Novatian: NOVATIANI DE TRINITATE

I.1. Regula exigit ueritatis ut primo omnium credamus in Deum Patrem et Dominum omnipotentem, id est rerum omnium perfectissimum conditorem, qui caelum alta sublimitate suspenderit, terram deiecta mole solidauerit, maria soluto liquore diffuderit et haec omnia propriis et condignis instrumentis et ornata et plena digesserit. 2. Nam et in solidamento caeli luciferos solis ortus excitauit, lunae candentem globum ad solacium noctis mensurnis incrementis orbis impleuit, astrorum etiam radios uariis fulgoribus micantis lucis accendit et haec omnia legitimis meatibus circumire totum mundi ambitum uoluit, humano generi dies, menses, annos, signa, tempora utilitatesque factura. 3. In terris quoque altissimos montes in uerticem sustulit, ualles in ima deiecit, campos aequaliter strauit, animalium greges ad uarias hominum seruitutes utiliter instituit.

1.1. The rule of truth demands that first of all we believe in God the Father and Lord omnipotent, that is, the most perfect creator of all things, who has hung the heaven in lofty sublimity, has made the earth firm with its mass cast down, has poured out the seas with loosened liquidity, and has disposed all these things—both adorned and full—by proper and condign instruments. 2. For both in the firmament of the heaven he has roused the light-bearing risings of the sun, he has filled the shining globe of the moon, for the solace of the night, with measured increments of its orb, he has kindled also the rays of the stars with varied splendors of twinkling light, and he has willed that all these by lawful courses should go around the whole ambit of the world, to make for the human race days, months, years, signs, seasons, and utilities. 3. On the earth, too, he has raised the loftiest mountains to the summit, has cast down the valleys into the depths, has spread the plains evenly, and has suitably established herds of animals for the various services of men.

4. Siluarum quoque robora humanis usibus profutura solidauit, fruges in cibum elicuit, fontium ora reserauit et lapsuris fluminibus infudit. 5. Post quae ne non etiam ipsis quoque deliciis procurasset oculorum, uariis florum coloribus ad uoluptatem spectantium cuncta uestiuit. 6. In ipso quoque mari, quamuis esset et magnitudine et utilitate mirabile, multimoda animalia, nunc mediocris, nunc uasti corporis finxit, ingenium artificis de institutionis uarietate testantia.

4. He also solidified the hardwoods of the forests to be of profit for human uses, drew forth the grains for food, unbarred the mouths of springs and poured into rivers destined to flow. 5. After which, lest he should not have provided even for the very delights of the eyes, he clothed all things with the various colors of flowers for the pleasure of those looking on. 6. In the sea itself too, although it was marvelous both in magnitude and in utility, he fashioned multiform animals, now of moderate, now of vast body, attesting the genius of the artificer by the variety of their constitution.

7. Quibus non contentus, ne forte fremitus et cursus aquarum cum dispendio possessoris humani alienum occuparet elementum, fines litoribus inclusit, quo cum fremens fluctus et ex alto sinu spumans unda uenisset, rursum in se rediret nec terminos concessos excederet seruans iura praescripta, ut diuinas leges tanto magis homo custodiret, quanto illas etiam elementa seruassent. 8. Post quae hominem quoque mundo praeposuit, et quidem ad imaginem Dei factum, cui mentem et rationem indidit et prudentiam, ut Deum posset imitari, cuius etsi corporis terrena primordia, caelestis tamen et diuini halitus inspirata substantia. 9. Quae cum omnia in seruitutem illi dedisset, solum liberum esse uoluit.

7. Not content with these, lest perchance the roar and course of the waters, to the loss of the human possessor, should seize upon an alien element, he enclosed the boundaries with shores, so that when the roaring billow and the foaming wave from the deep gulf had come, it would return back into itself and not exceed the conceded limits, keeping the prescribed rights, in order that man might guard the divine laws all the more, inasmuch as even the elements had kept them. 8. After which he also set man over the world, and indeed made according to the image of God, into whom he instilled mind and reason and prudence, so that he could imitate God, whose body, although its beginnings are earthly, nevertheless has a substance inspired by heavenly and divine breath. 9. And when he had given all these things into servitude for him, he willed that he alone be free.

Et ne in periculum caderet rursum soluta libertas, mandatum posuit, quo tamen non inesse malum in fructu arboris diceretur, sed futurum, si forte, ex uoluntate hominis de contemptu datae legis praemoneretur. 10. Nam et liber esse debuerat, ne incongruenter Dei imago seruiret, et lex addenda, ne usque ad contemptum dantis libertas effrenata prorumperet, ut et praemia condigna et merita poenarum consequenter exciperet, suum iam habens illud, quod motu mentis in alterutram partem agitare uoluisset. 11. Ex quo mortalitatis inuidia utique in ipsum redit, qui cum illam de oboedientia posset euadere, in eandem incurrit, dum ex consilio peruerso Deus esse festinat.

And lest the freedom, once loosed, should fall back into peril, he set a mandate—whereby, however, it would be said that no evil inhered in the fruit of the tree, but that it would be a future one, if perchance, from the will of man, out of contempt for the given law, it were fore-warned. 10. For he ought also to be free, lest incongruently the image of God should be a slave; and a law had to be added, lest unbridled freedom should burst forth even to the contempt of the Giver, so that he might accordingly receive both condign rewards and the deserts of punishments, already having as his own that thing which, by the motion of his mind, he would have wished to drive to either side. 11. From this the envy of mortality surely returns upon him, who, though he could have escaped it by obedience, runs into the same, while by perverse counsel he hastens to be God.

12. Cuius tamen poenam nihilominus indulgenter temperauit, dum non tam ipse quam labores eius maledicuntur super terra. Nam et quod requiritur, non ex ignorantia uenit, sed spem hominis futurae in Christo et inuentionis et salutis ostendit; et quod ne de ligno arboris uitae contingat arcetur, non de inuidiae maligno liuore descendit, sed ne uiuens in aeternum, nisi peccata Christus ante donasset, circumferret secum in poenam sui semper immortale delictum. 13. Quamquam etiam superioribus, id est super ipsum quoque solidamentum partibus, quae non sunt hodie nostris contemplabiles oculis, angelos prius instituerit, spiritales uirtutes digesserit, thronos potestatesque praefecerit et alia multa caelorum immensa spatia et sacramentorum infinita opera condiderit, ut immensus hic licet mundus paene nouissimum magis Dei corporalium rerum appareat opus esse quam solum.

12. Nevertheless he tempered the penalty with indulgence, since not so much he himself as his labors are cursed upon the earth. For even that which is inquired after does not come from ignorance, but shows the hope of man of a future in Christ, both of discovery and of salvation; and that he is kept back lest he touch from the wood of the tree of life, does not descend from the malignant livor of envy, but lest, living for ever—unless Christ had first granted remission of sins—he should carry about with himself, to his own punishment, an ever-immortal offense. 13. Although, too, in the superior regions, that is, even above the very solid foundation, parts which are not today contemplable by our eyes, he first established angels, arranged spiritual virtues, set thrones and powers in charge, and founded many other immense expanses of the heavens and infinite works of sacraments, so that this world, though immense, appears rather to be almost the latest work of God among corporeal things than the only one.

14. Nam neque quae infra terram iacent, neque ipsa sunt digestis et ordinatis potestatibus uacua — locus enim est quo piorum animae impiorumque ducuntur futuri iudicii praeiudicia sentientes —, ut operum ipsius in omnibus partibus redundantes magnitudines non intra mundi huius capacissimos licet, ut diximus, sinus conclusas uideremus, sed etiam infra ipsius mundi et profunda et altitudines cogitare possemus et sic considerata operum magnitudine tantae molis digne mirari possemus artificem.

14. For neither the things that lie beneath the earth, nor those regions themselves are void of arranged and ordered powers — for it is a place to which the souls of the pious and of the impious are led, experiencing the prejudgments of the future judgment —, so that we might see the overflowing magnitudes of his works in all parts not as shut up within the most capacious, as we said, recesses of this world, but also that we might be able to think, beneath the world itself, both the depths and the heights, and thus, the magnitude of the works having been considered, we might be able worthily to admire the artificer of so great a mass.

II.1. Super quae omnia ipse continens cuncta, nihil extra se uacuum deserens, nulli deo superiori, ut quidam putant, locum reliquit, quandoquidem ipse uniuersa sinu perfectae magnitudinis et potestatis incluserit, intentus semper operi suo et uadens per omnia et mouens cuncta et uiuificans uniuersa et conspiciens tota et in concordiam elementorum omnium discordantes materias sic connectens, ut ex disparibus elementis ita sit unus mundus ista coagmentata conspiratione solidatus, ut nulla ui dissolui possit, nisi cum illum solus ipse qui fecit ad maiora alia praestanda nobis solui iusserit. 2. Hunc enim legimus omnia continere et ideo nihil extra ipsum esse potuisse, quippe cum originem omnino non habeat, consequenter nec exitum sentiat, nisi forte, quod absit, aliquando esse coeperit nec super omnia sit, sed dum post aliquid esse coeperit, infra id sit quod ante ipsum fuerit, minor inuentus potestate, dum posterior denotatur etiam ipso tempore. 3. Ob hanc ergo causam semper immensus, quia nihil illo maius est, semper aeternus, quia nihil illo antiquius.

2.1. Over all these things, he himself, containing all things, leaving nothing outside himself void, left no place for any god superior, as some think, since he enclosed the universe within the bosom of perfect magnitude and power, ever intent upon his work and going through all things and moving all things and vivifying the universe and beholding the whole, and so connecting into concord the discordant materials of all the elements that from disparate elements there should be one world, solidified by this co-joined conspiracy, such that by no force can it be dissolved, unless he alone who made it should order it to be loosed, to furnish for us other greater things. 2. For we read that he contains all things, and therefore that nothing could have been outside himself, inasmuch as he altogether has no origin, consequently neither does he feel an end—unless perhaps, which far be it, he at some time began to be and is not over all things, but, since he began to be after something, is beneath that which was before himself, found lesser in power, since he is denoted as later even by time itself. 3. For this cause, therefore, ever immense, because nothing is greater than he; ever eternal, because nothing is more ancient than he.

Id enim quod sine origine est, praecedi a nullo potest, dum non habet tempus. Ideo immortalis, non deficiens in consummationis exitu. Et quoniam sine lege est quicquid sine origine est, modum temporis excludit, dum se debitorem nemini sentit.

For that which is without origin can be preceded by no one, since it does not have time. Therefore immortal, not failing at the consummation’s end. And since whatever is without origin is without law, it excludes the measure of time, since it recognizes itself as debtor to no one.

4. De hoc ergo ac de eis quae sunt ipsius et in eo sunt nec mens hominis quae sint, quanta sint et qualia sint digne concipere potest nec eloquentia sermonis humani aequabilem maiestati eius uirtutem sermonis expromit. 5. Ad cogitandam enim et ad eloquendam illius maiestatem et eloquentia omnis merito muta est et mens omnis exigua est. Maior est enim mente ipsa nec cogitari possit quantus sit, ne si potuerit cogitari, mente humana minor sit qua concipi possit.

4. Therefore, about this One and about the things which are his and are in him, neither can the mind of man worthily conceive what they are, how great they are, and of what sort they are, nor does the eloquence of human discourse bring forth a virtue of speech equal to his majesty. 5. For for thinking and for articulating that majesty, all eloquence is deservedly mute and every mind is meager. For he is greater than mind itself, nor can it be thought how great he is, lest, if it could be thought, he be lesser than the human mind by which he might be conceived.

Maior est quoque omni sermone nec edici possit, ne si potuerit edici, humano sermone minor sit, quo cum edicitur et circumiri et colligi possit. 6. Quicquid enim de illo cogitatum fuerit, minus ipso erit; et quicquid enuntiatum fuerit, minus illo comparatum circum ipsum erit. Sentire enim illum taciti aliquatenus possumus; ut autem ipse est, sermone explicare non possumus.

He is greater also than every discourse and cannot be declared, lest, if he could be declared, he be made lesser to human speech, by which, when he is declared, he can be encircled and collected. 6. For whatever shall have been cogitated about him will be less than himself; and whatever shall have been enunciated, being compared with him, will be around him as something less. For we can in some measure sense him in silence; but as he himself is, we cannot explicate by speech.

7. Siue enim illum dixeris lucem, creaturam ipsius magis quam ipsum dixeris, ipsum non expresseris; siue illum dixeris uirtutem, potentiam ipsius magis quam ipsum dixeris et deprompseris; siue dixeris maiestatem, honorem ipsius magis quam illum ipsum descripseris. 8. Et quid per singula quaeque percurrens longum facio? Semel totum explicabo.

7. For whether you call him light, you will have said a creature of his rather than himself; you will not have expressed himself; whether you call him virtue, you will have said a potency of his rather than himself and you will have drawn it forth; whether you say majesty, you will have described an honor of his rather than him himself. 8. And why, running through each particular one by one, do I make it long? I will explain the whole at once.

Quicquid omnino de illo rettuleris, rem aliquam ipsius magis et uirtutem quam ipsum explicaueris. 9. Quid enim de eo condigne aut dicas aut sentias qui omnibus et sermonibus et sensibus maior est, nisi quod uno modo et hoc ipsum, quomodo possumus, quomodo capimus, quomodo intellegere licet, quid sit Deus, mente capiemus, si cogitauerimus id illum esse, quod quale et quantum sit non possit intellegi nec in ipsam quidem cogitationem possit uenire? 10. Nam si ad solis aspectum oculorum nostrorum acies hebetescit, ne orbem ipsum obtutus inspiciat obuiorum sibi superatus fulgore radiorum, hoc idem mentis acies patitur in cogitatione omni de Deo, et quanto ad considerandum Deum plus intenditur, tanto magis ipsa cogitationis suae luce caecatur.

Whatever at all you may have reported about him, you will have explained some thing of his and a virtue rather than himself. 9. For what can you either say or think worthily concerning him who is greater than all words and all senses, except that in one way—and this very thing—we shall grasp with the mind, so far as we are able, so far as we can take in, so far as it is permitted to understand, what God is, if we have thought him to be that which, of what sort and how great it is, cannot be understood nor indeed can it come into thought itself? 10. For if at the aspect of the sun the keenness of our eyes grows dull, so that the gaze does not look upon the orb itself, overcome by the effulgence of the rays that meet it, this same thing the keenness of the mind suffers in every thought about God, and the more it is strained to consider God, so much the more is it blinded by the very light of its thought.

11. Quid enim de eo, ut iterum repetam, condigne dicas, qui est sublimitate omni sublimior et altitudine omni altior et profundo omni profundior et omni luce lucidior et omni claritate clarior, omni splendore splendidior, omni robore robustior, omni uirtute uiritior, omni pulchritudine pulchrior, ueritate omni uerior et fortitudine omni fortior et maiestate omni maior et omni potentia potentior et omnibus diuitiis ditior, omni prudentia prudentior et omni benignitate benignior, omni bonitate melior, omni iustitia iustior, omni clementia clementior? 12. Minora enim sint necesse est omnium genera uirtutum eo ipso qui uirtutum omnium et Deus et parens est, ut uere dici possit id Deus esse quod eiusmodi est cui comparari nihil potest. Super omne est enim quod dici potest, mens est enim quaedam gignens et complens omnia, quae sine ullo aut initio aut termino temporis causas rerum naturaliter nexas ad utilitatem omnium summa et perfecta ratione moderetur.

11. For what, to repeat again, could you say worthily about him who is more sublime than every sublimity and higher than every altitude and deeper than every profundity and more lucid than every light and clearer than every clarity, more splendid than every splendor, more robust than every robustness, more virtuous than every virtue, more beautiful than every beauty, truer than every truth and stronger than every fortitude and greater than every majesty and more powerful than every power and richer than all riches, more prudent than every prudence and more benign than every benignity, better than every goodness, more just than every justice, more clement than every clemency? 12. For it is necessary that all kinds of virtues be lesser than him himself who is both the God and the parent of all virtues, so that it may truly be said that God is that which is of such a sort that nothing can be compared to it. He is above everything that can be spoken, for he is a certain Mind begetting and completing all things, who, without any beginning or end of time, governs, by highest and perfect reason, the causes of things naturally knit together for the utility of all.

III.1. Hunc igitur agnoscimus et scimus Deum, conditorem rerum omnium, Dominum propter potestatem, parentem propter institutionem, hunc, inquam, quidixit, et facta sunt omnia, praecepit, et processerunt uniuersa, de quo scriptum est: Omnia in sapientia fecisti, de quo Moyses: Deus in caelo sursum et in terra deorsum, qui secundum Esaiam mensus est caelum palmo, terram pugillo, qui aspicit terram et facit eam tremere, qui continet gyrum terrae et eos qui habitant in ipso quasi locustae, qui expendit montes in pondere et nemora in statera, id est certo diuinae dispositionis examine, ac ne facile in ruinam procumberet magnitudo inaequaliter iacens, si non paribus fuisset librata ponderibus, onus hoc moderanter terrenae molis aequauit. 2. Qui dicit per prophetam: Ego Deus et non est praeter me, qui per eundem prophetam refert quoniam maiestatem meam non dabo alteri, ut omnes cum suis figmentis ethnicos excludat et haereticos, probans Deum non esse qui manu artificis factus sit nec eum qui ingenio haeretici fictus sit. Non est enim Deus cui ut sit quaerendus est artifex.

3.1. Therefore we acknowledge and know this God, the creator of all things, Lord on account of power, parent on account of instruction, this one, I say, whosaid, and all things were made, who commanded, and all things proceeded forth, of whom it is written: You have made all things in wisdom; of whom Moses [says]: God in heaven above and on earth below; who, according to Isaiah, has measured heaven with the span, the earth with a fistful; who looks upon the earth and makes it tremble; who contains the circle of the earth, and those who dwell in it as if locusts; who weighs the mountains in a weight and the forests in a balance, that is, by the sure assay of divine disposition, and lest the greatness, lying unevenly, should easily fall into ruin, if it had not been balanced by equal weights, he has moderately equalized this burden of the earthly mass. 2. He who says through the prophet: I am God and there is none besides me; who through the same prophet reports that I will not give my majesty to another, so that he may exclude all the pagans with their figments and the heretics, proving that he is not God who has been made by the hand of an artificer, nor he who has been fabricated by a heretic’s ingenuity. For he is not God for whom, in order that he may exist, an artificer must be sought.

3. Quique adhuc adiecit per prophetam:Caelum mihi thronus est, terra autem scabellum pedum meorum: qualem mihi aedificabitis domum aut quis locus requiei meae?, ut ostendat quoniam multo magis illum templum non capit, quem mundus non capit. Et haec non ad sui iactantiam, sed ad nostri scientiam refert. Neque enim ipse a nobis desiderat magnitudinis gloriam, sed nobis uult religiosam, qua Pater, conferre sapientiam.

3. And he also added through the prophet:Heaven is my throne, but the earth the footstool of my feet: what kind of house will you build for me, or what is the place of my rest?, to show that much more does that temple not contain him, whom the world does not contain. And he refers these things not to his own vaunting, but to our knowledge. For he himself does not desire from us the glory of magnitude, but he wills to confer upon us religious wisdom, as Father.

4. Quique praeterea ferinos nostros animos et de agresti immanitate tumidos et abruptos ad lenitatem trahere uolens dicit:Et super quem requiescet spiritus meus, nisi super humilem et quietum et trementem uerba mea?, ut Deum aliquatenus quantus sit possit agnoscere, dum illum per spiritum collatum discit timere. 5. Qui similiter adhuc magis in notitiam nostri uolens peruenire, ad culturam sui nostros excitans animos aiebat: Ego sum Dominus qui feci lucem et creaui tenebras, ut uicissitudinum istarum quibus noctes diesque moderantur non naturam nescio quam putaremus artificem, sed Deum agnosceremus potius, quod erat uerius, conditorem. 6. Quem quoniam obtutu oculorum uidere non possumus, de operum magnitudine et uirtute et maiestate condiscimus.

4. And he, moreover, willing to draw our ferine spirits, swollen and headlong from rustic immanity, to lenity, says:And upon whom shall my Spirit rest, if not upon the humble and the quiet and the one who trembles at my words? so that he may be able in some measure to recognize how great God is, while he learns to fear him through the Spirit conferred. 5. He likewise, wishing to come yet more into our knowledge, rousing our minds to his cult, used to say: I am the Lord who made light and created darkness, so that we would not think that some I-know-not-what Nature was the craftsman of these vicissitudes by which nights and days are moderated, but would rather acknowledge God—what was truer—as the maker. 6. Since we cannot see him with the gaze of our eyes, we learn from the magnitude, power, and majesty of his works.

Inuisibilia enim ipsius, inquit apostolus Paulus, a creatura mundi per ea quae facta sunt intellecta conspiciuntur, sempiterna quoque eius uirtus et diuinitas, ut animus humanus ex manifestis occulta condiscens de operum magnitudine quae uideret mentis oculis artificis magnitudinem cogitaret. 7. De quo idem apostolus: Regi autem saeculorum immortali, inuisibili, soli Deo honor et gloria. Euasit enim oculorum contemplationem qui cogitationis uicit magnitudinem.

For the invisible things of him, says the apostle Paul, from the creation of the world are beheld, being understood through the things that have been made, and his eternal virtue and divinity as well, so that the human mind, learning the hidden things from the manifest, from the greatness of the works which it saw with the eyes of the mind, might contemplate the greatness of the artificer. 7. About whom the same apostle: Now to the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, honor and glory. For he has eluded the contemplation of the eyes, he who has surpassed the magnitude of cogitation.

Quoniam, inquit, ex ipso et per ipsum et in ipso sunt omnia. Nam et imperio eius omnia, ut ex ipso sint, et uerbo eius digesta, ut per ipsum sint, et in iudicium eius recidunt uniuersa, ut dum in ipso expectant libertatem corruptione deposita, in ipsum uideantur esse reuocata.

Because, he says, from him and through him and in him are all things. For both by his command are all things, that they may be from him, and by his word are they arranged, that they may be through him, and into his judgment do all things fall back, so that while in him they await liberty, corruption having been laid aside, they may seem to have been recalled into him.

IV.1. Quem solum merito bonum pronuntiat Dominus, cuius bonitatis totus testis est mundus, quem non instituisset, nisi bonus fuisset. Nam siomnia bona ualde, consequenter ac merito et quae instituta sunt bona bonum institutorem probauerunt et quae a bono institutore sunt aliud quam bona esse non possunt, ex quo omne malum facessat a Deo. 2. Nec enim potest fieri ut sit initiator aut artifex ullius mali operis, qui nomen sibi perfecti uindicat et parentis et iudicis, maxime cum omnis mali operis uindex sit et iudex, quoniam et non aliunde occurrit homini malum, nisi a bono Deo recessisset.

4.1. Whom alone the Lord rightly pronounces good, whose goodness the whole world is a witness of, which He would not have established unless He had been good. For ifall things [are] very good, then consequently and deservedly both the things that have been instituted, being good, have proved a good institutor, and the things that are from a good institutor can be nothing other than good, whence let every evil be banished from God. 2. For neither can it come to pass that He be the initiator or artificer of any evil work, He who claims for Himself the name of the perfect, both of parent and of judge, especially since He is the avenger and judge of every evil work, since also evil does not befall man from any other source, except that he has withdrawn from the good God.

3. Hoc autem ipsum in homine denotatur, non quia necesse fuit, sed quia ipse sic uoluit. Vnde manifeste et quid malum esset apparuit et, ne inuidia in Deo esse uideretur, a quo malum ortum esset, eluxit. 4. Hic ergo semper sui est similis nec se umquam in aliquas formas uertit aut mutat, ne per immutationem etiam mortalis esse uideatur.

3. But this very thing is denoted in man, not because it was necessary, but because he himself so willed. Whence it became manifest both what evil was, and it came to light from whom evil had arisen, lest envy should seem to be in God. 4. He therefore is always like unto himself and never turns or changes himself into any forms, lest through alteration he should even seem to be mortal.

Immutatio enim conuersionis portio cuiusdam comprehenditur mortis. Ideo nec adiectio in illo umquam ullius aut partis aut honoris accedit, ne quid umquam perfecto defuisse uideatur, nec detrimentum in eo aliquod agitur, ne gradus mortalitatis receptus esse uideatur, sed quod est, id semper est, et qui est, semper ipse est, et qualis est, semper talis est. 5. Nam et incrementa originem monstrant et detrimenta mortem atque interitum probant.

For alteration, indeed a portion of conversion, is comprehended as a certain death. Therefore neither does any addition, whether of part or of honor, ever accrue to him, lest anything ever seem to have been lacking to the Perfect; nor is any detriment wrought in him, lest a degree of mortality seem to have been received; but what he is, that he always is, and he who is, is always himself, and of what sort he is, he is always such. 5. For increments show origin, and detriments prove death and destruction.

Et ideo Ego, ait, sum Deus et non sum mutatus, statum suum tenens semper, dum id quod natum non est conuerti non potest. 6. Hoc enim in ipso, quicquid illud potest quod est Deus, semper sit necesse est, ut semper sit Deus, seruans sese uirtutibus suis. Et ideo dicit: Ego sum qui sum.

And therefore I, he says, am God and I have not been changed, holding his own status always, since that which is not begotten cannot be converted. 6. For this in himself, whatever that is which is God, must always be, that he may always be God, preserving himself by his own virtues. And therefore he says: I am who I am.

Quod enim est, ideo hoc habet nomen, quoniam eandem semper sui obtinet qualitatem. Immutatio enim tollit illud nomen 'quod est'; quicquid enim aliquando uertitur, mortale ostenditur hoc ipso quod conuertitur. Desinit enim esse quod fuerat et incipit consequenter esse quod non erat.

For that which is, for this reason has this name, because it always maintains the same quality of itself. For mutation removes that name ‘that which is’; for whatever at some time is converted, is shown mortal by this very fact that it is converted. For it ceases to be what it had been and consequently begins to be what it was not.

7. Idcirco et merito in Deo manet semper status suus, dum sine detrimento commutationis semper sui et similis et aequalis est. Quod enim natum non est, nec mutari potest; ea enim sola in conuersionem ueniunt, quaecumque fiunt uel quaecumque gignuntur, dum quae aliquando non fuerant discunt esse nascendo atque ideo nascendo conuerti. At enim illa quae nec natiuitatem habent nec artificem, excluserunt a se demutationem, dum in qua conuersionis causa est non habent originem.

7. Therefore, and with merit, in God his state remains always, since, without the detriment of commutation, he is always himself, both like and equal. For that which is not born cannot be changed; for into conversion come only those things whatever are made or whatever are begotten, since the things which at some time had not been learn to be by being born and therefore by being born are converted. But indeed those which have neither nativity nor an artificer have excluded demutation from themselves, since they do not have an origin in that wherein is the cause of conversion.

8. Ideo et unus pronuntiatus est, dum parem non habet. Deus enim, quicquid esse potest quod Deus est, summum sit necesse est. Summum autem quicquid est, ita demum summum esse oportet, dum extra comparem est.

8. Therefore also he has been pronounced one, since he has no peer. For God—whatever can be that which God is—must be supreme. Moreover, whatever is supreme ought only then to be supreme, when it is beyond a peer.

Et ideo solum et unum sit necesse est, cui conferri nihil potest, dum parem non habet. 9. Quoniam nec duo infinita esse possunt, ut rerum dictat ipsa natura. Infinitum est autem quicquid nec originem habet omnino nec finem.

And therefore it must be solitary and one, to which nothing can be compared, since it does not have a peer. 9. Since neither can two infinites exist, as the very nature of things dictates. Now the infinite is whatever has absolutely neither origin nor end.

Excludit enim alterius initium, quicquid occupauerit totum. Quoniam si non omne id quod est quicquid est continet, dum intra id inuenitur quo continetur, minus inuentum eo quo continetur, Deus esse desierit, in alterius potestatem redactus, cuius magnitudine, qua minor, fuerit inclusus, et ideo quod continuit Deus potius esse iam coeperit. 10. Ex quo effectum est ut nec nomen Dei proprium possit edici, quoniam non possit nec concipi.

For whatever shall have occupied the whole excludes the beginning of another. Since if what is—whatever it is—does not contain all that is, while it is found within that by which it is contained, found less than that by which it is contained, it would have ceased to be God, having been reduced into the power of another, by whose magnitude, than which it is lesser, it would have been enclosed, and therefore that which contained it would rather already have begun to be God. 10. Whence it has been effected that not even God’s proper name can be edicted, since it can not even be conceived.

Id enim nomine continetur, quicquid etiam ex naturae suae condicione comprehenditur. Nomen enim significantia est eius rei quae comprehendi potuit ex nomine. At quando id de quo agitur tale est, ut condigne nec ipsis intellectibus colligatur, quomodo appellationis digne uocabulo pronuntiabitur, quod dum extra intellectum est etiam supra appellationis significantiam sit necesse est?

For whatever is comprehended even from the condition of its own nature is contained by a name. For a name is the signification of that thing which could be comprehended from the name. But when that which is being treated is of such a sort that it is not even condignly gathered by the intellects themselves, how will it be worthily pronounced by the vocable of an appellation, that which, while it is outside intellect, must also be above the signification of appellation?

11. Vt merito quando nomen suum Deus ex quibusdam rationibus et occasionibus adicit et praefert, non tam legitimam proprietatem appellationis sciamus esse depromptam quam significantiam quandam constitutam, ad quam dum homines decurrunt Dei misericordiam per ipsam impetrare posse uideantur. 12. Est ergo et immortalis et incorruptibilis nec detrimenta sentiens omnino nec finem. Nam et quia incorruptibilis, ideo et immortalis, et quia immortalis, utique et incorruptibilis, utroque inuicem sibi et in se connexione mutua perplexo et ad statum aeternitatis uicaria concatenatione producto et immortalitate de incorruptione descendente et incorruptione de immortalitate ueniente.

11. Rightly then, when God adds and prefers his name on certain reasons and occasions, let us understand that not so much a legitimate proprietorship of appellation has been drawn forth as a certain signification established, to which, when men run for refuge, they seem able through it to obtain the mercy of God. 12. He is therefore both immortal and incorruptible, sensing neither detriments at all nor an end. For both because he is incorruptible, therefore also immortal; and because immortal, of course also incorruptible—both, each to the other and in itself, being entangled by mutual connection, and brought forth to the state of eternity by a vicarious concatenation, with immortality descending from incorruption and incorruption coming from immortality.

V.1. Cuius etiamsi iracundias legitimas et indignationes quasdam descriptas tenemus et odia relata cognoscimus, non tamen haec intellegimus ad humanorum relata esse exempla uitiorum. 2. Haec enim omnia etsi hominem possunt corrumpere, diuinam uim non possunt omnino uitiare. Passiones enim istae in hominibus merito esse dicentur, in Deo non merito iudicabuntur.

5.1. Although we hold recorded his legitimate irascibilities and certain indignations described, and recognize hatreds related, nevertheless we do not understand these to be referred to examples of human vices. 2. For all these things, although they can corrupt a man, cannot at all vitiate the divine power. For these passions will rightly be said to be in men; in God they will not rightly be judged.

Corrumpi enim per haec homo potest, quia corrumpi potest; corrumpi per haec Deus non potest, quia nec corrumpi potest. 3. Habent igitur ista uim suam quam exerceant, sed ubi praecedit passibilis materia, non ubi praecedit impassibilis substantia. 4. Nam et quod irascitur Deus, non ex uitio eius uenit, sed ad remedium nostri illud facit.

For man can be corrupted through these things, because he can be corrupted; God cannot be corrupted through these things, because neither can he be corrupted. 3. Therefore these things have their own power which they exert, but where passible matter precedes, not where impassible substance precedes. 4. For even that God grows angry does not come from his vice, but he does that for our remedy.

Indulgens est enim etiam tunc cum minatur, dum per haec homines ad recta reuocantur. Nam quibus ad honestam uitam deest ratio, metus est necessarius, ut qui rationem reliquerunt uel terrore moueantur. Et ideo omnes istae uel iracundiae Dei uel odia uel quaecumque sunt huiusmodi, dum ad medicinam nostram proferuntur, ut res docet, ex consilio, non ex uitio uenerunt.

For he is indulgent even then when he threatens, while through these things men are called back to the right. For to those to whom reason for an honest life is lacking, fear is necessary, so that they who have abandoned reason may at least be moved by terror. And therefore all these either wraths of God or hatreds or whatever things are of this sort, while they are brought forth for our medicine, as the matter shows, came from counsel, not from vice.

5. Nec ex fragilitate descendunt, propter quod etiam ad corrumpendum Deum ualere non possunt. Materiarum enim in nobis ex quibus sumus diuersitas ad iracundiae consueuit corrumpentem nos excitare discordiam, quae in Deo uel ex natura uel ex uitio non potest esse, dum non utique ex coagmentis corporalibus intellegitur esse constructus. 6. Est enim simplex et sine ulla corporea concretione, quicquid illud est totus quod se solus scit esse, quandoquidem spiritus sit dictus.

