{"slug":"stoa0121h.stoa002.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:stoa0121h.stoa002.opp-lat1","title":"De Trinitate Sive De Fide Contra Arianos. Ad Gallam Placidiam","title_source":"De Trinitate Sive De Fide Contra Arianos. Ad Gallam Placidiam","author":"Faustinus","genre":"polemic","date":"","tradition":"latin","coverage":"not-located","coverage_claim":{"status":"not-located","text":"No English translation is known: a language model asked twice could name none, and the source corpus records none. That is not proof — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},"publication":{"status":"machine-draft","reviewed_by":null,"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash:floor","provider":"Baidu","generated":"2026-11-15T20:28:57Z","cost_usd":0.009092},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:stoa0121h.stoa002.opp-lat1","work_id":"stoa0121h.stoa002.opp-lat1","edition":"ogl-pl","language":"","license":"Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/stoa0121h/stoa002/stoa0121h.stoa002.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":94,"english_words":25737,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":94116,"commentary_units":0,"commentary_kinds":0,"derived_notes":1,"ambiguities":0,"work_notes":0,"external_links":0,"timeline":0},"summary":{},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/stoa0121h/stoa002/stoa0121h.stoa002.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"stoa0121h.stoa002.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":94,"translated":94,"commentary_passages":0,"commentary_units":0,"english_words":25737,"source_letters":94116,"commentary_kinds":0},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[],"derived_work_notes":[{"kind":"coverage","severity":"info","text":"No English translation is known: a language model asked twice could name none, and the source corpus records none. That is not proof — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},{"kind":"limit","severity":"caution","text":"The English is a machine draft produced passage by passage from the transcribed Latin; no human has verified it. The commentary is model-written and cites only keys the pipeline could resolve."},{"kind":"register","severity":"info","text":"Register: polemic in Latin; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 94 narrative."},{"kind":"scripture","severity":"info","text":"1 scriptural phrase match(es) noted: John 1:1."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-pl."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Licence: Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":94},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"FAUSTINI PRESBYTERI AD GALLAM PLACIDIAM DE TRINITATE, SIVB DE FIDE CONTRA ARIANOS.\n\nFAUSTINUS AUGUSTAE FLACCILLAE.\n\nReginam te orbis Romanas suspicit: et quia jam nihil est, quo amplius crescere debeas in rebus humanis, sublimitatibus non contenta terrenis, sacra in Deum fide coelestia desideras possidere, quae veros Filius Dei, in se pie credentibus pollicetur. Et haec quasi una de sapientissimis elaboras, intelligens omnem hanc regni sublimitatem nihil profuturam, si non ad coelestem gloriam consequendam verae fidet cognitione et defensione contendas. Et tamen apparet, quam grata sis in Christo Deo et Domino nostro, qui vobis hoc regnum tribuit; cum sollicita interrogatione perquiris, quomodo capitula ilia solvantur, quae ab Arianis adversus Catholicos sacrae legis interpretationibus opponuntur. Habens affectum verae fidei, cupis, prout possibile est, intelligere, quod fideliter credis. Quia et tunc magis anima religiosa, velut divinis epulis pascitur, cum quod credit, intelligit. Sed et cum exsecreris impias voces haereticorum, tamen religioso studio instrui adversus eos desideras, ut et rationem jam respuas: ire hoc quod exsecraris, quasi ex regni potentia, praesumptionis videatur esse, noh probationis.","english":"FAUSTINUS THE PRESBYTER TO GALLA PLACIDIA ON THE TRINITY, OR ON THE FAITH AGAINST THE ARIANS.\n\nFAUSTINUS TO THE AUGUSTA FLACCILLA.\n\nThe Roman world looks up to you as its queen; and since there is now nothing in human affairs in which you may grow further, you are not content with earthly sublimities but desire to possess, through holy faith in God, the heavenly things which the true Son of God promises to those who piously believe in him. And this you work out as though you were one of the wisest, understanding that all this sublimity of a kingdom will profit nothing unless you strive to attain heavenly glory through the knowledge and defense of the true faith. And yet it is evident how pleasing you are in Christ our God and Lord, who has granted you this kingdom, since with anxious inquiry you search out how those chapters are resolved which the Arians set against the Catholics from their interpretations of the sacred law. Having the disposition of true faith, you desire, as far as is possible, to understand what you faithfully believe. For then especially is the religious soul, as it were, fed on divine banquets, when it understands what it believes. But even though you execrate the impious utterances of the heretics, you nevertheless desire, with religious zeal, to be instructed against them, so that you may now reject them on reasoned grounds; for to hate what you execrate, as though from the power of a kingdom, would seem to be a matter of presumption, not of proof.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Sed huic tam pio, tam necessario et pulcherrimo desiderio tuo, etsi me imparem vides, tamen ut resistens obviam venire non audeo: Confiteor enim quod hac me inhabilis conscientia, et imperitia squalidi sermonis suffundit, ut taceam: hac fervor fidei, periculum credit esse ai taceam: quomodo enim periculum non videtur, si adversus hostem impium provocati conscientia eloquendi, quae verecundia, quasi terga vertamus? Maxime, cum in causa fidei non sermonum sublimitas requirenda est, quando ipsa sola testimonia divina sufficiant, quae potius operantur, quam quaevis fecundior eloquentia. Sed nec vitiorum conscientia cog(??)tanda est quando potius relevatur, Si primo Deum deest. non trepidet confiteri, exemplo illius evangelici latronis, qui quo die confessus est Deum, ipso die meruit cum eo in paradisum, quem confessus fuerat, introire. Incipiamus ergo, obedientes religiosissimis praeceptis tuis, collidere cum adversario, non quidem de nostris viribus praesumentes, sed habentes fiduciam de praesidiali patrocinio Salvatoris, adversus quem more gentilium et furore Judaeorum, bellum exagitat impietas haereticorum.","english":"But to this so pious, so necessary, and so beautiful desire of yours, even though you see me unequal to it, I do not dare to come forward in resistance. For I confess that on this account an awareness of my incapacity and my lack of skill in a rough style overwhelms me, so that I keep silent; on this account the fervor of faith deems silence a danger. For how does it not seem a danger, if, provoked against the impious enemy by the awareness of speaking, we turn our backs, as it were, through shame? Especially since in the cause of faith the sublimity of words is not to be required, when the divine testimonies alone suffice, which are more effective than any more abundant eloquence. But neither is the awareness of sins to be thought about when it is rather relieved, if one does not tremble to confess God first, by the example of that evangelical thief, who on the very day he confessed God deserved on that same day to enter with him into paradise, whom he had confessed. Let us begin, therefore, obedient to your most religious commands, to clash with the adversary, not indeed presuming on our own strength, but having confidence in the protecting patronage of the Savior, against whom the impiety of heretics wages war after the manner of the gentiles and with the fury of the Jews.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"Sed quia in his quae scribere dignata es ex persona haereticorum, vidi plurima esse, confusa, ut videreris mihi non plenius nosse quae asserant Ariani; melius opinatus sumpsi primum liquido palam facere quomodo credant, et quomodo sub ambiguitate sermonis simplices animas capiant; et tunc maxime, cum sub communi confessione impia sua verba commendant: quia et tune demum ad solutionem fidelis responsio manifesta est, si prius sacrilegae sectae impia tergiversatio propaletur.\n\nCAPUT PRIMUM.\n\nDe professione impia Arianorum.\n\nI. Ariana impietas asserit multa nobiscum quidem iisdem sermonibus, sed non iisdem sensibus (confitetur), cum ad divinae fidei confessionem vocatur. Nam iisdem quibus et nos vocibus personat Deum Patrem, et Deum Filium, et omnia a Deo Patre per filium facta, et filium ante saecula genitum. Sed cnm nobiscum per haec verba concordet, nihilominus sacrilegis verborum interpretationibus a piis Ecclesiae catholicae sensibus abrumpit, ita dicens patrem, ut non vere genuerit: ita filium quoque pronuntians, ut apud eum adoptione, non natura sit filius, id est, ut aliunde ad filii nomen assumptus, non vere de Deo Patre sit genitus. Nam licet et ante saecula filium natum esse fateatur, tamen ei initium tribuit dicendo, Erat quando non erat.","english":"But because in those things which you have deigned to write in the person of the heretics, I saw that very many were confused, so that you seemed to me not to know more fully what the Arians assert, I thought it better to undertake first to make plainly and openly clear how they believe, and how under the ambiguity of their speech they catch simple souls; and especially then, when under a common confession they commend their own impious words: for then at last the faithful answer is clearly evident for the solution, if first the impious evasion of the sacrilegious sect is laid bare.\n\nCHAPTER ONE.\n\nOn the impious profession of the Arians.\n\nI. The Arian impiety asserts many things with us indeed in the same words, but not with the same meanings, when it is called to the confession of the divine faith. For with the same utterances as we, it resounds God the Father, and God the Son, and all things made by God the Father through the Son, and the Son begotten before the ages. But when it agrees with us through these words, nonetheless by sacrilegious interpretations of the words it breaks away from the pious senses of the catholic Church, so speaking of the Father as if he did not truly beget: so also pronouncing the Son, that with it the Son is by adoption, not by nature, that is, that assumed from elsewhere to the name of son, he was not truly begotten of God the Father. For although it confesses that the Son was also born before the ages, yet it assigns a beginning to him by saying, There was when he was not.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"Sed et sic quoque per eum facta dicit universa, ut eum asserat ex nullis exstantibus substitutum, quia praesumpsit non vere de Deo Patre genitum: et inde est, quod ita vult habere persuasum, Christum Deum quidem esse, sed non verum, cui initium deputetur; et filium quidem ita, ut factus intelligatur esse, non natus. Si quidem non vere de patre natus est, sed de nihilo substitutus; ob hoc quoque et mutabilem credit, quia in fide ejus non vere Deus, non verus filius est: et ut hos impios sensus apud ignaros vel simplices commendet, adhibet quoque, ut sibi videtur, Scripturarum divinarum testimonia, dicens ex persona Sapientiae probatum, Dominus creavit me initium viarum suarum in opera sua (Prov. VIII, 22). Christum autem sapientiam esse Apostolus quoque confirmat dicendo, Christum Dei virtutem, et Dei sapientiam (I Cor. I, 24). Constat ergo Christum, qui est, Apostolo interprete, sapientia, esse creaturam: (et jam, inquit,) consequens est, ut non sil verus Deus, qui sit creatura: jam nec verus filius, qui non sit a Deo genitus, sed creatus: erat ergo, quando non erat. II. Haec sunt nequitiae arma proposita, adversus quae ire provocamur, ut assertionis adversae propaletur impietas; non quidem, ut diximus, nostro ingenio, sed gratia Dei adjuvante semper pios conatus. Tu modo, quaeso ne squalido sermone fatigeris, sed rerum intenta virtutibus, da calculum veritati.","english":"But he also says that all things were made through him in such a way as to assert that he was brought into being out of things that did not exist, because he presumed that he was not truly begotten from God the Father. And from this comes his wish to persuade people that Christ is indeed God, but not true God, since a beginning is assigned to him; and that he is indeed a son, but in such a way that he is understood to have been made, not born. If indeed he was not truly born from the Father, but brought into being out of nothing, for this reason he also believes him to be mutable, because in his faith he is not truly God, not a true son. And in order to commend these impious notions to the ignorant or simple, he also brings forward, as it seems to him, testimonies of the divine Scriptures, saying that it is proved from the person of Wisdom: The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works (Prov. 8:22). But that Christ is Wisdom the Apostle also confirms by saying, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24). It is established, therefore, that Christ, who according to the Apostle's interpretation is Wisdom, is a creature; and now, he says, it follows that he is not true God, since he is a creature; now neither is he a true son, since he was not begotten by God but created: therefore there was a time when he was not. II. These are the weapons of wickedness set before us, against which we are provoked to go forth, so that the impiety of the opposing assertion may be laid bare—not, indeed, as we have said, by our own ability, but with the grace of God ever assisting pious endeavors. Only, I ask, do not be wearied by my unpolished speech, but, intent on the virtues of the matter, give your reckoning to the truth.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":5,"ref":"p5","source":"Hoc autem non ut librum scribimus, sed quasi cum praesente adversario certis disputationibus dimicamus. Et imprimis contra hoc quod dicunt, Erat quando non erat, occurrendum est, quod semper fuerit; et opponendum de Evangelio testimonium, dicente Joanne, In principio erat Verbum (Joan. I, 1). Sicut enim Christus Dei sapientia et Dei virtus est, ita et Dei Verbum est. Cum ergo ait, In principio erat Verbum, quomodo Ariana impietas dicit, Erat quando non erat? In principio, inquit, erat Verbum; non dixit, In principio factum est Verbum: et utique quod in principio erat, semper fuisse credendum est. Si enim, ut putat impietas, factura est filius; sine dubio Scriptura divina hoc ipsum quod factum est principio prodidisset, ex illa utique institutione, qua et Moyses loculus est dicendo: In principio fecit Deus coelum et terram. Si enim et filius Dei factura esset, dixisset Joannes, In principio factum est Verbum. Sed praevidens evangelista, magis autem Spiritus sanctus per evangelistam, futuros impiae mentis homines, qui dicerent de filio, Erat quando non erat, ideo sic coepit: In principio erat Verbum; nihil enim illo anterius est, qui invenitur ante principium. Scripturae divinae ob hoc editae sunt, ut secundum illarum sensum nostram fidem dirigamus, non ut nostros sensus illarum sacris dictionibus inseramus.","english":"But we are not writing this as a book, but as though fighting with an adversary present in set disputations. And first of all we must meet the claim they make, \"There was when he was not,\" by saying that he always was; and we must set against it the testimony of the Gospel, where John says, In the beginning was the Word. For just as Christ is the wisdom of God and the power of God, so also is he the Word of God. Therefore, when he says, In the beginning was the Word, how does Arian impiety say, \"There was when he was not\"? In the beginning, he says, was the Word; he did not say, In the beginning the Word was made; and certainly what was in the beginning must be believed to have always existed. For if, as impiety thinks, the Son is a creature, divine Scripture would without doubt have made known that very fact—that he was made in the beginning—by that same manner of expression which Moses also used when he said: In the beginning God made heaven and earth. For if the Son of God were also a creature, John would have said, In the beginning the Word was made. But the evangelist, or rather the Holy Spirit through the evangelist, foreseeing that there would be men of an impious mind who would say of the Son, \"There was when he was not,\" therefore began thus: In the beginning was the Word; for nothing is earlier than him who is found before the beginning. Divine Scriptures were published for this reason, that we might direct our faith according to their meaning, not that we might insert our own meanings into their sacred utterances.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"scripture","severity":"info","ref":"John 1:1","text":"The English carries the scriptural phrase “in the beginning was the word”, which matches John 1:1. The match is on the English draft; check the Coptic before quoting the verse."}]},{"i":6,"ref":"p6","source":"Viderit, si sunt quaedam capitula, quae sui obscuritate dare putantur occasionem ambiguitatis; certe in hoc capitulo nulla ambiguitatis occasio est. Non licet interpreti aliter sentire, quam scriptum est; nec opus est, ut nunc nostros sensus ingeramus: sufficit ad plenam percipiendae fidei notitiam, ut divina verba recitemus. In principio, inquit, erat Verbum. Numquid aliqua hic est opinio temporis, numquid aliqua suspicio saeculorum, vel aliquod intervallum puncti aut momenti alicujus, ut dicere audeas, Erat quando non erat?\n\nIII. In principio erat Verbum; et ne forte verbum intelligas, quod est loquentis officium, sequitur, et Verbum erat apud Deum: non dixit, « verbum quod locutus est Deus, sed, et erat Verbum apud Deum: ipse postremo interpretatus est, quid sit Verbum, dicens, et Deus erat Verbum. Si in principio erat Verbum, et hoc ipsum Verbum apud Deum erat, et Deus erat Verbum, confusa est impietatis intentio. Probatur enim de capitulo hoc, Christum filium Dei et semper fuisse, et semper inseparabilem a Patre, et semper Deum. Sicut enim sine initio est, cum dicitur, In principio erat, sic et cum dicitur, apud Deum erat, inseparabilitas ejus a Patre sine initio declaratur. Sed et cum hoc Verbum Deus esse definitur, non est ambiguum, quod sine initio Deus creditur.","english":"Let them see to it if there are certain chapters which by their obscurity are thought to give occasion for ambiguity; certainly in this chapter there is no occasion for ambiguity. It is not permitted for the interpreter to understand otherwise than it is written; nor is there need for us now to bring in our own meanings: it suffices for full knowledge of the faith to be received that we recite the divine words. In the beginning, it says, was the Word. Is there here any opinion of time, is there any suspicion of ages, or any interval of a point or of any moment, so that you dare to say, There was when he was not?\n\nIII. In the beginning was the Word; and lest perhaps you understand a word that is the office of one speaking, it follows, and the Word was with God: it did not say, \"the word that God spoke,\" but, and the Word was with God: finally he himself has interpreted what the Word is, saying, and God was the Word. If in the beginning was the Word, and this very Word was with God, and God was the Word, the intent of impiety is confounded. For it is proved from this chapter that Christ the Son of God both always was, and was always inseparable from the Father, and always God. For just as he is without beginning, when it is said, In the beginning was, so also when it is said, was with God, his inseparability from the Father is declared to be without beginning. But also when this Word is defined to be God, it is not ambiguous that he is believed to be God without beginning.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":7,"ref":"p7","source":"Hoc enim quod praemisit dicens, In principio, ad omnia referendum est, id est, In principio erat Verbum; et cum sequitur, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum; sine dubio, in principio, subaudiendum est. Denique et ipse ita concludit, dicens: Hoc erat in principio apud Deum; quomodo ergo « erat quando non erat, » qui semper est? quomodo « ex nullis exstantibus est, » qui semper apud Patrem est? quomodo creatura, qui semper Deus, imo et per quem universa creatura est? Sequitur enim, Omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Quomodo « ex nullis exstantibus factus esi, » per quem omnia facta sunt? Si enim et ipse factus est, quomodo per ipsum omnia facta sunt? non enim cum fieret, potest sui auctor esse, qui nou fuit: atque ideo infectus credendus est, per quem omnia facta sunt; quia vanum est, et absurdum, ut et ipse, cum non exstaret, factus per se esse dicatur.","english":"For what he set forth beforehand by saying, In the beginning, must be referred to all of it, that is, In the beginning was the Word; and when it follows, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word, without doubt, in the beginning must be understood. Finally he himself also concludes thus, saying: This was in the beginning with God; how then can there be \"a time when he was not,\" who always is? How is he \"from things that do not exist,\" who is always with the Father? How is he a creature, who is always God, indeed even through whom all creation is? For it follows, All things were made through him. How is he \"made from things that do not exist,\" through whom all things were made? For if he himself was also made, how were all things made through him? For when he was being made, he cannot be his own author, who did not exist; and therefore he must be believed to be uncreated, through whom all things were made; because it is vain and absurd that he himself, when he did not exist, should be said to have been made through himself.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":8,"ref":"p8","source":"IV. Similiter et Paulus docet Christum semper fuisse, et Deum esse, et aequalem Patri. Tunc enim vere Deus est, cum aequalis est Patri: quia nec aequalis esse diceretur si non vere Deus haberetur. Injuria est enim veri Dei, si ei non Deus verus dicatur aequalis. Ponit itaque in Epistola sua: Hoc enim existimate in vobis, quod in Christo Jesu: qui cum in forma Dei esset (constitutus), non rapinam arbitratus est, esse aequalem Deu, sed semetipsum exinanivit formam servi accipiens (Philip. II, 5-7). Si vere homo est Christus, curo formam servi accipit; vere quoque Deus est, curo in forma Dei esse perhibetur: nec alia ratione aequalem diceret, nisi in forma Dei esse verum Deum voluisset intelligi. Et qui verus Deus est, utique semper est: et qui semper est Deus, non potest dici de eo, Erat quando non erat. Sed et per ipsum omnia facta ait apostolus Paulus scribens: Quia in ipso creata sunt omnia, sive quae in coelis, sive quae in terra, visibilia et invisibilia, sive throni, sive dominationes, sive principatus, sive potestates; omnia per ipsum et in ipso creata sunt, et ipse est ante omnes (Coloss. I, 16, 17). Ergo ipse semper est, per quem et in quo omnia facta sunt. Sed et Hymnidicus cantans ait: Omnia in sapientia fecisti (Psal. CIII, 24). Non tamen ipsam dixit factam esse sapientiam: quia et Apostolus cum dicit, et ipse est ante omnes, factum negavit.","english":"IV. In like manner Paul also teaches that Christ always existed, that he is God, and that he is equal to the Father. For he is truly God only when he is equal to the Father, since he would not be said to be equal if he were not held to be truly God. For it is an injury to the true God if the true God is not said to be equal to him. And so he sets down in his Epistle: For let this be your thinking in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, when he was in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal to God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant (Phil. 2:5-7). If Christ is truly man, because he took the form of a servant; he is also truly God, because he is declared to be in the form of God; nor would he on any other ground call him equal, unless he wished him to be understood as true God in that he is in the form of God. And he who is true God certainly always is; and of him who always is God it cannot be said, There was a time when he was not. But the apostle Paul also says that all things were made through him, writing: For in him all things were created, whether in the heavens or on the earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created through him and in him, and he is before all things (Col. 1:16-17). Therefore he always is, through whom and in whom all things were made. But also the psalmist, singing, says: You have made all things in wisdom (Ps. 103:24). Yet he did not say that wisdom itself was made, because the Apostle too, when he says, and he is before all things, denied that he was made.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":9,"ref":"p9","source":"Si enim eum qui non erat, facium credi voluisset, ita posuisset, et ipse factus est ante omnes: at cum dicit et ipse est ante omnes, omnibus dedit initium, quorum anterior, immo et factor est: ipse vero sine initio est, qui ante omnes non factus, sed esse memoratur. Item Apostolus: Unus, inquit, Deus pater, ex quo omnia, et nos in ipso: et unus Dominus noster Jesus Christus, per quem omnia, et nos per ipsum (I Cor. VIII, 6): et heic cum dicit per Christum esse omnia, apertissime factorem discrevit a factis, nec posse intelligi naturam facturae in co qui fecit omnia.\n\nV. Se videamus si et Moyses hoc idem docuit, quod apostoli annuntiaverunt, id est, omnia ex Deo facta esse per filium. Inter caetera, cum fabricam mundi refert, ait: Et dixit Deus, Fiat firmamentum in medio aquas, et sit dividens inter aquam et aquam: et factum est sic. Et fecit Deus firmamentum, et divisit Deus per medium aquae (Gen. I, 6). Cum dicit, Et dixit Deus, Fiat firmamentum, in dicente patris intelligenda persona est: cum autem dicit. Et fecit Deus, in faciente filii intelligenda persona est.","english":"For if he had wished it to be believed that he who was not was made, he would have put it thus: \"and he himself was made before all things.\" But when he says, \"and he himself is before all things,\" he gave a beginning to all things, of which he is prior, indeed even the maker; but he himself is without beginning, who is remembered not as made before all things, but as being. Likewise the Apostle says: \"One God the Father, from whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord our Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him\" (1 Cor. 8:6). And here, when he says that all things are through Christ, he most openly distinguished the maker from the things made, and that the nature of a thing made cannot be understood to be in him who made all things.\n\nV. Let us see whether Moses also taught this same thing that the apostles announced, that is, that all things were made from God through the Son. Among other things, when he recounts the fabric of the world, he says: \"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide between the water and the water: and it was so done. And God made the firmament, and God divided the waters in the midst\" (Gen. 1:6). When he says, \"And God said, Let there be a firmament,\" the person of the Father is to be understood in the one speaking; but when he says, \"And God made,\" the person of the Son is to be understood in the one making.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":10,"ref":"p10","source":"Nam si non putas ita intelligendum, apostolica periclitabitur assertio, dicens: Unus Deus pater, ex quo omnia et nos in ipso: et unus Dominus noster Jesus Christus, per quem omnia et nos per ipsum: nisi enim totam fabricam mundi per filium faciam esse credideris, immo et omnia invisibilia sive et visibilia, quemadmodum in fidem recipis vocem Apostoli dicentis: Unus Dominus noster Jesus Christus, per quem omnia, et illud quoque quod supra retulimus, quia in ipso creata sunt omnia, nec non et illud, Omnia in sapientia fecisti? Sed et hoc Joannes prosecutus est: Omnia per ipsum facta sunt: quomodo omnia, si negas de filio Dei dictum, et fecit Deus firmamentum: Et divisit Deus per medium aquae? Ergo et Moyses factorem inducit filium, non factum. Si enim factum sancto Spiritu revelante didicisset, inter caetera quae facta describebat, ipsum quoque prius facium esse memorasset.","english":"For if you do not think it must be understood thus, the apostolic assertion will be in peril, which says: One God the Father, from whom are all things and we in him; and one Lord our Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through him. For unless you believe that the whole fabric of the world was made through the Son—indeed, even all things invisible as well as visible—how do you receive in faith the voice of the Apostle saying: One Lord our Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and also that which we cited above, that in him all things were created, and likewise that, All things you made in wisdom? But John also continued this: All things were made through him. How all things, if you deny that it was said of the Son of God, and God made the firmament, and God divided through the midst of the waters? Therefore Moses too introduces the Son as maker, not as made. For if he had learned, by the revelation of the Holy Spirit, that he was made, among the other things which he described as made he would have remembered that he himself was also made first.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":11,"ref":"p11","source":"VI. Sed absolutius inferius prosequitur, ubi jam fabricati mundi incola faciendus est: Et dixit Deus, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram (Gen. I, 26). Non est enim unius personae dicere, faciamus ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram, sed neque diversae deitatis. Nam pluralitas horum verborum, id est faciamus, et nostram, patris et filii personas significat. Quod autem singulariter imaginem dicit, una deitas, una virtus utriusque personae manifestator. Si creatura est Christus, quomodo in opera Deo consors adhibetur? ad ipsum enim dicitur, faciamus. Si non est verus filius, quomodo una illi cum patre imago est? Adoptivus filius non habet imaginem adoptantis: potest quidem habere munificentiam, non autem potest imaginis habere naturam. Scio quidem esse discretiones imaginum, quas nunc exsequi longum est, et non necessarium. Sed quod facit ad causam, vindico, dicens: Hoc in loco nulla discretio est imaginis, ubi patris et filii una imago perhibetur. Non enim dixit, Faciamus ad imagines nostras, sed, ad imaginem nostram. Et ne forte stupida mente, o quisquis ille es haereticus, usurpares etiam de una persona dici potuisse facta· mus, ut scilicet apud se cogitantis affectio sit, non designabo personarum; subsequitur, et fecit Deus hominem, ad imaginem Dei fecit eum (Ibid. 27).","english":"VI. But he proceeds more fully below, where man, who was to be made an inhabitant of the fashioned world, is about to be created: And God said, Let us make man to our image and likeness (Gen. 1:26). For it is not the utterance of one person to say, Let us make to our image and likeness, nor yet of a different deity. For the plurality of these words—that is, \"Let us make\" and \"our\"—signifies the persons of the Father and the Son. But that he says \"image\" in the singular shows one deity, one power of both persons. If Christ is a creature, how is he taken as a sharer in the work of God? For it is to him that it is said, \"Let us make.\" If he is not a true Son, how is there one image for him together with the Father? An adopted son does not have the image of the one adopting him; he can indeed have his generosity, but he cannot have the nature of his image. I know indeed that there are distinctions of images, which to set forth now would be lengthy and unnecessary. But what serves the case I claim, saying: In this place there is no distinction of image, where one image is ascribed to the Father and the Son. For he did not say, Let us make to our images, but, to our image. And lest perhaps with a dull mind, whoever you are, heretic, you should presume that \"Let us make\" could even be said of one person—so that, namely, it is the affection of one thinking within himself, not the designation of persons—there follows: and God made man, to the image of God he made him (Ibid. 27).