Secundo, huiusmodi conceptum expressit, et hoc tripliciter. Primo in creaturarum editione, cum scilicet Verbum conceptum similitudo Patris existens, sit etiam similitudo ad quam omnes creaturae factae sunt. Gen. I, 3: dixit Deus: fiat lux, et cetera. Secundo per quasdam notiones, puta in mentibus angelorum, in quibus species omnium rerum, quae in Verbo latebant indidit, et in mentibus hominum sanctorum: et hoc per revelationes sensibiles, vel intellectuales, vel imaginarias. Et ideo omnis talis manifestatio procedens a Verbo aeterno, locutio nuncupatur. Ier. I, 2: factum est verbum Domini, et cetera. Tertio per carnis assumptionem, de qua dicitur Io. I, 14: Verbum caro factum est, et vidimus gloriam eius, et cetera. Et ideo dicit Augustinus, quod hoc modo se habet Verbum incarnatum ad Verbum increatum, sicut verbum vocis ad verbum cordis.
Second, he expressed his concept in three ways: first, in the production of creatures, namely, when the conceived Word, existing as the likeness of the Father, is also the likeness according to which all creatures were made: God said: be light made. And light was made (Gen 1:3). Second, through certain notions; for example, in the minds of the angels, in whom the forms of all things, which were concealed in the Word, were infused, and in the minds of holy men: and this by sensible or intellectual or imaginary revelations. Hence, every such manifestation proceeding from the eternal Word is called a speaking: the word of the Lord which came to him (Jer 1:2). Third, by assuming flesh, concerning which it says: and the Word was made flesh (John 1:14). Hence, Augustine says that the incarnate Word is related to the uncreated Word as the voice’s word is related to the heart’s word.
Prima autem expressio, scilicet in creatione, non ordinatur ad manifestationem, sed ad esse, Sap. I creavit Deus ut essent omnia. Cum ergo expressio non habeat rationem locutionis nisi prout ordinatur ad manifestationem, manifestum est, quod illa expressio non potest dici locutio, et ideo numquam dicitur, quod Deus loquatur creando creaturas, sed quod cognoscatur. Rom. I, 20: invisibilia Dei per ea quae facta sunt, intellecta conspiciuntur. Secunda vero expressio, quae est editio specierum in mente angelica, vel humana, ordinatur tantum ad cognitionem sapientiae divinae, et ideo potest dici locutio. Tertia vero, quae est per assumptionem carnis, ordinatur ad esse, et ad cognitionem, et ad expressam manifestationem, quia per assumptionem carnis, et Verbum factum est homo, et nos in cognitionem Dei perfecit. (Io. XVIII, 37: ad hoc natus sum, ut testimonium perhibeam veritati). Et se nobis expresse manifestavit. Bar. c. III, 38: post haec in terris visus est, et cum hominibus conversatus est.
But the first expression, namely, in creation, is not for the purpose of manifesting. For it is clear that that expression cannot be called a speaking; hence, it is never said that God speaks when making creatures, but that he is known: the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made (Rom 1:20). But the second expression, which is the infusion of forms in the minds of angels or of men, is directed only to the knowledge of divine wisdom; hence, it can be called a speaking. The third expression, namely, the assuming of flesh, took place for the purpose of existing and of knowing, and for expressly manifesting, because by assuming flesh the Word was made man and brought us to a complete knowledge of God: for this was I born, that I should give testimony of the truth (John 18:37). And he clearly manifests himself to us: afterwards he was seen upon earth, and conversed with men (Bar 3:38).
