{"slug":"tmp1148.tmp1148.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp1148.tmp1148.opp-lat1","title":"Contra Acephalos Disputatio","title_source":"Contra Acephalos Disputatio","author":"Rusticus Diaconus","genre":"polemic","date":"ANNO DOMINI 549 (Migne heading)","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":"2026-11-15T21:36:37Z","cost_usd":0.018579},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp1148.tmp1148.opp-lat1","work_id":"tmp1148.tmp1148.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/tmp1148/tmp1148/tmp1148.tmp1148.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":212,"english_words":51251,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":195933,"commentary_units":0,"commentary_kinds":0,"derived_notes":10,"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/tmp1148/tmp1148/tmp1148.tmp1148.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"tmp1148.tmp1148.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":212,"translated":212,"commentary_passages":0,"commentary_units":0,"english_words":51251,"source_letters":194541,"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: 212 narrative."},{"kind":"caution","severity":"caution","text":"9 passage(s) are fragmentary in the source; the English bridges each break and says so in the note."},{"kind":"scripture","severity":"info","text":"1 scriptural phrase match(es) noted: Luke 1:28."},{"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":212},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"ANNO DOMINI DXLIX. RUSTICUS S. ROM. ECCLESIÆ DIACONUS.\n\nRUSTICI CONTRA ACEPHALOS DISPUTATIO.\n\nPRÆFATIO.\n\nEgo quidem et peccata et necessitates et mensuram meum sciens, sæpe proposui taciturnitatem præhonorare dogniatismo, maxime quomam nunquam sic perturbata fuerunt quæ ad Christianos pertinent, sicut nOstris temporibus: primum quidem, quoniam nullus studia priscorum æmulatur, sed effectus dis cutit; et semetipsos eorum qui pridem quieverunt in Domino non filios confitentur, sed judices ordinant, addentes his quantas nec est numerare calumnias. Et hoc apud Acephalos quidem, sicut dici oportet, omnes; apud hos autem qui noviter exstiterunt, soli praecipue laici: quibus et Iri qui dicuntur episcopi atque presbyteri et diaconi, et reliquus clerus, et monachi, quidam errore, nonnulli avaritia, aliqui ambitione, magis autem cuncti omni malo Christianorum libertatem et fiduciam et sanum zelum usque adeo abjecerunt, ut, quod ad ipsos attinet, nec s, em correctionis ultra relinquerint. Cum his vero universa Christianorum virtus abscessit, dum quod commune ac Domini Christi estnullus vere curat, nec verb odignum reputat: omnes autem iis quæ sua sum (Philip. II, 21), acrius quam vel aliquando student, et omnem spem super illos constituunt per quos hac large frui sperant.","english":"IN THE YEAR OF THE LORD 549. RUSTICUS, DEACON OF THE HOLY ROMAN CHURCH.\n\nTHE DISPUTATION OF RUSTICUS AGAINST THE ACEPHALI.\n\nPREFACE.\n\nI, indeed, knowing my sins and my needs and my measure, have often proposed to honor silence above dogmatizing, especially since the things that pertain to Christians have never been so disturbed as in our times: first, indeed, because no one emulates the studies of the ancients, but they discuss the outcome; and they do not confess themselves to be sons of those who long ago rested in the Lord, but set themselves up as judges, adding to these as many calumnies as cannot be counted. And this, as must be said, is so among all the Acephali; but among those who have newly arisen, chiefly among the laity alone: to whom also those who are called bishops and presbyters and deacons, and the rest of the clergy, and the monks—some through error, some through avarice, some through ambition, but rather all of them through every evil—have to such a degree cast away the liberty and confidence and sound zeal of Christians, that, as far as they are concerned, they have left no hope of correction any longer. But with these the whole virtue of Christians has departed, while no one truly cares for what is common and belongs to the Lord Christ, nor reckons it worthy of a word: but all pursue their own interests (Phil. 2:21), more keenly than they ever did at any time, and they place all their hope upon those through whom they hope to enjoy these things abundantly.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Quod vero hæc vera sint, res ipsæ testantur: omne siquidem vestigium virtutis abscessit, omne autem nequitiæ diluvium Romanam rempublicam mersit. Hæc igimr menti meæ proponens, abstinendum quidem ab hujusmodi abominationibus judicavi, solis vero vacandum fletibus, ei incessanter divinam sustinendam sententiam, in multos jam pridem frequenter ac fortiter desuper fulminantem. Sed quid dicam, relinquendi mundum, licet voluntate omnino festinus, iufirmissimus tamen virtute? solum mihi reliquum est de tuis orationibus sperare. Revertar ergo ad quod mihi propositum est. Hæc et his similia me sollicite cogitante, zelus quidem non quiescebat, ratio vero econtrario suggerebat: Quid coarctaris, o homo, et tantummodo autumas desperandum, inspiciens solum humanas impietates, et obliviscens divinum nutum? Attende illum qui sæpe desperata iterum suscitat, qui mortua toties vivificavit ut Dominus: qui enim pro impiia mortuus est (Rom. v, 6), neque nunc habet universam despicere creaturam. Et mundus quidem prodit quod suum est, et quo vergit a proprio facture declinans; misericors vero Dominus non despiciet propterea magis demonstrare quod suum est. Tu interim non occultes quod tibi commissum est aut de. cem talenta (Matth. xxv, 25), aut unam parvissimam particulam; ne ille postea veniens, proprie pecuniae requirat usuram.","english":"That these things are true, the facts themselves bear witness: for every trace of virtue has departed, and a whole flood of wickedness has submerged the Roman state. Therefore, setting these things before my mind, I judged that I must indeed abstain from abominations of this kind, and devote myself to tears alone, and unceasingly endure the divine sentence, which has long since often and mightily thundered from on high against many. But what am I to say—that I should forsake the world, though in will altogether eager, yet in strength most weak? The only thing left for me is to hope in your prayers. I shall return, therefore, to what I have proposed. As I anxiously pondered these things and things like them, zeal indeed did not rest, but reason on the contrary suggested: Why are you constrained, O man, and why do you suppose that all must be despaired of, looking only at human impieties and forgetting the divine will? Consider him who often raises up again things despaired of, who as the Lord has so many times given life to the dead; for he who died for the ungodly (Rom 5:6) does not now have to despise his whole creation. And the world indeed brings forth what is its own, and inclines toward its own end, turning away from its Maker; but the merciful Lord will not for that reason cease to show what is his own. Do you in the meantime not hide what has been entrusted to you, whether the ten talents (Mt 25:25) or one very small portion; lest he, coming afterward, require the interest on his own money.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"Deinde unde sris quia neque multi, neque pauci, neque ullus, his qu:e dicuntur assentiet, aut ad non cadendum aut ad remeandum ad fidem Domini Christi Quando vero et quod cunctorum deterius suspicamur evenerit, nullum tu pertulisti dispendium: quinino et tanquam cuncta compleveris, coronas excipies: integerrimus namque ac fortissimus, quin potius misericordissimus judcx, non fine, sed a voluntate et intentione judicat causas. D.in igitur undique tibi omnino tacendi excu atio sit occlusa, et ad non tacendum merces incaduca proponatur; si tacueris, temetipsum prorsus pœnæ addices. Nec enim accusationes iniqua gerentium sunt verendæ, Domino infinitæ beatitudinis procuratrices ostensæ sunt: nec ea quæ a prohibentibus te tibi inferuntur, exsilia sive custodiae, variaeque afflictiones et divcrsæ angustiæ, non enim gehennæ terrori sunt paria. Memento Christianum te esse atque daconum, et hoc, summae totius universitatis Ecclesiae. Si importabile onus est ordinis, qoare ullo modo aggressus es dignitatem? Semel diaconus factus, ejus votis obligatus es Deo: alioqui debuisti refutare prius, et circa hujusmodi gradum cum adversario tenere pacem, perquirens si tu cum decem miilibus (Luc. XIV 31), viginti adversarii millia evincere potuisses. Haec et bis similia, prout possum, conscribere me compellunt.","english":"Then let it be known from this that neither many, nor few, nor anyone at all will assent to these things that are said, either so as not to fall or so as to return to the faith of the Lord Christ. But when that which we suspect is worse than all things has come to pass, you will have suffered no loss; indeed, as though you had fulfilled all things, you will receive crowns: for the most upright and most valiant judge—or rather the most merciful—judges causes not by their outcome, but by the will and intention. Therefore, since from every side every excuse for keeping silent is entirely closed to you, and an unfading reward is set before you for not keeping silent, if you keep silent, you will condemn yourself utterly to punishment. For the accusations of those who do wicked things are not to be feared; they have been shown to be the procurers of boundless blessedness for the Lord. Nor are the exiles or imprisonments, and the various afflictions and diverse distresses, that are inflicted on you by those who forbid you, to be feared—for they are not equal to the terror of hell. Remember that you are a Christian and a deacon, and this of the Church of the whole highest universe. If the burden of the order is unbearable, why did you in any way undertake the dignity? Once made a deacon, you are bound to God by its vows; otherwise you ought first to have refused, and to have kept peace with your adversary concerning a rank of this kind, inquiring whether you with ten thousand could overcome the twenty thousand of the adversary. These things and similar ones compel me to write, as I am able.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"Tuae de reliquo erit orationis, si bona fuerit dictio hominis, qui vix de rectitudine fidei sola præsumo; non mdevolentia, absit, sed quod certo meae infirmitatis conscius sim. Intentio igitur mihi est, ea qu;e sæpius in collocutionibus, tam Constantinopoli quam Alexandriae Ægypti, sive in Anlinoo Thebaidis ct in adjacentibus locis, seu lecta, sive etiam dicta, vel per me vel per alios, defendentes de fide definitionem sanctæ synodi Chalcedonensis, colligere, contraque adversariorum quæstiones quas similiter comperi, coaptare, ad consummationem duntaxat et firmitatem vel ornatum sermonis adjicere quæ oportet. Ut vero quaestionum solutionumque sit d.stinctio, propria per singula prænotatur ad ea qua sunt dicta, persona: his qudem quae nostra sunt, ORTHODOXI; his autem quæ illorum, HÆRETICI, sicut se ipsæ res habent, et procedente demonstrabitur libro; servata duntaxat et circa hoc illa consuetudine, quia non omnia quæ a talibus dicuntur, talia sunt. Etenim etiam ex his quae communiter confitemur multoties inchoantes, ea quae sua sunt tentant demonstrare. Ne vero iterum confundamus eadem distinctione sermones, sed ut continue percurrat legentium memoriam, duabus tantummodo personis opposition disc etæ sunt.","english":"For the rest, it will be your task in speaking—if the utterance of a man who scarcely presumes on the soundness of the faith alone is any good—not from ill will (far be it), but because I am certainly conscious of my own weakness. My intention, therefore, is to gather together those things which have been read or even said more often in conversations, both at Constantinople and at Alexandria in Egypt, or at Antinoopolis in the Thebaid and in the adjacent places, whether by me or by others, defending the definition of the faith of the holy synod of Chalcedon, and to fit them against the questions of the adversaries which I have likewise discovered, adding what is fitting only for the completion and firmness or adornment of the discourse. But so that there may be a distinction between the questions and the solutions, the proper person is marked beforehand for each of the things that are said: for those things which are ours, ORTHODOX; for those which are theirs, HERETIC, as the matters themselves stand and as will be shown in the book that follows; with this custom preserved also in this matter, that not all things which are said by such people are of that sort. For indeed, even starting many times from those things which we confess in common, they attempt to demonstrate the things that are their own. But lest we again confuse the discourses by the same distinction, yet so that it may run continuously through the memory of the readers, only two persons have been distinguished in opposition.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":5,"ref":"p5","source":"DISPUTATIO.\n\nSidentium loci et temporis commoditas, et commune constitutum, et ab aliis rebus feriae nobiscum interim, quod Deo favente dixerim, concurrerunt simul: sicut igitur promisisti, quidquid vis, congrue de his quae inter nos discrepant, interroga, custodit a scilicet a nobis omni patientia et bona conscientia. Memor esto ad hæc, quoniam pariter convenit absque omni linguositate, et ipsas, prout possibile est, verbis proferre res: me dicente, quia unus et idem Filius Dei, filius hominis, Dominus noster Jesus Christus, in duabus naiuris agnoscitur; tc vero, utcunque placuerit.\n\nHæreticus. Si duas naturas dicis esse Christum, et non unam compositam; Christum vcro genuit beatissima Virgo: as ergo naturas genuit. Vocabitur igitur, ab his quas genuit naturis, Dei genitrix et hominis gcnitrix: circa impiissimum Nestorium, qui eo quod æquæ virtutis putaret, duo nomina uni, id esl Dei genitricem et hominis genitricem, uni nomini, id est Christi genitricem, non Dei genitricem vocare Virginem magis præelegit: amplius et diviso nomine, Dei genitricem, et hominis genitricem Nestorius dixit. At vero sanctae memoriae Cyrillus, Dei genitricem solum. Dicentes igitur duas esse naturas Christi competenter Nestoriani vocantur.","english":"DISPUTATION.\n\nThe convenience of the place and time for those sitting together, and the common arrangement, and the leisure from other matters meanwhile with us—as I may say with God's favor—have all come together at once. Therefore, as you promised, ask whatever you wish, fittingly, about the matters in dispute between us; we shall keep to these with all patience and a good conscience. Remember, moreover, that it is equally fitting, without any wordiness, to set forth the matters themselves in words as far as possible: I saying that one and the same Son of God, son of man, our Lord Jesus Christ, is recognized in two natures; and you, however it may please you.\n\nHeretic. If you say that Christ is two natures, and not one composed nature, and the most blessed Virgin gave birth to Christ, then she gave birth to two natures. She will therefore be called, from the natures she gave birth to, Mother of God and Mother of man—in the manner of the most impious Nestorius, who, thinking them of equal worth, preferred to call the Virgin by two names for one, that is, Mother of God and Mother of man, rather than by one name, that is, Mother of Christ, not Mother of God. Furthermore, by dividing the name, Nestorius spoke of her as Mother of God and Mother of man. But Cyril of holy memory called her Mother of God only. Those, therefore, who say that there are two natures of Christ are fittingly called Nestorians.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":6,"ref":"p6","source":"Rusticus. Consequenter vosmetipsos per cuncta confunditis, nolentes Domini Christi naturas discernere: te enim magis necesse est, Dei genitriccm et hominis genitricem dicere, ut interim de qualitate nihil loquar ego sermonum. Si enim Christus una et composita est natura, hæc vero natura ex Virgine nata est, et hæc ipsa Deus et bomo est: igitur Deum el hominem genuit Virgo, et Dei genitrix et hominis genitrix nominatur? Si igitur ob hoc Nestorianos vocatis nos, neque vos hoc nomine carebitis: non enim credimus hanc, ut dicitis, compositam naturam Deum solum vel certe purum nominare vos: eos enim qui sic Deum dicunt Christum, ut non confiteantur et hominem, hunc ipsum vestrænon arbitramini fidei. Sed nec Dei naturam vos arbitror putare compositam.\n\nHæret. Nos Dei genitricem dicimus solum; propter hoc enim maxime Nestorio beatissimus Cyrillus instabat.","english":"Rusticus. Consequently you confound yourselves throughout in every respect, unwilling to distinguish the natures of the Lord Christ. For it is more necessary for you to say that she is the Mother of God and the Mother of a man—to say nothing for the moment about the quality of the words. For if Christ is one composite nature, and this nature was born of the Virgin, and this same nature is God and man, then the Virgin bore God and man, and is she named both Mother of God and Mother of a man? If, therefore, on this account you call us Nestorians, you too will not lack this name. For we do not believe that this composite nature, as you say, means you call it God alone or certainly pure God; for those who so call Christ God as not also to confess him man, you do not judge to be of your faith. But neither do I think you suppose the nature of God to be composite.\n\nHaereticus. We say she is the Mother of God only; for it was chiefly on this account that the most blessed Cyril pressed hard upon Nestorius.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":7,"ref":"p7","source":"Rust. Quid igitur? ad auferendam hominis genitricis vocem, voce hac beatus Cyrillus usus ostenditur, an ad aliquid aliud? Die igitur, ad unum demonstrandum Filium Dominum Christum, unam personam, unam substantiam.\n\nHæret. Ad unum demonstrandum Christum, Dominum, Filium, unam personam, unam subsistentiam, uiam compositam naturam.\n\nRust. igitur secundum te haec natura Deus est solum, cujus causa Dei genitrix tantummodo nominatur?\n\nHæret. Non Deus tantum, sed Deus incarnatus.\n\nRust. Cur ergo et mater, non a Deo et carne nomen accep t, quæ ista generavit?\n\nHæret. Quia causa carnis Deus est, qui dum vellet dispensare salutem nostram, sumpsit ut voluit, per quod quae volebat impleret. Ergo et nativitas, et alia miracula, et voces, et passio, et omnia, ut breviter dicamus, Deo Verbo sunt reputanda per carnem, qui propter ista est incarnatus.","english":"Rusticus. What then? To remove the word \"Mother of a man,\" is it shown that blessed Cyril used this word, or for something else? Tell us, then, whether it was to demonstrate one Son, the Lord Christ, one person, one substance.\n\nHaereticus. To demonstrate one Christ, the Lord, the Son, one person, one subsistence, and a composite nature.\n\nRusticus. Therefore, according to you, is this nature God only, for whose sake she is called only Mother of God?\n\nHaereticus. Not God only, but God incarnate.\n\nRusticus. Why, then, did she who bore these things not receive the name of mother from God and flesh?\n\nHaereticus. Because God is the cause of the flesh, who, when he wished to dispense our salvation, took up as he willed that through which he might accomplish what he willed. Therefore both the nativity and the other miracles and the words and the passion and all things, to speak briefly, are to be attributed to God the Word through the flesh, who for these things was incarnate.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":8,"ref":"p8","source":"Rust. Sic ergo Deo reputanda sunt, ut de huma. nitate ot alia modis omnibus denegentur, an de homine quoque seu carne ista dicenda sunt?\n\nHæret. Solius Dei cuncta sum reputanda, non eo quod puro accesserint, sed ipsi incarnato.\n\nRust. Sed multi sanctorum Patrum ea quæ humanitatis sunt sive carnis non oportere ab ea separari confessi sunt, sicut et in synodicis epistolis bcatissimus Cyrillus, et in paternis testimoniis sancta synodus Ephesina, ad confirmandam suam rectam tidem ipsis gest' inseruit, decernens ita quædam, uæ carnis sunt, propter unitionem Dei Verbi personæ deputanda, ut tamen ea carnis propria fateamur.\n\nHæret. Da, si tamen potueris, testimonia consonantia his Quæ ipse dixisti, salvis duntaxa, dum tempus exegerit, his quæ pro nostro dogmate proferemus. Verumtamen prius, si potes, causas assgna cur non Deo soli omnia per carnem dispensata deput ntur, sicut supra ostendimus.","english":"Rusticus. So then, are these things to be reckoned to God in such a way that they are denied to belong to the humanity, or in all other ways, or are these things also to be said of the man or of the flesh?\n\nHeretic. All things are to be reckoned to God alone, not because they have accrued to one who is pure, but to the incarnate one himself.\n\nRusticus. But many of the holy Fathers have confessed that the things which belong to the humanity or to the flesh ought not to be separated from him, just as the most blessed Cyril did in his synodical letters, and the holy synod of Ephesus in the testimonies of the Fathers, which it inserted into its own acts to confirm its right faith, decreeing that certain things which belong to the flesh are to be assigned to the person of God the Word because of the union, yet in such a way that we confess them to be proper to the flesh.\n\nHeretic. Give, if indeed you can, testimonies consonant with these things which you yourself have said, with the reservation, of course, for as long as the occasion demands, of those things which we shall bring forward for our own doctrine. But first, if you can, assign the reasons why all things dispensed through the flesh are not to be reckoned to God alone, as we showed above.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":9,"ref":"p9","source":"Rust. Quia nec verum cst, nec decet; imo insuper nocet. Non est verum, quia nihil horum non incarnato Beo, neque secundum quod Deus est tantummodo accessisse, vel ipsi dicere præsumetis; non decet autem Deum tanquam car em Patre minorem, neque mortalem neque ante Mariam non fuisse, neque initium existentiæ ab ipsa sumpsisse, neque per mortem dnabus partitum partibus Deum, id est, cum corpore, quam anima separatim. Si enim cuncta quae carnis sunt illi incarnato collidimas, vel quæ adsunt, tanquam sint, vel quæ desunt, veluti non ad ini, invenitur Deus Verhum, nec æqualis, nec consubstantialis, nec indifferens, nec coaeternus Patri, nec immutabilis ante resurrectionem; sed ex substantia, et ex substantia Virginis, quae altera est ab iila quæ Patris est. Inven etur vero et homo et caro praediciri, et per hæc quod caro sit incarnata, et inhumanatus sii homo. Si vero et ea quæ Verbi sunt, carnis esse alterne dicamus, concluditur quia homo qu dem consubstantialis et æqua lis est Deo et Patri; Deus autem minor a Patre. Et ex his de cætero; quia Verbo melior caro, et minus est Verbum carni propriæ comparatum; nec non, quia Pater major est carne, Verbum, minus; Pater igitur multo major a Ver o est, magis vero et ipsi angeli.","english":"Rusticus. Because it is neither true nor fitting; indeed, beyond that, it is harmful. It is not true, because you presume to say that none of these things came to the incarnate God, nor according to the fact that he is God only; nor is it fitting that God be less than the Father as flesh, nor that he was not mortal, nor that he did not exist before Mary, nor that he took the beginning of existence from her, nor that God was divided by death into two parts, that is, with the body, or the soul separately. For if we attribute to the incarnate Word all things that are of the flesh, either as though they are present, or as though they are absent, as if they were not his, the Word of God is found to be neither equal nor consubstantial nor undifferentiated nor coeternal with the Father, nor immutable before the resurrection; but [he is found to be] from the substance, and from the substance of the Virgin, which is other than that which is the Father's. But he will also be found to be proclaimed both man and flesh, and through these that the flesh was incarnate and that man was made man. But if we say in turn that the things which are of the Word are of the flesh, it is concluded that man indeed is consubstantial and equal with God and the Father; but God is less than the Father. And from these things, for the rest: because the flesh is better than the Word, and the Word is less when compared to its own flesh; and moreover, because the Father is greater than the flesh, the Word is less; therefore the Father is much greater than the Word, and even more so than the angels themselves.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":10,"ref":"p10","source":"Multa quoque similia valens dicere, tuo intellectui derelinquo, incongruitatis, quin potius impietatis, evidentissimæ infiniram multitudinem atque magnitudinem congregare.\n\nHæret. Ergo nihil quod carnis est, Dei est; ne que quod Dei est, carnis est! et ubi nobis abierunt quæ Scripturae divinae sunt? ubi illa quae sanctae synodi Ephesinæ, magis vero Nicænæ? ubi omnia pariter celeberrimi Cyrilli conscripta?\n\nRust. Recordare, o optime, quia non dixi, nihil omnino eorum quæ Verbi sunt de carne dicere nos deb re; nec e converso, sed quia non debent omnia: noli ergo inferre calumnias. Sed ad propositum revertamur. Si igilur, ut ex his claret, quia inutilis et noxius est omnium nominum indiscretus hc modus, veruntamen et propriam paginam requirit. Si enim non solum credendo, sed etiam confitendo salvamur; sicut in corde sive animo est fides nostra, non verbis, sed rebus et definitionibus insignita, sic etiam procedere debet a labiis: nam quod aliter geritur, fraus et simulatio; hæc vero inevitabiliter noxia. Si ergo modis omnibus sic Verbum sempiternum est sicut Pater, impassibilisque idem Dei sermo, et invertibilis sicut Pater, non voce tantum simile, sed eadem voce simul et re ista dicantur. Invertibile enim dicitur, quod aliter se habere non potest.","english":"Rusticus. Since I am able to say many similar things, I leave to your understanding the task of gathering the boundless multitude and magnitude of incongruities—or rather, of impieties.\n\nHe is stuck. Therefore nothing that belongs to the flesh belongs to God, nor is anything that belongs to God [the property] of the flesh! And where have those things that belong to the divine Scriptures gone for us? Where are those things that belong to the holy synod of Ephesus—or rather, of Nicaea? Where are all the writings of the most renowned Cyril, equally?\n\nRusticus. Remember, excellent sir, that I did not say that we ought to say absolutely none of the things that belong to the Word are [said] of the flesh, nor conversely; but [I said] that not all [should be said]. So do not bring false accusations. But let us return to the matter at hand. If, then, as is clear from these [remarks], this indiscriminate manner of applying all names is useless and harmful, it nevertheless also requires its own page [of treatment]. For if we are saved not only by believing but also by confessing—just as our faith is marked in the heart or mind, not by words but by realities and definitions, so too it ought to proceed from the lips; for what is done otherwise is fraud and pretense, and this is inevitably harmful. If, therefore, in every way the eternal Word is as the Father, and the same Word of God is impassible and immutable as the Father, let these things be said not only with a similar word but with the same word and reality at once. For that is called immutable which cannot be otherwise.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":11,"ref":"p11","source":"At vero de quo id impossibile, neque versus, neque passus est, neque coepit: inevitabilis enim convictio, ct mutari res mutabiles, et pati passibiles: similiter ergo quod quomodolibet patitur, secundum hoc est passibile; et quod vertitur, vertibile; et quod moritur, mortale; et quod augetur, crescibile; et omnia haec, nec impassibilitatem, nec immutabilitatem de cæle a servant.\n\nHæret. Potes mihi hæc ostendere es sanctorum Patrum confessionibus, et maxime a sanctis synodis, id est, ca quæ in Nicæa et quæ in Epheso convenerunt, et ab his quae celeberrimus Cyrillus conscripsit?\n\nRust. Plane quidem horum sunt demonstrationes. Si vero et hoc vis, post pauca et istud fiet; interim, do prima quastione adhuc dicendasunt pauca. Si igitur Adam, victus a diabole, corruptionem nostro intutit generi, oportebat per hominem rursus diaholurn vinci, ut possemus nos incorruptibiliralis participatione frui. Sed hoc, sicut infirma et subjecta servituti atque corruptioni, nostra natura per semetipsam non valebat explere, et a Domino hanc oportebat assumi; sic rursum sine nostra natura id fieri, nec decebat utique, nec voluit Deus.","english":"But concerning that of which this is impossible, it neither turned nor suffered nor began; for the conviction is unavoidable: mutable things are changed, and passible things suffer. Therefore, in whatever way a thing suffers, in that respect it is passible; and what is turned is turnable; what dies is mortal; what grows is growable; and all these things do not keep impassibility or immutability from heaven.\n\nHe is stuck. Can you show me these things from the confessions of the holy Fathers, and especially from the holy synods—that is, the one that convened at Nicaea and the one at Ephesus—and from what the most renowned Cyril wrote?\n\nRusticus. Indeed, there are demonstrations of these things. But if you want this too, it will be done after a few points; meanwhile, a few things must still be said concerning the first question. If, therefore, Adam, conquered by the devil, introduced corruption into our race, it was necessary that the devil be conquered again through a man, so that we might be able to enjoy participation in incorruptibility. But since our nature, being weak and subject to slavery and corruption, was not able to accomplish this by itself, it was necessary that this be assumed by the Lord; and again, that this be done without our nature was neither fitting nor did God will it.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":12,"ref":"p12","source":"Non enim per violentiam proposuerat supcrarc diabolum, alias, hoc egisset modis omnibus purus, sed devicto bomini voluit præstare victoriam: quod decibilius quam per hanc pulcberrimam unitionem evenire non poterat, si tamen in tanto mysterio illud impletum credimus, quod aut solum lieri poterat, aut pulchrius cclebrari non poterat. Quod igitur sine Deo non posset impleri, hoc idem sine homine nec debuit exerceri; nec Deus valuit, qui non vult esse nisi quæ debent esse: et ideo quae bujusmodi sant omnia, Dei solius, tanquam non fuerit ipse etiam homo, dici non licet. Omnia ':itur talia unius ejusdemque personæ, Dei et hominis confitenda sunt; aut ila Dei dicenla quædam talium, ut tamen non auferamus ea ct de homine dici, Non igitur Nestorii blasphemiae est, Christi genitricem dicere, eo quod idem sit Dei et hominis dicere genitricem; sed negare Theotocon, harelicum est, cum et divinitus inspirata Scriptura dicat, et hoc sæpius, mater Jesu ( Joan. II, I; XIX, 25; Act. i, 14);et, ex qua genitus est Jesus qui diciMur Christus (Matth. I, 16). Insuper, si quidem Deus est ille quem genuit, recte dicitur Theotocos; et qula Christus est qui natus est, recte dicitur Christotocos. Arbitror autem quia quæcunque reddatur ratio nominis hujus, aut eadem erit et illius, aut magis illius.","english":"For he had not proposed to conquer the devil by violence—otherwise he would have done this by all means as one pure—but he willed to bestow victory through a man who had been conquered; which could not have come about more fittingly than through this most beautiful union, if indeed in so great a mystery we believe that to be fulfilled which either could only be done, or could not be more beautifully celebrated. Therefore what could not be accomplished without God, this same thing ought not to have been carried out without man; nor was God able—he who wills nothing to be except what ought to be; and therefore all things of this kind are God's alone, as if he himself were not also man, it is not permitted to say. All such things, therefore, must be confessed as belonging to one and the same person, of God and of man; or those things must be said to be God's in such a way that we do not remove them from being said of the man as well. Therefore it is not the blasphemy of Nestorius to call the mother of Christ the mother of God, in that it is the same to call her the mother of God and of man; but to deny that she is Theotokos is heretical, since both the divinely inspired Scripture says it, and this more than once: the mother of Jesus (John 2:1; 19:25; Acts 1:14); and, from her was born Jesus who is called Christ (Matthew 1:16). Moreover, if indeed he whom she bore is God, she is rightly called Theotokos; and because he who was born is Christ, she is rightly called Christotokos. But I think that whatever account is given of this name, it will be either the same as that one, or rather that one's.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":13,"ref":"p13","source":"Amplius, si Dei genitrix existens, Christi genitrix non est, Christus, quod absit, non erit Deus ratione conversa. Si enim qui Christotocon confitetur, et Theotocon abnegat, Christum non dicit Deum; qui Dei genitricem confitetnr, et Christi genitricem refutat, similiter Deum denegat esse Christum. Insuper in tantum Christi genilricem confiteri bonum est; sed Dci genitricem negare non pium: ut et ipse Nestorius Christi genitricem dicens, Dei vero genitricem negans, non propter id quod illud dixerat, damnaretur, sed quia illud addixcrat. Insuper non omnia quæ ab haereticis dicuntur nequam sunt: quæ autem sint mala Nestorii, ex contradictionibus beati Cyrilli quæ habentur in epistolis ipsius ad illum, quas et sanctissimus Cœlestinus papa magnæ Romæ ut proprias suscepit, apparet.\n\nHæret. Multa quidem habens quæ ad prædicta dicam, nolo prolongare sermonem, hoc enim forsan et inutile et laboriosum sit: unum vero breviter exigo canonicis testimoniis demonstrari mihi, utrum ea quae Dei Verbi carni contigerunt, ut ais, oporteat de ipsius humanitate dici, sicut olim præveniens dixit.","english":"Furthermore, if she who is the mother of God is not the mother of Christ, then Christ—which God forbid—will not be God, by the converse reasoning. For if one who confesses her as Christotokos and denies her as Theotokos does not call Christ God, then one who confesses her as mother of God and rejects her as mother of Christ likewise denies that Christ is God. Moreover, it is good to confess her as mother of Christ to such an extent that it is not pious to deny her as mother of God: so that even Nestorius himself, calling her mother of Christ but denying her as mother of God, was not condemned on account of what he had said, but because he had added it. Moreover, not all things that are said by heretics are wicked; but what the evil things of Nestorius are appears from the contradictions of the blessed Cyril which are contained in his letters to him, which the most holy Pope Celestine of great Rome received as his own.\n\nHeretic: Although I have many things to say in response to the foregoing, I do not wish to prolong the discourse, for this would perhaps be both useless and laborious. But one thing I briefly demand: that it be demonstrated to me from canonical testimonies whether those things which happened to the flesh of the Word of God, as you say, ought to be said of his humanity, just as he who spoke before said.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":14,"ref":"p14","source":"Rust. Bene quæsisti: hoc enim et ordo exigit, et ideo mox dicetur ex epistola sanctissimi Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandriæ, ad sanetæ memoriæ Joannem ar; hiepiscopum An! ochiæ magnæ, per quam universalis sanctarum Dei Ecclesiarum tacta est pax: « Confitemur igitur Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum Filium Dei unigenitum, Deum perfectum, et hominem perfectum ex anima rationali et corpore; ante sæcula quidem ex Patre secundum deita em, in ultimis vero diebus propter nostram salutem ex Maria Virgine genitum secundum humanitatem; cunsubstantialem Patri eumdem secundum deitatem, et consubstantialem nobis secundum humanitatem: duarum enim naturarum unitio facta est, propter quod unum Christum, unum Filium, unum Dominum confitemur. Circa hanc inconfusae naitionis intelligentiam confitemur sanctam Virginem, Dei genitricem; eo quod Deus Verbum incarnatus sit et inbumanatus, ct ex ipsa conceptione sibimetipsi it u templum elegerit ex ipsa susceptum. Evangelicis vero et apostolicas de Domino voces, scimus deiloquos viros quasdam quidem communlficantes a, quippe in una persona; quasdam vero dividentes, quippe ut in duabus naturis; et quasdam quidem Deo decibiliter, secundum deitatem Christi; quasdam vero humiles, secundum humanitatem tradentes. Has vestras adeuntes sanctas voces b, sic quoque nosmetipsos sapere invenitis ( unus enim Dominus, una fides, unum baptisma [Ephes.","english":"Rusticus: You have asked well, for both order demands this and therefore it will be stated next from the letter of the most holy Cyril, archbishop of Alexandria, to John of holy memory, archbishop of great Antioch, through which the universal peace of God's holy Churches was touched: \"We confess therefore our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, perfect God and perfect man from a rational soul and body; before the ages indeed from the Father according to divinity, but in the last days for our salvation born of the Virgin Mary according to humanity; the same consubstantial with the Father according to divinity, and consubstantial with us according to humanity: for the union of two natures has been made, on account of which we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. Concerning this understanding of the unconfused nativity we confess the holy Virgin to be the mother of God, because God the Word was incarnate and became man, and from the very conception chose for himself from her as a temple what was received from her. But the evangelical and apostolic voices concerning the Lord, we know that the men inspired by God sometimes make them common, as in one person; but sometimes divide them, as in two natures; and sometimes deliver them in a manner befitting God, according to the divinity of Christ; but sometimes humble things, according to humanity. Approaching these holy voices of yours, you find that we ourselves also think thus (for there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":15,"ref":"p15","source":"IV, 5]); glorificavimus omnium Salvatorom Deum, invicem congauden es, quoniam a Deo inspiratis Scripturis et traditioni sanctorum Patrum nostrorum convenientem habent fidem, tam cuse apud nos, quam quæ apud vos sunt Ecclesiæ. » Hæc ipso vero, et in epistola ejus ad Nestorium dicta sunt; de qua quæ ad hoc idem pertineant, ad testi monium coaptabimus inferius, prædictis intellectibus apta exstentia: nunc autem scrmoni imponam finem. Quia igitur calumniamini nos, tanquam qui duas dicentes Domini nostri Jesu Christi naturas, et ex hoc necessarie Dei et hominis senitricem introducentes, hæreticum introduceremus dogma, demonstrare coactus sum quia nec hoc quod secundum consequentiam infroduritur hæreticum sit, quod per divinam gratiam competenter effecimus.\n\nHaret. Quot igitur sunt unius Christi substantiæ? Rust. Duæ.\n\nHæret. Quare?\n\nRust. Quia duabus integris, id est perfectis naturis, consubstantialis est Christus.","english":"...we have glorified the God of all, the Savior, rejoicing with one another, because the Churches, both those among us and those among you, hold a faith consonant with the God-inspired Scriptures and the tradition of our holy Fathers. These things were indeed said by him also in his letter to Nestorius; from that letter we shall fit together for testimony below whatever pertains to this same matter, being suited to the understandings already stated; but now I will put an end to my discourse. Since, therefore, you slander us as though, by saying two natures of our Lord Jesus Christ and thereby necessarily introducing one who is the mother of God and of man, we were introducing a heretical doctrine, I have been compelled to demonstrate that not even this which is introduced by way of consequence is heretical—which by divine grace we have accomplished suitably.\n\nHeretic: How many, then, are the substances of the one Christ?\n\nRusticus: Two.\n\nHeretic: Why?\n\nRusticus: Because Christ is consubstantial in two whole, that is, perfect, natures.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":16,"ref":"p16","source":"Haret. Ergo et duo, seu certe multi, sunt Christi, aut multae personæ, quia multis personis consubstantialis est Christus.\n\nRust. Sed ad consubstantialia semper vicissitudinem recipit, sive respondet, vcl adaequatur naturarum numerus; sed non etiam similiter respondet numerus personarum: etenim Deus Pater duabus personis consubtantialis est, non tamen duo personæ sunt Pater: similiter vero et Filius, nec non et sanctus S, iritus. Et unusquisque nostrum una persona est; verumtamen innumerabilibus personis consubstantialis est.\n\nHæret. Sed neque quia duabus naturis consubstantialis e Christus, idcireo duae naturæ sunt: non enim unumquodque tantum est circa numerum, quanta sunt consubstantialia ejus: alioqui demonstra aliquid tot habens naturas quanta habent quae illi sunt consubstautivn; quod quæritur.\n\nRust. Ego et tu, vel quilibet homo, aut quicunque angelus, et unius nalurae est, et uni naturæ consubstantialis, et unumquodque individuum animal similiter.","english":"Haeret. Therefore there are also two, or certainly many, who are Christs, or many persons, because Christ is consubstantial with many persons.\n\nRusticus. But the number of natures always receives a correspondence, or answers, or is equated, to things consubstantial; but the number of persons does not likewise correspond. For God the Father is consubstantial with two persons, yet the Father is not two persons; and similarly also the Son, and likewise the Holy Spirit. And each one of us is one person; yet he is consubstantial with innumerable persons.\n\nHaeret. But neither, because Christ is consubstantial with two natures, are there therefore two natures; for each thing is not so great in number as the things that are consubstantial with it; otherwise, show something that has as many natures as the things that are consubstantial with it have — which is what is being asked.\n\nRusticus. I and you, or any man whatsoever, or any angel whatsoever, is both of one nature and consubstantial with one nature, and each individual animal likewise.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":17,"ref":"p17","source":"Hæret. Sed tu unnm quidem multis naturis cousubsiantiale esse debes ostendere.\n\nRust. Si esset quaecunque res duabus perfectis naturis consubstantialis, aut plurbus existentiis, hec, omni modo, suarum naturarum numero consubstantialia æquaret, quia una non est: multæ res multotum numerum aequant. Ex boc clare monstratur, quoniam et Christus consubstantiales naturas suarum naturarum numero confesse adæquat; si vero unumquodquc reliquorum unicuique naturae consubstantiale est, et unumquodque unius naturæ est, minime mihi hoc reprobat hanc rationem: nihilominus enim unumquodque suæ naturæ numero vel potius quantitaLe aequ consubstantialia; uon euim minus unum babet a consubstantialium quantitate naturali; et hoc non ideo quod nihil sit minus secunduiu quatitatem ab uno. Quia igitur his qui in duabus naturis sunt consubstantialis est Christus, id est tam Patri quam nobis, omne vero consubstautiale consubstantialium naturalem coæquat quantitatem, Christusigi ur consubstantialium naturalem coæquat quantitatem. Christo vero consubstantialium duæ naturæ sunt nihilominus, et Christi igitur duæ naturæ sunt nihilominus sive substantiæ. Hoc vero est ex ipso substantiæ nomine comprobare: Christus enim consubstantialis dicitur lam Patri quam etiam nobis; compersonalis vero nec illi, nec nobis.","english":"Haeret. But you must show that one [person] is consubstantial with many natures.