Commentary on Hebrews (Super Epistolam ad Hebraeos Lectura)

1 There is none like you among the gods, O Lord, and there is none according to your works. Ps. 85:8. In these words the excellence of Christ is expressed as to two things. And first as to a comparison to the other gods, when he says there is none like you among the gods, O Lord; second by a comparison as to his effects, when he says and there is none according to your works. Concerning the first it should be known that although there is only one God by nature, as is said in Deut. 6:4: the Lord your God is one God, nevertheless by participation there are many gods, both in heaven and on earth. 1 Cor. 8:5: for there are indeed many gods and many lords. For sometimes the angels themselves are called gods, as is clear in Job 1:6 and 2:1: when the sons of God came to stand before the Lord. And sometimes the prophets, as is said of Moses, Exod. 7:1: I have made you a god to Pharaoh. Likewise it is said of the priests, Exod. 22:28: the gods, that is, the priests, you shall not speak ill of. Likewise there: if the thief lies hidden, the master of the house shall be brought to the gods. But the angels are called gods on account of the most abundant refulgence of the divine brightness. Job 25:3: upon whom his light does not shine. But the angels are not like Christ among the gods, who is the splendor of the Father's glory, as is said below, 1:3. Eph. 1:20: setting him at the right hand in the heavenly places, above every principality, etc. But the prophets are called gods because the word of God came to them. Jn. 10:35: he called them gods, to whom the word of God came. Therefore Christ is God much more excellently, who is substantially the very Word of God. But priests are called gods because they are ministers of God. Is. 61:6: you, priests of the Lord, shall be called ministers of God. But Christ much more so, who is not a minister, but the lord of all, Esth. 13:11; likewise Apoc. 19:16: lord of lords; and below: as lord in his whole house. Christ therefore is God, great above all gods, because he is splendor, because he is the Word, because he is Lord. Second, this excellence is shown through the effects, when it is said and there is none according to your works, where it should be known that the excellent work of Christ is threefold. One that extends to the whole creature, namely the work of creation. Jn. 1:3: all things were made through him. Another indeed only to the rational creature, which is illuminated through Christ, which is the work of illumination. Jn. 1:9: he was the true light, etc. The third is of justification, which pertains only to the saints, who through him are quickened and justified by quickening grace. Jn. 1:4: and the life was the light of men. For in these three ways the aforesaid gods cannot work. For the angels are not creators, but creatures. Ps. 103:4: who make your angels spirits, etc. The prophets, too, are illumined, not illuminating. Jn. 1:8: he was not that light, etc. The priests, too, did not justify. Below, 10:4: for it is impossible that sins be taken away by the blood of goats and bulls. Therefore the excellence of Christ is clearly shown in these words, and this is the subject matter of this epistle to the Hebrews, by which it is distinguished from the others. For in certain epistles the grace of the New Testament is treated as to the whole mystical body of the Church, and this in all the epistles which he sends to Churches, namely that which is to the Romans, to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, and up to the first to Timothy. But in certain others as to the principal members, as in those which he sends to individual persons, namely to Timothy, to Titus, and to Philemon. But in this one he commends grace itself as to the head, namely Christ; for in the body of the Church these three things are found just as in a natural body, namely the mystical body itself, the principal members, namely the prelates and the greater ones, and the head, from which life flows into the whole body, namely Christ. But before we come to the division, it should be known that before the Council of Nicaea, some doubted whether this epistle was Paul's. And that it was not, they prove by two arguments. One is that it does not keep this manner which he keeps in the other epistles. For here he does not put a greeting first, nor his own name. The other is that it does not savor of the style of the others, rather it has a more elegant one, nor is there any Scripture that proceeds so in order, in the order of words, and in sentences, as this one. Hence they said that it was either Luke the Evangelist's, or Barnabas's, or Pope Clement's. For he himself wrote to the Athenians almost entirely according to this style. But the ancient doctors, especially Dionysius and certain others, take the words of this epistle as testimonies of Paul. And Jerome receives it among the epistles of Paul. To the first, therefore, it should be said that there was a threefold reason why he did not put his name. One is that he was not the apostle of the Jews, but of the Gentiles. Gal. 2:8: he who worked in Peter for the apostolate of the circumcision, worked also in me among the Gentiles, etc. And therefore he made no mention of his apostolate at the beginning of this epistle, because he did not want to make known the office of his apostolate, except to the Gentiles themselves. Second, because his name was hateful to the Jews, since he said that the legal observances were not to be kept, as is clear in Acts 15:2 and following. And he kept this silent, lest the most salutary teaching of this epistle be rejected. Third, because he was a Jew. Are they Hebrews? So am I. 2 Cor. 11:22. And those of one's own household do not easily bear the excellence of their own. A prophet is not without honor except in his own country, and in his own house. Matt. 13:57. To the second argument, it should be said that he is more elegant in style for this reason: that although he knew every tongue — 1 Cor. 14:18: I speak with the tongue of all of you — yet he knew Hebrew better, as more connatural to himself, in which he wrote this epistle. And therefore he was able to speak more ornately in his own idiom than in any other. Hence he says, 2 Cor. 11:6: even if unskilled in speech, yet not in knowledge. But Luke, who was an excellent speaker, translated this ornateness from Hebrew into Greek.

Now he wrote this epistle against the errors of certain men who, converted from Judaism to the faith of Christ, wished to keep the observances of the Law together with the Gospel, as though the grace of Christ did not suffice for salvation. Hence it is also divided into two parts. For first he commends the excellence of Christ in many ways, so that through this he may set the New Testament above the Old; second he deals with those things by which the members are joined to the head, namely, concerning faith, below, chapter 11, where it says, "Now faith is." Now he intends to show the excellence of the New Testament over the Old through the excellence of Christ, with respect to three solemn persons contained in the Old Testament itself: namely, the angels, through whom the law was given. Gal. 3:19: "ordained through angels in the hand of a mediator," etc. With respect to Moses, from whom, or through whom, it was given. John 1:17: "the law was given through Moses," and Deut., last chapter: "there did not arise again a prophet," etc. With respect to the priesthood by which it was ministered, below: "into the first tabernacle the priests always entered, completing the offices of the sacrifices," etc. Hence first he sets Christ above the angels; second above Moses, chapter 3, where it says, "Whence, brothers"; but third, above the priesthood of the Old Testament, chapter 5, where it says, "For every high priest." Concerning the first he does two things: first he sets Christ above the angels in this chapter; second he concludes what sort of reverence is to be shown to the new law, chapter 2, where it says, "Therefore more abundantly." Further, concerning the first he does two things: first he shows the excellence of Christ; second he proves that this is true of Christ, and thus that the angels fall short of that excellence, where it says, "so much the better." Now this is singular in this epistle, that individual words have individual meanings, and keep their own order.

Now he denotes the excellence of Christ with respect to four things. First with respect to the property of his origin, calling him the true, natural Son of God, when he says "has spoken to us in the Son"; second with respect to the greatness of his lordship, where it says "whom he appointed heir of all things"; third with respect to the power of his operation, where it says "through whom also he made the ages"; fourth with respect to the sublimity of his dignity, where it says "who, being the brightness of glory." But since he intends to commend Christ, so that this may redound to the New Testament, through this he sets the New Testament above the Old.

Now concerning the Old Testament he sets down five things. First the manner of its handing down, because "in many ways and by many means," etc.; second the time, when he says "of old"; third the author, or giver, because God; fourth to whom it was handed down, because to our fathers; fifth by what ministers, because "in the prophets." He says therefore "in many ways," and this with respect to the division, which is considered with respect to three things. First with respect to different persons, because it was not to one person but to many, namely to Abraham, to Noah, and so of the others. Second with respect to different times, and all this for the sake of its certainty. Hence Matt. 20:1ff.: "he went out first in the morning (...) and about the third hour," etc. Likewise with respect to the things that were shown there, because they are divine. Ex. 3:14: "I am who am," etc. Likewise future events. Wis. 8:8: "she knows signs and wonders before they happen," etc. Likewise promises of future goods, at least in figure. Ecclus. 3:25: "many things beyond the understanding of men have been shown to you." Likewise "in many ways" with respect to different figures, because now in the figure of a lion, now in the figure of a stone, as Dan. 2:34: "a stone was cut from the mountain without hands." Job 11:6: "and that the law of his mouth is manifold." There follows "and by many means," which refers to three different kinds of visions: namely to bodily vision, as Dan. 5:5: "there appeared fingers as of a hand writing on the wall," etc. Sometimes to some by imaginary vision. Is. 6:1: "I saw the Lord sitting," etc. But to some it appeared by intellectual vision, as to David. Ps. 118:100: "I have understood more than the aged." Hence of these it is said, Hosea 12:10: "I have multiplied visions to them." It also refers to different manners of speaking, because sometimes it spoke plainly, but sometimes obscurely, nor is there any manner of speaking in which the Scripture of the Old Testament does not speak. Prov. 22:20: "behold I have described it to you threefold, in thoughts and knowledge," etc. Third, because it speaks by reproving the wicked, by alluring the just, by instructing the ignorant. 2 Tim. 3:16: "all Scripture, divinely inspired, is useful for teaching, for reproving," etc.

Second he touches on the time of the handing-down of this teaching, which is past time, because "of old," that is, not suddenly, because the things that were said about Christ were so great that they could not be believed unless, with the increase of times, they had first learned them. Hence blessed Gregory says: "through the successions of times the increase of divine knowledge grew." Is. 48:3: "the former things I declared from that time, and they went out of my mouth, and I made them heard," etc.

Third he touches on the author, because it is God who speaks. Ps. 84:9: "I will hear what the Lord speaks in me." Now this is one who does not lie. Num. 23:19: "God is not as a man, that he should lie." Now from these three he commends the Old Testament: namely from authority, because it is from God; from subtlety and from sublimity, because "in many ways and by many means"; from firmness, because "of old."

Fourth he shows to whom it was handed down, because to the fathers. And therefore it is familiar and acceptable to us. Acts 13:32: "we declare to you the promise that was made to our fathers," etc.

But fifth he shows by what ministers, because not by jesters, but "in the prophets," that is, through the prophets. Rom. 1:2: "which he had before promised through the prophets." Acts 10:43: "to him all the prophets bear witness."

Then when he says "lastly," he describes the teaching of the New Testament, and he sets down five things, four of which are different from the four premised, but one is the same in both. For what he had said, "in many ways and by many means," etc., shows that every ordered multitude must be referred to one. Therefore he says that although the manner is manifold, yet the whole is ordered to this last. Prov. 23:17f.: "be in the fear of the Lord all the day, and you shall have hope in the end." Is. 10:22f.: "a shortened completion shall overflow with justice. For the Lord God of hosts will make a completion and a shortening in the midst of all the earth." Likewise, that "of old" was in a time of expectation and of darkness, but this "in these days" is in the time of grace. Rom. 13:12: "the night has gone before, but the day has drawn near," etc.

