ambix, Vol. 67 No.

1, February 2020, 88–99

Cross and Crucible: Alchemy in the

Theology of Paracelsus
Urs Leo Gantenbein
University of Zurich, Switzerland

Paracelsus was not only a reformer of medicine with a preference for medical
alchemy, but also emerged as a radical church reformer. However, he only
rarely used the imagery of alchemy as a parable for theological salvation. Fire
as the driving force for every alchemical process was also suitable as an image
for the purification of souls. A central idea of alchemy, to transfer a substance
from its still impure original state into the purified final state, was very much in
line with Paracelsus’s doctrine of the Last Supper, according to which the
mortal human who had descended from Adam is to be brought to a new birth
through baptism with the Holy Spirit. As an alchemist, Paracelsus was keenly in-
terested in the transfiguration of Christ, which he first explained alchemically, but
later magically, probably according to the model of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola.

Introduction: Paracelsus as a radical reform theologian

When Johannes Huser (ca. 1545–1600/1601) presented his monumental edition of
the medical and natural philosophical writings of Paracelsus (1589–1591 and
1605), readers would hardly have expected Paracelsus to have left behind an at
least equally extensive theological oeuvre.1 Every printer hesitated to publish
these theological treatises, because in the age of hardening religious positions they
contained explosive heretical doctrines that would have led to serious problems
for any denomination. It was not until 1618 that a small selection of the theological
works came into print, among them the outstanding Philosophy of the Eternal
Limbus, published by the poet, composer and Rosicrucian follower Johannes Star-
icius (fl. 1580–after 1623).2 This philosophy forms part of the writings on the Last

1
Paracelsus, Bücher und Schrifften, ed. Johannes Huser, 10 vols. (Basel: Conrad Waldkirch, 1589–1591), abbreviated
as H1–H10; Chirurgische Bücher und Schrifften, ed. Johannes Huser (Strasbourg: Lazarus Zetzner, 1605), hereafter
HC.
2
Paracelsus, Philosophia De Limbo Aeterno, ed. Johannes Staricius (Magdeburg: Francke, 1618). On Staricius see
Andrew Weeks, “Jacob Böhme, Johannes Staricius (ca. 1580–??), and the Culture of Dissent,” in Jacob Böhme
and His World, ed. Bo Andersson e. a. (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 221–43.

© Society for the History of Alchemy and Chemistry 2020 DOI 10.1080/00026980.2020.1723944
 CROSS AND CRUCIBLE 89

Supper, which concern a core concept of the idiosyncratic theology of Paracelsus rel-
evant to the present study.3
In the eyes of many historians of science, Paracelsus was regarded as a reformer of
medicine, who in passing dealt also with theological questions as a rather dilettant-
ish “lay theologian.” They deliberately overlooked the fact that the first dated works
of Paracelsus were written in 1524, when he was in Salzburg, and do not concern
medical studies, but theological treatises dealing with the then highly topical ques-
tions of church reformation. Based on personal testimony, it becomes evident that
Paracelsus already began to deal with theological questions around 1520, when
Martin Luther’s (1483–1546) reformatory pamphlets unfolded a widespread
effect.4 Paracelsus, on the other hand, only emerged as a medical reformer in
Basel in 1527. Based on these obvious facts, Andrew Weeks was the first to
assume that Paracelsus was only inspired to reform medicine by the previous
church reform.5 Luther himself had announced that he would undertake the
reform of theology and law by himself, but leave medicine to the physicians.6
Both Luther and Paracelsus rejected the doctrines of the ancients and the scholastics,
whereas Luther replaced them with redeeming faith and knowledge of the Bible, Par-
acelsus with reason and experience in the book of nature. Due to his numerous theo-
logical writings, most of which relate to idiosyncratic Reformation issues, Paracelsus
is considered today to be part of the so-called Radical Reformation.7 His religious
ideas covered social justice, the requirements for a true Christian life, and a
special view of the Eucharist whose aim it was to create the New Man for life in eter-
nity. In his extensive late work, the Astronomia Magna (1537/38), Paracelsus finally
summed up his most important natural-philosophical, theological and magical
ideas, leading to a tremendous synthesis that could have served as a scientific
model for the sixteenth century.8
Medical alchemy as the art of extracting the active ingredient from a raw sub-
stance, be it by distillation or sublimation, played a central role in the pharmacology
of Paracelsus.9 One would therefore assume that he, as a theologian, would apply
this system to religious matters as well, for instance by explaining the redemption
of the soul. So we are concerned here with the question of how far alchemy also pen-
etrated into his religious ideas, or even significantly influenced them.10

