[There] is a threefold opinion. First: [that it was] Joshua himself — whom, in the beginning of the vision, [Joshua] had thought to be some [ordinary] man, as his first word to him shows: “Art thou ours, or our adversaries’?” — that is, “Art thou a Jew, or a Canaanite? An Israelite, or an inhabitant of Jericho?” And [it] is also the same opinion of some ruder [scholar], understanding the naked text nakedly and crudely: [that] a man appeared, because this [one] is called “vir [a man],” and to him are given “hands,” and in one of these a “drawn sword.” But whence would a man so suddenly have been present [there]? How would [he] say [himself to be] “the prince of the host of the Lord”? For if this host was on earth, who [was it] other than the Israelite [host]? And of this Israelite host, who [was] then prince other than Joshua? If the host [was] in heaven, how could a man be prince of the celestial forces? Finally, why, a man being beheld, would Joshua have adored [him]? But, as I said, this is [the opinion] of some ruder [scholar]; and [it] is usual in the scriptures [that] celestial spirits are beheld in the form of men, and are then adorned with the members and strengths of men, and affected with [their] names (Gen. 18, 19, 32; Judges 13; Tobit 5; & elsewhere) — as S. Augustine says (ch. 26, bk. 3, against Maximinus). The other opinion is [that it] was an Angel, whose authors will also be cited afterward. The third [is that it was] God — and that either by abstracting from the persons [the divine nature in general] (and thus speaks S. Basil, homily On the entry into the land, fol. 254; [and] Philip the Presbyter, on ch. 20 of Job); or by indicating a certain person of the divinity, namely the second, or CHRIST the Lord. And so Clement of Rome (bk. 5, Apostolic Constitutions, ch. 21); Origen (homily 6); Procopius (on this place); Philastrius (heresy 84, part 3); Irenaeus (bk. 5, ch. 15); Tertullian (bk. 2 against Marcion, ch. 27; against Praxeas, 16; and On the flesh of CHRIST); Chrysostom (homily 8 to the people, & on ch. 7 to the Hebrews); D. Augustine (epistles 99, 111, & 112); Leo (epistle 17); Ambrose (bk. 1 On those who are initiated, ch. 3; & bk. 4 On the faith against the Arians); the Commentary ascribed to this [author], on Coloss. 1; the Author of the imperfect work (homily 4); Eusebius (bk. 1 On the demonstration, ch. 5, & bk. 5 throughout); Nicephorus (bk. 1, ch. 2 & 3); the Council of Sirmium (ch. 13); Justin (with Trypho); Hilary (bk. 4, & 12, On the Trinity); Masius, copiously (p. 95); of the Innovators, Calvin (on this place, & on Gen. last [ch.]); Peter Martyr (on Judges 6, fol. 85, 86); [and] others, of whom [in] quaest. 42. [It] is confirmed. First. [He] who appears calls himself “the prince of the host of God.” But who [is a] truer prince than CHRIST the Lord? “Who,” says Origen in the cited place, “is another prince of the host of the powers of the Lord, unless our Lord JESUS CHRIST? For all the host of heaven — whether Angels, or Archangels, or powers, or dominations, or principalities, or powers — all [things] are made through him himself; under him himself [as] prince [they] serve as soldiers, [he] who is prince of princes, and who bestows on princes the principality. For this is [he] who says in the Gospel: ‘Be thou having power over ten cities.’ And another: ‘Be thou having power over five cities.’ This is [he] who, the kingdom being received, returned.” Secondly. Him Joshua adored. [It was] not therefore a man or an Angel (Apoc. 18, &—
(col. 632 — right column; printed “639”)
—[Apoc.] 20). “No,” says the same Origen, “[would Joshua] have adored [him], unless [he] had known [him to be] God.” Thirdly. The same [one] seems to have then appeared to Joshua who once had appeared to Moses. For Exod. 23 v. 20, the Lord says not only, “Behold, I send an Angel before thy face, that [he] may keep thee on the way,” but adds, “and lead thee to the place which I have prepared.” For since, as to himself, Moses did not arrive into the promised [land] across the Jordan, [he] is nevertheless to be reckoned to have arrived in his successor Joshua; and therefore to this [Joshua] too the same Angel went before. But that [Angel] was CHRIST the Lord. [He] himself indeed is the “face of the Lord,” of which Exod. 33 v. 15: “My face shall go before thee, and I will give thee rest.” Again, [in] Isaias 9, [he] is called “the Angel of great counsel”; and Malachi 3, “the Angel of the testament.” Fourthly. From the Fathers — partly already cited, partly others, which [are] in Moses Barcephas [Bar-Kepha] (bk. On Paradise, part 1, ch. last), and by me [on] Gen. last [ch.], & Exod. 3 — [these] are brought forward. Fifthly. [There] accedes also the opinion of the old Rabbis, whose most beautiful words — from R. Tanchuma and R. Gerundensis [Nachmanides] — Masius reports (p. 95): “That God said to Moses [Exod 23:20], ‘Behold, I send my Angel before thy face.’ But Moses responded, ‘I do not wish an Angel; but thee myself I wish.’ Furthermore, Joshua son of Nun, when first [he] saw the Angel, said: ‘Art thou ours, or of our adversaries?’ Then to him the Angel [said]: ‘I am the prince of the host of the Lord; now I have come’ — as if [he] should say: ‘I am now present the second time, that I may lead the Israelites into the possession of their inheritance. For I had come also when Moses, thy master, was Commander; but he, when [he] saw me, was unwilling to go with me, but repelled me from himself.’ But Joshua, at the same time that [he] heard [this], fell down on [his] face; and adoring [he] said, ‘What does my Lord say to his servant?’” These [things] the ancient Jews [say], [in] the book which I said, and many more like [these]: which to me certainly seem to allude to the Jewish people — the Church which boasted of Moses [as] master — and to that [Church] which now is ruled by Jesus, that is, Jesus Christ. For that [Jewish Church], the Angel Christ being sent to it that [he] might open to them [access] to the celestial inheritance, repudiated [him], and — [he] being cast out even from the city — affixed [him] to the cross. But this [Christian Church], at the same time that [it] understood — both from doctrine and from miracles — [him] to stand on the side of itself, not of the adversary Beelzebub, adored [him], and submissively and obediently embraced his commands. “This,” says Rabbi Moses Gerundensis [Nachmanides], “Angel — if we should say the thing itself — is the redeeming Angel, of whom [it] is written: ‘Because my name is in him’ [Exod 23:21]. That [one] is the angel who said to Jacob: ‘I [am] the God of Bethel.’ That [one] of whom [it] is said: ‘And God called Moses from the bush.’ But [he] is called an ‘angel’ because [he] governs the world. For [it] is written: ‘Jehovah led us out’ (that is, the Lord God) ‘from Egypt.’ And elsewhere: ‘[He] sent his angel, and led us out of Egypt.’ Besides, [it] is written: ‘And the angel of his face saved them’ [Isa 63:9] — doubtless that angel who is the face of God, of whom [it] is said: ‘My face shall go before [thee], and I will make [thee] rest.’ Finally, that [one] is the angel of whom the prophet [says]: ‘And suddenly shall come to his temple the Lord, whom ye seek; and the angel of the covenant whom ye desire’ [Mal 3:1].” And again, in another place, where [Nachmanides] expounds that little verse “my face shall go before [thee], and I will make [thee] rest,” thus [he] left [it] written — that I may confer [it] in a few [words]: “Advert attentively what these [things] wish for themselves. For Moses and the Israelites always wished the first angel; but who that [one] was, [they] could not truly understand. For neither did [they] perceive [it] from others, nor by prophetic knowledge—”
(col. 633 — left column; printed “640”)
—[nor by prophetic] notion did [they] sufficiently attain [it]. But indeed the ‘face of God’ signifies God himself — which among all Interpreters is agreed [in confesso]. But [one] could not even by a dream understand these [things], unless [he] be instructed in the mysteries of the law.” And after a few [words]: “‘My face shall go before [thee]’ — that is, the Angel of the covenant, whom ye desire; in whom shall be seen my face; of whom [it] is said: ‘In the time accepted I will hear thee.’ For ‘my name is in him.’ ‘And I will make [thee] rest’ — or, ‘I will effect that [he] himself be to thee gentle and benign. Nor shall [he] lead thee by rigid law, but placidly and clemently.’” [It] can also be seen [in] Rabbath [Midrash Rabbah] (fol. 150 b, col. 3). Sixthly. [He] who now appears is called “Jehovah” (ch. 6 v. 2).
