Hebrews 1

This is the way, dear friends, in which we found our salvation, Jesus Christ, the high priest of our offerings, the protector and helper of our weakness. Through him we fix our gaze on the heights of heaven. In him we see mirrored God’s pure and transcendent face. Through him the eyes of our hearts have been opened. Through him our foolish and darkened understanding springs up to the light. Through him the Master has willed that we should taste immortal knowledge. For, since “he reflects the glory of God,” “he is as much superior to the angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs.” For thus it is written: “He makes his angels winds, and his servants flames of fire.” But of his Son this is what the Master said: “You are my son, today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession.” And again he says to him, “Sit at my right hand till I make your enemies your footstool.” Who are meant by “enemies”? Those who are wicked and resist his will.

There are two coinages, the one of God, the other of the world, and each has its own stamp impressed on it. Similarly, the unbelievers bear the stamp of this world, and the believers the stamp of God the Father in love through Jesus Christ. Unless we willingly choose to die through him in his passion, his life is not in us.

"Because," he answered, "God planted the vineyard, that is to say, He created the people, and gave them to His Son; and the Son appointed His angels over them to keep them; and He Himself purged away their sins, having suffered many trials and undergone many labours, for no one is able to dig without labour and toil. He Himself, then, having purged away the sins of the people, showed them the paths of life." ... "Listen," he said: "the name of the Son of God is great, and cannot be contained, and supports the whole world."

And that God the Father of all would bring Christ to heaven after He had raised Him from the dead, and would keep Him there until He has subdued His enemies the devils, and until the number of those who are foreknown by Him as good and virtuous is complete, on whose account He has still delayed the consummation-hear what was said by the prophet David. These are his words: "The Lord said unto My Lord, Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool. The Lord shall send to Thee the rod of power out of Jerusalem; and rule Thou in the midst of Thine enemies. With Thee is the government in the day of Thy power, in the beauties of Thy saints: from the womb of morning have I begotten Thee." That which he says, "He shall send to Thee the rod of power out of Jerusalem," is predictive of the mighty, word, which His apostles, going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere; and though death is decreed against those who teach or at all confess the name of Christ, we everywhere both embrace and teach it. And if you also read these words in a hostile spirit, ye can do no more, as I said before, than kill us; which indeed does no harm to us, but to you and all who unjustly hate us, and do not repent, brings eternal punishment by fire.

If He made all things freely, and by His own power, and arranged and finished them, and His will is the substance of all things, then He is discovered to be the one only God who created all things, who alone is Omnipotent, and who is the only Father rounding and forming all things, visible and invisible, such as may be perceived by our senses and such as cannot, heavenly and earthly, "by the word of His power;" and He has fitted and arranged all things by His wisdom, while He contains all things, but He Himself can be contained by no one: He is the Former, He the Builder, He the Discoverer, He the Creator, He the Lord of all; and there is no one besides Him, or above Him.

Now all men, having the same judgment, some, following the Word speaking, frame for themselves proofs; while others, giving themselves up to pleasures, wrest Scripture, in accordance with their lusts. And the lover of truth, as I think, needs force of soul. For those who make the greatest attempts must fail in things of the highest importance; unless, receiving from the truth itself the rule of the truth, they cleave to the truth. But such people, in consequence of falling away from the right path, err in most individual points; as you might expect from not having the faculty for judging of what is true and false, strictly trained to select what is essential. For if they had, they would have obeyed the Scriptures.… For we have, as the source of teaching, the Lord, both by the prophets, the Gospel, and the blessed apostles, “in divers manners and at sundry times,” leading from the beginning of knowledge to the end. But if one should suppose that another origin was required, then no longer truly could an origin be preserved.… For we may not give our adhesion to men on a bare statement by them, who might equally state the opposite. But if it is not enough merely to state the opinion, but if what is stated must be confirmed, we do not wait for the testimony of men, but we establish the matter that is in question by the voice of the Lord, which is the surest of all demonstrations, or rather is the only demonstration; in which knowledge those who have merely tasted the Scriptures are believers; while those who, having advanced further, and become correct expounders of the truth, are Gnostics. Since also, in what pertains to life, craftsmen are superior to ordinary people, and model what is beyond common notions; so, consequently, we also, giving a complete exhibition of the Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves, from faith persuade by demonstration. And if those also who follow heresies venture to avail themselves of the prophetic Scriptures; in the first place they will not make use of all the Scriptures, and then they will not quote them entire, nor as the body and texture of prophecy prescribe. But, selecting ambiguous expressions, they wrest them to their own opinions, gathering a few expressions here and there; not looking to the sense, but making use of the mere words. For in almost all the quotations they make, you will find that they attend to the names alone, while they alter the meanings; neither knowing, as they affirm, nor using the quotations they adduce, according to their true nature. But the truth is not found by changing the meanings (for so people subvert all true teaching), but in the consideration of what perfectly belongs to and becomes the Sovereign God, and in establishing each one of the points demonstrated in the Scriptures again from similar Scriptures.

It remains, then, for us, ascending to seek their teacher. And since the unoriginated Being is one, the Omnipotent God; one, too, is the First-begotten, “by whom all things were made, and without whom not one thing ever was made.” “For one, in truth, is God, who formed the beginning of all things;” pointing out “the first-begotten Son,” Peter writes, accurately comprehending the statement, “In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth.” And He is called Wisdom by all the prophets. This is He who is the Teacher of all created beings, the Fellow-counsellor of God, who foreknew all things; and He from above, from the first foundation of the world, “in many ways and many times,” trains and perfects; whence it is rightly said, “Call no man your teacher on earth.”

And that Scripture calls every secular science or art by the one name wisdom (there are other arts and sciences invented over and above by human reason), and that artistic and skilful invention is from God, will be clear if we adduce the following statement: “And the Lord spake to Moses, See, I have called Bezaleel, the son of Uri, the son of Or, of the tribe of Judah; and I have filled him with the divine spirit of wisdom, and understanding, and knowledge, to devise and to execute in all manner of work, to work gold, and silver, and brass, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, and in working stone work, and in the art of working wood,” and even to “all works.” And then He adds the general reason, “And to every understanding heart I have given understanding;” that is, to every one capable of acquiring it by pains and exercise. And again, it is written expressly in the name of the Lord “And speak thou to all that are wise in mind, whom I have filled with the spirit of perception.” Those who are wise in mind have a certain attribute of nature peculiar to themselves; and they who have shown themselves capable, receive from the Supreme Wisdom a spirit of perception in double measure. For those who practise the common arts, are in what pertains to the senses highly gifted: in hearing, he who is commonly called a musician; in touch, he who moulds clay; in voice the singer, in smell the perfumer, in sight the engraver of devices on seals. Those also that are occupied in instruction, train the sensibility according to which the poets are susceptible to the influence of measure; the sophists apprehend expression; the dialecticians, syllogisms; and the philosophers are capable of the contemplation of which themselves are the objects. For sensibility finds and invents; since it persuasively exhorts to application. And practice will increase the application which has knowledge for its end. With reason, therefore, the apostle has called the wisdom of God “manifold,” and which has manifested its power “in many departments and in many modes”-by art, by knowledge, by faith, by prophecy-for our benefit. “For all wisdom is from the Lord, and is with Him for ever,” as says the wisdom of Jesus.

"Who shall give account," he says, "to Him who is ready to judge the quick and the dead."

These are trained through previous judgments. Therefore he adds, "For this cause was the Gospel preached also to the dead"-to us, namely, who were at one time unbelievers. "That they might be judged according to men," he says, "in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. Because, that is, they have fallen away from faith; whilst they are still in the flesh they are judged according to preceding judgments, that they might repent. Accordingly, he also adds, saying, "That they might live according to God in the spirit." So Paul also; for he, too, states something of this nature when he says, "Whom I have delivered to Satan, that he might live in the spirit;" that is, "as good stewards of the manifold grace of God." Similarly also Paul says, "Variously, and in many ways, God of old spake to our fathers."

But when the comparison is challenged with an angel, I am compelled to maintain that the head over all things is the stronger of the two, to whom the angels are ministers, who is destined to be the judge of angels, if he shall stand fast in the law of God-an obedience which he refused at first.

" This voice the Father was going Himself to recommend. For, says he, He establishes the words of His Son, when He says, "This is my beloved Son, hear ye Him.

For God the Father none ever saw, and lived. And accordingly it is agreed that the Son of God Himself spake to Moses, and said to the people, "Behold, I send mine angel before thy"-that is, the people's-"face, to guard thee on the march, and to introduce thee into the land which I have prepared thee: attend to him, and be not disobedient to him; for he hath not escaped thy notice, since my name is upon him.

The beloved generates love, and the light immaterial the light inaccessible. "This is my beloved Son," He who, being manifested on earth and yet unseparated from the Father's bosom, was manifested, and yet did not appear. For the appearing is a different thing, since in appearance the baptizer here is superior to the baptized. For this reason did the Father send down the Holy Spirit from heaven upon Him who was baptized. For as in the ark of Noah the love of God toward man is signified by the dove, so also now the Spirit, descending in the form of a dove, bearing as it were the fruit of the olive, rested on Him to whom the witness was borne. For what reason? That the faithfulness of the Father's voice might be made known, and that the prophetic utterance of a long time past might be ratified. And what utterance is this? "The voice of the Lord (is) on the waters, the God of glory thundered; the Lord (is) upon many waters." And what voice? "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." This is He who is named the son of Joseph, and (who is) according to the divine essence my Only-begotten. "This is my beloved Son"-He who is hungry, and yet maintains myriads; who is weary, and yet gives rest to the weary; who has not where to lay His head, and yet bears up all things in His hand; who suffers, and yet heals sufferings; who is smitten, and yet confers liberty on the world; who is pierced in the side, and yet repairs the side of Adam.

Let us see what the devil says to the Lord from the Scriptures: “It is written, ‘He will give his angels charge of you; on their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.’ ” See how crafty he is, even in the texts he quotes. For he wishes to diminish the Savior’s glory, as if the Savior needed the help of angels. It is as if he would strike his foot unless he were supported by their hands. The devil takes this verse from Scripture and applies it to Christ. Yet it is written not of Christ but about the saints in general. Freely and in total confidence I contradict the devil. This passage cannot be applied to the person of Christ, for Christ does not need the help of angels. He is greater than the angels and obtained a better name than they by inheritance. For God never said to any of the angels, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.” He has spoken to none of them as to a son. “He makes his angels winds, and his servants flames of fire.” But to his own Son he speaks properly and says countless things about him in the prophets.As I say, the Son of God does not need the help of angels. No, devil; learn rather that unless Jesus helps the angels, they dash their feet. We have just heard a passage about the angels, “that we are to judge angels.” If any of the angels is seen to stumble, he stumbles because he did not reach out his hand to Jesus. If Jesus had taken his hand, he would not have stumbled. For when someone trusts in his own strength and does not call upon the help of Jesus, he stumbles and falls.

On this account our heart must be kept with all carefulness both by day and night, and no place be given to the devil. But every effort must be used that the ministers of God—those spirits who were sent to minister to those who are called to be heirs of salvation—may find a place within us, and be delighted to enter into the guest-chamber of our soul. And, dwelling within us [they] may guide us by their counsel; if, so, they shall find the habitation of our heart adorned by the practice of virtue and holiness.

With respect to the fact that both good and evil angels attend to humans—a doctrine we have often taught following the Holy Scriptures—it is not by chance and without a divine judgment that a given angel is assigned to a given soul. For example, one is allotted to Peter and another to Paul.… Therefore, there can be no doubt that by a judgment of God, who sees clearly their worth and the quality of our soul, they are allotted as guards to each one of us by a mystical lot directed by the economy of Christ.

In my opinion, the Son is the reflection of the total glory of God, according to Paul who said, “He reflects the glory of God,” anticipating, however, a partial reflection on the rest of the rational creation from this reflection of the total glory. For I do not think that anyone except the Son can contain the whole reflection of the full glory of God.

Now this Son was begotten of the Father’s will, for he is the “image of the invisible God” and the “effulgence of God’s glory and the impress of God’s substance.” … Let those who dare to say, “There was a time when the Son was not” understand that this is what they are saying: “Once wisdom did not exist, and word did not exist, and life did not exist.” But it is not right, nor is it safe for us, in our weakness to rob God … of God’s only begotten Word, who ever dwells with God, who is God’s wisdom, in whom God rejoiced. For if we do this, we shall think of God as not always rejoicing.

The apostle Paul says, that the only begotten Son is … “the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person.” Now, we find in the treatise called the Wisdom of Solomon the following description of the wisdom of God: “For she is the breath of the power of God, and the purest emanation of the glory of the Almighty.” Nothing that is polluted can therefore come upon her, for she is the splendor of the eternal light, the stainless mirror of God’s working and the image of his goodness. Now we say, as before, that Wisdom has her existence nowhere else but in him who is the beginning of all things, from whom also is derived everything that is wise, because he himself is the only one who is by nature a Son, and is therefore called the Only Begotten.

In order … to more completely understand how the Savior is the figure of the person or subsistence of God, let us use an illustration. While it does not describe the subject of which we are treating either fully or appropriately, it may nevertheless be employed for this purpose only: to show that when the Son of God, who was in the form of God, emptied himself, his object was to display to us by this very emptying the fullness of his deity. For instance, suppose that there were a statue of so enormous a size as to fill the whole world, and because of this could be seen by no one. If another statue were formed altogether resembling it in the shape of the limbs, and in the outline of features, and in form and material, but without the same immensity of size, then those who were unable to behold the one of enormous proportions, should, on seeing the latter, acknowledge that they had seen the former, because it preserved all the features of its limbs and appearance, and even the very form and material, so closely as to be altogether undistinguishable from it.

But since there are of arguments myriads of currents and ways, God inspiring us "at sundry times and in divers manners"

Of the most beautiful flower; the mother of the Creator; the nurse of the Nourisher; the circumference of Him who embraces all things; the upholder of Him

In what manner, then, did He beget Him? First of all, divine operations cannot be known or declared by any one; but nevertheless the sacred writings teach us, in which it is laid down that this Son of God is the speech, or even the reason of God, and also that the other angels are spirits of God. For speech is breath sent forth with a voice signifying something. But, however, since breath and speech are sent forth from different parts, inasmuch as breath proceeds from the nostrils, speech from the mouth, the difference between the Son of God and the other angels is great. For they proceeded from God as silent spirits, because they were not created to teach the knowledge of God, but for His service. But though He is Himself also a spirit, yet He proceeded from the mouth of God with voice and sound, as the Word, on this account indeed, because He was about to make use of His voice to the people; that is, because He was about to be a teacher of the knowledge of God, and of the heavenly mystery to be revealed to man.

For God had determined, as the last time drew near, to send from heaven a great leader, who should reveal to foreign nations that which was taken away from a perfidious and ungrateful people. And I will endeavour to discuss the subject in this book, if I shall first have shown that wisdom is so closely united with religion, that the one cannot be separated from the other.

When we speak of God the Father and God the Son, we do not speak of them as different, nor do we separate each: because the Father cannot exist without the Son, nor can the Son be separated from the Father, since the name of Father cannot be given without the Son, nor can the Son be begotten without the Father. Since, therefore, the Father makes the Son, and the Son the Father, they both have one mind, one spirit, one substance; but the former is as it were an overflowing fountain, the latter as a stream flowing forth from it: the former as the sun, the latter as it were a ray extended from the sun. And since He is both faithful to the Most High Father, and beloved by Him, He is not separated from Him; just as the stream is not separated from the fountain, nor the ray from the sun: for the water of the fountain is in the stream, and the light of the sun is in the ray: just as the voice cannot be separated from the mouth, nor the strength or hand from the body.

For he who denies that the brightness of the glory existed, takes away also the primitive light of which it is the brightness. And if the image of God was not always, it is clear also that He was not always, of which it is the image. Moreover, in saying that the character of the subsistence of God was not, He also is done away with who is perfectly expressed by it.

That He is equally with the Father unchangeable and immutable, wanting in nothing, and the perfect Son, and like to the Father, we have learnt; in this alone is He inferior to the Father, that He is not unbegotten. For He is the very exact image of the Father, and in nothing differing from Him. For it is clear that He is the image fully containing all things by which the greatest similitude is declared, as the Lord Himself hath taught us, when He says, "My Father is greater than I." And according to this we believe that the Son is of the Father, always existing. "For He is the brightness of His glory, the express image of His Father's person." But let no one take that word always so as to raise suspicion that He is unbegotten, as they imagine who have their senses blinded.

It was not only those that were honored with the high priesthood and anointed for the sake of the symbol with prepared oil who were given tribute among the Hebrews with the name Christ. The kings too, at the bidding of God, were made Christs in a certain symbolism by the prophets who anointed them, inasmuch as they also bore in themselves the types of the royal and sovereign power of the only true Christ, the divine Logos who reigns over all. We have also received the tradition that some of the prophets themselves had by anointing already become Christs in type, seeing that they all refer to the true Christ—the divine and heavenly Logos, of the world the only high priest, of all creation the only king, of the prophets the only archprophet of the Father. The proof of this is that no one of those symbolically anointed of old, whether priests or kings or prophets, obtained such power of the divine virtue as our Savior and Lord, Jesus, the only real Christ, has exhibited. None indeed of them, though renowned in rank and honor for so many generations among their own people, ever gave the name of Christian to their subjects from the symbolic application to themselves of the name of Christ. The honor of worship was not paid to any of them by their subjects, nor did they hold them in such affection after their death as to be ready to die for him whom they honored.For none of the men of those days was there such disturbance of all the nations throughout all the world, since the power of the symbol was incapable of producing such an effect among them as the presence of the reality manifested by our Savior; for he received from none the symbol and types of the high priesthood. Nor did he trace his physical descent from the race of priests; nor was he promoted to a kingdom by the armed force of men; nor did he become a prophet in the same way as those of old; nor did he hold any rank at all or precedence among the Jews. Yet with all these he had been adorned, not in symbols, but in actual reality by the Father. Though he did not obtain the honors of which we have spoken before, he is called Christ more than any of them, and inasmuch as he is himself the only true Christ of God, he filled the whole world with Christians—his truly revered and sacred name. He no longer gave to his initiates types or images but the uncovered virtues themselves and the heavenly life in the actual doctrines of truth, and he has received the chrism—not that which is prepared materially, but the divine anointing itself with the spirit of God, by sharing in the unbegotten divinity of the Father. Again, Isaiah teaches this very point, for in one place he exclaims as if from Christ himself, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor, to proclaim release to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind.”
And not only Isaiah but also David speaks with reference to him and says, “Your divine throne endures for ever and ever. Your royal scepter is a scepter of equity; you love righteousness and hate wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.” In this the text calls him God in the first verse, and in the second honors him with the royal scepter, and then goes on, after royal and divine power, to present him in the third place as having become Christ, anointed not with oil made of material substances but with the divine “oil of gladness.”
And in addition to this he indicates his peculiar distinction and superiority to those who in the past had been more materially anointed as types. And in another place too the same David explains his position as follows: “The Lord says to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool.’ ” And “before the day-star I begot you from the womb. The Lord swore and will not repent, You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” Now this Melchizedek is introduced in the sacred books as priest of the most high God, without having been so marked out by any material unction, or even as belonging by racial descent to the priesthood of the Hebrews. For this reason our Savior has been called Christ and priest, on the authority of an oath, according to this order and not according to that of the others who received symbols and types. For this reason too the narrative does not relate that he was anointed physically by the Jews or even that he was of the tribe of those who hold the priesthood, but that he received his being from God himself before the day-star, that is to say, before the construction of the world, and holds his priesthood to boundless eternity, ageless and immortal. A weighty and clear proof of the immaterial and divine anointing effected on him is that he alone, out of all who have ever yet been until now, is called Christ among all men throughout the whole world. Under this title he is confessed and borne witness to by all and is mentioned thus by Jews, Greeks, and barbarians. Until this present day he is honored by his worshipers throughout the world as king, wondered at more than a prophet, and glorified as the true and only high priest of God, and above all, as the Logos of God, preexistent, having his being before all ages and having received the right of reverence from the Father, and he is worshiped as God. Strangest of all, we, who have been consecrated to him, honor him not only with our voices and with the sound of words but with the whole disposition of our soul, so as to value testimony to him more than our very life itself.

Holy Scripture teaches that God was seen by Israel dimly, meaning the Word of God. In the book of Numbers Moses prays, saying, “Since you are the Lord of this people who is seen by them face to face.” … And it is said in Exodus, “Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, and they saw the God of Israel.” …From the text, “No one has ever seen God,” perhaps it might be thought that the above quotations contradict the Savior’s words, implying that the invisible is visible. But if they are understood … as the Word of God, who was seen by the fathers “in many ways and various ways,” no contradiction is involved. The God of Israel here seen is shown to be the same being who was seen by Israel, when he wrestled with the one who first changed his name from Jacob to Israel, saying, “You have striven with God.” And when also Jacob, appreciating God’s divine power, called the place of the struggle the Sight of God, saying, “I have seen God face to face, and yet my life is preserved” … this was no other than the Word of God.

The Greeks call “to be” ousian (substance) or hypostasin; we call it in Latin by one term, substance; and a few Greeks use ousian (substance) and rarely; all use hypostasin (hypostasis). Certainly one differs from the other, but for the moment let us omit this.The divine Scripture has often used hypostasin in Greek, substance in Latin. And it has said of the substance of God in the prophet Jeremiah “that if they had stood in the substance of the Lord they would have seen my word.” But what is it “to stand in the substance”? To know the substance of God, which is “true light,” which is infinite Spirit. If they had known that, they would have known the Logos of the Lord; that is, “they would have seen the word” of the Lord. And shortly after, the same Jeremiah uses the same words.
David says, “And my substance is in the lower regions of the earth.” He speaks also of God and says “substance.” And it is clear what this is.
The apostle says to the Hebrews, “He who is the character of his substance.” He said that Christ is the character of the substance of God. There are many other examples. But what is the point of all this? To show that the word substance is in Scripture and is used of the substance of God.

And it was never announced to any man, “Let all God’s angels worship him.” In fact, even though men are able to subject their fellow creatures, they will never force the angels to obey them. The angels are not materially formed. “He made,” Paul says, “his angels spirits and his ministers flames of fire.”

Paul says, “through whom he made the worlds,” that is, both the spiritual and material worlds.

Paul also said, “They will perish,” and all the other things, and again the apostle took up the same words of David. But if all the works of creation perish completely, then paradise, which is not perishable, will also perish. In truth, because of paradise, which does not cease, it is evident that all the works of creation will be renewed for us, as some assert, and they will not perish, as others have said.

“In many and various ways God spoke,” in the first place, “to our fathers by the prophets.” In fact, he evidently spoke in various and mutable manners to Noah, Abraham and Moses and to the people in the desert, appearing to them under the diverse guises of an old man, a giant and other characters.

“He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high” because of the flesh he put on.

The fame of Anthony came even unto kings, for Constantine Augustus and his sons … wrote letters to him as to a father and begged an answer from him. He made nothing very much of the letters, nor did he rejoice at the messages; rather, he was the same as he had been before the emperors wrote to him. But when they brought him the letters, he called the monks and said, “Do not be astonished if an emperor writes to us, for he is a man. Wonder rather that God wrote the law for men and has spoken to us through his own Son.” And so he was unwilling to receive the letters, saying that he did not know how to write an answer to such things. But at the urgings of the monks because the emperors were Christians and lest the emperors take offense on the ground that they had been spurned, he consented that the letters be read. And he wrote an answer approving of them because they worshiped Christ, and he gave them counsel on things pertaining to salvation: “not to think much of the present, but rather to remember the judgment that is coming, and to know that Christ alone was the true and eternal king.” He begged them to be merciful and to give heed to justice and the poor. Having received the answer, they rejoiced. Thus he was dear to all, and all desired to consider him as a father. LIFE OF ST.

Both in the verse before us then and throughout he ascribes the word “better” to the Lord, who is better and other than originated things. For better is the sacrifice through him, better the hope in him, and also the promises through him, not merely great as compared with small, but the one differing from the other in nature, because he who conducts this economy is “better” than things originated.

Whereas the prophets ministered and the law was spoken by angels, the Son too came on earth in order to minister. The apostle was forced to add “become as much superior to angels,” wishing to show that just as much as the Son excels a servant is the ministry of the Son better than the ministry of servants. Contrasting the old ministry and the new, the apostle then speaks freely to the Jews, writing and saying, “become as much superior to angels.” This is why throughout he uses no comparison such as “become greater” or “more honorable,” lest we should think of the Son and angels as one in kind, but “better” is his word, by way of marking the difference of the Son’s nature from things originated. And we have proof of this from divine Scripture: David, for instance, saying in the psalm, “A day in your courts is better than a thousand,” and Solomon crying out, “Take my instruction instead of silver, and knowledge rather than choice gold; for wisdom is better than jewels, and all that you may desire cannot compare with her.” Are not wisdom and stones of the earth different in essence and separate in nature? Are heavenly courts at all akin to earthly houses? Or is there any similarity between things eternal and spiritual and things temporal and mortal?… In like manner there is no relationship between the Son and the angels; thus the word better is not used to compare but to contrast, because of the difference of his nature from theirs. And so also the apostle himself, when he interprets the word better, places its force in nothing less than the Son’s preeminence over things originated, calling the one Son and the other servants. The one, as a Son with the Father, sits on God’s right; and the others, as servants, stand before God and are sent and serve.

