Tertullian: de Carne Christi

[1] Qui fidem resurrectionis ante istos Sadducaeorum propinquos sine controversia moratam ita student inquietare ut eam spem negent etiam ad carnem pertinere, merito Christi quoque carnem quaestionibus distrahunt, tanquam aut nullam omnino aut quoquo modo aliam praeter humanam, ne si humanam constiterit fuisse praeiudicatum sit adversus illos eam resurgere omni modo, quae in Christo resurrexerit. igitur unde illi destruunt carnis vota, inde nobis erunt praestruenda.

[1] Those who, before these kinsmen of the Sadducees, strive to unquiet the faith of the resurrection, which had lingered without controversy, so endeavor as to deny that that hope pertains also to the flesh; deservedly they also tear Christ’s flesh with questionings, as though it were either none at all or in some way whatsoever other than human, lest, if it be established to have been human, it be prejudged against them that the same rises in every way which has risen in Christ. Therefore, from the very points whence they destroy the flesh’s claims, from there for us they must be pre-built.

[2] examinemus corporalem substantiam domini: de spiritali enim certum est. caro quaeritur: veritas et qualitas eius retractatur, an fuerit et unde et cuiusmodi fuerit. renuntiatio eius dabit legem nostrae resurrectioni. Marcion ut carnem Christi negaret negavit etiam nativitatem, aut ut nativitatem negaret negavit et carnem, scilicet ne invicem sibi testimonium responderent nativitas et caro, quia nec nativitas sine carne nec caro sine nativitate:

[2] let us examine the corporeal substance of the Lord: for about the spiritual it is certain. the flesh is in question: its truth and quality is re-examined, whether it existed and whence and of what sort it was. the declaration concerning it will give the law for our resurrection. Marcion, in order to deny the flesh of Christ, also denied the nativity; or, in order to deny the nativity, he denied the flesh as well—namely, lest nativity and flesh should answer one another with reciprocal testimony, since neither nativity without flesh nor flesh without nativity:

[3] quasi non eadem licentia haeretica et ipse potuisset aut admissa carne nativitatem negare ut Apelles discipulus et postea desertor ipsius, aut et carnem et nativitatem confessus aliter illas interpretari ut condiscipulus et condesertor eius Valentinus.

[3] as if he himself, by that same heretical license, could not have either, with the flesh admitted, denied the nativity, as Apelles, his disciple and afterwards deserter, did; or, having confessed both flesh and nativity, interpreted those otherwise, as his co-disciple and co-deserter Valentinus did.

[4] sed et, qui carnem Christi putativam introduxit, aeque potuit nativitatem quoque phantasma confingere, ut et conceptus et praegnatus et partus virginis, et ipsius exinde infantis ordo, tw~| dokei=n haberentur: eosdem oculos eosdemque sensus fefellissent quos carnis opinio elusit.

[4] but even he who introduced a putative flesh of Christ could equally have fabricated the nativity too as a phantasm, so that even the conception and the pregnancy and the birth of the virgin, and thereafter the sequence of the infant himself, might be held in mere seeming: the same eyes and the same senses would have been deceived which the opinion concerning the flesh has outplayed.

II.

[1] Plane nativitas a Gabriele adnuntiatur: quid illi cum angelo creatoris? et in virginis utero conceptus inducitur: quid illi cum [Esaia] propheta creatoris? odit moras, qui subito Christum de caelo deferebat. aufer hinc, inquit, molestos semper Caesaris census et diversoria angusta et sordidos pannos et dura praesepia: viderit angelica multitudo deum suum noctibus honorans: servent potius pecora pastores, et magi ne fatigentur de longinquo: dono illis aurum suum:

[1] Clearly the nativity is announced by Gabriel: what has he to do with the angel of the Creator? and the conception is introduced in the womb of the virgin: what has he to do with [Isaiah], the prophet of the Creator? He hates delays, he who was suddenly carrying Christ down from heaven. Take away from here, he says, the ever-bothersome censuses of Caesar and the narrow inns and the sordid rags and the hard mangers: let the angelic multitude see to honoring their god by night: let the shepherds rather keep the flocks, and let the magi not be wearied from afar: I grant them their gold:

[2] melior sit et Herodes ne Hieremias glorietur: sed nec circumcidatur infans, ne doleat, nec ad templum deferatur, ne parentes suos oneret sumptu oblationis, nec in manus tradatur Simeoni, ne senem moriturum exinde contristet: taceat et anus illa, ne fascinet puerum. his opinor consiliis tot originalia instrumenta Christi delere, Marcion, ausus es, ne caro eius probaretur.

[2] let even Herod be better, lest Jeremiah boast: but let not the infant be circumcised, lest he feel pain, nor be brought to the temple, lest he burden his parents with the expense of an offering, nor be handed over into the hands of Simeon, lest he sadden from then on the old man about to die: and let that old woman be silent too, lest she bewitch the boy. By these counsels, I suppose, you have dared to delete so many original instruments of Christ, Marcion, lest his flesh be proved.

[3] ex quo, oro te: exhibe auctoritatem: si propheta es praenuntia aliquid, si apostolus praedica publice, si apostolicus cum. apostolis senti, si tantum Christianus es crede quod traditum est: si nihil istorum es, merito dixerim, morere.

[3] wherefore, I beg you: exhibit authority: if you are a prophet, foretell something; if an apostle, preach publicly; if apostolic, think with the apostles; if you are only a Christian, believe what has been handed down by tradition: if you are none of these, with good reason, I would say, die.

[4] nam et mortuus es, qui non es Christianus, non credendo quod creditum Christianos facit: et eo magis mortuus es quo magis non es Christianus qui cum fuisses excidisti rescindendo quod retro credidisti, sicut et ipse confiteris in quadam epistula et tui non negant et nostri probant.

[4] for you are dead as well, who are not a Christian, by not believing that which, having been believed, makes Christians: and the more dead you are the more you are not a Christian—you who, though you had been one, have fallen away by rescinding what you formerly believed, just as you yourself confess in a certain epistle, and your own do not deny it, and ours prove it.

[5] igitur rescindens quod credidisti iam non credens rescidisti: non tamen quia credere desisti recte rescidisti, atquin rescindendo quod credidisti probas ante quam rescinderes aliter fuisse: quod credidisti aliter, illud ita erat traditum. porro quod traditum erat id erat verum, ut ab eis traditum quorum fuit tradere: ergo quod erat traditum rescindens, quod erat verum rescidisti. nullo iure fecisti.

[5] therefore, by rescinding what you had believed, now not believing, you have rescinded: yet not because you ceased to believe did you rescind rightly; rather, by rescinding what you had believed you prove that, before you rescinded, it had been otherwise: the thing which you believed to be otherwise—this had been handed down thus. moreover, what had been handed down, that was true, as handed down by those whose role it was to hand down: therefore, by rescinding what was handed down, you have rescinded what was true. you did it with no right.

[6] sed plenius eiusmodi praescriptionibus adversus omnes haereses alibi iam usi sumus: post quas nunc ex abundanti retractamus, desiderantes rationem qua non putaveris natum esse Christum.

[6] but we have already made fuller use elsewhere of such prescriptions against all heresies; after which now, out of abundance, we review, desiring the reason whereby you have thought Christ not to have been born.

III.

[1] Necesse est, quatenus hoc putas arbitrio tuo licuisse, ut aut impossibilem aut inconvenientem deo existimaveris nativitatem. sed deo nihil impossibile nisi quod non vult. an ergo voluerit nasci (quia si voluit, et potuit et natus est) consideremus.

[1] It is necessary, insofar as you think this has been permitted by your own arbitrium, that you have judged the nativity to be either impossible or inconvenient for God. but for God nothing is impossible except what he does not will. let us then consider whether he willed to be born (for if he willed it, he both was able and was born).

ad compendium decurro. si enim nasci se deus noluisset, quacunque de causa, nec hominem se videri praestitisset: nam quis, hominem videns eum, negaret natum? ita quod noluisset esse nec videri omnino voluisset.

to a compendium
I run. for if God had been unwilling to be born, whatever the cause, neither would he have ensured that he appear a man: for who, seeing him as a man, would deny that he was born? thus what he would have been unwilling to be he would in no way have wished to seem.

[2] omnis rei displicentis etiam opinio reprobatur, quia nihil interest utrum sit quid an non sit, si cum non sit esse praesumitur: plane interest illud ut falsum non patiatur quod vere non est. 'Sed satis erat illi, inquis, conscientia sua: viderint homines si natum putabant quia hominem videbant.'

[2] even the opinion of any displeasing thing is also reprobated, because it makes no difference whether something is or is not, if, when it is not, its being is presumed: plainly this matters, that what truly is not should not suffer the false. 'But, you say, his own conscience was enough for him: let men see to it if they thought he was born because they saw a man.'

[3] quanto ergo dignius, quo constantius, humanam sustinuisset existimationem vere natus, eandem existimationem etiam non natus subiturus cum iniuria conscientiae suae. quantum ad fiduciam reputas ut non natus adversus conscientiam suam natum se existimari sustineret? quid tanti fuit, edoce, quod sciens Christus quid esset id se quod non erat exhiberet?

[3] How much more worthy, how much more constant, would he have borne the human estimation truly born, the same estimation he would even, not born, undergo with an injury to his conscience. How much, as to confidence, do you reckon that, not born, against his conscience he would endure to be thought born? What was of such worth, instruct me, that Christ, knowing what he was, should exhibit himself as what he was not?

[4] non potes dicere, 'Ne si natus fuisset et hominem vere induisset deus esse desisset, amittens quod erat dum fit quod non erat': periculum enim status sui deo nullum est. 'Sed ideo, inquis, nego deum in hominem vere conversum, ita ut et nasceretur et carne corporaretur, quia qui sine fine est etiam inconvertibilis sit necesse est: converti enim in aliud finis est pristini:

[4] you cannot say, 'Not even if he had been born and had truly put on the human being would he have ceased to be God, losing what he was while becoming what he was not': for there is no peril of his status to God. 'But for this reason,' you say, 'I deny that God was truly converted into man, such that he both was born and was embodied with flesh, because he who is without end must also be inconvertible: for to be converted into another is the end of the former:

[5] non competit ergo conversio cui non competit fmis.' plane natura convertibilium ea lege est ne permaneant in eo quod convertitur in eis, et ita non permanendo pereant dum perdunt convertendo quod fuerunt. sed nihil deo par est: natura eius ab omnium rerum conditione distat. si ergo quae a deo distant, a quibus et deus distat, cum convertuntur amittunt quod fuerunt, ubi erit diversitas divinitatis a ceteris rebus nisi ut contrarium obtineat, id est ut deus et in omnia converti possit et qualis est perseverare?

[5] conversion therefore does not befit one to whom an end does not befit.' clearly the nature of things convertible is under this law: that they do not remain in that into which they are converted, and thus, by not remaining, they perish while, in converting, they lose what they were. but nothing is equal to God: his nature stands apart from the condition of all things. if therefore the things which are distant from God, from which God also stands apart, when they are converted lose what they were, where will the diversity of divinity from the rest of things be, unless it should obtain the contrary—that is, that God both can be converted into all things and persevere such as he is?

[6] alioquin par erit eorum quae conversa amittunt quod fuerunt, quorum utique deus in omnibus par non est: sic nec in exitu conversionis. angelos creatoris conversos in effigiem humanam aliquando legisti et credidisti, et tantam corporis gestasse veritatem ut et pedes eis laverit Abraham et manibus ipsorum ereptus sit Sodomitis Loth, conluctatus quoque homini angelus toto corporis pondere dimitti desideraverit, adeo detinebatur.

[6] otherwise he will be on a par with those things which, when converted, lose what they were, with which, assuredly, God is in nothing on a par: so neither in the outcome of conversion. you have at some time read and believed that angels of the Creator, converted into a human effigy, sometimes human, carried such truth of body that Abraham even washed their feet and that Lot was snatched from the Sodomites by their hands; an angel also, having wrestled with a man, desired to be released under the whole weight of his body, so greatly was he being held fast.

[7] quod ergo angelis inferioris dei licuit conversis in corpulentiam humanam, ut angeli nihilominus permanerent, hoc tu potentiori deo auferes, quasi non valuerit Christus eius vere hominem indutus deus perseverare? aut numquid et angeli illi phantasma carnis apparuerunt? sed non audebis hoc dicere: nam si sic apud te angeli creatoris sicut et Christus, eius dei erit Christus cuius angeli tales qualis et Christus.

[7] therefore, that which it was permitted to the angels of the inferior god, when converted into human corporeality, human, so that they nonetheless remained angels, this will you take away from the more powerful God, as if Christ, his God, truly clothed with a man, had not been able to persevere as God? or did those angels also appear as a phantasm of flesh? but you will not dare to say this: for if with you the angels of the Creator are thus as also Christ, Christ will belong to that God whose angels are such as Christ is.

[8] si scripturas opinioni tuae resistentes non de industria alias reiecisses alias corrupisses, confudisset te in hac specie evangelium Iohannis praedicans spiritum columbae corpore lapsum desedisse super dominum. qui spiritus cum [hoc] esset, tam vere erat et columba quam et spiritus, nec interfecerat substantiam propriam assumpta substantia extranea.

[8] if you had not deliberately rejected some scriptures and corrupted others, it would have confounded you in this form—the Gospel of John proclaiming that the Spirit, having descended in the body of a dove, settled upon the lord. Which Spirit, since it was [this], was as truly a dove as also spirit, nor had it destroyed its own proper substance by the assumption of an extraneous substance.

[9] sed quaeris corpus columbae ubi sit, resumpto spiritu in caelum. aeque et angelorum, eadem ratione interceptum est qua et editum fuerat. si vidisses cum de nihilo proferebatur, scisses et cum in nihilum subducebatur.

[9] but you ask where the body of the dove is, with the spirit resumed into heaven. so also with the angels: it was intercepted by the same method by which it had been brought forth. if you had seen when it was being brought out of nothing, you would also have known when it was being withdrawn into nothing.

si non fuit initium visibile, nec fmis. tamen corporis soliditas erat quoquo momento corpus videbatur: non potest non fuisse quod scriptum est.

If there was no visible beginning, nor an end. Nevertheless, the solidity of the body was there at whatever moment the body was seen: what is written cannot not have been.

IV.

[1] Igitur si neque ut impossibilem neque ut periculosam deo repudias corporationem, superest ut quasi indignam reicias et accuses. ab ipsa quidem exorsus odio habita nativitate perora, age iam spurcitias genitalium in utero elementorum, humoris et sanguinis foeda coagula, carnis ex eodem caeno alendae per novem menses. describe uterum de die in diem insolescentem, gravem, anxium, nec somno tutum, incertum libidinibus fastidii et gulae.

[1] Therefore, if you do not repudiate for God the incorporation as either impossible or perilous, it remains that you reject it as, so to speak, unworthy and accuse it. Beginning from birth itself, which you hold in hatred, harangue on; come now, the filthinesses of the generative elements in the womb, the foul coagula of humor and blood, the flesh to be nourished from the same mud for nine months. Describe the womb growing insolent day by day, heavy, anxious, not safe for sleep, uncertain in the cravings of fastidiousness and of gluttony.

invehere iam et in ipsum mulieris enitentis pudorem, vel pro periculo honorandum, vel pro natura religiosum.

Inveigh now also against the very modesty of the woman in labor, either for the peril of it to be honored, or by nature religious.

[2] horres utique et infantem cum suis impedimentis profusum, utique et oblitum. dedignaris quod pannis dirigitur, quod unctionibus formatur, quod blanditiis deridetur. hanc venerationem naturae, Marcion, despuis, et quomodo natus es? odisti nascentem hominem, et quomodo diligis aliquem?

[2] you shudder, to be sure, at the infant poured forth with its impediments, to be sure also smeared. you disdain that it is straightened with cloths, that it is formed by unctions, that it is derided with blandishments. this veneration of nature, Marcion, you spit out— and how were you born? you hate the man being born— and how do you love anyone?

te quidem plane non amasti cum ab ecclesia et fide Christi recessisti. sed videris si tibi displices aut si aliter es natus:

you indeed plainly did not love yourself when you receded from the church and the faith of Christ. but you will see whether you displease yourself or whether you were born otherwise:

[3] certe Christus dilexit hominem illum in immunditiis in utero coagulatum, illum per pudenda prolatum, illum per ludibria nutritum. propter eum descendit, propter eum praedicavit, propter eum omni se humilitate deiecit usque ad mortem, et mortem crucis. amavit utique quem magno redemit.