Nevertheless, I altogether acquiesce in the middle opinion — namely, [that it] was an Angel. Yet I lay down, for the sake of greater clarity, this distinction. When [it] is asked who — since [he] was not a man, yet appeared to this or that [person] in the figure of a man; [one may ask] either about him who was represented, or signified, to appear, to speak, and to do other [things] of that kind; or about him who represented, was speaking, and did the rest of that kind. For between these [there] is a distinction. For, for example, in some Comedy or Tragedy, [he] who is represented and signified to speak and to act is Amphitryo, [or] Orestes, [or] Hercules; but [he] who represents, speaks, and acts is Roscius [the actor]. In an embassy, [he] who is reported and signified to say this and that, and to make peace, is the Prince who sent the Legate; [he] who reports this [prince], and says these [things], and makes peace, is the legate. I say, therefore, universally, [that] as often as, in the figure and form of a man, not-a-man appears but a certain good spirit, then — as to the representation and signification — sometimes [it is] God, sometimes an Angel or man [that is represented]; but as to the person representing and signifying, [it is] never God, but always an Angel. And that prior part [is] easily conceded by all. For, first, those forms of men which appeared (Gen. 18) signified the Holy Trinity, as I showed there. [He] who wrestled with Jacob (Gen. 32) represented God; and likewise [he] who gave the decalogue [said]: “I am the Lord thy God” (Exod. 20). Secondly. [He] who appeared to David (2 [Sam] 24) signified only an Angel — as also [he] who [in] Matt. 28, & Acts 1. Thirdly. [He] who appeared to Tobit (ch. 5, & following) referred only a man and traveler. But the latter part, which alone comes into controversy, is proved. First. If God himself, in the figure of a man, had ever truly appeared, [he] would have either joined a human body to himself through incarnation, or through assumption. Not the first — because [then] not once only, but more often, and not only in the times of Augustus, but already much before, would God have been incarnate; D. Jerome (on Ephes. ch. 4): “That which the Apostle says, ‘one body, and one spirit,’ is understood [as] either simply the one body of CHRIST, which is the Church; or certainly [as that which he] deigned to assume from the Virgin — lest [they] think even that [body] to have been corporate [assumed] as many times as [he] appeared in the old testament.” Not the second — because [he] would have coupled such a body to himself either according to the nature of his divinity, or according to the persons. If the former: either the mere nature of the divinity would be understood, and then God would do nothing in such a body (because action is [proper] to subsistents [supposita]); or the nature of the divinity with the common [subsistence], which the good [theologians] recognize—
(col. 634 — right column; printed “641”)
—[which the good] Theologians recognize [as] a subsistence understood; and then, just as [it] would be a common subsistence to all the persons, so also that assumption [would be common]. If the latter [according to persons]: therefore either all the persons would assume one and the same body, or one of them one [body]. If all, then in the same body would be at once, and would appear, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If one, one of the persons could do something in creatures — or, as the Theologians speak, something “to the outside [ad extra]” — which the others [could] not. For one divine person alone would assume the body, which the others would not assume. Secondly. The rule of Dionysius the Areopagite [is], which S. Augustine also embraces (bk. 3, On the Trinity, ch. 4 & 5), [and] D. Thomas (1, q. 63, a. 7, & elsewhere often): [that] God is wont to administer the lowest [things] through middle [ones]. And this we see in the whole course of things. For God himself, since [he] is the first cause, acts through second [causes]; and among these, [the ones] which [are] more universal and more excellent [act] through others less widely open [in