5. Nor do these descend from fragility, on account of which they also cannot avail to corrupt God. For the diversity of the materials in us, from which we are, is accustomed to stir up, toward irascibility, the discord that corrupts us—a thing which in God cannot be either from nature or from vice, since he is by no means understood to be constructed from bodily coagmentations. 6. For he is simple and without any corporeal concretion, whatever that whole reality is which he alone knows himself to be, since he has been called Spirit.

Et ideo haec quae in hominibus uitiosa sunt et corrumpentia, dum ex corporis ipsius et materiae corruptibilitate nascuntur, in Deo corruptibilitatis uim exercere non possunt, quandoquidem, ut diximus, non ex uitio, sed ratione uenerunt.

And therefore those things which in human beings are vicious and corrupting, since they are born from the corruptibility of the body itself and of matter, cannot exercise the force of corruptibility in God, since, as we have said, they came not from vice but from reason.

VI. 1. Et licet scriptura caelestis ad humanam formam faciem diuinam saepe conuertat, dum dicit:Oculi Domini super iustos, aut dum odoratus est Dominus Deus odorem bonae fragrantiae, aut dum traduntur Moysi tabulae scriptae digito Dei, aut dum populus filiorum Israel de terra Aegypti manu ualida et brachio excelso liberatur, aut dum dicit: Os enim Domini locutum est haec, aut dum terra scabellum pedum Dei esse perhibetur, aut dum dicit: Inclina aurem tuam et audi, sed nos qui dicimus quia lex spiritalis est, non intra haec nostri corporis lineamenta modum aut figuram diuinae maiestatis includimus, sed suis illam interminatae magnitudinis, ut ita dixerim, campis sine ullo fine diffundimus. 2. Scriptum est enim: Si ascendero in caelum, tu ibi es; si descendero ad inferos, ades; et si assumpsero alas meas et abiero trans mare, ibi manus tua apprehendet me et dextera tua detinebit me. Rationem enim diuinae scripturae de temperamento dispositionis cognoscimus. Parabolis enim adhuc secundum fidei tempus de Deo prophetes tunc loquebatur, non quomodo Deus erat, sed quomodo populus capere poterat.

6. 1. And although the heavenly Scripture often converts the divine face to human form, when it says:The eyes of the Lord are upon the just, or when the Lord God smelled the odor of good fragrance, or when tablets written by the finger of God are delivered to Moses, or when the people of the sons of Israel are freed from the land of Egypt by a strong hand and an exalted arm, or when it says: For the mouth of the Lord has spoken these things, or when the earth is affirmed to be the footstool of the feet of God, or when it says: Incline your ear and hear, yet we who say that the law is spiritual, do not include within these lineaments of our body the measure or figure of the divine majesty, but we diffuse it, so to speak, upon its own fields of boundless magnitude without any end. 2. For it is written: If I shall ascend into heaven, you are there; if I shall descend to the underworld, you are present; and if I take up my wings and go away across the sea, there your hand will seize me and your right hand will hold me fast. For we recognize the rationale of divine Scripture in the tempering of its dispensation. For by parables, still according to the time of faith, the prophet was then speaking about God, not as God was, but as the people could grasp.

Vt igitur haec sic de Deo dicantur, non Deo, sed populo potius imputetur. 3. Sic et tabernaculum erigere populo permittitur, nec tamen Deus intra tabernaculum clusus continetur. Sic et templum extruitur, nec tamen Deus intra templi angustias omnino saepitur.

Therefore, that these things may be spoken thus about God, let it be imputed not to God but rather to the people. 3. So too the people are permitted to set up a tabernacle, yet God is not confined within the tabernacle. So too a temple is built, yet God is not at all hedged in within the narrow bounds of the temple.

Non igitur mediocris est Deus, sed populi mediocris est sensus, nec angustus Deus, sed rationis populi angustus est intellectus habitus. 4. Denique in euangelio Veniet hora, Dominus aiebat, cum neque in monte isto neque in Hierusalem adorabitis Patrem. Et causas reddidit dicens: Spiritus est Deus; et eos ergo qui adorant in spiritu et ueritate adorare oportet.

Therefore God is not mediocre, but the people’s sense is mediocre; nor is God narrow, but the habitual disposition of the people’s reasoning is narrow. 4. Finally, in the Gospel, The hour will come, the Lord was saying, when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you adore the Father. And he gave the reasons, saying: God is Spirit; and therefore those who worship must worship in spirit and in truth.

5. Efficaciae igitur ibi diuinae per membra monstrantur, non habitus Dei nec corporalia lineamenta ponuntur. Nam et cum oculi describuntur, quod omnia uideat exprimitur. Et quando auris, quod omnia audiat proponitur.

5. therefore the divine efficacies are there shown through the members; not is the habitus of God posited, nor are corporeal lineaments set forth. For even when eyes are described, it is expressed that he sees all. And when an ear is [described], it is set forth that he hears all.

Et cum digitus, significantia quaedam uoluntatis aperitur. Et cum nares, precum quasi odorum perceptio ostenditur. Et cum manus, quod creaturae sit omnis auctor probatur.

And when the finger, a certain signification of will is opened. And when the nostrils, the perception, as it were, of the odors of prayers is shown. And when the hand, it is proved that he is the author of every creature.

Et quando bracchium, quod nulla natura contra robur ipsius repugnare possit edicitur. Et quando pedes, quod impleat omnia nec sit quicquam ubi non sit Deus explicatur. 6. Neque enim sunt ei aut membra aut membrorum officia necessaria, ad cuius solum etiam tacitum arbitrium et seruiunt et adsunt omnia.

And when the arm is mentioned, it is declared that no nature can resist his strength. And when the feet, it is explained that he fills all things, nor is there anything where God is not. 6. For he has neither limbs, nor are the offices of limbs necessary to him, at whose mere, even silent, will all things both serve and are present.

Cur enim requirat oculos, qui lux est? Aut cur quaerat pedes, qui ubique est? Aut cur ingredi uelit, cum non sit quo extra se progredi possit?

For why should he require eyes, who is light? Or why should he seek feet, who is everywhere? Or why should he wish to enter, since there is nowhere outside himself where he could progress?

Aut cur manus expetat, cuius ad omnia instituenda artifex est et silens uoluntas? Nec auribus eget, qui etiam tacitas nouit uoluntates. Aut propter quam causam linguam quaerat, cui cogitare iussisse est?

Or why should he seek hands, whose silent will is the artificer for the instituting of all things? Nor does he need ears, who knows even tacit wills. Or for what cause should he seek a tongue, for whom to have thought is to have commanded?

7. Necessaria enim haec membra hominibus fuerunt, non Deo, quia inefficax hominis consilium fuisset, nisi cogitamen corpus implesset, Deo autem non necessaria, cuius uoluntatem non tantum sine aliqua molitione opera subsequuntur, sed ipsa statim opera cum uoluntate procedunt. 8. Ceterum ipse totus oculus, quia totus uidet, et totus auris, quia totus audit, et totus manus, quia totus operatur, et totus pes, quia totus ubique est. Idem enim, quicquid illud est, totus aequalis est et totus ubique est.

7. For these members were necessary for men, not for God, because the counsel of man would have been inefficacious unless a cogitation had filled out a body; but for God they are not necessary, whose will not only works follow without any exertion, but the works themselves proceed at once together with the will. 8. Moreover, he himself is whole eye, because he wholly sees, and whole ear, because he wholly hears, and whole hand, because he wholly works, and whole foot, because he is wholly everywhere. For the same, whatever that is, is wholly equal and wholly everywhere.

9. Non enim habet in se diuersitatem sui quicquid est simplex. Ea enim demum in diuersitatem membrorum recidunt quae ueniunt ex natiuitate in dissolutionem. Sed haec quae concreta non sunt sentire non possunt.

9. For whatever is simple has not within itself a diversity of itself. For only those things fall back into a diversity of members which come from nativity into dissolution. But such as are not concreted cannot feel.

Quod enim immortale est, quicquid est, illud ipsum unum et simplex et semper est. Et ideo quia unum est, dissolui non potest, quoniam quicquid est illud ipsum extra ius dissolutionis positum, legibus est mortis solutum.

For what is immortal, whatever it is, that very thing is one and simple and always is. And therefore, because it is one, it cannot be dissolved, since whatever that very thing is, having been set outside the jurisdiction of dissolution, is released from the laws of death.

VII. 1. Sed illud quod dicit Dominus spiritum Deum, puto ego sic locutum Christum de Patre, ut adhuc aliquid plus intellegi uelit quam spiritum Deum. Hominibus enim licet in euangelio suo intellegendi incrementa faciens disputet, sed tamen et ipse sic adhuc de Deo loquitur hominibus, quomodo possunt adhuc audire uel capere, licet, ut diximus, in agnitionem Dei religiosa iam facere incrementa nitatur.

7. 1. But that which the Lord says, that God is spirit, I for my part think Christ thus spoke about the Father, so that he wishes something more to be understood than “God is spirit.” For although in his Gospel, as he debates while making increments of understanding, he converses, yet he himself still thus speaks to human beings about God, as they are still able to hear or grasp, although, as we have said, he already strives to make religious increments into the acknowledgment of God.

2. Inuenimus enim scriptum esse quodDeus caritas dictus sit, nec ex hoc tamen Dei substantia caritas expressa est, et quod lux dictus est, nec tamen in hoc substantia Dei est, sed totum hoc de Deo dictum est quantum dici potest, ut merito et quando spiritus dictus est, non omne id quod est dictus sit, sed ut, dum mens hominum intellegendo usque ad ipsum proficit spiritum, conuersa iam ipsa in spiritu aliud quid amplius per spiritum conicere Deum esse possit. 3. Id enim quod est secundum id quod est nec humano sermone edici nec humanis auribus percipi nec humanis sensibus colligi potest. Nam si quae praeparauit Deus his qui diligunt illum nec oculus uidit nec auris audiuit nec cor hominis aut mens ipsa percepit, qualis et quantus est ille ipse qui haec repromittit ad quae intellegenda et mens hominis et natura defecit?

2. For we have found it written that God has been calledCharity, yet from this the substance of God is not expressed as Charity; and that he has been called Light, yet neither in this is the substance of God; but all this has been said about God as much as can be said, so that deservedly also when he has been called Spirit, not everything that he is has been said, but that, while the mind of men by understanding advances up to that very Spirit, being itself now turned into spirit, through the spirit it may be able to conjecture something further that God is. 3. For that which he is according to that which he is can neither be declared by human speech nor received by human ears nor gathered by human senses. For if the things which God has prepared for those who love him neither eye has seen nor ear has heard nor the heart of man or the mind itself has perceived, of what sort and how great is he himself who promises these things, to the understanding of which both the mind of man and nature has failed?

4. Denique si acceperis spiritum substantiam Dei, creaturam feceris Deum. Omnis enim spiritus creatura est. Erit ergo iam factus Deus.

4. Finally, if you take spirit as the substance of God, you will have made God a creature. For every spirit is a creature. Therefore God will already have been made.

Quomodo et si secundum Moysen ignem acceperis Deum, creaturam illum esse dicendo institutum expresseris, non institutorem docueris. 5. Sed haec figurantur potius quam ita sunt. Nam et in ueteri testamento ideo Deus ignis dicitur, ut peccatori populo metus incutiatur, dum iudex ostenditur, et in nouo testamento spiritus esse profertur, ut refector et creator in delictis suis mortuorum per hanc bonitatem collatae credentibus indulgentiae comprobetur.

Likewise, if according to Moses you have taken God as fire, by saying that he is a creature you would have expressed him as instituted, not taught him as the institutor. 5. But these things are figured rather than are thus. For both in the Old Testament for this reason God is called fire, that fear may be struck into the sinful people, while the judge is shown; and in the New Testament he is put forth to be spirit, that the refector and creator of those dead in their sins may be proved through this goodness of the indulgence bestowed upon believers.

VIII. 1. Hunc ergo, omissis haereticorum fabulis atque figmentis, Deum nouit et ueneratur ecclesia, cui testimonium reddit tam inuisibilium quam etiam uisibilium et semper et tota natura, quem angeli adorant, astra mirantur, maria benedicunt, terrae uerentur, inferna quaeque suspiciunt, quem mens omnis humana sentit, etiam si non exprimit, cuius imperio omnia commouentur, fontes scaturiunt, amnes labuntur, fluctus assurgunt, fetus suos cuncta parturiunt, uenti spirare coguntur, imbres ueniunt, maria commouentur, fecunditates suas cuncta ubique diffundunt. 2. Qui peculiarem protoplastis aeternae uitae mundum quendam paradisum in oriente constituit,arborem uitae plantauit, scientiae boni et mali similiter alteram arborem collocauit, mandatum dedit, sententiam contra delictum statuit, Noe iustissimum de diluuii periculis pro merito innocentiae fideique seruauit, Enoch transtulit, in amicitiae societatem Abraham allegit, Isaac protexit, Iacob auxit, Moysen ducem populo praefecit, ingemiscentes filios Israel e iugo seruitutis eripuit, legem scripsit, patrum sobolem in terram repromissionis induxit.

8. 1. This God, then, with the fables and figments of heretics set aside, the church knows and venerates, to whom testimony is rendered both by things invisible and also by things visible, and always and by the whole of nature; whom angels adore, the stars marvel at, the seas bless, the lands revere, all things below look up to; whom every human mind senses, even if it does not express; at whose command all things are stirred, springs gush forth, rivers glide, billows rise, all things bring forth their offspring, the winds are compelled to breathe, rains come, the seas are set in motion, their fecundities all things everywhere pour forth. 2. He established for the protoplasts a peculiar world of eternal life, a certain paradise in the east, planted thetree of life, and likewise set another tree, of the knowledge of good and evil, gave a mandate, fixed a sentence against the offense, preserved most righteous Noah from the perils of the deluge by the merit of innocence and faith, translated Enoch, chose Abraham into the fellowship of friendship, protected Isaac, increased Jacob, appointed Moses as leader over the people, snatched the groaning sons of Israel from the yoke of servitude, wrote the law, led the offspring of the fathers into the land of promise.

3. Prophetas spiritu instruxit et per hos omnes Filium suum Christum repromisit et quando daturum se spoponderat misit. Per quem nobis in notitiam uenire uoluit et in nos indulgentiae suae sinus largos profudit, egenis et abiectis locupletem spiritum conferendo. 4. Et quia ultro et largus et bonus est, ne totus hic orbis auersus gratiae eius fluminibus aresceret, apostolos institutores generis nostri in totum orbem mitti per Filium suum uoluit, ut condicio generis humani agnosceret institutorem et, si sequi maluisset, haberet quem pro Deo in suis iam postulationibus Patrem diceret.

3. He instructed the prophets by the Spirit and through all these he re-promised his Son Christ, and when he had pledged that he would give him, he sent him. Through whom he willed that we should come into knowledge, and upon us he poured out the ample folds of his indulgence, by conferring a rich spirit upon the needy and the abject. 4. And because he is of his own accord both bountiful and good, lest this whole world, turned away, should dry up from the rivers of his grace, he willed that the apostles, the institutors of our race, be sent through his Son into the whole world, so that the condition of the human race might recognize its institutor and, if it preferred to follow, might have one whom, as God, it would call Father in its petitions.

5. Cuius prouidentia non tantummodo singillatim per homines cucurrit aut currit, sed etiam per ipsas urbes et ciuitates, quarum exitus prophetarum uocibus cecinit, immo etiam per ipsum totum orbem, cuius propter incredulitatem exitus, plagas, deminutiones poenasque descripsit. 6. Et ne quis non etiam ad minima quaeque Dei putaret istam infatigabilem prouidentiam peruenire,Ex duobus, inquit Dominus, passeribus unus non cadet sine Patris uoluntate, sed et capilli capitis uestri omnes numerati sunt. Cuius etiam cura et prouidentia Israelitarum non siuit nec uestes consumi nec uilissima in pedibus calceamenta deteri, sed nec ipsorum postremum adolescentium captiua sarabara comburi.

5. Whose providence has not only run and runs individually through human beings, but also through the cities and commonwealths themselves, whose outcomes he sang with the voices of the prophets—nay even through the whole orb, whose outcomes, on account of incredulity, he described: the scourges, diminutions, and penalties. 6. And lest anyone should think that this indefatigable providence does not reach even to the least things, the Lord says,Of two sparrows, not one will fall without the Father’s will; and even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Whose care and providence likewise did not permit among the Israelites either the garments to be consumed or the very cheapest shoes on their feet to deteriorate, nor yet, lastly, the captive youths’ sarabara (trousers) to be burned.

Nec immerito, nam si hic omnia complexus est omnia continens, omnia autem et totum ex singulis constant, pertinget consequenter eius ad usque singula quaeque cura, cuius ad totum quicquid est peruenit prouidentia. 7. Hinc est quod et desuper cherubin sedet, id est praeest super operum suorum uarietatem, subiectis throno eius animalibus prae ceteris principatum tenentibus, cuncta desuper crystallo contegente, id est caelo omnia operiente, quod in firmamentum de aquarum fluente materia fuerat Deo iubente solidatum, ut glacies robusta aquarum terram pridem contegentium diuidens medietatem dorso quodam pondera aquae superioris corroboratis de gelu uiribus sustineret. 8. Nam et rotae subiacent, tempora scilicet quibus omnia semper mundi membra uoluuntur, talibus pedibus adiectis quibus non in perpetuum stant ista, sed transeunt.

Nor undeservedly, for if He, encompassing all things, is the One containing all things, and since both “all things” and “the whole” consist from individuals, His care will consequently reach even to each and every individual thing, whose providence reaches to whatever there is of the whole. 7. Hence it is that He also sits above the cherubim, that is, He presides over the variety of His works, with the living beings subject beneath His throne holding the principate before the rest, while crystal covers all things from above—that is, the heaven over-arches all things—which, into a firmament from the flowing matter of the waters, had, at God’s command, been solidified, so that robust ice, dividing like a certain ridge the midline of the waters which formerly covered the earth, might bear the weights of the upper water, its forces corroborated by frost. 8. For wheels also lie beneath—namely the times by which all the members of the world are ever revolved—feet of such a kind being added whereby these things do not stand forever, but pass away.

9. Sed et per omnes artus stellata sunt oculis. Dei enim opera peruigili obtutu contemplanda sunt, in quorum sinu carbonum medius est ignis, siue quoniam ad igneum diem iudicii mundus iste festinat, siue quoniam omnia opera Dei ignea nec sunt tenebrosa, sed uigent, siue etiam ne, quia ex terrenis ista fuerant orta principiis, naturaliter de originis suae rigore torperent, addita est omnibus interioris spiritus calida natura, quae frigidis concreta corporibus ad usuram uitae aequalia omnibus libramenta ministraret. 10. Hic est igitur currus secundum Dauid Dei.

9. But also through all the limbs they are be‑starred with eyes. For the works of God are to be contemplated with an ever‑wakeful regard, in whose bosom there is in the midst a fire of coals, either because this world hastens to the fiery day of judgment, or because all the works of God are igneous and are not tenebrous, but are vigorous, or also lest, since these things had arisen from earthly principles, they should by the rigidity of their origin naturally grow torpid, there has been added to all the warm nature of the inner spirit, which might furnish to bodies congealed with cold, for the use of life, equal poises to all. 10. This, therefore, is the chariot of God according to David.

Currus enim, inquit, Dei decies milies tanto multiplicatus, id est innumerus, infinitus, immensus. Sub iugo enim naturalis legis omnibus datae alia quasi frenis reuocata retrahuntur, alia quasi effusis habenis excitata impelluntur. 11. Mundum enim istum currum Dei cum omnibus et ipsi angeli ducunt et astra, quorum uarios licet meatus, certis tamen legibus uinctos inspicimus ad metas definiti sibi temporis ducere, ut merito nobis quoque cum apostolo et artificem et opera mirantibus exclamare iam libeat: O altitudo diuitiarum sapientiae et scientiae Dei, quam inscrutabilia iudicia eius et inuestigabiles uiae eius, et reliqua.

the chariot, he says, of God ten-thousandfold so multiplied, that is, numberless, infinite, immense. For under the yoke of the natural law given to all, some things are drawn back as if recalled by reins, others, as if the reins were let loose, are stirred and driven forward. 11. For this world, the chariot of God with all things, both the angels themselves and the stars lead it; and we observe their various courses—though bound by fixed laws—to run to the goals of the time defined for them, so that with good reason it may now be pleasing for us also, as we marvel with the Apostle at both the Artificer and His works, to exclaim: O depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God, how unsearchable His judgments and untrackable His ways, and the rest.

IX. 1. Eadem regula ueritatis docet nos credere post Patrem etiam in Filium Dei Christum Iesum Dominum Deum nostrum, sed Dei Filium, huius Dei qui et unus et solus est, conditor scilicet rerum omnium, ut iam et superius expressum est. 2. Hunc enim Iesum Christum, iterum dicam huius Dei Filium, et in ueteri testamento legimus esse repromissum et in nouo testamento animaduertimus exhibitum, omnium sacramentorum umbras et figuras de praesentia corporatae ueritatis implentem. 3. Hunc enim Abrahae filium, hunc Dauid, hunc non minus et uetera praedicta et euangelia testantur.

9. 1. The same rule of truth teaches us to believe, after the Father, also in the Son of God, Christ Jesus, our Lord God—but as the Son of God, of this God who is both one and only, namely the Founder of all things, as already also above has been expressed. 2. For this Jesus Christ—I will say again, the Son of this God—we read in the Old Testament to have been promised, and in the New Testament we observe to have been exhibited, fulfilling the shadows and figures of all the sacraments by the presence of incarnate truth. 3. For him as Abraham’s son, him as David’s—him, no less—both the ancient foretold things and the gospels attest.

4. Hunc ipsa Genesis, cum dicit:Tibi dabo et semini tuo, hunc, quando luctatum ostendit hominem cum Iacob, hunc, quando dicit: Non deficiet princeps de Iuda neque dux de femoribus eius, donec ueniat is cui repromissum est, et ipse erit expectatio gentium. 5. Hunc Moyses, cum dicit:Prouide alium quem mittas, hunc idem, quando testatur: Propheten uobis, dicendo, suscitabit Deus ex fratribus uestris; eum quasi me audite, hunc, quando dicit: Videbitis uitam uestram pendentem nocte ac die et non credetis ei. 6. Hunc Esaias:Prodiet uirga de radice Iesse et flos de radice ascendet, hunc eundem, quando dicit: Ecce uirgo concipiet et pariet filium, hunc, quando sanitates ab eo futuras collocat dicens: Tunc aperientur oculi caecorum et aures surdorum audient, tunc saliet claudus ut ceruus et diserta erit lingua mutorum, hunc, quando patientiae uirtutes expromit dicens: Non audietur in plateis uox eius; arundinem quassatam non conteret et linum fumigans non exstinguet. 7. Hunc, quando eius euangelia descripsit:Et disponam uobis testamentum aeternum, sancta Dauid fidelia, hunc, quando gentes in ipsum credituras prophetat: Ecce posui eum in principem et praecipientem gentibus.

4. This one Genesis itself, when it says:I will give to you and to your seed, this one, when it shows a man wrestled with Jacob, this one, when it says: A prince shall not fail from Judah nor a leader from his loins, until he comes to whom it has been promised, and he himself shall be the expectation of the nations.5. This one Moses, when he says:Provide someone else whom you may send, this same one, when he bears witness, saying: A prophet for you God will raise up from your brothers; him, as me, hear, this one, when he says: You will see your life hanging by night and by day and you will not believe in it.6. This one Isaiah:A rod shall come forth from the root of Jesse and a flower shall ascend from the root, this same one, when he says: Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, this one, when he sets the healings to be from him, saying: Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened and the ears of the deaf shall hear; then the lame shall leap like a stag, and the tongue of the mute shall be eloquent, this one, when he brings out the virtues of patience, saying: His voice shall not be heard in the streets; a bruised reed he will not break, and a smoking flax he will not extinguish.7. This one, when he described his gospels:And I will arrange for you an eternal testament, the holy faithful things of David, this one, when he prophesies that the nations will believe in him: Behold, I have set him as a prince and a commander to the nations.

Gentes quae te non nouerunt inuocabunt te et populi qui te nesciunt ad te confugient, hunc eundem, quando ad passionem eius exclamat dicens: Sicut ouis ad occisionem ductus est et sicut agnus coram tondente se sine uoce, sic non aperuit os suum in humilitate. 8. Hunc, quando flagrorum eius ictus plagasque descripsit:Liuore eius nos sanati sumus, aut humilitatem: Et uidimus eum et non erat ei species neque honor; homo in plaga et sciens ferre infirmitatem, aut quod populus non erat crediturus: Tota die expandi manus meas ad populum non credentem, aut quod resurrecturus a mortuis: Et erit in illa die radix Iesse et qui surget imperare gentibus; in eum gentes sperabunt et erit requies eius honor, aut cum tempus resurrectionis: Quasi diluculo paratum inueniemus eum, aut quod sessurus ad dexteram Patris: Dixit Dominus Domino meo: sede ad dexteram meam, donec ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum, aut cum possessor omnium collocatur: Postula a me, et dabo tibi gentes hereditatem tuam et possessionem tuam terminos terrae, aut quod iudex omnium ostenditur: Deus, iudicium tuum regi da et iustitiam tuam Filio Regis. 9. Nec hoc in loco plura persequar, quae annuntiata de Christo omnibus haereticis, sed et ipsis ueritatem tenentibus magis nota sunt.

Nations which have not known you will invoke you, and peoples who do not know you will flee for refuge to you, this same one, when at his passion he cries out, saying: Like a sheep to slaughter he was led, and as a lamb before the one shearing him is without voice, so he did not open his mouth in humility. 8. This one, when he described the blows of his scourges and his wounds:By his bruise we have been healed, or his humility: And we saw him, and there was for him neither form nor honor; a man in affliction and knowing to bear infirmity, or that the people would not be going to believe: All day I spread out my hands to a not-believing people, or that he would rise again from the dead: And it shall be in that day: the root of Jesse and he who rises to rule the nations; in him nations will hope, and his repose shall be honor, or also the time of the resurrection: As at dawn prepared we shall find him, or that he would be about to sit at the right hand of the Father: The Lord said to my Lord: sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies as a footstool of your feet, or when he is installed as possessor of all things: Ask of me, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance and your possession the ends of the earth, or when he is shown as the judge of all: O God, give your judgment to the King and your justice to the Son of the King. 9. Nor in this place will I pursue more, which things announced about Christ are more well known to all the heretics, and even to those themselves holding the truth.

X. 1. Sed illud admoneo, non alterum in euangelio Christum expectandum fuisse quam hunc a creatore ueteris testamenti literis ante promissum, maxime cum et quae de ipso praedicta sunt impleta sint et quae impleta sunt ante praedicta sint. 2. Vt merito haereticorum istorum testamenti ueteris auctoritatem respuentium nescio cui commenticio et ex fabulis anilibus ficto Christo atque fucato possim uere et constanter dicere: Quis es? Vnde es? A quo missus es? Quare nunc uenire uoluisti? Quare talis?

10. 1. But this I admonish: that not another Christ was to be expected in the Evangel than this one beforehand promised by the Creator in the letters of the Old Testament, especially since both the things about him that were pre‑declared have been fulfilled and the things fulfilled were beforehand pre‑declared. 2. Thus rightly, to those heretics who spurn the authority of that Old Testament, I can truly and steadfastly say to some I‑know‑not‑what Christ, concocted and feigned from old‑wives’ fables and painted‑over: Who are you? Whence are you? By whom have you been sent? Why did you wish to come now? Why such as this?

Vel qua uenire potuisti? 3. Vel quare non ad tuos abisti, nisi quod probasti tuos non habere, dum ad alienos uenis? Quid tibi cum mundo creatoris?

Or by what way were you able to come? 3. Or why did you not depart to your own, except that you proved you do not have your own, while you come to alien people? What have you to do with the world of the creator?

Quid tibi cum homine conditoris? Quid tibi cum figmento corporis, cui eripis spem resurrectionis? Quid ad alienum uenis famulum, alienum sollicitare desideras filium?

What have you to do with the man of the Creator? What have you to do with the figment of the body, from whom you snatch the hope of resurrection? Why do you come to another’s servant; do you desire to solicit another’s son?

Quid me a Domino eripere conaris? Quid me in Patrem blasphemare atque impium esse compellis? 4. Aut quid sum a te in resurrectione consecuturus, qui me ipsum non recipio, dum corpus amitto?

Why do you try to snatch me from the Lord? Why do you compel me to blaspheme against the Father and to be impious? 4. Or what am I to obtain from you in the resurrection, I who do not receive myself, while I lose the body?

Si saluare uis, fecisses hominem, cui salutem dares. Si a delicto eripere cupis, ante mihi ne delinquerem contulisses. Quod autem tecum suffragium circumfers legis?

If you wish to save, you would have made a man to whom you would give salvation. If you desire to snatch from delict, you would beforehand have conferred on me that I not commit a delict. But what plea of the law is it that you carry about with you?

Quod habes testimonium propheticae uocis? 5. Aut quid mihi possum de te solidum repromittere, cum te uideam in phantasmate et non in soliditate uenisse? Quid ergo tibi cum figura corporis, si corpus odisti?

What testimony of a prophetic voice do you have? 5. Or what solid assurance can I promise again to myself about you, since I see you have come in a phantasm and not in solidity? What then have you to do with the figure of a body, if you hate the body?

Immo reuinceris corporis quod odisti circumferre substantiam, cuius suscipere uoluisti etiam figuram; odisse enim debueras corporis imitationem, si oderas ueritatem, quoniam si alter es, aliter uenire debueras, ne dicereris filius creatoris, si uel imaginem habuisses carnis et corporis. Certe si oderas natiuitatem, quia creatoris oderas nuptiarum coniunctionem, recusare debueras etiam imitationem hominis qui per nuptias nascitur creatoris. 6. Neque igitur eum haereticorum agnoscimus Christum, qui in imagine, ut dicitur, fuit et non in ueritate, <ne> nihil uerum eorum quae gessit fecerit, si ipse phantasma et non ueritas fuit, neque eum qui nihil in se nostri corporis gessit, dum ex Maria nihil accepit, ne non nobis uenerit, dum non in nostra substantia uisus apparuit, neque illum qui aetheream siue sideream, ut alii uoluerunt haeretici, induit carnem, ne nullam in illo nostram intellegamus salutem, si non etiam nostri corporis cognoscamus soliditatem, nec ullum omnino alterum, qui quoduis aliud ex figmento haereticorum gesserit corpus fabularum.

Rather, you are refuted for carrying about the substance of the body which you hated, whose figure you even wished to assume; for you ought to have hated the imitation of a body, if you were hating the truth, since if you are other, you ought to have come otherwise, lest you be called son of the Creator, if you had even had the image of flesh and body. Certainly, if you were hating nativity, because you were hating the conjunction of the Creator’s nuptials, you ought also to have refused the imitation of the man who is born through nuptials of the Creator. 6. Neither, therefore, do we acknowledge as Christ that of the heretics, who, as it is said, was in an image and not in truth, lest he should have done nothing true of the things he wrought, if he himself was a phantasm and not truth; nor him who bore nothing of our body in himself, since he received nothing from Mary, lest he have not come for us, seeing that he appeared not in our substance; nor that one who put on aetherial or sidereal flesh, as other heretics wished, lest we understand no salvation of ours in him, if we do not also recognize the solidity of our body; nor, in general, any other who would have borne whatever other body from the figment of the heretics’ fables.

7. Omnes enim istos et natiuitas Domini et mors ipsa confutat. Namet uerbum, inquit Ioannes, caro factum est et habitauit in nobis, ut merito corpus nostrum in illo fuerit, quoniam quidem nostram carnem sermo suscepit. Et sanguis idcirco de manibus ac pedibus atque ipso latere demanauit, ut nostri consors corporis probaretur, dum occasus nostri legibus moritur.

7. For the birth of the Lord and death itself confute all those. Forand the Word, says John, was made flesh and dwelt among us, so that with good reason our body was in him, since indeed the Word assumed our flesh. And therefore blood flowed from the hands and feet and from the very side, that he might be proved a sharer of our body, as he dies according to the laws of our death.

8. Qui dum in eadem substantia corporis in qua moritur resuscitatus ipsius corporis uulneribus comprobatur, etiam resurrectionis nostrae leges in sua carne monstrauit, qui corpus quod ex nobis habuit in sua resurrectione restituit. Lex enim resurrectionis ponitur, dum Christus ad exemplum ceterorum in substantia corporis suscitatur. 9. Quoniam cumcaro et sanguis non obtinere regnum Dei scribitur, non carnis substantia damnata est, quae diuinis manibus ne periret extructa est, sed sola carnis culpa merito reprehensa est, quae uoluntaria hominis temeritate contra legis diuinae iura grassata est, qua in baptismate et in mortis dissolutione sublata caro ad salutem reuertitur, dum ad statum innocentiae deposita criminis mortalitate reuocatur.