\n\nRusticus. If any thing were consubstantial with two perfect natures, or with more existences, this thing would in every way equate its consubstantial [natures] to the number of its natures, because it is not one; many things equal the number of many. From this it is clearly shown that Christ also equates the consubstantial natures to the number of his natures; but if each of the remaining things is consubstantial with each nature, and each is of one nature, this does not in the least refute this reasoning for me: for nonetheless each equates its consubstantial [natures] to the number, or rather the quantity, of its nature; for it has not less of one on account of the natural quantity of consubstantials; and this not because it is less in quantity from one. Since, therefore, Christ is consubstantial with those who are in two natures, that is, both with the Father and with us, and every consubstantial thing co-equates the natural quantity of consubstantials, Christ therefore co-equates the natural quantity of consubstantials. But there are nonetheless two natures of things consubstantial with Christ, and therefore there are nonetheless two natures or substances of Christ. But this is to be proved from the very name of substance: for Christ is said to be consubstantial both with the Father and also with us; but co-personal neither with him nor with us.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":18,"ref":"p18","source":"Sicut igitur si compersonalis esset tam Patri et sancto Spiritui quam etiam nobis, non esset utique ejus persona, sed amplius: sic, quia et illis et nobis consubstantialis est, non una ejus est natura, sed duæ; seu potius personis, non naturis consubstantialis est Christus. Verumtamen et his non compersonalis, sed consubstantialis est confidenter. Quod vero est consubslantialis, si ejusdem naturæ per omnia? Igitur qui contendit quia non II 'turis sed personis consubstantialia sunt quae diversarum sunt naturarum, is non mente, sed nudis vcrhis contendit. Igitur sic sermonem conteximus: si Christus duarum naturarum personis consubstantialis est, seu certe si Christus his personis quae in duabus sunt naturis consubstantialis est; omne vero consubstantiale in tot naturis est, in quantis est quidquid ei consubstantiale est: Christus igitur in duabus naturis es!; tot enim sunt ea quæ sunt ilti cons bstantialia.","english":"Just as, therefore, if he were compersonal with both the Father and the Holy Spirit and also with us, he would certainly not be one person, but more; so, because he is consubstantial both with them and with us, his nature is not one but two; or rather, Christ is consubstantial with persons, not with natures. Nevertheless, he is confidently not compersonal with these, but consubstantial. But what is consubstantial, if not of the same nature in all respects? Therefore, whoever contends that things which are of different natures are consubstantial with persons, not with natures, contends not with the mind but with bare words. Therefore let us weave the argument thus: if Christ is consubstantial with the persons of two natures, or certainly if Christ is consubstantial with those persons who are in two natures; but everything consubstantial is in as many natures as is whatever is consubstantial with it: therefore Christ is in two natures; for as many are the things that are consubstantial with him.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":19,"ref":"p19","source":"Haret. Dispensative et condescensorie prepetr pacem dictum est a sancrissimo et beatissimo Pat e nostro Cyrillo ia epistola ad Joannem, consubsontialis nobis secundum humanitatem: alioquin si non hoc verum est, ostende alia ejus testimonia dicontis, quia simillimus nobis natura humanitatis est C ristus.\n\nRust. Ergo dispensatio et hypocrisis nihil ab invicem differunt; et erit idem secundum idem, et bonum simul et malum.\n\nHæret. Si vero dis'ant haec, ostende.\n\nRust. Si condescendens tantum exsultat, quid amplius poterit exsultare, qui nihil remittit et viucit Lege, quaeso, illius epistolae ipa primordia. et cessa resistere veritati; mox enim totam suspicionem tuam destruent. Condescensio enim non perfetam affert laetitia n, tanquam quae non propter id quod principaliter quaeritur proprie fiat, sed propter infirmorum fragilitatem.","english":"He is stuck. It was said in a dispensation and condescension before peace by our most holy and blessed father Cyril, in the letter to John, that he is consubstantial with us according to humanity; otherwise, if this is not true, show other testimonies of him saying that Christ is most like us in the nature of humanity.\n\nRusticus: Therefore dispensation and hypocrisy differ in nothing from each other; and it will be the same according to the same, and at once both good and evil.\n\nHe is stuck. But if these things differ, show it.\n\nRusticus: If one who condescends is only exulting, what more will he be able to exult who remits nothing and conquers? I ask you, read the very beginnings of that letter, and cease resisting the truth; for soon they will destroy your whole suspicion. For condescension does not bring perfect joy, as being something that is not properly done on account of that which is principally sought, but on account of the weakness of the infirm.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":20,"ref":"p20","source":"Hæret. Habemus epis'olaria hypomnistica illus sanctissimi Patris, in quibns significat quia condese nsorie ad Orientales scripserit propter pacem.\n\nRust. P, inum quidem multa dubitatio, utrum menstrentur ejus hac esse; quod si et ejus sunt, unde manifestum quod talia loca non fleta sint, dum certe a principio ab Eutycbe prolata, a multis tanquam ficta non sint accusata? Quod si etiam ficta non sunt, unde rtum quia non potius boc quod a te profertur, dispensative et condescensorie dictum iit maxime, dum sciret ipse quoniam Dei Ecclesia familiaribus non intendit, neque hypomnisticis, neque iis quæ ad unum et domesticum fiunt, sed bis quæ ad syrodos aut a synodis dogmatice et publica et definitive de his quae in quæstionem veniunt conscribuntur. Hoc vero claret, quia istas epistolas, id est suas et Orientalium, de pace, transmittens Ronanae Ecclesiæ sedi, a sanctissimo Xysto confinnari sategit; eorum vero quae a vobis dicuntur, nihil manifestavit primae apostolicæ sedi.","english":"He is stuck. We have the hypomnestic letters of that most holy Father, in which he indicates that he wrote to the Easterners in a condescending manner for the sake of peace.\n\nRusticus. First, there is a great doubt whether these letters are his; and if they are his, whence is it manifest that such passages were not fabricated, when certainly from the beginning, having been brought forward by Eutyches, they were not accused by many as fictitious? But if they are not even fictitious, whence is it certain that it was not rather this very thing that is brought forward by you that was said in a dispensational and condescending manner, especially since he himself knew that the Church of God does not attend to familiar writings, nor to hypomnestic ones, nor to those which are made for one individual and a household, but to those which are written to synods or by synods, dogmatically and publicly and definitively, concerning matters that come into question. This is clear, because when transmitting these letters, that is, his own and those of the Easterners, concerning peace, to the see of the Roman Church, he took care that they be confirmed by the most holy Xystus; but of the things that are said by you, he made nothing manifest to the first apostolic see.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":21,"ref":"p21","source":"Haret. Ergo Xystus confirmavit epistolas unitivas et carum tidem?\n\nRust. Non solum confirmavit eas scripto, et hoc cum multa laetitia, sed et insuper hoc addidit rescribens Cyrillo sanctæ memoriae: « Quoniam nunquam similia Nestorio sapuit, sed a principio fuerit orthodoxus Joannes sanctissimus frater noster, ficet olim suam sententiam susponderit, ut nobiscum Nestorium minime condemnasset. » Adjicit autem, dicens: Quia bene nos fecimus, qui nihil contra eum definivimus immaturum; clarent enim nostrorum vindeMiae gaudiorum; » et plurima talia. Si vero vis, et verba ipsa ponemus.\n\nHæret. Oportet quidem ct hoc fieri; verumtamen si habes demonstrationem, quia et in aliis sermonibus synodice ab eo dictum sit tale aliquid, demonstrato; alioqui manifestum est quoniam condescensorie dictum est, ut lucraretur Orientales.\n\nRust. Salvis mihi his quæ prædicta sunt, et hoc flat ex synodo sanctorum Patrum qui in Ephesum, convonerunt. Sancti Auasta ii: « Non phantasia csl tatus nostra, nec solius corporis; sed totius hominis vere salns facta est: humanum igitur natura, id quod ex Maria secundum divinas Scripturas, et verum e'at illius Salvatoris.","english":"He is stuck. Therefore did Xystus confirm the letters of union and their contents?\n\nRusticus. Not only did he confirm them in writing, and that with great joy, but he even added this in his reply to Cyril of holy memory: \"Since he never savored things similar to Nestorius, but from the beginning our most holy brother John was orthodox, although he once suspended his own opinion, so that he did not condemn Nestorius with us.\" He adds moreover, saying: \"Because we did well, who defined nothing against him prematurely; for the harvests of our joys are clear,\" and very many such things. But if you wish, we will set down the very words.\n\nHe is stuck. This too must indeed be done; yet if you have a demonstration that in other discourses as well something of this sort was said by him in synodical fashion, demonstrate it; otherwise it is manifest that it was said condescendingly, in order to gain the Easterners.\n\nRusticus. Saving what has been said above for me, let this also be done from the synod of the holy Fathers who assembled at Ephesus. The holy Augustines: \"Our salvation was not made a phantasy, nor of the body alone; but the salvation of the whole man was truly made: therefore the human nature, that which is from Mary according to the divine Scriptures, was also truly that of the Savior.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":22,"ref":"p22","source":"» Ex eadem synodo testimonium sancti Theophili: Non velut alicujus pretiosæ materiæ cœlestis accipiens corpus, venit ad nos; sed in uto magnitudinem suæ artis ostendit, ex luto plasmatum corrigens hominem, ipse ex virgine novi decoris homo procedens; modum quidem genituræ permutans, per oinnia vero ad nos absque peccato non diffugiendam similitudinem indicans, » Ex eadem synodo testimonium sancti Ambrosii: « Sileant igitur inanes de sermonibus quæstiones, quoniam regnum Dei, sicut scriptum est, non in persuasione humani verbi est, sed in ostensione virtutis ( Cor. II. 4): Servemus differentiam divinitatis et carnis: unus in utroque loquitur Dci Filius, quia in eodem utraque natura est; idem loquitur, sed non uno semper loquitur modo. Intende in eo, nunc quidem gloriam Dei, nunc vero hominis passiones: quia sicut Deus docet divina, quia Verbum est; sicut homo vero docet humana, quia in mea suhstantia loquebatur.»","english":"From the same synod, the testimony of Saint Theophilus: He did not come to us as one receiving the body of some precious heavenly material, but in the vessel he showed the greatness of his art, restoring man formed from clay, himself proceeding as a man of new beauty from the virgin; changing indeed the manner of his birth, but in all things showing to us a likeness that is not to be shunned, apart from sin. From the same synod, the testimony of Saint Ambrose: Let vain questions about words therefore be silent, since the kingdom of God, as it is written, is not in the persuasion of human speech, but in the demonstration of power (2 Cor 4). Let us preserve the distinction between divinity and flesh: the one Son of God speaks in both, because both natures are in the same one; the same one speaks, but he does not always speak in one and the same manner. Attend to him: now indeed the glory of God, now truly the sufferings of a man; because as God he teaches divine things, because he is the Word; but as man he teaches human things, because he was speaking in my substance.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":23,"ref":"p23","source":"Hæret. Si non est una et cadem natura Deus et caro, secundum unitionem, erit una Chrisli natura Deus, altera vero homo tantummodo. Sed illa una natura secundum quam Deus est, non consubstantialis est nobis: Dens igitur non consubstantialis est nobis. Si igitur Christus quidem consubstantialis est nobis, Deus vero non consubstantialis est bis; Christus ergo, quod absit, non est Deus.\n\nflus'. In tali præcipitio sua fallacia hominem semper includit, ut propriis laqueis infigatur. Si enim humanitas Christi est secundum quam Christus homo est, hæc autem non consubstantiJis est Patri, homo igitur non consubstantialis est Patri. Si igitur Christus consubstantialis est Patri, at vero homo non consubstantialis est Patri, Christus igitur non est homo. Amplius, si hic syllogismus est verax, similiter et nos concludemus de Deo; si enim Christi deitatis substantia, secundum quam utique Deus est, non consubstantialis est nobis, Dens igitur non consubstantialis e nobis. Si igitur Christus consubstantialis est nobis, Dens vero non consubstantialis, sequetur incongru am, quod superius dictum est, quo dicitur Christum non esse Deum. Igitur, secundum vestra vaniloquia, aut erit nobis consubstantialis divinitatis Christi natura, aut Christus, quod absit, non er Deus; aut rursus erit Christi humanitas consubstantialis, aut Christus, quod absit, non erit homo.","english":"It follows. If God and flesh are not one and the same nature according to the union, then one nature of Christ will be God, and the other merely man. But that one nature according to which he is God is not consubstantial with us; therefore God is not consubstantial with us. If, then, Christ is indeed consubstantial with us, but God is not consubstantial with us, then Christ, which God forbid, is not God.\n\nHe always traps man in such a precipice by his own fallacy, so that he is caught in his own snares. For if the humanity of Christ is that according to which Christ is man, and this is not consubstantial with the Father, then man is not consubstantial with the Father. If, then, Christ is consubstantial with the Father, but man is not consubstantial with the Father, then Christ is not man. Furthermore, if this syllogism is true, we shall conclude similarly concerning God: for if the substance of Christ's divinity, according to which he is God, is not consubstantial with us, then God is not consubstantial with us. If, then, Christ is consubstantial with us, but God is not consubstantial, there will follow the incongruity already stated above, by which it is said that Christ is not God. Therefore, according to your idle babblings, either the nature of Christ's divinity will be consubstantial with us, or Christ, which God forbid, will not be God; or again, either the humanity of Christ will be consubstantial, or Christ, which God forbid, will not be man.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":24,"ref":"p24","source":"Nihil est ergo tali modo conclusum.\n\nHæret. Si dux naturæ sunt Christi, erit unaquaeque quod est, et aliud nihil: qua de re, humanitas erit humanitas solum, ac non etiam Deus. At vero Deus erit tantummodo Deus et non homo: purus igitur Deus, purus homo Christus.\n\nRuIt. Non est idem, o tu calumniose, solum hoc esse, et purum hoc esse. Anima enim tua, solummodo anima est, ct aliud nihil; verumtamen incarnata est, et corpore nuda non est, et corpus tuum tantummodo corpus cst; verumtamen et animalum. Si vero humanitas, non humanitas solum est, sed etiam divinitas; et divinitas non solum divinitas, sed etiam humanitas: diviuitas igitur et hUmanitAs inliumanata est, et divinitas et humonitas divinitatem et humanitatem sibimet adunavit; et humanitas igitur, secundum ea, inhumanata est, et Deo unita divinitas.\n\nHærei. Si una nattira Christi Deus est, altera vero homo; una vero non est idem alteri: itur neque Deus et homo, idem est: quomodo igitur, secundum vos, unus est Christus?","english":"Therefore nothing has been concluded in that way.\n\nHe objects. If there are two natures of Christ, each will be what it is and nothing else; and therefore humanity will be humanity only, and not also God. But God will be God only and not man: therefore Christ is pure God and pure man.\n\nHe is refuted. It is not the same thing, you slanderer, for something to be only this and to be pure this. For your soul is only a soul and nothing else; yet it is incarnate and is not bare of the body, and your body is only a body; yet it is also animate. But if humanity is not humanity only, but also divinity; and divinity is not divinity only, but also humanity: therefore divinity and humanity are made human, and divinity and humanity have united divinity and humanity to themselves; and therefore humanity, according to these things, is made human, and divinity is united to God.\n\nHe objects. If one nature of Christ is God, and the other is man; but the one is not the same as the other: then neither are God and man the same: how, therefore, according to you, is Christ one?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":25,"ref":"p25","source":"Rust. Deprehensa est versutia tua: idem namque aut personam significat aut naturam. Igitur eumdem quidem dicimus esse Deum et hominem Christum, non idem vero est natura: unus est igitur Christus, non unum, sicut siMpliciter dicimus; unum vero persona, non simpliciter unum est: igilnr unus qudcm, non vero unum, aliud et aliud, non alius vero et alius: absit.\n\nHæret. Quomodo fieri possit, ego nullo modo video: omne enim quod aliud est, et alter est.\n\nRust. Ego a te alius quidem sum, sed non aliud: unum est enim secundum quod tu homo es, et secundum quod ego sum homo; anima vero mea a corpore tuo alterum, et anima tui, a corpore meo»; ct mea anima in meo corpore, et tua in tuo alterum quiddam intelligitur, quomodolibet hæc ad invicem comparentur, Alius enim personarum magis differentiæ convenit, aliud vero et aliud, naturorum: etenim si tua anima tuo corpori comporatur, non est alius homo, sed aliud.","english":"Rusticus: Your cunning has been detected; for the same word signifies either a person or a nature. Therefore we say that Christ is the same God and man, but that the nature is not the same. Therefore Christ is one [person], not one [thing], as we say simply; but he is one in person, not simply one. Therefore he is one [person], not one [thing]; one thing and another thing, but not one person and another person—far be it.\n\nHeretic: How this can be, I in no way see; for everything that is another [person] is also another [thing].\n\nRusticus: I am indeed another [person] than you, but not another [thing]; for there is one thing according to which you are a man and according to which I am a man. But my soul is another thing than your body, and your soul than my body; and my soul in my body, and yours in yours, is understood as something other, however these are compared to one another. For \"another person\" belongs more to the differences of persons, but \"one thing and another thing\" to natures. For if your soul is compared to your body, it is not another man, but another thing.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":26,"ref":"p26","source":"Hæret. Quinimo, ct alius rectissime dicitur. Quis est enim apud Apostolum exterior homo qui corrumpiMur, et interior qui renovatur (II Cor. iv, 16)? Otane igitur aliud ctam alius est; et identidem omnis alius est aliud. Etenim ego ab angelo alius sum; sed et aliud; et ille a me alter simul et aliud: et sic quisque inveniet, singula quaeque dinumerans.\n\nRust. Utrum vera sini qux dixisti, ex his quæ adterne se habent, si videtur, quæramus. Quoniani sic se habet hic unus ad unum, sicut hic alter ad hoc alterum, vel hoc aliud; et sic se habet hic unus ad hunc alium, sicut unum ad aliud. Si igitur unum ncn semper idem est quod unus, et aliud non semper erit alius; ct vicissim, non omnis unus et unum est, neque omne unum et unus est. Idem vero sequitur de eo quod est alius, e'de eo quod est aliud. Discrevit vero hæc omnia Dominus in Evangelio, inquiens: Ego et Pater unum (Joan x, 30): nusquam dicens, unus sumus; sed magis e diverso dixit, sum. Rursus ait: Si ego testimonium perhibeo de me ipso, testimonium meum non est verum: alius est qui testificatur de me, et scio quod verum est testimonium, quod testificatur de me (Joan. v, 31, 32). Et quis essct iste, post addidit dicens: Qui misit me Pater, ipse testimonium perhibet de me (Ibid, 37).","english":"Heretic: Nay rather, he is most rightly called both another and a different thing. For who is the outer man in the Apostle, which is corrupted, and the inner man, which is renewed (2 Cor 4:16)? Therefore every other is also another, and again every another is also an other. For I am another than an angel, but also a different thing; and he is in turn both another and a different thing from me; and so each person will find it, if he enumerates each particular.\n\nRusticus: Whether what you have said is true, let us inquire, if it seems good, from those things which are related to one another. For since this one is related to one as this other is to this other thing, or to this different thing; and this one is related to this other as one is to another thing. If, therefore, \"one\" is not always the same as \"one [person],\" then \"another thing\" will not always be \"another [person]\"; and conversely, not every \"one [person]\" is also \"one [thing],\" nor is every \"one [thing]\" also \"one [person].\" The same follows concerning that which is \"another [person]\" and that which is \"another thing.\" But the Lord distinguished all these things in the Gospel, saying: I and the Father are one (John 10:30); nowhere saying, \"We are one person,\" but rather, on the contrary, he said, \"I am.\" Again he says: If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true: there is another who bears witness of me, and I know that the witness which he bears of me is true (John 5:31-32). And who this was, he afterwards added, saying: The Father who sent me, he bears witness of me (John 5:37).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":27,"ref":"p27","source":"Et de Spiritu sancto inquit: Si diligitis me, præcepta mea servate; et ego rngabo Patrem meum, et alium Paracletnm dabit vobis ut maneat vobiscum in sempiternum: illum Spiritum veritatis (Joan. XIV, 15-17). Non dixit, aliud consolatorium Spiritum; sed, alium Paracletum.\n\nHæret. Hæc ad solum spectant, quia unum sunt Pater et Filius, et quia alius Pater, et alius Filius, non tamen quia non unus est, neque quia non aliud et aliud. Dum igitur quatuor proposita sint, duo tantummodo demonstrasti, idest, quia unum sunt Pater et Filius, et quia alius Patcr a Filio, et Spiritus sanctus. Remansit igitur non probatum quia non sit aliud Pater et aliud Filius; et quia non ipse sit Pater et Fi!ius. Haec igitur potius testimoniis te oportet ostendere; maxime quia unus dicitur Pater et Filius; unus enim Deus est.\n\nRust. Et si præ missa quod quaeris demons raverunt, quia et quod unum est, aliud non est; et quia alius cst, unus et idem non est: tamen et hoc demonstrabitur, quia ipse quidem Deus est Pater et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus, sed cum adjectione nominis Dei. Si vero auferatur a dicentibus nomen quod est Deus, non jam simpliciter dici potest ipse esse Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus. Inquit enim: Ego ex memetipio non sum locutus; sed qui misit me Nater, ipse mihi mandatum dedit quid dicam et quid loquar (Joan. XII, 49).","english":"And concerning the Holy Spirit he says: If you love me, keep my commandments; and I will ask my Father, and he will give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you forever: that Spirit of truth (John 14:15-17). He did not say, another consoling spirit, but another Paraclete.\n\nHeretic: These things pertain to the fact alone that the Father and the Son are one, and that the Father is one and the Son another, not however to the fact that he is not one, nor to the fact that he is not one thing and another thing. Therefore, since four propositions were set forth, you have demonstrated only two, namely, that the Father and the Son are one, and that the Father is other than the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It remains, therefore, unproven that the Father is not one thing and the Son another thing, and that the Father is not himself the Son. These things, then, you ought rather to show by testimonies, especially since the Father and the Son are said to be one; for God is one.\n\nRusticus: And even if the things already set forth have demonstrated what you ask—both that what is one is not another, and that what is another is not one and the same—nevertheless this too will be demonstrated, that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are indeed God himself, but with the addition of the name of God. If, however, the name that is God is taken away from those who say it, then it can no longer be said simply that he himself is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. For he says: I have not spoken from myself; but the Father who sent me, he himself gave me commandment what I should say and what I should speak (John 12:49).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":28,"ref":"p28","source":"Ecce, non ipse est Pater qui et Filius: si enim ipse esset, ex se loqueretur. Supra autem dixit: Qui credit in me, non credit in me, sed in eum qui me misit (Joan. XII, 44). Et rursus adhuc aliquanto superius: Si ego glorifico me ipsum, gloria mea nihil est: Pater meus est qui glorificat me, quem ros dicitis, quia Deus vester eat a, et non cognovistis eum: ego vero scio eum; et si dixero quia nescio, ero similis vobis mendax; sed scio eum, et verbum ejus cUstodio (Joan. VIII, 54, 55). Et adhuc dicentibus ci Pharisæis, non esse verum testimonium ejus, tanquam eo de semetipso testificante, respondit dicens: Judicium meum justum est, quia solus non sum; sed ego et qui misit me Pater. In lege autem vestra scriptum est quia duorum hominum testimonium verum sit. Ego sum qui testificor de memetipso, et testificatur de me qui misit me Pter (Ibid., 16-18). Ex iis igitur quæ dicta sunt, et illud quæsitum claret: id est, quia non aliud et non aliud Pater et Filius; vel si dicatur aliud et aliud persona; duæ enim, non tamen aliud et aliud simpliciter et absolute. Si enim alius non unus et idem, sicut ostensum est, et aliud non unum et id ipsum, et e converso quod unum est, aliud non est. Quia igitur nnum sunt Pater et Filius, aliud non sunt. Pater igitur et Filius et Spiritus sanctus, unum quidem sunt, quia una eorum natura est; unus autem non sunt, quia tres personæ sunt.","english":"Behold, the Father is not the same as the Son; for if he were the same, he would speak from himself. But above he said: He who believes in me does not believe in me, but in him who sent me (John 12:44). And again, a little further above: If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who glorifies me, whom you say is your God, and you have not known him; but I know him; and if I say that I do not know him, I shall be like you, a liar; but I know him, and I keep his word (John 8:54-55). And still, when the Pharisees said to him that his testimony was not true, as though he were testifying concerning himself, he answered, saying: My judgment is just, because I am not alone; but I and the Father who sent me. In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true. I am the one who testifies concerning myself, and the one who sent me, the Father, testifies concerning me (Ibid., 16-18). From these things, therefore, which have been said, that question also is clear: that is, that the Father and the Son are not one thing and another thing; or if it be said that they are one thing and another thing in person; for there are two, yet not one thing and another thing simply and absolutely. For if he is another, he is not one and the same, as has been shown, and one thing is not one and the same thing, and conversely what is one is not another thing. Since, therefore, the Father and the Son are one, they are not another thing. Therefore the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are indeed one, because their nature is one; but they are not one [person], because they are three persons.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":29,"ref":"p29","source":"Sed rursus clara voce testificans, dico simpliciter: unus et simpliciter unum: et simpliciter, non unus sed alius; et simpliciter, non unum, sed aliud nobis est sermo: nam cum complexione, et aliud persona dicitur, et non alius Deus Pater a Filio. Vides igitur dixisse nos quia Dominus Christus, qui alteram naturam praeter communem sibi uniri dignatus est, unus est, quia una persona est; non unum vcro, quia non una natura. Sic nos dicere ergo intellige, quotiescunque dixerimus, unus et unum, aliud et alius. Iloc ipsum vero et cum lectionibus sanctorum Patrum synodus Ephesina in condemnationem Nestorii blasphemiarum et suæ (idei probationem, posuitatque firmavit. Quinimo per contraria quidcm destruxit hæc, sua vero dogmata confirmavit, inter beati Gregorii Nazanzeni lectiones, dicens ita: Aliud quid eI aliud, ex quibus Salvator; siquidem non idem invisibile visibili, et id quod intemporale illi quod subtemporale; non vero alius et alius: absit; ambo enim haec unum unitione, Deo quidem humanato, homine vero deitato, vel quomodo quis nominet: dico autem aliud et aliud, e converso quam in Triniiate se habet: illic enim alius et alius, ut non confundamus subsistentias; non aliud vero et aliud. Unutn enim tria et idem hac divinitate.","english":"But again, testifying with clear voice, I say plainly: one, and plainly one; and plainly, not one but another; and plainly, not one thing but another is our discourse. For with composition, both another in person is said, and God the Father is not another from the Son. You see, therefore, that we have said that the Lord Christ, who deigned to unite to himself another nature besides the common one, is one, because he is one person; but not one thing, because he is not one nature. Understand, therefore, that we speak thus whenever we say, one and one thing, another and another. This very thing the Synod of Ephesus also, with the readings of the holy Fathers, set forth and confirmed for the condemnation of the blasphemies of Nestorius and the proof of its own faith. Indeed, by contraries it destroyed these things, but confirmed its own doctrines, among the readings of the blessed Gregory of Nazianzus, saying thus: Another and another, from which the Savior is; for indeed the invisible is not the same as the visible, nor that which is timeless the same as that which is under time; but not another and another—far be it; for both these are one by union, God indeed made man, and man deified, or however one may name it. I say, moreover, another and another, the reverse of how it is in the Trinity; for there, another and another, lest we confuse the subsistences; but not another and another. For the three are one and the same in this divinity.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":30,"ref":"p30","source":"Non solum vero iis nos abundare putetis, quibus vestras contradictiones evertere praevaleamus; sed audire potius per quæ nostra firmare ipsa omnium firmissima verilas consuevit. Quorum diversa sunt quæ illis cum multis aliis communiora esse solent, sicut ea quæ genera horum et specialiora diversa sunt: sicut hæ que vocantur species horum, et substantiæ, et naturæ secundum numerum sunt diversae. Sed simplicis rei et compositæ, sempiternae et temporalis, vertibilis et non vertibilis, mutabilis et immutabitis, passibilis et it.. passibilis, diversa sunt genera et species; diversæ igitur, secundum numerum, et substantiae ve! na uræ.\n\nHæret. Hoc in Domino Christo non habet rationem, propter unitionem: sicut enim rationalis ani næ et corporis diversa quidem sunt genera et spe ies, unum vero animat homo, et ejus una substantia et natura: sic et in Domino Christo, genera quidem discrepant, naturæ vero minime.","english":"But do not think that we are well supplied only with those points by which we may prevail to overturn your contradictions; rather, hear the things by which that truth of all, itself the firmest of all, is accustomed to strengthen our own. The things that are diverse in them are those which are usually more common to them along with many others, just as those which are the genera of these and the more specific are diverse; just as those which are called the species of these, and their substances and natures, are diverse according to number. But of a simple thing and a composite thing, of an eternal thing and a temporal thing, of a changeable thing and an unchangeable thing, of a mutable thing and an immutable thing, of a passible thing and an impassible thing, the genera and species are diverse; therefore their substances or natures are also diverse according to number.\n\nHe hesitates. This has no application in the Lord Christ, because of the union; for just as the genera and species of the rational soul and the body are indeed diverse, yet the man is one animated being, and his substance and nature are one, so also in the Lord Christ the genera indeed differ, but the natures in no way differ.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":31,"ref":"p31","source":"Rust. Non est verum quod dixisti. Anima namque et corpus, non tam secuidum genus quam potius secundum speciem distant. Genus enim tam animæ qu corporis substantia susceptibilis contrariorum: etenim et anima susceptiva virtutis et vitii est, et corpus salutis atque languaris. Sed nec simplicitcr specie differt corpus ab anima, una enim species humanitatis est, sed forsan iis quae sunt media inler hæc. Hoc enim mortale, illud vero est immortale, et aliis talibus differentiis: quare verax est prædicta propositio.\n\nHæret. Sed ecce, principio isto concesso, continuo desrendentes usque ad fines Nestorii pervenitis. Nam quorum diversa sunt genera, et species, et substantiæ, ac naturae, horum nec unum est individuum, nec subsistentia una, neque una pcrsona, sed amplus. Si enim duo hæc quae dicis, individua sunt, sive substantiae, vel essentiæ, sive subsistentiæ rationales, duæ omnimodo et personæ.","english":"Rusticus: What you have said is not true. For soul and body differ not so much according to genus as rather according to species. For the substance of both soul and body is susceptible of contraries: indeed the soul is susceptible of virtue and of vice, and the body of health and of sickness. But neither does the body differ from the soul simply according to species—for the species of humanity is one—but perhaps by those things which are intermediate between these. For the one is mortal, the other immortal, and by other such differences. Wherefore the aforesaid proposition is true.\n\nHaereticus: But behold, once this principle is granted, descending continuously you come at last to the boundaries of Nestorius. For those whose genera, species, substances, and natures are diverse—of these there is neither one individual, nor one subsistence, nor one person, but many. For if these two things of which you speak are individuals, whether substances or essences, or rational subsistences, then in every way they are also two persons.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":32,"ref":"p32","source":"Rust. Non necessarie conclusisti; diversis enim existentibus mundi et generibus, et speciebus, et substantiis, et naturis, individuum non est diversum. Unus est namque individitus mundus, etsi sæcula adversa dicantur: saecula enim ex temporibus fiunt, mundus vero substantiarum est. Nec vero illi sunt huic rationi contrarii, qui plures mundos suspicantur: nam vel si esset alius, similiter plures haberet in semetipso naturas atque substantias; unusquisque vero eorum nihilominus unus esset. Sic igitur nos, si in aliquo alio præterquam in uno Christo subsistere alias duas individuas substantias diceremus, tunc duas pluresve personas modis omnibus et inevitabiliter inferremus; si vcro de uno ac solo id dicimus, sicut nullus recte credentium hanc omnium corporalium naturarum constitutionem duos vel plures mundos esse affirmavit; sic neque nos duos aut plures C ristos asserimus. Magis vero nec sic, sed longe melius: omnia namque illa non secundum subsistentiam sunt unita, sicut naturæ hujus dominici Christi. Si vero non diversa sunt nera, neque species deitatis et humanitatis; ergo nec ex diversis naturis Christus, neque est ex duabus. Si vero est ex duahus, da igitur earum differentias substantivas: non enim vis secundum individuum et ista dictare. Insuper si revera homo est, id est anima!","english":"Rusticus: You have not drawn a necessary conclusion; for since the genera and species and substances and natures of the world are diverse, the individual is not diverse. For the world is one individual, even if ages are called opposite; for ages are made from times, but the world is of substances. Nor are those who suspect there are many worlds contrary to this reasoning; for even if there were another, it would similarly have many natures and substances in itself; yet each of them would nonetheless be one. So therefore we, if we were to say that the other two individual substances subsist in anything other than in the one Christ, would then in every way and inevitably introduce two or more persons; but if we say this of the one and only, just as no one of those who believe rightly has affirmed that this constitution of all corporeal natures is two or more worlds, so neither do we assert two or more Christs. But rather not even so, but far better: for all those things are not united according to subsistence, as are the natures of this dominical Christ. But if the species of divinity and humanity are not diverse, then Christ is neither from diverse natures nor is he from two. But if he is from two, then give their substantial differences; for you do not wish to dictate these according to the individual. Moreover, if he is truly man, that is, soul!","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":33,"ref":"p33","source":"rationale, terrenum, et nihil distat a Deo: igitur, quod est impiissimum, nec nos ab co, aut certe ille nobis consubstantialis non est. Insuper si verum est quoniam quorum diversa sunt genera, non eadem sunt et quæ sub generibus distinguuntur, similiterque et ea quæ iis subsunt, sive ad aliena invicem genera, sive ad ea quæ intra ea sunt comparata, quorum hoc quidem genus habet, illud vero non habet, multo magis diversa monstrantur. Si igitur deitas nec genus habet, nec eam speciem quae suppouitur generi, habere vero haec invenitur humanitas, multo magis in una natura coadunari non posse demonstrantur. Superiora igitur sine praejudicio posita sint, in quibus diversa genera et species diximus, divinitatis et carnis.\n\nHæret. Unum summumque genus habet divinitas atque humanitas: substantia enim generalissimum genus est divinitati? et humanitatis, quæ est per semetpsum subsistens.","english":"rational, earthly, and differs in nothing from God: therefore—what is most impious—neither are we from him, or at any rate he is not consubstantial with us. Moreover, if it is true that things whose genera are diverse are not the same, and neither are the things distinguished under the genera, and likewise the things that underlie them, whether compared to genera alien to one another or to those things that are within them—of which one has this and the other does not—then they are shown to be much more diverse. If, therefore, deity has neither a genus nor that species which is subordinated to a genus, while humanity is found to have these, they are shown much more to be unable to be united in one nature. Let the foregoing, then, be set down without prejudice, in which we have spoken of diverse genera and species, of divinity and of flesh.\n\nHaeretic: Divinity and humanity have one highest genus: for is substance the most general genus for divinity? and for humanity, which subsists through itself?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":34,"ref":"p34","source":"Rust. Per se subsistens, cum de Deo dicitur, significat quod nullius alterius (ad id, ut sit) indiget: cum vero de creaturis, nequaquam: a Creatore enim esse sumpserunt; et in ipso vivimus, et movemur, et sumus (Act. XVII, 28). Substantia vero, id est, cum de Deo dicitur, ab eo quod sit semper nominata est, quippe est quæ semper est; in creaturis vero, minime. Igitur, etsi unum nomen est substantiæ, non tamen una res. Non est igitur commune genus substantia deitatis et carnis, sed nomen commune tantummodo: hoc vero genus non est.\n\nHæret. Sed et anima, idem genus non habens corpori, unam cum eo speciem complet.\n\nRust. Magis unum summumque genus hab nf, utrumque enim substantia est, et nomine et definitione: quod in Christo de deitate et humanitate impossibile esse si adhuc dubitas, et inferius ostendetur. Anima igitur rationalis, et corpus hominis, identitatem naturæ circa unitionem suscipiunt, eo quod et unum genus et eamdem speciem teneant: sunt vero etiam diversæ naturæ, quia et sub diversa specie ac definitione nonnunquam ponuntur. At vero tritas et humanitas Christi sub una specie non No. nuntur.","english":"Rusticus: When \"self-subsistent\" is said of God, it signifies that he needs nothing else in order to exist; but when it is said of creatures, by no means, for they received their being from the Creator, and in him we live and move and are (Acts 17:28). But \"substance,\" that is, when it is said of God, is named from the fact that he always is, since he is what always is; but in creatures, by no means. Therefore, even if \"substance\" is one name, it is not one thing. The substance of deity and of flesh is therefore not a common genus, but only a common name; and this is not a genus.\n\nHeretic: But the soul too, not having the same genus as the body, completes one species with it.\n\nRusticus: Rather, it has one highest genus, for both are substance, both in name and in definition; if you still doubt that this is impossible in Christ with respect to deity and humanity, it will also be shown below. The rational soul, therefore, and the body of a man receive an identity of nature with respect to union, in that they hold both one genus and the same species; yet they are also diverse natures, because they are sometimes placed under a diverse species and definition. But the deity and humanity of Christ are not said to be under one species.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":35,"ref":"p35","source":"Hæret. Non fit ei incertis, secundum quod incerta sunt, demonstratio incertorum. Si igitur ostendis quia deilas et caro sub una definitione non jacet, et quia in uno eodemque homine differt definitione et natura ei species corporis et animæ, tunc forsan ca que adjecisti sequentur. His igitur inferiori loco servatis, veniamus ad alia, ut non sermonum prolixitatem longius extendamus.