[The things] which Joshua did & said after the Angel appeared are recorded in this seventh head [of the exposition].
I. [He] lifted [his] eyes, & saw a man — or, per the Hebrew, behold, a man stood before him. Whence Origen, hom. 6, gathers [that] Joshua seemed not to have looked [up] before. What then? Was [he] with eyes closed, or lowered — & rather fixed on the ground? This seems [so], because if [he] had closed [his] eyes, [he] would rather be said to have opened them than to have lifted [them]. But this lowering, or fixing, of the eyes [is that] of an attentive man, & one seriously pondering other things with himself in [his] mind — or certainly of one displaying great modesty in [his] posture & gait. Thus also
(col. 684 — right column; printed “691”)
CHRIST the Lord, Luke 6, v. 20; John 6, v. 5; ch. 11, v. 41; ch. 17, v. 1; Abraham, Gen. 18, v. 2; ch. 22, v. 4; Isaac, Gen. 24, v. 63; Jacob, ch. 31:12; ch. 33:1; [and] elsewhere & elsewhere.
II. [He] went forward to him, whom [he] was seeing. This was [a mark] of a great & present [composed] spirit. Another, terrified by so unexpected a sight, in such a place, at such a time, would have hesitated, halted, perhaps drawn back [his] foot, [and] would have betaken himself into his own camp — hurried, fearful, & panting. But Joshua, the hero of great & undaunted spirit, straightway approached him from whom [came] the terror.
III. He asked the same [one], Art thou ours, or of the adversaries? Origen, in the cited place, thinks [that] Joshua, as soon as [he] saw that man, knew [him] not to be a man, but a certain virtue [power] greater & more sublime than man; yet [that he] knew not whether [it] were celestial or infernal [tartarea], good or evil — & [that he] asked about this. But whence would [he] have recognized [him] not to be a man? The Angel was of manly form, age, bearing, & arms: [he] stood on the ground, & was a little way off from Joshua. Whence could [he] gather [him] to be an Angel rather than some man exceedingly excellent & conspicuous in speech, countenance, & strength? And how would [he] have so boldly approached a creature greater than man, whether good or evil? [Or] have asked him with so simple a question? Nay — as will be said afterwards — the very response of the Angel signifies [that he] was asked by [Joshua] whether, [as] a man, [he] were friend or foe. The Chaldee, however, seems to have felt the same, when [it] renders: Hast thou come that thou mightest bring us aid? or [that thou mightest bring aid] to our enemies? Yet our [Latin], & the Greek Interpreters, rightly rendered the Hebrew question: Art thou ours, or of the adversaries? — which otherwise, word for word, would be Art thou for us, or for our adversaries? or, Art thou ours, or of the adversaries? But excellently indeed does Origen, hom. 6, advise [that] a lesson is here given to us, that we not straightway believe every spirit, but prudently & carefully inquire, & examine, whether [it] be of God, 1 John 4, v. 1. For we know, the Apostle being witness, [that] Satan has transformed himself into an Angel of light, 2 Cor. 11. Does some Luther or Calvin come to thee? Ask whether he be of the Catholic Church, or of the adversaries. Does a thought, & some I-know-not-what impulse, come toward doing something? Put the same question also to it. Does some book come into thy hands? Shake it out in like manner, & see whether it be ours, or the adversaries’. For, as at the beginning of [his] book against the adversary of the Law & the Prophets, S. Augustine says: The books of heretics are read with dangerous curiosity & delight. [Let us] not, [Augustine] says, in this place [receive] — [rather, as] Procopius [says] — let us [not] admit any disputation whatever, before we have learned whence it has proceeded. See D. Aerodius, book 1, ch. 17; Blessed Peter Damian, book 2, epist. 7, when [he] says: thou art wont, oftener even in visions, [for] temptation to intervene, since sometimes the spirit of iniquity transfigures itself into an Angel of light. And therefore [it] is to be dealt with subtly, so that the kinds of visions be discerned. Just as also Joshua son of Nun, when [he] beheld the Angel, & doubted in no wise [that] temptations of this sort are present in such visions, straightway inquired of him who was appearing, saying: Art thou ours, or of the adversaries? For also, through the Apostle, the discernment of spirits is numbered among the gifts of the Holy Spirit, 1 Cor. 12.
But what the Angel would answer to that question is not explained in the same way [by all]. For our Interpreter [the Vulgate], v. 14, says [that he] answered: By no means, but I am the prince of the Lord’s host, & now I come. The Greek only [has]: I am the Archangel of the host [of the Lord…]
(col. 685 — left column; printed “692”)
—[I am the Archangel] of the host of the Lord; now I have come.* And that former explanation [the Vulgate] agrees more simply with the Hebrew & Chaldee text, in which [it] is: Non [No] — [or] because [quia] — or, but I am the prince of the Lord’s host. Yet the latter [Greek reading] could agree [too], if we were to take the Hebrew לא [lo, “not”] for לו [lo, “to him”] — which, [as] done in the Scriptures fifteen times, the Masoretes have noted. For in the Greek [it] is not simply rendered [he] answered or [he] said, but [there] is added αὐτῷ [autō, “to him”]. Yet thus [the sense] is still concealed, & the particle כִּי [ki] is passed over — [taken], namely, as an affirmative truly or certainly, [and] not [as] necessary — which, just as [it does] also the negation, the commentary of Tanchuma likewise conceals, fol. 39.b, on Exod. 23, v. 10. Retaining, therefore, that former version of ours, [it] is asked:
First. What does that No, & By no means, mean? For the Angel seems, when [he] was asked several things about himself, not to answer skillfully & clearly enough which of the two [he] is — just as, if I were to ask someone, Art thou a Frenchman, or a German? & he were to say, No. But as Aristotle teaches, Sophistical Refutations ch. 4, [one] must attend to the fallacy of several questions [asked as one]; so indeed a single response can be suspect [inadequate] to several questions. [He] says, therefore, first — Arias Montanus — [that] that No is to be referred not to the question made in words, but to Joshua’s own meditation. As if [the Angel] said: Thou art meditating [that] this war is to be waged by thee thus & thus — thou art mistaken. [It] is not to be waged thus, but by that plan which I will just now show thee. But someone might rightly call this ridiculous. For a response is usually applied to the things asked; & he who asks, meditates the very thing he asks. Others, as John Ferus, want that No to pertain only to the latter part of the question — as if [he] says, I am not of the adversaries. And this [is] very probable. For the latter part of the response would at once be referred to the former part of the question, thus: I am not of the adversaries, but ours, because I am the prince of the Lord’s host. Thirdly, yet [it] is rightly said [that] this negation answers to both parts of the question — as if to say: I am not yours, nor am I an adversary; I am not a Jew [Israelite], I am not a Canaanite; or, I am Neither. For thus all the absurdities which I brought forward are avoided. & to the question set before, Art thou a Frenchman, or a German?, [one] would rightly answer Neither, who was an Italian. And truly the Angel was neither — because man was asking man, Art thou a man — a Jew, or a Canaanite? And thus also is rejected the Chaldee
(col. 686 — right column; printed “693”)
paraphrase’s opinion about that question, which we saw above. [There] is in Ben Sira a proverb: Hast thou seen a black ass? Neither black nor white; & by that proverb the Rabbis say [it] is taught that, if anyone be asked whether [he] has seen something affected thus or thus, [he] should not answer accurately [that he] saw [it] affected in this way indeed but not in that other, but [should] precisely deny [that he] saw anything at all. But a lie can then intervene, as [is] plain in the example which the Scholiast of Ben Sira himself brings [forward]. For he who had seen an ass wholly white, except the ears — was [he] far from a lie, who, being asked, answered [that he] had seen [it] neither black nor white? And therefore neither does that please [me] which Uriel, son of the same Ben Sira, enjoined: If thou knowest [how] to invert [turn] words, [it] is well: speak; if thou knowest not, be silent. But our Angel here neither inverts words, nor said anything false: but when [he] had denied that which was asked — whether [he] were a man, an Israelite or a Canaanite — [he] added what [he] was: [namely] that he was an Angel, & indeed the prince of the Lord’s host. Great harm to human society — whose bond [coagulum] is speech — does the inversion of words bring, & [so does] a mode of answering to [things] other than what are simply & clearly asked — a mode ambiguous, deceptive, more worthy of Apollo Loxias [the god of oblique oracles] than of a truthful & candid man.
