Augustine: DE TRINITATE

[1] Scientiam terrestrium caelestiumque rerum magni aestimares solet genus humanum. In quo profecto meliores sunt qui huic scientiae praeponunt nosse semetipsos, laudabiliorque est animus cui nota est uel infirmitas sua quam qui ea non respecta uias siderum scrutatur etiam cogniturus aut qui iam cognitas tenet ignorans ipse qua ingrediatur ad salutem ac firmitatem suam. Qui uero iam euigilauit in deum spiritus sancti calore excitatus atque in eius amore coram se uiluit ad eumque intrare uolens nec ualens eoque sibi lucente attendit in se inuenitque se suamque aegritudinem illius munditiae contemperari non posse cognouit, flere dulce habet et eum deprecari ut etiam atque etiam misereatur donec exuat totam miseriam, et precari cum fiducia iam gratuito pignore salutis accepto per eius unicum saluatorem hominis et inluminatorem — hunc ita egentem ac dolentem scientia non inflat quia caritas aedificat.

[1] The human race is wont to esteem greatly the science of terrestrial and celestial things. In which indeed those are better who prepose to this science the knowing of themselves, and more laudable is the mind to which even its own infirmity is known than he who, that not regarded, scrutinizes the sidereal ways, even about to know them, or who already holds them known, himself ignorant by what way he may enter unto his salvation and firmness. But he who has now awakened unto God, stirred by the warmth of the Holy Spirit, and in His love has become vile before himself, and wishing to enter to Him and not being able, and with Him shining for him attends to himself and finds that he and his sickness cannot be made to accord with that purity, he has it sweet to weep and to beseech Him that again and again He have mercy until He strip off all misery; and to pray with confidence, now the gratuitous pledge of salvation having been received through His only savior of man and enlightener — this one, thus needy and grieving, science does not inflate, because charity builds up.

Praeposuit enim scientiam scientiae; praeposuit scire infirmitatem suam magis quam scire mundi moenia, fundamenta terrarum et fastigia caelorum, et hanc apponendo scientiam apposuit dolorem, dolorem peregrinationis suae ex desiderio patriae suae et conditoris eius beati dei sui.

For he preferred science to science; he preferred to know his own infirmity rather than to know the walls of the world, the foundations of the lands and the summits of the heavens; and by appending this science he appended sorrow, the sorrow of his pilgrimage from the longing for his fatherland and for its Founder, his blessed God.

In hoc genere hominum, in familia Christi tui, domine deus meus, si inter pauperes tuos gemo, da mihi de pane tuo respondere hominibus qui non esuriunt et sitiunt iustitiam sed satiati sunt et abundant. Satiauit autem illos phantasma eorum non ueritas tua quam repellendo resiliunt et in suam uanitatem cadunt. Ego certe sentio quam multa figmenta pariat cor humanum.

In this kind of men, in the family of your Christ, Lord my God, if I groan among your poor, grant me from your bread to respond to men who do not hunger and thirst for justice but are sated and abound. But their phantasm has sated them, not your truth, from which, by repelling it, they recoil and fall into their own vanity. I surely perceive how many figments the human heart begets.

Et quid est cor meum nisi cor humanum? Sed hoc oro deum cordis mei ut nihil ex eis figmentis pro solido uero eructuem in has litteras, sed inde ueniat in eas quidquid per me uenire potuerit unde mihi, quamuis proiecto a facie oculorum suorum et de longinquo redire conanti per uiam quam strauit humanitate diuinitatis unigeniti sui, aura ueritatis eius aspergitur — quam in tantum licet mutabilis haurio in quantum in ea nihil mutabile uideo, nec locis et temporibus sicut corpora, nec solis temporibus et quasi locis sicut spirituum nostrorum cogitationes, nec solis temporibus et nulla uel imagine locorum sicut quaedam nostrarum mentium ratiocinationes. Omnino enim dei essentia qua est nihil habet mutabile nec in aeternitate nec in ueritate nec in uoluntate quia aeterna ibi est ueritas, aeterna caritas; et uera ibi est caritas, uera aeternitas; et cara ibi est aeternitas, cara ueritas.

And what is my heart if not a human heart? But this I pray to the God of my heart: that I may belch forth none of those figments into these letters as if for solid truth; but that into them may come whatever can come through me from that source whence to me—although cast away from before the face of His eyes and, from afar, striving to return by the way which He paved by the humanity of the divinity of His Only-Begotten—the breath of His truth is sprinkled — which, though mutable, I drink in so far as I see nothing mutable in it, neither by places and times as bodies are, nor by times alone and as it were places as are the thoughts of our spirits, nor by times alone and with no image at all of places as are certain ratiocinations of our minds. For altogether the essence of God, whereby He is, has nothing mutable, neither in eternity nor in truth nor in will, because eternal there is truth, eternal charity; and true there is charity, true eternity; and dear there is eternity, dear truth.

[I 2] Sed quoniam exsulauimus ab incommutabili gaudio, nec tamen inde praecisi atque abrupti sumus ut non etiam in istis mutabilibus et temporalibus aeternitatem, ueritatem, beatitatem quaereremus (nec mori enim nec falli nec perturbari uolumus), missa sunt nobis diuinitus uisa congrua peregrinationi nostrae quibus admoneremur non hic esse quod quaerimus sed illuc ab ista esse redeundum unde nisi penderemus hic ea non quaereremus.

[I 2] But since we have been exiled from immutable joy, and yet we have not been cut off and broken off from it so that we do not even in these mutable and temporal things seek eternity, truth, beatitude (for we do not wish to die nor to be deceived nor to be perturbed), there have been sent to us by divinity visions congruent to our peregrination, by which we might be admonished that what we seek is not here, but that there must be a return thither from these things; whence, unless we depended from there, we would not seek these things here.

Ac primum nobis persuadendum fuit quantum nos diligeret deus ne desperatione non auderemus erigi in eum. Quales autem dilexerit ostendi oportebat ne tamquam de meritis nostris superbientes magis ab eo resiliremus et in nostra fortitudine magis deficeremus, ac per hoc egit nobiscum ut per eius fortitudinem potius proficeremus atque ita in infirmitate humilitatis perficeretur uirtus caritatis. Hoc significat in psalmo ubi ait: Pluuiam uoluntariam segregans, deus, haereditati tuae, et infirmata est; tu uero perfecisti eam.

And first it had to be persuaded to us how much God loved us, lest by despair we should not dare to be lifted up to him. But what sort he loved had to be shown, lest, as though being proud on account of our merits, we should rather rebound from him and fail the more in our own fortitude; and through this he dealt with us that by his fortitude we might rather make progress, and thus in the infirmity of humility the virtue of charity might be perfected. This he signifies in the psalm where he says: A voluntary rain, O God, setting apart for your inheritance, and it was weakened; but you indeed perfected it.

Pluuiam quippe uoluntariam non nisi gratiam uult intellegi, non meritis redditam sed gratis datam unde et gratia nominatur; dedit enim eam non quia digni eramus sed quia uoluit. Hoc cognoscentes non fidentes in nobis erimus, et hoc est infirmari. Ipse uero perficit nos qui etiam Paulo apostolo dixit: Sufficit tibi gratia mea; nam uirtus in infirmitate perficitur.

For by the “voluntary rain” he wills nothing to be understood but grace, not rendered to merits but given freely—graciously—whence it is also named grace; for he gave it not because we were worthy, but because he willed. Knowing this, we shall not put our trust in ourselves, and this is to be made weak. But he himself perfects us, who also said to the Apostle Paul: “My grace is sufficient for you; for virtue is perfected in weakness.”

Persuadendum ergo erat homini quantum nos dilexerit deus et quales dilexerit: quantum ne desperaremus, quales ne superbiremus. Hunc locum apostolus pernecessarium sic explicat: Commendat autem, inquit, suam caritatem deus in nobis quoniam cum adhuc peccatores essemus, Christus pro nobis mortuus est: multo magis iustificati nunc in sanguine ipsius salui erimus ab ira per ipsum. Si enim cum inimici essemus, reconciliati sumus deo per mortem filii eius, multo magis reconciliati salui erimus in uita ipsius.

Therefore it had to be persuaded to the human being how much god has loved us and of what sort he has loved us: how much, lest we should despair; of what sort, lest we should be proud. The apostle, most necessary, explains this passage thus: God, he says, commends his own charity in us, because while we were still sinners, Christ died for us: much more, now justified in his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to god through the death of his son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved in his life.

Item alio loco: Quid ergo dicemus, inquit, ad haec? Si deus pro nobis, quis contra nos? Qui filio proprio non pepercit sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit eum, quomodo non et cum illo omnia nobis donauit?

Likewise in another place: What then shall we say to these things? he says. If god is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare his own son but delivered him up for us all, how has he not also, along with him, gifted us all things?

Quod autem factum nobis annuntiatur, hoc futurum ostendebatur et antiquis iustis ut per eandem fidem etiam ipsi humiliati infirmarentur et infirmati perficerentur.

But what is announced to us as having been done, this was being shown as going to be also to the ancient righteous, so that through the same faith they themselves as well, humbled, might be made infirm, and, having been made infirm, might be perfected.

[3] Quia igitur unum est uerbum dei per quod facta sunt omnia, quod est incommutabilis ueritas ubi principaliter atque incommutabiliter sunt omnia simul, non solum quae nunc sunt in hac uniuersa creatura, uerum etiam quae fuerunt et quae futura sunt; ibi autem nec fuerunt nec futura sunt sed tantummodo sunt; et omnia uita sunt et omnia unum sunt et magis unum est et una est uita. Sic enim omnia per ipsum facta sunt ut quidquid factum est in his, in illo uita sit; et facta non sit quia in principio non factum est uerbum, sed erat uerbum, et uerbum erat apud deum, et deus erat uerbum, et omnia per ipsum facta sunt; nec per ipsum omnia facta essent nisi ipsum esset ante omnia factumque non esset. In his autem quae per ipsum facta sunt etiam corpus quod uita non est per ipsum non fieret nisi in illo antequam fieret uita esset.

[3] Because therefore there is one Word of God through which all things were made, which is the immutable Truth where, principally and immutably, all things are together, not only the things which now are in this entire creation, but also the things which have been and which are going to be; but there they neither have been nor will be but only are; and all things are Life and all things are one, and it is more one, and the Life is one. For thus all things were made through Him, that whatever has been made among these may be Life in Him; and not be a made thing, because in the beginning the Word was not made, but the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and all things were made through Him; nor would all things have been made through Him unless He Himself were before all things and had not been made. Moreover, among the things which were made through Him even a body, which is not life, would not be made through Him unless in Him, before it were made, it were Life.

Quod enim factum est in illo iam uita erat, et non qualiscumque uita; nam et anima uita est corporis, sed et haec facta est quia mutabilis est, et per quid facta est nisi per dei uerbum incommutabile? Omnia enim per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil. Quod ergo factum est iam in illo uita erat, et non qualiscumque uita, sed uita erat lux hominum, lux utique rationalium mentium per quas homines a pecoribus differunt et ideo sunt homines.

For what was made was already life in him, and not just any life; for the soul is the life of the body, but this too was made, because it is mutable, and through what was it made if not through the unchangeable Word of God? For all things were made through him, and without him nothing was made. What therefore was made was already life in him, and not just any life, but the life was the light of men, a light, assuredly, of rational minds, through which human beings differ from beasts and for that reason are human beings.

Non ergo lux corporea quae lux est carnium siue de caelo fulgeat siue terrenis ignibus accendatur, nec humanarum tantum carnium sed etiam belluinarum et usque ad minutissimos quosque uermiculos; omnia enim haec uident istam lucem. At illa uita lux hominum erat nec longe posita ab unoquoque nostrum; in illa enim uiuimus et mouemur et sumus.

Therefore it is not a corporeal light, which is the light of flesh, whether it shine from heaven or be kindled by terrestrial fires—nor of human flesh only but also of beasts’, and even down to each tiniest little worm; for all these see that light. But that life was the light of men, nor was it placed far from each one of us; for in it we live and move and are.

[II 4] Sed lux in tenebris lucet, et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt. Tenebrae autem sunt stultae mentes hominum praua cupiditate atque infidelitate caecatae.

[2 4] But the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. Now the darkness is the foolish minds of human beings, blinded by perverse cupidity and infidelity.

Has ut curaret atque sanaret uerbum, per quod facta sunt omnia, caro factum est et habitauit in nobis. Inluminatio quippe nostra participatio uerbi est, illius scilicet uitae quae lux est hominum. Huic autem participationi prorsus inhabiles et minus idonei eramus propter immunditiam peccatorum; mundandi ergo eramus.

In order to care for and to heal these, the Word, through which all things were made, was made flesh and dwelt among us. For our illumination is a participation of the Word, namely of that life which is the light of men. But for this participation we were altogether unfit and less suitable because of the uncleanness of sins; therefore we had to be cleansed.

Porro iniquorum et superborum una mundatio est sanguis iusti et humilitas dei, ut ad contemplandum deum quod natura non sumus per eum mundaremur factum quod natura sumus et quod peccato non sumus. Deus enim natura non sumus; homines natura sumus; iusti peccato non sumus. Deus itaque factus homo iustus intercessit deo pro homine peccatore.

Moreover, for the iniquitous and the proud the one purification is the blood of the Just One and the humility of God, so that for the contemplation of God—which by nature we are not—we might be cleansed through him, having been made what by nature we are and what by sin we are not. For God by nature we are not; men by nature we are; just by sin we are not. God therefore, having been made a just man, interceded with God on behalf of sinful man.

Non enim congruit peccator iusto, sed congruit homini homo. Adiungens ergo nobis similitudinem humanitatis suae abstulit dissimilitudinem iniquitatis nostrae, et factus particeps mortalitatis nostrae fecit participes diuinitatis suae. Merito quippe mors peccatoris ueniens ex damnationis necessitate soluta est per mortem iusti uenientem ex misericordiae uoluntate dum simplum eius congruit duplo nostro.

For the sinner is not congruent with the just man, but man is congruent with man. Therefore, by adjoining to us the likeness of his humanity, he removed the unlikeness of our iniquity; and, having become a partaker of our mortality, he made us partakers of his divinity. Rightly indeed the death of the sinner, coming from the necessity of condemnation, has been loosed by the death of the just one, coming from the will of mercy, while his simple corresponds to our double.

Haec enim congruentia (siue conuenientia uel concinentia uel consonantia commodius dicitur quod est unum ad duo), in omni compaginatione uel si melius dicitur coaptatione creaturae ualet plurimum. Hanc enim coaptationem, sicut mihi nunc occurrit, dicere uolui quam graeci *harmonian uocant. Neque nunc locus est ut ostendam quantum ualeat consonantia simpli ad duplum quae maxime in nobis reperitur et sic nobis insita naturaliter (a quo utique nisi ab eo qui nos creauit?) ut nec imperiti possint eam non sentire siue ipsi cantantes siue alios audientes.

For this congruence (or more conveniently it is called convenience or concinnity or consonance, which is the one to the two) avails most in every compagination, or, if it is better said, coaptation, of the creature. For this coaptation, as it now occurs to me, I have wished to name what the Greeks call *harmonian. Nor is this the place now to show how much the consonance of the simple to the double—which is found especially in us and thus implanted in us by nature (by whom indeed, unless by him who created us?)—prevails, such that not even the unskilled can fail to perceive it, whether singing themselves or hearing others.

Per hanc quippe uoces acutiores grauioresque concordant ita ut quisquis ab ea dissonuerit non scientiam, cuius expertes sunt plurimi, sed ipsum sensum auditus nostri uehementer offendat. Sed hoc ut demonstretur longo sermone opus est; ipsis autem auribus exhiberi potest ab eo qui nouit in regulari monochordo.