scope], and less excellent. How, therefore, [would we] not judge the same, when some corporate species [is] to be presented, and through it something [is] to be signified to those [men]? For [there is] no cause why the usual order of acting should be changed. Thirdly. God, in this whole universe — and [in] the individual parts and particles of it — is intimately whole [totus] according to his essence, efficiency, and knowledge, which, [as] commonly [said] in the schools, is: “God is here [by essence], causally, and everywhere knowingly.” If, therefore, [he] would assume a body, [he] would have, by a certain new efficiency, immediately through himself, to conform and figure that very body, to sustain [it], to move [it] with motion, and to fashion the voices in it and all the gestures. But by equal reasoning [it] could be said [that] he thus does all [things] in all things; and [that] there was never any true apparition of some Angel, nor [that there] are any second causes, or [that they] act — but [that] the Lord does all [things] immediately through himself. For, just as [he] makes and moves the bodies in which [he] is said to appear, so also all other [things] — since [it] would be in vain [that] the opinion [of secondary agency] seem to be effected through more [causes] by [these] authors, [things] which through fewer can likewise be done. Fourthly. [It] does not seem to become the divine majesty, that [he] immediately through himself do those actions, the power and authority of doing which [he] has implanted in creatures. For to what [end] did [he] implant [it], if [he] wished [it] idle, and [wished] himself [to be] the one — not the first only, but the sole — effector and mover of all [things]? But the power and authority of effecting and moving that kind of bodies, [he] implanted in the Angels. Therefore [so]. Then: bodies of this kind are made only for signifying and announcing something. [Does] God either not wish, or is [he] not able, to employ other announcers and Interpreters than himself? [There] are, besides, bodies of that kind [which are] evanescent, which — when this very [thing] for whose cause [they] were undertaken is accomplished — straightway dissipate, and are resolved into air, so that sometimes [they] scarcely exist for half an hour. [Would it] become God to clothe himself in those bodies, when this his Angels can [do]? Fifthly. “[There] are all Angels ministering spirits” (Hebr. 1). But if, through himself, God assumes bodies in the apparitions, how are those [Angels] ministering to him? [Is it that they] minister only in greater and more excellent duties, but in [the matter] of mortal, and suddenly-dissipable and evanescent bodies—
(col. 635 — left column; printed “642”)
—[in the] joining-together, motion, and advance [of mortal, evanescent bodies], will [they] be idle loiterers and spectators? Excellently S. Jerome (on Ephes. ch. 1): “We little men [homunculi], to be dissolved quickly into ash and dust — if by the consent of men we be raised into Kings, [we] have such great varieties, and multitudes, of ministers, as [we] can more easily feel than tell. For example, [that] a prefect over the civil part have Judges, provinces, and his [own] order; again, [that] the soldiery [be] scattered into so many Companions, Dukes, Tribunes, and [that] the manifold army [be] divided. And do we think God — the Lord of lords, and King of reigning [ones] — [to be] content with a mere single ministry?” Sixthly. The apparitions which, of all, [seem] most made immediately by God, are nevertheless, by scripture itself, handed down [to have been] made through Angels. Therefore much more [are] all the others made through the same [Angels]. The antecedent is proved: first, [from] Gen. 18 v. 1: “The Lord appeared to Abraham”; and the manner of the apparition is subjoined (v. 2): “there appeared to him three men.” These three men, therefore — since in reality [they] were not men — as to Signification, were (as I said above) three persons of the most Holy Trinity; but as to the thing, and the true assumption of bodies, what were [they]? Angels, or God — or three divine persons? The text of that chapter