But secondly [it] is asked: what [means] that, now I come? Certain of the Jews, in Abulensis, q. 74, say [that] the Angel now came to the Israelites to rebuke [them] — either for the Law generally not observed, or specifically for the law of the morning & evening sacrifice, which they were not going to keep even on the very day of the Passover. But there is nowhere any conjecture of this rebuke after the crossing of the Jordan & the most-recently undertaken circumcision. Of the Rabbis, others — as Rashi & Tanchuma — say [that] the Angel now came to Joshua, [the Angel] who long ago had already come [as] a certain [one] to his Master Moses himself, Exod. 23, v. 20, but had been rejected & repudiated by him, Exod. 33, v. 15. But I have said in that place [that he] was by no means rejected & repudiated. And truly, him whom [Moses], in that chapter, in that verse 15, sought — & obtained, v. 17 — we take either [to be] God, or CHRIST, or an Angel properly so called. If God, or CHRIST — was that [one] ever absent from Moses? Had [he] deserted the Israelites themselves? Had they not, with him present, already crossed the Jordan with a great miracle? If [it be] an Angel properly so called, the difficulty still remains: how [is it that this Angel], as [if it were] something great, says [he] is now coming? For [it] rather seems [that] the very Lord of the Angels was present; & therefore [the Rabbis] hold [that] the Angel was rejected by Moses, but the Lord himself sought. For this [Angel] would indeed say: Moses did not want me [as] an Angel, but God [himself]; for a servant [he] chose the Lord; but on the contrary thou shalt have me [as] an Angel & servant. What [is there] noteworthy in that speech? What [that it] would rather depress Joshua’s spirit than raise [it]? [There] is Radak’s third response: Now I come — that is, suddenly, & all at once, as spirits are wont to come, so as even to seem to have a body; yet from my so sudden & so unexpected an arrival thou mayest easily gather [that] I am not a man. But firstly, Joshua saw the Angel not flying, or suddenly arriving, but standing. How then could [he] know in what manner & motion [it] had come, or how long [it] had stood? Secondly, to Daniel himself — to whom it was established [that] the Angel who kept coming to him was not a man — the same Angel says, in the same way, that [he] comes to him, Dan. 9, v. 22; ch. 10, v. 1 & 14. [It] must therefore be said [that] the Angel says [he] now comes & is present — namely, that [he] may help the Israelites in a new & singular way, [he] who had hitherto helped them variously through the wilderness, & in the crossing of the Jordan. For this mode of speaking imports [implies] a singular & extraordinary aid & matter, as Masius rightly says, & Abulensis in the cited place. O would that they might always thus answer [that they] come to us — [namely] the spirits which knock at our mind; the teachers who come to us; the thoughts which arise in us; the books which come into our hands — so that we may never have any society & communication with Belial, 2 Cor. 6, v. 14, 15.
IV. Joshua fell to the ground [Josh 5:14]. The cause of a fall of this sort is either terror or reverence, as is also noted in the Jews’ 7th foundation. Terror some[times…]
(col. 687 — left column; printed “694”)
—[terror] was in Daniel, ch. 8, v. 27; ch. 10, v. 8 & 9 — because [he] said [that] his color had changed, [that] he had withered, & had no strength; & subjoined: And [he] heard the voice of his words; & hearing, I lay dismayed upon my face; & my countenance clung to the earth. But in our Joshua [it] was reverence, as is clear from this, that straightway is added, & [he] worshipped — as Abulensis saw more keenly & consistently, q. 75, than Masius, fol. 90. For these two actions [are] so connected [that they] give mutual light to each other: [namely] that the adoration is the end of the prostration to the ground, & the prostration to the ground is the exterior mode of the adoration [itself] — which [prostration] is most ancient, even among the Gentiles themselves, as the word τὸ προσκυνεῖν [to proskynein, “to prostrate/worship”] indicates, in Xenophon bk. 5, & others; [and it is] used even today by the Orientals, as the same Masius reports [that he] often saw. They let themselves down, [he] says, to the ground, & when [they] have touched it with the mouth, [they] rise again, & once & again, reverently & in salutation, bow their bodies. Similar [things the] Most Illustrious Duke of Olyka [Radziwiłł], in his recent Jerusalem pilgrimage, epist. 2.
V. And [he] worshipped. S. Augustine, q. 7, says [it] can be asked: Did Joshua worship the Angel, or the Lord by whom that [one] had been sent? And [he] applies no answer to that question; yet, by proposing it, [he] hints at two [things]: namely, [that] he who appeared was an Angel, whose Lord was God; & [that] this [Angel] could be worshipped by Joshua. But Origen, hom. 6, & Procopius, say [Joshua] worshipped God — & indeed so [much so] that, unless [he] had recognized [him] to be God, [he] would not have been about to worship. On the contrary, Abulensis q. 76, our George Scheretus (in the sermon on S. Michael), & from the Novators John Drusius (bk. 2 On Sects, p. 7), when [he] says: Among men the most honored & most excellent are the Prophets, who yet worship Angels, as Joshua, Zachariah, Daniel & others. Of these, Joshua not only fell down before the Angel, but even calls himself his servant. Thus he — & indeed against his own companions, of whom below, very opportunely & clearly — [says Joshua] worshipped the Angel. This question can be dispatched by a distinction. Adoration is twofold: political & religious. And this [religious adoration] is either supreme & divine, which is called Latria [λατρεία], or inferior, which [is called] Dulia [δουλεία]. I say first, then, [that] no Angel could be worshipped by Joshua, or by anyone else, with latric worship. For [it] would be against the first precept of the Decalogue; & thus Origen & Procopius, cited, [are] right. Secondly. [The Angel] could [be worshipped] with dulic [worship]. For [he] could be venerated as a servant of God; & thus Abulensis, & in the cited place D. Augustine, whose words on Ps. 34 & 96 excellently exclude the former [latric] worship against certain of the Gentile sages, & in the same Ps. 96 retain the latter worship, since [Augustine] so often says [that God] wills neither good men nor Angels to be worshipped — not simply, but as gods, or for God. And bk. 3 against Maximinus, ch. 26, on Lot [in] Gen. 19: Thou seest here, indeed, Angels worshipped by a just man; & dost thou not want the Holy Spirit — whom you too set before all without ambiguity — to be worshipped? But thou wilt say, [Lot] believed [them] to be men; for [he] invited [them] into [his] lodging as men. This is [all the] more against thee, who sayest the Holy Spirit is not to be worshipped [though he is] to be preferred to all Angels — since thou seest even men inferior to Angels worshipped by just men. I say Thirdly, [that] the Angel was now worshipped by Joshua with this adoration of dulia. For [Joshua] indeed worships him whom [he] was beholding — at the sight of whom [he] cast himself to the ground — whom [he] addresses; & [it is clear] both from those [things] which have hitherto preceded, & from those which after-
(col. 688 — right column; printed “695”)
wards will be subjoined. For clearly the Hebrew, & the Greek text, subjoins: And [Joshua] said to him. To whom, if not to him whom [he] was worshipping? Look, if [it] please, [at] what [I said] above, q. 40, ad 2. But that [one] is not God, or CHRIST, as was said above, q. 40 & 42. Therefore [it follows that Joshua worshipped the Angel with dulia].