By this, indeed, higher and lower voices come into concord, such that whoever dissonates from it will greatly offend, not knowledge—of which very many are without experience—but the very sense of our hearing. But to demonstrate this there is need of a long discourse; yet it can be exhibited to the ears themselves by one who knows, on a regulated monochord.

[III 5] Verum quod instat in praesentia quantum donat deus edisserendum est, quemadmodum simplum domini et saluatoris nostri Iesu Christi duplo nostro congruat et quodam modo concinat ad salutem. Nos certe, quod nemo christianus ambigit, et anima et corpore mortui sumus, anima propter peccatum, corpore propter poenam peccati ac per hoc et corpore propter peccatum. Vtrique autem rei nostrae, id est et animae et corpori, medicina et resurrectione opus erat ut in melius renouaretur quod erat in deterius commutatum.

[3 5] But as regards what presses at present, it must be expounded, as far as God grants, how the simple of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is congruent with our double and in a certain way consonant unto salvation. We, assuredly—which no Christian doubts—are dead both in soul and in body: the soul on account of sin, the body on account of the punishment of sin, and through this, also the body on account of sin. But to each of our realities, that is, both to the soul and to the body, there was need of medicine and of resurrection, so that what had been changed for the worse might be renewed for the better.

Mors autem animae impietas est et mors corporis corruptibilitas per quam fit et animae a corpore abscessus. Sicut enim anima deo deserente sic corpus anima deserente moritur, unde illa fit insipiens, hoc exanime. Resuscitatur ergo anima per poenitentiam, et in corpore adhuc mortali renouatio uitae inchoatur a fide qua creditur in eum qui iustificat impium, bonisque moribus augetur et roboratur de die in diem cum magis magisque renouatur interior homo.

But the death of the soul is impiety, and the death of the body is corruptibility, through which there also comes about the departure of the soul from the body. For just as the soul dies with God deserting it, so the body dies with the soul deserting it, whence the former becomes foolish, the latter lifeless. Therefore the soul is resuscitated by penitence, and in the body still mortal the renovation of life is begun by the faith by which one believes in him who justifies the impious, and by good morals it is increased and strengthened from day to day, as the inner man is more and more renewed.

Corpus uero tamquam homo exterior quanto est haec uita diuturnior magis magisque corrumpitur uel aetate uel morbo uel uariis afflictationibus donec ueniat ad ultimam quae ab omnibus mors uocatur. Eius autem resurrectio differtur in finem cum et ipsa iustificatio nostra perficietur ineffabiliter. Tunc enim similes ei erimus quoniam uidebimus eum sicuti est.

But the body, as the exterior man, the longer this life is, is more and more corrupted either by age, or by disease, or by various afflictions, until it comes to the ultimate thing which by all is called death. But its resurrection is deferred to the end, when our justification itself will also be perfected ineffably. For then we shall be like him, because we shall see him just as he is.

Nunc uero quamdiu corpus quod corrumpitur aggrauat animam et uita humana super terram tota temptatio est, non iustificatur in conspectu eius omnis uiuens in comparatione iustitiae qua aequabimur angelis et gloriae quae reuelabitur in nobis.

Now indeed, so long as the body which is being corrupted aggravates the soul and human life upon the earth is wholly temptation, no living person is justified in his sight in comparison with the righteousness by which we shall be made equal to the angels, and the glory which will be revealed in us.

De morte autem animae a morte corporis distinguenda quid plura documenta commemorem, cum dominus in una euangelica sententia utramque mortem cuiuis facile discernendam posuerit ubi ait: Sine mortuos sepelire mortuos suos? Sepeliendum quippe corpus mortuum erat; sepultores autem eius per infidelitatem impietatis in anima mortuos intellegi uoluit quales excitantur cum dicitur: Surge qui dormis et exsurge a mortuis, et inluminabit te Christus. Detestatur autem quandam mortem apostolus dicens de uidua: Quae autem in deliciis agit uiuens mortua est.

But concerning the death of the soul to be distinguished from the death of the body, why should I commemorate more documents, since the Lord in one evangelic sentence has set forth both deaths to be easily discerned by anyone, where he says: "Allow the dead to bury their dead?" For the dead body was indeed to be buried; but he wished its buriers to be understood as dead in soul through the unbelief of impiety—such as are awakened when it is said: "Awake, you who sleep, and arise from the dead, and Christ will illuminate you." Moreover, the Apostle detests a certain death, speaking about the widow: "But she who lives in delights is, while living, dead."

Anima igitur iam pia quae fuit impia propter iustitiam fidei dicitur ex morte reuixisse atque uiuere. Corpus autem non tantum moriturum propter animae abscessum qui futurus est, sed propter tantam infirmitatem carnis et sanguinis quodam loco in scripturis etiam mortuum dicitur loquente apostolo: Corpus quidem, inquit, mortuum est propter peccatum; spiritus autem uita est propter iustitiam. Haec uita ex fide facta est quoniam iustus ex fide uiuit.

Therefore the soul, now pious which had been impious, on account of the justice of faith, is said to have revived from death and to live. But the body, not only destined to die because of the withdrawal of the soul which is to come, but, on account of so great an infirmity of flesh and blood, is also called dead in a certain place in the Scriptures, the Apostle speaking: “The body indeed,” he says, “is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of justice.” This life has been made from faith, since the just man lives by faith.

Sed quid sequitur? Si autem spiritus eius qui suscitauit Iesum ex mortuis habitat in uobis, qui suscitauit Iesum Christum a mortuis uiuificabit et mortalia corpora uestra per inhabitantem spiritum eius in uobis.

But what follows? If, however, the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Jesus Christ from the dead will also vivify your mortal bodies through his indwelling Spirit in you.

[6] Huic ergo duplae morti nostrae saluator impendit simplam suam, et ad faciendam utramque resuscitationem nostram in sacramento et exemplo praeposuit et proposuit unam suam. Neque enim fuit peccator aut impius ut ei tamquam spiritu mortuo in interiore homine renouari opus esset et tamquam resipiscendo ad uitam iustitiae reuocari, sed indutus carne mortali et sola moriens, sola resurgens, ea sola nobis ad utrumque concinuit cum in ea fieret interioris hominis sacramentum, exterioris exemplum.

[6] To this our double death, therefore, the Savior applied his single one, and, to bring about each of our resuscitations, in sacrament and in example he both set before and set forth his single one. For he was not a sinner or impious, so that it were needful for him, as though with a spirit dead in the inner man, to be renewed and, as by coming-to-his-senses, to be recalled to the life of righteousness; but, clothed with mortal flesh, and dying only in it, rising only in it, by that alone he made both harmonize for us, since in it there was wrought the sacrament of the inner man, the example of the outer.

Interioris enim hominis nostri sacramento data est illa uox pertinens ad mortem animae nostrae significandam non solum in psalmo uerum etiam in cruce: Deus meus, deus meus, ut quid me dereliquisti? Cui uoci congruit apostolus dicens: Scientes quia uetus homo noster simul crucifixus est ut euacuetur corpus peccati, ut ultra non seruiamus peccato. Crucifixio quippe interioris hominis poenitentiae dolores intelleguntur et continentiae quidam salubris cruciatus, per quam mortem mors impietatis perimitur in qua nos non relinquit deus.

For to the sacrament of our inner man that voice was given, pertaining to signify the death of our soul, not only in the psalm but also on the cross: My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? To which voice the apostle is congruent, saying: Knowing that our old man has been co-crucified, that the body of sin might be evacuated, that we may no longer serve sin. For the crucifixion of the inner man is understood as the pains of penitence and a certain healthful cruciation of continence, through which death the death of impiety is destroyed, in which God does not leave us.

Et ideo per talem crucem euacuatur corpus peccati ut iam non exhibeamus membra nostra arma iniquitatis peccato. Quia et interior homo si utique renouatur de die in diem, profecto uetus est antequam renouetur. Intus namque agitur quod idem apostolus dicit: Exuite uos ueterem hominem et induite nouum.

And therefore through such a cross the body of sin is evacuated, so that we no longer exhibit our members as arms of iniquity to sin. For even the inner man, if indeed he is renewed from day to day, assuredly is old before he is renewed. For inwardly there is enacted what the same apostle says: “Strip off the old man and put on the new.”

Quod ita consequenter exponit: Quapropter deponentes mendacium loquimini ueritatem. Vbi autem deponitur mendacium nisi intus ut habitet in monte sancto dei qui loquitur ueritatem in corde suo? Resurrectio uero corporis domini ad sacramentum interioris resurrectionis nostrae pertinere ostenditur ubi postquam resurrexit ait mulieri: Noli me tangere; nondum enim ascendi ad patrem meum.

He sets this forth accordingly: Wherefore, deposing falsehood, speak truth. But where is falsehood laid aside except within, so that he who speaks truth in his heart may dwell on the holy mountain of God? Moreover, the resurrection of the Lord’s body is shown to pertain to the sacrament of our interior resurrection, where, after he had risen, he says to the woman: Do not touch me; for I have not yet ascended to my Father.

Cui mysterio congruit apostolus dicens: Si autem resurrexistis cum Christo, quae sursum sunt quaerite ubi Christus et in dextera dei sedens; quae sursum sunt sapite. Hoc est enim Christum non tangere nisi cum ascenderit ad patrem, non de Christo carnaliter sapere.

To which mystery the apostle is congruent, saying: If, however, you have risen with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is and is sitting at the right hand of God; savor the things that are above. For this is not to touch Christ unless when he has ascended to the Father, not to savor carnally about Christ.

Iam uero ad exemplum mortis exterioris hominis nostri dominicae carnis mors pertinet quia per talem passionem maxime hortatus est seruos suos ut non timeant eos qui corpus occidunt, animam autem non possunt occidere. Propter quod dicit apostolus: Vt suppleam quae desunt pressurarum Christi in carne mea. Et ad exemplum resurrectionis exterioris hominis nostri pertinere inuenitur resurrectio corporis domini quia discipulis ait: Palpate et uidete quia spiritus ossa et carnem non habet sicut me uidetis habere.

Now indeed, as an example of the death of our exterior man, the death of the Lord’s flesh pertains, because by such a passion he especially exhorted his servants that they not fear those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul. For which reason the apostle says: That I may supply what is lacking of the pressures of Christ in my flesh. And the resurrection of the Lord’s body is found to pertain to the example of the resurrection of our exterior man, because he said to the disciples: Handle and see, for a spirit does not have bones and flesh as you see me to have.

Et unus ex discipulis eius etiam cicatrices eius contrectans exclamauit dicens: dominus meus et deus meus! Et cum illius carnis tota integritas appareret, demonstratum est in ea quod suos exhortans dixerat: Capillus capitis uestri non peribit. Vnde enim primo: Noli me tangere; nondum enim ascendi ad patre meum, et unde antequam ascendat ad patrem a discipulis tangitur nisi quia illic insinuabatur interioris hominis sacramentum, hic praebebatur exterioris exemplum?

And one of his disciples, even handling his cicatrices, cried out, saying: “My Lord and my God!” And when the whole integritas of that flesh appeared, it was shown in it what, exhorting his own, he had said: “A hair of your head will not perish.” Why then at first: “Do not touch me; for I have not yet ascended to my Father,” and why is he touched by the disciples before he ascends to the Father, except because there the sacrament of the interior man was being insinuated, here the example of the exterior was being afforded?

An forte quisquam ita est absurdus atque auersus a uero ut audeat dicere a uiris eum tactum antequam ascenderet, a mulieribus autem cum ascendisset? Propter hoc exemplum futurae nostrae resurrectionis in corpore quod praecessit in domino dicit apostolus: Initium Christus, deinde qui sunt Christi. De corporis enim resurrectione illo loco agebatur propter quam etiam dicit: Transfigurauit corpus humilitatis nostrae conforme corpori gloriae suae.

Or is perhaps anyone so absurd and so averse from the true as to dare to say that he was touched by men before he ascended, but by women when he had ascended? On account of this example of our future resurrection in the body, which went before in the Lord, the apostle says: Christ the Beginning, then those who are Christ’s. For the resurrection of the body was being treated in that passage, on account of which he also says: He transfigured the body of our humility, conform to the body of his glory.

Vna ergo mors nostri saluatoris duabus mortibus nostris saluti fuit, et una eius resurrectio duas nobis resurrectiones praestitit cum corpus eius in utraque re, id est et in morte et in resurrectione, et in sacramento interioris hominis nostri et exemplo exterioris medicinali quadam conuernientia ministratum est.

Therefore the one death of our Savior was unto the salvation of our two deaths, and his one resurrection bestowed on us two resurrections, since his body in each matter—namely both in death and in resurrection—was ministered, for the sacrament of our inner man and the example of the outer, with a certain medicinal fittingness.

[IV 7] Haec autem ratio simpli ad duplum oritur quidem a ternario numero; unum quippe ad duo tria sunt. Sed hoc totum quod dixi ad senarium peruenit; unum enim et duo et tria sex fiunt. Qui numerus propterea perfectum dicitur quia partibus suis completur; habet enim eas tres: sextam, tertiam, dimidiam; nec ulla pars alia quae dici possit quota sit inuenitur in eo. Sexta ergo eius unum est, tertia duo, dimidia tria.

[4 7] This ratio of the simple to the double indeed arises from the ternary number; for one together with two are three. But this whole which I have said comes to the senary number; for one and two and three make six. Which number for that reason is called perfect, because it is completed by its parts; for it has these three: a sixth, a third, a half; nor is any other part, which can be said as a quota, found in it. Therefore its sixth is one, its third two, its half three.

Vnum autem et duo et tria consummant eundum senarium. Cuius perfectionem nobis sancta scriptura commendat in eo maxime quod deus sex diebus perfecit opera sua, et sexto die factus est homo ad imaginem dei. Et sexta aetate generis humani filius dei uenit et factus est filius hominis ut nos reformaret ad imaginem dei.

But one and two and three consummate the same senary. Holy Scripture commends its perfection to us especially in this: that God in six days perfected His works, and on the sixth day man was made to the image of God. And in the sixth age of the human race the Son of God came and was made Son of Man, so that He might reform us to the image of God.

Ea quippe nunc aetas agitur siue milleni anni singulis distribuantur aetatibus, siue in diuinis litteris memorabiles atque insignes quasi articulos temporum uestigemus ut prima aetas inueniatur ab Adam usque ad Noe, inde secunda usque ad Abraham, et deinceps sicut Matthaeus euangelista distinxit ab Abraham usque ad Dauid, a Dauid usque ad transmigrationem in Babyloniam, atque inde usque ad uirginis partum. Quae tres aetates coniunctae illis duabus quinque faciunt. Proinde sextam inchoauit natiuitas domini, quae nunc agitur usque ad occultum temporis finem.

Indeed, the age now being enacted holds whether one should distribute a thousand years to each age, or whether in the divine letters we track the memorable and distinguished, as it were, joints of the times, so that the first age is found from Adam to Noah, then the second up to Abraham, and thereafter, just as the evangelist Matthew distinguished, from Abraham to David, from David to the transmigration into Babylonia, and from there up to the Virgin Birth. These three ages, joined to those two, make five. Accordingly, the Nativity of the Lord inaugurated the sixth, which is now being enacted until the hidden end of time.

Hunc senarium numerum quandam temporis gerere figuram etiam in illa ratione tripertitae distributionis agnoscimur qua unum tempus computamus ante legem, alterum sub lege, tertium sub gratia. In quo tempore sacramentum renouationis accipimus ut in fine temporis etiam resurrectione carnis omni ex parte renouati ab uniuersa non solum animi uerum etiam corporis infirmitate sanemur. Vnde intellegitur illa mulier in typo ecclesiae a domino sanata et erecta quam curuauerat infirmitas alligante satana; de talibus enim occultis hostibus plangit illa uox psalmi: Curuauerunt animam meam.