Sic ergo, licet Deus loquatur in Novo et Veteri Testamento, perfectius tamen in Novo nobis loquitur, quia ibi per revelationes in mentibus hominum, hic per incarnationem Filii. Vetus vero Testamentum traditum est patribus, aspicientibus a longe et intuentibus Deum procul; istud autem nobis, scilicet apostolis, qui vidimus eum in propria persona. I Io. I, 1: qui audivimus, et vidimus oculis nostris, et manus nostrae contrectaverunt de verbo vitae. Deut. V, 3 s.: non cum patribus nostris iniit pactum, sed nobiscum, qui in praesentiarum sumus, et vidimus, et facie ad faciem locutus est nobis. Unde patet quod illa locutio fuit promissoria. Gal. III, 16: Abrahae dictae sunt repromissiones. Ista locutio est exhibitoria. Io. I, 17: gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est. Item, ibi locutus est in prophetis, hic in Filio, qui est Dominus prophetarum. Io. I, 18: unigenitus, qui est in sinu patris, ipse nobis narravit.
Thus, therefore, although God speaks in the New and the Old Testaments, he speaks more perfectly in the New, because in the Old he speaks in the minds of men, but in the New through the Son’s Incarnation. Furthermore, the Old Testament was handed down to the fathers looking on from afar and seeing God from a distance; the New has been handed down to us, namely, to the apostles, who have seen him in his very person: that which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, and our hands have handled the Word of life (1 John 1:1); he made not the covenant with our fathers but with us who are present and living. He spoke to us face to face (Deut 5:3). Hence, it is clear that that speaking was a promise: to Abraham were the promises made (Gal 3:16); but the New was a manifestation: Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ (John 1:17). Also, in the Old Testament, he spoke in the prophets; in the New Testament, in his Son, who is the Lord of the prophets: the only begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him (John 1:18).
16. Sed numquid omnes, per quos loquitur Deus, sunt prophetae?
16. Does this mean that all the ones through whom God spoke were prophets?
Ad quod dicendum est, quod quinque requiruntur ad hoc quod aliquis sit verus propheta. Primum est revelatio eorum, quae excedunt humanam cognitionem, alias non dicitur propheta, sed sapiens, sicut Salomon, cuius mens illuminata est ad ea quae sunt secundum rationem humanam. Unde nec a Iudaeis propheta dicitur, sed sapiens.
I answer that five things are required of a true prophet: first, the revealing of things which transcend human knowledge; otherwise, he would not be called a prophet but a sage, as Solomon, whose mind was enlightened in regard to things within the ken of human reason. Hence, not even the Jews called him a prophet but a sage.
Secundum est intelligentia revelatorum, alias, nisi revelata intelligeret, non esset propheta. Intelligentia opus est in visione, Dan. X, 1, et inde est, quod Nabuchodonosor revelationem sibi factam non intelligens, propheta non dicitur, sed Daniel, qui eam intellexit.
Second, the understanding of the things revealed; otherwise, he would not be a prophet: there is need of understanding in a vision (Dan 10:1). That is why Nebuchadnezzar, not understanding the revelation made to him, is not called a prophet, but Daniel, who did understand it, was called a prophet.
Tertium est, quod propheta in rebus visis, quibus alienatur, non detineatur in ipsis rebus, sed tamquam in figuris, alias non esset propheta, sed phreneticus, qui imaginata apprehendit, ut ipsas res. Ier. XXIII, v. 28: qui habet somnium, narret somnium, et qui habet sermonem meum, narret sermonem meum.
Third, it is required that in the things he sees and by which he is alienated, they not be held as though they were things themselves, but as in figures; otherwise, he would not be a prophet but a lunatic, who apprehends imaginary things as though they were real: the prophet that has a dream, let him tell a dream: and he that has my word, let him speak my word with truth (Jer 23:28).
Quartum est, ut cum certitudine revelata percipiat, quasi per demonstrationem sciens, alias esset somnium, et non prophetia. Is. l, v. 5: Dominus aperuit mihi aurem, ego autem non contradico, retrorsum non abii.
Fourth, it is required that he perceive the things revealed with certitude, as though known through demonstration; otherwise, it would be a dream and not a prophecy: the Lord God has opened my ear and I do not resist: I have not gone back (Isa 50:5).