But these [things] briefly about these [matters]. Otherwise, against the Novators, & with some Catholics, many [things] can be disputed about adoration. For those [Novators] indeed deny [that], between political & divine worship, any other [worship] is interposed, by which [it] is licit to honor Angels & saints. I pass over the Centuriators [of Magdeburg], Cent. 1, bk. 2, ch. 4; Calvin, Institutes bk. 1, ch. 11, §7; ch. 12, §1 & 2. Behold for thee some Calvinist-or-other, Daniel Chamier, in his epistles — which, that they might be more saleable, [he] adorned with the alien ivy of the more honorable Jesuit epistles, or rather, painted over [with false color]: What then? he says, fol. 31. Did I simply deny [that] Angels are to be worshipped, honored, adored? Far be it: but I denied [that they] are to be worshipped, honored, adored religiously. And [he] is thereafter wholly bent on showing, from D. Augustine, [that] all worship is either religious, or officious [dutiful], or civil only. And again, fol. 52: Scripture, he says — the passages 1 Paralip. 29; Gen. 19; Josh. 5:1; 1 Sam. 18:1; Kings 15; Dan. 2 — I had already long ago seen & weighed. From these & the like I had learned [that] the worship of a man [is] to be distinguished into two kinds: so that one be religious, the other officious. See our Vasquez, bk. 1 On Adoration, ch. 2, disp. 5, & all of disp. 6. But from the school of the Catholics, all do indeed hold [that] the adoration which is given to Angels & the rest of the heavenly [ones] is in no way latric, & [is] supreme, yet [that] it is itself interposed between this [latria] & political [adoration]. But some want it to arise from the same [virtue]: [namely] from that virtue from which latric adoration also arises — namely religion, or latria (so 3, q. 8, a. 1, ad 3, Marsilius). But others fetch it from another, inferior virtue than [religion] itself — namely dulia, between which & religion there is very much difference. Thus D. Thomas, 2.2, q. 25, a. 1 ad 2; q. 81, a. 1 & 4, a. 3 ad 3; Albert, 3, d. 9, a. ad 3; D. Bonaventure, ibid., a. 2, q. 4; Gabriel [Biel], q. 1, a. 1; Almain, q. 1; Durandus, q. 3; Richard, a. 3, q. 1; Paludanus, q. 2, a. 1; our Vasquez, bk. 1 On Adoration, disp. 6, ch. 1. But among these, again, [there] is another inquiry. For the same dulia virtue by some is extended to Angels, & saints, & to whatever men excel in some civil dignity — as by Albert, Bonaventure, Gabriel; but by others a certain proper virtue of dulia is handed down, which pertains only to Angels & Saints, & is either called hyperdulia (as Paludanus in the cited place, & D. Thomas q. 103 ad 2 [hold]); or — since it lacks a proper name — retains that common [name] dulia, or observance [observantia]: so that a twofold dulia, & observance, is understood — one which venerates those excelling in civil dignity, the other [those] excellent in sanctity & heavenly preeminence; & this D. Thomas sometimes hints, q. 102 & q. 103. About all [these things], among those to whom the school’s terms are not unknown, I note here most briefly these — both for the truth’s [sake], & for the light — [that] thou mayest throw something at the heresies in this place:
1. Adoration is not only Latric, but there is also a certain other [kind], as is clear from the Scriptures set forth before, & we heard the very same thing confessed [by] the Calvinist Chamier. See D. Augustine, bk. 2 against Maximinus, ch. 9.
2. Whence adoration arises, or what produces it, can be considered in two ways — namely by reason of the object,
(col. 689 — left column; printed “696”)
—[the] object, & by reason of the principle: that is, from what [it] is done, & toward what [it] tends.
3. The object is twofold, that-which [quod] & for-whose-sake [cuius]. The object quod is he who is adored — e.g. God, an Angel, a Man. The object cuius is that for whose sake this or that [one] is adored; & [it] is always an excellence of such a kind that to submit oneself to it, & so to do [it] honor, is fitting.
4. That excellence is either uncreated or created; & this [created excellence is] either such as makes Angels or men partakers of the divine nature, & sons of God, or any other [kind] whatever. The former (to be silent about the hypostatic union) is the grace of God himself, & the true sanctity of souls — & that either perpetual, already & constant & secure, or temporary, inconstant, & exposed to dangers. The latter is any charism of the spirit which does not make its possessor holy & a son of God — as is the gift of tongues, of miracles, & others of which the Apostle [speaks], 1 Corinth. 12.
5. From some [one] virtue, acts can arise in two ways, elicited [elicitè] & commanded [imperatè].
6. From religion arises, elicited, Latric adoration. [It] seems very probable [that] from the same [religion] also exists, elicited, the adoration which is given to Angels & saints on account of the supernatural grace & sanctity given them by God — whether perpetual & secure, or transitory & doubtful. Because in that way both men & Angels are something of God himself — namely his sons, John 1, v. 12, & partakers of the divine nature, 2 Pet. 1, v. 4. For just as [it] has great probability [that], by the same charity by which we love God, the neighbor also is loved, insofar as the neighbor is something of God: so also [it is] quite probable [that] by the same religion the heavenly spirits & holy men are venerated, insofar as they are something of Him.
7. Yet [it] is more probable [that] the same adoration of creatures is elicited from another virtue. First, because between uncreated & created excellence there is exceedingly great difference. Secondly, because there are not lacking [those] to whom the charity by which God & neighbor are loved seems twofold. Thirdly, because although the charity toward God & neighbor be one & the same, S. Thomas still tries to bring a distinction [as to] why one & the same religion is not concerned [both] with God & with creatures, 2.2, q. 25, a. 1 ad 2, & q. 81, a. 4.
8. This virtue, distinct from religion — by which the worship of nobility is given to creatures endowed with God’s grace (eternal & secure, or temporary & uncertain) — can rightly be called: First, δουλεία [douleia, “service/servitude” = dulia]. Because, if they be compared with the true & supreme God, they are his servants; if with Angels or other men, they are in a certain way their Lords, & in respect of the same true & supreme Lord, fellow-servants [conservi]. Secondly, ὑπερδουλεία [hyperdouleia = hyperdulia]. Because they are servants & fellow-servants far more excellent than all those who are servants of God only by the common [title] — namely by reason of creation, conservation, & governance. For who of men, or of angels, [is] free from this servitude? And this same [thing] holds place in those who now excel by perpetual, constant, & secure grace — nay even glory — whereas we, in various ways, can still fall from grace & glory (which may their Bestower, the Lord, avert). But the composition of this name [hyperdulia] can best be gathered from S. Paul to Philemon, v. 16. Thirdly, observance [observantia]. Because, for the same cause, they are worthier & more hono-
(col. 690 — right column; printed “697”)
-rable. Fourthly, also piety [pietas]. By [that name] — because [they] are in a certain way the parents of our spiritual sonship to God, either because by prayers, instructions, examples, & their teachings they begot us in CHRIST, as the Apostle speaks, 1 Cor. 4, v. 15 & 17; Galat. 4, v. 19; Philem. v. 10. Fifthly. [It] could also — so that confusion of words of this kind (which are attributed to natural & political dignities) may be avoided — be called ἀγαθοθρησκεία [agathothrēskeia, “good-worship”], [or] ἁγιοσέβεια [hagiosebeia, “reverence of holy things”]. For under [the name of] saints we would embrace the Angels too, & would in a certain way imitate the Apostle’s word — taken though [it be] in a bad sense — Coloss. 2, v. 13 [Vulg. 2:23], ἐθελοθρησκεία [ethelothrēskeia, “will-worship”]; or, if [it] please, the worship of these could properly be called ἁγιοθρησκεία [hagiothrēskeia, “holy-worship”], from v. 18 there. What if [it] were also called ὑπολατρεία [hypolatreia, “under-latria”]? For just as hyperdulia signifies a certain eminence above other servants, so also hypolatria [would signify] an inferior kind of veneration.