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":12,"ref":"p12","source":"Quae coram in luce posita sunt, si quis non videt, caecus est: Deus, inquit, fecit, ad imaginem Dei fecit. Nonne apertissimum est, quod jam tunc Spiritus sanctus per Moysen evangelica sacramenta tractabat dicens, Deum et Deum, non tamen duos deos, quia una imago est patris et filii? Et, o quam prospecte omnia edita sunt! Deum et Deum sacra Scriptura pronuntiat, ut Sabellium excluderet defendentem patris et filii unam esse personam: et ne duos deos introduceret, inter verba quibus pluralis significatio personarum est, unam imaginem inseruit. Hoc ita esse invenies, intendens testimonio dicenti, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem nostram. Quid agis, impietas Ariana? Si creatura Christus est, quomodo creaturae et creatori una imago est?\n\nVII. Sed ne iterum Arius sub occasione personarum, diversitates induceret naturarum, diversitas naturae non admittit unius formae communionem. Multae sunt voces in libris Moysi, quibus redargui possint impii in filium, immo et in patrem: nam quomodo non et in patrem haec tendit impietas, quae profano spiritu exercetur in filium, cum patri adimunt quod vere patris est, auferentes filio quod vere filii est: quomodo enim paler est vere, qui secandum ipsos non genuit? quomodo Christus vere filius est, quem negant vere de ipso generatum?","english":"What is set before us in the light, if anyone does not see it, he is blind. God, it says, made; in the image of God he made. Is it not most evident that even then the Holy Spirit was through Moses handling the gospel sacraments, saying God and God, yet not two gods, because there is one image of the Father and the Son? And oh, with what foresight all things were brought forth! The sacred Scripture declares God and God, in order to exclude Sabellius, who maintained that the Father and the Son are one person; and lest it introduce two gods, among the words in which there is a plural signification of persons, it inserted one image. You will find this to be so if you attend to the testimony that says, Let us make man to our image. What are you doing, Arian impiety? If Christ is a creature, how is there one image of the creature and the Creator?\n\nVII. But lest Arius again, under the pretext of persons, introduce diversities of natures, the diversity of nature does not admit the communion of one form. There are many utterances in the books of Moses by which the impious may be refuted concerning the Son, indeed also concerning the Father; for how does this impiety not tend also against the Father, which is exercised with profane spirit against the Son, when they take away from the Father what is truly the Father's, and remove from the Son what is truly the Son's? For how is he truly a father, who according to them did not beget? How is Christ truly a son, whom they deny to have been truly begotten of him?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":13,"ref":"p13","source":"Sed, ut dixi, multae sunt voces in libris Moysi, quibus redargui haec eorum possit impietas: sed quia haec ipsa non studio librum scribentis exsequimur, sed veluti in scheda certas summas quasi properantes delimamus, ut tuo qualitercumque videamur obedisse praecepto, caeterae voces praetereundae sunt, maxime quia in divinis vocibus non numerus testimoniorum, sed auctoritas requirenda est; quae idonea est etiam si una voce proferatur. Sufficit interim de hoc uno capitulo Moysen concordasse cum £vangeliis et apostolis. Deum et Deum praedicat Moyses: sicut superius testimonium loquimur de Genesi, ita et Joannes Deum et Deum annuntiavit dicens: In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum (Joan. I, 1). Nemo dixit duos deos, licet Deum et Deum diceret: nemo non unam imaginem patris et filii annuntiavit, et ideo unum Deum novit dicere in confessione fides catholica: non tamen ut per confessionem unius Dei filias negetur esse quod Deus est: quia sicut pater Deus est, ita et filius Deus est: nam si non sicut pater Deus est, ita et filius Deus; quomodo iliis una imago est secundum Moysen? vel quomodo secundum Paulum, in forma Dei Christus est aequalis existens Deo?","english":"But, as I said, there are many utterances in the books of Moses by which their impiety can be refuted; but because we are not pursuing these very things with the zeal of one writing a book, but rather, as it were, sketching certain summary points on a sheet of paper, hastening as we go, so that we may seem to have obeyed your command in whatever way we can, the remaining utterances must be passed over, especially since in divine utterances it is not the number of testimonies but the authority that must be sought; and that authority is sufficient even if it is brought forward in a single utterance. For the present it is enough that Moses agreed with the Gospels and the apostles on this one chapter. Moses proclaims God and God; just as we cited the testimony from Genesis above, so too John announced God and God, saying: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word (John 1:1). No one said there were two gods, although he said God and God; no one failed to proclaim the one image of the Father and the Son, and therefore the catholic faith knows how to say one God in its confession: yet not so that through the confession of one God it should be denied that the Son is what God is; because just as the Father is God, so also the Son is God. For if the Son is not God in the same way that the Father is God, how is there one image of them according to Moses? Or how, according to Paul, is Christ, existing in the form of God, equal to God?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":14,"ref":"p14","source":"VIII. Sed ei Joannes cum Verbum Deum asserit in principio apud Deum esse, non extra Deum esse; per hanc Verbi Dei a Deo inseparabilitatem idem mihi videtur significare, quod in significantia imaginis et formae est. Nam si per unam imaginem eamdemque formam, patris et filii inseparabilitas ostenditur, cur non cum Joannes Dei et Dei inseparabilitatem annuntiat per hoc quod ait, et Verbum eras apud Deum, et hoc erat in principio apud Deum, unam imaginem eamdemque formam patris et filii significasse credatur? Plane hic sensus videatur ambiguus, si non idem evangelista hoc ipsum paululum infra apertius prosecutus est dicens, et vidimus gloriam ejus, gloriam quasi unigeniti a patre (Ibid. 14): sicut una imago, eademque forma, ita et gloria non alia est filii, quam quae patris est. interea qui Christum de adoptione filium dicis, quomodo intelligis gloriam ejus quasi unigeniti a patre? Quod si plures esse Dei filios, de adoptione profiteris: quod si et Christus adoptivus est, quomodo unigenitus a patre est, cum non sic unigenitus existentibus quoque aliis per adoptionem filiis? Quod si vere unigenitus a patre est ideo quia ipse solus de ipso vero patre generatur, quomodo adoptivus asseritur, cum adoptivus inter plures adoptivos proprietatem unigeniti a patre habere non possit?","english":"VIII. But when John asserts that the Word, God, was in the beginning with God, he does not mean that he is outside God; through this inseparability of the Word of God from God, he seems to me to signify the same thing that lies in the meaning of image and form. For if the inseparability of the Father and the Son is shown through one image and the same form, why should it not be believed that John, when he proclaims the inseparability of God and God by saying, and the Word was with God, and this was in the beginning with God, signified one image and the same form of the Father and the Son? Indeed, this sense would seem ambiguous, if the same evangelist had not pursued this very point a little further on more openly, saying, and we saw his glory, glory as of the only-begotten from the Father: just as there is one image and the same form, so the glory of the Son is no other than that which is the Father's. Meanwhile, you who say that Christ is a son by adoption, how do you understand his glory as of the only-begotten from the Father? But if you profess that there are many sons of God by adoption, and if Christ too is adopted, how is he the only-begotten from the Father, since he is not the only-begotten in the way that others also exist as sons through adoption? But if he is truly the only-begotten from the Father for this reason, that he alone is begotten from the true Father himself, how is he asserted to be adopted, when an adopted son among many adopted sons cannot have the property of the only-begotten from the Father?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":15,"ref":"p15","source":"Sed etsi adoptivi sunt, de nullo tamen eorum dictum est, et vidimus gloriam ejus, gloriam quasi unigeniti a patre. Sed de Christo solo dictum est, et vidimus gloriam ejus, gloriam quasi unigeniti a patre: non ergo adoptivus est, de quo hoc dicitur, quod de adoptivis dici non potest. Et merito illi una imago cum patre est, quia ipse solus unigenitus a patre est. Quid ergo mirum, si in filii imagine patris imago Signatur? Ideo et ipse Salvator dicebat, Qui me videt, videt et patrem (Joan. XIV, 9): non hoc, ut Sabellius, dico quasi se ipsum patrem dicat esse, qui sit et filius. Confiteor enim patrem esse, qui genuit: filium vero esse, qui natus est. Sed cum dicit, Qui me videt, videt et patrem, sicut patris et filii non unam ostendit esse personam, ita unam ostendit esse deitatem; cum in patris et filii substantia nulla diversitas invenitur.","english":"But even if they are adopted, it has not been said of any of them, \"and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten from the Father.\" But it has been said of Christ alone, \"and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten from the Father.\" Therefore he is not adopted, of whom this is said, which cannot be said of adopted sons. And rightly is there one image with the Father for him, because he alone is the only-begotten from the Father. What wonder, then, if in the image of the Son the image of the Father is stamped? Therefore the Savior himself also said, \"He who sees me sees also the Father\" (John 14:9). I do not say this, as Sabellius does, as if he were saying that he himself is the Father, who is also the Son. For I confess that the Father is he who begot, and that the Son is he who was born. But when he says, \"He who sees me sees also the Father,\" just as he shows that the person of the Father and of the Son is not one, so he shows that the deity is one; since in the substance of the Father and of the Son no diversity is found.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":16,"ref":"p16","source":"IX. Herum in hoc quoque loco dicam, si creatura est filius, quomodo qui videt filium, videt et patrem? Nemo in visione creaturae patrem videt: de inspectione enim creaturae creator videri potest; pater autem non videtor nisi de Inspectione filii. Si ergo Christus creatura est, et non vere filius, non potest in creaturae visione pater videri: et quomodo ait, Qui me videt, videt et patrem, nisi quia vere filius de Deo patre natus est? et ideo cum videris filium, necesse est ut et patrem videris. Sine filio enim pater non est, sicut nec filius sine patre. Inde etiam subdidit, Ego in patre, et pater in me (lbid., 10): non utique per quamdam passivam confusionem; sed quia consequens est ut ubi pater est, illic esse cognoscatur et filius; et ubi filius est, illic etiam patrem exstare cognoscas. Est et alius sensus dicti istius, Qui me vidit, vidit et patrem: non qui corporeis oculis in corpore vidisset Jesum, vidisse patrem refertur; alioquin absurda est increpatio Domini ad Philippum dicentis, Tanto tempore vobiscum sum, et non me nosti, Philippe (Ibid., 9)? secundum corpus enim non solum Philippus videbat Jesum, sed et omnes Judaei qui ei adversabantur: nec tamen per hoc quod videbant secundum corpus Jesum, patrem quoque vidisse credendi sunt. Quid ergo est, Qui me vidit, vidit et patrem?","english":"IX. Again, in this passage too I will say: if the Son is a creature, how is it that the one who sees the Son sees the Father also? No one sees the Father in the vision of a creature; for from the inspection of a creature the Creator can be seen, but the Father is not seen except from the inspection of the Son. If, then, Christ is a creature and not truly a son, the Father cannot be seen in the vision of a creature; and how does he say, \"The one who sees me sees the Father also,\" unless because he is truly a son born of God the Father? And therefore, when you have seen the Son, you must necessarily have seen the Father also. For without the Son the Father is not, just as neither is the Son without the Father. Hence he also added, \"I am in the Father, and the Father in me\" (Ibid., 10): certainly not through some passive confusion, but because it follows that where the Father is, there the Son is known to be; and where the Son is, there you may know that the Father also is present. There is also another sense of this saying, \"The one who saw me saw the Father also\": he who had seen Jesus with bodily eyes in the body is not said to have seen the Father; otherwise the Lord's rebuke to Philip is absurd when he says, \"Have I been with you so long, and you have not known me, Philip?\" (Ibid., 9)? For according to the body, not only Philip saw Jesus, but also all the Jews who opposed him; nor yet because they saw Jesus according to the body are they to be believed to have seen the Father also. What then is it, \"The one who saw me saw the Father also\"?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":17,"ref":"p17","source":"intende cordis aciem, et vide secundum fidei spiritualis obtutus Christum filium Dei non creaturam esse, sed creatorem: intende eum vere esse Deum sine initio sempiternum; et secundum hoc, quod Deus invisibilem inaestimabilem, incorruptibilem, indemutabilem, et per omnia talem, qualis est et pater ejus qui eum genuit: et ita videns filium, patrem quoque te vidisse non dubium est.\n\nX. Hoc sensu accipe et illud quod ait, Ego in patre, et pater in me. Pater cum sit perfectus, perfectam filium genuit; et eum sit invisibilis, incomprehensibilis, inaestimabilis Deus et verum lumen; et filius tatis natos est v qualis est ille qui eum genuit: et ideo ait, Ego in patre, et pater rn me: cum enim omnia qua sunt paternae virtutis et deitatis habeantur in filio, pater in filio est, et fidus In patre: et ideo praemisit; Si me sciretis, et patrem meum sciretis (Ibid., 7); et hic ostenditur quod eadem sit patris et filii substantia, eo quod sit una utriusque cognitio. Sed creatura et creatoris non est una cognitio, quia non est una substantia. Patris autem et filii una cognitio est; ergo non est filius creatura, sed creator est, sicuti et pater creator est: et Deus est, sicuti et pater, non tamen per haec duos deos dicimus. Hic est ubi, impie haeretice, diabolico furore quasi in stultitiam istius confessionis inardescis, cum Deum et Deum audis, nec tamen duos deos dicimus.","english":"Fix the gaze of your heart, and see, according to the spiritual sight of faith, that Christ the Son of God is not a creature but the Creator; consider that He is truly God, eternal without beginning; and according to this, that He is invisible, inestimable, incorruptible, immutable, and in all things such as His Father is, who begot Him: and so, seeing the Son, it is beyond doubt that you have seen the Father also.\n\nX. In this sense understand also that which He says, I am in the Father, and the Father in me. The Father, being perfect, begot a perfect Son; and since He is invisible, incomprehensible, inestimable God and true light, and the Son is born such as He is who begot Him: and therefore He says, I am in the Father, and the Father in me: for since all things that belong to the Father's power and deity are held in the Son, the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father: and therefore He said beforehand, If you knew me, you would know my Father also; and here it is shown that the substance of the Father and of the Son is the same, in that the knowledge of both is one. But the knowledge of a creature and of the Creator is not one, because their substance is not one. But the knowledge of the Father and of the Son is one; therefore the Son is not a creature, but is the Creator, just as the Father is the Creator: and He is God, just as the Father is, yet we do not on this account call them two gods. This is where, impious heretic, with diabolical fury you burn as it were against the foolishness of this confession, when you hear God and God, and yet we do not say two gods.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":18,"ref":"p18","source":"Inflatus enim de littera saeculari, in hac quaestione insanabiliter aegrotas; et putas te debere constringere, ut duos deos dicamus, cum Deum et Deum confitemur. Noli infelix adversus Christum Dominum totius creaturae, Aristotelis artificiosa argumenta colligere, qui le Christianum qualitercumque profiteris, nec adversus piam confessionem inenarrabilis de Deo sacramenti ut calculo calumniator, quasi ex disciplina terrenae supputationis circumscriptor advenias. Inspice potius divinos libros, et de divina fide divinis utere sermonibus. Legisti utique, Et in lumine tuo videbimus lumen (Psal. XXXV, 10). Quae hic distantia luminis a lumine est? posuisset enim et distantiam, si fuisset, ne quis luminis a lumine nullam distantiam crederet: quod si nulla distantia est, non ergo duo lumina, sed unum lumen est, cum in lumine patris, filii lumen agnoscitur. Hoc lumen est de quo et Daniel loquitur dicens, Et lumen cum ipso est (Dan. II, 22): non enim de aliqua creatura hoc dicitur, sed de splendore ipsius Dei existentis sempiterni luminis. Si pater sempiternum lumen est, sine dubio et filias lumen est sempiternum. Si vero negatur filius Dei lumen esse sempiternum, quomodo in patris sempiterno lumine lumen filii, quod non est sempiternum,' videtur? Sed in laudibus Dei non est haec falsa dictio sanctorum: Et in lumine tuo videbimus lumen.","english":"For, puffed up by secular letters, you are incurably sick in this question; and you think you ought to force the conclusion that we say there are two gods, when we confess God and God. Do not, unhappy man, against Christ the Lord of all creation, gather the crafty arguments of Aristotle—you who in whatever way profess yourself a Christian—nor come against the pious confession of the ineffable mystery concerning God like a slanderous reckoner, as though a circumscriber out of the discipline of earthly calculation. Rather inspect the divine books, and from divine faith use divine words. You have surely read, And in your light we shall see light. What distinction here is there of light from light? For he would have set down a distinction also, if there were one, lest anyone believe there is no distinction of light from light; but if there is no distinction, then there are not two lights, but one light, since in the light of the Father the light of the Son is recognized. This is the light of which Daniel also speaks, saying, And the light is with him: for this is not said of any creature, but of the splendor of God himself, who is eternal light. If the Father is eternal light, without doubt the Son is also eternal light. But if the Son of God is denied to be eternal light, how is the light of the Son, which is not eternal, seen in the eternal light of the Father? But in the praises of God this utterance of the saints is not false: And in your light we shall see light.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":19,"ref":"p19","source":"Ergo et filii lumen sempiternum est, quod non distat a patris lumine sempiterno; et ideo licet lumen sit filius, et paler lumen sit; unam tamen patris et filii lumen est, quia in patre et filio nulla discretio est, nulla separatio luminis est, quomodo nec imaginis secundum Moysen, nec formae secundum apostolum Paulum.\n\nXI. Sacramentum autem inseparabilis unitatis secundum hoc, quod uterque, id est, pater et filius aequaliter et indivise, neque secundum portionem, Deus unus: et pluralitatis secundum hoc, quod unus pater est, et unus filius. Etiam de huc capitulo manifestatur quod legimus in Evangelio, ipso Salvatore dicente, Ego et pater unum sumus (Joan. X, 30). Sumus enim pluralitatem significat personarum, quia hic pater, el hic filius: Unum autem unam eamdemque in patre et filio substantiam deitatemque consignat, ut vere pater et filius unus Deus sit; cum ambo. id est, pater et filius unum sunt secundum deitatem, non unus secandum personas. Ego et pater unum sumus: hac una voce et Sabellius excluditur, et Arius confutatur. Sabellius enim ipsum dicit patrem, qui sit et filias, hoc modo, tamquam si unus habeat duo nomina, et interpretator unum ideo dictum, ut unius personae singularitas crederetur.","english":"Therefore the light of the Son is also eternal, and it does not differ from the eternal light of the Father; and therefore, although the Son is light and the Father is light, yet the light of the Father and of the Son is one, because in the Father and the Son there is no distinction, no separation of light, just as there is none of the image according to Moses, nor of the form according to the apostle Paul.\n\nXI. But the sacrament of inseparable unity consists in this, that each one, that is, the Father and the Son, is equally and indivisibly, not according to a portion, one God; and the plurality consists in this, that there is one Father and one Son. From this chapter also is made manifest what we read in the Gospel, the Savior himself saying, I and the Father are one. For \"we are\" signifies a plurality of persons, because here is the Father and here is the Son; but \"one\" marks the same one substance and divinity in the Father and the Son, so that truly the Father and the Son are one God, since both, that is, the Father and the Son, are one according to divinity, not one according to persons. I and the Father are one: by this one utterance both Sabellius is excluded and Arius is confuted. For Sabellius says that the Father himself is also the Son, in such a way as if one had two names, and he interprets \"one\" as said for this reason, that the singularity of one person might be believed.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":20,"ref":"p20","source":"Contra vero Arius respiciens ad hoc qnod ait, sumus, in hoc sermone, pluralitatem intelligens, introduxit impiam pluralitatem deorum, credens unum sempiternum Deum, et alium qui esse coeperit Deus; unum omnipotentem, et alium qui non sit omnipotens. Sed, o caecitas in utrisque! habent ante oculos quod pie videant, et incautis offensionibus impie litigare contendant: saltem commodent sibi sensus suos, et piae fidei perspicient veritatem. Sabellius admiratione virtutum quas Christus operabatur, Christum Deum verum esse credit, et non qui aliquando coeperit, sed qui semper fuerit, et possit omnia: credat hoc Arius, et non blasphemet in Christum, quem filium confitetur. Item Arius negat Christum esse patrem: neget hoc et Sabellius, et pie credat, quod Christus vere Deus est, non existens pater, sed filius. Adhuc apertius dicam. Sabellius vincat Arium, quod Christus venis Deus est; et Arius vincat Sabellium, quod Christus sub confessione veri Dei verus et filius est: et mihi catholico ambo vicerunt, immo et mecum ambo vincant impietatis errorem, cum mecum intellexerint sacrae fidei veritatem, quae et pluralitatem personarum inlelligit, et unitatem deitatis in hac pronuntiatione Domini dicentis, Ego et pater unum sumus.","english":"But Arius, on the other hand, looking to what he said, \"we are,\" and understanding plurality in this word, introduced an impious plurality of gods, believing one God to be eternal and another who began to be God; one almighty and another who is not almighty. But, O blindness in both! They have before their eyes what they might piously see, and yet they strive impiously to quarrel over reckless offenses; at least let them lend each other their senses, and they will perceive the truth of the pious faith. Sabellius, from admiration of the virtues which Christ performed, believes that Christ is true God, and not one who at some time began, but one who always was and can do all things: let Arius believe this, and not blaspheme against Christ, whom he confesses to be the Son. Likewise Arius denies that Christ is the Father: let Sabellius deny this too, and piously believe that Christ is truly God, not existing as the Father but as the Son. I will say it still more plainly. Let Sabellius conquer Arius on this point, that Christ is true God; and let Arius conquer Sabellius on this point, that Christ, under the confession of the true God, is also the true Son: and for me, a catholic, both have conquered; indeed, let both conquer with me the error of impiety, when with me they have understood the truth of the sacred faith, which understands both the plurality of persons and the unity of the Godhead in this pronouncement of the Lord saying, \"I and the Father are one.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":21,"ref":"p21","source":"Sed hanc divinam pronuntiationem, et hanc piam divinae pronuntiationis intelligentiam Arii sectatores cum quaerum subvertere, alio modo interpretantur, et dicunt, unum sunt quidem, sed non substantia, non deitate, non potestate, sed voluntate: id est, quia unam eamdemque habeant voluntatem, ideo ait, Ego et paler unum sumus. Dicite, o impiissimi, substantivam Verbum Dei est; et qui linguae sermonem dedit, nescit loqui, et ignoravit altum sensum vestrum propriis et competentibus sermonibus explicare, et inefficax fuit dicere, Ego et pater unum volumus, si tamen hoc in loco unitatem voluntatis, et non substantiae ac deitatis volebat intelligi.\n\nXII. Sed nunc, quaeso, Regina, memineris quae capitula ex persona haereticorum scribere dignata es. Ipsi haeretici alunt, Qui me misit pater, ipse mihi praeceptum dedit, quid dicam et quid loquar (Joan. XII, 49): et Descendit de coelo, non ut faciam voluntatem meam, sed voluntatem ejus qui misit me, patris (Joan. VI, 38). Hoc artificium haereticorum est, ut alibi negent, quod alibi confitentur: ut cum se vident praesentium quaestionum absolutionibus vehementer astringi, serpentino lubrico semper eludant.","english":"But the followers of Arius, seeking to overturn this divine declaration and this pious understanding of the divine declaration, interpret it in another way, and say: they are indeed one, but not in substance, not in deity, not in power, but in will—that is, because they have one and the same will, therefore he said, \"I and the Father are one.\" Tell us, O most impious ones: is the Word of God substantive? And has he who gave speech to the tongue not known how to speak, and did he not know how to explain your profound meaning in proper and fitting words, and was he unable to say, \"I and the Father will one thing,\" if indeed in this place he wished the unity of will, and not of substance and deity, to be understood?\n\nXII. But now, I ask, O Queen, remember the chapters which you deigned to write in the person of the heretics. The heretics themselves say: \"The Father who sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say and what I should speak\" (John 12:49); and \"I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me, the Father\" (John 6:38). This is the artifice of the heretics, that they may deny in one place what they confess in another; so that when they see themselves strongly bound by the solutions of the present questions, they may always slip away with serpentine slipperiness.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":22,"ref":"p22","source":"Certe dicitis, o haeretici, praeceptum dedisse filio patrem, quid dicat, quid loquatur: et quomodo quasi nesciat loqui, vos verba ejus emendatis, Immo jam patris; quia filius quod dicit, quod loquitur, secundum praeceptum quod dedit ei pater, et dicit et loquitur. Jamne intelligitis, quia cum profano spiritu adversus filii deitatem exercere contenditis vestram amentiam, etiam in patrem prorumpitis insanientes? Claamat filius, Ego et pater unum sumus: et vos quas grammatici velut inefficaciam dominicae pronuntiationis suppositi verbi demutatione supplentes emendatis, et dicitis: Hoc qnod ait, sumus, volumus intelligendum est; ut scilicet sic dictum sit, Ego et pater unum volumus. Sed reclamat filius etiam contra vos dicens illa, quae dixit nd vestrae impietatis participes Judaeos: Quare loquelam meam non cognoscitis (Joan. VIII, 43)? Habeant locum suum parabolae et allegoriae et aenigmata: hoc tamen loco apertissime et plene dictum est, Ego et pater unum sumus: et quomodo unum sunt, alibi quoque declarat, cum dicit: Credite mihi, quia ego in patre, et pater in me est (Joan. X, 38): et ne videretur ipse de se usurpare, quod non erat; ut veritatem dictionis ostendat, praemisit dicens: Non creditis quia ego in patre, et pater in me? Verba quae ego loquor vobis, a me ipso non loquor: pater autem in me manens ipse loquitur, et opera quae ego facio ipse facit (Joan. XIV, 10).","english":"Certainly you say, O heretics, that the Father gave a command to the Son as to what he should say and what he should speak; and how is it that, as though he did not know how to speak, you correct his words? Nay rather, they are already the Father's, because what the Son says and speaks, he says and speaks according to the command that the Father gave him. Do you now understand that, while with a profane spirit you strive to exercise your madness against the deity of the Son, you even break out into raving against the Father? The Son cries out, I and the Father are one; and you, like grammarians supplying what you suppose to be the ineffectiveness of the Lord's pronouncement by substituting a different word, correct it and say: What he said, \"we are,\" we wish to be understood thus—namely, that it was said, I and the Father wish one thing. But the Son cries out even against you, saying those things which he said to the Jews, sharers in your impiety: Why do you not recognize my speech? Let parables and allegories and riddles have their place; yet in this passage it has been said most openly and fully, I and the Father are one; and how they are one he also declares elsewhere, when he says: Believe me, that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me; and lest he seem to be claiming for himself what was not his, in order to show the truth of his statement, he first said: Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I do not speak from myself; but the Father who abides in me, he speaks, and the works that I do, he does.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":23,"ref":"p23","source":"Sed et alibi: Sicut docuit me pater, haec loquor: et qui me misit, mecum est, et non reliquit me solum, quia quae placita sunt ei, facio semper (Joan. VIII. 28, 29). Non quia filius ignoraret quid sibi loquendum erat: quid est enim quod Dei sapientia ignoret? Sed ut duritiam indomitae fidei tuae ad piam divinae unitatis intelligentiam patris quoque auctoritate molliret, ait: Pater in me manens ipse loquitur (Joan. XIV, 10); vel illud, sicut docuit me pater, haec loquor (Joan. VIII, 28). Sicut autem opera filii, opera patris sunt, eo quod faciente filio, pater in ipso manens faciat: ita quod loquitur filius, pater in ipso manens loquitur non aliud, quam quod loquitur filius; quia nec filius aliud loquitur, quam quod loquitur pater in ipso manens. Eadem ergo patris et filii loquela est, sicut eadem et operatio; et ideo dicebat, alioquin propter opera ipsa credite (Joan. XIV, 12). Quae utique similiter faciebat ut pater: ut postremo vel auctoritate operum crederetur, quia filius in patre est, et pater in filio.","english":"But also elsewhere: As the Father taught me, I speak these things; and the one who sent me is with me, and he has not left me alone, because I always do what is pleasing to him. Not because the Son did not know what he was to speak—for what is it that the Wisdom of God does not know?