3
For the history of the edition of the theological works of Paracelsus see Paracelsus, Theologische Werke, Neue
Paracelsus-Edition 1, ed. Urs Leo Gantenbein (Berlin–New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), hereafter NPE1, on
37–69.
4
NPE1, 5–7.
5
Andrew Weeks, “Theorie und Mystik in der Nachfolge des Paracelsus,” Morgen-Glantz 13 (2003): 283–302.
6
Martin Luther, Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe, vol. 6 (Weimar: Hermann Böhlau, 1888), 459.
7
For further details and references see Urs Leo Gantenbein, “The Virgin Mary and the Universal Reformation of Par-
acelsus,” forthcoming in Daphnis 48 (2020).
8
See Dane Thor Daniel, Paracelsus’ Astronomia Magna (1537/38): Bible-Based Science and the Religious Roots of the
Scientific Revolution (Ph.D. diss.: Indiana University, 2003).
9
For an introduction to the alchemy of Paracelsus see e.g. Bruce T. Moran, Paracelsus. An Alchemical Life (London:
Reaktion Books, 2019).
10
For a new discussion of the relevance of transmutation in the works of Paracelsus, see also Andrew Sparling, “Par-
acelsus was a Transmutational Alchemist,” Ambix 67 (2020): this issue.
90 URS LEO GANTENBEIN

Alchemical renovation: reservations against Blasphemy

In short and without further explanation some main points of the philosophy of Par-
acelsus shall be mentioned.11 The best known is probably the teaching of the four
pillars of medicine. The “philosophia” concerns the knowledge of the natural king-
doms, the “astronomia” teaches the connection between the lower and the upper
worlds, the “alchimia” purifies the raw materials and leads them to their medicinal
purpose, and “virtus” as the fourth pillar means the medical ethics. Paracelsus’s
famed “light of nature” is immanent in these four areas as a source of the physician’s
knowledge, which can be interpreted as the physician’s reason or his scientific intu-
ition. Opposite to this created world consisting of earthly things and the stars stands
the divine and eternal world, which is revealed to man through the light of the Holy
Spirit. Paracelsus extended the medieval view that metals were made of sulphur and
mercury to the theory of the first three principles, namely that all things, not only
metals, consisted of “mercurius” as the volatile principle, “sulphur” as the combus-
tible, and “sal” or salt as the incombustible, fixed principle. In chemistry, this basic
doctrine of the “tria prima” persisted at least until Robert Boyle (1627–1691).
Dane Daniel has already reported on eschatological parallels between certain
theological views of Paracelsus and the 14th century alchemical Testamentum of
pseudo-Lull.12 Even if these Paracelsian parallels are rather cosmological and do
not explicitly mention alchemy, they show that Paracelsus had known this influential
medieval alchemical treatise. In view of the enormous extent of Paracelsus’s theolog-
ical writings one would assume to find a significant number of passages which
would prove a relationship between alchemy and theology. But this is not the
case; on the contrary, such passages are rather rare in the authentic Paracelsus. Fol-
lowing the general disrepute in his days of the word “alchemy” as a dubious art of
gold making in nearly every vernacular language,13 Paracelsus repeatedly apolo-
gised in his writings that his medical “alchimia,” separating the pure essence of
raw drugs, had nothing to do with the German term “alchimey,” meaning the art
of making gold and silver, “which many crooks pursue in all countries.”14
(H7:217) He certainly did not consider the possibility of an alchemical renovation
of humans, because otherwise he would have provoked a contradiction to the
divine salvation plan. The doctrine of the first three principles included the axiom
that all natural things could be reduced to mercurius, sulphur and sal, in order for
them to be united and produce a “new born” and purified being, as Paracelsus