As the apostle, writing to the Hebrews, says, “who being the brightness of his glory and the stamp of his nature,” and David too in the eighty-ninth Psalm, “And the brightness of the Lord be upon us,” and “in your light shall we see light.” Who has so little sense as to doubt the eternity of the Son? For when did anyone see light without the brightness of its radiance, that one may say of the Son, “There was once when he was not,” or “Before his generation he was not.” And the words addressed to the Son in the hundred and forty-fourth Psalm, “Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,” forbid anyone to imagine any interval at all in which the Word did not exist.

Who that has heard the words of John, “In the beginning was the Word,” will not denounce the saying of [Arius and his followers] that “there was a time when he was not”? Or who that has heard in the Gospel, “the only begotten Son” and “all things came into being through him,” will not detest their declaration that he is “one of the things that were made”? For how can he be one of those things that were made by himself? Or how can he be the only begotten, when, according to them, he is counted as one among the rest, since he is himself a creature and a work? And how can he be “made of things that were not,” when the Father says, “My heart has uttered a good Word,” and “Out of the womb I have begotten you before the morning star”? Or again, how is he “unlike in substance to the Father,” seeing he is the perfect “image” and “brightness” of the Father, and that he says, “He who has seen me has seen the Father”? And if the Son is the “Word” and “Wisdom” of God, how was there “a time when he was not”? It is the same as if they should say that God was once without Word and without Wisdom. And how is he “subject to change and variation” who says by himself, “I am in the Father, and the Father in me,” and “I and the Father are one”; and who by the prophet says, “I the Lord do not change”? For although one may refer this expression to the Father, yet it may now be more aptly spoken of the Word, that, though he has been made man, he has not changed. But as the apostle has said, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever.” And who can have persuaded them to say that he was made for us, for Paul writes, “for whom and by whom all things exist”?

Therefore, he is true God, existing consubstantially (homoousios) with the true Father, while other beings to whom he said, “I say, ‘you are gods,’ ” have this grace from the Father only by participation in the Word through the Spirit. For he is the “very stamp” of the Father’s “being,” and “light” from “light,” and the “power” and true “image” of the Father’s substance.

Every grace is given by the Father through the Son, who also acts together with the Holy Spirit. There are not some graces that come from the Father and different graces from the Son and others again from the Holy Spirit. There is but one salvation, one giving of power, one faith; and yet there is one God the Father, our Lord, his only begotten Son, and one Holy Spirit, the Paraclete. Let us be content with this knowledge and not busy ourselves with questions about the divine nature or hypostasis. I would have spoken of that had it been contained in Scripture. Let us not venture where Scripture does not lead, for it suffices for our salvation to know that there is Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

Recall also what I have often said regarding the sitting of the Son at the right hand of the Father, according to the sequence of the creed: “and he ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father.” Let us not too curiously inquire into the precise nature of this sitting, for it surpasses our understanding. Let us not endure those who perversely assert that it was only after his cross and resurrection and ascension into heaven that the Son began to sit at the right hand of the Father. For he did not gain his throne by way of advancement, but from the time he is—and he is eternally begotten—he sits with the Father. The prophet Isaiah, having beheld this throne before the coming of the Savior in the flesh, says, “I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up.” For “no one has ever seen” the Father, and he who then appeared to the prophet was the Son. The psalmist also says, “Your throne is established from of old; you are from everlasting.” There are many testimonies on this point, but we will content ourselves with these only, because of the lateness of the hour.

Since the Word knows the tabernacle of Moses to be a figure of the whole creation—I mean the entire system of things visible and invisible—shall we pass the first veil and, stepping beyond the realm of sense, look into the holy place, the intellectual and celestial creation? But not even this can we see in an incorporeal way, though it is incorporeal, since it is called—or is—fire and spirit. For he is said to make his angels spirits and his ministers flames of fire … though perhaps this "making" means preserving by that Word by which they came into existence. The angel then is called spirit and fire: spirit, as being a creature of the intellectual sphere; fire, as being of a purifying nature; for I know that the same names belong to the first nature. But, relative to us at least, we must reckon the angelic nature incorporeal or, at any rate, as nearly so as possible. Do you see how we get dizzy over this subject and cannot advance to any point unless it be as far as this: that we know there are angels and archangels, thrones, dominions, princedoms, powers, splendors, ascents, intelligent powers or intelligences, pure natures and unalloyed, immovable to evil or scarcely movable; ever circling in chorus around the first cause, or how should we sing their praises? Illuminated thence with the purest illumination or one in one degree and one in another, proportionally to their nature and rank … so conformed to beauty and molded that they become secondary lights and can enlighten others by the overflowing and largess of the first light? They are ministers of God's will, strong with both inborn and imparted strength, traversing all space, readily present to all at any place through their zeal for ministry and agility of nature … different individuals of them embracing different parts of the world, or appointed over different districts of the universe, as knows the one who ordered and distributed it all. They combine all things in one, solely with a view to the consent of the Creator of all things. [They are] choristers of the majesty of the Godhead, eternally contemplating the eternal glory, not that God may thereby gain an increase of glory, for nothing can be added to that which is full—to God, who supplies good to all outside God's self—but that there may never be a cessation of blessings to these first natures after God. If we have told these things as they deserve, it is by the grace of the Trinity and of the one Godhead in three persons, but if less perfectly than we have desired, yet even so our discourse has gained its purpose. For this is what we were laboring to show—that, if even the secondary natures surpass the power of our intellect, much more then does the first and—for I fear to say merely—that which is above all the only nature.

The majesty of the Father is expressly imaged in the greatness of the power of the Son, that the one may be believed to be as great as the other is known to be. Again, as the radiance of light sheds its brilliance from the whole of the sun’s disk … so too all the glory which the Father has is shed from its whole by means of the brightness that comes from it, that is, by the true Light. Even as the ray is of the sun—for there would be no ray if the sun were not—the sun is never conceived as existing by itself without the ray of brightness that is shed from it. So the apostle delivered to us the continuity and eternity of that existence which the Only Begotten has of the Father, calling the Son “the brightness of God’s glory.”

Since we recognize two natures in Christ, one divine and the other human, the divine by nature but the human in the incarnation, we accordingly claim for the Godhead that which is eternal, and that which is created we ascribe to his human nature. For as, according to the prophet, he was formed in the womb as a servant, so also, according to Solomon, he was manifested in the flesh by means of this servile creation. But when [the Arians] say, “If he was, he was not begotten, and, if he was begotten, he was not,” let them learn that it is not fitting to ascribe to his divine nature the attributes which belong to his fleshly origin. For bodies that do not exist are generated, and God makes those things to be that are not. But does not he come into being from that which is not? For this reason also Paul calls him “the brightness of glory.” He does this so that we may learn that, just as the light from the lamp is of the nature of that which sheds the brightness and is united with it (for as soon as the lamp appears the light that comes from it shines out simultaneously), in like manner the Son is related to the Father, and the Father is never without the Son. It is impossible that glory should be without radiance, as it is impossible that the lamp should be without brightness. It is clear that his being brightness is a testimony to his being in relation with the glory, for if the glory did not exist, the brightness shed from it would not exist. Therefore, to say that the brightness “once was not” is a declaration that once the glory also was not, that is, when the brightness was not, for it is impossible that the glory should be without the brightness. As therefore it is not possible to say in the case of the brightness, “If it was, it did not come into being, and, if it came into being, it was not,” so it is in vain to say this of the Son, seeing that the Son is the brightness. Let those who speak of “less” and “greater,” in the case of the Father and the Son, learn from Paul not to measure things immeasurable. For the apostle says that the Son is the express image of the person of the Father. It is clear then that, however great the person of the Father is, so great also is the express image of that person, for it is not possible that the express image should be less than the person contemplated in it. And this the great John also teaches when he says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God.” For in saying that he was “in the beginning” and not “after the beginning,” he showed that the beginning was never without the Word. In declaring that “the Word was with God,” he signified the absence of defect in the Son in relation to the Father, for the Word is contemplated as a whole together with the whole being of God. For if the Word were deficient in his own greatness so as not to be capable of relation with the whole being of God, we are compelled to suppose that that part of God which extends beyond the Word is without the Word. But in fact the whole magnitude of the Word is contemplated together with the whole magnitude of God, and consequently, in statements concerning the divine nature, it is not admissible to speak of “greater” and “less.”

When he was asking how to give a name to what cannot be grasped in thought and did not discover a word expressing an interpretation of the incomprehensible, he called “glory” and “substance” whatever underlies all good and is not sufficiently known or spoken of. The underlying essence of being he dismissed as unnamable. However, interpreting the unity and inseparability of the Son and the Father, and the Son’s being contemplated indefinably and invisibly with the indefinable and unseen Father, he addressed him as “radiance of glory” and “image of substance,” indicating the unity of their nature by the word radiance and their equality by the word image. For, in connection with a radiant nature, there is no middle point in a beam of light, nor is there an inferior part of an image in connection with a substance determined by it. The observer of the radiant nature will know the radiance in its entirety, and the person comprehending the size of the substance measures it in its entirety with its accompanying image.

The Logos “upholds the universe by his word of power” from nonexistence to existence. For all things, as many as exist in connection with matter and as many as have received an immaterial nature, have one cause of their substance: the Word of unspeakable power.

If all creation worships Christ—for by the name “angels” he denotes the higher rational beings, just as also in the passage “to what angel has he ever said, ‘Sit at my right hand’?” he himself is also above them—and the word of the Scriptures forbid us to worship creation in as much as it says, “Beware lest you lift up your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and worship them.” Just as one is kept from worshiping the fixtures of the heavens, so also one is kept from worshiping other created beings, even if one happens upon a certain individual surpassing others. One must maintain firmly that Christ was the Creator, not a creation, even if for our sake he united himself to created flesh endowed with a reasonable and intellectual soul, and thus is worshiped as God by all creation.

If all created nature worships Christ, for through the friendly speech of the angels He gives signs to nature, so it is said, “For which of the angels has He said anytime; sit at my right hand (Heb. 1:13); and He is over them- and the word of the Scripture forbade the worshipping of the created things, “And do not, when you look up to the sky and see the sun and the moon and the stars, even any ornament of the sky, be led astray and worship them and serve them.(Deut. 4:19)” But they should stop worshiping these things, because they are created things, which is certainly disrespectful. And just as it has been said before, and positively assert that Christ is not created but is the Creator, and even so He is being worshipped as God above all the creation. To all time, and season to all the matters above Heaven.

Is it then Angels only? No; for hear what follows: "And of His Angels He saith, Which maketh His Angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire: but unto the Son, Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever." Behold, the greatest difference! that they are created, but He uncreated. While of His angels He saith, who "maketh"; wherefore of the Son did He not say "Who maketh"? Although he might have expressed the difference as follows: "Of His Angels He saith, Who maketh His Angels spirits, but of the Son, 'The Lord created Me': 'God hath made Him Lord and Christ.'" But neither was the one spoken concerning the Son, nor the other concerning God The Word, but concerning the flesh. For when he desired to express the true difference, he no longer included angels only, but the whole ministering power above. Seest thou how he distinguishes, and with how great clearness, between creatures and Creator, ministers and Lord, the Heir and true Son, and slaves?

"But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever." Behold a symbol of Kingly Office. "A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Thy kingdom." Behold again another symbol of Royalty.

Didst thou see how what is created and what is begotten are not the same? For otherwise he would not have made the distinction, nor in contrast to the word, "He made" [etc.], have added, "But unto the Son He said, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever." Nor would he have called the name, "Son, a more excellent Name," if it is a sign of the same thing. For what is the excellence? For if that which is created, and that which is begotten be the same, and they [the Angels] were made, what is there [in Him] "more excellent"? Lo! again "God," with the Article.

And again he saith: "Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of Thine hands. They shall perish, but Thou remainest, and they shall all wax old as a garment, and as a vesture shalt Thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but Thou art the same and Thy years shall not fail."

Lest hearing the words, "and when He bringeth in the First-Begotten into the world"; thou shouldest think it as it were a Gift afterwards super-added to Him; above, he both corrected this beforehand, and again further corrects, saying, "in the beginning": not now, but from the first. See again he strikes both Paul of Samosata and also Arius a mortal blow, applying to the Son the things which relate to the Father. And withal he has also intimated another thing by the way, greater even than this. For surely he hath incidentally pointed out also the transfiguration of the world, saying, "they shall wax old as a garment, and as a vesture Thou shall fold them up, and they shall be changed." Which also he saith in the Epistle to the Romans, that he shall transfigure the world. And showing the facility thereof, he adds, as if a man should fold up a garment so shall He both fold up and change it. But if He with so much ease works the transfiguration and the creation to what is better and more perfect, needed He another for the inferior creation? How far doth your shamelessness go? At the same time too this is a very great consolation, to know that things will not be as they are, but they all shall receive change, and all shall be altered, but He Himself remaineth ever existing, and living without end: "and Thy years," he saith, "shall not fail."

"Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?" What marvel (saith he) if they minister to the Son, when they minister even to our salvation? See how he lifts up their minds, and shows the great honor which God has for us, since He has assigned to Angels who are above us this ministration on our behalf. As if one should say, for this purpose (saith he) He employs them; this is the office of Angels, to minister to God for our salvation. So that it is an angelical work, to do all for the salvation of the brethren: or rather it is the work of Christ Himself, for He indeed saves as Lord, but they as servants. And we, though servants are yet Angels' fellow-servants. Why gaze ye so earnestly on the Angels (saith he)? They are servants of the Son of God, and are sent many ways for our sakes, and minister to our salvation. And so they are partners in service with us.

Consider ye how he ascribes no great difference to the kinds of creatures. And yet the space between angels and men is great; nevertheless he brings them down near to us, all but saying, For us they labor, for our sake they run to and fro: on us, as one might say, they wait. This is their ministry, for our sake to be sent every way.

And of these examples both the Old [Testament] is full, and the New. For when Angels bring glad tidings to the shepherds, or to Mary, or to Joseph; when they sit at the sepulcher, when they are sent to say to the disciples, "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?", when they release Peter out of the prison, when they discourse with Philip, consider how great the honor is; when God sends His Angels for ministers as to friends; when to Cornelius [an Angel] appears, when [an Angel] brings forth all the apostles from the prison, and says, "Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people the words of this life"; and to Paul himself also an Angel appears. Dost thou see that they minister to us on God's behalf, and that they minister to us in the greatest matters? wherefore Paul saith, "All things are yours, whether life or death, or the world, or things present, or things to come."

Well then the 'Son' also was sent, but not as a servant, nor as a minister, but as a Son, and Only-Begotten, and desiring the same things with the Father. Rather indeed, He was not "sent": for He did not pass from place to place, but took on Him flesh: whereas these change their places, and leaving those in which they were before, so come to others in which they were not.

And by this again he incidentally encourages them, saying, What fear ye? Angels are ministering to us.

"For to which of the Angels said He at any time, Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee. And again, I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son"? For these things indeed are spoken with reference also to the flesh: "I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son" - while this, "Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee," expresses nothing else than "from [the time] that God is." For as He is said to be, from the time present (for this befits Him more than any other), so also the [word] "To-day" seems to me to be spoken here with reference to the flesh. For when He hath taken hold of it, thenceforth he speaks out all boldly. For indeed the flesh partakes of the high things, just as the Godhead of the lowly. For He who disdained not to become man, and did not decline the reality, how should He have declined the expressions?

Then again with respect to the flesh "Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity, therefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee."

What is, "Thy God"? Why, after that he hath uttered a great word, he again qualifieth it. Here he hits both Jews, and the followers of Paul of Samosata, and the Arians, and Marcellus, and Sabellius, and Marcion. How? The Jews, by his indicating two Persons, both God and Man; the other Jews, I mean the followers of Paul of Samosata, by thus discoursing concerning His eternal existence, and uncreated essence: for by way of distinction, against the word, "He made," he put, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever." Against the Arians there is both this same again, and also that He is not a slave; but if a creature, He is a slave. And against Marcellus and the others, that these are two Persons, distinguished in reference to their subsistence. And against the Marcionites, that the Godhead is not anointed, but the Manhood.

Next he saith, "Above Thy fellows." But who are these His "fellows" other than men? that is Christ received "not the Spirit by measure." Seest thou how with the doctrine concerning His uncreated nature he always joins also that of the "Economy"? what can be clearer than this?

Our Lord Jesus Christ calls His coming in the flesh an exodus [or going out]: as when He saith, "The sower went out to sow." And again, "I went out from the Father, and am come." And in many places one may see this. But Paul calls it an [eisodus or] coming in, saying, "And when again He bringeth in the First-Begotten into the world," meaning by this Bringing in, His taking on Him flesh.

Now why has he so used the expression? The things signified [thereby] are manifest, and in what respect it is [thus] said. For Christ indeed calls it a Going out, justly; for we were out from God. For as in royal palaces, prisoners and those who have offended the king, stand without, and he who desires to reconcile them, does not bring them in, but himself going out discourses with them, until having made them meet for the king's presence, he may bring them in, so also Christ hath done. Having gone out to us, that is, having taken flesh, and having discoursed to us of the King's matters, so He brought us in, having purged the sins, and made reconciliation. Therefore he calls it a Going out.

But Paul names it a Coming in, from the metaphor of those who come to an inheritance and receive any portion or possession. For the saying, "and when again He bringeth in the First-Begotten into the world," means this, "when he putteth the world into His hand." For when He was made known, then also He obtained possession of the whole thereof, He saith not these things concerning God The Word, but concerning that which is according to the flesh. For if according to John, "He was in the world, and the world was made by Him": how is He "brought in," otherwise than in the flesh?

"And," saith he, "Let all the angels of God worship Him." Whereas he is about to say something great and lofty, he prepares it beforehand, and makes it acceptable, in that he represents the Father as "bringing in" the Son. He had said above, that "He spake to us not by prophets but by His Son"; that the Son is superior to angels; yea and he establishes this from the name [Son]. And here, in what follows, from another fact also. What then may this be? From worship. And he shows how much greater He is, as much as a Master is than a slave; just as any one introducing another into a house straightway commands those having the care thereof to do him reverence; [so] saying in regard to the Flesh, "And let all the Angels of God worship Him."

"Whom He appointed," saith he, "heir of all." What is "whom He appointed heir of all"? He speaks here of the flesh [the human nature]. As He also says in the second Psalm, "Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance." For no longer is "Jacob the portion of the Lord" nor "Israel His inheritance," but all men: that is to say, He hath made Him Lord of all: which Peter also said in the Acts, "God hath made Him both Lord and Christ." But he has used the name "Heir," declaring two things: His proper sonship and His indefeasible sovereignty. "Heir of all," that is, of all the world.

Then again he brings back his discourse to its former point. "By whom also He made the worlds [the ages]." Where are those who say, There was [a time] when He was not?

Then again having said a little by the way (for he says, "on the right hand of the Majesty on high"), [he turns] again to what is lowly; "being made so much better than the angels, as He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." Henceforward then he treats here of that which is according to the flesh, since the phrase "being made better" doth not express His essence according to the Spirit, (for that was not "made" but "begotten,") but according to the flesh: for this was "made." Nevertheless the discourse here is not about being called into existence. But just as John says, "He that cometh after me, is preferred before me," that is, higher in honor and esteem; so also here, "being made so much better than the angels," that is, higher in esteem and better and more glorious, "by how much He hath obtained by inheritance a more excellent name than they." Seest thou that he is speaking of that which is according to the flesh? For this Name, God the Word ever had; He did not afterwards "obtain it by inheritance"; nor did He afterwards become "better than the Angels, when He had purged our sins"; but He was always "better," and better without all comparison. For this is spoken of Him according to the flesh.

So truly it is our way also, when we talk of man, to speak things both high and low. Thus, when we say, "Man is nothing," "Man is earth," "Man is ashes," we call the whole by the worse part. But when we say, "Man is an immortal animal," and "Man is rational, and of kin to those on high," we call again the whole by the better part. So also, in the case of Christ, sometimes Paul discourseth from the less and sometimes from the better; wishing both to establish the economy, and also to teach about the incorruptible nature.

"Being made," saith he, "so much better than the angels, as He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." The "being made," here, is instead of "being shown forth," as one may say. Then also from whence does he reason confidently? From the Name. Seest thou that the name Son is wont to declare true relationship? And indeed if He were not a true Son (and "true" is nothing else than "of Him"), how does he reason confidently from this? For if He be Son only by grace, He not only is not "more excellent than the angels," but is even less than they. How? Because righteous men too were called sons; and the name son, if it be not a genuine son, doth not avail to show the "excellency." When too he would point out that there is a certain difference between creatures and their maker, hear what he saith:

Truly, "where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." This at least the blessed Paul intimates here also, in the very beginning of his Epistle to the Hebrews. For since as it was likely that afflicted, worn out by evils, and judging of things thereby, they would think themselves worse off than all other men, he shows that herein they had rather been made partakers of greater, even very exceeding, grace; arousing the hearer at the very opening of his discourse. Wherefore he says, "God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the fathers by the Prophets, hath at the end of the days spoken unto us by His Son."

Why did he [Paul] not oppose "himself" to "the prophets"? Certainly, he was much greater than they, inasmuch as a greater trust was committed to him. Yet he doth not so. Why? First, to avoid speaking great things concerning himself. Secondly, because his hearers were not yet perfect. And thirdly, because he rather wished to exalt them, and to show that their superiority was great. As if he had said, What so great matter is it that He sent prophets to our fathers? For to us [He has sent] His own only-begotten Son Himself.

And well did he begin thus, "At sundry times and in divers manners," for he points out that not even the prophets themselves saw God; nevertheless, the Son saw Him. For the expressions, "at sundry times and in divers manners" are the same as "in different ways." "For I" (saith He) "have multiplied visions, and used similitudes by the ministry of the Prophets." Wherefore the excellency consists not in this alone, that to them indeed prophets were sent, but to us the Son; but that none of them saw God, but the Only-begotten Son saw Him. He doth not indeed at once assert this, but by what he says afterwards he establishes it, when he speaks concerning His human nature; "For to which of the Angels said He, Thou art My Son," and, "Sit thou on My right hand"?

And look on his great wisdom. First he shows the superiority from the prophets. Then having established this as acknowledged, he declares that to them indeed He spake by the prophets, but to us by the Only-begotten. Then [He spake] to them by Angels, and this again he establishes, with good reason (for angels also held converse with the Jews): yet even herein we have the superiority, inasmuch as the Master [spake] to us, but to them servants, and prophets, fellow-servants.

Well also said he, "at the end of the days," for by this he both stirs them up and encourages them desponding of the future. For as he says also in another place, "The Lord is at hand, be careful for nothing," and again, "For now is our salvation nearer than when we believed": so also here. What then is it which he says? That whoever is spent in the conflict, when he hears of the end thereof, recovers his breath a little, knowing that it is the end indeed of his labors, but the beginning of his rest.

"Hath in the end of the days spoken unto us in [His] Son." Behold again he uses the saying, "in [His] Son," for "through the Son," against those who assert that this phrase is proper to the Spirit. Dost thou see that the [word] "in" is "through"?

And the expression, "In times past," and this, "In the end of the days," shadows forth some other meaning: that when a long time had intervened, when we were on the edge of punishment, when the Gifts had failed, when there was no expectation of deliverance, when we were expecting to have less than all, then we have had more.

And see how considerately he hath spoken it. For he said not, "Christ spake" (albeit it was He who did speak), but inasmuch as their souls were weak, and they were not yet able to hear the things concerning Christ, he says, "God hath spoken by Him." What meanest thou? did God speak through the Son? Yes. What then? Is it thus thou showest the superiority? for here thou hast but pointed out that both the New and the Old [Covenants] are of One and the same: and that this superiority is not great. Wherefore he henceforth follows on upon this argument, saying, "He spake unto us by [His] Son."

(Note, how Paul makes common cause, and puts himself on a level with the disciples, saying, He spake "to us": and yet He did not speak to him, but to the Apostles, and through them to the many. But he lifts them [the Hebrews] up, and declares that He spake also to them. And as yet he doth not at all reflect on the Jews. For almost all to whom the prophets spake, were a kind of evil and polluted persons. But as yet the discourse is not of these: but, hitherto of the gifts derived from God.)

"But to which of the Angels said He at any time, Sit thou on My right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool?" Behold, again he encourages them, inasmuch as their enemies were to be worsted, and their enemies are the same also with Christ's.