This senary number we are recognized to bear a certain figure of time even in that rationale of three-part distribution, by which we reckon one time before the Law, another under the Law, a third under Grace. In which time we receive the sacrament of renewal, so that at the end of time also, by the resurrection of the flesh, being renewed in every respect, we may be healed from all infirmity not only of the soul but also of the body. Whence it is understood that the woman, in the type of the Church, was healed and straightened by the Lord, whom infirmity had bent, with Satan binding; for of such hidden enemies that voice of the psalm laments: They have bent down my soul.

Haec autem mulier decem et octo annos habebat in infirmitate, quod est ter seni. Menses autem annorum decem et octo inueniuntur in numero solidi quadrati senarii, quod est exies seni et hoc sexies. Iuxta quippe est in eodem euangelii loco arbor quoque illa ficulnea cuius miseram sterilitatem etiam tertius annus arguebat.

But this woman had eighteen (18) years in infirmity, which is three times six (3 × 6). Now the months of eighteen (18) years are found in the number of the solid square of six, which is six times six (6 × 6), and this six times (× 6), that is, 216. For close by in the same place of the Gospel is also that fig-tree, whose wretched sterility even the third year (3rd year) was arraigning.

Sed ita pro illa intercessum est ut dimitteretur illo anno, ut si fructum ferret, bene; sin aliter, excideretur. Nam et tres anni ad eandem tripertitam distributionem pertinent, et menses trium annorum quadratum senarium faciunt, quod est sexies seni.

But thus it was interceded on her behalf, that she be left alone that year, that if she should bear fruit, well; but if otherwise, she would be cut out. For the three years also pertain to the same tripartite distribution, and the months of three years make the senary square, which is six times six.

[8] Annus etiam unus si duodecim menses integri considerentur quos triceni dies complent (talem quippe mensem ueteres obseruauerunt quem circuitus lunaris ostendit), senario numero pollet. Quod enim ualent sex in primo ordine numerorum qui constat ex unis ut perueniatur ad decem, hoc ualent sexaginta in secundo ordine qui constat ex denis ut perueniatur ad centum. Sexagenarius ergo numerus dierum sexta pars anni est.

[8] A single year too, if twelve whole months are considered, which thirty days apiece complete (for such a month the ancients observed, which the lunar circuit displays), is ruled by the senary number. For what six avail in the first order of numbers, which consists of ones until one arrives at ten, that sixty avail in the second order, which consists of tens until one arrives at a hundred. Therefore the sexagenary number of days is the sixth part of a year.

Proinde per senarium primi uersus multiplicatur tamquam senarius secundi uersus et fiunt sexies sexageni, trecenti et sexaginta dies, qui sunt integri duodecim menses. Sed quoniam sicut mensem circuitus lunae ostendit hominibus sic annus circuitu solis animaduersus est, restant autem quinque dies et quadrans diei ut sol impleat cursum suum annumque concludat; quattuor enim quadrantes faciunt unum diem quem necesse est intercalari excurso quadriennio quod bissextum uocant ne temporum ordo turbetur. Etiam ipsos quinque dies et quadrantem si consideremus, senarius numerus in eis plurimum ualet; primo quia sicut fieri solet ut a parte totum computetur, non sunt iam dies quinque sed potius sex ut quadrans ille accipiatur pro die; deinde quia in ipsis quinque diebus sexta pars mensis est, ipse autem quadrans sex horas habet; totus enim dies, id est cum sua nocte, uiginti quattuor horae sunt quarum pars quarta qui est quadrans diei sex horae inueniuntur.

Accordingly, by the senary of the first row being multiplied as the senary of the second row, there come to be six times sixty, 360 days, which are a full 12 months. But since, just as the circuit of the moon shows a month to men, so the year is observed by the circuit of the sun, there remain, however, five days and a quarter of a day for the sun to complete its course and close the year; for four quarters make one day, which it is necessary to intercalate upon the lapse of a four-year period, which they call the bissextile (leap day), lest the order of the seasons be disturbed. Even if we consider those very five days and the quarter, the senary number avails greatly in them: first, because, as it is wont to be done that from a part the whole is computed, they are no longer five days but rather six, so that that quarter be taken for a day; next, because in those five days there is a sixth part of a month, and the quarter itself has six hours; for a whole day, that is, with its night, is 24 hours, of which the fourth part—which is the quarter of a day—is found to be 6 hours.

Ita in anni cursu senarius numerus plurimum ualet.

Thus, in the course of the year, the senary number avails most.

[V 9] Nec immerito in aedificatione dominici corporis, in cuius figura templum a iudaeis destructum triduo se resuscitaturum esse dicebat, numerus ipse senarius pro anno positus intellegitur. Dixerunt enim: Quadraginta et sex annis aedificatum templum, et quadragies sexies seni fiunt ducenti septuaginta sex. Qui numerus dierum complet nouem menses et sex dies qui tamquam decem menses parientibus feminis imputantur, non quia omnes ad sextum diem post nonum mensem perueniunt, sed quia ipsa perfectio corporis domini tot diebus ad partum perducta comperitur sicut a maioribus traditum suscipiens ecclesiae custodit auctoritas.

[5 9] Nor without cause, in the edification of the body of the Lord, in whose figure he said that the temple destroyed by the Jews he would raise in three days, the senary number itself is understood to be set for a year. For they said: In forty-six years the temple was built; and forty-six times six make two hundred seventy-six. Which number of days completes nine months and six days, which are imputed as ten months to women giving birth—not because all arrive at the sixth day after the ninth month, but because the very perfection of the Lord’s body is found to have been brought to birth in just so many days; and the authority of the Church, receiving what was handed down by the elders, preserves this.

Octauo enim kalendas apriles conceptus creditur quo et passus; ita monumento nouo quo sepultus est ubi nullus erat positus mortuorum nec ante nec postea congruit uterus uirginis quo conceptus est ubi nullus eminatus est mortalium. Natus autem traditur octauo kalendas ianuarias; ab illo ergo die usque ad istum computati ducenti septuaginta sex reperiuntur dies, qui senarium numerum quadragies sexies habet. Quo numero annorum templum aedificatum est quia eo numero senariorum corpus domini perfectum est quod mortis passione destructum triduo resuscitauit.

For on the eighth day before the Kalends of April (March 25) he is believed to have been conceived, on which day he also suffered; thus the new tomb in which he was buried—where none of the dead had been laid, neither before nor after—corresponds to the womb of the Virgin in which he was conceived—where no mortal had issued. He is, moreover, handed down to have been born on the eighth day before the Kalends of January (December 25); from that day, therefore, up to this, when counted, there are found 276 days, which contains the senary number 46 times. In that number of years the temple was built, because in that number of sixes the body of the Lord was perfected, which, destroyed by the passion of death, he raised again in three days.

Dicebat enim hoc de templo corporis sui sicut euidentissimo et robustissimo euangelii testimonio declaratur {quo ait: Sicut fuit Ionas in uentre ceti tribus diebus et tribus noctibus, sic erit filius hominis in corde terrae tribus diebus et tribus noctibus}.

For he was saying this about the temple of his body, as is declared by the most evident and most robust testimony of the Gospel {where he says: Just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights}.

[VI 10] Ipsum autem triduum non totum et plenum fuisse scriptura testis est; sed primus dies a parte extrema totus annumeratus est; dies uero tertius a parte prima et ipse totus; medius autem inter eos, id est secundus dies, absolute totus uiginti quattuor horis suis, duodecim nocturnis et duodecim diurnis. Crucifixus est enim primo iudaeorum uocibus hora tertia cum esset dies sexta sabbati; deinde in ipsa cruce suspensus hora sexta et spiritum tradidit hora nona; sepultus est autem cum iam sero factum esset sicut sese habent uerba euangelii, quod intellegitur in fine diei. Vndelibet ergo incipias etiam si alia ratio reddi potest quomodo non sit contra euangelium Iohannis ut hora tertia ligno suspensus intellegatur, totum diem primum non comprehendis.

[6 10] But Scripture is witness that the triduum itself was not entire and full; but the first day, from its extreme part, was reckoned as whole; and the third day, from its first part, likewise whole; but the middle between them, that is, the second day, absolutely whole with its twenty-four hours, twelve nocturnal and twelve diurnal. For first, by the cries of the Jews, he was crucified at the third hour, when it was the sixth day of the sabbath; then on the very cross he was suspended at the sixth hour, and he handed over the spirit at the ninth hour; and he was buried when it had already become evening, as the words of the gospel have it, which is understood as at the end of the day. From wherever, therefore, you begin—even if another rationale can be rendered as to how it is not contrary to the Gospel of John that he be understood to have been suspended on the wood at the third hour—you do not encompass the whole of the first day.

Ergo a parte extrema totus computabitur sicut tertius a parte prima. Nox enim usque ad diluculum quo domini resurrectio declarata est ad tertium pertinet diem quia deus qui dixit de tenebris lumen clarescere ut per gratiam noui testamenti et participationem resurrectionis Christi audiremus: Fuistis enim aliquando tenebrae, nunc autem lux in domino, insinuat nobis quodam modo quod a nocte dies sumat initium. Sicut enim primi dies propter futurum hominis lapsum a luce in noctem ita isti propter hominis reparationem a tenebris ad lucem computantur.

Therefore from the extreme part the whole will be computed, just as the third from the first part. For the night up to the dawn at which the Lord’s resurrection was declared pertains to the third day, because God, who said for light to shine out of darkness, so that through the grace of the New Testament and the participation of the resurrection of Christ we might hear: “For you were once darkness, but now light in the Lord,” insinuates to us in a certain way that the day takes its beginning from night. For just as the first days, on account of the future lapse of man, are reckoned from light into night, so these, on account of man’s reparation, are computed from darkness into light.

Ab hora ergo mortis usque ad diluculum resurrectionis horae quadraginta ut et ipsa nona connumeretur, cui numero congruit etiam uita eius super terram post resurrectionem in quadraginta diebus.

Therefore, from the hour of death up to the daybreak of the resurrection there are forty hours, so that the ninth hour itself also may be counted together; with which number there likewise agrees his life upon the earth after the resurrection in forty days.

Et est iste numerus in scripturis frequentissimus ad insinuandum mysterium perfectionis in quadripertito mundo; habent enim quandam perfectionem decem, et ea quater multiplicata faciunt quadraginta. A uespera autem sepulturae usque ad diluculum resurrectionis triginta sex horae sunt, qui est quadratus senarius. Refertur autem ad illam rationem simpli ad duplum ubi est coaptationis maxima consonantia.

Et this number is most frequent in the Scriptures for insinuating the mystery of perfection in a quadripartite world; for ten have a certain perfection, and these multiplied four times make forty. From the evening of the burial up to the dawn of the resurrection there are thirty-six hours, which is a senary squared. Moreover, it is referred to that ratio of the simple to the double, where there is the greatest consonance of coaptation.

Duodecim enim ad uiginti quattuor simplo ad duplum conueniunt et fiunt triginta sex, nox tota cum die toto et nocte tota, neque hoc sine illo sacramento quod supra memoraui. Non absurde quippe spiritum diei comparamus, corpus autem nocti; dominicum enim corpus in morte ac resurrectione et spiritus nostri figuram et corporis gerebat exemplum. Etiam sic ergo apparet illa ratio simpli ad duplum in horis triginta sex cum duodecim ad uiginti quattuor conferuntur.

For twelve to twenty-four agree as simple to double and make thirty-six: a whole night with a whole day and a whole night; nor is this without that sacrament which I have mentioned above. For not absurdly do we compare the spirit to the day, but the body to the night; for the Lord’s body in death and resurrection was bearing both the figure of our spirit and the example of the body. Thus also, therefore, that ratio of simple to double appears in the thirty-six hours when twelve are compared to twenty-four.

Et horum quidem numerorum causas cur in scripturis sanctis positi sint potest alius alias indagare uel quibus istae quas ego reddidi praeponendae sint uel aeque probabiles uel istis etiam probabiliores; frustra tamen eos esse in scripturis positos et nullas esse causas mysticas cur illic isti numeri commemorentur nemo tam stultus ineptusque contenderit. Ego autem quas reddidi uel ex ecclesiae auctoritate a maioribus tradita uel ex diuinarum scripturarum testimonio uel ex ratione numerorum similitudinumque collegi. Contra rationem nemo sobrius, contra scripturas nemo christianus, contra ecclesiam nemo pacificus senserit.

And indeed as to the causes of these numbers, why they have been set in the holy scriptures, one person can investigate others, or those by which the ones that I have rendered are to be preferred, or [others] equally probable, or even more probable than these; yet no one so foolish and inept would contend that they are placed in the scriptures in vain, and that there are no mystical causes why those numbers are commemorated there. But the ones I have rendered I have gathered either from the authority of the Church handed down by the elders, or from the testimony of the divine scriptures, or from the reason of numbers and of similitudes. Let no sober person feel against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, no peaceable person against the Church.

[VII 11] Hoc sacramentum, hoc sacrificium, hic sacerdos, hic deus antequam missus ueniret factus ex femina — omnia quae sacrate atque mystice patribus nostris per angelica miracula apparuerunt siue quae per ipsos facta sunt similitudines huius fuerunt ut omnis creatura factis quodam modo loqueretur unum futurum in quo esset salus uniuersorum a morte reparandorum. Quia enim ab uno deo summo et uero per impietatis iniquitatem resilientes et dissonantes defluxeramus et euanueramus in multa discissi per multa et inhaerentes in multis, oportebat nutu et imperio dei miserantis ut ipsa multa uenturum conclamarent unum, et a multis conclamatus ueniret unus, et multa contestarentur uenisse unum, et a multis exonerati ueniremus ad unum, et multis peccatis in anima mortui et propter peccatum in carne morituri amaremus sine peccato mortuum in carne pro nobis unum, et in resuscitatum credentes et cum illo per fidem spiritu resurgentes iustificaremur in uno iusto facti unum, nec in ipsa carne nos resurrecturos desperaremus cum multa membra intueremur praecessisse nos caput unum in quo nunc per fidem mundati et tunc per speciem redintegrati et per mediatorem deo reconciliati haereamus uni, fruamur uno, permaneamus unum.

[7 11] This sacrament, this sacrifice, this priest, this God—before he, sent, should come, made from a woman—everything that appeared to our fathers in a sacred and mystical way through angelic miracles, or that was done through them, was likenesses of this, so that all creation might by deeds, in a certain manner, speak of the One who was to come, in whom would be the salvation of all who were to be restored from death. For since from the one God, supreme and true, through the iniquity of impiety we had recoiled and, becoming dissonant, had flowed down and vanished into the many—torn apart through many things and clinging in many—it was fitting, by the nod and command of the God who has mercy, that these many themselves should cry out the One who was to come, and that, cried out by the many, One should come, and that many things should bear witness that One had come, and that, unburdened from the many, we should come to the One; and, dead in soul by many sins and destined to die in the flesh because of sin, we should love the One who, without sin, died in the flesh for us; and, believing in the Risen One and with him through faith in spirit rising again, we should be justified in the one Just Man, made one; nor should we despair that we ourselves will rise again in the very flesh, since, though many members, we beheld our one Head had gone before us—in whom now, cleansed through faith, and then by sight restored, and through the Mediator reconciled to God, let us cling to the One, enjoy the One, remain one.

[VIII 12] Sic ipse filius dei, uerbum dei et idem ipse mediator dei et hominum filius hominis, aequalis patri per diuinitatis unitatem et particeps noster per humanitatis susceptionem, patrem interpellans pro nobis per id quod homo erat nec tamen tacens quod deus cum patre unum erat et inter cetera ita loquitur: Non pro his autem rogo, inquit, tantum sed et pro eis qui credituri sunt per uerbum eorum in me ut omnes unum sint sicut tu pater in me et ego in te, ut ei ipsi in nobis unum sint, ut mundus credat quia tu me misisti. Et ego claritatem quam dedisti mihi dedi illis ut sint unum sicut et nos unum sumus.