\n\nRust. Dominum Cbristum consubstantialem tam Patri quam nobis, secundum unam et eamd per unitionem substantiam, sæpe profertis, nulla perdita neque confusa; sed ipsam sicut dicitis unam substantiam impossibile cst non habere quædam quæ in comparationc ad invicem recte aliud et aliud nominentur, ut carnem, ut animam, ut Verbum; contingit enim multas differentias sumere, quas ego tanquam notas tuo intellectui derelinquo. Aliud igitur et aliud, Ii substantia et substantia dicitur, recte alia et alia substantia praedicatur: si vero aliquid horum non est substantia, quomodo secundum hoc, quædam sunt ei consubstantialia, cum non sint secundum substantiam consubstantialia? Quomodo autem vera divinitas, et perfecta et individua humanitas, substantia non erit? Si igitur alia et alia substantia deitatis et carnis, quomodo duas eas non patimini confiteri? si vero et duas has confitemini, cur a nostra sententia et communione desciscitis?","english":"He is stuck. A demonstration of uncertain things is not made for him by means of things that are uncertain, inasmuch as they are uncertain. If, therefore, you show that the Godhead and the flesh do not fall under one definition, and that in one and the same man the species of body and of soul differ in definition and in nature, then perhaps the things you have added will follow. Therefore, keeping these matters in a lower place, let us come to other points, so that we do not extend the prolixity of our discourse too far.\n\nRusticus: You often declare that the Lord Christ is consubstantial both with the Father and with us, according to one and the same substance through union, with nothing lost or confused; but that very one substance, as you say, cannot fail to have certain things which, in comparison with one another, are rightly named one thing and another thing—as the flesh, as the soul, as the Word. For it happens that many differences are taken up, which I leave to you as known to your understanding. Therefore, if one thing and another thing is said of substance and substance, rightly one substance and another substance is predicated; but if any of these is not a substance, how is it that according to this certain things are consubstantial with it, when they are not consubstantial according to substance? And how will the true divinity, and the perfect and individual humanity, not be substance? If, therefore, the substance of the Godhead and of the flesh is one thing and another thing, how do you not allow them to be confessed as two? But if you do confess them as two, why do you withdraw from our judgment and communion?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":36,"ref":"p36","source":"Hæret. Sic et puri alicujus hominis poteris duas demonstrare substantias, ut ex his convincaris tres inducere Christi substantias: homo etenim, secundum substantiam mentis, consubstantialis est angelis; secundum corpus vero pecudibus simul ac bestiis. Et rursus, secundum corpus quidem consubstantiales sumus corporibus mortuorum, secundum animam vero, animabus ipsorum: ut non angelorum tantummodo ponamus exemplum, de quibus et mihi intertam fateor esse quæstionem.\n\nRust. Hoc totum falsum est: consubstantialitas enim pro parte, ct non pro totietate substantiæ imperfecta est. A trecentis enim decem et octo sanctis Patribus, propter hoc, Deo Patri consubstantialis di tus Filius, ul cogi osceremus quia nihil in eo deest paternæ substantiae. Similiter vero ab his qui postea fuerunt, sanctis Patribus consubstantialis nobis est prædicatus, ut omnia nostrae substantiæ illum habere credamus: igitur hæretica fraude, consubstantialitalis nomine utitur, qui ex parte hoc suscipit. Quidquid ergo verum sit de angelis, consubstantialis eis non est homo; similiter vero nec bestiis, neque pecoribus, neque cadaveribus, nec animabus. Amplius, ncc simplicitcr secundum quamcunque partem consubstantialis in rationalibus homo recte dicetur: nam licet una sit matcries ex qua corpus, sod tamen forma corporis longe præstantior.","english":"He is stuck. In this way you will also be able to demonstrate two substances of any pure man, so that from these you are convicted of introducing three substances of Christ: for man, according to the substance of the mind, is consubstantial with the angels; but according to the body, with cattle and beasts alike. And again, according to the body indeed we are consubstantial with the bodies of the dead, but according to the soul, with their souls: so that we do not set forth the example of the angels only, concerning whom I confess that the question is even unresolved for me.\n\nRusticus: All this is false: for consubstantiality in part, and not in the totality of substance, is imperfect. For by the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers, for this reason, the Son was declared consubstantial with God the Father, so that we might be compelled to acknowledge that nothing of the Father's substance is lacking in him. Similarly, moreover, by the holy Fathers who came afterward, he was proclaimed consubstantial with us, so that we may believe that he has all things of our substance. Therefore, by heretical fraud, he uses the name of consubstantiality who accepts it in part. Whatever therefore may be true concerning the angels, man is not consubstantial with them; similarly neither with beasts, nor with cattle, nor with corpses, nor with souls. Furthermore, man will not rightly be called consubstantial in rational beings even simply according to any part whatsoever: for although the matter from which the body comes is one, nevertheless the form of the body is far more excellent.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":37,"ref":"p37","source":"Unde nec partem parti, vel totietatem consubstantialem verum est esse; quasi eo quod una materia sit, nos consubstantiales dicamur serpentibus, et cimicibus, et pulicibus, muscis, et omnibus simul quæ humani corporis evaporatione nascuntur. Insuper, si omne quod consubstantiale est homini secundum corpus, ei plane consubstantiale est; circa hoc ipsum, illis quibus secundum hoc consubstantialis est homo, erit et Christus, quod absit, omnibus prædictis consubstantialis seeundum corpus; nohis enim circa hanc partem consubstantialis est Christus. Si vero aliquis, tales despiciens blasphemias, hæc ut vera concedat; illud tan en avelli non potest, quia hujusmodi consubbstantialitas neque integra est, neque perfecta: non igitur duabus perferlis naturis consubstantialis est homo, ut Christus. Amplius, si magis proprie a nascendo est dicta natura: ut gignitur, magis quam ut corrumpitur, est natura: homo vero integer nascitur atque perfectus, corruptio autem separat corpus et animam ab invicem, et duas separatas res efficit, quarum neutrum perfecta natura est. Si enim perficit Datura. corruptio, et contrarii secundum se contrarius est effectus: igitur genitura naturas exI rminat, quod est nimis incongruum. Et quidem humanitatis Christi natura, mortis tempore, in duas est separata, et in duo quædam facta esi una natura, quorum tamen neutrum fuit perfecta natura.","english":"Hence it is not true that a part is consubstantial with a part, or that the whole is consubstantial; as if, because there is one matter, we should be called consubstantial with serpents, and bugs, and fleas, flies, and all things that are born at once from the exhalation of the human body. Moreover, if everything that is consubstantial with man according to the body is plainly consubstantial with him, then in this respect Christ will also be consubstantial according to the body with all the things just mentioned—which God forbid—with those things with which man is consubstantial in this respect; for Christ is consubstantial with us in this part. But if someone, despising such blasphemies, should grant that these things are true, yet that point cannot be torn away, namely that consubstantiality of this kind is neither whole nor perfect; therefore man is not consubstantial with two perfect natures, as Christ is. Furthermore, if nature is more properly said from being born, then nature is more properly understood as it is begotten than as it is corrupted; but a whole and perfect man is born, whereas corruption separates body and soul from each other and makes two separate things, neither of which is a perfect nature. For if corruption perfects nature, and the effect of a contrary is contrary to itself, then generation destroys natures, which is utterly incongruous. And indeed the nature of Christ's humanity, at the time of death, was separated into two, and one nature was made into two things, of which, however, neither was a perfect nature.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":38,"ref":"p38","source":"Iterum vero, resurrectio ex duabus est, sed non sic habet perfectissimarum in eo unitio naturarum, sine corruptione siquidem et sine imminutione unaquæque unitarum naturarum in speciei perfectione subsistit. Insuper, si hominis cujusdam puri, ut ais, due possunt substantiæ demonstrari, licet earum nulla perfecta natura sit, ne idcirco non duæ sunt, quoniam non perfectae, dum duæ perfectæ sint Christi naturæ, quomodo non multo amplius duæ sunt? Si igitur et illos qui duas naturas hominis dicunt, nihil subsequitur inconveniens; duas igitur naturas confitentes Jesu Domini Christi, quid indecens consequetur? Qui autem tres dicit, imperfecte perfecta connumerat divinitati: superflua vero erit omnium sub uno Patrum vox dicentium consubstantialem nobis esse Christum secundam humanitatem, ad interempionem corum qui dicunt inanimatum, vel sine mente esse dispensationem. Si vero apud homines sic dicantur consubstantialia, nihil profuit Patres consubstantialem dixisse Filium Patri: potest enim quis impius suspicari quoniam quantum praestat rationale inanimato, tantum Pater Filio comparatur. Est vero, ut arbitror, multa raillia insaniora his dicere. SeJ nunc interim ista sufficiam.","english":"Again, however, the resurrection is from two, but the union of the most perfect natures in him is not so; for without corruption and without diminution each of the united natures subsists in the perfection of its species. Moreover, if, as you say, two substances of a certain pure man can be demonstrated, although none of them is a perfect nature, yet it is not for that reason that they are not two because they are not perfect, while the two natures of Christ are perfect—how are they not much more two? If, therefore, no inconvenience follows for those who say that there are two natures of a man, then what indecency will follow for those who confess two natures of Jesus the Lord Christ? But he who says three numbers imperfect things as perfect with the divinity; and the voice of all the Fathers will be superfluous, who say under one that Christ is consubstantial with us according to the second humanity, to the destruction of those who say that the dispensation is inanimate or without mind. But if among men consubstantial things are spoken of in this way, it profited nothing that the Fathers said the Son is consubstantial with the Father; for some impious person can suspect that as much as the rational surpasses the inanimate, so much is the Father compared to the Son. But, as I think, it is much more insane to say many such trifles than these. But for now I will let these suffice.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":39,"ref":"p39","source":"Hæret. Si una est substantia et res Christus, igitur unum quidcm substantivum, una pcr unitionem substantia Christus est.\n\nRust. Res et personam significat, et naturam. Et una igitur res Christus, et duæ: ct magis vero ipse quidem res una est, quippe ut una persona, in dnahus vero naturis agnoscitur.\n\nHæret. Quia interim non negasti unam rem esse Christum (quomodo enim non unum dicis Christum, qui rem unam Christum esse dicis?), res vero hæc est substantiva: una igitur, ut diximus, substantia Christus est, una igitur et natura: quid enim ad me, utrum etiam duæ res sint, an minime? interim, quia una est, contradicere non potes.\n\nRust. Sed non modis omnibus sequitur unam rem et substantivam unam quoque esse substantiam: nam et virga Aaron quae attulit fructum (Num. XVII, 18), una quidem substantivaque res erat cum fructibus suis, non una vero substantia cum fructibus erat. Et tabulas scriptas digito Dei (Exod. XXXI, i8) unam rem dicimus, non unam quoque substantiam. Verum, nec illud incongrue arbitror responderi, quia Christus, nec substantiva nec insubstantiva, sed supersubstantiva res est, quippe duarum perfectissimarum substantiarum vel naturarum. Etenim panis ille quem dominica oratione deposcimus, supersubstantialis (Matth. VI, 11) dicitur. Et arbitror sic nos eum petere, ut Christum potius expetamns, donec, sicut ait Apostolus, formetur Christus in nobis (Cal. IV, 19).","english":"Haeretic. If Christ is one substance and one thing, therefore he is one substantive thing, and by union Christ is one substance.\n\nRusticus. \"Thing\" signifies both person and nature. And so Christ is one thing, and also two things; and indeed he himself is more truly one thing, inasmuch as he is one person, but he is recognized in two natures.\n\nHaeretic. Since for the present you have not denied that Christ is one thing (for how do you not call Christ one, when you say that Christ is one thing?), and this thing is substantive: therefore, as we have said, Christ is one substance, therefore also one nature: for what does it matter to me whether there are also two things or not? For the present, since he is one, you cannot contradict it.\n\nRusticus. But it does not follow in every way that one thing is also one substance: for the rod of Aaron which bore fruit (Num. 17:8) was indeed one substantive thing with its fruits, but it was not one substance with its fruits. And the tablets written by the finger of God (Exod. 31:18) we call one thing, but not also one substance. But neither do I think it incongruous to answer that Christ is neither a substantive nor an insubstantive thing, but a supersubstantive thing, inasmuch as he is of two most perfect substances or natures. For that bread which we ask for in the Lord's Prayer is called supersubstantial (Matt. 6:11). And I think we ask for it in such a way that we seek Christ rather, until, as the Apostle says, Christ is formed in us (Gal. 4:19).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":40,"ref":"p40","source":"Amplius vero, si milium piri ramos insertos habens, una arbor et una est res; sed quia habet et proprios ramos, nec una substantia, neque una natura est. Sed ut milium simul et pirum duæ, ut vero arbor una esse res dicitur: quid obest unitati personæ, si Christum duas res esse dicamus? Aut quid naturarnm dualitati, si eum unam rem confiteamur existere? Insuper, etsi respondeamus substantivum quidem esse Christum, non ob hoc erit una substantia; unam siquidem personam dicimus substantivam: sicut si aliquis, verbi gratia, dicat hunc mundum non esse insubstantivum, non tamen ex hoc ejus unam cogeretur affirmare substantiam. Si vero aliquis omnino insanus et contentiosissimus dicat unam mundi esse substantiam, sequitur eum nec in quibuslibai rebus aliter ullatenus dicere, nisi quia una substantia sit. Si enim cunctæ quae in orbe sunt diversitates non faciunt sub numero esse substantias, unaquæque ad aliam comparata, una erit cum ea: una igitur substantia hominis et lapidis et elephanti atque formicæ, et coeli ac montis.","english":"Furthermore, if a millet tree has pear branches grafted into it, it is one tree and one thing; but because it also has its own branches, it is neither one substance nor one nature. But just as millet and pear are two things, yet the tree is said to be one thing: what does this detract from the unity of the person, if we say that Christ is two things? Or what does it detract from the duality of natures, if we confess that he exists as one thing? Moreover, even if we answer that Christ is indeed a substantive thing, he will not for this reason be one substance; for we say that one person is substantive: just as, for example, if someone says that this world is not insubstantive, he would not for this reason be compelled to affirm that it is one substance. But if someone utterly insane and most contentious says that the world is one substance, it follows that he can in no way speak otherwise of any things whatsoever, except that it is one substance. For if all the diversities that are in the world do not cause them to be substances under number, each one compared to another will be one with it: therefore the substance of man and stone and elephant and ant, and of heaven and mountain, will be one.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":41,"ref":"p41","source":"Hæret. In hunc mundum lalis non evenit Initio, quia nec unus est filius, unus Chistus, unus Dominus. Et si unus simpliciter mundus, sed est millia millium reperire qui vocentur fiii et personæ, et substantie; in Christo autem inconvulsibilis unitio facta est.\n\nRust. Nonne praedixi quia exemplum non per omnia est inconveniens? alias non erit exemptum, si per omnia idem. Quia igitur dixisti substuntivum quiddam esse Christum, ostendi quia et aliud aliquid dicitur quidem substantivum, non unius autem substantiæ, sed multarum est. Si vero ea quæ arte fiunt dicere velit, multa millia talia invenire possibile est, ut navem, domum, ut lucernam ardentem, et his similia: universa enim talia, substantia quidem sunt, non unius vero substantiæ.\n\nHæret. Nunquam natura continet minus a persona, quippe consueta et amplius continere: dico autem nunc de naturis ratiunalium; et ideo duas naturas dicere abhorremus, metuentes Me consequenler dicamus duas quoque personas.","english":"He is stuck. In this world such a thing does not happen at the beginning, because there is not one son, one Christ, one Lord. And if the world is simply one, yet there are thousands of thousands to be found who are called sons and persons and substances; but in Christ an indivisible union has been made.\n\nRusticus: Did I not foretell that the example is not in all respects unsuitable? Otherwise it will not be an example, if it is the same in all respects. Since, therefore, you said that Christ is something substantive, I have shown that something else is also called substantive, yet it is not of one substance but of many. But if he wishes to speak of things made by craft, it is possible to find many thousands of such things, such as a ship, a house, a burning lamp, and things like these; for all such things are indeed a substance, but not of one substance.\n\nHe is stuck. Nature never contains less than a person, since it is accustomed to contain even more—I speak now of the natures of rational beings; and therefore we shrink from saying two natures, fearing that consequently we may also say two persons.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":42,"ref":"p42","source":"Rust. Insanissimus timor: nec enim sunt duæ rationales naturæ quæ nou millia contineant personarum; sed neque una quae non plures quam duas personas obtineat. Non erit ergo neque uua Christi natura, ne sint ejus non duae tantum, sed plures quoque personæ. Insuper autem nec ex duabus secundum nos naturis est Christus, ne sit aut pluribus personis seu liliis, aut Christus, aut Dominus. Si vero eos qui ex duabus naturis dicunt Christum, sive ex duabus, sicut vos, consequitur personis aut pluribus, non consequitur ex duobus Christis aut filiis dicere; nec illos baereticos qui duas etiam dicunt Christi personas, eadem consequentur incongrua: quare multo minus orthodoxos, qui Dominum Christum in duabus naturis coufitentur, sequetur duos dicere Dominos, aut Christos, aut filios. Insuper, si ob hoc duas natutas metuitis dicere, ne forte, secundum quod consuevit, in reliquis duas iuducatis personas; dicitis enim quia nunquam minus sunt a duabus personis duæ natux; nec illud unquam confitcri debetis, quia Dominus Christus Deus perfectus et homo perfectus est, quia in reliquis rationalibus universis, perfecti Dei et perfecti hominis impossibile est unam solumque esse personam.","english":"Rusticus: Most insane fear. For there are not two rational natures that contain not a thousand persons; but neither is there one that does not contain more than two persons. Therefore there will not be one nature of Christ, lest there be not only two but even more persons of him. Moreover, according to us Christ is not from two natures, lest he be either more persons or sons, or Christ, or Lord. But if those who say that Christ is from two natures, or from two, as you do, are followed by more persons, it does not follow that they say he is from two Christs or sons; nor will those heretics who also say that there are two persons of Christ be followed by these same incongruities. Therefore much less will it follow that the orthodox, who confess the Lord Christ in two natures, say that there are two Lords, or Christs, or sons. Moreover, if for this reason you fear to say two natures, lest perhaps, according to what is customary, you judge there to be two persons in the rest; for you say that two natures are never fewer than two persons; nor should you ever confess that the Lord Christ is perfect God and perfect man, because in all the rest of rational beings it is impossible for there to be one and only one person of perfect God and perfect man.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":43,"ref":"p43","source":"Si vero de hoc opinatissimo miratulo nobis quippe Christianis existentibus dubilare periculosum est; quoniam, quando voluit Deus perfectus, potuit cum perfecta humanitate ea esse persona, quia non est ei impossibile omne terbum, juxta Evangelium (Luc. I, 37): cur dubitamus quia hæc ipsa persona in duabus perfectis naturis sit non seNaranda, sed potius agnoscenda? Sicut igitur Deus perrectus et homo perfectus inæstimabiliter una sola I ersoua est, ne dux perfectæ naturæ sunt mirabiliter unus filius Et hæc. ut ita quis dicat, regula in reliquis quidem cunctis immol ilis est, in solo vero Christo soluta est. Non igitur eo quod male utatur substantiarum dualltate Nestorius, idcirco tacendum est duas esse substantias; alioquin quoniam male utitur perfecto Deo et perfecto homine, orthodoxi non hoc debent dicere. Et ut simpliciter dicamus, si tacere de emus, vel omnino auferre omnia qu;c ab hæreticis male usurpantur, nibil nobis est confitendum, et præ omnibus auferrentur Scripturæ.","english":"But if it is dangerous for us, who are of course Christians, to doubt concerning this most celebrated wonder, since when God willed it, being perfect, he could be that person with a perfect humanity, because every word is not impossible for him, according to the Gospel (Luke 1:37): why do we doubt that this very person exists in two perfect natures, not to be separated, but rather to be acknowledged? Just as therefore God, perfect, and man, perfect, are inestimably one single person, so the two perfect natures are wonderfully one Son. And this, so to speak, is the rule: in all other things indeed it is inviolable, but in Christ alone it is relaxed. Therefore, because Nestorius makes bad use of the duality of substances, it is not for that reason that one must be silent about there being two substances; otherwise, because he makes bad use of perfect God and perfect man, the orthodox ought not to say this. And to speak plainly, if we were to be silent about these things, or altogether remove everything that is badly usurped by heretics, there would be nothing for us to confess, and before all things the Scriptures would be removed.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":44,"ref":"p44","source":"Hæret. Cogis me idem repetere: quando Matuta divina minus continuit a persona? aut quando substantia, minus a subsistentia? dicite.\n\nRust. Ad hoc quidem jam sufficienter respondimus: verumtamen et hoc competenter adjiciam, quia nec hicduae naturæ solum continent Christi personam, licet in ipso solo secundum subsistentiam sint unite: etenim divina ejus natura pariter continet et Patrem et Spiritum sanctum; et humana ejus substantia reliquos homines. Scd quemadmodum in divina natura subsistens, ut et t'a er et Spiritus sanctus, non tamen purus est Deus; et in nostra vero, sed non nudus est homo: sic in duabus subsistens, non est partitus, nec enim duas habet personas. Quæro vero a te, omodo dixisti naturam: utrumne universalem, an potius individuam?\n\nHæret. Ego indifferenter accipio: quae enim omnino differentia est, aut quid interest?","english":"Heretic. You force me to repeat the same thing: when did the divine nature fail to contain a person? Or when did substance fail to contain subsistence? Tell me.\n\nRusticus. To this indeed we have already responded sufficiently; yet I will also add this fittingly, that here too not only two natures contain the person of Christ, although in him alone they are united according to subsistence; for his divine nature equally contains both the Father and the Holy Spirit, and his human substance contains the rest of men. But just as one subsisting in the divine nature, as both the Father and the Holy Spirit, is not thereby pure God; and in our nature, but is not bare man: so one subsisting in two natures is not divided, for he does not have two persons. But I ask you, who have just now spoken of nature: is it universal, or rather individual?\n\nHeretic. I take it indifferently; for what difference is there at all, or what does it matter?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":45,"ref":"p45","source":"Rust. Multa etenim: si enim universalem, vel communem diris, verum est, quia non minus continet a persona, imo magis et amplius; si vero particularem vel individuam, sicut meam tuamque, vel alterius individui, alii nulli communem (non cnitu idem sum ego qui et tu), in Christo propterea exemplum non invenimus, ut dixi, quia sole rationales naturæ sint, Deus et militiæ cœlestes, et homo; nunquam vero ex his duæ unitæ ad invicem sunt naturae, ut unam facerent solamque personam, sicut in Domino Christo circa unitionem deitatis atque humanitatis. Hæc est enim inopinatissima proprietas illius unitionis, cujus exemplum non potest inveniri: nunquam enim duæ rationales naturæ in unam personam inseparabiliter sunt unitæ. Insuper nec est Dei particularis natura, id est, nullius alterius nisi unius 80liusque personæ; sed una et sola divinitas inexcessibiliter omnium trium natura est personarum: unum siquidem Deum veraciter confitemur.","english":"Rusticus. For there are many instances: if indeed you mean the universal or common nature, it is true that it contains a person no less, but rather more and further; if however you mean the particular or individual nature, such as mine and yours, or that of another individual, shared with no other (for I am not the same as you), for this reason we do not find an example in Christ, as I said, because only rational natures exist—God, the heavenly hosts, and man; yet never have two of these natures been united to one another so as to make one single person, as in the Lord Christ in the union of divinity and humanity. For this is the most unexpected property of that union, an example of which cannot be found: for never have two rational natures been inseparably united into one person. Moreover, the nature of God is not particular, that is, belonging to no other than one person alone; but the one and only divinity is the nature of all three persons without diminution: for we truly confess one God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":46,"ref":"p46","source":"Hæret. Si unus et individuus Christus, omnis vero individui una species est; una vero species, una natura est: una igitur Christi natura est.\n\nRust. Sunt multa millia iudividuorum quorum nec una species nec natura una, sed multæ sunt: ut civitates, ut domus, ut naves, ut chartae, et earum quæ illic script sunt litterarum.\n\nHæret. Sed hæc ex arte sunt, non a Deo neque a natura.\n\nRust. Interim si esset consequens ex omni neceslitate, si unum sit individuum, unam quoque esse naturam, et in his omnibus una utique natura fieret. Si vero dicis, omne individuum quod a Deo lit, unam habet speciem et unam naturam; nec hoc verum est: mundus enim a Deo factus est, et non habet unam naturam.\n\nHæret. Sed adhuc volo circumscribere adjectione sermonem, ac dico: Omne individuum substantivum quod a Deo fit, et inseparabile est, una est species et una natura.","english":"Haeretic. It follows. If Christ is one and individual, but every individual has one species; and one species is one nature: therefore Christ has one nature.\n\nRusticus. There are many thousands of individuals whose species is not one nor their nature one, but many: as cities, as houses, as ships, as documents, and the letters that are written on them.\n\nHaeretic. But these are from art, not from God nor from nature.\n\nRusticus. For the meantime, if it followed by every necessity that if there is one individual, there is also one nature, then in all these there would surely be one nature. But if you say that every individual that comes from God has one species and one nature, not even this is true: for the world was made by God, and it does not have one nature.\n\nHaeretic. But I still wish to circumscribe my statement with an addition, and I say: Every substantial individual that comes from God and is inseparable is one species and one nature.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":47,"ref":"p47","source":"Rust. Rursus in admirabili non admirabile quæris,et in incomparabili comparationem, et exemplum in his quæ exemplum recipere nequeunt Si vero id esse rationabilis hominis arbitraris, et ego tibi multas affero hujusmodi regulas, quas non poteris explicare in saecula sæculorum. Dic enim, qnando perfecta divinitas et perfecta humanitas una facta natura sit, et non manserint duæ, quando creator et creatura, una est per unitionem facta substantia; quando duæ perfectissimæ naturæ alterum quiddam pefrectum effecerint? et non utique perfectius simul et meEius, quando una species duabus perfectis speciebus inexcessibiliter fuit consubstantialis.\n\nHæret. Quoniam nunquam tale aliquid factum sit, confitemur et nos: ex tunc vero universa hæc inæstimabilia et mira facta sum, ex quo una per unilionem facta persona est: tu vero magnalia et inæstimabilia Dei accusas ut incongrua. Si igitur es his non factum putas unum Filium, unum Christum, unum Dominum, dic aperte. Si vero unam confiteris, secundum veritatem, personam, da quæ æ unum necessario consequuntur.","english":"Rusticus. Again you seek what is admirable in what is not admirable, and comparison in what is incomparable, and an example in things that cannot receive an example. But if you think this to be the case for a rational man, I too bring before you many rules of this kind, which you will not be able to explain for ages of ages. For tell me, when did perfect divinity and perfect humanity become one nature, and did not remain two? When did creator and creature become one substance through union? When did the two most perfect natures produce something else perfect? And certainly not something more perfect at the same time and less? When was one species consubstantial with two perfect species inseparably?\n\nHaeretic. Since no such thing has ever happened, we confess it as well; but from the time when all these inestimable and wondrous things were made, from the time when one person was made through union—you, however, accuse the great and inestimable works of God as incongruous. If, therefore, you do not think that from these there was made one Son, one Christ, one Lord, say so openly. But if you confess one person according to the truth, grant what necessarily follows from it.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":48,"ref":"p48","source":"Rust. Da tu conseqnenlia perfectae deitali humanitatique perfectæ; da quod est proprium consubstanbali Deo Patri Sapientiæ, et consubstantiali nobis carni animatæ anima rationali. Redde suis rebus proprium numerum; non auferas quantitatem, si substantiam perfectionem confiteri non simulas: ubi enim perfectio secundum substantiam, illic et substantiarum quantitas; ubi unitio inconfusa, illic et numerus unitorum. Omnis vero substantia simul accipit et esse ct una esse; et sic una, ut uni collata duos impleat unitio adjecta, non numerus interemplus: alias tu mihi ostende unitionem inconfusam perfectarum rerum quæ perimat earum numerum solum, et nullius secundum nullam partem perimat esse quod est, ut videaris aliquid non irrationaibiliter dicee. Ilis vero et illud adjiciam. Dixisti quia omne indivi duum a Deo factum, substanitivum inseparabile, una species est. Si igitur sic facta est inhumanatio, ut alta quædam creata, habes quid dicere? Volo autem ut non dicas verba tantum, sed ipsas res. Die igilur vel unum substantialeindividuum a Deo f.ctum et inseparabile. et unam speciem, ut exinde invenias veritatem.","english":"Rusticus. Give the consequences of perfect deity and perfect humanity; give what is proper to the Wisdom consubstantial with God the Father, and to the flesh consubstantial with us, animated by a rational soul. Restore to each thing its proper number; do not take away quantity, if you do not pretend to confess perfection according to substance: for where there is perfection according to substance, there also is the quantity of substances; where there is unconfused union, there also is the number of the united. But every substance at once receives both to be and to be one; and it is one in such a way that, when compared to one, the union added makes two, not a number destroyed. Otherwise, show me an unconfused union of perfect things that destroys only their number, and destroys the being of none according to no part, so that you may seem to say something not unreasonably. To these things I will add this also. You said that every individual made by God, an inseparable substantive, is one species. If, therefore, the incarnation was made thus, as some other created thing, do you have something to say? But I want you not to speak mere words, but the things themselves. Say, then, either one substantial individual made by God and inseparable, and one species, so that from this you may find the truth.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":49,"ref":"p49","source":"Hæret. Omnia quidem talia esse conspicimus: verumtamen dicant et unum ex his. Ecce unusquisque nostrum, et individuum, et unum est aliquid, et substantivum et a Deo factus, et inseparabilis; et tamen una species ese, et una natura, et una substantia\n\nRust. Omnia, ut consuevisti, posuisti dolose. Quia igitur exemptum manifestiora quae dicta sunt fecit, dicemus et nos quoniam non similiter hæc sumuntur in Domino Christo; tu vero ea de quibus disquiritur, ut confessa sumpsisti: non enim sic individuus Christus, ut reliqua, vel ut nos: nostrum siquidem quisque individuam habet personam, id est alii nulli communem, et iudividuam substantiam suam: in Christo vero, persona quidem individua, ipsius est enim solius: natura vero non eodein modo individua, communis enim cunctarum trium personarum, et nisi communem nonest possibile reperire. Rursus unum non simpliciter dicitur de Christo, quia unum qud sii; sed cautius, quia unus, sicut supra ostensum est. Similiter vero et de subsiantivo est demonstratum, quia non solum quod in una subsantia subsistit substantivum est, sed et in plures; et quod a Deo sit, non cum faciente Deo unum dicitur, sed factura, unum cum fact re, sicut cum corpore anima. Et indivisum quidem confitemur Filium Dei Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, et ejus inseparata persona est: naturæ vero ejus non inseparatur una, sed inseparatæ ut duæ unitæ sunt.","english":"Hæret. We observe that all such things are so; yet let them also state one of these. Behold, each one of us is both an individual and one something, and substantive and made by God, and inseparable; and yet there is one species, and one nature, and one substance.\n\nRusticus. You have set down all things deceitfully, as you are accustomed. Since, therefore, the example has made the things that were said clearer, we too shall say that these things are not taken in the same way in the Lord Christ; but you have taken as confessed the very things that are under investigation. For Christ is not individual in the same way as other things, or as we are. For each of us has an individual person, that is, one shared with no other, and his own individual substance. But in Christ, the person is indeed individual, for it is his alone; but the nature is not individual in the same way, for it is common to all three persons, and unless it were common it could not be found. Again, \"one\" is not said simply of Christ, because he is one something; but more cautiously, because he is one, as was shown above. Similarly, it has also been demonstrated concerning \"substantive,\" because not only is that which subsists in one substance substantive, but also that which subsists in several; and that he is \"of God\" is not said as one with God the maker, but as a creature, one with the creature, as the soul with the body. And we confess the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, to be undivided, and his person is inseparable; but the one of his natures is not inseparable, but the two are united as inseparable.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":50,"ref":"p50","source":"Igitur claret quoniam non eadem facta sunt in Domino Christo quae in aliis. Insannis est igitur quod dolose verbosatus es talia, dum magis dicere conveniret quia in creaturis se sic habet, in creatore vero creaturam suscipiente non sic. Nee enim in quolibet alio factum est unquam ut doe perfectissimae naturae præexisterent a principio ia aliis individuissuis, et postea ex his csset una persona.\n\nHæret Quid enim, quæso, dic mihi, nonne omnes doctores Ecclesiæ catholleæ exemplo hac u'i sunt, inquientes, sicut unus est homo, anima ei corpus. sic unus est Christus Deus perfectus et homo perfectus?Sic ergo et Christus, et individuum, et unum, et substantivum, et reliqua, sicut dixi.\n\nRust. Et supra jam dixi: regula est universorum rationalium communussima, ut exempla a parte sumantur, non vero a totietate. Usi sunt igitur Patres hoc exemplo, non ut ea quae dixisti ostenderent, qua et olim falsa monstravimus; sed ut ostenderent unum Filium, unum Christum, unum Dominum, et ejus unam personam substantialem. Ut vero non pttes hoc exemplum per omnia convenire, audi a nobis irrefutabiles rationes, quae vestum medacium evertunt. Si enim gentilium fabulas hactenus tenes, et putas quia præexstiterunt animæ rationales corporibus suis, duae nihilominus erunt perfectissmæ substantiæ ac maturat, Deus et mens.","english":"Therefore it is clear that the things done in the Lord Christ are not the same as those done in others. It is therefore senseless that you have spoken such things deceitfully, when it would rather be fitting to say that in creatures it is so, but in the Creator who receives a creature it is not so. For never in any other was it done that two most perfect natures pre-existed from the beginning in their own individuals, and afterwards from these there should be one person.\n\nHe hesitates. For tell me, I ask, did not all the teachers of the catholic Church use this example, saying, \"As one man is soul and body, so one is Christ, perfect God and perfect man\"? So therefore Christ is also both an individual and one, and substantive, and the rest, as I have said.\n\nRusticus. And I have already said above: it is the most common rule of all rational things that examples be taken from a part, not from the whole. The Fathers therefore used this example, not to show the things you have said, which we have already shown to be false; but to show one Son, one Christ, one Lord, and his one substantial person. But that this example cannot agree in all respects, hear from us the irrefutable reasons which overturn your falsehood. For if you still hold to the fables of the Gentiles, and think that rational souls pre-existed their bodies, there will nonetheless be two most perfect and mature substances, God and mind.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":51,"ref":"p51","source":"Insuper Dei Verbi et unitæ illi animan, quæ secundum te a principio præsubsistent personæ. Ex duabus vero præexistentibus personis unam personam impossibile est fieri. Dicit enim sanctus Cyrillus in epistola quam et sedes apostolica et sancta Ephesiua synodus confirmavit, hæc: « Vel si personarum unitionem diffament quidem: non enim dixit Scriptura, quia Verbum homins univerit sibimetipsi personam; sed quia factum sit caro. » Ecce usque adeo accusat dicentes in Christo unitionem personarum factam fuisse, ut et contra illud id ponat quod legitur, quia Verbum caro factum est (Joan-I, 14). Ad causam vero nihil differunt qui dicunt præexistere unitionem auc, qui assumptus est hominem, et qui asserunt præexistere mentem Christi; et isti namque illas mentes proprias volunt habere personas: æquales etenim præextitisse, et similes eas et indifferentes per omnia naturaliter ac substantialiter asserunt non tamen indistinctas circa individuorum numerum. NatU si hoc non est quod dicunt, ergo una mens prius per omnia erat, et postea meritis discreta est in d.versas. Sed quomodo una non unius esset meri mens, omnimodo una et a seipsa non differens? A!","english":"Furthermore, [they say that] the Word of God and the soul united to it [constitute] the person that according to you pre-existed from the beginning. But out of two pre-existing persons it is impossible for one person to be made. For Saint Cyril says in the letter which both the apostolic see and the holy synod of Ephesus confirmed: \"Or if they disparage a union of persons: for Scripture did not say that the Word united to itself the person of a man, but that [the Word] was made flesh.\" Behold, he accuses to such an extent those who say that a union of persons was made in Christ, that he even sets this against that which is read, that the Word was made flesh (John 1:14). But in regard to the matter, those who say that the man who was assumed pre-existed, and those who assert that the mind of Christ pre-existed, differ in no way; for these also wish those minds to have their own persons: for they assert that they pre-existed as equals, and that they are similar and indistinguishable in all things naturally and substantially, yet not indistinct as regards the number of individuals. For if what they say is not so, then one mind was previously [one] in all respects, and afterward by merits was divided into different [minds]. But how would one mind not be the mind of one [person] only, being altogether one and not differing from itself? Ah!","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":52,"ref":"p52","source":"si propter hoc tantummodo differre incipere illa men, potuit, quia non idem sit et qum illius discreione subsistunt, ac per hoc et mea mens tot individuis debet distingui quot meritis, SeJ absit ab omni anima rationali hæc vesania, ut peccati numerus multiplicandarum causa blasphemetur animarum. Si igitur amplecteris talium dogmata, nec sic animæ corporisque exemplum per omnia convenire cognasce: non enim ex duabus perfectissimis personis est homo, neque ex præexistentibus perfectssimis natuis. etsi secundum corpus ex præexistent bus materia. In upcr ipsum corpus humanum non ad aliud aliquidfactumest, nisi ut hujus sit animæ, velut si quis dicat, organum. Men, vero circa::.les rem at im subsistentiam habuit: non en quæ in Christo unitio facta est, a priucipiu fuit. Nam si a principio; unaquaeque mens, qUin absit, Christus erat, in nullo namque volunt disparcs a principio facias, non enim propter corpus tantummodo Cbristus est, alias nn inhumanatio, sed incarnatio est facta solummodo. Similiter si una mens unita est Verbo, non a Virgine inhumanatio: quia non ex tunc est nostræ naturæ: unita totietas, sed jam prius illud quod est multo amplius bubsistebat. Quinimo, quoJ magis proprie homo est, id est interior homo; et erit inhumanatio, ejus tantum qui foris unitio.","english":"If it is only for this reason that those minds begin to differ, it could [be so], because it is not the same thing as those things that subsist by its distinction, and by this my mind ought to be distinguished into as many individuals as there are merits. But far be this madness from every rational soul, that the number of sins should be blasphemed as the cause of multiplying souls. If, therefore, you embrace the doctrines of such men, not even so can you recognize that the example of soul and body fits in all respects: for man is not [composed] of two most perfect persons, nor of pre-existing most perfect natures, even if according to the body [he is] from pre-existing matter. For the human body itself was made for no other purpose than to be, as it were, the organ of this soul. But the mind had its subsistence in relation to these things: for the union that was made in Christ was not from the beginning. For if from the beginning, each mind—which be far from us—was Christ; for in nothing would they differ from one made from the beginning, for Christ is not [Christ] on account of the body only—otherwise it would not be an inhumation but only an incarnation. Similarly, if one mind was united to the Word, the inhumation is not from the Virgin, because our nature was not united from that time as a whole, but already before that which is much more subsisted. Nay rather, by so much the more properly is he man, that is, the inner man; and the inhumation will be the union of that which is outside only.