11
See Kurt Goldammer, Paracelsus: Natur und Offenbarung (Hannover: Theodor Oppermann Verlag, 1953); Paracel-
sus, Essential Theoretical Writings, ed. Andrew Weeks (Leiden: Brill, 2008), hereafter Weeks, ETW, especially 1–59;
Massimo Luigi Bianchi, Natura e sovrannatura nella filosofia tedesca della prima età moderna: Paracelsus, Weigel,
Böhme (Florence: Olschki, 2011), 7–149; Walter Pagel, Paracelsus: An Introduction to Philosophical Medicine in the
Era of the Renaissance, 2nd revised edition (Basel: Karger, 1982).
12
Dane Thor Daniel, “Medieval Alchemy and Paracelsus’ Theology: Pseudo-Lull’s Testamentum and Paracelsus’
Astronomia Magna,” Nova Acta Paracelsica N.F. 22–23 (2008–2009): 121–35; Daniel, Paracelsus’ Astronomia
Magna, 174–77.
13
See the remarks in Didier Kahn, Le fixe et le volatil. Chimie et alchimie, de Paracelse à Lavoisier (Paris: CNRS Édi-
tions, 2016), 135–38.
14
For reasons of limited space, the original German and Latin texts are generally not reproduced here.
 CROSS AND CRUCIBLE 91

concedes in his Liber de renovatione et restauratione. (H6:101) But then he adds

that this does not apply to a human being, because a person could not analogously
be transformed back into the three principles or into his sperm and recomposed in
order to attain a renovated or even immortal state:
But this is not a kind of restoration or renovation that we could apply to human beings.
We cannot be reduced to the first three principles or to our sperm in order to emerge ren-
ovated and restored, as we have shown with metals, because then it would be our pos-
sibility to bring about a better condition in the new birth than we had been in the first
state. Like iron, which is brought into its first three parts and then made into silver or
gold, which is completely indestructible […] So we have no power to make ourselves im-
mortal beings. (H6:101)

Here Paracelsus draws a sharp line between conventional metallic alchemy (i.e.
chrysopoeia) and human alchemical immortality. Besides, he confirms that he is con-
vinced of the possibility of the transformation of metals. Against this background it
becomes clear that alchemy and theology are in principle incompatible, that the al-
chemical processes are not suitable for attaining immortality, and thereby salvation
of the soul, but can at most be used as parables for the process of spiritual transfor-
mation. In this context, it is worth mentioning that also Martin Luther (1483–1546),
in his Table Talk, took alchemy and especially distillation as an example of the pu-
rification process of the soul in the resurrection of the dead on Judgment Day.15

The transforming power of fire

In his pharmaceutical endeavours, Paracelsus stood very close to alchemy and in par-
ticular to mining.16 Mines were the places where a multitude of ores, metals and min-
erals were exploited in order to be processed locally. In all the smelting and distillation
processes, fire plays a central role as the driving force. Gold only acquires its value
when it has passed through the fire while still ore, or a medicine only becomes effective
after it has been freed from impurities by fire-driven distillation, so that “all things
must pass through fire into their second birth, in which it will be of service to the
human being.”17 (H2:76) By transforming all things from their still imperfect crude
state into the final product predestined by God, the art of alchemy becomes the per-
fector of creation: “And whereas all things are created from nothing to the end,
there is, however, nothing that is cooked to the end,” so that it is alchemy that must
complete it. (H2:212) For Paracelsus, fire was the basic force teaching the “wisdom
and art of medicine” in which every physician had to prove himself. (H1:71)
15
Martin Luther, Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Tischreden, 1. Band (Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger,
1912), 566–67. See Sylvain Matton, Scolastique et alchimie (XVIe–XVIIe siècles) (Paris–Milan: SEHA–Archè,
2009), 492–95.
16
Urs Leo Gantenbein, “Die Beziehungen zwischen Alchemie und Hüttenwesen im frühen 16. Jahrhundert, insbeson-
dere bei Paracelsus und Georgius Agricola,” Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft Deutscher Chemiker, Fachgruppe
Geschichte der Chemie 15 (2000): 11–31.
17
English translation taken from Weeks, ETW 249.
92 URS LEO GANTENBEIN

It is not by chance that Paracelsus used this strong alchemical imagery to symbol-
ise mental and spiritual processes. A significant passage can be found in the Liber de
resurrectione et corporum glorificatione (“Book of the resurrection and glorification
of the bodies”), which is part of the Liber de vita beata (Book on Beatified Life). In
the same way that gold has to be purified from the scoriae, so too the resurrection
body should rise far above the slag of the earthly body:
Nothing is gold but only that which has been purified from all scoriae and passed
through the fire into lead and cast through the antimony and refined in the aqua
fortis. Just as these are the assays of natural gold, so it also serves us as an example
that there must also be such assays in the body of the resurrection, so that far above
the scoriae there will be an earthly body that will need much more than just the fire in
the lead, smelting, aqua fortis, antimony, in order to become pure and clear. (NPE1:452)