Quintum est, ut adsit voluntas annunciandi quae revelata sunt; unde et Daniel a quibusdam dicitur quod non est propheta, quia non accepit revelata per modum enunciabilem; unde non dicitur, quod factum est verbum Domini ad Danielem, sicut de aliis prophetis dicitur. Ier. XX, 8 s.: factum est verbum Domini mihi in opprobrium, et in derisum tota die, et dixi: non recordabor eius, neque loquar ultra in nomine illius, et factus est in corde meo sicut ignis aestuans.
Fifth, it is required that he has the will to announce the thing revealed; accordingly, some claim that Daniel is not a prophet, because he does not receive the thing revealed in an expressible way. Hence, it is not said that the word of the Lord was made to Daniel, as it said of the other prophets: the word of the Lord is made a reproach to me, and a derision all the day. Then I said: I will not make mention of him, nor speak any more in his name; and there came in my heart as a burning fire (Jer 20:8).
17. Sed rursum quaeritur quare dicit in prophetis, cum potius debuisset dicere per prophetas.
17. But another question arises: why does he say in the prophets, when he might better have said through the prophets?
Ad hoc dicendum est, quod hoc fecit, ut excluderet quorumdam errorem. Primo quidem errorem Porphyrii dicentis, quod prophetae ea, quae dixerunt fingendo, non ex Spiritu Sancto dixerunt. Et contra hoc dicit in prophetis, quasi non ipsi locuti sunt ex se, sed Deus locutus est in eis. II Pet. I, 21: non enim voluntate humana allata est prophetia, sed Spiritu Sancto inspirati, locuti sunt sancti Dei homines.
The answer is that he did this because he wished to exclude certain errors: first, the error of Porphyry, who claimed that prophets invented their statements and were not inspired by the Holy Spirit. To counter this the Apostle says that he spoke in the prophets. As if to say: they were not speaking of themselves, but God was speaking in them: for prophecy came not by the will of men at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1:21).
Secundo ad excludendum errorem quorumdam, dicentium prophetiam esse quid naturale et haberi per naturalem dispositionem, sicut cum aliquis melancholicus est adeo fortis imaginationis, quod imaginata apprehendat ut certa et res ipsas. Et ideo dicit locutus est in prophetis; quasi dicat: non habetur prophetia per modum naturalis dispositionis et passionis, sed per locutionem internam a Deo. Io. III, 8: Spiritus ubi vult spirat.
Second, he writes in the prophets to exclude the error of those who maintained that prophecy is something natural and can be possessed by one’s natural disposition, as a melancholy person might have a very strong imagination: so strong, indeed, that he considers the things he imagines to be real. Hence, it says he spoke in the prophets. As if to say: prophecy does not come about through a natural disposition but by an inward utterance of God: the Spirit breathes where he will (John 3:8).
Tertio contra errorem dicentium haberi prophetiam per modum habitus sicut scientiam, ut scilicet quandocumque vult homo prophetet. Quod non est verum, cum prophetiae spiritus non adsit prophetis semper, sed cum eorum mens illustratur divinitus. Unde, IV Reg. IV, 27 dicit Eliseus: anima eius in amaritudine est, et Dominus celavit a me. Et ideo dicit in prophetis, quasi dicat: non habetur ab omnibus, et semper, ut habitus, sed ab illis, in quibus placet Deo loqui.
Third, he writes in the prophets against the error of those who claim that prophecy can be possessed like a habit, as science is possessed, so that whenever a person decides to do so, he can prophesy. But this is not true because the spirit of prophecy is not always present in the prophet, but only when their minds are enlightened by God; hence, Elisha says: her soul is in anguish, and the Lord has hid it from me (2 Kgs 4:27). Therefore, the Apostle says, in the prophets. As if to say: not that prophecy is possessed by all or always, as habits are, but only in those in whom it pleases God to speak.
Quarto ad excludendum errorem Priscillae, et Montani, dicentium prophetas non intelligere ea quae dicebant, quod non est verum. Unde dicitur Aggaei I, 3: factum est verbum Domini in manu Aggaei prophetae; in manu, id est, in potestate. Et I Cor. XIV, 32: spiritus prophetarum prophetis subiecti sunt. Et ideo dicit in prophetis, id est, in intellectu et potestate prophetarum.