[3] surely Christ loved that man in impurities in the womb coagulated, that man brought forth through the pudenda, that man nourished through mockeries. on account of him he descended, on account of him he preached, on account of him he cast himself down with every humility even unto death, and the death of the cross. he surely loved him whom he redeemed at great price.

si Christus creatoris est, suum merito amavit: si ab alio deo est, magis adamavit, quando alienum redemit. amavit ergo cum homine etiam nativitatem, etiam carnem eius: nihil amari potest sine eo per quod est id quod est.

if Christ is of the Creator, he rightly loved his own; if he is from another god, he loved the more, since he redeemed what was alien. therefore he loved, along with the man, even the nativity, even his flesh: nothing can be loved without that whereby it is what it is.

[4] aut aufer nativitatem et exhibe hominem, adime carnem et praesta quem deus redemit. si haec sunt homo quem deus redemit, tu haec erubescenda illi facis qui redemit, et indigna, quae nisi dilexisset non redemisset? nativitatem reformat a morte regeneratione caelesti, carnem ab omni vexatione restituit: leprosam emaculat, caecam reluminat, paralyticam redintegrat, demoniacam expiat, mortuam resuscitat: et nasci in illam erubescit?

[4] either take away the nativity and exhibit the man, remove the flesh and present the one whom God redeemed. If these constitute the man whom God redeemed, do you make these things shameful to him who redeemed, and unworthy—things which, unless he had loved, he would not have redeemed? He re-forms the nativity from death by celestial regeneration, he restores the flesh from every vexation restored: he makes the leprous immaculate, he re-illuminates the blind, he re-integrates the paralytic, he expiates the demoniac, he resuscitates the dead: and is he ashamed to be born into it?

[5] si revera de lupa aut sue aut vacca prodire voluisset, et ferae aut pecoris corpore indutus regnum caelorum praedicaret, tua opinor illi censura praescriberet turpe hoc deo et indignum hoc dei filio, et stultum propterea qui ita credat. sit plane stultum: de nostro sensu iudicemus deum. sed circumspice, Marcion, si tamen non delesti: Stulta mundi elegit deus, ut confundat sapientia.

[5] if in truth he had wished to come forth from a she-wolf or a sow or a cow, and, clothed in the body of a wild beast or of cattle, were proclaiming the kingdom of the heavens, your censure, I suppose, would prescribe to him that this is shameful for God and unworthy of the Son of God, and therefore foolish whoever so believes. Let it indeed be foolish: let us judge God by our own sense. But look around, Marcion, if, however, you have not deleted it: God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might confound wisdom.

[6] quaenam haec stulta sunt? conversio hominum ad culturam veri dei, reiectio erroris, disciplina iustitiae pudicitiae misericordiae patientiae, innocentiae omnis? haec quidem stulta non sunt.

[6] What then are these foolish things? the conversion of men to the culture of the true God, the rejection of error, the discipline of justice, pudicity, mercy, patience, of all innocence? these indeed are not foolish.

quaere ergo de quibus dixerit: et si te praesumpseris invenisse, num erit tam stultum quam credere in deum natum, et quidem ex virgine, et quidem carneum, qui per illas naturae contumelias volutatus sit?

Therefore inquire about the things of which he said it: and if you presume yourself to have discovered them, will it be as foolish as to believe in a god born—and indeed from a virgin—and indeed carnal—who has been rolled through those affronts to nature?

[7] dicat haec aliquis stulta non esse, et alia sint quae deus in aemulationem elegerit sapientiae saecularis: et tamen apud illam facilius creditur Iuppiter taurus factus aut cycnus, quam vere homo Christus penes Marcionem.

[7] let someone say these things are not foolish, and that there are other things which God has chosen in emulation of secular wisdom: and yet with her it is more easily believed that Jupiter became a bull or a swan than that Christ is truly man with Marcion.

[1] Sunt plane et alia tam stulta, quae pertinent ad contumelias et passiones dei: aut prudentiam dicant deum crucifixum. aufer hoc quoque, Marcion, immo hoc potius. quid enim indignius deo, quid magis erubescendum, nasci an mori, carnem gestare an crucem, circumcidi an suffigi, educari an sepeliri, in praesepe deponi an in monimento recondi?

[1] There are plainly also other things so foolish, which pertain to the contumelies and passions of God: or let them call it prudence that God was crucified. Remove this too, Marcion, nay rather this especially. For what is more unworthy of God, what more to be blushed at: to be born or to die, to bear flesh or a cross, to be circumcised or to be affixed, to be brought up or to be buried, to be laid in a manger or to be stored away in a monument?

sapientior eris si nec ista credideris. sed non eris sapiens nisi stultus in saeculo fueris, dei stulta credendo.

you will be wiser if you have not believed these things either. but you will not be wise unless you have been foolish in the world, by believing the foolish things of god.

[2] an ideo passiones a Christo non rescidisti quia ut phantasma vacabat a sensu earum? diximus retro aeque illum et nativitatis et infantiae imaginariae vacua ludibria subire potuisse. sed iam hic responde, interfector veritatis: nonne vere crucifixus est deus?

[2] Or was it for this reason that you did not cut off the passions from Christ, because, as a phantasm, he was lacking sensation of them? We have said before that likewise he could have undergone the empty mockeries both of a birth and of an imaginary infancy. But now answer here, slayer of truth: was not God truly crucified?

nonne vere mortuus est ut vere crucifixus? nonne vere resuscitatus ut vere scilicet mortuus?

was he not truly dead as he was truly crucified? was he not truly resuscitated, as, to be sure, truly dead?

[3] falso statuit inter nos scire Paulus tantum Iesum crucifixum, falso sepultum ingessit, falso resuscitatum inculcavit? falsa est igitur et fides nostra, et phantasma erit totum quod speramus a Christo, scelestissime hominum, qui interemptores excusas dei: nihil enim ab eis passus est Christus, si nihil vere est passus. parce unicae spei totius orbis: quid destruis necessarium dedecus fidei?

[3] did Paul falsely establish among us to know only Jesus crucified, did he falsely put forward that he was buried, did he falsely inculcate that he was resuscitated? therefore false too is our faith, and a phantasm will be the whole of what we hope from Christ, most wicked of men, you who excuse the slayers of God: for Christ suffered nothing at their hands, if he suffered nothing truly. spare the only hope of the whole world: why do you destroy the necessary disgrace of faith?

quodcunque deo indignum est mihi expedit: salvus sum si non confundar de domino meo: Qui me, inquit, confusus fuerit, confundar et ego eius.

whatever is unworthy of God is expedient for me I am saved if I am not ashamed of my Lord: "Whoever," he says, "shall have been ashamed of me, I also will be ashamed of him."

[4] alias non invenio materias confusionis quae me per contemptum ruboris probent bene impudentem et feliciter stultum. crucifixus est dei filius: non pudet, quia pudendum est. et mortuus est dei filius: prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est.

[4] elsewhere I do not find grounds of confusion which, through the contempt of blushing, may prove me well impudent and happily foolish. The Son of God was crucified: I am not ashamed, because it is shameful. And the Son of God died: it is utterly credible, because it is inept.

et sepultus resurrexit: certum est, quia impossibile.

and, having been buried, he rose again: it is certain, because it is impossible.

[5] sed haec quomodo vera in illo erunt si ipse non fuit verus, si non vere habuit in se quod figeretur quod moreretur quod sepeliretur et resuscitaretur, carnem scilicet hanc sanguine suffusam ossibus substructam nervis intextam venis implexam, quae nasci et mori novit, humanam sine dubio ut natam de homine? ideoque mortalis haec erit in Christo quia Christus homo et filius hominis.

[5] but how will these be true in him if he himself was not true, if he did not truly have in himself that which could be affixed, that which could die, that which could be buried and be resuscitated, namely this flesh suffused with blood, underbuilt by bones, woven with nerves, entwined with veins, which knows to be born and to die, human without doubt as born from a human? and therefore this will be mortal in Christ because Christ is man and son of man.

[6] aut cur homo Christus et hominis filius si nihil hominis et niliil ex homine, nisi si aut aliud est homo quam caro, aut aliunde caro hominis quam ex homine, aut aliud est Maria quam homo, aut homo deus Marcionis? aliter non diceretur homo Christus sine carne, nec hominis filius sine aliquo parente homine, sicut nec deus sine spiritu dei nec dei filius sine deo patre.

[6] or why is Christ a man and the son of man if there is nothing of man and nothing from man, unless either man is something other than flesh, or the flesh of man is from somewhere else than from man, or is Mary something other than a human, or is the god of Marcion a man? otherwise Christ would not be called a man without flesh, nor the son of man without some human parent, just as neither is God without the Spirit of God nor the Son of God without God the Father.

[7] ita utriusque substantiae census hominem et deum exhibuit, hinc natum inde non natum, hinc carneum inde spiritalem, hinc infirmum inde praefortem, hinc morientem inde viventem. quae proprietas conditionum, divinae et humanae, aequa utique naturae cuiusque veritate dispuncta est, eadem fide et spiritus et carnis: virtutes spiritus dei deum, passiones carnem hominis probaverunt.

[7] thus the reckoning of both substances exhibited man and God, hence born thence unbegotten, hence carnal thence spiritual, hence infirm inde very-strong, hence dying thence living. Which property of the conditions, divine and human, has assuredly been distinguished by the truth of each nature, with the same faith both of spirit and of flesh: the virtues of the Spirit of God proved the God, the passions proved the flesh of man.

[8] si virtutes non sine spiritu, perinde et passiones non sine carne: si caro cum passionibus ficta, et spiritus ergo cum virtutibus falsus. quid dimidias mendacio Christum? totus veritas fuit.

[8] if the virtues are not without the spirit, so too the passions are not without the flesh: if the flesh with its passions was feigned, then the spirit also with its virtues was false. why do you halve Christ by a lie? he was wholly truth.

[9] maluit, credo, nasci quam ex aliqua parte mentiri, et quidem in semetipsum, ut carnem gestaret sine ossibus duram, sine musculis solidam, sine sanguine cruentam, sine tunica vestitam, sine fame esurientem, sine dentibus edentem, sine lingua loquentem, ut phantasma auribus fuerit sermo eius per imaginem vocis. fuit itaque phantasma etiam post resurrectionem cum manus et pedes suos discipulis inspiciendos offert, Aspicite, dicens, quod ego sum, quia spiritus ossa non habet sicut me habentem videtis--

[9] he preferred, I believe, to be born rather than in any part to lie, and indeed against himself, so that he might carry flesh hard without bones, solid without muscles, bloody without blood, clothed without a tunic, hungry without hunger eating without teeth, speaking without a tongue, so that his speech would have been to the ears a phantasm through the image of a voice. Therefore he was a phantasm even after the resurrection, when he offers his hands and feet to his disciples to be inspected, saying, Look, that it is I myself, because a spirit does not have bones as you see me having--

[10] sine dubio manus et pedes et ossa quae spiritus non habet, sed caro. quomodo hanc vocem interpretaris, Marcion, qui a deo optimo et simplici et bono tantum infers Iesum? ecce fallit et decipit et circumvenit omnium oculos, omnium sensus, omnium accessus et contactus.

[10] without a doubt—hands and feet and bones, which a spirit does not have, but flesh does. How do you interpret this utterance, Marcion, you who bring in Jesus solely from a God who is best and simple and good? Behold, he deceives and deludes and circumvents the eyes of all, the senses of all, all accesses and contacts.

ergo iam Christum non de caelo deferre debueras sed de aliquo circulatorio coetu, nec deum praeter hominem sed magum hominem, nec salutis pontificem sed spectaculi artificem, nec mortuorum resuscitatorem sed vivorum avocatorem: nisi quod et si magus fuit, natus est.

therefore by now you ought not to have brought Christ down from heaven but from some
circulatorian troupe, nor a god apart from man but a magician-man, nor a pontiff of salvation but an artificer of spectacle, nor a resuscitator of the dead but an avocator of the living: except that even if he was a magus, he was born.

VI.

[1] Sed quidam iam discentes Pontici illius, supra magistrum sapere compulsi, concedunt Christo carnis veritatem, sine praeiudicio tamen renuendae nativitatis: 'Habuerit, inquiunt, carnem, dum omnino non natam.' pervenimus igitur de calcaria quod dici solet in carbonariam, a Marcione ad Apellen, qui posteaquam a disciplina Marcionis in mulierem carne lapsus et dehinc in virginem Philumenen spiritu eversus est, solidum Christi corpus sed sine nativitate suscepit ab ea praedicare.

[1] But certain men, now pupils of that Pontic one, compelled to be wiser than their master, concede to Christ the truth of flesh, without prejudice, however, to a nativity to be denied: “Let him have had, they say, flesh, provided that it was in no wise born.” We have therefore come, as the saying is wont to be said, from the spur-shop into the charcoal-shop, from Marcion to Apelles, who, after he had lapsed from Marcion’s discipline into a woman by flesh and thereafter had been overthrown in spirit by a virgin Philumene, undertook from her to preach a solid body of Christ, but without a nativity.

[2] et angelo quidem illi Philumenes eadem voce apostolus respondebit qua ipsum illum iam tunc praecinebat dicens, Etiamsi angelus de caelis aliter evangelizaverit vobis quam nos evangelizavimus, anathema sit: his vero quae insuper argumentantur, nos resistemus.

[2] and indeed to that angel of Philumene with the same voice the apostle will respond, with which he was already then pre-intoning him, saying, Even if an angel from the heavens should otherwise evangelize to you than we have evangelized, let him be anathema: but to those things which they furthermore argue, we shall resist.

[3] confitentur vere corpus habuisse Christum. unde materia si non ex ea qualitate in qua videbatur? unde corpus si non caro corpus?

[3] they confess that Christ truly had a body. Whence the matter, if not from that quality in which he was seen? Whence the body, if not a body of flesh?

unde caro si non nata? quia nasci haberet, ea futura quae nascitur. De sideribus, inquiunt, et de substantiis superioris mundi mutuatus est carnem: et utique proponunt non esse mirandum corpus sine nativitate, cum et apud nos angelis licuerit nulla uteri opera in carne processisse.

Whence flesh if not born? because, in order to be born, it must be that which is born. From the stars, they say, and from the substances of the higher world, he borrowed flesh; and indeed they propose that a body without nativity is not to be wondered at, since even among us it has been permitted to angels to have proceeded in flesh with no operation of a womb.

[4] agnoscimus quidem ita relatum: sed tamen quale est ut alterius regulae fides ab ea fide quam impugnat instrumentum argumentationibus suis mutuetur? quid illi cum Moyse qui deum Moysi reicit? si alius deus est, aliter sint res eius.

[4] we do indeed acknowledge it as thus related: but still, what sort of thing is it that the faith of another rule should borrow from that faith which it impugns the instrument of its argumentations? what has he to do with Moses who rejects the God of Moses? if it is another God, let his matters be otherwise.

sed utantur haeretici omnes scripturis eius cuius utuntur etiam mundo--erit illis hoc quoque in testimonium iudicii quod de exemplis ipsius blasphemias suas instruunt--facile est veritati etiam nihil tale adversus eos praescribenti obtinere.

But let all the heretics use the scriptures of him whose world they also use--this too will be to them as testimony of the judgment, that from his examples they instruct their blasphemies--it is easy for the truth, even when prescribing nothing of this sort against them, to prevail.

[5] igitur qui carnem Christi ad exemplum. proponunt angelorum, non natam dicentes licet carnem, comparent velim et causas tam Christi quam et angelorum ob quas in carne processerint. nullus unquam angelus ideo descendit ut crucifigeretur, ut mortem experiretur, ut a morte suscitaretur.