often narrates [it to have] been God (vv. 1, 13, 15, 17, 19, 23, 26, & thereafter up to the end of the chapter). Indeed truly, as to signification, [it] was “the Lord,” and three divine hypostases; but as to the thing, [they] were “Angels,” as the beginning of ch. 9 explains: “And there came two angels to Sodom”; and thereupon, in these two, “the Lord descended and saw Sodom,” as [he] had said (ch. 18); and as D. Augustine expounds (bk. 3 against Maximinus, ch. 26). And likewise S. Paul (Hebr. 13 v. 2): “Do not forget hospitality. For through this some, unwitting, received Angels into [their] lodging.” Secondly. Exod. ch. 3: the Lord appears to Moses in the Bush, and says: “I am who I am [Ego sum, qui sum].” [It] seems here [it] cannot be denied [that] the “Lord” who was speaking was [so] — namely, mediately, or through representation. But as to the thing, [it] was an Angel of God sustaining the person [of God], as S. Stephen expounded (Acts 7 v. 30): “There appeared,” [he] says, “to Moses, in the desert of Mount Sinai, an Angel in the fire of a flame of a bush”; and yet [there] is subjoined to that [Angel] the voice of the Lord: “I am the God of thy fathers.” Thirdly. Exod. 20 — [he] who gives the law [is] always said [to be] “the Lord,” and says (v. 2): “I am the Lord thy God.” Doubtless [it] was “the Lord” by representation, but in reality a true “Angel,” by the interpretation of the same holy Stephen (ibid., v. 38): “This is [he] who was in the Church in the solitude with the Angel, who spoke to him on Mount Sinai”; and afterward (v. 53): “Ye received the law in the disposition of Angels” — or, as [it] is in Greek, “in the dispositions of Angels,” εἰς διαταγὰς τῶν ἀγγέλων [eis diatagas tōn angelōn]. And in the same manner S. Paul (Gal. 3 v. 19): “the law ordained,” or “disposed through Angels,” ὁ νόμος διαταγεὶς δι’ ἀγγέλων [ho nomos diatageis di’ angelōn]. Where you see “Angel” (Acts 7 v. 38) [is] not CHRIST, since afterward “Angels” [are] plurally said, nor yet are [there] several Christ Jesuses, but one. And likewise the Apostle (epistle to the Heb., ch. 2): “If the word spoken through Angels was made firm,” etc. — as D. Augustine too explains (tract. On the words “I am who I am,” tome 6, p. 366), and S. Cyril of Alexandria, to be cited below. Nay, so [firmly] was [it] worn-in and certain, in the schools of the Jews, and in the minds and speeches of all, [that] Angels [were those] who bore the law and referred God [as] legislator — as one [even], in Josephus (bk. 15, ch. 8, in the Greek), Hero—
(col. 636 — right column; printed “643”)
—[Herod], in a certain public assembly of the people, openly affirmed this. “We,” says [Josephus], “have learned the most beautiful and most holy dogmas which are in the law, through Angels.” Fourthly. Gen. ch. 32: he who wrestled with Jacob is called “vir [a man]” (v. 24): “Behold, a man wrestled with him”; but afterward “the Lord” (v. 27): “thou hast been strong against God”; and (v. 30): “I have seen the Lord face to face.” Therefore [was it] a true “Lord” in that [one] who appeared, [in] a human body — [and] not another for him? Nay, [it] was an Angel, as the Chaldaic Paraphrase [Targum] says there; and much more firmly Osee [Hosea] the Prophet (ch. 12 v. 3): “In the womb [he] supplanted his brother; and in his strength [he] was directed with an Angel”; and “prevailed against an Angel, and was strengthened” — or, as S. Augustine reads in the cited place, “and was strengthened with an Angel, and prevailed.” Fifthly. In the same chapter too, without any interpretation of anyone, [he] who appears is called both “Angel of the Lord” and “Lord.” But in the same manner both cannot be at once. And therefore in reality [it] was an “Angel,” but by signification “the Lord.” For thus [it] is written (Gen. 31 v. 11): “And the Angel of God said to me in dreams”; and (vv. 12, 13): “I have seen all [things] which Laban [did] to thee. I am the God of Bethel.” Nor do I see [that] anything can be said against so evident scriptures, unless perhaps by retorting thus: “These apparitions which are said to be made somewhere by Angels and through Angels are elsewhere handed down [to be] made