This again belongs to Sovereignty, to Equal Dignity, to Honor and not weakness, that the Father should be angry for the things done to the Son. This belongs to His great Love and honor towards the Son, as of a father towards a son. For He that is angry in His behalf how is He a stranger to Him? Which also he saith in the second Psalm, "He that dwelleth in heaven shall laugh them to scorn, and the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall He speak unto them in His wrath, and vex them in His sore displeasure." And again He Himself saith, "Those that would not that I should reign over them, bring hither before Me, and slay them." For that they are His own words, hear also what He saith in another place, "How often would I have gathered thy children together, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left desolate." And again, "The kingdom shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." And again, "He that falleth upon that stone shall be broken, but on whomsoever It shall fall, It will grind him to powder." And besides, He who is to be their Judge in that world, much more did He Himself repay them in this. So that the words "Till I make thine enemies thy footstool" are expressive of honor only towards the Son.

Then, using degrees of ascent, he uttered that which is far greater than all this, saying, "Who, being the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high."

O! the wisdom of the Apostle! or rather, not the wisdom of Paul, but the grace of the Spirit is the thing to wonder at. For surely he uttered not these things of his own mind, nor in that way did he find his wisdom. (For whence could it be? From the knife, and the skins, or the workshop?) But it was from the working of God. For his own understanding did not give birth to these thoughts, which was then so mean and slender as in nowise to surpass the baser sort; (for how could it, seeing it spent itself wholly on bargains and skins?) but the grace of the Spirit shows forth its strength by whomsoever it will.

For just as one, wishing to lead up a little child to some lofty place, reaching up even to the top of Heaven, does this gently and by degrees, leading him upwards by the steps from below, then when he has set him on high, and bidden him to gaze downwards, and sees him turning giddy and confused, and dizzy, taking hold of him, he leads him down to the lower stand, allowing him to take breath; then when he hath recovered it, leads him up again, and again brings him down; just so did the blessed Paul likewise, both with the Hebrews and everywhere, having learnt it from his Master. For even He also did so; sometimes He led His hearers up on high, and sometimes He brought them down, not allowing them to remain very long.

See him, then, even here, by how many steps he led them up, and placed them near the very summit of religion, and then or ever they grow giddy, and are seized with dizziness, how he leads them again lower down, and allowing them to take breath, says, "He spake unto us by [His] Son," "whom He appointed Heir of all things." For the name of Son is so far common. For where a true [Son] it is understood of, He is above all: but however that may be, for the present he proves that He is from above.

And see how he says it: "Whom He appointed," saith he, "heir of all things." The phrase, "He appointed Heir," is humble. Then he placed them on the higher step, adding, "by whom also He made the worlds." Then on a higher still, and after which there is no other, "who being the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person." Truly he has led them to unapproachable light, to the very brightness itself. And before they are blinded see how he gently leads them down again, saying, "and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty." He does not simply say, "He sat down," but "after the purifying, He sat down," for he hath touched on the Incarnation, and his utterance is again lowly.

Since then "He hath purged our sins," let us continue pure; and let us receive no stain, but preserve the beauty which He hath implanted in us, and His comeliness undefiled and pure, "not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing." Even little sins are "a spot and a wrinkle," such a thing, I mean, as Reproach, Insult, Falsehood.

Everywhere indeed a reverential mind is requisite, but especially when we say or hear anything of God: Since neither can tongue speak nor thought hear anything suitable to our God. And why speak I of tongue or thought? For not even the understanding which far excels these, will be able to comprehend anything accurately, when we desire to utter aught concerning God. For if "the peace of God surpasseth all understanding" (Phil. iv. 7), and "the things which are prepared for them that love Him have not entered into the heart of man" (1 Cor. ii. 9); much more He Himself, the God of peace, the Creator of all things, doth by a wide measure exceed our reasoning. We ought therefore to receive all things with faith and reverence, and when our discourse fails through weakness, and is not able to set forth accurately the things which are spoken, then especially to glorify God, for that we have such a God, surpassing both our thought and our conception.

And to show thee that even Paul is weak and doth not put out his illustrations with exactness; and to make thee tremble and refrain from searching too far, hear what he says, having called Him Son and named Him Creator, "Who being the brightness of His Glory, and the express image of His person."

This we must receive with reverence and clear of all incongruities. "The brightness of His glory," saith he. But observe in what reference he understands this, and so do thou receive it: that He is of Him: without passion: that He is neither greater, nor less; since there are some, who derive certain strange things from the illustration. For, say they, "the brightness" is not substantial, but hath its being in another. Now do not thou, O man, so receive it, neither be thou sick of the disease of Marcellus and Photinus. For he hath a remedy for thee close at hand, that thou fall not into that imagination, nor doth he leave thee to be hurried down into that fatal malady. And what saith he? "And the express image of His person" [or "subsistence"]: that is, just as He [the Father] is personally subsisting, being in need of nothing, so also the Son. For he saith this here, showing the undeviating similitude and the peculiar image of the Prototype, that He [the Son] is in subsistence by Himself.

For he who said above, that "by Him He made all things" here assigns to Him absolute authority. For what doth he add? "And upholding all things by the word of His power"; that we might hence infer not merely His being the express image of His Person, but also His governing all things with absolute authority.

See then, how he applies to the Son that which is proper to the Father. For on this account he did not say simply, "and upholding all things," nor did he say, "by His power," but, "by the word of His power." For much as just now we saw him gradually ascend and descend; so also now, as by steps, he goes up on high, then again descends, and saith, "by whom also He made the worlds."

But the very thing which he said, "the brightness of the glory," hear also Christ Himself saying, "I am the Light of the world." (John viii. 12.) Therefore he [the Apostle] uses the word "brightness," showing that this was said in the sense of "Light of Light." Nor is it this alone which he shows, but also that He hath enlightened our souls; and He hath Himself manifested the Father, and by "the brightness" he has indicated the nearness of the Being [of the Father and the Son]. Observe the subtlety of his expressions. He hath taken one essence and subsistence to indicate two subsistences.

And he adds that He is "the express Image." For the "express Image" is something other than its Prototype: yet not Another in all respects, but as to having real subsistence. Since here also the term, "express image," indicates there is no variation from that whereof it is the "express image": its similarity in all respects. When therefore he calls Him both Form, and express Image, what can they say? "Yea," saith he, "man is also called an Image of God." What then! is he so [an image of Him] as the Son is? No (saith he) but because the term, image, doth not show resemblance. And yet, in that man is called an Image, it showeth resemblance, as in man. For what God is in Heaven, that man is on earth, I mean as to dominion. And as he hath power over all things on earth, so also hath God power over all things which are in heaven and which are on earth. But otherwise, man is not called "Express image," he is not called Form: which phrase declares the substance, or rather both substance and similarity in substance. Therefore just as "the form of a slave" (Phil. ii. 6, 7) expresses no other thing than a man without variation [from human nature], so also "the form of God" expresses no other thing than God.

"Who being" (saith he) "the brightness of His glory." See what Paul is doing. Having said, "Who being the brightness of His glory," he added again, "He sat down on the right hand of the Majesty": what names he hath used, nowhere finding a name for the Substance. For neither "the Majesty," nor "the Glory" setteth forth the Name, which he wishes to say, but is not able to find a name. For this is what I said at the beginning, that oftentimes we think something, and are not able to express [it]: since not even the word God is a name of substance, nor is it at all possible to find a name of that Substance.

And what marvel, if it be so in respect of God, since not even in respect of an Angel, could one find a name expressive of his substance? Perhaps too, neither in respect of the soul. For this name [soul] doth not seem to me to be significative of the substance thereof, but of breathing. For one may see that the same [thing] is called both Soul and Heart and Mind: for, saith he, "Create in me a clean heart, O God" (Ps. li. 10), and one may often see that it [the soul] is called spirit.

"And upholding all things by the word of His power." Tell me, "God said" (it is written), "Let there be light" (Gen. i. 3): "the Father commanded, and the Son obeyed"? But behold here He also [the Son] acts by word. For (saith he), "And upholding all things" - that is, governing; He holds together what would fall to pieces; For, to hold the world together, is no less than to make it, but even greater (if one must say a strange thing). For the one is to bring forward something out of things which are not: but the other, when things which have been made are about to fall back into non-existence, to hold and fasten them together, utterly at variance as they are with each other: this is indeed great and wonderful, and a certain proof of exceeding power.

Then showing the easiness, he said, "upholding": (he did not say, governing, from the figure of those who simply with their finger move anything, and cause it to go round.) Here he shows both the mass of the creation to be great, and that this greatness is nothing to Him. Then again he shows the freedom from the labor, saying, "By the word of His power." Well said he, "By the word." For since, with us, a word is accounted to be a bare thing, he shows that it is not bare with God. But, how "He upholdeth by the word," he hath not further added: for neither is it possible to know.

Then he added concerning His majesty: for thus John also did: having said that "He is God" (John i. 1), he brought in the handiwork of the Creation. For the same thing which the one indirectly expressed, saying, "In the beginning was the Word," and "All things were made by Him" (John i. 3), this did the other also openly declare by "the Word," and by saying "by whom also He made the worlds." For thus he shows Him to be both a Creator, and before all ages. What then? when the prophet saith, concerning the Father, "Thou art from everlasting and to everlasting" (Ps. xc. 2), and concerning the Son, that He is before all ages, and the maker of all things - what can they say? Nay rather, when the very thing which was spoken of the Father, - "He which was before the worlds," - this one may see spoken of the Son also? And that which one saith, "He was life" (John i. 4), pointing out the preservation of the creation, that Himself is the Life of all things, - so also saith this other, "and upholding all things by the word of His power": not as the Greeks who defraud Him, as much as in them lies, both of Creation itself, and of Providence, shutting up His power, to reach only as far as to the Moon.

"By Himself" (saith he) "having purged our sins." Having spoken concerning those marvelous and great matters, which are most above us, he proceeds to speak also afterwards concerning His care for men. For indeed the former expression, "and upholding all things," also was universal: nevertheless this is far greater, for it also is universal: for, for His part, "all" men believed. As John also, having said, "He was life," and so pointed out His providence, saith again, and "He was light."

"By Himself," saith he, "having purged our sins, He sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." He here setteth down two very great proofs of His care: first the "purifying us from our sins," then the doing it "by Himself." And in many places, thou seest him making very much of this, - not only of our reconciliation with God, but also of this being accomplished through the Son. For the gift being truly great, was made even greater by the fact that it was through the Son.

For in saying, "He sat on the right hand," and, "having by Himself purged our sins," - though he had put us in mind of the Cross, he quickly added the mention of the resurrection and ascension. And see his unspeakable wisdom: he said not, "He was commanded to sit down," but "He sat down." Then again, lest thou shouldest think that He standeth, he subjoins, "For to which of the angels said He at any time, Sit thou on My right hand."

"He sat" (saith he) "on the right hand of the Majesty on high." What is this "on high"? Doth he enclose God in place? Away with such a thought! but just as, when he saith, "on the right hand," he did not describe Him as having figure, but showed His equal dignity with the Father; so, in saying "on high," he did not enclose Him there, but expressed the being higher than all things, and having ascended up above all things. That is, He attained even unto the very throne of the Father: as therefore the Father is on high, so also is He. For the "sitting together" implies nothing else than equal dignity. But if they say, that He said, "Sit Thou," we may ask them, What then? did He speak to Him standing? Moreover, he said not that He commanded, not that He enjoined, but that "He said": for no other reason, than that thou mightest not think Him without origin and without cause. For that this is why he said it, is evident from the place of His sitting. For had he intended to signify inferiority, he would not have said, "on the right hand," but on the left hand.

He, who first spoke through patriarchs and prophets, afterwards spoke in his own person. As the Song of Songs says, “that he would kiss me with the kisses of his mouth.” He is saying, therefore, “Now, in my own person, I speak of him of whom I spoke through the prophets.” The world could not hear him in his thundering, but may it hear him, at least, in his crying.

The epistle which is called the Epistle to the Hebrews is not considered his [Paul's], on account of its difference from the others in style and language, but it is reckoned, either according to Tertullian to be the work of Barnabas, or according to others, to be by Luke the Evangelist or Clement afterwards bishop of the church at Rome, who, they say, arranged and adorned the ideas of Paul in his own language, though to be sure, since Paul was writing to Hebrews and was in disrepute among them he may have omitted his name from the salutation on this account. He being a Hebrew wrote Hebrew, that is his own tongue and most fluently while the things which were eloquently written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek and this is the reason why it seems to differ from other epistles of Paul.

Through the phrase "Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to serve" he shows that the Son is not a servant, but a fellow worker with God.

He does not say that a change of nature took place, but by way of comparison, that he permits these things to be destroyed and they do perish in contrast to the eternity of the Son. For also the Lord, when predicting his second coming, says "the stars will fall" and there will no longer be sun or moon or heavens. And one must demonstrate in addition that he revealed through the statement "but you are the same" Christ's eternal existence and the immutability of his nature.

“He spoke to us in his Son,” instead of “by the Son.” For he did not speak in him as an instrument but rather through him as one indwelling the flesh.… For when he had said, “He has spoken to us in his Son whom he appointed as an heir”—not “created as an heir”—he applied the word to his existence before the ages. And he does this intelligently, now leading us up into theology, now bringing us down into the incarnation.

For just as in the matter of "radiance" and "exact image of his nature" he imitated John, calling him "the Word" and saying that he was God, so also here he imitated John. Just as John said, "This one was in the beginning, all things were created through him," so also does Paul, although he says, "these things were not" instead of saying, "This one was." "To the angels is said, 'who makes them'; but to the Son, 'your throne.' " This proves the point: That which was made was not in existence previously, but he who has an eternal throne always was with his Father.

“In many ways,” that is, according to the differences of the times in which the promises concerning us were imparted, such as at the creation of Adam, at the time of Cain, in the days of Noah, at the time of Abraham, at the time before the law, at the time after the law. For many are the manners of God’s administration on our behalf. And “in a variety of ways,” because one commandment was given to Adam, another to Noah, yet another to Abraham, and another through Moses, and yet different ones through the prophets.

"But to what angel has he ever said?" Leaving aside all the rest of creation he speaks about that which is higher than the rest of creation, namely, the angels. For if the Son differed from the angels in that they were created but he was not, how much more does he differ from all invisible things?

Seeking to present more clearly that the Word was begotten of the essence of the Father, he makes mention of the “radiance.” For the radiance is from the essence of that of which it is an efflux of light, and it is continuously conceived both from it and never apart from that of which it is the radiance. But since “radiance” implies a lesser nature than that of which it is the radiance and existence not in the same nature, he uses a different word and states that Christ is “the exact image of his nature.” The first phrase (“radiance of his glory”) demonstrates that Christ cannot be separated from the essence as God; the second phrase (“exact image of his nature”) proves that he is not without God’s nature. For just as John, calling Christ “the Word,” adds, “he was with God and was God,” so also Paul, having said “radiance,” added, “and the exact image of his nature.”

This is what Jeremiah calls “his strong works of words.”

Even if the Word became flesh, he nonetheless was in the glory and nature of divinity and was not kept far from the highest thrones of God the Father. And although “he was made a little lower than the angels” because of the measure of his humanity—for human nature is subordinate to the glory of the angels—he was still “above every name that is named.”

That the angels were “ministering spirits” he has established from previous testimony, but now he finally renews the image of their service, saying that they do everything in service for the things needful for our salvation. For it is not a small thing to know the need for the assistance of their service.

It is possible to see in a glance that whenever the Old Testament speaks about the divine nature, it does not speak distinctly about the Father alone, as the heretics suppose when they attempt to apply "I am God and there is no other besides me" and similar passages to the Father alone. On the contrary, whatever it says concerning God as it expounds upon the divine nature, it says in such a way that those attributes may be joined together with the Son and the Holy Spirit, owing to the fellowship of their nature. Otherwise how has the apostle dragged in this second scriptural witness from it?… Has not Paul done the same in his epistle to the Romans, where he says, "For it is written, 'As I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee shall bow to me' "? For no one would find here something that would clearly distinguish between them.

“Through whom also he made the ages.” An age is not a nature that is able to exist in substance but is understood to be a certain interval. This interval can be perceived from its having a beginning of existence until its end or until some other age has likewise taken its beginning.… The “creator of the ages” means nothing different than “everlasting, existing beyond every age, having his own limitless existence.” For the maker exists before the things which are made, but an interval of time must be perceived by its having a beginning.… When blessed David says, “Who exists before the ages,” he does not wish this to say that God exists before the latter ages, but that God has eternal existence, being earlier than every interval of time. When Paul says, “through whom God also made the ages,” Paul does not wish God to be the creator of the later ages but to be eternal and the cause of all ages that have a beginning.

He does not say, “God spoke to us in the Son” but simply “in a Son.” By saying this and making no separation, he was able to signify both in a single expression. First of all, he signifies the true Son, and by true Son I mean the one who possesses sonship by his natural birth. In the second place, he also includes in this designation the one who shares truly in the dignity of sonship because of his union with God.

The mention of the angels' "service" (wind) shows their quickness, while the mention of "ministry" (flames) shows their power. When he says that the angels have been made these things, he presents how they also have the ability to be these things. And he distinguishes them from the "Creator" and "God" and "throne" and "scepter of the kingdom," all of which are symbols of his highest honor and worthiness. For also the phrase God reveals his highest nature, and throne and scepter set forth the certainty of this apart from human honors and worthiness. Then also the phrase "forever and ever" proves this, for the word Creator shows those things that have come into existence have their beginning in time, but this passage demonstrates the eternity of his kingdom.

“Who, being the radiance of glory and the exact representation of his substance.” Quite appropriately he does not say “God” but “glory.” In this way he does not allow us to meddle in the things of that nature when we are thunderstruck by his name, since of course the only “glory” worth mentioning is God’s nature. Paul uses the analogy of “radiance” for that which he deemed most essential, and by the next phrase he explicates the point of the analogy. For he says that Christ preserves an accurate representation of God’s nature, so that whatever you would think God’s nature to be, so you must also think Christ’s nature to be, inasmuch as Christ’s nature bears the accurate representation of God’s nature since Christ’s nature does not differ from God’s in the least.

Indeed, there is a great deal of similarity [between the opening of John’s Gospel and] the apostle’s statement. After Paul calls him “the brightness of his glory,” he adds, “the very stamp of his nature.” With great care he turns from a statement of their distinction to an indication of their perfect likeness.

He is the “Father of glory” in that Paul is accustomed to use the word glory to refer to the divine nature, because it is glorious and marvelous. So in Hebrews he says the Son is the “brightness of his glory.” Instead of this he might have said “God” or “divine nature.”

He not only says that he is the maker of all things, but that he certainly also makes them by the great abundance of his power, for all things hang upon his voice, as it were. For this expression “who calls into existence the things that do not exist” does not differ from the account of blessed Moses, who says, “And God said, ‘Let there be light’ and there was light … ‘Let there be a firmament’ and there was a firmament.”

Now certainly in the epistle to the Hebrews, when a distinction was to be made between the dispensation of the New Testament and the dispensation of the Old Testament in regard to the fitness of the ages and times, it was written most plainly that not only those visible things but also the word itself were wrought by the mediation of the angels. For it speaks as follows: “To what angel has he ever said, ‘Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies a stool for your feet’? Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to serve, for the sake of those who are to obtain salvation?” It is evident from this passage that all those things were not only done by angels but were also done for our sake, that is, for the people of God, to whom the inheritance of eternal life is promised.

You see, those old sacrifices of the people of God also represented in a variety of ways this single one that was to come. Christ himself, I mean, was both a sheep, because of his innocence and simplicity of soul, and a goat because of “the likeness of sinful flesh.” And whatever else was foretold “in many and various ways” in the sacrifices of the old covenant refers to this single one which has been revealed in the new covenant.

For at the end of the ages the Son himself spoke to us through himself. No longer through the mediation of a prophet or the voice of saints but through himself, the only begotten, by being born into our condition, spoke with us. And we say that the Father spoke in the Son, not as through a human being somehow established as a special kind of mediator or as one declaring a message to us which was not his own but another’s. Rather, the Son spoke to us in his own voice through his own body. For the flesh belonged to the only begotten and not to anyone else. Though God by nature, he became human while remaining God.

Does not the divine Word [Scripture] indicate to us that the Son exists in the form of God, and does it not say that he is the image and stamp of the one who begot him?

He continues with the following words: “When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs.” Having demonstrated that he is the stamp of the Father’s hypostasis and, indeed, the brightness of his glory, he necessarily passes over to the economy of the incarnation, through which we have been saved and enriched by the forgiveness of sins and sanctified through his blood.

"Your throne, O God, is forever." Through this he teaches us that the phrase "he sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high" was meant in human fashion. As God he has a throne that is eternal and a kingdom that is without beginning or end, but here human things are associated with it.

Whereas he sits at the right hand [he is saying], they are sent as ministers of salvation for the sake of human beings.

He indicated creation's change for the better that was due to him, and his own lack of beginning or extinction. "You are the same, and your years will never end," he says, note, meaning, "You were not made, but you are, and you admit of no change, being always the same." This suggests also the impassibility of the divinity. If it suffered, how is it the same? After all, it would be changed, and if it passed three days in death, its years would fail. Both the prophet and the apostle, however, the one writing the testimony and the other using it, emphasize that he is always the same and his years will not fail.

Both phrases, "brings the firstborn" and "let them worship," suggest the incarnation. Whence does he, the one who supports all things by the word of his power and is maker and creator of the ages, come into the world? How is he "firstborn" if he is only begotten? If even after the incarnation the angels adored him, did they not offer him this honor before the incarnation? He was everywhere as God, yet as man he came into the world.

He spoke of the Son as “creator of the ages” to bring out that he is eternal and to teach us that he was always beyond any temporal interval whatsoever. In these terms the Old Testament speaks of the God and Father as the one existing before the ages, that is, the one who always is.

“Whom he appointed heir of all things.” The divine apostle began with human beings, and after speaking first of the lowlier things he thus lays hold of the greater. In other words, Christ the Lord is heir of all things, not as God, but as man: as God he is maker of all things, and the creator of all things is Lord of all by nature, whereas the heir is made master of what he was previously not lord. In like manner the believers are heirs of God and coheirs with Christ: by grace they receive what they did not have before.

He clearly brought out the difference between Christ the Lord and the prophets, calling him alone “Son.” The opening resembles the parable of the Lord: in telling the parable about the vineyard to the Jews, the Lord showed that slaves were first sent to the wicked farmers, then after their murder a son arrived.

The divine apostle immediately in the prologue demonstrates that Christ is better than all the prophets. Beginning with the divine nature, he shows him to be eternal—coeternal with the Father and the Creator of all. Next, contrasting him with the angels, he turns to sacred Scripture, which openly teaches that Christ is Son and God, while angels are ministers and creatures. He proceeds to show that the dispensation of our Lord Christ is greater than that of Moses, for Moses gave the Old Testament but Christ gave the New, which was promised through the prophets of old. The former promised that Palestine would be given; the latter, the kingdom of heaven. He compares the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek with the Levitical priesthood and demonstrates its superiority and excellence. In addition, he shows that even those who lived before the law or under the law and were nourished by piety were distinguished because of their faith. He speaks of them and their sufferings and courage, encouraging his hearers, who were in grave danger. Then, reminding his hearers of their own struggles and exhorting them to stand steadfast to the end and weaving together moral exhortation with doctrine, he closes the epistle.

The phrase “in many ways,” of course, indicates the manifold dispensations, “various ways,” the different kinds of divine visions. He appeared to Abraham in one way, to Moses in another, to Elijah in another, to Micaiah in another. Isaiah, Daniel and Ezekiel saw him under different guises. To bring this out the God of all said, “It was I who multiplied visions, and took visible form at the hands of the inspired authors.” After all, the divine nature is not pluriform, but without either shape or appearance, simple and uncomplicated. It was, therefore, not the incomprehensible nature that they saw but guises of some kind, which the unseen God revealed as need required. The phrase “in many ways,” of course, implies something else as well, that each of the inspired authors was entrusted with some particular dispensation, whereas their God—I mean Christ the Lord—did not provide for some single need, but by becoming man he set all to rights and secured the salvation of human beings. It became obvious, of course, that there is one lawgiver of the old and new.

This is spoken with reference to the humanity. As God he is maker of angels and Lord of angels, while as man he became superior to angels after the resurrection and ascension into heaven since he was also less than angels on account of experiencing death.… So just as he was less than angels as man, since they have an immortal nature whereas he endured the passion, so after the ascension into heaven he became superior to the angels.

Having thus dealt with divine things, he shifts once more to the human. It is not to him as God that he says, "Sit at my right hand": how could it be, when "his throne is for ever and ever"? So as human he shared in this honor, having as God the eternal throne.

The “glory” is eternal. Therefore, the “brightness” is also eternal. Brightness is of the same nature as fire. Therefore, the Son is of the same nature as the Father. And since the metaphor of brightness so manifestly demonstrates their coeternity and consubstantiality, he allows an opportunity for those sick with the blasphemy of Sabellius and Photinus, according to which the brightness does not subsist by itself. By another metaphor he excludes this blasphemy, for he goes on to say “and the very stamp of his nature.”

