uisibilia sed ipsum etiam sermonem per angelos factum. Sic enim dicit: Ad quem autem angelorum dixit aliquando: Sede ad dexteram meam donec ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum? Nonne omnes sunt ministri spiritus ad ministrationem missi propter eos qui futuri sunt haereditate possidere salutem?

Most plainly indeed it is written in the epistle to the Hebrews, when the dispensation of the New Testament was being distinguished from the dispensation of the Old Testament according to the congruence of the ages and the times, that not only those visible things but even the word itself was made through angels. For thus he says: To which of the angels, however, did he ever say: Sit at my right hand until I set your enemies as a footstool for your feet? Are they not all ministering spirits, sent for ministration on account of those who are going to possess salvation as an inheritance?

Hinc ostendit illa omnia non solum per angelos facta sed etiam propter nos facta, id est populum dei cui promittitur haereditas uitae aeternae. Sicut ad corinthios etiam scriptum est: Omnia autem haec in figura contingebant illis; scripta sunt autem ad correptionem nostram in quos finis saeculorum obuenit. Deinde quia tunc per angelos nunc autem per filium sermo factus est, consequenter aperteque demonstrans: Propterea, inquit, abundantius debemus attendere nos ea quae audiuimus ne forte defluamus.

Hence he shows that all those things were made not only through angels but also on account of us, that is, the people of God to whom the inheritance of eternal life is promised. Just as it is also written to the Corinthians: But all these things happened to them in figure; moreover, they were written for our correction, upon whom the end of the ages has come. Then, since at that time the word was made through angels, but now through the Son, accordingly and openly demonstrating: For this reason, he says, we must more abundantly attend to the things we have heard, lest perhaps we drift away.

Si enim qui per angelos dictus sermo factus est firmus, et omnis praeuaricatio et inobedientia iustam accepit mercedis retributionem, quomodo nos effugiemus tantam neglegentes salutem? Et quasi quaereres quam salutem, ut ostenderet se de nouo testamento iam dicere, id est sermonem qui non per angelos sed per dominum factus est: Quae cum initium accepisset, inquit, ut enarraretur per dominum, ab his qui audierunt in nos confirmata est coaetestante deo signis et ostentis et uariis uirtutibus et spiritus sancti diuisionibus secundum suam uoluntatem.

For if the discourse spoken through angels was made firm, and every transgression and disobedience received a just retribution of reward, how shall we escape, neglecting so great a salvation? And as though you were asking what salvation—so that he might show that he is already speaking about the New Testament, that is, the discourse which was made not through angels but through the Lord: which, when it had received its beginning to be declared through the Lord, was confirmed unto us by those who heard, God co-attesting with signs and portents and various powers and distributions of the Holy Spirit according to his will.

[23] 'Sed,' ait aliquis, 'cur ergo scriptum est: Dixit dominus ad Moysen, et non potius: Dixit angelus ad Moysen?' Quia cum uerba iudicis praeco pronuntiat, non scribitur in gestis: 'Ille praeco dixit,' sed: 'Ille iudex.' Sic etiam loquente propheta sancto etsi dicamus: 'Propheta dixit,' nihil aliud quam dominum dixisse intellegi uolumus. Et si dicamus: Dominus dixit, prophetam non subtrahimus, sed quis per eum dixerit admonemus. Et illa quidem scriptura saepe aperit angelum esse domini quo loquente identidem dicitur: Dominus dixit, sicut iam demonstrauimus.

[23] 'But,' says someone, 'why then is it written: The lord said to Moses, and not rather: The angel said to Moses?' Because when the herald of a judge proclaims the judge’s words, it is not written in the proceedings: 'That herald said,' but: 'That judge.' So also, when the holy prophet is speaking, even if we say: 'The prophet said,' we wish nothing else to be understood than that the lord said. And if we say: The lord said, we do not subtract the prophet, but we indicate who has spoken through him. And that Scripture indeed often makes clear that it is the angel of the lord, by whose speaking it is repeatedly said: The lord said, as we have already shown.

Sed propter eos qui cum scriptura illic angelum nominat ipsum per se ipsum filium dei uolunt intellegi quia propter annuntiationem paternae ac suae uoluntatis a propheta dictus est angelus, propterea uolui ex hac epistula manifestius testimonium dare ubi non dixtum est: per angelum, sed: per angelos.

But on account of those who, when Scripture there names an angel, want the Son of God himself in his own person to be understood—since, on account of the annunciation of the paternal and of his own will, he is called “angel” by the prophet—for that reason I have wished to give from this epistle a more manifest testimony where it was not said: ‘through an angel,’ but: ‘through angels.’