IX. The same worship & adoration is above the political. First, because — since supernatural excellence (which [it] regards) surpasses every other [excellence] that is natural & political — [it] is of a far more preeminent & eminent kind. Vasquez, bk. 1 On Adoration, disp. 5, ch. 2. Next, the humanity of CHRIST the Lord — ought [it] to be adored only with political worship? or rather with another, more august [worship], which yet [is] not latric? Thirdly, the Angel, when [in] Apocalypse 18 [/19] & 22 [he] forbids himself to be adored — did [he] understand [this] of latric or of political [worship]? If of latric, S. John was stupid & an idolater, who — [being] especially already warned, & after [he] had heard [that] the Angel was a fellow-servant — wished to adore thus [again], Apoc. 22. If of political, the Angel was un-teaching John [his] courtesy, & brought no suitable reason for the prohibition. For often a fellow-servant ought to adore & venerate civilly a fellow-servant — the lesser the greater — in the same king’s hall, or commonwealth.
X. The same worship & adoration is not political, but sacred. Because [it] is given to the saints, & indeed for the sake of the sacred thing — namely of grace & of sanctity — not for the sake of any natural & political dignity.
XI. [It] can also be called religious, but variously. For either [it] has [its] principle elicited from religion, through the sixth proposition, & [it] is thence certainly concluded to be religious. For what act does religion elicit, except a religious [one]? For just as fortitude [makes] the brave [act], prudence the prudent, justice the just, & temperance the temperate: so also religion produced a religious act. Or [it] is elicited not from religion, but from another virtue, through propositions 7 & 8; & then [it] will be called religious, not on account of the exterior act’s likeness with a religious [act]. For thus even a false & feigned worship — e.g. when, in mockery, the Jews bent the knee before CHRIST the Lord & mocked him — would be religious: but because [it] is commanded by religion. Thou wilt say: in that whole way, political worship could be religious, because [religion] can command it here. I do not deny [it]. Yet this worship, even in that mode of command, can be called religious more properly than civil — because through proposition 9 [it] is above this [political] itself, & indeed sacred.
XII. In many ways in this matter the letter-writer of whom [I spoke] above — the Calvinist [Chamier] — errs. For first, [he] wrongly denies [that] between latric & civil worship [there] is this middle, sacred [worship], through propositions 9 & 10. Secondly, since all Catholics deny [that it] is the supreme & latric worship, [he] wrongly reviles [us], fol. 45: You are idolaters, as many of you as are papists.
(col. 691 — left column; printed “700”)
Thirdly, [Chamier] wrongly abuses the name religious worship; for he always takes [it] for the latric only, whereas [he] should know [that] the Catholics take [it] otherwise when they say this [is] a religious worship. Fourthly, since [he] knew — or at least ought to have known — the dispute among the Catholics (whether this worship is elicited from religion, or from another virtue), [he] ought not to criminate, as [if it were] a certain & defined dogma of the Catholic faith, [something] which is handed down by only some disputants. Especially since, fol. 26, a Catholic says to him: These worships, which are commanded by religion, & are most frequented by the pious & the religious — if [one] please to call [them] religious worships, since the sense is entirely settled, we [make] no hindrance; if anyone [is] unwilling, we do not fight about the name. Fifthly, [Chamier] himself, fol. 41: We, [he] says, I think, distinguish better: [that] the acts of religion are either religious, or officious. Prithee — if they are acts of religion, why not religious? For, as was said above [in] proposition 11, all acts of fortitude are brave, & all the acts of all the other virtues take their paronymy [derived name] from them [the virtues]: why then are some acts of religion not religious? Sixthly. Officious worship — from whom, pray, did [it] receive [its name]? & by it [he] understands either only that [worship] which we call political & civil, or every other [worship] which is not supreme & latric. If [in] the former way, [he does] wrongly, as we said: [he] omits that [worship] which is the middle between the supreme & the lowest, & again wrongly calls the political [an] act of religion. For [it] is [an act] either of religion eliciting it, or [of religion] commanding [it]. If [of religion] eliciting, [it] will not be elicited from piety, observance, or dulia — for actions cannot be elicited from several [virtues] at once. If [of religion] commanding, [he] wrongly says, fol. 42, [that] the acts of religion — whether elicited, or commanded — cannot, without Idolatry, be referred to a creature, whether ultimately, or not ultimately. And [he] concludes: By which [reasoning] the more confidently, O papists, we prosecute you [as] guilty of that name [of idolatry]. But no crime does anyone see here, whoever has the least [bit] of judgment. For since religion can command the acts of all the virtues, are [they] idolatrous, whatever [duty] they perform toward creatures? Am I, if — religion prescribing [it] — I am dutiful [pius] toward parents & fatherland, an idolater? Am I an idolater, if religion command justice, that one give to another what is his? If [in] the latter way [he] takes [it as] officious, [then] there will be nothing about the word for which we should quarrel. For [it] will be permitted to sub-divide just officious worship into sacred & public [civil] — & indeed all the more, the more usual [it] is for Catholics (as [Chamier] himself, fol. 164, acknowledges) to name [certain] offices [as] divine & of the saints: or, [by] how much less absurd [it is] for us to perform some office toward the Saints & Angels.
XIII. [It] would remain [for me] to ask, first: whether Angels are to be adored. For [some] deny [it]: First, the Fathers, as D. Augustine; Secondly, the Jews, in their fifth foundation; Thirdly, the Angels [themselves], Apoc. 19 & 22. Secondly [I would ask]: why, in the old Testament, the Angels suffered themselves to be adored, but in Apoc. ch. 19 & 22 not likewise? But this [has been] treated by me elsewhere, in that chapter 19. See Bellarmine, bk. 1 On the Cult of Saints, ch. 13 & 14.
VI. And [he] said: What does my Lord speak to his servant? [Josh 5:14]. Joshua knew [that], whenever Angels appeared, they wished to signify something. And although [they] do this sometimes by gesture & bearing alone, [yet] more frequently & more usually [they do it] also with words. For which cause Joshua asks, what indeed that [one] wished to speak? But the manner, & the sum, of the attention & lowliness of mind which [Joshua] applied,
(col. 692 — right column; printed “701”)
consider. First. [While] still prostrate on the ground & adoring, [he] said these [things]. Whence our Interpreter [the Vulgate] also rendered: And adoring [he] said. Second. [Joshua] calls the Angel his Lord. For [that] God here, or CHRIST in his own person [αὐτοπροσώπως, autoprosōpōs], did not appear, [has been] established above, q. 40, 42. Not [such] today [is] the modesty of our Novators, nor any observance & lowliness toward the heavenly [ones]. For [they] bear [it] ill [that] they are called by us blessed, saints, lords. Peter Martyr [Vermigli], on 1 Cor. ch. 1, fol. 9.b: Since, [he] says, among Christians the title of saints ought to be common, [it] was great audacity of the Pope, who canonizes (as they say) some dead [persons], so that [they] are reckoned saints by a singular prerogative. On the same place, Aretius, fol. 150: Today that title (of Saints) is attributed to the dead, & to the Pope only. On Romans ch. 11, v. 4, Beza: Among the Hebrews, בַּעַל [baal] denotes him in whose power we are. Hence [it] came about [that it] is taken for an idol, to which idolaters devote themselves wholly. And this even today they declare, who address the Virgin Mary by no other name than [that] of our Lady [Domina]: & the rest, to whom they have transferred the worship owed to God, they are wont to invoke only with the preface “Lords & patrons” added. But if some rather-unskilled [person] should ask these hagiomachs [ἁγιομάχοι, “saint-fighters”]: Wherefore, pray, are these [things] not permitted?, they will answer at once: One Lord, one faith, Ephes. 4, v. 5; & in the Angelic Hymn [Gloria]: Thou alone [art] Lord, thou alone [art] the Most High. I add — for the sake of these [men], or rather for [the sake of] inquiring into & establishing the truth — two [things] which touch the Angels, about whom [we are] now most of all treating. The one [is] from S. Bernard, sermon 11 on the Psalm Qui habitat [Ps 90/91]: [They] are ministering Spirits, [he] says, sent into ministry for our sake [Heb 1:14]. Plainly our ministers, & not our Lords. What [could be] clearer? The other [is] from the Angels themselves, who call themselves not lords, but our fellow-servants, Apoc. 19, v. 10; ch. 22, v. 8. But no wonder — the sons take after [their] fathers, [being] in nothing degenerate from their own [forebears]. The Iconomachs [εἰκονομάχοι, “image-fighters”] of old, if ever they wished to name the martyrs, were unwilling to prefix saints [to them] — for example, [they] said the Temple of the 40 martyrs, not of the 40 holy martyrs, as the second Synod of Nicaea attests, Act. 7. More liberal, indeed, — the Bogomils, though [they] called the Apostles & martyrs saints, [would] yet [call] neither Priests nor any Fathers [so], in Euthymius, Panoplia, part 2, tit. 23, ch. 11. But why should [it] not be permitted to call them thus? Are [they] not truly blessed, holy, divine [saints], & lords? & [is it] not [so] in a far truer, greater, & more perfect way than [it is for] any of the mortals on earth? And yet, of these, the Lord himself pronounces some blessed, Matt. 5; D. Paul to Rom. 1; 1 Cor. 1, v. 42 [15:42], & elsewhere, [calls them] saints; likewise Ephes. 5 & Coloss. 4, [calls them] Lords. What [of the fact] that the heretics themselves bestow these very [titles] even upon their dead & damned standard-bearers? For they invoke Luther [as] holy, divine, blessed, & most-blessed — as [is] shown in bk. 2 On his ‘Master’, ch. 12; & the French Calvinists never name their Calvin except with the French preface of honor, [as] Monsieur Calvin [Dominum Calvinum] — as was also said elsewhere, Tob. ch. 2, q. 1. Only this I add: not only Syrians or Chaldeans [were] praised by me there, but [that] our own old Latins too not rarely said, of the blessed, Lord Peter, Lord Martin, & the like — as [one] may read in Gregory of Tours, & Tom. 9 of Baronius. To those [objections] which are cast up: first I say [that there] is only one Lord, supreme, & depending on no one.