[8 12] Thus the Son of God himself, the Word of God and likewise the very Mediator of God and men, the Son of Man, equal to the Father through the unity of divinity and a partaker with us through the assumption of humanity, interceding with the Father on our behalf by that in virtue of which he was man, yet not being silent about the fact that as God he was one with the Father, among other things speaks thus: “But I do not ask, he says, for these only, but also for those who are going to believe in me through their word, that all may be one, as you, Father, in me and I in you, that they also themselves may be one in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. And I the glory which you have given me have given to them, that they may be one as we too are one.”

[IX] Non dixit: 'Ego et ipsi unum,' quamuis per id quod ecclesiae caput est et corpus eius ecclesia posset dicere: 'Ego et ipsi' non unum sed 'unus,' quia caput et corpus unus est Christus. Sed diuinitatem suam consubstantialem patri ostendens (propter quod et alio loco dicit: Ego et pater unum sumus), in suo genere, hoc est in eiusdem naturae consubstantiali parilitate, uult esse suos unum sed in ipso quia in se ipsis non possent dissociati ab inuicem per diuersas uoluntates et cupiditates et immunditiam peccatorum; unde mundantur per mediatorem ut sint in illo unum non tantum per eandem naturam qua omnes ex hominibus mortalibus aequales angelis fiunt sed etiam per eandem in eandem beatitudinem conspirantem concordissimam uoluntatem in unum spiritum quodam modo caritatis igne conflatam. Ad hoc enim ualet quod ait: Vt sint unum sicut et nos unum sumus, ut quemadmodum pater et filius non tantum aequalitate substantiae sed etiam uoluntate unum sunt, ita et hi inter quos et deum mediator est filius non tantum per id quod eiusdem naturae sunt sed etiam per eandem dilectionis societatem unum sint.

[9] He did not say: 'I and they are one (unum),' although, inasmuch as he is the head of the Church and its body is the Church, he could have said: 'I and they' not 'one (unum)' but 'one person (unus),' because the head and the body are one Christ. But, showing his divinity consubstantial with the Father (on account of which elsewhere he says: 'I and the Father are one'), he wills his own to be one in his own kind, that is, in the consubstantial parity of the same nature—yet in himself, because in themselves they could not be one, being dissociated from one another by diverse wills and desires and by the uncleanness of sins. Whence they are cleansed through the mediator, so that they may be one in him, not only by the same nature by which all from among mortal humans are made equal to angels, but also by the same will, conspiring into the same beatitude, most concordant, fused into one spirit by a kind of fire of charity. To this tends what he says: 'That they may be one as we are one,' so that just as the Father and the Son are one not only by equality of substance but also by will, so also these, between whom and God the mediator is the Son, may be one not only by the fact that they are of the same nature but also by the same fellowship of love.

Deinde idipsum quod mediator est per quem reconciliamur deo sic indicat: Ego, inquit, in eis et tu in me ut sint consummati in unum.

Then he thus indicates this very thing, that he is the mediator through whom we are reconciled to God: “I,” he says, “in them, and you in me, that they may be consummated into one.”

[X 13] Haec est uera pax et cum creatore nostro nobis firma conexio purgatis et reconciliatis per mediatorem uitae sicut maculati et alienati ab eo recesseramus per mediatorem mortis. Sicut enim diabolus superbus hominem superbientem perduxit ad mortem, ita Christus humilis hominem obedientem reduxit ad uitam; quia sicut ille elatus cecidit et deiecit consentientem, sic iste humiliatus surrexit et erexit credentem. Quia enim non peruenerat diabolus quo ipse perduxerat (mortem quippe spiritus in impietate gestabat sed mortem carnis non subierat quia nec indumentum susceperat), magnus homini uidebatur princeps in legionibus daemonum per quos fallaciarum regnum exercet.

[10 13] This is the true peace and, with our Creator, a firm connection for us, we being cleansed and reconciled through the mediator of life, just as, stained and alienated from him, we had withdrawn through the mediator of death. For as a proud devil led a man growing proud to death, so the humble Christ brought the obedient man back to life; because just as that one, exalted, fell and cast down the consenting one, so this one, humbled, rose and raised up the believing one. For since the devil had not arrived at that to which he himself had led a man (he indeed bore the death of the spirit in impiety, but had not undergone the death of the flesh, because he had not assumed the garment), he seemed great to man, a prince among the legions of demons, through whom he exercises the kingdom of deceits.

Sic hominem per elationis typhum potentiae quam iustitiae cupidiorem aut per falsam philosophiam magis inflans aut per sacra sacrilega inretiens, in quibus etiam magicae fallaciae curiosiores superbioresque animas deceptas inlusasque praecipitans, subditum tenet pollicens etiam purgationem animae per eas quas *teletas appellant transfigurando se in angelum lucis per multiformem machinationem in signis et prodigiis mendacii.

Thus, through the typhus of elation, inflating man to be more desirous of power than of justice, or by false philosophy, or by holding him fast with sacrilegious rites—in which also, by magical delusions, he, precipitating deceived and deluded souls that are the more curious and the more proud—he holds him subject, promising even the purgation of the soul through those which they call *teletas*, by transfiguring himself into an angel of light through multiform machination in signs and prodigies of mendacity.

[XI 14] Facile est enim spiritibus nequissimis per aeria corpora facere multa quae mirentur animae terrenis corporibus aggrauatae etiam melioris affectus. Si enim corpora ipsa terrena nonnullis artibus et exercitationibus modificata in spectaculis theatricis tanta miracula hominibus exhibent ut hi qui numquam talia uiderunt narrata uix credant, quid magnum est diabolo et angelis eius de corporeis elementis per aeria corpora facere quae caro miretur aut etiam occultis inspirationibus ad inludendos humanos sensus phantasmata imaginum machinari quibus uigilantes dormientesue decipiat uel furentes exagitet? Sed sicut fieri potest ut homo uita ac moribus melior spectet nequissimos homines uel in fune ambulantes uel multimodis motibus corporum multa incredibilia facientes nec ullo modo talia facere concupiscat nec eos propterea sibi praeponendos existimet, sic anima fidelis et pia non solum si uideat, uerum etiam si propter fragilitatem carnis exhorreat miracula daemonum, non ideo tamen aut non se posse talia dolebit aut ob hoc illos meliores esse iudicabit, cum sit praesertim in societate sanctorum qui per uirtutem dei cui cunta subiecta sunt et minime fallacia et multo maiora fecerunt siue homines siue angeli boni.

[11 14] For it is easy for most nefarious spirits, through aerial bodies, to do many things at which souls weighed down by earthly bodies, even of a better disposition, marvel. For if these very earthly bodies, modified by certain arts and exercises, exhibit in theatrical spectacles such miracles to men that those who have never seen such things scarcely believe them when narrated, what great thing is it for the devil and his angels, out of corporeal elements through aerial bodies, to make things at which the flesh marvels, or even by hidden inspirations, to contrive phantasms of images for the deluding of human senses, by which he may deceive men awake or asleep, or goad the frenzied? But just as it can happen that a man better in life and morals looks on most wicked men either walking on a rope or, by multiform movements of their bodies, doing many incredible things, and in no way desires to do such things nor therefore deems them to be set before himself, so a faithful and pious soul, not only if it should see, but even if on account of the fragility of the flesh it shudders at the miracles of demons, will not on that account either grieve that it cannot do such things or judge them to be better because of this, since it is especially in the fellowship of the saints who, through the virtue (power) of God, to whom all things are subject, and with no fallacy, have done much greater things—whether men or good angels.

[XII 15] Nequaquam igitur per sacrilegas similitudines et impias curiositates et magicas consecrationes animae purgantur et reconciliantur deo quia falsus mediator non traicit ad superiora, sed potius obsidens intercludit uiam per affectus quos tanto maligniores quanto superbiores suae societatis inspirat, qui non possunt ad euolandum pinnas nutrire uirtutum sed potius ad demergendum pondera exaggerare uitiorum tanto grauius animae ruiturae quanto sibi uidetur euecta sublimius. Proinde sicut magi fecerunt diuinitus moniti quos ad humilitatem domini adorandam stella perduxit, ita et nos non qua uenimus sed per aliam uiam in patriam redire debemus quam rex humilis docuit et quam rex superbus humili regi aduersarius obsidere non possit. Et nobis enim ut adoremus humilem Christum caeli enarrauerunt gloriam dei cum in omnem terram exiit sonus eorum et in fines orbis terrae uerba eorum.

[12 15] By no means, therefore, are souls purged and reconciled to God through sacrilegious likenesses and impious curiosities and magical consecrations; because a false mediator does not carry across to the higher things, but rather, besieging, blocks the way by affections which are the more malignant the more proud he inspires of his own society—affections which cannot nourish the pinions of virtues for flying, but rather to sink heap up the weights of vices, the more grievously the soul being about to fall, the more loftily it seems to itself to have been exalted. Accordingly, just as the magi, divinely warned, did—whom a star led to adore the humility of the Lord—so also we must return to the fatherland not by the way we came, but by another way, which the humble King taught, and which the proud king, the adversary to the humble King, is not able to besiege. For to us also, that we might adore the humble Christ, the heavens have declared the glory of God, when their sound went out into all the earth and their words to the ends of the orb of the earth.

Via nobis fuit ad mortem per peccatum in Adam: Per unum quippe hominem peccatum intrauit in mundum et per peccatum mors, et ita in omnes homines pertransiit in quo omnes peccauerunt. Huius uiae mediator diabolus fuit, persuasor peccati et praecipitator in mortem; nam et ipse ad operandam duplam mortem nostram simplam attulit suam. Per impietatem namque mortuus in spiritu, carne utique mortuus non est; nobis autem et impietatem persuasit et propter hanc ut in mortem carnis uenire mereremur effecit.

The way for us was to death through sin in Adam: For through one man sin entered into the world and through sin, death, and thus it passed through into all men, in whom all sinned. The mediator of this way was the Devil, persuader of sin and precipitator into death; for he too, in order to work our double death, brought his single one. For through impiety he was dead in spirit; in flesh, to be sure, he was not dead; but for us he both persuaded impiety and, on account of this, brought it about that we might deserve to come into the death of the flesh.

Vnum ergo appetiuimus iniqua suasione; alterum nos secutum est iusta damnatione. Propterea quippe scriptum est: Deus mortem non fecit, quia causa mortis ipse non fuit; sed tamen per eius retributionem iustissima mors inrogata est peccatori; sicut supplicium iudex inrogat reo, causa tamen supplicii non est iustitia iudicis sed meritum criminis. Quo ergo nos mediator mortis transmisit et ipse non uenit, id est ad mortem carnis, ibi nobis dominus deus noster medicinam emendationis inseruit quam ille non meruit occulta et nimis arcana ordinatione diuinae altaeque iustitiae.

Therefore we desired the one by iniquitous suasion; the other followed us by just damnation. For this reason indeed it is written: God did not make death, because he himself was not the cause of death; but nevertheless through his retribution a most just death was inflicted upon the sinner; just as a judge inflicts punishment on the defendant, yet the cause of the punishment is not the justice of the judge but the desert of the crime. To the place, therefore, whither the mediator of death conveyed us and he himself did not come, that is, to the death of the flesh, there our Lord God inserted for us the medicine of amendment which he did not merit, by the hidden and most arcane ordination of divine and lofty justice.

Vt ergo sicut per unum hominem mors ita per unum hominem fieret resurrectio mortuorum quia magis uitabant homines quod euitare non poterant mortem carnis quam mortem spiritus, id est magis poenam quam meritum poenae (nam non peccare aut non curatur aut parum curatur; non mori autem quamuis non obtineatur uehementer satagitur), uitae mediator ostendens quam non sit mors timenda quae per humanam conditionem iam euadi non potest sed potius impietas quae per fidem caueri potest, occurrit nobis ad finem quo uenimus sed non qua uenimus. Nos enim ad mortem per peccatum uenimus, ille per iustitiam; et ideo cum sit mors nostra poena peccati, mors illius facta est hostia pro peccato.

Thus, therefore, in order that, just as through one man came death, so through one man there might be the resurrection of the dead—because humans were avoiding more what they could not avoid, the death of the flesh, than the death of the spirit, that is, the penalty more than the merit of the penalty (for not to sin is either not cared for, or cared for little; but not to die, although it is not attained, is strenuously striven for)—the mediator of life, showing that the death which by the human condition can no longer be escaped is not to be feared, but rather impiety, which by faith can be guarded against, met us at the end to which we had come, but not by the way by which we had come. For we came to death through sin, he through justice; and therefore, since our death is the penalty of sin, his death was made a sacrifice for sin.

[XIII 16] Quapropter cum spiritus corpori praeponatur morsque sit spiritus a deo deseri, mors autem corporis ab spiritu deseri eaque sit poena in morte corporis ut quia spiritus uolens deseruit deum, deserat corpus inuitus ut cum spiritus deum deseruerit quia uoluit, deserat corpus etiamsi noluerit nec deserat cum uoluerit nisi aliquam sibi uim qua ipsum corpus perimatur intulerit, demonstrauit spiritus mediatoris quam nulla poena peccati usque ad mortem carnis accesserit quia non eam deseruit inuitus sed quia uoluit, quando uoluit, quomodo uoluit. Quippe dei uerbo ad unitatem commixtus hinc ait: Potestatem habeo ponendi animam meam et potestatem habeo iterum sumendi eam. Nemo tollit eam a me, sed ego pono eam a me, et iterum sumo eam.

[13 16] Wherefore, since the spirit is set before the body, and death of the spirit is to be deserted by God, but death of the body is to be deserted by the spirit—and this is the penalty in the death of the body: that because the spirit willingly deserted God, it deserts the body unwillingly; so that, when the spirit has deserted God because it willed, it deserts the body even if it does not will, nor does it desert when it wills unless it has brought upon itself some force by which that very body is destroyed—the spirit of the Mediator showed that no penalty of sin reached even unto the death of the flesh, because he did not desert it unwillingly but because he willed, when he willed, how he willed. For, being commixed to unity with the Word of God, hence he says: “I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down from myself, and I take it again.”

Et hoc maxime mirati sunt sicut euangelium loquitur qui praesentes erant cum post illam uocem in qua figuram peccati nostri edidit, continuo tradidit spiritum. Longa enim morte cruciabantur ligno suspensi. Vnde latronibus ut iam morerentur et de ligno ante sabbatum deponerentur crura confracta sunt.

And this they especially marveled at, as the gospel speaks, those who were present, when, after that utterance in which he brought out the figure of our sin, he immediately gave up the spirit. For those suspended on the wood were tormented by a long death. Whence the robbers, so that they might already die and be taken down from the wood before the sabbath, had their legs broken.

Ille autem quia mortuus inuentus est miraculo fuit. Hoc etiam Pilatum legimus fuisse miratum cum ab illo sepeliendum corpus domini peteretur.

But he, however, because he was found dead, was a miracle. We read that Pilate also marveled at this, when the body of the Lord was requested from him to be buried.