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":53,"ref":"p53","source":"Sed non sic sapuerunt sanci Patres: perfectam,quidem naturam nostrata Verbo unitam, cl non olum carnem a tempore conceptionis quæ in Virgine facta est, consonantissime docuerunt. Continetenim prædicta epistola etiam hæc: Diversae quidem quæ ad unitionem veram convenere naturaæ; unus vero ex ambabus Christus et Filius, non tanquam naturarum diversitate consumpia propter unitionem: perficientibus autem potius nobis unum Dominum et Christum et Filium deilate atque humanitate, per ineffabilem et inenarrabilem ad unitionem concursum. » Ecce differentes quidem naturas in Domino unitas esse dixit, et hoc ad faciendum Christum; ne putares quod alio temporc præter id quo facta est conceptio corporis; et ne quis putet quia sola caro tunc unita est Verbo, addidit quia divinitas ct humanitas ad unitatem concurrerint.\n\nHæret. Nos praedictum dogma non colimus: hoc est enim quod dicitur Origenis de præexistentia, quod et sancti Patres nostri etarchepiscopi Alexandriæ sub anathemate damnaverunt, maxime santtus Theophilus quem et sanctissimus Cvrillus in nmni orthodoxa confessione secutus cst. Superflue igitur ea quæ a nobis non coluntur dogmata dissolvisti. Oportet autem, eo quod semel ita elegeris ut accuses nostrum dog ia, et in contraria parte stes, ad rem pertinentia loqui.","english":"But the holy Fathers did not hold this opinion: they most harmoniously taught that a perfect nature was indeed united to our Word, and not only the flesh from the time of the conception that took place in the Virgin. For the aforementioned epistle also contains these things: \"Different natures indeed came together for a true union; but one Christ and Son from both, not as though the diversity of natures were consumed because of the union; rather, they accomplish for us one Lord and Christ and Son from divinity and humanity, through an ineffable and indescribable concurrence unto union.\" Behold, he said that different natures are united in the Lord, and this unto making Christ; lest you should think that it was at another time than that at which the conception of the body took place; and lest anyone should think that only the flesh was then united to the Word, he added that divinity and humanity concurred unto unity.\n\nHe clings to it. We do not worship the aforementioned dogma: for this is what is called Origen's concerning pre-existence, which both our holy Fathers and the archbishops of Alexandria condemned under anathema, especially Saint Theophilus, whom also the most holy Cyril followed in every orthodox confession. Superfluously, therefore, have you refuted dogmas that we do not worship. But since you have once so chosen to accuse our dogma and to stand on the opposing side, it is fitting that you speak to the point.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":54,"ref":"p54","source":"Rust. Quia iner v nonnullos habetis talia sentientes, et consequens est vestro dogmati ut ista dicatis, sicutpostea ostendetur; idcirco hæc dicere sum coactus: quoniam vero tu non vindicas talia, convertar ad reliqua. Quia igifnr non præexistunt corporibus hominum animæ ipsorum, claret quia propter invicem creantur a Deo: anima quidem sic Ht ad gubernandum corpus secundum naturam, corpus vero, sicut sine quo impossibile est tales illius operationes impleri. Ideo enim individua anima individuo utitur corpore, et non alia anima alterius corporis gubernatrix est naturaliter, sed proprii unaquaeque, ad hoc nam que etiam subsistit. At vero Deus Verbum, non ad Incarnandum et inhumanandum substitit, sed sempiternus est: neque ergo humanitas ad hoc ut ita uniretur substitit, sed alterain habet suasstendi causarn; nec humanitatem dico solummodo individuam quæ Verbo unita eIt sed commune n. Vides igitur longe impar unitionis exemplum.","english":"Rusticus: Because among you there are some who hold such opinions, and it follows from your dogma that you say these things, as will be shown later, I have therefore been compelled to say this. But since you do not claim such things, I will turn to the remaining points. For since the souls of men do not pre-exist their bodies, it is clear that they are created by God for one another: the soul, namely, so as to govern the body according to nature, and the body as that without which it is impossible for such operations of the soul to be fulfilled. For this reason an individual soul uses an individual body, and no other soul is by nature the governor of another's body, but each one governs its own, for this is also why it subsists. But God the Word did not subsist in order to be incarnate and become man, but is eternal; nor, therefore, did the humanity subsist in order to be united in this way, but it has another cause of its subsistence; and I speak not only of the individual humanity that was united to the Word, but of the common humanity. You see, therefore, how far unequal is the example of the union.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":55,"ref":"p55","source":"Hæret. Etsi discrepat Dei Verhi et animæ exe nplum (qua Deus non tantum præexstitit animæ, sedet infinite præexsitit homini, et quia ipse, et totias naturæ et suæ humanitatis creator est), et nec solum movet propriam humanitatem, ct universa quæ vult, et quemadmodum vult; non tamen humanitatis, a carne: sicut enim ad hoc facta est humanacaro, ut a rationali, id est humana, anima gu-, bernata, utils sit ad animæ operationes explendas quae aliter impleri non qucunt: sic Dei Verbi humanias, ut du:n move etur ab co, ejus operationes expleret. Similiter igitur per unitionem Verbi et ejus humanitatis una natura est.\n\nRust. Nullo modo hoc, sed magis econtrario verum est. Si enim ex majore horum quae dicta sunt dissimile atque inconveniens est exemplum, ex minore vero simile atque non discrepans, multo amplius Dei Verbi et humanitatis non est una natura, quam sit. Igitur cum nequeat esse et non esse una sol que natura, restat ut propter exempli similitudinem sit utique bene una persona: propter id vero quod longe amplius discrepat, non una natura.","english":"Heretic: Although the example of God the Word and the soul is dissimilar (in that God not only preexisted the soul, but preexisted man infinitely, and because He is Himself the creator both of all nature and of His own humanity), and He not only moves His own humanity, but all things that He wills, and in the manner that He wills; nevertheless, humanity is not [the same as] the flesh: for just as human flesh was made for this purpose, that, governed by a rational, that is, human, soul, it might be useful for carrying out the operations of the soul which cannot otherwise be accomplished, so the humanity of God the Word [was made] that, when moved by Him, it might accomplish His operations. Similarly, therefore, through the union of the Word and His humanity, there is one nature.\n\nRusticus: By no means is this so; rather the contrary is true. For if from the greater of these things that have been said the example is dissimilar and incongruous, but from the lesser it is similar and not discrepant, then much more is there not one nature of God the Word and His humanity, than [that there is]. Therefore, since it cannot both be and not be one nature, it remains that on account of the similarity of the example it is indeed rightly one person; but on account of that which is far more discrepant, it is not one nature.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":56,"ref":"p56","source":"Si ig turon facta est una natura, constat quia permanent duæ: non enim dicturus es e converso Quod Dei ad humanitatem non una natura sit, humanitatis vero ad Deum una natura sit: non solurn quia nihil differt circa rem, sed et quia continuo respondebo: Ergo Verbi et humanitatis duae naturae sint, etsi humanitatis et Verbi non duæ, sed una; incongruum vero non a mea orietur propositione, sed vestra.\n\nHæret. Hoc nemo, ut arbitror, eorum qui habent animam confiteri refatat; quia si una natura est carnis et Verbi, Verbi et carnis una natura est, etsi duæ: idem namque est, quotieslibet quis convertat verbositate sermones. Illud vero magis interrogo; si tua ratio vera est, cur non potius una natura et non una magis Christi persona sit, quam una quidem persona, non una vero natura? Quomodo aut Christus unus circa hominis sit exemplum, dnm longe amplius discrepet quam concordet? oportet enim multo magis unum non esse, quam esse unum Christum et Filium Dominum.","english":"If, therefore, one nature has been made, it follows that two remain; for you will not say, conversely, that the nature of God in relation to humanity is not one, but the nature of humanity in relation to God is one—not only because there is no difference in the matter itself, but also because I will immediately reply: therefore let there be two natures of the Word and of humanity, even if there are not two of humanity and of the Word, but one; and the inconsistency will arise not from my proposition but from yours.\n\nHeretic: No one, I think, of those who have a soul would refuse to confess this: that if there is one nature of the flesh and the Word, there is one nature of the Word and the flesh, even if two; for it is the same thing, however often one twists words about with verbosity. But I ask this rather: if your reasoning is true, why is there not rather one nature and not one person of Christ, than indeed one person but not one nature? Or how is Christ one in the example of man, when he differs far more than he agrees? For it must be much more that Christ and the Son, the Lord, are not one, than that they are one.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":57,"ref":"p57","source":"Ruat. Sq iidem principaliter secundum ipsum inhumanata esset diviua natura, quæ sanctae utique Trinitati communis cst, omnium trium fuisset incarnatio personarum: quæ enim communis naturæ sunt, principaliter et secundum se, communia sunt sanctae Trinitati. Quo niam vero non per se, sed per unam est incarnata personam, D us enim Verbum, Dei Filius, incarnatus est solus, qui est illius naturæ una persona: idcirco unita ei caro rationalis absque ulla meditatione, una cum eo persona et unus est Filius, et Christus unus et Dominus. Unam siquidem esse personam, et unum Filium, non K tius Trinitatis est proprium, sed unius soliusque personae. Incarnata vero dicitur Verhi natura per Verbum, et secundum quod Verbi est, non ipsum Verbum potius per naturam et secundum Quod est ipsa natura; ne et incarnatio, et nativitas, et passio totius sit Trinitatis. Simil tudo ergo praedita ad unum pertinet Filium, unum Christum; distantia vero non ad plures Christos aut Filios, sed ad duas naturas. Ideo circumduxi totum, quia ad distantiam pertinent exemplorum carnis et animae; non ad quod interrogatum est, cur in Christo non persona potius quam natura diversæ sint.","english":"Let it be so. If, therefore, according to him, the divine nature had been made human primarily in itself—that nature which is certainly common to the holy Trinity—then there would have been an incarnation of all three persons; for the things that belong to a common nature are common to the holy Trinity primarily and in themselves. But since it was incarnate not through itself but through one person—for God the Word, the Son of God, alone was incarnate, who is one person of that nature—therefore the rational flesh united to him, without any mediation, together with him is one person, and one Son, and one Christ, and one Lord. For to be one person and one Son is not the property of the Trinity, but of one sole person. But the nature of the Word is said to be incarnate through the Word, and according to what belongs to the Word—not rather the Word himself through the nature and according to what the nature itself is; lest the incarnation, and the nativity, and the passion be of the whole Trinity. The likeness, therefore, that has been adduced pertains to the one Son, the one Christ; but the difference pertains not to many Christs or Sons, but to the two natures. I have therefore gone through the whole matter, because it pertains to the difference in the examples of flesh and soul; not to what was asked—why in Christ there are diverse natures rather than persons.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":58,"ref":"p58","source":"Hæret. Non mihi Sufficit ad credendum, quia haec exempli differentia sufficiat ad probandum quod non una sed duae naturæ sint Domini Christi. Si igitur habes alias, Quæ sint dicas.\n\nRust. Multæ sunt aliæ: quarum prima, quia Verbum a consubstantialibus, non natura, neque substantia, sed sola persona discretus est: unusquisque autem nostrum, præter communem, habet et propriam substantiam individuam et naturam: idcirco enim et mu!ti homines nominamur. Rursus anima compatitur corpori, Deus autem Verbum nequaquam; anima nullatenus furis a corpore suo habet operationis pr ncipium, Deus autem Verbum et in humanitate existens, in coelo et utique consuetas operationes implevit, licet quasdam ct inæstiamabiles etiam per corpus. Quid cnim differebat ad operationes ejus quæ sunt ab initio, utrum non haberet an haberet humanitatem, dum per humanitatem non plueret, non tonaret, non astra moveret, et, si licet simpliciter dicere, nihil amplius per eam sit operatus, nisi sola quæ noviter propter nostram sunt facta salvationem, pro qua et inhumanatus est? Harum quasi parva sint hæc, et non illi quoque sociasse vel majora vel equa, sic tibi minus videntur idonea.","english":"He is stuck. It is not enough for me to believe, because this difference of example suffices to prove that there are not one but two natures of the Lord Christ. If, then, you have others, say what they are.\n\nRusticus. There are many others; the first of which is that the Word is distinguished from those who are consubstantial, not by nature nor by substance, but by person alone; whereas each one of us, besides the common substance, also has his own individual substance and nature—for this reason, indeed, we are also called many men. Again, the soul suffers together with the body, but God the Word does not at all; the soul in no way has the principle of its operation from its own body, but God the Word, even existing in the humanity, in heaven and indeed fulfilled his customary operations, though certain ones also inestimable even through the body. For what difference did it make to his operations which are from the beginning, whether he did not have or did have humanity, since through the humanity he did not rain, did not thunder, did not move the stars, and, if it is permitted to speak simply, he performed nothing more through it except only the things which were newly done for our salvation, for which he was also made man? These things, as if they were small, and he had not also joined to himself either greater or equal ones—so they seem to you less suitable.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":59,"ref":"p59","source":"Rust. Non ad hoc praefata posuimus, sed ad illud, quia alia est libertas deitatis, in carne et eilra; et alia necessitas animæ, quae obligata in corpore, secundum hoc habet eodem modo movendi simplicis corporis potestatem. Verum et hæc (donando) adjecta sint, cum naturae ac personarum Trinitatis ratio peracta sufficiat.\n\nHærct. Una est Christi subsistentia: an non una, sed potius duae?\n\nRuxt. Et hoc fraudulenter interrogas. Subsistentia enim unum quidem nomen est, res vero diversas significat, ad quas responsio una non convenit. Interdum namque personam significat, nonnunquam vero substantiam. In sancta enim synodo Ephesina utrumque monsratur. Sanctus enim Gregorius ille Nazianzenus, inter a'ia quæ in commentis synodicis continentur, ad testimonium quidem rectissimæ fidei, destructionem vero Nestorii dogmatum, et ista docere introducitur: Aliud quidem et aliud ex quibus Salvator: non enim est idem invisibile visibili, et intemporale subtemporali. Non alius autem et alius, abs t: utraque enim unum commixtione, Deo quidem inhumanato, homine vero deitato, vel quomodolibet quis nominet; die vero aliud et aliud e converso quant in Trinitate se habet: illic enim alius et alius, ut non subsistentias confundamus, non aliud ve o et aliud; unum enim tria et idem deitate.","english":"Rusticus. We did not set down the foregoing remarks for that purpose, but for this: that the freedom of the deity is one thing, in the flesh and beyond it, and the necessity of the soul is another, which, bound in the body, accordingly has in the same way the power of moving a simple body. But let these things too be added by way of concession, since the account of the nature and persons of the Trinity, once completed, is sufficient.\n\nHeretic. Is the subsistence of Christ one, or not one, but rather two?\n\nRusticus. You ask this too deceitfully. For \"subsistence\" is indeed one word, but it signifies different things, to which one answer does not apply. For sometimes it signifies a person, sometimes a substance. In the holy synod of Ephesus both are shown. For the holy Gregory of Nazianzus, among other things contained in the synodal records, is brought forward to bear witness to the most correct faith and to the destruction of Nestorius's doctrines, teaching these things: One thing and another are those from which the Savior is; for the invisible is not the same as the visible, nor the timeless as that which is under time. But he is not one person and another, God forbid; for both are one by mixture, God indeed having become man, and man having become God, or however one may name it. But in the Trinity it is the other way around: there it is one person and another, so that we do not confuse the subsistences, yet not one thing and another; for the three are one and the same in deity.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":60,"ref":"p60","source":"» Ecce manifestissime synodi universalis audoritas, subsistentia pro personis in sancta Trinitate suscepit atque laudavit. Sanctus vero Cyrillus Alexandriæ archiepiscopus, in tertia ad Nestorium epistola, unitiorem quæ est secundum subsistentiam in Christo asserens factam, rursus eas quæ de ipso sunt voces non dividendas duabus subsistentiis, neque vero personis, præcepit; prius quidem dicens sic: Eas vero quae in Evangelio sunt Salvatoris nostri voces, nec duabus subsistentiis, neque vero personis partimur. » Postea vero: Si quis personis duabus seu subsistentiis, vel eas quæ in evangelicis et quæ in apostolicis sunt conscriptæ voces impertit, vel eas quæ super Christoa sanctis dicuntur, am ab ipso desemetipso. » Et reliqua. Superius vero: Si quis super uno Christo dividit subsistentias post unitionem, sola conjungens eas conjunctione quæ est secundum dignitatem, vel auctoritatem seu potentiam, et non magis conjungit illas secundam unitionem naturalem, anathema sit. » Dicens igitur abominabi!e esse divid re super uno Christo subsistentias, et hoc post unitionem; similiter vero accusans qui eos conjungunt secundum hoc vel illud, et non potius secundum iLlud; usendii quia oportet eas conjungere secundum hoc. Non ergo conjungendæ sunt in Christo subsistentiæ secundum solam dignitatem vel similia, sed potius conjungendæ sunt in Christo subsistentiae secundum uuitionem naturalem.","english":"Behold, the most manifest authority of the universal synod has accepted and praised \"subsistence\" in place of \"persons\" in the Holy Trinity. But Saint Cyril, archbishop of Alexandria, in the third letter to Nestorius, asserting that the more united union according to subsistence was made in Christ, again commanded that the sayings concerning him are not to be divided into two subsistences, nor indeed into persons; saying first thus: \"But the sayings of our Savior that are in the Gospel we divide neither into two subsistences nor indeed into persons.\" And afterwards: \"If anyone assigns to two persons or subsistences either the sayings written in the Gospels and in the Apostolic writings, or those that are said concerning Christ by the saints, let him be anathema from himself.\" And the rest. But above: \"If anyone divides the subsistences in the one Christ after the union, joining them by conjunction according to dignity alone, or authority or power, and does not rather join them according to natural union, let him be anathema.\" Saying, therefore, that it is abominable to divide the subsistences in the one Christ, and this after the union; and similarly accusing those who join them according to this or that, and not rather according to that; he shows that they ought to be joined according to this. Therefore the subsistences in Christ are not to be joined according to dignity alone or the like, but rather the subsistences in Christ are to be joined according to natural union.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":61,"ref":"p61","source":"Hæret. Ego arbitror quia magis ex duabus naturis simul et subsistentiis, tanquam ex duabus personis, dixit in Domino Christo unitionem: non enim tam vicine hoc ipsius subsistentiæ nomen tam diversum assumpsit, et maxime, inquiens, post unitionem: tanquam si ante unititionem duas diceret naturas atque personas, post unitionem vero unam.\n\nRust. Nullo modo verum est: prædemonstravimus enim quia non ex duabus personis Dominum dicat. Si enim hoc dicere voluisset, sicut dicens es duabus naturis factum Dominum non recusat confiteri quod Deus Verbum nostram naturam sibi univerit, sic non habuit recusare fateri quod hominis person sibimetipsi unierit. Nunc vero hoc quidem approbat; illud vero accusat, dicens in epistola ad Nestorium secunda, sic: « Juvat vero nullo modo rectam fidei rationem si sic habeatur, vel certe si personarum unitionem diffament aliqui: non enim dixit Scriptura, quod Verbum hominis unierit sibimetipsi personam, sed quod factus sii caro. » Ecce claret aut sicut ipsum ponit, aut sicut omnimodo consequens dicere unitionem personarum, et dicere quia Verbum hominis personam sibimelipsi unierit, et hoc tanquam contrarium divinae Scripturae infamans econtrario posuit, quia factus est caro: hoc pene clamans, quoniam qui in Christo unitionem personarum dicit, ejicit illud a sancta Scriptura dictum, quod Verbum caro factum est (Joan. I, 11).","english":"He clings to it. I think that he spoke of the union in the Lord Christ as being more from two natures at once and from two subsistences, as from two persons; for he did not take up this name of \"subsistence,\" so different, as being so closely connected with that [other term], and especially when he says \"after the union\"—as if before the union he were speaking of two natures and persons, but after the union of one.\n\nRusticus. In no way is it true; for we have already shown that he does not say the Lord is from two persons. For if he had wished to say this, just as, when he says the Lord was made from two natures, he does not refuse to confess that God the Word united our nature to himself, so he would not have had grounds to refuse to confess that he united the person of a man to himself. But as it is, he approves the one and accuses the other, saying in the second letter to Nestorius: \"But in no way does it help the right account of the faith if it is held thus, or certainly if some speak disparagingly of a union of persons; for Scripture did not say that the Word united to himself the person of a man, but that he was made flesh.\" Behold, it is clear that either as he himself sets it forth, or as it is altogether consequent to say, [he ought to say] a union of persons, and to say that the Word united the person of a man to himself, and this, as though it were contrary to divine Scripture, he disparages and sets down on the opposite side, that \"he was made flesh\"—almost crying out that whoever says a union of persons in Christ casts out that saying of holy Scripture, that the Word was made flesh (John 1:11).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":62,"ref":"p62","source":"Pau!o superius vero ostendit, dicens: « Duarum cnim naturarum unitio facta est; propter quod, unum Christum, unum Filium, unum Dominum confitemur: clarissime igitur subsistentiæ nomen, nonnunquam personam, interdum vero naturam significat: uon enim, sicut inquis, semper ct personam significat et naturam. » Et rursus ubi jubet non dispertiri voccs quæ de Christo dicuntur, duabus personis sive subsistentiis, subsistentiæ nomine atque persone simpliciter atque ind fierenter est usus, in tantum qui postea ipse divisit voces, super duabus naturis inquiens: « Evangelicas vero et apostolicis de Donimo voces, scimus, Deiloquos viros, quasdam quidem communificantes sicut super una persona, quasdam vero dividentes, sicut super duabus naturis. » Et post aliqua: « Glorificavimus omnium Salvatorem Dominum, quoniam Scripturis divinitus inspiratis et traditioni sanctorum Patrum nostrorum convenientem habent tidem, tam quæ apud nos, quam quæ apud vos sunt Ecclesi: hæc vero continue per onlinem supra sunt posita. » Ecce, divinas Scripturas et Patres sic praedicare confessus est, quoniam oportet distribui voces duabus naturis. Quia ergo non dicit sibimetipsi contraria, constat, quoniam naturis quidem distribuendae sunt voces, nequaquam vero personis, id est subsistentiis. Commune igitur diversarum id nomen est.crum, et interdum personam significat, nonnunquam vero naturam.","english":"A little above, however, he shows this, saying: \"For the union was made of two natures; on account of this, we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. Most clearly, therefore, the name of subsistence sometimes signifies person, but sometimes nature; for, as you say, it does not always signify both person and nature.\" And again, where he commands that the words spoken about Christ not be divided between two persons or subsistences, he has used the name of subsistence and of person simply and indiscriminately, to such an extent that he himself afterward divided the words, saying about the two natures: \"But the evangelical and apostolic words about the Lord, we know that the men who spoke of God made some of them common, as about one person, but divided others, as about two natures.\" And after some things: \"We have glorified the Savior of all, the Lord, because the things both among us and among you in the Church hold a faith consistent with the divinely inspired Scriptures and the tradition of our holy Fathers; but these things have been set out continuously throughout the whole.\" Behold, he has confessed that the divine Scriptures and the Fathers preach thus, that the words ought to be distributed to the two natures. Since, therefore, he does not say things contrary to himself, it is established that the words are to be distributed to the natures, but by no means to the persons, that is, to the subsistences. Therefore that name is common to diverse things, and sometimes it signifies person, but sometimes nature.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":63,"ref":"p63","source":"Unam igitur subsistentiam dicimus Domini Christi, subsistens est enim persona ejus: non vero abominamur et duas dicere, quando et pro naturarum nomine pie hoc quis assumere vult sub omni cautela; subsistunt, enim duae naturæ.\n\nHæret. Sed ecce Chalcedonensis synodus, quam veneramini, unam subsistentiam dicit Domini Christi. At vcro beatissimus Cyrillus ex duabus subsistentiis unam dicit, et diccbas (quin potius demonstrare voluisti superius) quod non dicat ex duabus personis: ex duabus igitur naturis dicit Dominum Christum. Quoniam vero et mox unam eius suibsistentiam dicit praefatus Pater, unam igi ur naturam novit Domini Christi. Sicut enim non recusas, duabus naturis dictum et ex dualus subsistentiis, sic negare non potcris quia in una natura dicat, quando in subsistentia unitionem prædi at factam. Non eni vel alterius Patris, vel in diversis opusculis sub eo dicta proferimus nunc, sed et ipsa cpislola et non longe utrumque ab invicem ibidem quoque ostenditur, ctquando audimuseum dicentem convenisse naturas secundum unitionem naturalem, et non personalem, quia non modo una pcisona, sed et una ex duabus natura.","english":"We say, therefore, one subsistence of the Lord Christ, for his person is subsistent; nor do we abhor to say two, when someone wishes piously to assume this in place of the name of the natures, with all caution; for two natures subsist.\n\nThis sticks. But behold, the synod of Chalcedon, which you venerate, says one subsistence of the Lord Christ. But the most blessed Cyril says one from two subsistences, and you were saying—or rather you wished to show above—that he does not say from two persons; therefore he says the Lord Christ from two natures. But since the aforesaid Father also shortly afterward says one subsistence of him, therefore he knows one nature of the Lord Christ. For just as you do not refuse that it was said with two natures and from two subsistences, so you cannot deny that he says in one nature, when he declares that the union was made in the subsistence. For we do not now bring forward things said by another Father, or in different little works under him, but both are shown in that same letter and not far from each other in the same place, and when we hear him saying that the natures came together according to natural union, and not personal, because not only one person, but also one from two natures.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":64,"ref":"p64","source":"Rust. Ea quidem quæ dicta sunt, ad solutionem borum quæ sunt dicta sufficiunt; sicut enim ostendimus in eadem synodo dictum quia subsistentia interdum quidem personam, nonnuuquam vero naturam significat, sic una cademque epistola contigit uno nomine res dici diversas: maxime, quia etsi in una epistola, verumtamen in diversis capitulis dictum est. Insuper quia aliter et alter subsistentiæ nomine usus sit, nec tu poteris denegare: si cnm semel acquiescis quia non ex dnabus personis dixerit, quando ex duabus subsistentiis dixit, dicis vero quia unam personam et unam subsistentiam pro una natura factam per unitionem dixerit; constat quod aliter atque aliter hoc nomine usus sit: hic quidem ea illisdicens subsistentiis quæ non etiam personæ sint, sed naturæ tantummodo; illic vcru illam subsistentiam quæ secundum te quoque persona est. Quod igitur (me ciicente) ut falsum reprehenderas hoc, et tu, etsi diverso nomine, es confessus. Claret igitur quia etsi vicine, aliter tamen et aliter usus es nomine. Quia vero nec subsistentiam unam pro una natura dixerit, inferius ostendenius.","english":"Rusticus: What has been said is indeed sufficient to resolve those points that have been stated; for just as we have shown that in the same synod it was said that \"subsistence\" sometimes signifies person, but sometimes nature, so it has happened in one and the same epistle that different things are called by one name—especially since, even if it is in one epistle, it was nevertheless said in different chapters. Moreover, because he used the name \"subsistence\" in one way and another, you too will not be able to deny it. For if you once concede that he did not speak of two persons when he spoke of two subsistences, but you say that he spoke of one person and one subsistence made into one nature through union, it is evident that he used this name in different ways: here applying it to those subsistences which are not also persons but natures only, there to that subsistence which, according to you as well, is a person. Therefore what you, with me setting it aside, reproved as false, you yourself have confessed, even if under a different name. It is clear, then, that although closely related, you have used the name in one way and another. But that he did not call one subsistence a single nature, we shall show below.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":65,"ref":"p65","source":"Hæret. Si non sic intellexit, quia per unitionem una natura facta sit ex duabus, quare inquit, sicut supra jam dixi, « secundum unitionem naturalem? »\n\nRust. Ad refellendum cos qui dicunt quia nostrae naturæ non ipsa divina Verbi natura unita sit, sed velut accidens aliquod Verbi tantummodo, ut dignitas, ut auctoritas, ut potestas. Prætermittens enim quoniam non conjungendæ sint subsistentiæ, secundum dignitatem, vel auctoritatem, vel potestatem, solum tunc intulit, sed secundum unitionem naturalem, id cst ipsarum naturarum; tanquam si quis dicat, chorus angelicus, id est chorus angelorum. Nec non etob hoc, quia non persona cst unita personae, sed Deus Verbum nostram naturam sibimetipsi unire dignatus est, non vero nostram personam; ne non vera, neque in unam personam, neqne in unum facta ponatur unitio. Ipse vero sanctissimus Cyrillus in expositione horum capttutorum prima, naturalem uuitionem semetipsum dixisse ait, pro vera unitione; et testimonium profert Apostoli ad hujus rei comprobationem, dicens: Et eratis natura filii iræ. sicut et caeteri (Ephes. II, o). Et addit, « quia sicut ille, natura filios iræ, pro eo ut diceret, utre filios iræ, dixit, sic ego unitionem naturalem pro vera posui.","english":"Heretic: If he did not understand it in this way—that through union one nature was made from two—why does he say, as I have already said above, \"according to natural union\"?\n\nRusticus: To refute those who say that it was not the divine nature of the Word itself that was united to our nature, but only something accidental to the Word, such as dignity, authority, or power. For passing over the point that subsistences are not to be joined according to dignity, authority, or power, he then introduced only this: \"but according to natural union,\" that is, of the natures themselves; just as if someone should say \"the angelic chorus,\" that is, the chorus of angels. And also for this reason, because it was not a person that was united to a person, but God the Word deigned to unite our nature to himself, not our person; lest the union be held to be not true, and neither into one person nor into one [thing] made. But the most holy Cyril himself, in the exposition of these first chapters, says that he himself spoke of \"natural union\" in place of \"true union\"; and he brings forward a testimony of the Apostle for the confirmation of this matter, saying: \"And you were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest\" (Ephesians 2:3). And he adds: \"For just as he said 'by nature children of wrath' instead of saying 'truly children of wrath,' so I have set down 'natural union' in place of 'true.'","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":66,"ref":"p66","source":"» Si ergo naturalem unitionem, lanqnam in unam naturam colligentem ea quæ unita sunt, in hoc loco acceperimus, necesse est ctiam illic iram quamdam subsistere secundum naturam, cujus secundum naturam malæ sint proles, circa impiissimum Manichæum. Insuper si hoc demonstrare Cy..ilus voluisset, quia una facta esset natura, consequens crat ut in expositione hoc clarius diceret, et contra eos qui hoc accusabant adjicerit, dicens: Verum est: hoc dixi, et bene dixi, uua cst enim per unitiuncm facta natura. » Cur igitur naturalem unitionem veræ unitionis nomine permutavit? Nemo enim semetipsum exponens et cupiens dilucidare quod dixerit, pro maxime proprio uomine incertius nomen ponit. Veram namque unitionem et nos dicimus et vos; naturalem vero vos tanquam pro vobis solummodo sapitis. Si igitur quod dicitis dicere voluisset, et multo facilius id ille dicere potuisset, et verbum proprium simul et clarius non mutaret.","english":"If, therefore, we take \"natural union\" in this passage as meaning that the things united are gathered into one nature, then necessarily there must also be in that place a certain natural anger, whose offspring are evil according to nature, in the case of the most impious Manichaeus. Moreover, if Cyril had wished to demonstrate this—that one nature had been made—it would have followed that he should say so more clearly in his exposition, and add against those who brought this accusation, saying: \"It is true: I said this, and I said it well, for one nature has been made through union.\" Why, then, did he exchange \"natural union\" for the name of \"true union\"? For no one, when explaining himself and wishing to clarify what he has said, substitutes a more uncertain term for the most proper one. For \"true union\" we both say, and you say; but \"natural\" you understand as if for yourselves alone. If, therefore, he had wished to say what you say, he could have said it much more easily, and would not have exchanged the proper term for one at once clearer.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":67,"ref":"p67","source":"Hæret. Infirmiores erant ad quos sermo fiebat, id est Orientales; et propterea sermonem sic coaptavit, in tantam, quia, etsi alio nomine, idem tamen indnxit tanqnam si diceret: quia qui dicit veram unitionem, naturalem dicit; et qui negat naturalem, refutat et veram. Cessit autem de sermonis integritate, propter eos qui nondum poterant capere: si enim verax unitio, et non naturalis, hoc magis ostende.\n\nRust. Non est opus exemplo, dum ipsa res nobis II hoc quod quaeritur solvat: quia enim vel aliam, vel alitor dicitis vos unitionem quam nos, vos ipsi fatemini; quia vero in unam personam, in unum Christum, in unum Filium, unum Dominum, unam substantiam dicimus factam unitionem; hanc vero veram esse quam credimus manifestum est. Sanctus vero Cyrillus nomen veræ unitionis dicens et naturalis, permutans, ut dicitis, propter infirmos, nequaquam dispensative in tantam impietatem eaderet, ut ex apostolico testimonio probare tentaret, quod ira secundum substantiam subsisteret; cujus filii essent ii qui nequaquam sunt, quod vestram propositionem sequi monstravimus. Si enim hic naturalis unitas ab eo dicta est in unam naturam; et illic iræ filii secundum naturam filii dicti essent iræ, et ejusdem cujus et ira naturæ.","english":"He clings to it. Those to whom the discourse was addressed were weaker, that is, the Easterners; and for that reason he adapted his discourse in such a way—to such an extent—because, even if under another name, he nevertheless introduced the same thing, as if he were saying: because whoever says \"true union\" says \"natural\"; and whoever denies \"natural\" also refutes \"true.\" But he yielded on the completeness of the discourse because of those who could not yet grasp it: for if the union is true and not natural, show this more clearly.\n\nRusticus: There is no need of an example, since the matter itself solves for us what is being sought. For you yourselves admit that you speak of a union other than, or different from, ours; but that we say the union was made into one person, into one Christ, into one Son, one Lord, one substance—that this union which we believe is true is manifest. But Saint Cyril, calling it by the name of \"true union\" and \"natural,\" changing it, as you say, because of the weak, would by no means have fallen so far, by way of dispensation, into such impiety as to attempt to prove from apostolic testimony that anger subsists according to substance, whose sons would be those who in no way exist—which we have shown follows from your proposition. For if here the natural unity was called by him \"into one nature,\" then there too the sons of anger would be called sons of anger according to nature, and of the same nature as the anger itself.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":68,"ref":"p68","source":"Dicit enim prædictus Pater in expositione tertii capituli sic: « Si vero dicamus naturalem unitioncm, veram dicimus, dum consueta sit divinitus inspirata Scriptura sic uti hoc sermone: scribit namque alicubi quibusdam sacratissimus Paulus: Et eramus naura filii ire sicut et cæteri a. Et nequoquam quis dicat subsistere secundum naturam irarn divinam, ita ut ctiam germina ejus intelligantur ii qui peccant; alioqui in i omnibus utique modis climus consentientes iis qui Manichæorum vesania lauguent; sed id quod dixi, natura, ostendit id quod csl secundum veritatem. » Omnes igitur contra nos calumnias vestras, quinimo contra sanctum Cyrillum, hic sermo subvertit.\n\nHæret. Utrum communesduas naturas Christi dicitis esse, anut individuas sicut individuas dicitis, omnine. cessitate consequitur vos duas quoque subsistentias diccre? Omnis enim substantia et indi vidua natura subsistentia est; si vera ut generales, sive universales, vel certe communes naturas dicitis, nunquam pauciores personæ sunt harum. Erunt igitur et duae personæ, seu amplius; Domini Christi.","english":"For the aforesaid Father says in his exposition of the third chapter thus: \"But if we speak of natural union, we speak truly, since it is customary for the divinely inspired Scripture to use this term; for the most sacred Paul writes somewhere concerning certain persons: 'And we were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.' And let no one say that divine wrath subsists according to nature, so that even those who sin are understood to be its offspring; otherwise in all ways we would be agreeing with those who are sick with the madness of the Manichaeans; but what I said—'nature'—shows that which is according to truth.\" Therefore this statement of his overturns all your calumnies against us—or rather against Saint Cyril.\n\nHeretic: Whether you say that the two natures of Christ are common, or individual, as you say they are individual, it follows by absolute necessity that you also say there are two subsistences. For every substance and individual nature is a subsistence; but if, on the other hand, you say the natures are general, or universal, or certainly common, there are never fewer persons than these. There will therefore be two persons, or more, of the Lord Christ.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":69,"ref":"p69","source":"Rust. Et hic ad interrogationem quidem non nccessaria posita sunt; ad conclusionem vero aEqui vocatio posita, quæ jam saepe est deprehensa. Duas enim Domini Christi naturas dicentes, nec communes dicimus utrasque, neque individuas duas, sed divinam quidem communem, humanam vero individuam. Nec duas vero subsistentias dicimus absolute Domini, sed unam subsistentiam dicimus, ut revera unam subsistentem vere personam. Duas vero cum interpretatione dicere non abominamur, quoties pro natura ponitur is sermo.\n\nHæret. Omnis natura individua persona cst: si igitur humana Christi natura individua est, erit igitur non insubsistens Verbum, dux vero naturae; duæ igitur personæ Christi.\n\nRust. Multæ individuæ sunt naturæ, quæ non sunt etiam personæ, sicut inanimatorum et irrationabilium. Nam et homo dum constet ex anima et corpore, non tamen ex duabus dicitur esse personis, quam confessum est ex duabus individuis constare natur s. Si enim bomo ex duabus personis est, erit Christus ex tribus, et Trinitas ex quinque personis: verumtamen et arbores, et surculos, et herbas, et lapides, et alia inanimata individuas quidem solemus vocare na. turas, non vero et personas. }","english":"Rusticus: And here these things have indeed been set down in response to the question, though not necessarily; but for the conclusion the term \"equi\" has been set down, which has already often been caught out. For when we say that there are two natures of the Lord Christ, we call neither of them common, nor the two individual, but the divine nature common, and the human individual. Nor do we say absolutely that there are two subsistences of the Lord, but we say one subsistence, as truly one subsisting person. But to say two with an interpretation we do not abominate, whenever that word is put for nature.