by God and through God. Therefore in those places God will [be] to be taken by the name of Angels.” But, first, [there] would be several Gods, because sometimes several (as I said) Angels are named. If thou sayest “not several gods, but several divine persons plurally are called Angels,” then [it] will have to be confessed [that] the Father too is sent by someone — because [he] also would be called “Angel,” that is, “sent, a messenger.” Secondly, why would S. Stephen, Paul, [and] Moses rather have put the name of “Angels” than “of God”? Why, without any cause, would [they] have poured such [great] darkness over the scriptures elsewhere so clear — so that what was so manifestly, and so magnificently, predicated of God, [they] would have wished to narrate by the ambiguous and more ignoble name of Angels? Seventhly. Nor indeed are the Fathers lacking to this opinion. For S. Areopagite Dionysius (ch. 4 of the Celestial Hierarchy): “Therefore,” [he] says, “the celestial [beings] are always and everywhere called chiefly by the name of Angels, because in them first is [set] the divine illustration, and through them come to us those ‘openings-out [patefactiones]’ which surpass our nature. For thus the law, as the divine scriptures testify, was given to us through Angels. And even those illustrious [men] who preceded the law, and who followed it — our Fathers — the Angels led to the knowledge of the divinity: whether [it be] to induce them [to] that which was to be done, or to lead them from error (and from a wicked and criminal life) to the right life of truth; or, [whether] by interpreting the sacred orders, or the hidden visions of the divine mysteries, or certain divine predictions, [they] would announce and open [them]. But if anyone should contend [that] to some holy [ones] God was seen even thence [from himself], by himself, without any medium: let him learn this too, openly from the sacred letters — [namely] that which in God is hidden, no one has seen or will see; but [that] God was seen and shown to the holy [ones] indeed, but by certain sacred visions, worthy of God, accommodated to the capacity of those to whom [they] are shown. But the most-wise Theology has handed down [that] that vision — by which the divinity described in itself [is seen], as [it were] by a species and habit of those [things] which can be depicted by no form — rightly, from this, that [it] leads them, to whom [it] is shown, to the divinity—”
(col. 637 — left column; printed “644”)
—[leads them] to the divinity, [and] erects [them], is named ‘the vision of God’ — because it, in the minds of those who see, infuses a certain ray of the divine light, and instructs them [with] some of the doctrines of divine things.” But these divine visions those most illustrious our fathers learned [as] the works of the celestial powers. D. Jerome (on ch. 3 of Galat.): “That which Paul says, ‘The Law ordained through Angels’ — this [he] wishes to be understood, [namely] that in every old testament, where an Angel is first seen [as] reported, and afterward [it] is introduced as [it were] God speaking: the angel indeed [is] truly seen, from among the several ministers, whoever [it] be; but in that [Angel] a mediator speaks, who says: ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ Nor [is it] a wonder if God speaks in Angels, when even through angels who are in men [prophets] God speaks in the Prophets — as [with] Aggeus [Haggai] saying: ‘And the Angel who spoke in me said,’ and thereupon inferring: ‘These [things] says the Lord omnipotent.’ For the angel who was said to be in the Prophet did not, from his own person, dare to speak: ‘These [things] says the Lord omnipotent.’” D. Augustine (in the place cited against Maximinus): “By this action (Gen. 32) [you] try to show [that] the only Son of God, before [he] had come, visibly appeared in visible flesh — where also, not absurdly, Christ is understood [as] figured, on account of the prophecy announcing future [things]; because [it] was future [that], as Jacob prevailed against him [in] his sons who crucified Christ, so Christ would be seen [to have prevailed]; and in his sons [Jacob] would see Christ face to face, and the soul of the Israelites — who faithfully saw this — would be saved. Yet this man, who wrestled with Jacob, Osee [Hosea] the Prophet evidently calls an angel. For thus [it] is written in him about Jacob: ‘In the womb [he] supplanted his brother, and in [his] labor [he] prevailed against God, and was strengthened with an angel, and prevailed.’ As, therefore, in Genesis, that [one] who wrestled with Jacob is both called a man and [called] God — so that, by this Prophet, [he is called] God and an angel; and, through this, thus [he] who was an angel is called a man, in the way in which those are called men who appeared to Abraham, when — unwitting — [Abraham], and Lot too, received angels into hospitality. God, therefore, was in the angel, as God is in a man, especially when [he] speaks through a man. So indeed, through this angel, Christ [was] figured, as through this man. For also Isaac, the son of Abraham — what was [he], in figure, unless Christ, when, as a sheep, [he] was led to be immolated, and when — as the Lord [carries] his own cross — so [Isaac] himself carried the woods on which [he] was to be laid? Finally, why do we wonder [that] JESUS was figured through an angel, if [he] was figured not only through a man, but even through a beast? For who else was that ram which was held by [its] horns in the bramble, unless Christ, crucified — or crowned with thorns? This ram [it] was — for [instead of] the son, whom [Abraham] was ordered to spare — [that] Abraham immolated. For thus God ordered the man to be spared, that nevertheless, from the beast, on account of the passion of Christ (which [was] in that manner foreannounced), the mystery of the sacred blood might be fulfilled. But if you think, by propriety, not [by] figure, [that] Christ was the angel who wrestled with Jacob: you can say, by propriety, not [by] figure, [that] Christ was the ram which the Patriarch Abraham immolated. You can, finally, say, by propriety, not [by] figure, [that] Christ was the rock which — struck by wood — poured most abundant drink to the thirsting people. For thus says the Apostle: ‘For they drank of the spiritual [rock] following them; but the rock was Christ.’ Those [were] figures, not the things themselves; [things] by which, figures preceding, the things were signified to be about to come — which figures, through a creature subjected to God, and most greatly through the ministry of Angels, were exhibited to the sight of mortals: God indeed acting [with his] power, but [his] nature nevertheless [being] hidden, whether of the Father, or of the Son, or of the [Holy] Spirit—
(col. 638 — right column; printed “645”)
—[or of the Holy] Spirit.” And similar [things, in] bk. 11 of the City [of God], ch. 13 & 15; ch. 7; bk. 2 On the Trinity, ch. 13. S. Fulgentius (bk. 2 to Monimus, ch. 3) says [that] heretics wish [that] Christ, in corporeal forms, always appeared; and that is repudiated by [Fulgentius] himself. S. Epiphanius (heresy 30) says the Ebionites said [that] Christ once put on a body, and thus appeared to the Patriarchs. Cyril (bk. 8, Thesaurus, ch. 2) shows by many [arguments] [that] the law [was given] through Angels — who are, by nature, much inferior to Christ the Lord; and cites that [word] to the Hebrews 2 v. 2: “For if the word spoken through Angels was made firm,” etc. In Justin, quaest. 142, similar [things]. D. Thomas (1 part, q. 51, a. 2). Theodoret (quaest. 4), who [in the] following quaest. will be heard [again]. Lyranus [Lyra] here, & Abulensis (likewise ch. 6, quaest. 2). And to these Fathers let [there] be added the Chaldee Targum, while [it] here renders verse 14 thus: “I am the Angel sent, from the sight of God.” Let [there] be added too, of the Innovators, John Drusius (bk. 2, On the three sects), while against Saadia Gaon — who thought the human nature more worthy than the angelic — [he] speaks in this manner (p. 71): “Among men the most honored and most excellent are the Prophets themselves, who nevertheless adore Angels — as Joshua, Zacharias, Daniel, and others.” Eighthly. [It] is confirmed, finally, [with] the same opinion, by responding to those [things] which are objected.