[17] Hic itaque deceptor qui fuit homini meditor ad mortem falsoque se opponit ad uitam nomine purgationis per sacra et sacrificia sacrilega quibus superbi seducuntur quia nec participationem mortis nostrae habere potuit nec resurrectionem suae, simplam quidem suam mortem ad duplam nostram potuit afferre; simplam uero resurrectionem in qua et sacramentum esset renouationis nostrae et eius quae in fine futura est euigilationis exemplum non utique potuit. Ille proinde qui spiritu uiuus carnem suam mortuam resuscitauit, uerus uitae mediator illum spiritum mortuum et mortis mediatorem ab spiritibus in se credentium foras misit ut non regnaret intrinsecus sed forinsecus oppugnaret nec tamen expugnaret. Cui se ipse quoque temptandum praebuit ut ad superandas etiam temptationes eius mediator esset non solum per adiutorium uerum etiam per exemplum.

[17] Thus this deceiver, who was for man a contriver unto death and, under the name of purgation, sets himself in opposition to life by sacred rites and sacrilegious sacrifices by which the proud are seduced, since he could have neither a participation in our death nor a resurrection of his own, could indeed bring his simple death to bear against our double death; but a simple resurrection—in which there would be both a sacrament of our renovation and an example of that awakening which will be at the end—he assuredly could not. He, therefore, who, living in spirit, raised his own dead flesh—the true mediator of life—cast that dead spirit and mediator of death out from the spirits of those believing in himself, so that it should not reign within but should assault from without, and yet not overcome. To him he also offered himself to be tempted, so that he might be a mediator for the overcoming even of his temptations, not only by assistance but also by example.

At ille primitus ubi per omnes aditus ad interiora moliens inrepere expulsus est, post baptismum in heremo completa omni temptatione inlecebrosa quia uiuum spiritum mortuus spiritu non inuasit quoquo modo auidus mortis humanae conuertit se ad faciendam mortem quam potuit et permissus est in illud quod ex nobis mortale uiuus mediator acceperat. Et ubi potuit aliquid facere ibi ex omni parte deuictus est, et unde accepit exterius potestatem dominicae carnis occidendae inde interior qua nos tenebat potestas eius occisa est. Factum est enim ut uincula peccatorum multorum in multis mortibus per unius unam mortem quam peccatum nullum praecesserat soluerentur.

But he, at the first, when, trying to creep in through all approaches to the interiors, he was driven out, after baptism in the desert, every alluring temptation having been completed—because, dead in spirit, he did not invade the living spirit—turned himself, in whatever way, greedy for human death, to effecting the death that he could, and was permitted in that regard with respect to that mortal thing which the living mediator had taken from us. And where he was able to do anything, there he was defeated from every side; and from whence he received exterior authority for the Lord’s flesh to be slain, from there the interior power by which he was holding us was slain. For it came to pass that the chains of the sins of many, in many deaths, were loosed through the one single death of one whom no sin had preceded.

Quam propterea dominus pro nobis indebitam reddidit ut nobis debita non noceret. Neque enim cuiusquam iure potestatis exultus est carne, sed ipse se exuit. Nam qui posset non mori si nollet, procul dubio quia uoluit mortuus est, et ideo principatus et potestates exemplauit fiducialiter triumphans eas in semetipso.

Which therefore the Lord rendered as not-owed for us, so that the debts owed by us might not harm us. For he was stripped of the flesh by the right of no one’s power, but he himself stripped himself. For he who could not die if he did not will, without doubt died because he willed, and therefore he made a show of the principalities and the powers, confidently triumphing over them in himself.

Morte sua quippe uno uerissimo sacrificio pro nobis oblato quidquid culparum erat unde nos principatus et potestates ad luenda supplicia iure detinebant purgauit, aboleuit, exstinxit, et sua resurrectione in nouam uitam nos praedestinatos uocauit, uocatos iustificauit, iustificatos glorificauit.

By his death indeed, with one most true sacrifice offered for us, he purged, abolished, extinguished whatever of faults there was whereby the principalities and powers were detaining us by right to undergo penalties; and by his resurrection into new life he called us, predestined; the called he justified; the justified he glorified.

Ita diabolus hominem quem per consensionem seductum tamquam iure integro possidebat, et ipse nulla corruptione carnis et sanguinis septus per istam corporis mortalis fragilitatem nimis egeno et infirmo tanto superbior quanto uelut ditior et fortior quasi pannoso et aerumnoso dominabatur, in ipsa morte carnis amisit. Quo enim cadentem non secutus impulit peccatorem illuc descendentem persecutus compulit redemptorem. Sic in mortis consortio filius dei nobis fieri dignatus est amicus quo non perueniendo meliorem se nobis atque maiorem putabat inimicus.

Thus the devil lost the man whom, having been seduced by consent, he possessed as though by intact right, while he himself, hedged about by no corruption of flesh and blood, through that fragility of the mortal body lorded it over one too needy and infirm, so much the more superior as he seemed richer and stronger, as over one rag-clad and wretched, in that very death of the flesh. For to that place he drove the sinner who was falling, not by following him; by pursuing the one descending thither, he compelled the Redeemer. Thus, in the fellowship of death, the Son of God deigned to become our friend—to which place, by not coming, the enemy supposed himself better and greater than we.

Dicit enim redemptor noster: Maiorem dilectionem nemo habet quam ut animam suam ponat pro amicis suis. Quocirca etiam ipso domino se credebat diabolus superiorem in quantum illi dominus in passionibus cessit quia et de ipso intellectum est quod in psalmis legitur: Minuisti eum paulo minus ab angelis, ut ab iniquo uelut aequo iure aduersus nos agente ipse occisus innocens eum iure aequissimo superaret {atque ita captiuitatem propter peccatum factam captiuaret} nosque liberaret a captiuitate propter peccatum iusta suo iusto sanguine iniuste fuso mortis chirographum delens et iustificandos redimens peccatores.

For our Redeemer says: No one has greater love than that he lay down his life for his friends. Wherefore the devil even believed himself superior to the very Lord, insofar as the Lord yielded to him in the passions, because what is read in the Psalms is understood also of him: You have made him a little less than the angels, so that, with the unjust one acting against us as if by equal right, he himself, slain though innocent, might by the most equitable right overcome him {and thus might take captive the captivity made on account of sin} and might free us from the captivity on account of sin, blotting out the handwriting of death by his just blood unjustly poured out, and redeeming sinners to be justified.

[18] Hinc etiam diabolus adhuc suos inludit quibus se per sua sacra uelut purgandis et potius implicandis atque mergendis falsus mediator opponit quod superbis facillime persuadet inridere atque contemnere mortem Christi a qua ipse quanto est alienior tanto ab eis creditur sanctior atque diuinior. Qui tamen apud eum paucissimi remanserunt agnoscentibus gentibus et pia humilitate bibentibus pretium suum eiusque fiducia deserentibus hostem suum et concurrentibus ad redemptorem suum. Nescit enim diabolus quomodo illo et insidiante et furente utatur ad salutem fidelium suorum excelsissima sapientia dei, a fine superiore, quod est initium spiritalis creaturae, usque ad finem inferiorem, quod est mors corporis, pertendens fortiter et disponens omnia suauiter.

[18] Hence too the devil still deludes his own, to whom, through his rites, as if for purging—and rather for entangling and submerging—he sets himself forth as a false mediator; for he very easily persuades the proud to deride and contemn the death of Christ, from which he himself is the more alien, and therefore by them is believed the holier and more divine. Yet very few have remained with him, as the nations recognize and, with pious humility, drink their price, and, by trust in him, desert their enemy and run together to their Redeemer. For the devil does not know how the most exalted wisdom of God uses him—even as he lays snares and rages—for the salvation of His faithful, stretching from the higher end, which is the beginning of the spiritual creature, down to the lower end, which is the death of the body, mightily reaching and disposing all things sweetly.

Attingit enim ubique propter suam munditiam, et nihil inquinatum in eam incurrit. A morte autem carnis alieno diabolo unde nimium superbus incedit mors alterius generis praeparatur in aeterno igne tartari quo non solum cum terrenis sed etiam cum aeriis corporibus excruciari spiritus possint. Superbi autem homines quibus Christus quia mortuus est uiluit ubi nos tam magno emit et istam mortem reddunt cum hominibus conditioni aerumnosae naturae quae trahitur a primo peccato et in illam cum illo praecipitabuntur.

For it reaches everywhere by reason of its purity, and nothing defiled rushes in upon it. But for the devil, alien from the death of the flesh—whence he goes about exceedingly proud—a death of another kind is prepared in the eternal fire of Tartarus, wherein spirits can be tormented not only with earthly bodies but even with airy bodies. But proud men, to whom Christ is of little worth because he died—where he purchased us at so great a price—also relegate that death, together with the deaths of men, to the condition of a wretched nature which is dragged along from the first sin; and into that they will be precipitated headlong with him.

Quem propterea Christo praeposuerunt quia eos in istam deiecit quo per distantem naturam ipse non cecidit et quo propter eos per ingentem misericordiam ille descendit, et tamen se daemonibus esse meliores non dubitant credere eosque maledictis omnibus insectari detestarique non cessant, quos certe alienos ab huius mortis passione nouerunt propter quam Christum contemnunt. Nec sic uolunt considerare quam fieri potuerit ut in se manes nec per se ipsum ex ulla parte mutabile uerbum dei per inferioris tamen naturae susceptionem aliquid inferius pati posset quod immundus daemon quia terrenum corpus non habet, pati non possit. Sic cum sint ipsi daemonibus meliores, tamen quia carnem portant mori sic possunt quemadmodum mori daemones quia non eam portant non utique possunt.

Whom, therefore, they have preferred to Christ—him, the devil—because he cast them down into this condition into which, by a disparate nature, he himself did not fall, and into which, on their account, He descended by immense mercy; and yet they do not hesitate to believe themselves to be better than the demons, and they do not cease to pursue and detest them with every curse, those whom surely they know to be alien to the passion of this death on account of which they contemn Christ. Nor are they willing thus to consider how it could have come to pass that the Word of God, remaining in Himself and in no part mutable in Himself, yet through the assumption of an inferior nature could suffer something inferior, which the unclean demon, because he does not have a terrestrial body, cannot suffer. Thus, although they themselves are better than the demons, nevertheless, because they carry flesh, they can die in such a way as demons, because they do not carry it, assuredly cannot.

Et cum de mortibus sacrificiorum suorum multum praesumant quae se fallacibus superbisque spiritibus immolare non sentiunt, aut si etiam sentiunt, aliquid sibi prodesse arbitrantur perfidorum et inuidorum amicitiam quorum intentionis nullum negotium est nisi impeditio reditus nostri.

And while they presume much concerning the deaths in their sacrifices—who do not perceive that they are immolating themselves to fallacious and proud spirits, or, if they even do perceive it, they suppose that the amity of the perfidious and invidious somehow profits them—whose intention has no business except the impediment of our return.

[19] Non intellegunt ne ipsos quidem superbissimos spiritus honoribus sacrificiorum gaudere potuisse nisi uni uero deo pro quo coli uolunt uerum sacrificium deberetur.

[19] They do not understand that not even the most proud spirits could have rejoiced in the honors of sacrifices, unless to the one true God—instead of whom they wish to be worshiped—the true sacrifice were owed.

[XIV] Neque id posse rite offerri nisi per sacerdotem sanctum et iustum nec nisi ab eis accipiatur quod offertur pro quibus offertur atque id sine uitio sit ut pro uitiosis mundandis possit offerri. Hoc certe omnes cupiunt qui pro se offerri sacrificium deo uolunt.

[14] Nor can that be duly offered unless through a priest holy and just, nor unless what is offered be received by those for whom it is offered; and let it be without blemish, so that it may be offered for the cleansing of the vitiated. This certainly all desire who wish that a sacrifice be offered to God on their behalf.

Quis ergo tam iustus et sanctus sacerdos quam unicus dei filius non qui opus haberet per sacrificium sua purgare peccata nec originalia nec ex humana uita quae adduntur? Et quid tam congruenter ab hominibus sumeretur quod pro eis offerretur quam humana caro? Et quid tam aptum huic immolationi quam caro mortalis?

Who then is so just and holy a priest as the only Son of God—one who would not have need to purge his own sins by sacrifice, neither original nor those added from human life? And what would be more congruently taken from human beings, to be offered on their behalf, than human flesh? And what so apt for this immolation as mortal flesh?

Et quid tam mundum pro mundandis uitiis mortalium quam sine ulla contagione carnalis concupiscentiae caro nata in utero et ex utero uirginali? Et quid tam grate offerri et suscipi posset quam caro sacrificii nostri corpus effectum sacerdotis nostri? Vt quoniam quattuor considerantur in omni sacrificio: cui offeratur, a quo offeratur, quid offeratur, pro quibus offeratur; idem ipse unus uerusque mediator per sacrificium pacis reconcilians nos deo unum cum illo maneret cui offerebat, unum in se faceret pro quibus offerebat, unus ipse esset qui offerebat et quod offerebat.

And what is so pure for purging the vices of mortals as flesh born in the womb and from a virginal womb without any contagion of carnal concupiscence? And what could be offered and received so gratefully as the flesh of our sacrifice, made the body of our priest? So that, since four things are considered in every sacrifice: to whom it is offered, by whom it is offered, what is offered, for whom it is offered; the same one, the one true mediator, through the sacrifice of peace reconciling us to God, might remain one with him to whom he was offering, might make those for whom he was offering to be one in himself, and he himself might be one and the same who was offering and what he was offering.

[XV 20] Sunt autem quidam qui se putant ad contemplandum deum et inhaerendum deo uirtute propria posse purgari, quos ipsa superbia maxime maculat. Nullum enim uitium est cui magis diuina lege resistitur et in quod maius accipiat dominandi ius ille superbissimus spiritus ad ima mediator, ad summa interclusor, nisi occulte insidians alia uia deuitetur, aut per populum deficientem quod interpretatur Amalech aperte saeuiens et ad terram promissionis repugnando transitum negans per crucem domini quae Moysi manibus extentis est praefigurata superetur. Hinc enim sibi purgationem isti uirtute propria pollicentur quia nonnulli eorum potuerunt aciem mentis ultra omnem creaturam transmittere et lucem incommutabilis ueritatis quantulacumque ex parte contingere, quod christianos multos ex fide interim sola uiuentes nondum potuisse derident.

[15 20] There are, moreover, certain men who think that by their own virtue they can be purged for the contemplation of God and for inhering in God—whom pride itself most of all stains. For there is no vice against which the divine law more strongly makes resistance, nor into which that most proud spirit, a mediator to the lowest, an intercluder to the heights, more readily receives a right of dominion, unless, lying in wait occultly, he be avoided by another way, or, raging openly through the “failing people”—which is interpreted Amalek—and by resisting to the land of promise and denying passage, he be overcome by the cross of the Lord, which was prefigured by Moses’s hands stretched out. For from this it is that these men promise to themselves purgation by their own virtue: because some of them have been able to transmit the keenness of the mind beyond every creature and to touch, in some part however small, the light of immutable truth—at which they deride that many Christians, meanwhile living by faith alone, have not yet been able to arrive.

Sed quid prodest superbienti et ob hoc erubescenti lignum conscendere de longinquo prospicere patriam transmarinam? Aut quid obest humili de tanto interuallo non eam uidere in illo ligno ad eam uenienti quo dedignatur ille portari?

But what profit is it to the one growing proud, and on this account blushing, to ascend the wood and from afar to prospect the transmarine fatherland? Or what does it harm the humble, from so great an interval, not to see it on that wood—he coming to it on that very wood by which that man disdains to be carried?

[XVI 21] Hi etiam resurrectionem carnis nos credere reprehendunt sibique potius etiam de his rebus credi uolunt, quasi uero quia praecelsam incommutabilemque substantiam per illa quae facta sunt intellegere potuerunt, propterea de conuersione rerum mutabilium aut de contexto saeculorum ordine consulendi sunt. Numquid enim quia uerissime disputant et documentis certissimis persuadent aeternis rationibus omnia temporalia fieri, propterea potuerunt in ipsis rationibus perspicere uel ex ipsis colligere quot sint animalium genera, quae semina singulorum in exordiis, qui modus in incrementis, qui numeri per conceptus, per ortus, per aetates, per occasus, qui motus in appetendis quae secundum naturam sunt fugiendisque contrariis? Nonne ista omnia non per illam incommutabilem sapientiam sed per locorum ac temporum historiam quaesierunt et ab aliis experta atque conscripta crediderunt?