I wish and I pray that I may follow the footprints of the holy fathers, and I earnestly desire to keep undefiled the evangelic teaching that was in sum delivered to us by the holy fathers assembled in council at the Bithynian Nicaea. I believe that there is one God the Father and one Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father. Also that there is one Lord Jesus Christ, only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, brightness of his glory and express image of the Father’s person, on account of humanity’s salvation incarnate and made human and born of Mary the virgin in the flesh. For so are we taught by the wise Paul …, “Concerning his Son who was descended from David according to the flesh and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness.” On this account we also call the holy virgin “Theotokos” and deem those who object to this appellation to be alienated from true religion.

In this way the divine apostle in several terms brought out the reality of the begetting, the oneness in being and the shared eternity of the Father and the Son. Since the divinity transcends all understanding, and it is impossible to bring out in one single image the mystery of the true doctrine of God, the preachers of the truth are obliged to do so by means of many.… Blessed Paul called him “Son” to show him to be different from the Father in regard to personhood; he spoke of him “as creator of the ages” to bring out in these ways his eternity and called him also “effulgence of glory” to indicate by this his shared eternity and the sameness of being, the effulgence being of the nature of the fire. He added that he is “stamp of his nature” to bring out both things at the same time, that he subsists of himself and that he reveals in himself the paternal characteristics. He adds also something else: “upholding all things by the word of his power.” He not only made everything but also directs and guides it.

A hermit was asked how it was that some people said they had seen angels. He answered, ‘Blessed is he who always sees his own sins.’

"Who makes His angels spirits." For they are created beings, therefore he says, "Who makes." Behold the greatest difference: that some are created, while the One is uncreated; for the act of creating denotes the production from non-being into being. It is not only to angels that the exceptional pertains, but also to every functional power. He did not say, "Having created," but "Creating," that is, sustaining by the Word, according to which they came into being.

Since the Son is not a creature, but a true offspring, He is no longer referred to as "who makes," (Heb. 1:13) as is said of the angels, but rather, "Your throne, O God, is forever." The throne, however, is a sign of royalty, but the scepter is of righteousness.
"The scepter of righteousness." Behold, there is another symbol of royalty, the royal scepter, and the staff.

Speaking of the bare Word [λόγου] of God, He came into humanity, lest they be overwhelmed by the sublimity of what has been said. By Himself, Paul says, that is, He did not send another minister, but worked the purification by Himself, through His cross and death, when He had freed us from sins in baptism.
"of majesty”, that is, of the Father. For after the remission of sins was first made, He sat down at the right hand of God with His flesh.
"on high." Above all, he says, he ascends to the paternal throne. However, these signify consubstantiality [ὁμοούσιον].
"having become so much superior to the angels." The discourse is about the privilege itself. For His flesh was made: for the Word of God is not made, but begotten. Therefore, His flesh is so much more excellent than the angels, as can be known from the excellence of the names.

Or what is said to be Generated [Γενόμενος], do not take it concerning the flesh, lest you think it to be divided from this: but concerning Christ, who is worshiped in one essence [ὑποστάσει] even with His flesh. For where it has once touched what pertains to the privilege, it speaks of humble things without fear.

"he has inherited a more excellent name." For the Son, having a name from the beginning, the Word, and after the flesh, He possessed it. Therefore, it is rightly said, "he has inherited," as through the incarnation. He has been called Christ. To say of Christ that he has acquired it by hereditary right means that he has obtained that which he had already possessed long ago.

The inheritance primarily belongs to those who are entitled, but not to those who are alienated. Thus, what was fitting for the heavenly Word was received below through the flesh that was also assumed. But what is that? The Son, of the God of all, who is also the Father of that flesh, is to say, "I have begotten you." (Ps. 2:7) What he says: "today" is not a sign of time, but that the Father has never been separated from the legitimate paternal relationship that He has with the Son.
But if he were to say: I have always been affected towards you in this way: not as if a generation has come, but that it may always persist and continuously derive a beginning, with no end. Indeed, consider whether it may be adapted in such a way that both are indeed said of Christ, namely, "You are my Son," and "Today I have begotten you" (Ps. 2:7): but that, "You are my Son," insofar as He is the Word: for it signifies His eternal birth; whereas "Today I have begotten you" refers to the flesh: for it designates a recent birth. For He was born by the good pleasure of the Father."The Holy Spirit,” said the angel, “will come upon you”; and then also: “The power of the Most High will overshadow you." (Luke 1:35)

We heard, and we who are men, are true sons through grace. The angels, however, did not hear this, lest their sublimity be thought to be from nature rather than from grace. Christ, however, is not from grace, but from nature.
"I have begotten You." The Father relates the birth of the Son according to the flesh, therefore he said: "today"; Thus says the holy Athanasius.
"I will be to Him a Father."

Again, accept this as the Son's birth according to the flesh, belonging to the Father; for it is clearly said, "I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son according to the flesh."

"You have loved righteousness." These humble things are appropriate after the incarnation, as they are able to receive the lowly nature of the flesh.
"therefore God, your God, has anointed you." O God, your God has anointed you. The "you" is through the flesh. For humanity is anointed with the Holy Spirit. It does not operate as it does with mere men, such as prophets and patriarchs. Anointing is, as it were, the entire presence of the anointer. Thus, holy Cyril observed. But see how Eusebius said that Symmachus refers to and rejects this anointing. "Therefore," he says, "God,your God, has anointed you with the oil of joy [χαρᾶς] over your companions."
"With the oil of gladness [ἀγαλλιάσεως]." Indeed, the oil of gladness is the Holy Spirit; the people are partakers of Christ. What he means by this is: Not as ordinary men are anointed, so Christ was anointed with the Holy Spirit to a measure, but all was anointed with the Spirit.

"like a robe you will roll them up." He indicated the ease of their change. For everything will change from decay to incorruption; and thus easily, as if one were to wrap a cloak. But if he works so easily towards the better transformation and creation, would he need to focus on the lesser creation of another?
"but you are the same." He says that you will change and renew all things, and make the corruptible into incorruptible. You will truly live forever and will always remain. And there is no small comfort for those suffering here, to know that things will not always be this way, but will undergo a change; and that the one who is being cared for by them remains for eternity and lives forever.

"But when He again brings." Indeed, he brings, is as if "hands over." For then He obtained the world which was voluntarily governed by Him, when He tasted death for the whole world, and when He was believed to be God.
However, in order that the speech may be easily received, he said that the Father introduces the Son. By introducing, he understands not that He was previously located outside the created world: (for how could he fill all things?), But that He had nothing in common with the created world since He was God. Furthermore, when He assumed flesh, then He communicated with the created world; when He united to Himself that which was created. Thus, the holy Cyril, in his work, "Christ is God." And blessed Gregory of Nyssa in his books against Eunomius. What he says: The Firstborn, does not refer to the second, but of the one and only begotten from the Father.

"But when He again brings the firstborn into the world." That is, when it was His good pleasure for His Firstborn to appear in flesh to those who populated the world. For He says: "And the angels came and ministered to Him (Matt. 4:11);" and: "From now on you will see angels descending upon the Son of Man." (Jn. 1:51)

"Let all the angels of God worship Him," That is, in the flesh. It shows here that he is so much greater than them, as a master is greater than servants; just as if someone were to bring someone into a house, he would immediately command those in charge of them to worship [προσκυνεῖν] him. Thus appearing in the flesh: that is, the angels worship the Son in the flesh.

Therefore, he offered the first fruits of our nature to the Father. And the Father marveled at the gift, both for the worthiness of the one who presented it and for the purity of what was offered, as if to receive it with His own hands and place the gift beside Him, and said, “Sit at My right hand."

He said that he did not want to show that he would not have dared to sit otherwise unless commanded: certainly not; but do not think that he lacks a beginning. For that this is so is indicated by the place of the chair, designating a similar honor, and by what was said above: He sat, when it is not previously read that he was told: Sit. Or because the Prophet could not signify the harmony and will of the Father in any other way than to sit, he used the word, Sit. Therefore, this is also great, not only over human nature but also over every creature. Nevertheless, this is also proclaimed on account of human nature. For as far as He is God, the Son has an eternal throne: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever." (Heb. 1:8) For he was not honored with this distinction after the cross and passion as God: but as a man he received what he already had as God. Nor was he exalted when he was humble, but when he was sublime and in the form of God, he humbled himself by taking the form of a servant. (Phil. 2:6-7) The evangelist also cries out: "The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared." (Jn. 1:18) And the Lord: "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me." (Jn. 14:11) And elsewhere: "Glorify me, O Father, with the glory I had with you before the world was made." (Jn. 17:5) Therefore, as a man hears: "Sit at my right hand." (Ps. 101:1) For God has eternal dominion.
"until I make Your enemies Your footstool." Notice the demonstration that the Son is legitimate. The Father is angry against the enemies of the Son. And He did not say that the Son is powerless to put them under His feet, but to reveal the identity of will. What He says "until" is not indicative of time, as if when the enemies are placed as a footstool, it would again be that He would rise: far from it; but He wants to show that He will not be powerless to put all as a footstool.
Indeed, until [ἕως] or as long as something exists, it brings forth what is up to that point, but does not remove what comes after it. Thus Gregory says in the second book "On the Son": "Are they not all ministering spirits?" He comforts them, saying: Christ is indeed the natural Son of God, but the angels are our servants: having been assigned this ministry, that they may do and administer all things so that we humans may be saved.For indeed, angels have frequently become ministers to men, as to Mary (Luke 1:26) and at the Lord's tomb (Matt. 28:2-7) and to Cornelius. (Acts 10:3)

"but in these last days." He comforts those worn out by adverse circumstances, saying: in the last. For, he says, the end is near; and for some, rest from pains, and for others, the beginning of rewards.
"He has spoken to us by His Son." He did not say, "He spoke to us in Christ," that is, through Christ; (for they were still weaker concerning Christ.) But, "by His Son," that is, through the Son.
"whom He made heir of all things." He says, "He made him heir and Lord of the whole world." The term "he made" is appropriate for the incarnation.

Who made him heir? Over whom? Over all things. Of all who approach the immortal and divine nature. Indeed, the Son is the heir and participant of the Father's substance [οὐσίας], wealth, and power. Then, when he said that the Son is the heir of the Father's possessions, he also explains how. Through him, he says, the ages were created: that is, the ages are the common works of him and the Father. But if the ages are the mutual work of the Father and the Son, then those things which are in the ages are certainly mutual to the Father and the Son. And if those things which are in the ages, much more those things which are after the ages, namely the world and those things which are in it.

"through whom also He made the ages." Where are those who say, "when the Son was not"? For the Creator of the ages is not subject to time. But since the Father is the cause of the Son, it is fitting that He is also the cause of those things that came into being through Him. Therefore he says: through whom. For the Father seems to act when He begets the Son who has done these things.

"they will perish." Something greater than creation has been revealed, the transformation of the world. For all that is seen will be transformed, and they will come to incorruption. Therefore, it is said, "they will perish" from the present sight.

"And you, O Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning." For when he again brings in the Firstborn; that is, when the Father was pleased to reveal His Firstborn Son in the flesh to those who dwell in the world. For it says: And the angels came and ministered to him (Matt. 4:11); and you will see the angels descending upon the Son of Man (Jn. 1:51) from now on.

Paul writes this from Italy. The occasion of the letter was this. Since the Jews were insisting on the law and shadowy figures, the apostle Paul, having become the teacher of the Gentiles and sent to preach the Gospel to the nations, wrote this letter after he had written to all the Gentiles, also to the Hebrews who had believed from the circumcision, to teach them through this Epistle, in which he declares that Christ has come and that the shadow of the law has ceased. And indeed, it first demonstrates that prophets and announcers [μηνυτὰς] of his coming were sent for this reason, and that Christ himself is the Son of God, through whom all things were made. And that this Son had to become a man, so that by the sacrifice of his body he might destroy death. For salvation was to come to all not through the blood of calves or goats, but through the blood of Christ. Moreover, it shows that the law made no one perfect but had only a shadow of the good things to come. The Jewish people did not find rest, but a day of rest was left to all of us in common. Furthermore, it also demonstrates that the priestly ministry was transferred from Aaron to Christ: whose figure was Melchizedek, who was not descended from Levi. It signifies that the fathers were justified by faith, and not by the works of the law. Then, after Paul also urged them to have good morals and praised their tolerance for Christ, and advised them to honor the elders, he concludes the Epistle.

The Epistle to the Hebrews indeed seems not to be from Paul, both because of the style of writing and because it does not attach his name, as in all the other Epistles; also because it says: "How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness with signs and wonders?" (Heb. 2:3-4) And indeed the reason why the style was changed is evident. For it is said to have been written to the Hebrews in their own language, later translated, as some think, by Luke, but as it seems to most, by Clement; for he also preserves its character.However, the reason why he did not attach his name to the Epistle is the order of the matter. For Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles, and not of the Jews. For he had given the right hand of fellowship to Peter and the other apostles, so that he himself would minister among the Gentiles with Barnabas, while those around Peter would go to the circumcision. Since there was a partnership in preaching, and the Jews had heard that Paul was teaching a departure from the law, it is fitting that he writes a letter to the Hebrews to show the agreement of the preaching. However, when he was writing to them, it was not appropriate for him to declare himself an Apostle at the beginning. The letter itself also testifies that it is Paul's, as it says: You have also shared in the afflictions that have come upon me in my chains. (Heb. 10:34) And when he says: "Pray more earnestly that I may be restored to you more quickly" (Heb. 13:19); furthermore, when he says: "You know our brother Timothy has been released, with whom, if he comes soon, I will see you." (Heb. 13:23) For no one except Paul, as I believe, had sent Timothy into ministry: and while waiting for him more quickly, he promises them his own and Timothy's arrival, as he often does. Many other things also show us that this is his Epistle, as the reading itself teaches in the course of it.

For what reason does Paul, being the Apostle to the Gentiles, write to the Hebrews? And this while they were hostile towards him because he was paralyzing [παραλύειν] the law? For Peter and the others who were with him, lowering themselves to the weak understanding of the Jews, were somewhat following the law. We say that just as it was not committed to Paul to baptize, yet out of an abundance of ministry he was also baptizing: so he writes to the Hebrews, although he was sent to the Gentiles. Indeed, he had anxious care for them, so much so that he even said: "I could wish to be accursed from Christ for their sake" (Rom. 9:3); and again: "I am going to Jerusalem to minister to the saints." (Rom. 15:25) Therefore, Paul writes to those who had already believed in Jerusalem and in Palestine: he writes, however, to comfort them because they had suffered many afflictions from their own fellow countrymen who did not believe, as he himself indicates, saying, "Strengthen your limp hands and your weak knees." (Heb. 12:12)
However, two points in this in the Epistle: Paul comforts them that they have bravely endured temptations, and that a good reward will be given for these things. Moreover, he discusses many things about faith, showing that the Jewish practices are no longer necessary, as it was a figure of the truth,while our own practices are necessary as they are the truth.
Therefore, why Paul did not add a proper name when writing to the Hebrews, Clement writes in his "The Hypotyposes" as follows: Now indeed, as the blessed elder says: When the Lord was sent as the apostle of the Almighty God to the Hebrews, it was done out of modesty that Paul, who was sent to the Gentiles, did not write himself as the apostle of the Hebrews, out of honor bestowed upon the Lord. Furthermore, out of abundant love, it was done that the preacher and apostle of the Gentiles also wrote to the Hebrews.

"In many times and in various ways." God spoke in various and diverse manners through the prophets of old; but to us, he has spoken through the Son. Therefore, we have a great difference compared to our forefathers. For since they suffered evils, they did not think that they were so cared for by God as their forefathers; therefore, it shows that they are more cared for than those. For to those he sent prophets; but to us, he sent his Son.

Then, lest you think that the heir is not called an heir by nature, but by a certain grace and adoption, Paul adds: "He is the radiance of His glory," saying practically: Although I have said that the Father appointed him as heir, understand that nothing humble or unworthy of God is implied. For it is not said that the heir is to be made by the act of adoption and that he is to be considered as such, but rather it is a declaration of the relationship of the Son to the Father as a cause according to nature of reference and consent: and lest you think the Son exists without a principle, alienating him from the paternal kinship, and imply two principles separated from each other. Indeed, for this very reason he was also called by me heir, so that you may immediately understand from whom the inheritance descends, nor may you suspect him to be unbegotten like the Father: for this reason it was said by me, Heir, and, He appointed. Therefore, I immediately added: Who, being the radiance.
But if it is not established that there was or would be radiance (for Paul says: when there was radiance), nor is the heir truly appointed, but only in the way I mentioned above. But see how significantly and precisely he has spoken, when he says Radiance, having said a representation, and being, and of the glory. For by radiance, he reveals the natural progression [πρόοδον] of the Son from the Father.
Indeed, the radiance of anyone never proceeds entirely through grace or adoption, neither from the sun, nor from fire, nor from any other source from which radiance is usually derived. However, by saying "he is," he shows that this is not something newly made for him to be radiance, but that it has always been from eternity.
For who is [ὤν], since He does not have a recent existence but is from eternity and always is. Then also the divine attribute is presented through who is. For thus also the Father says, "I am the the One who is [Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὢν]," speaking to Moses (Ex. 3:14).
Therefore, there are testimonies to demonstrate both the natural progression of the Son from the Father and the consubstantiality [ὁμοούσιον], and coeternal [συναΐδιον], as well as what he says: "The Radiance," and what he states: "who is." Indeed, he also adds "of his Glory," so that you may say: "His radiance is the Son," which is most honorable, and it comes from nature, and there is nothing greater in the Father.
You see how and whose heir the Son is? Then, explaining more clearly what has been said, Paul adds: "and the exact representation of His being." That is, having embraced the essence and substance in Himself, God is of infinite authority, omnipotent, Creator, and whatever else expresses the being of the Father, besides being the Father, all these things are the Son: therefore, He encompasses and sustains all things by His powerful word, and governs them.
Do you know how he is truly the heir and sustains all that belongs to the Father? Afterwards, when Paul spoke of the divine and supernatural about the Son, he also transitions to the rest: which are most admirable and no less supernatural, yet by hearing they seem humble and lowly, for example, death and killing! But…………………………………………………….

"He is." It is called a radiance, indicating the manner in which it originates from the Father, as if in some way it is an outward procession, neither entirely freed from the source of its existence, nor entirely constituted, but rather emerging, as if to stand by itself, and to have its own existence. Thus, the holy Cyril in the fifth book On the Trinity. The manifestation of the consubstantial and coeternal, as light from light. The character, as the likeness of the glory, is the Son of the Father. For the Son of the Father is similar and unchangeable, and as if into a character in different being [ὑποστάσεσι].
"sustaining all things." As if carrying the invisible and the visible in the word, bearing and governing. And he said word [Ῥῆμα], showing that he easily leads and carries all things.

“In a pillar of cloud he used to speak to them, because they were keeping his testimonies and the commandments which he gave them.” The words “in a pillar of cloud” are not empty words, for a pillar is always placed in a house to strengthen and beautify it. So the Lord was communicating to them by this image, announcing the imminent building that is the church. Though at that time he imparted these words to them through the cloud, he has deigned to speak to us and to appear to us more visibly through the sacred footstool, that is, through the incarnation. O footstool more exalted than every temple and more excellent than all spiritual creatures! As the Apostle says: “To which of the angels did he say, ‘Sit at my right hand’?” But why is it surprising if he is called a footstool since he also compares himself to a worm, to a beetle, to the fullers’ herb, and to a cornerstone, not with respect to his ordinariness, but because of his humble disposition.

We have heard a psalm which is amazing in its heavenly arrangement. In this text, it is clear that the humility in his humanity is as great as the power in his divinity. The holy Word took upon himself the nature of our weakness, as the heading of the psalm says, “for those who will be changed,” so that through his undeserving death he might free us from a death that was well deserved. He entered the gates of hell so that the regions of hell might be thrown open. Destruction was conquered by the arrival of the Savior, and it rightly gave up perpetual darkness after it received eternal light. He vanquished the devil through the very human nature that Satan held subject, and the strong man was overcome through the weakness of the flesh when God exalted above all rational creatures what was even weaker than all spiritual creatures. As the Apostle says: “For to which of the angels did he say, ‘Sit at my right hand’?” For no other nature was united with Christ, but only the nature of our flesh, which was taken up and glorified. He is truly omnipotent and merciful who blessed what was damned, restored what was lost, freed what was subject, rendered our miseries strangers to us, and through his death made it possible for humanity to live, an immortal creature, which the devil had caused to die. Grant, almighty God, that, since you deigned to suffer in the flesh for us, you may grant us the crown which for which you considered us worthy.

The Spirit in the essence of divinity is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and is properly called one God. But according to the distinction of the persons, the Father’s unique characteristic is that he is by nature without a beginning, and he begot the Son before the ages. It is the unique characteristic of the Son that he is, as an essential part of his nature, begotten by the Father. It is the unique characteristic of the Spirit that he proceeds from the Father and the Son. Their eternity and power, equally part of the essence of each person, performs everything that the Godhead desires in heaven and earth by inexpressible love and cooperation. Although these things are presently understood as incomprehensible and unexplainable to us in their essential nature, still many of the Fathers propose a certain comparison with physical and existent objects. We find these three properties in the sun: first, there is a bodily substance, which is the sun. Then there is the brightness of the sun that remains in it. Third, is the heat that comes forth even to us from its brightness. If there is even any comparison for such a great matter that can be devised, I think that this comparison should be construed in this way: the bodily substance in the sun could be understood as the person of the Father. The brightness that is in the sun could stand for the person of the Son in the Trinity, as the Apostle says: “the brightness of his glory.” The heat in the sun could be understood as the person of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity, as one reads in Scripture: “Who is able to hide himself from its heat?”

Whenever the perception of the revelation of a mystery descends into the intellects of the saints, this is also from the angels. When it is permitted by God, a mystery is revealed from a higher angelic order to a lower one [even unto the lowest]; and in the same manner, when it is permitted by the Divine nod that a mystery should come even to human nature, it is transmitted by those [angels] who are wholly worthy of it. For by their intermediary the saints receive the light of divine vision, [leading] even to the glorious Eternal Being, the mystery which cannot be taught; and the angels receive from one another, “for they are ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation” [through the awareness of true intuitions that are proper to them]. In the future age, however, this order of things will be abolished. For then one will not receive from another the revelation of God’s glory unto the gladness and joy of his soul; but to each by himself the Master will give according to the measure of his excellence and his worthiness, and he will not receive the gift from his comrade as he does here. Then there will be no teacher and no pupil, nor one whose deficiency must be filled up by another. For one is the Giver there, Who gives without mediation to those who receive; and those who win joy, procure it from Him. [[For they do not perceive Him through diverse intellections, but by [direct] revelation of Him, without departing from Him through thoughts.]] There the order of those who teach and those who learn ceases, and on One alone hangs the ardent love of all.

It is no secret that angels are frequently present, invisibly, at the side of the elect, in order to defend them from the snares of the cunning enemy and uphold them by the great gift of heavenly desire. The apostle attests to this when he says, “Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to serve for the sake of those who are to obtain salvation?” Nevertheless, we should believe that the angelic spirits are especially present to us when we give ourselves in a special way to divine services, that is, when we enter a church and open our ears to sacred reading, or give our attention to psalm singing, or apply ourselves to prayer, or celebrate the solemnity of the mass. Hence the apostle advises women to have a veil over their heads in church on account of the angels. And a prophet says, “I will sing psalms to you in the sight of the angels.” We are not permitted to doubt that where the mysteries of the Lord’s body and blood are being enacted, a gathering of the citizens from on high is present—those who were keeping such careful watch at the tomb where Christ’s venerable body had been placed and from which he had departed by rising. Hence we must strive meticulously, my brothers, when we come into the church to pay the due service of divine praise or to perform the solemnity of the mass, to be always mindful of the angelic presence, and to fulfill our heavenly duty with fear and fitting veneration, following the example of the women devoted to God who were afraid when the angels appeared to them at the tomb, and who, we are told, bowed their faces to the earth.

Jesus is the name of the son who was born of a virgin, and, as the angel explained, this name signified that he would save his people from their sins. He who saves from sins is doubtlessly the same one who will save from the corruption of mind and body that happens as a result of sins. “Christ” is a term of priestly and royal dignity, for from “chrism”—that is, an anointing with holy oil—priests and kings were in the law called “christs,” and they signified him who appeared in the world as true king and high priest and was anointed with the oil of gladness above those who shared with him. From this anointing, that is, the chrism, he himself is called “Christ,” and those who share this anointing, that is, spiritual grace, are called “Christians.” In that he is Savior, may he deign to save us from sin. In that he is high priest, may he deign to reconcile us to God the Father. In that he is king, may he deign to give us the eternal kingdom of his Father. He is Jesus Christ our Lord, who with the Father and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns, God for all ages. Amen.