\n\nHaereticus: Every individual nature is a person; if therefore the human nature of Christ is individual, then the Word will be non-subsistent, but the guide of nature; therefore there are two persons of Christ.\n\nRusticus: Many individual natures are not also persons, as with inanimate and irrational things. For even man, while he consists of soul and body, is not however said to be of two persons, though it is confessed that he consists of two individual natures. For if man is of two persons, then Christ will be of three, and the Trinity of five persons; yet we are accustomed to call trees, and shoots, and herbs, and stones, and other inanimate things individual natures, but not also persons.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":70,"ref":"p70","source":"Hæret. Multa quidcm de hoc dicere est, etsi non apte ad id quod propositum est. Ego vero cætera praeteriens, propositionem definio sic: Omnis individua et rationalis natura persona est: dum enipm tres existant confessae rationales naturæ, id est Dei, et militiarum cœlestium, et hominis, in iis unaquaeque individua natura persona est. Quia igitur vos, super Christo, duas dicitis rationales naturas, duas etiam personas inevitabiliter introfertis: superflue igitur Nestorii anathematizatis nomen, cujus dogma defenditis; aut, ut levius dicam, cujus error vestrum dogma necessaria ratione comitatur.\n\nRust. Si rationalis apte dicitur Dens, in erim non quaeram; sed illud magis affirmo, quia in Dco individua (dico vero singularis), id est non communis, sed unius et solius personæ natura est: sola enim in Deo communis natura est trium personarum: ille vero nee sic definitur persona, non enim Illic persona est individua natura, neque communis, sed indi. viduum naturæ communis.","english":"Rusticus: It is stuck fast. There is much to be said about this, even if not aptly to the matter proposed. But passing over the rest, I define the proposition thus: every individual and rational nature is a person. For since there exist three confessed rational natures—that is, of God, of the heavenly hosts, and of man—in these each individual nature is a person. Since therefore you say that there are two rational natures in Christ, you inevitably introduce two persons as well. Superfluously, then, do you anathematize the name of Nestorius, whose dogma you defend; or, to speak more mildly, whose error follows your dogma by necessary reasoning.\n\nRusticus: If God is aptly called rational, I will not inquire into that; but I affirm this rather, that in God there is an individual (I mean singular) nature, that is, not common but of one and only person. For in God only the nature of the three persons is common; but he is not even so defined as a person, for there a person is not an individual nature, nor a common nature, but the individual of a common nature.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":71,"ref":"p71","source":"Hæret. Ergo, ut dicis, Magis duæ personæ sunt in Domino Christo: unicuique siquidem, secundum vos, naturæ propria personæ ratio convenit: Deus enim Verbum individuum est divinæ naturæ, humanitas vero naturæ rationalis individua; hæc vero, duae naturæ: duæ igitur et personæ. Nec enim potes dicere quia non quae æquivoce, sed quae univoce dicuntur, connomerantur, qui communcm Triuita:is naturam individuæ humanitati connumerans, etiam ob hoc duas naturas fateris.\n\nRust. Etsi in reliquis rationalibus crcaturis substantia individua persona est, sed non in nomino Christo: non enim quia eum ex duabus perfectis naturis esse confitemini, ob hoc ex duabus, secundum vos, erit personis: alioquin jam non erit iucon. gruum dicere, Verbum hominis sibi unisse personam, quod in Epheso exclusum es! communi sententia. Quia vere id olim est demonstratum, addam etiam illud, quia communiter quidem nobis confessum est, quod diversæ quidem quae ad unitatem veram concurrerunt naturæ, non tamen etiam quia disersæ quæ ad unitatem veram convenere personae. Si enim vos quoque suscipitis sancti Cyrilli epistolam cui synodus Ephesina subscripsit, hoc rcfutarc nequaquam potestis.","english":"It sticks. Therefore, as you say, there are rather two persons in the Lord Christ: for according to you, the proper notion of a person belongs to each nature individually. For God the Word is an individual of the divine nature, and the humanity is an individual of the rational nature; these, then, are two natures: therefore also two persons. For you cannot say that things are not counted together as equivocal, but as univocal, since you, counting the common nature of the Trinity together with the individual humanity, thereby also confess two natures.\n\nRusticus: Although in other rational creatures an individual substance is a person, yet not in the name of Christ: for it is not because you confess that he is from two perfect natures that, according to you, he will therefore be from two persons; otherwise it would no longer be incongruous to say that the Word united to himself the person of a man, which was excluded at Ephesus by the common judgment. But because that was once demonstrated, I will add this also, that it is commonly confessed by us that the natures which came together into a true unity are indeed diverse, but not also that the persons which came together into a true unity are diverse. For if you also accept the letter of Saint Cyril to which the Ephesine synod subscribed, you can by no means refute this.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":72,"ref":"p72","source":"Hæret. Et ubi hoc aliquando sanctus vir ille conscripserit, unquam probare non poteris.\n\nRust. Ipsa illius sanctissimi verba satisfacient. Testimoninm ex secunda epistola ad Nestorium S. Cyrilli: « Carnem animatam anima rationali uniens Verbum sibimetipsi secundum suhsislentiarn, ineffabiliter atque inintelligibiliter factus est homo, et vocatus cst filius hominis nOli secundum solam voluntatem vel benignitatem, sed neque velut in assumptione solius personæ: el quia diversæ quidem, quæ ad unitatem veram conductæ naturæ, unus vero ab ambabus Christus et filius; non tanquam naturarum differentia interempta propter unitionem, perficientibusque potius vobis unum Dominum et Christum et Filium deitate et humanitate per ineffabilem unilionem et inenarrabilem concursum. » Igitur e:si super aliis natura rationalis individua persona est, in Christo ver. hæc regula nullatenus vera est.","english":"It sticks. And you will never be able to prove that that holy man ever wrote this anywhere.\n\nRusticus: The very words of that most holy man will suffice. A testimony from the second letter of St. Cyril to Nestorius: \"The Word, uniting to himself in an ineffable and incomprehensible manner flesh animated by a rational soul, according to subsistence, became man and was called the Son of man, not according to mere will or benevolence, nor yet as in the assumption of a single person only; and because the natures that were brought to a true unity are indeed diverse, yet there is one Christ and Son from both—not as though the difference of the natures were destroyed because of the union, but rather as you perfect one Lord and Christ and Son from deity and humanity through an ineffable union and an inexpressible concurrence.\" Therefore, if a rational nature is an individual person in other cases, in Christ this rule is by no means true.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":73,"ref":"p73","source":"Hæret. Irrationabile mihi nimis videtur esse quod dicitur, quia in omnibus quidem verum est, in Christo vero hæc regula nequaquam vera est. Si enim similiter nobis participatus est sanguine et carne, et per omnia nobis assimilatus est absque peccato, cur in eo solo non verum sit quod in omnibus verum est?\n\nRust. Si quidem hoc solui inaestimabile atque insuetum esset in Christo, equidem neque tunc te diffidere hujusce miraculis oportere convenerat. Si vero et multa, imo universa, in illo inæstimabilia, hoc magis esse irrationabile vel tarde jam respice; quia cum tanta miranda atque inæstimabilia fide percipias, ad unum orum dubius es. Quis enim, dic mihi, præter hunc alius talis ut hic? Ideo iste nOli secundum consuetudinis legem factus est: quoniam nemo a semetipso factus est sicut iste, sed novo modo, nova unitione, nova et singulari atque irregalari lege factus est. Nunquam siquidem, neque homo, neque angelus, ne que quis ex superiorum rationalium Deus erat, nec erit, in unam Deo illi qui consubstantialis est Patri personam unitus, nallus ex alia natura; unus cum Verbo et Deo Christus est factus; neque quisquam unus Dominus, nec unus unigenitus Dei, sicut in hoc credimus factum: duarum namque perfectissimarum rationalium naturarum nunquam secundum veritatem facta est una persona, sicut in Domino Christo est factum.","english":"It sticks. It seems to me altogether unreasonable to say that while it is true in all things, in Christ this rule is by no means true. For if he partook of blood and flesh in the same way as we, and was made like us in all things without sin, why is it that in him alone what is true in all things is not true?\n\nRusticus: If this were something inestimable and unusual in Christ, then indeed it would not have been fitting for you even then to distrust these miracles. But if many things—indeed all things—in him are inestimable, then look back, even if late, on how much more unreasonable this is; for when you receive such great and wonderful and inestimable things by faith, you are doubtful about one of them. For tell me, who besides this one is such as he? Therefore this one was not made according to the law of custom, because no one was made from himself as this one was, but he was made in a new way, by a new union, by a new and singular and irregular law. For never, neither man nor angel nor any one of the rational beings above, was God, nor will be, united into one person with that God who is consubstantial with the Father, none from another nature; one Christ was made with the Word and God; nor is anyone one Lord, nor one only-begotten of God, as we believe was done in this one: for of two most perfect rational natures one person was never in truth made, as was done in the Lord Christ.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":74,"ref":"p74","source":"Amplius vero adhuc dicam, quia neque inter ipsas creaturarum substantias unquam tale aliquid factum est, ut unirentur in unitate persoux: non igitur aliorum rationalium regulæ supponitur ipse Dominus; non enim cæterorum factus est lege. Sicut igitur Nestorii syllogismos, quin potius paralogismos, id est falsas collectiones; ita et aliorum qui similiter consueta et inæstimabilia in non æstimabilibus, et mirabilibus et mentem supereminentibus quærunt, abominamur: ex talibus einim non potest colligi quod idem sit Deus perfectus ct homo perfectus. Sic credentes omnia regenti et omnipotenti Deo, vobis quoque rcsistimus, qui dum vultis comparationibus et exemplis et legibus regulisque subjicere unitionem super cuncta fulgentem, jam non eam creditis singularem.\n\nHæret. Ego homo sum; rationabiliter persuaderi desidero, rationalem me creavit Deus.","english":"I shall say further still, that not even among the substances of created things themselves has anything of such a kind ever come to be, that they should be united in a unity of person. Therefore the Lord himself is not subjected to the rules of other rational beings, for he was not made under the law of the rest. Just as, then, we abominate the syllogisms of Nestorius—or rather his paralogisms, that is, false reasonings—so too those of others who in like manner seek things customary and beyond estimation among things beyond estimation, marvelous and surpassing the mind. For from such things it cannot be gathered that the same one is perfect God and perfect man. Thus, believing in God who governs all things and is almighty, we resist you as well, who, while you wish to subject to comparisons and examples and laws and rules the union that shines forth above all things, no longer believe it to be singular.\n\nIt sticks. I am a man; I desire to be persuaded reasonably—God created me rational.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":75,"ref":"p75","source":"Runt. Recole, quaeso, et participem te esse Hlius divini baptismatis; recole de illo mysterio esse sermonem, cui nunquam æquum quid vel simile contigit: quia hoc ipse in semetipso universorum Dominus fecit; sicut per prophetas ipse dixerat, inquiens: Faciam novum in femina quod omnes mirabimini (Jer. XXX, 22). Verum quia valde me cogis verbo inire quæ superexsiliunt animam, prius a Deo veniam petens, ut possum, aggrediar disquirere imperscrutabilem rem. Dico autem quoniam si fides accommodanda est exemplis, omnia quidem sine exceptione habet nostræ naturae Christus, non omnia vero humanæ personæ: videmus enim unamquamque hujusmodi subsistentiarutn omne quod suum est esse in semetipsa Ita. bentem, praeter cæteras alias sequestratam. Nec enim mea anima alterius corpus per semetipsam vel prime gubernat, etiamsi secuudum accidens, velut filios aut servos dicimur gubernare. At vero Deus illam humanam naturam nunquam sua præsentia atque gubernatione depositam reliquit, tanquam si dicat aliquis effrenate libero arbitrio abuti, sed et ob hoc eam creavit,non ut suæ [F. leg. sua]. sed ut ejus esset: et super semetipso eam fundavit, tanquam super basim quamdam vel fundamentum, ut vera dicam, ut per eam perficeret propositam suæ immensæ largitati pulcherrimam dispensationem.","english":"Rusticus: Recall, I ask, that you are a partaker of the divine baptism of the Son; recall that the discussion concerns that mystery, to which nothing equal or similar has ever happened: because the Lord of all himself did this in himself, just as he himself had said through the prophets, saying: I will make a new thing on the earth, which all of you will marvel at (Jer. 30:22). But because you strongly compel me to enter in word upon things that surpass the soul, first asking pardon from God, I shall, as I am able, undertake to investigate this unsearchable matter. I say, then, that if faith is to be given to examples, Christ has all things without exception of our nature, but not all things of a human person: for we see that each one of such subsistences has all that is its own in itself, set apart from all others besides. For my soul does not by itself govern another's body, even if, by accident, as it were, we are said to govern sons or servants. But God never left that human nature destitute of his presence and governance, as if someone should say that it abuses free will without restraint, but he also created it for this, not that it should be its own, but that it should be his: and he founded it upon himself, as upon a certain base or foundation, so to speak truly, so that through it he might accomplish the most beautiful dispensation proposed by his immense generosity.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":76,"ref":"p76","source":"Igitur si omnis individus natura persona est: sed ilta omnis quæ non ad hoc creatur, ut alteri insuparabiliter unita permaneat. Nam et humanum corpus non cst alterius personæ ab anima sua; alioquin ut jam dixi, erit Christus ex tribus personis, et cx quinque Trinitas sancta.\n\nHæret. Prius oportet ine ea qUE ate dixisti rec' pere, si tute ad reliqua pervenire contendis. Miror namque quomodo dicitis quia inhumanatio Domini caret exemplo, dum multi Patrum exemplorum eomparationibus hanc assimilent, nec non et ipsa sancta et iniversalis synodus Ephesina, in mysterii explanationem, hominis utatur exemplo, et hoc ex lectionibus autiquorum perdoceat: quia sicut ex anima et corpore una est hominis natura, sic ex di vinitate et humanitate una est Christi Domini natura, sic aliquatenus inquiens: Naturæ quidem duæ, Deus et homo, quia et anima et corpus: Filii vero non duo neque Dii; neque enim bic duo homines, etsi sic Paulus quod intus est hominis et quod foris est appellavit (II Cor. iv, 16); et si oportet breviter dicere. aliud quidem et aliud, ea ex quibus Christus.","english":"Therefore, if every individual nature is a person—but that \"every\" refers to one that is not created for this purpose, that it remain inseparably united to another. For even the human body is not a person other than its soul; otherwise, as I have already said, Christ will be of three persons, and the holy Trinity of five.\n\nHe is stuck. First you must recover your grasp of the things you have said, if you are striving to reach the rest. For I marvel how you say that the Lord's incarnation lacks an example, when many of the Fathers liken it by comparisons of examples, and indeed the holy and universal synod of Ephesus itself, for the explanation of the mystery, uses the example of a man, and teaches this from the readings of the ancients: that just as from soul and body there is one nature of man, so from divinity and humanity there is one nature of Christ the Lord, saying something to this effect: There are indeed two natures, God and man, because there is also soul and body; but of the Son there are not two, nor two Gods; for these are not two men, even though Paul called what is within man and what is outside (II Cor. 4:16); and if one must speak briefly, one thing indeed and another, those things from which Christ is.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":77,"ref":"p77","source":"» Si igitur hoc sanctissimi Patres rationalis animæ et humani corporis exemplum suscipiunt ad Domini inhumanationem, sic unitas dicentes in Christo naturas, sicut in unam naturam hominis animam simmi et corpus, quomodo nos hoc super inhumanatione sapere prohibetis, extra exemplum dicentes esse unitionem, cujus tanti ac tales Patres similitudinem proferunt?\n\nRust. Ergo in nullo dissonare dicitis cam quæ in Christo celebrata cst unitionem ab ea unitione quæ incessanter fit in universo mundo, ubicunque componitur homo.\n\nHæret. Quomodo non differt, dum semel et solum facta sit super divinitate atque carne?\n\nRust. Hoc non ipsius unitionis, sed eorum tantum quæ uniuntur, differentiam fecil. Si enim, sic verbi i gratia dico, aut hominem et angelum, aut Deum et virtutem forsan aliquam ex rationalibus coelestium adunari contingeret, ab iis quæ unirentur unitione Hon distarent. Quare alterum est, II fferre ea cx quihus aliquid est, ct alterum ipse unitionis corum modus.","english":"If, therefore, the most holy Fathers take this example of the rational soul and the human body for the Lord's incarnation, saying that the natures in Christ are one in the same way as the soul and the body are one nature of man, how do you forbid us to understand this concerning the incarnation, saying that the union is outside the example, when such great Fathers as these bring forward its likeness?\n\nRusticus: Therefore you say that the union accomplished in Christ differs in no respect from that union which takes place unceasingly in the whole world, wherever a man is composed.\n\nHeretic: How does it not differ, when it was made once and only once upon the divinity and the flesh?\n\nRusticus: This has made a difference not of the union itself, but only of the things that are united. For if, to speak by way of example, it should happen that either a man and an angel, or God and perhaps some power from among the rational beings of heaven, were united, they would not differ in the union from those things that were being united. Therefore it is one thing to bring forward the things of which something consists, and another the very manner of their union.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":78,"ref":"p78","source":"Hæret. Et aliquid distat lInitio, effectus tamen minime, in unam siquidem personam convenerunt.\n\nRust. Sed nos nunc ab unitione argumentamur ad effectum; et quoniam communiter Christi confitemur unam solamque personam, si una quoque natura sit quærimus. Sed quia omnem comparationem aut exemplum non per omnia simile nec per cuncta dissimile poni necesse est, cum mullus modos circa. hominis consideremus exemplum: ex duabus enim naturis, non modo unus homo, una persona, una subsistentia, sed et una species, unum animal, et una substantia vel natura, ex iis ipsis a; ret quia a sanctis Patribus, non ut unius naturae sive substantiæ signigicativum super Domino sumimur, quia hoc exemplum suscipiunt. Si vero non modo una persona, et una subsistentia, et unus idemque est, sed et una spccies, substantia, et natura, et simpliciter nullo modo unitorum salvus est numerJS, jam non erit exemplum. Hoc autem nec verum, nec hac intentione dictum est a scriptore, sed ad demonstrandum tantummodo quia sicut illic quæ unita sunt unum eumdemque hominem perfecerunt, sic et hic unum Christum, unum Filium, unum Dominum, unam personam ct unam subsistentiam: quod est et ex ipsis considerare sermonibus. Non enim dictum est, ex duabus quidem naturis, Deus et homo, quia el anima et corpus; at vero naturae jam non duæ, sed una per unitionem. Sed postquam dixit: duce naturæ, Deus et homo; addidit.","english":"Haeretic. And something differs at the beginning, but the effect not at all, since they have come together into one person.\n\nRusticus. But we now argue from the union to the effect; and since we confess in common one and only person of Christ, we ask whether there is also one nature. But because every comparison or example must be posited as neither similar in all respects nor dissimilar in all respects, since we consider many modes in the example of man: for from two natures there is not only one man, one person, one subsistence, but also one species, one animal, and one substance or nature, from those very things which are taken by the holy Fathers, not as signifying one nature or substance about the Lord, because they accept this example. But if there is not only one person, and one subsistence, and one and the same, but also one species, substance, and nature, and simply in no way is the number of the united preserved, then it will no longer be an example. But this is neither true, nor was it said by the writer with this intention, but only to demonstrate that just as there the things united have brought about one and the same man, so also here one Christ, one Son, one Lord, one person and one subsistence: which is also to be considered from the words themselves. For it was not said, from two natures, God and man, as also soul and body; but the natures are now not two, but one through union. But after he said: two natures, God and man; he added.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":79,"ref":"p79","source":"Filii autem non duo. Cur ergo pervertis ea quae ob hoc clarescunt dicta, ut unus Filius monstretur, et non duo Dii; neque interiorem et exteriorem, velut alterum et alterum, duos quis Christos esse putaret: sed ut, vel si quid Christi interius et quiddam exterius juxta exemplum prepositum, ct sicut de homine inquit Apostolus non tamen,vclulinteriorem et exteriorem, duos Christos existere.\n\nHæret. Ego alium suspicor eorum quæ dicta sunt intellectum: quod enim dixit, i duæ naturæ, Deus et homo, quia ct anima et corpus; Filii vero non duo, neque Dii, neque enim hic duo homines, etsi sic Paulus quod inter ius hominis ct quod exterius appellavit; » tale est ac si quis dicat: Non sunt duo Christi, Deus homo, etsi sic Aposwlus interiorem et exteriorem velut duos homines nuncupavit, id cst, animam et corpus. Igitur hominem quem Apostolus velut in duo partitus est, sanctæ memoriæ Gregorius unum modum omnihus nominat, ne Christo eum conferens, duos videatur Christos asserere. Quia igitur supcr uno eodemque homine circa Apostolum licet dicere, interior homo et exterior, de Christo vero non licet diccre, is qui intus est Christus, et is qui foris est Christus, secundum Patres sanctos qui in Ephesum convenerunt, nc duos faciamus Christos, claret quia in Christo major unitas quam quæ in homine facta sit; multo amplius igitur per uuitioncm una natura est Christi.","english":"But not two Sons. Why, then, do you pervert the things that are made clear by the words spoken for this purpose—that one Son might be shown, and not two Gods; and that no one should think there are two Christs, as though one were the inner and the other the outer, as if one and another; but that, even if there is something of Christ inward and something outward according to the example set before us, and just as the Apostle says of a man, nevertheless not as though inner and outer, there should exist two Christs.\n\nHaeretic. I suspect another understanding of what has been said: for what he said—that there are two natures, God and man, because there is also soul and body; but not two Sons, nor two Gods, for here too there are not two men, even though Paul thus called what is within a man and what is without; it is as if someone should say: There are not two Christs, God and man, even though the Apostle thus named the inner and the outer as though two men, that is, soul and body. Therefore the man whom the Apostle divided as it were into two parts, Gregory of holy memory calls one mode in all respects, lest, comparing him to Christ, he should seem to assert two Christs. Since, therefore, concerning one and the same man it is permissible, in accordance with the Apostle, to say \"the inner man\" and \"the outer man,\" but concerning Christ it is not permissible to say \"the Christ who is within\" and \"the Christ who is without,\" according to the holy Fathers who convened at Ephesus, lest we make two Christs, it is clear that in Christ there is a greater unity than that which was made in man; much more, therefore, through union is the nature of Christ one.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":80,"ref":"p80","source":"Rust. Planius audire desid.ro quæ a te dii ta sunt nuper obscurissima enim sunt.\n\nHæret. Breviter simul ct plane eadem repetentur. Dixit alicubi Apostolus: Quia quanto i. qui for est noster homo corrumpitur, tanto is qui intus est renovatur (II Cor. IV, 16); et tanquam de alio loqueretur, eum qui inlus est et eum qui foris est separavit, ut veluti duo homines putarentur, alter interior, et alter exterior. Dicit ergo Gregorius « sic ex duabus naturis Christus, sicut ex corpore ct anima homo: » non tamen licet vel sic nos dicere de Christo sicut de homine; quatenus sicut ille qui intus est, et ille qui foris est mo quodammodo duo sunt homines, sic duo sint filii: non enim circa hoc exemplum sumimus quasi ut alter sit interior Filius et alter exterior, sed circa hoc tantum, quia ex ambabus unus est Filius. Quare ex parte, et non ex toto sumpsit exemplum. Insuper non solummodo duo, sed et tres veluti videtur Apostolus homines subsignare, dicens enim: Interior noster homo, et, exTerior homo noster, in co quod dicit, noster, alium velut hominem monstrat, cujus isti sint duo; alius enim ego, et alius ille qui meus est.","english":"Rusticus: I wish you would hear more plainly the things that were said by you just now, for they are exceedingly obscure.\n\nHaereticus: The same things will be repeated briefly and plainly together. The Apostle said somewhere: \"For though our outward man is corrupted, yet the inward man is renewed\" (2 Cor. 4:16); and as though he were speaking of another, he separated the one who is within from the one who is without, so that they might be thought of as, as it were, two men—one inner and the other outer. Gregory therefore says, \"So Christ is from two natures, as man is from body and soul\"; yet it is not permitted us, even so, to speak of Christ as we do of man—such that, just as the one who is within and the one who is without are in a certain manner two men, so there should be two Sons. For we do not take up this example in the sense that one is the inner Son and the other the outer, but only in this respect: that from both there is one Son. Wherefore he took up the example in part, and not in whole. Moreover, the Apostle appears to indicate not only two, but even three, as it were, men; for in saying \"our inner man\" and \"our outer man,\" in that he says \"our,\" he shows another, as it were, man, whose these two are; for one is I, and another is he who is mine.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":81,"ref":"p81","source":"Rust. Falsissime atque versutissime inquis: non eniM vel Aposlolus sic incongrue sripsit, vel illa universalis synodus ita desipuit, ut hanc incongruitatem velut ex persona sancti Gregorii exponeret ad demonstrationem propria: fidei: quoniam non hoc interior et exterior homo quod simpliciter homo, sed quod non integer homo: non enim vel animus vel corpus integer homo. Omne siquidem quod regatur, adjecta negativa particula ponitur, ut puta: Anima rationalis homo non est. Ponitur homo, et id non esse dicitur. Circumscribit ergo Paulus homiliis partem, dicens: exterior homo, id est, non et interior: ac per hoc non totus homo. Rursus, qui intus est homo: igitur non etiam qui fons: ergo nac bomo, sed aliquid hominis, neque imperfectum. Quia vcro sic intellexerit Pater, non modo ex opposita diverso incongruitate, sed et ex consequentia rationum licet ostendi. Inquit cnim: « Si quis duos Filius introducit, unum quidem ex Deo Patre, secunda a vero ex Maria, ct non unum ct eumdem, et adoptione decidat quæ promissa est recte credentibus. Naturæ quidem duæ, Deus et homo, quia et anima et corpus: Filii vero non duo, neque Dli: nec enim ii duo homines, etsi sic Paulus, quod iutus hominis et quod foris nominavit: ct, si oportet breviter dicere aliud quidem et aliud ea ex quibus Salvator.","english":"Rusticus: You speak most falsely and most craftily; for neither did the Apostle write so incongruously, nor was that universal synod so foolish as to expound this incongruity as though from the person of Saint Gregory, to demonstrate the character of the true faith; since the inner and the outer man is not that which is simply man, but that which is not a whole man; for neither is the soul nor the body a whole man. For everything that is governed is stated with a negative particle added, for example: A rational soul is not a man. Man is posited, and it is said that he is not this. Paul therefore circumscribes a part of man in his words, saying: the outer man, that is, not also the inner; and thereby not the whole man. Again, he who is within is man; therefore not also he who is without; therefore not man, but something of man, nor yet imperfect. But because the Father has understood it thus, it can be shown not only from the opposite diversity of incongruity, but also from the consequence of reasons. For he says: «If anyone introduces two Sons, one indeed from God the Father, the second truly from Mary, and not one and the same, let him fall from the adoption that was promised to those who rightly believe. The natures indeed are two, God and man, because both soul and body; but of the Son there are not two, nor two Gods; for neither are these two men, even though Paul named that which is within man and that which is without; and, if it must be said briefly, one thing and another thing from those of which the Savior [is composed].»","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":82,"ref":"p82","source":"Siquidem non idem visibile invisibili, et intemporale ei quod sub tempore; non alius vcru et alius absit: ambo enim hæc, unum mixtione, Deo quidem inhumanato, homine vcro dcilato, vel qualitercunque quis nominet. Dico vero, alud ct aliud, converso quam super Trinitate se habet: illic namque alius et alius uni ne subsistentias confundamus, non aliud et aliud: unum enim tria et idem deitate. » Primum quidem, non dixit, ex duabus naturis Christus, sed potius, duæ naturæ, Deus et homo, id est Christus. Si enim de alio diccn t, non adderet, Filii vero non duo. Nullus enim, Deus simul ct homo unus Filius, nisi Christus. Nec vero dixit fuisse, sed esse duas natur as: quod enim mox adjectum est, non erat, sed est: dixit enim, quia et anima et corpus, et addidit, Filii vero non duo, ncque Dii; ct non addidit, siunt. Et ideo non ob hoc adjecit, et hoc ipsum est, quasi ut non sint duæ naturæ: nec enim hic ideo deest, quod absit, eo quod tanquam sint duo Filii; sed propriclas locutionum est hanc particulam orationis in audientis intellectu relinquere. Si igitur duae naturae sunt, Deus et hosio, id quod Salvator planc confessus est, quomodo tu per quasdam diabolicas versutias ejus in contrarium verba pervertis? die mihi.","english":"For the visible is not the same as the invisible, nor the timeless as that which is under time; nor is one thing true and another absent—for both of these are one by mixture, God indeed unhumanized, but man deified, or however anyone may name it. But I say \"another and another,\" the reverse of how it stands concerning the Trinity; for there it is \"another and another\" so that we do not confuse the subsistences into one, not \"one thing and another\"—for the three are one and the same in deity. First of all, he did not say \"Christ from two natures,\" but rather \"two natures, God and man,\" that is, Christ. For if he were speaking of another, he would not have added, \"but the Son is not two.\" For no one is at once God and man, one Son, except Christ. Nor did he say \"there were\" but \"there are\" two natures; for what was immediately added was not \"there was\" but \"there is\"—for he said that both the soul and the body [are], and he added, \"but the Son is not two, nor are there two Gods\"; and he did not add \"they are.\" And therefore he did not add this for the reason that this very thing is, as it were, so that they are not two natures; for neither is it absent here for the reason—which be far from us—that they are as it were two Sons; but it is a property of these expressions to leave this particle of speech to the understanding of the hearer. If, therefore, there are two natures, God and man, which the Savior plainly confessed, how do you by certain diabolical tricks pervert his words to the contrary? Tell me.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":83,"ref":"p83","source":"Hæret. Interim contra ea quæ dicta sunt, per ordinem te oportet, si tamen omniuo aliquid habes, opponere; et tunc me interrogare, si ad hæc habeam rationes. Quid ergo apud eum vult significare, etsi sic Paulus quod intus hominis et quod foris appellavit?\n\nRust. Patienter accipe; boc enim et facturus sum. Postquam igitur dixit, duæ naturæ, Deus et homo, quia ct anima et corpus: Filii veio non duo, nec Dii, » addidit, nec enim hic duo homines. » Non igitur duo dicendi sunt homines de uno et eodem; nocebit namque et hoc non mediocriter pietatis mysterio, si dicamus, quia Dcus et duo homines, Christus; seu quia Verbum non homo factus sit, sed homines facti sunt: et est per hoc, decem millia concludere incongrua simul atque blasphema. Ante omnia quoniam tu duas naturas esse non dicens Domini Christi, duos homines dicis in co, et negans duas Dei ct hominis esse naturas: rursus Isolumque.hominem, auctoritate Apostoti, duos esse homines contendis asserere, et Apostolo contraria dixisse Grcgorium.","english":"He clings [to this]. Meanwhile, against the things that have been said, you ought to object in order, if indeed you have anything at all; and then to question me, if I have reasons for these things. What, then, does he wish to signify by this, even if Paul thus called that which is within man and that which is outside?\n\nRusticus: Receive it patiently; for this is what I am also about to do. After he said, therefore, \"two natures, God and man, because both soul and body; but of the Son there are not two, nor two Gods,\" he added, \"for here there are not two men.\" Therefore they are not to be called two men from one and the same [person]; for this too will harm the mystery of piety not moderately, if we say that Christ is God and two men; or that the Word was not made man, but men were made: and by this it is possible to conclude ten thousand things incongruous and at the same time blasphemous. Before all things, since you, not saying that there are two natures of the Lord Christ, say that there are two men in him, and denying that there are two natures of God and man: again you contend and assert, by the authority of the Apostle, that the same man is two men, and that Gregory said things contrary to the Apostle.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":84,"ref":"p84","source":"DiCtum vero cst quod prædiximus ab ApoEtolo atque a Patribus: quoniam quædam quidem sunt quæ de uno et solo dicuntur, ct non ctiam de duobus aut pluribus; quaedam vero similiter et de uno et non de solo: ut est, quando dicit Dominus de corpore suo quod templum sit, quando illud a Judæis quidem solvendum esse praedixit, a se autcm resuscitandum: dicimur vero et nos, vel Filii vel sancti Spiritus esse templum. Vides igitur hoc idem, ct de eodcm et de non eisdem, sed de aliis et aliis dici? Si igitur aliud cst de duobus loqui, vel pluribus; aliud vero de uno quidem, sed tamen similiter, et sic tanquam de duobus: illic enim verborum similitudo, non identitas rerum: non enim sine dissimilitudine est ea quæ de uno est, et illa quæ de pluribus ratio. Inquit ergo Gregorius, quia elsi communi et simili sermone Apostolus usus est stiper uno homine quasi super duobus, non tamen duo sunt homines, is qui intus est, et is qui Curis. Sed ei hoc ipsum non dubitate posuit, sed veluti sermone suspenso: non enim dixit quia modis omnibus hoc dicat Apostolus, sed ait: si sic Apostolus quod intus cst hominis et quod foris est appellavit. » Intendendum vero ct quod ait, appellavit. Non enim dixit, confirmavit, neque, definiit, sed, appellavit. Appellatio vero similitudo sermonum est, non autem omnimodo necessarieque et inevitabiliter identitas rerum.","english":"But what we said before is a statement of the Apostle and of the Fathers: that some things are said of one and only one, and not also of two or more; but some things similarly of one, yet not of one only: as when the Lord says of his body that it is a temple, when he foretold that it would be destroyed by the Jews indeed, but raised up by himself; and we too are said to be a temple, either of the Son or of the Holy Spirit. Do you see, then, that this same thing is said both of the same and of not the same, but of different and different things? If, therefore, it is one thing to speak of two or more, and another thing to speak of one indeed, but similarly, and thus as if of two—for there the similarity is of words, not the identity of things; for the account given of one and that given of many is not without dissimilarity—Gregory therefore says that even if the Apostle used common and similar speech about one man as about two, nevertheless they are not two men, the one who is within and the one who is without. But he set this down not without doubt, but as it were with suspended speech: for he did not say that the Apostle says this in every way, but he says: \"if the Apostle so called what is within man and what is outside.\" But one must attend also to what he said: \"he called.\" For he did not say, \"he confirmed,\" nor \"he defined,\" but \"he called.\" Calling, however, is a similarity of words, not in every way and necessarily and inevitably an identity of things.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":85,"ref":"p85","source":"Non igitur dE duobus intellexit hominibus, etsi, ut de geminis, appellavit.\n\nHæret. Quid volumus sermone protendere? Non ail interim lectio quia in duabus naturis, sed ex duahus: addidit enim, aliud quidem et aliud, ex quibus Salvator.\n\nRust. Interim permitte nos per ordinem quod olim quærebatur absolvere, et de hoc postea perquiremus. Prædictis igitur superaddit etiam haec: Etsi oportet breviter dicere, aliud quidem et aliud, ea ex quibus Salvator, siquidem non idem id quod invisibilo ei quod visibile, et id quod intemporale et quod subtemporale; non alius vero et alius, absit. » Et hic quod dictum fuerat repræsentat, quia ex duabus quidem substantiis, non ex duabus personis est Christus: aliud enim et aliud naturarum magis est proprium; alius vero et alius, personarum. Signandum vcro qnia non dixit, ex alio et alio Salvator; » sed, aliud et aliud, ea ex quibus Salvator: ne quis vestrum suspicetur quia ex duabus quidem, sed jam non dux naturæ: dixit enim pluraliter, ea ex quibus est Salvator. Si igitur ex duabus naturis Salvator, sunt vero hæc ipsi ex quibus Salvatur; sunt igitur duæ nature: non enim potest hic dici, alia quædam dixit ea ex quibus est, præter duas naturas. Non enim possibile est ex aliis quibusdam dici Christum, nisi ex duabus naturs existentibus:existentibus vero dico, non, præexistentibus unitioni; absit, sed nunc usque manentibus.","english":"He therefore did not understand it of two men, even though, as of twins, he called them so.\n\nHaeretic. Why do we wish to stretch out the discussion? For now the reading does not say \"in two natures,\" but \"from two\"; for he added, \"one thing and another, from which the Savior is.\"\n\nRusticus. For now allow us to finish in order what was once being asked, and we will inquire about this afterwards. So to what has been said he also adds this: \"Even if one must speak briefly, one thing and another, those things from which the Savior is, since indeed the invisible is not the same as the visible, and the timeless is not the same as what is under time; but not another and another, far be it.\" And here he represents what had been said, that Christ is from two substances indeed, but not from two persons: for \"one thing and another\" is more proper to natures; but \"another and another\" to persons. But it must be noted that he did not say, \"the Savior is from another and another,\" but \"one thing and another, those things from which the Savior is,\" lest any of you suspect that he is from two indeed, but no longer of two natures: for he said in the plural, \"those things from which the Savior is.\" If therefore the Savior is from two natures, and these are the very things from which he is [formed]; therefore there are two natures: for it cannot be said here that he spoke of certain other things from which he is, apart from the two natures. For it is not possible for Christ to be said to be from certain other things, unless from two natures existing: existing, I say, not pre-existing before the union; far be it, but remaining even now.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":86,"ref":"p86","source":"Rursus igitur sermonem rcpetam. Lectio hæc. duas ex quibus est Salvator, hactenus vult esse clare naturas: quomodo igitur, tu, nisi Satanæ versutiis, in contrarium vertere qua bene sunt dicta conaris? Nam jam duas, inquis, esse naturas cas ex quibus Salvator, quas ct duas naturas et aliud atque aliud Patres esse dixerunt. Sicut autem dixit hic, aliud et aliud, ca ex quibus Salvator, prout diceret, ex quibus est Salvator: sic et supra, duæ naturæ, Deus et homo; ac si diceret, duæ sunt naturæ Deus et homo. Intende vero et tenori lectionis hujus, quia per singula nomina similiter currit.\n\nHæret. Quid ad me! dicantur ad hoc tamen solum duae naturae, ut ex ipsis sit; non tamen ad hoc, ut et in ipsis sit Christus, ne unus secetur in duos.\n\nRust. Quotiescunque sermones verteris, minime nos pigebit opponere tuis falsitatibus veritatem: turpe est enim revcra et indecens, contra asserentem perversa, nos pro veritate frigidioros inveniri. Audi igitur interim, et suaJerc adhuc amplius ex iis quæ sequuntur ita: Hæc enim ambo, unum commixtione, Deo quidem inhumanato, homine vero delato, vel quomodolibet quis nominet. » Vide igimr lectionem, ambo, nominantem; qnac tn, duo quædam dici non voles. Quis usque adeo vccors sit, imo quis demens, quis impius et sine Deo, qui, ambo, esse non dicat, duo quædam?","english":"Therefore I will take up the argument again. This reading says that the Savior is from two, and to this extent it wants the natures to be clear. How then, unless by the cunning of Satan, do you try to turn into the opposite the things that are well said? For already, you say, there are two natures, those from which the Savior is, which the Fathers said are both two natures and one thing and another. But just as he said here, \"one thing and another,\" those from which the Savior is, according as he said \"from which the Savior is,\" so also above, \"two natures, God and man,\" as if he said, \"the two natures are God and man.