[5] therefore those who propose the flesh of Christ after the example of angels, saying flesh albeit not born, I would wish them also to compare the causes both of Christ and likewise of the angels on account of which they have proceeded in flesh. no angel ever for this reason descended to be crucified, to experience death, to be resuscitated from death.

si nunquam eiusmodi fuit causa angelorum corporandorum, habes causam cur non nascendo acceperint carnem: non venerant mori, ideo nec nasci.

if there was never such a cause for the angels to be incorporated, you have the cause why, by not being born, they did not receive flesh: they had not come to die, therefore not to be born.

[6] at vero Christus mori missus nasci quoque necessario habuit ut mori posset. non enim mori solet nisi quod nascitur: mutuum debitum est nativitati cum mortalitate: forma moriendi causa nascendi est.

[6] but indeed Christ, sent to die, also necessarily had to be born so that he might be able to die. for not is it wont to die except that which is born: a mutual debt is owed to nativity with mortality: the form of dying is the cause of being born.

[7] si propter id quod moritur mortuus est Christus, id autem moritur quod et nascitur, consequens erat, immo praecedens, ut aeque nasceretur propter id quod nascitur, quia propter id ipsum mori habebat quod quia nascitur moritur: non competebat non nasci pro quo mori competebat. atquin tunc quoque inter angelos illos ipse dominus apparuit Abrahae sine nativitate, cum carne scilicet, pro eadem causae diversitate:

[7] if, on account of that which dies, Christ died, and that dies which also is born, it was consequent—nay rather, precedent—that he likewise be born on account of that which is born; because he had to die on account of that very thing which, because it is born, dies: it was not fitting not to be born for that for which it was fitting to die. And yet then also among those angels the Lord himself appeared to Abraham without nativity, with flesh, to wit, on account of the same diversity of cause:

[8] sed vos hoc non recipitis, non eum Christum recipientes qui iam tunc et adloqui et liberare et iudicare humanum genus ediscebat in carnis habitu, non natae adhuc quia nondum moriturae nisi prius et nativitas eius et mortalitas annuntiarentur. igitur probent angelos illos carnem de sideribus concepisse:

[8] but you do not receive this, not receiving that Christ who already then was learning to address and to liberate and to judge the human race in the habit of flesh—flesh not yet born, since not yet about to die—unless first both his nativity and his mortality were announced. therefore let them prove that those angels conceived flesh from the stars:

[9] si non probant, quia nec scriptum est, nec Christi caro inde erit, cui angelorum accommodant exemplum. constat angelos carnem non propriam gestasse utpote natura substantiae spiritalis--etsi corporis alicuius, sui tamen generis--in carnem autem humanam transfigurabiles ad tempus videri et congredi cum hominibus posse.

[9] if they do not prove it, since it is not written either, neither will Christ’s flesh be from there, to which they accommodate the example of the angels. It stands established that the angels have borne flesh not their own, seeing that by nature they are of spiritual substance—though of some body, yet of their own kind—whereas into human flesh they are transfigurable, so as for a time to appear and to come together with men.

[10] igitur cum relatum non sit unde sumpserint carnem, relinquitur intellectui nostro non dubitare hoc esse proprium angelicae potestatis, ex nulla materia corpus sibi sumere. Quanto magis, inquis, ex aliqua. certum est: sed nihil de hoc constat, quia scriptura non exhibet.

[10] therefore, since it has not been related whence they took up flesh, it is left to our intellect not to doubt that this is proper to angelic power, to assume for themselves a body from no matter. How much more, you say, from some matter. It is certain: but nothing about this is established, because Scripture does not exhibit it.

[11] ceterum qui valent facere semetipsos quod natura non sunt, cur non valeant ex nulla substantia facere? si fiunt quod non sunt, cur non ex eo fiant quod non est? quod autem non est, cum fit, ex nihilo est.

[11] but moreover, those who are strong to make themselves what by nature they are not, why should they not be strong to make out of no substance? if they become what they are not, why should they not become from that which is not? but that which is not, when it comes to be, is from nothing.

propterea nec requiritur nec ostenditur quid postea factum sit corporibus illorum: quod de nihilo fuit, nihil factum est. possunt nihil ipsum convertere in carnem qui semetipsos potuerunt convertere in carnem: plus est naturam demutare quam facere materiam.

therefore neither is it required nor is it shown what afterwards was done with their bodies: what was from nothing was made nothing. they can convert nothing itself into flesh who were able to convert their very selves into flesh: it is more to change nature than to make matter.

[12] sed et si de materia necesse fuit angelos sumpsisse carnem, credibilius utique est de terrena materia quam de ullo genere caelestium substantiarum, cum adeo terrenae qualitatis extiterit ut terrenis pabulis pasta sit. fuerit: sit nunc quoque siderea eodem modo terrenis pabulis pasta quando terrena non esset, quo terrena caelestibus pasta est quando caelestis non esset--legimus enim manna esui populo fuisse: Panem, inquit, angelorum edit homo--non tamen infringitur semel separata condicio dominicae carnis ex causa alterius dispositionis.

[12] but even if it was necessary from matter that angels should have taken on flesh, it is certainly more credible from earthly matter than from any kind of celestial substances, since it exhibited so terrestrial a quality that it was fed on terrestrial foods. Be it so: let it now also be sidereal, in the same way fed on terrestrial foods when it would not be terrestrial, just as the terrestrial was fed on celestial when it would not be celestial--for we read that manna was for the people’s eating: “Bread,” he says, “of angels man eats”--yet the once-separated condition of the Lord’s flesh is not infringed on account of a different dispensation.

[13] homo vere futurus usque ad mortem, eam carnem oportebat indueret cuius et mors: eam porro carnem cuius est mors nativitas antecedit.

[13] truly to be man even unto death, it behooved him to put on that flesh to which death also belongs: and further, that flesh to which death belongs, nativity precedes.

VII.

[1] Sed quotiens de nativitate contenditur omnes qui respuunt eam ut praeiudicantem de carnis in Christo veritate ipsum dominum volunt negare esse natum quia dixerit, Quae mihi mater et qui mihi fratres? audiat igitur et Apelles quid iam responsum sit a nobis Marcioni eo libello quo ad evangelium ipsius provocavimus, considerandam scilicet materiam pronuntiationis istius.

[1] But as often as a dispute is waged about the nativity, all who spurn it as prejudging the truth of the flesh in Christ wish to deny that the Lord himself was born, because he said, “Who is my mother and who are my brothers?” let Apelles, then, also hear what answer has already been given by us to Marcion in that little book wherein we appealed to his gospel, namely, that the subject-matter of this utterance is to be considered.

[2] primo quidem nunquam quisquam adnuntiasset illi matrem et fratres eius foris stantes qui non certus esset et habere illum matrem et fratres et ipsos esse quos tunc nuntiabat, vel retro cognitos vel tunc ibidem compertos: licet propterea abstulerint haereses ista de evangelio quod et creditum patrem eius Ioseph fabrum et matrem Mariam et fratres et sorores eius optime notos sibi esse dicebant qui mirabantur doctrinam eius.

[2] first indeed no one would have announced to him his mother and his brothers standing outside who was not certain both that he had a mother and brothers and that they were the very ones whom he was then announcing, either known previously or then and there ascertained: although for that reason the heresies have removed this from the Gospel, since those who were marveling at his doctrine were saying that his father was believed to be Joseph the craftsman, and his mother Mary, and that his brothers and sisters were very well known to them.

[3] 'Sed temptandi gratia nuntiaverant ei matrem et fratres quos non habebat.' hoc quidem scriptura non dicit, alias non tacens cum quid temptationis gratia factum est erga eum: Ecce, inquit, surrexit legis doctor temptans eum: et alibi, Et accesserunt ad eum pharisaei temptantes eum: quod nemo prohibebat hic quoque significari temptandi gratia factum. non recipio quod extra scripturam de tuo infers.

[3] 'But for the sake of testing they had announced to him a mother and brothers whom he did not have.' This indeed Scripture does not say, since elsewhere it is not silent when something is done toward him for the sake of temptation: Behold, he says, rose a doctor of the law testing him; and elsewhere, And the Pharisees came to him, testing him: which nothing prevented from being indicated here also as done for the sake of testing. I do not accept what, outside of Scripture, you infer on your own.

[4] dehinc materia temptationis debet subesse. quid temptandum putaverint in illo? ' Utique natusne esset annon: si enim hoc negavit responsio eius, hoc captavit nuntiatio temptatoris.' sed nulla temptatio tendens ad agnitionem eius de quo dubitando temptat ita subito procedit ut non ante praecedat quaestio quae dubitationem inferens cogat temptationem.

[4] thereafter the material of the temptation ought to be present. What did they think should be tempted in him? 'Surely, whether he was born or not: for if his response denied this, the announcement of the tempter aimed at this.' But no temptation tending to the recognition of him about whom, by doubting, it tempts, proceeds so suddenly that there is not first a question preceding, which, introducing the doubt, compels the temptation.

[5] porro si nusquam de nativitate Christi volutatum est, quid tu argumentaris voluisse illos per temptationem sciscitari quod nunquam produxerunt in quaestionem? eo adicimus, etiam si temptandus esset de nativitate, non utique hoc modo temptaretur, earum personarum adnuntiatione quae poterant etiam nato Christo non fuisse. omnes nascimur, et tamen non omnes aut fratres habemus aut matrem:

[5] furthermore, if nowhere has there been discussion about the Nativity of Christ, why do you argue that they wished by temptation to inquire into that which they never brought into question? to this we adjoin, even if he were to be tempted about the Nativity, surely not in this way would he be tempted—by the annunciation of those persons who might not have existed even with Christ born. we all are born, and yet not all of us either have brothers or a mother:

[6] adhuc potest et patrem magis habere quam matrem et avunculos magis quam fratres. adeo non competit temptatio nativitatis, quam licebat et sine matris et sine fratrum nominatione constare. facilius plane est ut certi illum et matrem et fratres habere divinitatem potius temptaverint eius quam nativitatem, an intus agens sciret quid foris esset mendacio petitus praesentiae adnuntiatae eorum qui in praesentia non erant. nisi quod et sic vacuisset temptationis ingenium:

[6] moreover someone can have a father rather than a mother, and uncles rather than brothers. thus the temptation of nativity does not fit, which could have stood even without the naming of mother and of brothers. it is plainly easier that, being certain that he has both a mother and brothers, they tested rather his divinity than his nativity, whether, acting within, he would know what was outside, when assailed by a lie about the announced presence of those who were not present. unless quod et sic the contrivance of the temptation would even so have been empty:

[7] poterat enim evenire ut quos illi nuntiabant foris stare, ille eos sciret absentes esse vel valetudinis vel negotii vel peregrinationis nota ei iam necessitate. nemo temptat eo modo quo sciat posse se ruborem temptationis referre.

[7] for it could indeed happen that those whom they announced to be standing outside, he knew to be absent either by the note of sickness or of business or of peregrination, by a necessity already known to hi m. no one tempts in that manner in which he knows he can incur the blush of the temptation.

[8] nulla igitur materia temptationis competente liberatur simplicitas nuntiatoris, quod vere mater et fratres eius supervenissent. sed quae ratio responsi matrem et fratres ad praesens negantis discat etiam Apelles.

[8] therefore no material for temptation being competent the simplicity of the announcer is acquitted, because truly his mother and his brothers had arrived. but let even Apelles learn what the rationale of the reply denying mother and brothers for the present is.

[9] fratres domini non crediderant in illum, sicut et in evangelio ante Marcionem edito continetur: mater aeque non demonstratur adhaesisse illi, cum Martha et Mariae aliae in commercio eius frequententur. hoc denique in loco apparet incredulitas eorum: cum Iesus doceret viam vitae, cum dei regnum praedicaret, cum languoribus et vitiis medendis operaretur, extraneis defixis in illum tam proximi aberant:

[9] the brothers of the Lord had not believed in him, as is also contained in the Gospel published before Marcion: the mother likewise is not shown to have adhered to him, since Martha and the other Maries are those frequently in his association. at this point, finally, their incredulity appears: while Jesus was teaching the way of life, while he was preaching the kingdom of God, while he was engaged in healing infirmities and vices, with outsiders fixed upon him, those so near were absent:

[10] denique superveniunt et foris subsistunt nec introeunt, non computantes scilicet quid intus ageretur, nec sustinent saltem, quasi necessarius aliquid afferrent eo quod ille cum maxime agebat, sed amplius interpellant et a tanto opere revocatum volunt. oro te Apelle, vel tu Marcion, si forte tabula ludens vel de histrionibus aut aurigis contendens tali nuntio avocareris nonne dixisses, Quae mihi mater aut qui fratres?

[10] finally they supervene and stand outside and do not enter, not computing, of course, what was being done inside; nor do they even endure, as if they were bringing something necessary for what he was just then doing, but rather they interpell and want him called back from so great a work. I beseech you, Apelles, or you, Marcion, if perchance, while playing at the board or contending about actors or charioteers, you were avocated by such a message, would you not have said, “What is mother to me, or who are brothers?”

[11] deum praedicans et probans Christus, legem et prophetas adimplens, tanti retro aevi caliginem dispergens, indigne usus est hoc dicto ad percutiendam incredulitatem foris stantium vel ad excutiendam importunitatem ab opere revocantium? ceterum ad negandam nativitatem alius fuisset ei locus et tempus et ordo sermonis, non eius qui possit pronuntiari etiam ab eo cui et mater esset et fratres: cum indignatio parentes negat, non negat sed obiurgat.

[11] Christ, proclaiming and proving God fulfilling the Law and the Prophets, dispersing the caliginous gloom of so great a bygone age, did he make unworthy use of this saying to smite the incredulity of those standing outside, or to shake off the importunity of those calling him back from the work revocantium? moreover, for denying the nativity there would have been for him another place and time and order of discourse, not one which can be pronounced even by one to whom there is both a mother and brothers: since when indignation “denies” parents, it does not deny but objurgates.

[12] denique potiores fecit alios, et meritum praelationis ostendens, audientiam scilicet verbi, demonstrat qua condicione negaverit matrem et fratres: qua enim alios sibi adoptavit qui ei adhaerebant, ea abnegavit illos qui ab eo absistebant. solet etiam adimplere Christus quod alios docet.

[12] finally he made others preferable, and, showing the merit of prelation, namely the audience of the word, he demonstrates under what condition he denied his mother and brothers: for in the way that he adopted others to himself who were adhering to him, in that same way he abnegated those who were standing apart from him. Christ is also wont to fulfill what he teaches others.

[13] quale ergo erat si docens non tanti facere matrem aut patrem aut fratres quanti dei verbum ipse dei verbum adnuntiata matre et fraternitate desereret? negavit itaque parentes quomodo docuit negandos, pro dei opere. sed et alias figura est synagogae in matre abiuncta, et Iudaeorum in fratribus incredulis.

[13] What then would it have been like, if, while teaching not to value mother or father or brothers as much as the Word of God, he—he himself the Word of God—had deserted his mother and brethren when they were announced? He therefore denied parents in the way he taught they must be denied, for the work of God. But also elsewhere there is a figure: of the synagogue in the mother set apart, and of the Jews in the unbelieving brothers.

foris erat in illis Israel: discipuli autem novi, intus audientes et credentes, cohaerentes Christo ecclesiam deliniabant, quam potiorem matrem et digniorem fraternitatem recusato carnali genere nuncupavit. eodem sensu denique et illi exclamationi respondit, non matris uterum et ubera negans sed feliciores designans qui verbum dei audiunt.

outside among them was Israel; but the new disciples, within, hearing and believing, cohering to Christ were delineating the ecclesia, which, the carnal kindred refused, he named the more preferable mother and the more worthy fraternity. in the same sense, finally, he also replied to that exclamation, not denying the mother’s womb and breasts but designating as more felicitous those who hear the word of God.

VIII.

[1] Solis istis capitulis quibus maxime instructi sibi videntur Marcion et Apelles secundum veritatem integri et incorrupti evangelii interpretatis, satis esse debuerat ad probationem carnis humanae in Christo per defensionem nativitatis.

[1] By these chapters alone, by which Marcion and Apelles seem to themselves to be most instructed, when interpreted according to the truth of the entire and incorrupt gospel, it ought to have sufficed for the proof of human flesh in Christ through the defense of the nativity.