It is when the Word was made flesh that we say he received the name of Christ Jesus. Since he was anointed with the oil of gladness—that is to say, anointed with the Spirit by God the Father—he is called Christ, or Anointed. That the anointing was of the humanity no right-minded person would doubt. And the renowned Athanasius says to this effect, somewhere in his discourse, on the saving coming of Christ, “God (the Word), as existing before coming to dwell in the flesh, was not man but God with God, being invisible and impassible. But when he became man, he took the name Christ, because the passion and death are consequent upon this name.”38Now, even though sacred Scripture does say, “Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness,” one must know that sacred Scripture frequently uses the past tense for the future. [It says,] for example, “Afterwards, he appeared upon earth and lived among men,” for God had not yet been seen by humanity nor had conversed with them when this was said. And again, “By the waters of Babylon, there we sat down and wept,” for these things had not yet taken place.

He made the ages who exists before the ages, of whom the divine David says, “From everlasting to everlasting you are” and the divine apostle, “By whom he made the ages.”38Now one should note that the term age has several meanings, because it signifies a great many things. The span of life of every person is called an age, and a period of one thousand years is called an age. Moreover, this whole present life is called an age, and so is the age without end to come after the resurrection. Again, that is called an age which is neither time nor any division of time measured by the course and motion of the sun, that is, made up of days and nights; but it is coextensive with eternal things after the fashion of some sort of temporal period and interval. This kind of age is to eternal things exactly what time is to temporal things.

The God proclaimed by the Old Testament and the New is the one who is celebrated and glorified in Trinity, for the Lord said, “I have come not to abolish the law, but to fulfill.” For he worked our salvation, for the sake of which all Scripture and every mystery has been revealed. Again, “Search the Scriptures, for it is they that bear witness to me.” And the apostle too says, “In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son.” Through the Holy Spirit, then, both the law and the prophets, evangelists, apostles, pastors and teachers spoke. Therefore, “all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable,” so that to search the sacred Scripture is very good and most profitable for the soul.

When he introduces his only begotten, that is, when it was pleasing for him to reveal in the flesh his only begotten son to the inhabitants of the universe, he says, “Let all the angels who serve him, worship him,” and “you will see the angels ascending and descending upon the Son of man.”

“Whom he appointed the heir of all.” Of what? Of all those who approach the undefiled divine nature. Indeed, the Son is the heir and partaker of the Father’s nature, dominion and power. If the Son is the heir of the Father’s attributes, it is necessary to explain, in what way. Through him, it says, he also created the ages [the world]. If the creation is a mutual deed of the Father and of the Son, then all that is in the world is also a shared property of the Father and the Son. If all in the spiritual universe belongs to both of them, then that is also true of what was created after the spiritual universe, that is, our world (cosmos) and everything in it. Yet in order that you would not dare to interpret “heir” as according to grace or favor rather than according to birth and nature, he adds, “who is the reflection of [God’s] glory.” The author had in mind to prevent you from a simpleminded yet ungodly conclusion after he stated that the Father appointed him an heir. I believe that “appointed” does not signify production or creation of the heir yet indicates relationship between the Son and the Father, who is the cause according to nature of their unity and convergence. [The writer does this] so that it would not appear as if the Son is deprived of the fatherly bond by his origin and hence the Father and the Son are two separate and unrelated entities.… He speaks in very clear terms, “the very stamp of his nature,” that is he [the Son] shares the same nature and mode of existence, that is he is God, all-powerful, omnipotent, creator, and shares in all other attributes of the Father, except that the Father is always the Father and the Son is always the Son. Therefore, everything is created, sustained and directed by his almighty word. See, he is truly the heir, as the Father handed everything to him.

He lifted up the first offering of our nature to the Father, and the Father marveled at this offering. And because of the high esteem of the one who offered it and because of the purity of the offering, he, as the father of the household shows him with his hand the place close to himself and also places the offering nearby and says, “sit at my right hand.”

Here is the greatest difference between them: they are created, but He is not created. The expression "You make" means bringing from non-existence into existence. He has superiority not only over the angels alone, but also over all ministering powers. He did not say "made," but "make," that is, preserving by the Word through which they were created. There is a similar expression in the Gospel: "My Father works until now" (John 5:17), that is, He sustains everything that has already been created and completed, and preserves it in order to bring it to perfection.

Angels, he says, are created beings and creatures, for of them it is said: "You make." But the Son is not a creature: of Him it is not said: "You make"; but King, Master, God, a Throne is ascribed to Him, which is a sign of Kingship, and an eternal throne. This is against Paul of Samosata, who represents the true God and eternal King as a mere man; and against Arius.

Here is another sign of the kingdom.

He elevates the minds of his listeners, showing the great care of God for us, if He even appointed angels, who surpass us, to serve our salvation. He also seems to attack certain people who render excessive veneration to angels, and especially all Jews in general, who are devoted to the law given through angels and to their ministry in it, even preferring them to Christ. So, he says, do not serve them, for they are our fellow servants. See what a small distinction he draws between creatures; although there is a great distance between angels and men, he has placed them near us, for creatures are not greatly exalted above creatures. Angels ministered greatly both in the Old and in the New Testament: when they helped Joseph with counsel (Matt. 1:24), when they announced the good news to the shepherds, when they sat at the tomb and proclaimed the resurrection of Christ, and when they taught that He will come in the same manner as He ascended. An angel appeared to Cornelius (Acts 11:13), to Philip (Acts 8:26), to Peter in prison (Acts 12:7), and in general there are countless such examples. Note that it is the work of angels to serve the salvation of men, and even more so the work of Christ Himself. Therefore one must not neglect such a ministry.

He suggests something more important than creation, namely, the transformation of the world. Everything will be changed from corruption to incorruption, and so easily, as if someone were rolling up a garment. If He will so easily accomplish the transformation and conversion of the world into something better, could He have had need of anyone else in the original formation of the world? It is no small consolation here for suffering believers to know that things will not remain in such a state, but will receive a transformation, and that He whom they worship lives and will always live. For "Your years will not come to an end."

From where, he says, is it evident that He is better than the angels? From His name: the name Son signifies true birth, that is, that He is from Him. If He is Son by grace, then He is lower than the angels. The expression "Today I have begotten You" means nothing other than that He is from the beginning, from which the Father also is. Just as the expression "being" ("the One who is") is used of God in the present tense, because it is most fitting for Him, so also is the expression "today." However, some considered that the words "Today I have begotten You" were spoken not of the pre-eternal birth, but of His birth in the flesh. For it too was from above: from the Holy Spirit, by the blessing of the Father.

This, obviously, is said in regard to the flesh. For when He assumed it, all such things are henceforth said of Him without risk. Thus, the assumed nature inherited the authentic name of the Son, which the Word had, being united with it, since it is hypostatic in Him, as the angel also said: "and the Holy One to be born shall be called the Son of God" (Lk. 1:35), and again: "He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High" (Lk. 1:32). None of the angels received this. And if some of the righteous are also called sons of God, it is by grace; but with Christ it is not so: His sonship is by hypostatic identity with the human flesh assumed by Him.

These words refer to Him as the incarnate God the Word, since with the assumption of flesh He humbled Himself.

This is against the Jews, and Sabellius, and Marcellus, since it indicates two persons, saying: God and God. And against the Marcionites, who think that the Son did not assume flesh, because it is not the divinity that is anointed, but the humanity. Therefore he says: "O God, God has anointed You," that is, Your Father according to divinity, and God according to the flesh. "With the oil of gladness," that is, with the Holy Spirit, above all other men. For Christ received the Spirit "not by measure" (Jn. 3:34), not as one lacking power, but was anointed with the entire fullness both of the anointing and of the One who anoints. His partakers are all spiritual persons, as those sanctified by the same partaking. And those who, being perfect in the law and spiritual, received the Spirit through faith in Christ. Which is why they were also called anointed ones, as for example: "Do not touch My anointed ones" (Ps. 105:15). But far more well-known are those partakers of Christ by grace who shared in His death in baptism and were anointed with the Spirit, who is called "the oil of gladness." Who freed us from grief over sins and brought it about for us that we are comforted by the hope of future blessings. That the name "God" stands in place of: O God! (ὦ θεέ), a trustworthy witness is the adversary Symmachus, who rendered it thus: "Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness above Your companions." Note, however, that the word "God," with the article, is said of the Son for the sake of those who say that the expression "and the Word was God" (Jn. 1:1), in which the word "God" is without the article, does not present Him as properly God.

Christ calls His coming in the flesh a going forth, for example when He says: "A sower went out to sow" (Matt. 13:3), and again: "I came forth from the Father" (John 16:28). And rightly so, for we were outside of God, and He, having descended to us as an ambassador, living with us and cleansing us, reconciled us with the King. But Paul now calls His coming an entrance, taking this figurative expression from the example of heirs receiving some property as an inheritance. For this is what the expression "brings in" means — when the Father entrusted the universe to the Son; for then He received it into His possession, having voluntarily submitted itself, when He was also made known. And He is brought in none other way than in the flesh. For as God the Word, "He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him" (John 1:10). He presents the Father as the one bringing in the Son, in order to make the discourse agreeable. But Gregory of Nyssa and Saint Cyril understood the expression "brings in" to mean that before the incarnation He had nothing in common with creation, being incorporeal as God; but when He became incarnate, then, having partaken of creation — since He united the created in Himself — He was, as it is said, brought into creation.

Obviously, they will worship the One Who assumed flesh. Here he also shows that He is as much superior to the angels as a master is superior to servants, just as if someone, bringing another person into a house, were to command those standing there to immediately bow down before him.

And by this he further encourages them, saying: the end is near. For one exhausted by struggle finds some rest when he hears of the end of the struggle. He also implies something else by the words "in these last days." When, he says, no time remained for correction, when we were being punished, when we had despaired, when spiritual gifts had diminished, then we received something greater. "In the Son" means: through the Son. Note, this is against those who say that the preposition "in" applies only to the Holy Spirit. Why then did he not say: Christ "spoke" to us? Partly because they were weak and could not yet hear about Christ; partly to show by this that the Old and New Testaments are the work of one and the same God. Pay attention also to the word "to us." Here he unites and places on equal footing with the disciples both them and himself. Although He did not speak to them but to the apostles, and through them to the rest, he nevertheless elevates the matter and shows that He spoke to them as well, and this is for consolation.

That is, He made Him Lord of the whole world. No longer is Jacob the Lord's portion, but all. He said "heir," showing by this both the truth of the sonship and the inalienability of the lordship. How then did He make Him Lord? According to His humanity, as it says also in the second psalm: "Ask of Me, and I will give You the nations for Your inheritance" (Ps. 2:8). Of what lordship does he speak here? Of lordship over those who submit voluntarily, that is, freely. For this lordship was given to the Son, as man, when He was acknowledged by all. But authority by nature and authority over those who submit unwillingly He possessed before all ages, as it is also said: "all things serve You" (Ps. 118:91).

Having spoken of the Son's flesh, which was formed in time, the apostle at last raises you to the height of His pre-eternal Divinity. Where are those who say: there was a time when He was not? He Himself created the ages; how then were there ages when He was not? Since the Father is the cause of the Son, it is rightly said that He is also the cause of all that came into being through the Son. Therefore the apostle says: through Him. For the Father is the one who acts, because He begot the Son who is the Creator. Here Sabellius is also struck down, since two persons are spoken of. Paul of Samosata also receives a mortal blow, he who calls the Son not eternal but having His beginning from Mary. This passage also defeats Arius, though not too strongly: he ascribes to the expression "through Whom" the meaning of a certain assistance, calling the Son a helper to the Father. But the words that follow in order strike down Arius as well.

Lest you, hearing the words "when He brings the Firstborn into the world," should think that this is a gift given to Him afterwards by the Father, he now shows that He is the Creator of the world not in recent times, but from of old. This is also against Paul of Samosata, and affirms that Christ existed before Mary, since He is the Creator of creation. And against Arius, who considered Him an assistant or rather an instrument, since it was said above: "through Whom He also made the ages" (Heb. 1:2). Here He is presented as Creator. See how the teaching about the uncreated being and the teaching about the dispensation are joined together, and sometimes on account of the former it is lofty, and sometimes on account of the latter it is lowly.

Since they, that is the Jews, were exhausted by calamities and considered themselves abandoned by God and not deemed worthy of the same care from Him that their fathers had been deemed worthy of, the apostle shows the opposite: you, he says, have received greater grace than they. To them He sent prophets, but to you His own Son. What then do his words mean: "at sundry times and in diverse manners"? This is instead of: in various ways and in many forms. "I," God said, "have spoken to the prophets and multiplied visions" (Hos. 12:10). Why then should you be indignant and faint-hearted, if you have been deemed worthy of incomparably more?

At the beginning of the epistle he compared Him with the prophets on account of the weakness of the hearers; now, continuing, he places Him above the angels, little by little leading the hearers to the truth. The word "being" is used instead of: having appeared, just as John says: "He who comes after me has been placed before me" (Jn. 1:15), that is, appeared more honorable than me. For he is not speaking here about His nature in essence. According to the flesh, without a doubt, it is said "inherited," because as God the Word He always had this name. In the same way we also say both lowly and lofty things about a human being; for example, if we say: a human being is a great thing, we name everything that is best in him; but if we say: a human being is earth and ashes, we name everything that is worst. In exactly the same way, concerning the Lord we sometimes speak of everything that pertains to the properties of the Divinity, and sometimes to the properties of the flesh.

Here he again encourages them; and indeed, will not their enemies be defeated, and their enemies are also enemies of Christ. It is not because the Son is powerless that it is said the Father will subject the enemies, for the Son, Who will judge there, could all the more repay them here, but rather to show what honor the Father bestowed upon the Son. That the Father is angry at the enemies of the Son, is this not a sign of honor? Is this not a sign of great love for the Son? This is discussed more extensively in the First Epistle to the Corinthians.

He ascended to the very height of the laudatory discourse about the Son, and calls Him "the radiance of glory," so that you may know that He is from Him—impassibly, without diminishment or degradation, of one and the same essence, that is, Light from Light. For He illumined our souls as well, and He Himself revealed the Father. Therefore He also said: "I am the light of the world" (Jn. 8:12), because together with Him He shone from eternity; for the radiance shines simultaneously with the one radiating. And the sun is never seen apart from its radiance, and the Father is inconceivable without the Son. Therefore, when you hear the Arians saying that if the Son is from the Father, then He must be after Him, say to them that the radiance is also from the sun, yet not after it, for the sun and the radiance exist at the same time.

Having said "radiance," and through this having shown the consubstantiality and co-eternity of the Son with the Father, again, since radiance is not self-subsistent, the apostle removes from this example an inappropriate thought, lest you side with Marcellus and Sabellius, who say that the Son cannot exist in His own hypostasis alongside the Father. For this reason he also says: "and the express image (χαρακτήρ) of His hypostasis"; this means: just as the Father is self-subsistent and has need of no one for His perfection, so also is the Son. After having shown the perfect likeness in all things, by these words the apostle also shows the distinct image (χαρακτήρα) of the archetype. For the image is something other in comparison with the archetype, as existing by itself, although resembling the original to the point of indistinguishability. Gregory of Nyssa says: just as through "radiance" he showed the commonality of the Son with the Father, so through "image" he showed their equality. For the mind that has grasped the greatness of the hypostasis can, through the visible image, in any case also measure the hypostasis. For the image does not exceed the hypostasis, lest it be without hypostasis to the extent that it exceeds; nor is the hypostasis greater than the image: otherwise that portion would be unrepresented. Having likewise said in another place that the Son exists "in the form (ἐν μορφῇ) of God" (Phil. 2:6), the apostle gives us to understand this very same thing, namely, that μορφή signifies the hypostasis, while χαρακτήρ signifies the Lord contemplated in that form (ἐν μορφῇ). In any case, the apostle shows the equality of the Son with the Father. For in the form μορφή is perceived the greatness of the Father, in no way exceeding that form, since indeed it would be formless and unsightly — that which would project beyond the form — and to think such a thing of the Father is unfitting. But if the greatness of the Father is such as the form — μορφή — is, and the express image — χαρακτήρ — is equal to the form — μορφή, then the express image — χαρακτήρ — also has the same greatness as that which is perceived in the form — μορφή — of God.

Previously you dwelt on the expression "through Whom" (δι᾿ οὗ) and considered the Son to be, as it were, a helper to the Father; listen now, if you can understand, how Paul here ascribes authority to the Son. He did not say "upholding by power," but "by the word of His power," that is, by a word full of power, demonstrating His might. For just as you say that the Father said, "Let there be light. And there was light" (Gen. 1:3), so also the Son upholds all things by His word, that is, He governs all things and sustains all things. And it is far greater than bringing everything into being to preserve things that are in conflict with one another and tending to revert into non-existence. He did not say "governing," but "upholding"—this metaphor is borrowed from those who move something and turn it with a single finger. Such a great and extraordinary weight of creation He bears as nothing, by His almighty word alone. For the word of God is not powerless, as it is with us. After so many heresies refuted at the very beginning of the epistle, how do some dare to reject it as though it did not belong to Paul, on the grounds that its style differs from the style of his other epistles? They must be convinced that the loftiness of thought and their irresistible force belong to none other than Paul, who has Christ speaking in him. But if they are troubled by the style of speech, let them learn that Paul wrote this epistle in the Hebrew language, since he was addressing Hebrews; and it was translated into Greek, as some think, by Luke, or, as others suppose, by Clement, whose style it does indeed more closely preserve. Therefore, those who take this epistle away from Paul commit, so to speak, an error similar to taking Paul away from Christ.

Having spoken of the greatness of the Divinity of the Word, he speaks also of His care for mankind through the incarnation, which is far more important than upholding all things. Here he presents two proofs: one, that He purified our sins, and the other, that He did this "by Himself." And in many places the apostle marvels at what was accomplished by the Son Himself. For through the cross and the death that He underwent, He purified us — not only as the sinless One who died for our transgression, bearing the punishment to which He Himself was not subject, and liberating human nature altogether from the condemnation for the sin of Adam — but also as the One who gave us baptism, the likeness of His death, through which we who are baptized receive each time the remission of sins inherited from our forefathers, and the strength to not easily succumb to sin for the rest of our lives.

Having reminded about the cross, he speaks of the resurrection and ascension of the Lord. He did not say: He was commanded to sit, but "He sat down" and "at the right hand," and "on high." This does not mean that God is limited by place, but it is said to show His equal honor with the Father. For He reached the very throne of the Father, and as the Father is "on high," so also is He. If someone should say: however, it is written, "The Lord said to my Lord: sit at My right hand" (Ps. 110:1); to this we shall say, first, that it does not say: He commanded, but "He said." Then, lest you think that He does not have a beginning and cause in God the Father, for this reason the speech is expressed so figuratively.

58. – Then (v. 7) the reason is given on the part of the angels, why they adore Him. As if to say: It is just that they adore, because they are ministers; hence, he says, he makes his angels winds [spirits] and his servants flames of fire [ministers]. For God sometimes acts by enlightening the intellect: 'He enlightens every man coming into the world' (Jn. 1:9); but sometimes he moves a man to His work: 'You have worked our works in us' (Is. 26:9). God does the first of these by means of His angels: 'You enlighten wonderfully from the everlasting hills' (Ps. 75:5). He also does the second in us through His angels, as Dionysius said. Inasmuch as he enlightens through them, they are called messengers; for it is the office of a messenger to declare the things which are in his master's heart. But inasmuch as they are mediators of divine works, they are both messengers and ministers. But what sort they are is described by bodily things best suited for this: one is air, whose properties are well, suited to a messenger, although the property of fire best suits a minister. For air is receptive of light and of impressions; it gives a true picture of what it receives, and it moves rapidly. These are the characteristics that a good messenger should have, namely, that he receive the news well, report it accurately and do so swiftly. And these characteristics are found in angels: for they receive divine illuminations well, since they are clean mirrors, according to Dionysius: 'Their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven' (Mt. 18:10). Furthermore, they best transmit what they receive: 'God signified the things which must shortly come to pass, sending by his angel to his servant, John' (Rev. 1:1). And they are swift: 'Go, you swift angels, to a nation rent and torn to pieces' (Is. 18:2). But they are called spirits, because every invisible substance is called a spirit; hence, even the air is called a spirit. Furthermore, they are fire, inasmuch as they are ministers. But of all the elements fire is the most active and most efficacious for acting; hence in Ps. 103 (v. 5) is says of angels: 'You make your ministers a burning fire. Fire also causes heat, by which charity is signified: 'The lamps thereof are fire and flames' (S of S 8:6). Again, fire always moves upward; so, too, the angels and good ministers always refer what they do to God's glory, as is clear of Tobias' angel: 'Bless the God of heaven' (Tob. 12:6). He does not say, 'Bless me', but 'bless the God of heaven.' Not so the evil angel who says: 'All these will I give you, if falling down you will adore me' (Mt. 4:9). But the good angel, as a good minister, says: 'See you do it not' (Rev. 22:9); and he continues: 'Adore God' (Rev. 22:9).

59. – Having proved by scriptural authority that the angels are spirits, the Apostle now proves this with a reason taken on the part of Christ. Hence, he intends here to prove Christ's royal dignity. He does two things: first, he commends Christ's royal dignity; secondly, he shows His fitness for it (v. 9b). In regard to the first he does three things: first, he commends Christ's royal dignity; secondly, the equity of His rule (v. 8b); thirdly, the goodness of His rule (v. 9a).

60. – He says, therefore, But of the Son he says: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. These are the words of the Father speaking through the tongue of a prophet as by a writer's pen. He says, therefore: 'O God, the Son, your throne is for ever and ever'. In this is denoted the royal majesty; for a throne is the king's seat, a chair is the teacher's seat and a tribunal the judge's seat. All of these belong to Christ, because He is our king: 'He will reign in the house of Jacob' (Lk. 1:32) and, therefore, deserves a throne: 'His throne is as the sun' (Ps. 88:38). He is a teacher and, therefore, needs a chair: 'We know that you have been sent a teacher from God' (Jn. 3:2). He is also our judge: 'The Lord, our judge, the Lord our lawgiver' (Is. 33:22). Therefore, he deserves a tribunal: 'All of us must be manifested before the tribunal of Christ' (2 Cor. 5:10). The throne belongs to Him according to His divine nature, inasmuch as He is God: 'The king of the whole earth is God' (Ps. 46:8). But as man it belongs to Him as a result of His Passion, victory and resurrection: 'To him that shall overcome I will give to sit with me in my throne; as I also have overcome and am set down with my Father in His throne' (Rev. 3:21). This throne is eternal: 'And of his kingdom there shall be no end' (Lk. 1:33); 'His power is an eternal power, which shall not be taken away' (Dan. 7:14). But it is clear that that kingdom is eternal and that it belongs to Him, because He is God: 'Your kingdom is a kingdom of all ages' (Ps. 144:13). It also belongs to Him as man, and this for two reasons: one, because that kingdom is not ordained to temporal affairs, but to eternal: 'My kingdom is not of this world' (Jn. 18:36). For He reigns in order to direct men to eternal life. But this is not so of human kingdoms; hence, their kingdoms end with the present life. Another reason is that the Church, which is His kingdom, will last until the end of the world, when Christ will deliver the kingdom to God and to the Father to be consummated and made perfect.

61. – Then he commends his kingdom on its equity when he says, a righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom. And this kingdom is fittingly described by the scepter: for a tyrannical kingdom differs from that of a king, because the former exists for the tyrant's benefit with great harm to the subjects; but a kingdom is particularly ordained to the benefit of the subjects. Consequently, the king is father and shepherd: for a shepherd does not correct with a sword but with a scepter: 'I will visit their iniquities with a rod' (Ps. 88:33). Furthermore, a shepherd uses a rod to direct his flock: 'Feed your people with your rod' (Mic. 7:14). For a rod sustains the infirm: 'your rod and your staff have strengthened me' (Ps. 22:2). Furthermore, it troubles the enemy: 'A scepter shall spring up from Israel and shall strike the chiefs of Moab' (Num. 24:17). But this is the scepter of justice: 'He shall reprove with equity for the meek of he earth' (Is. 11:4). But it should be noted that sometimes a person rules according to the rigor of the law, as when he observes things that according to themselves are just. But it happens that something is just according to itself, but when compared to something else, it causes suffering, if it is observed; consequently, it is necessary that the common law be applied, and if this is done, then there is a rule of equity. But the kingdom of the Old Testament was ruled according to the rigor of justice: 'A yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear' (Ac. 15:10). But the kingdom of Christ is a kingdom of equity and justice, because in it only sweet observance is imposed: 'My yoke is sweet and my burden is light' (Mt. 11:30); 'He shall judge the world with justice' (Ps. 95:13).

84. – Then he shows that this dignity does not belong to the angels, when he says, Are they not all ministering spirits? Here he does three things: first, he indicated their function; secondly, the performance of that function (v. 14b); thirdly, the fruit of that performance (v. 14c).

85. – He says, therefore: Are they not all ministering spirits? 'His ministers who do his will' (Ps. 102:21). But Dan. (7:10) says: 'Thousands of thousands ministered to him, and ten thousand times a hundred thousand stood before him.' Therefore, there are some who minister and some who stand about. Consequently, not all minister. I answer that just as in the case of artifacts there are two kinds of artisans (for some work with their hands, and others do not, but oversee and direct what is to be done), so, too, with the angels, because some carry out the divine commands, while others oversee and direct their performance. Therefore, if we take ministers in a broad sense to include both the executors and the directors, than all are ministers, inasmuch as the higher ones carry out God's will in regard the middle ones, and these in regard to the lower, and the lower in regard to us. But if those who perform are called ministers, while those who are immediately enlightened by God are called assistants, then some minister and some assist and direct the others.