To the first, [it] will be said afterward. Now I only say [that], if that [one] who appears would say [himself] to be “the prince of princes, who would be subject to no one,” then rightly would we take [him for] God. But indeed [there] are many princes of the hosts of the Lord on earth, and in the heavens (Ephes. 2 & 3). But Origen speaks, as [he] is wont, allegorically — namely, of him [Christ] who is signified through that prince.
To the second [it] will be said, also, about this adoration, afterward (quaest. 49). But now I say, with S. Augustine (bk. 3 against Maximinus, ch. last): “Lot adored either an Angel or a man. If an Angel, thou seest Angels adored by a just man. If a man, thou seest men inferior to Angels adored by just men.”
To the third. I concede [that] the same [one] was, who appeared to Moses and to Joshua. But that [one] was, personally, a true Angel; representatively, God, or Christ.
The same is responded to the fourth — [that] most of the Fathers scarcely wish anything other than [that] Christ appeared, [yet] not in [his] proper person, but in an Angel; or certainly [they] followed the other opinion, because thence the mystery of the incarnation would seem to be confirmed, if the Son of God had already sometime appeared in some body. But for proving this, [it] is either enough [that] Angels could assume bodies (therefore also [that] God could unite humanity to himself), or [it] is not altogether enough: [that] the Son of God could assume some body — that is, couple [it] to himself in any manner whatever, by a certain union of efficiency — therefore [he] could also [do so] by a hypostatic union. For [it does] not [follow that], if [he] could [do] the lesser, [he] straightway can [do] the greater; since, on the contrary, if Angels lesser than he can [do] the lesser, [it is] scarcely credible [that] he himself — who is infinitely greater than they — can [do] the greater, namely the hypostatic union of a human body. “A figure,” says S. Augustine (against Maximinus, in the place indicated), “through a creature subjected to God — and most greatly through the ministry of Angels — was exhibited to the sight of mortals.” I add [that] simply CHRIST is never called “Angel,” but with some adjunction — as “of counsel [consilii],”—
(col. 639 — left column; printed “646”)
—[as “the Angel] of the testament [covenant]”: then, that not even this adjunction befits CHRIST, except by reason of the incarnation, through which [he] was sent to us, for which [he] was the interpreter of divine things, and an Angel. Origen ([in] homily 6 in diversos) teaches [that] in scripture the Apostles [are] never called simply homines [men], because this name is less honorific than that [other]. “Nowhere,” [he] says, “do we find the disciples spoken of except with honor; but always [they] are named either APOSTLES or DISCIPLES*.”* How much less ought CHRIST the Lord to be called simply and precisely Angelus?
To the fifth. In the same sense are easily taken those Rabbis — [namely] that the Redeemer CHRIST JESUS was theirs in figure, not in propriety.
To the sixth. In ch. 6, vers. 2, Iehouah can properly be taken for God himself. For [there is] nothing absurd, if the things which are said there be reckoned [as] the Lord[‘s], having spoken to Joshua himself. If nevertheless the Angel were called Iehouah, it would be because [he] spoke in his name (as I have already often said), and sustained his person — as Exod. 3 & 20. In Moreh Nebuchim [the Guide of the Perplexed], bk. 1, ch. 2, the name is called Meschutaph [meshuttaf, “shared, held in common”], which is either equivocal, or is communicated to several. And in chapter 6 of the same book, by the witness of the Syro-Chaldaic [text], fol. 192, R. Symeon son of Lakis says אלהים משתח שמו על כל מלאכיו [Elohim meshatteaḥ (meshattef) shemo ʿal kol malʾakhav, “God imparts his name upon all his angels”] — that is, God communicates his name to all his Angels; & the same [source], fol. 396, column 1, cites the Commentary Ilmedenu, or Tăchuma [the midrash Yelammedenu/Tanchuma], on ch. 23 of Exod., in this manner: שמו של חק״בח משותפ עם כל מלאכ [for שמו של הקב״ה משותף עם כל מלאך, shemo shel ha-qadosh barukh hu meshuttaf ʿim kol malʾakh, “the name of the Holy One, blessed be he, is shared with every angel”] — that is, The name of the holy blessed God is communicated to every Angel.