\" Attend also to the tenor of this reading, because it runs similarly through the individual names.\n\nHeretic. What is that to me! Let them be called two natures only for this purpose, that he is from them; not, however, for this purpose, that Christ is also in them, lest the one be cut into two.\n\nRusticus. However often you twist your words, it will not at all weary us to oppose the truth to your falsehoods; for it is truly shameful and indecent that, against one asserting perverse things, we should be found colder in defense of the truth. Hear therefore for now, and I will add still more from what follows, thus: \"For these two are one by mixture, God indeed having become man, and man having been borne up, or however one may name it.\" See therefore the reading, calling them \"two\"; which you do not wish to be called two things. Who would be so senseless, indeed who would be mad, who impious and without God, as not to say that \"two\" are two things?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":87,"ref":"p87","source":"Simul quoque inspice quia, sicnt superius diximus, simpliciter unum naturæ sit potius proprium quam personæ, sicut unus personæ potius quam naturæ: verumtamen eo quod nonnunquam et praeter acribiam dicantur talia, et alterne, salvo pio intellectu; sicut Apostolus sic de uno homine, tanquam si de duobus locutus eST, ille qui intus ct qui foris homo: sic iste de. duabus naturis tanquam quasi de una, non ait unum esse Christum nce unam esse personam, sed simpliciter unum; dicit enim, ambo hæc unum commixtione. Non autem libi blandiaris, quasi omnino de una natura se eloqui putaverit; alioqui etcgo dicam, quia et hic non sinc additamento legitur unum, sed dicitur unum commixtione, iJ cst unitione, non natura unum.\n\nHæret. Ncn mihi plura jam dicas, ecce uno te superabo sermone: ubi mihi de cætero fugies? ubi poteris verti? Non solum enim unum quiet dixit, utraque; sed et addit, commixtione: ubi commilito, ibi omnimodo et una ex diversis natura: nna igitur ex duabus Domini Ch isli facta natura est.","english":"At the same time consider also that, as we said above, “one” is simply more a property of nature than of person, just as “one” is more a property of person than of nature; yet nevertheless, because such things are sometimes said even without strict precision, and interchangeably, with the pious understanding preserved—just as the Apostle spoke thus of one man as if he had spoken of two, the man who is within and the man who is without—so this man speaks of two natures as if of one, and does not say that Christ is one or that the person is one, but simply “one”; for he says, “both these are one by commixture.” But do not flatter yourself that he thought he was speaking altogether of one nature; otherwise I too shall say that here also “one” is not read without an addition, but it is said to be “one by commixture,” that is, by union, not one in nature.\n\nHeretic: Say no more to me now; behold, I shall defeat you with a single word. Where will you flee from me hereafter? Where will you be able to turn? For not only did he say “one” of both, but he also added “by commixture”; where there is commixture, there is in every way also one nature from diverse things. Therefore one nature of the Lord Christ has been made from two.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":88,"ref":"p88","source":"Rust. Glorifico Deum, quia velut inventa occasione, omne venenum tuum promptissime vomuisti. Rogo vero et.pero, qui [F. quia] quanto vulnus tuum manifestius factum est, tanto celerius curabitur. Non dixit enim sanctorum doctrina naturarum permixtionem, non dixit fermentationem, non dixit confusionem: hæc namque omnia non jam servant ea quæ unita sunt. Igitur si, quod absit, confusio facta est, non jam Deus est Christus. Sed ipse exposuit quid dixerit, commixtione, dum superaddit, Deo quidem inhumanato, homine vero deitato. Non dixit, Deo quidem confuso, ',omine vero confermentato: est enim, est revera quaedam commixtio salvam custodiens differentiam commixtorum. Et hoc exposuit sufficienter olim S. Cyrillus in primo tomo contra Nestorii blasphemias, sic dicens: « Nomen quidem commixtionis posuerunt etiam sanctorum Patrum nonnulli. Quoniam vero revereri tc dicis, ne forsitan quædam putetur refusio contigisse: quemadmodum in ordine corum quæ invicem liquida commiscentur, liberem te ab hujusmodi pavoribus. Sapuerunt enim sic, nunquam abusi sunt vero verbo ad summam factam unitionem corum quae ad alterutrum convenerunt significare studentes.","english":"Rusticus: I glorify God, because, as if having found an occasion, you have most readily vomited out all your poison. But I ask and entreat that, the more clearly your wound has been made manifest, the more quickly it may be cured. For the doctrine of the saints did not speak of a mixture of natures, did not speak of a fermentation, did not speak of a confusion; for all these things no longer preserve the things that have been united. Therefore, if—which God forbid—a confusion has taken place, then Christ is no longer God. But he himself explained what he meant by \"commixture,\" when he adds, \"God indeed unmanning himself, and man indeed being deified.\" He did not say, \"God indeed confused, and man indeed fermented\"; for there is, there truly is, a certain commixture that preserves unimpaired the difference of the things commixed. And this St. Cyril explained sufficiently long ago in the first tome against the blasphemies of Nestorius, saying thus: \"Some of the holy Fathers also used the name of commixture. But since you say you revere it, lest perhaps some pouring-back be thought to have occurred—as in the case of those things that are commingled in a liquid state with one another—I will free you from fears of this kind. For they were wise, and never abused the true word, striving to signify the union that has been accomplished of the things that came together with one another.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":89,"ref":"p89","source":"Convenire autem dicimus secundum unitionem indiscissibilem, et impermutabiliter habentem propria carnis Deum Verbum: inveniemus vero et ipsam divine inspiratam Scripturam, non valde hoc verbum discutientem, sed potius quasi abusive ponentem atque simpliciter. Scripsit igitur sacratissimus Paulus de aliquibus: Sed non profuit eis sermo auditus, non mixtis fide iis qui audierant (Heb. iv, 2). Nunquid ergo futuri crant circa æquum modum commixti ad alterutrum, sicut ccr:c v num aquæ, et refusionem quamdam subsistentiarum, quæ est in invicem, passuri ii de quibus erat sermo; an potius uniti circa animam, secundum illud quod in Aclilms sanctorum apostolorum scriptum est; quoniam multitudinis eorum qui crediderant erat cor unni et anima una (Act. IV, 32)? Sed arbilror hoc vernm nogis esse quam i!lud. Esto igitur extra pavores super iis: canta eniin nimis est mens sanctorum. » Ecce, quod æque quæsitum est olim Nestorio, S. Cyrillus absolvit.","english":"But we say that they came together according to an indivisible union, and the Word of God having the properties of the flesh immutably; we shall find, however, that even the divinely inspired Scripture itself does not very much examine this word, but rather uses it loosely and simply. The most sacred Paul therefore wrote concerning certain people: But the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard (Heb. 4:2). Would they therefore, concerning whom the word was spoken, have been about to be mixed together to a certain equal measure, like wine and water, and to suffer a kind of pouring together of their subsistences into one another; or rather united as to the soul, according to what is written in the Acts of the holy apostles: that the multitude of those who had believed had one heart and one soul (Acts 4:32)? But I think this is more true than that. Let this therefore be beyond fears concerning these things: for the mind of the saints is exceedingly harmonious. Behold, what was once equally asked by Nestorius, St. Cyril absolved.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":90,"ref":"p90","source":"H aret. Ex synodicis ejus, si tamen revera potes, aliquid tale demonstra; quæ enim in pugna, et coxtentione, et contradictione, non utique circa acribiam dicta sunt: multa enim puto in talibus. et magis dispensative dicta; ea vero quæ synodi universalis sunt, firmissima omnium sunt, maxime quia oportt primum communia contemplati, et tunc propria scripta. Habeo namque ct ego non pauca ex talibus proferre scriptis.\n\nRust. Si ad satisfaciendum tibi non sufficit circa hæc hujus Patris auctoritas; me puta ista diX isse. Nunquid Apostoli verba quibus hæc demonstrata sunt, aut sic sanam expositionen poteris non probare? Verumtamen et in iis ohediam tibi: spero enim in nomine Domini, quia si tibi per omnia quæ quæsieris satislias, omni modo etiam corrigaris. Ex synodica ct unitiva epistola sanctæ memoriæ Cyrilli ad sanctæ recordationis Joannem archiepiscopum Antiochiæ et synodum quæ sub eo est: « Eos antem qui dicunt, quia confusio aut fermentatio facta est Dci Verbi ad carnem, dignetur tua religiositas condemnare; credibile namque est quosdam ct hæc jaciitare de me, tanquam si hoc vel sapuerim vel dixerint. Ego amem tantum alienus sum a sententia lnjusmodi, ut ex insanire putem eos qui quolibct modo ilud suspicati sunt, quod momenti obumbrotio circ, illam divinam Verbi naturam contingere possit.","english":"Haret. From his synodical letters, if indeed you truly can, demonstrate something of this kind; for the things said in strife, contention, and contradiction were not spoken with precision, for I think there are many such things, and spoken rather by way of dispensation. But the things that belong to a universal synod are the firmest of all, especially because one ought first to consider the common statements and then the private writings. For I too have no few things to bring forward from such writings.\n\nRusticus. If the authority of this Father concerning these matters does not suffice to satisfy you, suppose that I said these things. Can you fail to approve the sound exposition demonstrated by the words of the Apostle? Nevertheless, I will yield to you in these matters also; for I hope in the name of the Lord that, if you are fully satisfied in all the things you have sought, you will in every way be corrected also. From the synodical and unifying letter of Cyril of holy memory to John, archbishop of Antioch of holy remembrance, and to the synod under him: \"But let your religiousness deign to condemn those who say that a confusion or fermentation of the Word of God with the flesh took place; for it is credible that certain persons even cast these things against me, as though I had either understood or said this. But I am so far removed from a sentiment of this kind that I think those who have suspected this in any way whatsoever are insane—namely, that a momentary overshadowing could affect that divine nature of the Word.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":91,"ref":"p91","source":"Manet etenim quod est semper, et mutatum non est; sed non unquam mutabitur, aut et am permutationis erit susceptibile: impassibile vero ad hæc illud Dei Verbum conlitemnr universi. »\n\nHæret. Et nos non impiam mixtionem dicimus, quam hic doctor iste accusat, sed piam, quam in verbis S. Gregorii, cum tota universali Ephesina synodo hic ipse sanctissimus Cyrillus accepit. Hæc vero pia mixtio unam naturam Christi effecit.\n\nRust. Licet sufficiant quæ dicta sunt, tamen propter pertinaciam tuam, ut scias quia non talis est hujus lectionis intentio, caetera perscrutemur, quæ sic se habent: Utraque enim unum commixtione Deo quidem inhumanato, homine vero deitato, vel quolibet modo quis nominet. Dico autem afind et aliud e converso quam in Trinitate se habet: nam illic quidem alius et alius, ut subsistentias non coofundamus; non aliud vero ct aliud, substantiam ne separemus: unum namque hæc tria, et idem Deitate. » Claro in talibus verbis omnem veram comminuit hæresim, monstrans quia aliud in Christo qui.. dem convenit, in Trinitate vero tota jam minime, sed potius alius et alius.","english":"For that which is forever remains, and has not been changed; but it will never be changed, nor will it ever be susceptible of change: but that this Word of God is impassible, we all maintain.\n\nHe objects. And we do not speak of an impious mixture, which this doctor here accuses, but of a pious one, which this same most holy Cyril, together with the whole universal synod of Ephesus, accepted in the words of St. Gregory. But this pious mixture made one nature of Christ.\n\nRusticus. Although what has been said is sufficient, nevertheless because of your stubbornness, so that you may know that the intent of this reading is not such as you claim, let us examine the rest, which stands as follows: For both are one by mixture, God indeed made man, and man made God, or however one may name it. But I say one thing and another, in the opposite way from how it is in the Trinity: for there indeed one and another, so that we do not confound the subsistences; but not one thing and another, lest we separate the substance: for these three are one, and the same in Deity. Clearly in such words he crushes every true heresy, showing that one thing in Christ indeed applies, but in the whole Trinity by no means, but rather one and another.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":92,"ref":"p92","source":"Vides igitur, et duas naturas et aliud ct aliud dici de uno eodem Domino Christo; alius vero et alius, ubi personac sunt tres: non quia Christus quarta persona sit, duracerte sine ipso non jam tres, sed duæ personae sint seu subsitentiæ; sed quia sicuti in commune sanctae Trinitatis differentia, et numerus subsisteutiarum et non naturarum est, sic in Cbristo qui coadimplet Trinitatem, naturarum, non personarum est tam differentia quam etiam numerus. Si enim hic converso quam ix Trinitate, quid aliud signat istud, e converto, nisi quia sicut ibi non una persona, ne substantias confundamus, sic hic non una natura, ut non confundamus naturas? Ex judicio igitur sanctæ et universalis synodi, confusionem modis omnibus ntroducunt qui unam dicunt naturam Domini Christi ex divinitate ac humanitate factam.\n\nHæret. Duas naturas, ct, aliud et aliud, ex quibus Salva or, dixit: non, in quibus Salvator: vos autem, sicut synodus Chalcedonensis, non ex duabus, sed in duabus esse dil iiis.","english":"You see, therefore, that both two natures and \"one thing and another\" are said of the one and same Lord Christ; but \"one person and another\" where there are three persons: not because Christ is a fourth person—for certainly without him there would no longer be three, but two persons or subsistences—but because just as in the common difference of the holy Trinity there is a number of subsistences and not of natures, so in Christ, who completes the Trinity, there is both a difference and a number of natures, not of persons. For if here the converse holds as in the Trinity, what else does this signify, by way of converse, except that just as there [in the Trinity] there is not one person, lest we confound the substances, so here there is not one nature, lest we confound the natures? From the judgment, therefore, of the holy and universal synod, those who say that the one nature of the Lord Christ was made from divinity and humanity introduce confusion in every way.\n\nHe objects. \"Two natures,\" and \"one thing and another,\" from which the Savior said: \"not\"; in which the Savior: \"but you, as the synod of Chalcedon [says], not from two, but in two\" — that these things are said.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":93,"ref":"p93","source":"Rust. Non dixit, fuissc, sed esse duas naturas: non olum propter illa quas olim dicta sunt, sed et propicr quod nunc dictum est: non enim dixit, sic sc habuisse in Christo, sed quod sic sc usque nunc habeat: Inquit enim, et e converso quam se in Trinitate habet, id est usque ad præsens; ct nec dixit, illic quidem, sic se habuit e converso: in Trinitate vero sic se habet; sed communiter addit, habet, postquam dixerat, converso. Sicut igitur nunc usque illic subsistentiarum discretio, sic et hic naturarum. Eorum cnim quæ fuerunt ct non jam sunt, ad ca quæ semptr sic sunt, quomodo secundum aliud et aliud, et alius et alius crit alter e converso. Si vero ct hoc tibi difficile est, ex superioribus jam monstratum est quia dum naturæ Deus et homo, sic posuit tanquam si diceret, duæ naturæ sunt, Deus et homo.\n\nHæret. Et usque nunc duas naturas sse dicimus, sed ad hoc ut ex eis sit, non ad hoc ut in cis: hoc enim dicere est dividere in duo.","english":"Rusticus: He did not say \"there were,\" but \"there are\" two natures: not only on account of those things which were said formerly, but also because of what has now been said. For he did not say that it was so in Christ, but that it is so up to now. For he says, \"and in the opposite way from how it is in the Trinity,\" that is, up to the present; and he did not say, \"there indeed it was so in the opposite way; but in the Trinity it is so,\" but he adds in common, \"it is,\" after he had said \"in the opposite way.\" Just as, therefore, there is up to now there a distinction of subsistences, so also here of natures. For those things which were and are no longer, in relation to those which are always so, in what way according to one thing and another, and one person and another, will be the other in the opposite way. But if this too is difficult for you, it has already been shown from the foregoing that while the natures are God and man, he set it down as if he were saying, \"There are two natures, God and man.\"\n\nHaereticus: And up to now we say there are two natures, but for this purpose that he may be from them, not that he may be in them; for to say this is to divide into two.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":94,"ref":"p94","source":"j Rust. D igitur, quæ sunt istæ duæ V Certe manifestum est quia divinitas cjus et humanitas ejusdem. Si ergo in Deitate et humanitate, in duabus Christus: nam si non igitur naturis a cst Christus, hoc est, non est igitur ex duabus naturis, quod absit, qui ex Dcitate et humanitate est; aut, quod absit, ei altera DeiLite et humanitate præter duas naturas, aut nOLI ex Deitate atque humanitate.\n\nHæret. Et unde mihi ostendere potes quia Christus in divinitate atque humanitate sit?\n\nRust. Interim, quia non tantum fuisse quondam solum, sed nunc esse quoque naturas dixit, demonsirat ct illud, quia dicit, ambo enim unum commixtionc. Idem vero est dicere, hæc ambo, ct hæc duo. Sicut igitur quando dicit hoc unum, non fuisse solum, sed etiam nunc esse intelligimus; sic et quando ambo hæc non fuisse solum, sed etiam esse intelligimus: si enim jam, non hæc ambo, igitur jam non hoc unum. Quare, quod absit, non jam dicetur unus Christus, BeC una ejus, secundum te, esse persona; nec non etiam ipse articulus hæc, pluraliter dictus, non naturam, sed naturas esse significat; ambo vero illa duo, unum esse, sub uno vero omnia dicta sunt, sicut ostendit dictorum lectio.","english":"Rusticus: Therefore, what are these two? Surely it is manifest that they are his divinity and his humanity of the same one. If therefore Christ is in divinity and humanity, he is in two natures; for if he is not in two natures, that is, he is not from two natures—which be far from us—he who is from divinity and humanity; or, which be far from us, he is in divinity and humanity apart from two natures, or not from divinity and humanity.\n\nHeretic: And how can you show me that Christ is in divinity and humanity?\n\nRusticus: For the present, because he said not only that there were once natures, but that there are also now, he demonstrates that very thing; and also because he says, \"for both are one by commixture.\" But it is the same thing to say \"these both\" and \"these two.\" Just as therefore when he says \"this one,\" we understand that it was not only, but also is now; so also when he says \"both these,\" we understand that they were not only, but also are: for if they are no longer both these, then they are no longer this one. Wherefore—which be far from us—Christ will no longer be called one, nor, according to you, will there be one person of him; and moreover that very article \"these,\" spoken in the plural, signifies not a nature but natures; but that those two are one, and that all things were spoken under one—as the reading of the words shows.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":95,"ref":"p95","source":"Hæret. Non multa mihi, sed illud, ut dixi, proba, quia in iis sit Christus.\n\nRust. Et hoc tibi ex synodicis similiter lectionibus comprobabo.\n\nliceret. Prius, quæ sunt residua testimonii sancti Gregorii perquiramus, clare, ut arbitror, unam Domnini Christi substantiam declarantia.\n\nRust. Servetur tibi absque præjudicio et iste sermo: nunc vero interim, duin adbuc quæ dicta sunt memoriter retinemus, accipe synodicam lectionem, quia Christus in divinitate atque huminitate sit.\n\nTestimonium synodicum Ambrosii sanctissimi Medio lanensis epscopi.\n\ni Sileant igitur inancs de sermouibus quæstiones, quia regnum Dei. sicut scriptum est, non in persuasione humani verbi cat, sed in ostensione virtutis (/ Cor. II, 4). Servemus differentiam divinitatis ct carnis. Unus in utroque loquitur Dei Filius, quia in eodem ulraquc natura est; et, si idem loquitur, non uno tamen semper loquitur modo. Intende in eo, nun i. dem gloriam Dei, nunc vero hominis passiones; quoniam ut Deus, docet et divina, quia Verbum est; ut vero homo, loquitur humana, quia in mea substantia loquebatur. Audisti, custodiamus differentiam divinitatis et carnis. Unus in utroque loquitur Dei Filius, quia in codcm utraque natura est. » Intende, quæso, in utroque esse eorum quæ dicta sunt, Dominum Christum, id est, Deitate et humanitate; quorum et differentiam dixit oporlerc servari. Et. addit, quia in eodem utraque natura est.","english":"Heretic: It is not many things for me, but that one, as I said, prove: that Christ is in them.\n\nRusticus: And this I will prove to you likewise from the synodical readings.\n\nLet it be permitted. First, let us examine the remaining parts of the testimony of the holy Gregory, which, as I think, clearly declare the one substance of the Lord Christ.\n\nRusticus: Let even this discourse be preserved for you without prejudice; but now in the meantime, while we still hold in memory what has been said, receive the synodical reading, that Christ is in divinity and humanity.\n\nThe synodical testimony of the most holy Ambrose, bishop of Milan.\n\nTherefore let vain questions about words be silent, because the kingdom of God, as it is written, is not in the persuasion of human speech, but in the demonstration of power (1 Cor. 2:4). Let us preserve the distinction between divinity and flesh. The one Son of God speaks in both, because in the same one there is both natures; and, if the same one speaks, he does not however always speak in one manner. Attend to him: now the glory of God, now truly the sufferings of man; since as God he teaches divine things, because he is the Word; but as man he speaks human things, because he was speaking in my substance. You have heard: let us keep the distinction between divinity and flesh. The one Son of God speaks in both, because in the same one there is both natures. Attend, I ask, to the fact that the Lord Christ is in both of those things which have been said, that is, in deity and humanity; of which he also said that the distinction ought to be preserved. And he adds, because in the same one there is both natures.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":96,"ref":"p96","source":"Quid igitur vult id quod ait, quia, nisi ac si dicat, propter hoc in iis est, quia in eo sunt bxc? Si enim Christo [forte, in Christo] duae naturae, ct in duabus naturis est Christus. Propter hoc nec uno semper loquitur modo idem ipse, quia non una natura, sed aliquando quidcm tanquam Deus est, aliquando vero ut homo, quia in mea substantia loquebatur, id est, quivis [forte inquit], qui in mea erat substantia, loquebatur: ipsa vero temporis differentia, et Dei gloriam atque hominis passionem et naturarum distinctionem pariter repræsentat, dum dicit, nunc quidem hoc, nunc vero illud.\n\nHæret. Tu ista dicis: nam synodus non ait quod in utraque natura sit Christus, sed quod ipse quidem in utroque loquitur: in ipso autem utraque natura est, et non dixit duæ, sed utraque: quod vero utrumque, non continuo, duo.\n\nRust. Quousque, o tu bomo, Deo discredis. qui per sanctos locutus est Patres, et impudentiæ nOR par cens, desperationis cæcitate ctiam communes con. ceptiones meniis evcriis? Quis dixit, quis audivit unquam hominum, utrumque non esse duas? Convinco vero te a tua ipsius conscientia. Dic igitur anathema ei qui non credit, quod Christus in utraque natura el in Christo utraque Datura est, ut credamus tibi vel hoc, quia ex bona conscientia loqueris. Quid est ergo. quod occasiones et varietates verborum. quaeris?","english":"What, then, does that mean which he says, except as if he were saying, \"For this reason he is in them, because they are in him\"? For if there are two natures in Christ, Christ is also in two natures. For this reason the same one does not always speak in one manner, because he is not one nature, but sometimes indeed as God, sometimes truly as man, because he was speaking in my substance, that is, whoever was in my substance was speaking; but the very difference of time represents both the glory of God and the passion of man and the distinction of natures equally, when he says now indeed this, now truly that.\n\nHeretic: You say these things; for the synod did not say that Christ is in both natures, but that he himself indeed speaks in both; but in him both natures are, and it did not say \"two,\" but \"both\"; but \"both\" is not immediately \"two.\"\n\nRusticus: How long, O man, will you disbelieve God, who spoke through the holy Fathers, and, not sparing your shamelessness, with the blindness of desperation even overturn the common conceptions of the mind? Who said, who ever heard among men, that \"both\" is not \"two\"? But I convict you from your own conscience. Say, therefore, anathema to him who does not believe that Christ is in both natures and that both natures are in Christ, so that we may believe you in this at least, that you speak from a good conscience. What is it, then, that you seek occasions and varieties of words?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":97,"ref":"p97","source":"Die anathema, et tunc tanquam nescientem te rationabiliter suadebimus. Quia vero dixisti, quia in utroque loquitur, et quia in mea substantia loquebatur; non dixit, quia in hoc sive in illo sit, sed quia in utroque loquitur, unus qui in utroque et loquitur: sic hoc positum cst in tantum, ut sequatur Filius Dei. Reddito vero verborum ordine, facilis est itrellectus, tanquam si diceret, qui in utraque natura est Dei Filius, et addidit, loquitur. Verumtamen idem rursus designat illud incongruum quod tua verba consequitur: Si enim non eSI in uTroque, loquitur igitur ubi non est. Quineliam si non ille est in utraque natura, t'SI vero in eo utraque natura; non est ille Deus filius in iis quæ sunt in eo. Et de nonnullis quidem talis ratio verax est: ego enim sum in hoc mundo et in hoc co, sed non eti am vel mundus vel locus in me, de iis autem quæ ad substantiam pertinent, necessarie conversio fit. Etenim, si Filius in divina substantia, et in Filio ergo divina substantia; et si humanitatis natura in ipso est, et ille in ipsa natura est; et si duæ sunt in ipso naturae, et ille in duabus naturis est.","english":"Say \"anathema,\" and then we will reasonably persuade you as one who does not know. But because you said that he speaks in both, and that he was speaking in my substance, he did not say that he is in this one or in that one, but that he speaks in both, the one who speaks in both; this is set down to such an extent that the Son of God follows. But when the order of the words is restored, the understanding is easy, as if he were saying, \"the Son of God, who is in both natures,\" and he added, \"speaks.\" Nevertheless, the same man again points out that incongruity which follows from your words: for if he is not in both, then he speaks where he is not. Indeed, if he is not in both natures, but both natures are in him, then that Son of God is not in the things that are in him. And concerning certain things such reasoning is true: for I am in this world and in this place, but neither the world nor the place is in me; but concerning things that pertain to substance, the conversion necessarily holds. For if the Son is in the divine substance, then the divine substance is also in the Son; and if the nature of humanity is in him, he is also in that nature; and if there are two natures in him, he is also in two natures.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":98,"ref":"p98","source":"Hæret. Ego timeo idem velut in confessionem fidci cere quod quilibet dicere possit dividens atque se. jungens: divisio enim in duo, vel in tria, aut certe plura ultra fieri dicitur; et ideo non dico, in duabus.\n\nRust. Similitudo sermonum idem non facit in rebus exislere; alioqui tali modo, et illum qui dicit, quia in eodcin u;raque natura est, posibile sustincre calumniam: econtrario enim quæconfunduntur, in unum aliquid confunduntur. Hoc vero es!. et sermonum summa diversitas, seu magis adversitas, dicere quia unus et idem in duabus naturis cst, et ciicere quia in duabus aut in duobus quibusdam dividitur: qui enim dividitur vel partitur, sive separatur, non est unus in illis in quibus separatur, non enim potest unus esse, ct divisus esse; sed postquam fuerat aliquando unus, jam nunc non est unus, postquam separatus est. Hoc ergo significat impia divisio vel separatio. At vero unum eumdemque in aliquibus esse, hoc magis cautius et tenacius inseparabiliter unum esse, est: qui enim in duabus est, et idem ipse permanet, ille non solum partiri non potest, sed ei sufficiens est ut in scipso unita custodiat in quibus secundum subsistentiam, id est substantive est, id csi, ca quibus absque ulla mcd etate par ticipat.","english":"He objects. I fear that I may be saying the same thing as a confession of faith, which anyone could say who divides and joins himself: for division is said to be made into two, or into three, or certainly more; and therefore I do not say \"in two.\"\n\nRusticus. A similarity of words does not make the same thing exist in reality; otherwise, in such a way, even he who says that he is in the same both natures could possibly sustain a calumny: for on the contrary, things that are confounded are confounded into one something. But this is the great diversity, or rather adverseness, of words: to say that one and the same is in two natures, and to say that he is divided into two or into some two things. For he who is divided or parted, or separated, is not one in those things in which he is separated; for it is not possible to be one and to be divided; but after he was once one, now he is no longer one, after he has been separated. This, therefore, is what the impious division or separation signifies. But to be one and the same in certain things—this is rather to be one cautiously and tenaciously and inseparably: for he who is in two, and the same himself remains, he not only cannot be parted, but it is sufficient for him to keep united in himself those things in which he is according to subsistence, that is, substantively, that is, those things in which he participates without any diminution.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":99,"ref":"p99","source":"Quare multo amplius ct cautius non unum dicimus Filium: quippe scientes eum in duabus naturis existere, forliter atque incommutabiliter cum novimus unum, non vinciendum, ut ita dixerim, dualitate naturarum in quibus est, ut partiatur in duo, scd et prævalentem, in sua ipsius indirumpibili unitione, ilias ipsas in quibus est, servare naturas.\n\nHalet. Argumentatio, mihi. et ingenii subtilitas, ut ita dixerim, videntur haec verba. Ego autem ad illam sanctissimam sanctorum Patrum convertar auctoritatem: ex te vero, secundum tuapromissiones, exigam ut quæ reliqua sunt lectionis sancti Gregorii, tandem aliquando jam recenseam, quæ ita se habent: « Si quis dicit, tanquam in propheta secundum gratiam inoperatum a, et non secundum substantiam conjunctum et complasmatum Verbum; sit vacuus melioris operationis, magis vero pleRUs adversae. Si quis non adorat hunc Crucifixum, ana thema sit et deputetur cum Deicidis. Si quis ex operibus perfectum factum, aut post baptisma vel resurrectionem ex mortuis, assimilatione dignum factum dicit, sicuti gentiles subinscriptos inducunt, anathema sit: quod enim coepit, aut proficit, aut perficitur, non Deus; vel si propter incrementum catamodice ita dicitur. » Ecce indubitanter anathematizati sunt qui dicunt non secundum substantiam conjunctum Deum carni, et non complasmatum.","english":"Therefore much more and more cautiously do we not say that the Son is one; for we know that he exists in two natures, and we have come to know him as one, steadfastly and immutably—not, so to speak, to be bound by the duality of the natures in which he is, so as to be divided into two, but prevailing, in his own unbreakable union, to preserve those very natures in which he is.\n\nHalet. The argumentation, it seems to me, and the subtlety of intellect, so to speak, are these words. But I will turn to that most holy authority of the holy Fathers; from you, however, according to your promises, I will demand that the remaining portions of the reading of Saint Gregory, at long last, I now review, which are as follows: \"If anyone says that the Word is united and formed together with the prophet, as it were, according to grace, not according to substance, and is inoperative, let him be empty of the better operation, but rather full of the adverse. If anyone does not adore this Crucified One, let him be anathema and be reckoned with the Deicides. If anyone says that he was made perfect from works, or after baptism or the resurrection from the dead was made worthy of assimilation, as the gentiles introduce those inscribed beneath, let him be anathema: for what has begun either progresses or is perfected, is not God; or if it is said thus by way of increment, in a catamodic sense.\" Behold, without doubt those are anathematized who say that God is not united to the flesh according to substance, and not formed together.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":100,"ref":"p100","source":"Si igitur secundum substantiam in Christo unitio facta est, constat quia unam substantiam fecit: non enim dixit testimonium secundum substantias conjunctum, sed secundum substan iam: substantia vero utque una est, ct non duæ substantiæ, ut dicitis vos. Memini vero et illud, quia ubi naturalis unitio dicebatur, dixisti quia interim non dixit unitionem secundum naturam, sed naturalem. Ecce igitur hic non substantialem, sed secundum substantiam specialiterconjunctionem dixit, id est unitioncm; addidit vero, et complasmari Deum carni, et Judæos non homicidas, sed Deicidas esse.\n\nRust. Non dicit nunc qualiter ad invicem duæ naturæ convenerint, sed quomodo una et sola divina natura humanitati convenerit, sed non e converso etiam. Si vero improbabile id suspicaris, hujus particulæ principium intendamus; dicit enim: Si quis tanquam in propheta dicit, secundum gratiam operatum. Vides igitur propositionis principium, quomodo Deus carni copulatus sit, non quomodo Deitas et humanitas sine unitate, id est ab una unitionis, ut ita dixerim, parte. Perimit igitur ne dicatur simpliciter. secundum gratiam Deum conjunctum, et secundum illam atiæ mensuram circa quam in prophetis cst opcratus; prob:t vero secundum substantiam conjunctum: et nequc unitum dixit, srd conjunctum; conjunctio vero corum est quæ non immediabiliter sunt unita.","english":"If, therefore, the union in Christ was made according to substance, it is evident that it made one substance; for he did not say that the testimony was joined according to substances, but according to substance. But substance is certainly one, and not two substances, as you say. I remember, moreover, that also, when a natural union was being spoken of, you said that for the time being he did not say a union according to nature, but \"natural.\" Behold, therefore, here he spoke specifically not of a substantial conjunction, but of one according to substance, that is, a union; he added, moreover, that God is formed together with the flesh, and that the Jews are not murderers, but Deicides.\n\nRusticus: He does not now say how the two natures came together with each other, but how the one and only divine nature came together with the humanity, but not also conversely. But if you suspect this to be improbable, let us attend to the beginning of this passage; for he says: \"If anyone speaks as in a prophet, as having worked according to grace.\" You see, therefore, the beginning of the proposition, how God was joined to the flesh, not how the Godhead and the humanity [came together] without unity, that is, from one part of the union, so to speak. He destroys, therefore, the notion that it be said simply that God was joined according to grace, and according to that measure of grace by which he worked in the prophets; but he proves that he was joined according to substance; and he did not say \"united,\" but \"joined\"; but the conjunction is of those things which are not immediately united.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":101,"ref":"p101","source":"Quid vero sit quod dicere volo, nitar clarius dicere: non Deus Verbum, divinamnaturam; sed divina natura per Dei Verbi personam, unita dicitur carni. Si cnim tota Trinitas incarnari voluisset, tunc forsan jusle ipsa per semetipsam fuerat incarnata natura: omnia enim quæ illi naturæ secundum sc et propter semetipsam adsum, communia Trinitatis, ct non pr opria unius soliusque personæ sunt. Inhumanatio autem non Trinitatis cummunis, sed propria est selius subsistantiæ VerLi: incarnatus cst igitur et Deus Verbum, et natura ejus: sed ille quidem per semetipsum, et secundum quod est ipse; ilia vero non ita, sed per personam. Igitur Deus Verbum, secundum semetipsum quidem unicus est carni; una enim personui et una subsistentia est facta cum carnc: secundum naturam vero conjunctus est potius quam unitus, duæ enim mansere naturæ; et per comparationem, Verbum potius unitum, carni est, quam natura ejus; et ob hoc istud potius quam illud, unitio est. Illud igitur magis conjunctio est, licet sit et unitio; hoc vero magis unitio est quam conjunctio: It:..... quæcunque omnino conjunctio nominatur, illic pene semper servatur et numerus conjunctorum, seu etiam quantitas.","english":"But what it is that I wish to say, I shall try to state more clearly: it is not the divine nature that is said to be united to the flesh, but the divine nature through the person of God the Word. For if the whole Trinity had willed to become incarnate, then perhaps the nature itself would justly have been incarnate through itself; for all things that belong to that nature according to itself and on account of itself are common to the Trinity, and are not proper to one person alone. But the incarnation is not common to the Trinity, but is proper to the subsistence of the Word alone. Therefore both God the Word and his nature have become incarnate: but he indeed through himself, and according to what he himself is; that nature, however, not so, but through the person. Therefore God the Word, according to himself indeed, is uniquely joined to the flesh—for one person and one subsistence has been made with the flesh—but according to nature he is conjoined rather than united, for two natures have remained; and by comparison, the Word rather than his nature is united to the flesh, and for this reason it is that which is the union rather than the other. That, therefore, is rather a conjunction, although it is also a union; but this is rather a union than a conjunction. And so, whatever is altogether called a conjunction, there almost always the number of the conjoined things is preserved, as also their quantity.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":102,"ref":"p102","source":"Hæret. Mihi inulta incongruitate plenus videtur hic sermo: ncc enim differt dicere, quomodo ad invicem duæ nauræ convenerint, et quomodo divinitas humanitati conjuncta sit. Num si una est, a semetipsa miuimc differt: sic igitur Verbum carni copulatum est, sicut caro Verbo. Deinde quæ rursus differentia Verbi ejusque naturæ, ut ipse quidem per semetipsumdicatur unitus; ilia vero unita non per semetipsam, sed potius fuisse conjuncta?\n\nRust. intentius tc audire quæso quam ius: subtilior enim sermo est, quam qui possit aliter comprehendi. Inhabitare etenim Deus dicitur a nobis in carc, indivise atque incessanter, non autem caro inhabitare Deum; et templum Dei dicitur caro, sed nequaquam templum carnis Deus: et hujusmodi unitionem Deus fecit, et non caro; caro autem passa est, et minime fecit. Passio autem non solum corporalium ct contristantium, malorumque dicitur, sed et spiritualium, et suavium, et bonorum, ita ut et ipsa beatitudo creaturarn:n passio nominetur. Et una quidem eademque unitio est, sed non una definitio sive ratio unitionis. Si igitur oportet præsentare per imaginem differetiam Deitatis un tæ carni, carnisque Deitati, dicimus ita.","english":"He clings to it. This statement seems to me full of unavenged incongruity; for it makes no difference to say how the two natures came together and how the divinity was joined to the humanity. For if it is one, it differs in no way from itself; thus, therefore, the Word was coupled to the flesh just as the flesh was to the Word. Then what again is the difference between the Word and His nature, such that He Himself is said to be united through Himself, but that nature is said to have been united not through itself, but rather to have been joined?\n\nRusticus: I ask that you hear me more attentively than that; for the argument is too subtle to be grasped otherwise. For God is said by us to dwell in the flesh, indivisibly and ceaselessly, but the flesh is not said to dwell in God; and the flesh is called the temple of God, but God is by no means the temple of the flesh; and God made this kind of union, and not the flesh; but the flesh suffered, and did not act. Now passion is predicated not only of bodily and distressing and evil things, but also of spiritual and pleasant and good things, so that even beatitude itself is called a passion of the creature. And the union is indeed one and the same, but the definition or account of the union is not one. If, therefore, the difference between the Divinity united to the flesh and the flesh united to the Divinity must be set forth by way of an image, we say as follows.