86. – Therefore, the assistants are those who receive God's illumination directly from God Himself, and they receives names related to God, such as Seraphim, i.e., those who love God, Cherubim, those who know God, and Thrones, who carry. But the ministering spirits are those who receive from them and deliver to the others. But this seems to be contrary to Gregory's statement that those who stand about are the ones who enjoy the beatific vision. Therefore, since all the angels see God's essence, according to Mt. (18:10): 'Their angels always see the face of my Father in heaven', it seems that all assist. I answer that one of the first scholars to study Dionysius' books strove to preserve both the Apostle's and Gregory's opinions and said that the lower angels do not see God fact to face, since they are not standing near. But this opinion is heretical, because, since happiness is made complete in the vision, it would follow that since the lower angels do not see God, they are not happy. Furthermore, the Lord Himself said: 'Their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father' (Mt. 18:10). Therefore, it must be admitted that all see God's essence; just as God by knowing His essence also knows Himself and all things not Himself, so, too, the angels, seeing the essence of God, know it and all things in it. In this vision they are happy only because they see Him; not because they see other things in Him. Hence, Augustine says in the Confessions: 'Blessed is he that sees you, even if he does not see others. But he that sees you and other things in not any the happier for seeing the other things, but only for seeing you.' But the vision by which they see God's essence is common to the beatified. In the vision by which they know all other things in God one angel is above another, for the higher angels, being of a higher nature and intellect, see more in God than the intermediate do, and these more than the lowest. Hence, they see everything which pertains to their office and which are to be accomplished by the others. These things the lower angels do not see as perfectly; therefore, some apprise the others of their duties, and they alone stand about. Nevertheless, all see God. The sign of this, according to Dionysius is that to some angels who ask, God answers: 'I that speak justice'; but to the question: 'Who is king of glory'? The angels and not God answer: 'the Lord of hosts, he is the king of glory'. Thus, the function of the angels is clear.

87. – But this seems to be a description of the function they perform, when he says, sent forth to serve. Therefore, it seems that all are performers: 'The angel of the Lord shall encamp round about them that fear him: and shall deliver them' (Ps. 33:8; Is 6:6): 'One of the seraphim flew to me.' But the seraphim belong to the highest order. Therefore, is they are sent, then a fortiori so are the others. But this is contrary to Dionysius, who repeats what he received from the Apostle, namely, that only the lower angels are sent. I answer that some say that the higher are sent and they depart when certain cases arise. But it seems to me that the four highest orders, namely, the Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones and Dominations are never sent, but the lower are sent. This is obvious from their names: for the Virtues are sent to work wonders; the Powers to restrain the ethereal powers. But the Dominations are so called, because they ordain all these lower ones. But he other three orders receive their name from the action they immediately perform in regard to God, and they dispense it to the others. Hence, if they are said to be sent, it is because there are two kinds of mission: one implies local motion, and this is the way the lower angels are sent; the other is he mission which involves the application and direction of a new effect in the creature, and this is the way the Son and the Holy Spirit are sent. It is also the way the higher angels are sent, because their power is sent to the lower ones to be sent to others. And if he says: 'One of the seraphim flew to me' (Is. 6:6), it is because the lower angels use the names of those by whose power and authority they act, and they attribute their actions to them. And because that lower angel performed his office in virtue of the Seraphim, he was called by the name of Seraphim, even though he was not by nature a seraph.

88. – Then he mentions the fruit of their activity when he ways, for the sake of those who are to receive [the inheritance of] salvation. And although all are called, not all receive the inheritance. Therefore, the ones who do receive, obtain the fruit of the mission: 'We would have cured Babylon, but she is not healed' (Jer. 51:9). Or again when he says, for them that shall receive [the inheritance of] salvation, the fruit of their performance is mentioned, which is that men receive the inheritance of salvation. For the purpose of their actions toward men is that the number of the elect be filled. And he says, for them, and not for all, because, although all are called, few are chosen, as it says in Mt. (22:14). He says, the inheritance, because only the sons obtain it: 'But if sons, then heirs also' (Rom. 8:17). He says, receive, because the kingdom of God is obtained by labor and sweat and solicitude: 'The kingdom of God suffers violence' (Mt. 11:12). Therefore, they will be saved, who take care to guard the divine illuminations and inspirations impressed by the good angels and to make them fructify; otherwise, they will hear what said in Jer (51:9): 'We would have cured Babylon, but she is not healed.'

48. – Then (v.5) he proves what he has said: first, he discusses the name inasmuch as it belongs to Christ according to His divinity; secondly, inasmuch as it belongs to Him according to His human nature (v. 5b).

49. – In regard to the first he adduces the authority of Ps. 2 (v.7): 'The Lord said to me: You are my son; this day have I begotten you.' And this in answer to the question: To what angel has God ever said, You are my son? As if to say: He never said these words to any of the angels, but to Christ alone. Here three thing are to be noted: first, the manner of His origin, in the word, said; secondly, the uniqueness of His sonship, in the words, You are my son; thirdly, its eternity when he says, This day have I begotten you. But the manner of His origin is not carnal, but spiritual and intellectual: 'For God is spirit' (Jn. 4:29); consequently, He does not engender in a carnal way, but in a spiritual and intellectual way. But the intellect, when it speaks, engenders a word, which is its concept; therefore, it is significant that he says that the Lord said to me, i.e., that the Father said to the Son. Consequently, for the Father's intellect to speak is to conceive the Word in His heart: 'My heart has uttered a good word' (Ps. 44:1); 'God speaks once, and repeats not the selfsame thing the second time' (Jb. 33:14); 'I came out of the mouth of the Most High' (Sir. 24:5). But if many others are called sons, nevertheless, it is His unique property to be the natural Son of God; but others are called sons of God, because they partake of the word of God: 'He called gods those who heard the word of God' (Jn. 10:35). But in regard to the third, that generation is not temporal, but eternal, because this day I have begotten you. Now time differs from eternity, because time varies as the motions whose measure it is; therefore, it is named by the succession of past and future. But eternity is the measure of an unchangeable thing; consequently, in eternity there is not variation due to succession of past and future, but there is only the present. Therefore, it is signified by an adverb of the present tense: this day, i.e., in eternity. But that which is coming to be, because it does not yet exist, is incomplete; and that which has come to be is complete and, therefore, perfect. Consequently, He does not say, 'I begot you', but I have begotten, because He is perfect. Yet, lest it be supposed that His entire engendering took place in the past, he adds, today, and joins the past to the present, saying, I have begotten you today. This teaches us that this engendering is always going on and is always complete. Consequently, in the word, today, permanence is designated; but in I have begotten, perfection. As if to say: You are perfect, Son; and yet your generation is eternal and you are always being engendered by me, as light is perfect in the air and yet is always proceeding from the sun: 'His going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity' (Mic. 5:2): 'From the womb before the day star I have begotten you' (Ps. 109:3). But this could be explained also of temporal generation. As if to say: today, i.e., in time I have begotten you.

50. – Then (v. 5b) he clarifies his conclusion that this belongs to Christ according to His human nature. And he does this by another authority. According to a Gloss, Isaiah says: 'I will be to him a Father', yet nothing like this is to be found in Isaiah, except the statement: 'A son has been given to us' (Is. 9:6). But in 2 Sam. (7:14) and (1 Chr. 28) we find these very works spoken by the Lord to David in regard to Solomon, through whom Christ was prefigured.

51. – Yet it should be noted that in the Old Testament some things are said of figures not insofar as they are things, but insofar as they are figures; and then they do not apply to Christ, except insofar as He is prefigured. For example in Ps. 71 certain things are said of David or of Solomon, only inasmuch as they prefigured; but other things are said of them, inasmuch as they are men. Such things can then be considered as applying to them as well as to Christ. Thus, 'and he will rule from sea to sea' can never be verified of Solomon. So, in the present instance, although certain things are said of Solomon, they can also be said of Christ, Who was prefigured by him.

52. – He says, therefore, I will be, which is in the future tense, to denote that the Incarnation of the Son was to occur at some future time: 'But when the fullness of time was come, God sent his Son made of a woman' (Gal. 4:4). But above, when He spoke of the eternal generation, He said, You are, without implying any movement; but here, when He speaks of the temporal, He says, unto me a Son, which denotes the terminus of some motion. For assumption implies a movement toward sonship. And because every movement occurs through the action of something heading toward a definite effect, he first mentions the action of the maker, because the assumption was not made in virtue of the human but of the divine, when he says, I will be to you a Father, i.e., I will assume him into a union with the person of the Son. Then he mentions the effect which resulted, because he was assumed into a personal union with the Son: He shall be to me a Son. Luke says of he first: 'The power of the Most High', i.e., of the One making the assumption, 'will over-shadow you' (Lk. 1:35). Of the second it says in Rom. (1:3): 'Who was made to him of the seed of David.'

53. – Again, I will be to him, i.e., I will glorify him to his honor and profit: 'Glorify me, Father' (Jn. 17:5). And he will be to me, i.e., to my honor, by manifesting my name to men: 'I have manifested your name to the men' (Jn. 17:6).

62. – Then (v. 9) he commends the goodness of the ruler. For some observe equity not for the love of justice but from fear or for glory. And such a kingdom does not last. But He observes equity for the love of justice. He says, therefore, You have loved justice. As if to say: Your scepter is just, because you have loved justice: 'Love Justice, you that judge the earth' (Wis. 1:1). But one who does not love justice is not just: 'Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice' (Mt. 5:6). Yet some love justice but are lax in correcting injustice. However, Christ hates, i.e., reproves justice: 'I have hated the unjust' (Ps. 118:113). Similarly, He hates the wicked and his wickedness: 'The highest hates sinners, and has mercy on the penitent' (Sir. 12:3). Therefore, he says, you have hated iniquity.

63. – Then (v. 9b) he shows Christ's fitness for accomplishing and governing. But a question arises here concerning the statement, Therefore, God your God has anointed you. In those words He is speaking of a spiritual anointing, whereby Christ is filled with the Holy Spirit. But is He so filled, because He loved justice? Then He merited grace. But this is contrary to Rom. (11:6): 'If from works, then not from grace.' And this is a general reason, because Christ in His conception was filled with the Holy Spirit: 'Full of grace and truth' (Jn. 1:14). Therefore, He did not merit. I answer that here one must avoid Origen's error. For he wished all spiritual creatures, and even the soul of Christ, to have been created from the beginning, and according as they have clung to God more or less, or withdrew from Him in the freedom of their judgment, a distinction exists between them and souls. Hence, in the Periarchon he says that the soul of Christ, because it adhered more strongly to God by loving justice and hating iniquity, merited a greater fullness of grace than other spiritual substances. But it is heretical to say that any soul, even Christ's soul, was created before its body. And this is especially true of Christ, because His soul was created and His body formed in the same instant. And the totality was assumed by the Son of God. Why, then, does he say, therefore? One Gloss seems to feel with Origen. But if we would save it, we must say that in Scripture something is said to come to be, when it is being made known; as when it is stated in Phil (2:8): 'He was made obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. Wherefore, God has exalted Him and given Him a name which is above every name.' Did Christ, then, merit to be God by the merit of His Passion? Not at all. For this is Photinus' error. Therefore, it should be said that Christ, being God, exceeds all merit; but by the Passion He merited to be manifested everywhere as God, and that God gave Him such a name that would be above every name. Therefore, the fact that he says here, therefore, God has anointed you, has the following sense: Since you have loved justice, you deserve to have this matter known. Or, another way and better, he therefore does not refer to a meritorious case, but to a final cause. As if to say: In order that you might have these things, namely, a perpetual throne, a scepter of justice, and the other things mentioned, God has anointed you with the oil of holiness, which the Lord commanded to be done, when the vessels and priests were anointed, as well as the kings, as is clear in regard to Solomon and the prophets, namely, Elisha.

64. – But why was that sanctification brought about by anointing? The reason is literal. For oriental men were anointed before celebrations to prevent exhaustion, because they live in a very warm climate. But poor people were anointed at festivities: 'I, thy handmaid, have nothing in my house, but a little oil to anoint me' (1 Kg 4:2). But in the Scripture men were anointed either for the celebration of a feast or for a celebrated person: then to show Christ's excellence, he says that He was anointed with the oil of gladness. For He is a king: 'Behold the king shall reign in justice' (Is. 32:1); 'For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is out lawgiver, and he shall save us' (Is. 33:32). He is also a priest: 'You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedech' (Ps. 109:4). He was also a prophet: 'The Lord, your God, will raise up to you a prophet of your nation and of your brethren like unto me' (Dt. 18:15). It also befits Him to be anointed with the oil of holiness and gladness: for the sacraments, which are vessels of grace, were instituted by Him: 'And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, diverse kind of vessels' (Is. 22:24). This anointing also befits Christians, for they are kings and priests: 'You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood' (1 Pt. 2:9); 'You have made us a kingdom and priests for our God' (Rev. 3:10). Furthermore, He has the Holy Spirit, Who is the spirit of prophecy: 'I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy' (Jl 2:28). Therefore, all are anointed with an invisible anointing: 'Now he that has confirmed us with you in Christ and that has anointed us is God: who has also sealed us and given the pledge of the Spirit in our hearts' (2 Cor. 1:21); 'But you have the unction from the Holy One and know all things' (1 Jn. 2:20).

65. – But what comparison is there between the anointed Christ and anointed Christians? This comparison, namely, that He has it principally and first, but we and others have it from Him: 'Like the precious ointment on the head that ran down upon the beard, the beard of Aaron' (Ps. 132:2). And, therefore, he says, beyond thy comrades: 'Of his fullness we have all received' (Jn. 1:16). Hence, others are called holy, but He is the Holy of holies; for He is the root of all holiness. But he says, with the oil of gladness, because spiritual gladness proceeds from that anointing: 'The kingdom of God on not meat and drink, but justice and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit' (Rom. 14:17); 'The fruit of the Spirit is charity, joy, peace…' (Gal. 5:22); 'That he may make the face cheerful with oil' (Ps. 103:15); 'The oil of joy for mourning' (Is. 61:3).

66. – The fact that he says, God, your God, is explained in two ways: in one way as being a repetition of the nominative case. As if to say: God has anointed you with God Himself, but we through you, the mediator of God and men, the man Christ: 'By whom he has given us most gracious promises' (2 Pt. 1:4). In another way according to Augustine, so that one is in the nominative case and the other in the vocative. As if to say: O God Who art God the Son, God the Father has anointed you with the oil of gladness. But since Christ was not anointed as God, (for as God it is not fitting that He receive the Holy Spirit, but rather should give Him), the second explanation does not seem to be true. I answer that He is the same person, both God and man: but He was anointed as man. And when it is said, God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness, the one anointing is God and man, and the one anointed is God and man, and one with Him in person.

74. – Then (v. 11b) he shows the difference between God and creature so far as immutability is concerned. In regard to this he does two things: first, he mentions the mutability of the creature; secondly, the immutability of God (v. 12b). In regard to the first he does two things: first he describes the nature of the creature's mutability; secondly, he mentions that mutability (v. 12).

75. – In regard to the first it should be noted that old and new follow upon time. Hence only that can grow old which is somehow measured by time, whereas the mobile thing is measured by the 'now' of time. Therefore, newness and oldness can be found in the heavens. But the heavens do not grow old as though their substance shrank or were changed into something else, but only in regard to the length of time by which they will no longer be measured. Therefore, he says, as a garment shall you change them, not as though the cause of their change will be the loss of their power; for if the motion of the heavens ceased from a lack of power, that cessation would have a natural cause and could be isolated by natural reason, the contrary of which is stated in Mt. (24:36): 'Of that day and hour no one knows, no not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone.' Therefore, it will be due to some end that this motion will cease, because all bodily creatures are ordained to spiritual creatures, and all changed which serve generation and ceasing-to-be are ordained to the generation of man. Therefore, when the generation of men ceases, i.e., when the number of the elect and predestined is filled, that motion will cease; hence, it is called a garment, which is put on to be used and cast off, when it can be used no more. Thus, a man removes a warm garment in summer and a cool one with the coming of winter. Thus, therefore, the state of the world, which is now adjusted to that end, will no longer be adjusted, when the number of the elect is filled. Then it will be cast aside as a garment: 'Heaven and earth shall pass away' (Lk. 21:33).

76. – Then he posits that mutability when he says, and as a garment shall you change them, i.e., the heavens. Well does he say, you shall change them, because it will not be by their own power, nor of themselves, but by God's power that they will be changed from motion, as a garment which is put on to be used, and after it is used, is put off, as the seasons require. He says, a garment, because man's glory is both disclosed and hidden by a garment. So, too, God is both revealed and hidden by creatures: 'The invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood' (Rom. 1:20); 'For by the glory of the beauty and of the creature, and the Creator of them may be seen' (Wis. 13:5). He says, they shall be changed, because they will remain changed for ever. The same is true of the spiritual heavens, which will perish from the present life through the death of the body: 'We all die and like waters that return no more, we fall down into the earth' (2 Sam. 14:14); 'The just perishes, and no man lays it to heart' (Is. 57:1). Likewise, they shall fail, because as it says below (8:13): 'That which decays and grows old is near its end.' And you shall change, namely, their bodies, when this bodily thing puts on incorruption (1 Cor. 15:53); and they shall be changed, namely, as to their mind, when they pass from seeing in a dark manner to seeing face to face: 'All the days in which I am now in warfare I expect until my change come' (Jb. 14:14).

77. – Then he mentions God's immutability when he says, but you are the same. Here he does two things: first, he states his intention; secondly, he shows this by a sign; and your years will never end. He says, therefore, they shall perish, but you, namely, the Son of God, are the same, i.e., you continue the same and are never changed: 'I am the Lord and I change not' (Mal 3:6); 'With whom there is no change nor shadow of alteration' (Jas. 1:17). He gives the sign of this immutability when he says, your years never end. Here it should be noted that God's years are His duration, just as a man's years are. But a man's duration fails in two ways: first, in its parts, because, since he is temporal, one part succeeds another, and when one succeeds, the predecessor fails; secondly, as a whole, because it ceases altogether. But neither of these failures is found in God's duration, because He continues for ever, and the parts of His duration are eternal, and all exist together without succession: 'The number of his years cannot be computed' (Jb. 36:26).

78. – But if His duration is one and unchangeable, why say years in the plural and not year in the singular? The reason is that our intellect takes its knowledge of intelligible through the sensible, because all our knowledge is drawn from the senses; hence even God, Who is absolutely simple, is described under a likeness of bodily things: 'I say the Lord sitting upon a throne lofty and elevated' (Is. 6:1). So, too, His duration is described by us in terms of what is familiar, even though it is uniform and simple. Hence, it is sometimes called a year, and sometimes a day or a month, because it includes all of time's differences.

54. – Then (v.6) he speaks of Christ's dominion, whereby He is heir of all things. Here he does three things: first, he describes His dominion, particularly over the angels; secondly, the nature of that dominion on the part of the angels (v.7); thirdly, on the part of Christ (v.8).

55. – In regard to the first he adduces the authority of a psalm when he says, And let all God's angels worship him. This is from Ps. 96: 'The Lord has reigned, let the earth rejoice.' For worship is paid only to the Lord; therefore, if the angels worship Him, He is their Lord. The Apostle, when he adduces this authority, first touches on the Psalmist's intention when he says, and again, when he brings the first-born into the world. Thus the Psalmist is speaking of Christ's coming into the world; consequently, he says, and when the Scripture brings in, i.e., was to bring in the first-born into the world. As if to say: 'We have already said that Christ is a Son above the angels; therefore, He is principally begotten by the Father. Hence, He deserves to be called the first-born: 'That he might be the first-born among many brethren' (Rom. 8:29). But this first-born would have to be introduced into the world. And note how precisely the Apostle speaks: for he first says that He is from the Father, I will be to him a Father; secondly, that He was assumed into a unity of person, and he will be to me a Son.

56. – But now he brings Him to the notice of men, calling the Incarnation His introduction to the world. But on the other hand, Christ calls it a departure: 'I have come out of the Father, and am come into the world' (Jn. 16:28). The answer is that His going out is also an introduction, for if a person seeks to be reconciled to a prince, a mediator first goes out to him and later introduces him. A like situation is found in 1 Sam. (20:42) between David and Jonathan. Thus, Christ, the mediator of God and men, first went to the men and then brought them back reconciled: 'For it became him who had brought many children into glory' (inf. 2:10). Or He introduces Him to men's hearts, because the Scripture, speaking of Christ's coming, says that he must be acceptable to men's hearts. But this acceptance takes place by faith: 'That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts' (Eph. 3:17): 'Declare his glory among the Gentiles' (Ps. 95:3). For when Scripture says that the Gentiles should believe, it says that Christ is about to enter their hearts.

57. – The use of the word, again, is explained in a number of ways. Chrysostom says that the Scripture speaks of the Incarnation of the Word, which is an introduction, not once but again and again. Or another way: He was first in the world invisibly by the power of His divinity, but He introduces Him into the world again according to a visible presence of His humanity. Or another way: because he had said above, to him a Father, i.e., I will assume Him to my personal unity; and when He introduced Him again, namely, the first-born, He is introduced to the unity of person, because it is not enough to say that He is introduced, unless mention is made how He is introduced, because He is not introduced as though belonging to the world or as the angels, but above all: 'The host of heaven adored you' (Neh 9:5); 'All the angels stood round about the throne, and the ancients fell down before the throne and adored God' (Rev. 7:11).

14. – Then (v. 2) he describes the doctrine of the New Testament and mentions five properties. Four of these are differences from those of the Old, and one is the same. For when he had said, in many and various ways, he was indicating that every ordered multitude should be referred to one thing. Therefore, although the manner is manifold, all is ordained to the last thing: 'Be in the fear of the Lord all the day long' (Pr. 23:17); 'The consumption abridged shall overflow with justice. For the Lord God of hosts shall make a consumption and an abridgement in the midst of all the land' (Is. 10:22). Likewise, of old referred to the time of waiting and of darkness, but in these last days refers to our days, i.e., to the time of grace: 'The night is passed and the day is at hand' (Rom. 13:12).

15. – It should be noted that in regard to the Old Testament he says, 'speaking', but here he says, has spoken, in order to designate that the speech of the New Testament is more perfect than that of the Old. To understand this it should be noted that three things are required for our speech: first, the conception of a thought whereby we preconceive in our mind that which is to be spoken by the mouth; secondly, the expression of the conceived thought to enable us to indicate what has been conceived; thirdly, the manifestation of the thing expressed, so that it becomes evident. God, therefore, when speaking, first conceived, so that there was but one conception and that from all eternity: 'God speaks once' (Jb. 33:14). This eternal conception is the engendering of the Son of God, concerning Whom it says in Ps. 2 (v. 7): 'The Lord said to me: you are my Son, this day have I begotten you.' Secondly, he expressed his concept in three ways: first, in the production of creatures, namely, when the conceived Word, existing as the likeness of the Father, is also the likeness according to which all creatures were made: 'God said: Be light made. And light was made' (Gen. 1:3). Secondly, through certain notions; for example, in the minds of the angels, in whom the forms of all things, which were concealed in the Word, were infused, and in the minds of holy men: and this by sensible or intellectual or imaginary revelations. Hence, every such manifestation proceeding from the eternal Word is called a speaking: 'The word of the Lord which came to him' (Jer. 1:2). Thirdly, by assuming flesh, concerning which it says in John (1:14): 'And the Word was made flesh.' Hence, Augustine says that the Incarnate Word is related to the uncreated Word as the voice's work is related to the heart's word. But the first expression, namely, in creation, is not for the purpose of manifesting. For it is clear that that expression cannot be called a speaking; hence, it is never said that God speaks when making creatures, but that He is known: 'The invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made' (Rom. 1:20). But the second expression, which is the infusion of forms in the minds of angels or of men, is directed only to the knowledge of divine wisdom; hence, it can be called a speaking. The third expression, namely, the assuming of flesh, took place of the purpose of existing and of knowing, and for expressly manifesting, because by assuming flesh the Word was made man and brought us to a complete knowledge of God: 'For this was I born, that I should give testimony of the truth' (Jn. 18:37). And he clearly manifests Himself to us: 'Afterwards he was seen upon earth, and conversed with men' (Bar. 3:38). Thus, therefore, although God speaks in the New and the Old Testaments, He speaks more perfectly in the New, because in the Old he speaks in the minds of men, but in the New through the Son's Incarnation. Furthermore, the Old Testament was handed down to the Fathers looking on from afar and seeing God from a distance; the New has been handed down to us, namely, to the apostles, who have seen Him in His very person: 'That which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, and our hands have handled the Word of life, we declare unto you' (1 Jn. 1:1); 'He made not the covenant with our fathers but with us who are present and living. He spoke to us face to face' (Dt. 5:3). Hence, it is clear that that speaking was a promise: 'To Abraham were the promises made' (Gal. 3:16); but the New was a manifestation: 'Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ' (Jn. 1:17). Also, in the Old He spoke in the prophets; in the New in His Son, Who is the Lord of the prophets: 'The only begotten, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him' (Jn. 1:18).