—but so that he might soften the hardness of your untamed faith toward the pious understanding of divine unity, by the authority of the Father as well, he said: The Father who remains in me, he speaks; or that: As the Father taught me, I speak these things. But just as the works of the Son are the works of the Father, because when the Son acts, the Father remaining in him acts, so what the Son speaks, the Father remaining in him speaks nothing other than what the Son speaks; because neither does the Son speak anything other than what the Father remaining in him speaks. The same speech, therefore, belongs to the Father and the Son, just as the same operation does; and therefore he was saying, Otherwise, believe because of the works themselves. These he certainly did in like manner as the Father, so that at last he might be believed by the authority of the works, because the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":24,"ref":"p24","source":"XIII. Hoc autem quo modo intelligendum est quod ait, Ego in patre et pater in me, jam supra expositum est. Sed et nunc brevius dicam. Secundum indifferentiam substantiae audiendum est, Ego in patre et pater in me. Sed et illud quod ait, Ego et pater unum sumus, secundum indifferentiam substantiae unum sunt pater et filius. Nolo ergo, impie haeretice, ut indifferentiam substantiae patris et filii adimas, et Importune unitatem voluntatis interseras, quam alibi impie negas dicendo: Scriptum est, Descendi de coelo, non ut faciam voluntatem meam, sed voluntatem ejus qui misit me patris (Joan.. VI, 38). Qui in hoc capitulo ignorans dictionis ejus sacramentum, tam impie negas patris et filii unam esse voluntatem; quomodo tibi credam, quia sinceriter confiteris, quod una eadem voluntas patris et filii significetur in hoc quod pronuntiavit Dominus dicens, Ego et pater unum sumus? Tu si vere credis, quod pater et filius unum sunt voluntate, non video quomodo negare possis quia et substantia et divinitate et potestate unum sunt. Quare enim non una substantia sit, una divinitas et potestas, quibus una voluntas est? Si enim ex aequo illis voluntas est, ex aequo divinitas est. Si non ex aequo divinitas, nec ex aequo voluntas.","english":"XIII. But how that saying of his is to be understood, \"I am in the Father and the Father is in me,\" has already been explained above. But now I shall state it more briefly. \"I am in the Father and the Father is in me\" must be heard according to the sameness of substance. And also that saying, \"I and the Father are one,\" means that the Father and the Son are one according to the sameness of substance. Therefore, impious heretic, I will not have you take away the sameness of substance of the Father and the Son, and importunely insert a unity of will, which elsewhere you impiously deny, saying: \"It is written, I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of the Father who sent me\" (John 6:38). You who in this passage, ignorant of the mystery of his expression, so impiously deny that the will of the Father and of the Son is one—how am I to believe you, that you sincerely confess that one and the same will of the Father and of the Son is signified in this which the Lord pronounced, saying, \"I and the Father are one\"? If you truly believe that the Father and the Son are one in will, I do not see how you can deny that they are also one in substance and divinity and power. For why should they not be one substance, one divinity and power, for whom there is one will? For if their will is equal, their divinity is equal. If their divinity is not equal, neither is their will equal.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":25,"ref":"p25","source":"Dei enim voluntas, et cujuslibet, non tamen Dei, voluntas pariare non potest: quia alia est vis voluntatis ejus qui Deus est, et alia vis voluntatis ejus qui Deus non est. Voluntas Dei naturaliter bona est, perfecta est, indemutabilis est, semper eadem existens, et sine initio existens, et sine fine perseverans. Voluntas vero ejus qui non est Deus, eo quod habeat initium, sicut et ipse qui non est Deus potest et nutare, potest et verti, sicuti et ipse qui non est Deus: ac per hoc non vere bona, quia non naturaliter bona, nec vere perfecta, quae potest verti et minui: ita ut quod hodie voluit, crastino nolit, et quod hodie noluit, crastino velit.\n\nXIV. Dicam exemplo apertius: Angelus iste qui nunc diabolus est, antequam fieret diabolus, bonam habuit voluntatem; sed ubi factus est diabolus, proprii arbitrii agitatione amisit bonam voluntatem; ideo scilicet, quia ex factura subsistit, et non naturaliter Deus est. Hoc et de omni creatura rationabili sentiendum est: etsi enim quidam eorum non declinaverunt, neque declinant a bona voluntate; tamen in natura habent posse declinare, quia creaturae sunt, et non Deus. Hoc enim quod non declinant, ex disciplinae perpetua observatione obtinent, non ex naturae indemutabilis veritate.","english":"For the will of God, and the will of anyone—but not of God—cannot be equal, because one is the power of the will of him who is God, and another the power of the will of him who is not God. The will of God is naturally good, is perfect, is immutable, always existing the same, existing without beginning, and persevering without end. But the will of him who is not God, because it has a beginning, just as he himself who is not God, can also waver, can also be turned, just as he himself who is not God; and therefore it is not truly good, because not naturally good, nor truly perfect, since it can be turned and diminished: so that what he willed today, he may not will tomorrow, and what he did not will today, he may will tomorrow.\n\nXIV. I shall speak more plainly by an example: that angel who is now the devil, before he became the devil, had a good will; but when he became the devil, through the agitation of his own free choice he lost the good will; namely, because he subsists from a created thing, and is not naturally God. This is also to be understood of every rational creature: for even if some of them have not declined, nor do decline, from the good will, nevertheless in their nature they have the power to decline, because they are creatures, and not God. For this—that they do not decline—they obtain from the perpetual observance of discipline, not from the truth of an immutable nature.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":26,"ref":"p26","source":"Deus autem ipse solus sine initio bonus et perfectus et inconvertibilis est sine initio, habens quoque bonam voluntatem et perfectam et inconvertibilem; non institutione, neque ex profectu observationis habet bonam et perfectam et inconvertibilem voluntatem, sed ex naturae indemutabilis veritate, qua et bonus et perfectus et inconvertibilis Deus est. Viderit, si qua fortassis est haeresis, quae hunc sensum respuat: tu tamen praecipue ad hoc, Ariane, consentis, qui et ipsum filium Dei quem totius creaturae Dominum confiteris, vertibilem et mutabilem dicis, quod eum a Deo factum de nihilo praedicas, non tamen de Deo vere natum. Si haec libi sententia est, quod omnis creatura vertibilis est et mutabilis, Christum autem dicis esse creaturam: ergo et ipse, secundum te, ex conditione naturae vertibilis et mutabilis existens, non habet inconvertibilem et indemutabilem voluntatem. Et quomodo interpretaris, quod pater et filius unum sunt voluntate? cum patris et filii, secundum te, diversae sint voluntates et contrariae; quia scilicet una est indemutabilis et inconvertibilis, alia vero mutabilis et convertibilis, deprehenderis et detegeris, haeretice fraudulente, quomodo conaris simplices animas circumvenire et capere. Constrictus enim et coarctatus testimonio dominicae pronuntiationis dicentis.","english":"But God himself alone is good and perfect and unchangeable without beginning, having also a good and perfect and unchangeable will; it is not by institution, nor from the progress of observance, that he has a good and perfect and unchangeable will, but from the truth of an unchangeable nature, by which God is both good and perfect and unchangeable. Let whatever heresy perhaps there is that rejects this understanding see to it; you above all, Ariane, agree with this, you who say that the very Son of God, whom you confess to be Lord of all creation, is changeable and mutable, because you preach that he was made by God out of nothing, yet not truly born of God. If this is your opinion, that every creature is changeable and mutable, but you say that Christ is a creature: therefore he too, according to you, existing as changeable and mutable from the condition of his nature, does not have an unchangeable and immutable will. And how do you interpret that the Father and the Son are one in will? Since, according to you, the wills of the Father and the Son are diverse and contrary—because, namely, the one is immutable and unchangeable, but the other mutable and changeable—you are caught and exposed, fraudulent heretic, in how you try to circumvent and capture simple souls. For, constrained and hemmed in by the testimony of the Lord's pronouncement saying,","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":27,"ref":"p27","source":"Ego et pater unum sumus, ut de hac voce qualitercumque evoles, quae claris sermonibus in patre et filio unitatem deitatis ostendit, succubuisti necessitate, non arbitrio, ad hoc ut vel ad monumentum in praesenti capitulo summis labiis, et ut ita dixerim, superficie sola verborum, unitatem voluntatis interseras, quo expressius et vivacius et medullitus unitatem deitatis excluderes. Tollis enim sensum, unitate substantiae, qui facile creditur ex ipsa simplicitate verborum; et interpretaris sensum, unitate voluntatis; ut quia supra dicta ratio ejus non facile apud omnes intelligitur, inierim simplicem decipias auditorem, cum illud agis ne unitatem divinitatis intelligat. Nam et unitatem voluntatis in patre et filio, fides catholica sincerissime et verissime credit, non labiis (tantum) sed et loto corde, quae et unitatem substantiae et divinitatis agnoscit. Sicut enim indemutabilis et inconvertibilis est substantiae cum Patre Filius, ita et indemutabilis et inconvertibilis voluntatis est cura Patre Filius. Atque ideo una voluntas est Patris et Filii, sicut et una virtus et una imago, magis aut dixerim quod ipse Filius voluntas est Patris. Sicut enim Patris et Filii una imago eam sit secundum Moysen, tamen et ipse Filius imago Dei invisibilis (Coloss. I, 15) scribitur ab Apostolo; ita et una voluntas cum sit Patris et Filii, (pie) definitur quod voluntas Patris est Filius.","english":"I and the Father are one,\" so that from this utterance, however you may wish to fly away from it—an utterance which by its clear words shows the unity of the Godhead in the Father and the Son—you have been brought down by necessity, not by choice, to this: that you might insert a unity of will, in the present chapter, with lips only, so to speak, and, as I may put it, on the mere surface of words, so that all the more expressly and vividly and from the very marrow you might exclude the unity of the Godhead. For you remove the meaning of the unity of substance, which is easily believed from the very simplicity of the words, and you reinterpret it as a unity of will; so that, because the reasoning just stated about it is not easily understood by all, you may deceive the simple hearer, since your aim is that he not understand the unity of the Godhead. For the catholic faith believes the unity of will in the Father and the Son most sincerely and most truly, not with lips only but with the whole heart—the faith which also acknowledges the unity of substance and of the Godhead. For just as the Son is unchangeable and inconvertible in substance with the Father, so also the Son is unchangeable and inconvertible in will with the Father. And therefore there is one will of the Father and of the Son, just as there is also one power and one image—or rather, I would say that the Son himself is the will of the Father. For just as there is one image of the Father and of the Son according to Moses, yet the Son himself is also written by the Apostle as the image of the invisible God; so too, since there is one will of the Father and of the Son, it is piously defined that the will of the Father is the Son.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":28,"ref":"p28","source":"(Sicut est) Dei invisibilis imago, similiter et de virtute intellige. Fides enim catholica dicit, unam virtutem esse Patris el Filii; et tamen scribit Apostolus, Christum Dei virtutem esse et Dei sapientiam (I Cor. I, 24). Pie ergo dictum est, quod Filius voluntas est Patris, sicut idem ipse est sapientia Dei. Et tamen si adhuc movet hic sensus, intende ad ea quae dicimus: certe Dei sapientia Christus est. Quid autem est Dei voluntas, quam Dei sapientia? non enim in Deo aliud voluntas, et aliud sapientia: in hominibus quidem potest esse voluntas, non tamen haec ipsa sapientia; quia voluntas hominis eruditione et meditatione et profectu ad sapientiam sibi possibilem pervenit. Dei autem voluntas non eruditione, non meditatione, non profectu ad sapientiam pervenit, sed ipsa nihil indigens, naturaliter substantiva sapientia est. Unde et Christus Dei sapientia existens, Dei quoque voluntas est; quia in Deo non aliud voluntas, et aliud sapientia.","english":"As he is the image of the invisible God, understand similarly also concerning the power. For the catholic faith says that the power of the Father and of the Son is one; and yet the Apostle writes that Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24). Piously, therefore, it has been said that the Son is the will of the Father, just as the same himself is the wisdom of God. And yet if this understanding still troubles you, attend to what we say: certainly Christ is the wisdom of God. But what is the will of God other than the wisdom of God? For in God the will is not one thing and the wisdom another; in men, indeed, there can be a will, yet not this same will as wisdom, because the will of man arrives at the wisdom possible to it by learning and meditation and progress. But the will of God does not arrive at wisdom by learning, by meditation, or by progress, but itself, needing nothing, is by nature substantial wisdom. Hence Christ also, existing as the wisdom of God, is also the will of God, because in God the will is not one thing and the wisdom another.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":29,"ref":"p29","source":"CAPUT II.\n\nDe eo quod haeretici dicunt. Ex nihilo, inquiunt, Deus sibi filium fecit: si fecit eum ex nihilo, creatura est, et non filius.\n\nI. David uno lapidis ictu Goliae frontem percutiens magni corporis fortem stravit inimicum (I Reg. XVII, 50). Sed nostrae non est virtutis de uno lapide vincere; duplici, ut opinor, ex causa: quia nec nos tales vires habemus, quales habuit et David; et isti nimis frontem praeferunt impudentiae impietatibus obduratam: unde jam licet multos lapides non in vacuum miserimus, tamen adhuc in Dei gratia repetendum nobis est, et impudens eorum frons illa quae est sine signo Domini, crebris testimoniorum lapidibus elidenda est; ut, etsi non caro eorum effundit cruorem, multis effossa vulneribus tamen vel pudor suffusione sanguinis erubescat, si etiam ex iis quae illorum esse scripseras, opprimantur. Haec verba haereticorum ais esse. Ex nihilo, inquiunt, Deus sibi filium fecit. Si fecit eum ex nihilo, creatura est, et non filius. Et quid est, quod filium dicis, quem creaturam esse confirmas, cum dicis eum factum ex nihilo esse? non ergo potes et filium eum dicere et creaturam: filius enim ex nativitate consistit, creatura vero ex factura. Quid tibi contraria profiteris? unum elige de duobus: dic aut filium verefilium, aut creaturam vere creaturam. Si ita filium dicis, ut vere filium dicas, negasti eum esse creaturam.","english":"CHAPTER II.\n\nConcerning what the heretics say. Out of nothing, they say, God made a son for himself: if he made him out of nothing, he is a creature, and not a son.\n\nI. David, striking the forehead of Goliath with the single blow of one stone, laid low the strong enemy of a great body (1 Kings 17:50). But it is not within our power to conquer with one stone; for two reasons, as I think: because neither do we have such strength as David had, and these men thrust forward a forehead too much hardened against impieties by their shamelessness; whence, although we have already hurled many stones not in vain, nevertheless we must still take up the matter again in God's grace, and that shameless forehead of theirs, which is without the sign of the Lord, must be battered down with frequent stones of testimonies; so that, even if their flesh does not pour out blood, yet, pierced by many wounds, it may at least blush with the suffusion of the blood of shame, if they are also overwhelmed by those very things which you had written as belonging to them. You say that these are the words of the heretics. Out of nothing, they say, God made a son for himself. If he made him out of nothing, he is a creature, and not a son. And what is this, that you call him a son whom you affirm to be a creature, when you say that he was made out of nothing? You cannot, then, both call him a son and a creature: for a son consists by birth, but a creature by making. Why do you profess things contrary to yourself? Choose one of the two: either call a son truly a son, or a creature truly a creature. If you call him a son in such a way as to call him truly a son, you have denied that he is a creature.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":30,"ref":"p30","source":"Et quomodo de nihilo factum eum esse dicis, quem vere filium confiteris? Si autem dicis eum vere esse creaturam, cur eum filium nominas, cum in eo istius nominis abneges veritatem?\n\nII. Sed (de) vivis lapidibus divinae vocis percutiamus frontis ejus impudentiam. Tu dicis eum esse creaturam: ego dico eum esse filium: quis inter nos de professionis veritate pronuntiet? puto, quod libenter habeas, ut ille judicet, a quo tu, renuentibus nobis, factum dicis Christum ex nihilo. Audiamus ergo quid de coelis ipse pronuntiet. Hic est filius meus dilectus, in quo mihi bene complacui (Matth. III, 17). Numquid dixit. Hic est quem ego feci ex nihilo? Et vide, quia hoc tunc primum dixit, quando Jesus ut homo accessit ad baptismum: et, puto, non alia ratione quam quia poterat credi non esse filius Dei, qui corporeus videbatur, et inter caeteros homines ipse quoque ut homo peccator veniebat ad baptismum, cum peccata propria non haberet. Ne ergo, (cum) sacramentum baptismatis in homine assumpto consummat Jesus, non vere Dei filius crederetur, clamat de coelo Pater, Hic est filius meus dilectus. Intellexerat quidem et Joannes suum illum esse Dominum, quando et venienti ad baptismum ait; Ego a te debeo baptizari, et tu venisti ad me (Matth. III. 24)?","english":"And how do you say that he was made out of nothing, whom you confess to be truly a son? But if you say that he is truly a creature, why do you call him a son, when in him you deny the truth of that name?\n\nII. But let us strike the shamelessness of his forehead with the living stones of the divine voice. You say that he is a creature; I say that he is a son: which of us will pronounce on the truth of the claim? I think that you would gladly have him judge, by whom you say, while we refuse, that Christ was made out of nothing. Let us hear, then, what he himself declares from heaven: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Did he perhaps say, This is he whom I made out of nothing? And see that he said this then for the first time, when Jesus as a man came to baptism; and, I think, for no other reason than that it could be believed that he was not the Son of God, who appeared in the body, and who himself also as a man came among other men to baptism as a sinner, though he had no sins of his own. Therefore, lest, when Jesus completes the sacrament of baptism in the man he assumed, he should not be believed to be truly the Son of God, the Father cries from heaven, This is my beloved Son. John too had indeed understood that he was his Lord, when he also said to him as he came to baptism: I ought to be baptized by you, and have you come to me?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":31,"ref":"p31","source":"Sed ne forte apud alios Joannis testimonium non tam magnum videretur, ut vinceret fidem carnis et humilitatis in Christo, et omnia omnino quae per carnem ejus agebantur; ipse quo nemo major, ipse quo nemo melior cognitor, dat testimonium de coelis dicens: Hic est filius meus dilectus, in quo bene complacui. In quantum enim manifesta fides erat circa carnem Salvatoris, in tantum et manifesta fides esse debuit circa deitatem Salvatoris: tunc enim et verus Deus est, si sit et verus filius. Carnem quidem ejus, vel potius hominem dicam, nemo ambigebat, quia nec ambigi poterat: sed illud quod in homine erat, et natum cum homine, quia videri per naturam non poterat, ne esset incertum, voce et quasi digito patris ostenditur dicentis: Hic est filius meus dilectus, in quo bene complacui; et interea pari auctoritate fides utriusque substantiae, id est. Dei et hominis commendatur in Christo. Hominis enim in se fidem Dei filius ipse signabat per conceptionem et partum Virginis, per infantiae vagitum, per cunas et involumenta, per ipsa matris ubera, per ipsa materni lactis alimenta, per incrementa corporeae aetatis, per hoc ipsum quod venit, ut baptizaretur. Vides quomodo inierim usque ad baptismum expressit in se hominis veritatem, tanto pressius hoc agens, quanto et difficilius credi poterat, Deum (in) hominem fieri.","english":"But lest perhaps John's testimony seem not great enough in the eyes of others to overcome belief in the flesh and lowliness in Christ, and in absolutely all things whatsoever that were done through his flesh—he, than whom no one is greater, he, than whom no one is a better discerner, gives testimony from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. For to the extent that the faith concerning the Savior's flesh was manifest, to that same extent the faith concerning the Savior's divinity also had to be manifest; for then is he also true God, if he is also true Son. Indeed, no one doubted his flesh—or rather, I should say, the man—since it could not be doubted; but that which was in the man, and was born with the man, because it could not be seen by nature, lest it be uncertain, is shown by the voice and, as it were, by the finger of the Father, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; and meanwhile by equal authority the faith of both substances, that is, of God and of man, is commended in Christ. For the Son of God himself sealed in himself the faith of the man by the conception and birth from the Virgin, by the wailing of infancy, by the cradle and swaddling clothes, by the very breasts of his mother, by the very nourishment of his mother's milk, by the growth of bodily age, by this very fact that he came to be baptized. You see how I have entered even to the baptism: he expressed in himself the truth of the man, doing this all the more pressingly the more difficult it was to believe that God became man.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":32,"ref":"p32","source":"Et ne forte ad hoc coactum putes, et non sponte filium Dei, filium quoque tactum esse hominis, audi Apostolum dicentem de eo: Qui cum in forma Dei esset constitutus, non rapinam arbitratus est, esse te aqualem Deo, sed semetipsum exinanivit, formam servi accipiens (Philipp. II, 6,7). Si ergo semetipsum exinanivit, formam servi accipiens, non coactus est, sed sponte factus (est) filius hominis, existens in forma Dei, Deo aequalis. Habes igitur filium exprimentem in se fidem hominis.\n\nIII. Item videamus fidem in eo divinitatis expressam: et licet sufficienter supra de fide ejus divinitatis expressum est, et adhuc sint alia quoque multa copiosiora quibus fides divinitatis apparet; tamen illa nunc taceo: sufficit enim mihi si fidem divinitatis in Christo solus interim pater ostendit dicens: Hic est filius meus dilectus, in quo bene complacui. Quid ais, haeretice? credis sine dubio Christo, quod se filium hominis fecerit: quid censes de patre? estne veridicus apud te, cum Christum filium suum esse testatur? (si non) credis patri, cum Christum filium suum esse testatur, jam majoris apud te auctoritatis est Christus, cui de fide in se hominis credis; et minus idoneus est pater, cui de filii testatione non credis. Et quomodo patrem majorem Deum viu· dicas, cujus vocem quasi minimi depretias?","english":"And lest perhaps you think that for this reason he was compelled, and that the Son of God, and also the son of man, was touched not willingly, hear the Apostle speaking of him: Who, when he was established in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal to God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant. If therefore he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, he was not compelled, but willingly became the son of man, while existing in the form of God, equal to God. You have, then, the Son expressing in himself the faith of the man.\n\nIII. Likewise let us see the faith of the divinity expressed in him; and although the faith of his divinity has been sufficiently expressed above, and there are still many other and more abundant things by which the faith of the divinity appears, yet I now pass over those things; for it is enough for me if the Father alone for the present has shown the faith of the divinity in Christ, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. What do you say, heretic? You believe without doubt Christ, that he made himself the son of man; what do you think of the Father? Is he truthful in your eyes, when he testifies that Christ is his Son? If you do not believe the Father, when he testifies that Christ is his Son, then Christ is already of greater authority with you, since you believe him concerning the faith of the man in himself; and the Father is less fit, since you do not believe him concerning the testimony of his Son. And how do you say that the Father is a greater God, whose voice you despise as though it were of the least?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":33,"ref":"p33","source":"vel quomodo Christum Deum minorem asseris, cui tantum credis, quantum nec ei, quem majorem praedicas? Magnus iste honor tuus est quem patri defers, ut ei non credas de filio suo profitenti. Qui tamen iterum et alibi profitetur illum suum filium esse, quando cum apostolis Petro et Jacobo et Joanne Dominus ascendit in montem, et refulsit facies ejus sicut sol (Matth. XVII, 2). Percutiat iterum divinum testimonium tuae frontis impudentiam: Et ecce, inquit nubes lucida inobumbravit eos: et ecce vox de nube dicens: Hic est filius meus dilectus, tn quo bene complacui: ipsum audite (Ibid.,5). Corte Moyses et Elias pariter videbantur cum eo loquentes, quos utique de adoptione factos esse filios Dei negare non poles: et quomodo de solo Christo vox divina testatur dicens; Hic est filius meus dilectus, in quo mihi complacui: ipsum audite? Si enim et Christus de adoptione filius est, cum staret inter duos filios adoptivos, dixisset utique, « Et hic filius meus est, » ne Christus solus filius esse crederetur: at cum dixit, Hic est filius meus dilectus, adoptionis filios separavit, ut proprietas verae nativitatis in Christo solo filio crederetur. Sed non sufficit ut Christum tantummodo filium suum esse profiteretur; addidit etiam quod vero filio debebatur, dicens, ipsum audite.","english":"Or how do you assert that Christ is a lesser God, when you believe him to the extent that you do not even believe him whom you proclaim to be greater? This great honor of yours is what you defer to the Father, that you do not believe him when he declares concerning his own Son. Yet he again and elsewhere declares that he is his Son, when the Lord went up into the mountain with the apostles Peter and James and John, and his face shone like the sun. Let the divine testimony strike again the shamelessness of your brow: And behold, he says, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold, a voice from the cloud saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: hear him. Certainly Moses and Elijah were seen together speaking with him, whom you cannot deny were made sons of God by adoption: and how does the divine voice testify concerning Christ alone, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: hear him? For if Christ too were a son by adoption, when he stood among two adopted sons, he would surely have said, \"And this one is my son,\" lest Christ alone be believed to be the Son; but when he said, This is my beloved Son, he separated the sons of adoption, so that the property of true birth might be believed to be in Christ alone as Son. But it was not enough that he should declare Christ to be his Son only; he also added what was owed to a true Son, saying, hear him.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":34,"ref":"p34","source":"Magnam, immo et parem sibi auctoritatem ostendit in filio, cum ita audiendus est filius, ut audiendus et pater est: Ipsum, inquit, audite. Quidquid ergo jam dixerit Christus, audiendus est. Et videamus, si nusquam se dicit esse filium Dei, si nusquam se Deum patrem habere profitetur. Ipsius vox est: Omnis plantatio quam non plantavit pater meus, eradicabitur (Matth. XV, 13). Et iterum: Domum patris mei fecistis domum negotiationis (Joan. II, 16). Alibi quoque: Et tu credis in filio Dei (Joan. IX, 35)? Numquam praesumeret dicere, Pater meus, patris mei, et tu eredis in filio Dei, nisi esset confidentia naturae, quae vindicat vocabulum veritatis In patre, de conscientia propriae nativitatis. Quid enim insolenter ille loqueretur, Qui semetipsum humiliavit factus obediens usque ad mortem crucis.\n\nIV. Sunt et alia testimonia plurima: sed nos nunc non librum scribimus ut omnia prosequamur, sed causa brevitatis paucis testimoniis summas claudimus, ut vox ilia obruatur, quae negat Christum esse filium Dei. Sane dicit se Christus filium quoque esse hominis, cum ait: Et videbitis filium hominis (Marc. XIV, 62). Et, Quem dicunt esse filium hominis (Matth. XVI, 13)? Hoc est enim sacramentum fidei in Christo, ut cum illum filium Dei esse credideris, credas quoque et filium hominis esse eum factum.","english":"He shows great—indeed, equal—authority in the Son, since the Son is to be heard just as the Father is to be heard: \"Hear him,\" he says. Whatever, then, Christ has now said must be heard. And let us see whether he anywhere says that he is the Son of God, whether he anywhere professes that he has God as his Father. His own voice is: \"Every plant that my Father has not planted will be uprooted\" (Matt. 15:13). And again: \"You have made my Father's house a house of trade\" (John 2:16). Elsewhere too: \"And do you believe in the Son of God?\" (John 9:35). He would never presume to say \"my Father,\" \"of my Father,\" and \"do you believe in the Son of God,\" unless there were a confidence of nature that claims the name of truth in the Father, from the consciousness of his own nativity. For why would he speak insolently, who humbled himself, becoming obedient even to the death of the cross?\n\nIV. There are also very many other testimonies; but we are not now writing a book so as to pursue them all, but for the sake of brevity we close the main points with a few testimonies, so that that voice may be overwhelmed which denies that Christ is the Son of God. Indeed, Christ says that he is also the Son of Man, when he says: \"And you will see the Son of Man\" (Mark 14:62). And, \"Whom do they say the Son of Man is?\" (Matt. 16:13). For this is the mystery of faith in Christ, that when you have believed him to be the Son of God, you also believe that he became the Son of Man.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":35,"ref":"p35","source":"Illud enim quod filius Dei est, naturaliter possidet; hoc autem quod filius hominis facius est, qua beneficius nobis praestitit: et ideo qui Christum filium Dei esse non credit, impius est; sedet qui Christum filium hominis esse factum confiteri dedignatur, ingratus est. Tu tamen, haeretice, credis quod Christus filius quoque hominis factus est, et cum hoc ipsum de se Salvator dicat, non abnuis. At vero cum dixerit pater, Hic est filius meus, et cum dixerit filius. Pater meus; tu ut cor Pharaonis obduras, et non credis? Superest impudentiae tuae, ut quasi melancholicus non vera perspiciens, patrem et filium dicas esse mentitos. Non, inquit, nego filium; sed nego verum filium: ergo et Petrus ideo beatitudinis vocem promeruit, quia Christum verum filium esse non credidit, licet filium Dei vivi sit confessus. Magnum revera confessae fidei sacramentum est in Petri conscientia, ut cum labiis dicat, Tu es Christus, filius Dei vivi (Matth. XVI, 16), in corde tamen habeat, quod non sit verus filius Dei vivi. Ego homo sum: verba audio, verba intelligo, interpretationem tacitam cordis audire non possum. Christum filium dixit Dei vivi: nisi et adoptivum adjecerit, ego aliud nihil intelligo, quam quod et loquitur.","english":"For what he is as Son of God, he possesses naturally; but what he became as Son of man, he did as a benefit bestowed on us. And therefore whoever does not believe that Christ is the Son of God is impious; but whoever disdains to confess that Christ became the Son of man is ungrateful. You, however, heretic, believe that Christ also became the Son of man, and since the Savior himself says this very thing of himself, you do not deny it. But when the Father has said, \"This is my Son,\" and when the Son has said, \"My Father,\" do you harden your heart like Pharaoh's and not believe? It remains for your shamelessness, as though you were a melancholic who does not perceive true things, to say that the Father and the Son have lied. \"No,\" he says, \"I do not deny the Son; but I deny that he is a true Son.