8. Since, when in the same substance of body in which he dies he is raised again, he is proved by the wounds of that very body, he also showed in his own flesh the laws of our resurrection, he who restored in his resurrection the body which he had from us. For the law of resurrection is set forth, when Christ, as an example for the rest, is raised in the substance of a body. 9. Since, when it is written thatflesh and blood do not obtain the kingdom of God, it is not the substance of the flesh that is condemned, which was constructed by divine hands lest it perish, but the sole fault of the flesh is rightly blamed, which, by the voluntary rashness of man, has advanced against the rights of the divine law; and when, in baptism and in the dissolution of death, that fault is taken away, the flesh returns to salvation, while, the mortality of the crime having been laid aside, it is called back to the state of innocence.

XI. 1. Verum ne ex hoc, quod Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum Dei creatoris Filium in substantia ueri corporis exhibitum asserimus, aliis haereticis hoc in loco hominem tantum et solum defendentibus atque ideo hominem illum nudum et solitarium probare cupientibus aut manus dedisse aut loquendi materiam commodasse uideamur, non sic de substantia corporis ipsius exprimimus, ut solum tantum hominem illum esse dicamus, sed ut diuinitate sermonis in ipsa concretione permixta etiam Deum illum secundum scripturas esse teneamus.2.Est enim periculum grande saluatorem generis humani, totius Dominum et principem mundi, cui a suo Patre omnia tradita sunt et cuncta concessa, per quem instituta sunt uniuersa, creata sunt tota, digesta sunt cuncta, aeuorum omnium et temporum regem, angelorum omnium principem, ante quem nihil praeter Patrem, hominem tantummodo dicere et auctoritatem illi diuinam in his abnegare. Haec enim contumelia haereticorum ad ipsum quoque Deum Patrem redundabit, si Deus Pater Filium Deum generare non potuit.

11. 1. But lest from this—that we assert that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God the Creator, was exhibited in the substance of a true body—we should seem, with other heretics in this place defending a man only and alone and therefore wishing to prove that man to be bare and solitary, either to have given them a hand or to have supplied material for speaking, we do not thus express about the substance of his body as to say that that man is only a man, but that, with the divinity of the Word intermixed in that very concretion, we hold him also to be God according to the Scriptures.2.For it is a great peril to call the savior of the human race, the Lord and prince of the whole world, to whom by his own Father all things have been handed over and all conceded, through whom all things have been instituted, the whole has been created, all things have been disposed, the king of all ages and times, the prince of all angels, before whom there is nothing except the Father, only a man, and to deny to him in these the divine authority. For this contumely of the heretics will redound even to God the Father himself, if God the Father could not generate a Son who is God.

3. Sed enim ueritati caecitas haereticorum nulla praescribet nec quoniam in Christo aliquid tenent, aliquid non tenent, alterum uident, alterum non uident, eripietur nobis illud quod non uident per illud quod uident. 4. Quasi hominis enim in illo fragilitates considerant, quasi Dei uirtutes non computant, infirmitates carnis recolunt, potestates diuinitatis excludunt, quando si probatio haec ex infirmitatibus Christi illuc proficit, ut homo ex infirmitatibus comprobetur, probatio diuinitatis in illo collecta ex uirtutibus illuc proficiet, ut etiam Deus ex operibus asseratur. Si enim passiones ostendunt in illo humanam fragilitatem, cur opera non asserant in illo diuinam potestatem?

3. But indeed no blindness of the heretics will prescribe against the truth; nor, because in Christ they hold some things and do not hold others, see one thing and do not see another, shall that which they do not see be snatched from us by that which they do see. 4. For they consider in him the fragilities of a man, as if they do not compute the virtues of God; they recall the infirmities of the flesh, they exclude the powers of the divinity. Whereas, if this proof from the infirmities of Christ advances to the point that he is proved a man by infirmities, the proof of divinity in him, collected from virtues, will advance to the point that he is also asserted God from works. For if the passions show in him human fragility, why should not the works assert in him divine power?

Ne si hoc non profecerit, ut Deus ex uirtutibus asseratur, nec passiones proficiant, ut etiam homo ab ipsis esse monstretur. 5. Quaecumque enim lex in alterutro fuerit posita, in altero inuenietur esse suscepta. Periculum enim erit nec hominem illum ex passionibus ostendi, si non potuerit etiam Deus ex uirtutibus approbari.

Lest, if this should not make headway—that God be asserted from the virtues—neither should the sufferings make headway, so that he be shown by them to be a man as well. 5. For whatever law has been set in the one will be found to have been taken up in the other. For there will be the danger that that man not even be shown by the sufferings, if God also cannot be proved by the virtues.

Non est ergo in unam partem inclinandum et ab alia parte fugiendum, quoniam nec tenebit perfectam ueritatem quisquis aliquam ueritatis excluserit portionem. 6. Tam enim scriptura etiam Deum annuntiat Christum quam etiam hominem ipsum annuntiat Deum, tam hominem descripsit Iesum Christum quam etiam Deum quoque descripsit Christum Dominum, quoniam nec Dei tantum illum Filium esse proponit, sed et hominis, nec hominis tantum dicit, sed et Dei referre consueuit, ut dum ex utroque est, utrumque sit, ne si alterum tantum sit, alterum esse non possit. 7. Vt enim praescripsit ipsa natura hominem credendum esse qui ex homine sit, ita eadem natura praescribit et Deum credendum esse qui ex Deo sit, ne si non et Deus fuerit, cum ex Deo sit, iam nec homo sit, licet ex homine fuerit, et in alterutro utrumque periclitetur, dum alterum altero fidem perdidisse conuincitur.

Therefore one must not incline to one part and flee from the other, since no one will hold perfect truth who has excluded any portion of truth. 6. For Scripture proclaims Christ as God just as it also proclaims the man himself as God; it has described Jesus Christ as man just as it has also described Christ the Lord as God, since it sets him forth not only as the Son of God but also of man, nor does it say only “of man,” but is accustomed also to refer him to God—so that, since he is from both, he may be both, lest, if he be only the one, he cannot be the other. 7. For as nature itself has prescribed that he who is from man is to be believed a man, so the same nature prescribes that he who is from God is to be believed God; lest, if he be not also God, though he is from God, he now be not even man, although he was from man—and in either alternative both are endangered, while the one is convicted by the other of having lost credence.

8. Qui legunt ergo hominis filium hominem Christum Iesum, legant hunc eundem et Deum et Dei Filium nuncupatum. Nam quomodo est, qua homo, ex Abraham, sic est etiam, qua Deus, ante ipsum Abraham. Et quomodo, qua homo, filius Dauid, ita Dominus Dauid, qua Deus, nuncupatus est.

8. Therefore those who read “the Son of Man,” the man Christ Jesus, let them also read that this same one has been denominated both God and the Son of God. For just as, inasmuch as he is man, he is from Abraham, so also, inasmuch as he is God, he is before Abraham himself. And just as, inasmuch as he is man, he is the Son of David, so he has been denominated the Lord of David, inasmuch as he is God.

Et quomodo, qua homo, sub lege factus est, ita, qua Deus, sabbati Dominus expressus est. Et quomodo, qua homo, sententiam patitur, sic omne, qua Deus, de uiuis et mortuis iudicium habere reperitur. Et quomodo post mundum, qua homo, nascitur, sic ante mundum, qua Deus, fuisse perhibetur.

And just as, in so far as he is man, he was made under the law, so, in so far as he is God, he was declared Lord of the sabbath. And just as,
in so far as he is man, he suffers sentence, so, in so far as he is God, he is found to have all judgment over the living and the dead. And just as after the world, in so far as he is man, he is born, so before the world, in so far as he is God, he is testified to have been.

Et quomodo ex semine Dauid, qua homo, genitus est, sic [ita] per ipsum, qua Deum, mundus dicitur institutus. Et quomodo, qua homo, post multos, sic, qua Deus, ante omnes. Et quomodo ceteris, qua homo, inferior, sic omnibus, qua Deus, maior.

And just as from the seed of David, as man, he was begotten, so [so] through him, as God, the world is said to have been instituted. And just as, as man, after many, so, as God, before all. And just as, as man, inferior to the rest, so, as God, greater than all.

Et quomodo in caelum, qua homo, ascendit, sic inde, qua Deus, ante descendit. Et quomodo ad Patrem, qua homo, uadit, sic oboediens Patri, qua Filius, inde descensurus est. 9. Ita si mediocritates in illo approbant humanam fragilitatem, maiestates in illo affirmant diuinam potestatem.

And as, as man, he ascended into heaven, so from there, as God, he had previously descended. And as, as man, he goes to the Father, so, obedient to the Father, as Son, he is going to descend from there. 9. Thus, if the mediocrities in him approve human fragility, the majesties in him affirm divine power.

Periculum est enim, cum utrumque legis, non utrumque, sed alterum credidisse. Ex quo quoniam utrumque in Christo legitur, utrumque credatur, ut fides ita demum uera sit, si et perfecta fuerit. 10. Nam si ex duobus, altero in fide cessante, unum et quidem id quod est minus ad credendum fuerit assumptum, perturbata regula ueritatis, temeritas ista non salutem contulerit, sed in uicem salutis de iactura fidei periculum mortis grande conflauerit.

For it is a peril, when you read both, to have believed not both, but only the one. Therefore, since both are read in Christ, let both be believed, so that faith may then at last be true, if it also has been perfected. 10. For if, out of two, with the other ceasing in faith, one—and indeed that which is lesser to be believed—has been assumed, the rule of truth being disturbed, this temerity will not have brought salvation, but, in place of salvation, from the loss of faith, will have kindled a great peril of death.

XII. 1. Cur ergo dubitemus dicere quod scriptura non dubitat exprimere? Cur haesitabit fidei ueritas, in quo scripturae numquam haesitauit auctoritas?

12. 1. Why, then, should we hesitate to say what Scripture does not hesitate to express? Why will the truth of faith hesitate, in that wherein the authority of Scripture has never hesitated?

Ecce enim Osee prophetes ait ex persona Patris: Iam non saluabo eos in arcu neque in equis neque in equitibus, sed saluabo eos in Domino Deo ipsorum. 2. Si Deus saluare se dicit in Deo, non autem saluat nisi in Christo Deus, cur ergo homo dubitet Christum Deum dicere, quem Deum a Patre animaduertit positum per scripturas esse? Immo si non saluat nisi in Deo Pater Deus, saluari non poterit a Deo Patre quisquam, nisi confessus fuerit Christum Deum, in quo se et per quem se repromittit Pater salutem daturum.

Behold, indeed, Hosea the prophet says in the person of the Father: I will no longer save them by bow nor by horses nor by horsemen, but I will save them in the Lord their God.2. If God says that he saves in God, and yet God does not save except in Christ, why then should a man hesitate to call Christ God, whom he observes from the Father, through the scriptures, to have been set forth as God? Nay rather, if God the Father does not save except in God, no one will be able to be saved by God the Father unless he has confessed Christ as God, in whom and through whom the Father promises that he will give salvation.

Vt merito quisquis illum agnoscit esse Deum, salutem inueniat in Deo Christo, quisquis non recognoscit esse Deum, salutem perdiderit, quam alibi nisi in Christo Deo inuenire non poterit. 3. Quomodo enim Esaias: Ecce uirgo concipiet et pariet filium et uocabitis nomen eius Emmanuel, quod interpretatum est 'nobiscum Deus', sic Christus ipse dicit: Ecce ego uobiscum sum usque ad consummationem saeculi. Est ergo nobiscum Deus, immo multo magis etiam in nobis est.

So that, rightly, whoever acknowledges him to be God may find salvation in Christ God; whoever does not recognize him to be God will have lost the salvation which elsewhere, unless
in Christ God, he will not be able to find. 3. For just as Isaiah: Behold, a virgin will conceive and will bear a son, and you will call his name Emmanuel, which, interpreted, is 'God with us', so Christ himself says: Behold, I am with you until the consummation of the age. Therefore God is with us; nay rather, much more, he is even in us.

Nobiscum est Christus, est ergo cuius nomen est 'nobiscum Deus', quia et nobiscum est. Aut numquid non est nobiscum? Quomodo ergo dicit se nobiscum esse?

Christ is with us; therefore he is the one whose name is 'God-with-us,' because he also is with us. Or is he not with us? How then does he say that he is with us?

Est ergo nobiscum. Sed quoniam nobiscum est, Emmanuel, id est 'nobiscum Deus', dictus est. Deus ergo quia nobiscum est, 'nobiscum Deus' dictus est.

It is therefore with us. But since he is with us, he has been called Emmanuel, that is, 'God-with-us.' Therefore God, because he is with us, has been called 'God-with-us.'

4. Idem prophetes:Conualescite, manus dissolutae et genua debilia, consolamini, pusillanimes sensu, conualescite, nolite timere. Ecce Deus noster iudicium retribuet, ipse ueniet et saluabit nos: tunc aperientur oculi caecorum et aures surdorum audient; tunc saliet claudus sicut ceruus et diserta erit lingua mutorum. 5. Si in aduentu Dei dicit prophetes haec futura signa quae facta sunt, aut Dei Filium agnoscant Christum, in cuius aduentu et a quo haec sanitatum signa facta sunt, aut diuinitatis Christi ueritate superati, in alteram haeresim ruentes, Christum dum Filium Dei et Deum confiteri nolunt, Patrem illum esse confitebuntur.

4. The same prophet:Convalesce, loosened hands, and feeble knees; be consoled, fainthearted in mind; convalesce; do not fear. Behold, our God will render retribution in judgment; he himself will come and will save us: then the eyes of the blind will be opened and the ears of the deaf will hear; then the lame will leap like a stag and the tongue of the mute will be eloquent.5. If at the advent of God the prophet says these signs are to come, which have been done, let them either recognize Christ the Son of God, at whose advent and by whom these signs of healings have been done, or, overcome by the truth of the divinity of Christ and rushing into another heresy, while they are unwilling to confess Christ as Son of God and God, they will confess that he is the Father.

Vocibus enim prophetarum inclusi iam Christum Deum negare non possunt. 6. Quid ergo respondent, cum in aduentu Dei haec signa futura dicuntur quae in aduentu Christi gesta sunt? Christum qualiter accipiunt Deum — Deum enim iam negare non possunt —, qua Patrem aut qua Filium?

For, hemmed in by the voices of the prophets, they can no longer deny Christ as God. 6. What then do they answer, since at the advent of God those signs are said to be going to occur which at the advent of Christ have been done? How do they receive Christ as God — for God indeed they can no longer deny — as Father or as Son?

Si qua Filium, cur Dei Filium Deum negant? Si qua Patrem, cur eos non sequuntur qui eiusmodi blasphemias tenere uidentur? Nisi quoniam nobis in hoc aduersus illos de ueritate certamine hoc interim sufficit, ut quocumque genere conuicti Christum confiteantur et Deum, quem etiam Deum negare uoluerunt.

If in some way as Son, why do they deny that the Son of God is God? If in some way as Father, why do they not follow those who seem to hold such blasphemies? Except that for us, in this contest about the truth against them, this meanwhile suffices: that, convicted in whatever manner, they confess Christ as God, whom they even wished to deny as God.

7. Per Abacuc prophetam ait:Deus ab Africo ueniet et sanctus de monte opaco et condenso. Quem uolunt isti ab Africo uenire? Si uenisse aiunt omnipotentem Deum Patrem, ergo de loco Deus Pater uenit, ex quo etiam loco cluditur et intra sedis alicuius angustias continetur.

7. Through the prophet Habakkuk he says:God will come from the Afric, and the Holy One from a shady and dense mountain. Whom do these men want to come from the Afric? If they say that the omnipotent God the Father has come, then God the Father came from a place, whence also he is shut in by place and is contained within the narrow confines of some seat.

Et iam per istos, ut diximus, Sabelliana haeresis sacrilega corporatur, siquidem Christus non Filius, sed Pater creditur, et nouo more, dum ab istis destricte homo nudus asseritur, per eos rursum Christus Pater Deus omnipotens comprobatur. 8. At si in Bethlehem, cuius metaturae regio ad meridianam respicit plagam caeli, Christus nascitur, qui per scripturas et Deus dicitur, merito Deus hic ab Africo uenire describitur, quia a Bethlehem uenturus esse praeuidebatur. 9. Eligant ergo ex duobus, quid uelint, hunc qui ab Africo uenit Filium esse an Patrem; Deus enim dicitur ab Africo uenturus.

And now through these men, as we have said, the sacrilegious Sabellian heresy is embodied, since Christ is believed not to be the Son, but the Father; and in a new manner, while by them he is categorically asserted to be a bare man, through them in turn Christ the Father, God Almighty, is proved. 8. But if in Bethlehem, whose boundary-region looks toward the southern quarter of the sky, Christ is born—he who through the Scriptures is also called God—rightly is God here described as coming from the Afric, because he was foreseen as about to come from Bethlehem. 9. Let them choose therefore between the two what they wish: whether this one who comes from the Afric is the Son or the Father; for God is said to be about to come from the Afric.

Si Filium, quid dubitant Christum et Deum dicere? Deum enim scriptura dicit esse uenturum. Si Patrem, quid dubitant cum Sabellii temeritate misceri, qui Christum Patrem dicit?

If the Son, why do they hesitate to call him Christ and God? For Scripture says that God is going to come. If the Father, why do they hesitate to be mixed with the temerity of Sabellius, who says that Christ is the Father?

Nisi quoniam siue illum Patrem, siue Filium dixerint, ab haeresi sua inuiti licet desciscant necesse est, qui Christum hominem tantummodo solent dicere, dum illum rebus ipsis coacti Deum incipiunt promere, siue dum illum Patrem, siue dum illum Filium uoluerint nuncupare.

Unless because, whether they call him Father or Son, it is necessary that they, though unwilling, defect from their heresy—those who are accustomed to say that Christ is only a man—since, compelled by the facts themselves, they begin to bring forth him as God, whether when they have wished to name him Father, or when they have wished to name him Son.

XIII. 1. Ac sic et Ioannes natiuitatem Christi describensVerbum, inquit, caro factum est, et habitauit in nobis, et uidimus claritatem eius, claritatem tamquam unigeniti a Patre, plenus gratia et ueritate. Nam et uocatur nomen eius uerbum Dei, nec immerito.

13. 1. And thus also John describing the Nativity of Christ:the Word, he says, was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw his glory, glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. For his name also is called the Word of God, and not without reason.

Eructauit, inquit, cor meum uerbum bonum, quod uerbum regis nomine consequenter appellat inferendo: Dico ego opera mea regi. 2.Per ipsum enim omnia facta sunt opera et sine ipso factum est nihil. Siue enim, inquit apostolus, throni, siue dominationes, siue uirtutes, siue potestates, uisibilia et inuisibilia, omnia per ipsum constant.

It has poured forth, he says, my heart a good word, which word he accordingly entitles with the name of king by adding: I speak my works to the king. 2.Through him indeed all things were made works and without him nothing was made. Whether indeed, says the apostle, thrones, or dominions, or virtues, or powers, visible and invisible, all things consist through him.

Verbum autem hoc illud est, quod in sua uenit, et sui eum non receperunt. Mundus enim per ipsum factus est, et mundus eum non cognouit. Verbum autem hoc erat in principio apud Deum, et Deus erat uerbum.

The Word, moreover, is this, which came unto his own, and his own did not receive him. The world indeed was made through him, and the world did not know him. The Word however was in the beginning with God, and God was the Word.

3. Quis igitur dubitet, cum in extrema parte dicitur:Verbum caro factum est, et habitauit in nobis, Christum, cuius est natiuitas, et quia caro factus est, esse hominem, et quia uerbum Dei, Deum incunctanter edicere esse, praesertim cum animaduertat scripturam euangelicam utramque istam substantiam in unam natiuitatis Christi foederasse concordiam? 4. Hic est enim qui sicut sponsus egreditur de thalamo suo, exultauit ut gigas ad currendam uiam; a summo caelo egressio eius et usque ad summum regressio eius, quoniam usque ad summum nec quisquam in caelum ascendit, nisi qui de caelo descendit; Filius hominis qui est in caelis. Repetens hoc ipsum dicit: Pater, clarifica me eo honore, quo fui apud te antequam mundus esset.

3. Who then would doubt, when in the extreme part it is said:The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, that Christ—whose Nativity it is—and that because he was made flesh, to be a man, and because he is the Word of God, to proclaim unhesitatingly to be God; especially when he observes that the evangelical scripture has confederated both those substances into one concord of the Nativity of Christ? 4. For this is he who like a bridegroom goes forth from his bridal chamber, he exulted like a giant to run his course; from the highest heaven is his egress and even unto the highest is his regress, since even unto the highest no one has ascended into heaven, except he who descended from heaven; the Son of Man who is in the heavens. Repeating this very thing he says: Father, glorify me with that honor with which I was with you before the world was.

5. Ac si de caelo descendit uerbum hoc tamquam sponsus ad carnem, ut per carnis assumptionem Filius hominis illuc posset ascendere, unde Dei Filius uerbum descenderat, merito dum per connexionem mutuam et caro uerbum Dei gerit et Filius Dei fragilitatem carnis assumit, cum sponsa carne conscendens illuc, unde sine carne descenderat, recipit iam claritatem illam, quam dum ante mundi institutionem habuisse ostenditur, Deus manifestissime comprobatur. Et nihilominus dum mundus ipse post illum institutus refertur, per ipsum creatus esse reperitur, quo ipso diuinitatis in ipso per quem factus est mundus et claritas et auctoritas comprobetur. 6. Quodsi, cum nullius sit nisi Dei cordis nosse secreta, Christus secreta conspicit cordis, quodsi, cum nullius sit nisi Dei peccata dimittere, idem Christus peccata dimittit, quodsi, cum nullius sit hominis de caelo uenire, de caelo ueniendo descendit, quodsi, cum nullius hominis haec uox esse possit:Ego et Pater unum sumus, hanc uocem de conscientia diuinitatis Christus solus edicit, quodsi postremo omnibus diuinitatis Christi probationibus et rebus instructus apostolus Thomas respondens Christo Dominus meus et Deus meus dicit, quodsi et apostolus Paulus Quorum [, inquit,] fratres et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in saecula in suis literis scribit, quodsi idem se apostolum non ab hominibus aut per hominem, sed per Iesum Christum constitutum esse depromit, quodsi idem euangelium non se ab hominibus didicisse aut per hominem, sed per Iesum Christum accepisse contendit, merito Deus est Christus.

5. And so if this Word descended from heaven as a bridegroom to the flesh, so that through the assumption of flesh the Son of Man might be able to ascend thither whence the Son of God, the Word, had descended, deservedly, while through mutual connection both the flesh bears the Word of God and the Son of God assumes the fragility of flesh, when, with the bride, the flesh, mounting up thither whence he had descended without flesh, he now receives that glory which, since he is shown to have had it before the institution of the world, he is most manifestly proved to be God. And nonetheless, since the world itself is reported to have been established after him, it is found to have been created through him, by which very fact there is verified, in him through whom the world was made, both the glory and the authority of divinity. 6. But if, since it belongs to no one except God to know the secrets of the heart, Christ beholds the secrets of the heart, if, since it belongs to none but God to remit sins, that same Christ remits sins, if, since it belongs to no man to come from heaven, by coming from heaven he descended, if, since this utterance can be no man’s:I and the Father are one, Christ alone proclaims this utterance out of the consciousness of divinity, if finally, instructed by all the proofs and evidences of the divinity of Christ, the Apostle Thomas, answering, says to Christ: My Lord and my God, if also the Apostle Paul writes in his letters: Of whom [, he says,] are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed unto the ages, if that same man declares that he was appointed an apostle not from men or through a man, but through Jesus Christ, if that same man contends that he learned the gospel not from men or through a man, but received it through Jesus Christ, deservedly Christ is God.

7. Itaque hoc in loco ex duobus alterum constare debebit. Cum enim manifestum sit omnia esse facta per Christum, aut ante omnia est, quoniamomnia per ipsum, et merito et Deus est, aut quia homo est, post omnia est et merito per ipsum nihil factum est. Sed nihil per ipsum factum esse non possumus dicere, cum animaduertamus omnia per ipsum facta esse scriptum.

7. And so at this point one of two alternatives ought to be established. For since it is manifest that all things have been made through Christ, either he is before all things, becauseall things through him, and deservedly he is God; or, because he is man, he is after all things and deservedly through him nothing was made. But we cannot say that nothing was made through him, since we observe it written that all things were made through him.

Non ergo post omnia est, id est non homo tantum est, qui post omnia est, sed et Deus, quoniam Deus ante omnia est. Ante omnia est enim, quia per ipsum omnia, ne si homo tantum, nihil per ipsum, aut si omnia per ipsum, non homo tantum, quoniam si homo tantum, non omnia per ipsum, immo nihil per ipsum. 8. Quid ergo respondent?

Therefore he is not after all things, that is, he is not only man, who is after all things, but also God, since God is before all things. He is before all things indeed, because through him all things, lest, if he were only man, nothing through him; or if all things through him, not only man, since if only man, not all things through him, nay rather nothing through him. 8. What then do they answer?

Nihil per ipsum, ut homo sit tantum? Quomodo ergo omnia per ipsum? Ergo non homo tantummodo est, sed et Deus, siquidem omnia sunt per ipsum, ut merito intellegere debeamus nec hominem esse Christum tantummodo, qui est post omnia, sed et Deum, cum per ipsum facta sint omnia.

Nothing through him, so that he is only a man? How then are all things through him? Therefore he is not only a man, but also God, since all things are through him, so that we ought with merit to understand that Christ is not only a man, who is after all things, but also God, since all things have been made through him.

Quomodo enim aut hominem tantummodo dicas, cum illum etiam in carne conspicias, nisi quoniam, si utrumque animaduertitur, utrumque merito credatur?

For how, indeed, could you say that he is only a man, since you behold him even in the flesh, except because, if both are observed, both are deservedly believed?

XIV. 1. Et tamen adhuc dubitat haereticus Christum dicere esse Deum, quem Deum tot et rebus animaduertit et uocibus approbatum. 2. Si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodo ueniens in hunc mundumin sua uenit, cum homo nullum fecerit mundum?

14. 1. And yet even now the heretic hesitates to say that Christ is God, whom he observes to be God both in so many things and as approved by voices. 2. If Christ is only a man, how, coming into this world, did hecome into his own, since a man has made no world?

3. Si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodomundus per ipsum factus esse refertur, cum non per hominem mundus, sed post mundum homo institutus referatur? 4. Si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodo non ex semine tantum Dauid Christus, sed uerbum caro factum est et habitauit in nobis? Nam etsi protoplastus non ex semine, sed tamen protoplastus non est ex uerbi et carnis coniunctione concretus.

3. If Christ is only a man, how is it reported that theworld was made through him , since the world was not made through a man, but man is related to have been instituted after the world? 4. If Christ is only a man, how is Christ not of the seed only of David , but rather that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us? For even if the protoplast was not from seed, but yet the protoplast is not compacted from a conjunction of the Word and of flesh.

Non est enim uerbum caro factum, et habitauit in nobis. 5. Si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodoqui de caelo uenit, quae uidit et audit testificatur, cum constet hominem de caelo, quia ibi nasci non possit, uenire non posse? 6. Si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodo uisibilia et inuisibilia, throni, uirtutes et dominationes per ipsum et in ipso creata esse referuntur, cum uirtutes caelestes per hominem fieri non potuerint, quae ante hominem ipsum esse debuerint?

For it is not the Word was made flesh, and dwelt in us. 5. If Christ is only a man, how doeshe who came down from heaven bear witness to the things which he has seen and heard, since it is evident that a man cannot come from heaven, because he cannot be born there? 6. If Christ is only a man, how are things visible and invisible, thrones, virtues and dominations, created through him and in him reported, since heavenly powers could not have been made through a man—things which ought to have existed before the man himself?

7. Si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodo adest ubique inuocatus, cum haec hominis natura non sit, sed Dei, ut adesse omni loco possit? 8. Si homo tantummodo Christus, cur homo in orationibus mediator inuocatur, cum inuocatio hominis ad praestandam salutem inefficax iudicetur? 9. Si homo tantummodo Christus, cur spes in illum ponitur, cum spes in homine maledicta referatur?

7. If Christ is only a man, how is he present everywhere when invoked, since this is not the nature of man, but of God, to be able to be present in every place? 8. If Christ is only a man, why is a man invoked as mediator in prayers, since the invocation of a man is judged inefficacious to bestow salvation? 9. If Christ is only a man, why is hope placed in him, since hope in man is reported accursed?

10. Si homo tantummodo Christus, cur non licet Christum sine exitio animae negari, cum in hominem commissum delictum referatur posse dimitti? 11. Si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodo Ioannes Baptista testatur et dicit:qui post me uenit, ante me factus est, quia prior me fuit, cum si homo tantummodo Christus, post Ioannem natus ante Ioannem esse non possit, nisi quoniam illum, qua Deus est, ante praecessit? 12. Si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodo quae Pater facit, et Filius facit similiter, cum homo caelestibus operibus Dei similia opera facere non possit?

10. If Christ is only a man, why is it not permitted that Christ be denied without the destruction of the soul, since a crime committed against a man is reported to be able to be remitted? 11. If Christ is only a man, how does John the Baptist bear witness and say:he who comes after me has been made before me, because he was prior to me, since, if Christ is only a man, born after John he cannot be before John, unless because he, in so far as he is God, preceded him beforehand? 12. If Christ is only a man, how the things which the Father does, the Son does likewise, since a man cannot do works similar to the heavenly works of God?

13. Si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodosicut Pater in se uitam habet, ita dedit Filio uitam habere in semetipso, cum exemplo Patris Dei homo in se uitam habere non possit, cum non in aeternitate sit gloriosus, sed in materia mortalitatis effectus? 14. Si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodo refert: Ego sum panis uitae aeternae qui de caelo descendi, cum neque panis uitae homo esse possit ipse mortalis nec de caelo descenderit nulla in caelo constituta materia fragilitatis? 15. Si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodo dicit quia Patrem Deum nemo uidit umquam, nisi qui est a Deo, hic uidit Deum?

13. If Christ is only a man, how is it thatjust as the Father has life in himself, so he gave to the Son to have life in himself, since, by the example of God the Father, a man cannot have life in himself, since he is not glorious in eternity, but is constituted in the matter of mortality? 14. If Christ is only a man, how does he relate: I am the bread of eternal life who descended from heaven, since neither can a man—himself mortal—be the bread of life, nor did he descend from heaven, with no matter of fragility constituted in heaven? 15. If Christ is only a man, how does he say that God the Father no one has ever seen, except the one who is from God, this one has seen God?

Quoniam si homo tantummodo Christus, Deum uidere non potuit, quia Deum nemo hominum uidit. Si autem dum ex Deo est, Deum uidit, plus se quam hominem, dum Deum uidit, intellegi uoluit. 16. Si homo tantummodo Christus, cur dicit: Quid si uideritis Filium hominis ascendentem illuc ubi ante erat?

Since, if Christ is only a man, he could not see God, because God no one of men has seen. But if, while he is from God, he saw God, he wished to be understood as more than a man, in that he saw God. 16. If Christ is only a man, why does he say: What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending there where he was before?

Ascendit autem in caelum. Ibi ergo fuit, dum illuc redit ubi prius fuit. 17. Quodsi de caelo missus a Patre est, non utique homo tantum est; homo enim, ut diximus, de caelo uenire non potuit.

But he ascended into heaven. Therefore he was there, while he returns thither where he was before. 17. But if he was sent from heaven by the Father, he is not, to be sure, only a man; for a man, as we have said, could not come from heaven.

Non igitur ibi ante homo fuit, sed illuc ascendit ubi non fuit. Descendit autem Dei uerbum, quod ibi fuit, uerbum, inquam, Dei et Deus per quem facta sunt omnia et sine quo factum est nihil. Non igitur homo inde sic de caelis uenit, sed Dei sermo, id est Deus, inde descendit.

Therefore he was not previously a man there, but he ascended thither where he had not been. But the Word of God descended, which was there—the Word, I say, of God, and God—through whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Therefore a man did not thus come from the heavens from there, but the discourse of God, that is, God, descended from there.

XV. 1. Si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodo ait:Etsi ego de me testificor, uerum est testimonium meum; quia scio unde uenerim et quo eam, uos secundum carnem iudicatis? Ecce et hic illuc se dicit rediturum, unde se testificatur ante uenisse, missum scilicet de caelo. Descendit ergo unde uenit, quomodo illuc uadit unde descendit.

15. 1. If Christ is only a man, how does he say:Even if I testify about myself, my testimony is true; because I know whence I came and whither I go; you judge according to the flesh? Behold, even here he says that he will return thither, whence he bears witness that he previously came, namely sent from heaven. Therefore he descends from where he came, just as he goes thither whence he descended.

Ex quo si homo tantummodo Christus esset, non inde uenisset; atque ideo nec illuc abiret, quoniam non inde uenisset. Veniendo autem inde, unde homo uenire non potest, Deum se ostendit uenisse. 2. Sed enim huius ipsius descensionis ignari et imperiti Iudaei heredes sibi haereticos istos reddiderunt, quibus dicitur: Vos ignoratis unde ueniam et quo eam: uos secundum carnem iudicatis.

From which, if Christ were only a man, he would not have come from there; and therefore neither would he go thither, since he had not come from there. But by coming from there, whence a man cannot come, he showed himself to have come as God. 2. But indeed the Jews, ignorant and inexpert of this very descension, have made these heretics their heirs, to whom it is said: You do not know whence I come and whither I go: you judge according to the flesh.