Here it must be noted that there it says "speaking," but here it says "has spoken," in order to designate the speech of the New Testament as more perfect than that which was in the Old. For the evidence of this it must be known that three things are required for our speech. First, the conception of the word, by which that which is to be spoken by the mouth is first conceived in the mind; second, the expression of the word itself once conceived, by which what is conceived is made known; third, the manifestation of the thing itself expressed, by which the thing expressed becomes evident.

God therefore, in speaking, first conceived, and his conception was one, and from eternity. Job 33:14: "God speaks once" — and this was the eternal generation of the Son, of which it is said in Ps. 2:7: "the Lord said to me: you are my son, today I have begotten you." Second, he expressed this conception, and this in three ways. First in the production of creatures, since the conceived Word, existing as the likeness of the Father, is also the likeness according to which all creatures were made. Gen. 1:3: "God said: let there be light," etc. Second, through certain notions — namely in the minds of the angels, in whom he implanted the likenesses of all things that lay hidden in the Word, and in the minds of holy men — and this through sensible, or intellectual, or imaginary revelations. And therefore every such manifestation proceeding from the eternal Word is called a speaking. Jer. 1:2: "the word of the Lord came," etc. Third, through the assumption of flesh, of which it is said, John 1:14: "the Word was made flesh, and we saw his glory," etc. And therefore Augustine says that the incarnate word is related to the uncreated Word in the way that the word of the voice is related to the word of the heart.

But the first expression, namely in creation, is ordered not to manifestation but to being — Wis. 1: "God created that all things might be." Since therefore expression does not have the character of speech except insofar as it is ordered to manifestation, it is clear that that expression cannot be called speech, and therefore it is never said that God speaks in creating creatures, but that he is known. Rom. 1:20: "the invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." But the second expression, which is the production of likenesses in the angelic or human mind, is ordered only to the knowledge of the divine wisdom, and therefore it can be called speech. But the third, which is through the assumption of flesh, is ordered to being, and to knowledge, and to express manifestation, because through the assumption of flesh both the Word was made man, and he brought us to perfect knowledge of God. (John 18:37: "for this I was born, that I might bear witness to the truth.") And he manifested himself to us expressly. Bar. 3:38: "after this he was seen upon earth, and conversed with men."

Thus therefore, although God speaks in the New and in the Old Testament, yet he speaks to us more perfectly in the New, because there through revelations in the minds of men, here through the incarnation of the Son. But the Old Testament was handed down to the fathers, who beheld from afar and gazed upon God at a distance; but this to us, namely to the apostles, who saw him in his own person. 1 John 1:1: "which we have heard, and have seen with our eyes, and our hands have handled, of the word of life." Deut. 5:3f.: "he did not make a covenant with our fathers, but with us, who are present here, and we have seen, and he has spoken to us face to face." Hence it is clear that that speaking was promissory. Gal. 3:16: "to Abraham were the promises made." This speaking is one of showing forth. John 1:17: "grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." Likewise, there he spoke "in the prophets," here "in the Son," who is the lord of the prophets. John 1:18: "the only-begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has told us."

But are all those through whom God speaks, prophets? To this it must be said that five things are required for someone to be a true prophet. The first is the revelation of things that exceed human knowledge; otherwise he is not called a prophet but a wise man, as Solomon, whose mind was illumined regarding things that are according to human reason. Hence he is not called a prophet by the Jews, but a wise man. The second is understanding of the things revealed; otherwise, unless he understood the things revealed, he would not be a prophet. Understanding is needed in vision, Dan. 10:1, and hence it is that Nebuchadnezzar, not understanding the revelation made to him, is not called a prophet, but Daniel, who understood it. The third is that the prophet, in the things seen, by which he is carried out of himself, is not held fast in the things themselves, but as in figures; otherwise he would not be a prophet, but a madman, who apprehends the things imagined as the things themselves. Jer. 23:28: "he who has a dream, let him tell a dream, and he who has my word, let him speak my word." The fourth is that he perceive the things revealed with certainty, as one knowing through demonstration, as it were; otherwise it would be a dream, and not prophecy. Is. 50:5: "the Lord has opened my ear, and I do not contradict, I have not gone back." The fifth is that there be present the will to announce the things that have been revealed; hence Daniel too is said by some not to be a prophet, because he did not receive the things revealed in a mode that could be declared; hence it is not said that "the word of the Lord came to Daniel," as is said of the other prophets. Jer. 20:8f.: "the word of the Lord has become to me a reproach, and a derision all the day, and I said: I will not remember him, nor speak any more in his name; and there came to be in my heart, as it were, a burning fire."

But again the question is raised why he says "in the prophets," when he ought rather to have said "through the prophets." To this it must be said that he did this in order to exclude the error of certain men. First indeed the error of Porphyry, who said that the prophets spoke the things they said by feigning, and not from the Holy Spirit. And against this he says "in the prophets," as if to say that they did not speak of themselves, but God spoke in them. 2 Pet. 1:21: "for prophecy was not brought by the will of man, but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Spirit." Second, to exclude the error of certain men, who said that prophecy is something natural and is had through a natural disposition, as when someone melancholic is of so strong an imagination that he apprehends the things imagined as certain, and as the things themselves. And therefore he says "has spoken in the prophets," as if to say: prophecy is not had by way of a natural disposition and passion, but through an inward speaking from God. John 3:8: "the Spirit breathes where he wills." Third, against the error of those who said that prophecy is had by way of a habit, like knowledge, namely so that a man may prophesy whenever he wills. This is not true, since the spirit of prophecy is not present to the prophets always, but when their mind is divinely illumined. Hence, 4 Kings 4:27, Elisha says: "her soul is in bitterness, and the Lord has hidden it from me." And therefore he says "in the prophets," as if to say: it is not had by all, and always, as a habit, but by those in whom it pleases God to speak. Fourth, to exclude the error of Priscilla and Montanus, who said that the prophets did not understand the things they said, which is not true. Hence it is said, Haggai 1:3: "the word of the Lord came by the hand of Haggai the prophet"; "by the hand," that is, in his power. And 1 Cor. 14:32: "the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets." And therefore he says "in the prophets," that is, in the understanding and power of the prophets.

Thus therefore the property of Christ is clear, that he is a natural son. John 14:10: "the Father is in me, and I in the Father." But is he among those sons of whom it is said in Ps. 81:6: "I have said: you are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High"? Far from it, because they are called sons along with all things, but he is appointed heir and lord of all things. Is he among those sons of whom it is said, John 1:12: "he gave them power to become sons of God," etc.? Indeed not, because they are called made sons, but he is the Son, through whom he also made the ages. Is he among those sons who glory in the hope of the glory of the sons of God? Rom. 5:2. Indeed not, because they are sons through the hope of the glory of God which they have, but he is the very brightness of that glory. Others are called sons because they are made to the image of this Son. Rom. 8:29: "whom he foreknew to become conformed to the image of his Son"; but he is the very image, and the figure of his substance. Others are called sons as containing in themselves the word of God, according to that word of Phil. 2:15: "that they may be without blame, and simple sons of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding the word of life." But this Son carries all things by the word of his power. Therefore the excellence of Christ is clear with respect to the property of his origin, and at large with respect to the other sons of God; through which the eminence of the New Testament over the Old is shown.

But nevertheless in both places it says "has spoken," or "speaking," and this denotes that the same one is the author of the Old and the New Testament, against the Manichean. Eph. 2:18: "through him we both have access in one Spirit," etc. Rom. 3:29: "is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles?" Likewise that was handed down to our fathers, but this to us, that is, to the apostles, who saw Christ in his own person. Deut. 5:3: "he did not make a covenant with our fathers, but with us, who are present and living here." Likewise that was through the prophets, but this is in the Son, that is, through the Son, who is the lord of the prophets. John 1:18: "the only-begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared." And on this occasion the Apostle introduces that he is the Son.

Consequently he shows the greatness of Christ's lordship, when he says "whom he appointed heir"; because, as it is said, Gal. 4:7: "if a son, then an heir also through God." But in Christ there are two natures, namely divine and human. According, therefore, as he is a natural son, he is not appointed heir, but is a natural heir; but insofar as he is man, he was made a son of God. Rom. 1:3: "who was made to him of the seed of David according to the flesh." And according to this he is appointed heir of all things, as the true son of the Father. Matt., last chapter: "all power has been given to me." And this with respect to the whole creation, over which he received lordship. Likewise not only with respect to one race of men, but of all, namely both of the Jews and of the Gentiles. Ps. 2:8: "ask of me, and I will give you the nations for your inheritance," etc. "Whom he appointed heir of all things."

Having shown the excellence of Christ with respect to the property of his origin, here he shows his excellence with respect to the majesty of his lordship; and indeed he fittingly joins together "has spoken in the Son" and "appointed heir," because "if sons, then heirs also," Rom. 8:17. Now it must be known that in Christ there are two natures, namely divine and human; but according to the divine nature, just as he is not appointed son, since he is a natural son from eternity, so neither is he appointed heir, but from eternity he is a natural heir. But according to the human nature, just as he was made a son of God — Rom. 1:3: "who was made to him of the seed of David according to the flesh" — so too he was made heir of all things. And with respect to this he says "whom he appointed heir," that is, lord, of all things. Matt. 21:38: "this is the heir, come, let us kill him." Micah 1:15: "yet will I bring an heir to you who dwell in Maresa; the glory of Israel shall come even to Odollam."

And indeed according to the divine nature it belongs to Christ to be an heir begotten, and lord. And first indeed, because he himself is the power of God, and the wisdom of God, 1 Cor. 1:24, through whom the Father makes all things. And therefore if the Father is called lord of all by reason of creation, likewise also the Son, through whom all things are brought into being, is lord. Prov. 8:30: "I was with him, forming all things." Second, because the Son is the Father's wisdom, by which he governs all things. Wis. 8:1 it is said of wisdom: "she reaches from end to end," etc. If therefore the Father is called lord by reason of governance — Wis. 14:3: "but you, Father, govern all things," etc. — then lordship also belongs to the Son. Likewise the Father is lord, inasmuch as all things are ordered to him, as to the first principle, and the end of all things; likewise also the Son, who is the wisdom of God, preceding all things, is lord. Ecclus. 1:3: "the wisdom of God going before all things — who shall search it out?" Prov. 16:4: "the Lord has made all things for himself."