16. – Does this mean that all the ones through whom God spoke were prophets? I answer that five things are required of a true prophet: first, the revealing of things which transcend human knowledge; otherwise, he would not be called a prophet but a sage, as Solomon, whose mind was enlightened in regard to things within the ken of human reason. Hence, not even the Jew called him a prophet but a sage. Secondly, the understanding of the things revealed; otherwise, he would not be a prophet: 'There is need of understanding in a vision' (Dan. 10:1). That is why Nebuchadnezzar, not understanding the revelation made to him, is not called a prophet, but Daniel, who did understand it, was called a prophet. Thirdly, it is required that in the things he sees and by which he is alienated not be held as though by things themselves, but as in figures; otherwise, he would not by a prophet by a lunatic, who apprehends imaginary things as though they were real: 'The prophet that has a dream, let him tell a dream: and he that has my word, let him speak my word with truth' (Jer. 23:28). Fourthly, that he perceive the things revealed, with certitude, as though known through demonstration; otherwise, it would be a dream and not a prophecy: 'The Lord God has opened my ear and I do not resist: I have not gone back' (Is. 50:5). The fifth requirement is that he has the will to announce the thing revealed; accordingly, some claim that Daniel is not a prophet, because he does not receive the thing revealed in an expressible way. Hence, it is not said that the word of the Lord was made to Daniel, as it said of the other prophets: 'The word of the Lord is made a reproach to me, and a derision all the day. Then I said: I will not make mention of him, nor speak any more in his name; and there came in my heart as a burning fire' (Jer. 20:8).

17. – But another question arises: Why does he say, in the prophets, when he might better have said: 'by the prophets?' The answer is that he did this because he wished to exclude certain errors: first, the error of Porphyry, who claimed that prophets invented their statements and were not inspired by the Holy Spirit. To counter this the Apostle says, he spoke in the prophets. As if to say: They were not speaking of themselves, but God was speaking in them: 'For prophecy came not by the will of men at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Spirit' (2 Pt. 1:21). Secondly, to exclude the error of those who maintained that prophecy is something natural and can be possessed by one's natural disposition, as a melancholy person might have a very strong imagination; so strong, indeed, that he considers the things he imagines to be real. Hence, it says, he spoke in the prophets. As if to say: Prophecy does not come about through a natural disposition but by an inward utterance of God: 'The Spirit breathes where he will' (Jn. 3:8). Thirdly, against the error of those who claim that prophecy can be possessed like a habit, as science is possessed, so that whenever a person decides to do so, he can prophesy. But this is not true, because the spirits of prophecy are not always present in the prophet, but only when their minds are enlightened by God; hence, in 2 Kg. (4:27), Elisha says: 'Her soul is in anguish, and the Lord has hid it from me.' Therefore, the Apostle says, in the prophets. As if to say: Not that prophecy is possessed by all or always, as habits are, but only in those in whom it pleases God to speak. Fourthly, to exclude the error of Priscilla and Montanus, who maintained that prophets do not understand their utterances. But this is not true; hence, it is stated in Hag (1:3): 'The word of the Lord came by the hand of Haggai, the prophet'; and in 1 Cor. (14:32): 'The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.' That which he says, in the prophets, i.e., in the understanding and power of the prophets. Thus, therefore, is clear Christ's unique property, namely, that He is the natural Son: 'The Father is in me and I in the Father (Jn. 14:10).

18. – But is He one of those sons of whom it is said: 'I have said: you are gods, and all of you the sons of the Most High' (Ps. 81:6). No; because these are called sons in a general sense, but He is the Son Who was appointed heir and lord of all things. Is He one of those sons of whom it is said (Jn. 1:12): 'He gave them the power to become the sons of God, i.e., who believe in his name?' No; those are said to become the sons; but Christ is the Son through whom he made the world. Is he one of those sons who glory 'in the hope of the glory of the sons of God' (Rom. 5:2)? No, because they are sons through the hope they have of God's glory, but He is the splendor of that glory. Others are called sons, because they were made to the image of this Son: 'Whom he foreknew to be made conformable to the image of his Son' (Rom. 8:29), but He is the image itself and the figure of His substance. Others are called sons inasmuch as they contain within themselves the Word of God: 'That you may be blameless and sincere children without reproof in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation: among whom you shine as lights in the world. Holding for the word of life' (Phil. 2:15). But He is the true Son Who carries all things by the word of His power. Therefore, Christ's supereminence is clear from His unique origin and from His relationship to other sons of God. It is these things which make the New Testament greater than the Old.

19. – Yet in regard to both testaments he says, 'speaking', or 'has spoken', in order to indicate that both have the same author. This is against the Manicheans: 'By him we have access both in the same Spirit to the Father' (Eph. 2:18); 'Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles?' (Rom. 3:29). Again, the Old was given to our fathers, but the New to us, i.e., through his Son, Who is the Lord of the prophets: 'The only begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him' (Jn. 1:18).

20. – Then he shows the greatness of Christ's power when he says, whom he appointed the heir of all things; for as it says in Gal. (4:7): 'And if a son, an heir also through God.' But in Christ are two natures, namely, the divine and the human: insofar as He is the natural son, He is not appointed heir, (He is so naturally;) but inasmuch as He is man and has become a son of God: 'Concerning his Son who was made to him of the seed of David' (Rom. 1:3). Indeed, as a man, He has been appointed heir of all things, just as He has become a son of God: 'All power is given to me in heaven and in earth' (Mt. 28:18) and it extends to every creature that He has taken under His rule. It extends, therefore, not only to one type of man, but to all, i.e., both Jews and Gentiles: 'Ask of me and I will give you the Gentiles for your inheritance.' (Ps. 2:8).

21. – Having shown Christ's excellence as to His unique origin, he now shows His excellence as to the majesty of His dominion. It is suitable that these two be joined: He has spoken to us through his Son, whom He appointed the heir of all things: 'If a son, then an heir' (Rom. 8:17). But it should be noted that in Christ are two natures, namely, the divine and the human. But according to the divine nature, since He was not appointed Son, since He is the natural Son from all eternity, so neither was He appointed heir, since He is the natural heir from all eternity. But according to His human nature, just as He was made Son of God: 'He was descended from David according to the flesh' (Rom. 1:3), so He was made heir to all things: Whom he appointed the heir of all things: 'This is the heir, come, let us kill him' (Mt. 21:38). 'I will again bring an heir to you, inhabitants of Mareshah; the glory of Israel shall come to Adullam' (Mic. 1:15). Indeed, according to His divine nature it belongs to Christ to be the begotten heir of the Lord. First, because He is the power and wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:18) through Whom the Father makes all things. Therefore, if the Father is called the God of all by reason of creation, the Son also, through Whom all things were brought into existence, is called Lord. 'I was with him forming all things' (Pr. 8:30). Secondly, because the Son is the Father's wisdom, by which He governs all things. In Wis. (8:1) it says of wisdom: 'She reaches mightily from one end of the earth to the other and she orders all things well.' Therefore, if the Father is called Lord by reason of governing: 'You, the Father, govern all things' (Wis. 13:3), the Son, too, has dominion. Furthermore, the Father is Lord inasmuch as all things are ordained to Him as to first principle and end of all things. So, too, the Son, Who is the wisdom of God preceding all things, is Lord: 'Wisdom was created before all things. Who can search it out?' (Sir. 1:3). But according to His human nature it also belongs to Christ to be heir and Lord of all things. First, by reason of the union, i.e., from the fact that that man was assumed in the person of the Son of God: 'The Lord God exalted him as Savior' (Ac. 5:31).; 'He set him over every principality and power and dominion' (Eph. 1:19). Secondly, by reason of power, because all things obey and serve him: 'All power has been given to me in heaven and in earth' (Mt. 28:18). Thirdly, by reason of subjection: 'At the name of Jesus every knee should bow of those in heaven, on earth and, below the earth' (Phil. 2:10). But he says, of all things, which refers to the totality of all nature, in which he obtains dominion, as it says in Ps. 8 (v. 8): 'You have subjected all things under his feet.' It also refers to the whole human race, so that the sense would be: of all things, i.e., not only the Jews but also other men, as it says in Ps. 2 (v. 8): 'Ask of me and I will give you the Gentiles as your inheritance and the ends of the earth as your possession.' And of this it is said (Est. 13:11, Vulgate): 'You are Lord of all.'

22. – Then (v. 2) when he says, by whom also he made the world, he shows the power of Christ's activity, i.e., why He has been appointed heir of all things. It was not because He was born at a certain moment of time and merited this by leading a good life, as Photinus says, but because all things were originally made by Him, as they were made by the Father. For it was through Him that the Father made all things. For through Him the Father made the world. But it should be noted that the grammatical object of the preposition 'by' or 'through' designates the cause of an act: in one way, because it causes a making on the part of the maker. For the making is midway between the maker and the thing made. In this usage the object of 'by' can designate the final cause motivating the maker, as an artisan works by gain; or the formal cause, as fire warms by heat; or even the efficient cause, as a bailiff acts through the king. But the Son is not the cause making the Father act through Him in any of these ways any more than He is the cause of His proceeding from the Father. But sometimes the object of 'by' designates the cause of the action, taken from the viewpoint of the thing made, as an artisan acts through a hammer; for the hammer is not the cause of the artisan's action, but it is the cause why an artifact made of iron should proceed from the artisan, i.e., why iron [which the hammer strikes] be worked on by the artisan. This is the way the Son is the cause of things made and the way the Father works through the Son.

23. – But is the Son inferior to the Father? It seems so, because that which is the cause of a thing's being made seems to be an instrument. The answer is that if the power in the Father and in the Son were not the same numerically, and the activity not the same numerical activity, the objection would hold. But the fact is that the power and activity, as well as the nature and the esse of the Father and of the Son are the same. Therefore, the Father is said to make the world through Him, because He begot Him forming the world: 'Whatever the Father does, the Son also does' (Jn. 5:19). 'World' (saeculum) here means the temporal span of a created thing. Worlds, i.e., saecula, therefore, are successions of times. Therefore, he made not only sempiternal times (in the sense in which philosophers say that God alone made eternal things, and angels created temporal things), but also temporal things, which the Apostle calls worlds (saecula): 'By faith we understand that the world was framed by the Word of God' (Heb. 11:3); 'All things were made by him' (Jn. 1:3). Thus he removes the Manichean error in two ways: first, in calling God the author of the Old Testament; secondly, in saying that He made temporal things.

71. – Then (v. 11) he shows the difference between Creator and creature, and this in regard to two things which are proper to the Creator; the first is eternity; the second is immutability (v. 11c). In regard to the first he dos two things: first, he puts a limitation on the creature; secondly, no limitation on God (v. 11b).

72. – He says, therefore: they, i.e., the heavens, shall perish. But Ec. (1:4) says that 'the earth stands forever'. Therefore, it seems that it will last longer than the heavens. I answer according to Augustine and the Philosopher that in every change there is a coming into existence and a ceasing to exist. Therefore, when he says that the heavens shall perish, this is not to be understood of their substance, concerning which Jb. (37:18) says: 'The heavens are most strong, as if they were of molten brass', but of their state which they now have: 'I saw a new haven and a new earth' (Rev. 21:1); 'The fashion of this world passes away' (1 Cor. 7:31). But how will they change their state? In various ways, because the higher heavens are moving in regard to place, but are not altered, whereas the lower heaven, namely, fire and air, are moved and altered and subject to corruption. Therefore, the state of all the heavens is changeable; but then, movement will cease in the higher heavens and corruption in the lower heavens, because the air will be purged by fire: 'But the heavens and the earth which exist now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men' (Ps. 101:13).

73. – Here he shows the permanence of the Creator. As if to say: 'In you there is no change nor shadow of change' (Jas. 1:17). This can be understood of Christ as man: 'Jesus Christ, yesterday and today and forever' (Heb. 13:8).

67. – Above, the Apostle mentioned four things in which Christ excelled 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 His power of acting, because through Him the Father made the world. But the Apostle proves this on the authority of the same prophet. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows the power of His activity inasmuch as he is Creator; secondly, inasmuch as there is a difference between Creator and creature. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he describes the creation of earth; secondly, of the heavens (v. 10b).

68. – It should be noted in regard to the first that this can be interpreted in two ways: in one way, so that it is taken to be a word of the prophet directed to the Father. As if to say: You, Lord, namely God the Father, founded the earth in the beginning, i.e., in your Son, Who is the beginning: 'I am the beginning who also speak to you' (Jn. 8:25). And this is the same as saying: You founded the earth through the Son: 'You have made all things in your wisdom' (Ps. 103:24). But the Son is Wisdom begotten: hence, above he called him the splendor of His glory. And what he says here corresponds to what he had said above: by whom also he made the earth. In another way, so that it is a word directed to the Son. As if to say: And you, O Lord, founded the earth in the beginning, namely of time. This is to exclude the opinion of those who say that the world is eternal; or in the beginning, namely, of the production of things, to exclude the opinion of those who say that bodily things were not created with spiritual things, but after: 'In the beginning God created heaven and earth' (Gen. 1:1); 'He that lives forever created all things together' (Sir. 18:1).

69. – But it should be noted that the earth can be distinguished from heaven in three ways: in one way, so that by the earth is understood the element earth, and by heaven the higher bodies; so that just as Moses made not mention of the air, because it exists with water, so here he understood by heaven the very heaven and the other two elements, namely, air and fire, which most resemble the nature of the heavens and which is clear from their place. And this is the way Moses took it (Gen. 1:1). And he says, you didst found, to show that three things pertain to the earth: first, the earth's rest, for all other things partake of motion, but the earth alone according to its totality remains motionless. As if to say: You have founded, i.e., firmly established: 'Who has founded the earth upon its own bases' (Ps. 103:5). Secondly, to show the perpetuity of the world, for the foundation of a building is its most enduring part: 'But the earth remains for ever' (Ec. 1:4). And according to this he says, You have founded, i.e., established for ever. Thirdly, to show the order of the earth; because, just as the foundation, which is the first part of a building, is below, so earth holds the lowest place among the elements: 'My hand also has founded the earth' (Is. 48:13); 'His hands formed the dry land' (Ps. 94:5). He does not say, 'You made the heavens', but the works of your hands are the heavens, because that which a person makes with his hands, he seems to make with greater care. Consequently, he speaks this way to signify their nobility and beauty: 'My right hand measured the heavens' (Is. 48:13).

70a. – In another way, so that by earth he understands every bodily nature; then you founded, because matter is the place and foundation of forms; but by heavens, spiritual substances: 'Praise him, you heavens of heavens' (Ps. 148:5). And these are the works of His hands, because He made them to His own image and likeness. Or, by earth those who are imperfect in the Church and are the foundation of the others (for if there were no active life in the Church, the contemplative life could not exist), and by heavens, the contemplatives. And these were made in the Church in the beginning, i.e., by the Son: 'I have placed my words in your mouth, that you might found the earth, i.e., the imperfect, and plant the heavens' (Is. 51:16).

70b. – But in regard to the heavens, he says, the works of your hands are the heavens. He says, the works of your hands, and not simply, you made the heavens, for four reasons: first, to exclude the error of those who say that God is the soul of the world and, consequently, what the whole earth and its parts should be worshipped as God, as idolaters did. But he excludes this when he says, the works of your hands are the heavens. As if to say: They are not proportioned to you as the body is to the soul, but they are subject and proportioned to your power and will: 'Lest perhaps, lifting 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' (Dt. 4:19). Secondly, to designate the dignity and beauty of the heavens, because we say that we make that with our hands which we make carefully. Therefore, to show that the heavens were made by divine wisdom in a more excellent way than the other bodily creatures, he says, the works of your hands are the heavens, and this is clear; because the diversity in those lower things can be reduced to the disposition of the matter, but the diversity of heavenly bodies can be reduced only to divine wisdom. That is why, whenever mention is made of he creation of the heavens, prudence and understanding or something of that sort are also mentioned: 'The Lord has established the heavens by prudence' (Pr. 3:19); 'Who made the heavens in understanding' (Ps. 135:5). Thirdly, to show that in the heavens the divine power of the Creator is more striking; for there is nothing in creatures in whose condition so much of God's power appears; and this is because of their magnitude and order: 'For by the greatness of the beauty and of the creature, the Creator of them may be seen' (Wis. 13:5). Fourthly, to show that of all bodies the heavenly body receives God's influence more directly: 'Do you know the order of heaven, and can you set down the reason thereof on the earth' (Jb. 38:33)? As if to say: 'If you consider carefully the disposition of the heavens, you cannot attribute the cause of its order to any earthly thing, but to God.'

70c. – It can be explained in another way, so that by earth is meant all bodily matter, and by heavens, spiritual substances. Then the sense is this: In the beginning of time you founded the earth, i.e., corporeal matter, i.e., you have established it as the foundation of forms. This is the way to understand the statement of Ps. 148 (v. 7): 'Praise the Lord from the earth, you dragons and all you deeps.' But the heavens, i.e., spiritual substances: 'Praise him, you heavens of heavens' (Ps. 148:4) are the works of your hands, because you made them to your image likeness.

70d. – It can be explained a third way, so that by earth are understood the lowly ones 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 actives in the Church, the contemplatives would have no subsistence; but the heavens, the contemplatives and more perfect, are the work of your hands, i.e., endowed with a more outstanding excellence: 'The heavens published the glory of God' (Ps. 18:2); 'Hear, O you heavens, and give ear' (Is. 1:2).

6. – He wrote this epistle against the errors of those converts from Judaism who wanted to preserve the legal observances along with the Gospel, as though Christ's grace were not sufficient for salvation. Hence it is divided into two parts: in the first he extols Christ's grandeur to show the superiority of the New Testament over the Old; secondly, he discusses what unites the members to the head, namely, faith (chap. 11). But he intends to show the New Testament's superiority over the Old by proving Christ's preeminence over the personnel of the Old Testament, namely, the angels, by whom the Law was handed down: 'The law was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator' (Gal. 3:19); and Moses, by whom or through whom it was given: 'The law was given by Moses' (Jn. 1:17); 'There arose no more a prophet in Israel like unto Moses, to whom the Lord spoke face to face' (Dt. 3:10), and the priesthood by which it was administered: 'Into the first tabernacle the priests indeed entered, accomplishing the offices of sacrifices' (Heb. 9:6). First, therefore, he favors Christ over the angels; secondly, over Moses (chap. 3); thirdly, over the priesthood of the Old Testament (chap. 5). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows that the angles lack this greatness; secondly, since this is true of Christ, he shows that the angels lack this greatness (chap. 2).

7. – In regard to the first he indicates Christ's excellence in four matters: first, as to His unique origin, by calling Him the true natural Son of God; secondly, as to the extent of His rule (v. 2c); thirdly, as to the power of His activity (v. 2d); fourthly, as to the sublimity of His glory (v. 2e). But because he intends to extol Christ so that it redounds to the glory of the New Testament, this favors the New over the Old,

8. – About which he mentions five things: first, how it was promulgated; secondly, the time (v. 1b); thirdly, the author or giver (v. 1c); fourthly, to whom it was given (v. 1d); fifthly, by which ministers (v. 13).

9. – He says, therefore, In many ways, referring first of all to various persons, because God spoke not to one person but to many, namely, Abraham, Noah and others; secondly, to the various times and always with the same certitude: 'He went out early in the morning,…And about the third hour…And again about the sixth hour…' (Mt. 20:1 ff.). Many also in regard to the matters treated, namely, divine things: 'I am who am' (Ex. 3:14); and future events: 'She knows signs and wonders before they be done' (Wis. 8:8); and promises of future benefits, at least in figure: 'Many things are show to you above the understanding of men' (Sir. 3:25). Many also in the variety of figures; because at one time he uses the figure of a lion, at another the figure of a stone: 'A stone was cut out of a mountain without hands' (Dan. 2:34); 'That he might show you that his law is manifold' (Jb. 11:6). And in various ways. This refers to the three kinds of vision: first, ocular vision: 'In the same hour there appeared fingers, as it were the hand of a man writing over against the candlestick upon the surface of the wall' (Dan. 5:5); secondly, imaginary vision: 'I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and elevated' (Is. 6:1); thirdly, intellectual vision, as to David: 'I have had understanding above the ancients' (Ps. 119:100). Hence, Hosea (12:10) includes all of these: 'I have multiplied visions.' It refers also to the various ways He spoke, because sometimes He spoke plainly and sometimes obscurely. In fact, there is not manner of speaking that has not been employed in the writings of the Old Testament: 'Behold, I have described it to you three manner of ways, in thoughts and knowledge' (Pr. 22:20). Thirdly, because He spoke by rebuking the wicked, by enticing the just, and by instructing the ignorant: 'All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice' (2 Tim. 3:16).

10. – Then he touches upon the time, when this teaching was delivered, i.e., the past, because he spoke of old, i.e., not suddenly, because the things that were spoken about Christ were so great as to be incredible, unless they had been taught bit by bit as time went on. Hence St. Gregory says: 'As time went on, the knowledge of divine things grew.' 'The former things of old I have declared, and they went forth out of my mouth, and I have made them to be heard' (Is. 48:3).

11. – Thus, he mentions the author, namely, God, Who speaks: 'I will hear what the Lord God will speak in me' (Ps. 84:9) For He does not lie: 'God is not a man that he should lie' (Num. 23:19). These, then, are the first three things which commend the Old Testament: authorship, because it is from God; secondly, subtlety and sublimity, because in so many and various ways; thirdly, duration, because of old.

12. – Fourthly, he shows to whom it is delivered, namely, to our fathers. This is why it is familiar and known to us: 'We declare unto you the promise which was made to our fathers' (Ac. 13:32); 'As he spoke to our fathers' (Lk. 1:55).

13. – Fifthly, he indicates the ministers, because it was delivered not by jesters but by prophets: 'Which he had promised before by his prophets' (Rom. 1:2); 'To whom all the prophets give testimony' (Ac. 10:43).

45. – As mentioned above, the Apostle devotes this entire first chapter to extolling Christ over the angels by reason of His excellence; hence he lists four things pertaining to Christ's excellence: first, His origin, because He is the Son; secondly, His dominion, because He is the heir; thirdly, His power, because He made the world; fourthly, His honor, because He sits on the right hand of majesty. But now the Apostle shows that Christ exceeds the angels in these four points: first, in His sonship; secondly, in His dominion (v.6); thirdly, in the work of creation (v.10); fourthly, in regard to the Father's confession (v.13). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he states his proposition; secondly, he proves it (v.5).

46. – He says, therefore: [Being made] having become as much superior to the angels, i.e., holier and nearer to God. In these words he suggests Christ's excellence as compared with the angels: 'Setting him on his right hand in the heavenly places above all principality and power' (Eph. 1:20). But here a question arises. How does the Apostle mean this? Is it according to the divine nature or the human: because according to the divine it does not seem to be true, for according to that nature he was begotten, not made; whereas according to the human nature He is not better than the angels: 'But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels' (Heb. 2:9). The answer is that Christ had two things according to the human nature in this life, namely, the infirmity of the flesh; and in this way He was lower than the angels: but He also had fullness of grace, so that even in His human nature he was greater than the angels in grace and glory: 'We have seen him as it were the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth' (Jn. 1:14). But this is not how the Apostle understood it, for he does not mean that He was made better in regard to grace, but by reason of the union of human nature with the divine; so He is said to be made, inasmuch as by effecting that union He became better than the angels, and should be called and really be the son of God.

47. – Hence, he continues, as he has obtained a more excellent name than they. In regard to this name he discloses three differences: first, as to the signification of the name, because the proper name of angels is that they are called angels, which is the name of a messenger. For an angel is a messenger. But the proper name of Christ is that He is called the Son of God; and this name is vastly different from 'angel', because no matter how great a difference you might imagine, there would still remain a greater difference, because they are infinitely apart: 'What is his name, and what is the name of his son, if thou knowest?' (Pr. 30:4). For the name of the Son, as that of the Father, is incomprehensible: 'He gave him a name which is above every name' (Phil. 2:9). But one might say that even the angels are called sons of God: 'On a certain day when the sons of God came to stand before the Lord' (Jb. 1:6). I answer that if they are called sons of God, they are not so essentially and by nature, but by a certain participation. But He is essentially the Son of God and, therefore, has a name more excellent than the others. And this is the second difference, because they differ as to mode: 'Who among the sons of God shall be like to God?' (Ps. 88:7). As if to say: No one by nature. As to the third he says that He inherited that name; for inheritance follows upon origin. Hence, Christ is the Son by origin and by nature, but the angels by a gift of grace: 'Here is the heir:' (Mt. 21:38). Hence, He inherited that name, but not so the angels: and this is the third difference.