Tam isti quam Iudaei carnalem solam esse Christi natiuitatem tenentes nihil aliud Christum esse quam hominem crediderunt, non considerantes illud, quoniam [,cum] de caelo homo non potuerit uenire, ut merito illuc posset redire, Deum esse qui inde descenderit, unde homo uenire non potuerit. 3. Si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodo dicit: Vos ex inferioribus estis, ego de sursum sum; uos de hoc mundo estis, ego non sum de hoc mundo? Ideo autem si omnis homo ex hoc mundo est et ideo in hoc mundo est Christus, an homo tantummodo est?

Both these and the Jews, holding that Christ’s nativity is solely carnal, believed Christ to be nothing other than a man, not considering this, that [,since] a man could not have come from heaven, so that he might with good right be able to return thither, it is God who has descended from there, whence a man could not have come. 3. If Christ is only a man, how does he say: You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world? Therefore, if every man is of this world and for that reason Christ is in this world, is he only a man?

Absit. Sed considera quod ait: Ego non sum de hoc mundo. Numquid ergo mentitur, cum ex hoc mundo sit, si homo tantummodo sit?

Far be it. But consider what he says: I am not of this world. So then is he lying, since he is of this world, if he is only a man?

Aut si non mentitur, non est ex hoc mundo. Non ergo homo tantummodo est, quia ex hoc mundo non est. 4. Sed ne lateret, quis esset, expressit unde esset: Ego, inquit, de sursum sum, hoc est de caelo, unde homo uenire non potest; non enim in caelo factus est.

Or if he does not lie, he is not of this world. Therefore he is not a man only, because he is not of this world. 4. But lest it should lie hidden who he was, he expressed whence he was: I, he says, I am from above, that is, from heaven, whence man is not able to come; for man was not made in heaven.

Deus est ergo qui de sursum est et idcirco de hoc mundo non est. Quamquam etiam quodammodo ex hoc mundo est. Vnde non Deus tantum est Christus, sed et homo.

Therefore he is God who is from above, and for that reason he is not of this world. Although also in a certain manner he is from this world. Whence Christ is not God only, but also man.

Vt merito quomodo non est ex hoc mundo secundum uerbi diuinitatem, ita ex hoc mundo sit secundum suscepti corporis fragilitatem; homo est enim cum Deo iunctus et Deus cum homine copulatus. 5. Sed idcirco nunc hic Christus in unam partem solius diuinitatis incubuit, quoniam caecitas Iudaica solam in Christo partem carnis aspexit, et inde in praesenti loco silentio praeterita corporis fragilitate, quae de mundo est, de sua sola diuinitate locutus est, quae de mundo non est, ut in quantum illi inclinauerant ut hominem illum tantummodo crederent, in tantum illos Christus posset ad diuinitatem suam considerandam trahere, ut se Deum crederent, uolens illorum incredulitatem circa diuinitatem suam omissa interim commemoratione sortis humanae solius diuinitatis oppositione superare. 6. Si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodo dicit: Ego ex Deo prodii et ueni, cum constet hominem a Deo factum esse, non ex Deo processisse?

Thus, with good reason, inasmuch as he is not from this world according to the divinity of the Word, so he is from this world according to the fragility of the assumed body; for man is joined with God and God is coupled with man. 5. But for this reason Christ here now leaned to one side—that of divinity alone—because Judaic blindness looked in Christ only at the part of flesh; and therefore, in the present passage, the fragility of the body, which is of the world, having been passed over in silence, he spoke of his divinity alone, which is not of the world, so that in proportion as they had inclined to believe that man only, to that extent Christ might be able to draw them to consider his divinity, that they might believe him to be God, wishing to overcome their unbelief regarding his divinity—while for the moment omitting any mention of the human lot—by the counter-posing of divinity alone. 6. If Christ is only man, how does he say: I have come forth from God and have come, since it is agreed that man has been made by God, not proceeded from God?

Ex Deo autem homo quomodo non processit, sic Dei uerbum processit, de quo dictum est: Eructauit cor meum uerbum bonum, quod quoniam ex Deo est, merito et apud Deum est, quodque quia non otiose prolatum, merito omnia facit. Omnia enim per ipsum facta sunt et sine ipso factum est nihil. Sed enim hoc uerbum, per quod facta sunt omnia, <Deus est>. Et Deus, inquit, erat uerbum.

But whereas man did not proceed from God, thus the Word of God did proceed, about which it is said: My heart has poured forth a good word, which, since it is from God, deservedly is also with God, and because it was not brought forth idly, deservedly it makes all things. All things were made through him, and without him nothing was made. But indeed this Word, through which all things were made, <is God>. And God, he says, was the Word.

Deus ergo processit ex Deo, dum qui processit sermo Deus est qui processit ex Deo. 7. Si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodo ait: Si quis uerbum meum seruauerit, mortem non uidebit in aeternum? Mortem in aeternum non uidere, quid aliud quam immortalitas est?

Therefore God proceeded from God, since the Word who proceeded is God who proceeded from God. 7. If Christ is only a man, how does he say: If anyone shall have kept my word, death he will not see forever? Not to see death forever, what else is it than immortality?

Immortalitas autem diuinitati socia est, quia et diuinitas immortalis est et immortalitas diuinitatis fructus est. Sed enim omnis homo mortalis est, immortalitas autem ex mortali non potest esse. Ergo ex Christo homine mortali immortalitas non potest nasci.

Immortality, moreover, is allied to divinity, because both divinity is immortal and immortality is the fruit of divinity. But indeed every man is mortal, and immortality cannot be from the mortal. Therefore from Christ as a mortal man immortality cannot be born.

Sed qui uerbum custodierit, inquit, meum, mortem non uidebit in aeternum. Ergo uerbum Christi praestat immortalitatem et per immortalitatem praestat diuinitatem. Quodsi non potest exhibere ut immortalem alterum faciat ipse mortalis, hoc autem Christi uerbum exhibet pariter et praestat immortalitatem, non utique homo tantum est qui praestat immortalitatem, quam, si tantummodo homo esset, praestare non posset; praestando autem diuinitatem per immortalitatem Deum se probat diuinitatem porrigendo, quam, nisi Deus esset, praestare non posset.

But whoever shall have kept, he says, my word, will not see death forever. Therefore the word of Christ bestows immortality, and through immortality it bestows divinity. And if one who is himself mortal cannot exhibit so as to make another immortal, yet this word of Christ alike exhibits and bestows immortality; therefore he is certainly not only a man who bestows immortality, which, if he were only a man, he could not bestow; but by bestowing divinity through immortality he proves himself God by extending divinity, which, unless he were God, he could not bestow.

8. Si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodo inquit:Ante Abraham ego sum? Nemo enim hominum ante eum potest esse ex quo ipse est nec potest fieri ut quicquam prius fuerit ante illum ex quo ipsum originem sumpsit. Sed enim Christus cum ex Abraham sit, ante Abraham esse se dicit.

8. If Christ is only a man, how does he say:Before Abraham, I am? For no human being can be before him from whom he himself is, nor can it come to pass that anything should have been prior to him from whom he took his origin. But Christ, although he is from Abraham, says that he is before Abraham.

Aut mentitur igitur et fallit, si ante Abraham non fuit, qui ex Abraham fuit, aut non fallit, si etiam Deus est, dum ante Abraham fuit. Quod nisi fuisset, consequenter cum ex Abraham fuisset, ante Abraham esse non posset. 9. Si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodo ait: Et ego agnoscam eas et sequuntur me meae, et ego uitam aeternam do illis, et numquam peribunt in perpetuum?

Therefore either he lies and deceives, if he was not before Abraham—he who was from Abraham—or he does not deceive, if he is also God, in that he was before Abraham. Which, unless he had been, then, since he was from Abraham, he could not be before Abraham. 9. If Christ is only a man, how does he say: And I will acknowledge them, and my own follow me, and I give them eternal life, and they will never perish in perpetuity?

Sed enim cum omnis homo mortalitatis sit legibus alligatus et idcirco in perpetuum se ipse seruare non posset, multo magis in perpetuum alterum seruare non poterit. At in perpetuum se Christus repromittit salutem daturum. Quam si non dat, mendax est; si dat, Deus est.

But indeed, since every man is bound by the laws of mortality and therefore could not preserve himself in perpetuity, much more will he be unable to preserve another in perpetuity. But Christ promises that he will give salvation in perpetuity. Which, if he does not give, he is mendacious; if he gives it, he is God.

Sed non fallit, dat enim quod repromittit. Deus est ergo, qui salutem perpetuam porrigit, quam homo, qui se ipsum seruare non potest, alteri praestare non poterit. 10. Si homo tantummodo Christus, quid est quod ait: Ego et Pater unum sumus?

But he does not deceive, for he gives what he re-promises. He is God, therefore, who extends perpetual salvation, which a man, who cannot preserve himself, will not be able to provide to another. 10. If Christ is only a man, what is it that he says: I and the Father are one?

Quomodo enim ego et Pater unum sumus, si non et Deus est et Filius, qui idcirco unum potest dici, dum ex ipso est et dum Filius eius est et dum ex ipso nascitur, dum ex ipso processisse reperitur, per quod et Deus est? 11. Quod cum inuidiosum Iudaei putassent et blasphemum credidissent eo quod se ostenderat his sermonibus Christum esse Deum ac propterea ad lapides concurrissent et saxorum ictus inicere gestissent, exemplo et testimonio scripturarum aduersarios suos fortiter refutauit. Si illos, inquit, dixit deos, ad quos uerba facta sunt, et non potest solui scriptura: quem Pater sanctificauit et misit in hunc mundum uos dicitis quia blasphemas, quia dixi: Filius Dei sum ego?

For how indeed are I and the Father one, if he is not both God and Son—he who therefore can be said to be one, since he is from him, and since he is his Son, and since he is born from him, since he is found to have proceeded from him, by which he is also God? 11. When the Jews had deemed this invidious and had believed it blasphemous, because by these discourses he had shown himself to be God the Christ, and therefore had run to the stones and were eager to inflict blows of stones, by the example and testimony of the Scriptures he bravely refuted his adversaries. “If those,” he says, “he called ‘gods,’ to whom the words were spoken, and the Scripture cannot be loosed: the one whom the Father sanctified and sent into this world, you say that he blasphemes, because I said: I am the Son of God?”

12. Quibus uocibus neque se negauit Deum, quinimmo Deum se esse firmauit. Nam quia sine dubitatione dei esse dicuntur ad quos uerba facta sunt, multo magis hic Deus qui melior illis omnibus inuenitur. Et nihilominus calumniosam blasphemiam dispositione legitima congruenter refutauit.

12. By which voices he neither denied himself God, nay rather he confirmed himself to be God. For since without doubt they are said to be gods to whom the words were spoken, much more is this one God, who is found better than all of them. And nonetheless he congruently refuted the calumnious blasphemy by a legitimate disposition.

Deum enim se sic intellegi uult, ut Filium Dei et non ipsum Patrem uellet intellegi. Missum enim se esse dixit et multa opera se ex Patre ostendisse monstrauit, ex quo non Patrem se, sed Filium esse intellegi uoluit, et in ultima parte defensionis Filii, non Patris fecit mentionem dicendo: Vos dicitis quia blasphemas, quia dixi; Filius Dei sum? 13. Ita quod ad crimen blasphemiae pertinet, Filium se, non Patrem dicit, quod autem ad diuinitatem spectet ipsius,Ego et Pater unum sumus dicendo Filium se esse et Deum probauit.

For he wishes himself to be understood as God in such a way that he would be understood as the Son of God and not the Father himself. For he said that he had been sent, and he demonstrated that he had shown many works from the Father, whence he wished to be understood not as the Father, but as the Son; and in the last part of his defense he made mention of the Son, not of the Father, by saying: You say that I blaspheme, because I said: I am the Son of God?13. Thus, as pertains to the charge of blasphemy, he says that he is the Son, not the Father; but as regards hisdivinity, by saying I and the Father are one he proved himself to be the Son and God.

Deus est ergo, Deus autem sic, ut Filius sit, non Pater.

He is therefore God, but God in such a way that he is Son, not Father.

XVI. 1. Si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodo ipse dicit:Et omnis qui uidet et credit in me, non morietur in aeternum? Sed enim qui in hominem solitarium credit et nudum, maledictus dicitur, hic autem qui credit in Christum, non maledictus, sed in aeternum non moriturus refertur.

16. 1. If Christ is only a man, how does he himself say:And everyone who sees and believes in me shall not die into eternity? But indeed he who believes in a solitary and bare man is called accursed, whereas he who believes in Christ is not accursed, but is said to be not about to die for eternity.

Ex quo si aut homo est tantum, ut haeretici uolunt, quomodo quisquis in eum credit non morietur in aeternum, cum maledictus esse teneatur qui confidit in homine? Aut si non maledictus, sed potius ad aeternae uitae consecutionem, ut legitur, destinatus, non homo tantummodo Christus, sed et Deus, in quem qui credit et maledictionis periculum deponit et ad fructum iustitiae accedit. 2. Si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodo paracletum dicit de suo esse sumpturum quae nuntiaturus sit?

From which, if either he is only a man, as the heretics wish, how is it that whoever believes in him will not die unto eternity, since he who confides in man is held to be accursed? Or if he is not accursed, but rather, as it is read, destined for the consecution of eternal life, Christ is not merely a man, but also God, in whom whoever believes both lays down the peril of a curse and approaches the fruit of justice. 2. If Christ is only a man, how does he say that the Paraclete is going to take from what is his the things which he is about to announce?

Neque enim paracletus ab homine quicquam accipit, sed homini scientiam paracletus porrigit, nec futura ab homine paracletus discit, sed de futuris hominem paracletus instruit. Ergo aut non accepit paracletus a Christo homine quod nuntiet, quoniam paracleto homo nihil poterit dare a quo ipse homo debet accipere, et fallit in praesenti loco Christus et decipit, cum paracletum a se homine accepturum quae nuntiet dicit, aut non nos fallit, sicut nec fallit, et accepit paracletus a Christo quae nuntiet. 3. Sed si a Christo accepit quae nuntiet, maior ergo iam paracleto Christus est, quoniam nec paracletus a Christo acciperet, nisi minor Christo esset.

For the Paraclete does not receive anything from a man, but the Paraclete extends knowledge to the man; nor does the Paraclete learn the things to come from a man, but concerning things to come the Paraclete instructs the man. Therefore either the Paraclete did not receive from Christ the man what he is to announce, since a man will be able to give nothing to the Paraclete, from whom the man himself ought to receive; and Christ deceives and deludes in the present passage, when he says that the Paraclete will receive from himself, a man, the things he is to announce; or he does not deceive us, just as he does not deceive, and the Paraclete received from Christ the things to announce. 3. But if he received from Christ the things to announce, then Christ is already greater than the Paraclete, since neither would the Paraclete receive from Christ, unless he were lesser than Christ.

Minor autem Christo paracletus Christum etiam Deum esse hoc ipso probat, a quo accepit quae nuntiat, ut testimonium Christi diuinitatis grande sit, dum minor Christo paracletus repertus ab illo sumit quae ceteris tradit. Quandoquidem si homo tantummodo Christus, a paracleto Christus acciperet quae diceret, non a Christo paracletus acciperet quae nuntiaret. 4. Si homo tantummodo Christus, quare credendi nobis talem regulam posuit quo diceret: Haec est autem uita aeterna, ut sciant te unum et uerum Deum et quem misisti Iesum Christum?

But the Paraclete, being lesser than Christ, by this very fact proves that Christ is also God, from whom he received the things he announces, so that the testimony of Christ’s divinity may be great, while the Paraclete, found to be lesser than Christ, takes from him those things which he hands on to the rest. Since if Christ were only man, Christ would receive from the Paraclete the things he would say, not the Paraclete receive from Christ the things he would announce. 4. If Christ is only man, why did he set for us such a rule of believing, whereby he said: Now this is eternal life, that they may know you, the one and true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent?

Si noluisset se etiam Deum intellegi, cur addidit: et quem misisti Iesum Christum, nisi quoniam et Deum accipi uoluit? Quoniam si se Deum nollet intellegi, addidisset: 'et quem misisti hominem Iesum Christum'. Nunc autem neque addidit nec se hominem nobis tantummodo Christus tradidit, sed Deo iunxit, ut et Deum per hanc coniunctionem, sicut est, intellegi uellet. 5. Est ergo credendum secundum praescriptam regulam in Dominum unum uerum Deum et in eum quem misit Iesum Christum consequenter, qui se nequaquam Patri, ut diximus, iunxisset, nisi Deum quoque intellegi uellet.

If he had not wished himself also to be understood as God, why did he add: and Jesus Christ whom you sent, unless because he wished also to be received as God? For if he had not wished himself to be understood as God, he would have added: 'and the man whom you sent, Jesus Christ'. But as it is he neither added this, nor did Christ hand himself down to us as a man only, but he joined himself to God, so that by this conjunction he wished also to be understood as God, just as he is. 5. Therefore, according to the prescribed rule, it is to be believed in the Lord, the one true God, and, consequently, in him whom he sent, Jesus Christ, who by no means would have joined himself to the Father, as we said, unless he also wished to be understood as God.

Separasset enim ab eo, si Deum intellegi se noluisset; inter homines enim tantummodo se collocasset, si hominem se esse tantummodo sciret, nec cum Deo iunxisset, si se non et Deum nosset. Nunc et de homine tacet, quoniam hominem illum nemo dubitat, et Deo se iungit merito, ut credituris diuinitatis suae formulam poneret. 6. Si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodo dicit: Et nunc honorifica me gloria quam habebam apud te priusquam mundus esset?

For he would have separated himself from him, if he had not wished to be understood as God; for he would have placed himself only among men, if he knew himself to be only a man, nor would he have joined himself with God, if he did not know himself also to be God. Now he is also silent about man, since no one doubts him to be a man, and he joins himself to God with merit, so that he might set a formula of his divinity for those about to believe. 6. If Christ is only a man, how does he say: And now glorify me with the glory which I had with you before the world was?

Si antequam mundus esset gloriam habuit apud Deum et claritatem tenuit apud Patrem, ante mundum fuit; nec enim habuisset gloriam, nisi ipse prius fuisset, qui gloriam posset tenere. Nemo enim habere aliquid poterit, nisi ante ipse fuerit qui aliquid tenet. Sed enim Christus habet gloriam ante mundi institutionem.

If before the world existed he had glory with God and held splendor with the Father, he was before the world; for he would not have had glory unless he himself had first been, who could hold glory. For no one will be able to have anything unless first he himself has been who holds something. But indeed Christ has glory before the institution of the world.

Ergo ante institutionem mundi fuit. Nisi enim ante institutionem mundi esset, ante mundi institutionem gloriam habere non posset, cum ipse non esset. Sed enim homo gloriam ante mundi institutionem habere non potuit, qui post mundum fuit; Christus autem habuit; ante mundum igitur fuit; non igitur homo tantummodo fuit, qui ante mundum fuit.

Therefore he was before the institution of the world. For unless he were before the institution of the world, he could not have had glory before the institution of the world, since he himself would not have been. But indeed a man could not have glory before the institution of the world, who was after the world; but Christ had it; therefore he was before the world; therefore he was not only a man, who was before the world.

Deus est igitur, quoniam ante mundum fuit et gloriam ante mundum tenuit. 7. Nec praedestinatio ista dicatur, quoniam nec posita est. Aut addant hoc, qui hoc putant; sed uae est adicientibus, quomodo et detrahentibus positum; non potest ergo dici quod non potest adici.

He is God, therefore, since he was before the world and held glory before the world. 7. Nor let this be called predestination, since it has not even been set down. Or let those who think this add it; but woe to those adding, as also to those detracting from what has been set down; therefore what cannot be added cannot be said.

Sublata ergo praedestinatione quae non est posita, in substantia fuit Christus ante mundi institutionem. Verbum est enim per quod facta sunt omnia et sine quo factum est nihil. 8. Quoniam et si in praedestinatione dicitur gloriosus et ante mundi institutionem fuisse praedestinationem, ordo seruetur et ante hunc erit multus numerus hominum in gloriam destinatus.

Therefore, with predestination removed which is not posited, Christ was in substance before the institution of the world. Word he is, indeed, through which all things were made, and without which nothing was made. 8. For even if he is said to be glorious in predestination, and that there was predestination before the institution of the world, let order be preserved, and before him there will be a great number of men destined for glory.

Minor enim per istam destinationem Christus ceteris intellegetur, quibus posterior denotatur. Nam si haec gloria in praedestinatione fuit, praedestinationem istam in gloriam nouissimus Christus accepit; ante enim praedestinatus Adam esse cernetur et Abel et Enoch et Noe et Abraham et reliqui ceteri. 9. Nam cum apud Deum et personarum et rerum omnium ordo digestus sit, ante hanc praedestinationem Christi in gloria multi praedestinati fuisse dicentur.

For through that predestination Christ will be understood as lesser than the others, to whom he is denoted as posterior. For if this glory was in predestination, Christ as the most recent received that predestination into glory; for Adam will be seen to have been predestined before, and Abel and Enoch and Noah and Abraham and the remaining others. 9. For since with God the order both of persons and of all things has been arranged, before this predestination of Christ in glory many will be said to have been predestined.

Et hoc pacto minor ceteris hominibus Christus esse deprehenditur, qui melior et maior et antiquior ipsis quoque angelis inuenitur. 10. Aut haec igitur omnia tollantur, ut Christo diuinitas non auferatur; aut si haec tolli non possunt, Christo ab haereticis diuinitas propria reddatur.

And in this fashion Christ is found to be lesser than the other men, who is found better and greater and more ancient even than the angels themselves angels. 10. Therefore either all these things are to be removed, so that divinity is not taken away from Christ; or, if these cannot be removed, let Christ’s own divinity be restored by the heretics.

XVII. 1. Quid si Moyses hanc eandem regulam ueritatis exsequitur et hoc in principio suarum nobis tradidit literarum, quo discamus omnia creata et condita esse per Dei Filium, hoc est per Dei uerbum? Id enim dicit quod Ioannes, quod ceteri, immo et Ioannes et ceteri ab hoc intelleguntur accepisse quod dicant.

17. 1. What if Moses carries out this same rule of truth and at the beginning of his own writings handed down to us this, whereby we may learn that all things have been created and founded through the Son of God, that is, through the Word of God? For he says the same as John, as the others; nay rather, both John and the others are understood to have received from him what they say.

2. Si enim Ioannes dicit:Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil, prophetes autem refert: Dico ego opera mea regi, Moyses autem introducit praecipientem Deum ut lux fiat in primis, caelum firmetur, aquae congregentur, arida ostendatur, fructus secundum semina prouocetur, animalia producantur, luminaria in caelo atque astra ponantur, non alium ostendit tunc adfuisse Deo cui praeciperenter haec opera ut fierent, nisi eum per quem facta sunt omnia, et sine quo factum est nihil. 3. Ac si hic uerbum Dei est — nameructauit cor meum uerbum bonum —, ostendit in principio uerbum fuisse et uerbum hoc apud Patrem fuisse, Deum praeterea uerbum fuisse, omnia per ipsum facta esse. Sed enim hoc uerbum caro factum est et habitauit in nobis, Christus scilicet Filius Dei, quem dum et postmodum secundum carnem hominem accipimus et ante mundi institutionem Dei uerbum et Deum uidemus, merito secundum institutionem ueteris et noui testamenti et Deum et hominem Christum Iesum et credimus et tenemus.

2. For if John says:All things were made through him, and without him was made nothing, but the prophet relates: I myself will declare my works to the king, and Moses introduces God giving the precept that light be made first, that heaven be made firm, that the waters be congregated, that the dry land be shown, that fruit be called forth according to seeds, that animals be produced, that luminaries in heaven and the stars be placed, he shows that no other was then present with God to whom, by way of command, these works were being enjoined to be made, except him through whom all things were made, and without whom was made nothing. 3. And if this is the Word of God — formy heart has poured forth a good word —, he shows that in the beginning the Word was, and that this Word was with the Father, that the Word moreover was God, that all things were made through him. But indeed this Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, namely Christ the Son of God, whom, while afterward we receive as a man according to the flesh and before the institution of the world we see as the Word of God and as God, deservedly according to the institution of the Old and New Testament we both believe and hold Christ Jesus to be both God and man.

4. Quid si idem Moyses introducit dicentem Deum:Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram, et infra: Et fecit Deus hominem, ad imaginem Dei fecit illum, masculum et feminam fecit eos? Si, ut iam docuimus, Dei Filius est per quem facta sunt omnia, utique Dei Filius est per quem etiam homo institutus est, propter quem facta sunt omnia. 5. Sed enim Deo praecipiente ut homo fiat, Deus refertur esse qui hominem facit; facit autem hominem Dei Filius, uerbum scilicet Dei per quem facta sunt omnia, et sine quo factum est nihil.

4. What if the same Moses introduces God speaking:Let us make man according to our image and likeness, and below: And God made man; according to the image of God he made him; male and female he made them? If, as we have already taught, it is the Son of God through whom all things were made, assuredly it is the Son of God through whom man also was instituted, for whose sake all things were made. 5. But indeed, with God giving the command that man be made, it is reported that it is God who makes man; yet it is the Son of God who makes man, namely the Word of God through whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made.

Hoc autem uerbum caro factum est et habitauit in nobis. Ergo Christus est Deus. Per Christum igitur homo factus est, ut per Dei Filium.

This however word was made flesh and dwelt among us. Therefore Christ is God. Through Christ, therefore, man was made, as through the Son of God.

Sed Deus hominem ad imaginem Dei fecit. Deus est ergo qui fecit hominem ad imaginem Dei. Deus ergo Christus est, ut merito nec ueteris testamenti circa personam Christi uacillet auctoritas, dum noui testamenti manifestatione fulcitur, nec noui testamenti intercepta sit potestas, dum radicibus ueteris testamenti eiusdem nititur ueritas.

But God made man according to the image of God. Therefore God is he who made man according to the image of God. Therefore Christ is God, so that with good reason neither the authority of the Old Testament concerning the person of Christ wavers, while it is supported by the manifestation of the New Testament, nor is the power of the New Testament curtailed, while the truth of the same leans upon the roots of the Old Testament.

6. Ex quo qui Christum, Dei Filium et hominis, tantummodo praesumunt hominem, non et Deum, contra testamentum et uetus et nouum faciunt, dum et ueteris et noui testamenti auctoritatem ueritatemque corrumpunt. 7. Quid si idem Moyses ubique introducit Deum Patrem immensum atque sine fine, non qui loco cludatur, sed qui omnem locum cludat, nec eum qui in loco sit, sed potius in quo omnis locus sit, omnia continentem et cuncta complexum, ut merito nec descendat nec ascendat, quoniam ipse omnia et continet et implet, et tamen nihilominus introducit Deum descendentem ad turrem quam aedificabant filii hominum, considerare quaerentem et dicentem:Venite et mox descendamus et confundamus illic ipsorum linguas, ut non audiat unusquisque uocem proximi sui? Quem uolunt hic Deum descendisse ad turrem illam et homines tunc illos uisitare quaerentem?

6. Whence those who presume Christ, the Son of God and of man, to be only a man, and not God as well, act against both the Old and the New Testament, since they corrupt the authority and the truth of both the Old and the New Testament. 7. What if this same Moses everywhere introduces God the Father as immense and without end, not one who is shut in by place, but who encloses every place, nor him who is in a place, but rather the one in whom every place is, containing all things and encompassing all, so that with good reason he neither descends nor ascends, since he both contains and fills all things; and yet nonetheless he introduces God as descending to the tower which the sons of men were building, seeking to consider and saying:Come, and forthwith let us descend and let us confound their tongues there, so that each one may not hear the voice of his neighbor? Whom do they wish here to have descended to that tower, and to have been seeking to visit those men then?

Deum Patrem? Ergo iam loco clauditur. Et quomodo omnia ipse complectitur?

God the Father? Then now he is enclosed by place. And how does he himself encompass all things?

8. Aut numquid angelum cum angelis dicit descendentem et dicentem:Venite et mox descendamus et confundamus illic ipsorum linguas? Sed enim in Deuteronomio animaduertimus rettulisse Deum haec Deumque dixisse, ubi ponitur: Cum disseminaret filios Adam, statuit fines gentium iuxta numerum angelorum Dei. Neque ergo Pater descendit, ut res indicat, neque angelus ista praecepit, ut res probat.

8. Or does he perchance say that an angel with the angels is descending and saying:Come, and at once let us descend and let us confound their tongues there? But indeed in Deuteronomy we observe that it has referred these things to God and that God said, where it is set: When he disseminated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God. Therefore neither did the Father descend, as the fact indicates, nor did an angel command these things, as the fact proves.

9. Superest ergo ut ille descenderit, de quo apostolus Paulus:Qui descendit, ipse est qui ascendit super omnes caelos, ut impleret omnia, hoc est Dei Filius, Dei uerbum. Verbum autem Dei caro factum est et habitauit in nobis. Hic erit Christus.

9. It remains therefore that he descended, of whom the apostle Paul [says]:He who descended, he himself is the one who ascended above all the heavens, that he might fill all things, that is, the Son of God, the Word of God. The Word however of God was made flesh and dwelt among us. This will be Christ.

Deus ergo pronuntiabitur Christus.

Therefore Christ will be pronounced God.

XVIII. 1. Ecce idem Moyses refert alio in loco quod Abrahae uisus sit Deus. Atquin idem Moyses audit a Deo quod nemo hominum Deum uideat et uiuat.

18. 1. Behold the same Moses reports in another place that God appeared to Abraham. And yet the same Moses hears from God that no one among men can see God and live.

Si uideri non potest Deus, quomodo uisus est Deus? Aut si uisus est, quomodo uideri non potest? 2. Nam et Ioannes Deum nemo, inquit, uidit umquam, et apostolus Paulus: Quem uidit hominum nemo nec uidere potest.

If God cannot be seen, how was God seen? Or if he was seen, how can he not be seen? 2. For John too, No one has seen God, he says, ever, and the apostle Paul: Whom none of men has seen nor can see.

Sed non utique scriptura mentitur. Ergo uere uisus est Deus. Ex quo intellegi potest quod non Pater uisus sit, qui numquam uisus est, sed Filius, qui et descendere solitus est et uideri, quia descenderit.

But assuredly the scripture does not lie. Therefore truly God was seen. From which it can be understood that it was not the Father who was seen, who has never been seen, but the Son, who both is wont to descend and to be seen, because he descended.

3.Imago est enim inuisibilis Dei, ut mediocritas et fragilitas condicionis humanae Deum Patrem uidere aliquando iam tunc assuesceret in imagine Dei, hoc est in Filio Dei. Gradatim enim et per incrementa fragilitas humana nutriri debuit per imaginem ad istam gloriam, ut Deum Patrem uidere posset aliquando. 4. Periculosa sunt enim quae magna sunt, si repentina sunt.

3.It is the image indeed of the invisible God, so that the mediocrity and fragility of the human condition might already then at some point become accustomed to see God the Father in the image of God, that is, in the Son of God. For gradually and through increments human fragility had to be nourished through the image unto that glory, so that it might at some time be able to see God the Father. 4. For the things that are great are perilous if they are sudden.

Nam etiam lux solis subita post tenebras splendore nimio insuetis oculis non ostendet diem, sed potius faciet caecitatem. Quod ne in damnum humanorum contingat oculorum, paulatim disruptis et dissipatis tenebris ortus luminaris istius mediocribus incrementis fallenter assurgens oculos hominum sensim assuefacit ad totum orbem suum ferendum per incrementa radiorum. 5. Sic ergo et Christus, id est imago Dei et Filius Dei, ab hominibus inspicitur, qua poterat uideri.

For even the light of the sun, sudden after darkness, with excessive splendor to unaccustomed eyes will not show the day, but rather will make blindness. So that this may not occur to the harm of human eyes, gradually, the darkness having been broken up and scattered, the rising of this luminary, insensibly mounting by moderate increments, little by little accustoms the eyes of men to bear its whole orb through the increments of the rays. 5. Thus therefore also Christ, that is, the image of God and the Son of God, is gazed upon by human beings in the way in which he could be seen.

Et ideo fragilitas et mediocritas sortis humanae per ipsum alitur, producitur, educatur, ut aliquando Deum quoque ipsum Patrem, assueta Filium conspicere, possit ut est uidere, ne maiestatis ipsius repentino et intolerabili fulgore percussa intercipi possit, ut Deum Patrem, quem semper optauit, uidere non possit. 6. Ex quo Filius est hic qui uidetur. Dei autem Filius Dei uerbum est.

And therefore the fragility and mediocrity of the human lot is nourished, brought forth, and educated through him, so that at some time it may also be able to see God the Father himself—having been accustomed to behold the Son—to see him as he is, lest, struck by the sudden and intolerable brilliance of his majesty, it might be cut off, so that it would not be able to see God the Father, whom it has always desired. 6. Whence this one who is seen is Son. But the Son of God is the Word of God.