[2] sed quoniam et isti Apelleiaci carnis ignominiam praetendunt maxime, quam volunt ab igneo illo praeside mali sollicitatis animabus adstructam et idcirco indignam Christo et idcirco de sideribus illi substantiam competisse, debeo eos de sua paratura repercutere. angelum quendam inclitum nominant qui mundum hunc instituerit et instituto eo paenitentiam admiserit.

[2] but since these Apelleians too especially put forward the ignominy of the flesh, which they wish to have been superadded to souls solicited by that fiery governor of evil—and therefore unworthy for Christ, and therefore that to him there accrued substance from the stars—I ought to strike them back with their own apparatus. they name a certain renowned angel who instituted this world and, it having been instituted, admitted penitence.

[3] et hoc suo loco tractavimus-- nam est nobis et ad illos libellus--an qui spiritum et voluntatem et virtutem Christi habuerit ad ea opera dignum aliquid paenitentia fecerit. eum angelum etiam de figura erraticae ovis interpretantur. teste igitur paenitentia institutoris sui peccatum erit mundus, siquidem omnis paenitentia confessio est delicti quia locum non habet nisi in delicto.

[3] and this we have treated in its own place-- for we have also a little book against those men-- whether one who has had the spirit and will and virtue of Christ has done anything in regard to those works worthy of repentance. that angel also they interpret from the figure of the erratic sheep they interpret.
with the repentance of its own institutor as witness, the world will be sin, since every repentance is a confession of a delict, because it has no place except in a delict.

[4] si mundus delictum est, qua corpus et membra delictum erit perinde et caelum et caelestia cum caelo: si caelestia, et quicquid inde conceptum prolatumque est. mala arbor malos fructus edat necesse est. caro igitur Christi de caelestibus structa de peccati constat elementis, peccatrix de peccatorio censu, et pars iam erit eius substantiae, id est nostrae, quam ut peccatricem Christo dedignantur inducere.

[4] if the world is a delict, then, as a body and its members, a delict will be heaven and the celestials along with heaven: if the celestials, then also whatever from there has been conceived and prolated. A bad tree must needs bear bad fruits. therefore the flesh of Christ from celestial things constructed consists of the elements of sin, sinful by a peccatory reckoning, and it will already be a part of that substance, that is, of ours, which, as sinful, they disdain to introduce to Christ.

[5] ita si nihil de ignominia interest, aut aliquam purioris notae materiam excogitent Christo quibus displicet nostra, aut eam agnoscant qua etiam caelestis melior esse non potuit. legimus plane, Primus homo de terrae limo, secundus homo de caelo:

[5] thus, if nothing in the way of ignominy is at issue, let those to whom our own is displeasing for Christ excogitate some matter of a purer note, or acknowledge that by which even the celestial could not have been better. we read plainly, “The first man from the clay of the earth, the second man from heaven”:

[6] non tamen ad materiae differentiam spectat, sed tantum terrenae retro substantiae carnis primi hominis, id est Adae, caelestem de spiritu substantiam opponit secundi hominis, id est Christi. et adeo ad spiritum, non ad carnem, caelestem hominem refert, ut quos ei comparat constet in hac carne terrena caelestes fieri, spiritu scilicet:

[6] however, it does not look to a difference of material, but only sets in opposition to the former earthly substance of the flesh of the first man, that is, Adam, the heavenly substance from spirit of the second man, that is, Christ. And he so refers the heavenly man to spirit, not to flesh, that it is evident that those whom he compares to him become celestial in this earthly flesh, namely by the spirit:

[7] quodsi secundum carnem quoque caelestis Christus, non compararentur illi non secundum carnem caelestes. si ergo qui fiunt caelestes, qualis et Christus, terrenam carnis substantiam gestant, hinc quoque confirmatur ipsum etiam Christum in carne terrena fuisse caelestem sicut ii sunt qui ei adaequantur.

[7] But if Christ were heavenly also according to the flesh, those who are heavenly not according to the flesh would not be compared to him. Therefore, if those who become heavenly, such as Christ also is, bear the earthly substance of flesh, from this also it is confirmed that Christ himself also was heavenly in earthly flesh, just as those are who are made equal to him.

IX.

[1] Praetendimus adhuc nihil quod ex alio acceptum sit, ut aliud sit quam id de quo sit acceptum, ita aliud esse ut non suggerat unde sit acceptum. omnis materia sine testimonio originis suae non est, etsi demutetur in novam proprietatem.

[1] We further put forward that nothing which has been received from another is such as to be other than that from which it has been received, so other as not to suggest whence it has been received. No material is without the testimony of its origin, even if it be transmuted into a new property.

[2] ipsum certe corpus hoc nostrum, quod de limo figulatum etiam ad fabulas nationum veritas transmisit, utrumque originis elementum confitetur, carne terram, sanguine aquam. nam licet alia sit species qualitatis, hoc est quod ex alio aliud fit. ceterum quid est sanguis quam rubens humor, quid caro quam terra conversa in figuras suas?

[2] this very body of ours itself, which, fashioned from clay, truth has transmitted even into the fables of the nations, acknowledges both elements of its origin, with the flesh, earth; with the blood, water. For although the appearance of the quality is different, this is what from another thing another thing is made. Besides, what is blood but a red humor, what is flesh but earth converted into its own figures its own?

[3] considera singulas qualitates, musculos ut glebas, ossa ut saxa, etiam circum papillas calculos quosdam: aspice nervorum tenaces conexus ut traduces radicum et venarum ramosos discursus ut ambages rivorum et lanugines ut muscos et comam ut caespitem et ipsos medullarum in abdito thesauros ut metalla carnis.

[3] consider the individual qualities, the muscles as clods, the bones as rocks, even certain little stones around the nipples: look at the tough connections of the nerves as the shoots of roots, and the branching courses of the veins as the windings of streams, and the down as mosses, and the hair as turf, and the very treasures of the marrows in the hidden place as the ores of the flesh.

[4] haec omnia terrenae originis signa et in Christo fuerunt, et haec sunt quae illum dei filium celaverunt, non alias tantummodo hominem existimatum quam humana extantem substantia corporis. aut edite aliquid in illo caeleste de Septentrionibus et Virgiliis et Suculis emendicatum: nam quae enumeravimus adeo terrenae testimonia carnis sunt ut et nostrae. sed nihil novum nihilque peregrinum deprehendo.

[4] all these signs of earthly origin were also in Christ, and these are the things that hid him, the son of God, not thought to be merely a man otherwise than as appearing in the human substance of the body. or else produce something in him heavenly, begged from the Septentrions and the Virgiliae and the Suculae: for the things we have enumerated are testimonies of flesh so earthly as also of our own. but I detect nothing new and nothing foreign.

[5] denique verbis et factis tantum, doctrina et virtute sola, Christum hominem obstupescebant: notaretur autem etiam carnis in illo novitas miraculo habita. sed carnis terrenae non mira condicio ipsa erat quae cetera eius miranda faciebat cum dicerent, Unde huic doctrina et signa ista?

[5] Finally, by words and deeds only, by doctrine and virtue alone, they were astounded at Christ the man: however, the newness of flesh in him also would be noted, held as a miracle. But it was the very not-wondrous condition of terrestrial flesh which was making his other things wondrous, when they would say, “Whence to this man this doctrine and these signs?”

[6] etiam despicientium formam eius haec erat vox: adeo nec humanae honestatis corpus fuit, nedum caelestis claritatis. tacentibus apud vos quoque prophetis de ignobili aspectu eius, ipsae passiones ipsaeque contumeliae loquuntur: passiones quidem humanam carnem, contumeliae vero inhonestam probaverunt.

[6] even the voice of those despising his form was this: to such a degree his body was not of human comeliness, much less of celestial brightness. with the prophets among you also being silent about his ignoble aspect, the sufferings themselves and the contumelies themselves speak: the sufferings indeed a human flesh, the contumelies, however, a dishonorable one.

[7] an ausus esset aliqui ungue summo perstringere corpus novum, sputaminibus contaminare faciem nisi merentem? quid dicis caelestem carnem quam unde caelestem intellegas non habes, quid terrenam negas quam unde terrenam agnoscas habes? esurit sub diabolo, sitit sub Samaritide, lacrimatur super Lazarum, trepidat ad mortem--Caro enim inquit infirma--sanguinem fundit postremo:

[7] would anyone have dared to graze with the tip of a nail the new body, to contaminate the face with spittle unless deserving? what do you say—heavenly flesh, which you do not have whence you may understand as heavenly; why do you deny it earthly, which you have whence you may recognize as earthly? he hungers under the devil, he thirsts under the Samaritan woman, he weeps over Lazarus, he trembles at death—for “the flesh,” he says, “is weak”—he pours out blood at last:

[8] haec sunt opinor signa caelestia. sed quomodo, inquam, contemni et pati posset sicut et dixit, si quid in illa carne de caelesti generositate radiasset? ex hoc ergo convincimus nihil in illa de caelis fuisse, propterea ut contemni et pati posset.

[8] these are, I suppose, celestial signs. but how, I say, could he be despised and suffer, just as he also said, if anything of heavenly nobility had radiated in that flesh? from this, therefore, we prove that there was nothing in it from the heavens, for this reason, so that he might be despised and suffer.

CHAPTER 10.

[1] Convertor ad alios aeque sibi prudentes qui carnem Christi animalem adfirmant, quod anima caro sit facta: ergo et caro anima, et sicut caro animalis ita et anima carnalis. et hic itaque causas requiro. si ut animam salvam faceret in semetipso suscepit animam Christus, quia salva non esset nisi per ipsum dum in ipso, non video cur eam carnem fecerit animalem induendo carnem, quasi aliter animam salvam facere non posset nisi carnem factam.

[1] I turn to others equally prudent unto themselves who affirm the flesh of Christ to be animal, because the anima has been made flesh: therefore the flesh is also soul, and as the flesh is animal so also the soul is carnal. And here therefore I seek the causes. If, in order to make the soul saved, Christ took up a soul into himself—because it would not be safe except through him while in him—I do not see why he made that flesh animal by putting on flesh, as if otherwise he were not able to make the soul saved unless made flesh.

[2] cum enim nostras animas non tantum non carneas sed etiam a carne disiunctas salvas praestet, quanto magis illam quam ipse suscepit etiam non carneam redigere potuit in salutem. item cum praesumant non carnis sed animae nostrae solius liberandae causa processisse Christum, primo quam absurdum est ut animam solam liberaturus id genus corporis eam fecerit quod non erat liberaturus.

[2] For since he vouchsafes our souls to be saved not only not carnal but even separated from the flesh, how much more could he also have reduced into salvation that soul which he himself assumed, even not carnal. Likewise, since they presume that Christ proceeded for the sake not of the flesh but of freeing our soul alone, in the first place how absurd it is that, being about to free the soul alone, he should have made it the genus of body which he was not going to free.

[3] deinde si animas nostras per illam quam gestavit liberare susceperat, illam quoque quam gestavit nostram gestasse debuerat, id est nostrae formae, cuiuscunque formae est in occulto anima nostra, non tamen carneae. ceterum non nostram animam liberavit si carneam habuit: nostra enim carnea non est.

[3] then, if he had undertaken to liberate our souls through that which he bore, he ought also to have borne ours as well— that is, of our form, of whatever form our soul is in secret— yet not carnal. furthermore, he did not liberate our soul if he had a carnal one: for ours is not carnal.

[4] porro si non nostram liberavit quia carneam liberavit, nihil ad nos, quia non nostram liberavit. sed nec liberanda erat quae non erat nostra, ut scilicet carnea: non enim periclitabatur si non erat nostra, id est non carnea. sed liberatam constat illam.

[4] furthermore, if he did not liberate what is ours because he liberated a carnal one, nothing to us, because he did not liberate what is ours. but neither was that to be liberated which was not ours, namely a carnal one: for it was not in peril if it was not ours, that is, not carnal. but it is established that that one was liberated.

ergo non fuit carnea, et fuit nostra, si ea fuit quae liberaretur, quoniam periclitabatur. iam ergo si anima non fuit carnalis in Christo, nec caro potest animalis fuisse.

therefore it was not fleshy, and it was ours, if it was that which was to be freed, since it was in peril. and so now, if the soul was not carnal in Christ, neither could the flesh have been animal.
flesh cannot have been animal.

XI.

11.

[1] Sed aliam argumentationem eorum convenimus, exigentes cur animalem carnem subeundo Christus animam carnalem videatur habuisse. 'Deus enim inquiunt gestivit animam visibilem hominibus exhibere faciendo eam corpus quae retro invisibilis extiterit, natura nihil sed nec semetipsam videns prae impedimento carnis huius, ut etiam disceptaretur nata sit anima an non, mortalis an non: itaque animam corpus effectam in Christo ut eam nascentem et morientem et, quod sit amplius, resurgentem videremus.'

[1] But we encounter another argumentation of theirs, demanding why, by assuming animate flesh, Christ seems to have had a carnal soul. 'For God,' they say, 'was eager to exhibit to human beings a soul that is visible, by making it a body, which previously had existed invisible, by nature seeing nothing, nay not even itself, because of the impediment of this flesh, so that it might even be disputed whether the soul is born or not, mortal or not: and so the soul made a body in Christ, in order that we might see it being born and dying and, what is more, rising again.'

[2] et hoc autem quale erit, ut per carnem demonstraretur anima sibi aut nobis, quae per carnem non poterat agnosci, ut sic ostenderetur dum id fit cui latebat, id est caro? tenebras videlicet accepit ut lucere possit. denique ad hoc prius retractemus an isto modo ostendenda fuerit anima, dehinc an in totum invisibilem eam retro allegent, utrum quasi incorporalem an etiam habentem aliquod genus corporis proprii.

[2] And this, moreover—what will it be, that through flesh the soul should be demonstrated to itself or to us, which through flesh could not be recognized—so that it might be shown thus while that is being done to that by which it lay hidden, that is, the flesh? Clearly it received darkness in order that it might be able to shine. Finally, with regard to this, let us first reconsider whether the soul ought to have been shown in this manner; thereafter, whether they allege it to have been altogether invisible before, whether as if incorporeal or even as having some genus of body proper to itself.

[3] et tamen cum invisibilem dicant corporalem constituunt, habentem quod invisibile sit: nihil enim habens invisibile quomodo potest invisibilis dici? sed nec esse quidem potest, nihil habens per quod sit: cum autem sit, habeat necesse est aliquid per quod est.

[3] and yet, though they say it is invisible, they constitute it corporeal, having that which is invisible: for, having nothing invisible, how can it be called invisible? but neither indeed can it even exist, having nothing through which it is: yet since it is, it must of necessity have something through which it is.

[4] si habet aliquid per quod est, hoc erit corpus eius. omne quod est corpus est sui generis: nihil est incorporale nisi quod non est. habente igitur anima invisibile corpus, qui visibilem eam facere susceperat utique dignius id eius visibile fecisset quod invisibile habebatur, quia nec hic mendacium aut infirmitas deo competit, mendacium si aliud animam quam quod erat demonstravit, infirmitas si id quod erat demonstrare non valuit.

[4] if it has something by which it is, this will be its body. everything that is, is a body, and is of its own genus: nothing is incorporeal except what is not. the soul therefore having an invisible body, he who had undertaken to make it visible would assuredly, more worthily, have made visible that of it which was held to be invisible, because neither here do falsehood nor infirmity befit God, falsehood if he demonstrated the soul as other than it was, infirmity if he was not able to demonstrate that which it was.

[5] nemo ostendere volens hominem cassidem aut personam ei inducit: hoc autem factum est animae si in carne conversa alienam induit superficiem. sed et si incorporalis anima deputetur, ut aliqua vi rationis occulta sit quidem anima, corpus tamen non sit quicquid est anima, proinde et impossibile deo non erat, et proposito eius congruentius competebat, nova aliqua corporis specie eam demonstrare quam ista communi omnium, alterius iam notitiae, ne sine causa visibilem ex invisibili facere gestisset animam, istis scilicet quaestionibus opportunam per carnis in illam humanae defensionem.