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":103,"ref":"p103","source":"Contingit, unius ejusdemque viæ contrarias esse rationes: eadem namque cst ascensus atque descensus; ab hoc quidem principio, ad il ud ascensus, ad hoc vcro ab illo descensus, subjectum vero, idem: locus namque itincris idem cst, etsi multoties ct millies id quilibet pertranseat. Sic igitur, ut verbi gratia et manifestandi causa dicamus, differt a Deitate ad humanitatem, non ipsa unitio, sed ratio unitionis ad eum quæ est diverso: licet hic et illud discrepet, quia diarum naturarum unitionem non ambæ fccere naturæsed sola divinitas. Quid enim et cooperari ad unitionem valuit natura nostra quæ in Christo est, quæ sumpsit ab ipsa unitione principium? Forsitan vcro et propter hoc, non secundum substantias, sed secundum subStantiam duro sunt conjunctæ substantiæ, quia non duarum, sed unius tantum, miraculum ipsa unitio fuit. Non enim, sicutl in prophetis vel a! quibus a!iis, divina gratia manum porrgunte nob is tamen studentibus et quodammodo cooperantibus, unimur Deo; tali modo i ic, sed lineffabiliterque divitate.","english":"It happens that the accounts of one and the same way are contrary; for the same thing is ascent and descent: from this beginning there is ascent to that, and from that there is descent to this, yet the subject is the same; for the place of the journey is the same, even if someone traverse it many times and a thousand times. So then, to speak by way of example and for the sake of clarity, the union itself differs from the Deity to the humanity, but the account of the union differs from that which is in a different way; although here and there it is inconsistent, because the two natures did not both bring about the union of the two natures, but the divinity alone. For what could our nature that is in Christ contribute and cooperate toward the union, since it received its beginning from the union itself? Perhaps indeed also for this reason the substances are joined not according to substances but according to substance, because the union itself was a miracle not of two but of one only. For not as in the prophets or in certain others, when divine grace stretched out its hand while we nevertheless strove and in some way cooperated, are we united to God in such a way here, but ineffably and divinely.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":104,"ref":"p104","source":"Hæret. Rursum compellor ambigens ohjicere, quae sit differentia vel quod medium Verbi, ct naturæ sive substantiæ ejus; ut ipse quidem per semetipsum carni uniatur; natura vero ejus non per semetipsam, sed secundum personam.\n\nRust. Quam vos dicitis causam, ut non inhumana-,retur retur Pater et Spiritus sanctus, dum uni Dei Verbi natura incarnaretur, quæ natura communis est Trinitati: hanc nos dicimus causun, ut Deus Verbum inhumanaretur per semetipsum; natura vero cjus, secundum personam. Imo vcro id quod nos dicimus, multo videtur facilius esse quam quod dicitis vos. Si enim sic unita cst humanitas atque divinitas ut una neret natura, et omnino inhumanatus non est Pater nec Spiritus sanctus, qui ejusdem naturæ sunt et. non al:crius, quomodo impossibile sit sic inhumanatum fuisse Verbum ut non per semetipsum inhumanaretur ejus natura?","english":"Objection. Again I am compelled, though in doubt, to raise the question: what is the difference, or what is the middle term, between the Word and His nature or substance—so that He Himself is united to the flesh through Himself, but His nature is not through itself, but according to person.\n\nRusticus. The reason you give why the Father and the Holy Spirit were not made human, when the one nature of God the Word was incarnated—a nature common to the Trinity—that same reason we give why God the Word was made human through Himself, but His nature according to person. Nay rather, what we say seems much easier than what you say. For if the humanity and the divinity were so united that there was one nature, and the Father was certainly not made human, nor the Holy Spirit, who are of the same nature and not of another, how is it impossible that the Word was so made human that His nature was not made human through itself?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":105,"ref":"p105","source":"Hæret. Sed omnia quidem quæ habet persona, habet immediabiliter et natura; non autem quæ sunt naturæ, necesse est ut sint etiam personæ.\n\nRust. Sermo quidem iste, et antc demonstrationem incongruentissimus videtur universis; verumtamen, propter insensatos, ex necessitate respondeo. Quasi, ut inquis, nulla differenta est, nec aliquod medium personæVerbi ct naturæ ipius: hoc quod nihil est, nil prohibet e converso dicere. Igitur nulla differentia neque aliquod medium est a Verbi natura ad cjus personam. Quoniam vero indifferenter secundum eamdem naturam se halent, non solum Pater, sed ct sanctus Spiritus; inhumanato Verbo ejusque natura, inhumanati sunt igitur, secundun te. et Pater et Spiritus sanctus. Necesse est igitur circa vestras blasphemias, ut et genita et passa sit tota sancta Trinitas. Insuper ante et caro, secundum te, triumerit personarum propter Trinitatem, aut Trinitas una persona propter carnem, aut carnem necesse est naturam quidem habere, personam vcr o non habere.","english":"It follows. But all things that a person has, it has immediately and by nature; yet things that belong to a nature are not necessarily also of a person.\n\nRusticus. This argument, even before demonstration, seems to all to be utterly incongruous; nevertheless, on account of the foolish, I answer of necessity. As you say, there is, as it were, no difference and no middle term between the person of the Word and His nature: this very nothing prevents us from saying the converse. Therefore there is no difference and no middle term from the nature of the Word to His person. But since Father, and also the Holy Spirit, stand indifferently according to the same nature, then, with the Word and His nature made man, according to you both the Father and the Holy Spirit have been made man. It is necessary, therefore, in regard to your blasphemies, that the whole holy Trinity be both begotten and have suffered. Moreover, according to you, either the flesh has been of three persons because of the Trinity, or the Trinity is one person because of the flesh, or the flesh must have a nature indeed but not have a person.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":106,"ref":"p106","source":"Non igi ur ex duabus naturis, sccun lum te, unus Chiristus, unus Filius, unus Dominus: hæc enim u nius ct solius apud vos compositæ personæ significativa sunt; sed solum, sicut dicitis, una est facta natura: omnis igitur ex vestra argumentatione necessitas t, aut unum esse Christum, unum F'ilium, unum Domnum, ct non unam ejis naturam ex duabus; aut esse unam naturam, et non esse unum Christum, tinum Filium, unum Dominum. Quid igitur vestrum crimen aliis attribuitis, tanquam duas dicentes naturas, negant unum Dominum, unum Christum, ninum Filium: quod nobis incessanter confitentibus, ct verbis et rebus; vos soli incessanter negatis, unam dicentes naturam? S gnandum vero ct hoc, quia qui prius differentiam Verbi et ejus naturæ esse negaveras, nunc dixisti, omnia quæ habet persona, habet immediabiliter et natura, non autem quæ sunt naturæ, necesse esi ut siut etiam personæ.","english":"Therefore, according to you, it is not from two natures that there is one Christ, one Son, one Lord—for these terms are significative of one and only one composite person among you—but, as you say, only one nature has been made. Therefore, from your argument, the necessity follows: either there is one Christ, one Son, one Lord, and not one nature of his from two; or there is one nature, and there is not one Christ, one Son, one Lord. Why, then, do you attribute your own crime to others, as though those who speak of two natures deny one Lord, one Christ, one Son—which we confess unceasingly both in words and in deeds, while you alone unceasingly deny it, saying there is one nature? But this too must be noted, that you who previously had denied that there is a difference between the Word and his nature now have said that all things that a person has, it has immediately and by nature; yet things that belong to a nature are not necessarily also of a person.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":107,"ref":"p107","source":"Hæret Confiteor esse aliquid differens: sed hoc prohibet quidem quædam naturæ etiam personarum esse communia; non tamen ea quæ personæ sunt prohibet esse etiam naturae. Et ideo persona incarnata, facta est una natura: facta vero ulla natura, non est Trinitas incarnata. Ea enim quæ personræ sunt, mox sunt etiam naturæ; ea vero quae sunt naturae, non continuo etiam personarum.\n\nRust. Si igitur ea quæ personae sunt, ut inquis, vontinuo etiam natura: sunt; quoniamn duae personæ, id est Patris et Spiritus sancti, aliae sunt præter humanitatem Filii; altera igitur et natura secundum tu, Patris ct Spiritus, præter humanitatis naturam quæ est in Christo. Natura igitur Patris et natura carnis duæ sunt. Quia igitur una et sola et simplex natura est Putris et Spiritus sancti; ipsa vero et Filii, secundum quod Deus est: Filii igitur naturæ sunt duæ.","english":"I confess that there is something different. But this indeed prevents certain things from being common to the nature and also to the persons; yet it does not prevent the things that belong to the persons from also belonging to the nature. And therefore the incarnate person has become one nature; but no nature having been made [incarnate], the Trinity has not been incarnated. For the things that belong to the person are immediately also of the nature; but the things that belong to the nature are not immediately also of the persons.\n\nRusticus: If, therefore, the things that belong to the person are, as you say, immediately also of the nature: since the two persons, that is, of the Father and of the Holy Spirit, are other than the humanity of the Son; therefore according to you there is also another nature of the Father and of the Spirit besides the nature of the humanity that is in Christ. Therefore the nature of the Father and the nature of the flesh are two. Since, therefore, the nature of the Father and of the Holy Spirit is one and only and simple; but it is also the Son's own, according to that which he is God: therefore the Son's natures are two.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":108,"ref":"p108","source":"Hæret. Sd in solo Filio, cum humanitate una est facta; in reliquis vero personis altera, ct altera, duæque naturæ sunt.\n\nRus. Ergo circa quiddam quidem suum facla est una; secundum aliquid vero, minime. Hoc vero aliquid, si quidem Filii personæ iactu est, manifeste nobiscum non jam unam naturam, sed unum Filium factum fuisse, et unam ejus confiteris personam. Si vcro non est idem personnæ, non erit simplex, secundum te, sed composita erit divina substantia: cujus aliquid quidem factum est, una natura cum carne; aliquid vero minime, una cum carne natura. Igitur deitatem et humanitatem ad invicem discernere non sustinens, ipsam simplicem Deitatem, et hoc secundum semetipsum discernes. Quia veto impium sit omnia Dei Filii divinæ ipsius impartiri natura:, si dubitas, ostendetur: nec enim carnis ejus passiones divinae Filii naturæ dicere licet, ncc ea quæ Verbi sive rclquarum sicut arbitror subsistentiarum sunt propria. Causa vcro hæc t, quia ea quæ personas exprimunt ab invicem distantia sunt, simplex vero, secundum quod simplex est, nihil differens habet. Pater enim genuit quidem, sed non etiam genitus est; Filius vero genitus est, sed minime ganuit; Spiritus autem sanctus procedit, et non e diverso.","english":"It adheres. But in the Son alone, it has been made one with the humanity; in the remaining persons, however, it is one thing and another, and there are two natures.\n\nRusticus. Therefore, in respect of something of its own, it has been made one; but in respect of something else, not at all. This \"something,\" indeed, if it is a property of the person of the Son, you manifestly confess with us that not one nature but one Son has been made, and you confess one person of him. But if this is not the same as the person, then, according to you, the divine substance will not be simple but composite: something of it has been made one nature with the flesh, but something else not one nature with the flesh. Therefore, not enduring to distinguish deity and humanity from one another, you will distinguish simple Deity itself, and this according to itself. But since it is impious to impart all things of the Son of God to his divine nature, if you doubt it, it will be shown: for neither is it permitted to call the passions of his flesh [properties] of the divine nature of the Son, nor those things which are proper to the Word or, as I think, to the other subsistences. The reason for this is that the things which express the persons are distinct from one another, whereas the simple, insofar as it is simple, has nothing differing. For the Father begot, but was not also begotten; the Son was begotten, but did not beget; the Holy Spirit proceeds, and not conversely.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":109,"ref":"p109","source":"At vero divina, id est sanciae Trinitalis natura, quæ tribus subsistentiis est communis, nec genuit, ncc genita est, nec procedit: nam si unum horum, ergo et rcliqua; id est, si genuit, et genita igitur est, ct processit. Et sic quoque impium est, omnia Dei Filii divinae cjus impertiri naturæ. Nam cum sit proprium Filii Dei, nec gignere, neque procedere; hæc jam non referuntur ad ejus naturam qui gignit atque procedit. Quin potius, si quid hoc est Patri gignere, quod non gigni neque procedere, et Filio hoc... (Deerat versus in exemplari.)\n\nHæret. Si non genuit divina natura, quomodo in Nicæa sanctissimi Patres Filium ex Patris substantia genitum dicunt, inquientes gen tumex Patre unigenitum, id est ex substantia Patris?\n\nRust. Non habet symbolum ista: unde nec in Constantinopoli sancti illi Pales hoc dixerunt. Verumtamen vel si det aliquis hoc ila positum, dictum est id pro eo quod est, genitum ex Patre Unigenitam, ejusdem substantiae existentem cujus et Pater, ncn tanquam genitus sit ab ipsa substantia: non enim substantiæ, sed subsistentiæ Patris est Filius, Deus Verbum: non enim Pater Verbi, communis trium subsistentiarum natura; sed sola subsistentia Patris.","english":"But the divine nature, that is, the nature of the holy Trinity, which is common to the three subsistences, neither begot nor was begotten nor proceeds; for if one of these were true, then the others would be too; that is, if it begot, then it was also begotten and it proceeded. And so it is likewise impious to impart all things of the divine nature of the Son of God to his nature. For since it is proper to the Son of God neither to beget nor to proceed, these things are no longer referred to the nature of him who begets and proceeds. Rather, if it is something for the Father to beget, which is not to be begotten nor to proceed, and for the Son this... (A line was missing in the copy.)\n\nIt adheres. If the divine nature did not beget, how do the most holy Fathers at Nicaea say that the Son was begotten from the substance of the Father, declaring him begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father?\n\nRusticus. The symbol does not have this; hence those holy Fathers at Constantinople did not say this either. But even if someone grants that this was stated thus, it was said for this reason: that he is begotten from the Father, only-begotten, existing of the same substance as the Father, not as though he were begotten from the substance itself; for the Son, God the Word, is of the subsistence of the Father, not of the substance: for the Father of the Word is not the nature common to the three subsistences, but the subsistence of the Father alone.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":110,"ref":"p110","source":"Hæret. Ergo, secundum te, corrupit quod verum est sancta et magna ct universalis synodus quæ in Epheso facta est: posuit enim symbolum, dicens ad locum sic: Et in unum Dominum Jesum Christum Filium Dei unigenitum ex Patre unigenitum, id eat, ex substantia Patris, Deum ex Deo, lumen ex lumine; et reliqua.\n\nRust. Non oportet quando de Patribus sermo est, sic audacter fieri verba: alioquin et ego forte dixissem, ergo corrupit sancta et universalis Constantinopolitana synodus, secundum te, symbolum Patrum. Sed oportet nos, sanctis Patribus parcenter, hanc partem derelinquere, et illud solum dicere quia, etsi verbis distat es positio, non tamen et sensibus. Igitur quando dicimus genitum ex substantia Patris, sic intelligitur, sicut superius diximus, quia ejusdem substantiae est; aut ita distinguendum, ex substantia Patris, Deum ex Deo eum esse, et lumen ex lumine. Et illud vero dico, quia in una eademque synodo Ephesina, ubi Charisius propriam fidem confessus est, quae etiam placuit synolo illi, non sic posuit hunc symboli locum, sed magis sic: Et in unum Dominum Jesum Christum Filium Dei unigenitum, Deum ex Deo, etc. Arbitror vero hanc esse dissonantiæ causam, eo quod a multis memoriter teneretur, et, dum quidam nonnulla obliviseerentur, sermonem commutarent pro altero alterum.","english":"Heretic. Therefore, according to you, the holy, great, and universal synod that was held at Ephesus corrupted what is true; for it set down a creed, saying at that place as follows: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, only-begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light; and the rest.\n\nRusticus. When the discussion concerns the Fathers, one ought not to proceed so boldly in word; otherwise I too might perhaps have said, according to you, that the holy and universal synod of Constantinople corrupted the creed of the Fathers. But we ought, sparing the holy Fathers, to leave this matter aside and say only this: that even if the formulation differs in words, it does not differ in meaning. Therefore, when we say \"begotten of the substance of the Father,\" it is understood as we said above, that he is of the same substance; or it must be distinguished thus: that he is \"of the substance of the Father,\" \"God from God,\" and \"light from light.\" And this too I say: that in the one and same Ephesine synod, where Charisius confessed his own faith, which also pleased that synod, it did not set down this passage of the creed in that way, but rather thus: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, God from God, etc. But I think this is the cause of the discrepancy: that it was held in memory by many, and while some forgot certain things, they changed the wording, one thing for another.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":111,"ref":"p111","source":"Hæret. Firmius aliquid super hoc audire velim; hæc namque dubia sunt.\n\nRust. Sufficit tibi ad meæ expositionis astructioncm, tuæ ratiocinationis sensum, magis autem suspicionem sive dementiam subrui: si enim cuncta qax uniuscujusque personæ sunt, et maxime Filii, oportet nos communi Trinitatis deputare substantiæ; ergo et passio Filii, divinae naturæ passio crit. Si vero dixeris quia sola illa quæ divinitatis sunt, ergo janu non unum est, sicut una persona Dei et hominis. Si enim et dum cuncta personæ Dei verbi deputentur, ut jactitas, divinæ naturæ, ipsa divina natura non fit una persona cum Verbo; quomodo humanitas ejusdem Verbi, cujus propria non deputantur divinæ naturæ, una cum ipsa sit natura? Quod si et hoc concedamus, quia omnia quas personae sunt, deputari oportet communi personarum, substantiae, non eo quod primæ ct secundum se substantiæ illius ista sint: alioquin, secundum se, et genuit, et minime genuit; et genita est, et non est genita; et procedit, et non procedit; et inhumanata est, et minime inhumanata. Pater enim genuit, et genitus non est; Filius autem genitus est, et minime genuit; Spiritus autem sanctus, nihil horum, sed procedit tantum, et non e converso. Nulla enim ratio est, cur, si ea quæ adsunt cuique personæ, ac sunt etiam naturæ carum, non etiam desunt ipsi naturæ, qux desunt cuique personæ.","english":"Heretic. I should like to hear something more definite on this point; for these matters are doubtful.\n\nRusticus. It is enough for you, for the building up of my exposition and for the overthrow of the sense—or rather the suspicion or madness—of your reasoning: for if all things that belong to each person, and especially to the Son, must be assigned to the common substance of the Trinity, then the passion of the Son will also be a passion of the divine nature. But if you say that only those things which belong to the divinity are so assigned, then it is no longer one, as there is one person of God and man. For if, while all things are assigned to the person of God the Word, as you boast, to the divine nature, the divine nature itself does not become one person with the Word, how is His humanity—whose own things are not assigned to the divine nature—one with that same nature? But if we concede this too, that all things which belong to the person must be assigned to the common substance of the persons, not on the ground that these things are of that primary and self-existent substance: otherwise, according to itself, it both begot and did not beget; and was begotten and was not begotten; and proceeds and does not proceed; and was made man and was not made man. For the Father begot and was not begotten; the Son was begotten and did not beget; the Holy Spirit is none of these, but only proceeds, and not the reverse. For there is no reason why, if the things that belong to each person, and are also of their nature, are not also absent from the nature itself—the things that are absent from each person.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":112,"ref":"p112","source":"Ac per hoc veræ dicentur affirmationes utque negationes circa idem, de una eadem simpliciquc substantia, quod est nimis incongruum: ita ut magis demonstretur ex istis quia ea quidem quæ uniuscujusque personæ sunt propria, ipsius secundum seipsum et per semetipsum sunt: quia nec sunt opposita, dum de eodem dicuntur; ea vero quæ de natura communi, non ita. Quia igitur et inhumanatio proprietas est personæ, dico aulem, Filii: non igitur ipsa per semetipsam, et prime natura inhumanata est: et stunt nobis quæ superius dictae sunt demonstrationes universæ. Dico vero et illud, quia quando dixero, Deus, simpliciter, universam Trinitatem dico: quando autem Deus adjectum habuerit, Pater, non jam Trinitalem, sed unam personam. Sic igitur cum dico, substantia, significo id quod commune est Trinitatis: quando antem cum adjectione, substantia Patris, solam substantiæ illius personam.","english":"And by this, both affirmations and negations will be said to be true of the same thing, concerning one and the same simple substance, which is exceedingly incongruous; so that from these it is shown rather that the things which are proper to each person are his own, according to himself and through himself, because they are not opposed when said of the same one; but the things that are of the common nature are not so. Since, therefore, the becoming man is also a property of the person—I mean of the Son—it is not therefore through itself, and the first nature became man; and all the demonstrations that were stated above stand for us. I say also this, that when I have said \"God\" simply, I mean the whole Trinity; but when \"God\" has an addition, \"the Father,\" I mean no longer the Trinity, but one person. So therefore, when I say \"substance,\" I signify that which is common to the Trinity; but when with an addition, \"the substance of the Father,\" I mean the person of that substance alone.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":113,"ref":"p113","source":"flaret. Quid vero, quia sancta synodus inquit complasmari Dcum carni, et quia Deicidæ sunt Judaei, tanquam non homine occiso, sed Dco? Quomodo Deus complasmatus esse ct occidi dicitur, nisi quia una natura est? si cn duae essent naturæ cum salvus esset numerus, et differentiæ et proprietatcs salvx omnimodo essent. lis autem permanentibus, dicere oportebat quia occisus esset homo, et non coexstinctus Deus; et quia plasmatus est Dcus, sed plasmavit et suscitavit templum, id est hominem.\n\nRust, Magis non advertis quæ dicta sunt: id cnim quod dicimus cum semper aut duo, aut amplius numero significat. Si igitur Deus complasmatus cst carni, duo igitur quædam sunt, Deus atque humanitas, Testis autem mihi ad hoc est sanctissimus Cyrillus in secunda quidem ad Nestorium epistola, inquiens ita: « Christum unum et Dominum confatebimur: non tanquam hominem coadorantes Verbo, ut non incisionis phantasia subintroducatur propter hoc quod dicitur, cum, sed sicut unum, et cumdem adorantes: quoniam non alienum est a verbo corpus ejus, cum quo et ipsi considet Patri.","english":"...would be blown about. But what of the fact that the holy synod says that God was formed together with the flesh, and that the Jews are Deicides, as though not a man but God had been killed? How is God said to have been formed together and to have been killed, unless because there is one nature? If there were two natures while the number remained intact, both the differences and the properties would in every way remain intact. But while these remain, one ought to say that a man was killed and God was not co-extinguished, and that God was formed, but that he formed and raised up the temple, that is, the man.\n\nRusticus: You do not rather notice what has been said; for that which we say with \"with\" always signifies either two or more in number. If, therefore, God was formed together with the flesh, then there are two things, God and humanity. And the most holy Cyril is my witness to this, in the second letter to Nestorius, saying thus: \"We shall confess one Christ and Lord: not as adoring a man together with the Word, lest a fantasy of division be introduced on account of this that is said, 'with,' but as adoring one and the same: since his body is not alien to the Word, with whom he himself also sits at the Father's right hand.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":114,"ref":"p114","source":"» In tertia vero: Si quis audet dicere illum assumptum hominem coadorari oportere Deo Verbo, et conglorificari, et coappellari Deum tanquam alterum cum altero (hoc enim quod est, cum, semper quoties adjicitur, id ipsum intelligere compellit), et non potius una aduratione honorat Emmanuelem; et unam ei glorificationem deputat secundum quod factus est caro Verbum; anathema sit. »\n\nHæret. Compellor hæc ipsa clamare: quomodo Deus complasmatus cst? quomodo occisus? quo autem modo non contraria sibimetipsi dicit sanctæ memorie Cyrillus, qui id quod cst eum ex sua persona ferventer abjurat, et hoc idem cum rursus synodice approbat? Hæc sunt quæ me prae omnibus movent vehementerque perturbant.\n\nRust. Arbitror quod pariter fateamur. quod Filius Dei Deus Verbum, et consubstantialis existens ct indifferens secundum naturam a propr o Patre; identidem est impassibilis sicut ille, non tamen ob hoc omnino ab eo aliena sunt quæ ejus acciderunt propriae carni: dico autem circa unitionem. Quia igitur plasmata quidem est caro, non Dcilas Verbi sempiterna persistens: erat vero inseparabiliter carni unitum Dei Verbum, ea quæ propria carnis sunt, propria faciens: dispensative complasmari dicitur carni ut propriæ carnis impassibiliter significans plasmationem.","english":"In the third [chapter], however: \"If anyone dares to say that the man assumed ought to be worshipped together with God the Word, and glorified together, and called God together, as one with another (for this word 'with,' whenever it is added, always compels us to understand the very same thing), and does not rather honor Emmanuel with one worship; and assigns to him one glorification according to the fact that the Word was made flesh—let him be anathema.\"\n\nThe Heretic. I am compelled to cry out these very things: how was God formed together with the flesh? How was he killed? In what way, then, does Cyril of holy memory not say things contrary to himself, who fervently abjures this very thing in his own person, and again approves this same thing synodically? These are the things that move me before all else and violently disturb me.\n\nRusticus. I think we should equally confess that the Son of God, God the Word, being consubstantial and undifferentiated in nature from his own Father, is likewise impassible just as he is, yet the things that happened to his own flesh are not for that reason entirely alien to him—I mean, in regard to the union. Therefore, since the flesh was indeed formed, not persisting as the eternal Deity of the Word, but the Word of God was inseparably united to the flesh, making the things that are proper to the flesh his own, he is said by dispensation to be formed together with the flesh, signifying impassibly the formation of his own flesh.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":115,"ref":"p115","source":"Sicut enim, genita ex Virgine sacrosancta ejus carne, ipse dicitur genitus, qui omnibus ad id ut sint præstat genesim; sic plasmata ejus carne, ipse dicitur complasmatus: ut in eo quidem quod est, consolvetur (Sic) ratio naturarum; in eo vero quod est plasmatus (quod dum proprium sit, primo loco, humanitatis, dicitur tamen etiam de Dco Verbo), unitionis omnino inseparabilis unitas custodiatur. Si igitur solam nobis unitioncm voluisset ostendere. inculpabiliter utique diceret, plasmalus est Unigenitus secundum carnem sive carne: id est secundum nostram naturam. Si vero solam differentiam, immaculate dixisset, quia Sapientia ædificavit sibi domum (Prov. ix, 1): id cst Verbum carnem: nunc autem bene ct breviter utrumque ostendens, non principalilcr et absque omni medio plasmari, sed complasmari dccibiliter introduxit.\n\nHæret. Ecce de hoc quidem quid diceres, nescio quomodo: quid autem de Deicidis dicturus es, id est Judæis?","english":"For just as, by his sacrosanct flesh born of the Virgin, he is said to be begotten, who grants genesis to all things so that they may exist, so by his flesh having been formed, he is said to have been formed together with it: so that in that respect in which he is, the account of the natures may be kept intact; but in that respect in which he was formed (which, while it belongs properly to humanity in the first place, is nevertheless said also of God the Word), the unity of an altogether inseparable union may be preserved. If, therefore, he had wished to show us only the union, he would without fault have said, \"The Only-begotten was formed according to the flesh\" or \"in the flesh,\" that is, according to our nature. If, however, only the distinction, he would have said without flaw, \"Because Wisdom built herself a house\" (Prov. 9:1), that is, the Word [became] flesh. But now, showing both well and briefly, he has introduced not \"to be formed\" as principal and without any intermediary, but \"to be formed together with,\" in a fitting manner.\n\nHe sticks. Look, as to this indeed I do not know in what way you would answer; but what are you going to say about the Deicides, that is, the Jews?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":116,"ref":"p116","source":"Rust. Item tibi denuo dicam: si enim semel Deus ea quæ carnis sunt, in semetipsum propter nostram salutem refert, non inconsequenter, sicut complasmari dicitur carni ipse qui propriam carnem plasmavit ut Deus; sic illi qui ejus occiderunt carnem non consequenter, arbitror, Deicidæ vocantur; non quia purum et sine carne occiderint Deum, sed quia iiic homo quem occiderunt Deus est: non enim purus erat h\"mo, sed perfectus tam in Deitate quam etiam in humanitate idem ipse. Si vero hoc tibi probabile non est, suscipe vel aliam expositonem. Crimen apud istum judicem non a poena sustinentis deputatur, sed ab intentione facientis. Quia igitur Deus quidem impassibilis est per naturam: quod vero auinet ad Judæos dicentes. Iste est hæres interficiamus cum et nos habebmus hæreditatem (Matth. XXI, 38; Marc. XII, 7; Luc. XV, 14); circa Evangelium sic voluerant perimere Filium Dei, ut nec rcsurgeret ulterius, neque vero esset ornnino vinitas ejus, licet nullus cum potuisset exstingnere. i vero qui hoc ipsum quod est impossibile, intentione tamen propria ut facerent instituerunt; juste utique Deicidæ vocantur, non a fine eventus: quomodo en hoc fieri possit, dum quod studctur sit impossibile? sed ab ipso impetus sive instantiæ crimine.","english":"Rusticus: I will say to you again a second time: for if God once refers to himself, for our salvation's sake, the things that belong to the flesh, it follows consistently that, just as he who as God formed his own flesh is said to have been formed together with the flesh, so those who killed his flesh are, I think, consistently called Deicides; not because they killed God pure and without flesh, but because that man whom they killed is God: for he was not a pure man, but the same one perfect both in Deity and also in humanity. But if this does not seem probable to you, accept at least another explanation. Before this judge, the crime is assessed not from the penalty of the one who suffers, but from the intention of the one who acts. Since, therefore, God is indeed impassible by nature, but as for what pertains to the Jews who say, \"This is the heir; let us kill him, and we shall have the inheritance\" (Matt. 21:38; Mark 12:7; Luke 20:14): in regard to the Gospel they had so willed to destroy the Son of God that he should not rise again thereafter, nor should his life exist at all, although no one could extinguish him. But those who by their own intention set out to do this very thing which is impossible—they are justly called Deicides, not from the outcome of the event (for how could this be done, when what is attempted is impossible?), but from the very crime of their impulse or insistence.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":117,"ref":"p117","source":"Forsan vero nec illud est incongruum dicere; quia sibimetipsi occidit Deum, qui nec reputat esse illum vel qui vitam propriam sic disponit tanquam non sit Deus: nullam namque de bonitate ejus in vita fulura fructificat utilitatem; quippe, tanquam si; quod ad illum attinct, non sit: circa id quod dictum est: Dixit insipiens in corde suo: Non est Deus (Psal. XIII, 1). Sic enim dixit Apostolus Dei illis qui post baptisma judaizaverint sicut prius, qua non simpliciter, sed sibimetipsis rursus crucifigunt Filium Dei (Hebr. VI, 6). Nec non autem hoc quoque dicimus, quia Sabellius et Samosatæus Paulus perimunt, id est abjurant sanctæ Trinitatis subsistentias; ct Arius consubstantialitatem, et Nestorius unii tioncm, et vos differentiam; ne forte tali aliquo modo ct hoc dicatur, non quia interemerunt vel occiderunt, sed quia refuta verunt Deum.","english":"Perhaps, however, it is not incongruous to say this too: that he kills God for himself who does not reckon him even to be God, or who so orders his own life as though God did not exist. For he brings forth no benefit from his goodness for the life to come, since, as far as he is concerned, he does not exist—in accordance with what is said: The fool has said in his heart: There is no God (Ps. 13:1). For thus the Apostle spoke of those of God who after baptism have judaized as before, in that they not simply but for themselves again crucify the Son of God (Heb. 6:6). But we say this too: that Sabellius and Paul of Samosata destroy, that is, abjure, the subsistences of the holy Trinity; and Arius the consubstantiality, and Nestorius the union, and you the distinction—lest perhaps in some such way this also be said, not because they have destroyed or killed, but because they have rejected God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":118,"ref":"p118","source":"Hæret. Si hoc ita intelligitur, cur contra Nestonum hæc lectio assumpta est, dum certe quae a te ante modicum dicta sunt, Nestorius non refutet?\n\nRust. Jam quidem supra dixi in principio vicini sermonis, ea quæ ille omnino non recipit; id quia per unitionem dicantur de Deo Verbo quæ carnis sunt; secundum vero ea quæ inferius dicta sunt, videtur quodammodo non inutilis esse ad eversionem Nestorii dogmatum sermo. Maledictionem namque ostendit eorum qui non credunt quod adorandus sit qui crucifixus cst; non enim purus est homo, sed Deus simul et homo: nec vero coadorans ut alter alteri, sed sicut unus, quia ut unus est adorandus est. Forsan autem cl sicut qui Deum passibilem dicunt, Deopassiani vocantur (non quod passa sit impassibilis substantia divinitatis, scd propter illorum qui sic æstimant, blasphemiam), nc sic Apollinaristæ Deicidæ nominemur, qui ipsum Deum in carne conversum ct ita mortuum arbitrantur. Et si hoc ita sc habet quod dictum cst, talc est: Si quis non adorat eum qui crucifixus cst, anathema sit, et scribatur cum iItis blasphemis qui dicunt quod oc isus sit Deus in sua natura.","english":"Haeretic. If this is understood thus, why has this reading been adopted against Nestorius, when certainly the things said by you a little earlier do not refute Nestorius?\n\nRusticus. I have indeed already said above, at the beginning of the adjacent discourse, that those things which he altogether does not accept—because through the union things of the flesh are said of God the Word—but according to those things which were said further down, the discourse seems in some way not useless for the overthrow of the dogmas of Nestorius. For it shows the condemnation of those who do not believe that he who was crucified is to be adored; for he is not a mere man, but God and man at once; nor is one adored alongside the other as one thing alongside another, but as one, because as one he is to be adored. Perhaps, however, just as those who say that God is passible are called Theopaschites (not because the impassible substance of the divinity suffered, but on account of the blasphemy of those who so judge), so let us not be named Apollinarist God-killers, who think that God himself was turned into flesh and so died. And if this is so, what was said is of this sort: If anyone does not adore him who was crucified, let him be anathema, and let him be written among those blasphemers who say that Jesus was not God in his own nature.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":119,"ref":"p119","source":"Siguanduin vero et illud, quia ubi dixit, conjungi ct complasmari, non ait neque Deum neque Verbum, neque Christum, neque Dominum: arbitror autem ob hoc, ut daret legenti intellectum, quia secundum personam plasmatus est tanquam unus; secundum naturam,'cro complasmatus cst tanquam habens alteram naturam cum qua complasmatus est.\n\nHæret. Ego ab ista frequentatione sermonis ad a!terum deductus intellectum, sic intelligo complasmari; quia id quod non cst prius, nisi secundum materiam plasmari dicitur, sicut Adam ex luto plasmatus est: quod autem jam prius est et perfecte est, quando non quidem fit, sed unitur, complasmari dicitur: sicut in domo, quæ olim prius sunt, et quæ ad ipsam horam fiunt; vcl sicut in codice, cum sumuntur quaterniones qui ante fuerant consuti, si quis dicat consui: salva tamen pura dogmatis ratione quæ non solet esse per universa conveniens, sicut ct olim constitit inter nos.","english":"Rusticus. But if it is also according to that [reading], because where he said \"to be joined and to be formed together,\" he did not say either God or the Word or Christ or the Lord—I think it is for this reason, to give understanding to the reader, that according to the person he was formed as one, [but] according to nature he was formed together as having another nature with which he was formed together.\n\nHeretic. I, led to another understanding by this frequent use of the word, understand \"to be formed together\" thus: that what was not previously [existing] is said to be formed only according to matter, as Adam was formed from mud; but what is already previously [existing] and is perfectly [existing], when it is not indeed made but is united, is said to be formed together—as in a house, [with] the things that were previously [made] and the things that are made at that very hour; or as in a codex, when quires that had previously been sewn together are taken up, if someone says they are sewn together—the pure reasoning of the doctrine being preserved, which is not accustomed to be fitting throughout all cases, as was once established between us.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":120,"ref":"p120","source":"Rust. Mihi prodest et istud: ut enim id quod est, cum illic non unum aliquod, sed plura; ita et hic.\n\nHæret. Unde constat quod hæc ita sc habeant? potesne mihi hæc in ipsis satisfacere verbis, an unde mihi ista depromes?\n\nRust. Licct oportuerit ut ea quæ dicta sunt, omnino satisfecerint tibi; tamen vel illa intende quæ in finem prædictis adjecta sunt. Dicit enim: i Quod eniin cœpit, aut proficit, aut perficitur, non est Deus; vel si propter crementum quod paulatim fit, ita dicatur. » Quid ergo? die mibi: nonne manifesta est differentia naturarum? Quod enim cœpit, ct profecit ct ad perfectionem pervenit, caro est: quod vero semper est, et secundum naturam ct substantiam perfectissimum, Deus esi. Quia igitur,,'estin entes ut Arius, dicunt de Domino crucifixo, quia Incitas ejus non secundum naturam et substantiam perfectis ima est, scd pcr donum vcl mercedem honorem percepit a Patre: quippe quæ vertibilis sit altune mutabilis; contra ohjecit sanctissimus Gregorius, si quis ex operibus perfectum.","english":"Rusticus. This too is useful to me: for just as that which exists is there not some one thing but many, so also here.\n\nHaereticus. From what is it established that these things are so? Can you satisfy me on these points from the very words, or from what source do you bring these things forward for me?\n\nRusticus. Although it should have been the case that what has been said would fully satisfy you, nevertheless attend also to those things which have been added at the end to the things already stated. For he says: \"That which began, or progresses, or is perfected, is not God\"—or if it is said thus on account of the increase that happens gradually. What then? Tell me: is not the difference of natures manifest? For that which began, and progressed, and came to perfection, is flesh; but that which always is, and is most perfect according to nature and substance, is God. Since, therefore, those who think like Arius say concerning the crucified Lord that his flesh was not perfect according to nature and substance, but received honor from the Father as a gift or reward—inasmuch as it is changeable and mutable—the most holy Gregory objected against this, [saying] that if anyone [is] perfect from works.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":121,"ref":"p121","source":"Ad hæc vero, Pauli Samosatæi sodales dicebant, quia post nativitaient ex Virgine, nec non et post baptisma, et ultra post resurrectionem a mortuis, profecit ad adoptioncm: ii quidem fractam ct mutabilem Deitatem Filii suspicantes; illi vero hominem purum bonorificatum a Deo, ct deificatum propter operum meritum, ut ob hoc eliam Deus vocetur, non ut qui ante Mariam fuerit et inhumanatus sit. Hos duos Gregorius sub uno contrivit, adjiciens hæc: Quod cnim cæpit, aut proficit, aut perficitur, non est Deus; vel si propter crementum quod paulatim fit, ita dicatur: id est, quod principium habet quando est, ct quod non a natura est, sed propter opera fit perfectum, illud non cst integerrime Deus; vel si sub uno momento id accipiat mox ut creatur ab opifice Deo, vcl si paulatim proficiat sicut aliqui hominum.\n\nHæret. Ergo, sicut diuis, non contra Nestorium d.cta sunt hæc, sed contra Apolinarium, ct Arium, et Paulum Samosatæum.","english":"To these points, indeed, the associates of Paul of Samosata used to say that after his birth from the Virgin, and likewise after his baptism, and further still after his resurrection from the dead, he advanced to adoption: the former, indeed, suspecting the Godhead of the Son to be broken and mutable; the latter, however, [holding him to be] a mere man honored by God and deified on account of the merit of his works, so that for this reason he is even called God, not as one who existed before Mary and was made man. These two Gregory crushed under one [argument], adding these words: For that which began, or advances, or is perfected, is not God; or if it is so called on account of the increase that comes about gradually—that is, that which has a beginning when it exists, and that which is not from nature but becomes perfect on account of works—that is not God in the fullest sense; or if it receives this in a single moment as soon as it is created by God the maker, or if it advances gradually like some of men.\n\nHaereticus. Therefore, as you say, these things were spoken not against Nestorius, but against Apollinaris, and Arius, and Paul of Samosata.