Chapter 18.—The Vision of Daniel.

33.336    [The original has an awkward anacoluthon in the opening sentence of this chapter, which has been removed by omitting “quamquam,” and substituting “autem” for “ergo.”—W.G.T.S.] I do not know in what manner these men understand that the Ancient of Days appeared to Daniel, from whom the Son of man, which He deigned to be for our sakes, is understood to have received the kingdom; namely, from Him who says to Him in the Psalms, “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten Thee; ask of me, and I shall give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance;”337    Ps. ii. 7, 8 and who has “put all things under His feet.”338    Ps. viii. 8 If, however, both the Father giving the kingdom, and the Son receiving it, appeared to Daniel in bodily form, how can those men say that the Father never appeared to the prophets, and, therefore, that He only ought to be understood to be invisible whom no man has seen, nor can see? For Daniel has told us thus: “I beheld,” he says, “till the thrones were set,339    Cast down—A.V. and the Ancient of Days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of His head like the pure wool: His throne was like the fiery flame, and His wheels as burning fire; a fiery stream issued and came forth from before Him: thousand thousands ministered unto Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened,” etc. And a little after, “I saw,” he says, “in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. And there was given Him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him: His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.”340    Dan. vii. 9–14 Behold the Father giving, and the Son receiving, an eternal kingdom; and both are in the sight of him who prophesies, in a visible form. It is not, therefore, unsuitably believed that God the Father also was wont to appear in that manner to mortals.

34. Unless, perhaps, some one shall say, that the Father is therefore not visible, because He appeared within the sight of one who was dreaming; but that therefore the Son and the Holy Spirit are visible, because Moses saw all those things being awake; as if, forsooth, Moses saw the Word and the Wisdom of God with fleshly eyes, or that even the human spirit which quickens that flesh can be seen, or even that corporeal thing which is called wind;—how much less can that Spirit of God be seen, who transcends the minds of all men, and of angels, by the ineffable excellence of the divine substance? Or can any one fall headlong into such an error as to dare to say, that the Son and the Holy Spirit are visible also to men who are awake, but that the Father is not visible except to those who dream? How, then, do they understand that of the Father alone, “Whom no man hath seen, nor can see.”? When men sleep, are they then not men? Or cannot He, who can fashion the likeness of a body to signify Himself through the visions of dreamers, also fashion that same bodily creature to signify Himself to the eyes of those who are awake? Whereas His own very substance, whereby He Himself is that which He is, cannot be shown by any bodily likeness to one who sleeps, or by any bodily appearance to one who is awake; but this not of the Father only, but also of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. And certainly, as to those who are moved by the visions of waking men to believe that not the Father, but only the Son, or the Holy Spirit, appeared to the corporeal sight of men,—to omit the great extent of the sacred pages, and their manifold interpretation, such that no one of sound reason ought to affirm that the person of the Father was nowhere shown to the eyes of waking men by any corporeal appearance;—but, as I said, to omit this, what do they say of our father Abraham, who was certainly awake and ministering, when, after Scripture had premised, “The Lord appeared unto Abraham,” not one, or two, but three men appeared to him; no one of whom is said to have stood prominently above the others, no one more than the others to have shone with greater glory, or to have acted more authoritatively?341    Gen. xviii. 1

35. Wherefore, since in that our threefold division we determined to inquire,342    See above, chap. vii. first, whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit; or whether sometimes the Father, sometimes the Son, sometimes the Holy Spirit; or whether, without any distinction of persons, as it is said, the one and only God, that is, the Trinity itself, appeared to the fathers through those forms of the creature: now that we have examined, so far as appeared to be sufficient what places of the Holy Scriptures we could, a modest and cautious consideration of divine mysteries leads, as far as I can judge, to no other conclusion, unless that we may not rashly affirm which person of the Trinity appeared to this or that of the fathers or the prophets in some body or likeness of body, unless when the context attaches to the narrative some probable intimations on the subject. For the nature itself, or substance, or essence, or by whatever other name that very thing, which is God, whatever it be, is to be called, cannot be seen corporeally: but we must believe that by means of the creature made subject to Him, not only the Son, or the Holy Spirit, but also the Father, may have given intimations of Himself to mortal senses by a corporeal form or likeness. And since the case stands thus, that this second book may not extend to an immoderate length, let us consider what remains in those which follow.

CAPUT XVIII.