To the 2nd [objection]…
(col. 693 — left column; printed “700”)
To the 2nd. S. Bernard, in that sermon, calls [him] Lord who both is Lord & bears himself as a Lord. But the Angels — although by nature & grace they are our Lords — yet do not so bear themselves, but rather minister & serve us. For [Bernard] straightway subjoins concerning our Lord Jesus Christ: And in this they imitate the form of the Only-begotten, who came not to be ministered to, but to minister, who stood among [his] disciples as one who serves. Otherwise, in the following sermon 12, [Bernard] thus advises concerning the guardian [Angels]: They are faithful, they are prudent, they are powerful — why do we tremble? Only let us follow them, cleave to them, & abide in the protection of the God of heaven. For see how necessary is that protection, that guardianship, in thy ways. In [their] hands, [he] says, they will bear thee, lest ever thou dash thy foot against a stone [Ps 90/91:12]. Does [it] seem [too] little to thee, that there be no stone of stumbling in the way? Consider what follows: thou shalt walk upon the asp & the basilisk, & thou shalt trample the Lion & the dragon [Ps 90/91:13]. How necessary a tutor! Nay even a bearer, especially for a little one walking amid these [dangers]? In [their] hands, [he] says, they will bear thee. In thy ways indeed they will guard thee, & lead the little one where the little one can walk. But they will not suffer thee to be tempted beyond what thou canst bear, but will take [thee] up in [their] hands, that thou mayest pass over the obstacle. How easily [it] passes over, who is carried in those hands — how sweetly (according to the common proverb) [he] swims, whose chin another sustains! As often, therefore, as a most-grievous temptation is seen to press, & a vehement tribulation to threaten, invoke thy guardian, thy leader, thy helper — in [thy] opportunities, in tribulation. Cry out to him, & say: Lord, save us, we perish. And on the feast of S. Michael, sermon 1: Since [it is] by the grace of this so-great minister (who, offering his soul to the Father, ministers to us today his flesh), no wonder if the holy Angels condescendingly, nay gladly, minister to us. For they love us, because Christ loved us. Truly [it] is said, in the common proverb: Who loves me, loves also my dog. But we, O blessed Angels, are the puppies of that Lord whom you love with [your] whole affection — the puppies, I say, longing to be fed with the crumbs which fall from the table of our Lords, who are you. To the 3rd [objection] I have already answered above, proposition 8. If [both] they [the Angels] & we be compared to the supreme Lord, all [are] his servants, & [they are] our fellow-servants in his service & house, which is the Church, 1 Tim. 3, v. 13. But if someone would not deny [that] the Angels, in the way now indicated, are rightly ours, & called Lords, I confess [that] one could here not badly reckon [that] the Lord [in Joshua’s phrase] is God himself. For when Joshua recognized the Angel [to be] sent to him by God as a messenger, [he] did not doubt [it]. [He] could therefore say to the messenger: What does my Lord — by whom thou art sent — speak, through thee, to his servant? For thus, 1 [Sam.] 3, v. 9, Eli seems to have instructed Samuel, where for Lord, in the Hebrew, [it] is Iehovah [יְהֹוָה, YHWH]. For [it] was, otherwise, an Angel who fashioned those voices — by which Samuel was roused & called, in his imagination, or in [his] ears (for it now makes no difference) — as [is] clear from what the fortieth question brought forward. But because here [it] is not Iehovah, but Adoni [אֲדֹנִי, “my lord”], [it] would be simpler & truer [that] the Lord is called, by Joshua, that very [one] whom [he] adores & addresses. For we see this also happen: that if some messenger is sent to us by a King or Prince, [and] be of greater dignity than we — for example, a Baron or a Count — [then, though he comes] by the will,
(col. 694 — right column; printed “701”)
command, & authority of a superior Lord, [yet] we say [to him], What the Lord speaks, I will do. If, says Cajetan, we so address a chief man, or a King, much more was [it] permitted to Joshua so to address the Angel of the Lord. Thirdly. [It] is [a mark] of equal humility, that Joshua says, to his servant. For when [he] could simply have said, What does my Lord speak to me?, [he] preferred to use that name [servant] by which [he] the more depressed himself, & — [though] so great a man, so great a Commander — professed himself the servant of the Angel. And this phrase of modesty is very familiar in Scripture; & why some, imitating [it] in Latin or in another idiom, should be mocked or reproved, I for my part do not see. S. Bernard, in the sermon on the Nativity of the B. Virgin, similarly says [that] the Blessed Virgin reckoned herself unworthy of the Angelic salutation. Fourthly, Joshua showed himself, toward what the Angel would speak, both most erect in [his] ears [most attentive], & most ready in [his] will to obey — as if [he] said: O Lord, only say [it], & I do [it]; command, & I comply. On which account this little prayer is most worthy, [one] which we should wear [out] with the most frequent use, & most often say to our God Christ Jesus, & to [our] guardian Angel — [our] helper, tutor, nay even our porter (as S. Bernard calls him in that sermon 12 on the cited Psalm) — especially when we come to sacred meditation, to a sermon, to exhortation, to the reading of the divine books; when we feel ourselves roused to good by some interior inspiration; when [we deliberate] especially about some matter of greater moment — for example, when we deliberate about [our] state of life; when a superior would wish to impose something on us, if any [of us] have already entered a state of religious life. This same alacrity & lowliness [that] the Priest Eli prescribed to the younger Samuel, the same [Samuel] usefully & fruitfully employed [of himself], 1 [Sam.] 3, v. 10; & afterward our Saint Paul, in his conversion, Acts 9, verse 9 [/6]: Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? [It] would remain in this place [for me] to ask, whence & how Joshua recognized so quickly, so certainly, [that it] was a holy Angel, [and] not some demonic specter & mockery. But the same reason was in him as in Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or the other Patriarchs or prophets — to whose minds, with those bodily apparitions of God or of Angels, light was communicated, so that no doubt might reside in them, as I explained at the beginning of Isaiah.