Paracelsus alludes here to various refinement processes that were common in met-
allurgy such as liquation and cupellation. He describes precisely the antimonite
process as purgatio auri in his book De praeparationibus.18 (H6:244)

The new Adam: resurrection from above

A special reference to alchemy results from Paracelsus’s doctrine of the Lord’s
Supper, which is oriented above all to the concepts in chapter 15 of the First
Epistle to the Corinthians and chapters 3 and 6 of the Gospel of John.19 There
are two creatures in humans, one mortal and one eternal. The first creature comes
from Adam, as he was created by God the Father from a lump of clay according
to Genesis 2:7. This seed of Adam reproduced from generation to generation, but
never had in itself the potential for bliss or eternal life. This was only made possible
by the new seed, namely Christ, who was born from above as the Son of God and
who gave his blood and flesh with his death on the cross. As a physician and
natural philosopher, Paracelsus did not imagine the resurrection body as purely spir-
itual, but as consisting of a corporeality that was no less physical than the earthly
body. This new spiritual body, the new creature or the new Adam, will eventually
rise from the dead and, like the body of the old creature, will need food, namely
the flesh and blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper.
Even if not explicitly indicated by Paracelsus, the doctrine of the new birth bears a
fundamental parallel to the alchemical purification process. However, again and
again he points out that things in themselves, as they were created by God, are
still imperfect and still rest in the original state as prima materia. Only through
alchemy do they unfold their full potential and become ultima materia or have a
18
Gantenbein, “Alchemie und Hüttenwesen,” 15–16, 20; Bianchi, Natura e sovrannatura, 113.
19
See Daniel, Paracelsus’ Astronomia Magna, 214–28; Dane Thor Daniel, “Paracelsus on Baptism and the Acquiring of
the Eternal Body,” in Paracelsian Moments: Science, Medicine, & Astrology in Early Modern Europe, ed. Gerhild
Scholtz Williams and Charles D. Gunnoe (Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2002), 117–34; Urs
Leo Gantenbein, “The New Adam: Jacob Böhme and the Theology of Paracelsus (1493/94–1541),” in Jacob
Böhme and His World, ed. Bo Andersson e. a. (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 166–96.
 CROSS AND CRUCIBLE 93

second birth: “All things are procured as prima materia, whereupon Vulcanus [i.e.
fire] will proceed, making it into ultima materia through the art of alchemy.”
(H2:214) Take the example of the rose. In its first “weak” life it is indeed beautiful
and fragrant, but worthless as a medicine. If it is to develop its pharmaceutical effect,
the rose must putrefy and die in its first life in order to be reborn as a remedy.
(H1:92)
An interesting passage can be found in the so-called third book of the Great
Surgery. However, the authenticity of this third book is not assured. While
Sudhoff in 1894 assumed its authenticity, he decided in 1928 strongly against it,
albeit not with convincing arguments.20 Further research is certainly needed to
finally clarify this question. The author of the third book of the Great Surgery
speaks of the transmuting power of certain tinctures, how they are able to transform
things in order to bestow a “new Corpus” upon them. He further argues that this is
possible because there is a transmutation taking place in the eternal, and thus by in-
ference also in nature: “Nature has the ability to prepare a new heaven, because a
transmutation also occurs in the Eternal. There is a new birth among humans, so
nature is also able to become new.” (S10:467) In summary, the author starts from
the biblically established fact of the rebirth of humans to conclude that there is
also a rebirth in nature.
The most remarkable passage linking alchemy and the concept of the second birth
is found in the treatise De vera influentia rerum. (H9:133–161) Paracelsus empha-
sises here that the original and first influence always comes from God, that is, that
the healing properties of things, the so-called “arcana” or “magnalia,” or the char-
acter and abilities of humans are ultimately gifts from God. But the things and qual-
ities on earth, although they are potentially already perfectly created in their core,
are as such not yet ready. They must first be “cooked” if they are to fully unfold
their virtues, and the cook is the fire. The typical terminology of alchemy can
easily be recognised here. Paracelsus does not only mean the prime example of
metals, which must first be extracted from the ore by fire, but also transfers this
imagery to other areas. So famous kings like Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great
also had to be cooked before they rose to their greatness, because in their original
state humans are all Püffelmenschen (bull-like people). The king’s ore now lies in
the sky, which is the cook and preparer of the people. The sky is the melting
furnace which separates the one from the other, so that a refined, tame bull may ul-
timately emerge from a strong, wild beast and the pearl in every person may be re-
vealed while the dross within them fades away.
Paracelsus stresses once again that it is like what happens in the mines, where the
fire merely cooks the metal and does not create it, because the metal was already
present in the ore. And so also in humans, they are not created by the sky or
stars, but the sky acts merely as a cook, revealing the qualities created by God.