[5] no one, wishing to show a man, puts a helmet or a mask/persona on him: but this has been done to the soul, if, having been converted into flesh, it donned an alien surface. Yet even if the soul be reckoned incorporeal, so that by some force of reason the soul is indeed hidden, nevertheless whatever the soul is, it is not a body; accordingly it was not impossible for God, and it more congruently suited his purpose, to display it by some new species of body rather than by that common to all, already of another’s knowledge, lest he should have desired without cause to make the soul visible out of the invisible—namely, as being opportune for these questions—by the defense of human flesh against it.

[6] 'Sed non poterat Christus inter homines nisi homo videri.' redde igitur Christo fidem suam, ut qui homo voluit incedere animam quoque humanae condicionis ostenderit, non faciens eam carneam sed induens eam carne.

[6] 'But Christ could not be seen among men except as a man.' render therefore to Christ his due faith, that he who wished to go about as a man might also show a soul of human condition, not making it fleshly but clothing it with flesh.

XII.

12.

[1] Ostensa sit nunc anima per carnem, si constiterit illam ostendendam quoquo modo fuisse, id est incognitam sibi et nobis: quanquam in hoc vana distinctio est, quasi nos seorsum ab anima simus, cum totum quod sumus anima sit. denique sine anima nihil sumus, ne hominis quidem sed cadaveris nomen. si ergo ignoramus animam, ipsa se ignorat.

[1] Let the soul now be shown through the flesh, if it has been established that it had to be shown in any way, that is, unknown to itself and to us: although in this there is a vain distinction, as though we were separate from the soul, since all that we are is the soul. finally, without the soul we are nothing, not even the name of a man but of a cadaver. if therefore we are ignorant of the soul, it is itself ignorant of itself.

[2] ita superest hoc solummodo inspicere, an se anima sic ignorarit ut nota quoquo modo fieret. opinor sensualis est animae natura: adeo nihil animale sine sensu, nihil sensuale sine anima, et ut impressius dixerim animae anima sensus est.

[2] thus it remains only to inspect this, whether the soul has so been ignorant of itself that it might in some way become known. I opine the nature of the soul is sensory: to such a degree nothing animal is without sense, nothing sensory without soul, and, to say it more impressively, the soul of the soul is sense.

[3] igitur cum omnibus anima sentire praestet et ipsa sentiat omnium etiam sensus, nedum qualitates, cui verisimile est ut ipsa sensum sui ab initio sortita non sit? unde illi scire quod interdum sibi sit necessarium ex naturalium necessitate, si non scit suam qualitatem, cui quid necessarium est? hoc quidem in omni anima recognoscere est, notitiam sui dico, sine qua notitia sui nulla anima se ministrare potuisset.

[3] therefore, since the soul excels all in perceiving and itself perceives even the senses of all things, to say nothing of the qualities, to whom is it plausible that it itself was not allotted a sense of itself from the beginning? whence would it know what is sometimes necessary for itself by the necessity of natural things, if it does not know its own quality—the very thing for which something is necessary? this indeed is to be recognized in every soul, I mean knowledge of itself, without which knowledge of itself no soul could have ministered to itself.

[4] puto autem magis hominem, animal solum rationale, compotem et animam esse sortitum quae illum faciat animal rationale, ipsa in primis rationalis. porro quomodo rationalis quae efficit hominem rationale animal, si ipsa rationem suam nescit ignorans semetipsam? sed adeo non ignorat, ut auctorem et arbitrum et statum suum norit.

[4] I think, moreover, that man, the only rational animal, is rather a participant and has been allotted a soul which makes him a rational animal, it itself being in the first place rational. moreover how rational is that which makes man a rational animal, if it does not know its own reason, being ignorant of itself? but so far is it from not knowing, that it knows its author and arbiter and its status.

[5] nihil adhuc de deo discens deum nominat: nihil adhuc de iudicio eius admittens deo commendare se dicit: nihil magis audiens quam spem nullam esse post mortem et bene et male defuncto cuique imprecatur. plenius haec prosequitur libellus quem scripsimus DE TESTIMONIO ANIMAE.

[5] learning nothing yet about God, it names God: admitting nothing yet about His judgment, it says that it commends itself to God: hearing nothing more than that there is no hope after death, it makes invocation for each person deceased, both well and ill. more fully these things are pursued by the little book which we have written, ON THE TESTIMONY OF THE SOUL.

[6] alioquin si anima semetipsam ignorans erat ab initio, nihil a Christo cognovisse debuerat nisi qualis esset. nunc autem non effigiem suam didicit a Christo sed salutem. propterea filius dei descendit et animam subiit, non ut ipsa se anima cognosceret in Christo sed Christum in semetipsa: non enim se ignorando de salute periclitabatur sed dei verbum.

[6] otherwise, if the soul, being ignorant of itself, was so from the beginning, it ought to have learned nothing from Christ except what sort it was. Now, however, it did not learn its image from Christ but salvation. For this reason the Son of God descended and assumed a soul, not that the soul itself might know itself in Christ but that it might know Christ within itself; for it was not by being ignorant of itself that it was running risk concerning salvation, but (by being ignorant of) the Word of God.

[7] Vita inquit manifestata est, non anima: et Veni inquit animam salvam facere, non dixit ostendere. ignorabamus nimirum animam, licet invisibilem, nasci et mori, nisi corporaliter exhiberetur. ignoravimus plane resurrecturam cum carne.

[7] Life, he says, was manifested, not the soul: and I came, he says, to save the soul, he did not say to show it. We were ignorant, to be sure, that the soul, although invisible, is born and dies, unless it were exhibited corporeally. We plainly were ignorant that it would be resurrected with the flesh.

hoc erit quod Christus manifestavit: sed et hoc non aliter in se quam in Lazaro aliquo, cuius caro non erat animalis, ita nec anima carnalis. quid ergo amplius innotuit nobis de animae ignoratae retro dispositione? quid invisibile eius fuit quod visibilitatem per carnem desideraret?

this will be what Christ manifested: but even this not otherwise in himself than in some Lazarus, whose flesh was not animal, so neither was his soul carnal. what therefore more has become known to us about the soul’s formerly unknown disposition? what of it was invisible that it should desire visibility through the flesh?

XIII.

13.

[1] 'Caro facta est anima ut anima ostenderetur.' numquid ergo et caro anima facta est ut caro manifestaretur? si caro anima est, iam non anima est sed caro: si anima caro est, iam non caro est sed anima. ubi ergo caro, et ubi anima, si alterutro alterutrum facta sunt, immo si neutrum sunt dum alterutro alterutrum fiunt?

[1] 'Flesh was made soul that the soul might be shown.' Then was flesh also made soul so that flesh might be manifested? If flesh is soul, then it is no longer soul but flesh; if the soul is flesh, then it is no longer flesh but soul. Where, then, is flesh, and where soul, if, each by the other, they have been made one another—nay rather, if they are neither while, by each other, they become one another?

certe perversissimum ut carnem nominantes animam intellegamus et animam significantes carnem interpretemur.

Certainly most perverse, that when naming flesh we understand soul, and when signifying soul we interpret flesh.

[2] omnia periclitabuntur aliter accipi quam sunt, et amittere quod sunt dum aliter accipiuntur, si aliter quam sunt cognominantur. fides nominum salus est proprietatum. etiam cum demutantur qualitates accipiunt vocabulorum possessiones.

[2] all things will be in peril of being received otherwise than they are, and of losing what they are while they are received otherwise, if they are denominated otherwise than they are. the fidelity of names is the salvation of proprieties. even when qualities are transmuted, they take on the possessions of the vocables.

verbi gratia, argilla excocta testae vocabulum suscipit, nec communicat cum vocabulo pristini generis quia nec cum ipso genere.

for example, clay, when fired, takes on the vocable “potsherd,” nor does it communicate with the vocable of its former genus, since neither with the genus itself.

[3] proinde et anima Christi caro facta non potest non id esse quod facta est et id non esse quod fuerat, aliud scilicet facta. et quoniam proximum adhibuimus exemplum plenius eo utemur. certe enim testa ex argilla unum est corpus, unumque vocabulum unius scilicet corporis:

[3] accordingly, also the soul of Christ, made flesh, cannot not be that which it has been made, and not be that which it had been, namely, having been made, something other. and since we have adduced a nearest example, we will use it more fully. certainly indeed a potsherd from clay is one body, and one vocable of one, namely, body:

[4] nec potest testa dici et argilla, quia quod fuit non est, quod autem non est et [nomen] non adhaeret. ergo et anima caro facta uniformis soliditas et singularitas tota est, et indiscreta substantia. in Christo vero invenimus animam et carnem simplicibus et nudis vocabulis editas, id est animam animam et carnem carnem, nusquam animam-carnem aut carnem-animam, quando ita nominari debuissent si ita fuissent, sed etiam sibi quamque substantiam divise pronuntiatas ab ipso, utique pro duarum qualitatum distinctione, seorsum animam et seorsum carnem.

[4] nor can the potsherd be called both potsherd and clay, because what it was is not, and to what is not the [name] does not adhere. therefore the soul made flesh is a uniform solidity and an entire singularity, and an indiscrete substance. but in Christ indeed we find soul and flesh set forth with simple and naked terms, that is, the soul as soul and the flesh as flesh, nowhere soul-flesh or flesh-soul, since they ought to have been named so if they had been so, but also each substance pronounced separately by himself, assuredly for the distinction of two qualities, the soul apart and the flesh apart.

[5] quid? Anxia est, inquit, anima mea usque ad mortem: et, Panis quem ego dedero pro salute mundi caro mea est. porro si anima caro fuisset, unum esset in Christo carnea anima aut caro animalis: at cum dividit species, carnem et animam, duo ostendit.

[5] What? “My soul is anxious unto death,” he says; and, “The Bread which I shall give for the salvation of the world is my flesh.” Furthermore, if the soul had been flesh, there would be in Christ one thing—a fleshy soul or animal flesh; but when he divides the species, flesh and soul, he shows two.

[6] si duo, iam non unum: si non unum, iam nec anima carnalis nec caro animalis: unum enim est anima-caro aut caro-anima. nisi si et seorsum aliam gestabat animam praeter eam quae caro erat, et aliam circumferebat carnem praeter illam quae anima erat. quodsi una caro et una anima, illa tristis usque ad mortem et illa panis pro mundi salute, salvus est numerus duarum substantiarum in suo genere distantium, excludens carneae animae unicam speciem.

[6] if two, now not one: if not one, now neither a carnal soul nor an animal flesh: for soul-flesh or flesh-soul is one. unless, if he also was bearing separately another soul besides that which was flesh, and was carrying around another flesh besides that which was soul. but if one flesh and one soul, the one sorrowful unto death and the other bread for the salvation of the world, the number of two substances, differing in their own kind, is safe, excluding the single species of a fleshly soul.

XIV.

14.

[1] 'Sed et angelum,' aiunt, 'gestavit Christus.' qua ratione? 'Qua et hominem.' eadem ergo est et causa. ut hominem gestaret Christus salus hominis fuit causa, scilicet ad restituendum quod perierat.

[1] 'But also an angel,' they say, 'Christ bore.' By what reasoning? 'As also a man.' Therefore the cause is the same. That Christ might bear man, the salvation of man was the cause, namely to restore what had perished.

homo perierat, hominem restitui oportuerat. ut angelum gestaret Christus nihil tale de causa est.

man had perished; it had been necessary that man be restored. that Christ should carry an angel—there is nothing of the sort as a cause.

[2] nam etsi angelis perditio reputatur in ignem praeparatum diabolo et angelis eius, nunquam tamen illis restitutio repromissa est: nullum mandatum de salute angelorum suscepit Christus a patre. quod pater neque repromisit neque mandavit, Christus administrare non potuit. cui igitur rei angelum quoque gestavit nisi ut satellitem forte cum quo salutem hominis operaretur?

[2] for although perdition is reckoned for the angels into the fire prepared for the devil and his angels, nevertheless restoration was never promised to them: Christ received no mandate from the Father concerning the salvation of angels. What the Father neither promised nor commanded, Christ could not administer. For what purpose, then, did he also bear an angel, unless as a satellite perchance with whom he might operate the salvation of man?

[3] idoneus enim non erat dei filius qui solus hominem liberaret, a solo et singulari serpente deiectum? ergo iam non unus deus nec unus salutificator, sed duo salutis artifices, et utique alter altero indigens. an vero ut per angelum liberaret hominem?

[3] For was the Son of God not adequate to liberate by himself the man cast down by the sole and singular serpent? Therefore now there is not one God nor one savior, but two artificers of salvation, and assuredly the one needing the other. Or indeed, that he might liberate man through an angel?

cur ergo ipse descendit, ad id quod per angelum erat expediturus? si per angelum, quid et ipse? si per se, quid et angelus?

Why therefore did he himself descend, for that which he was going to accomplish through an angel? If through an angel, what then of himself? If by himself, what then of the angel?

dictus est quidem magni consilii angelus, id est nuntius, officii non naturae vocabulo: magnum enim cogitatum patris, super hominis scilicet restitutionem, adnuntiaturus saeculo erat. non ideo tamen sic angelus intellegendus ut aliqui Gabriel aut Michael.

He was indeed called the angel of great counsel, that is, a messenger, by a term of office, not of nature: for he was going to announce to the world the great thought of the Father, namely concerning the restoration of man, about to herald it to the age. Not for that reason, however, is he to be understood as an angel like some Gabriel or Michael.

[4] nam et filius a domino vineae mittitur ad vinitores, sicut et famuli, de fructibus petitum: sed non propterea unus ex famulis deputabitur filius quia famulorum successit officio. facilius ergo dicam, si forte, ipsum filium angelum (id est nuntium) patris, quam angelum in filio. sed cum de [filio] ipso sit pronuntiatum, Minuisti eum modicum quid citra angelos, quomodo videbitur angelum induisse, sic infra angelos deminutus dum homo fit, qua caro et anima, et filius hominis?

[4] for both the son is sent by the lord of the vineyard to the vinedressers, just as the servants are, to ask for the fruits: but not on that account will the son be reckoned as one of the servants because of the servants he has succeeded to the office. I will therefore more easily say, perhaps, that the son himself is the father’s angel (that is, messenger), rather than an angel in the son. But since it has been pronounced concerning the [Son] himself, “You have diminished him a little short of the angels,” how will he be seen to have put on an angel, thus diminished beneath angels while he becomes man, namely as flesh and soul, and son of man?

[5] qua autem spiritus dei et virtus altissimi non potest infra angelos haberi, deus scilicet et dei filius. quanto ergo, dum hominem gestat, minor angelis factus est, tanto non, dum angelum gestat. poterit haec opinio Hebioni convenire qui nudum hominem et tantum ex semine David, id est non et dei filium, constituit Iesum--plane prophetis aliquo gloriosiorem--ut ita in illo angelum fuisse dicatur quemadmodum in aliquo Zacharia:

[5] but inasmuch as the Spirit of God and the power of the Most High cannot be held below the angels, that is, God and the Son of God. By as much, therefore, as, while he bears a man, he was made lesser than the angels, by so much he was not, while he bears an angel. This opinion could fit Hebion, who constitutes Jesus a bare man and only from the seed of David, that is, not also the Son of God—plainly more glorious than the prophets in some respect—so that thus it may be said that there was an angel in him, just as in a certain Zechariah:

[6] nisi quod a Christo nunquam est dictum, Et ait mihi angelus qui in me loquebatur. sed nec quotidianum illud omnium prophetarum, Haec dicit dominus: ipse enim erat dominus, coram et ex sua auctoritate pronuntians, Ego autem dico vobis. quid ultra ad haec?

[6] except that it was never said by Christ, And the angel who was speaking in me said to me. but nor the everyday formula of all the prophets, Thus says the Lord: for he himself was the Lord, pronouncing in person and from his own authority, But I say to you. what further as to these things?

Esaiam exclamantem audi, Non angelus neque legatus sed ipse dominus salvos eos fecit.

Hear Isaiah crying out, Not an angel nor a legate, but the Lord himself saved them.

XV.

15.

