164. Inde ponuntur testes, ibi ecce magi. Et describuntur tripliciter: a professione, a regione, et a loco, ubi testimonium dederunt. 164. From there, he sets down the witnesses, at behold, there came magi. And they are described in three ways: by profession, by region, and by the place where they gave testimony. De primo dicit ecce magi: qui secundum communem usum loquendi vocantur incantatores; sed lingua Persica vocat magos philosophos et sapientes. Isti quidem venerunt ad Iesum, quia gloriam sapientiae, quam possidebant, recognoverunt a Christo. Et sunt quidem primitiae gentium, quia primo venerunt ad Christum. Et impletur, secundum Augustinum, in istorum adventu illud Isaiae VIII, 4: antequam sciat puer vocare patrem suum, et matrem suam, auferetur fortitudo Damasci, et spolia Samariae coram rege Assyriorum etc.; ante enim quam Christus loqueretur, eripuit fortitudinem Damasci, et divitias et spolia Samariae, idest idololatriam. Dimiserunt enim illi idololatriam, et munera obtulerunt. And first he says, behold . . . magi, who according the common way of speaking are called incantators; but in the Persian language, philosophers and wise men are called magi. Indeed, these men came to Jesus because they had recognized that the glory of the wisdom which they possessed was from Christ. And they are a certain first-fruits of the gentiles, because they first came to Christ. And according to Augustine, the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled by their coming: for before the child know to call his father and his mother, the strength of Damascus, and the spoils of Samaria will be taken away before the king of the Assyrians (Isa 8:4); for before Christ spoke, he took away the strength of Damascus and the riches and spoils of Samaria, i.e., idolatry. For they had given up idolatry, and brought gifts. Item considerandum quod ad Christum venerunt aliqui ex Iudaeis, scilicet pastores; aliqui ex gentibus, scilicet magi: ipse enim Christus est lapis angularis, qui fecit utraque unum. Similarly, one should consider that some came to Christ from the Jews, namely the shepherds, and some from the gentiles, namely the magi; for Christ himself is the stone at the corner, who makes both into one. Et quare magi et pastores? Quia pastores magis simplices, et isti magis peccatores, ad significandum quod Christus utrosque recipit. And why magi and shepherds? Because the shepherds were more simple, and these magi were more sinful, to indicate that Christ accepts both. Quot autem fuerint illi magi, Evangelista non dicit. Videtur autem, secundum munera, quod fuerunt tres reges, quamvis plures alii in eis repraesentabantur; Is. LX, 3: ambulabunt gentes in lumine tuo. The Evangelist does not say how many magi there were. But it seems, according to the gifts, that there were three kings, however many others were represented among them; and the gentiles will walk in your light, and kings in the brightness of your rising (Isa 60:3). 165. De secundo, scilicet de regione, dicit ab oriente. 165. Concerning the second thing, namely the region, he says, from the east. Et notandum quod quidam ab oriente exponunt a finibus orientis; sed tunc quomodo in tam paucis diebus venissent? Et respondetur, ut quidam dicunt, quod miraculose venerunt; alii quod dromedarios habuerunt. Chrysostomus tamen dicit, quod stella apparuit eis per duos annos ante nativitatem, et quod tunc se paraverunt, et venerunt Ierosolymam in duobus annis et tredecim diebus. And it should be noted that some explain this as from the end of the east; but then how had they come in so few days? And the response is, as some say, that they came miraculously; others, that they had camels. But Chrysostom says that the star appeared to them two years before the birth, and that they prepared themselves at that time, and came to Jerusalem in two years and three days. Aliter autem potest exponi, ut dicatur ab oriente, idest a quadam regione quae erat prope Ierusalem a parte Orientali; dicuntur enim isti fuisse de secta Balaam, qui dixit Num. XXIV, 17: orietur stella ex Iacob, qui Balaam habitabat iuxta terram promissionis in parte Orientali. However, it can be explained in another way, so as to say from the east, i.e., from a certain region which was close by the eastern part of Jerusalem; for they say that these men were of the sect of Balaam, who said: a star will rise out of Jacob (Num 24:17). This Balaam lived next to the land of promise in the eastern region. 166. Sequitur de loco Ierosolymam venerunt. Sed quare venerunt Ierusalem? Duplex est ratio. Una quia erat civitas regia; unde regem Iudaeorum in regia civitate quaerebant; item hoc factum fuit ex divina dispensatione, ut primo testimonium ferretur de Christo in Ierusalem, ut adimpleretur prophetia Is. II, 3: de Sion exibit lex, et verbum Domini de Ierusalem. 166. There follows, concerning the place, to Jerusalem. But why did they come to Jerusalem? There are two reasons. One, because it was the royal city; hence they were seeking the king of the Jews in the royal city. Again, this was done by divine arrangement, so that the first testimony to Christ might be given in Jerusalem, so that the prophecy might be fulfilled: the law will come forth from Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem (Isa 2:3). 