[XVI 21] These also reprove us for believing the resurrection of the flesh, and want rather that belief be given to themselves even on these matters, as if truly because they were able to understand the most high and incommutable substance through the things which have been made, therefore they ought to be consulted about the conversion of mutable things or about the woven contexture of the order of the ages. For is it the case that because they dispute most truly and with most certain proofs (documents) persuade that all temporals are made by eternal reasons, therefore they were able in those very reasons to descry, or from them to collect, how many the genera of animals are, what the seeds of each are in their beginnings, what the mode in their increments, what the numbers through conceptions, through births, through ages, through deceases, what motions in seeking the things that are according to nature and in fleeing their contraries? Did they not seek all these things not through that incommutable wisdom, but through the history of places and times, and believe things experienced by others and written down?

Quo minus mirandum est nullo modo eos potuisse prolixirorum saeculorum seriem uestigare et quandam metam huius excursus quo tamquam fluuio genus decurrit humanum atque inde conuersionem ad suum cuique debitum terminum. Ista enim nec historici scribere potuerunt longe futura et a nullo experta atque narrata. Nec isti philosophi ceteris meliores in illis summis aeternisque rationibus intellectu talia contemplati sunt; alioquin non eiusdem generis praeterita quae potuerunt historici inquirerent sed potius et futura praenoscerent.

All the less is it to be wondered at that they were in no way able to track out the series of more-prolonged ages and a certain goal (metae) of this excursion, along which, as by a river, the human race runs down, and thence the conversion to each one’s owed terminus. For historians could not write things far in the future, things experienced by no one and narrated by none. Nor did these philosophers, better than the rest, contemplate such things by intellect in those highest and eternal reasons; otherwise they would not be inquiring into past things of the same kind—which historians were able to investigate—but rather would foreknow even future things.

Quod qui potuerunt ab eis uates, a nostris prophetae appellati sunt, [XVII 22] quamquam et prophetarum nomen non omnino alienum est a litteris eorum. Sed plurimum interest utrum experimento praeteritorum futura coniciantur, sicut medici multa praeuidendo etiam litteris mandauerunt quae ipsi experta notauerant, sicut denique agricolae uel etiam nautae multa praenuntiant; talia enim si ex longis interuallis temporum fiant diuinationes putantur; an uero iam uentura praecesserint et longe uisa uenientia nuntientur pro acuto sensu uidentium, quod cum faciunt aeriae potestates diuinare creduntur, tamquam si quisquam de montis uertice aliquem longe uideat uenientem et proxime in campo habitantibus ante nuntiet; an ab angelis sanctis quibus ea deus per uerbum sapientiamque suam indicat ubi et futura et praeterita stant uel quibusdam praenuntientur hominibus uel ab eis audita rursus ad alios homines transmittantur; an ipsorum hominum quorundam mentes in tantum euehantur spiritu sancto ut non per angelos sed per se ipsas futurorum instantes causas in ipsa summa rerum arce conspiciant. Audiunt enim ista et aeriae potestates siue angelis ea nuntiantibus siue hominibus, et tantum audiunt quantum opus esse ille iudicat cui subiecta sunt omnia.

Those who were able to do this among them are called vates, by our people prophets, [17 22] although the name of prophets is not altogether alien to their literature. But there is a very great difference whether the future is conjectured from the experiment of past things—just as physicians, by foreseeing many things, also committed to letters what they themselves had learned by experience, and as, finally, farmers or even sailors foretell many things; for such things, if they arise from long intervals of time, are thought to be divinations—or whether things now about to come have already been anticipated and are announced as coming, seen from afar on account of the sharp sense of the seers, which, when the aerial powers do, they are believed to divine, as if someone from a mountain’s summit should see someone coming from afar and should announce it beforehand to those dwelling below on the plain; or whether by holy angels, to whom God through his Word and Wisdom indicates the place where both future and past stand, they are foretold to certain men, or, having been heard by them, are again transmitted from them to other men; or whether the minds of certain men themselves are so borne aloft by the Holy Spirit that, not through angels but by themselves, they behold the impending causes of future things in the very citadel of the universe. For the aerial powers also hear these things, whether by angels announcing them or by men, and they hear only as much as he judges to be needful, to whom all things are subjected.

Multa etiam praedicuntur instinctu quodam et impulso spiritu nescientium, sicut Caiphas nesciuit quid dixit sed cum esset pontifex prophetauit.

Many things too are predicted by a certain instinct and by the impulse of a spirit of the unknowing, just as Caiaphas did not know what he said, but, since he was high priest, he prophesied.

[23] Ergo de successionibus saeculorum et de resurrectione mortuorum philosophos nec illos consulere debemus qui creatoris aeternitatem in quo uiuimus, mouemur et sumus quantum potuerunt intellexerunt, quia per ea quae facta sunt cognoscentes deum non sicut deum glorificauerunt aut gratias egerunt, sed dicentes se esse sapientes stulti facti sunt. Et cum idonei non essent in aeternitatem spiritalis incommutabilisque naturae aciem mentis tam constanter infigere ut in ipsa sapientia creatoris atque rectoris uniuersitatis uiderent uolumina saeculorum quae ibi iam essent et semper essent, hic autem futura essent ut non essent, atque ut ibi uiderent conuersiones in melius non solum animorum sed etiam corporum humanorum usque ad sui modi perfectionem; cum ergo ad haec ibi uidenda nullo modo essent idonei, ne ad illud quidem digni habiti sunt ut eis ista per sanctos angelos nuntiarentur siue forinsecus per sensus corporis siue interioribus reuelationibus in spiritu expressis, sicut patribus nostris uera pietate praeditis haec demonstrata sunt qui ea praedicentes et uel de praesentibus signis uel de proximis rebus ita ut praedixerant factis fidem facientes auctoritatem cui de longe futuris usque in saeculi finem crederetur habere meruerunt. Potestates autem aeriae superbae atque fallaces etiam si quaedam de societate et ciuitate sanctorum et de uero mediatore a sanctis prophetis uel angelis audita per suos uates dixisse reperiuntur id egerunt ut per haec aliena uera etiam fideles dei si possent ad sua falsa traducerent.

[23] Therefore, concerning the successions of the ages and the resurrection of the dead, we ought not to consult philosophers, not even those who, as far as they could, understood the eternity of the Creator in whom we live and move and are; because, knowing God through the things that have been made, they did not glorify as God or give thanks, but, saying themselves to be wise, they were made fools. And since they were not fit to fasten the keenness of the mind so steadfastly upon the eternity of the spiritual and incommutable nature that, in the very Wisdom of the Creator and Ruler of the universe, they might see the volumes of the ages which there already were and ever would be, whereas here they would be future so as not yet to be; and that there they might see the conversions unto the better not only of souls but also of human bodies, up to the perfection of their own mode; since therefore they were in no way fit for seeing these things there, they were not even held worthy of this, that these things should be announced to them by holy angels—whether from without through the senses of the body or by inward revelations expressed in the spirit—as these were shown to our fathers endowed with true piety, who, proclaiming them, and by present signs or by things close at hand brought to pass just as they had predicted, establishing credibility, merited to have that authority to which belief would be given concerning things far future even unto the end of the age. But the aerial powers, proud and deceitful, even if they are found to have said certain things about the society and city of the saints and about the true Mediator, things heard from holy prophets or angels, through their own vates, did this in order that by means of these alien truths they might, if they could, translate even the faithful of God over to their own falsehoods.

Deus autem per nescientes id egit ut ueritas undique resonaret, fidelibus in adiutorium, impiis in testimonium.

But God, through the unknowing, brought it about that the truth might resonate on all sides, for the faithful into aid, for the impious into testimony.

[XVIII 24] Quia igitur ad aeterna capessenda idonei non eramus sordesque peccatorum nos praegrauabant temporalium rerum amore contractae et de propagine mortalitatis tamquam naturaliter inolitae, purgandi eramus. Purgari autem ut contemperaremur aeternis non nisi per temporalia possemus qualibus iam contemperati tenebamur. Sanitas enim a morbo plurimum distat, sed media curatio nisi morbo congruat non perducit ad sanitatem.

[18 24] Since therefore we were not fit to seize the eternal things, and the filths of sins, contracted through love of temporal things and, from the propagation of mortality, as if naturally ingrained, weighed us down, we had to be purged. But to be purged so that we might be tempered to the eternal things, we could do only through temporal things, by which we, already tempered, were being held. For health differs very much from disease, but the intermediate cure, unless it be congruent to the disease, does not lead to health.

Inutilia temporalia decipiunt aegrotos; utilia temporalia suscipiunt sanandos et traiciunt ad aeterna sanatos. Mens autem rationalis sicut purgata contemplationem debet rebus aeternis, sic purganda temporalibus fidem. Dixit quidam et illorum qui quondam apud graecos sapientes habiti sunt: Quantum ad id quod ortum est aeternitas ualet, tantum ad fidem ueritas.

Useless temporal things deceive the sick; useful temporal things take up those to be healed and carry the healed across to the eternal. But the rational mind, just as when purged it owes contemplation to eternal things, so, while to be purged, it owes faith to temporal things. Someone also of those who once among the Greeks were held to be wise said: “As much as eternity avails with respect to what has arisen, so much truth [avails] with respect to faith.”

Et profecto est uera sententia. Quod enim nos temporale dicimus, hoc ille quod ortum est appellauit. Ex quo genere etiam nos sumus non tantum secundum corpus sed etiam secundum animi mutabilitatem; non enim proprie uocatur aeternum quod aliqua ex parte mutatur.

And indeed it is a true opinion. For what we call temporal, he called what has arisen. Of which kind we ourselves also are, not only according to the body but also according to the mutability of the mind; for that is not properly called eternal which is changed in any part.

In quantum igitur mutabiles sumus in tantum ab aeternitate distamus.

Therefore, inasmuch as we are mutable, to that extent we are distant from eternity.

Promittitur autem nobis uita aeterna per ueritatem a cuius perspicuitate rursus tantum distat fides nostra quantum ab aeternitate mortalitas. Nunc ergo adhibemus fidem rebus temporaliter gestis propter nos et per ipsam mundamur ut cum ad speciem uenerimus quemadmodum succedit fidei ueritas ita mortalitati succedat aeternitas. Quapropter quoniam fides nostra fiet ueritas cum ad id quod nobis credentibus promittitur uenerimus, promittitur autem nobis uita aeterna, et dixit ueritas (non quae fiet sicut futura est fides nostra, sed quae semper est ueritas quia ibi est aeternitas), dixit ergo ueritas: Haec est autem uita aeterna ut cognoscant te unum uerum deum et quem misisti Iesum Christum; cum fides nostra uidendo fiet ueritas, tunc mortalitatem nostram commutatam tenebit aeternitas.

Eternal life, moreover, is promised to us through Truth, from whose perspicuity our faith is in turn distant by just as much as mortality is from eternity. Therefore now we apply faith to things transacted temporally for our sake, and through it we are purified, so that when we have come to the vision, just as truth succeeds to faith, so may eternity succeed to mortality. Wherefore, since our faith will become truth when we have come to that which is promised to us who believe—and eternal life is promised to us—and Truth said (not that which will come to be, as our faith is going to be, but that which is always Truth, because there is eternity), therefore Truth said: This, moreover, is eternal life: that they may know you, the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent; when our faith, by seeing, shall become truth, then eternity will take hold of our mortality, transmuted.

Quod donec fiat et ut fiat, quia rebus ortis adcommodamus fidem credulitatis sicut in aeternis speramus ueritatem contemplationis ne fides mortalis uitae dissonaret a ueritate aeternae uitae, ipsa ueritas patri coaeterna de terra orta est cum filius dei sic uenit ut fieret filius hominis et ipse in se exciperet fidem nostram qua nos perduceret ad ueritatem suam qui sic suscepit mortalitatem nostram ut non amitteret aeternitatem suam. Quantum enim ad id quod ortum est aeternitas ualet, tantum ad fidem ueritas. Ita ergo nos purgari oportebat ut ille nobis fieret ortus qui maneret aeternus ne alter nobis esset in fide, alter in ueritate; nec ab eo quod orti sumus ad aeterna transire possemus nisi aeterno per ortum nostrum nobis sociato ad aeternitatem ipsius traiceremur.

Which, until it come to pass and in order that it may come to pass—since to things that have arisen we accommodate a faith of credulity, just as in eternal things we hope for the truth of contemplation, lest the faith of mortal life be dissonant from the truth of eternal life—the Truth itself, coeternal with the Father, arose from the earth when the Son of God so came as to be made the Son of Man and he himself received into himself our faith, by which he might lead us through to his Truth, who so assumed our mortality as not to lose his eternity. For insofar as eternity avails with respect to what has arisen, so far does truth avail with respect to faith. Thus it was needful that we be purged, so that he might become for us an arising who would remain eternal, lest one be for us in faith and another in truth; nor could we pass over from that in which we are born to the eternal things, unless, the Eternal being associated with us through our birth, we were translated to his eternity.

Nunc itaque illuc quodammodo secuta est fides nostra quo ascendit in quem credidimus, ortus, mortuus, resuscitatus, assumptus. Horum quattuor duo priora noueramus in nobis; scimus enim homines et oriri et mori. Duo autem reliqua, id est resuscitari et assumi iuste in nobis futura speramus quia in illa facta credidimus.

Now, therefore, our faith has, in a certain manner, followed thither where he ascended, in whom we have believed—born, dead, resuscitated, assumed. Of these four, the first two we have known in ourselves; for we know that humans both are born and die. But the remaining two, that is, to be resuscitated and to be assumed, we rightly hope will be in our case in the future, because we believed that they were accomplished in him.

Itaque in illo quia et id quod ortum erat transiit ad aeternitatem, transiturum est et nostrum cum fides peruenerit ad ueritatem. Iam enim credentibus ut in uerbo fidei manerent et inde ad ueritatem, ac per hoc ad aeternitatem perducti a morte liberarentur ita loquitur: Si manseritis in uerbo meo, uere discipuli mei estis. Et quasi quaererent, 'Quo fructu?,' secutus ait: Et cognoscetis ueritatem.

Therefore in him, since even that which had arisen passed over into eternity, what is ours too will pass over when faith shall have come to truth. For already, to those believing, in order that they might remain in the word of faith and from there be conducted to truth, and through this to eternity, being freed from death, he speaks thus: If you remain in my word, you are truly my disciples. And as if they were asking, 'To what fruit?,' he added: And you will know the truth.

Rursus quasi dicerent, 'Quid prodest mortalibus ueritas?,' Et ueritas, inquit, liberabit uos. Vnde nisi a morte, a corruptione, a mutabilitate? Veritas quippe immortalis, incorrupta, incommutabilis permanet.

Again, as though they were saying, 'What profit is the truth to mortals?,' And the truth, he says, will liberate you. Whence, if not from death, from corruption, from mutability? For the truth remains immortal, incorrupt, incommutable.

Vera autem immortalitas, uera incorruptibilitas, uera incommutabilitas, ipsa est aeternitas.

But true immortality, true incorruptibility, true incommutability, is eternity itself.

[XIX 25] Ecce ad quod missus est filius dei; immo uero ecce quod est missum esse filium dei. Quaecumque propter faciendam fidem qua mundaremur ad contemplandam ueritatem in rebus ortis ab aeternitate prolatis et ad aeternitatem relatis temporaliter gesta sunt aut testimonia missionis huius fuerunt aut ipsa missio filii dei. Sed testimonia quaedam uenturum praenuntiauerunt; quaedam uenisse testata sunt.