[1] Licuit et Valentino ex privilegio haeretico carnem Christi spiritalem comminisci. quidvis eam fmgere potuit quisquis humanam credere noluit, quando, quod ad omnes dictum sit, si humana non fuit nec ex homine non video ex qua substantia ipse Christus et hominem se et filium hominis pronuntiarit: Nunc autem vultis occidere hominem veritatem ad vos locutum: et, Dominus est sabbati filius hominis. de ipso enim Esaias, Homo in plaga et sciens ferre imbecillitatem: et Hieremias, Et homo est et quis cognovit illum?

[1] It was permitted also to Valentinus, by heretical privilege, to contrive a spiritual flesh of Christ. Anyone who was unwilling to believe it human could feign it to be anything whatsoever; since—what pertains to all being said—if it was not human nor from a man, I do not see from what substance Christ himself would have proclaimed both that he was man and the Son of Man: “But now you want to kill a man who has spoken the truth to you;” and, “the Son of Man is Lord of the sabbath.” For concerning him Isaiah: “A man in affliction and knowing to bear infirmity;” and Jeremiah: “And he is a man, and who has known him?”

et Daniel, Et ecce super nubes tanquam filius hominis: etiam. Paulus apostolus, Mediator dei et hominum homo Christus Iesus: item Petrus in actis apostolorum, Iesum Nazarenum virum vobis a deo destinatum, utique hominem.

and Daniel, And behold upon the clouds as it were
a son of man; likewise, the apostle Paul, Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus; likewise Peter in the Acts of the Apostles, Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined for you by God, indeed a man.

[2] haec sola sufficere vice praescriptionis debuerunt ad testimonium carnis humanae et ex homine sumptae et non spiritalis sicut nec animalis nec sidereae nec imaginariae, si sine studio et artificio contentionis haereses esse potuissent.

[2] these alone ought to have sufficed, in the stead of a praescription, for testimony to flesh human and taken from man, and not spiritual, just as neither animal, nor sidereal, nor imaginary, if heresies could have existed without zeal and the artifice of contention.

[3] nam, ut penes quendam ex Valentini factiuncula legi, primo non putant terrenamet humanam Christo substantiam informatam ne deterior angelis dominus deprehendatur qui non terrenae carnis extiterunt, dehinc quod oporteret similem nostrae carnem similiter nasci, non de spiritu nec de deo, sed ex viri voluntate. 'Et cur, Non de corruptela sed de incorruptela? et quare non, sicut et illa resurrexit et in caelo resumpta est, ita et nostra par eius statim adsumitur?

[3] for, as I read in the possession of a certain person from Valentinus’s little faction, first they do not think that an earthly and human substance was formed for Christ, lest the Lord be found inferior to the angels, who did not arise from earthly flesh; next, because it would be necessary that flesh like ours be born similarly, not of the Spirit nor of God, but from a man’s will. ‘And why, not from corruptibility but from incorruptibility? and why is it not, just as that one rose again and was taken up in heaven, so also is ours, a counterpart of it, straightway assumed?’

aut cur illa par nostrae non aeque in terram dissoluta est?'

or why was that, equal to ours, not equally dissolved into the earth?'

[4] talia et ethnici volutabant: 'Ergo dei filius in tantum humilitatis exhaustus?' et, 'Si resurrexit in exemplum spei nostrae cur niliil tale de nobis probatum est?' merito ethnici talia: sed merito et haeretici. numquid enim inter illos distat nisi quod ethnici non credendo credunt at haeretici credendo non credunt?

[4] Such things even the pagans were revolving: 'Therefore the Son of God has been exhausted to such a degree of humility?' and, 'If he rose again as an example of our hope, why has nothing such been proved about us?' Deservedly the pagans say such things; but deservedly the heretics too. For what, indeed, differs between them, except that the pagans, by not believing, believe, while the heretics, by believing, do not believe?

[5] legunt denique, Minorasti eum modico citra angelos, et negant inferiorem substantiam Christi nec hominem se sed vermem pronuntiantis, qui nec formam habuit nec speciem, sed forma eius ignobilis, defecta citra omnes homines, homo in plaga et sciens ferre imbecillitatem.

[5] they read, finally, You made him a little lower than the angels, and they deny the inferior substance of Christ, who pronounces himself not a man but a worm, who had neither form nor appearance, but his form ignoble, defective below all men, a man under the stroke and knowing how to bear imbecility.

[6] agnoscunt hominem deo mixtum, et negant hominem: mortuum credunt, et quod est mortuum ex incorruptela natum esse contendunt, quasi corruptela aliud sit a morte. 'Sed et nostra caro statim resurgere debebat.' exspecta: nondum inimicos suos Christus oppressit, ut cum amicis de inimicis triumphet.

[6] they recognize a man mixed with God, and they deny the man: they believe him dead, and they contend that that which is dead was born from incorruption, as if corruption were something other than death. 'But our flesh too ought to have risen immediately.' wait: Christ has not yet oppressed his enemies, so that with his friends he may triumph over his enemies.

XVI.

16.

[1] Insuper argumentandi libidine ex forma ingenii haeretici locum sibi fecit Alexander ille quasi nos affirmemus idcirco Christum terreni census induisse carnem ut evacuaret in semetipso carnem peccati. quod etsi diceremus, quacunque ratione muniremus sententiam nostram, dum ne tanta amentia qua putavit tanquam ipsam carnem Christi opiriemur ut peccatricem evacuatam in ipso, cum illam et ad dexteram patris in caelis praesidere meminerimus et venturam inde in suggestu paternae claritatis praedicemus.

[1] Moreover, by a lust of arguing, out of the form of heretical genius, that Alexander made a place for himself, as though we affirm that for this reason Christ put on the flesh of the earthly census in order that he might evacuate in himself the flesh of sin. which, even if we were to say it, by whatever reasoning we might fortify our case, provided only that we do not, with so great madness as he supposed, seem to cover over the very flesh of Christ as sinful, evacuated in him, since we remember that it sits at the right hand of the Father in the heavens and we proclaim that it will come from there on the dais of paternal brightness.

[2] adeo, ut evacuatam non possumus dicere , ita nec peccatricem in qua dolus non fuit. defendirnus autem non carnem peccati evacuatam esse in Christo sed peccatum carnis, non materiam sed naturam, nec substantiam sed culpam, secundum apostoli auctoritatem dicentis, Evacuavit peccatum in carne.

[2] to such an extent that, just as we cannot call evacuated , so neither sinful, in which there was no guile. but we defend that it is not the flesh of sin that has been evacuated in Christ but the sin of the flesh, not the material but the nature, nor the substance but the culpability, according to the authority of the Apostle saying, He evacuated sin in the flesh.

[3] nam et alibi in similitudine inquit carnis peccati fuisse Christum, non quod similitudinem carnis acceperit quasi imaginem corporis et non veritatem, sed similitudinem peccatricis carnis vult intellegi quod ipsa non peccatrix caro Christi eius fuit par cuius erat peccatum, genere non vitio Adae aequanda.

[3] for also elsewhere he says that Christ was in the similitude of the flesh of sin, not because he took on a similitude of flesh as if an image of a body and not the truth, but he wants the similitude of sinful flesh to be understood, since Christ’s flesh itself was not sinful— it was a peer of him whose was the sin, to be equated to Adam in kind, not in fault.

[4] hinc etiam confirmamus eam fuisse carnem in Christo cuius natura est in homine peccatrix, et sic in illa peccatum evacuatum, dum in Christo sine peccato habetur quae in homine sine peccato non habebatur. at neque ad propositum Christi faceret evacuantis peccatum carnis non in ea carne evacuare illud in qua erat natura peccati, neque ad gloriam: quid enim magnum si in carne meliore et alterius (id est non peccatricis) naturae naevum peccati peremit? 'Ergo, inquies, si nostram induit, peccatrix fuit caro Christi.'

[4] hence we also confirm that the flesh in Christ was that whose nature in man is peccatricious, and thus in that flesh sin was evacuated, since in Christ that is held without sin which in man was not held without sin. But neither would it suit the purpose of Christ, who is evacuating the sin of the flesh, to evacuate it not in that flesh in which there was the nature of sin, nor would it suit his glory: for what is great, if in better flesh and of another (that is, not-peccatricious) nature he destroyed the blemish of sin? “Therefore,” you will say, “if he put on our [flesh], the flesh of Christ was peccatricious.”

[5] noli constringere explicabilem sensum: nostram enim induens suam fecit, suam faciens non peccatricem eam fecit. ceterum, quod ad omnes dictum sit qui ideo non putant carnem nostram in Christo fuisse quia non fuit ex viri semine, recordentur Adam ipsum in hanc carnem non ex semine viri factum: sicut terra conversa est in hanc carnem sine viri semine, ita et dei verbum potuit sine coagulo in eiusdem carnis transire materiam.

[5] do not constrain the explicable sense: for by putting on what is ours he made it his own, and by making it his own he made it not sinful. moreover, let this be said to all who therefore do not think our flesh was in Christ because it was not from a man’s seed: let them remember that Adam himself was made into this flesh not from a man’s seed; just as the earth was converted into this flesh without a man’s seed, so too the Word of God could, without a coagulum, pass into the material of the same flesh.

XVII.

17.

[1] Sed remisso Alexandro cum suis syllogismis quos in argumentationibus torquet, etiam cum psalmis Valentini quos magna impudentia quasi idonei alicuius auctoris interserit, ad unam iam lineam congressionem dirigamus an carnem Christus ex virgine acceperit, ut hoc praecipue modo humanam eam constet si ex humana matrice substantiam traxit: quanquam licuit iam et de nomine hominis et de statu qualitatis et de sensu tractationis et de exitu passionis humanam constitisse.

[1] But Alexander having been dismissed with his own syllogisms, which he twists in argumentations he torments, and also with the psalms of Valentinus which with great impudence he inserts as though of some suitable author, let us now direct the engagement to a single line: whether Christ received flesh from a virgin, so that chiefly in this way it may be established as human if from a human matrix it drew its substance; although it has already been allowable to have established it as human from the name “man,” and from the status of quality, and from the sense of handling, and from the outcome of the passion.

[2] ante omnia autem commendanda erit ratio quae praefuit ut dei filius de virgine nasceretur: nove nasci debebat novae nativitatis dedicator de qua signum daturus dominus ab Esaia praedicabatur. quod est istud signum? Ecce virgo concipiet in utero et pariet filium.

[2] before all things, however the rationale must be commended which presided, that the Son of God should be born from a virgin: the dedicator of a new nativity ought to be born in a new way, concerning which sign the Lord, about to give it, was foretold by Esaias. what is this sign? Behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb and shall bear a son.

concepit igitur virgo et peperit Emmanuelem, nobiscum deum.

therefore the virgin conceived and bore Emmanuel, God-with-us.

[3] haec est nativitas nova, dum homo nascitur in deo, ex quo in homine deus natus est carne antiqui seminis suscepta sine semine antiquo, ut illam novo semine, id est spiritali, reformaret exclusis antiquitatis sordibus expiatam. sed tota novitas ista, sicut et in omnibus, de veteri figurata est, rationali per virginem dispositione homine domino nascente. virgo erat adhuc terra, nondum opere compressa, nondum sementi subacta: ex ea hominem factum accipimus a deo in animam vivam.

[3] this is the new nativity, while man is born in God, from whom in man God was born, with the flesh of the ancient seed assumed without the ancient seed, so that by a new seed, that is, spiritual, he might reform that same [flesh], expiated with the filth of antiquity excluded. But this whole novelty, as also in all things, has been figured from the old, by a rational disposition through a virgin, with the Lord being born as man. The earth was still a virgin, not yet pressed by work, not yet subdued to sowing: from it we receive that man was made by God into a living soul.

[4] igitur si primus Adam ita traditur, merito sequens vel novissimus Adam, ut apostolus dixit, proinde de terra (id est carne) nondum generationi resignata in spiritum vivificantem a deo est prolatus. et tamen ne mihi vacet incursus nominis Adae, unde Christus Adam ab apostolo dictus est si terreni non fuit census homo eius? sed et hic ratio defendit, quod deus imaginem et similitudinem suam a diabolo captam aemula operatione recuperavit.

[4] therefore, if the first Adam is delivered thus, rightly the following or the newest Adam, as the apostle said, likewise from earth (that is, flesh) not yet resigned to generation into a life‑giving spirit vivifying by God was brought forth. and yet, lest my resort to the name of Adam be idle, whence was Christ called Adam by the apostle, if his man was not of the earthly census? but here too reason defends this, that God recovered his image and likeness, captured by the devil, by an emulative operation.

[5] in virginem enim adhuc Evam irrepserat verbum aedificatorium mortis: in virginem aeque introducendum erat dei verbum exstructorium vitae, ut quod per eiusmodi sexum abierat in perditionem per eundem sexum redigeretur in salutem. crediderat Eva serpenti, credidit Maria Gabrieli: quod illa credendo deliquit haec credendo delevit. 'Sed Eva nihil tunc concepit in utero ex diaboli verbo.'

[5] for into the virgin Eve as yet had crept the architectonic word of death: into a virgin likewise there had to be introduced there was to be introduced the exstructive word of God of life, so that what through such a sex had gone away into perdition might through the same sex be brought back into salvation. Eve had believed the serpent; Mary believed Gabriel: what that one believing committed as a delict, this one by believing erased. 'But Eve at that time conceived nothing in the womb from the devil’s word.'

[6] immo concepit. nam exinde ut abiecta pareret et in doloribus pareret verbum diaboli semen illi fuit: enixa est denique diabolum fratricidam. contra Maria eum edidit qui carnalem fratrem Israel interemptorem suum salvum quandoque praestaret.

[6] nay rather, she conceived. For from then on, so that cast off she should bear and in pains should bear, the Devil’s word was seed to her: she brought forth, in fine, the fratricidal Devil. By contrast, Mary brought forth him who would one day make safe his carnal brother, Israel—his own slayer.

in vulvam ergo deus verbum suum detulit bonum fratrem, ut memoriam mali fratris eraderet: inde prodeundum fuit Christo ad salutem hominis quo homo iam damnatus intraverat.

into the womb, therefore, God brought down his Word, the good brother, so that he might eradicate the memory of the evil brother: from there it was necessary for Christ to go forth for the salvation of man by the same way by which the already condemned man had entered.

XVIII.

18.

[1] Nunc et simplicius respondeamus. non competebat ex semine humano dei filium nasci, ne si totus esset filius hominis non esset et dei filius nihilque haberet amplius Salomone et amplius Iona, ut de Hebionis opinione credendus erat. ergo iam dei filius ex patris dei semine, id est spiritu,

[1] Now let us answer more simply as well. It did not befit the Son of God to be born from human seed, lest if he were wholly the son of man he would not also be the Son of God, and would have nothing more than Solomon and more than Jonah, as according to the opinion of Ebion he was to be believed. Therefore now the Son of God is from the seed of God the Father, that is, from the Spirit,

[2] ut esset et hominis filius caro ei sola erat ex hominis carne sumenda sine viri semine: vacabat enim semen viri apud habentem dei semen. itaque sicut nondum natus ex virgine patrem deum habere potuit sine homine matre, aeque cum de virgine nasceretur potuit matrem habere hominem sine homine patre:

[2] in order that he might also be the son of man, for him flesh alone was to be taken from human flesh without a man’s seed: for a man’s seed was out of place in one who possessed God’s seed. And so, just as, not yet born, from a virgin he could have God as father without a human mother, likewise, when he was being born from a virgin, he could have a human as mother without a human father:

[3] sic denique homo cum deo dum caro hominis cum spiritu dei, caro sine semine ex homine, spiritus cum semine ex deo. igitur si fuit dispositio rationis super filium dei ex virgine proferendum, cur non ex virgine acceperit corpus quod de virgine protulit, quia aliud est quod a deo sumpsit? 'Quoniam, inquiunt, verbum caro factum est.'

[3] thus, finally, man with God, while the flesh of man with the spirit of God—flesh without seed from man, spirit with seed from God. Therefore, if there was a disposition of reason concerning the Son of God to be brought forth from a virgin, why did he not from the virgin receive the body which he from the virgin produced, since what he took from God is other? 'Because,' they say, 'the Word was made flesh.'

[4] vox ista quid caro sit factum contestatur et declarat, nec tamen periclitatur quasi statim aliud sit factum caro et non verbum, si ex carne factum est verbum caro: aut si ex semetipso factum est, scriptura dicat. cum scriptura non dicat nisi quod sit factum, non et unde sit factum, ergo ex alio, non ex semetipso, suggerit factum.