\" Then Peter also merited the voice of blessedness for this reason, because he did not believe that Christ is a true Son, although he confessed him to be the Son of the living God. Truly, the mystery of the confessed faith in Peter's conscience is a great one, such that while he says with his lips, \"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God\" (Matt. 16:16), he nevertheless holds in his heart that he is not the true Son of the living God. I am a man: I hear words, I understand words, I cannot hear the silent interpretation of the heart. He said that Christ is the Son of the living God; unless he also added \"adoptive,\" I understand nothing other than what he also speaks.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":36,"ref":"p36","source":"Viderit si Christus,1 qua Dominus ei Deus cor aspicit: mihi tamen qui auribus tantum audio, debuit etiam per vocem fieri cordis ejus manifesta confessio, propter quem et Petrus interrogatur: non enim sibi soli Petrus interrogatus est, sed et omnibus (nobis);ut cum ille de Christo bene confitetur, et nos similiter disceremus pari confessione ad beatitudinem pervenire. Et interea videamus si digne Petrus beatitudinis praeconium consequitur, credens in corde quod non sit verus (filius), sed adoptivus: si digna haec patris revelatio est, et non potius carnis et sanguinis. Plurimi certe adoptione sunt filii Dei: ei non solum Jeremias, qui adhuc cum esset in vulva matris, sanctificabis est (Jerem. I, 5); neque solus Joannes Baptista, qui in utero matris infans exsultavit iu spiritu (Luc. I, 44): sed neque solus Elias, qui mortem adhuc usque passus non est, vel quilibet ex numero prophetarum, ex quibus unus, ut in Evangelio relatum est (Matth. XVI, 14), putabatur Christus: sed ad hoc nomen adoptionis, meretrices et publicani, quamvis emendatione venerunt. Et ne quis me putet blasphemare, audiat in Evangelio dici: Meretrices et publicani praecedent vos in regno coelorum (Matth. XXI, 31), ubi non nisi filii adoptionis sunt.","english":"He will see to it—Christ, in that respect in which the Lord God looks upon his heart—whether Peter believed in his heart what he did not confess with his voice. But for my part, who hear only with my ears, the confession of his heart ought also to have been made manifest through his voice, for whose sake Peter was questioned. For Peter was not questioned for his own sake alone, but also for all of us, so that when he confesses rightly concerning Christ, we too might likewise learn that by an equal confession we come to blessedness. And in the meantime let us see whether Peter worthily obtains the proclamation of blessedness, if he believes in his heart that Christ is not a true son but an adopted one—whether this revelation is worthy of the Father, and not rather of flesh and blood. Certainly very many are sons of God by adoption: not only Jeremiah, who while he was still in his mother's womb was sanctified, nor John the Baptist alone, who as an infant in his mother's womb leaped in the spirit, but neither Elias alone, who has not yet even to this day suffered death, nor anyone else from the number of the prophets, one of whom, as is related in the Gospel, was thought to be the Christ—but to this name of adoption even harlots and publicans came, though by amendment of life. And lest anyone think that I am blaspheming, let him hear it said in the Gospel: The harlots and publicans shall go before you into the kingdom of heaven, where they are nothing but sons of adoption.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":37,"ref":"p37","source":"Cum ergo nec blasphemis nec turpibus adoptionis gratia denegatur, si corrigant se: hoc pro magno sacramento Pater Petro revelavit, quod scilicet filius quidem Dei vivi est, sed adoptione potius, et non nativitate, et tantum nomine, non etiam et nominis veritate? Plane qui hoc credit, non beatus ille est, sed miserrimus omnium hominum, habens non solum intelligentiam canis et sanguinis, verum etiam et spiritum diaboli. Sed quaeso, Regina, sentias, quod multa in hoc loco dici poterant, quae ad consequentia festinans praetereo; credens quod data occasione, quasi una de sapientissimis plus possis sentire quam loquimur, secundum sententiam Salomonis: Da sapienti occor sionem, et sapientior erit (Prov. IX, 9).\n\nV. Haec vestra, Ariani, doctrina est, haec vestra interpretatio singularis, hoc secretum fidei vestrae mysterium: Adoptione, inquit, Christus est filius, et non verus filius. Interrogemus et Joannem: potest et hic verum didicisse, sive quia interfuit cum Petri laudata confessio est, sive ex peculiari dilectione Salvatoris, qua ita erat ei proximus, ut etiam supra pectus ejus recumberet (Joan. XIII, 23).5 Videamus, quid haerens pectori ejus hauserit. Deum nemo vidit umquam, nisi unigenitus filius qui est in sinu patris (Joan. I, 18). Nulla creatura videt Deum, secundum hoc quod Deus est; et ideo ait: (Deum) nemo vidit umquam.","english":"Since, therefore, the grace of adoption is denied neither to blasphemers nor to the shameful, if they correct themselves: did the Father reveal this to Peter as a great sacrament—namely, that he is indeed the Son of the living God, but by adoption rather than by birth, and only in name, not also in the truth of the name? Plainly, whoever believes this is not that blessed man, but the most wretched of all men, having not only the understanding of a dog and of blood, but even the spirit of the devil. But I ask you, Queen, to consider that many things could be said in this place, which, hastening to what follows, I pass over; believing that, when occasion is given, as one of the wisest of women you can perceive more than we speak, according to the sentence of Solomon: Give occasion to a wise man, and he will be wiser (Prov. 9:9).\n\nV. This is your doctrine, Arians, this your singular interpretation, this the secret mystery of your faith: Christ, it says, is a son by adoption, and not a true son. Let us question John as well: can he too have learned the truth—either because he was present when Peter's confession was praised, or from the special love of the Savior, by which he was so close to him that he even reclined upon his breast (John 13:23)? Let us see what he, clinging to his breast, drew from it. No one has ever seen God, except the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18). No creature sees God according to that which God is; and therefore it says: No one has ever seen God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":38,"ref":"p38","source":"Sed sequitur, et dicit: nisi unigenitus filius: ergo unigenitus filius non est creatura, qui Deum videt quem nulla vidit creatura. Et ne forte unum eum de adoptivis filiis crederes, amputavit sensus impii occasionem, cum eum dixit non solum filium, sed etiam unigenitum filium. Hoc nomen non habet socios: et licet dicantur alii filii; adoptione tamen, non natura sunt filii. Sed Christus solus unigenitus filius est, quia solus verus filius est, non adoptione, sed natura, non nuncupatione tantum, sed et genere: solus (inquam) verus Alius est, qui etiam in sinu patris est. Filii adoptivi in sinu Abrahae sunt: qui autem verus filius est, et unigenitus filius est, in sinu patris est. Intellige tamen et in hoc inseparabilem paternae substantiae filium, quod in sinu patris dicitur esse. Item legimus: Sic enim dilexit mundum Deus, ut filium suum unigenitum daret: ut omnis qui credit in eum, non pereat, sed habeat vitam aeternam (Joan. III, 16). Non video, quomodo dilectio Dei commendetur ad mundum, si non verus et unigenitus est filius, quem dedit pro mundi redemptione. Mundus sine dubio creatura est; si Christus creatura est, quid contulit mundo, dans pro creatura creaturam? Omnis crea· tura servili conditione censetur: si Christus creatura est, servus est: quomodo redemit ad libertatem, cum servus nullo jure possit conferre libertatem?","english":"But it follows, and he says: unless the only-begotten Son; therefore the only-begotten Son is not a creature, since he sees God whom no creature has seen. And lest perhaps you should believe him to be one of the adopted sons, he cut off the occasion of the impious understanding, when he called him not only a son, but also an only-begotten son. This name has no companions: and although others are called sons, yet by adoption, not by nature, are they sons. But Christ alone is the only-begotten Son, because he alone is the true Son, not by adoption, but by nature, not by naming only, but by kind: the only (I say) true Son, who is also in the bosom of the Father. Adopted sons are in the bosom of Abraham: but he who is the true Son, and the only-begotten Son, is in the bosom of the Father. Understand, however, also in this the Son inseparable from the Father's substance, in that he is said to be in the bosom of the Father. Likewise we read: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son: that everyone who believes in him may not perish, but may have eternal life (John 3:16). I do not see how the love of God is commended toward the world, if he is not the true and only-begotten Son, whom he gave for the redemption of the world. The world is without doubt a creature; if Christ is a creature, what did he confer on the world, giving a creature for a creature? Every creature is reckoned under the condition of servitude: if Christ is a creature, he is a servant: how did he redeem to freedom, when a servant can by no right confer freedom?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":39,"ref":"p39","source":"et tamen Abraham, ut commendaret dilectionem quam habebat ad Deum, proprium et verum unigenitum et dilectissimum filium obtulit in holocaustum, cum hoc ipsum Deus ad probandum cunctis ejus in se dilectionem fieri praecepisset. Et tu dicis, impie, quia Deus volens commendare dilectionem suam mundo, non habuit verum filium quem daret, sed usus est necessitate, more sterilium, ut, quia verum de se genitum filium non habuit per naturam, vel ex nihilo facium daret?\n\nVI. Dic, impie, (ergo) majore virtute dilectio· nem commendavit Abraham, proprium et unigenitum filium offerens, quam Deus qui non habuit proprium, neque vere unigenitum dedit. Et est, quod velit Deus magnopere commendare: et inferius (non) commendat, cum commendaverit homo. Et ille Deus quem majorem praedicas, minor est homine in commendanda dilectione: minus enim commendavit dilectionem, si non verum et unigenitum filium dedit pro mundi dilectione; et Abraham plus commendavit, qui proprium et unigenitum obtulit. Sed absit haec impietas, ut vel in dilectione commendanda mi· nor sit Deus, qui est per omnia inaestimabilis: verum enim et unigenitum filium dedit, diligens mundum. Hoc enim Paulus vas electionis exsequitur, volens Dei in nos commendare dilectionem dicens, Qui suo filio non pepercit, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit illum (Rom.","english":"And yet Abraham, to commend the love he had for God, offered his own true only-begotten and most beloved son as a burnt offering, since God had commanded this very thing to be done to prove to all his love for himself. And you say, impious one, that God, wishing to commend his love to the world, did not have a true son whom he might give, but used necessity, in the manner of barren women, so that, since he did not have a true son begotten from himself by nature, he might give one made even from nothing?\n\nVI. Say, impious one, therefore Abraham commended love with greater virtue, offering his own and only-begotten son, than God, who did not have his own, nor truly gave an only-begotten one. And is it that God wishes greatly to commend, and commends less, when a man has commended? And that God whom you proclaim greater is less than a man in commending love: for he commended love less, if he did not give a true and only-begotten son for love of the world; and Abraham commended more, who offered his own and only-begotten son. But far be this impiety, that God, who is in all things inestimable, should be less even in commending love: for he gave a true and only-begotten son, loving the world. For Paul, a vessel of election, sets this forth, wishing to commend God's love toward us, saying, He who did not spare his own son, but delivered him up for us all (Rom.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":40,"ref":"p40","source":"VIII, 32); cum dicit, Filio suo, proprietatem veritatis expressit in nomine: et vide tamen, quo sermone usus est, dicens, Qui suo filio non pepercit. Legisti utique dicentem Deum ad Abraham, cum filium pro Dei dilectione vellet occidere: Ne injicias manum tuam in puerum, ne facias illi quidquam: nunc enim cognovi, quia times Deum tuum, et non pepercisti filio tuo dilecto propter me (Gen. XXII, 12). Discit et Paulus; Qui filio suo non pepercit, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit eum: dicit Apostolus ex Dei voce, quomodo commendaret dilectionem: improprie usus fuerat verbis divinis, si non et hic de vero filio loqueretur: et tamen, quis nesciat in patre Abraham et Isaac filio ejus imaginem praecessisse futurae veritatis? In Deo patre et Christo unigenito filio ejus sacramentum praecedentis figurae monstravit Apostolus, consignans ipsis sermonibus veritatem, quibus et primum figura signata est, dicens: Qui proprio filio suo non pepercit, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit eum. Si ergo figura erat in Abraham, cum offerret filium; veritas autem in Deo patre, cum tradidit filium: quid ais doctor impietatis? ubi major vis versari debet, in figura, an in veritate? sine dubio in veritate. Et quomodo tu minorem exhibes veritatem, pleniorem vero figuram? plenior enim est figura, ubi verus filius offertur: ei minor est veritus, ubi secundum te, non verus filius traditur.","english":"When he says \"to his own Son,\" he expressed the property of truth in the name; and yet see what language he used, saying, \"Who did not spare his own Son.\" You have certainly read God saying to Abraham, when he wished to kill his son out of love for God: \"Do not lay your hand on the boy, nor do anything to him: for now I know that you fear your God, and you did not spare your beloved son for my sake\" (Gen. 22:12). Paul too learns this; \"Who did not spare his own Son, but delivered him up for us all\": the Apostle speaks from the voice of God, showing how he would commend love: he would have used the divine words improperly, if here too he were not speaking of a true Son: and yet, who does not know that in Abraham the father and Isaac his son there prefigured the image of the future truth? In God the Father and Christ his only-begotten Son the Apostle showed the sacrament of the preceding figure, sealing the truth with the very words by which the figure was first marked out, saying: \"Who did not spare his own Son, but delivered him up for us all.\" If, therefore, there was a figure in Abraham, when he offered his son; but the truth in God the Father, when he delivered his Son: what do you say, teacher of impiety? Where ought the greater force to reside, in the figure, or in the truth? Without doubt in the truth. And how is it that you present the truth as lesser, but the figure as fuller? For the figure is fuller, where a true son is offered: but the truth is lesser, where according to you, a not-true son is delivered up.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":41,"ref":"p41","source":"Sed plane major esi veritas, el minor est figura. Hoc si vis probari, crede verum unigenitum filium Dei; et intelliges, quod multo plus quam Abraham, gessit Deus, dans filium suum unigenitum pro mundi dilectione secundum Evangelium (Joan. III, 16), vel cum secundum Paulum, suo filio non pepercit, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit eum. Abraham enim licet filium obtulerit, tamen pro Dei dilectione obtulit, cui quidquid obtuleris, non sequas ad quod dignus est; et obtulit filium, quem posteaquam per naturam habere non potuit, per Deum tamen contra naturam est adeptus: obtulit ergo Deo, quod ei contra spem naturae dederat Deus, et obtulit filium.\n\nVII. Facit ad causam, si dixero se minorem, et sine illa conditione praesenti quandoque mortalitatis lege moriturum: contra, examina quid Deus praestiterit: filium suum praestitit unigenitum, quem non sero ex alicujus adeptus est gratia, sed semper habet sine initio ex proprietate naturae natum de se talem, qualis et ipse pater est qui eum genuit, invisibilem, inaestimabilem, sempiternum, impassibilem et immortalem et omnipotentem, sicut ipse pater est, et postremo per omnia, secundum hoc quod Deus est, aequalem ei qui eum genuit. Vides qualem dedit filium pater.","english":"But clearly the truth is greater, and the figure is lesser. If you wish to have this proved, believe in the true only-begotten Son of God; and you will understand that God did far more than Abraham, giving his only-begotten Son for love of the world, according to the Gospel (John 3:16), or, according to Paul, not sparing his own Son but delivering him up for us all. For although Abraham offered his son, he nevertheless offered him for love of God, to whom whatever you offer is not equal to what he is worthy of; and he offered a son whom, after he could not have him by nature, he nevertheless obtained through God contrary to nature. He therefore offered to God what God had given him contrary to the hope of nature, and he offered his son.\n\nVII. It serves the case if I say that he was made lesser, and that without that present condition of mortality he would at some time die by the law of mortality. On the contrary, examine what God has provided: he provided his only-begotten Son, whom he did not obtain late by the grace of someone else, but always has, born of himself without beginning from the property of his nature, such as the Father himself is who begot him—invisible, inestimable, eternal, impassible, immortal, and omnipotent, just as the Father himself is, and finally in all things, according to what he is as God, equal to him who begot him. You see what kind of Son the Father gave.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":42,"ref":"p42","source":"Ecce jam Deus inaestimabiliter superior invenitur in filio: et nunc considera, quod hunc talem unigenitum filium pro mundi dilectione praestiterit: et expende nunc, quidnam sit mundus; utique creatura est: similiter et Deus quid sit, expende: utique creator est: et nunc jam compara, quem dilexerit Abraham, et quem dilexerit Deus. Abraham quidem Deum. Sed recense quanta Deus Abrahae praestiterit, et invenies, quod Abraham multo minus Deo dilectionis debitum reddidit quam debebat, licet reddiderit quantum reddere potuit. Deus autem mundum diligit pro nulla sibi data ab eo gratia. Vides quia multo est commendabilior dilectio Dei quae non ex debito praestatur, quam illa Abrahae quae praestatur ex debita. Sed vide adhuc supereminentiam dilectionis qua Deus diligit mundum, non solum sibi, qui eum condidit nullo merito justitiae commendatum, verum etiam peccatorem et adversum se impium. Mundum ergo dilexit Deus peccatis et impietatibus reum, non quia peccata et impietates dilexerit mundi, sed dilexit mundum, ut de peccatis et impietatibus mundus ipse liberetur. Et audi Apostolum per haec mire commendantem Dei dilectionem, cum scribit ad Romanos: Ut quid enim Christus, cum adhuc infirmi essemus, secundum tempus pro impiis moruus est? vix enim pro justo quis moritur. Nam pro bono forsitan quis audeat mori.","english":"Behold, God is now found to be inestimably superior in the Son; and now consider that he provided this only-begotten Son, such as he is, out of love for the world; and now weigh what the world is—it is, of course, a creature; likewise weigh what God is—he is, of course, the Creator; and now compare whom Abraham loved and whom God loved. Abraham, indeed, loved God. But review how much God bestowed upon Abraham, and you will find that Abraham rendered far less of the debt of love to God than he owed, even though he rendered as much as he could. God, however, loves the world for no grace given to him by it. You see that the love of God, which is not bestowed out of debt, is far more commendable than that of Abraham, which is bestowed out of debt. But see still further the pre-eminence of the love by which God loves the world—not only one commended to him by no merit of righteousness, since he created it, but even a sinner and impious against him. God therefore loved the world, guilty of sins and impieties, not because he loved the sins and impieties of the world, but he loved the world so that the world itself might be freed from sins and impieties. And hear the Apostle wondrously commending God's love through these words, when he writes to the Romans: For why did Christ, while we were still weak, at the appointed time die for the impious? For scarcely does anyone die for a righteous man. For perhaps someone might dare to die for a good man.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":43,"ref":"p43","source":"Commendat autem Deus charitatem suam in nobis: quoniam si cum adhuc peccatores essemus, Christus pro nobis mortuus est; multo magis justificati nunc in sanguine ipsius, salvi erimus ab ira per ipsum (Rom. V, 6-9).\n\nVIII. Intelligo quidem, quod hoc testimonium discuti desiderat: sed nunc quod faciat ad causam breviter pandimus. Mundum, habitatores mundi interpretatus Apostolus ostendit, quod pro impiis, et peccatoribus mortuus est Christus, ut suam charitatem commendaret in nobis, qui sumus in mundo: et moritur, inquit, Christus, pro impiis, et peccatoribus; quandoquidem vix pro justo quis moritur, licet forsitan pro bono quis audeat mori. Jamne intelligis quam inenarrabiliter praecellat dilectio Dei ubi est veritatis expressio, et quam minor sit dilectio Abrahae ubi figura signata est? Non hoc dico quasi non multum dilexerit Abraham; immo tantum dilexit Deum quantum et potuit, quantum nemo ex natis mulierum supergredi potest. Sed licet multum dilexerit Deum, et de toto corde et de totis viribus animae suae dilexerit: tamen inenarrabili supereminentia divinae dilectionis in infinitum superatur.","english":"But God commends his love in us: for if while we were still sinners, Christ died for us; much more, now justified in his blood, shall we be saved from wrath through him (Rom. 5:6-9).\n\nVIII. I understand indeed that this testimony desires to be examined: but for now we briefly set forth what it contributes to the case. The apostle, by interpreting \"the world\" as the inhabitants of the world, shows that Christ died for the ungodly and for sinners, in order to commend his love in us, who are in the world: and, he says, Christ dies for the ungodly and for sinners; since scarcely does anyone die for a righteous man, though perhaps someone might dare to die for a good man. Do you now understand how inexpressibly the love of God excels where there is the expression of truth, and how much lesser is the love of Abraham where a figure was signified? I do not say this as though Abraham did not love greatly; indeed he loved God as much as he was able, as much as no one born of women can surpass. But although he loved God greatly, and loved him with his whole heart and with all the strength of his soul, yet by the inexpressible pre-eminence of divine love he is surpassed to infinity.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":44,"ref":"p44","source":"Quis enim possit explicare dilectionem quam Deus mundo praestitit, dans unigenitum filium suum ita, ut homo nasceretur qui Deus est; et haberet secundum carnem humana sorte initium nativitatis, qui sine initio de patre natus est; et ille aequalis Deo in forma Dei existens semper, accepta forma servili minor fieret, non solum patre, verum etiam angelis, immo et hominibus, nescio, si non cl mullum infra, vermis quoque comparatione; et postremo, ut secundum naturam susceptae animae, usque ad mortem tristitiam pateretur, qui totus gaudium est, non solum Abrahae, qui diem ejus cupiens videre, vidit et gavisus est (Joan. VIII, 56), sed et omnium hominum sanctorum. Praestitit ergo mundo unigenitum filium suum, ut qui vera vita est, pendens in ligno secundum carnem, mortem crucis pateretur, occultata interim sempiterna et inviolabili divinitate ejus, quae illi una est cum patre ejus. Vide dilectionem, ut pro mundi salute Dominus majestatis crucufigatur in terra qui se filium Dei credentibus vitam aeternam praestat in coelis. O te beatissimum, patriarcha Abrabam, cujus maxima dilectio in Deum non nisi inexplicabilis divinae dilectionis inundatione submergitur: et nescio si non hoc (totum) pro respectu tuae dilectionis et fidei Deus impio praestitit mundo. Tibi enim et semini tuo promiserat Deus, ut haeres esses mundi per justitiam fidei(Rom. IV, 13), sicut docet apostolus Paulus.","english":"For who could explain the love that God showed to the world, giving his only-begotten Son in such a way that a man should be born who is God; and that he should have, according to the flesh, a beginning of birth by human lot, who was born of the Father without beginning; and that he, equal to God, existing always in the form of God, having taken the form of a servant, should become lesser, not only than the Father, but even than the angels, indeed even than men—I do not know whether not far even below, by comparison with a worm; and finally, that according to the nature of the soul he took up, he should suffer sorrow even unto death, who is wholly joy, not only of Abraham, who, desiring to see his day, saw it and rejoiced (John 8:56), but also of all holy men. He showed, therefore, to the world his only-begotten Son, so that he who is true life, hanging on the wood according to the flesh, should suffer the death of the cross, his eternal and inviolable divinity being meanwhile hidden, which is one with his Father. See the love: that for the salvation of the world the Lord of majesty is crucified on earth, who gives eternal life in heaven to those who believe him to be the Son of God. O most blessed Abraham, patriarch, whose greatest love toward God is submerged only by the flood of inexplicable divine love; and I do not know whether God did not show this whole thing to the impious world in regard for your love and faith. For to you and to your seed God had promised that you should be heir of the world through the righteousness of faith (Rom. 4:13), as the apostle Paul teaches.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":45,"ref":"p45","source":"IX. Sed satis tardo, si hunc locum voluero plenius exsequi: ad te convertar, haeretice, commonens, ut intendas quomodo Dens diligens mundum, dedit unigenitum suum filium, vel, ut ait Apostolus, quomodo suo filio non pepercit, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit eum. Si sacramentum istius ineffabilis divi· nae dilectionis agnosceres, numquam adversus filium Dei impias componeres quaestiones; quas qui piae mentis est, per illa quae supra diximus, intelligit absolutas. Sed adhuc reliquam partem propositi testimonii videamus, ut tuae frontis impudentia multo pressius obteratur. Nam cum dixisset: Sic enim dilexit Deus mundum, ut filium suum unigenitum daret, prosequitur, et dicit: Ut omnis qui credit in eum, non pereat, sed habeat vitam aeternam. Iterum dicam, est unigenitus filius; quomodo qui credit in eum, noti perit, sed vitam habebit aeternam, cum credere in creaturam, sit Divinitatis offensio? Respice ad apostolum Paulum; considera, quae opprobria, quas obscenitates de his referat, qui, ut ipse ait, commutaverunt veritatem Dei in mendacio, et coluerunt et servierunt creaturae potius quam Creatori (Rom. I, 23). Tu si sic credis, et sic colis, et servis unigenito filio Dei, ut eum dicas esse creaturam, illa te mala miser exspectant quibus illi puniuntur, qui commutaverunt veritatem Dei in mendacio, et coluerunt et servierunt creaturae potius quam creatori.","english":"IX. But I would be too slow if I wished to pursue this point more fully. I will turn to you, heretic, warning you to consider how God, loving the world, gave his only-begotten Son, or, as the Apostle says, how he did not spare his own Son, but delivered him up for us all. If you recognized the mystery of that ineffable divine love, you would never compose impious questions against the Son of God; and anyone of a pious mind understands, through what we have said above, that these questions are settled. But let us still look at the remaining part of the testimony proposed, so that the shamelessness of your impudence may be trampled down much more sharply. For when he had said, \"For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son,\" he continues and says, \"so that everyone who believes in him may not perish, but may have eternal life.\" I will say again: he is the only-begotten Son; how is it that whoever believes in him does not perish but will have eternal life, when to believe in a creature is an offense against the Godhead? Look to the apostle Paul; consider what reproaches, what shameful things he reports concerning those who, as he himself says, exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator (Rom. 1:23). If you believe, and worship, and serve the only-begotten Son of God in such a way as to say that he is a creature, then those evils await you, wretched man, with which those are punished who exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":46,"ref":"p46","source":"Adoptione, inquit, Christus filius Dei est, et non verus filius. Omnia leguntur Evangelia, et nusquam scriptura est, quod Christus adoptione sit filius, et non verus filius. Et bene, quod Joannes, ille Joannes recubans supra pectus Domini, causam scripti Evangelii referens posuit, et dixit: Multa quidem et alia signa fecit Jesus coram discipulis suis, guae non sunt scripta in libro hoc: haec autem scripta sunt, ut credatis, quoniam Jesus filius Dei, et ut credentes vitam aeternam habeatis in nomine ipsius (Joan. XX, 30, 31). Estne opus adhuc apertius explanare? multa, inquit, et alia signa fecit Jesus: et licet non sint omnia scripta, quia nec scribi poterat infinita rerum copia; tamen haec ipsa ideo scripta sunt, ut credamus, quod Jesus est Christus filius Dei; et ut fidem singulorum provocaret, ostendit et praemium dicens: ut credentes vitam aeternam habeatis in nomine ejus. Si vere adoptione esset filius Dei, et nou natura, si sola nuncupatione, et non etiam quod in nuncupationi intelligentia est; nusquam magis hoc ipsum explanasset, quam in ultimo scriptionis, ne fides in ambiguo derelicta, vitam aeternam perderet per credulitatis incertum.","english":"By adoption, he says, Christ is the Son of God, and not a true son. All the Gospels are read, and nowhere is there a scripture stating that Christ is a son by adoption and not a true son. And rightly so, because John—that John who reclined on the Lord's breast—setting forth the purpose of the Gospel he wrote, stated and said: \"Many other signs indeed Jesus performed in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that believing you may have eternal life in his name.\" Is there any need to explain this more plainly still? \"Many other signs,\" he says, \"Jesus performed\"; and although not all are written, since the boundless abundance of things could not be written, yet these very things were written so that we may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and to stir up the faith of each individual, he also set forth the reward, saying: \"so that believing you may have eternal life in his name.\" If he were truly a son of God by adoption and not by nature, if by mere naming and not also by what is understood in that naming, he would nowhere have explained this very point more fully than at the end of his writing, lest faith, left in doubt, should lose eternal life through the uncertainty of belief.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":47,"ref":"p47","source":"Sed Evangelista, qui ad hoc positus est, ut habens gratiam sancti Spiritus illa maxime lucidius panderet, quae ad vitae aeternae praemia pertinerent, non ambiguo clausit Evangelium, sed manifestissime expressit, ideo scripta Evangelia, ut credatis, inquit, queniam Jesus est Christus filius Dei, et ut credentes vitam aeternam habeatis in nomine ejus. Etiam ne hic suspicio est creaturae in filio Dei, ubi, qui crediderit quod filius Dei est Christus, aeternam vitam possidet, et non aliter quam in nomine ejus? qui utique non est creatura, sed creator, et non adoptione filius, sed verus filius Dei: in nomine enim creaturae ne quidem vitam temporalem potest quis assequi, nisi si aliquis eam non auferendo praestare dicatur.