Dei autem uerbum caro factum est et habitauit in nobis; hic autem Christus est. Quae malum ratio est ut dubitetur Deus dici qui tot modis Deus intellegitur approbari? 7. Ac si et Agar, ancillam Sarrae, de domo eiectam pariter et fugatam angelus conuenit apud fontem aquae in uia Sur, fugae causas interrogat atque accipit et post haec humilitatis consilia porrigit, spem praeterea illi materni nominis facit quodque ex utero eius multum semen esset futurum spondet atque promittit et quod Hismael ex illa nasci haberet et cum ceteris aperit locum habitationis ipsius actumque describit, hunc autem angelum et Dominum scriptura proponit et Deum (nam nec benedictionem seminis promisisset, nisi angelus et Deus fuisset), quaerant quid in praesenti loco haeretici tractent.

But the Word of God was made flesh and dwelt among us; and this, moreover, is Christ. What evil reasoning is it, that it should be doubted he is to be called God, who in so many ways is understood and approved to be God? 7. And as even Hagar, the handmaid of Sarah, cast out of the house and likewise driven away, an angel meets at the spring of water on the way to Shur, asks and receives the causes of her flight,
and after this extends counsels of humility, furthermore affords to her the hope of the maternal name and both pledges and promises that from her womb much seed would be in the future, and that Ishmael was to be born from her, and along with the rest discloses the place of his habitation and describes his course—this angel, moreover, Scripture sets forth as both Lord and God (for he would not have promised the blessing of seed, unless he had been an angel and God): let them inquire what the heretics are handling in the present passage.

8. Pater fuit iste qui ab Agar uisus est an non? Quia Deus positus est. Sed absit Deum Patrem angelum dicere, ne alteri subditus sit, cuius angelus fuerit.

8. Was that one the Father who was seen by Hagar or not? Because he is set down as God. But far be it to call God the Father an angel, lest he be subject to another, of whom he would have been the angel.

9. Sed angelum dicent fuisse. Quomodo ergo Deus erit, si angelus fuit, cum non sit hoc nomen angelis umquam concessum? Nisi quoniam ex utroque latere nos ueritas in istam concludit sententiam, qua intellegere debeamus Dei Filium fuisse qui, quoniam ex Deo est, merito Deus, quia Dei Filius dictus sit, quoniam Patri subditus et annuntiator paternae uoluntatis est,magni consilii angelus pronuntiatus est.

9. But they will say he was an angel. How then will he be God, if he was an angel, since this name has never been granted to angels? Unless it be that from both sides the truth shuts us up into this judgment, by which we ought to understand that it was the Son of God: who, since he is from God, is deservedly God, because he is called the Son of God; and since he is subject to the Father and the announcer of the paternal will, he has been proclaimed theangel of great counsel.

10. Ergo si hic locus neque personae Patris congruit, ne angelus dictus sit, neque personae angeli, ne Deus pronuntiatus sit, personae autem Christi conuenit, ut et Deus sit, quia Dei Filius est, et angelus sit, quoniam paternae dispositionis annuntiator est, intellegere debent contra scripturas se agere haeretici, qui Christum cum dicant se et angelum credere, nolint illum etiam Deum pronuntiare, quem in ueteri testamento ad uisitationem generis humani legunt saepe uenisse. 11. Adhuc adiecit Moyses Abrahae uisum Deumapud quercum Mambrae sedente ipso ad ostium tabernaculi sui meridie et nihilominus, cum tres conspexisset uiros, unum ex illis dominum nuncupasse; quorum cum pedes lauisset, cinericios panes cum butyro et ipsius copia lactis offert et ut hospites retenti uescerentur hortatur. 12. Post quae et quod pater futurus esset audit et quod Sarra, uxor eius, paritura ex ipso filium esset ediscit et de exitu Sodomitarum, quae merebantur pati, recognoscit et quod propter clamorem Sodomorum Deus descendisset addiscit.

10. Therefore, if this passage fits neither the person of the Father—lest he be called an angel—nor the person of an angel—lest he be pronounced God—but suits the person of Christ, so that he is both God, because he is the Son of God, and an angel, since he is the announcer of the paternal disposition, the heretics ought to understand that they act against the Scriptures, who, although they say that they believe Christ to be an angel as well, are unwilling to pronounce him also God, whom they read in the Old Testament to have often come for the visitation of the human race. 11. Moreover, Moses added that God was seen by Abrahamat the oak of Mamre, as he himself sat at the door of his tent at midday, and nonetheless, when he had beheld three men, he named one of them Lord; and when he had washed their feet, he offers ash-cakes with butter and an abundance of milk, and urges that, being detained as guests, they should eat. 12. After which he hears also that he would be a father, and he learns that Sarah, his wife, would bear a son from him, and he recognizes the outcome of the Sodomites—what they deserved to suffer—and he further learns that God had descended on account of the outcry of the Sodomites.

13. Quo in loco si Patrem uolunt uideri tunc fuisse cum angelis duobus hospitio receptum, Patrem uisibilem haeretici crediderunt. Si autem angelum, cum ex angelis tribus unus dominus nuncupatur, cur, quod non solet, angelus Deus dicitur? Nisi quoniam, ut Deo Patri inuisibilitas propria reddatur et angelo propria mediocritas remittatur, non nisi Dei Filius, qui et Deus est, Abrahae uisus et hospitio receptus esse credetur.

13. In which place, if they wish the Father to be seen then as having been received with hospitality together with two angels, the heretics have believed the Father to be visible. But if it was an angel, since out of the three angels one is named Lord, why, contrary to what is usual, is an angel called God? Unless because, in order that invisibility be rendered as proper to God the Father and proper mediocrity be remitted to the angel, none other than the Son of God, who also is God, will be believed to have appeared to Abraham and to have been received with hospitality.

14. Quod enim erat futurus, meditabatur in sacramento Abrahae factus hospes, apud Abrahae filios futurus; cuius filiorum pedes ad probationem quod ipse esset abluit, reddens in filiis ius hospitalitatis quod aliquando illi fenerauerat pater. 15. Vnde et ne qua esset dubitatio quin iste Abrahae hospes fuisset, in Sodomitarum exitu ponitur quoniampluit Dominus super Sodomam et Gomorram ignem et sulphur a Domino de caelo. Sic enim et prophetes ex persona Dei: Subuerti uos, inquit, sicut subuertit Dominus Sodomam et Gomorram.

14. For what he was to be, he was premeditating in the sacrament of Abraham, having become a guest, destined to be among Abraham’s sons; he washed the feet of Abraham’s sons as proof that he himself was the same, rendering among the sons the right of hospitality which their father had once advanced to him. 15. Whence also, lest there be any doubt that this one had been Abraham’s guest, it is set down at the outcome of the Sodomites thatthe Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah fire and sulphur from the Lord out of heaven. For thus also the prophet, in the person of God: I overthrew you, he says, as the Lord overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.

16. Dominus ergo Sodomam subuertit, id est Deus Sodomam subuertit, sed in subuersione Sodomorum Dominus pluit ignem a Domino. Hic autem Dominus uisus est Abrahae Deus; Deus autem hic hospes est Abrahae, uisus utique quia tactus. Sed cum Pater, qua inuisibilis, nec tunc utique uisus sit, uisus est et hospitibus receptus et acceptus est, qui solitus est tangi et uideri; hic autem Filius DeiDominus a Domino pluit super Sodomam et Gomorram sulphur atque ignem.

16. Therefore the Lord overthrew Sodom, that is, God overthrew Sodom, but in the overthrow of the Sodomites the Lord rained fire from the Lord. Now this Lord was seen by Abraham as God; and this God is Abraham’s guest—seen, to be sure, because touched. But since the Father, as invisible, was not then seen, he who is accustomed to be touched and seen both was seen and was received and welcomed as a guest; and this is the Son of God,the Lord from the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire.

Hic autem Dei uerbum est; uerbum autem Dei caro factum est et habitauit in nobis. Hic autem Christus est. 17. Non Pater igitur apud Abraham hospes, sed Christus fuit; nec tunc Pater uisus est, sed Filius; uisus autem est Christus.

Here, however, is the Word of God; but the Word of God was made flesh and dwelt among us. But this is Christ. 17. Therefore it was not the Father who was a guest with Abraham, but Christ; nor then was the Father seen, but the Son; moreover, Christ was seen.

Merito igitur Christus et Dominus et Deus est, qui non aliter Abrahae uisus est, nisi quia ante ipsum Abraham ex Patre Deo Deus sermo generatus est. 18. Adhuc, inquit, idem angelus et Deus eandem Agar fugatam de domo Abrahae cum puero consolatur et uisitat. Nam cum illa in solitudine exposuisset infantem, quia aqua defecisset ex utre, cumque puer ille clamasset, fletum et planctum leuasset, et audiuit, inquit scriptura, Deus uocem pueri de loco ubi erat.

Therefore, deservedly Christ is both Lord and God, who was not seen by Abraham otherwise, except because before Abraham himself the Word—God—was generated from God the Father. 18. Further, he says, the same Angel and God consoles and visits that same Hagar, driven from the house of Abraham, together with the boy. For when she had set down the infant in the wilderness, because the water had failed from the skin, and when that boy had cried out, had lifted up weeping and lamentation, and he heard, says the Scripture, God the voice of the boy from the place where he was.

19. Cum Deum esse qui uocem infantis audiuit rettulisset, adiecit:et uocauit angelus Domini ipsam Agar de caelo, angelum referens esse quem Deum dixerat et Dominum pronuntians esse quem angelum collocarat, quique angelus et Deus adhuc ipsi Agar promittit maiora solacia dicendo: Ne timueris, exaudiui enim uocem pueri de loco ubi erat. Surge, sume puerum et tene; in gentem enim magnam faciam eum. 20. Hic angelus, si angelus tantum est, cur hoc sibi uindicat ut dicat:In gentem enim magnam faciam eum, cum hoc utique genus potentiae Dei sit, angeli esse non possit?

19. When he had reported that it was God who heard the voice of the infant, he added:and the angel of the Lord called Hagar herself from heaven, representing as an angel the one whom he had said was God, and proclaiming as Lord the one whom he had placed as an angel; and this angel, who is also God, still promises to Hagar herself greater consolations, saying: Do not be afraid, for I have heard the voice of the boy from the place where he was. Rise, take the boy and hold him; for into a great nation I will make him. 20. This angel, if he is only an angel, why does he claim this for himself so as to say:For into a great nation I will make him, since this assuredly is a kind of the power of God, and cannot be of an angel?

Ex quo etiam Deus confirmatur [Deus] esse qui hoc potest facere, quoniam, ut hoc ipsum comprobetur, adicitur per scripturam statim: et aperuit Deus oculos eius, et uidit puteum aquae uiuae et abiit et impleuit utrem de puteo et dedit puero, et erat Deus cum puero. 21. Si ergo hic Deus erat cum puero, qui aperuit oculos Agar, ut uideret puteum aquae uiuae et hauriret aquam propter urgentem sitis necessitatem, hic autem Deus e caelo illam uocat angelus dictus, cum superius uocem audiens clamantis pueri Deus esset potius, non alius intellegitur quam angelus esse pariter et Deus. 22. Quod cum Patri competens et conueniens esse non possit, qui tantummodo Deus est, competens autem esse possit Christo, qui non tantummodo Deus, sed et angelus pronuntiatus est, manifeste apparet non Patrem ibi tunc locutum fuisse ad Agar, sed Christum potius, cum Deus sit cui etiam angeli competit nomen, quippe cummagni consilii angelus factus sit, angelus autem sit, dum exponit sinum Patris, sicut Ioannes edicit.

Whence also God is confirmed [God] to be he who can do this, since, that this very thing may be proven, it is added through Scripture immediately: and God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of living water and went and filled the skin from the well and gave to the boy, and God was with the boy. 21. If therefore here God was with the boy—the one who opened Hagar’s eyes, that she might see a well of living water and draw water on account of the urgent necessity of thirst—yet this same God, who calls her from heaven, is called an angel, whereas above, hearing the voice of the crying boy, he was rather God; he is understood to be no other than both angel and God at once. 22. And since this cannot be competent and fitting to the Father, who is only God, but can be competent to Christ, who has been proclaimed not only God but also angel, it plainly appears that it was not the Father who then spoke there to Hagar, but rather Christ, since he is God to whom even the name of angel is fitting, inasmuch as he has been made theangel of great counsel , and is angel when he discloses the bosom of the Father, as John declares.

23. Si enim ipse Ioannes hunc eundem qui sinum exponit Patris uerbum dicit carnem factum esse, ut sinum Patris posset exponere, merito Christus non solum homo est, sed et angelus, nec angelus tantum, sed et Deus per scripturas ostenditur et a nobis hoc esse creditur, ne si non Christum tunc locutum ad Agar uoluerimus accipere, aut angelum Deum faciamus aut Deum Patrem omnipotentem inter angelos computemus.

23. For if John himself says that this same one who expounds the bosom of the Father—the Word—was made flesh, so that he might be able to expound the bosom of the Father, rightly Christ is not only man, but also angel; and not an angel only, but also God he is shown to be through the Scriptures, and by us is believed to be this—lest, if we should be unwilling to accept that Christ then spoke to Hagar, we either make the angel God, or reckon God the Father Almighty among the angels.

XIX. 1. Quid si et alio in loco similiter legimus Deum angelum positum? Nam cum apud uxores suas Liam atque Rachel Iacob de patris illarum iniquitate quereretur et cum referret quod iam in terram propriam remeare et reuerti cuperet, somnii quoque sui interponebat auctoritatem, quo tempore refert sibi angelum Dei per somnium dixisse:Iacob, Iacob.

19. 1. What if we likewise read in another place that God is posited as an angel? For when Jacob was complaining before his wives Leah and Rachel about the iniquity of their father, and when he reported that he now desired to return and to go back to his own land, he also interposed the authority of his dream, at which time he reports that an angel of God said to him through a dream:Jacob, Jacob.

Et ego, inquit, dixi: Quid est? Aspice, inquit, oculis tuis et uide hircos et arietes ascendentes super oues et capras uariatos albos et uarios et cinericios et aspersos. Vidi enim quaecumque tibi Laban fecit.

And I, he says, said: What is it? Look, he says, with your eyes and see the he-goats and the rams mounting upon the sheep and the goats, variegated: white and varied and ashen and sprinkled. For I have seen whatever Laban has done to you.

Ego sum Deus qui uisus sum tibi in loco Dei, ubi unxisti mihi illic stantem lapidem et uouisti mihi illic uotum; nunc ergo surge et proficiscere de terra hac et uade in terram natiuitatis tuae, et ero tecum. 2. Si angelus Dei loquitur haec ad Iacob atque ipse angelus infert dicens: Ego sum Deus qui uisus sum tibi in loco Dei, non tantummodo hunc angelum, sed et Deum positum sine ulla haesitatione conspicimus, quique sibi uotum refert ab Iacob destinatum esse in loco Dei et non dicit 'in loco meo'. Est ergo locus Dei, est et hic Deus. 3. Sed enim ibi simpliciter est in loco Dei positum, neque enim dictum est 'in loco angeli et Dei', sed tantummodo 'Dei', hic autem qui ista promittit Deus atque angelus esse perhibetur, ut merito distinctio sit inter eum qui tantummodo Deus dicitur et inter eum qui non Deus simpliciter, sed et angelus pronuntiatur. 4. Ex quo si nullius alterius angeli potest hic accipi tanta auctoritas, ut Deum quoque se esse fateatur et uotum sibi factum esse testetur, nisi tantummodo Christi, cui non quia angelo tantum, sed quia Deo uotum uoueri potest, manifestum est non Patrem accipi posse, sed Filium Deum et angelum.

I am God who was seen by you in the place of God, where you anointed for me there the standing stone and vowed to me there a vow; now therefore arise and set out from this land and go into the land of your birth, and I will be with you. 2. If the angel of God speaks these things to Jacob and the angel himself adds, saying: I am God who was seen by you in the place of God, we behold without any hesitation not only this angel, but also God set forth, and he reports that a vow has been appointed for himself by Jacob in the place of God and does not say “in my place.” Therefore there is a place of God, and this one is God as well. 3. But indeed there it is simply put in the place of God; for it was not said “in the place of the angel and of God,” but only “of God”; here, however, the one who promises these things is declared to be both God and angel, so that deservedly there is a distinction between him who is called God only and him who is not simply God, but is also proclaimed angel. 4. Whence, if such authority here can be received of no other angel, that he should even acknowledge himself to be God and testify that a vow has been made to himself, except only of Christ, to whom a vow can be vowed not because he is an angel only, but because he is God, it is manifest that the Father cannot be understood, but the Son, God and angel.

5. Hic autem si Christus est, sicuti est, uehementer periclitatur qui aut hominem Christum aut angelum tantummodo dicit subtracta illi diuini nominis potestate, quam ex scripturarum caelestium fide frequenter accepit, quae illum et angelum frequenter et Deum dicunt. 6. His omnibus etiam illud accedit ut, quomodo illum et angelum frequenter et Deum posuit scriptura diuina, sic illum et hominem ponat et Deum, exprimens eadem scriptura diuina quod erat futurus et depingens iam tum in imagine quod habebat esse in substantiae ueritate. 7.Remansit enim, inquit, Iacob solus et luctabatur homo cum eo usque in mane; et uidit quoniam non potest aduersus eum et tetigit latitudinem femoris Iacob, cum in eum luctaretur et ipse cum eo, et dixit ei: dimitte me, ascendit enim lucifer.

5. But if this one is Christ—as indeed he is—he is in extreme peril who says that Christ is either a man or only an angel, subtracting from him the power of the divine name, which by the faith of the heavenly scriptures he has frequently received, which frequently call him both angel and God. 6. To all these there is also added this: that, just as the divine scripture has frequently set him forth both as angel and as God, so likewise it sets him forth both as man and as God, the same divine scripture expressing what he was going to be and already then depicting in an image what he was to have in the truth of substance. 7. For, he says,Jacob remained alone, and a man was wrestling with him until morning; and he saw that he could not prevail against him and he touched the breadth of Jacob’s thigh, while he wrestled against him, and he himself with him, and he said to him: release me, for the morning-star has ascended.

Et ille dixit: Non te dimittam, nisi me benedixeris. Et dixit: Quod est nomen tuum? Et ille dixit: Iacob.

And he said: I will not let you go, unless you bless me. And he said: What is your name? And he said: Jacob.

Dixitque ei: Non uocabitur iam nunc nomen tuum Iacob, sed Israel erit nomen tuum, quia inualuisti cum Deo, et cum hominibus potens es. Et adhuc adicit: Et uocauit Iacob nomen loci illius 'uisio Dei'. Vidi enim Deum facie ad faciem, et salua facta est anima mea. Ortusque est ei sol, mox transiuit uisionem Dei, ipse uero claudicabat femore suo. 8. Homo, inquit, luctabatur cum Iacob.

And he said to him: Your name shall no longer now be called Jacob, but Israel shall be your name, because you have prevailed with God, and with men you are powerful. And he still adds: And Jacob called the name of that place 'vision of God'. For I have seen God face to face, and my soul has been made safe. And the sun rose for him; soon he passed beyond the vision of God, but he himself was limping in his thigh. 8. A man, he says, was wrestling with Jacob.

Si homo solitarius, quis est iste? Vnde est? Quare cum Iacob contendit atque luctatur?

If a solitary man, who is this? Whence is he? Why does he contend and wrestle with Jacob?

Quid intercesserat? Quid factum fuerat? Quae ratio contentionis istius tantae tantique certaminis?

What had intervened? What had been done? What was the rationale of that contention so great and of so great a contest?

Quare praeterea Iacob, qui ad tenendum hominem cum quo luctabatur fortior inuenitur et benedictionem ab eo quem detinebat postulat, quia iam lucifer oritur, ideo postulasse reperitur, nisi quoniam praefigurabatur contentio haec inter Christum et filios Iacob futura, quae in euangelio dicitur perfecta? 9. Contra hunc enim hominem colluctatus est populus Iacob, in qua colluctatione potentior populus est Iacob repertus, quippe cum aduersus Christum iniquitatis suae uictoriam sit consecutus, quo in tempore propter facinus quod admisit incessu fidei propriae et salutis claudicare grauissime incertus et lubricus coepit, qui quamuis superior damnando Christum repertus, eget tamen ipsius misericordia, eget tamen ipsius benedictione. 10. Sed enim hic homo qui cum Iacob luctatus est, Non, inquit, uocabitur etiam nunc nomen tuum Iacob, sed Israel erit nomen tuum.

Why, furthermore, is Jacob, who is found stronger for holding fast the man with whom he wrestled, and asks a benediction from him whom he was detaining—because already the morning star is rising—therefore found to have asked, unless because this contention was being prefigured as about to occur between Christ and the sons of Jacob, which in the Gospel is said to have been fulfilled? 9. For against this man the people of Jacob wrestled; in which wrestling the people of Jacob is found the more powerful, inasmuch as against Christ it obtained the victory of its iniquity; at which time, on account of the crime it committed, in the progress of its own faith and salvation it began to limp most grievously, becoming uncertain and slippery—who, although found superior in condemning Christ, nevertheless needs his mercy, nevertheless needs his benediction. 10. But indeed this man who wrestled with Jacob says, No, he says, your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel shall be your name.

Ac si Israel est homo 'uidens Deum', eleganter ostendebat Dominus quod non tantum homo esset qui colluctabatur tunc cum Iacob, sed et Deus. 11. Videbat utique Deum Iacob cum quo colluctabatur, quamuis hominem ipsius in colluctatione retineret. Et ut nulla adhuc posset esse dubitatio, interpretationem ipse posuit dicendo: Quia inualuisti cum Deo, et cum hominibus potens es. 12. Ob quam causam hic idem Iacob, intellegens iam uim sacramenti et peruidens auctoritatem eius cum quo luctatus fuisset, nomen loci illius in quo colluctatus est uocauit 'uisionem Dei'. 13. Superstruxit praeterea causas ad interpretationem Dei porrigendam.

And if Israel is a man 'seeing God', the Lord was elegantly showing that the one who was then wrestling with Jacob was not only a man, but also God. 11. Jacob assuredly was seeing God with whom he was wrestling, although in the wrestling he was holding His man. And so that there could be no doubt any longer, he himself set the interpretation by saying: Because you have prevailed with God, and you are potent with men. 12. For which cause this same Jacob, already understanding the force of the sacrament and clearly perceiving the authority of him with whom he had wrestled, called the name of that place in which he had wrestled 'vision of God'. 13. Moreover, he super-added causes for the interpretation concerning God to be extended.

Vidi enim, inquit, Deum facie ad faciem, et salua facta est anima mea. Vidit autem Deum cum quo colluctatus est quasi cum homine, sed et hominem quidem quasi uictor tenuit, benedictionem autem quasi a Deo ut inferior postulauit. Ita cum Deo et cum homine colluctatus fuit.

For I saw, he says, God face to face, and my soul was made safe. Moreover, he saw God with whom he wrestled as if with a man; but he also held the man indeed as victor, yet the benediction he, as the inferior, asked as if from God. Thus he wrestled with God and with man.

14. Ac si colluctatio haec ibi quidem praefigurata est, in euangelio autem inter Christum et populum Iacob perfecta est, in qua quamuis populus superior inuentus sit, minor repertus est dum nocens comprobatus est, quis dubitabit Christum, in quo haec colluctationis figura completa est, non hominem tantum, sed et Deum agnoscere, quandoquidem hominem illum et Deum etiam figura ipsa colluctationis uideatur comprobasse? 15. Et tamen etiam post haec aeque non cessat eadem scriptura diuina angelum Deum dicere, Deum angelum pronuntiare. 16. Nam cum Manassen atque Ephrem, filios Ioseph, benedicturus esset hic ipse Iacob, transuersis super capita puerorum manibus collocatis,Deus, inquit, qui pascit me a iuuentute mea usque in hunc diem, angelus cui liberauit me ex omnibus malis, benedicat pueros.

14. And if this wrestling was there indeed prefigured, but in the gospel it was perfected between Christ and the people of Jacob, in which although the people was found superior, it was found inferior when it was proved guilty, who will doubt to acknowledge Christ, in whom this figure of the wrestling has been completed, to be not only man but also God, since that very figure of the wrestling seems to have verified both that he was that man and God as well? 15. And yet even after these things the same divine scripture likewise does not cease to call the angel God, to pronounce God an angel. 16. For when this same Jacob was about to bless Manasseh and Ephraim, the sons of Joseph, with his hands placed crosswise upon the heads of the boys,God, he says, who shepherds me from my youth up to this day, the angel who delivered me from all evils, bless the boys.

17. Vsque adeo autem eundem angelum ponit quem Deum dixerat, ut singulariter in exitu sermonis sui posuerit personam de qua loquebatur dicendo:benedicat pueros hos. 18. Si enim alterum angelum uoluisset intellegi, plurali numero duas personas complexus fuisset; nunc unius personae singularem numerum in benedictione deposuit, ex quo eundem Deum atque angelum intellegi uoluit. 19. Sed enim Deus Pater accipi non potest, Deus autem et angelus Christus accipi potest.

17. To such an extent, moreover, he sets forth the same angel whom he had called God, that he singularly, at the close of his speech, set the person of whom he was speaking by saying:may he bless these boys.18. For if he had wished another angel to be understood, he would have encompassed two persons with the plural number; now he has put down the singular number of one person in the blessing, whence he willed the same God and angel to be understood. 19. But indeed God the Father cannot be taken; however, God and Angel can be taken as Christ.

Quem ut huius benedictionis auctorem etiam transuersas super pueros manus Iacob ponendo significauit, quasi pater illorum esset Christus, ex quo manus poneret figuram et formam futuram passionis ostendens. 20. Nemo igitur Christum sicut angelum non dubitat dicere, ita etiam Deum haesitet pronuntiare, cum hunc eundem in puerorum horum benedictionem per sacramentum passionis digestum in figura manuum et Deum et angelum intellegat inuocatum fuisse.

Whom as the author of this blessing he also signified by Jacob’s placing the hands crosswise over the boys, as though Christ were their father, whereby by the hands he was showing the figure and future form of the passion. 20. Therefore let no one who does not hesitate to call Christ as an angel, likewise hesitate to proclaim him also God, since he understands that this same one, set forth into the blessing of these boys through the sacrament of the passion in the figure of the hands, was invoked both as God and as angel.

XX. 1. Ac si aliquis haereticus pertinaciter obluctans aduersus ueritatem uoluerit in his omnibus exemplis proprie angelum aut intellegere aut intellegendum esse contenderit, in hoc quoque uiribus ueritatis frangatur necesse est. 2. Nam si omnibus caelestibus, terrenis et infernis Christo subditis etiam ipsi angeli cum omnibus ceteris quaecumque subiecta sunt Christo dicuntur dii, iure et Deus Christus. Et si quiuis angelus subditus Christo deus potest dici, et hoc si dicitur et sine blasphemia profertur, multo magis utique et hoc ipsi Dei Filio Christo competere potest, ut Deus pronuntietur.

20. 1. And if some heretic, pertinaciously wrestling against the truth, should wish in all these examples either to understand properly an angel or to contend that an angel ought to be understood, it is necessary that in this too he be broken by the forces of truth. 2. For if, with all things heavenly, earthly, and infernal subjected to Christ, even the angels themselves along with all the rest, whatever are subjected to Christ, are called gods, by right also Christ is God. And if any angel whatsoever subject to Christ can be called a god—and if this, when it is said, is brought forth without blasphemy—by much more certainly this can befit Christ himself, the Son of God, that he be pronounced God.

3. Si enim qui subiectus Christo angelus deus promitur, multo magis et constantius Christus, cui sunt omnes angeli subiecti, Deus esse dicetur. Nec enim naturae congruit ut quae minoribus concessa sunt maioribus denegentur. Ita si angelus Christo minor est, angelus autem deus dicitur, magis consequenter Christus Deus esse dicitur, qui non uno, sed omnibus angelis et maior et melior inuenitur.

3. For if an angel who is subject to Christ is asserted as a god, much more and more steadfastly will Christ, to whom all angels are subject, be said to be God. Nor does it congrue with nature that things granted to the lesser be denied to the greater. Thus, if the angel is lesser than Christ, and the angel is called “god,” more consequently Christ is said to be God, who is found to be not merely greater and better than one, but than all angels.

4. Ac sistetit Deus in synagoga deorum, in medio autem Deus deos discernit, in synagoga autem aliquotiens Christus stetit, Christus ergo in synagoga Deus stetit, diiudicans scilicet deos quibus dicit: Vsquequo personas hominum accipitis?, accusans scilicet consequenter homines synagogae non exercentes iusta iudicia. 5. Porro si illi, qui reprehenduntur atque culpantur, propter aliquam tamen causam hoc nomen adipisci sine blasphemia uidentur, ut dii nuncupentur, multo magis utique hic Deus habebitur, qui non tantum Deus deorum stetisse dicitur, sed etiam deos discernens et diiudicans ex eadem lectionis auctoritate aperitur. 6. Ac si illi qui tamquam unus de principibus cadunt dii tamen nuncupantur, multo magis Deus esse dicetur qui non tantum tamquam unus ex principibus non cadit, sed ipsum quoque malitiae et auctorem et principem uincit.

4. And ifGod stood in the synagogue of gods, and in the midst God judges the gods, and Christ stood in the synagogue on several occasions, therefore Christ as God stood in the synagogue, namely judging the gods to whom he says: How long do you accept the persons of men? accordingly accusing the men of the synagogue for not exercising just judgments. 5. Furthermore, if those who are rebuked and blamed nevertheless seem, for some reason, to attain this name without blasphemy, so as to be called gods, by so much the more, to be sure, will this one be held God, who is said not only to have stood as the God of gods, but also is shown, from the same authority of the reading to be one discerning and judging the gods. 6. And if those who fall like one of the princes are nevertheless called gods, by much more will he be said to be God, who not only does not fall like one of the princes, but also conquers the very author and prince of malice.

7. Quae autem malum ratio est ut, cum legant hoc etiam Moysi nomen datum, dum dicitur:Deum te posui Pharaoni, Christo negetur, qui non Pharaoni Deus, sed uniuersae creaturae et Dominus et Deus constitutus esse reperitur? 8. Et in illo quidem hoc nomen temperate datum, in hoc profuse, in illo ad mensuram, in hoc supra omnem omnino mensuram. Non enim ad mensuram, inquit, dat Filio Pater; Pater enim, inquit, diligit Filium.

7. But what evil reasoning is it that, when they read that this name also was given to Moses, while it is said:I have made you God to Pharaoh, it is denied to Christ, who is found to have been constituted not God to Pharaoh, but both Lord and God of the entire creation? 8. And in that one indeed this name was given temperately, in this one profusely; in that one according to measure, in this one beyond every measure altogether. For not by measure, he says, he gives to the Son the Father; the Father indeed, he says, loves the Son.

In illo ad tempus, in hoc sine tempore; diuini enim nominis potestatem et super omnia et in omne tempus accepit. 9. Quodsi qui unius hominis accepit potestatem, in hac exiguitate huius datae potestatis nomen tamen istud dei incunctanter consequitur, quanto magis qui in ipsum quoque Moysen habet potestatem, nominis istius auctoritatem consecutus esse credetur?

In that one for a time, in this one without time; for he has received the authority of the divine name both over all things and into all time. 9. But if one who has received power over a single man, in the exiguity of this granted power, nevertheless unhesitatingly attains this name of “god,” how much more will he who has power even over Moses himself be believed to have acquired the authority of that name?

XXI. l. Et poteram quidem omnium scripturarum caelestium euentilare tractatus et ingentem circa istam speciem Christi diuinitatis, ut ita dixerim, siluam commouere, nisi quoniam non tam mihi contra hanc haeresim propositum est dicere, quam breuiter circa personam Christi regulam ueritatis aperire. 2. Quamuis tamen ad alia festinem, illud non arbitror praetermittendum, quod in euangelio Dominus ad significantiam suae maiestatis expressit dicendo:Soluite templum hoc, et ego in triduo suscitabo illud, aut quando alio in loco et alia parte pronuntiat: Potestatem habeo animam meam ponendi et rursus recipere eam; hoc enim mandatum accepi a Patre.

21. 1. And indeed I could winnow through the treatises of all the heavenly Scriptures and, so to speak, set in motion an immense forest concerning this species of the divinity of Christ, except that it is not so much my purpose to speak against this heresy as briefly to lay open, concerning the person of Christ, the rule of truth. 2. Although, however, I hasten to other matters, I do not think that should be passed over which in the Gospel the Lord expressed for the signification of his majesty by saying:Loose this temple, and I will raise it up in three days, or when elsewhere and in another passage he pronounces: I have power to lay down my soul to lay down and to receive it again; for this mandate I have received from the Father.