But according to the human nature it also belongs to Christ to be appointed heir and lord of all things. First indeed by reason of the union, from this very fact, namely, that that man was assumed into the person of the Son of God. Acts 5:31: "this one God has appointed lord and savior." Eph. 1:21: "he set him above every principality and power," etc. Second by reason of power, because all things obey him, and serve him. Matt., last chapter: "all power in heaven has been given to me," etc. Third by reason of subjection. Phil. 2:10: "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow," etc. But he says "of all things," which refers to the whole universality of nature, over which he received lordship, according to that word of Ps. 8:8: "you have subjected all things under his feet." Likewise it refers to every race of men, so that the sense is: of all, that is, both of the Jews, and also of all other men, according to that word of Ps. 2:8: "ask of me, and I will give you the nations for your inheritance," etc. And of this it is said, Esther 13:11: "you are the Lord of all."

Consequently, when he says "through whom he also made the ages," he shows the power of Christ's operation, why he was appointed heir of all things — not that he himself came to be in time and merited this by the merit of a good life, as Photinus says, but that all things were made through him equally, as also through the Father. For through him the Father made the ages. But it must be known that this preposition "through" denotes the cause of an act. But this is in two ways: in one way, because it is the cause of the making on the part of the one making, as when, namely, the causal term to which it is joined is the cause of the action according as it goes out from the agent. For the making is always a medium between the one making and the thing made. It can therefore denote, with respect to the agent, a final cause, as a craftsman works for profit; sometimes a formal cause, as fire heats through heat; but sometimes an efficient cause, as a bailiff acts through the king. In none of these ways is the Son the cause of the Father, that the Father should operate through him, just as neither that he should be from him. But sometimes the causal term is the cause of the action according as it terminates at the thing made, as a craftsman works by means of a hammer. For the hammer is not the cause of the craftsman, that he act, but it is the cause to the thing crafted, that it should proceed from the craftsman — as to the iron, that it receive the operation from the craftsman — and thus the Son is the cause of the thing made, and the Father operates through the Son.

But is the Son less than the Father? It seems that he is, because that which is the cause of the thing made, that it be made, seems to have the character of an instrument. But to this it must be said that if there were not the same power numerically in the Son and the Father, and the same operation, the objection would hold. Now, therefore, the power and operation of the Father and the Son are the same, just as their nature and being are also the same, and the Father is said to make the ages through him, because he begot him as one operating the ages. John 5:19: "whatever the Father does, the Son also does."

"Age" is said of the span of a temporal thing. The ages, therefore, are the successions of times; he did not, therefore, make only everlasting times, according as certain philosophers said that God made only what is everlasting, and that the angels created things temporal, but he also made temporal things, which he here calls ages. Below, 11:3: "by faith we understand that the ages were fitted together." John 1:3: "all things were made through him." In this, therefore, he removes the error of the Manichean in two ways. First in this, that he says he is the author of the Old Testament; second, that he says he made temporal things.

Above, the Apostle showed the excellence of Christ as to the property of his origin, as to the majesty of his dominion, and as to the power of his operation; but here he shows his excellence as to the sublimity of glory and dignity. And this part is divided into two. For first he shows that Christ is fit for this dignity; second he sets down the dignity itself, where he says, he sits at the right hand. Now he shows the fitness from two things which render someone fit for something great: one is facility in administering, the other is industry and vigor in carrying out. First, therefore, he shows his facility; second, his vigor, where he says, making purgation of sins. Concerning the first, it must be known that three things are required which make for facility in administering some dignity. The first indeed is wisdom, lest he err in governing. Ecclesiastes 10:5: There is also an evil that I have seen under the sun, as it were an error proceeding from the face of the prince: a fool set in high dignity. Proverbs 8:15: By me kings reign. The second is nobility of lineage, lest he be despised in commanding. Proverbs, last chapter: Her husband is noble in the gates, when he sits with the senators of the land. The third is power of strength in carrying out. Ecclesiasticus 7:6: Seek not to be made a judge, unless thou have strength to break through iniquities. And as to these three things the Apostle shows in Christ the facility for the aforesaid dignity. First, because he is not only wise, but also is wisdom itself; hence he says, who being the splendor of glory. Second, because he is not only noble, but is nobility itself, because he is the figure of his substance. Third, because he is not only powerful, but is power itself, upholding all things by his word, etc.

Now there are three things, as was said above, which make a man fit to attain a great dignity. The first is the brightness of wisdom. Proverbs 3:35: The wise shall possess glory. And therefore he shows the wisdom of Christ, saying, who being the splendor of glory. Here it must be considered that, according to Ambrose, glory is a bright knowledge together with praise, as it were a certain manifest knowledge which is had concerning someone's goodness. But, as is said in Matthew 19:17: None is good but God alone, and also Luke 18:19; hence he himself is goodness by antonomasia and by essence. But other good things are so by participation, and thus glory by antonomasia belongs to God alone. Isaiah 42:8: I will not give my glory to another. 1 Timothy 1:17: To the king of ages, immortal, invisible, to the only God, honor and glory. The knowledge, therefore, of the divine goodness is called glory in an excellent way and by antonomasia, that is, a bright knowledge together with praise of the divine goodness. This is had in some measure by man, because now I know in part, 1 Corinthians 13:12, but it is had more excellently by the angels, but perfectly by God alone. For no one has ever seen God, John 1:18 — this is true — nor do the angels see him comprehensively, but he alone comprehends himself. Therefore only the knowledge God has of himself is perfectly called glory, because he has a perfect and most clear knowledge of himself. Now since splendor is that which is first emitted from what shines, and wisdom is something that shines — Ecclesiasticus 8:1: the wisdom of a man shines in his countenance — hence it is that the first conception of wisdom is, as it were, a certain splendor. The Word of the Father, therefore, which is a certain concept of his intellect, is the splendor of the wisdom by which he knows himself. And therefore the Apostle calls the Son the splendor of glory, that is, of bright divine knowledge. In this he shows him to be not only wise, but wisdom begotten. Isaiah 62:1: until her just one go forth as splendor, etc.

The second thing which makes a man fit for great dignity is nobility of lineage. And he shows this to be in Christ, because he says that he is the figure of his substance. For it is fitting that nobility be joined with wisdom in a prince. Deuteronomy 1:15: And I took out of your tribes wise and noble men, and appointed them princes, etc. Figure is here put for character, or image; as if he were to say: the image of the substance. It must be known, however, that although image implies likeness, not every likeness is an image. For whiteness on a wall is not the image of my whiteness, but an image and likeness in species. That, therefore, is properly said to be the image of something, which has the likeness of its species, or an expressed sign of the species. But among accidents, nothing is so much an expressed sign as figure is of species. Hence whoever describes the figure of an animal, describes its image. The Son, therefore, who is the image of the invisible God, Colossians 1:15, is properly called figure. But of what? Of his substance. For the image of something is manifold. Sometimes it is a sign representing the species while agreeing with it in nothing, as the image of a man on a wall, which in no way has the true species of a man. But sometimes it is assimilated to it in species, not only in representing, but also in being, as the son is the true image of the father. Genesis 5:3: Adam begot a son to his own image, that is, in the nature of the species. And therefore he adds of his substance, because, according to Augustine, the son is called the image of the father because he is of the same nature with him. He says, therefore, that he is the figure of the substance. But why does he not say that he is the figure of nature? Because it is possible that the nature of a species be multiplied to a multitude of individuals in things composed of matter and form. Hence the son of Socrates does not have the same nature numerically as his father. But substance is never multiplied. For the substance of the father is not one thing and that of the son another. Nor indeed is it divided according to diverse individuals. Because, therefore, the nature is one and the same in number in the Father and the Son of God, he therefore does not say of nature, which is divided, but of substance, which is indivisible. John 10:30: I and the Father are one. And chapter 14:10: I am in the Father, and the Father is in me.

The third thing which makes a man fit is strength and power. Hence Ecclesiasticus 7:6: Seek not to be a judge, unless thou have strength to break through iniquities. And therefore he shows the power, when he says, and upholding all things by the word of his power. Now it is proper to princes and to the powerful to carry. Job 9:13: under whom they stoop that bear up the world. He therefore upholds. But it must be seen what he upholds, and how, or by what. As to the first, it must be known that that which of itself can neither stand nor walk needs to be carried. But every creature of itself can neither subsist nor operate. The first is evident, because when the cause is removed, the effect is removed; but God is the cause of every substance, since he is no less the cause of the substance of a thing as to its coming to be, than the house-builder is the cause of the house's coming to be; hence, just as at the absence of the house-builder the house's coming to be ceases, and at the absence of the sun the coming to be and the being of light in the air ceases, so at the withdrawal of the divine power the being, and the coming to be, and the subsisting of every creature ceases. He upholds, therefore, all things as to their being. He upholds also all things as to their operating, because, his influence being withdrawn, all the motion of the second causes ceases, since he himself is the first cause, and the first cause has more influence than the second. Job 38:6: upon what were its bases made fast. Thus, therefore, it is clear that he upholds all things. But by what does he uphold them? By the word of his power. For since the Apostle, speaking of the creation of things, had said that God made all things through the Son — since indeed he had said, by whom also he made the worlds — he through whom someone operates does not seem to operate by his own power, but by the power of him who operates through him; just as the bailiff, through whom the king acts, does not act by his own power. Therefore by this it seems that the Son does not operate by his own power. Therefore the Apostle says that he upholds by the word of his power, because, since the cause of being and of preserving is the same, when he says that the Son by his own power is the cause of preservation, he shows that he is also the cause of being. But is it not also by the power of the Father? Indeed, by his power too, because the power of both is the same. He operates, therefore, both by his own power, and by the power of the Father, because he has his own power from the Father. Yet the Apostle does not say by his own power, but by the word of his power, to show that, just as the Father produced all things through the Word — Psalm 32:9: he spoke, and they were made, etc., in which the greatest power of the Father is shown — so the Son made all things by the same Word, which is himself. And in this the Apostle shows the power of his might, because he has the same power as the Father, since he operates the same things and by the same means as the Father. But then there is a doubt: because the Father, when he speaks, produces the Word. Therefore the Son, when he speaks, would produce a word, and thus the word of the Father would be the word of the Son. And to this the Greeks say that just as the Son is the image of the Father, so the Holy Spirit is the image of the Son. And thus Basil expounds upholding by the word of his power, that is, by the Holy Spirit. For just as the Son is the word of the Father, so, as they say, the Holy Spirit is the word of the Son. And therefore the Son acts through him, just as the Father acts through the Son. Nevertheless, properly speaking, that alone is called a word which proceeds as a concept from the intellect, upon which it follows to proceed into a likeness of species. But the Holy Spirit, even if he is like, does not however have this from the mode of his procession, because he does not proceed as a concept from the intellect, but as love from the will. But the Gloss expounds by the word of his power otherwise, that is, by his command. But here there is still a doubt about what this word may be, because a man's command is either exterior, uttered by voice — and this cannot be said in divine matters, since nothing extrinsic to the divine nature, proceeding from the Son, exists by which all things might be upheld — or that command is interior, conceived in the heart; but this too cannot stand, because nothing is conceived in the mind of God except the eternal Word. Therefore this command, thus conceived in the mind of the Son, would be the eternal Word, and thus there would be two eternal words, which it is unlawful to say. Therefore to the argument it must be said, as Augustine expounds that text of John 12:48: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him, that is, I myself, who am the word of the Father, shall judge him. And likewise, in the matter proposed, by the word of his power, that is, by himself, who is the powerful word.