\n\nX. De nihilo, inquit, fecit Deus sibi filium. Praetereo multa testimonia: loquatur Joannes Christi Domini dilectione perspicuus. Scribens Epistolam ait: Omnis qui diligit patrem, diligit eum qui ex eo natus est (I Joan. V, I): numquid ait, diligit eum quem fecit Deus ex nihilo? sed nec patrem omnino nominasset, nisi scisset de eo natum fitium 8. Et fac nunc, quia ita intelligendum est, ut tu, haeretice, interpretaris; quod scilicet ab eo factus sit ex nihilo, quem ex patre natum dicit Joannes: et quaero, numquid secundum te solus Christus factus est ex nihilo? Nonne, ut taceam de aliis, etiam mundus ipse ex nihilo factus est?","english":"But the Evangelist, who was appointed for this purpose—that, having the grace of the Holy Spirit, he might most clearly lay open those things which pertain to the rewards of eternal life—did not close his Gospel with an ambiguous statement, but expressed it most plainly: \"These things,\" he says, \"are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have eternal life in his name.\" Is there even here any suspicion of a creature in the Son of God, where the one who has believed that Christ is the Son of God possesses eternal life, and not otherwise than in his name? He who assuredly is not a creature but the Creator, and not a son by adoption but the true Son of God; for in the name of a creature no one can attain even temporal life, unless perhaps someone is said to bestow it not by taking it away.\n\nX. \"Out of nothing,\" he says, \"God made a son for himself.\" I pass over many testimonies; let John speak, made clear by his love for Christ the Lord. Writing his Epistle, he says: \"Everyone who loves the Father loves him who was born of him\" (1 John 5:1). Does he say, \"loves him whom God made out of nothing\"? Indeed, he would not even have named the Father at all, unless he had known that a son was born of him. And suppose now, since it must be understood as you, heretic, interpret it—namely, that he was made out of nothing by him whom John says was born of the Father—I ask: according to you, was Christ alone made out of nothing? To say nothing of other things, was not the world itself also made out of nothing?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":48,"ref":"p48","source":"ergo et mundus a nobis diligendus est, si diligendus est pater. Sed clamat idem Joannes: Nolite diligere mundum (I Joan. II, 15). Numquid tam levis est Joannes, ut ipse sibi contraria praedicaret? Absit haec impietas, ut dicatur, Joannes repugnantia sibi loquitur, qui in sancto Spiritu loquebatur. Scit distantiam facti et nati in ipso jam principio Evangelii sui. sicut supra expositum est, curo de ipso capitulo tractaretur: et ideo nou ut facturam intelligit eum, quem dicit ex patre natum; quia nec singulariter poneret, si hoc quod ex patre natum est, facturam voluisset intelligi, sciens multos factos esse ex nihilo; sed singulariter ponens, de solo vero filio posuit dicens, quod ex patre natus est, quia ipse solus ex patre natus est, caeteri autem omnes facti sunt ut a conditore. Noli ergo facere divinis sermonibus vim: quid infers, quod ille non loquitur? quid doces, quod ille nou docuit? Si Christianus es, et si apud te verus doctor est Joannes, crede quod docuit. Ex patre, inquit, natus est: hoc (si) credideris, si diligis patrem, et diligendo patrem, diligis filium qui ex eo natus est: quod si non credideris, quia ex patre natus est; quod neque patrem diligis, neque eum qui ex eo natus est: non autem diligis hoc modo, cum in patre negas esse quod patris est, id est generare, et in filio negas esse quod filii est, id est nasci.","english":"Therefore the world also must be loved by us, if the Father is to be loved. But the same John cries out: Do not love the world (1 John 2:15). Is John so fickle that he himself should preach things contrary to himself? Far be such impiety, that it be said John speaks things repugnant to himself, who spoke in the Holy Spirit. He knows the difference between the made and the born even in the very beginning of his Gospel, as was set forth above when that very chapter was treated; and therefore he does not understand as a creature him whom he says was born of the Father; because he would not have put it in the singular, if he had wished that which is born of the Father to be understood as a creature, knowing that many were made out of nothing; but putting it in the singular, he put it of the true Son alone, saying that he was born of the Father, because he alone was born of the Father, while all others were made as by a maker. Do not, therefore, do violence to the divine words: why do you bring in what he does not say? Why do you teach what he did not teach? If you are a Christian, and if John is a true teacher with you, believe what he taught. He was born, he says, of the Father: if you believe this, if you love the Father, and by loving the Father you love the Son who was born of him; but if you do not believe that he was born of the Father, then you neither love the Father nor him who was born of him: yet you do not love in this way when you deny that what is the Father's is in the Father, that is, to beget, and deny that what is the Son's is in the Son, that is, to be born.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":49,"ref":"p49","source":"Et audi nunc, quale tibi beatus Joannes nomen imposuit dicens: Hic est antichristus, qui negat patrem et filium (I Joan. II, 22). Tu quidem falso Christiani libi cognomen imponis; sed a veridico Joanne pro sectae tuae merito antichri· stus vocitaris. Mentior, si non tu in patris vocabulo intelligis creatorem, si non in filii nomine asseris creaturam. Joannes patrem et filium nuncupat: et tu in his nominibus creatorem et creaturam interpretaris. Merito ergo vocaris antichristus, qui negas patrem et filium sub interpretatione impia.\n\nXI. Sed adhuc audi, o quisquis ille es insolens et contumax in filium, et de patris persona gloriaris: et intellige, quia patrem habere non potes, st non confitearis et filium. Idem prosequitur Joannes: Qui negat filium, neque patrem (habet): qui confitetur filium, (et filium) et patrem habet (Ibid., 23). Vides ubique Joannes ipsa nomina ponere, ut nihil aliud intelligatur, quam quod est in natura nominum: et tamen, si adhuc frons impudentiae tuae potest ictus lapidum sustinere, et si tanta obstinatio duritiae tuae est, ut cum audis patrem et filium, non tamen verum patrem neque verum filium credas; ecce idem Joannes qui est dilectus a Domino, vicem reddens dominicae dilectioni, fortiori lapide jam non tantum frontem, sed ipsum caput serpentinum tuae conquassat impietatis, scribens in ultimo epistolae suae: Scimus quia filius Dei venit (I Joan.","english":"And hear now what name the blessed John has given you, saying: This is the antichrist, who denies the Father and the Son (1 John 2:22). You indeed falsely impose upon yourself the surname of Christian; but by the truthful John, according to the merit of your sect, you are called antichrist. I lie, if you do not understand the Creator under the name of the Father, if you do not assert a creature under the name of the Son. John names the Father and the Son; and you interpret by these names the Creator and a creature. Deservedly, therefore, are you called antichrist, who deny the Father and the Son by an impious interpretation.\n\nXI. But hear further, O whoever you are, insolent and contumacious against the Son, and who glory in the person of the Father: and understand that you cannot have the Father, if you do not also confess the Son. The same John continues: Whoever denies the Son neither has the Father; whoever confesses the Son has both the Son and the Father (ibid., 23). You see that everywhere John sets down the very names, so that nothing other is understood than what is in the nature of the names; and yet, if still the brow of your impudence can withstand the blows of stones, and if such is the obstinacy of your hardness that when you hear Father and Son, you do not nevertheless believe a true Father or a true Son; behold, the same John who is beloved of the Lord, rendering a return for the Lord's love, with a stronger stone now shatters not only the brow but the very serpentine head of your impiety, writing at the end of his epistle: We know that the Son of God has come (1 John","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":50,"ref":"p50","source":"V, 20, 21), et incarnatus est propter nos, et passus est, et resurgens de mortuis assumpsit nos, et dedit nobis intellectum bonum, ut cognoscamus ipsum verum, et simus in ipso vero filio ejus Jesu Christo. Hic est (Deus) verus et vita aeterna, et resurrectio nostra in ipso. Explicari non potest, quantos adversum te sermonum lapides et saxa congessit sub uno hoc testimonio. Scimus, inquit, quia filius Dei venit. Habes unam de filio confessionem, et paululum infra post sacramenta incarnationis et passionis ejus et resurrectionis, quae utique propter nos exercuit, subsequitur dicens: et dedit nobis intellectum bonum: sine dubio quia ipse dator bonus est, dans intellectum bonum. Non impie intelligimus, si hunc intellectum bonum dixerimus Spiritum sanctum esse, qui et dicitur Spiritus intelligentiae, in quo cognoscimus ipsum verum. Sine Spiritu enim sancto non potest ve· ritas cognosci: habes testimonium in Evangelio, ubi et Deum ipsum sanctum Spiritum pollicetur, et de ipso ait, quod ipse mihi testimonium perhibebit (Joan. XV, 26); utique per apostolos, vel per quoslibet filii Dei praedicatores, dans eis intelligentiam, qua Spiritus intelligentiae verum cognoscendi. Unde et apostolus Paulus scribens ad Corinthios ait: Nos autem non spiritum hujus mundi accepimus, sed spiritum qui ex Deo est: ut sciamus, quae a Deo donata sunt nobis.","english":"and was incarnate for our sake, and suffered, and rising from the dead he took us up, and gave us a good understanding, that we may know him who is true, and be in his true Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life, and our resurrection in him. It cannot be explained how many stones and rocks of arguments he has heaped up against you under this one testimony. We know, he says, that the Son of God has come. You have one confession concerning the Son, and a little below, after the mysteries of his incarnation and passion and resurrection, which he certainly accomplished for our sake, he continues, saying: and he gave us a good understanding: without doubt because he himself is the good giver, giving a good understanding. We do not understand impiously if we say that this good understanding is the Holy Spirit, who is also called the Spirit of understanding, in whom we know him who is true. For without the Holy Spirit the truth cannot be known: you have the testimony in the Gospel, where he both promises God himself, the Holy Spirit, and says of him that he will bear witness to me (John 15:26); certainly through the apostles, or through any preachers of the Son of God, giving them understanding, by which the Spirit of understanding [enables] knowing the truth. Whence also the apostle Paul, writing to the Corinthians, says: But we have not received the spirit of this world, but the spirit which is from God: that we may know the things which have been given to us by God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":51,"ref":"p51","source":"Dedit ergo intellectum bonum, id est Spiritum sanctum, ut cognoscamus ipsum verum (I Cor. II, 12).\n\nXII. Adhuc si non intelligis de tot supra editis dictionibus, vel ex consequentibus animadverte omnes suspiciones impiae interpretationis exclusas: Ut simus, inquit, in ipso vero filio ejus Jesu Chri· sto. Et adhuc amplius densat piam fidem dicens: Hic est verus Deus: et nondum tacuit, sed cumulat et exaggerat, ut impius sensus sophisticis confidens argumentationibus obruatur: subsequens enim ait, Et vita aeterna, et resurrectio nostra in ipso. Ubi sunt nunc illa impia vestra sophismata quae Aristotelis episcopi vestri magisterio didicistis dicentes: Filius est, sed non est verus filius: Deus est, sed non est verus Deus? Ecce uno testimonio tot modis filii verum nomen expressum est, immo quia et verus Deus est. Quomodo enim non verus Deus, qui verus est filius? quandoquidem non solum de veri filii nomine Deus verus probatur, sed etiam per hoc, quod vita sterna est. Vita enim aeterna non habet initium neque finem: ergo Deos verua est Christus, non habens initium neque finem, existens ipse vita aeterna, quae est sine initio et fine.","english":"He therefore gave a good understanding, that is, the Holy Spirit, that we may know him who is true (1 Cor. 2:12).\n\nXII. Further, if you do not understand from the many statements published above, then at least observe from what follows that all suspicions of impious interpretation are excluded: \"That we may be,\" he says, \"in his true Son Jesus Christ.\" And still more he presses the pious faith together, saying: \"This is the true God\"; and he has not yet fallen silent, but heaps up and exaggerates, so that the impious understanding, trusting in sophistical arguments, may be overwhelmed. For he adds, saying: \"And eternal life, and our resurrection, is in him.\" Where now are those impious sophisms of yours which you learned from the teaching of your Aristotle, saying: \"He is a Son, but he is not a true Son; he is God, but he is not true God\"? Behold, in one testimony the true name of the Son is expressed in so many ways—indeed, because he is also true God. For how is he not true God, who is the true Son? Since it is not only from the name of true Son that he is proved to be true God, but also by this, that he is eternal life. For eternal life has neither beginning nor end. Therefore Christ is true God, having neither beginning nor end, being himself eternal life, which is without beginning and end.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":52,"ref":"p52","source":"Sed et cum resurrectio nostra est, potestas in eo verae divinitatis agnoscitur, cum mortem per virtutem resurrectionis excludit, exemplo sui quem assumpsit hominis, in quo et de Virgine nasci dignatus est, in quo et nos jam resurreximus, habituri unusquisque nostrum specialem resurrectionem pro merito fidei ac vitae, sive ad refrigerium, sive ad ustionem. Vide, miser, ne adhuc non credas verum esse filium, et incipias habere resurrectionem ad poenam perpetuam gehennae in tenebris exterioribus, ubi erit fletus oculorum et stridor dentium (Matth. VIII, 12), si tamen non adhuc aliquid tetrius manet impios in filium.\n\nXIII. Satis, ut opinor, licet pauculis testimonii· comprobatum est, quod sit verus Dei filius, natus de patre, non factus ex nihilo. Sed adbu· quaeso, exhibe infatigabilem patientiam, ut boc ipsum de veteri Scriptum vel uno testimonio comprobemus. Dicis, haeretice, ex nihilo filium facium, cum hoc nusquam legeris: negas illud quod scriptura est: quia ex patre natus est. Dic mihi, cujus verba sunt: Ex utero ante luciferum genui te (Psal. CIX, 3)? Si ambigis, respice ad initium Psalmi ejus, et lege scriptum: Dixit Dominus Domino meo, Sede ad dexteram meam, donec ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum (Ibid., 1).","english":"But also, since he is our resurrection, the power of true divinity is recognized in him, when he shuts out death by the power of his resurrection, by the example of the man whom he assumed, in whom he also deigned to be born of the Virgin, in whom we too have already risen, each one of us to have his own special resurrection according to the merit of faith and life, whether for refreshment or for burning. See, wretch, that you do not still fail to believe that the Son is true, and begin to have a resurrection unto the perpetual punishment of Gehenna in the outer darkness, where there will be the weeping of eyes and the gnashing of teeth (Matt. 8:12), unless indeed something still more dreadful awaits the impious against the Son.\n\nXIII. Enough, I think, though by only a few testimonies, it has been proved that he is the true Son of God, born of the Father, not made from nothing. But still, I ask, show tireless patience, that we may prove this very thing from the Old Scripture by even one testimony. You say, heretic, that the Son was made from nothing, when you have read this nowhere; you deny that which is Scripture: that he was born of the Father. Tell me, whose words are these: From the womb before the morning star I begot you (Ps. 109:3)? If you are in doubt, look to the beginning of that Psalm, and read what is written: The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet (Ibid., 1).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":53,"ref":"p53","source":"Hoc testimonio ipse Sal· vator usus est, ut cum vult se Dominum credi, loquens ad eos qui illum solum hominem natum ex semine putabant David, non etiam et Deum qua Dei filium. Sed et Paulus apostolus hoc ipsum credens, quod et olim Spiritus sanctus in David loculus est et postea exposuit, ait in Epistola sua: Ad quem autem angelorum dixit aliquando, sede ad dexteram meam (Heb. I, 13)? hoc explanans, quia nemo de angelis talis est, qualis et filius: omnes enim angeli ficti sunt, solus autem filius natus est, cui et dicit, sede ad dexteram meam; quia et solus ipse est unigenitus filius qui est in sinu patris (Joan. I, 18). Non autem nunc expositio totius psalmi necessaria est, sed illud solum probandum, quia Dominus Pater dicit Filio Domino meo, Sede ad dexteram meam; ut et illud quod in sequenti dicitur, non alius quam pater dixisse credatur, id esi, Ex utero ante luciferum genui te. Nonne etiam hoc testimonio verissime probatum est, sepultam vocem impiam esse dicentium, quod ex nihilo fecerit Deus filium? Quomodo enim ex nihilo, cum ipse pater clamet, Ex utero ante luciferum genuit te? Et vide, ne putes nos intelligere, quod Deus membrorum partiumve compositione consistat. Absit haec impietas.","english":"The Savior himself used this testimony, so that when he wishes to be believed to be Lord, speaking to those who thought he was only a man born from the seed of David, and not also God as the Son of God. But also the apostle Paul, believing this very thing—which the Holy Spirit both once spoke in David and afterward expounded—says in his Epistle: But to which of the angels did he ever say, Sit at my right hand (Heb. 1:13)? Explaining this, that none of the angels is such as the Son is; for all angels were made, but the Son alone was born, to whom he also says, Sit at my right hand; because he alone is also the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18). But now the exposition of the whole psalm is not necessary, but only that must be proved, that the Lord Father says to the Lord Son, Sit at my right hand; so that also what is said in what follows may be believed to have been spoken by no other than the Father, that is, From the womb before the morning star I begot you. Is it not also by this testimony most truly proved that the voice of the impious who say that God made the Son out of nothing is buried? For how out of nothing, when the Father himself cries out, From the womb before the morning star I begot you? And see that you do not think we understand that God consists of a composition of members or parts. Far be such impiety.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":54,"ref":"p54","source":"Deus enim, quodcumque illud est, simplex est; totus idem est secundum substantiam, non pars et pars, non membrum et membrum; sed, ut diximus, simplex nescio quid, quod sit integrum, et perfectum, et inaestimabile tamen et inexplicabile. Licet ergo talis est, ut non membris partibusve subsistat, tamen Scriptura divina cum vult nobis fabricatoris veram intelligentiam commendare, ex his quae novimus, loquitur dicens: Opera manuum ejus esse coelos (Psal. CI, 26), vel unamquamque creaturam: quia apud homines vere et proprie opus vel fabrica intelligitur, quod efficitur (manibus): denique cum visum est arte aliquid fabricatum, ad manus refertur artificis. Similiter autem inter nos volentes filii designare naturam, uteri facimus mentionem: nemo enim de veris filiis non dc utero nascitur. Et Deus ergo vos lens ex se natum filium demonstrare, dixit quod enm ex mero genuerit, ne tu, haeretice, calumniareris ex nihilo. Sed sicut cum Deus manibus fecisse dicitur, ut Deo dignum intelligendum est: ita et cum ex utero genuit, non contra quam Deo dignum est, opinemur. Illud tamen certissime confitendum est, quod verus est conditor in significatione operis manuum, et verus est pater in significatione uteri gignentis, etsi nihil in se membrorum habeat·","english":"For God, whatever that is, is simple; he is wholly the same according to substance, not part and part, not member and member; but, as we have said, a simple something, which is whole, and perfect, and yet inestimable and inexplicable. Although, therefore, he is such that he does not subsist by members or parts, nevertheless divine Scripture, when it wishes to commend to us the true understanding of the Creator, speaks from those things which we know, saying: that the heavens are the works of his hands (Ps. 101:26), or each several creature: because among men that is truly and properly understood as a work or fabrication which is accomplished by hands; finally, when anything is seen to have been fashioned by skill, it is referred to the hands of the craftsman. In like manner also among us, when we wish to designate the nature of a son, we make mention of the womb: for no one of true sons is born not from the womb. And so God also, wishing to show the son born from himself, said that he begot him from the womb, lest you, heretic, should cavil that it was from nothing. But just as when God is said to have made with hands, it is to be understood in a manner worthy of God: so also when he begot from the womb, let us not think otherwise than as is worthy of God. Nevertheless this must most certainly be confessed, that the true founder is signified by the work of hands, and the true father by the signification of the womb that begets, even if he has nothing in himself of members.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":55,"ref":"p55","source":"XIV. Sed quia soletis dicere, o Ariani, « In Deo id ipsum est facere, quod et generare, » opportune et hanc vestram perversitatem de praesenti occasione convincam. Multa sunt nempe opera manuum, sed unus est unigenitus filius ventris: non ergo id ipsum est facere, quod et generare: et omnia quidem per Verbum, et in sapientia facta sunt; Verbum autem sive sapientia, non per aliquem, sed ex Deo nata sunt: unde non id ipsum est facere, quod et generare. Nisi enim esset distantia inter facere et generare, nihil prohibebatur dicere, manus meae generaverunt te, et coeli veniris mei sunt opera. (Sed) sicut dictio multam habet differentiam, ita et res quas dictio determinat. Ex utero, inquit, ante luciferum genui te. Hoc autem dicit pater ad filium, non quod filius ignoraret, sed ut nos scire possemus proprietatem patris ad filium, vel filii ad patrem: ideo ita scriptum est, sicut et ipse unigenitus filius existens sapientia ait: Ante omnes autem colles genuit me (Prov. VIII,25). Unde et hoc loco ante luciferum genitus esse dicitur. In luciferi vocabulo omnis ubi ibi lucidior creatura signatur: unde cum dicitur, ex utero ante luciferum genitus hoc, specialiter docetur, quod vere ex patre sit natus, et non factus: quod autem ait, ante luciferum, ante omnem creaturam significat, secundum quod dictum est, Et ipse est ante omnes (Coloss. I,17).","english":"XIV. But since you Arians are accustomed to say, \"In God, to make is the same thing as to beget,\" I shall take this present occasion to refute this perversity of yours as well. For there are indeed many works of his hands, but there is one only-begotten Son of his womb; therefore to make is not the same thing as to beget. And all things were indeed made through the Word and in wisdom; but the Word, or wisdom, was not made through anyone, but was born from God; hence to make is not the same thing as to beget. For if there were no distinction between making and begetting, nothing would have prevented it from being said, \"My hands have begotten you,\" and \"the heavens are the works of my womb.\" But just as the wording has a great difference, so too do the realities that the wording determines. \"From the womb,\" he says, \"before the morning star I begot you.\" But the Father says this to the Son, not because the Son was ignorant, but so that we might know the propriety of the Father to the Son, or of the Son to the Father; therefore it was written thus, just as the only-begotten Son himself, being wisdom, also says: \"But before all the hills he begot me\" (Prov. 8:25). Hence also in this passage he is said to have been begotten before the morning star. In the word \"morning star\" every creature that is brighter is signified; hence when it is said, \"from the womb, before the morning star, he was begotten,\" it is taught specifically that he was truly born from the Father, and not made; but what he says, \"before the morning star,\" signifies before every creature, according to what is said, \"And he is before all things\" (Col. 1:17).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":56,"ref":"p56","source":"CAPUT III.\n\nQuod Dei filius sit omnipotens, et indemutabilis, et quod una sit omnipotentia Patris et Filii, sicut et una deitas: et de sacramento incarnationis filii, vel potius suscepti ab eo hominis.\n\nI. Percutiamus et aliam eorum blasphemiam, per quam, ut scribis, dicunt quod non sit omnipotens filius. Et hoc breviter faciam, ne longius extendens, laborem legenti tribuam. Dicant, quando non est omnipotens, per quem, ut ipsi quoque confitentur, omnia facta sunt: dent unum opus patris quod non fecerit et filius, ut probent non esse omnipotentem filium: at cum nullum sit opus, quod non patris existat et filii, sine dubio omnipotens est filius, faciens quacumque facit omnipotens pater. Sufficit, si hoc ipsum etiam divinis testimoniis approbemus. Apud prophetam Zachariam legimus: O, o, fugite a terra Aquilonis, dicit Dominus, quoniam a quatuor ventis coeli colligam vos in Sion: resalvamini, qui inhabitatis filiam Babylonis, quoniam haec dicit Dominus omnipotens: Post honorem misit me super gentes quae exspoliaverunt vos; quoniam qui tangit vos, sicut qui tangit pupillam oculi ipsius: quoniam ecce ego infero manum meam super eos; et erunt spolia, qui spoliaverunt illos: et scietis quia Dominus omnipotens misit me (Zach. II, 6-9). Si intendas huic capitulo, Invenies quod filius omnipotens a patre omnipotente sit missus, ut positis in captivitate subveniat.","english":"CHAPTER III.\n\nThat the Son of God is almighty and unchangeable, and that the omnipotence of the Father and of the Son is one, just as their Godhead is one: and concerning the mystery of the incarnation of the Son, or rather of the man assumed by him.\n\nI. Let us strike down as well their other blasphemy, by which, as you write, they say that the Son is not almighty. And I shall do this briefly, lest by extending it at greater length I give the reader labor. Let them say when he is not almighty, he through whom, as even they themselves confess, all things were made: let them give one work of the Father that the Son did not do, so as to prove that the Son is not almighty: but since there is no work that is not the Father's and the Son's, without doubt the Son is almighty, doing whatever the almighty Father does. It is enough if we approve this very point also by divine testimonies. We read in the prophet Zechariah: O, O, flee from the land of the North, says the Lord, for I will gather you from the four winds of heaven into Zion: be saved, you who dwell in the daughter of Babylon, for these things says the Lord almighty: After honor he has sent me to the nations that have despoiled you; for he who touches you is as one who touches the pupil of his own eye: for behold, I bring my hand upon them; and they shall be spoils, who have despoiled them: and you shall know that the Lord almighty has sent me (Zech. 2:6-9). If you attend to this chapter, you will find that the almighty Son was sent by the almighty Father, so as to bring help to those placed in captivity.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":57,"ref":"p57","source":"Considera enim prophetam dicere: Haec dicit Dominus omnipotens: et audiamus, propheta referente, quid dicit Dominus omnipotens: Post honorem, inquit, misit me super gentes: sine dubio filius est, qui post honorem missum esse se dicit super gentes, quem propheta dicit Dominum omnipotentem. Hic ergo filius existens Dominus omnipotens in ultimo testimonio, et scietis quia Dominus omnipotens misit me, ut supra dictum est, ab omnipolente missus est patre. Sed et apostolus Joannes in Apocalypsi haec dicit: Amen, testis fidelis, initium creatum Dei (Apoc. III, 14), qui est, et qui erat, et qui venturus est Dominus Deus omnipotens (Apoc. I, 4,8; IV, 8). Et Salomon inter caetera ait de sapientia, quae utique Christus filius Dei est: Splendor est enim lucis aeternae, et speculum sine macula; Dominus omnipotens, nomen est ei (Sap. VII, 26,27): Item: Ipse et qui redemit illos, Dominus omnipotens nomen est illi. Item in Mach.: Nondum enim omnipotentis, et omnia possidentis Dei judicium, majestatis, et imago bonitatis illius, et cum sit und, omnia potest. Quomodo non omnipotens est, cum possit omnia? Nam et supra de eadem sapientia dixerat, omnem habens virtutem (Ibid., 23): ergo omnipotens est, omnem habens virtutem. Sed adhuc ipse Salomon ait de eadem sapientia: Et permanens in semetipsa manet (Ibid., 27). Et alibi Salomon: Non enim impossibilis est omnipotens tua manus (Sap. XI, 18).","english":"For consider the prophet saying: These things says the Lord almighty: and let us hear, as the prophet reports, what the Lord almighty says: After the honor, he says, he sent me to the nations: without doubt it is the Son who says that he was sent after the honor to the nations, whom the prophet calls the Lord almighty. Therefore this Son, being the Lord almighty in the last testimony—and you shall know that the Lord almighty sent me, as was said above—was sent by the almighty Father. But also the apostle John says these things in the Apocalypse: Amen, the faithful witness, the beginning of God's creation, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Lord God almighty. And Solomon, among other things, says of wisdom, which is certainly Christ the Son of God: For she is the splendor of eternal light, and a mirror without stain; the Lord almighty is his name: Likewise: He himself and the one who redeemed them, the Lord almighty is his name. Likewise in Maccabees: For not yet the judgment of the almighty and all-possessing God, of majesty, and the image of his goodness, and since he is one, he can do all things. How is he not almighty, since he can do all things? For indeed above he had said of the same wisdom, having all power: therefore he is almighty, having all power. But still Solomon himself says of the same wisdom: And remaining in herself she remains. And elsewhere Solomon: For your almighty hand is not impossible.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":58,"ref":"p58","source":"Item ipse: Omnipotens sermo tuus exsiliens de regalibus sedibus (Sap. XVIII, 15).\n\nII. Agnosce omnipotentiam ejus, cum omnia innovat: agnosce interea et quod indemutabilis est, cum in semetipsa permanet omnia innovans: id est, licet omnia innovet, ipsa tamen indemutabilis perseverat; quod nisi non Dei omnipotentis est. Sed quia vere indemutabilis est filius et conditor omnium, etiam his Psalmistae versibus approbatur: In initio tu Domine terram fundasti, et opera manuum tuarum sunt coeli: ipsi peribunt, tu autem permanebis, et omnes sicut vestimentum veterascent: et sicut opertorium mutabis eos, et mutabuntur: tu autem idem es, et anni tui non deficient (Psal. CI, 26-28). Hoc de filio Dei scriptum interpretatus est Paulus scribens ad Hebraeos (Heb. I, 10-12). Habes ergo per haec capitula et omnipotentem filium, et indemutabilem, et omnium conditorem, sicut et omnium artificem, dicente Salomone: Omnium enim artifex docuit me sapientia (Sap. VII, 21). Sed ne duos omnipotentes intelligas, praecavendum est: licet enim et pater sit omnipotens et filius, tamen unus est omnipotens, sicut et unus est Deus: quin Patris et Filii eadem omnipotentia est, sicut et eadem deitas, secundum quod supra pro viribus et conditione temporis coarctantis expressum est.","english":"Likewise he himself says: Your almighty word, leaping from the royal thrones.\n\nII. Acknowledge his omnipotence, when he renews all things; acknowledge also in the meantime that he is unchangeable, since he remains in himself while renewing all things: that is, although he renews all things, he himself nonetheless remains unchangeable; which, unless it were so, is not the mark of the omnipotent God. But because the Son is truly unchangeable and the creator of all things, he is also approved by these verses of the Psalmist: In the beginning you, Lord, founded the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands: they will perish, but you will remain, and all things will grow old like a garment: and like a covering you will change them, and they will be changed: but you are the same, and your years will not fail. Paul, writing to the Hebrews, interpreted this as written of the Son of God. You have, therefore, through these chapters, both the Son as omnipotent, and unchangeable, and the creator of all things, just as also the craftsman of all things, with Solomon saying: For wisdom, the craftsman of all things, taught me. But lest you understand two omnipotents, you must be on guard: for although both the Father is omnipotent and the Son, yet there is one omnipotent, just as there is also one God: indeed the omnipotence of the Father and of the Son is the same, just as the divinity is also the same, according to what has been set forth above, as far as our strength and the condition of the pressing time allowed.