3. Quis est enim qui dicit animam suam se posse ponere aut animam suam posse se rursum recuperare, quia hoc mandatum acceperit a Patre, aut quis dicit destructum corporis sui templum resuscitare rursum et reaedificare se posse, nisi quoniam sermo ille, qui ex Patre, qui apud Patrem, per quemfacta sunt omnia et sine quo factum est nihil, imitator paternorum operum atque uirtutum, imago inuisibilis Dei, qui descendit de caelo, qui quae uidit et audiuit testificatus est, qui non uenit ut faceret suam uoluntatem, sed potius ut faciat Patris uoluntatem, a quo missus ad hoc ipsum fuerat, ut magni consilii angelus factus arcanorum caelestium nobis iura reseraret, quique uerbum caro factus habitauit in nobis, ex nobis hic Christus non homo tantum, quia hominis filius, sed etiam Deus, quia Dei Filius, comprobatur? 4. Quodsi et primogenitus omnis creaturae ab apostolo dictus sit Christus, quomodo omnis creaturae primogenitus esse potuit, nisi quoniam secundum diuinitatem ante omnem creaturam ex Patre Deo sermo processit? Quod nisi ita haeretici acceperint, Christum hominem primogenitum omnis creaturae monstrare cogentur, quod facere non poterunt.

3. For who is there that says that he can lay down his own soul, or that he can take his own soul again, because he has received this mandate from the Father; or who says that, the temple of his body having been destroyed, he is able to resuscitate it again and re‑build it—unless it be because that Word, who is from the Father, who is with the Father, through whomall things were made, and without whom nothing was made, the imitator of the paternal works and virtues, the image of the invisible God, who descended from heaven, who bore witness to the things he saw and heard, who did not come to do his own will but rather to do the will of the Father, by whom he had been sent for this very thing, so that, made the angel of great counsel, he might unseal for us the laws of the heavenly arcana, and who, the Word having been made flesh, dwelt among us—on the basis of these things this Christ is proved to be not only a man, because Son of Man, but also God, because Son of God? 4. And if Christ is called by the Apostle the firstborn of every creature, how could he be firstborn of every creature, except that according to divinity the Word proceeded from God the Father before every creature? Which, unless the heretics accept thus, they will be compelled to show Christ the man as the firstborn of every creature, which they will not be able to do.

5. Aut igitur ante omnem est creaturam, ut primogenitus sit omni creaturae, et non homo est tantum, quia homo post omnem creaturam est, aut homo tantum est et est post omnem creaturam. 6. Et quomodo primogenitus est omnis creaturae, nisi quoniam [dum] uerbum illud, quod est ante omnem creaturam et ideo primogenitus omnis creaturae, caro fit et habitat in nobis, hoc est assumit hunc hominem qui est post omnem creaturam et sic cum illo et in illo habitat in nobis, ut neque homo Christo subtrahatur neque diuinitas negetur? 7. Nam si tantummodo ante omnem creaturam est, homo in illo subtractus est.

5. Either, therefore, he is before every creature, so that he may be the firstborn of every creature, and he is not only man, because man is after every creature; or he is only man and is after every creature. 6. And how is he the firstborn of every creature, unless because [while] that Word, which is before every creature and therefore the firstborn of every creature, becomes flesh and dwells in us, that is, takes up this man who is after every creature, and thus with him and in him dwells in us, so that neither the man be subtracted from Christ nor the divinity be denied? 7. For if he is only before every creature, the man in him has been subtracted.

Si autem tantummodo homo est, diuinitas, quae ante omnem creaturam est, intercepta est. Vtrumque ergo in Christo confoederatum est et utrumque coniunctum est et utrumque connexum est. 8. Et merito, dum est in illo aliquid quod superat creaturam, pignerata in illo diuinitatis et humanitatis uidetur esse concordia.

But if he is only a man, the divinity, which is before every creature, has been cut off. Therefore both are confederated in Christ, and both are conjoined, and both are connected. 8. And with good reason, since there is in him something that surpasses creation, a pledged concord of divinity and humanity seems to be in him.

Propter quam causam qui mediator Dei et hominum effectus exprimitur, in se Deum et hominem sociasse reperitur. 9. Ac si idem apostolus de Christo refert, ut exutus carnem potestates dehonestauit, palam triumphatis illis in semetipso, non utique otiose exutum carne proposuit, nisi quoniam et resurrectionem rursum indutum uoluit intellegi. 10. Quis est ergo iste exutus et rursus indutus?

For which cause he who is expressed as having been made mediator of God and men is found to have associated in himself God and man. 9. And if the same apostle reports about Christ, that having stripped off the flesh he dishonored the powers, openly triumphing over them in himself, he surely did not idly propose “stripped of flesh,” unless because he willed the resurrection to be understood as “clothed again.” 10. Who then is this one stripped and again clothed?

Requirant haeretici. Nos enim sermonem Dei scimus indutum carnis substantiam eundemque rursum exutum eadem corporis materia, quam rursus in resurrectione suscepit et quasi indumentum resumpsit. 11. Sed enim neque exutus neque indutus hominem Christus fuisset, si homo tantum fuisset.

Let the heretics inquire. For we know the Word of God to have been clothed with the substance of flesh, and the same again to have been stripped of the same bodily matter, which again in the resurrection he received and, as it were, a garment, took back on. 11. But indeed Christ would neither have been stripped of man nor clothed with man, if he had been only a man.

Nemo enim umquam se ipso aut spoliatur aut induitur. Sit enim necesse est aliud quicquid aliunde aut spoliatur aut induitur. 12. Ex quo merito sermo Dei fuit qui exutus est carnem et in resurrectione rursus indutus, exutus autem, quoniam et in natiuitate fuerat indutus.

For no one ever either despoils or clothes himself by himself. For it must needs be that whatever is either despoiled or clothed is something other, and from elsewhere. 12. Whence with good reason it was the Word of God who was stripped of flesh and in the resurrection again clothed—stripped, however, because he had also been clothed at the Nativity.

Itaque in Christo Deus est qui induitur atque etiam exutus sit oportet, propterea <quod> is qui induitur pariter et exuatur necesse est. Induitur autem et exuitur homo quasi quadam contexti corporis tunica. Ac propterea consequenter sermo fuit, ut diximus, Dei, qui modo indutus, modo exutus esse reperitur.

Therefore, in Christ it is God who is clothed and must also have been unclothed, because he who is clothed must likewise be unclothed. Moreover, man is clothed and unclothed as with a certain tunic, the woven body. And therefore, consequently, it was, as we have said, the Word of God, who is found now clothed, now unclothed.

13. Hoc enim etiam in benedictionibus ante praedixit:Lauabit stolam suam in uino et in sanguine uuae amictum suum. 14. Si stola in Christo caro est et amictum ipsum corpus est, requiratur quisquis est ille cuius corpus amictum est et stola caro. Nobis enim manifestum est carnem stolam et corpus amictum uerbi fuisse, qui[que] sanguine id est uino lauit substantiam corporis et materiam carnis abluens ex parte suscepti hominis passione.

13. For this too he pre-declared in the benedictions:He will wash his stole in wine and his amictus in the blood of the grape.14. If the stole in Christ is flesh and the amictus is the very body, let it be inquired who that one is whose body is the amictus and whose flesh the stole. For to us it is manifest that the flesh was the stole and the body the amictus of the Word, and that he washed with blood—that is, with wine—the substance of the body and, cleansing the material of the flesh, by the Passion on the part of the man assumed.

15. Ex quo siquidem lauatur, homo est, quia amictum quod lauatur caro est. Qui autem lauat, uerbum Dei est, qui, ut lauaret amictum, amicti susceptor effectus est. 16. Merito ex ea substantia quae recepta est ut lauaretur homo exprimitur, sicut ex uerbi auctoritate qui lauit Deus esse monstratur.

15. From which, indeed, what is washed is man, because the garment that is washed is flesh. But the one who washes is the Word of God, who, in order to wash the garment, became the one who assumed the garment. 16. With good reason
from that substance which was received so that man might be washed, man is expressed, just as by the authority of the Word the one who washed is shown to be God.

XXII. 1. Cur autem, licet ad aliam partem disputandi festinare uideamur, illum praetereamus apud apostolum locum:Qui cum in forma Dei esset, non rapinam arbitratus est aequalem se Deo esse, sed semetipsum exinaniuit formam serui accipiens, in similitudine hominum factus et habitu inuentus ut homo; humiliauit se oboediens factus usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis; propterea et Deus illum superexaltauit et dedit illi nomen quod est super omne nomen, ut in nomine Iesu omne genu flectatur caelestium, terrestrium et infernorum et omnis lingua confiteatur quoniam Dominus Iesus in gloria est Dei Patris? 2.Qui cum in forma Dei esset, inquit.

22. 1. But why, although we seem to hasten to another part of disputation, should we pass over that passage with the Apostle:Who, since he was in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal to God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, having been made in the likeness of men and, in appearance, found as a man; he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death, even death of a cross; wherefore also God super-exalted him and gave to him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend of heavenly beings, earthly beings, and those under the earth, and every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus is in the glory of God the Father?2.“Who, since he was in the form of God,” he says.

Si homo tantummodo Christus, in imagine Dei, non in forma Dei relatus fuisset. Hominem enim scimus ad imaginem, non ad formam Dei factum. 3. Quis ergo est iste, qui in forma Dei, ut diximus, factus est?

If Christ were only a man, he would have been related as in the image of God, not in the form of God. For we know that man was made according to the image, not according to the form of God. 3. Who then is this, who, as we said, was made in the form of God?

Angelus? Sed nec in angelis formam Dei legimus, nisi quoniam hic praecipuus atque generosus prae omnibus Dei Filius, uerbum Dei, imitator omnium paternorum operum, dum et ipse operatur sicut et Pater eius, forma, ut expressimus, est Dei Patris. 4. Et merito in forma pronuntiatus est Dei, dum et ipse super omnia et omnis creaturae diuinam obtinens potestatem et Deus est exemplo Patris, hoc ipsum tamen a Patre proprio consecutus, ut omnium et Deus esset et Dominus esset, et Deus ad formam Dei Patris ex ipso genitus atque prolatus.

An angel? But neither in angels do we read the form of God, except that this One—preeminent and noble-born before all, the Son of God, the Word of God, the imitator of all paternal works, inasmuch as he himself works just as also his Father— is, as we have expressed, the form of God the Father. 4. And rightly he has been pronounced in the form of God, since he himself is over all and, possessing divine power over every creature, is God after the example of the Father—yet having obtained this very thing from his own Father—so that he might be both God of all and Lord, and God according to the form of God the Father, begotten and brought forth from him.

5. Hic ergoquamuis esset in forma Dei, non est rapinam arbitratus aequalem se Deo esse. Quamuis enim se ex Deo Patre Deum esse meminisset, numquam se Deo Patri aut comparauit aut contulit, memor se esse ex suo Patre et hoc ipsum, quod est, habere se, quia Pater dedisset. Inde denique et ante carnis assumptionem, sed et post assumptionem corporis, post ipsam praeterea resurrectionem omnem Patri in omnibus rebus oboedientiam praestitit pariter ac praestat.

5. This one therefore,although he was in the form of God, did not deem it a robbery to be equal to God. For although he remembered that he, from God the Father, was God, he never either compared himself with God the Father or set himself alongside him, mindful that he is from his own Father and that this very thing which he is, he has, because the Father had given it. Whence, then, both before the assumption of flesh, and also after the assumption of the body, moreover after the resurrection itself, he rendered—and equally renders—every obedience to the Father in all things.

6. Ex quo probatur numquam arbitratum illum esse rapinam quandam diuinitatem, ut aequaret se Patri Deo, quin immo contra omni ipsius imperio et uoluntati oboediens atque subiectus, etiam ut formam serui susciperet contentus fuit, hoc est hominem illum fieri, et substantiam carnis et corporis, quam ex paternorum et secundum hominem delictorum seruitute uenientem nascendo suscepit, quo tempore se etiam exinaniuit, dum humanam condicionis fragilitatem suscipere non recusauit. 7. Quoniam si homo tantummodo natus fuisset, per hoc exinanitus non esset; homo enim nascens augetur, non exinanitur. Nam dum incipit esse quod cum non esset habere non potuit, ut diximus, non exinanitur, sed potius augetur atque ditatur.

6. From which it is proved that he never considered that to be a certain rapine of divinity, to make himself equal to God the Father; nay rather, on the contrary, obedient and subject to his every command and will, he was even content to assume the form of a servant, that is, to become that man, and the substance of flesh and of body, which, coming from the servitude of paternal sins and, as regards the man, sins, he took on by being born; at which time he also emptied himself, since he did not refuse to take up the fragility of the human condition. 7. For if he had been born only a man, by this he would not have been emptied; for a man, being born, is increased, not emptied. For, when he begins to be that which, when he was not, he could not have, as we have said, he is not emptied, but rather is increased and enriched.

8. Ac si Christus exinanitur in eo quod nascitur formam serui accipiendo, quomodo homo tantummodo est? De quo uerius dictum fuisset locupletatum illum esse tunc cum nasceretur, non exinanitum, nisi quoniam auctoritas diuini uerbi ad suscipiendum hominem interim conquiescens nec se suis uiribus exercens deicit se ad tempus atque deponit, dum hominem fert quem suscepit. 9. Exinanit se, dum ad iniurias contumeliasque descendit, dum audit infanda, experitur indigna, cuius tamen humilitatis adest statim egregius fructus.

8. And if Christ is emptied in that he is born by taking the form of a servant, how is he merely a man? Of whom it would more truly have been said that he was enriched then when he was born, not emptied, except that the authority of the divine Word, for the time being resting in order to assume the human and not exercising itself by its own powers, casts itself down for a time and lays itself aside, while it bears the man whom it has assumed. 9. He empties himself, as he descends to injuries and contumelies, as he hears unspeakable things, experiences unworthy things, yet the distinguished fruit of this humility is present at once.

10. Accepit enimnomen quod est super omne nomen, quod utique non aliud intellegimus esse quam nomen Dei. Nam cum Dei sit solius esse super omnia, consequens est ut nomen illud sit super omnia, quod est eius qui super omnia est Dei. Est ergo nomen illud quod super omne nomen est; quod nomen est eius utique consequenter qui, cum in forma Dei fuisset, non rapinam arbitratus est aequalem se Deo esse.

10. For he received thename which is above every name, which assuredly we understand to be nothing other than the name of God. For since it belongs to God alone to be over all things, it follows that that name is over all things which is of Him who is above all things, namely God. Therefore that is the name which is above every name; which name, consequently, is His who, although he had been in the form of God, did not deem it a robbery to be equal to God.

11. Neque enim si non et Deus esset Christus, omne se in nomine eius genu flecteret caelestium et terrestrium et infernorum, nec uisibilia aut inuisibilia aut rerum omnium omnis creatura homini esset subiecta siue substrata, quae se ante hominem esse meminisset. 12. Ex quo et dum in forma Dei esse Christus dicitur et dum in natiuitatem secundum carnem sese exinanisse monstratur et dum id accepisse nomen a Patre quod sit super omne nomen exprimitur et dum in nomine eius omne genu caelestium, terrenorum et infernorum se flectere et curuare monstratur et hoc ipsum in gloriam Dei Patris succurrere asseritur, consequenter non ex illo tantum homo est, quiaoboediens Patri factus est usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis, sed ex his etiam rebus superioribus diuinitatem Christi sonantibus Dominus Christus Iesus et Deus, quod haeretici nolunt, esse monstratur.

11. For neither, if Christ were not also God, would every knee of the heavenly, the earthly, and the infernal bend itself in his name, nor would the visible or the invisible or every creature of all things be subjected or sub-strated to man—those which would have remembered themselves to be before man. 12. Whence also, both while Christ is said to be in the form of God, and while he is shown to have emptied himself into birth according to the flesh, and while it is expressed that he received that name from the Father which is above every name, and while it is shown that in his name every knee of heavenly, earthly, and infernal bends and bows itself, and this very thing is asserted to redound to the glory of God the Father, consequently he is not a man from that alone, because he was madeobedient to the Father unto death, and death indeed of the cross, but from these matters as well—those above that sound forth the divinity of Christ—the Lord Christ Jesus is shown also to be God, which the heretics are unwilling to allow.

XXIII. 1. Hoc in loco licebit mihi argumenta etiam ex aliorum haereticorum parte conquirere. Firmum est genus probationis, quod etiam ab aduersario sumitur, ut ueritas etiam ab ipsis inimicis ueritatis probetur.

23. 1. In this place it will be permitted me to gather arguments even from the part of other heretics. Firm is the kind of probation, which is even taken from the adversary, so that truth may be proved even by the very enemies of truth.

2. Nam usque adeo hunc manifestum est in scripturis et Deum tradi, ut plerique haereticorum diuinitatis ipsius magnitudine et ueritate commoti, ultra modum extendentes honores eius, ausi sint non Filium, sed ipsum Deum Patrem promere uel putare. 3. Quod etsi contra scripturarum ueritatem est, tamen diuinitatis Christi argumentum grande atque praecipuum est, qui usque adeo Deus, sed qua Filius Dei natus ex Deo, ut plerique illum, ut diximus, haeretici ita Deum acceperint, ut non Filium, sed Patrem pronuntiandum putarent. 4. Aestiment ergo an hic sit Deus, cuius auctoritas tantum mouit quosdam, ut putarent illum, ut diximus superius, iam ipsum Patrem Deum, effrenatius et effusius in Christo diuinitatem confitentes, ad hoc illos manifesta Christi diuinitate cogente ut, quem Filium legerent, quia Deum animaduerterent, Patrem putarent.

2. For to such an extent it is manifest in the Scriptures that this one too is handed down as God, that very many of the heretics, moved by the magnitude and truth of his very divinity, extending his honors beyond measure, have dared to profess or to suppose not the Son, but God the Father himself. 3. Which, although it is against the truth of the Scriptures, nevertheless is a great and principal argument of the divinity of Christ—who is to such an extent God, yet as the Son of God, born from God—that very many heretics, as we have said, have received him as God in such a way that they thought he ought to be proclaimed not as Son, but as Father. 4. Let them judge, therefore, whether this be God, whose authority so greatly moved certain persons that they thought him, as we said above, already God the Father himself—confessing divinity in Christ more unbridledly and more profusely—Christ’s manifest divinity compelling them to this, to the point that the one whom they read as Son, because they noticed him to be God, they took to be the Father.

5. Alii quoque haeretici usque adeo Christi manifestam amplexati sunt diuinitatem, ut dixerint illum fuisse sine carne et totum illi susceptum detraxerint hominem, ne decoquerent in illo diuini nominis potestatem, si humanam illi sociassent, ut arbitrabantur, natiuitatem. 6. Quod tamen nos non probamus, sed argumentum afferimus usque adeo Christum esse Deum, ut quidam illum subtracto homine tantummodo putarint Deum, quidam autem ipsum crediderint Patrem Deum, cum ratio et temperamentum scripturarum caelestium Christum ostendant Deum, sed qua Filium Dei, et assumpto a Deo etiam filio hominis credendum et hominem. 7. Quoniam si ad hominem ueniebat, utmediator Dei et hominum esse deberet, oportuit illum cum eo esse et uerbum carnem fieri, ut in semetipso concordiam confibularet terrenorum pariter atque caelestium, dum utriusque partis in se connectens pignora et Deum homini et hominem Deo copularet, ut merito Filius Dei per assumptionem carnis filius hominis et filius hominis per receptionem Dei uerbi Filius Dei effici possit.

5. Other heretics likewise embraced to such a degree the manifest divinity of Christ, that they said he was without flesh and stripped from him the whole man that had been assumed, lest they should boil away in him the power of the divine name, if they were to associate to him, as they thought, a human nativity. 6. Which, however, we do not approve; rather we bring it forward as an argument—that Christ is so far God, that some, subtracting the man, thought him to be God only, while others believed him to be God the Father himself—whereas the ratio and temperament of the heavenly scriptures show Christ to be God, yet as the Son of God, and, with the Son of Man also assumed by God, to be believed also as man. 7. Since if he was coming to man, that he ought to be themediator of God and men, it was needful that he be with him and that the Word become flesh, so that in himself he might clasp together the concord of things earthly and heavenly alike, while connecting in himself the pledges of each party and coupling God to man and man to God, so that deservedly the Son of God, through the assumption of flesh, might be made son of man, and the son of man, through the reception of the Word of God, might be made Son of God.

8. Hoc altissimum atque reconditum sacramentum, ad salutem generis humani ante saecula destinatum, in Domino Iesu Christo Deo et homine inuenitur impleri, quo condicio generis humani ad fructum aeternae salutis posset adduci.

8. This most lofty and recondite sacrament, destined before the ages for the salvation of the human race, is found to be fulfilled in the Lord Jesus Christ, God and man, whereby the condition of the human race might be brought to the fruit of eternal salvation.

XXIV. 1. Sed erroris istius haereticorum inde, ut opinor, nata materia est, quia inter Filium Dei et filium hominis nihil arbitrantur interesse, ne facta distinctione et homo et Deus Iesus Christus facile comprobetur. 2. Eundem enim atque ipsum, id est hominem filium hominis etiam Filium Dei uolunt uideri, ut homo et caro et fragilis illa substantia eadem atque ipsa Filius Dei esse dicatur, ex quo, dum distinctio filii hominis et Filii Dei nulla secernitur, sed ipse filius hominis Dei Filius uindicatur, homo tantummodo Christus idem atque Filius Dei asseratur.

24. 1. But the matter of that error of the heretics arose, as I suppose, from this: that they reckon there is no difference between the Son of God and the son of man, lest, if a distinction be made, Jesus Christ be easily proved both man and God. 2. For they want the same and selfsame—namely, the man, the son of man—also to be seen as the Son of God, so that the man and the flesh and that fragile substance be said to be the same and selfsame as the Son of God; whence, while no distinction of the son of man and of the Son of God is drawn, but the very son of man is claimed as the Son of God, Christ is asserted to be only a man, the same as the Son of God.

3. Per quod nituntur excludereVerbum caro factum est et habitauit in nobis, et Vocabitis nomen eius Emmanuel, quod est interpretatum nobiscum Deus. 4. Proponunt enim atque illa praetendunt, quae in euangelio Lucae relata sunt, ex quibus asserere conantur non quod est, sed tantum illud quod uolunt esse:Spiritus sanctus ueniet in te, et uirtus altissimi obumbrabit tibi; propterea et quod ex te nascetur sanctum uocabitur Filius Dei. 5. Si ergo, inquiunt, angelus Dei dicit ad Mariam:quod ex te nascetur sanctum, ex Maria est substantia carnis et corporis.

3. By which they strive to excludeThe Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and You shall call his name Emmanuel, which is interpreted God-with-us. 4. For they set forth and put forward those things which are related in the Gospel of Luke, from which they try to assert not what is, but only that which they want to be:The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore also the holy thing which shall be born from you will be called the Son of God. 5. If therefore, they say, the angel of God says to Mary:that which shall be born from you is holy, from Mary is the substance of flesh and body.

Hanc autem substantiam, id est sanctum hoc quod ex illa genitum est, Filium Dei esse proposuit. Homo, inquiunt, ipse et illa caro corporis, illud quod sanctum est dictum, ipsum est Filius Dei, ut et cum dicit scriptura sanctum, Christum filium hominis hominem intellegamus, et cum Filium Dei proponit, non Deum, sed hominem percipere debeamus. 6. Sed enim scriptura diuina haereticorum et fraudes et furta facile conuincit et detegit.

But he proposed that this substance, that is, this holy thing which has been begotten from her, is the Son of God. “A man,” they say, “he himself and that flesh of the body—that which is said to be holy—this itself is the Son of God, so that both when Scripture says holy, we may understand Christ, the son of man, as a man, and when it sets forth the Son of God, we ought to perceive not God, but a man.” 6. But indeed the divine Scripture easily convicts and uncovers both the frauds and the thefts of the heretics.

Si enim sic esset tantummodo: Spiritus ueniet in te, et uirtus altissimi obumbrabit tibi; propterea quod nascetur ex te sanctum uocabitur Filius Dei, fortasse alio esset nobis genere aduersus illos reluctandum et alia nobis essent argumenta quaerenda et arma sumenda, quibus illorum et insidias et praestigias uinceremus. Cum autem ipsa scriptura caelesti abundans plenitudine sese haereticorum istorum calumniis exuat, facile ipso quod scriptum est nitimur et errores istos sine ulla dubitatione superamus. 7. Non enim dixit, ut iam expressimus: Propterea quod ex te nascetur sanctum, sed adiecit coniunctionem, ait enim: Propterea et quod ex te nascetur sanctum, ut illud ostenderet, non principaliter hoc sanctum quod ex illa nascitur, id est istam carnis corporisque substantiam, Filium Dei esse, sed consequenter et in secundo loco, principaliter autem Filium Dei esse uerbum Dei incarnatum per illum spiritum de quo angelus refert: Spiritus ueniet in te, et uirtus altissimi obumbrabit tibi.

For if it were thus only: Spiritus ueniet in te, et uirtus altissimi obumbrabit tibi; propterea quod nascetur ex te sanctum uocabitur Filius Dei, perhaps we would have to struggle against them by another kind, and other arguments would have to be sought and arms taken up, by which we might conquer their plots and tricks. But since the very heavenly Scripture, abounding in plenitude, strips itself free of the calumnies of those heretics, we easily rely on that which is written itself and overcome those errors without any doubt. 7. For it did not say, as we have already expressed: Propterea quod ex te nascetur sanctum, but it added a conjunction, for it says: Propterea et quod ex te nascetur sanctum, so as to show this: that not primarily this holy thing which is born from her, that is, this substance of flesh and body, is the Son of God, but consequently and in the second place; whereas primarily the Son of God is the Word of God incarnate through that Spirit of whom the angel reports: Spiritus ueniet in te, et uirtus altissimi obumbrabit tibi.

8. Hic est enim legitimus Dei Filius qui ex ipso Deo est, qui, dum sanctum istud assumit et sibi filium hominis annectit et illum ad se rapit atque transducit, connexione sua et permixtione sociata praestat et Filium illum Dei facit, quod ille naturaliter non fuit, ut principalitas nominis istius 'Filius Dei' in spiritu sit Domini, qui descendit et uenit, ut sequela nominis istius in Filio Dei et hominis sit et merito consequenter hic Filius Dei factus sit, dum non principaliter Filius Dei est. 9. Atque ideo dispositionem istam angelus uidens et ordinem istum sacramenti expediens, non sic cuncta confundens ut nullum uestigium distinctionis collocarit, distinctionem posuit dicendo:Propterea et quod nascetur ex te sanctum uocabitur Filius Dei, ne si distributionem istam cum libramentis suis non dispensasset, sed in confuso permixtam reliquisset, uere occasionem haereticis contulisset, ut hominis filium, qua homo est, eundem et Dei et hominis filium pronuntiare deberent. 10. Nunc autem particulatim exponens tam magni sacramenti ordinem atque rationem euidenter expressit, ut diceret: Et quod ex te nascetur sanctum uocabitur Filius Dei, probans quoniam Filius Dei descendit, qui dum filium hominis in se suscepit, consequenter illum Filium Dei fecit, quoniam illum Filius sibi Dei sociauit et iunxit, ut dum filius hominis adhaeret in natiuitatem Filio Dei, ipsa permixtione feneratum et mutuatum teneret, quod ex natura propria possidere non posset.

8. For this is the legitimate Son of God, who is from God himself, who, while he assumes that holy thing and annexes to himself the son of man and snatches him up and transfers him to himself, by his own connexion and association by commixture grants and even makes that one the Son of God, which he was not by nature, so that the primacy of that name ‘Son of God’ may be in the Spirit of the Lord, who descended and came, while the sequel of that name may be in the Son of God and man, and deservedly in consequence this one was made the Son of God, while he is not principally the Son of God. 9. And therefore the angel, seeing that disposition and unfolding that order of the sacrament, not so confounding all things that he set no trace of distinction, set a distinction by saying:Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God, lest, if he had not dispensed that distribution with its counterpoises, but had left it blended in confusion, he would truly have given occasion to the heretics, so that they ought to pronounce the son of man, inasmuch as he is man, the same as both the son of God and of man. 10. But now, setting forth in particulars the order and rationale of so great a sacrament, he has clearly expressed it, so as to say: And that holy thing which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God, proving that the Son of God descended, who, when he received into himself the son of man, consequently made him the Son of God, since the Son of God associated and joined him to himself, so that, while the son of man adheres in birth to the Son of God, by that very commixture he might hold, as by usury and on loan, what he could not possess from his own nature.

11. Ac sic facta est angeli uoce, quod nolunt haeretici, inter Filium Dei hominisque cum sua tamen sociatione distinctio, urgendo illos uti Christum, hominis filium hominem, intellegant quoque Dei Filium et hominem Dei Filium, id est Dei uerbum, sicut scriptum est, Deum accipiant atque ideo Christum Iesum Dominum ex utroque connexum, ut ita dixerim, ex utroque contextum atque concretum et in eadem utriusque substantiae concordia mutui ad inuicem foederis confibulatione sociatum hominem et Deum scripturae hoc ipsum dicentis ueritate cognoscant.

11. And thus by the angel’s voice there was made—what the heretics do not wish—a distinction between the Son of God and the son of man, with its own association nevertheless, pressing them that, just as they understand Christ, the son of man, to be man, so too they may accept the Son of God—the Word of God, as it is written—to be God, and the man to be the Son of God; and therefore, by the truth of scripture saying this very thing, let them recognize Christ Jesus the Lord as connected from both, so to speak, contexted and concreted from both, and, in the same concord of the substance of each, the man and God associated by the confibulation of a mutual covenant toward one another.

XXV. 1. Ergo, inquiunt, si Christus non homo est tantum, sed et Deus, Christum autem refert scriptura mortuum pro nobis et resuscitatum, iam docet nos scriptura credere Deum mortuum. Aut si Deus non moritur, Christus autem mortuus refertur, non erit Christus Deus, quoniam Deus non potest accipi mortuus.

25. 1. Therefore, they say, if Christ is not only man but also God, and yet Scripture reports Christ as dead for us and resuscitated, now Scripture teaches us to believe God dead. Or if God does not die, but Christ is reported dead, Christ will not be God, since God cannot be taken as dead.

2. Si umquam intellegerent aut intellexissent quod legunt, numquam tam periculose omnino loquerentur. Sed erroris semper est abrupta dementia et non est nouum, si usque ad periculosa descendunt qui fidem legitimam reliquerunt. 3. Si enim scriptura proponeret Christum tantummodo Deum et nulla in illo fragilitatis humanae sociatio esset permixta, merito illorum hic aliquid ualuisset sermo contortus: 'si Christus Deus, Christus autem mortuus, ergo mortuus est Deus'. 4. Sed cum non tantummodo illum, ut ostendimus iam frequenter, Deum, sed et hominem scriptura constituat, consequens est, quod immortale est, incorruptum mansisse teneatur.

2. If they ever understood or had understood what they read, they would never speak so perilously at all. But the madness of error is always headlong, and it is not new if those who have relinquished the legitimate faith descend to perilous things. 3. For if Scripture were to set forth Christ as God only, and no association of human fragility were mixed in him, then with good reason their twisted discourse would have had some force here: 'if Christ is God, but Christ is dead, therefore God is dead.' 4. But since Scripture establishes him as not only God, as we have already shown frequently, but also man, it follows that what is immortal is to be held to have remained incorrupt.

Quis enim non intellegat quod impassibilis sit diuinitas, passibilis uero sit humana fragilitas? 5. Cum ergo tam ex eo quod Deus est, quam etiam ex illo quod homo est Christus intellegatur esse permixtus et esse sociatus, Verbum enim caro factum est et habitauit in nobis, quis non sine ullo magistro atque interprete ex sese facile cognoscat non illud in Christo mortuum esse quod Deus est, sed illud in illo mortuum esse quod homo est? 6. Quid enim si diuinitas in Christo non moritur, sed carnis solius substantia exstinguitur, quando et in ceteris hominibus, qui non sunt caro tantummodo, sed caro et anima, caro quidem sola incursum interitus mortisque patitur, extra leges autem interitus et mortis anima incorrupta cernatur?

For who does not understand that the divinity is impassible, but human fragility is passible? 5. Therefore, since Christ is understood to be both commixed from that by which he is God and also associated from that by which he is man, for the Word indeed was made flesh and dwelt among us, who does not, without any teacher or interpreter, easily recognize from himself that it is not that in Christ which is God that died, but that in him which is man that died? 6. For what if the divinity in Christ does not die, but the substance of the flesh alone is extinguished, when even in other men, who are not flesh only but flesh and soul, the flesh alone suffers the incursion of destruction and death, but the soul, incorrupt, is seen to be outside the laws of destruction and death?

7. Hoc enim et ipse Dominus hortans nos ad martyrium et ad contemptum omnis humanae potestatis aiebat:Ne timueritis eos qui corpus occidunt, animam autem occidere non possunt. 8. Quodsi anima immortalis occidi aut interfici non potest in quouis alio, licet corpus et caro sola possit interfici, quanto magis utique uerbum Dei et Deus in Christo interfici omnino non potuit, cum caro sola et corpus occisum sit? 9. Si enim hanc habet generositatem immortalitatis anima in quouis homine, ut non possit interfici, multo magis hanc habet potestatem generositas uerbi Dei, ut non possit occidi.