By these three things, therefore, he shows three things about Christ. For by this, that he is the splendor, he shows his co-eternity with the Father. In creatures, splendor is coeval, but he is co-eternal. And this is against Arius. But when he says the image of the substance, he shows his consubstantiality. For since splendor is not of the same nature as that which shines, lest perhaps someone believe that he is not similar in nature, he says that he is the image, or figure, of the substance. But because the Son, even if he is of the same nature as the Father, yet if he were weak, would fall short of the power of the Father; therefore he adds, upholding all things by the word of his power. The Apostle, therefore, in these three things, commends Christ from three things, namely from co-eternity, from consubstantiality, and from equality of power.

Then, when he says making purgation of sins, he shows the second thing which makes for the fitness of his dignity, namely the vigor and the industry which he had in acting. For it was a mark of great industry that what belonged to him from the nature by which he is God, he himself merited through the passion in the nature he assumed. Hence Philippians 2:8f.: he became obedient unto death; for which cause God also hath exalted him. To purge sins, therefore, although it belongs to him from the divine nature, yet it belongs to him also from the merit of the passion. Hence Ecclesiasticus 47:13: Christ purged away his sins, and exalted his horn for ever, etc. Matthew 1:21: For he shall save his people from their sins. It belongs also to Christ to purge, by reason of the divine nature, and by reason of the property of the Son. By reason of the divine nature, because guilt or sin is properly the evil of the rational creature. But this evil, or sin, cannot be repaired except through God. For sin consists in the will, but only God can move the will. Jeremiah 17:9f.: The heart of man is perverse and unsearchable, who shall know it? I am the Lord, etc. And the reason for this is that what is more immediate to the end is not reduced to that end except by the first agent cause. But the will is of the last end, namely for the enjoying of God; and therefore it is moved and reduced only by God. Since therefore Christ is true God, it is manifest that he can make purgation of sins. Isaiah 43:25: I am he who blot out your iniquities for my own sake, etc. Luke 2:7: Who can forgive sins, but God alone? But by reason of the property, it belongs also to Christ. For the evidence of this it must be known that in sin, first indeed there is a transgression of the eternal law and of the divine right, since every sin is iniquity, which is a transgression of the law. Isaiah 24:5: they have changed the right, they have broken the everlasting covenant. Since therefore the eternal law and the divine right are from the eternal Word, it is manifest that the purgation of sins belongs to Christ, insofar as he is the Word. Psalm 106:20: he sent his word, and healed them. Second, in sin there is the loss of the light of reason, and consequently of the wisdom of God in man, since this light is a certain participation of the divine wisdom. Baruch 3:28: and because they had not wisdom, therefore they perished. Proverbs 14:22: all they that work evil err. And according to the Philosopher, every evil man is ignorant. But the rectification unto the divine wisdom belongs to him who is the divine wisdom. But this is Christ. 1 Corinthians 1:23f.: we preach Christ, the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Wisdom 9:19: for by wisdom they were healed, whosoever have pleased thee, O Lord, from the beginning. Third, in sin there is the deformation of the likeness of God in man. Proverbs 15:7: the heart of fools shall be unlike. Hence it is said, Luke 15:13, of the prodigal son, that he went into a far country. Of the prodigal son, that he went into a far country. And therefore it belongs to this deformation to be rectified through the Son, who is the image of the Father. 1 Corinthians 15:49: as we have borne the image of the earthly, let us bear also the image of the heavenly. Fourth, the loss of the eternal inheritance, in sign of which man after sin was excluded from Paradise, Genesis 3:23. But the reparation of this properly belongs to the Son, who is the heir. Romans 8:17: if sons, also heirs. Galatians 4:4f.: God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, that he might redeem them who were under the law, and that we might receive the adoption of sons of God. Thus, therefore, it is clear that it belongs to Christ to purge sins, both by reason of the human nature, and by reason of the divine. But how did he make the purgation of sins? This is clear from the following. For in sin, first there is a perversity of the will, by which man withdraws from the unchangeable good, and to rectify this, Christ furnished justifying grace. Romans 3:24: justified freely by his grace. Second, there is a stain left in the soul from the perversity of the will, and to wash this away he furnished his own blood. Apocalypse 1:5: he loved us, and washed us from sins, etc. Third, there is the guilt of punishment to which man is bound because of the fault, and to satisfy for this he offered himself as a sacrifice to God on the altar of the cross. Ephesians 5:2: Christ loved the Church, and delivered himself up for her, that he might sanctify her. Fourth, the servitude of the Devil, to which man is made subject by sinning, because he who commits sin is the servant of sin, and to snatch us from this, he redeemed us. Psalm 30:6: thou hast redeemed me, O Lord God of truth.

Consequently, when he says he sits at the right hand, he subjoins the dignity itself, as if he were to say: it does not seem unfitting if he sits, etc. Because he himself is the splendor and the figure, and upholds all things, etc. Now in the word sitting three things are usually implied. One is the authority of the one sitting. Job 29:25: and when I sat as a king, with his army standing about him, etc. But in the divine court many stand by, since Daniel 7:10: thousands of thousands ministered to him, and ten thousand times a hundred thousand stood before him. But none is read to sit there, because all there are servants and ministers. Below, in the same: all are ministering spirits, sent to minister. But this one alone has royal dignity. Daniel 7:22: and he came even unto the ancient of days, and afterward it follows: and he gave him power, and honor, and a kingdom, etc. Matthew 25:31: when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all his angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty, and afterward it follows: then shall the king say to these, etc.

The second is the stability of the one sitting. Luke, last chapter: sit ye in the city, etc. Daniel 7:14: his power is an everlasting power, etc.; and below, 13:8: Jesus Christ, yesterday and today, the same forever. Also, sometimes sitting implies humility, because one sitting is lower than those standing. Psalm 138:2: thou hast known my sitting down. And it is not taken in this way here, but in the first two ways. But against this, Acts 7:56: behold, I see the heavens opened, and Jesus standing, etc. And it must be said that sitting, and standing, and dispositions of this kind are said of God according to likeness. And therefore according to different aspects, he is said both to sit and to stand. Sitting indeed on account of immobility; but standing on account of usefulness for resisting strongly. Hence he stood as one ready to help Stephen, set in his agony.

But the Apostle adds that he sits at the right hand. This, if it be referred to the divine nature, has the sense: at the right hand, that is, at the equality of the Father. But if to the human nature, the sense is: at the right hand, that is, in the more excellent goods of the Father. Mark, last chapter: he sits at the right hand of God. Psalm 109:1 and Matthew 22:44: the Lord said to my Lord: sit at my right hand. But among those who have assessors, some are greater simply, as a king or emperor; but some are not greater simply, but in a certain respect, as provosts, or bailiffs. But Christ does not sit at the right hand of some inferior judge, as of some provost, like a bailiff, but of one greater simply, because at the right hand of majesty. Majesty is properly the highest power. Isaiah 6:3: the whole earth was full of his majesty. Proverbs 25:27: he that is a searcher of majesty, shall be overwhelmed by glory. But Christ, even though he thus sits at the right hand of majesty, nevertheless himself also has majesty, because he has the same majesty as the Father. Matthew 25:31: when the Son of man shall come in his majesty. Luke 9:26: him shall the Son of man be ashamed of, when he shall come in his own majesty, and that of the Father. He says also not only of majesty, but also on high, that is, above every creature. Ecclesiasticus 24:7: I dwell in the highest places. Thus, therefore, he sits on high, because he is raised above every creature. Psalm 8:2: for thy magnificence is elevated above the heavens.

And according to what Chrysostom says, the Apostle in this passage keeps the manner of one wishing to instruct a little child, who does not at once set before him the highest things, but leads him on little by little, now speaking of lofty matters, now setting forth the lowest; thus also he now sets forth divine things, when he says in the Son, now human things, when he says whom he appointed heir, etc. And so of the others, as is clear in the Gloss.