[19 25] Behold to what the son of God was sent; nay rather, behold what it is for the son of God to have been sent. Whatever things were enacted temporally for the sake of making the faith by which we might be cleansed to contemplate the truth in things arisen from eternity, brought forth from it, and referred back to eternity, were either testimonies of this mission or were the very mission of the son of God. But some testimonies pre-announced that he would come; some attested that he had come.

Factum quippe creaturam per quem facta est omnis creatura omnem creaturam testem habere oportebat. Nisi enim multis missis praedicaretur unus, non multis dimissis teneretur unus. Et nisi talia essent testimonia quae paruis magna uiderentur, non crederetur ut magnos faceret magnus qui ad paruos missus est paruus.

Indeed, it was fitting that he through whom every creature was made, having been made a creature, should have every creature as a witness. For unless the One were preached by many who were sent, the One would not, with many dismissed, be held. And unless the testimonies were of such a sort that great things should seem great to the little, it would not be believed that the Great One—who was sent to the little as little—would make the little great.

Incomparabiliter enim maiora filii dei facta sunt caelum et terra et omnia quae in eis sunt quia omnia per ipsum facta sunt, quam signa atque portenta quae in eius testimonium proruperunt. Sed tamen homines ut haec magna per eum facta parui crederent illa parua tamquam magna tremuerunt.

For incomparably greater than the signs and portents which burst forth in his testimony are the works of the Son of God—the heaven and the earth and all things that are in them—because all things were made through him. But nevertheless, in order that men might believe that these great things were done through him, the little one, they trembled at those small things as though great.

[26] Cum ergo uenit plenitudo temporis, misit deus filium suum factum ex muliere, factum sub lege, usque adeo paruum ut factum, eo itaque missum quo factum. Si ergo maior mittit minorem, fatemur et nos factum minorem et in tantum minorem in quantum factum et in tantum factum in quantum missum. Misit enim filium suum factum ex muliere, per quem tamen quia facta sunt omnia non solum priusquam factus mitteretur sed priusquam essent omnia, eundem mittenti confitemur aequalem quem dicimus missum minorem.

[26] When therefore the fullness of time came, God sent his Son, made from a woman, made under the law, so far little as to be made, and thus sent to that wherein he was made. If therefore a greater sends a lesser, we too confess the made one as lesser, and so far lesser inasmuch as he is made, and so far made inasmuch as he is sent. For he sent his Son made from a woman—through whom, however, because all things were made, not only before the made one was sent but before all things existed—we confess him equal to the One sending, the same whom we say was sent as lesser.

Quomodo ergo ante istam plenitudinem temporis qua eum mitti oportebat priusquam missus esset uideri a patribus potuit cum eis angelica quaedam uisa demonstrarentur, quando nec iam missus sicut aequalis est patri uidebatur? Vnde enim dicit Philippo a quo utique sicut a ceteris et ab ipsis a quibus crucifixus est in carne uidebatur: Tanto tempore uobiscum sum et non cognouistis me? Philippe, qui me uidit uidit et patrem, nisi quia uidebatur et non uidebatur? Videbatur sicut missus factus erat; non uidebatur sicut per eum omnia facta erant.

How then, before that plenitude of time in which it behooved him to be sent, could he be seen by the fathers before he had been sent, when certain angelic sights were being demonstrated to them, since even when now sent he was not being seen as he is equal to the Father? Why indeed does he say to Philip, by whom surely he was seen in the flesh just as by the others and by those very ones by whom he was crucified: So long a time I am with you and you have not known me? Philip, he who has seen me has seen the Father, unless because he was being seen and not being seen? He was seen insofar as, being sent, he had been made; he was not seen insofar as through him all things had been made.

Aut unde etiam illud dicit: Qui habet mandata mea et seruat ea ipse est qui me diligit, et qui me diligit diligetur a patre meo, et ego diligam eum et manifestabo ei me ipsum cum esset manifestus ante oculos hominum, nisi quia carnem quod uerbum in plenitudine temporis factum erat suscipiendae nostrae fidei porrigebat; ipsum autem uerbum per quod omnia facta erant purgatae per fidem menti contemplandum in aeternitate seruabat?

Or whence also does he say this: “He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will manifest myself to him,” when he was manifest before the eyes of men, unless because he was proffering to our faith to be received the flesh which the Word in the fullness of time had been made; but the Word itself, through which all things had been made, he was reserving for the mind, purged by faith, to contemplate in eternity?

[XX 27] Si autem secundum hoc missus a patre filius dicitur quia ille pater est, ille filius, nullo modo impedit ut credamus aequalem patri esse filium et consubstantialem et coaeternum et tamen a patre missum filium. Non quia ille maior est et ille minor; sed quia ille pater est, ille filius; ille genitor, ille genitus; ille a quo est qui mittitur, ille qui est ab eo qui mittit. Filius enim a patre est, non pater a filio.

[20 27] But if according to this the Son is said to be sent by the Father because the one is Father, the other Son, in no way does it hinder our believing the Son to be equal to the Father and consubstantial and coeternal, and yet the Son sent by the Father. Not because the one is greater and the other lesser; but because the one is Father, the other Son; the one the Genitor, the other the Begotten; the one from whom is he who is sent, the other who is from him who sends. For the Son is from the Father, not the Father from the Son.

Secundum hoc iam potest intellegi non tantum ideo dici missus filius quia uerbum caro factum est, sed ideo missus ut uerbum caro fieret et per praesentiam corporalem illa quae scripta sunt operaretur, id est ut non tantum homo missus intellegatur quod uerbum factum est, sed et uerbum missum ut homo fieret quia non secundum imparem potestatem uel substantiam uel aliquid quod in eo patri non sit aequale missus est, sed secundum id quod filius a patre est, non pater a filio. Verbum enim patris est filius, quod est sapientia eius dicitur. Quid ergo mirum si mittitur non quia inaequalis est patri sed quia est manatio quaedam claritatis omnipotentis dei sinceris?

According to this, it can now be understood that the Son is said to be sent not only for this reason, that the Word was made flesh, but that He was sent in order that the Word might become flesh and, through corporal presence, might operate the things that are written; that is, that not only a man be understood as sent, in that the Word was made, but also the Word as sent in order to become man—since He was sent not according to an unequal power or substance or anything in Him which is not equal to the Father, but according to that whereby the Son is from the Father, not the Father from the Son. For the Son is the Father’s Word, which is called His Wisdom. What, then, is marvelous if He is sent, not because He is unequal to the Father, but because He is a certain emanation of the brightness of the almighty God for the pure?

Ibi autem quod manat et de quo manat unius eiusdemque substantiae est. Neque enim sicut aqua de foramine terrae aut lapidis manat sed sicut lux de luce. Nam quod dictum est: Candor est enim lucis aeternae, quid aliud dictum est quam lux est lucis aeternae?

But there, that which emanates and that from which it emanates are of one and the selfsame substance. For it does not emanate as water from a hole of earth or of stone, but as light from light. For what has been said: “For it is the radiance of eternal light,” what else has been said than “it is light of eternal light”?

Candor quippe lucis quid nisi lux est? Et ideo coaeterna luci de qua lux est. Maluit autem dicere candor lucis quam lux lucis ne obscurior putaretur ista quae manat quam illa de qua manat.

For indeed, what is the radiance of light if not light? And therefore it is coeternal with the light from which the light is. Yet he preferred to say “radiance of light” rather than “light of light,” lest that which emanates be thought dimmer than that from which it emanates.

Cum enim auditur candor eius esse ista, facilius est ut per hanc lucere illa quam haec minus lucere credatur. Sed quia cauendum non erat ne minor lux illa putaretur quae istam genuit (hoc enim nullus umquam haereticus ausus est dicere nec credendum est aliquem ausurum), illi cogitationi occurrit scriptura qua posset uideri obscurior lux ista quae manat quam illa de qua manat, quam suspicionem tulit cum ait candor est illius, id est lucis aeternae, atque ita ostendit aequalem. Si enim haec minor est, obscuritas illius est non candor illius.

For when it is heard that this is its radiance, it is easier that the former be believed to shine through this one than that this one be believed to shine less. But since there was no need to beware lest that light which begot this one be thought lesser (for no heretic has ever dared to say this, nor is it to be believed that anyone will dare), Scripture forestalled that line of thought, by which this light which emanates might seem dimmer than that from which it emanates—a suspicion it removed when it said “it is the radiance of it,” that is, “of the eternal light,” and thus it showed it equal. For if this one is lesser, it is the obscurity of that one, not its radiance.

Si autem maior est, non ex ea manat; non enim uinceret de qua genita est. Quia ergo ex illa manat non est maior quam illa; quia uero non obscuritas illius sed candor illius est non est minor; aequalis est ergo.

But if it is greater, it does not emanate from it; for it would not surpass that from which it was begotten. Therefore, because it emanates from that, it is not greater than that; and because it is not the obscurity of that but its candor, it is not lesser; therefore it is equal.

Neque hoc mouere debet quia dicta est manatio quaedam claritatis omnipotentis dei sinceris tamquam ipsa non sit omnipotens sed omnipotentis manatio. Mox enim de illa dicitur: Et cum sit una, omnia potest. Quis est autem omnipotens nisi qui omnia potest?

Nor should this move one, because it has been said to the sincere that she is a certain emanation of the brightness of the omnipotent God, as though she herself were not omnipotent but an emanation of the omnipotent. For presently this is said about her: And although she is one, she can do all things. Who, moreover, is omnipotent except the one who can do all things?

Ab illo itaque mittitur a quo emanat. Sic enim et petitur ab illo qui amabat eam et desiderabat: Emitte, inquit, illam de sanctis caelis tuis et mitte illam a sede magnitudinis tuae ut mecum sit et mecum laboret, id est, 'Doceat me laborare ne laborem.' Labores enim eius uirtutes sunt. Sed aliter mittitur ut sit cum homine; aliter missa est ut ipsa sit homo.

Therefore she is sent by him from whom she emanates. For thus too she is sought from him by one who loved her and desired her: “Send her forth,” he says, “from your holy heavens, and send her from the seat of your magnitude, that she may be with me and labor with me,” that is, “Let her teach me to labor, lest I labor.” For her labors are virtues. But she is sent in one way to be with a human; in another way she was sent that she herself be a human.

In animas enim sanctas se transfert atque amicos dei et prophetas constituit, sicut etiam implet sanctos angelos et omnia talibus ministeriis congrua per eos operatur. Cum autem uenit plenitudo temporis, missa est non ut impleret angelos, nec ut esset angelus nisi in quantum consilium patris annuntiabat quod et ipsius erat, nec ut esset cum hominibus aut in hominibus, hoc enim et antea in patribus et prophetis; sed ut ipsum uerbum caro fieret, id est homo fieret, in quo futuro reuelato sacramento etiam eorum sapientium atque sanctorum salus esset qui priusquam ipse de uirgine nasceretur de mulieribus nati sunt, et in quo facto atque praedicato salus sit omnium credentium, sperantium, diligentium. Hoc est enim magnum petatis sacramentum quod manifestatum est in carne, iustificatum est in spiritu, apparuit angelis, praedicatum est in gentibus, creditum est in mundo, assumptum est in gloria.

For she transfers herself into holy souls and constitutes friends of God and prophets, just as she also fills the holy angels and through them works all things congruent to such ministries. But when the fullness of time came, she was sent not to fill angels, nor to be an angel except inasmuch as she announced the counsel of the Father—which was likewise her own—nor to be with men or in men (for this too had been before in the patriarchs and prophets); but that the Word itself might become flesh, that is, might become man, in whom, with the sacrament destined to be revealed in the future, there would be the salvation even of those wise and holy ones who, before he was born of a virgin, were born of women; and in whom, once accomplished and proclaimed, there is the salvation of all who believe, hope, and love. For this is the great sacrament of piety which was manifested in flesh, was justified in spirit, appeared to angels, was preached among the nations, was believed in in the world, was taken up in glory.

[28] Ab illo ergo mittitur dei uerbum cuius est uerbum; ab illo mittitur de quo natum est. Mittit qui genuit; mittitur quod genitum est. Et tunc unicuique mittitur cum a quoquam cognoscitur atque percipitur quantum cognosci et percipi potest pro captu uel proficientis in deum uel perfectae in deo animae rationalis.

[28] Therefore the Word of God is sent by Him whose Word it is; it is sent by Him from whom it was born. He who begot sends; that which was begotten is sent. And then it is sent to each person when it is known and received by someone, so far as it can be known and received according to the capacity either of a rational soul progressing toward God or of one perfected in God.

Non ergo eo ipso quo de patre natus est missus dicitur filius, sed uel eo quod apparuit huic mundo uerbum caro factum unde dicit: A patre exii et ueni in hunc mundum, uel eo quod ex tempore cuiusquam mente percipitur sicut dictum est: Mitte illam ut mecum sit et mecum laboret. Quod ergo natum est ab aeterno in aeternum est: Candor est enim lucis aeternae. Quod autem mittitur ex tempore a quoquam cognoscitur.

Therefore the Son is not said to be sent by that very fact whereby he was born of the Father, but either by the fact that he appeared to this world, the Word made flesh, whence he says: “I went forth from the Father and came into this world”; or by the fact that, in time, he is perceived by someone’s mind, as it has been said: “Send her, that she may be with me and labor with me.” What, then, is begotten from eternity is in eternity: for he is the radiance of the eternal light. But what is sent in time is known by someone.

Sed cum in carne manifestatus est filius dei, in hunc mundum missus est in plenitudine temporis factus ex femina. Quia enim in sapientia dei non poterat mundus cognoscere per sapientiam deum quoniam lux lucet in tenebris et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt, placuit deo per stultitiam praedicationis saluos facere credentes ut uerbum caro fieret et habitaret in nobis. Cum autem ex tempore cuiusque prouectus mente percipitur, mitti quidem dicitur sed non in hunc mundum; neque enim sensibiliter apparet, id est corporeis sensibus praesto est.

Sed cum in carne manifestatus est filius dei, in hunc mundum missus est in plenitudine temporis factus ex femina. Quia enim in sapientia dei non poterat mundus cognoscere per sapientiam deum quoniam lux lucet in tenebris et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt, placuit deo per stultitiam preaching to save the believers so that the word might become flesh and dwell in us. But when, however, in time, according to each one’s advancement, it is perceived by the mind, it is indeed said to be sent, but not into this world; for neither does it appear sensibly, that is, it is not present to bodily senses.

Quia et nos secundum quod mente aliquid aeternum quantum possumus capimus, non in hoc mundo sumus, et omnium iustorum spiritus etiam adhuc in hac carne uiuentium in quantum diuina sapiunt non sunt in hoc mundo. Sed pater cum ex tempore a quoquam cognoscitur, non dicitur missus; non enim habet de quo sit aut ex quo procedat. Sapientia quippe dicit: Ego ex ore altissimi prodiui, et de spiritu sancto: A patre procedit; pater uero a nullo.

For we too, inasmuch as by the mind we grasp something eternal as far as we are able, are not in this world; and the spirits of all the just, even of those still living in this flesh, inasmuch as they savor divine things, are not in this world. But the Father, when he is known by someone in time, is not said to be sent; for he has no one from whom he is or from whom he proceeds. For Wisdom indeed says: I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, and concerning the Holy Spirit: He proceeds from the Father; but the Father from no one.

[29] Sicut ergo pater genuit, filius genitus est; ita pater misit, filius missus est. Sed quemadmodum qui genuit et qui genitus est, ita est qui misit et qui missus est unum sunt quia pater et filius unum sunt; ita etiam spiritus sanctus unum cum eis est quia haec tria unum sunt. Sicut enim natum esse est filio a patre esse, ita mitti est filio cognosci quod ab illo sit.