[24] Nam et Stephanus in actibus apostolorum eo more narrat haec quo etiam in ueteribus libris conscripta sunt: Viri fratres et patres, audite, inquit: Deus gloriae apparuit Abrahae patri nostro cum esset in Mesopotamia. Ne quis autem arbitraretur tunc deum gloriae per id quod in se ipso est cuiusquam oculis apparuisse mortalium, in consequentibus dicit quod Moysi angelus apparuerit. Fugit, inquit, Moyses in uerbo isto, et factus est inquilinus in terra Madian ubi genuit filios duos.

[24] For Stephen also in the Acts of the Apostles relates these things in the same manner in which they are written also in the ancient books: Men, brothers and fathers, listen, he says: The God of glory appeared to Abraham our father when he was in Mesopotamia. But lest anyone suppose that then the God of glory, by that which He is in Himself, appeared to the eyes of any mortals, in what follows he says that an angel appeared to Moses. Moses fled, he says, at this word, and became a sojourner in the land of Midian where he begot two sons.

Et completis illic annis quadraginta apparuit illi in deserto montis Sina angelus domini in flamma ignis in rubo. Moyses autem uidens mirabatur uisum. Qui cum accederet considerare, facta est uox domini: Ego deus patrum tuorum, deus Abraham et deus Isaac et deus Iacob.

And when forty years had been completed there, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in the desert of Mount Sinai in a flame of fire in a bush. But Moses, seeing, marveled at the vision. And as he drew near to consider, there came a voice of the Lord: I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.

Tremefactus autem Moyses non audebat considerare. Dixitque illi dominus: Solue calceamentum pedum tuorum, et cetera. Hic certe et angelum et dominum dicit eundemque deum Abraham et deum Isaac et deum Iacob sicut in genesi sacriptum est.

Tremble-struck, moreover, Moses did not dare to consider. And the Lord said to him: Loose the shoe of your feet, and the rest. Here certainly he calls both the angel and the Lord, and the same the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, just as in Genesis it is written.

[25] An forte quisquam dicturus est quod Moysi per angelus apparuit dominus, Abrahae uero per se ipsum? At hoc ab Stephano non quaeramus. Ipsum librum interrogemus unde Stephanus ista narrauit.

[25] Or perhaps will anyone say that to Moses the Lord appeared through an angel, but to Abraham indeed by himself? But let us not ask this from Stephen. Let us question the book itself whence Stephen narrated these things.

Numquid enim quia scriptum est: Et dixit dominus deus ad Abraham, et paulo post: Et uisus est dominus deus Abrahae, propterea ista non per angelos facta sunt? Cum alio loco similiter dicat: Visus est autem ei deus ad ilicem Mambre, sedente eo ad ostium tabernaculi sui meridie, et tamen consequenter adiungat: Respiciens autem oculis suis uidit, et ecce tres uiri stabant super eum, de quibus iam diximus. Quomodo enim poterunt isti qui uel a uerbis ad intellectum nolunt assurgere uel facile se ab intellectu in uerba praecipitant, quomodo poterunt explicare uisum esse deum in uiris tribus nisi eos, sicut etiam consequentia docent, angelos fuisse fateantur?

Surely not, just because it is written, “And the Lord God said to Abraham,” and a little after, “And the Lord God was seen by Abraham,” were these things therefore not done through angels? Since in another place he similarly says, “But God was seen by him at the ilex of Mamre, as he was sitting at the door of his tabernacle at midday,” and yet consequently adds, “But looking with his eyes he saw, and behold, three men were standing over him,” about whom we have already spoken. How, then, will those who are unwilling to rise from words to intellect, or who easily precipitate themselves from intellect into words—how will they explicate that God was seen in three men, unless they confess, as the consequents also teach, that they were angels?

An quia non dictum est, 'Angelus ei locutus est' uel 'apparuit,' propterea dicere audebunt Moysi quidem illam uisionem ac uocem per angelum factam quia ita scriptum est. Abrahae autem quia commemoratio angeli facta non est per substantiam suam deum apparuisse atque sonuisse? Quid quod nec apud Abraham de angelo tacitum est?

Or is it because it is not said, “An angel spoke to him” or “appeared,” that therefore they will dare to say that in Moses’s case that vision and voice were effected through an angel, because thus it is written, but that in Abraham’s case, because no commemoration of an angel is made, God appeared and uttered by his own substance? What of the fact that not even in Abraham’s case was there silence about the angel?