Fourth, he writes in the prophets to exclude the error of Priscilla and Montanus, who maintained that prophets do not understand their utterances. But this is not true; hence: the word of the Lord came by the hand of Haggai, the prophet (Hag 1:3); and: the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets (1 Cor 14:32). And therefore he says in the prophets, i.e., in the understanding and power of the prophets.
Sic ergo patet Christi proprietas, quia Filius est naturalis. Io. XIV, 10: pater in me est, et ego in patre.
Thus, therefore, Christ’s unique property is clear, namely, that he is the natural Son: the Father is in me and I in the Father (John 14:10).
18. Sed numquid est de illis filiis, de quibus dicitur in Ps. LXXXI, 6: ego dixi: dii estis, et filii Excelsi omnes? Absit, quia illi dicuntur filii cum universitate, iste est constitutus haeres, et dominus universorum.
18. But is he one of those sons of whom it is said: I have said: you are gods, and all of you the sons of the Most High (Ps 82:6)? No; because these are called sons in a general sense, but he is the Son who was appointed heir and lord of all things.
Numquid est de illis filiis, de quibus dicitur Io. I, 12: dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri? et cetera. Non quidem, quia illi dicuntur facti filii, iste vero est Filius, per quem fecit et saecula.
Is he one of those sons of whom it is said: he gave them the power to become the sons of God (John 1:12)? No; those are said to become the sons, but Christ is the Son by whom also he made the world.
Numquid est de illis filiis, qui gloriantur in spe gloriae filiorum Dei? Rom. V, 2. Non quidem, quia illi sunt filii per spem gloriae Dei, quam habent, iste vero ipsius gloriae splendor. Alii dicuntur filii, quia facti ad imaginem huius Filii. Rom. VIII, 29: quos praescivit conformes fieri imaginis filii eius; iste autem est ipsa imago, et figura substantiae eius. Alii dicuntur filii, ut in se Verbum Dei continentes, secundum illud Phil. II, 15: ut sint sine querela, et simplices filii Dei, sine reprehensione in medio nationis pravae et perversae, inter quos lucetis sicut luminaria in mundo, verbum vitae continentes. Iste autem Filius portat omnia verbo virtutis suae.
Is he one of those sons who glory in the hope of the glory of the sons of God (Rom 5:2)? No, because they are sons through the hope they have of God’s glory, but he is the splendor of that glory. Others are called sons because they were made to the image of this Son: whom he foreknew to be made conformable to the image of his Son (Rom 8:29), but he is the image itself and the figure of his substance (Heb 1:3). Others are called sons inasmuch as they contain within themselves the Word of God: that you may be blameless and sincere children without reproof in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation: among whom you shine as lights in the world. Holding for the word of life (Phil 2:15). But he is the true Son who carries all things by the word of his power.
Ergo patet Christi excellentia quantum ad proprietatem originis, et diffuse quantum ad alios filios Dei; per quod ostenditur eminentia Novi Testamenti ad Vetus.
Therefore, Christ’s supereminence is clear from his unique origin and from his relationship to other sons of God. It is these things which make the New Testament greater than the Old.
19. Sed tamen utrobique dicit locutus est, vel loquens, et denotat eumdem esse actorem Veteris et Novi Testamenti contra Manichaeum. Eph. II, 18: per ipsum habemus accessum ambo in uno Spiritu, et cetera. Rom. III, v. 29: an Iudaeorum Deus tantum? Nonne et gentium?
19. Yet in regard to both testaments, he says speaking or has spoken, in order to indicate that both have the same author. This is against the Manicheans: by him we have access both in the same Spirit to the Father (Eph 2:18); is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the gentiles? (Rom 3:29).
Item illud fuit traditum patribus nostris, sed istud nobis, id est, apostolis, qui Christum in propria persona vidimus. Deut. V, 3: non cum patribus nostris inivit pactum, sed nobiscum, qui in praesentiarum sumus et vivimus.