[29] As therefore the father begot, the son was begotten; so the father sent, the son was sent. But just as the one who begot and the one who was begotten, so the one who sent and the one who was sent are one, because the father and the son are one; so also the holy spirit is one with them, because these three are one. For just as to be born is, for the son, to be from the father, so to be sent is, for the son, to be known to be from him.

Et sicut spiritui sancto donum dei esse est a patre procedere, ita mitti est cognosci quod ab illo procedat. Nec possumus dicere quod spiritus sanctus et a filio non procedat; neque enim frustra idem spiritus et patris et filii spiritus dicitur. Nec uideo quid aliud significare uoluerit cum sufflans ait: Accipite spiritum sanctum.

And just as for the Holy Spirit to be the gift of God is to proceed from the Father, so to be sent is to be known to proceed from Him. Nor can we say that the Holy Spirit does not also proceed from the Son; for neither is it in vain that the same Spirit is called both the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. Nor do I see what else he wished to signify when, breathing, he said: Receive the Holy Spirit.

Neque enim flatus ille corporeus cum sensu corporaliter tangendi procedens ex corpore substantia spiritus sancti fuit sed demonstratio per congruam significationem non tantum a patre sed et a filio procedere spiritum sanctum. Quis enim dementissimus dixerit alium fuisse spiritum quem sufflans dedit et alium quem post ascensionem suam misit? Vnus enim spiritus est spiritus dei, spiritus patris et filii, spiritus sanctus qui operatur omnia in omnibus.

For neither was that corporeal breath, proceeding from the body with the sense of being corporally touched, the substance of the Holy Spirit, but a demonstration through a congruent signification that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father but also from the Son. For who would be most demented as to say that the spirit which, breathing, he gave was one and that the one which he sent after his Ascension was another? One Spirit indeed is the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Father and of the Son—the Holy Spirit who operates all things in all.

Sed quod bis datus est dispensatio certe significationis fuit, de qua suo loco quantum dominus dederit disseremus. Quod ergo ait dominus: Quem ego mittam uobis a patre, ostendit spiritum et patris et filii. Quia etiam cum dixisset: Quem mittet pater, addidit in nomine meo, non tamen dixit, 'Quem mittet pater a me,' quemadmodum dixit, Quem ego mittam uobis a patre, uidelicet ostendens quod totius diuinitatis uel si melius dicitur deitatis principium pater est.

But that it was given twice was certainly a dispensation of signification, about which in its own place we shall discourse as much as the Lord will have granted. Therefore, when the Lord says: Whom I will send to you from the Father, he shows the Spirit to be both the Father’s and the Son’s. For even when he had said: Whom the Father will send, he added in my name; yet he did not say, ‘Whom the Father will send from me,’ in the way he said, Whom I will send to you from the Father—clearly showing that the Father is the principle of the whole divinity, or, if it is better said, of the deity.

Qui ergo ex patre procedit et filio ad eum refertur a quo natus est filius. Et quod dicit euangelista: Spiritus nondum erat datus quia Iesus nondum fuerat clarificatus, quomodo intellegatur nisi quia certa illa spiritus sancti datio uel missio post clarificationem Christi futura erat qualis numquam antea fuerat? Neque enim antea nulla erat, sed talis non fuerat.

He, therefore, who proceeds from the Father—and, with respect to the Son, is referred back to him from whom the Son was begotten. And as for what the evangelist says: “The Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus had not yet been glorified,” how is it to be understood except that that definite giving or mission (sending) of the Holy Spirit was to be after the glorification of Christ, of a kind such as had never before been? For it was not that previously there was none, but it had not been such.

Si enim antea spiritus sanctus non dabatu

If indeed earlier the Holy Spirit was not being given

quo impleti prophetae locuti sunt cum aperte scriptura dicat et multis locis ostendat spiritu sancto eos locutos fuisse, cum et de Iohanne baptista dictum sit: Spiritu sancto replebitur iam inde ab utero matris suae, et spiritu sancto repletus Zacharias inuenitur pater eius ut de illo talia diceret, et spiritu sancto Maria ut talia de domino quem gestabat utero praedicaret, spiritu sancto Simeon et Anna ut magnitudinem Christi paruuli agnoscerent; quomodo ergo spiritus nondum erat datus quia Iesus nondum erat clarificatus nisi quia illa datio uel donatio uel missio spiritus sancti habitura erat quandam proprietatem suam in ipso aduentu qualis antea numquam fuit? Nusquam enim legimus linguis quas non nouerant homines locutos ueniente in se spiritu sancto sicut tunc factum est cum oporteret eius aduentum signis sensibilibus demonstrari ut ostenderetur totum orbem terrarum atque omnes gentes in linguis uariis constitutas credituras in Christum per donum spiritus sancti ut impleretur quod in psalmo canitur: Non sunt loquelae neque sermones quorum non audiantur uoces eorum; in omnem terram exiit sonus eorum, et in fines orbis terrae uerba eorum.

by which, having been filled, the prophets spoke, since Scripture openly says and in many places shows that they spoke by the Holy Spirit; since also it was said of John the Baptist: He will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb; and Zacharias, his father, is found filled with the Holy Spirit, so that he might say such things about him; and Mary with the Holy Spirit, that she might proclaim such things about the Lord whom she was carrying in her womb; Simeon and Anna with the Holy Spirit, that they might recognize the greatness of the little Christ. How, therefore, was the Spirit not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified, unless because that giving or donation or mission of the Holy Spirit was going to have a certain propriety proper to itself in the very advent, such as never before had been? For nowhere do we read that men, when the Holy Spirit came upon them, spoke in tongues which they did not know, as then was done, when it was necessary that his advent be demonstrated by sensible signs, so that it might be shown that the whole orb of the lands and all the nations set in diverse tongues would believe in Christ through the gift of the Holy Spirit, so that there might be fulfilled what is sung in the Psalm: There are not languages nor speeches whose voices are not heard; their sound has gone out into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.

[30] Verbo itaque dei ad unitatem personae copulatus, et quodam modo commixtus est homo cum ueniente plenitudine temporis missus est in hunc mundum factus ex femina filius dei ut esset et filius hominis propter filios hominum. Hanc personam angelica natura figurare antea potuit ut praenuntiaret, non expropriare ut ipsa esset.

[30] Therefore, a man, coupled to the Word of God unto the unity of person, and in a certain manner commingled, with the fullness of time coming, was sent into this world, made from a woman, the Son of God, that he might also be the Son of Man for the sake of the sons of men. This person the angelic nature could previously prefigure so as to fore-announce, not appropriate so as to be itself.

[XXI] De sensibili autem demonstratione spiritus sancti siue per columbae speciem siue per linguas igneas cum eius substantiam patri et filio coaeternam pariterque incommutabilem subdita et seruiens creatura temporalibus motibus et formis ostenderet, cum ad eius personae unitatem sicut caro quod uerbum factum est non copularetur, non audeo dicere nihil tale factum esse antea. Sed plane fidenter dixerim patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum unius eiusdemque substantiae deum creatorem, trinitatem omnipotentem inseparabiliter operari. Sed ita non posse per longe imparem maximeque corpoream creaturam inseparabiliter demonstrari, sicut per uoces nostras quae utique corporaliter sonant non possunt pater et filius et spiritus sanctus nisi suis et propriis interuallis temporum certa separatione distinctis quae sui cuiusque uocabuli syllabae occupant nominari.

[21] But concerning the sensible demonstration of the Holy Spirit, whether through the species of a dove or through fiery tongues, when a creature, subject and serving, by temporal motions and forms was showing forth his substance coeternal with the Father and the Son and equally immutable, since it was not being coupled to the unity of his person as the flesh, which the Word was made, was, I do not dare to say that nothing of the sort had been done before. But plainly and confidently I would say that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, God the creator of one and the same substance, the omnipotent Trinity, work inseparably. But that they cannot thus be demonstrated inseparably through a creature far unequal and most of all corporeal, just as by our voices, which assuredly sound corporeally, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit cannot be named except with their own proper intervals of time, distinguished by a definite separation which the syllables of each name occupy.

In sua quippe substantia qua sunt tria unum sunt, pater et filius et spiritus sanctus, nullo temporali motu super omnem creaturam idipsum sine ullis interuallis temporum uel locorum et simul unum atque idem ab aeternitate in aeternitatem tamquam ipsa aeternitas quae sine ueritate et caritate non est; in meis autem uocibus separati sunt pater et filius et spiritus sanctus nec simul dici potuerunt, et in litteris uisibilibus sua separatim locorum spatia tenuerunt. Et quemadmodum cum memoriam meam et intellectum et uoluntatem nomino, singula quidem nomina ad res singulas referuntur sed tamen ab omnibus tribus singula facta sunt; nullum enim horum trium nominum est quod non et memoria et intellectus et uoluntas mea simul operata sint; ita trinitas simul operata est et uocem patris et carnem filii et columbam spiritus sancti cum ad personas singulas haec singula referantur. Qua similitudine utcumque cognoscitur inseparabilem in se ipsa trinitatem per uisibilis creaturae speciem separabiliter demonstrari, et inseparabilem trinitatis operationem etiam in singulis esse rebus quae uel ad patrem uel ad filium uel ad spiritum sanctum demonstrandum proprie pertinere dicuntur.

For in their own substance, wherein they are three, they are one: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit—by no temporal motion, above every creature, the selfsame, without any intervals of times or of places, and at once one and the same from eternity into eternity, as very eternity itself, which is not without truth and charity. But in my voices the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are separated, nor could they be spoken at the same time, and in visible letters they held their separate spaces of place. And just as, when I name my memory and intellect and will, the individual names are referred to individual things, yet nevertheless each single thing has been effected by all three; for there is none of these three things named in which my memory and intellect and will have not worked together: so the Trinity worked together both the voice of the Father and the flesh of the Son and the dove of the Holy Spirit, although these individual things are referred to the individual persons. By which likeness it is somehow recognized that the Trinity, inseparable in itself, is shown in a separable way through the appearance of a visible creature, and that the inseparable operation of the Trinity is also in the individual things which are said to pertain properly to the demonstrating of the Father or of the Son or of the Holy Spirit.

[31] Si ergo a me quaeritur quomodo factae sint uel uoces uel sensibiles formae atque species ante incarnationem uerbi dei quae hoc futurum praefigurarent, per angelos ea deum operatum esse respondeo, quod etiam scripturarum sanctarum testimoniis, quantum existimo, satis ostendi. Si autem quaeritur ipsa incarnatio quomodo facta sit, ipsum dei uerbum dico carnem factum, id est hominem factum, non tamen in hoc quod factum est conuersum atque mutatum, ita sane factum ut ibi sit non tantum uerbum dei et hominis caro sed etiam rationalis hominis anima, atque hoc totum et deus dicatur propter deum et homo propter hominem. Quod si difficile intellegitur, mens fide purgetur magis magisque abstinendo a peccatis et bene operando et orando cum gemitu desideriorum sanctorum ut per diuinum adiutorium proficiendo et intellegat et amet.

[31] If therefore it is asked of me how either the voices or the sensible forms and species were made before the incarnation of the Word of God, which prefigured that this would come to pass, I answer that God wrought these through angels, which also by the testimonies of the holy Scriptures, as I reckon, I have shown sufficiently. But if it is asked how the incarnation itself was brought about, I say that the very Word of God was made flesh, that is, made man, yet not converted and changed into that which was made; rather, truly made in such a way that there are there not only the Word of God and the flesh of a human being, but also the rational soul of a human being, and that this whole be called both God on account of God and man on account of the man. But if this is difficult to understand, let the mind be purged by faith more and more by abstaining from sins and doing good and by praying with the groan of holy desires, so that, by divine aid making progress, it may both understand and love.

Si autem quaeritur post incarnationem uerbi quomodo facta sit uel uox patris uel species corporalis qua spiritus sanctus demonstratus est, per creaturam quidem facta ista non dubito. Sed utrum tantummodo corporalem atque sensibilem, an adhibito spiritu etiam rationali uel intellectuali (hoc enim quibusdam placuit appellare quod graeci dicunt *noeron), non quidem ad unitatem personae (quis enim hoc dixerit ut quidquid illud est creaturae per quod sonuit uox patris ita sit deus pater, aut quidquid illud est creaturae in quo per columbae speciem uel per igneas linguas spiritus sanctus demonstratus est ita sit spiritus sanctus sicut est dei filius homo ille qui ex uirgine factus est?), sed tantummodo ad ministerium peragendae significationis sicut oportuisse deus iudicauit, an aliquid aliud intellegendum sit inuenire difficile est et temere affirmare non expedit. Quomodo tamen ista sine rationali uel intellectuali creatura potuerint fieri non uideo Neque adhuc locus est explicare cur ita sentiam quantum uires dominus dederit.

If, however, it is asked, after the Incarnation of the Word, how either the voice of the Father was effected or the bodily appearance by which the Holy Spirit was shown, I do not doubt that these things were done through a creature. But whether it was merely bodily and sensible, or with a spirit also rational or intellectual employed (for it has pleased some to call by this name what the Greeks call *noeron*), not indeed unto a unity of person (for who would say this: that whatever that creature is through which the voice of the Father sounded should thus be God the Father, or whatever that creature is in which, through the appearance of a dove or through fiery tongues, the Holy Spirit was shown should thus be the Holy Spirit, just as the Son of God is that man who was made from a virgin?), but solely for the ministry of accomplishing the signification as God judged ought to be, or whether something else should be understood—this it is difficult to discover, and it is not expedient to affirm rashly. However, how these could have been done without a rational or intellectual creature I do not see. Nor is there yet the place to explain why I so think, to the extent that the Lord grants strength.

Prius enim sunt discutienda et refellenda haereticorum argumenta quae non ex diuinis libris sed ex rationibus suis proferunt quibus e uehementer cogere arbitrantur testimonia scripturarum quae de patre et filio et spiritu sancto sunt ita esse intellegenda ut ipsi uolunt.

For first the arguments of the heretics must be sifted and refuted, which they bring forward not from the divine books but from their own reasons, by which they suppose they strongly compel the testimonies of the scriptures that are about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit to be understood as they themselves wish.

[32] Nunc autem non ideo minorum filium quia missus est a patre, nec ideo minorem spiritum sanctum quia et pater eum misit et filius sufficienter quantum arbitror demonstratum est. Siue enim propter uisibilem creaturam siue potius propter principii commendationem, non propter inaequalitatem uel imparilitatem uel dissimilitudinem substantiae in scripturis haec posita intelleguntur, quia etiam si uoluisset deus pater per subiectam creaturam uisibiliter apparere, absurdissime tamen aut a filio quem genuit aut ab spiritu sancto qui de illo procedit missus diceretur. Iste igitur sit huius uoluminis modus; deinceps in ceteris adiuuante domino illa haereticorum uersutissima argumenta qualia sint et quemadmodum redarguantur uidebimus.

[32] Now, however, it has, as far as I judge, been sufficiently demonstrated that the Son is not for that reason lesser because he was sent by the Father, nor the Holy Spirit lesser because both the Father sent him and the Son. For whether on account of the visible creature or rather on account of the commendation of the principium (principle), these things are understood to have been set down in the Scriptures not on account of inequality or imparility or dissimilarity of substance; for even if God the Father had willed to appear visibly through a subjected creature, most absurdly would he be said to have been sent either by the Son whom he begot or by the Holy Spirit who proceeds from him. Let this, then, be the scope of this volume; hereafter, in the remaining parts, with the Lord helping, we shall see of what sort those most crafty arguments of the heretics are and how they are to be refuted.