Nam ita legitur cum immolandus eius filius peteretur: Et factum est post haec uerba temptauit deus Abraham et dixit ad eum: Abraham, Abraham. Et ille dixit: Ecce ego. Et dixit ei: Accipe filium tuum dilectum quem diligis, Isaac, et uade in terram excelsam et offeres eum ibi holocaustum super sunum montium quem tibi dixero.

For thus it is read when his son was being demanded to be immolated: And it came to pass after these words God tested Abraham and said to him: Abraham, Abraham. And he said: Behold, I. And he said to him: Take your beloved son, whom you love, Isaac, and go into the lofty land, and you shall offer him there as a holocaust upon one of the mountains which I shall have told you.

Certe hic deus non angelus commemoratus est. Paulo post uero ita se habet scriptura: Extendens autem Abraham manum suam sumpsit gladium occidere filium suum. Et uocauit eum angelus domini de caelo et dixit ei: Abraham, Abraham.

Certainly here God, not an angel, is commemorated. But a little later the scripture has it thus: But Abraham, extending his hand, took the sword to kill his son. And an angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said to him: Abraham, Abraham.

Et dixit: Ecce ego. Et dixit: Ne inicias manum tuam super puerum neque facias ei quidquam.

And he said: Behold, I. And he said: Do not lay your hand upon the boy, nor do anything to him.

Quid ad haec respondetur? An dicturi sunt deum iussisse ut occideretur Isaac et angelum prohibuisse; porro ipsum patrem aduersum dei praeceptum qui iusserat ut occidret obtemperasse angelo ut parceret? Ridendus et abiciendus hic sensus est.

What is replied to these things? Or are they going to say that god commanded that Isaac be slain and that the angel prohibited it; moreover that the father himself, against the precept of god who had commanded that he be slain, obeyed the angel so as to spare him? This sense is laughable and to be cast aside.

Sed neque huic tam grosso et abiecto ullum locum esse scriptura permittit continuo subiungens: Nunc enim cognoui quia times deum tu et non pepercisti filio tuo dilecto propter me. Quid est, propter me, nisi propter eum qui occidi iusserat? Idem igitur deus Abrahae qui angelus, an potius per angelum deus? Accipe sequentia; certe iam hic angelus manifestissime expressus est.

But neither does scripture permit any place for so gross and abject a view, immediately subjoining: “For now I have known that you fear god, and you did not spare your beloved son on account of me.” What is “on account of me,” if not “on account of him who had ordered that he be killed”? Therefore, is the same the god of Abraham as the angel, or rather god through the angel? Receive what follows; certainly here the angel is most manifestly expressed already.

Attende tamen quid contexatur: Respiciens Abraham oculis suis uidit, et ecce aries unus tenebatur in arbore sebech cornibus; et abiit Abraham et accepit arietem et obtulit eum holocaustum pro Isaac filio suo. Et congnominauit Abraham nomen loci illius: dominus uidit, ut dicant hodie quod in monte dominus uisus est. Sicut paulo ante quod dixit deus per angelum: Nunc enim cognoui quia times deum, non tunc deus cognouisse intellegendus est sed egisse ut per deum ipse Abraham cognosceret quantas haberet uires cordis ad obediendum deo usque ad immolationem unici filii, illo modo locutionis quo significatur per efficientem id quod efficitur, sicut dicitur frigus pigrum, quod pigros facit, ut ideo cognouisse diceretur quia ipsum Abraham cognoscere fecerat quem poterat latere fidei suae firmitas nisi tali experimento probaretur; ita et hic cognominauit Abraham nomen loci illius: dominus uidit, id est quod uideri se fecit.

Yet attend to what is being woven together: Looking, Abraham with his eyes saw, and behold, a single ram was being held fast in the sebech tree by its horns; and Abraham went and took the ram and offered it as a holocaust in place of Isaac his son. And Abraham surnamed the name of that place: the lord has seen, so that they say today that on the mountain the lord has been seen. Just as a little before, where god said through the angel, “For now I have known that you fear god,” god is not then to be understood to have come to know, but to have acted so that Abraham himself, through god, might come to know how great powers of heart he had for obeying god even unto the immolation of his only son, by that mode of speaking in which what is effected is signified through the one effecting it, just as cold is called “sluggish,” which makes men sluggish, so that therefore he was said to have come to know because he had made Abraham himself come to know—he to whom the firmness of his faith could have lain hidden unless by such an experiment it were proved; so also here Abraham surnamed the name of that place: the lord has seen, that is, that he made himself to be seen.

Nam continuo secutus ait: Vt dicant hodie quod in monte dominus uisus est. Ecce idem angelus dominus dicit. Quare nisi quia per angelum dominus?