79. – Above, the Apostle proved three things in which Christ excels the angels; here he proves a fourth, namely, that He sits on the right hand of majesty, which pertains to His dignity. In regard to this he does two things: first, he adduces David's authority to show this; secondly, he shows that the angels lack this dignity (v. 14). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he describes Christ's dignity; secondly, he manifests this with a sign (v. 13b).

80. – He says, therefore: to what angel has he, namely, God, ever said? As if to say: It is not found that God said this to an angel, but He said it to Christ. And Christ Himself claims that this was said of Him. But what He says, namely, sit at my right hand, can be referred to the divine nature in which Christ is equal to the Father, because He has judiciary and royal power equal to the Father: 'All that the Father has are mine' (Jn. 16:15). Indeed, the Father Himself said this from eternity, because He engendered the Son by speaking, and by engendering gave Him equality with the Father. It can also be referred to the human nature, according to which He sits near the transcendent goods of the Father. In this case the Father spoke, when He joined His Word to a human nature.

81. – Then (v. 13b) he shows Christ's dignity with a sign. But two questions arise here: first of all, because from all eternity all things are subject to the Son inasmuch as He is God; secondly, because in the resurrection Christ said: 'All power is given to me in heaven and in earth' (Mt. 28:18), what does He expect shall be subjected to His footstool? But it should be noted that something can be in someone's power in two ways: in one way in regard to his authority, and then all things have been subject to the Son of God from all eternity, inasmuch as they were decreed to be done, and in the time they existed, they were subject to the Son of God as God, but to Him as man they were subject from the time of His conception as man. In another way, in regard to the exercise of His power; and then all things are not yet subject to Him, but only at the end of the world, because He does not yet exercise His power over all things by subjecting them to Him: 'According to the operation whereby also he is able to subdue all things to Himself' (Phil. 3:21). But why does he say, footstool? Perhaps because that word signifies nothing more than full and perfect subjection, for that is said to be perfectly subject to someone which he can tread under foot; or because just as God is the head of Christ, as it says in 1 Cor. (11:3), so Christ's feet would be His humanity: 'We shall adore in the place where his feet stood' (Ps. 131:7). I will make them your footstool, i.e., not only will I subject you enemies to your divinity, but even to your humanity.

82. – Origen erred on this point, for he understood only one type of subjection, saying that just as being subject to the light is nothing more than being enlightened, so, since Christ is truth, justice and goodness and whatever else He can be called, to be subjected to the Savior is nothing less than to be saved. Therefore, he desired that in the end all things, including the devils, would be saved, because otherwise all things would not be subjected to Christ. But this is contrary to what is stated in Mt. (25:41): 'Depart, you accursed, into everlasting fire.' Hence, it should be noted that there are two types of subjection: one by the will of the subjects, as good ministers are subject to their master, as to their king; in this way, only the good are subject to Christ. The other is by the will of the master, so that some force is exerted on the subjects. This is how the wicked are subject to Christ, not that they desire His dominion, but because Christ will accomplish His will in their regard by punishing them, who refused to do His will here. And this is what is designated by the footstool, because whatever is tread upon is crushed: 'Heaven is my throne and the earth my footstool' (Is. 66:1).

83. – Another question concerns the statement, until I make your enemies your footstool, because if He sit until they are made his footstool, then when they are made his footstool, He will no longer sit. I answer that words as until or as long as are sometimes used finitely, namely, when they designate the end of that to which they are joined, as when I say, 'Sit here till I come'; but sometimes they are used infinitely, when no end is mentioned, as when I say: 'He did not repent as long as he lived', because he did not repent even after death. For, as Jerome says, that would be designated about which there might be doubt, but that which is not in doubt is left to the one understanding. But there is doubt whether a person will repent in this life, but not so after death. So, too, in the present case: for since many now attack and blaspheme Christ, there is doubt whether He is sitting now, but there is not doubt that He will sit, when all things are subject to Him; therefore, it is not expressed.

24. – Having shown Christ's greatness in regard to His unique origin, the majesty of His dominion and the power of His activity, the Apostle now shows His greatness in regard to the sublimity of His glory and dignity. This is divided into two parts: in the first he shows that Christ is worthy of His dignity; in the second he discloses this dignity (v. 2c). But he shows Him worthy of this dignity for two reasons: one is the ease with which He acts; the other is His diligence and strenuousness in acting: first, therefore, he describes this ease: secondly, His strenuousness (v. 2b).

25. – In regard to the first it should be noted that three things are required for a high dignity to be administered with ease: the first is wisdom, to avoid mistakes in governing: 'There is an evil that I have seen under the sun, as it were be an error proceeding from the face of the prince: a fool set in high dignity' (Ec. 10:15); 'Through me kings reign' (Pr. 8:15). Secondly, a person must be of noble stock, lest his commands be scorned: 'Her husband is honorable in the gates, when he sits among the senators of the land' (Pr. 31:33). The third requirement is power in acting: 'Seek not to be made a judge, unless you have strength enough to extirpate iniquities' (Sir. 7:6). These are the three marks the Apostle uses to show that Christ is worthy of His dignity: first, because He is not only wise but is Wisdom itself; hence, he says, he reflects the glory of God; secondly, because He is not only noble but is nobility itself, because he bears the very stamp [figure] of his substance; thirdly, because He is not only powerful but is power itself: upholding all things by his word of power. But these are the three things which make a person worthy to possess great dignity.

26. – The first is clarity of wisdom: 'The wise shall possess glory' (Pr. 3:35). Hence, he shows Christ's wisdom when he says, he reflects the glory of God. Here it should be noted that according to Ambrose: 'Glory is fame accompanied by praise', i.e., public knowledge of someone's goodness. But as it says in Lk. (18:19): 'No one is good but God alone.' Hence, He is good par excellence and essentially, but other things are good by participation, so that God alone is good par excellence: 'My glory I give to no other' (Is. 42:8); 'To the king of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever' (1 Tim. 1:17). Therefore, knowledge of God's goodness is called glory in a most excellent sense, i.e., clear knowledge of the divine goodness accompanied by praise. Such knowledge is possessed by men up to a certain point: 'I know now in part' (1 Cor. 13:12), but perfectly by God alone: 'No one has ever seen God' (Jn. 1:18). It is true that not even the angels, but God alone comprehends it. Therefore, only God's knowledge of Himself is glory in the full sense, because He has perfect and clearest knowledge of Himself. But because splendor is that which is first emitted by a bright object, and His wisdom is something bright: 'The wisdom of a man shines in his countenance' (Ec. 8:1), it follows that the first conception of wisdom is, as it were, a splendor. Therefore, the Word of the Father, which is a certain concept of His intellect, is the splendor and wisdom by which He knows Himself. That is why the Apostle calls the Son the splendor of glory, i.e., of the clear divine knowledge. Thus, he identifies Him not only as wise but as begotten wisdom: 'I will not rest till her just one comes forth as brightness, and her savior be lighted as a lamp' (Is. 62:1).

27. – The second mark which makes a man worthy of great dignity is noble birth, which he shows is in Christ, because he is the very stamp of his substance. For it is proper that along with wisdom there be nobility in a prince: 'And I took out of your tribes men over fifties and over tens, who might teach you all things' (Dt. 1:15). The word stamp [figure] here is used to denote a mark or an image. As if to say: the image of His substance. Yet it should be noted that although an image implies a likeness, not every likeness is an image: for the whiteness on a canvas is not my whiteness; but an image is a likeness in species. Therefore, that is properly called an image of someone, which bears a likeness to his species, or is an expressed sign of the species. But among the accidents none is such an expressed sign of a species as a thing's figure. Hence, one who draws the figure of an animal draws its image. Therefore, the Son 'Who is the image of the invisible God' (Col. 1:15) is properly called the figure.

28. – But the figure of what? Of his nature [substance]. For there are many images of things: sometimes it is a sign representing the species but yet not agreeing with it in any way; as the image of a man on canvas, which in no sense possesses the true species of man. Sometimes it is similar to it in species not only in representing, but even in being, as the Son is the true image of His Father: 'Adam begot a son in his own image' (Gen. 5:3), i.e., in the nature of his species. Therefore, the Apostle adds, of his substance, because according to Augustine a son is called the image of the father, because he is of the same nature as he. He says, therefore, that he is the figure of his nature [substance].

29. – But why does he not say that He is the figure of His nature? Because it is possible for the nature of a species to be multiplied according to the multitude of individuals composed of matter and form. Hence, the son of Socrates does not have the same numerical nature has his father. But the substance is never multiplied; for the substance of the father is not distinct from the substance of the son: for substance is not divided according to diverse individuals. Therefore, because there is one and the same numerical nature in the Father and in the Son of God, he does not say 'the figure of His nature', but of his substance, which is indivisible: 'I and the Father are one' (Jn. 10:30); 'I in the Father and the Father in me' (Jn. 14:10).

30. – The third factor which makes a man worthy is strength; hence, it is stated in Sir. (7:6): 'Seek not to be made a judge, unless you have strength enough to extirpate iniquities.' Therefore, he shows this strength when he says, upholding all things by his word of power. For it is proper to princes and potentates to uphold: 'Under whom they stoop that bear up the world' (Jb. 9:13). Therefore, he upholds.

31. – But what does He uphold, and by what agency? In regard to the first it should be noted that anything which cannot stand by itself or walk needs to be upheld. But no creature of itself can subsist or act. The first statement is clear, because once the cause is removed, the effect is removed. But God is the cause of all subsistence, because He is no less the cause of a things' continuance in existence and of its coming into existence than a builder is the cause of a house's coming into existence. Hence, just as the house ceases coming into existence when the builder ceases to act, and just as the air ceases to be illuminated when the sun no longer shines; so, when the divine power is removed, the being, the coming-to-be and the substance of every creature is removed. Therefore, He upholds all things in their existence and in their activity: because when the divine influence is removed, all the activities of secondary causes are removed, because He is the first cause; and the first cause does more than the second: 'Upon what are its bases grounded?' (Jb. 38:6)

32. – But through what agency does he support them? By his word of power. For since the Apostle, when speaking of the creation of things, said that God made all things through the Son: By whom also He made the world, and since that through which a thing acts does not seem to act by its own power but by the power of the one through whom it acts, as the bailiff through whom the king acts by His own power. Hence, the Apostle says, he upholds all things by his word of power. For since the cause of existence and of conservation are the same, when he says that the Son is the cause of conservation, he is showing that He is also the cause of existence

33. – But is it not also by the Father's power? It is also by His power, because the power of both is identical. He works, therefore, both by His own power and by the Father's power, because His power comes from the Father. Yet the Apostle does not say, 'by His power', but by his word of power, in order to show that just as the Father produced all things by the Word: 'He spoke and they were made: He commanded and they were created' (Ps. 32:8), so the Son by the same Word that He is, made all things. By these words, therefore, the Apostle shows the strength of His power, because He has the same power as the Father: for the power by which the Father acts is the same as the power by which the Son acts.

34. – But a question arises here, because the Father, when He speaks, produces a Word; when the Word speaks, He should produce a word; and so the Word of the Father should be the word of the Son. The Greeks answer this by saying that just as the Son is the image of the Father, so the Holy Spirit is the image of the Son. This is the way Basil explains the phrase, supporting all things by his word of power, i.e., by the Holy Spirit. For just as the Son is the Word of the Father; so the Holy Spirit, they say, is the Word of the Son; consequently, the Son acts through Him just as the Father acts through the Son. Yet, properly speaking, an utterance is not called a word, unless it proceeds as something conceived by the intellect in such a way that, as consequence, it proceeds in a likeness of species. But the Holy Spirit, even though He is like, is not like by reason of the way He proceeds, because He does not proceed as a concept issuing from an intellect, but as Love issuing from the will.

35. – But a question still remains about that Word. What is it? For a human command is either externally expressed by a sound, and this has no place in the godhead, because nothing is external to the divine nature, so as to proceed from the Son by Whom all things are upheld; or that command is inwardly conceived in the heart. But even that cannot stand, because nothing is conceived in God's mind but the eternal Word. Consequently, there would be two eternal Words, which it is blasphemous to say. Therefore, the answer to this argument as Augustine says in explaining Jn. (12:48): 'The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day', is that I myself, Who am the Word of the Father, shall judge him. Similarly, in the phrase, by the word of his power, i.e., by himself Who is the powerful Word.

36. – Consequently, by those three characteristics he shows three things of Christ: for by the fact that he is the brightness, he shows his co-eternity with the Father; for in creatures splendor is coeval, and the Word is co-eternal. This is against Arius. But when he says, the image of his substance, he shows the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. For since splendor is not of the same nature as the resplendent thing, then lest anyone suppose that it is not similar in nature, he says that it is the image or figure of His substance. But because the Son, even though He is of the same nature with the Father, would be lacking power, if He were weak, he adds, supporting all things by the word of his power. Therefore, the Apostle commends Christ on three points, namely, co-eternity, consubstantiality and equality of power.

37. – Then (v. 3b) he shows the second trait, which makes one worthy of great dignity, namely, strenuousness and industry in acting. For it was a display of great industry to merit by His suffering sin the assumed nature that which he already possessed by His own divine nature. Hence it is stated in Phil (2:8): 'he became obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross: for which cause God also exalted him.' Therefore, to purify from sin, even tough it belongs to Him in virtue of His divine nature, belongs to Him also by the merit of His Passion; hence Sir. (47:13) says: 'The Lord took away his sins and exalted his horn forever'; 'he will save his people from their sins' (Mt. 1:21).

38. – It belongs to Christ to cleanse by reason of His divine nature and by reason of His special sonship. By reason of His divine nature, because guilt or sin is uniquely an evil of the rational creature, and God alone can repair such an evil. For sin lies in the will, which God alone can move: 'The heart is perverse above all things, and unsearchable; who can know it? I am the Lord who searches the heart and proves the reins' (Jer. 17:9). The reason for this is that something close to the end is brought to its end only by the first cause. But the will is concerned with the ultimate end, because it is made for enjoying God; therefore, it is moved by God alone. Therefore, since Christ is true God, it is obvious that He can cause purification from sins: 'Who can forgive sins but God alone?' (Lk. 5:21)

39. – But by appropriation it belongs also to Christ. To understand this it should be noted that in sin is involved, first of all, a transgression of the eternal law and of God's rights, since all sin is an iniquity which transgresses the law: 'They have transgressed the law, they have changed the ordinance, they have broken the everlasting covenant' (Is. 24:5). Therefore, since the eternal law and divine right stem from the eternal Word, it is clear that cleansing from sins is Christ's prerogative, inasmuch as He is the Word: 'he sent his Word and healed them' (Ps. 106:20). Secondly, sin involves a loss of the light of reason and, consequently, of God's wisdom in man, since such a light is a participation of divine wisdom: 'And because they had not wisdom, they perished in their folly' (Bar. 3:28); 'They err that work evil' (Pr. 14:22). Furthermore, according to the Philosopher, all evil is ignorance. Therefore, to set aright according to divine wisdom belongs to the One who is divine wisdom. But this is Christ: 'We preach Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God' (1 Cor. 1:24); 'For by wisdom they were healed' (Wis. 9:19). Thirdly, in sin is a deformity of the likeness of God in man: 'The heart of fools shall be unlike' (Pr. 15:13). Therefore, it belongs to the Son to correct this deformity, because He is the image of he Father: 'Therefore, as we have born the image of the earthly, let us bear also the image of the heavenly' (1 Cor. 15:49). Fourthly, there is a loss of the eternal inheritance, the sign of which was man's expulsion from Paradise: 'God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, that he might redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons' (Gal. 4:4). Therefore, it is obvious that it belongs to Christ to purge sins both by reason of His human nature and by reason of the divine.

40. – But how did He effect this purgation? It is clear from this. For in sin is a perversity of will by which man withdraws from the unchangeable good. To correct this, Christ bestowed sanctifying grace: 'Justified freely by his grace' (Rom. 3:24). Secondly, there is in the soul a stain left by the perversity of the will. To remove this stain He gave His blood: 'He loved us and washed us from our sins in his blood' (Rev. 1:5). Thirdly, there is a debt of punishment, which a man must pay. To satisfy this debt He offered Himself as a victim on the altar of the cross: 'Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it in order to sanctify it' (Eph. 5:25). Fourthly, there is slavery under the devil, to whom man subjected himself by sin, because 'whoever commits sin is the servant of sin' (Jn. 8:34). To save us from this slavery He redeemed us: 'You have redeemed me, O Lord, the God of truth' (Ps. 30:6).

41. – Then (v. 3c) he describes His dignity. As if to say: It does not seem improper for Him to sit on the right hand of majesty, because He is the splendor and the figure and the upholder of all things. But in the word sit three things are usually implied: One is the authority of the one seated: 'When I sat as a king with the army standing about him' (Jb. 29:25). In the divine court there are many who serve, because Dan. (7:10) says: 'Thousands of thousands ministered to him and ten thousand times a hundred thousand stood before him.' But no one is described as sitting there, because all present are servants and ministers: 'Are they not all ministering spirits, sent to minister for them' (Heb. 1:14); but He alone has royal dignity: 'And he came even to the ancient of days: and he gave him power and glory and a kingdom' (Dan. 7:13); 'When the Son of man shall come in his majesty and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty' (Mt. 25:3). Then he continues: 'Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: 'Come, you blessed of my father' (Mt. 25:34). The second implication is the stability of the one sitting: 'Stay you in he city till you be endued with power from oh high' (Lk. 24:49; 'His power is an everlasting power' (Dan. 7:14); 'Jesus Christ, yesterday and today and the same for ever' (Heb. 13:8). Furthermore, sitting sometimes implies humility, because the person seated is below those who stand: 'Thou hast known my sitting down' (Ps. 138:2). But that is not the sense in which it is taken here, but in the first two.

42. – But on the other hand, it says in Ac. (7:55): 'I see the heavens opened and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.' The answer is that sitting and standing and all such postures are said of God metaphorically. Consequently, there are various reasons why He is said to be standing and sitting. He is seated because of His immortality, but standing because that posture is best for resisting firmly. Hence, He stood as though prepared to help Stephen in his agony.

43. – But the Apostle continues, that he sits at the right hand. If this is referred to the divine nature, the sense is this: at the right hand, i.e., on a par with the Father; but if it is referred to the human nature, the sense is at the right hand, i.e., in the more excellent goods of the Father: 'He sits on the right hand of God' (Mk 16:19); 'The Lord said to my Lord, sit thou on my right hand' (Ps. 109:1). But among those who have assistants some are simply greater, as the king and emperor; others are not absolutely greater, but only in some sense, as overseers and bailiffs. But Christ is not seated on the right of any of His inferior judges, as though He were a bailiff, but on the right of one absolutely great, because He sits on the right hand majesty' (Pr. 25:27). But Christ, even though He is seated on the right hand of majesty, has a majesty of His own, because He has the same majesty as the Father: 'When the Son of man comes in his majesty' (Mt. 25:31): 'Of him the Son of man shall be ashamed, when he comes in his majesty and that of the Father' (Lk. 9:26).

44. – But he does not say of his majesty alone, but on high, i.e., above every creature: 'I dwell in the highest places' (Sir. 24:7); therefore, He sits on high, because He is raised above all creatures: 'For your magnificence is elevated above the heavens' (Ps. 8:2). According to Chrysostom, the Apostle is speaking here after the manner of one who is teaching a child, who cannot bear to have everything proposed to him, but must be led gradually, now saying difficult things, now proposing easy things. So here, he says divine things, when he says, by a Son, and human things when he says, whom he has appointed heir of all things (v.2).

As he saw you, he also saw Them. I know how it was. You reeled back dizzy and blinded, more hurt by them than he had ever been by bombs. The degradation of it!—that this thing of earth and slime could stand upright and converse with spirits before whom you, a spirit, could only cower. Perhaps you had hoped that the awe and strangeness of it would dash his joy. But that is the cursed thing; the gods are strange to mortal eyes, and yet they are not strange. He had no faintest conception till that very hour of how they would look, and even doubted their existence. But when he saw them he knew that he had always known them and realised what part each one of them had played at many an hour in his life when he had supposed himself alone, so that now he could say to them, one by one, not "Who are you?" but "So it was you all the time". All that they were and said at this meeting woke memories. The dim consciousness of friends about him which had haunted his solitudes from infancy was now at last explained; that central music in every pure experience which had always just evaded memory was now at last recovered. Recognition made him free of their company almost before the limbs of his corpse became quiet. Only you were left outside.

One of the creeds says that Christ is the Son of God 'begotten, not created'; and it adds 'begotten by his Father before all worlds'. Will you please get it quite clear that this has nothing to do with the fact that when Christ was born on earth as a man, that man was the son of a virgin? We are not now thinking about the Virgin Birth. We are thinking about something that happened before Nature was created at all, before time began. 'Before all worlds' Christ is begotten, not created. What does it mean?

We don't use the words begetting or begotten much in modern English, but everyone still knows what they mean. To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a beaver begets little beavers and a bird begets eggs which turn into little birds. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a beaver builds a dam, a man makes a wireless set—or he may make something more like himself than a wireless set: say, a statue. If he is a clever enough carver he may make a statue which is very like a man indeed. But, of course, it is not a real man; it only looks like one. It cannot breathe or think. It is not alive.

All Christians are agreed that there is, in the full and original sense, only one 'Son of God'. If we insist on asking 'But could there have been many?' we find ourselves in very deep water. Have the words 'Could have been' any sense at all when applied to God? You can say that one particular finite thing 'could have been' different from what it is, because it would have been different if something else had been different, and the something else would have been different if some third thing had been different, and so on. (The letters on this page would have been red if the printer had used red ink, and he would have used red ink if he had been instructed to, and so on.) But when you are talking about God—i.e. about the rock bottom, irreducible Fact on which all other facts depend—it is nonsensical to ask if it could have been otherwise. It is what it is, and there is an end of the matter. But quite apart from this, I find a difficulty about the very idea of the Father begetting many sons from all eternity. In order to be many they would have to be somehow different from one another. Two pennies have the same shape. How are they two? By occupying different places and containing different atoms. In other words, to think of them as different, we have had to bring in space and matter; in fact we have had to bring in 'Nature' or the created universe. I can understand the distinction between the Father and the Son without bringing in space or matter, because the one begets and the other is begotten. The Father's relation to the Son is not the same as the Son's relation to the Father. But if there were several sons they would all be related to one another and to the Father in the same way. How would they differ from one another? One does not notice the difficulty at first, of course. One thinks one can form the idea of several 'sons'. But when I think closely, I find that the idea seemed possible only because I was vaguely imagining them as human forms standing about together in some kind of space. In other words, though I pretended to be thinking about something that exists before any universe was made, I was really smuggling in the picture of a universe and putting that something inside it. When I stop doing that and still try to think of the Father begetting many sons 'before all worlds' I find I am not really thinking of anything. The idea fades away into mere words.

In the same way an early peasant Christian might have thought that Christ's sitting at the right hand of the Father really implied two chairs of state, in a certain spatial relation, inside a sky palace. But if the same man afterwards received a philosophical education and discovered that God has no body, parts, or passions, and therefore neither a right hand nor a palace, he would not have felt that the essentials of his belief had been altered. What had mattered to him, even in the days of his simplicity, had not been supposed details about celestial furniture. It had been the assurance that the once-crucified Master was now the supreme Agent or the unimaginable power on whom the whole universe depends. And he would recognize that in this he had never been deceived.

The dazzlingly obvious conclusion now arose in my mind: in the whole history of the universe the Laws of Nature have never produced a single event. They are the pattern to which every event must conform, provided only that it can be induced to happen. But how do you get it to do that? How do you get a move on? The Laws of Nature can give you no help there. All events obey them, just as all operations with money obey the laws of arithmetic. Add six pennies to six and the result will certainly be a shilling. But arithmetic by itself won't put one farthing into your pocket. Up till now I had had a vague idea that the Laws of Nature could make things happen. I now saw that this was exactly like thinking that you could increase your income by doing sums about it. The laws are the pattern to which events conform: the source of events must be sought elsewhere.

It is certainly a possible supposition that behind this mystery some mighty will and life is at work. If so, any contrast between His acts and the Laws of Nature is out of the question. It is His act alone that gives the laws any events to apply to. The laws are an empty frame; It is He who fills that frame—not now and then on specially "providential" occasions, but at every moment.

In the same way we must think of the Son always, so to speak, streaming forth from the Father, like light from a lamp, or heat from a fire, or thoughts from a mind. He is the self-expression of the Father—what the Father has to say. And there never was a time when He was not saying it. But have you noticed what is happening? All these pictures of light or heat are making it sound as if the Father and Son were two things instead of two Persons. So that after all, the New Testament picture of a Father and a Son turns out to be much more accurate than anything we try to substitute for it. That is what always happens when you go away from the words of the Bible. It is quite right to go away from them for a moment in order to make some special point clear. But you must always go back. Naturally God knows how to describe Himself much better than we know how to describe Him. He knows that Father and Son is more like the relation between the First and Second Persons than anything else we can think of. Much the most important thing to know is that it is a relation of love. The Father delights in His Son; the Son looks up to His Father.