[4] this utterance attests what has been made flesh and declares it, nor yet does it run a risk as though at once something other were made flesh and not the Word, if from flesh the Word has been made flesh: or if it has been made from itself, let Scripture say. since Scripture says only that it has been made, not also whence it has been made, therefore it suggests that it has been made from another, not from itself, that it has been made.

[5] si non ex semetipso sed ex alio, iam hinc tracta ex quo magis credere congruat carnem factum verbum nisi ex carne in qua et factum est, vel quia ipse dominus sententialiter et definitive pronuntiavit, Quod in carne natum est caro est quia ex carne natum est. sed si de homine tantummodo dixit, non et de semetipso, plane nega hominem Christum et ita defende non et in ipsum competisse. 'Atquin subicit, Et quod de spiritu natum est spiritus est, quia Deus spiritus est, et De deo natus est:

[5] if not from himself but from another, from here already draw out whence it is more congruent to believe that the Word was made flesh, if not from the flesh in which also it was made, or because the Lord himself sententially and definitively pronounced, What is born in the flesh is flesh, because it is born from flesh. but if he said this of man only, and not also of himself, plainly deny the man Christ and so maintain that it did not also pertain to him. 'But indeed he adds, And that which is born of the Spirit is spirit, because God is spirit, and he is born of God:

[6] hoc utique vel eo magis in ipsum tendit si et in credentes eius.' si ergo et hoc ad ipsum, cur non et illud supra? neque enim dividere potes, hoc ad ipsum, illud supra ad ceteros homines, qui utramque substantiam Christi et carnis et spiritus non negas.

[6] this assuredly, or even more so, tends toward him himself if also toward his believers.' if therefore this too pertains to him, why not that above as well? neither for you can divide, this to him himself, that above to the rest of men, you who do not deny both the substance of Christ both of flesh and of spirit.

[7] ceterum si tam carnem habuit quam spiritum, cum de duarum substantiarum pronuntiat conditione quas in semetipso gestabat non potest videri de spiritu quidem suo de carne vero non sua determinasse. ita cum sit ipse de spiritu dei (et spiritus deus est) ex deo natus, ipse est et ex carne hominis et homo in carne generatus.

[7] moreover, if he had flesh just as much as spirit, since when he pronounces about the condition of the two substances which he was bearing in himself he cannot seem to have determined about his own spirit indeed, but about flesh not his own. thus, since he himself is from the spirit of God (and the spirit is God), born from God, he himself is also from the flesh of man and a man generated in flesh.

XIX.

19.

[1] 'Quid est ergo, Non ex sanguine nec ex voluntate carnis nec ex voluntate viri sed ex deo natus est?' hoc quidem capitulo ego potius utar, cum adulteratores eius obduxero: sic enim scriptum esse contendunt, Non ex sanguine nec ex carnis voluntate nec ex viri sed ex deo nati sunt, quasi supradictos credentes in nomine eius designet, ut ostendant esse semen illud arcanum electorum et spiritalium quod sibi imbuunt.

[1] 'What then is [the meaning of], Not from blood nor from the will of flesh nor from the will of man but was born from God?' This chapter, indeed, I for my part will rather employ, when I shall have arraigned its adulterators: for thus they contend that it is written, Not from blood nor from the will of flesh nor from man but from God they were born, as though it designates the aforementioned “those believing in his name,” so as to show that that arcane seed of the elect and the spiritual exists, with which they imbue themselves.

[2] quomodo autem ita erit, cum omnes qui credunt in nomine domini pro communi lege generis humani ex sanguine et ex carnis et ex viri voluntate nascantur, etiam Valentinus ipse? adeo singulariter ut de domino scriptum est, Sed ex deo natus est. merito, quia verbum dei, et cum verbo dei spiritus, et in spiritu dei virtus, et quicquid dei est Christus. qua caro autem, non ex sanguine nec ex carnis et viri voluntate, quia ex dei voluntate verbum caro factum est:

[2] but how will it be so, since all who believe in the name of the Lord are born, according to the common law of the human race, from blood and from the will of flesh and of man, even Valentinus himself? So singularly as it is written about the Lord, But he was born from God. Rightly, because the Word of God, and with the Word of God the Spirit, and in the Spirit of God Power, and whatever is of God is Christ. But as for the flesh, not from blood nor from the will of flesh and of man, because by the will of God the Word was made flesh:

[3] ad carnem enim, non ad verbum, pertinet negatio formalis nostrae nativitatis, quia caro sic habebat nasci, non verbum. 'Negans autem ex carnis quoque voluntate natum, cur non negavit etiam ex substantia carnis?' neque enim quia ex sanguine negavit substantiam carnis renuit, sed materiam seminis quam constat sanguinis esse calorem ut despumatione mutatum in coagulum sanguinis feminae:

[3] to the flesh, not to the Word, pertains the formal negation of our nativity, because the flesh had to be born thus, not the Word. 'But, denying that he was born also from the will of the flesh, why did he not also deny [being] from the substance of the flesh?' For neither, because he denied "from blood," did he refuse the substance of the flesh, but the material of the seed, which it is agreed is the heat of blood, as by skimming-off changed into the coagulum of the woman's blood:

[4] nam ex coagulo in caseo eius est substantiae quam medicando constringit, id est lactis. intellegimus ergo ex concubitu nativitatem domini negatam, quod sapit voluntas viri et carnis, non ex vulvae participatione. et quid utique tam exaggeranter inculcavit non ex sanguine nec ex carnis aut viri voluntate natum, nisi quia ea erat caro quam ex concubitu natam nemo dubitaret?

[4] for from the curd in cheese its power is of the substance which, by medicating, it constricts, that is, of the milk. we understand therefore from intercourse the nativity of the Lord to be denied, which savors of the will of the man and of the flesh, not from participation of the womb. and why indeed did he so exaggeratedly inculcate not of blood nor of the will of flesh or of man born, unless because it was flesh which no one would doubt to have been born from intercourse?

negans porro ex concubitu non negavit ex carne, immo confirmavit ex carne, quia non perinde negavit ex carne sicut ex concubitu negavit.

further, denying from intercourse he did not deny from flesh; nay rather he confirmed from flesh, because he did not in the same way deny from flesh as he denied from intercourse.

[5] oro vos, si dei spiritus non de vulva carnem participaturus descendit in vulvam, cur descendit in vulvam? potuit enim extra eam fieri caro spiritalis simplicius multo quam intra vulvam [fieret extra vulvam]. sine causa eo se intulit unde nihil extulit. sed non sine causa descendit in vulvam.

[5] I beg you, if the Spirit of God, not about to partake of flesh from the womb, descended into the womb, why did he descend into the womb? For indeed outside it spiritual flesh could be made much more simply than inside the womb [it were made outside the womb]. Without cause he brought himself into that place whence he brought out nothing. But he did not descend into the womb without cause.

ergo ex illa accepit, quia si non ex illa accepit sine causa in illam descendit, maxime eius qualitatis caro futurus quae non erat vulvae, id est spiritalis.

Therefore he received from her, because if he did not receive from her he descended into her without cause, especially as he was going to be of that quality flesh which was not of the vulva, that is, spiritual.

XX.

20.

[1] Qualis est autem tortuositas vestra, ut ipsam EX syllabam praepositionis officio adscriptam auferre quaeratis et alia magis uti quae in hac specie non invenitur penes scripturas sanctas? per virginem dicitis natum, non ex virgine, et in vulva, non ex vulva, quia. et angelus in somnis ad Ioseph--Nam quod in ea natum est, inquit, de spiritu sancto est--non dixit ex ea.

[1] But what sort of tortuosity is yours, that you seek to remove the very syllable EX, assigned to the office of a preposition, and rather to use another which, in this kind of case, is not found in the holy scriptures? you say born through the virgin, not out of the virgin, and in the womb, not out of the womb, because even the angel in a dream to Joseph—For “that which is born in her,” he says, “is of the Holy Spirit”—did not say “out of her.”

[2] nempe tamen etsi ex ea dixisset in ea dixerat: in ea enim erat quod ex ea erat. tantundem ergo et cum dicit in ea, ex ea consonat, quia ex ea erat quod in ea erat. sed bene quod idem dicit Matthaeus originem domini decurrens ab Abraham usque ad Mariam, Iacob autem generavit, inquit, Ioseph virum Mariae ex qua nascitur Christus.

[2] indeed, however, even if he had said “from her,” he had said “in her”: for in her was that which was from her. just the same ergo also when he says “in her,” it harmonizes with “from her,” because what was in her was from her. but it is well that the same Matthew, running down the origin of the Lord from Abraham as far as Mary, says, “Now Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom Christ is born.”

sed et Paulus grammaticis istis silentium imponit: Misit, inquit, deus filium suum factum ex muliere. numquid per mulierem aut in muliere?

but Paul also imposes silence upon these grammarians: "God sent," he says, "his Son made from a woman." Was it perhaps through a woman or in a woman?

[3] hoc quidem impressius, quod factum potius dicit quam natum. simplicius enim enuntiasset natum: factum autem dicendo, et Verbum caro factum est consignavit et carnis veritatem ex virgine factae adseveravit. nobis quoque ad hanc speciem psalmi patrocinabuntur, non quidem apostatae et haeretici et platonici Valentini sed sanctissimi et receptissimi prophetae David: ille apud nos canit Christum, per quem se cecinit ipse Christus.

[3] this indeed more impressively, that he says “made” rather than “born.” for he would have stated more simply “born”; but by saying “made,” he both consigned “and the Word was made flesh” and of the flesh the truth made from a virgin he asserted. for us also, to this type, the psalms will give patronage—not indeed apostates and heretics and the Platonic followers of Valentinus, but the most holy and most universally received prophet David: he among us sings Christ, through whom Christ himself sang of himself.

[4] accipe vicesimum primum et audi dominum patri deo colloquentem: Quia tu es qui avulsisti me ex utero matris meae: ecce unum. Et spes mea ab uberibus matris meae, super te sum proiectus ex vulva: ecce aliud. Et ab utero matris meae deus meus es tu: ecce aliter.

[4] take the twenty-first and hear the Lord conversing with God the Father: Because you are the one who tore me away from the womb of my mother: behold one. And my hope from the breasts of my mother; upon you I was cast from the vulva: behold another. And from the womb of my mother you are my God: behold otherwise.

nunc et ad sensus ipsos decertemus.

Now too let us contend with the very senses themselves.

[5] Avulsisti, inquit, ex utero. quid avellitur nisi quod inhaeret, quod infixum, quod innexum est ei a quo ut auferatur avellitur? si non adhaesit utero, quomodo avulsus est?

[5] You avulsed, he says, out of the womb. What is avulsed except that which adheres, which is infixed, which is innexed to that from which, in order that it be taken away, it is avulsed? If it did not adhere to the womb, how was it avulsed?

si adhaesit qui avulsus est, quomodo adhaesisset nisi dum ex utero est per illum nervum umbilicarem quasi folliculi sui traducem adnexus origini vulvae? etiam cum quid extraneum extraneo adglutinatur, ita concarnatur et convisceratur cum eo cui adglutinatur ut cum avellitur rapiat secum ex corpore [aliquid] a quo avellitur [quasi] sequelam quandam abruptae unitatis et producem mutui coitus.

if he who has been torn away did adhere, how would he have adhered except while he is in the womb through that umbilical nerve, as though a conduit of his own little sac, fastened to the origin of the vulva? even when something extraneous is agglutinated to something extraneous, thus it is concarnated and conviscerated with that to which it is agglutinated, so that when it is torn away it snatches with itself from the body [something] from which it is torn away, [as it were] a kind of sequel of ruptured unity and an extension of mutual conjunction.

[6] ceterum cum et ubera matris suae nominat--sine dubio quae hausit--respondeant obstetrices et medici et physici de uberum natura, an aliter manare soleant sine vulvae genitali passione, suspendentibus inde venis sentinam illam inferni sanguinis in mamillam et ipsa translatione decoquentibus in materiam lactis laetiorem: inde adeo fit ut uberum tempore menses sanguinum vacent. quodsi verbum caro ex se factum est, non ex vulvae communicatione, nihil operata vulva, nihil functa, nihil passa, quomodo fontem suum transfudit in ubera quae nisipariendo non mutat? habere autem sanguinem non potuit lacti subministrando si non haberet et causas sanguinis ipsius, avulsionem scilicet suae carnis.

[6] moreover, since he also names the breasts of his mother—without doubt the ones he drained—let obstetricians and medics and physicists (natural philosophers) answer about the nature of breasts, whether they are wont to flow otherwise without the genital passion of the womb, when the veins from there suspend that bilge of infernal blood into the nipple and, by that very transference, cook it down into the more gladsome material of milk: hence indeed it comes about that, in the time of the breasts, the monthly courses of blood are absent. But if the Word was made flesh out of himself, not from the communication of the womb—the womb having done nothing, performed nothing, suffered nothing—how did it pour out its own fountain into the breasts, which it does not alter except bybearing ? moreover, he could not have the blood for supplying to milk if he did not also have the causes of the blood itself, namely the avulsion of his own flesh.

[7] quid fuerit novitatis in Christo ex virgine nascendi palam est: solum hoc scilicet, quod ex virgine secundum rationem quam edidimus, et uti virgo esset regeneratio nostra spiritaliter, ab omnibus inquinamentis sanctificata per Christum virginem et ipsum etiam carnaliter ut ex virginis carne.

[7] what there was of novelty in Christ’s being born from a virgin is manifest: this alone, namely, that from a virgin according to the reason which we have set forth, and that our regeneration might be a virgin spiritually, sanctified from all defilements through Christ the virgin, and he himself also carnally as from a virgin’s flesh.

XXI.

21.

[1] Si ergo contendunt hoc competisse novitati ut quemadmodum non ex viri semine ita nec ex virginis carne caro fieret dei verbum, quare non hoc sit tota novitas, ut caro non ex semine nata ex carne processerit?

[1] If therefore they contend that this befitted the novelty, that just as not from a man's seed so neither from a virgin's flesh the flesh of the Word of God should be made, why should not this be the whole novelty, that flesh, not born from seed, proceeded from flesh ?

[2] accedant adhuc comminius ad congressum. Ecce, inquit, virgo concipiet in utero. quidnam?

[2] let them come nearer still to the encounter. Behold, he says, a virgin will conceive in the womb. what then?

utique dei verbum, non viri semen. certe ut pareret filium: nam Et pariet, inquit, filium. ergo ut ipsius fuit parere, quia ipsius fuit concepisse, ita ipsius est quod peperit, licet non ipsius fuerit quod concepit.

assuredly the Word of God, not the seed of a man. certainly, that she might bear a son: for “And she will bear,” he says, “a son.” therefore, just as it was hers to bear, because it was hers to have conceived, so what she bore is hers, although what she conceived was not hers.

contra si verbum ex se caro factum est, iam ipsum se concepit et peperit, et vacat prophetia:

on the contrary, if the Word from itself was made flesh, now it conceived itself and bore itself, and the prophecy is void:

[3] non enim virgo concepit neque peperit, si non quod peperit ex verbi conceptu caro ipsius est. sola haec autem prophetae vox evacuabitur? an et angeli conceptum et partum virginis annuntiantis?

[3] for the virgin did not conceive nor bear, if that which she bore is not, from the conception of the Word, his flesh. Will this voice of the prophet alone be nullified? Or also that of the angel announcing the conception and the birth of the virgin?

an et omnis iam scriptura quaecunque matrem pronuntiat Christi? quomodo enim mater nisi quia in utero eius fuit? <ut quid in utero> si nihil ex utero eius accepit quod matrem eam faceret in cuius utero fuit?

or even all Scripture now, whatever proclaims the mother of Christ? how
indeed is she a mother, unless because he was in her womb? <why in the womb> if he received nothing from her womb which would make her a mother, in whose womb he was?

hoc nomen non debet caro extranea: matris uterum non appellat nisi filia uteri caro; filia porro uteri non est, si sibi nata est.