As was said above, the Apostle throughout the whole chapter intends to set Christ before the Angels as to excellence, and so he has set down four things pertaining to the excellence of Christ: namely as to origin, because he is Son; as to lordship, because he is heir; as to operation, because he himself made the ages; as to honor, because he sits at the right hand of majesty. Now the Apostle in this part shows that Christ, as to these four things, surpasses the Angels; and first as to sonship; second as to lordship, where he says and again when he brings in; third as to the operation of creation, where he says and thou, Lord, in the beginning hast founded the earth; fourth as to the Father's confession, where he says but to which of the Angels. Concerning the first he does two things, for first he sets forth what he intends; second he proves what he has proposed, where he says for to which. He says therefore so much better than the Angels, that is, holier, and therefore closer, in which he sets forth the excellence of Christ over the Angels. Eph. 1:20: setting him on his right hand in the heavenly places, above all principality and power. But then a question arises how the Apostle understands this, whether according to the divine nature or the human, since according to the divine it does not seem true, because according to that he was begotten, not made; but according to the human he is not better than the Angels, as below, chapter 2: but him who by a little than the Angels, and so on. But it must be said that Christ according to human nature had two things in this life, namely the infirmity of the flesh, and thus he was made lower than the Angels — below, chapter 2: him who by a little, and so on. Likewise he had the fullness of grace, and thus also in his humanity he was greater than the Angels in grace and glory. Jn. 1:14: we saw him as it were the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. But this is not the understanding meant here. For the Apostle does not understand that he was made better as to grace, but on account of the union of the human nature to the divine; and thus he is said to have been made, insofar as through the accomplishing of that union he came to this, that he should be better than the Angels, and should be called and should be the Son of God. And therefore he adds as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they. And as to this name, he shows the difference as to three things: namely as to the signification of the name, because the proper name of the Angels is that they are called Angels, which is the name of a minister — for Angel is the same as messenger — but the proper name of Christ is that he is called the Son of God. And this name is very much more different from that one, because however much difference you posit, there is still a greater one to be given, since they differ infinitely. Prov. 30:4: what is his name, and what is the name of his son, if thou knowest? For the name of his son, like that of the Father, is incomprehensible. Phil. 2:9: and gave him a name which is above every name. But perhaps you will say that the Angels too are called sons of God. Job 1:6 and 2:1: when the sons of God stood before the Lord, and so on. It must be said that if they are called sons of God, this is not essentially and by nature, but by a certain participation. But he himself is essentially the Son of God, and therefore has a name more different than theirs; and this is the second point, for they differ as to the manner. Ps. 88:7: who among the sons of God is like to God? As if to say: none, by nature. As to the third he says that he inherited that name. For an inheritance follows upon origin. Hence Christ has it that he is Son from his origin, and by nature; but the Angels have it from the gift of grace. Matt. 21:38: this is the heir. Hence he inherited the name, but not the Angels, and this is the third difference. Then when he says for to which of the Angels said he at any time, he proves what he said; and first he treats of the name as it belongs to Christ according to divinity; second according to humanity, where he says and again, I will be, and so on. As to the first he brings in the authority of Ps. 2:7: the Lord hath said to me, and so on. And this is for to which of the Angels, etc., as if to say: to none of the Angels were these words spoken, but only to Christ. Where three things can be noted. First, the manner of origin, in the word said; second, the singularity of the sonship, where he says thou art my son; third, his authority, where he says I this day. This manner is not carnal but spiritual and intellectual. For God is spirit, Jn. 4:24, and therefore he does not beget carnally, but spiritually and intellectually. Now the intellect, in speaking, begets a word, which is its concept, and therefore he pointedly said that the Lord said to me, that is, the Father said to the Son. For the Father's intellect to speak, then, is nothing other than to conceive a word in the heart. Ps. 44:2: my heart hath uttered a good word. Job 33:14: he speaketh once, and repeateth not the same thing a second time. Ecclus. 24:5: I came out of the mouth of the most High. But as to the second, this generation is singular, for he says thou art my son, as if to say: although many others are called sons, yet to be a natural son belongs to him alone; the others are called sons of God because they are participants of the Word of God. Jn. 10:35: he called them gods to whom the word of God was made; but Christ is the very Word. Matt. 17:5: this is my beloved son. But as to the third, this generation is not temporal but eternal, for this day have I begotten thee. Now time differs from eternity, because time varies as motion does, whose measure lies in variation and succession, and therefore it is named by the succession of past and future. But eternity is the measure of a thing immovable, and therefore there is no variation there by succession, but it is always present; and therefore it is denoted by the adverb of present time, namely today, that is, in eternity. But because that which is coming to be, since it is not yet, is on that account incomplete, whereas that which has been made is complete, and thus perfect; therefore he does not say I beget thee but I have begotten, because he is perfect. Yet lest his generation be thought to be entirely in the past, and consequently in defect, he adds today. And he joins the past to the present, namely today and I have begotten, that you may know that this generation always is, and is perfect, and thus in today its permanence, and in I have begotten its perfection, is designated. So that the sense is: thou art perfect, O Son, and yet thy generation is eternal, and thou art always begotten of me; just as light in the air is perfect, and yet always proceeds from the sun. Mic. 5:2: his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Ps. 109:3: from the womb before the day-star I begot thee. This could also be expounded of a temporal generation, so that he says today, that is, in time, I have begotten thee. Next, when he says and again: I will be to him a father, etc., he shows what he has proposed, according as it belongs to Christ according to his humanity, and this by another authority. According to the Gloss, this is said in Isaiah, I will be to him a father, yet nothing quite like this is found in Isaiah except this: and a son is given to us. But in 2 Kings 7:14 and 1 Chron. 22:10 these same words of the Lord are found, spoken to David concerning Solomon, by whom Christ was prefigured. Now it should be known that in the Old Testament certain things are said of one who is a figure, not insofar as he is a certain thing, but insofar as he is a figure, and then it is not to be expounded of him except insofar as it is referred to the thing figured. For example, in Ps. 71 certain things are said of David, or of Solomon, only insofar as they prefigured Christ. But certain things are said of them also according as they are certain men, and these sayings about them can be expounded also of Christ; as this: give to the king thy judgment, O God, since that can apply to Solomon. But those things that are said of them insofar as they are a figure can never be expounded of them, as this: and he shall rule from sea to sea, etc., because this can in no way be verified of Solomon. So too in the case before us, although these words were said of Solomon, yet they can be expounded of Christ, who was prefigured by him. He says therefore I will be, which is of future time, to denote that the incarnation of the Son was to be in time. Gal. 4:4: but when the fullness of time was come, and so on. Above, however, when he was speaking of the eternal generation, he said thou art, as it were without motion; but here, when he speaks of the temporal, he says into a son, which denotes the terminus of some motion. For assumption implies motion into sonship. And since every motion comes about through the operation of someone, terminated at some effect, therefore he first sets down the operation of the one acting, because the assumption was made not by the power of the humanity, but of the divinity, when he says I will be to him a father, that is, I will assume him to the union of the person of the Son. And he adds the effect that follows, namely that, because he has been received into the personal unity of the Son, he shall be to me a son. Of the first it is said, Lk. 1:35: the power of the Most High, namely that which makes the assumption, shall overshadow thee. Of the second, Rom. 1:3: who was made to him of the seed of David according to the flesh. Again, I will be to him, that is, unto his honor and benefit I will glorify him. Jn. 17:5: glorify me, Father. And he shall be to me, that is, unto my honor, by manifesting my name to men. Jn. 17:6: I have manifested thy name, and so on. Then when he says and again, etc., he treats of the lordship of Christ, by which he is heir of all things. Where he does three things: first he shows his lordship, and especially over the Angels; second he sets down the reason for that lordship on the part of the Angels, where he says and to the angels; third on the part of Christ, where he says but to the son. As to the first he brings in the authority of Ps. 96:7, when he says: adore him, all his angels; this is found in Ps. 96:1: the Lord hath reigned, let there be rejoicing, and so on. For adoration is not paid except to a lord; therefore if the Angels adore him, he is their lord. The Apostle, wishing to bring in this authority, first touches upon the intention of the Psalmist, when he says and when again he bringeth in, etc., that the Psalmist speaks of the coming of Christ into the world. And therefore he says: and when Scripture bringeth in, that is, is about to bring in, it saith firstborn, etc.; as if to say: it has already been said that Christ is Son above the Angels; therefore he is principally begotten from the Father. He is therefore to be called firstborn. Rom. 8:29: that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren. Now this firstborn was to be brought into the world, and so on. And see how orderly the Apostle speaks. For first he says that he himself is from the Father, where he says I will be to him a father; second, that he was assumed into the unity of the person, where he says and he shall be to me a son; but now he sets him forth into the knowledge of men. Now he calls the incarnation a bringing in unto the world. But against this: Christ himself calls it a going out. Jn. 16:28: I came out from the Father, and am come into the world. And it must be said that a going out is also a bringing in. Just as, if someone is to be reconciled to a prince, first a mediator goes out to him and afterward brings him in. A similar thing is found in 1 Kings 20:5 and following, concerning David toward Jonathan. So Christ, the mediator of God and men, first went out to men, and afterward brought them back in reconciled. Below, 2:10: who had brought many sons into glory, and so on. Or he bringeth in, that is, leads him even into the hearts of men, because Scripture, speaking of the coming of Christ, says that he is to be received within the hearts of men. Now this reception comes about through faith. Eph. 3:17: Christ to dwell by faith in your hearts. Ps. 95:3: declare his glory among the nations. For when Scripture says that the nations ought to believe, it says that Christ is about to enter into their heart. Now this word again, which he uses, is expounded in many ways. For Chrysostom says that concerning the incarnation of the Word, which is called a bringing in, Scripture does not speak once, but again and again. Or otherwise, because he himself was first in the world through the power of his divinity invisibly, but again he is brought into the world according to the presence of his humanity, visibly. Or otherwise, because above he had said I will be to him a father, that is, I will assume him into personal unity with myself. And when again he bringeth in him, namely this firstborn one, assumed to the unity of the person: because it would not suffice to say that he is brought in, unless it were said how he is brought in, namely that it is not as one of the world, nor as the Angels, but above all. Therefore he says let all the angels adore him. Neh. 9:6: the host of heaven adoreth thee. Apoc. 7:11: all the angels stood round about the throne, and they fell down, and adored, and so on. Then when he says and to the angels, etc., the reason is set down on the part of the Angels why they adore him, as if to say: it is just that they should adore him, because they are ministers. Hence he says who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. For God sometimes operates by illuminating the intellect. Jn. 1:9: he enlighteneth every man, and so on. But sometimes he moves to a work. Is. 26:12: thou hast wrought all our works in us. And the first, God does in us by the mediation of the Angels. Ps. 75:5: thou enlightenest wonderfully from the everlasting hills. The second also he does in us, they themselves being the intermediaries, as Dionysius says in chapter 4 of the Celestial Hierarchy. Insofar, therefore, as he enlightens through them, they are called messengers, for it belongs to messengers to announce those things that are in the heart of their lord. But insofar as they are the intermediaries of divine works, they are called ministers. Ps. 102:21: his ministers, that do his will. They are therefore both messengers and ministers. But of what sort they are, he describes them by two corporeal things most fitting for this. One is air, whose property greatly suits a messenger, while the property of fire suits a minister. For air is receptive of light and of impressions; likewise it renders very well what it has received; likewise it has swift motion. Now a good messenger ought to have these qualities, namely that he receive well what is said, report well what he has received, and do both swiftly. These things fit the Angels well. For they receive divine illuminations most excellently. For the Angels are clean mirrors, according to Dionysius. Matt. 18:10: and their angels in heaven, and so on. Likewise they render most excellently, which is signified in Apoc. 1:1: God signified the things which must shortly come to pass, speaking by his angel to his servant John, and so on. Likewise they are swift. Is. 18:2: go, ye swift angels, and so on. Now these are called spirits, because every invisible substance is called spirit; hence also air is called spirit. Likewise they are fire, insofar as ministers. Now fire, among all the elements, is most active and efficacious for acting. Hence in Ps. 103:4, concerning the Angels, where they are called his ministers, there it is added and thy ministers a burning fire. Likewise fire causes heat, by which charity is designated. Cant. 8:6: lamps of fire and flames. Hence they are described in fire, and are called Seraphim, Is. 6:2. Likewise fire always moves upward; so the Angels and good ministers, whatever they do, always refer it to the glory of God, as is clear of the Angel, Tob. 12:6: bless ye the God of heaven, and so on. He does not say: bless me, but the God of heaven. Not so of the evil angel, who says, Matt. 4:9: if falling down thou wilt adore me. But the good Angel, as a good minister, says, Apoc. last: see thou do it not, and there follows: adore God.