7. For this too the Lord himself, exhorting us to martyrdom and to the contempt of all human power, was saying:Do not be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul.8. But if the immortal soul cannot be killed or slain in any other person, although the body and the flesh alone can be slain, how much more indeed could the Word of God and God in Christ by no means be slain at all, since the flesh alone and the body has been killed? 9. For if the soul in any man has this nobility of immortality, that it cannot be slain, much more does the nobility of the Word of God have this power, that it cannot be killed.

Nam si potestas hominum ad interficiendam sacram Dei potestatem et si crudelitas humana ad interficiendam animam deficit, multo magis ad Dei uerbum interficiendum deficere debebit. Nam cum ipsa anima, quae per Dei uerbum facta est, ab hominibus non occiditur, multo magis utique uerbum Dei perimi non posse credetur. 10. Et si plus non potest hominum cruenta saeuitia aduersus homines quam ut tantummodo corpus occidat, quanto magis utique in Christo non ualebit quam ut item tantummodo corpus occidat, ut dum per haec colligitur non nisi hominem in Christo interfectum, appareat ad mortalitatem sermonem in loco non esse deductum.

For if the power of men fails for putting to death the sacred power of God, and if human cruelty fails for putting to death the soul, much more must it fail for putting to death the Word of God. For since the soul itself, which was made through the Word of God, is not killed by men, much more surely will the Word of God be believed to be unable to be destroyed. 10. And if the bloody savagery of men can do nothing more against men than only to kill the body, how much more, of course, will it not prevail in Christ beyond likewise only to kill the body, so that, while from these things it is gathered that nothing but the man in Christ was slain, it may appear that the Word has not been duly brought down to mortality.

11. Nam si Abraham et Isaac et Iacob, quos homines tantummodo constat fuisse, manifestum est uiuere —omnes enim, inquit, illi uiuunt Deo nec mors in illis animam perimit, quae corpora ipsa dissoluit; ius enim suum exercere potuit in corpora, in animas exercere non ualuit; aliud enim in illis mortale et ideo mortuum, aliud in illis immortale et ideo intellegitur non exstinctum; ob quam causam uiuere Deo pronuntiati et dicti sunt —, multo magis utique mors in Christo aduersum solam materiam corporis potuit ualere, aduersus diuinitatem sermonis non potuit se exercere. Frangitur enim potestas mortis ubi intercedit auctoritas immortalitatis.

11. For if Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, whom it is agreed were only men, it is manifest that they live —for all, he says, live to God — and death does not destroy in them the soul, which dissolves the bodies themselves; for it was able to exercise its right over bodies, it was not able to exercise it over souls; for one thing in them is mortal and therefore dead, another thing in them is immortal and therefore is understood not to have been extinguished; for which cause they were proclaimed and said to live to God —, much more assuredly could death in Christ prevail only against the material of the body, it could not exercise itself against the divinity of the discourse. For the power of death is broken where the authority of immortality intervenes.

XXVI. 1. Sed ex hac occasione, quia Christus non homo tantum, sed et Deus diuinarum literarum sacris auctoritatibus approbatur, alii haeretici erumpentes statum in Christo religionis concutere machinantur, hoc ipso Patrem Deum uolentes ostendere Christum esse, dum non homo tantum asseritur, sed et Deus promitur. 2. Sic enim inquiunt: si unus esse Deus promitur, Christus autem Deus, ergo, inquiunt, si Pater et Christus est unus Deus, Christus Pater dicetur.

26. 1. But from this occasion—since Christ is approved not only as man but also as God by the sacred authorities of the divine letters—other heretics, bursting forth, machinate to shake the status of religion in Christ, wishing by this very point to show that God the Father is Christ, inasmuch as he is asserted not only as man, but also God is put forward. 2. For thus they say: if one God is proclaimed, and Christ is God, therefore, they say, if the Father and Christ is one God, Christ will be called Father.

In quo errare probantur Christum non noscentes, sed sonum nominis approbantes; nolunt enim illum secundam esse personam post Patrem, sed ipsum Patrem. 3. Quibus quia facile respondetur, pauca dicentur. Quis enim non secundam Filii post Patrem agnoscat esse personam, cum legat dictum a Patre consequenter ad Filium: Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram, et post haec relatum: Et fecit Deus hominem, ad imaginem Dei fecit illum?

In this they are proved to err, not knowing Christ, but approving the sound of the name; for they are unwilling that he be the second person after the Father, but the Father himself. 3. To whom, since it is easy to respond, a few things will be said. For who does not acknowledge that the Son is the second person after the Father, when he reads that it was said by the Father consequently to the Son: Let us make man according to our image and likeness, and after these things it is reported: And God made man; according to the image of God he made him?

4. Aut cum inter manus teneat:Pluit Dominus super Sodomam et Gomorram ignem et sulphur a Domino de caelo? 5. Aut cum ad Christum:Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te; postula a me, et dabo tibi gentes hereditatem tuam et possessionem tuam terminos terrae? 6. Aut cum etiam ille desideratus scriba ait:Dixit Dominus Domino meo: sede a dextris meis, donec ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum?

4. Or when he holds in his hands:The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah fire and sulphur from the Lord out of heaven?5. Or when to Christ:You are my Son; I today have begotten you; ask of me, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance and the boundaries of the earth as your possession?6. Or when that desired scribe also says:The Lord said to my Lord: sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet?

7. Aut cum Esaiae prophetias explicans inuenit positum sic:Haec dicit Dominus Christo meo Domino? 8. Aut cum legit:Non descendi de caelo ut faciam uoluntatem meam, sed uoluntatem eius qui misit me? 9. Aut dum inuenit positum:Quoniam qui me misit, maior me est? 10. Aut cum considerat scriptum:Eo ad Patrem meum et Patrem uestrum, Deum meum et Deum uestrum?

7. Or when, explaining the prophecies of Isaiah, he finds it set down thus:Thus says the Lord to my Christ, my Lord? 8. Or when he reads:I have not come down from heaven to do my will, but the will of him who sent me?9. Or when he finds it set down:For he who sent me is greater than I?10. Or when he considers it written:I go to my Father and your Father, my God and your God?

11. Aut quando habet cum ceteris collocatum:Sed in lege uestra scriptum est quia duorum testimonium uerum est; ego de me testificor et testificatus est de me qui me misit Pater? 12. Aut quando uox de caelo redditur:Et honorificaui et honorificabo? 13. Aut quando a Petro respondetur et dicitur:Tu es Filius Dei uiui?

11. Or when he has, set along with the others:But in your law it is written that the testimony of two is true; I bear witness about myself, and the Father who sent me has borne witness about me? 12. Or when a voice from heaven is rendered:I have glorified and I will glorify? 13. Or when it is answered by Peter and it is said:You are the Son of the living God?

14. Aut quando ab ipso Domino sacramentum huius reuelationis approbatur et dicitur:Beatus es, Simon Bariona, quoniam hoc tibi non reuelauit caro et sanguis, sed Pater meus qui in caelis est? 15. Aut quando ab ipso Christo exprimitur:Pater, clarifica me eo honore quo fui apud te antequam mundus fieret? 16. Aut cum ab eodem dicitur:Pater, sciebam quia semper me audis, uerum propter circumstantes dixi, ut credant quia tu me misisti?

14. Or when by the Lord himself the sacrament of this revelation is approved and it is said:Blessed are you, Simon Bariona, because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in the heavens?15. Or when by Christ himself it is expressed:Father, glorify me with that honor with which I was with you before the world was made?16. Or when by the same one it is said:Father, I knew that you always hear me, but for the sake of those standing around I said it, that they may believe that you sent me?

17. Aut cum definitio regulae ab ipso Christo collocatur et dicitur:Haec est autem uita aeterna, ut sciant te unum et uerum Deum et quem misisti Iesum Christum. Ego te honorificaui super terram, opus perfeci quod dedisti mihi? 18. Aut cum item ab eodem asseritur et dicitur:Omnia mihi tradita sunt a Patre meo?

17. Or when the definition of the rule is set forth by Christ himself and it is said:But this is eternal life, that they may know you, the one and true God, and Jesus Christ whom you sent. I have glorified you upon the earth, I have completed the work which you gave to me? 18. Or when likewise by the same it is asserted and it is said:All things have been handed over to me by my Father?

19. Aut cum sedere ad dexteram Patris et a prophetis et ab apostolis approbatur? 20. Et satis longum facio, si enisus fuero omnes omnino ad hanc partem uoces congregare, quandoquidem non tam ueteris quam etiam noui testamenti scriptura diuina ubique ostendat illum ex Patre natum, per quemfacta sunt omnia et sine quo factum est nihil, qui oboedierit semper Patri et oboediat, semper habentem rerum omnium potestatem, sed qua traditam, sed qua concessam, sed qua a Patre proprio sibi indultam. 21. Quid enim tam euidens potest esse, hunc non Patrem esse, sed Filium, quam quod oboediens Patri Deo proponitur, ne si Pater esse credatur, alteri iam Deo Patri Christus subiectus esse dicatur?

19. Or when to sit at the right hand of the Father is approved both by the prophets and by the apostles? 20. And I would make it quite long, if I should strive to gather absolutely all the voices to this side, since the divine Scripture not only of the Old but also of the New Testament everywhere shows him born from the Father, through whomall things were made and without whom nothing was made, who has always obeyed the Father and does obey, always having the power of all things, yet such as delivered, such as granted, such as bestowed upon himself by his own Father. 21. For what can be so evident that this one is not Father but Son as the fact that he is set forth as obedient to God the Father, lest, if he be believed to be Father, Christ should be said to be subject to another God the Father?

XXVII. 1. Sed quia frequenter intendunt illum nobis locum quo dictum sit:Ego et Pater unum sumus, et in hoc illos aeque facile uincemus. 2. Si enim erat, ut haeretici putant, Pater Christus, oportuit dicere 'Ego Pater unus sum'. At cum Ego dicit, deinde Patrem infert dicendo Ego et Pater, proprietatem personae suae, id est Filii, a paterna auctoritate discernit atque distinguit, non tantummodo de sono nominis, sed etiam de ordine dispositae potestatis, qui potuisset dicere 'Ego Pater', si Patrem se esse meminisset.

27. 1. But because they frequently press upon us that passage where it is said:I and the Father are one, and in this we will conquer them equally easily. 2. For if, as the heretics think, the Father was Christ, he ought to have said 'I the Father am one'. But when he says I, then brings in the Father by saying I and the Father, he distinguishes and sets apart the property of his own person, that is, of the Son, from the paternal authority, not only by the sound of the name, but also by the order of the disposed power—the one who could have said 'I the Father,' if he had remembered himself to be the Father.

3. Et quia dixitunum, intellegant haeretici quia non dixit 'unus'. Vnum enim neutraliter positum societatis concordiam, non unitatem personae sonat. Vnum enim, non 'unus' esse dicitur. quoniam nec ad numerum refertur, sed ad societatem alterius expromitur.

3. And because he saidunum, let the heretics understand that he did not say 'unus'. For Vnum set neutrally sounds the concord of society, not the unity of person. Vnum indeed, not 'unus', is said to be; since it is not referred to number, but is expressed with reference to the society of another.

4. Denique adicit dicenssumus, non 'sum', ut ostenderet per hoc, quod dixit 'sumus' et 'Pater', duas esse personas. Vnum autem quod ait, ad concordiam et eandem sententiam et ad ipsam caritatis societatem pertinet, ut merito unum sit Pater et Filius per concordiam et per amorem et per dilectionem. 5. Et quoniam ex Patre est, quicquid illud est, Filius est, manente tamen distinctione, ut non sit Pater ille qui Filius, quia nec Filius ille qui Pater est.

4. Finally, he adds, sayingwe are, not 'I am', so that he might show by this, that he said 'we are' and 'Father', that there are two persons. But one which he says pertains to concord and the same sentiment and to the very society of charity, so that deservedly the Father and the Son are one through concord and through love and through dilection. 5. And since he is from the Father—whatever that is—he is the Son, with the distinction nevertheless remaining, so that the Father is not the one who is the Son, because neither is the Son the one who is the Father.

Nec enim sumus addidisset, si unum se et solitarium Patrem Filium factum esse meminisset. 6. Denique nouit hanc concordiae unitatem et apostolus Paulus, cum personarum tamen distinctione. Nam cum ad Corinthios scriberet, Ego, inquit, plantaui, Apollo rigauit, sed Deus incrementum dedit.

Nor indeed would he have added we are, if he had remembered that the Son had been made the one and solitary Father himself. 6. Finally, the Apostle Paul also knows this unity of concord, yet with a distinction of persons. For when he was writing to the Corinthians, I, he says, planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase.

Itaque neque qui plantat est quicquam neque qui rigat, sed qui incrementum dat Deus. Qui autem plantat et qui rigat unum sunt. 7. Quis autem non intellegat alterum esse Apollo, alterum Paulum, non eundem atque ipsum Apollo pariter et Paulum?

Therefore neither the one who plants is anything nor the one who irrigates, but God who gives the increment. But the one who plants and the one who irrigates are one. 7. Who, moreover, does not understand that the one is Apollo, the other Paul—Apollo and Paul not being one and the very same?

Denique et diuersa uniuscuiusque sunt officia prolata; alter enim qui plantat et alter qui rigat. Hos tamen duos non quod unus sit, sed quod unum sint proposuit apostolus Paulus, ut alter quidem sit Apollo, alter uero Paulus, quantum ad personarum distinctionem pertinet, <quantum uero ad concordiam pertinet,> unum ambo sint. 8. Nam quando duorum una sententia est, ueritas una est, fides una est, una atque eadem religio est, unus etiam Dei timor est, unum sunt, etiamsi duo sint, ipsum sunt, dum ipsum sapiunt.

Finally, too, the diverse offices of each are brought forward; for one is he who plants and another he who waters. These two, however, the apostle Paul set forth not because he is one, but because they are one, so that the one indeed is Apollo, the other truly Paul, as far as the distinction of persons pertains, <but as far as concord pertains,> both are one. 8. For when of two the judgment is one, the truth is one, the faith is one, one and the same religion is, there is one also fear of God, they are one, even if they are two; they are the selfsame, so long as they savor the same.

9. Etenim quos personae ratio inuicem diuidit, eosdem rursus inuicem religionis ratio conducit. Et quamuis idem atque ipsi non sint, dum idem sentiunt, ipsum sunt, et cum duo sint, unum sunt, habentes in fide societatem, etiamsi gerant in personis diuersitatem. 10. Denique cum ad has uoces Domini imperitia fuisset Iudaica commota et temere adusque saxa succensa, ita ut discurrerent et dicerent:Non te lapidamus propter bonum opus, sed propter blasphemiam, et quia tu, cum homo sis, facis te Deum, distinctionem posuit Dominus in ratione reddenda, quomodo se Deum aut dixisset aut intellegi uellet.

9. For indeed those whom the rationale of person divides in turn, the same again in turn the rationale of religion brings together. And although they are not the same and the selfsame, while they feel the same, they are the very same; and though they are two, they are one, having a society in faith, even if they bear diversity in persons. 10. Finally, when at these voices of the Lord the Jewish inexpertness had been stirred and, rashly, inflamed even up to stones, so that they ran about and said:We do not stone you on account of a good work, but on account of blasphemy, and because you, since you are a man, make yourself God, the Lord set a distinction in the rationale to be rendered, as to how he had either said himself to be God or wished to be understood.

Quem Pater sanctificauit, inquit, et misit in hunc mundum, uos dicitis quia blasphemat, quia dixi: Filius Dei sum? 11. Etiam hic Patrem habere se dixit. Filius est ergo, non Pater.

He whom the Father sanctified, he says, and sent into this world, you say that he blasphemes, because I said: I am the Son of God? 11. Even here he said that he has the Father. He is therefore Son, not Father.

Patrem enim confessus se fuisset, si Patrem se esse meminisset. 12. Et sanctificatum se a suo Patre esse proponit. Dum ergo accipit sanctificationem a Patre, minor Patre est; minor autem Patre consequenter <non Pater> est, sed Filius.

For he would have confessed himself Father, if he had remembered himself to be Father. 12. And he puts forward that he has been sanctified by his own Father. While therefore he receives sanctification from the Father, he is lesser than the Father; and one lesser than the Father is, consequently, <not the Father>, but the Son.

Pater enim si fuisset, sanctificationem dedisset, non accepisset. Et nunc autem profitendo se accepisse sanctificationem a Patre, hoc ipso quo Patre se minorem accipiendo ab ipso sanctificationem probat, Filium se esse, non Patrem, monstrauit. 13. Missum praeterea se esse dicit, ut per hanc oboedientiam, qua uenit Dominus Christus missus, non Pater, sed Filius probetur, qui misisset utique, si Pater fuisset.

For if he had been the Father, he would have given sanctification, not received it. And now, moreover, by professing that he has received sanctification from the Father, by this very fact—inasmuch as by receiving sanctification from him he proves himself to be lesser than the Father—he has shown that he is the Son, not the Father. 13. He says, further, that he has been sent, so that through this obedience, whereby the Lord Christ came as one sent, it may be proved that not the Father, but the Son, is in view—the one who would, to be sure, have sent, if he had been the Father.

Missus autem non fuit Pater, ne Pater subditus alteri Deo, dum mittitur, probaretur. 14. Et tamen post haec adicit quod omnem omnino ambiguitatem dissolueret et totam controuersiam erroris extingueret. Ait enim in ultima parte sermonis: Vos dicitis quia blasphemat, quia dixi: Filius Dei sum?

But the Father was not sent, lest the Father, while being sent, be proved subject to another God. 14. And yet after these things he adds that which would altogether dissolve every ambiguity and extinguish the whole controversy of error. For he says in the last part of the discourse: You say that he blasphemes, because I said: I am the Son of God?

Ergo si euidenter Filium Dominus se, non Patrem esse testatur, magnae temeritatis et ingentis est furoris exemplum contra ipsius Christi Domini testimonium controuersiam diuinitatis et religionis agitare et Christum Iesum Patrem esse dicere, cum animaduertat illum non Patrem se, sed Filium comprobasse.

Therefore, if the Lord evidently testifies that he is the Son, not the Father, it is an example of great temerity and of enormous frenzy to agitate a controversy of divinity and religion against the testimony of Christ the Lord himself, and to say that Christ Jesus is the Father, when one observes that he has proved himself not to be the Father, but the Son.

XXVIII. 1. Adhuc adiciam illam quoque partem, in qua dum haereticus quasi oculo quodam gaudet proprio, ueritatis et luminis amisso, totam caecitatem sui agnoscat erroris. 2. Identidem enim et frequenter opponit quia dictum sit:Tanto tempore uobiscum sum et non agnoscitis me? Philippe, qui uidit me, uidit et Patrem.

28. 1. I will still add that part as well, in which, while the heretic, as if with a certain proper eye, rejoices in what is his own, with truth and light lost, he may recognize the total blindness of his error. 2. For again and again and frequently he objects that it was said:For so long a time I have been with you, and you do not recognize me? Philip, he who has seen me has seen the Father.

3. Sed quod non intellegit discat. Culpatur Philippus et iure quidem meritoque, quia dixerit:Domine, ostende nobis Patrem et sufficit nobis. Quando enim ex Christo aut audierat istud aut didicerat, quasi esset Pater Christus, cum contra magis quod Filius esset, non quia Pater frequenter audisset et saepe didicisset?

3. But let him learn that which he does not understand. Philip is blamed, and indeed with right and with merit, because he had said:Lord, show us the Father, and it suffices for us. For when had he either heard this from Christ or learned it, as though Christ were the Father, when on the contrary he had more that he was the Son, not that he was the Father, frequently heard and often learned?

4. Quod enim dixit Dominus:Si me cognouistis, et Patrem meum cognouistis, et amodo nostis illum et uidistis illum, non sic dixerat ut se Patrem uellet intellegi, sed quoniam qui penitus et plene et cum tota fide et tota religione accessit ad Dei Filium, omnibus modis per ipsum Filium, in quem sic credit, ad Patrem peruenturus sit eundemque uisurus. 5. Nemo enim, inquit, potest uenire ad Patrem nisi per me. Et ideo ad Patrem Deum non tantum uenturus est et cogniturus ipsum Patrem, sed etiam sic tenere debet atque ita animo ac mente praesumere, quasi iam nouerit Patrem pariter et uiderit. 6. Saepe enim scriptura diuina quae nondum facta sunt pro factis annuntiat, quia sic futura sint, et quae omnibus modis fieri habent, non quasi futura sint praedicat, sed quasi facta sint narrat.

4. For when the Lord said:If you have known me, you have also known my Father; and from now on you know him and have seen him, he did not speak thus so that he would be understood to be the Father, but because whoever has approached the Son of God thoroughly and fully and with whole faith and whole religion, by all means through that very Son in whom he thus believes, will come to the Father and will see the same. 5. For, he says, No one can come to the Father except through me. And therefore he is not only going to come to God the Father and to know the Father himself, but he also ought so to hold and thus to assume in soul and mind, as if he had already known and seen the Father equally. 6. For often divine Scripture announces things that have not yet been done as done, because thus they will be; and those things which in every way are bound to come to pass, it does not proclaim as though they are going to be, but narrates as though they have been done.

7. Denique cum nondum temporibus Esaiae prophetae Christus natus fuisset,Quia puer, aiebat, natus est uobis, et cum nondum accessum esset ad Mariam, Et accessit ad propheten, dicebat, et concepit et peperit filium. 8. Et cum nondum sinum Patris Christus exposuisset, referebat:Et uocabitur nomen eius magni consilii angelus. 9. Et cum nondum fuisset passus,Quasi ouis, pronuntiabat, ad iugulationem adductus est.

7. Finally, although in the times of the prophet Isaiah Christ had not yet been born,Because a child, he was saying, has been born for you, and although there had not yet been an approach to Mary, And he approached the prophet, he said, and she conceived and bore a son. 8. And although Christ had not yet laid open the bosom of the Father, he was reporting:And his name shall be called the angel of great counsel. 9. And although he had not yet suffered,Like a sheep, he was proclaiming, he was led to slaughter.

10. Et cum adhuc crux nusquam esset, aiebat:Tota die expandi manus meas ad populum non credentem. 11. Et cum nondum iniuriose potatus fuisset,In siti, ait, mea potauerunt me aceto.12. Et cum spoliatus adhuc non fuisset, dicebat:Super uestem meam miserunt sortem et dinumerauerunt ossa mea, effoderunt manus meas et pedes. 13. Prouidens enim scriptura diuina pro factis dicit quae futura scit et pro perfectis dicit quae futura habet, quae sine dubitatione uentura sunt.

10. And when as yet the cross was nowhere, he was saying:All the day I spread out my hands to a non-believing people. 11. And when he had not yet been injuriously given to drink,In my thirst, he says, they gave me to drink with vinegar.12. And when he had not yet been despoiled, he was saying:Over my garment they cast the lot and they counted my bones; they pierced my hands and feet. 13. For divine Scripture, foreseeing, says as done the things it knows to be future, and as perfected it says the things it has as future, which are without doubt going to come.

14. Et ideo Dominus in praesenti loco dicebat:Amodo nostis illum et uidistis. Dicebat enim uisum iri ab eo Patrem, quisquis Filium secutus fuisset, non quasi Filius ipse esset Pater uisus, sed quod praemium consecuturus esset quisquis illum sequi et discipulus eius esse uoluisset, ut uidere Patrem posset. 15. Nam et imago est Dei Patris, ut his etiam illud accedat, quoniam sicut Pater operatur, ita operatur et Filius, et imitator est Filius omnium operum paternorum, ut perinde habeat unusquisque quasi iam uiderit Patrem, dum eum uidet qui inuisibilem Patrem in omnibus operibus semper imitatur.

14. And therefore the Lord in the present place was saying:From now on you know him and have seen him. For he was saying that the Father would be seen by whoever had followed the Son, not as if the Son himself were the Father seen, but that whoever had willed to follow him and be his disciple would obtain the reward, namely, to be able to see the Father. 15. For he is also the image of God the Father, so that to these things that too may be added, that just as the Father works, so also the Son works, and the Son is an imitator of all the paternal works, so that each person may have it as though he had already seen the Father, while he sees him who always imitates the invisible Father in all works.

16. Ceterum si ipse Pater est Christus, quomodo confestim adicit et dicit:Qui credit in me, opera quae ego facio et ipse faciet, et maiora his faciet, quia ego ad Patrem uado? 17. Et adhuc subnectit:Si diligitis me, praecepta mea seruate; et ego rogabo Patrem, et alium aduocatum dabit uobis. 18. Post quae etiam illud subnectit:Si quis me diligit, sermonem meum custodiet; et Pater meus diligit illum, et ad eum ueniemus et mansionem apud illum faciemus.

16. But if the Father himself is Christ, how does he immediately add and say:Whoever believes in me, the works that I do he also will do, and greater than these he will do, because I go to the Father? 17. And he further subjoins:If you love me, keep my precepts; and I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate. 18. After which he also subjoins this:If anyone loves me, he will keep my word; and my Father loves him, and we will come to him and make a mansion with him.

19. Necnon etiam subdidit illud quoque:Aduocatus autem ille Spiritus Sanctus, quem missurus est Pater, ille uos docebit et commemorabit omnia quaecumque dixero. 20. Praemittit adhuc istum locum, quo ostendat se esse Filium, et merito subdidit et dicit:Si me diligeretis, gauderetis quia eo ad Patrem, quia Pater maior me est. 21. Quid autem cum etiam illa subnectit:Ego sum uitis uera, et Pater meus agricola; omne sarmentum in me non afferens fructum, tollit illud et omne fructiferum purgat, ut fructum ampliorem ferat?

19. And he likewise also added this too:But that Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father is going to send, he will teach you and will remind you of all the things whatsoever I shall have said.20. He further puts forward this passage, whereby he shows himself to be the Son, and with good reason he subjoined and says:If you loved me, you would rejoice because I go to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am.21. But what then when he also appends those:I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman; every shoot in me not bearing fruit, he takes it away, and every fruitful one he prunes, that it may bear more abundant fruit?

22. Instat adhuc et adicit:Sicut dilexit me Pater, et ego dilexi uos. Manete in mea caritate. Si mandata mea seruaueritis, manebitis in mea caritate, sicut ego Patris mandata seruaui, et maneo in eius caritate.

22. He presses on still and adds:As the Father has loved me, I also have loved you. Remain in my charity. If you keep my mandates, you will remain in my charity, just as I have kept the Father’s mandates, and I remain in his charity.

23. Adhuc ingerit et dicit:Dixi autem uos amicos, quia omnia quae audiui a Patre meo nota uobis feci. 24. Aggregat etiam hoc:Sed haec omnia facient uobis propter nomen meum, quia ignorant eum qui me misit. 25. Haec ergo numquam post illa euidenter illum non Patrem, sed Filium esse testantia Dominus subdidisset, si aut Patrem se esse meminisset aut Patrem se uellet intellegi, nisi quoniam ut illud exprimeret, perinde unumquemque iam habere debere, dum imaginem Dei Patris per Filium uidet, atque si uiderit Patrem, quandoquidem unusquisque credens in Filium exerceatur in imaginis contemplatione, ut assuefactus ad diuinitatem uidendam in imagine proficere possit et crescere usque ad Dei Patris omnipotentis perfectam contemplationem, et quoniam qui hoc animo ac mente combiberit et de omnibus sic futurum esse crediderit, Patrem quem uisurus sit quasi iam quodammodo uiderit et hic iam sic habeat quasi teneat quod habiturum se pro certo sciat.

23. He still presses and says:But I have called you friends, because all things which I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. 24. He also aggregates this:But they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me. 25. These things, therefore, the Lord would never have subjoined after those statements which plainly bear witness that he is not the Father, but the Son, if either he remembered himself to be the Father or wished himself to be understood as the Father, unless because—so that he might express that point—that each one ought now to have it just as if he had seen the Father, while he sees the image of God the Father through the Son, since each person believing in the Son is exercised in the contemplation of the image, so that, being made accustomed to see the divinity in the image, he may be able to make progress and grow up unto the perfect contemplation of God the Father Almighty, and because he who shall have imbibed this with such spirit and mind and shall have believed that thus it will be concerning all things, the Father whom he is going to see he has, as it were, already in a certain manner seen; and even here now let him thus have it, as though he held what he knows for certain that he will have.

26. Ceterum si ipse Pater fuisset, quid quasi futurum praemium repromittebat quod iam praestiterat et dederat? 27. Nam quoniam dicit:Beati mundo corde, quia ipsi Deum uidebunt, polliceri deprehenditur contemplationem et aspectum Patris. Ergo nondum dederat.

26. Moreover, if he himself were the Father, why was he, as if a future reward, promising anew what he had already furnished and given? 27. For since he says:Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God, he is found to be promising the contemplation and aspect of the Father. Therefore he had not yet given it.

Cur enim repromitteret, si iam dedisset? Dederat enim, si Pater esset; uidebatur enim et contingebatur. 28. Quando autem dum contingitur ipse Christus et uidetur, repromittit tamen et dicit quoniam qui mundo fuerit corde Deum uidebit, hoc ipso probat Patrem se non esse, qui tunc praesens cum uideretur repromittebat quod Patrem uisurus esset quisquis mundo corde fuisset.

Why indeed would he re-promise, if he had already given? For he would have given, if he were the Father; for he was being seen and was being touched. 28. But when Christ himself is being touched and seen, nevertheless he re-promises and says that whoever shall be pure in heart will see God; by this very fact he proves that he is not the Father—he who, then present while he was being seen, was promising again that whoever should be pure in heart would see the Father.

29. Erat ergo repromittens haec non Pater, sed Filius, quia qui Filius erat quod uideri habebat repromittebat, cuius repromissio superuacua fuisset, nisi Filius fuisset. Cur enim repromittebat mundis corde ut uiderent Patrem, si iam tunc qui praesentes erant Patrem Christum uidebant? Sed quia Filius erat, non Pater, merito et Filius, quia imago Dei, tunc uidebatur, et Pater, quia inuisibilis, mundis corde ut uideretur repromittitur et notatur.

29. Therefore the one re-promising these things was not the Father, but the Son, because he who was the Son was promising that which was his to be seen, whose re-promise would have been superfluous, unless he had been the Son. For why was he re-promising to the pure in heart that they would see the Father, if already at that time those who were present were seeing Christ the Father? But because he was the Son, not the Father, rightly both the Son—because he is the image of God—was then being seen, and the Father—because he is invisible—is promised and is noted to be seen by the pure in heart.

30. Haec igitur satis sit etiam aduersus istum haereticum dictasse, pauca de multis. Campus enim et quidem latus ac fusus aperietur, plenius haereticum istum si agitare uoluerimus, quandoquidem duobus istis locis quibusdam effossis luminibus orbatus totus sit in doctrinae suae caecitate superatus.

30. Therefore let this have sufficed also to have dictated against this heretic, a few out of many. For the field, and indeed broad and outspread, will be opened, to agitate that heretic more fully, if we should wish, since in those two places he, bereft, his eyes gouged out, is entirely overcome in the blindness of his doctrine.

XXIX. 1. Sed enim ordo rationis et fidei auctoritas digestis uocibus et literis Domini admonet nos post haec credere etiam in Spiritum Sanctum olim ecclesiae repromissum, sed statutis temporum opportunitatibus redditum. 2. Est enim per Ioelem prophetam repromissus, sed per Christum redditus.

29. 1. But indeed the order of reason and the authority of faith, with the Lord’s words and letters digested, admonishes us after these things to believe also in the Holy Spirit, once promised to the Church, but rendered at the appointed opportunities of the times. 2. For he was promised through the prophet Joel, but rendered through Christ.

In nouissimis, inquit, diebus effundam de spiritu meo super seruos et ancillas meas. Dominus autem: Accipite spiritum sanctum; quorum remiseritis peccata, erunt remissa, et quorum retinueritis, erunt retenta. 3. Hunc autem Spiritum Sanctum Dominus Christus modo Paracletum appellat, modo Spiritum ueritatis esse pronuntiat, qui non est in euangelio nouus, sed nec noue datus; nam hic ipse et in prophetis populum accusauit et in apostolis aduocationem gentibus praestitit.

In the last days, he says, I will pour out from my spirit upon my male and female servants. But the Lord: Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you remit, they will be remitted, and whose you retain, they will be retained. 3. This Holy Spirit, however, the Lord Christ at one time calls Paraclete, at another pronounces to be the Spirit of truth, who is not new in the gospel, nor given in a novel way; for this very one both accused the people in the prophets and provided advocacy for the nations in the apostles.

Nam illi ut accusarentur merebantur, quia contempserant legem, et qui ex gentibus credunt, ut patrocinio Spiritus adiuuentur merentur, quia ad euangelicam peruenire gestiunt legem. 4. Differentia sane in illo genera officiorum, quoniam in temporibus differens ratio causarum, nec ex hoc tamen ipse diuersus, qui haec sic gerit, nec alter est, dum sic agit, sed unus atque ipse est, diuidens officia sua per tempora et rerum occasiones atque momenta. 5. Denique apostolus Paulus, Habentes, inquit, eundem spiritum, sicut scriptum est: Credidi, propter quod locutus sum; et nos credimus, ideo loquimur.