167. Consequenter ponitur testimonium, ibi ubi est qui natus est? In quo tria dicunt: 167. Next he sets down the testimony, where is he who is born, in which they say three things: primo denuntiant regis nativitatem; first, they announce the birth of the king; secundo afferunt nativitatis signum, ibi vidimus enim stellam eius; second, they produce a sign of his birth, at for we have seen his star; tertio profitentur pium propositum, ibi et venimus adorare. third, they declare a pious purpose, at and are come to adore him. 168. Dicunt ergo ubi est? Considerandum autem quod isti magi sunt primitiae gentium, et praefigurant in se statum nostrum. Isti enim aliquid supponunt, scilicet Christi nativitatem, et aliquid quaerunt, scilicet locum; et quidem nos fide tenemus Christum, sed aliquid quaerimus, scilicet spe: videbimus enim eum facie ad faciem. II Cor. V, 7: per fidem ambulamus, et non per speciem. 168. They say then, where is he who is born? Now, one should consider that these magi are the first-fruits of the gentiles, and they prefigure in themselves our state. For they supposed one thing, namely the birth of Christ, and they sought another thing, namely the place; and indeed we hold to the faith of Christ, but we seek something, namely by hope, for we will see him face to face. We walk by faith, and not by sight (2 Cor 5:7). Sed quaestio est. Cum ipsi audissent regem esse in Ierusalem, quomodo ista dicebant? Omnis enim qui alium regem profitetur in civitate regis, se exponit periculo. Sed certe hoc zelo fidei faciebant. Unde in istis nuntiabatur fides illa intrepida. Infra c. X, 28: nolite timere eos qui occidunt corpus. But there is a question. Since they had heard that there was a king in Jerusalem, how did they say those things? For all who profess another king in the city of the king expose themselves to danger. But surely they acted out of the zeal of faith. Hence their fearless faith is announced in these words. Below: and do not fear those who kill the body (Matt 10:28). 169. Consequenter proponunt signum huius nativitatis vidimus. 169. Next they set forth a sign of this birth, we have seen. Et nota quod in istis verbis fuit occasio duorum errorum. Quidam, sicut Priscillianistae, dixerunt omnes actus hominum fato agi et regi. Et confirmant per hoc, vidimus enim stellam eius. Ergo natus est sub aliqua stella. Alius error Manichaeorum, qui reprobant fatum, et per consequens istud Evangelium; quia dicebant quod Matthaeus introducit fatum. Sed excluditur error utriusque. And notice that there is an occasion for two errors in these words. Some men, such as the Priscilians, said that every human act is performed and guided by fate. And they confirmed their opinion by this text, for we have seen his star. Therefore he was born under some star. Another error is that of the Manichees, who rejected fate, and as a consequence rejected this Gospel, because they said that Matthew brought in fate. But both errors are excluded. 170. Sed antequam procedamus ad expositionem litterae, oportet primo videre quid est fatum, et quomodo sunt haec credenda, et quomodo non. 170. But before we proceed to the explanation of the text, it is necessary to see what fate is, and in what way these things should be believed, and in what way not. Nota ergo quod videmus multa in rebus humanis per accidens et casualiter accidere. Contingit autem aliquid casuale et fortuitum esse relatum ad causam inferiorem, quod relatum ad causam superiorem non est fortuitum: sicut si aliquis dominus mittat tres ad quaerendum aliquem, et unus nesciat de alio, si occurrant sibi invicem, est eis casuale; sed si referantur ad intentionem domini, non est casuale. Note then that we see that many things in human affairs happen per accidens and accidentally. Now, it happens that some chance and fortuitous thing is related to a lower cause, which is not fortuitous as related to a higher cause; as if some lord sent three servants to search for someone, and one servant did not know the other. If they met one another, it would be by chance, for them; but if one looks to the intention of the lord, it would not be by chance. Sed secundum hoc fuit duplex opinio de fato. Quidam dixerunt quod ista casualia non reducuntur in aliam causam superiorem ordinantem: et isti sustulerunt fatum, et ultra hoc omnem providentiam divinam. Et fuit, secundum Augustinum, haec opinio Tullii. Sed dicimus quod ista casualia reducuntur in causam superiorem ordinantem. Sed cum ‘fatum’ dicatur a for, faris, quasi quoddam pronuntiatum et prolocutum, a qua causa sit ista ordinatio, est differentia. Quidam enim dixerunt quod est ex virtute corporum supercaelestium. Unde dicunt fatum nihil aliud esse quam dispositio siderum. But in accord with this there are two opinions about fate. Some said that these chance things are not traced back into some