Above the Apostle proved by authority that the Angels are ministers; here he proves this by an argument taken from the side of Christ himself. Hence he intends here to prove the kingly dignity of Christ; and here he does two things. First he commends the kingly dignity of Christ himself; second he shows his fitness for that dignity, at the place: therefore God has anointed you. Concerning the first he does three things: first he commends the kingly authority of Christ; second, the equity of his rule, at: a rod of equity; third, the goodness of his rule, at: you have loved justice.

He says therefore: but to the Son he says, your throne, etc. And these are the words of God the Father speaking through the tongue of the prophet, as through the pen of a scribe. He says therefore: O God, O son, your throne, etc. In this royal majesty is denoted. For a throne is the seat of a king, but a chair is that of a teacher, and a tribunal is the seat of a judge. All of which befit Christ, because he himself is our king: Luke 1:32: he will reign in the house of Jacob; and therefore a throne befits him. Ps. 88:30: his throne is like the sun. He himself is teacher, John 3:2: we know that you have come from God as teacher; therefore a chair befits him. He himself is our judge, Is. 33:22: the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver; and therefore a tribunal is fitting for him. 2 Cor. 5:10: we must all be made manifest before the tribunal of Christ, etc.

Now a throne belongs to Christ according to the divine nature, inasmuch as he is God, Ps. 46:8: God is king of all the earth; but according as he is man, it belongs to him from the merit of his passion, victory, and resurrection. Apoc. 3:21: to him who conquers I will grant to sit with me on my throne, as I have conquered and sat down on my Father's throne with him. This throne is everlasting. Luke 1:33: and of his kingdom there will be no end. Dan. 7:14: his power is an everlasting power, which will not be taken away. Now it is clear that that kingdom is eternal, both inasmuch as it belongs to him from nature, because he is God. Ps. 144:13: your kingdom is a kingdom of all ages. Likewise, inasmuch as it belongs to him as man, and this for a twofold reason. One, because that kingdom is not ordered to temporal things, but to eternal ones. John 18:36: my kingdom is not of this world. For he reigns to this end, that he may direct men to eternal life. But it is not so with the kingdom of men; hence their kingdom ends with the present life. The other reason is that the Church, which is his kingdom, endures until the end of the world, and then Christ will hand over the kingdom to God and the Father, to be consummated and perfected.

Next he commends his kingdom from equity, when he says: a rod of equity, etc. Now the kingdom is fittingly described by a rod. For tyrannical rule differs from the rule of a king, because tyrannical rule is for its own advantage with the oppression of subjects; but the rule of a king is principally ordered to the advantage of subjects. And therefore a king is a father and a shepherd. For a shepherd does not correct with a sword, but with a rod. Ps. 88:33: I will visit their iniquities with a rod. Likewise a shepherd uses a rod in directing the flock. Micah 7:14: feed your people with your rod. A rod also sustains the weak. Ps. 22:4: your rod and your staff, they have comforted me. Likewise a rod troubles enemies. Num. 24:17: a rod will arise out of Israel, and will strike the leaders of Moab. But this is a rod of equity. Is. 11:4: he will reprove in equity for the meek of the earth.

But it must be known that sometimes someone rules by the rigor of law, as when he keeps those things which are just in themselves. But it happens that something is just in itself, which nevertheless, when compared to something, brings about detriment if it is kept; and therefore it is necessary that the common law be applied to this, and if this is done, then it is a rule of equity. The kingdom of the Old Testament was according to the rigor of justice. Acts 15:10: a burden which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear. But the kingdom of Christ is a kingdom of equity and justice, because in it nothing is imposed except a gentle observance. Matt. 11:30: for my yoke is sweet and my burden is light. And Ps. 95:13: he will judge the world in equity.

Next, when he says you have loved, etc., he commends the goodness of the ruler. For some keep equity, yet not on account of love of justice, but rather on account of fear, or glory, or dread, and such rule does not last. But this one keeps equity on account of love of justice. He says therefore, you have loved justice, as if to say: that the rod is equitable and straight, this is because you have loved justice. Wisdom 1:1: love justice, you who judge the earth. But he is not just who does not love justice. Matt. 5:6: blessed are they who hunger and thirst for justice. But some indeed love justice, but are remiss in the correction of iniquity; but Christ hates, that is, reproves iniquity. Ps. 118:113: I have hated the iniquitous. Wisdom 14:9: likewise the impious man and his impiety are hateful to God. Ecclus. 12:3: the Most High hates sinners, and has had mercy on those who repent. And therefore he says: and you have hated iniquity.

Then, when he says therefore God has anointed you, he shows Christ's fitness for carrying out and governing, where there is a difficulty concerning what he says, "therefore," etc. In these words there is treated the spiritual anointing, because Christ is filled with the Holy Spirit. For was he filled for this reason, because he loved justice? Then he merited grace, which is against that saying of Rom. 11:6: if by works, then it is no longer of grace; and this is the common difficulty. But specifically to the point, because Christ in his very conception was full of the Holy Spirit, John 1:14: full of grace and truth; therefore he did not merit it.

I respond. Here the error of Origen must be guarded against. For he held that all spiritual creatures, even the soul of Christ, were created from the beginning, and according as they adhered more or less to God, or turned away from him through the freedom of their will, a distinction was made between angels and even souls. Hence in the Periarchon he says that the soul of Christ, because it adhered more vehemently to God, by loving justice and hating iniquity, merited a greater fullness of grace before all spiritual substances. But this is heretical to say, namely that any soul whatsoever, or even the soul of Christ, was created before the body — which also has a special reason in the case of Christ, because in the first instant the soul was created together with the forming of the body, and the whole was assumed by the Son of God.

What then does he mean by "therefore"? One Gloss seems to hold with Origen. But if we wish to save it, we shall say that in Scripture something is said to happen when it becomes known; as when it is said, Phil. 2:8: he became obedient, etc., for which reason God also exalted him, and gave him a name, etc. Did Christ, by the merit of his passion, merit to be God? By no means: for this is the error of Photinus. It must be said therefore that Christ's being God exceeds all merit, but through his passion he merited that it be made manifest everywhere that he is God, and that God had given him such a name, etc. Thus that which he says here, therefore God has anointed you, etc. — so that the sense is: from the fact that you loved justice, you merited that this become known.

Or otherwise, and better, in such a way that the word "therefore" denotes not a meritorious cause, but a final one; as if he were to say: in order that you might have those things — namely the perpetual throne, the rod of equity, etc., which have been mentioned — therefore God has anointed you with oil, namely of sanctification, which the Lord commanded to be done, Ex. 30:24ff: with which the vessels and the priests were anointed, Lev. 8:2 and 9:1f, and the kings, as is clear of David, 1 Kings 16:13, and of Solomon, 3 Kings 1:39; likewise the prophets, as is clear of Elisha, 3 Kings 19:16.

But why was this sanctification done by anointing? The reason is literal. For men of the East were anointed for festivity, so that they might not waste away, because they are in a region very hot. The poor also were anointed for festivity. 4 Kings 4:2: your handmaid has nothing except a little oil with which to anoint myself. But in the divine Scripture things are handed down to us according to the manner in which men are accustomed to make use of. Because therefore men were then anointed, either on account of the celebration of a feast, or on account of the eminence of the person, therefore to show the excellence of Christ, he says he was anointed with the oil of exultation.

For he himself is king. Is. 32:1: behold, a king will reign in justice. And 35: for the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he himself will come and save us. He is also a priest. Ps. 109:4: you are a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech. He was also a prophet. Deut. 18:15: the Lord will raise up for you a prophet of your own nation and of your brothers, like me. And it befits him to be anointed with the oil of sanctification and exultation. From him, moreover, are the sacraments, which are the vessels of grace. Is. 22:24: I will hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, the diverse kinds of vessels, etc.

This anointing also befits Christians. For they are kings and priests. 1 Peter 2:9: you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood. Apoc. 5:10: you have made us a kingdom and priests to our God. Likewise he has the Holy Spirit, who is the spirit of prophecy. Joel 2:28: I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh, etc. And therefore all are anointed, with an invisible anointing. 2 Cor. 1:21: now he who confirms us with you in Christ, and who has anointed us, is God, and who has sealed us, and has given, etc. 1 John 2:20: you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things.

But what comparison is there between Christ anointed and Christians anointed? This, namely that he has it principally and first, but we and others have it poured out from him. Ps. 127: like the ointment upon the head, etc. And he says: above your fellows. John 1:16: of his fullness we have all received. Hence the others are called saints, but he himself is the saint of saints. For he himself is the root of all holiness. But he says with the oil of gladness, or exultation, because from this anointing spiritual gladness proceeds. Rom. 14:17: the kingdom of God is not food and drink, but justice and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Gal. 5:22: but the fruit of the spirit is charity, peace, joy. Ps. 103:15: that he might gladden the face with oil. Is. 61:3: the oil of joy for mourning, etc.

Now that he says "God" twice — God, God — is explained in two ways. In one way, that the nominative case is repeated, so that the sense is: God has anointed you, through himself as God, but us through you, the mediator of God and men, the man Christ. 2 Pet. 1:4: through whom he has granted to us great and precious promises. In another way, because, according to Augustine in the Gloss, one is of the nominative case, the other of the vocative, so that the sense is: O Christ, who are God the Son, God the Father has anointed you, etc. And that it ought to be explained in this way is more evident in the Greek. But since Christ is not anointed according as he is God, because thus it does not befit him to receive the Holy Spirit, but rather to give it to others, the second exposition does not seem to be true.

I respond. It must be said that he is the same in person, both God and man, yet he is anointed inasmuch as he is man. And when it is said: O God, etc., both the one anointing is God and man, and the one anointed likewise is God and man, and one with him in person.

Above, the Apostle had set forth four things in which Christ excels the Angels, and he proved two of them, namely, that he excels them because he is the Son, and because he is the heir; now he proves the third, namely, that he excels them in the power of operation, because through him the Father made also the ages. The Apostle proves this from the authority of that same prophecy, and concerning this he does two things. First, he shows the power of operation insofar as he is creator; second, as to the difference between the creator and the creature, at the place "they shall perish." Concerning the first he does two things, for first he sets down the creation of the earth; second, of the heavens, at the place "and the works of your hands."

Now concerning the first it must be known that this can be read in two ways: in one way, that the speech of the prophet is directed to the Father, so that the sense is: "You, Lord" — namely, God the Father — "have founded the earth in the beginning," that is, in your Son, who is the beginning. Jn. 8:25: "I am the beginning, who also speak to you." And this is worth as much as if he had said: you founded the earth through the Son: Ps. 103:24: "You have made all things in wisdom." But the Son is begotten Wisdom, hence above he called him "the splendor of glory." And what he says here corresponds to what he said above, "through whom he made also the ages."