For immediately he added: That they may say today that on the mountain the Lord was seen. Behold, the same angel says “the Lord.” Why, unless because it is the Lord through the angel?

Iam uero in eo quod sequitur prophetice omnino angelus loquitur et prorsus aperit quod per angelum deus loquatur. Et uocauit, inquit, angelus domini Abraham iterum de caelo dicens: Per me iuraui, dicit dominus, propter quod fecisti hoc uerbum et non pepercisti filio tuo dilecto propter me, et cetera. Haec certe uerba ut dicat ille per quem loquitur dominus, Haec dicit dominus, etiam prophetae solent habere.

Now indeed in that which follows the angel speaks altogether prophetically and quite plainly opens that it is through an angel that God speaks. And, he says, the angel of the Lord called Abraham again from heaven, saying: By myself I have sworn, says the Lord, on account of this that you have done this deed and have not spared your beloved son for my sake, and the rest. These words surely, that he through whom the Lord speaks may say, Thus says the Lord, even the prophets are accustomed to have.

An filius dei de patre ait: Dicit dominus, et ipse est ille angelus patris? Quid ergo de illis tribus uiris, nonne respiciunt quomodo urgeantur qui uisi sunt Abrahae cum praedictum esset: Visus est ei dominus? An quia uiri dicti sunt non erant angeli?

Or does the Son of God say about the Father, “The Lord says,” and he himself is that angel of the Father? What then about those three men—do they not consider how they are pressed with respect to those who were seen by Abraham, when it had been foretold: “The Lord was seen by him”? Or because they were called men, were they not angels?

Danielem legant dicentem: Et ecce uir Gabriel.

Let them read Daniel saying: And behold, the man Gabriel.

[26] Sed quid ultra differimus ora eorum euidentissimo atque grauissimo alio documento oppilare ubi non angelus singulariter nec uiri pluraliter sed omnino angeli dicuntur, per quos non sermo quilibet factus sed lex ipsa data manifestissime ostenditur, quam certe nullus fidelium dubitat deum dedisse Moysi ad subiugandum populum Israhel sed tamen per angelos datam? Ita Stephanus loquitur: Dura ceruice, inquit, et non circumcisi corde et auribus, uos semper spiritui sancto restitistis sicut et patres uestri. Quem prophetarum non persecuti sunt patres uestri?

[26] But why do we delay further to stop up their mouths with another most evident and most grave documentary proof, where not “angel” in the singular nor “men” in the plural but altogether “angels” are said, through whom it is shown most manifestly that not just any discourse was made but the Law itself was given—a thing which surely none of the faithful doubts that God gave to Moses for bringing the people of Israel under the yoke, yet nevertheless given through angels? Thus Stephen speaks: “Stiff-necked, and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you have always resisted the Holy Spirit just as also your fathers. Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute?”

Et occiderunt eos qui praenuntiabant de aduentu iusti, cuius nunc uos proditores et interfectores fuistis qui accepistis legem in edictis angelorum nec custodistis. Quid hoc euidentius? Quid tanta auctoritate robustius?

And they killed those who were fore-announcing about the advent of the Just One, of whom now you have been betrayers and killers—you who received the law in the edicts of angels and did not keep it. What is more evident than this? What more robust than such authority?

In edictis quidem angelorum illi populo lex data est, sed domini Iesu Christi per eam disponebatur et praenuntiabatur aduentus, et ipse tamquam uerbum dei miro et ineffabili modo erat in angelis in quorum edictis lex dabatur. Vnde dicit in euangelio: Si crederetis Moysi, crederetis et mihi; de me enim ille scripsit. Per angelos ergo tunc dominus loquebatur, per angelos filius dei mediator dei et hominum futurus ex semine Abrahae suum disponebat aduentum ut inueniret a quibus reciperetur, confitentes reos quos lex non impleta fecerat transgressores.

In the edicts indeed of the angels the law was given to that people, but the advent of the Lord Jesus Christ was through it being ordered and pre-announced, and he himself, as the Word of God, was in the angels in a wondrous and ineffable way, in whose edicts the law was being given. Whence he says in the Gospel: If you believed Moses, you would believe me also; for he wrote about me. Through angels, therefore, then the Lord was speaking; through angels the Son of God, the mediator of God and men, destined to be from the seed of Abraham, was arranging his advent, that he might find those by whom he would be received, confessing as guilty those whom the unfulfilled law had made transgressors.