20
Karl Sudhoff, Bibliographia Paracelsica (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1894), 315–18; Paracelsus, Sämtliche Werke, 14
vols., ed. Karl Sudhoff (Munich–Berlin: Barth, Oldenbourg, 1922–1933), hereafter S1–S14, on S10:xxviii–xxxiv.
94 URS LEO GANTENBEIN

These statements unveil a fundamental criticism of judicial astrology. The stars do

not create the essence of a human being, but only bring it to light. So Paracelsus
asks himself: “What is a constellation [of the stars]? It is a pooled fire of all kinds
of wood cooking that which is to be cooked according to what it should be.”
(H9:144) However, not all things or people have to go through fire and be
cooked by the heavens, indeed there are also those that were perfectly created by
God from the beginning, such as the prophets Solomon, Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob. Adam and Eve, too, were not cooked by any constellation, but were
created by the hand of God alone; and the apostles were cooked by Christ. Paracel-
sus goes on to say that the situation with humans is similar. The gifts of nature
cooked by the sky do not yet suffice to attain salvation. A stronger force is
needed to burn the rust and dross of humans, namely the grace of the Gospel. Allud-
ing to Jesus’s conversation with Nicodemus from John 3, Paracelsus finally states
that only when a person is cooked from above by the Holy Spirit does he reach
his second birth. This is the most impressive passage in the complete works of Par-
acelsus on this theme and the only one which so explicitly demonstrates a connection
between alchemy and theology in his thinking:
And so it is with a human being, the heavens cooks him. But what is the purpose of
cooking? Nothing! Only he cooks correctly who eats up the rust and the slag. This is
where the Gospel comes into play: If a person is not born from above, that means
born anew, it means nothing yet. In other words, what does it mean that I have given
you the arcana and magnalia, and so forth, which are cooked for you only by the
heavens? That will not lead you to beatitude. But when you are born a second time
from above, then you are beatified. That means that no one should abide by what he
has inherited from nature, but he should distil (brennen) himself and thrust himself
through the fire so that he may be cooked from above by the Holy Ghost, which is
then the second birth. In this way we carry our cross of Christ, which we would other-
wise have carried to damnation without the second birth, because roses decay just as
much as stinking grapes do. (H9:146–47)

Transformation or transmutation? Celestial magic vs. Natural

magic
For Paracelsus as an alchemist, the transfiguration of Christ as described in Matthew
17 met with particular interest. Jesus took Peter, James and his brother John to a
high mountain, where his body was transfigured by light before the eyes of his dis-
ciples. In the West the Latin Vulgate Bible, which goes back to the Church father
Jerome (347–420), constituted for a long time the authoritative Bible translation.
The dominance of the vulgate edition was only challenged by Erasmus of Rotterdam
(ca. 1466–1536) who in 1516 presented his ground-breaking new Latin translation
of the New Testament based on the reconstructed original Greek text. Especially for
the Reformers, the Erasmus translation, the Novum Instrumentum, in later editions
called Novum Testamentum, became the authoritative edition, while the Catholic
 CROSS AND CRUCIBLE 95

party tended to remain with the Vulgate. The relevant passage in Matthew 17:2,
where the transfiguration is described, reads in the King James Version (1611) as
follows: “And [he] was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the
sun, and his raiment was white as the light.” This corresponds essentially to the
text of the Vulgate: “et transfiguratus est ante eos, et resplenduit facies eius sicut
sol, vestimenta autem eius facta sunt alba sicut nix.” As can be seen in his
Matthew commentaries, Paracelsus evidently used the Novum Testamentum of
Erasmus, presumably the edition of 1522. But just in Matthew 17:2 Erasmus devi-
ated substantially from the Vulgate. He translated the Greek μετεμορwώθη (metem-
orphothe) literally as “transformed” and not as “transfigured:” “transformatusque
est coram illis. & splenduit facies eius sicut sol. Vestimenta autem illius facta sunt
candida sicut lumen.”
Interestingly, Paracelsus subjected this translation of Erasmus to fundamental crit-
icism. He had written several commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew, which will
appear in the planned volumes of the New Paracelsus Edition. In the so-called
First Commentary on Matthew, written around 1532, he went through verse by
verse and added short remarks. In the later commentaries he summarised groups
of verses, which he annotated in more detail. In his first commentary on Matthew
17:2, Paracelsus is disturbed by the expression “transform,” because according to
him that means to turn one form into another. But Christ had remained in his orig-
inal form, only his blood and flesh were glorified and took on a heavenly quality.
And so he doubts the correctness of the Latin translation:

Transforming means making one form into another. Just like a goldsmith, when he
breaks an image (“billt”) and makes another out of it, that is transforms it. Now it
reads “transformed” and therefore one must know that here the transformation did
not concern the shape, for example when one wants to make a female form, out of
the image of a man the image of a woman; but the transformation must be understood
in such a way (this is different from what the Latin expresses here, perhaps the Latin is
even wrong) that Christ has remained in his original form, but his blood and flesh have
become what they are supposed to be in heaven, namely a person of the Holy Trinity.21

Paracelsus continues and suggests what his term for the process would be,
namely transmutation or transfiguration. Thereby not a change of form takes
place, but a change of the inner essence. In a remarkable subordinate clause he
uses the transmutation of metals as a comparison, the possibility of which he
affirms. So we have in this theological writing an explicit commitment to metal

21
Paracelsus, First Commentary on Matthew, verse 17:2, Heidelberg University Library, Cod. Pal. Germ. 26, 2°, fols.
135v–136r: “Trannßformierenn ist, so mann eine form nimpt vnnd ain ander darauß macht, allß ain goltschmitt, der
ein billt zerbricht, vnnd macht ein annders darusß, das ist, tranßformiertt. nuhn steett hier tranßformiertt, darum zu
wissen ist, das die trannßformationn nitt Jnn der gestallt sein gesein, das ist, ain frawennform zu machenn, allß auß
ainem mannen billt ain weibß billt, Sonnder die tranßformation muß also verstannden werdenn (daß ist annderst,
dann das lattein fermag, villeicht ist nitt sein Recht lattein), das Christus bliebenn ist Jnn seiner form, wie ein
mennsch, aber sein blutt vnnd fleisch ist wordenn, wie es sein soll Jm himell, ein personn der hailligenn
drifalltigkaitt.”
96 URS LEO GANTENBEIN

transmutation.22 Finally, he makes a further distinction between transmutation

and transfiguration. The former converts a crude body into a more subtle one,
while the latter changes and clarifies the properties of a body:

Thus it is not called transformed, for it does not concern the form, but only the flesh and
blood. Therefore it should be called transmutation or transfiguration, because these two
terms do not aim at deformation, but concern the essence and the transfiguration of the
substance, just like you make copper out of iron, mercury out of lead, gold out of silver,
these are transmutations that are possible in art. So when a coarse body is transformed
into a more subtle one, it is a transmutation. A transfiguration has its power by changing
a thing in its complexion, in order to assume another figure, property and clarification.23

In his Third Commentary on Matthew, which summarises groups of verses into

longer annotations and was therefore probably written later than the first commen-
tary, a slightly altered view emerges.24 In his remarks on Matthew 17:2, where he
comments on the transfiguration of Christ, Paracelsus writes that magical arts are
also able to change a person’s form, whether through the influence of the stars or
by evoking a spirit possessing his victim. Whatever the case may be, such actions
still belong to the realm of natural magic. The “transmutation” of Christ,
however, was different and did not happen as a result of the modification of ordinary
primordial matter. Christ had put on a celestial garment and was clarified superna-
turally, otherwise this would not have been possible:

With Christ it is as follows. In his case the transmutation did not take place out of the
primordial principles (“primalibus”), because he had none. So he was transfigured
supernaturally, because otherwise it would not have been possible to accomplish such
a thing from a created being. That is why Christ spoke an earnest word with his heavenly
Father and he with him. Because he had come from the celestial realm, he was also ce-
lestially clothed, both in his body and in his garment.25