In another way, that the speech is directed to the Son, thus: "And you, Lord" — namely, Son — "have founded the earth in the beginning," namely of time, so as to exclude the opinion of those positing the eternity of the world; or "in the beginning," namely of the production of things, so as to exclude the opinion of those saying that corporeal things were not created together with spiritual things, but afterward. Gen. 1:1: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth." Ecclus. 18:1: "He who lives forever created all things together."

Now it must be known that earth can be distinguished from heaven in three ways.

In one way, and according to the letter, that by "earth" is understood the element earth, and by "heaven" the higher bodies; so that just as Moses makes no mention of air, because it goes along with water, so here by "heaven" is understood heaven itself and the other two elements, namely air and fire, which come closer to the nature of heaven, as is evident from their place. Moses also takes it in this way. And he says "you have founded," to show that three things pertain to the earth: first indeed the rest of the earth; for all other things share in motion, but the earth alone, according to its totality, remains immobile, so that the sense is "you have founded," that is, "you have made firm." Ps. 103:5: "Who has founded the earth upon its own stability." Second, to show the perpetuity of the earth, for the foundation of a building is more stable than its other parts. But the earth stands forever, Eccles. 1:4. And according to this he says "you have founded the earth," that is, "you have made it solid forever." Third, to show the order of the earth, because just as the foundation, which is the first part of a building, is at the bottom, so the earth holds the lowest place among all the elements. Is. 48:13: "My hand has founded the earth." Ps.: "His hands founded the dry land."

But he does not say "you have made the heavens," but "the heavens are the works of your hands," because what someone makes with his hands, he seems to make more carefully. And therefore he speaks in this way to designate their nobility and beauty. Is. 48:13: "My right hand has measured the heavens."

But otherwise, that by "earth" he understands the whole corporeal nature. And thus "you have founded the earth," because matter is the place and foundation of forms; but by "heavens," the spiritual substances. Ps. 148:4: "Praise him, you heavens of heavens." And these are the works of his hands, because he made them to his image and likeness. Or by "earth," the imperfect in the Church, because they are the foundation of the others; for unless the active life existed in the Church, the contemplative would not subsist. By "heavens," the contemplatives. And these were made in the Church "in the beginning," that is, through the Son. Is. 51:16: "I have put my words in your mouth, that you might found the earth" — that is, the imperfect — "and plant the heavens" — that is, the perfect.

But as to the heavens he says, "the heavens are the works of your hands." Now he says "the works of your hands," and not simply, "you made the heavens," for four reasons.

First, to exclude the error of those saying that God is the soul of heaven, and consequently that the whole world and its parts ought to be worshiped as God, which the idolaters also did; and he excludes this when he says "the heavens are the works of your hands," as if to say: they are not proportioned to you as a body to a soul, but are subject and proportioned to your power and your will. Deut. 4:19: "Lest perhaps, having lifted up your eyes to heaven, you see the sun and the moon and all the stars of heaven, and being deceived by error, you adore them."

Second, to designate the dignity and beauty of the heavens, because we say we make with our hands that which we make carefully; therefore, in order to show that the heavens were fashioned by divine wisdom in a more excellent way than the other corporeal creatures, he says "the heavens are the works of your hands." And this is evident, because the diversity in these lower things can be reduced to the disposition of matter, but the diversity of the heavenly bodies can in no way be reduced to anything but divine wisdom. And hence it is that whenever mention is made of the creation of heaven, there is added there "prudently," or "understanding," or something of this kind, according to Jer. 4: "He established the heavens prudently," and according to Ps. 135:5: "Who made the heavens in understanding."

Third, to show that in the heavens the divine power of the creator shines forth more, according to the Gloss; for there is nothing among creatures in whose making so much of the power of God appears, and this on account of their magnitude and order. Wis. 13:5: "For by the greatness of the beauty and of the creature, the creator of these things may be known and seen."

Fourth, to show that among all bodies, the heavenly body receives influence from God more immediately, and through it this influence is derived into these lower things. Job 38:33: "Do you know the order of heaven, and can you set forth its reason on the earth?" As if to say: if you consider well the disposition of heaven, you cannot attribute the cause of its disposition to any earthly thing, but to God.

In another way it can be explained, so that by "earth" the whole corporeal matter is taken, and by "heavens" the spiritual substances. And thus the sense is: "in the beginning" of time you founded the earth, that is, corporeal matter, that is, you established it as the foundation of forms; and thus is understood that saying of Ps. 148:7: "Praise the Lord from the earth," etc. "But the heavens" — that is, the spiritual substances, Ps. 148:4: "let the heavens praise him," etc. — "are the works of your hands," namely because you made them to your image and likeness.

In a third way it can be explained, so that by "earth" are understood the lowest in the Church, and by "heavens" the highest; and thus the sense is: "in the beginning," that is, through the Son, "you founded the earth," that is, the active and the lowest in the Church; and they are said to be founded because they are, as it were, the foundation of the others, for unless there were active persons in the Church, contemplative men would not be sustained. "But the heavens" — that is, the contemplatives and the more perfect — "are the works of your hands," that is, endowed with a more excellent pre-eminence. Ps. 18:2: "The heavens declare the glory of God"; and Is. 1:2: "Hear, O heavens" — that is, the greater — "give ear, O earth" — that is, the lesser.

Consequently, when he says "they shall perish," he shows the difference between the creator and the creature, and this as to two things which are proper to the creator: the first is eternity; the second is immutability, concerning which there is the place "and they all shall grow old like a garment," etc. Concerning the first he does two things, for first he sets down the termination of the creature; second, the unending duration of God, at the place "but you shall remain." He says therefore first: "they" — namely the heavens — "shall perish." But against this, Eccles. 1:4: "The earth stands forever"; therefore it seems that much more so do the heavens.

I respond. It must be said that, according to Augustine and the Philosopher, in every change there is generation and corruption. Hence whatever is changed perishes from the state in which it was. Therefore, what he says, that the heavens shall perish, is not understood as to their substance, concerning which Job 37:18: "which are most solid, as if cast of brass," but as to the state which they now have. Apoc. 21:1: "I saw a new heaven and a new earth." 1 Cor. 7:31: "The fashion of this world passes away."

But how will they change their state? In different ways, because the higher heavens are indeed moved according to place, but are not altered. But the lower ones, namely fire and air, are both moved and altered, and are subject to corruption. Thus therefore the state of all the heavens is changeable; but then motion will cease in the higher ones, and corruption in the lower ones, because the air will be purged by the fire of the conflagration. 2 Pet. 3:7: "The heavens that now are, and the earth, are by the same word kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment," etc. All shall perish from the state in which they now are, and thus in a certain manner they shall perish, but you, Lord, shall remain. Ps. 101:13: "But you, Lord, shall remain forever."

Here he shows the permanence of the creator, as if to say: in you there is no change nor shadow of alteration, as is said in Jas. 1:17, and Lam. 5:19: "But you, Lord, shall remain forever, your throne from generation to generation," which can also be understood of Christ as man. Below, at the end: "Jesus Christ, yesterday and today, the same, and forever."

Then, when he says "and they all," etc., he shows the difference of God from the creature as to immutability. And concerning this he does two things. For first he sets down the mutability of the creature; second, the immutability of God, at the place "but you are the same." And further, concerning the first he does two things, for first he describes the reason for the mutability of the creature; second he adds that mutability, at the place "and as a garment."

Now concerning the first it must be known that old and new follow upon time. Hence nothing can grow old, except what is measured in some way by time. But the motion of the heavens is measured by time, and the moved thing itself is measured by the very "now" of time; therefore newness and oldness can be found in heaven. Hence the heavens will not grow old as though their substance were diminished, or corrupted in any respect, but only as to the length of time, by which they will no longer be measured. And therefore he says "as a garment," etc., because the cause of the change of the heavens will not be on account of any defect in their power, which might be diminished in some respect. For if their motion should cease on account of a defect of power, then the cessation would already have a natural cause, and could be discovered by natural reason, the contrary of which is said in Matt. 24:36: "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the Angels in heaven," etc. Therefore it will be on account of the necessity of an end: because all corporeal creatures are ordered to spiritual ones, and the whole motion serving generation and corruption is ordered to the generation of man. Therefore, when the generation of man ceases, which will be when the number of the elect and the predestined is complete, that motion will cease. And therefore it is called a garment, because it is taken up for use, and when the use ceases it is laid aside, just as a man lays aside a warm garment when summer comes, and a cold one when winter comes. Thus therefore the state of the world, which is now suited to this end, when that number of the elect has been completed, will no longer be fitting or necessary, and therefore it will be laid aside like a garment. Lk. 21:33: "Heaven and earth shall pass away."

Consequently he sets down that mutability itself, when he says "and as a mantle you shall change them," namely the heavens. And he well says, "you, God, shall change them," because it will not be by their own power, nor of themselves, but by the power of God that they will be changed from motion, like a mantle, which is taken up for use, and after use is laid aside according to the fitness of time and end. And he says "mantle," because through a mantle the glory of man is both manifested and covered. So too God, through creatures, is both hidden from us and manifested. Rom. 1:20: "The invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." Wis. 13:5: "For by the greatness of the beauty and of the creature, the creator of these things may be known and seen," etc. And he says "they shall be changed," because, once changed, they will remain so forever.

Likewise as to the spiritual heavens, who perish from the present life through the death of the body. Rom. 14: "We all die, and like waters we slide away into the earth, which do not return." Is. 57:1: "The just man perishes, and there is no one," etc. Likewise they will grow old, because, as is said below, 8:13, "that which decays and grows old is near to destruction." And "you shall change," namely as to bodies, when this corporeal thing shall put on incorruption. 1 Cor. 15:54. And they will be changed as to mind, when from the enigmatic vision they are taken up to the vision of species. Job 14:14: "All the days in which I now war, I wait until my change comes."

Then he adds the immutability of God, when he says "but you are the selfsame." Here he does two things. For first he sets down what is intended; second he shows this by a sign, at the place "and your years." He says therefore, "they shall perish, but you" — namely the Son of God, and this against the Arians — "are the selfsame," that is, you continue to be the same, and are never changed. Mal. 3:6: "I am God, and I do not change." Jas. 1:17: "With whom there is no change," etc.

And he sets down the sign of this immutability, when he says "your years shall not fail." Here it must be known that the years of God are said to be his duration, just as the years of a man are the duration of a man; but the duration of a man fails in two ways, namely as to parts, and as to the whole; as to parts indeed, because, since it is temporal, one part succeeds another, and when one arrives, the other fails. It also fails as to the whole, because it ceases to be entirely. But in the duration of God neither of these is the case, for it does not fail as to the whole, because it always is. Ps. 91:9: "But you, Lord, are the most high forever." Likewise not as to parts, because eternity is all at once, and something standing still. Job 36:26: "The number of his years is inestimable," etc.