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":59,"ref":"p59","source":"Sed et nunc inferius explanabitur testimonio Esaiae prophetae: Fatigata est AEgyptus, et negotiatio AEthiopum, et Sabaim viri excelsi ad te transibunt, et tui erunt servi et post te sequentur alligati vinculis, et adorabunt te, et in te deprecabuntur: quoniam in te est Deus, et non est Deus praeter te. Tu enim es Deus, et nesciebamus, Deus Israel Salvator. Erubescent et confundentur omnes, qui adversantur ei, et ibunt cum confusione. (Isa. XLV, 14). Intende, quia ad filium dicitur, et tui erunt servi, et post te sequentur alligati vinculis, et adorabunt te, et in te deprecabuntur. Ergo et hinc Deus verus Obtenditur filius, cum adoratur. Dei enim est adorari: siquidem et alibi docet Apostolus de filio Dei esse scriptum: Et adorent eum omnes angeli Dei (Heb. I,6): scilicet quia vere Deum et Dominum. Sed in praesenti testimonio Esaiae, sicut ipse Deus, sic etiam in ipso Deus est: ait enim, Quoniam in te Deus est, et non est Deus proster te. Et cum dixerit in Deo Deum esse, subsequitur, et dicit: Tu enim es Deus, et nesciebamus, Deus Israel Salvator.","english":"But this too will be explained further below by the testimony of the prophet Isaiah: Egypt is weary, and the business of the Ethiopians, and the Sabaeans, tall men, shall pass over to you, and they shall be your servants, and they shall follow after you bound in chains, and they shall worship you, and shall make supplication to you: because God is in you, and there is no God besides you. For you are God, and we did not know it, the God of Israel, the Savior. All who oppose him shall blush and be confounded, and they shall go away in confusion. (Isa. 45:14). Attend, because it is said to the Son: and they shall be your servants, and they shall follow after you bound in chains, and they shall worship you, and shall make supplication to you. Therefore from this passage too the Son is shown to be true God, since he is worshiped. For it belongs to God to be worshiped; indeed the Apostle also teaches elsewhere that it is written of the Son of God: And let all the angels of God worship him (Heb. 1:6): namely, because he is truly God and Lord. But in the present testimony of Isaiah, just as he himself is God, so also God is in him: for it says, Because God is in you, and there is no God besides you. And when he has said that God is in God, he continues and says: For you are God, and we did not know it, the God of Israel, the Savior.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":60,"ref":"p60","source":"Ergo cum Deus in Deo est, et non est Deus praeter eum in quo Deus est, et ipse est Deus Salvator Israel; ostenditur unitas divinitatis in Patre et Filio, sicut et omnipotentiae, et quidquid omnino divinae substantiae est: hoc solo differens a patre filius, quod ille pater est, et hic filius; id est, quod ille genuit, et hic natus est: non tamen quia natus est, minus habet aliquid, quam quod in Deo patre est, imago Dei invisibilis existens (Coloss. I, 15), et splendor gloriae, et character substantiae ejus (Heb. I, 3). Hoc qui de filio Dei non credunt, Esaiae sententiam sustinebunt dicentis: Erubescent, et confundentur omnes qui adversantur ei, et ibunt cum confusione. Sed et Jeremias de filii deitate exprimit dicens: Hic Deus noster est, et non deputabitur alius absque eo: qui invenit omnem viam prudentiae, et dedit eam Jacob puero suo, et Israel dilecto sibi: post (haec) in terra visus est, et cum hominibus conversatus est (Baruch. III, 36-38). Non utique pater Deus, sed filius factus homo in terra visus est, et conversatus est cum hominibus, naturam in se hominis exercens sine peccato propter nostram salutem; de quo et legimus: Et Verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis: et vidimus gloriam ejus. gloriam quasi unigeniti a patre (Joan. I, 14).","english":"Therefore, since God is in God, and there is no God besides him in whom God is, and he himself is God, the Savior of Israel, the unity of divinity in the Father and the Son is shown, as also of omnipotence, and of whatever belongs altogether to the divine substance: the Son differing from the Father in this alone, that the one is Father and the other Son; that is, that the one begot and the other was born: yet not because he was born does he have anything less than what is in God the Father, existing as the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15), and the splendor of glory, and the express image of his substance (Heb. 1:3). Those who do not believe this concerning the Son of God will bear the sentence of Isaiah, who says: All who oppose him shall be ashamed and confounded, and they shall go forth in confusion. But Jeremiah also declares concerning the deity of the Son, saying: This is our God, and no other shall be reckoned besides him: he who found every way of prudence, and gave it to Jacob his servant, and to Israel his beloved: afterward he was seen on earth, and conversed with men (Baruch 3:36-38). It was not the Father, surely, but the Son who, made man, was seen on earth and conversed with men, exercising in himself the nature of man without sin for our salvation; of whom we also read: And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us: and we saw his glory, glory as of the only-begotten from the Father (John 1:14).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":61,"ref":"p61","source":"III. Si ergo Verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis, natus ex virgine nobiscum Deus; quo nunc, haeretice, proficis? Si infirmitates assumptae carnis objicias, si animae humanae quam cum carne susceperat, utiles nobis aestus describas; cum constet cum, secundum quod Deus est et Dei filius, esse per omnia ut Patrem impassibilem. Ideo enim et illa quae sunt deitatis ejus promisimus, ut jam si quid humilitatis et infirmitatis in Christo legitur, non deitas ejus violata credatur, sed naturae suscepti hominis, et disciplinae quam tradebat, exsecutio probetur. Vanum est enim noluisse ut hominem nasci, licet ex virgine tamen hominem, nec infirmam hominis in se designare naturam. Vanum est praecepta dare, quibus homines viverent, et ipsam jam, quia semel homo esse dignatus est, sine praeceptorum observatione concurrisse. Ille si non hominis infirmitatem factus homo exercere voluisset, quis crederet, quod homo factus fuerat ex originis nostrae matrice, licet sine viri complexu? quandoquidem bodieque non desunt, qui negent eum nostram gestasse corpulentiam, etiam postea quam infirmitatem carnis exercuit. Ille si factus homo non servasset, quam docere venerat disciplinam, non bonum magisterii dedisset exemplum. Quis enim discipulorum servare conaretur, quod non magister ipse servasset factus ut homo; cum hodie jam quicumque servat ipsius exemplo, relevatur ut servet?","english":"III. If therefore the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, God with us born of a virgin, where do you now proceed, heretic? If you object the infirmities of the flesh he assumed, if you describe the passions of the human soul, which he had taken up together with the flesh, as useful to us, since it is agreed that he, according as he is God and the Son of God, is in all things impassible like the Father. For this reason we have also set forth those things which belong to his divinity, so that now, if anything of lowliness and infirmity is read in Christ, his divinity may not be believed to be violated, but the fulfillment of the nature of the man he took up, and of the discipline he was handing on, may be proved. For it is vain to have been unwilling that he be born as a man, though indeed a man born of a virgin, and not to designate in him the weak nature of man. It is vain to give precepts by which men might live, and yet that he himself, since he once deigned to be a man, should have run his course without the observance of the precepts. If he, having been made man, had not wished to exercise the infirmity of man, who would believe that he had been made man from the womb of our origin, though without the embrace of a man? Since even today there are not lacking those who deny that he bore our bodily substance, even after he exercised the infirmity of the flesh. If he, having been made man, had not kept the discipline which he came to teach, he would not have given a good example of his teaching. For who of his disciples would attempt to keep what the master himself, having been made man, had not kept, when today whoever keeps it by his example is relieved so that he may keep it?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":62,"ref":"p62","source":"Vides quia et infirmitates pati debuit, ut homo natus probaretur; et factus homo observare quodcumque docuisset, ut caeteros invitaret; magis autem dixerim ut caeteros sublevaret: jam enim caro nostra didicit ejus carne relevari. Si enim infirmitates hominis pati noluisset, ut quid et de virgine homine natus est? et si nolebat observare praecepta, quia Dominus; ut quid et formam servi acceperat, quae praeceptis et obedientiae obnoxia est? atquin totum sacramentum a Deo assumpti hominis hoc, quod in Adam non est de inobedientia servatum, in Christo homine de obedientia servaretur. Hoc ipsum Apostolus Paulus inter caetera quae divine tractat, asserit: Sicut enim per inobedientiam unius hominis peccatoret constituti sunt multi, ita et per unius obeditionem justi constituuntur multi (Rom. V, 19). (Sicut enim per unius hominis contemptum peccatores constituti sum multi, ita et per sacramentum obauditionis in Christo, quam non ex infirmitate, sed ex bonitate deitatis praestat in salutarem hominis disciplinam, salvantur multi).","english":"You see that he also had to suffer infirmities, so that he might be proven to have been born a man; and, having been made man, to observe whatever he had taught, so that he might invite others—or rather, I should say, so that he might lift others up; for our flesh has already learned to be relieved by his flesh. For if he had been unwilling to suffer the infirmities of a man, why was he also born a man of a virgin? And if he was unwilling to observe the commandments, because he is the Lord, why had he also taken the form of a servant, which is subject to commandments and obedience? And yet the whole mystery of the man assumed by God is this: that what was not preserved in Adam from disobedience might be preserved in Christ the man from obedience. The Apostle Paul asserts this very thing among the other things he treats divinely: For just as through the disobedience of one man many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of one man many are made righteous (Rom. 5:19). (For just as through the contempt of one man we were made many sinners, so also through the mystery of obedience in Christ—which he provides not from infirmity but from the goodness of the Godhead, for the saving discipline of man—many are saved.)","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":63,"ref":"p63","source":"IV. Videamus nunc et sacramentum passionis. Totus Adam peccaverat; totus Adam expulsus de paradiso fuerat: totum suscipere debuit expulsum, qui totum salvare venerat. Non autem videbatur totum expulsum in se suscepisse, nisi illum suscepisset per substantiam carnis et animae: hoc enim totus homo est per naturam. Hoc autem tunc probari potuit, si ipsas infirmitates carnis ejus et animae sustineret, licet sine vitio peccatorum; ut vere non aliam substantiam carnis et animae suscepisse putaretur: ut cum in se hominem ab infirmitatibus et passionibus liberat, etiam hos qui secundum vestigia ejus sectantur, liberatos esse crederemus. Sed patrocinetur huic sensui gentium doctor Apostolus vivacius, et ut mysticus scribens: Sicut enim in Adam omnes moriuntur, ita et in Christo omnes vivificantur (I Cor. XV, 23). Sed naturam suscepti in eo hominis melius describat Esaias: Domine quis credidit auditui nostro? et brachium Domini cui revelatum est? Annuntiavimus coram ipso sicut puer, sicut radix inveterata sitienti: non est species ei neque honor formae: et vidimus eum, et non habebat speciem neque decorem: sed species ejus sine honore, deficiens prater caeteros homines: homo in plaga positus, et sciens ferre infirmitatem, quia aversa est facies: depretiatus est, nec aestimatus est.","english":"IV. Let us now consider also the mystery of his passion. The whole Adam had sinned; the whole Adam had been expelled from paradise: he who had come to save the whole ought to take up the whole expelled one. But he did not appear to have taken the whole expelled one into himself unless he had taken him up through the substance of flesh and soul: for this is the whole man by nature. But this could then be proven, if he sustained those very infirmities of his flesh and soul, though without the fault of sins; so that he might truly be thought to have taken up no other substance of flesh and soul: so that when he frees in himself the man from infirmities and passions, we might believe that those also who follow in his footsteps have been freed. But let the Apostle, the teacher of the Gentiles, lend support to this understanding more vividly, and as one writing mystically: For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all are made alive. But let Isaiah better describe the nature of the man taken up in him: Lord, who has believed our report? and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? We announced before him as a child, as a root grown old in a thirsty land: there is no form to him nor honor of shape: and we saw him, and he had no form nor comeliness: but his form was without honor, failing beyond other men: a man placed in affliction, and knowing how to bear infirmity, because his face was turned away: he was despised, and was not esteemed.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":64,"ref":"p64","source":"Hic peccata nostra fert, et pro nobis dolet: et aestimavimus eum in dolore esse et in plaga et in malo: ipse autem vulneratus est propter iniquitates nostras, et infirmatus est propter peccata nostra: doctrina pacis nostrae super eum: plaga ejus nos sanati sumus. Omnes sicut oves erravimus: homo a via sua erravit, et Dominus tradidit eum pro peccatis nostris: et ipse propter quod male tractatus est, non aperuit os. Sicut ovis ad occisionem adductus est, et sicut agnus coram tondente se, sic non aperuit os suum: in humilitate judicium ejus sublatum est. Generationem ejus quis enarrabit? quia auferetur a terra vita ejus: ab iniquitatibus plebis meae adductus est ad mortem; et dabo malos pro sepultura ejus, et ipsos divites pro morte ejus. Quia iniquitatem non fecit, neque dolum in ore suo locutus est (Isa. LIII, 1—9).\n\nV. Sufficit hoc testimonio probatum, quod omnem in se hominis naturam peregit, sine peccato tamen suo, licet peccata nostra portaret. Sed ne homo tantummodo crederetur, interposuit, et dixit: Generationem ejus quis enarrabit? illam utique quia de Deo patre generatus est, quae sine initio est: et ideo de ea ait, Generationem ejus quis enarrabit? non quasi ignorabilem, sed quasi inexplicabilem dicens. Omnes enim catholici scimus, quia de Deo patre natus est, sed inenarrabiliter: et ideo ait, Generationem ejus quit enarrabit?","english":"He bears our sins, and grieves for us: and we esteemed him to be in sorrow and in stripes and in affliction: but he was wounded for our iniquities, and weakened for our sins: the discipline of our peace was upon him: by his stripe we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray: man has strayed from his way, and the Lord delivered him up for our sins: and he, because he was evilly treated, did not open his mouth. As a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer, so he did not open his mouth: in humility his judgment was taken away. Who shall declare his generation? because his life shall be taken away from the earth: for the iniquities of my people he was led to death; and I will give the wicked for his burial, and the rich themselves for his death. Because he did no iniquity, nor spoke deceit in his mouth (Isa. 53:1–9).\n\nV. By this testimony it is sufficiently proved that he fulfilled in himself the whole nature of man, yet without his own sin, although he bore our sins. But lest he be believed to be only a man, he interposed and said: Who shall declare his generation? That generation, surely, because he was begotten of God the Father, which is without beginning: and therefore he said of it, Who shall declare his generation? saying it not as though it were unknowable, but as though it were inexplicable. For all catholics know that he was born of God the Father, but ineffably: and therefore he said, Who shall declare his generation?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":65,"ref":"p65","source":"Hanc autem generationem qua de virgine nascitur secundum carnem, refert Evangelium, ejus quoque tempora describens. Divinae autem generationis initium, ut diximus, investigari non potest, sicut nec divinitatis quae illi una cum patre est: et ideo ait, Generationem ejus quis enarrabit? Si ergo in sacramento fidei hoc accepimus, ut Christum Deum credamus et hominem; Deum quidem, de Deo sine initio tantum; hominem autem, quia de virgine in temporibus natum: non calumniemur divinitati ejus, cum pro nostra medela quae sunt hominis exsequitur, habens in se acceptam hominis naturam: quia nec homo negandus est, cum propriae divinitatis naturalem exerit potestatem, accepta in se forma servili. Si ergo et orat patrem, et si nihil a se facere se dicit (Joan. V, 19), nisi quod patrem viderit facientem; ut nihil nunc aliud dicam, certe humanae extollentiae modum, qua magister imponit; ut tanto magis discat homo Deo deferre, quanto detulit et verus filius, qui causam subjectionis propriam non habebat, qui et formam orandi dederat, ut non tam fieri nostram voluntatem rogaremus, sed voluntatem Patris qui in coelis est (Matth. III, 21). Et ideo quod docuerat ut impleret, ait: Non veni meam voluntatem facere, sed voluntatem ejus qui misit me (Joan.","english":"But this generation, by which he is born of a virgin according to the flesh, the Gospel relates, describing its times as well. The beginning, however, of the divine generation, as we have said, cannot be investigated, just as neither can that of the divinity which is his together with the Father; and therefore it says, Who shall declare his generation? If, then, we have received this in the sacrament of faith, that we believe Christ to be God and man—God indeed, from God without beginning only; but man, because born of a virgin in time—let us not slander his divinity when, for our healing, he performs the things that are of man, having in himself the assumed nature of man; because he is not to be denied to be man when he exercises the natural power of his own divinity, the form of a servant having been assumed in himself. If, therefore, he both prays to the Father, and if he says that he can do nothing of himself (John 5:19), except what he has seen the Father doing—that I may now say nothing else—certainly he imposes a limit on human exaltation, as a teacher; so that man may learn all the more to defer to God, as the true Son also deferred, who had no cause of subjection of his own, who had also given the form of praying, that we should ask not so much that our will be done, but the will of the Father who is in heaven (Matthew 3:21). And therefore, that he might fulfill what he had taught, he says: I have not come to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me (John","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":66,"ref":"p66","source":"VI, 38)· Sed et quod minor factus est, quod crescit, quod proficit, quod esurit, quod sitit, quod laborat, quod flet, quod doiet, quod tristis est, postremo quod moritur: ad naturam assumpti hominis referendum est, quam pro nostrae sacramento salutis mystice exercuit, sub intelligentia qua supra in testimonio Esaiae relatum est. Sub hoc fidei sacramento non solum illa capitula solvuntur de quibus interrogare dignata es, sed el omnes quaestiones quas contra filii divinitatem coaptant impii haeretici.\n\nCAPUT IV.\n\nDe hoe quod ait Filius: PATER MAJOR ME EST.\n\nI. Accipe nunc et has quaestiones, quas ex diversa parte proposueras fortiores, specialiter absolutas. Dicunt, inquis, haeretici ad depretiandam filii perpetuam et perfectam in omnibus deitatem, Pater mejor me est (Joan, XVI, 18). Sed requirendum est, quando hoc filius dixit: nonne quando impletum est in eo quod scriptum est: Minorasti eum paulo minus ab angelis, gloria et honore coronasti eum (Psal. VIII, 6)? Quomodo minoratus est, exponat apostolus Paulus tertii coeli conscius: Paulo minus, inquit, ab angelis minoratum videmus Jesum propter pastionem mortis; gloria et honore coronatum, ut gratia Dei mortem gustaret pro omnibus (Heb. II, 9). Pro omnibus, ait, non pro se: ergo qui pro omnibus gustavit mortem, quid mirum si pro omnibus et minoratae est?","english":"VI, 38. But also the fact that he was made less, that he grows, that he advances, that he hungers, that he thirsts, that he labors, that he weeps, that he grieves, that he is sad, and finally that he dies: this must be referred to the nature of the man he assumed, which he exercised mystically for the sacrament of our salvation, under the understanding which was cited above in the testimony of Isaiah. Under this sacrament of faith not only those chapters about which you deigned to inquire are resolved, but also all the questions which the impious heretics devise against the divinity of the Son.\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nConcerning what the Son says: THE FATHER IS GREATER THAN I.\n\nI. Receive now also these questions, which you had proposed from another quarter as stronger, specifically resolved. The heretics, you say, in order to disparage the Son's eternal and perfect deity in all things, say: The Father is greater than I (John 16:18). But one must ask when the Son said this: was it not when there was fulfilled in him what is written: You have made him a little less than the angels, you have crowned him with glory and honor (Psalm 8:6)? How he was made less, let the apostle Paul, conscious of the third heaven, explain: We see Jesus, he says, made a little less than the angels because of the suffering of death; crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God he might taste death for all (Hebrews 2:9). For all, he says, not for himself: therefore, he who tasted death for all, what wonder if for all he was also made less?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":67,"ref":"p67","source":"Pro omnibus (autem) gustavit mortem; non pro se, eo quod pro omnibus in peccati reatu positis ipse homo factus, nullo proprio peccato tenebatur obnoxius. Et vide quomodo boo ipsum, quod minoratus est propter passionem mortis, et quod gratia Dei pro omnibus gustavit mortem, ad decorem operis interpretatur sapientissimus Paulus ita subsequens: Decebat enim eum propter quem omnia, et per quem omnia, multis fillis in gloriam adductis, ducem salutis eorum per poisiones consummare (Ibid., 10). Vides quam pulchrum, quam ve decorum nostrae salutis sacramentum in eo, quod filius est, minoratus ostenditur. Quomodo ergo ad offuscandam divinitatem ejus improperas, quod exsequitur ad decorem? Pater major me est: hoc tunc dixit, postea quam Verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis.\n\nII. Et vide ne demutabilem credas, quasi desierit esse Verbum, postea quam caro factum est; sed manens semper Verbum Deus, el caro quoque factum est. Etsi enim dixit, Et Verbum caro factum est, pressius loqui voluit, ne quis in eo non veram carnem crederet. Siquidem et post tam pressam locutionem non desunt qui dicunt, carnem illum habuisse putativam. Ut autem manifestum sit Verbum carnem factum, non demutatione divinae substantiae, sed susceptione carnis humanae, intende quid sequitur: Et habitavit in nobis.","english":"For he tasted death for all; not for himself, since he who was made man for all who were placed under the guilt of sin was himself held liable by no sin of his own. And see how the most wise Paul interprets even this very thing—that he was made less because of the suffering of death, and that by the grace of God he tasted death for all—as the beauty of the work, thus continuing: For it was fitting that he for whom all things exist and through whom all things exist, having brought many sons to glory, should perfect the leader of their salvation through sufferings. You see how beautiful, how truly fitting, is the mystery of our salvation in this, that the Son is shown to have been made less. How then do you reproach him to obscure his divinity, when what he accomplishes serves its beauty? The Father is greater than I: this he said then, after the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.\n\nII. And see that you do not believe him to be changeable, as though he ceased to be the Word after he was made flesh; but remaining always the Word, God, he was also made flesh. For even though he said, And the Word was made flesh, he wished to speak more precisely, lest anyone should not believe that in him there was true flesh. Indeed, even after so precise a statement there are not lacking those who say that he had a phantom flesh. But so that it may be manifest that the Word was made flesh, not by a change of the divine substance, but by the assumption of human flesh, attend to what follows: And dwelt among us.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":68,"ref":"p68","source":"Non ergo interceptum est Verbum demutatione, quod per carnem assumptam habitavit in nobis: habitatio enim probat perseverantiam Verbi. Hoc ideo interposui, ne quis filium Dei demutabilem credat, cum legit: Et Verbum caro factum est. Dicit ergo filius, Pater major me est, postea quam Verbum cato factum est, et suscepit officium ministrantis. Venit enim non ministrari, sed ministrare. Pater major me est (Matth. XX, 28). Quid ais deitas? quomodo dicis patrem te esse majorem? certe una tibi et patri imago est secundum Moysen, eademque forma secundum apostolum Paulum, qui me etiam docuit, quod sis splendor gloriae et character substantiae ejus (Heb. I,3). Sed et tu ipse docuisti dicens: Qui me vidit, vidit patrem; et ego in patre et pater in me (Joan. XIV, 9). Ego et pater unum sumus (Joan. X, 30). Sed et quaecumque facit pater, facis et tu similiter: tua enim verba sunt: Quaecumque enim ille facit, haec et filius similiter facit: et sicut pater suscitat mortuos et vivificat, sic et filius, quos vult, vivificat, et ut honorificent filium, sicut honorificant patrem (Joan. V, 19—2).","english":"The Word, therefore, was not intercepted by a change, since he dwelt in us through the flesh he assumed; for his dwelling proves the continuance of the Word. I have inserted this for the reason that no one should believe the Son of God to be changeable when he reads: And the Word was made flesh. The Son, then, says, The Father is greater than I, after the Word was made flesh and took up the office of one who ministers. For he came not to be ministered to, but to minister. The Father is greater than I. What do you say, O Godhead? How do you say that the Father is greater than you? Surely there is one image of you and the Father according to Moses, and the same form according to the apostle Paul, who also taught me that you are the splendor of glory and the express image of his substance. But you yourself also taught, saying: He who has seen me has seen the Father; and I am in the Father and the Father in me. I and the Father are one. But also whatever the Father does, you do likewise; for these are your words: For whatever he does, these things the Son also does likewise; and just as the Father raises the dead and gives life, so also the Son gives life to whom he wills, and that they may honor the Son just as they honor the Father.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":69,"ref":"p69","source":"Cum ergo eadem tibi Imago est, eadem forma eademque substantia, eadem naturae unitas, cadem potestas, eadem libertas voluntatis, idem honor, et omnia omnino quae patris sunt, tua sani, quia quae tua sunt, patris sunt; quomodo dicis, Pater major me est, cum in omnibus quae sunt deitatis, talis es qualis el pater? Loquatur apostolus Paulus in quo Christus loquebatur, secundum quod ipse ait: An experimentum quaeritis, qni in me loquitur Christi (II Cor. XIII, 3)? Quid dicit Apostolus? qui cum in for· ma Dei esset constitutus, non rapinam arbitratus est, esse se aequalem Deo (Philipp. II, 6). Ergo secundum hoc, quod in forma Dei est et quod aequalis est Deo, non est major pater. Et quomodo major osi pater, subsequentia demonstrant (??) Sed semetipsum, inquit, exinanivit, formam servi accipiens (Ibid., 7,8). III. Vide ne et hio Interceptionem divinitatis intelligas, cum audis, semetipsum exinanivit: intende enim ad hoc quod sequitur, formam servi accipiens. Manere ergo in suo statu ostenditur, qui formam ser- VI dicitur accepisse. Sed quamvis maneat et perseveret in eo status divinus; tamen semetipsum exinanivit, scilicet per occultationem divinitatis, formam servi accipiens in similitudine hominum factus, et habitu inventus at homo.","english":"Since, therefore, the same Image is yours, the same form and the same substance, the same unity of nature, the same power, the same freedom of will, the same honor, and absolutely all things that are the Father's are yours, because the things that are yours are the Father's—how do you say, \"The Father is greater than I,\" when in all things that belong to the Godhead you are such as the Father is? Let the apostle Paul speak, in whom Christ was speaking, according to what he himself says: \"Do you seek a proof of Christ who speaks in me?\" What does the Apostle say? \"Who, when he was established in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God.\" Therefore, according to this—that he is in the form of God and that he is equal to God—the Father is not greater. And how the Father is greater, the following words demonstrate. \"But he emptied himself,\" he says, \"taking the form of a servant.\" III. See that you do not understand here an interception of the Godhead, when you hear, \"He emptied himself\"; for attend to what follows: \"taking the form of a servant.\" He is therefore shown to remain in his own state, who is said to have taken the form of a servant. But although the divine state remains and perseveres in him, nevertheless he emptied himself—namely, through the concealment of the Godhead—taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and found in fashion as a man.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":70,"ref":"p70","source":"Humiliavit seipsum factus obediens usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis· Jam talis est si dicat, Pater major me est: Non impugnat aequalitatem divinitatis, sed designat sacramentum humanitatis per hoc quod semetipsum exinanivit formam servi accipient. Jam talis si dicat, Qui misit rite Paltr, mandatum mihi dedit, quid dicam, et quid toquar (Joan. XII, 49); et: Descendi de coelo, non ut faciam voluntatem meam, sed voluntatem ejus qui me misit (Joan. VI, 38); ostendit, quod semetipsum exinanivit, formam servi accipiens, in similitudinem hominum factus, et habitu inventus ut homo: humiliavit se ipsam factus obediens usque ad mortem: et tamen quae est in his diminutio ejus divinitatis, si ad amputandam in hominibus arrogantiam ipse non sibi arrogans loqueretur? Mentior, si non hoc ipsum testimonium ideo potuit apostolos Paulas, ut ad humilitatem Salvatoris exemplo singulos provocaret. Hoc Ita invenies, si eamdem Epistolam quam scribit ad Philippenses, intentius legeris. Sed et haeretici nolunt ob sacrementum exinaniti Dei per acceptionem formae servilia esse dictum, Pater major me est. Dicamus et nos patrem majorem de solo sacramento generationis: et hunc enim pium sensum nonnulli catholici prosecuti sunt dicentes, patrem et filium ejusdem sub(??)tantiae, et ideo secundum substantiam alterum altero non esse majorem.","english":"He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Now, if in this state he says, \"The Father is greater than I,\" he does not assail the equality of divinity but designates the mystery of humanity, in that he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant. Now, if in this state he says, \"He who sent me, the Father, gave me a commandment, what I should say and what I should speak,\" and, \"I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me,\" he shows that he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, made in the likeness of men, and found in fashion as a man: he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death. And yet what diminution of his divinity is there in these words, if he spoke them not claiming them for himself, in order to cut off arrogance among men? I am lying, if it was not for this very testimony that the apostle Paul was able, so as to stir up each individual to the humility of the Savior by his example. You will find it so, if you read more attentively the same Epistle that he writes to the Philippians. But even the heretics do not want \"The Father is greater than I\" to have been said on account of the mystery of God emptied by the acceptance of the form of a servant. Let us too say that the Father is greater only on account of the mystery of his generation; for some catholics have followed this pious understanding, saying that the Father and the Son are of the same substance, and therefore according to substance the one is not greater than the other.