At the time of writing the Third Commentary on Matthew, Paracelsus’s interest in

natural magic had steadily increased and finally culminated in the
22
The passage on metal transmutation was first published in Urs Leo Gantenbein, “Gesundheit und Krankheit in den
Matthäus-Kommentaren des Paracelsus,” Salzburger Beiträge zur Paracelsusforschung 34 (2000): 47–72 (on 58–
59).
23
Paracelsus, First Commentary on Matthew, fol. 136r: “yetz vff das, so haist es nitt trannßformiertt, dann es drifft die
form nitt ann, sunder allain das fleisch vnnd blutt, darumben so hieß es allß dann trannßmutatio oder
drannßfiguratio, dann diese zwo vocabull gonn nitt auf enndtformierung, sonnder auf daß wesenn vnnd verklerung
der Substanntz, alß ob mann auß eisenn kupffer macht, auß bley quecksilber, auß silber gollt, daß sein transmuta-
tiones, vnnd seind der kunst muglich. also, so ain grob Corpus Jnn ein subtillers verwanndlett wirdt, So ist eß
trannßmutatio. trannßfiguration hatt sein krafft Jnn dem, daß es sich Jnn der Complex verenndertt, vnnd nimpt
ein annder figur ann mitt aigennschafft vnnd Clarificirunng.”
24
Paracelsus, Third Commentary on Matthew, verse 17:2, Leiden University Libraries, Cod. Voss. Chym. 25, 2°, fol.
218.
25
Paracelsus, Third Commentary on Matthew, fol. 218v: “Nun aber von Christo Zureden ist allso. Da ist sein trans-
mutation, auß den primalibus nicht ganngen, dann er hatt kheine gehabt. Auch so ist er ÿbernatürlich verclert
worden, Da sonnst nit möglich gewesen wer, Auß der creatur ein sollches Zuuolbringen. Darumb ein theur wort
hat Christus geredt, mit seinem himlischen vatter, vnnd er mit ym. Auß der vrsach, das er geweßen ist, bey den him-
blischen, Jst er auch himblisch bekhlaydt geweßen, Jn seinem leyb, auch in seinem gwandt.” This passage is also men-
tioned by Arlene Miller Guinsburg, “Paracelsian Magic and Theology. A Case Study of the Matthew
Commentaries,” Medizinhistorisches Journal 16 (1981): 125–39 (on 135–36).
 CROSS AND CRUCIBLE 97

magical-theological Astronomia Magna (1537/38), where similar thoughts are ex-

pressed. There is a kind of magic that transforms a living body into another as hap-
pened in Moses’s times. In Christ, by contrast, it was the action of a “magica
transfigurativa” that made him shine like the sun.26 The second book of Astronomia
Magna deals with the supernatural effect of celestial astronomy. Here Paracelsus
goes a step further and distinguishes celestial magic from natural magic.27
Natural magic transforms iron into copper, humans into wolves, sapphires into di-
amonds. But those who can make themselves invisible like Christ, those who will be
dressed in heavenly clothing like Christ in the transfiguration, undergo heavenly
magic. In summary, natural magic transforms natural things through the forces of
nature, whereas celestial magic performs the wonders of Christ through the
powers of heaven. (H10:69–70)
As Jean-Marc Mandosio pointed out, the heavenly magic and thus the sharp
demarcation of the transfiguration and the wonders of Christ from the realm of
natural magic, as demanded by Paracelsus in the Third Commentary on Matthew
and in the Astronomia Magna, can already be observed in the Renaissance philoso-
pher Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463–1494).28 In his nine hundred Conclu-
siones published in 1486, twenty-six conclusions are dedicated to magic.29 Here
Pico distances himself decidedly from black magic, which was (he argues) justifiably
condemned by the Church. On the other hand, natural magic is allowed and consti-
tutes the most practical and noblest part of natural science. In the seventh magical
conclusion, Pico explicitly excludes the works of Christ from the realm of natural
magic: “The works of Christ could not have been performed through either the
way of magic or the way of Cabala.”30 And in the following two conclusions,
Pico emphasises that Christ’s miracles are the surest proof of his divinity, and
that, conversely, precisely magic and Cabala help to demonstrate the divinity of
Christ.31 Apparently this is the background of the statements of Paracelsus, so
that one can at least assume that he was acquainted with Pico’s arguments.
However, soon after their publication the Conclusiones were judged heretical and
placed on the list of prohibited books.32 That is why this print was hardly available
for Paracelsus and remains very rare even today.33 Nevertheless, Pico reiterated his