This name is not owed to foreign flesh: one does not call the mother’s womb “mother” unless the flesh is a daughter of the womb; moreover, it is not a daughter of the womb, if it was born to itself.

[4] tacebit igitur et Elisabeth, prophetam portans iam domini sui conscium infantem et insuper spiritu sancto adimpleta: sine causa enim dicit, Et unde mihi ut mater domini mei veniat ad me? si Maria non filium sed hospitem in utero gestabat Iesum, quomodo dicit, Benedictus fructus uteri tui? quis hic fructus uteri qui non ex utero germinavit, qui non in utero radicem egit, qui non eius est cuius est uterus? et qui utique fructus uteri Christus?

[4] Will Elizabeth, then, be silent, who, bearing as a prophet an infant already conscious of his own Lord, and moreover filled with the Holy Spirit: for does she say without cause, And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? if Mary was carrying in her womb Jesus not a son but a guest, how does she say, Blessed is the fruit of your womb? what fruit of the womb is this who did not sprout from the womb, who did not put down root in the womb, who is not of her whose the womb is? and who, assuredly, is the fruit of the womb but Christ?

[5] an quia ipse est flos de virga profecta ex radice Iesse, radix autem Iesse genus David, virga ex radice Maria ex David, flos ex virga filius Mariae qui dicitur Iesus Christus, ipse erit et fructus?

[5] or because he himself is the flower from the rod sprung from the root of Jesse, but the root of Jesse is the race of David, the rod from the root is Mary from David, the flower from the rod is the son of Mary who is called Jesus Christ—will he himself also be the fruit?

[6] flos enim fructus, quia per florem et ex flore omnis fructus eruditur in fructum. quid ergo? negant et fructui suum florem et flori suam virgam et virgae suam radicem, quominus suam radix sibi vindicet per virgam proprietatem eius quod ex virga est, floris et fructus:

[6] for the flower is the fruit, because through the flower and from the flower every fruit is instructed into fruit. what then? do they deny both to the fruit its own flower, and to the flower its own rod, and to the rod its own root, lest the root should claim for itself, through the rod, the property of that which is from the rod, of the flower and of the fruit:

[7] siquidem omnis gradus generis ab ultimo ad principalem recensetur, ut iam nunc carnem Christi non tantum Mariae sed et David per Mariam et Iesse per David sciant adhaerere. adeo hunc fructum ex lumbis David, id est ex posteritate carnis eius, iurat illi deus consessurum in throno ipsius. si ex lumbis David, quanto magis ex lumbis Mariae ob quam in lumbis David.

[7] since indeed every grade of the lineage from the last to the principal is reckoned, so that now they may know the flesh of Christ to adhere not only to Mary but also to David through Mary and to Jesse through David. To such a degree does God swear to him that this fruit from the loins of David, that is, from the posterity of his flesh, will be seated upon his throne. If from the loins of David, how much more from the loins of Mary, by reason of whom [he was] in the loins of David.

XXII.

22.

[1] Deleant igitur et testimonia daemonum filium David proclamantia ad Iesum, sed testimonia apostolorum delere non poterunt, si daemonum indigna sunt. ipse imprimis Matthaeus, fidelissimus evangelii commentator ut comes domini, non aliam ob causam quam ut nos originis Christi carnalis compotes faceret ita exorsus est: Liber generaturae Iesu Christi filii David filii Abrahae.

[1] Let them, then, also delete the testimonies of the demons proclaiming the son of David to Jesus, but the testimonies of the apostles they will not be able to delete, if those of the demons are unworthy. Matthew himself, first and foremost, the most faithful commentator of the gospel, as the companion of the Lord, for no other cause than that he might make us partakers of Christ’s carnal origin, began thus: The Book of the generation of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham.

[2] his originis fontibus genere manante cum gradatim ordo deducitur ad Christi nativitatem, quid aliud quam caro ipsa Abrahae et David per singulos traducem sui faciens in virginem usque describitur inferens Christum--immo ipse Christus prodit --de virgine?

[2] from these fountains of origin, with the stock flowing, as the order is led down step by step to Christ’s nativity, what else is set forth than that the very flesh of Abraham and David, making a transmission of itself through individuals, even unto the virgin, is described, bringing in Christ--nay, Christ himself comes forth --from the virgin?

[3] sed et Paulus, utpote eiusdem evangelii et discipulus et magister et testis, quia eiusdem apostolus Christi, confirmat Christum ex semine David secundum carnem, utique ipsius. ergo ex semine David caro Christi. sed secundum Mariae carnem ex semine David: ergo ex Mariae carne est dum ex semine est David.

[3] but even Paul, as both disciple and master and witness of the same evangel, since an apostle of the same Christ, confirms Christ to be from the seed of David according to the flesh, assuredly of him. therefore from the seed of David is the flesh of Christ. but according to Mary’s flesh from the seed of David: therefore he is from Mary’s flesh, since he is from the seed of David.

[4] quocunque detorseris dictum, aut ex carne est Mariae quod ex semine est David, aut ex David semine est quod ex carne est Mariae. totam hanc controversiam dirimit idem apostolus ipsum definiens esse Abrahae semen: cum Abrahae, utique multo magis David, quasi recentioris.

[4] however you may twist the dictum, either from Mary’s flesh is that which is from David’s seed, or from David’s seed is that which is from Mary’s flesh. The same apostle resolves this whole controversy, defining him to be Abraham’s seed: since, if of Abraham, certainly much more of David, as of the more recent.

[5] retexens enim promissionem benedictionis nationum in semine Abrahae, Et in semine tuo benedicentur omnes nationes, Non, inquit, dixit seminibus tanquam de pluribus, sed semine, de uno, quod est Christus.

[5] for reweaving the promise of the blessing of the nations in the seed of Abraham, And in your seed all nations will be blessed, he says, He did not say seeds as of many, but seed, as of one, which is Christ.

[6] qui haec nihilominus legimus et credimus, quam debemus et possumus agnoscere in Christo carnis qualitatem? utique non aliam quam Abrahae, siquidem semen Abrahae Christus: nec aliam quam Iesse, siquidem ex radice Iesse flos Christus: nec aliam quam David, siquidem fructus ex lumbis David Christus: nec aliam quam Mariae, siquidem ex Mariae utero Christus: et adhuc superius nec aliam quam Adae, siquidem secundus Adam Christus. consequens ergo est ut aut illos spiritalem carnem habuisse contendant, quo eadem conditio substantiae deducatur in Christum, aut concedant carnem Christi spiritalem non fuisse, quae non de spiritali stirpe censetur.

[6] we who nonetheless read and believe these things, how ought we and how can we recognize in Christ the quality of flesh? surely not other than Abraham’s, since Christ is the seed of Abraham; nor other than Jesse’s, since from the root of Jesse Christ is the flower; nor other than David’s, since Christ is the fruit from the loins of David; nor other than Mary’s, since Christ is from Mary’s womb; and still further up, not other than Adam’s, since Christ is the second Adam. consequently, therefore, it follows that either they should contend that those men had spiritual flesh, whereby the same condition of substance may be derived down into Christ, or else concede that the flesh of Christ was not spiritual, which is not reckoned from a spiritual stock.

XXIII.

23.

[1] Sed agnoscimus adimpleri propheticam vocem Simeonis super adhuc recentem infantem dominum pronuntiatam, Ecce hic positus est in ruinam et suscitationem multorum in Israel et in signum quod contradicitur. signum enim nativitatis Christi secundum Esaiam: Propterea dabit vobis dominus ipse signum: ecce virgo concipiet in utero et pariet filium.

[1] But we acknowledge that the prophetic voice of Simeon, pronounced over the Lord while still a very new infant, is fulfilled: Behold, this one is set for the ruin and the rising of many in Israel and for a sign that is contradicted. For a sign of the nativity of Christ according to Isaiah: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin will conceive in the womb and will bear a son.

[2] agnoscimus ergo signum contradicibile conceptum et partum virginis Mariae, de quo Academici isti, 'Peperit et non peperit virgo et non virgo.' quasi non, et si ita dicendum esset, a nobis magis dici conveniret: peperit enim quae ex sua carne, et non peperit quae non ex viri semine, et virgo quantum a viro, non virgo quantum a partu--

[2] we recognize therefore the contradicible sign: the conception and birth of the Virgin Mary, about which these Academics say, 'She bore and did not bear, a virgin and not a virgin.' as if not, and if it had to be said thus, it would more fittingly be said by us: for she bore, in that he is from her own flesh, and she did not bear, in that he is not from a man's seed, and a virgin as regards the man, not a virgin as regards the birth--

[3] non tamen, ut ideo non pepermt quae peperit quia non ex sua carne, et ideo virgo quae non virgo quia non de visceribus suis mater. sed apud nos nihil dubium, nec retortum in ancipitem defensionem: lux lux et tenebrae tenebrae et est est et non non: quod amplius hoc a malo est. peperit quae peperit, et si virgo concepit in partu suo nupsit:

[3] not, however, as though for this reason she who bore did not bear because not from her own flesh, and for this reason a virgin who is not a virgin because she is not a mother from her own womb. but among us nothing is doubtful, nor twisted back into an ambivalent two‑edged defense: light light and darkness darkness and yes yes and no no: what is more than this is from evil. she bore who bore, and even if a virgin conceived, in her childbirth she was married:

[4] nam nupsit ipsa patefacti corporis lege, in quo nihil interfuit de vi masculi admissi an emissi: idem illud sexus resignavit. haec denique vulva est propter quam et de aliis scriptum est, Omne masculinum adaperiens vulvam sanctum vocabitur domino. quis vere sanctus quam sanctus ille dei filius?

[4] for she herself was wedded by the law of an opened body, in which it made no difference as to the force of the male, whether admitted or emitted: that same thing unsealed the sex. this, finally, is the womb on account of which it is also written about others, Every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord. who is truly holy more than that holy Son of God?

quis proprie vulvam adaperuit quam qui clausam patefecit?

Who in the proper sense opened the womb, if not he who laid open what was shut?

[5] ceteris omnibus nuptiae patefaciunt. itaque magis patefacta est quia magis erat clausa. utique magis non virgo dicenda est quam virgo, saltu quodam mater antequam nupta.

[5] for all the others nuptials lay open. accordingly it was more laid open because it was more closed. assuredly she is rather to be called not a virgin than a virgin, by a certain leap a mother before a bride.

et quid ultra de hoc retractandum est? cum hac ratione apostolus non ex virgine sed ex muliere editum filium dei pronuntiavit agnovit adapertae vulvae nuptialem passionem.

and what further is to be reconsidered about this? since, by this reasoning, the apostle, declaring the son of God to have been brought forth not from a virgin but from a woman, acknowledged the nuptial passion of an opened womb.

[6] legimus quidem apud Ezechielem de vacca illa quae peperit et non peperit: sed videte ne vos iam tunc providens spiritus sanctus notarit hac voce disceptaturos super uterum Mariae. ceterum non contra illam suam simplicitatem pronuntiasset dubitative, Esaia dicente Concipiet et pariet.

[6] we indeed read in Ezekiel about that cow which has brought forth and has not brought forth: but see lest the Holy Spirit, already then foreseeing the Holy Spirit marked by this utterance those who would dispute concerning the womb of Mary. otherwise he would not, contrary to his own simplicity, have pronounced dubitatively, Isaiah saying She will conceive and bear.

XXIV.

24.

[1] Quod enim et alias [Esaias] iaculatur in suggillatione haereticorum ipsorum, et imprimis Vae qui faciunt dulce amarum et tenebras lucem, istos scilicet notat qui nec vocabula ipsa in luce proprietatum suarum conservant ut anima non alia sit quam quae vocatur et caro non alia quam quae videtur et deus non alius quam qui praedicatur.

[1] For indeed elsewhere also [Isaiah] hurls, in the suggillation of those very heretics, “Woe to those who make sweet bitter and darkness light,” and, above all, he marks these men, namely, who do not even conserve the very terms in the light of their proper properties, so that the soul is not other than that which it is called, and the flesh not other than that which is seen, and God not other than he who is proclaimed.

[2] ideo etiam Marcionem prospiciens, Ego sum, inquit, deus, et alius absque me non est. et cum alio idipsum modo dicit, Ante me deus non fuit, nescioquas illas Valentinianorum aeonum genealogias pulsat. et Non ex sanguine neque ex carnis aut viri voluntate sed ex deo natus est, Hebioni respondit.

[2] therefore also, foreseeing Marcion, "I am," he says, "God, and there is no other apart from me." and when in another place he says in the selfsame manner, "Before me God was not," he strikes at those I know not what of the Valentinians genealogies of aeons. and "Not from blood nor from the will of flesh or of man, but was born from God," he answered Hebion.

aeque Etiamsi angelus de caelis aliter evangelizaverit vobis quam nos anathema sit, ad energema Apelleiacae virginis Philumenes [filium] dirigit.

equally Even if an angel from heaven should evangelize to you otherwise than we, let him be anathema, he directs to the energema of Philumena, the Apelleian virgin [the son].

[3] certe Qui negat Christum in carne venisse hic antichristus est, nudam et absolutam et simplici nomine naturae suae pronuntians carnem, omnes disceptatores eius ferit, sicut et definiens ipsum quoque Christum unum multiformis Christi argumentatores quatit, qui alium faciunt Christum alium Iesum, alium elapsum de mediis turbis alium detentum, alium in secessu montis in ambitu nubis sub tribus arbitris clarum alium ceteris passivum, ignobilem, alium magnanimum alium vero trepidantem, novissime alium passum alium resuscitatum, per quod suam quoque in aliam carnem resurrectionem adseverant.

[3] certainly, “Whoever denies that Christ has come in the flesh, this one is antichrist,” by declaring “flesh”—bare, absolute, and by the simple name of its own nature—strikes all His disputants, just as also, by defining that Christ himself is one, he shakes the arguers for a multiform Christ, who make one person Christ, another Jesus; one who slipped away from the midst of the crowds, another who was detained; one, in a mountain retreat, within the circuit of a cloud, under three arbiters, illustrious, another, for the rest, passible; ignoble; one magnanimous, another indeed trembling; finally, one who suffered, another who was raised—through which they even assert their own resurrection into another flesh.

[4] sed bene quod idem veniet de caelis qui est passus, idem omnibus apparebit qui est resuscitatus, et videbunt et agnoscent qui eum confixerunt, utique ipsam carnem in quam saevierunt, sine qua nec ipse esse poterit nec agnosci: ut et illi erubescant qui adfirmant carnem in caelis vacuam sensu ut vaginam exempto Christo sedere, aut qui carnem et animam tantundem, aut tantummodo animam carnem vero non iam.

[4] but it is well that the same one will come from the heavens who suffered, the same will appear to all who was resuscitated, and they will see and recognize, they who pierced him—assuredly the very flesh against which they raged—without which neither could he himself be nor be recognized: so that those also may blush who affirm the flesh in the heavens, void of sense, to sit like a sheath with Christ removed, or who hold flesh and soul alike, or only the soul, but the flesh no longer.

XXV.

25.

[1] Sed hactenus de materia praesenti. satis iam enim arbitror instructam esse carnis in Christo et ex virgine natae et humanae probationem. quod et solum discussum sufficere potuisset--citra singularum ex diverso opinionum congressionem quam et argumentationibus earum et scripturis quibus utuntur provocavimus ex abundanti--uti cum eo quod probavimus quid et unde fuerit Christi caro, quid non fuerit adversus omnes praeiudicaverimus.

[1] But thus far about the present matter. For I already judge that the proof of the flesh in Christ—born of a virgin and human—has been established. Which even by itself, once discussed, could have sufficed—without a confrontation of each of the divergent opinions, which also we have, out of abundance, challenged by their argumentations and by the scriptures which they use—so that, with what we have proved, what and whence Christ’s flesh was, and what it was not, we have prejudged the case against all.

[2] ut autem clausula de praefatione commonefaciat, resurrectio nostrae carnis alio libello defendenda hic habebit praestructionem, manifesto iam inde quale fuerit quod in Christo resurrexerit.

[2] but so that the closing clause from the preface may give a reminder, the resurrection of our flesh, to be defended in another little book, will here have its prestruction, with it now manifest from this point what sort that was which has risen again in Christ.