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":71,"ref":"p71","source":"Qualis enim paler est Deus, talis et Deus filius est: nihil enim minus et se genuit, quam ipse est: perfectos enim existens perlectum genuit. Etsi ergo, qua Deus, Deo aequalis est filius; tamen, qua filius, minor dicitur patre: id est, quia filios de patre sit, et plenitudo existens plenitudinem genuit: pater amem genuit filium, et Ideo non dixit, « Deus major me est, » sed, Pater major me est.\n\nCAPUT V.\n\nQuod in Actibus Apostolorum legitur: CERTISSIME ITAQUE SCIAT OMNIS DOMOS ISRAEL, QUIA DOMINUM ILLUM ET CHRISTUM DEUS FECIT NUNC JESUM, QUEM VOS CRUCIFIXISTIS·\n\nI. Inter caetera haereticorum, ut scilicet Dei filius facture credatur, etiam hoc ex persona diversae partis posui(??)(??)i(??),· quod legimus in Actibus Apostolorum beate Petro dicente: Certissime itaque sciat omnis domus Israel, quia et Dominum illum el Christum Deus fecit hunc i esum, quem vos crucifixistis. (Act. II, 36.) Sed hujus quoque quaestionis absolutio manifesta est secundum superiorem expositionem, in qua diximus filium Dei etiam filium hominis factum.","english":"For as God the Father is, so also is God the Son; for he begot him nothing less than what he himself is; for being perfect, he begot one perfect. Therefore, although as God the Son is equal to God, yet as Son he is said to be less than the Father: that is, because he is Son from the Father, and being fullness, he begot fullness; but the Father begot the Son, and therefore he did not say, \"God is greater than I,\" but, \"The Father is greater than I.\"\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nThat which is read in the Acts of the Apostles: LET ALL THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL THEREFORE KNOW MOST CERTAINLY THAT GOD HAS MADE THIS JESUS, WHOM YOU CRUCIFIED, BOTH LORD AND CHRIST.\n\n1. Among the other things of the heretics—namely, that the Son of God is believed to be a creature—I have also set forth this from the person of the opposing side, which we read in the Acts of the Apostles, where blessed Peter says: Let all the house of Israel therefore know most certainly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:36.) But the resolution of this question also is manifest according to the earlier exposition, in which we said that the Son of God was also made the Son of man.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":72,"ref":"p72","source":"Qui etsi pali noti potest, quia filius Dei est Verbum et sapientia Dei existens, quia secundum hoc sem· per impassibilis perseverat sicut et pater ejus; tamen per hoc quod homo factus est, natus de Maria virgine, passibilis est: quippe qui et mortem sustinuit, et mortem crucis, manens in se semper, quia Deus inviolabilis, etiam cum versatur in homine et crucifigitur. Hunc ergo Jesum qui est secundum carnem, Dominum Illum et Christum fecit Deus. Nam secundum boc quod est unigenitus filius Dei, qui esi Verbum et sapientia Dei, non est aliqua factura, neque exspectans promotiones, quippe existens in omnibus Deus perfectus, sicut et pater ejus. Hic autem Jesus, secundum carnem Christus factus est, quando primum forma illa servitis quam acceperat de Adae peccato, liberata est. Adam enim de dominio in servitutem recidit ex commissione peccati: Omnis enim qui facit peccatum, senui est. (Joan. VIII, 34.) Salvator autem renovavit multo firmius, immo et incorruptibilius in assumpto homine dominium, cum in eo ipsum peccatum quod per Adam fuerat causa abjectae servitutis, abstersit. Sed factus est iterum Vere Dominus, cum in illum populi credentes se ejus dominio subdiderunt. Provocatus enim per hortamenta sacrae Scripturae dicentis, Servite Domino in timore (Psal. II, 11); unusquisque jam cognoscens in Christo salutare dominium ait: Nonne Deo subdita esi anima mea (Psal. LXI, 2)?","english":"For even if he cannot suffer, because he is the Son of God, existing as the Word and Wisdom of God, since in this respect he always remains impassible just as his Father also does; yet through this, that he was made man, born of the virgin Mary, he is passible: indeed he even endured death, and death on a cross, remaining always in himself, because he is God inviolable, even when he is conversant in a man and is crucified. This Jesus, therefore, who is according to the flesh, God made both Lord and Christ. For according to this, that he is the only-begotten Son of God, who is the Word and Wisdom of God, he is not any created thing, nor one awaiting promotions, since he exists as perfect God in all things, just as his Father also does. But this Jesus, according to the flesh, was made Christ, when first that form of servitude which he had received from Adam's sin was set free. For Adam fell back from dominion into servitude by the commission of sin: For everyone who commits sin is a slave. (John 8:34.) But the Savior renewed the dominion much more firmly, indeed and more incorruptibly, in the man he assumed, when in him he wiped away sin itself, which through Adam had been the cause of abject servitude. But he was made truly Lord again, when the peoples believing in him subjected themselves to his dominion. For provoked by the exhortations of sacred Scripture saying, Serve the Lord in fear (Psalm 2:11); each one now knowing in Christ the saving dominion says: Is not my soul subject to God (Psalm 61:2)?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":73,"ref":"p73","source":"Hujus servum fieri summi decoris est, et quasi quaedam supereminens mundo nobilitas. Ideo et Apostolus gloriam suam scribit: Paulus servus Jesu Christi (Rom. I, 1). Vides quomodo sit factus Dominus, quando illum et is qui persecutus fuerat, suum Dominam pro summa sibi gloria confitetur.\n\nII. Factus est autem Jesus secandum carnem non solum Dominus, sed et Christus. In Christi nutem nomine, regis sacerdotisque sacramenta versantur. Legimus in veteri sacerdotes et reges apud Israelitas olei unctione consignatos, atque ideo dicitur vocabantur. Christus enim quod Graece dicitur, hoc apud Latinos unctus sive linitus est Interpretatus. Sed Salvator noster vere Christus secundum carnem faetus est, existens verus Rex, Verus et Sacerdos: utrumque idem ipse, ne quid In Salvatore minus haberetur. Audi itaque ipsum regem factum cum dicit: Ego autem constitutus sum rex ab eo super Sion montem sanctum ejus (Psal. II, 6). Audi quod etiam sacerdos sit de patris testimonio dicentis: Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech (Psal. CIX, 4). Aaron primus in lege ex unctione chrismatis factus est sacordos; ut non dixit, secundum Aaron, ne et Salvatoris s(??)(??)(??)(??)- dotium successione haberi posse crederetur.","english":"To become the servant of this one is the height of honor and, as it were, a certain nobility surpassing the world. Therefore the Apostle also writes of his own glory: Paul, servant of Jesus Christ (Rom 1:1). You see how he became Lord, when even the one who had persecuted him confesses him as his Lord to his own greatest glory.\n\nII. But Jesus was made Lord not only according to the flesh, but also Christ. For in the name of Christ lie the mysteries of king and priest. We read in the Old Testament that among the Israelites priests and kings were consecrated by the anointing of oil, and for that reason they were called by this name. For what is said in Greek as Christus is rendered in Latin as anointed or smeared. But our Savior was truly made Christ according to the flesh, being truly King and truly Priest: the same one is both, lest anything be lacking in the Savior. Hear therefore that he was made king when he says: But I have been established as king by him over Zion, his holy mountain (Ps 2:6). Hear that he is also a priest, from the testimony of the Father who says: You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek (Ps 109:4). Aaron was the first in the law to be made priest by the anointing of chrism; so it did not say \"according to Aaron,\" lest the Savior's priesthood be believed to be able to be held by succession.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":74,"ref":"p74","source":"Illud enim sacerdotium quod fuit in Aaron, successione constabat: sacerdotium vero Salvatoris non in alterum successione transfertur, eo quod ipse sacerdos jugiter perseveret, secundum quod scriptum est: Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Est ergo Salvator secundum carnem, et Rex et Sacerdos, sed non corporaliter unctas, sed spirilualiter. Illi enim apud Israelitas reges et sacerdotes olei unctione corporaliter uncti, reges erant et sacerdotes; non utrumque unus, sed singuli quoque eorum aut rex erat aut sacerdos: soli enim Christo perfectio in omnibus et plenitudo debetur, qui et legem venerat adimplere. Sed licet non utrumque singuli eorum essent, tamen regali aut sacerdotali oleo uncti corporaliter christi vocabantur. Salvator autem qui vere Christus est, Spiritu sancto unctus est, ut adimpleretur quod de eo scriptum est: Propterea unxit te, Deus, Deus tuus oleo laetitiae prae consortibus tuis (Psal. XLIV, 8). In hoc enim plus quam consortes istius nominis unctus est, cum est unctus oleo laetitiae, quo non aliud significatur, quam Spiritus sanctas.","english":"For that priesthood which was in Aaron stood by succession; but the priesthood of the Savior is not transferred to another by succession, in that he himself perseveres as priest continually, according as it is written: You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. Therefore the Savior according to the flesh is both King and Priest, but not anointed bodily, rather spiritually. For those kings and priests among the Israelites who were anointed bodily with the anointing of oil were kings and priests; not one man both, but each of them individually was either a king or a priest: for to Christ alone is due perfection in all things and fullness, who also had come to fulfill the law. But although each of them was not both, yet being anointed bodily with the royal or priestly oil they were called christs. But the Savior, who is truly Christ, was anointed with the Holy Spirit, that there might be fulfilled what was written of him: Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your companions (Ps 44:8). For in this he was anointed more than the companions of this name, in that he was anointed with the oil of gladness, by which nothing other is signified than the Holy Spirit.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":75,"ref":"p75","source":"III. Hoc verum esse, ab ipso Salvatore cognoscimus. Nam cum accepisset librum Esaiae, et legisset, Spiritus Domini super me, propter quod unxit me (Luc. IV, 18), adimpletam tunc dixit prophetiam in auribus auditorum. Sed et Petrus princeps Apostolorum illud chrisma unde Salvator Christus ostenditur, docuit esse Spiritum sanctum, id ipsum et virtutem Dei, quando in Actibus Apostolorum ad fidelissimum et misericordem (Cornelium) qui erat tunc Centurio, loquebatur. Nam inter caetera ait: Incipiens a Galilaea poti baptismum quod praedicavit Joannes, Jesum Nazareth, quem unxit Deus Spiritu sancto et virtute, hic circuivit faciens virtutes et magnalia, atque omnes liberans obsessos a diabolo (Act. X, 37,38). Vides quia et Petrus dixit hunc Jesum secundum carnem unctum esse Spiritu sancto et virtute. Unde et vere ipse Jesus secundum carnem factus est Christus: qui unctione sancti Spiritus et rex factus est et sacerdos in aeternum.","english":"III. We learn from the Savior himself that this is true. For when he had received the book of Isaiah and had read, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me, he then said that the prophecy was fulfilled in the hearing of his listeners. But Peter also, the chief of the Apostles, taught that that chrism by which the Savior is shown to be Christ is the Holy Spirit, and the very power of God, when in the Acts of the Apostles he spoke to the most faithful and merciful Cornelius, who was then a centurion. For among other things he said: Beginning from Galilee after the baptism which John preached, Jesus of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit and power, this one went about doing mighty works and great wonders, and freeing all who were possessed by the devil. You see that Peter also said that this Jesus according to the flesh was anointed with the Holy Spirit and power. Hence also truly Jesus himself according to the flesh was made Christ: who by the anointing of the Holy Spirit was made both king and priest forever.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":76,"ref":"p76","source":"Haec autem ideo prosecutus sum, ut liquido appareat Jesum filium Dei non secundum quod est Verbum et sapientia Dei, crucifixum, vel factum esse Dominum et Christum; sed secundum hoc quod assumpsit de Maria: quamvis per assumpti hominis passionem, et unigenitum filium Dei passum esse dicamus; non quia vere ipse unigenitus filius, qua est Verbum et sapientia Dei, passus est, sed quia quidquid in assumptum hominem ejus injuriae vel passionis illatum est, id totum ad ipsum unigenitum impassibilem Deum quadam ratione revocatur. Unde et apostolus Paulus scribens ad Corinthios ait: Si enim cognovissent (I Cor. II, 8), scilicet principes hujus saeculi, numquam Dominum majestatis crucifixissent. Si ista manifesta sunt, apparet jam quomodo dictum sit, Certissime itaque sciat omnis Israel, quia et Dominum illum et Christum Deus fecit, hunc scilicet Jesum quem vos crucifixistis; quem et idem Petrus supra virum nominavit dicens: Viri Israelitae audite verba haec: Jesum Nazarenum, virum a Deo probatum in vobis virtutibus et prodigiis et signis (Act. II, 22); hunc scilicet Jesum Christum, quem et Paulus hominem dixit scribens ad Timotheum: Unus Deus, unus et mediator Dei et hominum, homo Jesus Christus (I Tim. II, 5). Qui et dicebat in Evangelio: Nunc autem quaeritis me occidere, hominem qui veritatem locutus sum vobis (Joan. VIII, 40).","english":"I have set this out for the reason that it may be plainly evident that Jesus the Son of God was not crucified, nor made Lord and Christ, according to that which he is—the Word and Wisdom of God—but according to that which he assumed from Mary; although through the passion of the man he assumed we say that the only-begotten Son of God suffered—not because the only-begotten Son himself, insofar as he is the Word and Wisdom of God, truly suffered, but because whatever injury or suffering was inflicted upon the man he assumed is, by a certain reckoning, wholly referred to the only-begotten God himself, who is incapable of suffering. Hence also the apostle Paul, writing to the Corinthians, says: For if they had known, that is, the princes of this age, they would never have crucified the Lord of majesty. If these things are manifest, it is now clear how it was said: Let all Israel therefore know most assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus, namely, whom you crucified; whom the same Peter also called a man above, saying: Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God among you by powers and wonders and signs; this Jesus Christ, namely, whom Paul also called a man, writing to Timothy: There is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Jesus Christ. Who also said in the Gospel: But now you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth to you.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":77,"ref":"p77","source":"IV. Non pro impio Photino haec loquimur, qui nudum vult esse hominem sine Dei Verbi incarnatione, sed contra Arium antichristum recitamus, qui vult ipsum unigenitum filium, qui est Verbum et sapientia Dei, qua Deum, et non qua hominem crucifixam, et ipsum esse factum Dominum et Christum. Sed etsi durissima obstinatione contendunt dicentes de ipso Deo Verbo scriptum esse, quod Deus illum fecerit et Dominum et Christum; nec sic pertimescimus fiducia veritatis, ne forte per hoc quod scriptum est, Verbum Dei factura credatur. Fac enim Verbum Dei factum esse Dominum et Christum; quid hoc praejudicat ejus substantiae, qua semper est Verbum Dei? Intende enim quia non substantiam Verbi Dei dixit esse factam, sed hoc ipsum Verbum quod semper est filius Dei, factum esse Dominum et Christum. Non enim id ipsum est, hoc quod omnino non erat, fieri, et id quod erat, aliquid fieri. Nam et Deus fit aliquoties adjutor et protector, non tamen quia factus est adjutor et protector, jam etiam hoc quod Deus est, factus esse credendus est. Nam et Moyses postea quam divinum sensit auxilium et protectionem, de Deo qui (eum) contra Pharaonem adjuverat et protexerat, dixit: Adjutor, et protector factus est mihi in salutem (Exod. XVIII, 4); et multa simillima testimonia invenies, quae ego, ne multum adhuc prolongem, praetereo.","english":"IV. We do not say these things on behalf of the impious Photinus, who wishes the man to be bare, without the incarnation of the Word of God, but we recite them against Arius the antichrist, who wishes that the only-begotten Son himself, who is the Word and Wisdom of God, was crucified according to that which is God and not according to that which is man, and that he himself was made Lord and Christ. But even if with the hardest obstinacy they contend, saying that it was written of God the Word himself that God made him both Lord and Christ, not even so are we afraid, in confidence of the truth, lest perhaps through what is written the Word of God be believed to have been made. For suppose the Word of God was made Lord and Christ; what prejudice does this bring to his substance, by which he is always the Word of God? Consider, then, that he did not say the substance of the Word of God was made, but that this very Word, who is always the Son of God, was made Lord and Christ. For it is not the same thing to be made that which altogether was not, and for that which was to be made something. For God also becomes a helper and protector at times, yet not because he has been made a helper and protector is he therefore to be believed to have been made even this which he is, namely God. For Moses also, after he had felt the divine aid and protection, said of God who had helped and protected him against Pharaoh: He has become my helper and protector unto salvation (Exod. 18:4); and you will find many testimonies most like these, which I pass over, lest I prolong this further.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":78,"ref":"p78","source":"Si ergo cum Deus sit adjutor, et protector, non hoc quod Deus est, fieri creditur, sed hoc ipsum quod adjutor et protector esse designatur: quid est quod cum Verbum Dei factum esse Dominum et Christum dicant, putemus Dei Verbi substantiam factam? Numquid quia legimus, Et Verbum caro factum est, ideo ipsum quoque Verbum factam esse credendum est? Sed manifestissime expressum est, non taro Verbum dsse factum quod erat in principio apud Deum (Joan. I 3); sed ipsum Verbum quod semper erat, postea factum esse carnem, ut factura; non hoc, quod caro factum est. Ita ergo et cum dicitur Verbum Dei factum esse Dominum et Christum, non eam substantiam Verbi Dei faciam esse intelligendum est; sed quia Dominus et Christus factum est hoc ipsum Verbum, quod semper Deus erat.\n\nV. Fit autem Dominus eorum, qui se eidem mancipant proposito serviendi. Et da mihi veniam, beatissime Matthaee, si dixero, quod nondum tibi Christus Deus erat Dominus, quando adhuc telonio serviebas. Sed et Apostolis universis tunc primum Dominus factus est, quando derelictis omnibus eidem servire maluerunt. Ipsarum quoque gentium tunc Dominus factus est, quando idolorum vana superstitione derelicta, ipsae gentes se ejus dominio tradiderunt: in quantum enim quis peccati servus est vel mammonae, in lanium Dei servus esse non potest.","english":"If, therefore, when God is a helper and protector, he is not believed to have become that which God is, but rather that very thing which he is designated to be—helper and protector—what is it that, when they say the Word of God was made Lord and Christ, we should think the substance of the Word of God was made? Is it because we read, \"And the Word was made flesh,\" that therefore the Word itself must be believed to have been made? But it has been most plainly expressed that the Word was not made that which was in the beginning with God; rather, the Word itself, which always was, was afterward made flesh, so that it became a thing made, not that which was made flesh. In the same way, then, when it is said that the Word of God was made Lord and Christ, it must not be understood that the substance of the Word of God was made, but that this very Word, which was always God, was made Lord and Christ.\n\nV. But he becomes Lord of those who give themselves over to him with the purpose of serving. And grant me pardon, most blessed Matthew, if I say that Christ was not yet your Lord God when you were still serving the tax office. But he also first became Lord of all the apostles when, having left everything, they chose rather to serve him. He also became Lord of the nations themselves when, having abandoned the vain superstition of idols, those nations handed themselves over to his dominion; for insofar as anyone is a servant of sin or of mammon, to that extent he cannot be a servant of God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":79,"ref":"p79","source":"Cum ergo peccato et mammonae quis abrenuntiaverit, faciens justitiam habendique cupiditatem respuens; tunc Jesus Dominus ejus efficitur. Eadem quoque ratione cum etiam Christum fieri intelligitur: siquidem, ut supra dictum est, reges et sacerdotes Christi vocabulo taxabantur. Factus est ergo Salvator rex eorum, qui regno mortis ulterius non tenentur adsiricti; in quorum mortali corpore cessavit regnare peccatum, postea quam per divina magisteria didicerunt docentibus Apostolis: Non ergo regnet peccatum in vestro mortali corpore (Rom., VI, 12). Sed et cum fungitur pro nobis sacerdotis officio, Christus verissime factus est, maxime defensor et advocatus pro nobis semper assistens, interpellans quoque patrem, qua solus purissimus sacerdos; ut expiata labe delinquentiae, divina ejus propitiatione servemur. Per haec ergo, quod Jesus factus est Christus et Dominus, non tam substantiae ejus divinae aliquid confertur, quam prospectum est, quibus regni ejus et sacerdotii ac dominii potestas velut munus salutare collatum est. Non videtur absurdum, si illud similiter intelligas, quod ait: Ego autem constitutus sum rex ab eo supra Sion montem sanctum ejus (Psal. II, 6): etsi enim constitutus rex dicitur, tamen cum addidit, supra Sion montem sanctum ejus, ostenditur, quod non de illo regno ejus dicat quod habuit etiam ante quam constitueretur rex supra Sion montem sanctum ejus.","english":"When, therefore, anyone has renounced sin and mammon, doing righteousness and rejecting the desire to possess, then Jesus becomes his Lord. By the same reasoning it is also understood that he becomes Christ, since, as was said above, kings and priests were designated by the name of Christ. The Savior, then, has become their king—those who are no longer held bound by the kingdom of death, in whose mortal body sin has ceased to reign, after they learned through divine teachings, with the Apostles teaching: Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body (Rom 6:12). But also, when he performs the office of priest for us, he has most truly become Christ, especially as our defender and advocate, always standing by for us and interceding with the Father as the only most pure priest, so that, with the stain of sin expiated, we may be saved by his divine propitiation. Through these things, therefore—that Jesus has become Christ and Lord—nothing is so much conferred upon his divine substance as provision is made for those to whom the power of his kingdom, priesthood, and lordship has been granted as a saving gift. It does not seem absurd if you understand similarly what he says: But I have been appointed king by him over his holy mount Zion (Ps 2:6). For although he is said to have been appointed king, yet when he adds, over his holy mount Zion, it is shown that he is not speaking of that kingdom of his which he had even before he was appointed king over his holy mount Zion.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":80,"ref":"p80","source":"Rex enim est ante omnia aera aevorum, continens (potestate sua omnem quam condidit, creaturam; unde et omnipotens) approbatur, quod possit omnia continere quae facta sunt.\n\nCAPUT VI.\n\nDe hoc quod Salomon: DOMINUS CREAVIT ME INITIUM VIARUM SUARUM IN OPERA SUA.\n\nI. Tangamus el illam in ultimo quaestionem, quam inter ceteras addidisti: Dominus, inquit, creavit me initium viarum suarum in opera sua (Prov. VIII, 22). Dicit haereticus: Vides creaturam esse sapientiam, quae utique interprete Paulo apostolo Christus est. Ergo Christus, inquit, qui est sapientia, non est verus filius, sed creatura factus adoptione exsistens filius. Hoc venenum Arianorum est. Sed o quam caeca impietas ad id videre, quod pium est! Jam semel quia, ut scriptum est, Oderunt sapientiam Do- mini et verbum non assumpserunt (Baruch. III), nihil in illa sincerissimi decoris aspiciunt: sicut et lippientibus oculis nulla est visio veritatis, quandoquidem aliter eorum renuntiat aspectus, quam in fide rerum est; sed et cui saporem proprium redundans sui fellis amaritudo vitiavit, si dulcia mella degustet, ut amaram dulcedinem mellis infamat, non recognoscens malum propriae amaritudinis. Sed, o miser haeretice, quid potes veri luminis videre, cum caecutias vel ambules in viis tenebrarum, omnia quae sunt impietatis excogitans?","english":"For he is King before all the ages of ages, containing in his own power every creature that he has made; hence he is also shown to be almighty, because he can contain all things that have been made.\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nConcerning what Solomon says: THE LORD CREATED ME AS THE BEGINNING OF HIS WAYS IN HIS WORKS.\n\nI. Let us also touch at the last that question which you added among the others: The Lord, it says, created me as the beginning of his ways in his works (Prov. 8:22). The heretic says: You see that Wisdom is a creature, which, according to the interpretation of the apostle Paul, is certainly Christ. Therefore Christ, he says, who is Wisdom, is not a true Son, but a creature, existing as a son by adoption. This is the poison of the Arians. But O how blind is impiety to see what is pious! For once, because, as it is written, They hated the wisdom of the Lord and did not receive his word (Baruch 3), they see nothing in that most sincere beauty; just as there is no vision of truth for bleary eyes, since their sight reports otherwise than the reality of things is in faith; but also for one whose taste its own overflowing bitterness of gall has corrupted, if he tastes sweet honey, he defames the sweetness of the honey as bitter, not recognizing the evil of his own bitterness. But, O wretched heretic, what of the true light can you see, when you are blind or walk in the ways of darkness, devising all things that belong to impiety?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":81,"ref":"p81","source":"Clamet licet vir ille spiritualis suavissimo experimento divinae epulationis invitans: Gustate, et videte quam suavis est Dominus (Psal. XXXIII, 9): sed tibi, si gustaveris, nihil suave sentitur iu Domino, eo quod, sicut scriptum est, venenum aspidum sub labiis tuis est, eo quod os tuum maledictione et amaritudine plenum est (Psal. XIII, 3). Denique cum infinita et ipse Salomon de Dei sapientia praedicaverit, et ita divine de ea fuerit prosecutus, ut non aliud in illa crederetur, quam quod in natura Dei est: in illis omnibus haereticus caecutiens hoc solum videre se credidit, per quod probaret eam esse creaturam. Sed scriptum est, inquit, Dominus creavit me initium viarum suarum in opera sua. Sed nos non ibimus longius, neque de aliis libris Salomonis, quae sunt pro sempiterna Dei sapientia, proferemus. Sufficit nunc, si de hoc ipso loco unde testimonium protulit, pars diversa superetur.","english":"Let that spiritual man cry out as he invites with the sweetest experience of the divine banquet: Taste, and see how sweet the Lord is (Ps. 33:9); but to you, if you have tasted, nothing is felt as sweet in the Lord, because, as it is written, the poison of asps is under your lips, because your mouth is full of cursing and bitterness (Ps. 13:3). Finally, although Solomon himself also proclaimed countless things about the wisdom of God, and treated of it so divinely that nothing else was believed to be in it than what is in the nature of God, yet the heretic, blinded in all those things, believed that he saw only this one thing, by which he might prove that it is a creature. But it is written, he says: The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways in his works. But we shall not go further, nor shall we bring forward testimonies from the other books of Solomon, which are for the eternal wisdom of God. It is enough now if, from this very passage from which he brought forward his testimony, the opposing party is overcome.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":82,"ref":"p82","source":"II. Ais, haeretice, scriptum: Dominus creavit me initium viarum tuarum in opera sua: sed intende quia haec ipsa sapientia nihilominus ait: Ante omnes autem colles genuit me (Psal. VIII, 25). Quomodo ergo haec Ipsa sapientia in eodem loco et creatam se esse dicit, et genitam? Prius est, ut videamus, quid primum sit: utrum quod genita est, au quod creata est. Sed licet primum dixerit: Dominus creavit me initium viarum suarum in opera sua; tamen, ne se creaturam putares, recurrit ad illud quod prius est, in sequenti dicens: Ante omnes autem colles genuit me. Vide enim ne putes postea genitam, quia primum praemiserit se creatam. Etsi enim in ordine sermonum primum positum est quod creata est, deinde autem quod genita; tamen sensus hoc judicat, quod primum est genita, quam creata, ut sit sensus ita sapientiae dicentis: Dominus creavit me initium viarum suarum in opera sua. Sed ne quis me putet per hoc esse creaturam, aut tunc primum esse coepisse, quando me creavit initium viarum suarum in opera sua, subsequor et dico: Ante omnes autem colles genuit me; ut scias prius me genitam, quam creatam. Cum enim dicit: Ante omnes autem colles genuit me, fecit illud esse postea quod creata est, ut praecedat et sit anterius illud, quod genita est.","english":"II. You say, heretic, that it is written: The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works; but consider that this same Wisdom nonetheless says: But before all the hills he begot me. How, then, does this same Wisdom in the same place say both that she was created and that she was begotten? We must first see which is first: whether that she was begotten, or that she was created. For although she said first: The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works, yet, lest you think her a creature, she returns to that which is prior, saying next: But before all the hills he begot me. For see that you do not think she was begotten afterward, because she first set down that she was created. For even if in the order of the words what was created is placed first, and then what was begotten, nevertheless the sense judges this: that she was begotten before she was created, so that the meaning is as Wisdom says: The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works. But lest anyone think that by this I am a creature, or that I then first began to be when he created me as the beginning of his ways for his works, I follow on and say: But before all the hills he begot me; so that you may know that I was begotten before I was created. For when she says: But before all the hills he begot me, she made that which was created to be afterward, so that that which was begotten may precede and be earlier.