But since it is one and immutable, why are "years" called in the plural, and not "year" in the singular? The reason for this is that our intellect receives the knowledge of intelligible things through sensible things, because all our knowledge begins from sense. Hence even God, who is altogether simple, is described under the likeness of corporeal things, Is. 6:1: "I saw the Lord sitting," etc. So too his duration is described by us through certain things known to us, although it is uniform and simple. Hence sometimes it is called "year," sometimes "day" and "month," because it includes all the differences of time.

Above, the Apostle proved three things about Christ, in which he surpasses the Angels; here he proves a fourth, which he had stated beforehand about him, namely, that he sits at the right hand of majesty, which pertains to his dignity. And concerning this he does two things. For first he brings in the authority of David showing this; second he shows that the Angels fall short of this dignity, at the place, are they not all ministering spirits? Concerning the first he does two things: first he describes the dignity of Christ; second he shows it by a sign, at the place, until I make.

He says therefore, but to which of the Angels did God ever say — as if he were saying: it is not found that God said this to an Angel, but he said it to Christ. And Christ himself, Matth. XXII, v. 43 ss., brings forward this as said of himself. Now this, that he says, sit at my right hand, can be referred to the divine nature, in which Christ is equal to the Father, because he has both judicial and royal power equal to the Father. Io. XVI, 15: all things that the Father has are mine. The Father indeed said this from eternity, because by saying it he begot the Son, and by begetting gave him the equality of the Father. It can also be referred to the human nature, according to which he sits in the greater goods of the Father. But the Father said this then, when he united his Word to human nature. But this was explained more above, where he had said, he sits at the right hand.

Accordingly, when he says until, he shows the dignity of Christ by a sign; where a twofold doubt arises. One, because from eternity all things are subject to the Son inasmuch as he is God. Again, because at the resurrection Christ says: all power has been given to me. What then does he wait for, to be made subject to his footstool? And it must be known that something can be in someone's power in two ways. In one way as to authority, and thus all things from eternity, as to the preordination of things to be done, and in the time in which they existed, are subject to the Son of God inasmuch as he is God, but from the beginning of his conception inasmuch as he is man. In another way as to the exercise of power, and thus not all things are subject to him, but only at the end of the world, because he does not yet exercise power over all things, subjecting all things to himself. Phil. c. III, 21: according to the working by which he is able even to subject all things to himself.

But what is this that he says, footstool? It can be said that by this nothing else is understood than full and perfect subjection. For that is said to be perfectly subject to someone which he himself can trample underfoot. Or again, otherwise, and putting a certain force upon the word: for as God is the head of Christ — I Cor. XI, 3: the head of Christ is God — so the feet of Christ are his humanity. Ps. CXXXI, v. 7: we will worship in the place where his feet stood. I will make, therefore, a footstool, that is, I will subject your enemies not only to your divinity, but also to your humanity.

In this, however, Origen erred. For he wished and understood only one mode of subjection, saying: just as to be subject to light is nothing other than to be illumined, so, since Christ is truth, justice, and goodness, and whatever else of this kind can be said, to be subject to the Savior is nothing other than to be saved. And therefore he held that in the end all things, even the demons, would be saved, because otherwise not all things would be subject to Christ. But this is against what is said in Matth. c. XXV, 41: go, you cursed, into everlasting fire.

Hence it must be known that there is a twofold mode of subjection. One by the will of the subjects, as good servants are subject to their lord, say a king, and thus only the good are subject to Christ in this way. The other by the will of the lord, and thus there is a certain violence on the part of the subjects. And thus the wicked will be subjected to Christ, not because they will his dominion, but because Christ will do his own will concerning them, punishing those who were unwilling here to do his will. And this is properly designated by the footstool, because what is trodden underfoot is crushed. Is. LXVI, 1: heaven is my seat, that is, the heavenly and the good; but the earth, that is, the earthly and the wicked, is the footstool of my feet.

The other doubt concerns this, that he says until, etc., because if he will sit until he makes it, then once he has made it, he will not sit. I answer that expressions of this kind, until and up to, are sometimes put in a finite sense, namely when they mark the terminus of that to which they are joined, as when I say: sit here until I come. But sometimes they are held in an infinite sense, namely when no terminus is set, as when it is said: this man did not repent as long as he lived, because he did not repent after death either. For as Jerome says, that must be designated concerning which there could be doubt. But that which is not doubtful is left to the one who understands. Now it is doubtful of someone whether he repents in his life, but that he does not repent after his death is doubtful to no one. So too in the case at hand; for since many now assail and blaspheme Christ, it seems doubtful whether he sits now; but it is not doubtful whether he will sit when all things will be subject to him, and therefore that is not expressed.

Accordingly he shows that this dignity does not belong to the Angels, when he says, are not all of them ministering spirits, et cetera. Where he does three things: first he shows their office; second, the execution of the office, at the place, into ministry; third, the fruit of the execution, at the place, that they might inherit. He says therefore, are not all, et cetera. Ps. CII, 21: his ministers who do his will. But against this, Dan. VII, 10: thousands of thousands ministered to him, etc., where Gregory says: some minister, others are those who stand by. Therefore not all minister.

I answer. It must be said that, just as we see among craftsmen that there is a twofold kind of craftsmen — for some are, as it were, executing by hand, as hand-craftsmen; others, however, do not execute or work by hand, but are craftsmen who arrange, and as it were direct what is to be done — so too it is among the Angels, for some are, as it were, executing those things which proceed from the divine command to be done concerning us, while others are, as it were, directors, directing the things that are to be done. Taking, then, "ministers" in a broad way, both for those who execute and also for those who command, thus all are ministers or ministering, inasmuch as the higher execute God's will concerning the middle, the middle concerning the lowest, the lowest concerning us. But if those who execute are called ministering, while those who immediately receive from God are called those who stand by, then some minister, some stand by and hand on to others. Those who stand by, then, are those who immediately receive the divine illuminations from God himself; hence they are also named by names related to God, as Seraphim, that is, those loving God; Cherubim, those knowing; thrones, those bearing. Those ministering are not the ones who receive from these, and hand on to others.

But against this seems to be what Gregory says, that those are said to stand by who enjoy the inmost contemplation of God. Since therefore all the Angels see God through his essence, according to that word, Matth. XVIII, 18: their Angels always see the face of my Father — therefore it seems that all are those who stand by.

I answer. It must be said that a certain one among the first students of the books of Dionysius, wishing to save both the saying of the Apostle and the saying of Gregory, said that the lower Angels do not see God through his essence, since they are not those who stand by. And this was John Scotus, who first commented on the books of Dionysius. But this opinion is heretical, because since beatitude is perfected in the vision of God, it would follow that the lower Angels, not seeing God through his essence, would not be blessed. There is also the saying of the Lord, who says, Matth. XVIII, 10: their Angels, et cetera. And therefore it must be said that all see God through his essence, yet not all stand by.

For the evidence of this it must be known that, just as God, by knowing his own essence, also knows himself, and all other things besides himself, so too the Angels, seeing the essence of God, both know him and know all things in him; in which vision indeed they are blessed only because they see God, not because they know things in him. Hence Augustine in the book of the Confessions: blessed is he who sees you, even if he does not see those other things. But he who knows both you and those things is not more blessed on account of those things, but is blessed on account of you alone. But the vision by which they see God through his essence is common to all the blessed. But in the vision by which they know things in God, one of the Angels excels the others; for the higher, as being of a higher nature and intellect, see more things in God than the middle ones do, and the middle more than the lowest. Hence these see all the things that pertain to their office, and the things that are to be carried out by others — which the lower do not see so perfectly, and therefore hand them on to others to be carried out — and on account of this these alone stand by, and yet all see God. And as a sign of this Dionysius says that to certain Angels who ask, God himself answers immediately, as in Is.: who is this that comes from Edom? And he himself answers: I who speak justice. But to certain others he answers through Angels, as that Ps. XXIII, 8: who is this king of glory? The Angels answer, and not God, and say: the Lord of hosts, he is the king of glory. Thus, then, the office of the Angels is clear.

But against this is the fact that here the execution of the office is touched upon when he says, sent into ministry; therefore it seems by this that all execute. Ps. XXXIII, 8: the Angel of the Lord encamps round about him, et cetera. Is. VI, 6: one of the Seraphim, who are in the highest order, flew to me. Therefore if those are sent, much more so are the others. But against this is Dionysius, who says that he received from the Apostle that only the lower are sent, and not the higher.

I answer. Some say that the higher are sent and go out sometimes, for certain causes that arise, to external things. But it seems to me that the higher four, namely Seraphim, Cherubim, thrones, and dominations, are never sent, but the lower are sent, which is clear from their names. For the Virtues are sent to work miracles; the Powers, to ward off the powers of the air; the Principalities, to govern a community or kingdom; and so of the others. But they are called Dominations, because they order all these lower things; while the other three orders take their names from the operation which they exercise immediately concerning God, and dispense it to others.

As to what he says, sent, it must be said that mission is twofold: one which implies local motion, and thus only the lower are sent. The other is a mission which occurs through the application and direction of a new effect in a creature, and thus the Son and the Holy Spirit are sent; and in this way the higher are sent, because their power is sent into the lower, to be sent by these to others. And as to what he says, flew, etc., it must be said that the lower use the names of those by whose power and authority they act, and attribute their own operations to them. And because that lower one carried out his office by the power of a Seraph, he was therefore called by the name of Seraph, not because he was a Seraph by nature.

Then he adds the fruit of the office, when he says, who receive the inheritance of salvation. And although all are called, yet not all receive the inheritance. Those, therefore, who receive it, they obtain the fruit of the mission. Ier. LI, 9: we have healed Babylon, and she is not healed. Or again, when he says, for those who shall inherit, etc., the fruit of the execution is set down, which is, that men may receive the inheritance of salvation. For this reason the whole order of action concerning us exists, that the number of the elect may be completed. Ps. XC, 11: God has commanded his Angels concerning you, et cetera. And he says, for those, not for all, because although all are called, yet few are elect, as it is said Matth. cap. XXIV. And he says inheritance, because to it only sons attain; for if sons, then also heirs. But he says receive, because it is necessary that they acquire the kingdom of God by labor, and study, and solicitude. Matth. XI, 12: the kingdom of heaven suffers violence. Those, therefore, will receive it who are zealous to guard in themselves the Lord's illuminations and inspirations sent through the good Angels, and to commit them to effect; otherwise there will be said to them what is said in Ier. LI, 9: we have healed Babylon, and she is not healed.