higher ordering cause, and they did away with fate, and beyond this with all divine providence. And this, according to Augustine, was Cicero’s opinion. But we say that these chance things are traced back into a higher ordering cause. But since ‘fate’ is taken from for, faris as though a certain pronouncement and speaking out by which the ordering of things is caused, there is a difference amongst those who believe in fate. For some have said that it is by the power of the bodies above the heavens that things are ordered. Hence they say that fate is nothing other than the arrangement of the stars. Alii ista contingentia reducunt in providentiam divinam. Sed primo modo negandum est esse fatum. Actus enim humani non reguntur secundum dispositionem corporum caelestium: quod patet ad praesens, cum multae sint ad hoc rationes efficaces. Others lead these happenstance things back into divine providence. But one should deny that the first way is fate. For human acts are not guided according to the arrangement of the heavenly bodies; which is clear right away, since there are many things which work for this argument. Primo, quia impossibile est, quod virtus corporalis agat supra virtutem incorpoream, quia nihil inferius in ordine naturae agit in superiorem naturam. In anima autem sunt quaedam potentiae elevatae supra corpus; quaedam potentiae sunt organis affixae, scilicet potentiae sensitivae et nutritivae: et corpora quidem caelestia, quamvis directe agant supra corpora inferiora, et mutent ea per se, per accidens tamen agunt in potentiis organis affixis. In potentiis autem organis non affixis nullo modo agunt necessitando, sed inclinando tantum. Dicimus enim istum hominem iracundum, idest pronum ad iracundiam, et hoc ex causis caelestibus, sed directe electio ut sic in voluntate est. Unde numquam potest fieri tanta dispositio in corpore humano, quin superabundet iudicium liberi arbitrii. Unde quicumque poneret liberum arbitrium sub corporibus caelestibus, de necessitate poneret sensum ab intellectu non differre. First, because it is impossible that a bodily power should act on a non-bodily power, because nothing lower in the order of nature acts on a higher nature. Now, there are certain powers in the soul elevated above the body, while certain powers are attached to an organ, namely the sensitive and nutritive powers. And certainly the heavenly bodies, although they directly act on lower bodies, and change them per se, yet they act per accidens on the powers attached to organs. But in the powers not attached to organs they in no way act by necessitating, but only by inclining. For we say that this man is angry, i.e., prone to anger, and this is from heavenly causes; but directly, choice as such is in the will. Hence there can never come about such an arrangement in the human body but that the opinion of free judgment is far greater. Hence whoever would put free judgment under the heavenly bodies would of necessity hold that sense and intellect do not differ. Secundo, quia per hoc excluditur omnis cultus divinus, quia tunc omnia essent ex necessitate; et sic tunc etiam regimen reipublicae destrueretur, quia nec oporteret consiliari, neque aliquid providere, et huiusmodi. Second, because all divine worship is excluded by this notion of fate, because then all things would be of necessity; and thus even the directing of the republic would be destroyed, because then it would not be necessary either to deliberate, or to provide for anything, and so on. Tertio, quia nos attribueremus Deo malitias hominum; quod esset ipsum infamare, qui Creator est stellarum. Third, because we would attribute to God the wickedness of men, which would be to insult him who is the Creator of the stars. Patet ergo quod hoc dicere est contra fidem omnino. Et ideo dicit Gregorius: absit a fidelium cordibus ut fatum aliquid esse dicatur. Si autem vis vocari fatum divinam providentiam, tunc aliquid est. Sed, sicut dicit Augustinus, quia nihil commune debemus habere cum infidelibus, non hoc nomen ei imponere debemus, unde dicit: linguam corrigas, sententiam teneas. Therefore it is clear that to say this is entirely contrary to the faith. And so Gregory says: be it gone from the hearts of the faithful that fate is said to be something! Now, if you wish divine providence to be called fate, then that is something. But, as Augustine says, since we ought not have anything in common with the infidels, we ought not to give this name to it. Hence he says, correct the tongue, hold the opinion. Non ergo potest dici vidimus stellam, idest a qua tota vita eius dependeat; quia, secundum Augustinum, tunc stella non sequeretur generatum, quia tunc Christus magis diceretur fatum stellae, quam e converso. Therefore it cannot be said, we have seen his star, i.e., the star from which his whole life depends; for according to Augustine, then the star would not have followed the one generated, since then Christ would be called rather the fate of the star than the other way around. 