For those men deserved to be accused, because they had contemned the law, and those who from the Gentiles believe deserve to be aided by the patronage of the Spirit, because they are eager to arrive at the evangelical law. 4. Distinction indeed there is in him of kinds of offices, since in the times the rationale of causes differs; yet from this he himself is not diverse who thus manages these things, nor is he other while he thus acts, but he is one and the same, dividing his offices according to times and the occasions and moments of things. 5. Finally the apostle Paul: Having, he says, the same spirit, as it is written: I believed, therefore I spoke; and we also believe, therefore we speak.

6. Vnus ergo et idem Spiritus qui in prophetis et apostolis, nisi quoniam ibi ad momentum, hic semper. Ceterum ibi non ut semper in illis inesset, hic ut in illis semper maneret; et ibi mediocriter distributus, hic totus effusus; ibi parce datus, hic large commodatus, nec tamen ante resurrectionem Domini exhibitus, sed per resurrectionem Christi contributus. 7.Rogabo enim, aiebat, Patrem, et alium aduocatum dabit uobis, ut uobiscum sit in aeternum, Spiritum ueritatis.

6. Therefore one and the same Spirit is in the prophets and in the apostles, save that there for a moment, here always. But there not so that he should always be in them, here so that he should remain in them always; and there moderately distributed, here poured out whole; there given sparingly, here bountifully accommodated, and yet not exhibited before the resurrection of the Lord, but through the resurrection of Christ imparted. 7.I will ask indeed, he was saying, the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, that he may be with you forever, the Spirit of truth.

Et: cum uenerit aduocatus ille quem ego missurus sum uobis a Patre meo, Spiritum ueritatis qui de Patre meo procedit, Et: si non abiero ego, aduocatus ille non ueniet ad uos; si autem ego abiero, remittam illum ad uos. Et: cum uenerit Spiritus ueritatis, ille uos diriget in omnem ueritatem. 8. Et quoniam Dominus in caelos esset abiturus, Paracletum discipulis necessario dabat, ne illos quodammodo pupillos, quod minime decebat, relinqueret et sine aduocato et quodam tutore desereret.

And: when that Advocate comes whom I am going to send to you from my Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from my Father, And: if I do not go away, that Advocate will not come to you; but if I do go, I will send him to you. And: when the Spirit of truth comes, he will direct you into all truth. 8. And since the Lord was about to depart into the heavens, he was necessarily giving the Paraclete to the disciples, lest he leave them in a certain manner as orphans—which was least fitting—and desert them without an advocate and a certain guardian.

9. Hic est enim qui ipsorum animos mentesque firmauit, qui euangelica sacramenta distinxit, qui in ipsis illuminator rerum diuinarum fuit, quo confirmati pro nomine Domini nec carceres nec uincula timuerunt, quin immo ipsas saeculi potestates et tormenta calcauerunt, armati iam scilicet per ipsum atque firmati, habentes in se dona quae hic idem Spiritus ecclesiae Christi sponsae quasi quaedam ornamenta distribuit et dirigit. 10. Hic est enim qui prophetas in ecclesia constituit, magistros erudit, linguas dirigit, uirtutes et sanitates facit, opera mirabilia gerit, discretiones spirituum porrigit, gubernationes contribuit, consilia suggerit quaeque alia sunt charismatum dona componit et digerit et ideo ecclesiam Domini undique et in omnibus perfectam et consummatam facit. 11. Hic est qui in modum columbae, posteaquam Dominus baptizatus est, super eum uenit et mansit, habitans in solo Christo plenus et totus nec in aliqua mensura aut portione mutilatus, sed cum tota sua redundantia cumulate distributus et missus, ut ex illo delibationem quandam gratiarum ceteri consequi possint, totius Sancti Spiritus in Christo fonte remanente, ut ex illo donorum atque operum uenae ducerentur, Spiritu Sancto in Christo affluenter habitante.

9. For this is he who strengthened their spirits and minds, who distinguished the evangelical sacraments, who in them was the illuminator of divine things, by whom, being confirmed, they feared neither prisons nor chains for the name of the Lord; nay rather, they trampled underfoot the very powers and torments of the age, armed and strengthened now, to be sure, through him, having in themselves the gifts which this same Spirit distributes and directs to the bride of Christ, the church, as certain ornaments. 10. For this is he who set prophets in the church, trains teachers, directs tongues, works powers and healings, carries on marvelous works, extends discernments of spirits, contributes governances, suggests counsels, and composes and arranges whatever other gifts of charismata there are, and for that reason makes the church of the Lord on every side and in all things perfect and consummated. 11. This is he who, in the manner of a dove, after the Lord was baptized, came upon him and remained, dwelling in Christ alone full and entire, neither mutilated in any measure or portion, but with all his superabundance bountifully distributed and sent, so that from him the rest might obtain a certain foretaste of graces, the fount of the whole Holy Spirit remaining in Christ, so that from him the veins of gifts and works might be drawn, the Holy Spirit dwelling in Christ abundantly.

12. Hoc etenim iam prophetans Esaias aiebat:Et requiescit, inquit, super eum spiritus sapientiae et intellectus, spiritus consilii et uirtutis, spiritus scientiae et pietatis, et impleuit eum spiritus timoris Dei. 13. Hoc idem atque ipsum et alio in loco ex persona ipsius Domini:Spiritus Domini super me, propter quod unxit me, euangelizare pauperibus misit me. 14, Similiter Dauid: Propterea unxit te Deus Deus tuus oleo laetitiae a consortibus tuis. 15, De hoc apostolus Paulus: Qui enim spiritum Christi non habet, hic non est eius, et: Vbi spiritus Domini, ibi libertas.

12. For already prophesying this Isaiah was saying:And it rests, he says, upon him the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and virtue, the Spirit of knowledge and piety, and the Spirit of the fear of God filled him. 13. The very same thing also elsewhere, in the person of the Lord himself:The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because of which he anointed me; he sent me to evangelize the poor. 14, Likewise David: Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions. 15, About this the apostle Paul: For whoever does not have the Spirit of Christ, this one is not his, and: Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

16. Hic est qui operatur ex aquis secundam natiuitatem. semen quoddam diuini generis et consecrator caelestis natiuitatis,pignus promissae hereditatis et quasi chirographum quoddam aeternae salutis, qui nos Dei faciat templum et nos eius efficiat domum, qui interpellat diuinas aures pro nobis gemitibus ineloquacibus, aduocationis implens officia et defensionis exhibens munera, inhabitator corporibus nostris datus et sanctitatis effector, qui id agens in nobis ad aeternitatem et ad resurrectionem immortalitatis corpora nostra producat, dum illa in se assuefacit cum caelesti uirtute misceri et cum Spiritus Sancti diuina aeternitate sociari. 17. Erudiuntur enim in illo et per ipsum corpora nostra ad immortalitatem proficere, dum ad decreta ipsius discunt se moderanter temperare.

16. He is the one who works out of the waters a second nativity, a certain seed of divine stock and the consecrator of heavenly nativity,the pledge of the promised inheritance and as it were a certain chirograph of eternal salvation, who makes us a temple of God and makes us his house, who intercedes with the divine ears for us with unutterable groanings, fulfilling the offices of advocacy and exhibiting the gifts of defense, given as an inhabitant to our bodies and an effector of sanctity; who, doing this in us, brings our bodies forth unto eternity and unto the resurrection of immortality, while he accustoms them in himself to be mingled with heavenly virtue and to be associated with the divine eternity of the Holy Spirit. 17. For in him and through himself our bodies are educated to make progress toward immortality, while they learn to temper themselves moderately according to his decrees.

18. Hic est enim qui contra carnem desiderat, quia caro contra ipsum repugnat. 19. Hic est qui inexplebiles cupiditates coercet, immoderatas libidines frangit, illicitos ardores extinguit, flagrantes impetus uincit, ebrietates reicit, auaritias repellit, luxuriosas comissationes fugit, caritates nectit, affectiones constringit, sectas repellit, regulam ueritatis expedit, haereticos reuincit, improbos foras expuit, euangelia custodit. 20. De hoc item Apostolus:Non enim spiritum mundi accepimus, sed spiritum qui ex Deo est.

18. This is indeed he who desires against the flesh, because the flesh resists against him. 19. This is he who restrains insatiable cupidities, breaks immoderate libidines, extinguishes illicit ardors, conquers flaming impulses, rejects ebrieties, repels avarices, flees luxurious comissations, knits charities, constricts affections, repels sects, expedites the rule of truth, refutes heretics, spits the wicked out doors, guards the Gospels. 20. Of this one likewise the Apostle:For we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God.

21. De hoc exultat et dicit:Puto autem quia et ego spiritum Dei habeo. 22. De hoc dicit:Et spiritus prophetarum prophetis subiectus est. 23. De hoc refert:Spiritus autem manifeste dicit quia in nouissimis temporibus recedent quidam a fide, attendentes spiritibus seductoribus, doctrinis daemoniorum, in hypocrisi mendacia loquentium, cauteriatam habentium conscientiam suam.

21. Of this he exults and says:But I think that I also have the Spirit of God. 22. Of this he says:And the spirit of prophets to prophets is subject. 23. Of this he reports:But the Spirit manifestly says that in the latest times certain people will recede from the faith, attending to seducing spirits, to doctrines of demons, in hypocrisy of those speaking lies, having their conscience cauterized.

24. In hoc spiritu positusnemo umquam dicit anathema Iesum, nemo negauit Christum Dei Filium aut repudiauit creatorem Deum, nemo contra scripturas ulla sua uerba depromit, nemo alia et sacrilega decreta constituit, nemo diuersa iura conscribit. 25. In hunc quisquis blasphemauerit, remissionem non habet, non tantum in isto saeculo. uerum etiam nec in futuro.

24. Placed in this Spirit,no one ever says “Anathema to Jesus,” no one denies the Christ, the Son of God, or repudiates the Creator God; no one brings forth any words of his own against the Scriptures; no one establishes other and sacrilegious decrees; no one drafts diverse laws. 25. Against him, whoever shall have blasphemed, has no remission, not only in this age. but not even in the future.

26. Hic in apostolis Christo testimonium reddit, in martyribus constantem fidem religionis ostendit, in uirginibus admirabilem continentiam signatae caritatis includit, in ceteris incorrupta et incontaminata doctrinae dominicae iura custodit, haereticos destruit, peruersos corrigit, infideles arguit, simulatores ostendit, improbos quoque corrigit, ecclesiam incorruptam et inuiolatam perpetuae uirginitatis et ueritatis sanctitate custodit.

26. He in the apostles renders testimony to Christ, in the martyrs he shows the constant faith of religion, in virgins he includes the admirable continence of sealed charity, in the rest he guards the rights of the Lord’s doctrine uncorrupted and uncontaminated, he destroys heretics, corrects the perverse, convicts the unfaithful, exposes dissemblers, also corrects the wicked, he keeps the church uncorrupted and inviolate by the sanctity of perpetual virginity and truth.

XXX. 1. Et haec quidem de Patre et de Filio et de Spiritu Sancto breuiter sint nobis dicta et strictim posita et non longa disputatione porrecta. Latius enim potuerunt porrigi et propensiore disputatione produci, quandoquidem ad testimonium, quod ita se habeat fides uera, totum et uetus et nouum testamentum possit adduci.

30. 1. And let these things, indeed, concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, have been said by us briefly and set down succinctly, and not stretched out by a long disputation. For they could have been extended more broadly and drawn out by a more copious disputation, since, as testimony that the true faith stands thus, the whole, both the Old and the New Testament, can be adduced.

2. Sed quia obluctantes aduersus ueritatem semper haeretici sincerae traditionis et catholicae fidei controuersiam solent trahere, scandalizati in Christum, quod etiam Deus et per scripturas asseratur et a nobis hoc esse credatur, merito a nobis, ut omnis a fide nostra auferri possit haeretica calumnia, de eo quod et Deus sit Christus sic est disputandum, ut non impediat scripturae ueritatem, sed nec nostram fidem, qua unus Deus et per scripturas promittitur et a nobis tenetur et creditur. 3. Tam enim illi qui Iesum Christum ipsum Deum Patrem dicunt quam etiam illi qui hominem illum tantummodo esse uoluerunt, erroris sui et peruersitatis origines et causas inde rapuerunt, quia cum animaduerterent scriptum esse quod unus sit Deus, non aliter putauerunt istam tenere se posse sententiam, nisi aut hominem tantum Christum aut certe Deum Patrem putarent esse credendum. Sic enim calumnias suas colligere consueuerunt, ut errorem proprium approbare nitantur.

2. But because heretics, always wrestling against the truth, are accustomed to drag the controversy of sincere tradition and of the catholic faith, being scandalized at Christ, because it is asserted even by the scriptures and is believed by us that he is also God, it is with good reason for us, that every heretical calumny may be able to be removed from our faith, to dispute thus concerning the fact that Christ is also God: in such a way that it neither impedes the truth of scripture nor our faith, whereby one God is both promised through the scriptures and is held and believed by us. 3. For both those who say that Jesus Christ is himself God the Father, and also those who have willed that that man be only a man, have snatched the origins and causes of their error and perversity from this source: because, when they observed that it is written that there is one God, they thought that they could hold that opinion in no other way unless they either thought Christ to be only a man, or certainly thought that God the Father must be believed to be him. Thus they have been accustomed to collect their calumnies, so that they strive to approve their own error.

4. Et quidem illi qui Iesum Christum Patrem dicunt ista praetendunt: si unus Deus, Christus autem Deus, Pater est Christus, quia unus Deus; si non Pater sit Christus, dum et Deus Filius Christus, duo dii contra scripturas introducti esse uideantur. 5. Qui autem hominem tantummodo Christum esse contendunt, ex diuerso sic colligunt: si alter Pater, alter est Filius, Pater autem Deus et Christus Deus, non ergo unus Deus, sed duo dii introducuntur pariter, Pater et Filius; ac si unus Deus, consequenter homo Christus, ut merito Pater sit Deus unus. 6. Re uera quasi inter duos latrones crucifigitur Dominus, quomodo fixus aliquando est, et ita excipit haereticorum istorum ex utroque latere sacrilega conuicia.

4. And indeed those who say Jesus Christ is the Father put forward these: if there is one God, and Christ is God, Christ is the Father, because there is one God; if Christ be not the Father, since Christ the Son also is God, two gods would seem to be introduced against the scriptures. 5. But those who contend that Christ is a man only, from the opposite side gather thus: if the Father is one and the Son another, and the Father is God and Christ is God, therefore there is not one God, but two gods are introduced together, the Father and the Son; and if there is one God, consequently Christ is a man, so that with reason the Father may be the one God. 6. In truth the Lord is, as it were, crucified between two robbers, as once he was affixed, and so he receives from either side the sacrilegious revilings of these heretics.

7. Sed neque scripturae sanctae neque nos causas illis perditionis et caecitatis afferimus, si qua in medio diuinarum literarum euidenter posita aut uidere nolunt aut uidere non possunt. 8. Nos enim et scimus et legimus et credimus et tenemus unum esse Deum qui fecit caelum pariter ac terram, quoniam nec alterum nouimus aut nosse, cum nullus sit, aliquando poterimus. 9.Ego sum, inquit, Deus, et non est praeter me iustus et saluans.

7. But neither the holy Scriptures nor do we furnish to them the causes of their perdition and blindness, if any things set plainly in the midst of the divine letters they either do not wish to see or cannot see. 8. For we both know and read and believe and hold that there is one God who made heaven as well as earth, since neither do we know another nor will we at any time be able to know one, since none exists. 9.I am, he says, God, and there is not besides me a just one and a savior.

10. Et alio in loco:Ego primus et nouissimus, et praeter me non est Deus. Quis sicut ego? 11. Et:Quis mensus est palmo caelum et terram pugillo?

10. And in another place:I am the first and the last, and besides me there is no God. Who is like me? 11. And:Who has measured the heaven with the palm and the earth with a fistful?

Quis suspendit montes in pondere et nemora in statera? 12. Et Ezechias: Vt sciant omnes quia tu es Deus solus. 13. Ipse praeterea Dominus:Quid me interrogas de bono?

Who has suspended the mountains in a balance and the groves in the scales? 12. And Hezekiah: That all may know that you are God alone. 13. Moreover, the Lord himself:Why do you ask me about the good?

Vnus Deus bonus. 14. Apostolus quoque Paulus: Qui solus, inquit, habet immortalitatem et lucem habitat inaccessibilem; quem uidit hominum nemo nec uidere potest. 15. Et alio in loco:Mediator autem unius non est; Deus autem unus est.

One God is good. 14. The Apostle Paul likewise: Who alone, he says, has immortality and inhabits inaccessible light; whom no one of men has seen nor can see. 15. And in another place:But a mediator is not of one; but God is one.

16. Sed quomodo hoc tenemus et legimus et credimus, sic scripturarum caelestium nullam partem praeterire debemus, quippe cum etiam illa quae in scripturis sunt posita Christi diuinitatis insignia nullo modo debemus recusare, ne scripturarum auctoritatem corrumpendo integritatem fidei sanctae corrupisse teneamur. 17. Et hoc ergo credamus, siquidem fidelissimum, Dei Filium Iesum Christum Dominum et Deum nostrum, quoniamin principio erat uerbum, et uerbum erat Deus et Deus erat uerbum. Hoc erat in principio apud Deum.

16. But just as we hold this and read and believe, so we ought to pass over no part of the celestial scriptures, since we ought by no means to refuse even those things which in the scriptures have been set as the insignia of Christ’s divinity, lest by corrupting the authority of the scriptures we be held to have corrupted the integrity of the holy faith. 17. And this therefore let us believe, since it is most trustworthy: the Son of God, Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, sincein the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God and God was the Word. This was in the beginning with God.

Et uerbum caro factum est et habitauit in nobis. 18. Et: Dominus meus et Deus meus. Et: Quorum patres, et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia benedictus Deus in saecula.

And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. 18. And: My Lord and my God. And: Of whom are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed unto the ages.

19. Quid ergo dicemus? Numquid duos Deos scriptura proponit? Quomodo ergo dicit quiaDeus unus est?

19. What then shall we say? Does scripture set forth two Gods? How then does it say thatGod is one?

Aut numquid non et Christus Deus est? Quomodo ergo Dominus meus et Deus meus Christo dictum est? 20. Totum igitur hoc nisi cum propria ueneratione et legitima disputatione teneamus, merito scandalum haereticis praebuisse credemur, non utique ex scripturarum caelestium uitio quae numquam fallunt, sed humani erroris praesumptione, qua haeretici esse uoluerunt.

Or is Christ not also God? How then was My Lord and my God said to Christ? 20. Therefore, unless we hold this whole matter with proper veneration and legitimate disputation, we shall deservedly be believed to have offered scandal to the heretics—not, to be sure, from the vice of the celestial Scriptures, which never deceive, but from the presumption of human error, by which they willed to be heretics.

21. Et in primis illud retorquendum in istos qui duorum nobis deorum controuersiam facere praesumunt. 22. Scriptum est, quod negare non possunt, quoniamunus est Dominus. De Christo ergo quid sentiunt?

21. And first of all that must be turned back upon those who presume to make for us a controversy of two gods. 22. It is written, which they cannot deny, thatone is the Lord. Concerning Christ, then, what do they think?

Dominum esse aut illum omnino non esse? Sed Dominum illum omnino non dubitant. Ergo si uera est illorum ratiocinatio, iam duo sunt Domini.

That he is Lord, or that he is not at all? But that he is Lord they do not at all doubt. Therefore, if their ratiocination is true, now there are two Lords.

Quomodo igitur iam secundum scripturas unus est Dominus? 23. Et magister unus Christus dictus. Atenim legimus quod magister sit etiam apostolus Paulus.

How therefore now according to the scriptures is there one Lord? 23. And Christ is called one teacher. But indeed we read that the apostle Paul is also a teacher.

Non ergo iam unus magister; duos enim magistros secundum ista colligimus. Quomodo igitur secundum scripturas unus magister Christus? 24. Vnus in scripturis bonus dictus est Deus, sed idem in scripturis bonus etiam Christus positus est.

Therefore, there is not now one teacher; for according to these things we gather two teachers. How then, according to the scriptures, is there one teacher, Christ? 24. One in the scriptures is called good—God; but likewise in the scriptures Christ also is set forth as good.

Non igitur, si recte colligunt, unus bonus, sed etiam duo boni. Quomodo igitur secundum scripturarum fidem unus bonus esse refertur? 25. Ac si non putant aliqua ratione offici posse ei quod unus Dominus est per illud quod est Dominus et Christus neque ei quod unus est magister per illud quod est magister et Paulus aut illi quod unus est bonus per illud quod bonus sit nuncupatus et Christus, eadem ratione intellegant offici non posse ab illo quod unus est Deus ei quod Deus pronuntiatus est et Christus.

Not, therefore, if they infer rightly, is there one good, but even two good ones. How, then, according to the faith of the scriptures, is one good said to be? 25. And if they do not think that in any way it can militate against that there is one Lord, that he is “Lord and Christ,” nor against that there is one teacher, that “teacher” is said also of Paul, or against that there is one good, that “good” has been styled of Christ as well, let them by the same reasoning understand that no hindrance can arise from that there is one God to that Christ has been pronounced God.

XXXI. 1. Est ergo Deus Pater omnium institutor et creator, solus originem nesciens, inuisibilis, immensus, immortalis, aeternus, unus Deus, cuius neque magnitudini neque maiestati neque uirtuti quicquam non dixerim praeferri, sed nec comparari potest. 2. Ex quo, quando ipse uoluit, sermo Filius natus est, qui non in sono percussi aeris aut tono coactae de uisceribus uocis accipitur, sed in substantia prolatae a Deo uirtutis agnoscitur, cuius sacrae et diuinae natiuitatis arcana nec apostolus didicit nec prophetes comperit nec angelus sciuit nec creatura cognouit; Filio soli nota sunt, qui Patris secreta cognouit.

31. 1. Therefore God the Father is the institutor and creator of all, alone not knowing origin, invisible, immense, immortal, eternal, the one God, to whose greatness, majesty, and virtue I would say nothing can be set before, nor even be compared. 2. From whom, when he himself willed, the Word, the Son, was born, who is not to be taken as the sound of smitten air or the tone of a voice forced from the viscera, but is recognized in the substance of a virtue brought forth by God; the secrets of whose sacred and divine nativity neither an apostle learned nor a prophet discovered nor an angel knew nor any creature came to know; they are known to the Son alone, who has known the Father’s secrets.

3. Hic ergo cum sit genitus a Patre, semper est in Patre. Semper autem sic dico, ut non innatum, sed natum probem. Sed qui ante omne tempus est, semper in Patre fuisse dicendus est.

3. Therefore, since he is begotten from the Father, he is always in the Father. But I say “always” thus, so that I may prove him not un-begotten, but begotten. Yet he who is before all time must be said to have always been in the Father.

Nec enim tempus illi assignari potest qui ante tempus est. Semper enim in Patre, ne Pater non semper sit Pater, quia et Pater illum etiam praecedit, quod necesse est prior sit qua Pater sit, quoniam antecedat necesse est eum qui habet originem ille qui originem nescit, simul ut hic minor sit, dum in illo esse se scit, habens originem quia nascitur et per Patrem quodammodo, quamuis originem habet qua nascitur, uicinus in natiuitate, dum ex eo Patre qui originem solus non habet nascitur. 4. Hic ergo quando Pater uoluit, processit ex Patre; et qui in Patre fuit, [processit ex Patre; et qui in Patre fuit,] quia ex Patre fuit, cum Patre postmodum fuit, quia ex Patre processit, substantia scilicet illa diuina, cuius nomen est uerbum, per quod facta sunt omnia et sine quo factum est nihil.

Nor indeed can time be assigned to him who is before time. For he is always in the Father, lest the Father not always be Father, since the Father also precedes him—because it is necessary that he be prior in that he is Father, since it is necessary that he who does not know origin precede him who has origin—at the same time so that this one be lesser, while he knows himself to be in him, having origin because he is born and, through the Father in a certain way, although he has an origin by which he is born, neighbor in nativity, while he is born from that Father who alone does not have origin. 4. Therefore this one, when the Father willed, proceeded from the Father; and he who was in the Father, [proceeded from the Father; and he who was in the Father,] because he was from the Father, afterwards was with the Father, because he proceeded from the Father—the divine substance, namely, whose name is the Word—by which all things were made and without which nothing was made.

5. Omnia enim post ipsum sunt, quiaper ipsum sunt. Et merito ipse est ante omnia, sed post Patrem, quando per illum facta sunt omnia, qui processit ex eo, ex cuius uoluntate facta sunt omnia, Deus utique procedens ex Deo, secundam personam efficiens post Patrem, qua Filius, sed non eripiens illud Patri, quod unus est Deus. 6. Si enim natus non fuisset, innatus comparatus cum eo qui esset innatus, aequatione in utroque ostensa, duos faceret innatos et ideo duos faceret deos.

5. For all things are after him, becausethrough him they are. And deservedly he himself is before all things, but after the Father, since through him all things were made—he who proceeded from him, from whose will all things were made—God indeed proceeding from God, constituting the second person after the Father, as Son, but not snatching from the Father this, that he is one God. 6. For if he had not been born, being unbegotten when compared with him who was unbegotten, equality having been shown in each, he would make two unbegotten, and therefore would make two gods.

7. Si non genitus esset, collatus cum eo qui genitus non esset et aequales inuenti, duos deos merito reddidissent non geniti atque ideo duos Christus reddidisset deos. 8. Si sine origine esset ut Pater inuentus et ipse principium omnium ut Pater, duo faciens principia duos ostendisset nobis consequenter et deos. 9. Aut si et ipse Filius non esset, sed Pater generans de se alterum filium, merito collatus cum Patre et tantus denotatus duos patres effecisset et ideo duos approbasset etiam deos.

7. If he were not begotten, when compared with him who is not begotten and found equal, the not-begotten would deservedly have rendered two gods, and therefore Christ would have made two gods. 8. If he were without origin like the Father, and himself the principle of all things like the Father, by making two principles he would consequently have shown us two gods as well. 9. Or if he himself too were not Son, but the Father, begetting from himself another son, being rightly compared with the Father and designated as just as great, he would have made two fathers and therefore would also have approved two gods.

10. Si inuisibilis fuisset, cum inuisibili collatus par expressus duos inuisibiles ostendisset et ideo duos comprobasset et deos. 11. Si incomprehensibilis, si et cetera quaecumque sunt Patris, merito, dicimus, duorum deorum quam isti confingunt controuersiam suscitasset. 12. Nunc autem quicquid est non ex se est, quia nec innatus est, sed ex Patre est, quia genitus est, siue dum uerbum est, siue dum uirtus est, siue dum sapientia est, siue dum lux est, siue dum Filius est.

10. If he had been invisible, when set beside the Invisible, expressed as an equal he would have shown two invisibles and therefore would also have proved two gods. 11. If incomprehensible, if whatever other things are the Father’s as well, with good reason, we say, he would have stirred up the controversy of two gods which these people contrive. 12. Now, however, whatever he is, he is not from himself, because neither is he unbegotten, but he is from the Father, because he is begotten, whether when he is word, or when he is power, or when he is wisdom, or when he is light, or when he is Son.

13. Et quicquid horum est, dum non aliunde est quam, sicut diximus iam superius, ex Patre, Patri suo originem suam debens discordiam diuinitatis de numero duorum deorum facere non potuit, qui ex illo qui est unus Deus originem nascendo contraxit. 14. Quo genere dum et unigenitus est et primogenitus ex illo est, qui originem non habet, unus est omnium rerum et principium et caput. Idcirco unum Deum asseruit, quem non sub ullo principio aut initio, sed initium potius et principium rerum omnium comprobauit.

13. And whatever of these it is, since it is not from anywhere else than, as we have said already above, from the Father, owing his origin to his Father, he could not make a discord of the divinity by the number of two gods, he who by being born contracted his origin from Him who is one God. 14. In which manner, since he is both Only‑begotten and First‑begotten from Him who has no origin, he is the one of all things and
the principle and the head. Therefore he asserted one God, whom he proved not to be under any principle or beginning, but rather to be the beginning and principle of all things.

15. Filius autem nihil ex arbitrio suo gerit nec ex consilio suo facit nec a se uenit, sed imperiis paternis omnibus et praeceptis oboedit, ut quamuis probet illum natiuitas Filium, tamen morigera oboedientia asserat illum paternae uoluntatis ex quo est ministrum. Ita dum se Patri in omnibus obtemperantem reddit, quamuis sit et Deus, unum tamen Deum Patrem de oboedientia sua ostendit, ex quo et originem traxit. 16. Et ideo duos facere non potuit, quia nec duas origines fecit, qui ex eo, qui originem non habet, principium natiuitatis ante omne tempus accepit.

15. But the Son does nothing from his own arbitrium nor acts from his own counsel nor comes from himself, but obeys all the paternal commands and precepts, so that although nativity proves him Son, yet compliant obedience asserts him to be a minister of the paternal will, from whom he is. Thus, while he renders himself in all things obedient to the Father, although he is also God, nevertheless by his obedience he shows one God, the Father, from whom also he drew his origin. 16. And therefore he could not make two (gods), because he did not make two origins—he who from him who has no origin received the beginning of his nativity before all time.

Nam cum id sit principium ceteris quod innatum est (quod Deus solus Pater est, qui extra originem est, ex quo hic est qui natus est), dum qui ex illo nascitur merito ex eo uenit qui originem non habet, principium probans illud esse ex quo ipse est, etiam si Deus est qui natus est, unum tamen Deum ostendit, quem hic qui natus est esse sine origine comprobauit. 17. Est ergo Deus, sed in hoc ipsum genitus, ut esset Deus. Est et Dominus, sed in hoc ipsum natus ex Patre, ut esset Dominus.

For since that is a principle for the others which is unbegotten (which God alone the Father is, who is outside origin, from whom this one is who has been born), while he who is born from him rightly comes from him who has no origin, proving that to be the principle from which he himself is, even if he who is born is God, nevertheless he shows one God, whom this one who has been born has verified to be without origin. 17. He is therefore God, but begotten unto this very thing, that he might be God. He is also Lord, but born from the Father unto this very thing, that he might be Lord.

Est et angelus, sed ad annuntiandum magnum Dei consilium ex Patre suo angelus destinatus. 18. Cuius sic diuinitas traditur, ut non aut dissonantia aut inaequalitate diuinitatis duos deos reddidisse uideatur. Subiectis enim ei quasi Filio omnibus rebus a Patre, dum ipse cum his quae illi subiecta sunt Patri suo subicitur, Patris quidem sui Filius probatur, ceterorum autem et Dominus et Deus esse reperitur.

He is also an angel, but an angel appointed from his Father to announce the great counsel of God. 18. His divinity is thus handed down, so that he does not appear to have rendered two gods through either dissonance or inequality of divinity. For with all things subjected to him as to a Son by the Father, while he himself, together with those things which are subjected to him, is subjected to his own Father, he is proved to be the Son of his Father, but is found to be both Lord and God of the rest.

19. Ex quo dum huic qui est Deus omnia substrata traduntur et cuncta sibi subiecta Filius accepta refert Patri, totam diuinitatis auctoritatem rursus Patri remittit. 20. Vnde unus Deus ostenditur uerus et aeternus Pater, a quo solo haec uis diuinitatis emissa, etiam in Filium tradita et directa, rursum per substantiae communionem ad Patrem reuoluitur. 21. Deus quidem ostenditur Filius, cui diuinitas tradita et porrecta conspicitur, et tamen nihilominus unus Deus Pater probatur, dum gradatim reciproco meatu illa maiestas atque diuinitas ad Patrem, qui dederat eam, rursum ab illo ipso Filio missa reuertitur et retorquetur, ut merito Deus Pater omnium Deus sit et principium ipsius quoque Filii sui, quem Dominum genuit, Filius autem ceterorum omnium Deus sit, quoniam omnibus illum Deus Pater praeposuit quem genuit.

19. From which, while to this one who is God all things are handed over as laid beneath, and the Son returns to the Father the things received, all made subject to himself, he remits back again the whole authority of divinity to the Father. 20. Whence one God is shown, the true and eternal Father, from whom alone
this force of divinity, sent forth and even handed over and directed into the Son, again through the communion of substance rolls back to the Father. 21. The Son indeed is shown to be God, to whom divinity is seen to have been handed over and extended; and yet nonetheless one God, the Father, is proved, since by degrees, with a reciprocal flow, that majesty and divinity to the Father who had given it, sent back again by that very Son, returns and is turned back, so that deservedly God the Father is the God of all and the principle even of his own Son, whom he begot as Lord, while the Son is the God of all the rest, since God the Father has set above all him whom he begot.

22. Itamediator Dei et hominum Christus Iesus, omnis creaturae subiectam sibi habens a Patre proprio potestatem, qua Deus est, cum tota creatura subdita sibi concors Patri suo Deo inuentus, unum et solum et uerum Deum Patrem suum manente in illo quod etiam auditus est breuiter approbauit.

22. Thus themediator of God and men, Christ Jesus, having from the Father the proper authority of every creature subjected to himself, by which he is God, when, with the whole creation subject to him, he is found to be in concord with his own Father God, he briefly approved that his Father is the one and only and true God, remaining in that which he also was heard.