Again, the Old was given to our fathers, but the New to us, i.e., to the apostles, we who saw Christ in his very person: he did not make the covenant with our fathers, but with us, who are now present and living (Deut 5:3).
Item illud per prophetas, sed istud in Filio, id est, per Filium, qui est Dominus prophetarum. Io. I, 18: unigenitus, qui est in sinu Patris, ipse enarravit. Et ista occasione Apostolus introducit eum esse Filium.
Again, the Old was given through the prophets, but the New by his Son, i.e., through his Son, who is the Lord of the prophets: the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him (John 1:18).
20. Consequenter ostendit magnitudinem dominationis Christi, cum dicit quem constituit haeredem; quia, ut dicitur Gal. IV, 7: si filius, et haeres per Deum.
20. Then he shows the greatness of Christ’s power when he says, whom he has appointed heir of all things; for as it says: and if a son, an heir also through God (Gal 4:7).
In Christo autem sunt duae naturae, scilicet divina et humana. Secundum ergo, quod est Filius naturalis, non est constitutus haeres, sed est naturalis; sed inquantum homo, factus est Filius Dei. Rom. I, 3: qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem. Et secundum hoc est constitutus haeres universorum, sicut verus filius patris. Matth. ult.: data est mihi omnis potestas. Et hoc quantum ad totam creaturam in qua accepit dominationem. Item non tantum quo ad unum genus hominum, sed universorum, scilicet tam Iudaeorum, quam gentium. Ps. II, 8: postula a me, et dabo tibi gentes haereditatem tuam, et cetera.
But in Christ are two natures, namely, the divine and the human: insofar as he is the natural Son, he is not an appointed heir, but he is so naturally; but inasmuch as he is man, he has become the Son of God: concerning his Son who was made to him of the seed of David (Rom 1:3). Indeed, as a man, he has been appointed heir of all things, just as he has become a true son of the Father: all power is given to me in heaven and in earth (Matt 28:18), and it extends to every creature that he has taken under his rule. It extends, therefore, not only to one type of man, but to all, i.e., both Jews and gentiles: ask of me and I will give you the gentiles for your inheritance (Ps 2:8).
21. Quem constituit haeredem universorum. Ostensa excellentia Christi quantum ad proprietatem originis, hic ostendit excellentiam eius quantum ad maiestatem dominii, et quidem congrue coniungit locutus est in Filio, et constitutus est haeres, quia si filii, et haeredes, Rom. VIII, 17.
21. Having shown Christ’s excellence as to his unique origin, he now shows his excellence as to the majesty of his dominion. It is suitable that these two be joined: he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things: if a son, then an heir (Rom 8:17).
Sciendum est autem, quod in Christo sunt duae naturae, divina scilicet et humana; sed secundum divinam naturam, sicut non est constitutus Filius cum sit Filius naturalis ab aeterno; ita nec est constitutus haeres, sed ab aeterno est haeres naturalis. Secundum vero naturam humanam, sicut est factus Filius Dei Rom. I, 3: qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem ita et factus est haeres universorum. Et quantum ad hoc dicit quem constituit haeredem, id est, dominum, universorum. Matth. XXI, 38: hic est haeres, venite et occidamus eum. Mich. I, 15: adhuc haeredem adducam tibi, qui habitas in Maresa, usque ad Odollam, veniet gloria Israel.
But it should be noted that in Christ are two natures, namely, the divine and the human. But according to the divine nature, since he was not appointed Son, since he is the natural Son from all eternity, so neither was he appointed heir, but he is the natural heir from all eternity. But according to his human nature, just as he was made Son of God: he was descended from David according to the flesh (Rom 1:3), so he was made heir to all things: whom he has appointed heir, that is, the lord, of all things: this is the heir, come, let us kill him (Matt 21:38). I will again bring an heir to you, inhabitants of Mareshah; the glory of Israel shall come to Adullam (Mic 1:15).