33. Visio Danielis. Quanquam nescio quemadmodum isti intelligant quod Danieli apparuerit Antiquus dierum, a quo Filius hominis, quod propter nos esse dignatus est, accepisse intelligitur regnum, ab illo scilicet qui ei dicit in Psalmis, Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te: postula a me, et dabo tibi gentes haereditatem tuam (Psal. II, 7, 8); et qui omnia subjecit sub pedibus ejus (Psal. VIII, 8). Si ergo Danieli et Pater dans regnum, et Filius accipiens, apparuerunt in specie corporali; quomodo isti dicunt, Patrem nunquam visum esse Prophetis, et ideo solum debere intelligi invisibilem quem nemo hominum vidit, nec videre potest? Ita enim narravit Daniel: Aspiciebam, inquit, donec throni positi sunt, et Vetustus dierum sedebat: et indumentum ejus quasi nix album, et capillus capitis ejus quasi lana munda; thronus ejus flamma ignis, rotae ejus ignis flagrans, et flumen ignis trahebat in conspectu ejus. Et mille millia 0867 deserviebant ei, et dena millia denum millium assistebant ei. Et judicium collocavit, et libri aperti sunt, etc. Et paulo post: Aspiciebam, inquit, in visione noctis: et ecce cum coeli nubibus, quasi Filius hominis veniens erat, et usque ad Veterem dierum pervenit, et oblatus est ei. Et ipsi datus est principatus et honor et regnum; et omnes populi, tribus, et linguae ipsi servient. Potestas ejus, potestas aeterna, quae non praeteribit, et regnum ejus non corrumpetur (Dan. VII, 9-14). Ecce Pater dans, et Filius accipiens regnum sempiternum, et sunt ambo in conspectu prophetantis visibili. specie. Non ergo inconvenienter creditur etiam Pater Deus eo modo solere apparere mortalibus.

34. Nisi forte aliquis dicet , ideo non esse visibilem Patrem, quia in conspectu somniantis apparuit; ideo autem Filium visibilem et Spiritum sanctum, quia Moyses illa omnia vigilans vidit. Quasi vero Verbum et Sapientiam Dei viderit Moyses carnalibus oculis, aut videri spiritus vel humanus possit qui carnem istam vivificat, vel ipse corporeus qui ventus dicitur; quanto minus ille Spiritus Dei qui omnium hominum et Angelorum mentes ineffabili excellentia divinae substantiae supergreditur? aut quisquam tali praecipitetur errore, ut audeat dicere Filium et Spiritum sanctum etiam vigilantibus hominibus esse visibilem, Patrem autem nonnisi somniantibus? Quomodo ergo de Patre solo accipiunt, Quem nemo hominum vidit, nec videre potest? An cum dormiunt homines, tunc non sunt homines? Aut qui formare similitudinem corporis potest ad se significandum per visa somniantium, non potest formare ipsam corpoream creaturam ad se significandum oculis vigilantium? cum ejus ipsa substantia qua est ipse quod est, nulla corporis similitudine dormienti, nulla corporea specie vigilanti possit ostendi: sed non solum Patris, verum etiam Filii et Spiritus sancti. Et 0868 certe qui vigilantium visis moventur, ut non Patrem, sed tantum Filium vel Spiritum sanctum credant corporalibus hominum apparuisse conspectibus; ut omittam tantam latitudinem sanctarum paginarum, et tam multiplicem earum intelligentiam, unde nemo sani capitis affirmare debet, nusquam personam Patris per aliquam speciem corporalem vigilantium oculis demonstratam: sed ut hoc, ut dixi, omittam; quid dicunt de Patre nostro Abraham, cui certe vigilanti et ministranti, cum Scriptura praemisisset dicens, Visus est Dominus Abrahae, non unus aut duo, sed tres apparuerunt viri, quorum nullus excelsius aliis eminuisse dictus est, nullus honoratius effulsisse, nullus imperiosius egisse (Gen. XVIII, 1)?

35. Quapropter, quoniam in illa tripartita nostra distributione primum quaerere instituimus (Supra, cap. 7), utrum Pater, an Filius, an Spiritus sanctus; an aliquando Pater, aliquando Filius, aliquando Spiritus sanctus; an sine ulla distinctione personarum, sicut dicitur, Deus unus et solus; id est Trinitas ipsa, per illas creaturae formas Patribus apparuerit: interrogatis quae potuimus , quantum sufficere visum est, sanctarum Scripturarum locis, nihil aliud, quantum existimo, divinorum sacramentorum modesta et cauta consideratio persuadet, nisi ut temere non dicamus quaenam ex Trinitate persona cuilibet Patrum vel Prophetarum in aliquo corpore vel similitudine corporis apparuerit, nisi cum continentia lectionis aliqua probabilia circumponit indicia. Ipsa enim natura, vel substantia, vel essentia, vel quolibet alio nomine appellandum est idipsum quod Deus est, quidquid illud est, corporaliter videri non potest: per subjectam vero creaturam, non solum Filium, vel Spiritum sanctum, sed etiam Patrem corporali specie sive similitudine mortalibus sensibus significationem sui dare potuisse credendum est. Quae cum ita sint, ne immoderatius progrediatur secundi hujus voluminis longitudo, ea quae restant, in consequentibus videamus.