26
H10:69–70. See also Daniel, Paracelsus’ Astronomia Magna, 187–88.
27
On celestial magic in Paracelsus see also Daniel, Paracelsus’ Astronomia Magna, 232–36.
28
I would like to express my sincere thanks to Jean-Marc Mandosio (École Pratique des Hautes Études, EPHE, IVth
section, Paris) for his detailed references on this context.
29
For the authoritative edition of the Latin text together with an English translation see Stephen Alan Farmer, Syncre-
tism in the West: Pico’s 900 Theses (1486): The Evolution of Traditional Religious and Philosophical Systems
(Tempe, AZ: Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies, 1998). See 494–503 for the Conclusiones magicae.
30
Farmer, Syncretism, 496: “7. Non potuerunt opera Christi uel per uiam magiae uel per uiam cabalae fieri.”
31
Farmer, Syncretism, 496: “8. Miracula Christi non ratione rei factae, sed ratione modi faciendi, suae diuinitatis ar-
gumentum certissimum sunt. 9. Nulla est scientia quae nos magis certificet de diuinitate Christi quam magia et
cabala.”
32
For the chapter “Magic in Dispute, I” with reference to the Conclusiones see Lynn Thorndike, A History of Magic
and Experimental Science, vol. 4 (New York, London: Columbia University Press, 1934), 485–511.
33
An incomplete copy of the Conclusiones can be found in the Württembergische Landesbibliothek, Stuttgart (acquired
by the Landesbibliothek in 1966).
98 URS LEO GANTENBEIN

statements on magic in his Apologia of 1487, which was widely used. He asserted
here again that the miracles of Christ were not magical or cabalistic operations.34
It is known, for example, that the Zurich church reformer Huldrych Zwingli
(1484–1531) owned Pico’s Opera (Strasbourg 1504) and heavily annotated the
Apologia contained therein.35 Paracelsus probably found access to Pico’s works in
a similar way.

Conclusion: from Charlatanry through alchemy to magic

Paracelsus was not only a reformer of medicine with a preference for medical
alchemy, but also emerged as a radical church reformer. Initially he perhaps hes-
itated to use the imagery of alchemy as a parable for theological salvation, given
the widespread association of the word “alchemy” with fraudulent practices. Fire
as the driving force for every alchemical process was suitable, however, as an
image for the purification of souls. A central idea of alchemy, namely to transfer
a substance from its still impure original state into the purified final state, was
very much in line with Paracelsus’s doctrine of the Last Supper, according to
which the mortal human who had descended from Adam is to be brought to a
new birth through baptism with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit appears here
as the celestial alchemist who cooks the rust and slag stained human from
above until the new creature arises. As an alchemist, Paracelsus was also
keenly interested in the transfiguration of Christ. He first explained it alchemical-
ly in his First Matthew Commentary (ca. 1532) as a kind of transmutation, then
as supernatural or celestial magic in the presumably later Third Matthew Com-
mentary and later on in the magical-theological Astronomia Magna (1537/38).
In the magical interpretation of the transfiguration and the miracles of Christ,
Paracelsus emphasised that these divine manifestations would be beyond the
sphere of natural magic. It seems possible that Paracelsus had adopted this asser-
tion from Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, who had already formulated it very
clearly in 1486.

Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Andrew Weeks, the anonymous referee, and above
all Didier Kahn for their untiring help and invaluable comments.

34
For a scholarly edition of the Apologia with Latin and Italian text see Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Apologia. L’au-
todifesa di Pico di fronte al Tribunale dell’Inquisizione, ed. Paolo Edoardo Fornaciari (Florence: SISMEL–Edizioni
del Galluzzo, 2010), here 154–93. For an analysis of the Apologia see Amos Edelheit, Ficino, Pico and Savonarola:
The Evolution of Humanist Theology 1461/2–1498 (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2008), 286–349. On Pico’s magic see
further Liana Saif, The Arabic Influences on Early Modern Occult Philosophy (Houndmills, New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2015), 124–43.
35
See Urs B. Leu and Sandra Weidmann, Huldrych Zwingli’s Private Library (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2019), 36.
 CROSS AND CRUCIBLE 99

Note on contributor
Urs Leo Gantenbein is a research associate of the Institute of Evolutionary Medicine
(www.iem.usz.ch) and of the Institute of Swiss Reformation History (www.irg.uzh.
ch), both at the University of Zurich, and he is the editor of the New Paracelsus
Edition and founder of the Zurich Paracelsus Project of the University of Zurich
(www.paracelsus.uzh.ch). He is specialised in Paracelsus studies and in the history
of Renaissance medicine and medical alchemy. Address: Ackeretstrasse 16, CH-
8400 Winterthur, Switzerland. Email: ursleo.gantenbein@paracelsus-project.org.