171. Et notandum quod ista stella non fuit de primis causatis: quod patet ex quatuor. Primo ex motu, quia nulla stella movetur de septentrione in meridiem. Regio autem Persarum, unde isti magi veniebant, est posita ad septentrionem. Item, aliae numquam quiescunt; ista autem non continue movebatur. Tertio ex tempore, quia in die nulla lucet; ista autem de die praebebat lucem magis. Quarto ex situ, quia non in firmamento, quod patet, quia isti per eam determinate distinxerunt domum. 171. And one should note that this star was not one of the first things caused, which is clear from four things. First, from motion, because no star moves from the north into the south. Now, the region of the Persians, from which these magi came, is set in the north. Likewise, the other stars never rest; but this one did not move constantly. Third, from time, because no star shines in the day, but this one offered light to the magi during the day. Fourth, from position, because it was not positioned in the firmament, as is clear, because the magi clearly picked out the house by means of it. Ergo dicendum quod ista specialiter creata fuit ad servitium Christi. Et ideo dicit vidimus stellam eius, idest ad obsequium eius factam. And so one should say that this star had been specially created for the service of Christ. And therefore it says, we have seen his star, i.e., the one made for his service. 172. Quidam autem dicunt, quod ista stella fuit Spiritus Sanctus, qui, sicut super baptizatum apparuit in specie columbae, ita et nunc in specie stellae. Alii dicunt quod fuit angelus. 172. But certain men say that this star was the Holy Spirit, who, just as he appeared above the baptized Christ in the appearance of a dove, so also now in the appearance of a star. Others say that it was an angel. Sed dicendum est quod vera stella fuit. Et voluit ostendi sub indicio stellae, primo, quia conveniebat ei. Est enim rex caelorum, et ideo per caeleste indicium voluit manifestari; Ps. XVIII, 1: caeli enarrant gloriam Dei et opera manuum eius annuntiat firmamentum; Iudaeis quidem per angelos, per quos legem acceperant; Gal. III, 19: lex data est per angelos; gentilibus per stellam, quia per creaturas in cognitionem Dei venerunt; Rom. I, 20: invisibilia Dei per ea quae facta sunt, intellecta conspiciuntur. But one should say that it was a true star. And he wished to be revealed under the guidance of a star, first, because it befit him. For he is the king of the heavens, and so he wished to be known through heavenly guidance; the heavens show forth the glory of God, and the firmament declares the work of his hands (Ps 18:2); indeed, he wished to be known to the Jews through angels, through whom they received the law: being ordained by angels (Gal 3:19), and to the gentiles through a star, because they came to the knowledge of God through creatures; for 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). Secundo, quia congruebat his quibus demonstrabatur, scilicet gentilibus, quorum vocatio promissa fuit Abrahae in similitudinem stellarum; Gen. XV, 5: suspice caelum, et numera stellas si potes et cetera. Unde tam in nativitate, quam in passione factum est signum in caelo, quod omnibus gentibus Christum notum fecit. Second, because it fit with those to whom he was shown, namely with the gentiles, whose calling was promised to Abraham in the likeness of stars; look up to heaven and number the stars, if you can (Gen 15:5). Hence both in the birth and in the passion, there was a sign in heaven which made Christ known to all the gentiles. Item, congruebat omnibus, quia ipse est Salvator omnium. Again, it fit with all, because he himself is the Savior of all. 173. Sed dicit in oriente, quod exponitur dupliciter. Secundum Rabanum, sic: stella existens in Iudaea apparuit illis gentibus in oriente. Vel: nos vidimus stellam in oriente. Istud melius dicitur. Unde ecce stella, quam viderant in oriente antecedebat eos. 173. But he says, in the east, which is explained in two ways. According to Rabanus, this way: a star existing in Judah appeared to these gentiles in the east. Or: we have seen the star in the east. This is better said. Hence, behold the star which they had seen in the east, went before them (Matt 2:9). Item patet ex hoc quod ista secundum situm erat propinqua terrae, quia aliter non distinxisset locum. Ergo non potuisset videri a tam remota regione. Likewise, it is clear from the fact that this star was positioned near to the earth, since otherwise they would not have distinguished the place of Christ’s birth. Therefore it could not have been seen from so remote a region. 174. Consequenter ponitur pium propositum et venimus adorare. 174. Next the pious intention is set down, and are come to adore him. Hic est duplex quaestio. Dicit enim Augustinus: numquid isti erant curiosi, quod quandocumque fieret aliquod indicium per aliquam stellam quaererent regem natum? Hoc enim stultum fuisset. Here there are two questions. For Augustine says, were they not rather odd, since whenever there was some indication by some star they went seeking the king who was born? For this would have been stupid.