VII. Furthermore, the Angel himself said: Loose thy sandal from thy feet. For the place in which thou standest is holy [Josh 5:15]; & Joshua did as had been commanded him. Straightway the highest & swiftest obedience of Joshua is shown. For [it was] said [and] done. That men use footwear, Clement [of Alexandria] deems decorous, bk. 2 of the Paedagogus, ch. 11 — & sometimes even necessary, if [one] must go through rough, broken, very-cold, & very-hot places. But the heat of Jericho [is] well enough known, about which [I spoke] also above, ch. 2. The Most Illustrious Duke of Olyka [Radziwiłł], epist. 2, fol. 106, says: Here is had the balsam-tree, which is valued at the highest price, & needs the hottest temperature of the air, as also the roses of Jericho, whose use, for women, wonderfully helps toward an easier birth. All fruits & crops here come forth more quickly, [by] two weeks, than at Jerusalem. Nor [is it] a wonder — for [there] are here such immense heats, that hence [they]…
(col. 695 — left column; printed “702”)
—[so that hence,] to those journeying to Jerusalem, the sky [climate] seems far colder.* But [there] is here an old question: why this un-shoeing was commanded to Joshua. And [it] could be answered briefly, [that it] was done for the same causes for which I explained the command to Moses, Exodus 3, v. 5. But lest the last part of this chapter be despoiled of this opportune investigation, as [it were] of its own shoe, I will say [it] in few [words]. One most-chief cause is given in the text; others are gathered by [others]. That [one] is, because the place in which thou standest is holy. For thus [it] is read in the Hebrew, & in the corrected 70 [LXX], also in Theodoret here. But of old, Origen (homily 6), S. Justin against Trypho, S. Jerome on Ephes. 6, S. Cyprian bk. 2 against the Jews, read: the place in which thou standest is holy ground. But since the sense of both readings [is] the same, I think these [Fathers] did not labor about the words, & [that they] took this reading of theirs from ch. 3 of Exodus, v. 5.
Yet here [are] two other little questions. One: how [was] either the place, or the ground, holy? Perhaps someone might think some quality [was] given to it, as to a subject, from which [it] is holy, & called [so] — just as [a place] is called fertile, pleasant, & healthful. But this opinion can fall only upon [someone] ignorant of holiness. For a spiritual quality can inhere in no corporeal thing. Not, therefore, by any physical & inherent holiness is any place called holy; but by a moral [holiness], which is chiefly threefold. First: if [there] be in it something holy. Secondly: if holy effects be produced in it. Thirdly: if [it] be dedicated to the holy God, & separated for holiness from other profane [places]. In the first way, [there] are [those] who say the place was holy because in it was that holy Archistrategus, of whom above. How, says Origen, homily 6, is Jericho a holy ground, which is held by enemies? But lest perhaps this be what is indicated — [namely] that wherever the Prince of the host of the Lord’s power shall come, [he] sanctifies the place — [it is] because Jericho itself was not a holy place, but because the prince of the Lord’s host came thither, [that] the place is called holy. I even dare [say] something further, & say, that even where thou, Moses, wast standing, [it] was not through itself a holy place, but because the Lord was standing with Moses, the presence of the Lord had sanctified the place. And therefore [it] is said to him: Loose the strap of thy sandal, for the place in which thou standest is holy ground. But since Origen thought this [one to be] Christ, or God, the Archistrategus (as was said above, question 40), in that way the whole world is holy, & every, even the least, particle of heaven, air, sea, & earth. For everywhere indeed is God; [he] pervades, fills, [and] contains all [things] altogether by the immensity of his nature — so much [so] that on that account [he] is called by the Jewish sages Makom [מָקוֹם]: that is, place. For example, when they say Baruch hammakom [בָּרוּךְ הַמָּקוֹם], that is, Blessed [be] God, as Elias Levita explains in [the] Tishbi. But if [we] say the Archistrategus was an Angel — as indeed [it] must be said — [then] still all [places] in which there were any men, great & small, good & bad, Christians & Gentiles, or Turks, would be holy places, because to all [places], from the first rising [of creation], a guardian Angel stands by, as is proved elsewhere. [It] is entirely so. We ought to confess a certain common holiness in all places, from the one most-present presence of God himself; on account of which, not ineptly, the world [is called] by some (as Origen bk. 7 against Celsus, Cicero in the Dream of Scipio, [Caelius] Rhodiginus bk.
(col. 696 — right column; printed “703”)
2, ch. 1) the temple of God. There is a common holiness also in those places where Angels are; on account of which S. Bernard, sermon 12 cited above: He has commanded his Angels concerning thee, that they guard thee in all thy ways [Ps 90/91:11]. How much reverence ought this word to bring thee, [how much] devotion to bring, [how much] confidence to confer? Reverence for [their] presence, devotion for [their] benevolence, confidence for [their] guardianship. Walk cautiously, [as one] to whom the Angels are present — as [it] is commanded — in all thy ways. In whatever lodging, in whatever corner, have reverence for thy Angel. Wouldst thou dare, [he] being present, what thou wouldst not dare with me seeing [thee]? For just as, from the fact that a spiritual thing is in a place, there arises a certain physical relation — which not long ago the Philosophers began to call presence [adsentia], by a name as apt as [they call] absence [absentia]: so, from the fact that a holy thing is in a place, a certain moral holiness & estimation of the same place exists, which excites reverence toward that thing — not [a holiness] which utterly forbids necessary food, drink, sleep, & the other actions of human infirmity (for thus [it] would nowhere be permitted to live), but [one] which [forbids] only sins, as D. Jerome taught, concerning the prophetic in-gliding of the Holy Spirit, in the preface of the Commentaries on the Philemon-epistle. From the same mode of presence, some also say that place was holy, because in it was Joshua, a man remarkably Holy & an excellent Prophet — as [was] explained in book 1, ch. 9, question 12, 13; [a mode] which, [applied to the fact] that the Lord appeared to Moses, Exod. 3, Theodoret denies of [Moses] himself there, question 7. But [supposing] all these [things] be true, the text indicates [that there] was a certain special [place] of this holiness, when [it] says: The place in which thou standest. For why [is] not every other place, in which [Joshua] at any time was, stood, lay, sat, [or] walked [also holy]? Why is [he] not everywhere ordered to cast off [his] shoes? For the moral holiness of which I spoke is everywhere, & embraces all times, making & naming [any] place holy, because in it [there] either is, or was, or will be something holy — although this [is] seemingly denied [in] question 77 by Abulensis. Secondly. But [there] is a special holiness to be sought from certain special holy effects — which here indeed appear [to be] none other than the very apparition of the Angel, & the oracle connected with it, & those effects on account of which [it] was said above, question 47, that [the apparition] was made; & all these flowed primarily from God, as [from] the fountain of all good [things]. For every best gift [is] only from him, as [Scripture] says from S. James ch. 1 [Jas 1:17]; [and] in the Angels’ showing of benefits toward us, S. Bernard [says the same] in the cited sermon. To this second mode also can pertain what was above (question 49) not improbably asserted — [namely] that Joshua had betaken himself to prayer & the contemplation of divine things in this place. As to the third mode — [it is] the [very man] who is otherwise the most-troublesome enemy of all the Saints [i.e. Calvin himself who grants it]. As, says Calvin, folio 23, God sanctifies by his presence the places in which [he] appears: so [it] is probable to me [that], by this eulogy, the excellence of the land of Canaan is commended, in which God chose for himself a dwelling, that [he] might be purely worshipped here. Whence also [it] is called, everywhere, his rest, Psal. 94 [95]; [&] Psal. 131 [132]:14. How, then, [O] Calvin, dost thou elsewhere declare a most-deadly war on all sacred places? How dost thou not [wish] one day holier than [another] day, [one] time than [another] time, & [one] place [holier] than [another] place,
(col. 697 — left column; printed “704”)
—& dost thou build up one place holier than [another] place? How dost thou despise — by such & such sycophantic words, through thee & thy [followers] — the places in which the omnipotent [God] wrought so many & so great miracles by himself & his saints; & that very [place] in which the Word was made flesh, the Chapel of Loreto; the sacred [churches] in which — at the prayers of his faithful, & through the presence of his most-sacred Body — the Lord himself & our Saviour Jesus Christ is present? [How] dost thou cut [them] down with such impious hands? [How] dost thou burn [them] up with such deadly torches? For these causes, indeed, that land in which the same Lord & our Saviour was conceived, born, dwelt, & died, is even today called holy; & indeed the very city of Jerusalem [is so called] by the Turks themselves — as one of them, once converted to the Lord, related to me, & as Sultan Amurath [Murad], in his letters, most clearly attests to the most illustrious Duke of Olyka [Radziwiłł], epist. 3, fol. 247. Which Duke, in epistle 2, frequently shows how great a veneration those same Turks have for the places in which something notable was done by Christ the Lord. So also, in that same East, Thabor [is] a holy mountain, 2 Pet. 1; & in our West [there] is Rome, Augusta Trevirorum [Trier], & Colonia Sancta [Cologne, “Holy Colony”]. For into these cities of our Germany [it] can also be not ineptly transferred, [that] which — concerning that first [city, Rome] — Edward Thomas the Englishman sings, in P. Bertius, p. 350:
Rome is the holy one of the saints, by [their] precious blood.