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":83,"ref":"p83","source":"Si ergo sic creata est, ut ante fuerit genita; semus impietatis exclusus est,4 qua eam dixerat creatam; ut tunc primum substitisse sapientia crederetur, quando et retulit se creatam a Domino initium viarum suarum in opera sua. Ecce enim sensus manifestat, etiam ante quam crearetur, sapientiam substitisse, quippe quae prius est genita, quam creata.\n\nIII. Sed magis commendabitur hic sensus catholicus, si et ipsa verba, prout nobis possibile est, discutiantur, quibus vel genitam se referat sapientia vel creatam. Dominus, inquit, creavit me initium viarum suarum in opera sua. Intende, quia cum dixerit: Dominus creavit me, non tacuit, ne vere creatura putaretur, sed prosequitur explanans quid sit creata, et ob quam causam sit Creata. Ait enim, creavit me initium viarum suarum: et cum sequitur, in opera sua, palam est, quod ostendit et causas cur creata sit initium viarum Domini. Non ergo sapientia, quasi quae non esset, creata est ad hoc ut esset; sed cum semper substantialiter fuerit, tunc creata est secundum dispensationem initium viarum Domini, et iri opera Domini creata est. Initium ergo viarum Domini creata est, et in opera Domini creata est sapientia: non tamen, quia substantialiter ante non erat, ideo creata est sapientia.","english":"If, then, she was created in such a way that she was begotten beforehand, the sense of impiety is excluded, by which he had said that she was created—so that Wisdom would be believed to have first come into being only when she also declared herself created by the Lord as the beginning of his ways for his works. For behold, the meaning makes clear that even before she was created, Wisdom already existed, inasmuch as she was begotten before she was created.\n\nIII. But this catholic understanding will be commended all the more if the very words themselves, as far as is possible for us, are examined—the words by which Wisdom declares herself either begotten or created. The Lord, it says, created me as the beginning of his ways for his works. Consider that when he had said, The Lord created me, he did not keep silent, lest she be thought to be truly a creature, but he continues, explaining what it is that was created, and for what cause she was created. For he says, he created me as the beginning of his ways; and when he adds, for his works, it is plain that he also shows the reasons why she was created as the beginning of the Lord's ways. Therefore Wisdom was not created as though she did not exist, for the purpose of coming to be; but since she had always existed substantially, she was then created according to the dispensation as the beginning of the Lord's ways, and she was created for the works of the Lord. Therefore she was created as the beginning of the Lord's ways, and Wisdom was created for the works of the Lord; yet not because she did not exist substantially beforehand was Wisdom therefore created.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":84,"ref":"p84","source":"At vero cum dicit se ante omnes colles genitam, non propter (aliquam rem dicit se esse genitam; sed exsistens semper) patris sempiterna progenies, ob quasdam causas creatam se dicit, initium viarum Domini, id est, in opera Domini. Ergo et ex hoc manifestum est non esse creaturam sapientiam, quae in aliud creata est, id est, in opera Domini; cum ipsa sit genita, non in opera, sed de patre, ut diximus, exsistens sempiterna progenies.\n\nIV. Sed et boc intendendum est, quod aliud est dicere creari sapientiam, et aliud est dicere quod sit creatura. Quamvis enim legatur creata esse sapientia, nusquam tamen legitur quod sit creatura. Non enim omne quod creatum est, jam creatura dicendum est, licet omnis creatura creata sit: sicut nec omne quod factum est, jam factura asseveranda est, licet omnis factura facta sit. Si videtur obscurum, exemplo dilucidabo. Legimus quemdam gratulari, ac dicere ad Deum: Ego autem cantabo virtutem tuam, exaltato mane misericordiam tuam, quia factus es susceptor meus, et refugium meum in die tribulationis meae (Psal. LVIII, 17). Ecce Deus factus est susceptor et refugium; non tamen Deus factura est: et hoc est, quod dixi: Non omne quod factum est, jam factura dicendam est.","english":"But when she says that she was begotten before all the hills, she does not say that she was begotten for the sake of something; rather, being always the eternal offspring of the Father, she says that she was created for certain causes, as the beginning of the ways of the Lord, that is, in the works of the Lord. Therefore from this too it is manifest that Wisdom is not a creature, since she was created for something else, that is, for the works of the Lord; whereas she herself was begotten, not for works, but from the Father, as we have said, being the eternal offspring.\n\nIV. But this also must be considered, that it is one thing to say that Wisdom is created, and another to say that she is a creature. For although it is read that Wisdom was created, nowhere nevertheless is it read that she is a creature. For not everything that has been created is already to be called a creature, although every creature has been created; just as not everything that has been made is already to be asserted to be a making, although every making has been made. If this seems obscure, I will clarify it with an example. We read that a certain man rejoiced and said to God: But I will sing of your strength, and in the morning I will extol your mercy, because you have been made my supporter and my refuge in the day of my tribulation. Behold, God has been made a supporter and a refuge; yet God is not a making: and this is what I said: not everything that has been made is already to be called a making.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":85,"ref":"p85","source":"Deus enim non exsistens factura, qui semper est, factus est susceptor et refugium in die tribulationis homini; nt quod factus est susceptor et refugium in die tribulationis homini, videatur contulisse, quod fictus est; non tamen quia susceptor et refugium homini factus est, etiam Deus quoque factura esse credendus est, cujus divina substantia sempiterna est. Similiter et sapientia si creata dicacur, non tamen creatura est, quae semper est: sed cum exsistat semper, creatur ad aliquid ut prosit, non ut creatura dicatur quasi facta, quae non fuit. Erat enim inseparabilis a Deo Dei sapientia: et haec ipsa exsistens Dei sempiterna progenies, creata est initium viarum Domini.\n\nV. Sed adhuc apertius edisseram. Certe sapientia Dei ipsa est, qua; et Verbum esse scribitur, ut iu superioribus ostensum est. Et numquid quia de Verbo Dei scriptum est: Et Verbum caro factum est, jam et Verbum facturam asseveramus, quasi tunc primum esse coeperit, cum caro factum est? Sed bene, quia apertissime demonstratum est per Verbum omnia facta, et in ultimis temporibus hoc ipsum Verbum carnem factum. Non ergo factura est Verbum Dei, licet facium caro esse dicatur: ita et sapientia licet dicatur creata esse initium viarum et in opera (ejus), non tamen creatura est; quam constat ante omnem esse creaturam, quandoquidem omnia in sapientia facta sint (Psal. CIII, 24).","english":"For God, who does not exist as a creature but always is, was made a helper and refuge for man in the day of tribulation; so that what he conferred, in that he was made a helper and refuge for man in the day of tribulation, might be seen as what he was formed to be; yet not because he was made a helper and refuge for man should God also be believed to be a creature, whose divine substance is eternal. Likewise, even if wisdom is said to be created, it is not a creature, since it always is; but since it always exists, it is created for something, that it may benefit, not that it be called a creature as though made, which it was not. For the wisdom of God was inseparable from God; and this same eternal offspring of God, existing, was created the beginning of the ways of the Lord.\n\nV. But let me explain still more openly. Surely it is the very wisdom of God by which he is also written to be the Word, as was shown in the earlier passages. And is it the case that, because it is written of the Word of God, \"And the Word was made flesh,\" we now assert that the Word is also a creature, as though it then first began to be when it was made flesh? But rightly so, because it has been most openly demonstrated that all things were made through the Word, and in the last times this very Word was made flesh. Therefore the Word of God is not a creature, although it is said to be made flesh; so too wisdom, although it is said to have been created the beginning of the ways and in his works, is nevertheless not a creature, since it is established that it exists before every creature, inasmuch as all things were made in wisdom.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":86,"ref":"p86","source":"Addo et hoc, quia non omne quod creari dicitur, quasi fiat in substantia, intelligendum est. Denique quidam vir videns cor suum quibusdam sordibus infectum, precem fundit ad Dominum dicens: Cor mundum crea in me, Deus (Psal. L, 12): non utique cordis substantiam in se fieri precabatur, sed ut hoc ipsum cor in eo exsistens, quod ei erat sordidum, creari mundum. Non omne quod creari dicitur, jam statim et secundum substantiam fieri intelligendum est: quandoquidem cor quod erat, id ipsum, ut mundum crearetur a Domino, precabatur. Ergo et sapientia cum creata dicitur, non tam substantia ejus, quasi quae non erat, facta est; sed ipsa exsistens, ut saepius dictum est, creata est initium viarum in opera ejus, Ergo quod creata est sapientia, ad mysterium vel rerum creandarum vel humanae dispensationis intellige, quam cum Dei sapientia dignanter assumit, creata dicitur: quod vero se genitam dicit, ut nihil in illa minus divinitatis agnoscas, quam habet ille qui genuit. Valde enim impium est credere, quod aliquando Deus sine sua fuerit sapientia. Unde et quia vere genita est a Deo sapientia, (idem) exsistens secundum substantiam quod esi genitor; sapientia autem ipsa Christus est (I Cor., I, 24): ergo Christus qui est sapientia, non est adoptione filius, sed verus filius, exsistens Dei progenies, et non factura.","english":"I add this also, that not everything which is said to be created is to be understood as though it were made in its substance. For a certain man, seeing his heart stained with certain filths, pours out a prayer to the Lord, saying: Create a clean heart in me, O God (Ps. 50:12): he was certainly not praying that the substance of his heart be made in him, but that this very heart existing in him, which was filthy to him, be created clean. Not everything which is said to be created is immediately to be understood as also being made according to substance; since the heart which existed, that very heart he was praying might be created clean by the Lord. Therefore also when Wisdom is said to be created, it is not so much that her substance was made, as though she had not existed; but she herself existing, as has been said rather often, was created the beginning of his ways in his works. Therefore, that Wisdom was created, understand with reference to the mystery either of things to be created or of the human dispensation, which when the Wisdom of God worthily assumes, she is said to be created; but that she says she was begotten, so that you may recognize nothing in her to be less of divinity than he who begot has. For it is very impious to believe that God was ever without his Wisdom. Hence also, because Wisdom was truly begotten of God, she exists according to substance as that which her begetter is; but Wisdom herself is Christ (1 Cor. 1:24): therefore Christ, who is Wisdom, is not a son by adoption, but a true Son, existing as the offspring of God, and not a creature.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":87,"ref":"p87","source":"CAPUT VII.\n\nDe Spiritu sancto.\n\nI. Universas quas de Patre et Filio scripseras quaestiones, prout Dei gratia praestitit, arbitror absolutas: si tamen hoc apud te verum est, tua religiosa prodentia judicabit: quamvis fatear et coarctatione temporis, et rei festinatione, et ipso arido angusti mei sermonis eloquio, summas earum me potius tetigisse quam plenitudinem prosecutum; quia non ut librum, sicut praedixi, scribere coeperam, sed ut quasi cujusdam abbreviationis de fide quaedam taxatio signaretur; ne ad hoc me tua mira benevolentia provocatum infidelem crederes, si tacerem. Sed nunc de sancto Spiritu, etsi breviter, confitendum est: ne si non aliquid de eo specialiter dixerimus, credamur similiter blasphemare, sicuti et illi qui dicunt illum esse creaturam. Horum tamen miramur insaniam, quod impie sentiant de eo quem sanctum Spiritum confitentur. Si enim Spiritus sanctus est, quomodo creatura est? non enim sic sanctus est, ut caeteri, qui ad sancti vocabulum fide et Deo placita conversatione atque ipsius sancti Spiritus signatione venerunt: sed ipse naturaliter semper sanctus est ita, ut alios sanctificet, non tamen ut ipse, quasi ita qui ante non habuerit, extrinsecus acceperit sanctitatem. Hoc nomen sancti ita possidet Spiritus, ut possidet Pater et Filius: possidet autem, non ipse aut Pater exsistens aut Filius, sed Spiritus Dei.","english":"CHAPTER VII.\n\nOn the Holy Spirit.\n\nI. All the questions which you had written concerning the Father and the Son, I believe have been settled, as far as the grace of God has granted: if nevertheless this is true with you, your religious prudence will judge: although I confess that, both from the constraint of time and from the haste of the matter, and from the very dry eloquence of my narrow speech, I have rather touched the headings of them than pursued their fullness; because I had not begun, as I said before, to write a book, but so that, as it were, a certain assessment of the faith in the manner of a summary might be marked out; lest you should believe me unfaithful, provoked to this by your wonderful benevolence, if I were silent. But now concerning the Holy Spirit, even if briefly, it must be confessed: lest, if we have not said anything about him specifically, we be believed to blaspheme in like manner, just as those also who say that he is a creature. Yet we marvel at their madness, that they think impiously concerning him whom they confess to be the Holy Spirit. For if he is the Holy Spirit, how is he a creature? For he is not holy in the way the others are, who have come to the title of \"holy\" by faith and by a conversation pleasing to God and by the sealing of the Holy Spirit himself: but he himself is naturally always holy in such a way that he sanctifies others, yet not as if he himself, as one who did not have it before, received holiness from outside. The Spirit possesses this name of \"holy\" in such a way as the Father and the Son possess it: he possesses it, however, not himself being either the Father or the Son, but the Spirit of God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":88,"ref":"p88","source":"Si autem Spiritus Dei dicitur, non ul angelus Dei, neque ut homo Dei, quorum natura a divina substantia inaestimabiliter discreta est: sed sic est Spiritus Dei, ut sit ejusdem substantiae cum Patre et Filio: quia et una sanctitas est Patris et Filii el Spiritus sancti: quandoquidem idem Spiritus sanctus usque adeo vere et naturaliter sanctus est, ut hoc ei naturaliter et verum sit vocabulum. Intende enim ad verba Salvatoris dicentis: Euntes ergo nunc, docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti (Matth., XXVIII, 19). Sicut enim verum vocabulum est Patris, et verum vocabulum Filii est; Ita verum est vocabulum Spiritus sancit. Et quomodo verum vocabulum Patris dicatur, Scire poterimus, si animadvertamus quomodo verus Deus dicatur.\n\nII. Multi dicuntur dii, sed non sunt vere dii; et taceo nunc de satana ac daemoniis eorumque similibus, qui usurpatione impia dii vocantur. Dicti sunt quidem et homines dii secundum hoc testimonium: Ego dixi: dii estis, et filii Excelsi omnes (Psal.","english":"But if he is called the Spirit of God, not as an angel of God, nor as a man of God, whose nature is inestimably distinct from the divine substance, but he is the Spirit of God in such a way as to be of the same substance with the Father and the Son; because there is also one holiness of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: since indeed the same Holy Spirit is truly and naturally holy to such a degree that this name is naturally and truly his. For attend to the words of the Savior when he says: Go therefore now, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). For just as the name of the Father is true, and the name of the Son is true, so the name of the Holy Spirit is true. And how the name of the Father is said to be true, we shall be able to know if we consider how he is said to be true God.\n\nII. Many are called gods, but they are not truly gods; and I now pass over in silence Satan and the demons and those like them, who are called gods by impious usurpation. Indeed, men too have been called gods according to this testimony: I said: You are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High (Ps.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":89,"ref":"p89","source":"LXXXI, 6): sed quam non vere sim dii, subsequentia manifestant, quae ita se habent: Vos autem sicut homines moriemini, et sicut unus de principibus cadetis (Ibid., 7) Si ergo ubi quilibet sancti, dii vocantur; hoc illis pie et cum justitia viventibus ex Dei gratia provenit, maxime cum in eis Spiritus sanctus inhabitet; de quo quidem vocabulo excidunt, si non ambulare in viis Domini perseverent: nemo ergo de creaturis verus est Deus, quia nemo naturaliter Deus est. Solus autem Deus naturaliter verus Deus est, hoc ipsum exsistens sine initio et fine. Per hanc nunc veri Dei intelligentiam intelligamus et verum vocabulum patris. Apud homines exinde pater quis dicitur, ex quo genuit filium: Sed licet ex se genuerit filium, tamen non proprie verus est pater, cui accessit hoc vocabulum, et hoc ipsum a Deo praestitum: qui quidem et tam diu pater dicitur, quam diu ejus vivit filius. Sicut enim nato ex se filio vocabulum patris adeptus est, ita et morte filii vocabulum patris amittit. Deus autem solus proprie verus est Pater, qui sine initio et flue Patet est. Non enim aliquando coepit esse quod Pater est; sed semper Pater est, semper habens Filium ex se genitum; sicut et semper verus est Deus, sine initio et fine perseverans. Ergo sicut vocabulum veri Dei solus obtinet, qui sine initio et Ane solos Pater vocatur; ita intelligamus et verum vocabulum Filii Dei.","english":"But how truly they are not gods, the following words make manifest, which stand thus: But you shall die like men, and shall fall like one of the princes. If therefore wherever any saints are, they are called gods, this comes to them by the grace of God, living piously and with justice, especially since the Holy Spirit dwells in them; but from this word they fall away, if they do not persevere in walking in the ways of the Lord. No one therefore among creatures is truly God, because no one is God by nature. But God alone is by nature truly God, existing as this very thing without beginning and end. Through this understanding of the true God, let us now understand also the true title of Father. Among men, one is called father from the time he begot a son; but although he has begotten a son from himself, he is not properly a true father, to whom this title has accrued, and this itself bestowed by God; who indeed is called father only as long as his son lives. For just as by a son born from himself he has obtained the title of father, so also by the death of the son he loses the title of father. But God alone is properly the true Father, who is Father without beginning and without end. For he did not at some point begin to be what he is, Father; but he is always Father, always having a Son begotten from himself; just as he is also always truly God, persevering without beginning and end. Therefore, just as he alone obtains the title of true God, who without beginning and end is alone called Father, so let us understand also the true title of the Son of God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":90,"ref":"p90","source":"Apud homines enim qui filius est; coepit esse quod filius est, et morte patris amittit boc vocabulum. Frequenter autem et de filii vocabulo transit in vocabulum patris, cum genuerit filium: non est ergo proprium et verum vocabulum filii in creatura, qui et esse coepit filius, et potest hoc vocabulum/ion habere vel patris occasu, vel cum idem ipse transfertur in vocabulum patris, etiam ante quam conditio mortis obveniat. Solus aulem Filius Dei verus est filius, exsistens hoc sine initio, sine fine, semper habens Patrem, et numquam ipse, ut est unigenitus, generatis accipit vocabulum patris. Unde et proprium et verum vocabulum filii in solo Filio Dei est, habens hoc naturaliter, sicut et naturaliter verus Deus est. Si ergo cognovimus quomodo proprium et verum vocabulum patris est, et quomodo proprium et verum vocabulum filii est; sequitur, ut intelligamus ita, quomodo proprium et verum vocabulum est Spiritus sancti.","english":"For among men, he who is a son begins to be what a son is, and by the death of his father he loses this title. Frequently, too, he passes from the title of son to the title of father, when he has begotten a son. Therefore the title of son is not proper and true in the case of a creature, since it both began to be a son and can have this title either by the death of a father, or when the same one is transferred to the title of father, even before the condition of death comes upon him. But the Son of God alone is a true son, existing as this without beginning, without end, always having the Father, and never himself, as he is only-begotten, receives the title of father from those begotten. Hence the proper and true title of son is in the Son of God alone, having this naturally, just as he is naturally true God. If therefore we have understood how the proper and true title of father belongs, and how the proper and true title of son belongs, it follows that we understand in this way how the proper and true title belongs to the Holy Spirit.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":91,"ref":"p91","source":"III. Scilicet cum hoc ipsum est naturaliter Spiritus sanctas, sine initio, sine fine; numquam enim ex aequa nominis auctoritate cum Patris et Filii veris vocabulis sancti Spiritus vocabulum jungeretur; si non et sancti Spiritus proprium verumque vocabulum probaretur. Si ergo hoc ei proprium et verum et naturaliter, sine initio et tine vocabulum est; non est igitur creatura Spiritus sanctus, qui ita proprium et verum vocabulum sancti Spiritus habet, sicut nulla potest habere creatura. Sed et cum praecipit Dominus, ut gentes in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti baptizentur; apertissimum est Spiritum sanctum non esse creaturam, vel ex ipsa societate quae illi una cum Parte et Filio est; vel quod numquam praeciperet Dominiis, ut in creaturae nomine aliquis baptizaretur: multum enim divinae potentiae derogaretur, si cum confessione divini nominis par quoque creaturae confessio poneretur. Et bene, quod unum nomen posuit dicens: In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti; ut una principalis auctoritas crederetur indivisibilia et perfectae Trinitatis. Quomodo enim Spiritus sanctos a principali auctoritate discretus esse credatur, quando de ipso scriptum legimus in quinquagesimo Psalmo: Et spiritu principali confirma me (Psal. L, 14)?","english":"III. Of course, since this very thing is naturally the Holy Spirit, without beginning, without end; for never would the name of the Holy Spirit be joined with the true names of the Father and the Son from an equal authority of the name, unless the proper and true name of the Holy Spirit were also proven. If therefore this is his proper and true and natural name, without beginning and without end, then the Holy Spirit is not a creature, who has the proper and true name of the Holy Spirit in such a way as no creature can have. But also, when the Lord commands that the nations be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, it is most evident that the Holy Spirit is not a creature, either from that very fellowship which he has together with the Father and the Son, or because the Lord would never command that anyone be baptized in the name of a creature; for great injury would be done to the divine power if, along with the confession of the divine name, an equal confession of a creature were also placed. And rightly did he set down one name, saying: In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; so that the one principal authority of the indivisible and perfect Trinity might be believed. For how is the Holy Spirit believed to be separated from the principal authority, when we read written of him in the fiftieth Psalm: And strengthen me with a principal spirit (Ps. 50:14)?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":92,"ref":"p92","source":"Ergo et per boc ostenditur, quod una est principalitas Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti: siquidem et in omni conditione Patri et Filio consors invenitur. Accipe inierim vel unum testimonium: Verbo Domini coeli firmati sunt, et Spiritu oris ejus omnis virtus eorum (Psal. XXXII, 6). Et per boc ergo ostenditur Spiritum sanctum non esse creaturam; siquidem et ipse cum Patre et Filio conditor approbatur. Dicam plene et Deum, et Dominum Spiritum sanctum, doctus a majoribus ecclesiasticis viris, qui et ipsi testimonia Scripturarum divinarum prius a vieris apostolis eruditi, suis posteris tradiderunt. Exsequerer et ego singula illa quaeque testimonia, nisi apud animam fidelem de his quoque quae supra breviter intimata sunt, sancti Spiritus divinitas eluceret: maxime quia et nunc mihi non tam disputatio de Spiritu sancto proposita est, quam ut de divino ejus nomine pia confessio signaretur. Hoc tamen ad compendium probandae divinitatis ejus subdam, quod etiam per hoc ipsum Deus probatur Spiritus sanctus, per quod ostenditur nou esse creatura. Omne enim quod est, aut divinitas est. aut creatura: sed Spiritus sanctus hoc ipsum exsistens, sine initio et fine, non est creatura: ergo Spiritus sanctus res est divinitatis, quia incorruptibilis et indemutabilis et sempiternus Spiritus Dei.","english":"Therefore by this it is also shown that there is one principality of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, since indeed in every act of creation the Spirit is found as sharer with the Father and the Son. Hear now even one testimony: By the word of the Lord the heavens were established, and by the Spirit of his mouth all their power. And by this, therefore, it is shown that the Holy Spirit is not a creature, since he himself is approved as creator together with the Father and the Son. I will declare fully that the Holy Spirit is both God and Lord, taught by the great men of the church, who themselves, first instructed in the testimonies of the divine Scriptures by the true apostles, handed them down to their successors. I too would set forth each and every one of those testimonies, were not the divinity of the Holy Spirit already shining forth in a faithful soul from those things also which have been briefly touched upon above, especially since at present the task set before me is not so much a disputation concerning the Holy Spirit as that a pious confession concerning his divine name be set forth. Nevertheless, to the end of proving his divinity, I shall add this briefly, that the Holy Spirit is shown to be God even by that very fact by which he is shown not to be a creature. For everything that exists is either divinity or a creature; but the Holy Spirit, existing as this very thing, without beginning and without end, is not a creature. Therefore the Holy Spirit is a thing of divinity, because the Spirit of God is incorruptible and immutable and everlasting.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":93,"ref":"p93","source":"Una est ergo divinitas Patris et Filii el Spiritus saucti, sicut et una sanctitas ejusdem perfectae et inseparabilis Trinitatis.\n\nIV. Sed hic finem faciamus: in quantum enim quis intentior ad sacras Scripturas de fide loqui voluerit, in tantum non deerit quod loquatur. Hoc autem non ambigo, quod si quis forte eloquens haec ipsa legerit, delinquentiam incompti sermonis inveniet; non tamen, si fidelis est, piae confessionis errorem, quam quidem in nobis ex Dei gratia praestitam cupimus usque ad mortem, auxilio ejus qui praestitit, vindicare sine labe communionis haereticorum atque praevaricatorum, quia et Deo teste metuimus eorum damnationis participes inveniri. Viderit si quis putat se de eorum societate reum non posse fieri, habens conscientiae propriae fiduciam, quia fidem integram vindicat ita, ut numquam ipse ejus fidei praevaricator exstiterit: tamen ego in causa Dei cautius timere compellor; siquidem et de ipsis cautum legimus: Haereticum hominem post unam correptionem devita, sciens quoniam perversus est hujusmodi, et peccat, et est a semetipso damnatus (Tim. III, 10. 11). Sed et de poena praevaricatorum legimus, dicente Esaia: Et veniet omnis caro in conspectu meo adorare in Hierusalem, dicit Dominus Deus. Et procedent sancti, et videbunt membra hominum qui praevaricati sunt in me.","english":"One, therefore, is the divinity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, just as there is also one holiness of the same perfect and inseparable Trinity.\n\nIV. But let us make an end here; for insofar as anyone wishes to speak more intently from the sacred Scriptures concerning the faith, to that extent there will not be lacking what he may say. But this I do not doubt, that if perhaps someone eloquent has read these very things, he will find the fault of unpolished speech; yet not, if he is faithful, the error of a pious confession, which indeed, bestowed in us by the grace of God, we desire to defend even unto death, with the help of him who bestowed it, without the stain of the communion of heretics and transgressors, because, with God as witness, we fear to be found partakers of their damnation. Let him see to it if anyone thinks that he cannot become guilty from their society, having confidence in his own conscience, because he defends the faith whole in such a way that he himself has never been a transgressor of that faith; nevertheless I, in the cause of God, am compelled to fear more cautiously; since indeed we have also read a caution concerning these very men: Avoid a heretical man after one admonition, knowing that such a one is perverse, and sins, and is condemned by himself (Tim. III, 10. 11). But we have also read concerning the punishment of transgressors, with Isaiah saying: And all flesh shall come to adore in my sight in Jerusalem, says the Lord God. And the saints shall go forth, and they shall see the members of the men who have transgressed against me.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":94,"ref":"p94","source":"Vermis eorum non morietur, et ignis eorum non exstinguetur: et erunt in visione omni carni (Isa., LXVI, 23, 24). Sed et Apostolus ait: Nolite jugum ducere cum infidelibus (II Cor., VI, 14); quia et alibi idem Apostolus post descriptionem malorum: Non solum, inquit, qui faciunt ea, sed etiam qui consentiunt facientibus ea (Rom., I, 32). Et multa alia sunt testimonia divina, quibus supradictorum consortium prohibetur. Sed ego haec ipsa, licet breviter, intimavi, ne nos de vana superstitione credat aliquis nolle communicare cum talibus, quos perspicit per divinam sententiam reprobari. Divinitas te incolumem ac beatam in fide sui nominis etiam in regno coelorum praestet cum tuis omnibus affectibus inveniri.","english":"Their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched; and they shall be a vision to all flesh. But the Apostle also says: Do not bear the yoke with unbelievers; because the same Apostle elsewhere, after describing evil deeds, says: Not only those who do them, but also those who consent to those who do them. And there are many other divine testimonies by which fellowship with the aforementioned is forbidden. But I have set forth these very things, though briefly, so that no one may believe that out of vain superstition we are unwilling to have communion with such persons, whom he perceives to be condemned by divine sentence. May the Divinity keep you safe and blessed in the faith of His name, and grant that you be found even in the kingdom of heaven with all your dear ones.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]}]}