Vnde et apostolus ad galatas dicit: Quid ergo lex? Transgressionis gratia proposita est donec ueniret semen cui promissum est, dispositum per angelos in manu mediatoris, {hoc est dispositum per angelos in manu sua. Non enim natus est per conditionem sed per potestatem.} Quod autem non aliquem ex angelis dicit mediatorem sed ipsum dominum Iesum Christum in quantum homo fieri dignatus est habes alio loco: Vnus, inquit, deus, unus et mediator dei et hominum homo Christus Iesus.

Whence also the apostle to the Galatians says: What then is the law? For the sake of transgression it was proposed until the seed should come to whom it was promised, disposed through angels in the hand of a mediator, {that is, disposed through angels in his own hand. For he was not born by condition but by power.} But that he does not call some one of the angels a mediator, but the Lord Jesus Christ himself, inasmuch as he deigned to be made man, you have in another place: One, he says, God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

Hinc illud pascha in interfectione agni; hinc illa omnia quae de Christo uenturo in carne atque passuro sed et resurrecturo in lege figurantur quae data est in edictis angelorum, in quibus angelis erat utique et pater et filius et spiritus sanctus; et aliquando pater, aliquando filius, aliquando spiritus sanctus, aliquando sine ulla distinctione personae deus per illos figurabatur etsi uisibilibus et sensibilibus formis apparens, per creaturam tamen suam non per substantiam suam cui uidendae corda mundantur per haec omnia quae oculis uidentur et auribus audiuntur.

Hence that Pasch in the slaying of the lamb; hence all those things which, concerning Christ about to come in the flesh and to suffer, and also to rise again, are figured in the Law which was given in the edicts of the angels, in which angels there assuredly were both the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and at times the Father, at times the Son, at times the Holy Spirit, at times without any distinction of person God was prefigured through them, even appearing in visible and sensible forms, yet through his creature, not through his substance—to behold which substance hearts are purified by means of all these things which are seen by the eyes and heard by the ears.

[27] Sed iam satis quantum existimo pro captu nostro disputatum et demonstratum est quod in hoc libro susceperamus ostendere, constititque et probabilitate rationis quantum homo uel potius quantum ego potui, et firmitate auctoritatis quantum de scripturis sanctis diuina eloquia patuerunt, quod antiquis patribus nostris ante incarnationem saluatoris cum deus apparere dicebatur uoces illae ac species corporales per angelos factae sunt, siue ipsis loquentibus uel agentibus aliquid ex persona dei sicut etiam prophetas solere ostendimus, siue assumentibus ex creatura quod ipsi non essent ubi deus figurate demonstraretur hominibus, quod genus significationum nec prophetas omisisse multis exemplis docet scriptura.

[27] But now enough, as I reckon, according to our capacity, has been argued and demonstrated of what we undertook to show in this book; and it has been established both by the probability of reason, so far as a man—or rather so far as I—was able, and by the firmness of authority, so far as the divine utterances have lain open from the holy Scriptures, that to our ancient fathers before the Incarnation of the Savior, when God was said to appear, those voices and corporeal forms were effected through angels—either by they themselves speaking or doing something in the persona of God, as we have shown the prophets also to be wont; or by their assuming from the creation what they themselves were not, where God might be shown figuratively to human beings—which kind of significations Scripture teaches by many examples that not even the prophets omitted.

Superest igitur iam ut uideamus cum et nato per uirginem domino et corporali specie sicut columba descendente spiritu sancto uisisque igneis linguis sonitu facto de caelo die pentecostes post ascensionem domini, non ipsum dei uerbum per substantiam qua patri aequale atque coaeternum est, nec spiritus patris et filii per substantiam qua et ipse utrique coaequalis atque coaeternus est, sed utique creatura quae illis modis formari et exsistere potuit corporeis atque mortalibus sensibus apparuerit; quid inter illas demonstrationes et has proprietates filii dei et spiritus sancti quamuis per creaturam uisibilem factas intersit, quod ab alio uolumine commodius ordiemur.

It therefore remains now that we should consider, since both with the Lord born from the Virgin and with the Holy Spirit descending in bodily species like a dove, and with fiery tongues seen and a sound made from heaven on the day of Pentecost after the Lord’s ascension, it was not the very Word of God according to the substance by which it is equal and coeternal with the Father, nor the Spirit of the Father and of the Son according to the substance by which he also is coequal and coeternal with both, but assuredly a creature which could in those modes be formed and exist appeared to bodily and mortal senses; what difference there is between those demonstrations and these properties of the Son of God and of the Holy Spirit, although brought to pass through a visible creature—which we shall more conveniently begin from another volume.