D. Bernard, in the sermon to the Knights of the Temple, ch. 6: Hail, [he] says, holy city, which the Most High sanctified for himself [as] his tabernacle. The Jurists distinguish things & places a little otherwise — [as] sacred, religious, & holy — as the first entrance of book 2 of the Institutes straightway shows, & Gregory of Toulouse, Syntagma bk. 1, ch. 14. But almost all [these] can easily be reduced to the theological division set forth by me above. For certain [things] are holy only by civil [right], as the gate of a wall, & the like.
But the other question is: Why does the Angel say, The place in which thou standest? For [it] has been handed down [that] Joshua had collapsed to the ground, & cast [himself] at his feet, that [he] might adore him. I answer, first, [that] the word standing [stare] is sometimes put for being [esse]. Secondly: [that] when the Angel said this, Joshua had already — either of [his] own accord, or at the Angel’s nod & command — raised himself up.
Now let us proceed to the other causes of this un-shoeing, which — because they are less chief — will be touched each in fewer [words].
First. That in Joshua [there] might be aroused a greater reverence toward God & his present Legate. Thus Moses was aroused, Exod. 3. But if such-&-so-great spiritual & divine men had to be aroused by a ceremony of this kind, why do our Novators so greatly detest the sacred rites of the Christian Church — [rites] which are testimonies of divine honor; proofs of the veneration due; torches of piety & religion; goads of torpid sloth; food of devotion; steps for minds fixed on the ground [up] to the heavens; props of weak souls? But — O the great force of truth! — Calvin, in this place, folio 23: [As to] that the holy man is bidden to draw off [his] shoes, [he] says, by this ceremony God seals the assurance of his presence, & adds more weight to the vision: not that the bareness of the feet be reckoned, of itself, [as part] of the worship of God; but because the infirmity of men must be aided by such supports,
(col. 698 — right column; printed “705”)
whereby [men] may the better arouse & prepare themselves to veneration.
Secondly. [The un-shoeing was commanded] so that — [when] one must be at leisure for prayers, must converse with the Lord, must be at leisure for the divine mysteries — we may bear before us the highest piety & lowliness which is possible in heart & body. Thus [says] Theodoret in the cited place; & [in] bk. 2 of the Institutes, ch. 10, Cassian, in these words: But [the monks], refusing footwear as [it were] forbidden by an Evangelical precept — & when the infirmity of the body, or the sharper cold of a winter morning, or the fervor of the midday heat demands [it], covering their feet only with light sandals — interpret this custom of theirs to be signified either by [ancient] use, or by the Lord’s permission: that if, being placed in this world, we cannot be in every way stripped of the care & solicitude of this flesh, nor are able to be wholly loosed from it, [we may] at least — by a light occupation & slight involvement — [so] discharge the necessity of the body, that not even our soul’s feet — which ought always to be ready, unencumbered [expediti] for the spiritual course & for preaching the peace of the Gospel — [be hindered]; [feet] with which we run after the odor of Christ’s ointments, & of which David [says], I ran in thirst. And Jeremiah: But I, not laboring [i.e. weary], following thee — [that we be not] wrapped in the cares of this world’s carrion — [we may] think about these [things], which pertain not to supplying the necessity of nature, but to superfluous & harmful pleasure. Which [readiness] we will thus fulfill, if — according to the Apostle — we make no provision for the flesh in [its] desires [Rom 13:14]. Whence, in Damião de Góis, the ambassador of Ethiopia, Zabazago, says: To us (an Ethiopian Christian) no power is given to approach the temple, except with bare feet; nor is [it] permitted us in it to laugh, to talk, [or] to walk about — because [our] temples are like Mount Sinai, where the Lord said to Moses, Loose thy sandal, &c. See S. Bridget, bk. 2, ch. 10. And this pertains indeed to all, yet most of all to Priests, as D. Ambrose shows, epistle 6: We find, [he] says, a Pythagorean command proclaimed in the writings of some, by which that [Pythagoras] forbade his disciples to enter the way common & usual to the people. But whence [he] took this is not unknown. For since (as most reckon) [he] drew [his] descent from the Jewish people, from their discipline [he] also derived the precepts of [his] teaching. [He] had therefore read in Exodus [that] it was a divine command to Moses, by oracle: Loose the sandal of thy feet. This too [pertains] to the precept [given] to Joshua [Jesus] son of Nun — namely, that those who desired to walk the way of the Lord should lay aside the dust of the trodden & common way. [Ambrose] had read [that] a precept [was given] to the same Moses, that [he] ascend the mountain with the priests, but the people [should] stand below, Exod. 19 & 24. [God] therefore separated the priests from the people; & afterward commanded Moses himself to enter within the cloud. Dost thou see the divisions? [That] nothing plebeian is required in priests, nothing popular, nothing common with the zeal & practice & manners of the unformed multitude? The priestly dignity claims for itself a gravity sober [and apart] from the crowds, a serious life, a singular weight. Similar [things] about priests, here, Theodoret, Cajetan, & Rabbi Moses of Gerona [Nachmanides] note. Thirdly. Our shoes signify those lower affections by which we touch the earth, [and] too greatly covet earthly goods & pleasures. These [affections] must be put off by us in the management of divine things, in the colloquies of God & the Angels. Fourthly. [They] also signify the measures & formulas of little reasonings & little arguments — by which, taken from that earth & mud, we sometimes wish to trample [underfoot] all heavenly & divine [things]. And these [must be put off] by us while [we treat] of faith, & of mysteries…
(col. 699 — left column; printed “706”)
…[are put off by us] while [the matter] is occupied solely in comprehending faith and those mysteries; the shoes must be shaken off.
Fifth. Shoes are for the most part made from the hides and soft-leather of dead animals. But whence [come] nearly all the perturbations of our souls? Is it not from the desires of dead riches and pleasures? Is it not from an excessive fear and horror of death and of dangers? Moses had fled from Egypt, dreading death; afterward, when he was to return into Egypt, the Lord wishes this dread removed, saying, Loose thy sandal. Joshua had to fight with very many and very vast enemies; from him too all fear is withdrawn by the Angel who says, Loose thy sandal from thy feet — as indeed St Ambrose interprets [it], bk. 7 on Luke, ch. 10. St Bernard, sermon 12 on the Apocalypse (or whoever is the author cited in the Saturday October lection on the Blessed Virgin), says that to loose the sandals is to lay aside the wrappings of carnal thoughts.