Et quidem secundum divinam naturam competit Christo, quod sit haeres genitus, et Dominus. Et primo quidem, quia ipse est Dei virtus, et Dei sapientia, I Cor. I, 24, per quem Pater omnia facit. Et ideo si Pater dicitur Dominus omnium, ratione creationis, similiter et Filius, per quem omnia producuntur in esse, Dominus est. Prov. VIII, 30: cum eo eram cuncta componens. Secundo quia Filius est Patris sapientia, qua omnia gubernat. Sap. VIII, 1 dicitur de sapientia: attingit a fine usque ad finem, et cetera. Si ergo Pater dicitur Dominus ratione gubernationis Sap. XIV, 3: tu autem, Pater, gubernas omnia, etc., et Filio competit Dominium. Item Pater est Dominus, inquantum ad ipsum omnia ordinantur, sicut ad primum principium, et finem omnium; similiter et Filius, qui est Dei sapientia, praecedens omnia, Dominus est. Eccli. I, 3: sapientiam Dei praecedentem omnia, quis investigabit? Prov. XVI, v. 4: universa propter semetipsum operatus est Dominus.
Indeed, according to his divine nature it belongs to Christ to be the begotten heir of the Lord. First, because he is the power and wisdom of God (1 Cor 1:18) through whom the Father makes all things. Therefore, if the Father is called the God of all by reason of creation, the Son also, through whom all things were brought into existence, is called Lord: I was with him forming all things (Prov 8:30). Second, because the Son is the Father’s wisdom, by which he governs all things. It is said of wisdom: she reaches mightily from one end of the earth to the other and she orders all things well (Wis 8:1). Therefore, if the Father is called Lord by reason of governing: you, the Father, govern all things (Wis 13:3), the Son, too, has dominion. Furthermore, the Father is Lord inasmuch as all things are ordained to him as to the first principle and end of all things. So, too, the Son, who is the wisdom of God preceding all things, is Lord: wisdom was created before all things. Who can search it out? (Sir 1:3). The Lord has made all things for himself (Prov 16:4).
Secundum humanam vero naturam competit etiam Christo, quod sit constitutus haeres et Dominus universorum. Primo quidem ratione unionis, ex hoc scilicet ipso, quod assumptus est homo ille in persona Filii Dei. Act. V, 31: hunc Deus Dominum salvatorem constituit. Eph. I, 21: constituit eum super omnem principatum, et potestatem, et cetera. Secundo ratione potestatis, quia omnia ei obediunt, et serviunt. Matth. ult.: data est mihi omnis potestas in caelo, et cetera. Tertio ratione subiectionis. Phil. II, 10: in nomine Iesu omne genu flectatur, et cetera.
But according to his human nature it also belongs to Christ to be heir and Lord of all things. First, by reason of the union, i.e., from the fact that that man was assumed in the person of the Son of God: the Lord God exalted him as Savior (Acts 5:31); he set him over every principality and power and dominion (Eph 1:19). Second, by reason of power, because all things obey and serve him: all power has been given to me in heaven and in earth (Matt 28:18). Third, by reason of subjection: at the name of Jesus every knee should bow of those in heaven, on earth, and below the earth (Phil 2:10).
Sed dicit universorum, quod refertur ad totius naturae universitatem, in qua accepit Dominium, secundum illud Ps. VIII, 8: omnia subiecisti sub pedibus eius. Item refertur ad omne genus hominum, ut sit sensus: universorum, id est, tam Iudaeorum, quam etiam omnium aliorum hominum, secundum illud Ps. II, 8: postula a me, et dabo tibi gentes haereditatem tuam, et cetera. Et de hoc dicitur Esth. XIII, 11: Dominus omnium tu es.
But he says, of all things, which refers to the totality of all nature, in which he obtains dominion: you have subjected all things under his feet (Ps 8:8). It also refers to the whole human race, so that the sense would be: of all things, i.e., not only the Jews but also other men: ask of me and I will give you the gentiles as your inheritance and the ends of the earth as your possession (Ps 2:8). And of this it is said: you are Lord of all (Esth 13:11).
22. Consequenter cum dicit per quem fecit et saecula, ostendit virtutem operationis Christi, quare sit constitutus haeres universorum, non quod ipse sit factus in tempore et hoc meruerit merito bonae vitae, sicut dicit Photinus, sed quod aeque omnia facta sunt per ipsum, sicut et per Patrem. Per ipsum enim fecit Pater saecula.
22. Then when he says, by whom also he made the world, he shows the power of Christ’s activity, i.e., why he has been appointed heir of all things. It was not because he was born at a certain moment of time and merited this by leading a good life, as Photinus says, but because all things were originally made by him, as they were made by the Father. For through him the Father made the world.
Sed sciendum est, quod ista praepositio per denotat causam actus. Sed hoc est dupliciter: uno modo, quia est causa factionis ex parte facientis, ut cum scilicet causale cui adiungitur, est causa actionis secundum quod exit ab agente. Semper enim factio est medium inter faciens et factum. Potest ergo denotare circa agens causam finalem, ut artifex operatur per lucrum; aliquando causam formalem, ut ignis calefacit per calorem; aliquando vero causam efficientem, ut balivus operatur per regem. Nullo istorum modorum est Filius causa Patris, quod per illum operetur, sicut nec quod ab ipso sit.
But it should be noted that the grammatical object of the preposition ‘by’ or ‘through’ designates the cause of an act: in one way, because it causes a making on the part of the maker. For the making is midway between the maker and the thing made. In this usage the object of ‘by’ can designate the final cause motivating the maker, as an artisan works by gain; or the formal cause, as fire warms by heat; or even the efficient cause, as a bailiff acts through the king. But the Son is not the cause making the Father act through him in any of these ways any more than he is the cause of his proceeding from the Father.
Aliquando vero causale est causa actionis, secundum quod terminatur ad factum, ut artifex operatur per martellum. Martellus enim non est causa artificis, quod agat; sed est causa artificiato, quod ab artifice procedat, ut ferro, quod recipiat operationem ab artifice, et sic Filius est causa facti, et Pater operatur per Filium.
But sometimes the object of ‘by’ designates the cause of the action, taken from the viewpoint of the thing made, as an artisan acts through a hammer; for the hammer is not the cause of the artisan’s action, but it is the cause why an artifact made of iron should proceed from the artisan, i.e., why iron be worked on by the artisan. This is the way the Son is the cause of things made and the way the Father works through the Son.
23. Sed numquid Filius est minor Patre?
23. But is the Son inferior to the Father?
Videtur quod sic, quia illud quod est causa facti, ut fiat, videtur habere rationem instrumenti.
It seems so, because that which is the cause of a thing’s being made seems to be an instrument.
Sed ad hoc dicendum est, quod si non esset eadem virtus numero in Filio et Patre, et eadem operatio, teneret obiectio. Nunc ergo eadem est virtus et operatio patris et filii, sicut et eadem natura et esse, et dicitur Pater per eum facere saecula, quia genuit eum operantem saecula. Io. V, 19: quaecumque Pater facit, et Filius facit.
The answer is that if the power in the Father and in the Son were not the same numerically, and the activity not the same numerical activity, the objection would hold. But the fact is that the power and activity, as well as the nature and the being of the Father and of the Son are the same. Therefore, the Father is said to make the world through him, because he begot him forming the world: whatever the Father does, the Son also does (John 5:19).
Saeculum dicitur spatium rei temporalis. Saecula ergo sunt successiones temporum; non ergo fecit tantum tempora sempiterna, secundum quod philosophi aliqui dixerunt Deum tantum fecisse sempiternum, et angelos creasse temporalia, sed etiam fecit temporalia, quae vocat hic saecula. Infra XI, 3: fide intelligimus aptata esse saecula. Io. I, 3: omnia per ipsum facta sunt.
Here, world means the temporal span of a created thing. Worlds, i.e., saecula, therefore, are successions of times. Therefore, he made not only sempiternal times (in the sense in which philosophers say that God alone made eternal things, and angels created temporal things), but also temporal things, which the Apostle calls worlds: by faith we understand that the world was framed by the Word of God (Heb 11:3); all things were made by him (John 1:3).