Sixth. From the thongs and bonds by which they are fastened to the feet, shoes are called by the Greeks ὑποδήματα [hypodēmata, “things bound underneath”]. We must therefore loose all the bonds of earthly and vicious desires, if it please [us] to stand before God and the angelic minds. St Ambrose, bk. 7 on Luke, in the chapter on the testimony of John: Moses, [he] says, is bidden to loose the sandal of his feet, that the going-forth of his soul, and the bond of his corporeal mind, freed from [its] fetters, may walk the spiritual journey. And in the book on Penance: If to Moses, longing to draw nearer that he might drink in the knowledge of the heavenly mystery, it is said: Loose the sandal of thy feet — how much more ought we to strip our soul’s feet of corporeal bonds, and to loose all our steps from the entanglement of this world. Again, bk. 1 on Cain, ch. 8: Our fathers, hastening, ate the Pascha with girded loins, and stripping their feet of the bonds of shoes, and as it were laying aside the burden of the body, that they might be ready for the passing-over — of which place, however, [see] above, at question 23. Seventh. Above, Clement, in ch. 11 of bk. 2 of the Paedagogus, said that on account of the roughness of the roads, colds, and heats, shoes may be had. Yet the same [author] straightway adds that it is [the mark] of a greater soul to reckon all these as nothing, and to walk with bare feet — as Plato says Socrates did of old, in the Phaedrus; [and as] Isaiah [did] himself, ch. 2 [read Isa 20], v. 2. And sometimes even Christ the Lord teaches [it], as St Jerome hands down, epistle 22; and [that Christ] prescribed [it] to his Apostles, St Matthew ch. 10, St Luke ch. 9. For the honor, therefore, of God himself, if any hardness and austerity of life be undertaken, it is not to be blamed. Hence too the Nudipedalia [barefoot rites], which Jerome often notes were celebrated by St Paul, on Galatians 2 & 4; and which by many pious and religious [persons] today are practised, whether always or sometimes — for example, in processions, pilgrimages, and the like: as in the year 1601, on the very [feast] of All Saints, the Most Reverend Apostolic Nuncio at Lucerne; in the year 1602, on the eve of the Assumption, the Mainz Sodality of the Blessed Virgin, going to the Holy Cross; at Cologne, many every year in the Theophoria [the Corpus Christi procession]. Eighth. But never is the use of shoes greater than when a journey must be made, [see] above, quest. 23. Since therefore we are bidden to be un-shod, what else is enjoined but rest? — which in the treatment of sacred things
(col. 700 — right column; printed “707”)
is chiefly necessary. Ninth. But most of all do we shoe ourselves when the feet can be hurt by the roughness of the roads, the winter frost, the Sun’s heat, or the bite or venom of serpents and other reptiles. But from these, who is safe on the whole road of this life? Hence, [in] Ephesians 6, the Apostle rather wishes that we be shod in the preparation of the Gospel. And to us afterward — at the boundary of this way and of this life, when it shall be permitted to set foot into the heavens, [and] to dwell with the Lord and the Angels — it will be said: Loose thy sandal from thy feet; for the place in which thou standest is holy ground. Origen, homily 6: If by [our] life and merits we draw near to God, and are made worthy that God stand by us, it is said also to us, that we loose [the bonds] from the feet of our soul, if any bond of mortality is fastened to them. For these are the feet which Jesus washes; and unless he wash them, we shall have no part with him. If therefore we loose from our soul and from [our] senses every bond of mortal care, straightway [God] will gladly be present to us also, and God will stand by [us]. St Jerome, on Ephes. 6: Whoever, [he] says, still walks, let him still be shod; but whoever, the Jordan now crossed, has entered the land of promise, let him bare his foot. Loose, [he] says, thy sandal from thy feet; for the place in which thou standest is holy ground. Whoever is not Joshua son of Nun, nor an Apostle, let him shoe his feet in the preparation of the Gospel of peace. But whoever is an Apostle, and can be numbered among the twelve, let him by no means take up his shoe on the way; nor, to turn aside scorpions and snakes, let him cover his heel; but, now consummated and perfect, let him stand on the holy ground, and live in Christ, and follow the Lamb whithersoever he goes.
Tenth. Some here have looked also to the ancient rite of un-shoeing, about which [see] Ruth ch. 4 [and] quest. 9. For Cajetan, on Exod. 3, says that we ought to cede our own right, and to concede our whole selves to the divine will and to [its] free disposal. [So too] St Cyprian, bk. 2 against the Jews, num. 19; St Ambrose, in the book on the Blessing of the Patriarchs, ch. 4 — lest Moses or Joshua, who were the leaders and prelates set over God’s people, should think themselves to be the spouses of the Church herself; but [that] they should cede her as bride to Christ the Lord, and testify this by that un-shoeing of theirs.
Eleventh [printed “II.”, a misprint]. Purity of soul and body in sacred [rites] is commended. With shoes we more readily trample spittle and filth of every kind than with bare feet; and our feet themselves, in themselves — are they not cleaner and more honorable than the hides of slaughtered cattle and [their] filthy skins?
Twelfth. Finally, the disciple ought to be like the master — Joshua like Moses. To this [Moses] it was said, Exod. 3, that he loose his sandals; it was to be said to Joshua also. But why [was] this precept [given] to these two? Both bore a certain persona of Christ the Lord; but in such a way that in this both were his inferiors. Therefore he than whom there is none greater among those born of women [John the Baptist], Matthew 3 & 11, owes it to Christ to loose the thong of [his] shoes; but these two [Moses and Joshua] must render this service to their very selves. But why was this same taking-off of shoes commanded to these two, and to no one else besides, on account of the holiness of the ground on which one stood? These alone were given by God as Leaders to the people, [to bring them] out of the Egyptian workhouses into the land of the abundance of liberty, of felicity, and of holiness. To these alone, therefore, did the same Lord first indicate [it], and through them to all
(col. 701 — left column; printed “710”)
all [others]—of what kind that ground [the holy ground] was: [namely] how in it they ought — purely and chastely, all the spoils of all [their] vices cast off — to walk, and at last, in the most blessed throne of the heavens, to fix [their] feet, steadfast unto all eternity.
But it must not be passed over in silence that the evil demon [cacodæmon] — as [he has done] with almost all the other [rites] which the Lord instituted for his own honor and for the salvation of our souls — has shadowed forth a certain false appearance and imitation [of them]; and so has perverted this sacred ceremony too, variously, to impiety and superstition. For, first, the Gentiles, when they entered Apollo’s temple, used to un-shoe themselves, as [is] reported at folio 504 — Nonius; Plautus in the Pseudolus; Solinus, bk. 15. Next, in Philastrius and St Augustine (heresy 68), [there were] heretics who — as Augustine there rightly warns — were not heretics for this reason, that they afflicted the body by this bareness of feet, but because they taught that it must be done as necessary by all, and so [mis]understood the divine testimonies, and the examples already mentioned of Moses, Joshua, [and] Isaiah. Lastly, all the Turks today, when they enter their mosques, tear the shoes from their feet. At Jerusalem, when — in the year of the Lord 1583, on the 3rd day of July — the Most Illustrious Duke of Olyka [Radziwiłł], a certain opportunity being given, had entered that sacred Cenacle, in which the Lord is handed down to have accomplished the Last Supper, and which the Turks most greatly venerate and wish [to remain] inaccessible to Christians: “at the entrance,” he himself says (epistle 2, folio 110), “we were at once compelled to cast off [our] shoes — which ceremony the Turks too are accustomed to use when entering [their] mosques. We were admonished also not to spit upon the ground. For the Turks hold this place in the greatest veneration, asserting that CHRIST in this Cenacle accomplished a certain great ceremony with the Apostles, who afterward, by a certain singular miracle, bore fiery tongues kindled upon [their] heads: and they believe that the Holy Spirit was there sent upon the disciples, as [in] Acts 2.”