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":122,"ref":"p122","source":"Rust. Sed quia Nestorii dogma ad dogma Pauli habet quamdam cognationem, propterea cadem contra utrosque conveniunt. Jacet enim in synodi o codice infer alias Nestorii blasphemias, et hæc Icctio: Sed sicut dicebamus Deum omnium creatorem, ct Deum Moysen; inquit enim: Deum te posui Pharaonis (Exod. VII, 1), et Israel Filium Dei, Filius enim, in quit, primogenitus meus Israel (Exud. IV, 22): et sicut dicebamus Christum Saut, Non enim mittam manum meam in eum, quia Christus Domini est (I I;;eg. XXIV, 7); et Cyrum identidem: Hæc dicit, inquit, Dominus christo meo Cyro (Isa. XLV, 1); et Babylonium sanctum Ego enim, inquit, præcipiam cis, sanctificati sunt et adducam eos a (Isa. XIII, 3): sed communio quidem nominum similis, dignitas vero non eadcm. » Ec e palam hic impias, sicut Moysen deum, sicut Israel filium, sicut Saul ct Cyrum christum, et Babylonium sanctum; sic ct ipsum Dominum dicit non secundum naturam Deum, sed vocabulo solo; non secundum substantiam, sanctum ct unigenitum, sed cut Dahylonios et Israel: differentiam vero ejus ab aliis non vult esse secudum substantiam, sed circa dignitatem, ut nesciens natura Deum.","english":"Rusticus: But because the dogma of Nestorius has a certain kinship with the dogma of Paul, for that reason the same arguments serve against both. For there lies in the codex of the synod, among other blasphemies of Nestorius, also this reading: \"But just as we used to call the God of all creation the God of Moses—for he says, I have made you a god to Pharaoh (Exod. 7:1)—and Israel the son of God, for he says, Israel is my firstborn son (Exod. 4:22); and just as we used to call Saul Christ, for he says, I will not put forth my hand against him, because he is the Lord's anointed (1 Kgs. 24:7); and Cyrus likewise: Thus says the Lord to my anointed Cyrus (Isa. 45:1); and the Babylonian a saint, for he says, I will give command, they have been sanctified, and I will bring them (Isa. 13:3)—but the community of names is similar, while the dignity is not the same.\" And here he plainly declares impious things: that just as Moses is called god, and Israel son, and Saul and Cyrus anointed, and the Babylonian a saint, so also the Lord himself is called God not according to nature but by name alone; not holy and only-begotten according to substance, but like the Babylonians and Israel; and he does not want his difference from the others to be according to substance but with respect to dignity, so that he does not know God by nature.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":123,"ref":"p123","source":"Hæret. Si non est una facta natura, quomodo, tanquam non sil differentia, Deus complasmari dicitur? si vero, ut dicis, eo quod Dei dicantur ea quæ circa carnem contigerunt, secundum veritatem dicuntur hæc In mendaciter?\n\nRust. Quia quidem salva Sit differentia naturarum, olim audivimus, sanctæ memoriæ Cyrillo ad Nestorium dlcente: Quoniam diversae quidem quæ ad veram adunationum convenere naturæ, unus vcro ex ambabus Christus ei Filius, non tanquam naturarum differentia interempta propter unitionem; quinimo perficientibus nobis unum Dominum et Christum, et Filium, Deitate et humanitate. » Ecce aperte, usque adeo non perempta est differentia naturarum propter unitionem, ut nec dicat ipsc singulariter, quinimo perficiente nobis unum Christum Deitate cl humanitate, sed pluraliter dicat, perfecientibus. Si igitur Deitatis ct humanitatis differentia minime servaretur aut numerus, non oportebat diccre, perficientibus hæc ct il!a: hæc autem quorum differentia salva cst, non sunt absque unitione. Quando igitur ad fferentiam horum aspicimus, ncquc ca quæ divinitatis sunt propria, carni tunc dabimus; neque enim consempiternam illam dicimus Deo, nec descendisse de caelo: nec, e dtverso, ea qux carnis sunt propria ad Deum referimus.","english":"Objection. If one nature was not made, how is God said to be formed together with it, as though there were no difference? But if, as you say, because the things that happened concerning the flesh are said to be of God, are these things said according to truth or falsely?\n\nRusticus: We have already heard, with the difference of the natures preserved, Cyril of holy memory saying to Nestorius: \"Since indeed the diverse natures came together for a true union, but one Christ and Son from both, not as though the difference of the natures were destroyed because of the union; rather, while we complete one Lord and Christ and Son, in deity and humanity.\" Behold, openly, the difference of the natures is so far from being destroyed because of the union that he does not even say it in the singular, \"while we complete one Christ in deity and humanity,\" but says it in the plural, \"while we complete.\" If therefore the difference and number of deity and humanity were not preserved, it would not have been necessary to say, \"while we complete these and those\"; but these things whose difference is preserved are not without union. When, therefore, we look to the difference of these, we will not then give to the flesh the things that are proper to the divinity; for we do not say that it is coeternal with God, nor that it descended from heaven; nor, conversely, do we refer to God the things that are proper to the flesh.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":124,"ref":"p124","source":"Quando vero ad horum respicimus unitionem, Filium hominis dicimus descendisse de cælo, et sempiternum et unigenitum Deum in terra visum, et cum hominibus conversatum (Baruch III, 38) secundum Scripturas. Ei nemo ascendit in cœlum nisi Filius hominis, qui de cœlo descendit (Joan. III, 13). Deus enim Verbum qui descendit de coelo, filius hominis est propter uni ionem ad id quod nostrum cst. Alioqui quomodo dicitur et est unus Filius, nisi sic? Rursus qui ascendit a terra in coelum, ct locum mutavit sccundum corpus duntaxat; unigenitus Patris est ipse Sermo qui incarnatus est sempiternus: non enim purus homo cst qui assumptus est. Igitur nec differentiam perimit unitio, nec unitionem differentia dissipat. Si igitur Deus secundum suam plasmatus fuisset substantiam, non utiquc poterat complasmari cum carnc, sed plasmari tantummodo. Quoniam vero non propter sempiternam naturam suam, sed propter unitionem de Deo id dicitur: et hoc vere dicimus, vera namque unitio est.","english":"But when we look to their union, we say that the Son of man descended from heaven, and that the eternal and only-begotten God was seen on earth and conversed with men, according to the Scriptures. No one has ascended into heaven except the Son of man who descended from heaven. For God the Word who descended from heaven is the Son of man because of the union with what is ours. Otherwise, how is He said to be and is He one Son, except in this way? Again, He who ascended from earth to heaven and changed place according to the body only; the only-begotten of the Father is that same Word who was incarnate, eternal; for He who was assumed is not a mere man. Therefore neither does the union destroy the difference, nor does the difference dissipate the union. If, then, God had been formed according to His own substance, He could certainly not have been formed together with the flesh, but only formed. But since this is said of God not because of His eternal nature, but because of the union, we also say this truly, for the union is true.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":125,"ref":"p125","source":"Hæret. Non hoc signilicat, sed quia complasmatus est, sicut anima corpori; ut nulla differentia linqueretur, quæ numerum divisionemve dualitatis efficeret.\n\nRust. Licet prædixerim, quia non simpliciter de Deo fuerit sermo, sed indeterminate: ex su, crioribus enim de Crucifixo dixit; et adjecit inferius, complasmari: ne autcm diceres, Quid: et cui complasmatum est? ego adjeci hoc nomen; quia, Verbum carni. Si vero, secundum te, in unam naturam divinitas humanitasque plasmata est, non igiiur bene dixit, complasmari: id enim quod est cum, aut duas significat plasmationes, aut duo fur complasmata sunt.\n\nHæret. Sed ego tihi denuo dicam; ergo id ipsum suscipiens: dic' autem cum, ct id ipsum rursus accusans, Cyrillus csl sibimetipsi contrarius.\n\nRust. Non est ille magister sibimetipsi contrarius sed id quod est cum, cl id quod est simul, quando de nalnris tantummodo dicitur, differentiam duarum pie significat naturarum; et propter id ipsum, quando id, ut de personis vel subsistentiis in Christo dicitur, impium est: mox enim duas significat personas, et Filios, ct Dominos, et Christos. Quia vcro sic prohibuerit dici id quod cst cum, manifeste in superioribus demonstratum est.","english":"Heretic. It does not mean this, but that he was co-formed, as the soul is with the body, so that no difference was left which would produce a number or division of duality.\n\nRusticus. Although I forewarned that the discourse concerning God was not spoken simply, but indefinitely—for he spoke more clearly concerning the Crucified—and he added below, \"was co-formed\"; but lest you say, \"What, and with what was he co-formed?\" I added this term, because \"the Word with the flesh.\" If, however, according to you, divinity and humanity were formed into one nature, then he did not speak well in saying \"to be co-formed\"; for that which is \"with\" either signifies two formations, or two have been co-formed.\n\nHeretic. But I will say to you again: therefore, undertaking this very thing—say \"with\"—and again accusing this very thing, Cyril is contrary to himself.\n\nRusticus. That teacher is not contrary to himself; but that which is \"with,\" and that which is \"together,\" when it is said of natures only, piously signifies the difference of two natures; and on account of this very thing, when it is said of persons or subsistences in Christ, it is impious: for it immediately signifies two persons, and Sons, and Lords, and Christs. But that he forbade that which is \"with\" to be said in this way has been manifestly demonstrated in the passages above.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":126,"ref":"p126","source":"Quia vero iterum dicit, quod Verbum cum carnc assideat Patri, audi in secunda ad Nestorium epistola ejusdem Cyrilli sanctissimi, in qua sub uno et hoc dicit et illud: Si Christum unum et Dominum confitebimur, non tanquam coadorantes hominem Verbo (ut non inscisionis phantasia subintroducatur ob id quod dicitur cum), sed ut unum et eumdem adorantes, quia non est alienum, a Verbo corpus ejus, cum quo et ipsi considet Patri, non tanquam duobus rursus considentibus Filiis, sed ut uno circa unitionem cum propria carne. » Ecce, et de corpore dicens, inquit, cum quo considet Patri. Intende id quod est, cum quo, et rursus, cum propria carne. Id vero quod prius dixit, cum, et id quod posterius, et con, et co, idem est. Sed quotiescunque quide n, ut dixi, sermo sit de naturis, dicitur cum humanitate divinitas, et e converso: quando vero de Filio, uon licet dicere, coadoratur Filio Dei filius hominis, non enim coadorantur in sancta Trinita e, nisi personæ tantummodo: divin tas vero, sicut miracula est operata per carnem, sic adoratur per carnem; et adoramus omnes crucem, et pcr ipsam, illum cujus est crux: non tamen crucem coadorare dicimur Christo, nec per hoc una est crucis et Christi natura. Simi itcr adorare altare, coadorare altari, Trinitatem non dicimur, sed potius per altare.","english":"But since he again says that the Word sits beside the Father with the flesh, hear this in the second letter to Nestorius of the same most holy Cyril, in which he says both this and that under one [point]: If we confess Christ one and Lord, not as though co-adoring the man with the Word (lest the fantasy of an uncircumcision be introduced on account of what is said as \"with\"), but as adoring one and the same, because his body is not alien from the Word, with whom he also himself sits beside the Father, not as though again two Sons sitting beside him, but as one in the union with his own flesh. Behold, he says, even speaking of the body, \"with whom he sits beside the Father.\" Attend to what is [said]: \"with whom,\" and again, \"with his own flesh.\" But what he said first, \"with,\" and what [he said] afterward, both \"with\" and \"co-,\" is the same. But as often as, indeed, as I said, the discourse is about the natures, the divinity is said [to be] with the humanity, and conversely; but when [the discourse is] about the Son, it is not permitted to say that the son of man is co-adored with the Son of God, for in the holy Trinity only the persons are co-adored; but the divinity, just as it wrought miracles through the flesh, so is adored through the flesh; and we all adore the cross, and through it him whose cross it is; yet we are not said to co-adore the cross with Christ, nor by this is the nature of the cross and of Christ one. Similarly, we are not said to adore the altar, to co-adore the altar, the Trinity, but rather through the altar.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":127,"ref":"p127","source":"Nec tamen rursus, sicut Patrem per Filium, ita Verbum per carnem: non enim duæ personæ sunt Christi: cum carne vero, id est per carnem, sicut dictum est, cum qua considet Patri et coadoratur.\n\nHæret. Quia adoratur quidem unus Christus, et considet Patri cum propria carne, dixit sanctissimus Cyrillas; scd unde constat? quia in Græco et idem sit quod dicimus, cum vel con.\n\nRust. Quia et ipsum, id est cum, Cyrillus sanctissimus approbavcrit, et aliunde manifestum: id est quia non tantum in universali synodo, sed et cxtra ubique contra diversos epistola sanctissimi Athanasii ad Epictetum per omnia approbatur, ini qua jacent inter alia, et hæc: « Dixit: Dorsum meum dedi ad verbera, ct faciem meam non averti a confux one sputorum (Isa. L, 6): quæ enim pertulit id quod humanum est Verbi, hæc ipsum, Verbum illud quod erat cum co, in semetipsum referebat, ut nos Verbi pietate participare possimus. » Ecce audisti quia ei quod humanitatis sunt passiones, in semetipsum referebat: ubi autem coadesse ct referre, illic irrecusabiliter quantitas secundum natura:!!.","english":"Nor, again, is it as the Father through the Son, so the Word through the flesh; for there are not two persons of Christ; but with the flesh, that is, through the flesh, as has been said, with which He sits beside the Father and is co-adored.\n\nObjection. Because indeed one Christ is adored, and He sits beside the Father with His own flesh, the most holy Cyril has said; but from what is this established? Because in the Greek the same thing is meant by what we say, \"with\" or \"con.\"\n\nRusticus. Because the most holy Cyril approved this very word, that is, \"with,\" and it is manifest from elsewhere: that is, because not only in the universal synod, but also everywhere outside it, against various opponents, the letter of the most holy Athanasius to Epictetus is approved in all respects, in which there lie among other things also these words: \"He said: I gave my back to the scourges, and I did not turn my face away from the shame of spittings (Isa. 50:6): for the things which He endured, that which is human of the Word, these the very Word, that which was with Him, was referring to Himself, so that we might be able to participate in the piety of the Word.\" Behold, you have heard that the passions which belong to the humanity He was referring to Himself; but where \"to be with\" and \"to refer\" are found, there the quantity according to nature is irrefutably [present].","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":128,"ref":"p128","source":"Hæret. Et ubi hanc papæ Athanasii epistolam sanetissimus Cyrillus probavit?\n\nRust. Non solum testimonia ex ea posuit in synodo, sed et in epistola ad sanctum Joannem, in qua dicit et hæc:« Quia vero sanctorum Patrum scita ubique sequimur, maxime vero beati et omni laude digni Patris nostri Athanasii, circa quodiibet ilLud omnino evagari vitantes, ab ipsis credat quidem sanctitas tua, dubitet autem nullus aliorum. »Et rursus: « Quia vero didicimus quod et epistolam ad bcatum Epictetum, omni laude digni Patris nostri Athanasii, orthodoxe habentem corrumpentes quidam ediderunt, ita ut ex hoc plurimi nocerentur; ob hoc, utile aliquid et necessarium fratribus excogitantes, cx antiquis exemplaribus quæ apud nos sunt et absque errore se hahent, direximus exemplaria tuæ sanctitati; et nos igitur hujus editionis exemplaria habentes, ex ipsis tibi proposuimus. » Inten e igitur quia orthodoxe habentem dixit Epistolam ad Epictetum, et quia fratribus utile ac necessarium quid excogitans, ejus direxit excipiar, lau lans ejus scriptorem ut dignum est.","english":"Objection. And where did the most holy Cyril approve this letter of Pope Athanasius?\n\nRusticus. Not only did he set forth testimonies from it at the synod, but also in the letter to Saint John, in which he says this as well: \"But because we follow the decrees of the holy Fathers everywhere, and especially those of our blessed Father Athanasius, worthy of all praise, avoiding altogether any wandering beyond that point, let your Holiness believe this from them, and let no one of others doubt it.\" And again: \"But because we have learned that certain men, corrupting the letter to the blessed Epictetus of our Father Athanasius, worthy of all praise, which holds orthodox teaching, have published it, so that from this very many were harmed; for this reason, devising something useful and necessary for the brethren, from the ancient copies which are among us and are without error, we have sent copies to your Holiness; and so we also, having copies of this edition, have set them before you from them.\" Therefore, since he said that the letter to Epictetus holds orthodox teaching, and since, devising something useful and necessary for the brethren, he sent copies of it, praising its author as is fitting.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":129,"ref":"p129","source":"Hæret. Et si non cst divinitatis et humanitatis una facta natura, quomodo potuit fieri una persona, dum certe, quoties ex duabus naturis una persona subsistit, fiat pariter ei una natura?\n\nRust. Nimis in ensatorum et insipientium est, de Omnipotente interrogare quomodo potuit! Ad quod sufficit responderi quomodo voluit; quia impossibile cst Dco non adesse quod vult.\n\nHæret. Et un le certum est quod Deus voluerit cum carne unam se esse personam, ct una fieri natura noluerit, dum certe dicat Apostolus: Quis cognovit sensum Domini, aut quis consiliarius ejus fuit (Rom. xi, 34)? Insuper cousequcns cst unam fieri naturam, quotiescunque fit una persona. Nec non, et si ad Dei omnipotentiam respiciamus, potuit Deus volens una cum carnc fieri natura; et quoniam Dei omnipotentis miraculo facta est una persona, cur non et alio miraculo etiam una est facta natura? Aut cur non codem utrumque miraculo, imo Vero idem? An facile est Deo illud facere, quod impossibile rationibus videtur humanis, id cst unam ex divinitate atque humanitate personam; et difficile cst Deo id quod est humanis quoque rationibus consequens, ut una illius natura sit cujus una persona est?","english":"Objection. And if one nature of divinity and humanity was not made, how could one person be made, when certainly, as often as one person subsists from two natures, one nature is likewise made for it?\n\nRusticus. It is the part of the utterly senseless and foolish to ask of the Almighty how he could do it! To which it is enough to answer how he willed it; because it is impossible for God not to be present to what he wills.\n\nObjection. And is it certain that God willed to be one person with the flesh, and willed not to become one nature, when certainly the Apostle says: Who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor (Rom 11:34)? Moreover, it follows that one nature is made whenever one person is made. And indeed, if we look to God's omnipotence, God could, willing it, become one nature together with the flesh; and since by the miracle of God Almighty one person was made, why was not one nature also made by another miracle? Or why not both by the same miracle, indeed truly the same? Is it easy for God to do that which seems impossible to human reasoning, that is, one person from divinity and humanity; and is it difficult for God to do that which is also consequent to human reasoning, that one nature belong to him whose one person it is?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":130,"ref":"p130","source":"Rust. Magna est Dei clementia, qui, ut non erraremus, nom solum inhumanari dignatus est, sed et causam principalem suæ nobis inhumanationis ostendcre: unde superius demonstratum est quia omnia nostra suscepit excepto peccato. Assumpsit igitur cum substantia nostræ naturae perfectæ, etiam quantitatem; pro qua eum unum hominem vocat Apostolus (I Cor. xv, 2!; I Tim. II, 5), et hoc sæpe. Hæc igitur perfectae nostræ naturæ integra unitas, integræ divinitatis unitati concurrens; dualitatem naturarum rationabiliter coadimplet. Insuper non otiose facit magnalia Deus, tanquam propter hoc solum ut ipsa faciat; sed accommode ad nostram salutem suam pensans intentionem: nec enim vel stuporis causa, vel vane glorix, sed nostra utilitas ejus benignitatis intentio est. Itaque oportebat eu n, nostrae naturæ sicut alia omnia, absque peccato, sic quantitatem queque seu potius unitatem suscipere, sicut superius demonstravimus. Nam si non est quæ assumpta est una natura, ergo nec una est, et per hoc nibil. Si vero una est; sicut impium est dicere quod desit t'i aliquid nostrae substantiæ, sic etiam quantitatis: habet igitur et hanc proprietatem quantitas illa ut concurrens divinae substantiae quantitati, dualitate [erficiat.","english":"Rusticus. Great is God's clemency, who, so that we might not err, deigned not only to become incarnate, but also to show us the principal cause of his incarnation; whence it was shown above that he took up all our [properties] except sin. He assumed, therefore, along with the substance of our perfect nature, also its quantity; on account of which the Apostle calls him one man (1 Cor 15; 1 Tim 2:5), and this often. This integral unity, then, of our perfect nature, concurring with the unity of the perfect divinity, reasonably completes the duality of the natures. Moreover, God does not perform great things idly, as though for this alone, that he might perform them; but weighing his intention in accordance with our salvation: for neither for the sake of astonishment, nor of vainglory, but our advantage is the intention of his kindness. And so it was fitting that he receive, just as all other things of our nature without sin, so also quantity—or rather unity—as we have demonstrated above. For if the nature that was assumed is not one, then it is not one, and through this nothing. But if it is one, just as it is impious to say that anything of our substance is lacking, so also of quantity: that quantity therefore has this property as well, that concurring with the quantity of the divine substance, it completes the duality.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":131,"ref":"p131","source":"Insuper ad miraculum quoque valde superior invenitur nostra confessio: semel enim dignatus Dei sermo, una esse cum carne persona; de re iquo, non mirabiliter ( quia et consuete, ut vis) dicerctur una factus fuissc natura: nihil aut-m mirabilius, ct mentem excedens amplius atque divinius est, quam quod inconsuetum atque incomparabile. Quid vero amplius tale est, quam unam personam subsintere, cujus non esset una natura? Claret igitur, quia ct rationis, et miraculi, et causæ comparatione superiores invenimur a vobis.\n\nHæret. Si possibile cst quantitatem ( absque nominibus earum rerum quarum quantitas est) in dicta proferre: ut puta si unusquisque hominum qui unus homo nominatur, utrum ergo hunc et ablato nomine quod est homo, licet nobis unum dicere. Si enim hoc et super sancta Trinitate recte dicimus, erit duo quædam, Pater et Spiritus sanctus, dux namque personæ sunt; crit vcro et Filius, duo quædam; duæ namque, secundum vos, naturae sunt: Pater igitur, et Filius, et sanctus Spiritus, quatuor quædam sunt. Sic enim tu quoque nobis paulo a te objecisti, quia divinæ naturæ unitas cum unitate humanæ naturæ, naturarum dualitatem explet. Et nos igitur secundum vestram concludimus rationem, quia duo et duo quatuor sunt: quare pro Trinitate, quaternitatem colitis: non igitur estis orthodoxi.","english":"Furthermore, our confession is found to be far superior also with respect to miracle: for the Word of God deigned once to be one person with the flesh; concerning which thing, it would not be said wonderfully (because even customarily, as you wish) that he was made one nature: for nothing is more wonderful, and more exceeding the mind and more divine, than what is unusual and incomparable. But what is more such than that one person subsist, whose nature was not one? It is clear, therefore, that in comparison of reason, and of miracle, and of cause, we are found superior to you.\n\nHeretic. If it is possible to bring forward quantity (without the names of those things whose quantity it is) in speech: for example, if each one of men who is named one man—whether, then, with the name that is man removed, it is permitted us to say one. For if we rightly say this also concerning the holy Trinity, there will be two certain things, the Father and the Holy Spirit, for they are two persons; but there will also be the Son, two certain things; for according to you there are two natures. Therefore the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are four certain things. For thus you too objected to us a little while ago from your own position, that the unity of the divine nature with the unity of the human nature completes a duality of natures. And we therefore conclude according to your reasoning, that two and two are four: wherefore, instead of a Trinity, you worship a quaternity: therefore you are not orthodox.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":132,"ref":"p132","source":"Nec vero affirmare valebitis quod sine recum nomine non proferatur numeri eorum nomen, quia unum Tr nitatis confitentes esse Christum, et unam ex tribus non potestis abnuere. Si vero interrogemini, ex quibus tribus unum, non invenietis unum nomen commune quod de tribus pluraliter prædicare possitis: nec cnim ex tribus Patribus, nec ex tribus Filiis, nec ex tribus Spiritibus sanctisve paracletis.\n\nRust. Consueta fraudo ambigua nomina posuisti; ac pro rcbus, nudum locutus es numerum. Sed ubi dicis, Pater ct Spiritus sanctus duo quædam sunt, die quæ duo, et nobis tacentibus, tu te ipsuM convinces. Sic rursus quando dices de Filio, duo quædam, determina quæ illa sint; ct de falsitate tuæ compunctionis, tu ipse temetipsum, me tacente, convinces. Duo enim qu;c a te dicta sunt prius, pro duabus posUi personis; duo vcro sequentia, pro naturis: Trinitas autem personarum, non naturarum Trinitas est. Et rursus, dualitas, non personarum, sed naturarum dicitur circa Dominum Jesum Christum.","english":"Nor will you be able to affirm that the name of their number is not brought forward without the name of the thing, since, confessing that Christ is one of the Trinity, you cannot deny that he is one out of three. But if you are asked, one out of which three, you will not find one common name that you can predicate plurally of the three: for it is neither out of three Fathers, nor out of three Sons, nor out of three Spirits or holy paracletes.\n\nRusticus: You have set down ambiguous names by your usual fraud, and instead of things you have spoken a bare number. But when you say, the Father and the Holy Spirit are two somethings, say what these two are, and while we are silent, you will convict yourself. So again, when you say of the Son, two somethings, determine what those are; and from the falsity of your compunction, you yourself, while I am silent, will convict yourself. For the two things first spoken by you were set down for two persons; but the two that follow, for natures. But the Trinity is a Trinity of persons, not of natures. And again, the duality is said to be not of persons, but of natures, around the Lord Jesus Christ.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":133,"ref":"p133","source":"Si igitur duas personas dicentes Patrem et Spiritum sanctum, similiter duas naturas diceremus, quod est blasphemum, Filii esse personas; aut converso, duas dicentes Filii esse naturas; duas, quod absit, similiter diceremus naturas Patris et Spiritus sancti; tunc calumniis vestris occasionem non absque verisimilitudine dederimus; ut duce naturae, et rursus aliae dux vel duae personæ, et aliae dux, in qua Trinitatem pariter computarentur. Nunc autem sicut duae et una persona pariter computatæ tres faciunt: sic unam sanctae Trinitatis naturam communem, et aliam unam solius Fiii, id est assumpti, duas esse necesse est, et unam esse non posse. Licet igitur et duas credamus in Filio esse naturas, non tamen confessionem nostram quaternio sequitur: absque rebus enim subsistentibus sotam non colimus quantitatem, eti im si proferre Iiceat solam. Insuper si nos dicentes esse duas naturas, ob hoc ipsum quaternitatem pro Trinitate consequitur colere; et vos consequenter ex quaternitate colere Trinitatem, quia ex duabus naturis dicitis Christum.","english":"If, therefore, saying that the Father and the Holy Spirit are two persons, we were similarly to say that there are two natures—which is blasphemous—namely, that they are persons of the Son; or, conversely, saying that there are two natures of the Son, we were similarly to say that there are two natures of the Father and of the Holy Spirit—which God forbid—then we would have given occasion to your slanders not without plausibility: so that, with nature as a guide, there would be again two guides or two persons, and another guide, in which the Trinity would be counted together alike. But now, just as two persons and one person counted together make three, so one common nature of the holy Trinity and another one nature of the Son alone, that is, of the assumed [nature], must necessarily be two, and cannot be one. Although, therefore, we believe that there are two natures in the Son, nevertheless a quaternity does not follow our confession; for we do not worship a bare quantity apart from subsisting things, even if it were permissible to bring forward the bare quantity alone. Moreover, if because we say that there are two natures, it follows that on this very account we worship a quaternity in place of the Trinity, then you likewise, from a quaternity, worship the Trinity, because you say that Christ is from two natures.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":134,"ref":"p134","source":"Hæret. Sed nos, non ex tribus personis, sed tres personas esse dicimus Trinitatem; dicimus vero et trium personarum et in tribus personis esse unitatem.\n\nRust. Sed cur non unus Christus duæ naturæ credintur, si tres personac secundum veritatem unus sunt Deus, sicut et ipse Dominus in Evangelio inquit: Ego et Pater unum sumus (Joan. x, 39); Unum, dixit, et, sumus, ut unum naturæ deputetur, sumus vero personis. Si enim simplicem naturam non dividit Trinitas personarum, quomodo personam, quæ, ut fatemini, minime simplex est, sed composita, discrepat naturarum dualitas? Insuper, duo et tria, ct qua: uor quædam; non unoquoque apud semetipsum subsistente, sed collecta et comparata seu collata, ut ita dixerim, vel potius, pariter considcrata dicuntur: non connumeratur vcro in Trinitate natura personis; alioqui ct ante incarnationem, quod absit, quaternitas fuit: tres namque personæ sunt, etv una natura; et numerus in quatuor minime proficit.","english":"Heretic. But we say that the Trinity is not from three persons, but that there are three persons; and we say that there is both a unity of three persons and a unity in three persons.\n\nRusticus. But why is not one Christ believed to be two natures, if three persons according to truth are one God, as also the Lord himself says in the Gospel: I and the Father are one (John x, 39)? One, he said, and, we are, so that one may be reckoned of nature, we are however in persons. For if the Trinity of persons does not divide a simple nature, how does the duality of natures disagree with a person which, as you confess, is by no means simple but composite? Moreover, two and three and four are certain things; not with each one subsisting by itself, but gathered and compared or collated, so to speak, or rather considered together, they are spoken of: but nature is not connumerated with persons in the Trinity; otherwise even before the incarnation, which God forbid, there would have been a quaternity: for there are three persons, and one nature; and the number does not advance to four at all.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":135,"ref":"p135","source":"Hæret. Sed ibi, ob hoc quia non est extrinsecus unitas et extrinsecus TriniLas; sed Trinitas unitatis, et unitas Triuitatis.\n\nRust. Si ob hoc solum non connumeratur divina natura tribus personis, quia Trinitas unitatis est, et unitas Trinitatis; omnimodo ergo altera unitas est preter unitatem communem, connumerabitur a Trinitati: caro vero unius trium, id est Domini Christi, non totius est Trinitatis: non enim tota Trinitas incarnata est, secundum te: igitur quaternio erit, Trinitas atque caro. Igitur aut ostende non esse unitatem nostram naturam, id est carnem non esse unam, aut recipe quia non ob hoc minime connumeretur ersonis natura divina, quia unitas Trinitatis est et Trinitas unitatis, et reliquum tibi est ut nobiscum dicas quod non connumeretur natura personis.\n\nHæret. Et cur minime connumeratur natura personis? dic igitur causam?","english":"Heretic. But there, for the reason that the unity is not outside and the Trinity outside; but the Trinity of the unity, and the unity of the Trinity.\n\nRusticus. If for this reason alone the divine nature is not counted together with the three persons, because it is the Trinity of the unity and the unity of the Trinity; therefore in every way the other unity is besides the common unity, it will be counted together with the Trinity: but the flesh of one of the three, that is, of the Lord Christ, is not of the whole Trinity: for according to you the whole Trinity was not incarnate: therefore there will be a quaternity, the Trinity and the flesh. Therefore either show that our nature is not a unity, that is, that the flesh is not one, or accept that it is not for this reason that the divine nature is least counted together with the persons, because it is the unity of the Trinity and the Trinity of the unity, and it remains for you to say with us that the nature is not counted together with the persons.\n\nHeretic. And why is the nature least counted together with the persons? Tell me the reason, then?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":136,"ref":"p136","source":"Rust. Mihi nulla necessitas imminet ostendere cur personis non connumeretur, ex quo perfectam meam demonstravi victoriam, quia hoc verum sit quod probavi; si autem vis nobiscum causam perquirere, sine praejudicio inquiretur. Arbitror autem quod ea quae omnino sub una definitione non continentur, neque connumerentur: ut puta, si quis dicat: Ego et tu unum sumus, eo quod homo sim et rao, et tu; et sumus homines duo, et ad angelos unum sumus, co quod rationales simus et nos. Et rursus duae naturæ sumus propter differentiam; et iterum hoc idem sumus coelo: creatura enim et illud est; et aliud præter illud, propter differentiam substantivam. Arbitror igitur quod ea quæ connumerantur, et unam quamdam communem definitionem habere oporteat, et aliam quae non communis, sed cujusque sit propria: sic igitur et Domini Christi duæ naturæ commune habent quod naturæ sunt; proprium vcro quod hæc quidem divinitas est, illa vero humanitas.","english":"Rusticus. No necessity presses upon me to show why it is not counted together with the persons, since I have demonstrated my perfect victory, because what I have proved is true; but if you wish to investigate the matter with us, let it be inquired into without prejudice. But I think that those things which are not contained at all under one definition are not counted together either: for example, if someone says, \"You and I are one,\" in that I am a man and you are a man, and we are two men; and we are one with the angels, in that we too are rational. And again we are two natures because of the difference; and again we are the same as the heaven: for it too is a creature; and it is other besides it, because of substantial difference. I think, therefore, that those things which are counted together ought to have both a certain common definition and another which is not common but proper to each: so then the two natures of the Lord Christ have in common that they are natures; but it is proper that the one is divinity and the other humanity.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":137,"ref":"p137","source":"Hæret. Si est definitio ejus, non est incomprehensibilis Deitas. Et illud vero me movet, quomodo unam habeat definitionem communis trium personarum divina substantia ac individua unius ac solius personæ natura, vel certe carnis Christi substania, hæc cnim videntur esse impossibilia.\n\nRust. Non superflue, ut app aret, causam quærere olim refulabamus, quæ sic in longa atque diflicilia verba nos abstrahit. Quarc non me ulterius talc aliquid oportet adjicere, ut non superflue ad multiloquium pertrahamur.\n\nHæret. Patienter, quæso, et absque præjudicio: satis fieri enim mihi super iis volo; forsitan cniin modis omnibus satisfactionem commoditas consequctur.\n\nRust. Quod mihi videtur, forsan vcro non irrationabiliter, dicam; salvis tamen absque præjudicio iis quae jam dixi: nec enim tale aliquid adjecissem, nisi hac conditione proposita. Definitur ergo divinitas, non secundum quod divinitas est, sed secundum quod natura cst. Quid est quod volo dicere, Non quo divinitas, sed quo natura? Aliud est per se quaerere quid sit Deitas, et aliud, quomodo se habeat ad tres personas ipsa divinitas. Ut, exempli gra ia dico, aliud est quærere quid sit homo, aliud quomodo: id est, utrum æqualiter universi participemur communi substantia, an minime; et rursus secundum proportionem, utrum sic nos communi humanitate, ut Pater et Filius et sanctus Spiritus una Deitate atque communi.","english":"Heretic. If there is a definition of it, the Godhead is not incomprehensible. And this indeed moves me, how the divine substance common to the three persons can have one definition, and the individual nature of one and only one person, or certainly the substance of the flesh of Christ; for these things seem to be impossible.\n\nRusticus. It was not superfluously, as is evident, that we once used to shrink from seeking the cause, which draws us out into long and difficult words. Wherefore I ought not to add anything further of this kind, lest we be dragged superfluously into much speaking.\n\nHeretic. Patiently, I ask, and without prejudice; for I wish to be satisfied concerning these matters; for perhaps by all means the opportunity will obtain satisfaction.\n\nRusticus. What seems to me—perhaps not unreasonably—I will say; yet with those things which I have already said kept safe and without prejudice; for I would not have added anything of this kind, unless this condition had been proposed. The Godhead, therefore, is defined not according as it is Godhead, but according as it is nature. What is it that I wish to say—not in that it is Godhead, but in that it is nature? It is one thing to ask in itself what the Deity is, and another how the Godhead itself stands in relation to the three persons. For example, I say, it is one thing to ask what man is, and another how—that is, whether we all participate equally in the common substance, or not; and again, according to proportion, whether we share a common humanity in such a way as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit share one Deity and a common one.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":138,"ref":"p138","source":"Quod igitur tunc quaerimus, de proportione est; una vero duarum naturarum definitio, secundum quod naturæ sunt: quia id quod aeque ac similiter et complective, ad id ut sit quidque, participatur a personis, substantia est quæ vero hoc ipso participant, personæ sunt quæ ab invicem proprietatibus differunt. Substantia vero communis ipsius divinitatis,quam in Verbo individuo contemplamur, natura est; similiter etiam carnis natura individua non est, licet in individuo eam contemplemur. Natura enim nunquam est individua; non enim definitio individua Est, ciica quam dicimus animal rationale, quod factui subjacet. Apud medicos autem dicuntur homines natura differre pro temperamento, ut, verbi gratia, calidior et frigidior: nos autem non sic dicimus naturam; quare, secundum hoc, nihil distat communis definitio duarum naturarum Domini Christi. Ergo quia utraque similiter natura dicitur; et rursus utraque non eadem, sed differt uniuscujusque definitio: duae igitur sunt naturæ Domini Christi, et haruin nulla connumeratur Trinitati, ut quaternionem, quod absit, efficiat.","english":"What we are therefore seeking then concerns proportion; but there is one definition of the two natures, insofar as they are natures, because that which is participated in equally and similarly and collectively by the persons, so that each thing may be, is substance; but those which participate in this very thing are persons, which differ from one another by their properties. But the common substance of the Godhead itself, which we contemplate in the individual Word, is nature; similarly also the nature of the flesh is not individual, although we contemplate it in an individual. For nature is never individual; for the definition is not individual, concerning which we say \"rational animal,\" which is subject to becoming. But among physicians, men are said to differ in nature according to temperament, as, for example, the warmer and the colder; but we do not speak of nature in this way; wherefore, according to this, the common definition of the two natures of the Lord Christ differs in no way. Therefore, because each is similarly called a nature, and again each is not the same, but the definition of each differs, therefore there are two natures of the Lord Christ, and none of these is counted together with the Trinity, so as to make a quaternity, which God forbid.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":139,"ref":"p139","source":"Hæret. Ego arbitror quoniam natura illa quæ communis dicitur, vel certe species humanitatis, nihil cst nisi nomen tantummodo: esse vero uniuscujusque nostrum, in individuis subsistentiis est: illud vero in solis rationibus et intellectibus et subtilissimis speculationibus, seu magis mentis phantasiis est; cæterum, reipsa non subsistit: in Dco autem oportet omnia et prime subsistere; id est, et namram et personas: quare neque secundum communem definitionem sunt duæ naturæ.\n\nRust. Mihi contra hoc nullus est sermo; sufficit enim mihi, quia substantia humanitatis assumptæ subsistentiarum Trinitatis minime connumeratur ad hoc ut quaternitas efficiatur ex eis. Cur autem, nescio causam et confiteor me ignorarc.\n\nHæret. Sed cur connumeratur caro Trinitatis naturæ; ut duæ, sicut inquis, efficiantur, quæ non connumeratur Trinitatis personis Ergo nec huic connumeratur; et non jam duæ sunt naturae Christi, sed una.","english":"Heretic: I hold that that nature which is called common, or certainly the species of humanity, is nothing but a name only; but that it is of each one of us is in individual subsistent beings; whereas that [common nature] exists in reasonings and intellects and the most subtle speculations alone, or rather in the phantasies of the mind; otherwise, in actual fact it does not subsist. But in God all things ought to subsist first, that is, both nature and persons. Wherefore neither according to the common definition are there two natures.\n\nRusticus: Against this I have no word to say; for it is enough for me that the substance of the assumed humanity is in no way numbered together with the subsistent beings of the Trinity, so that a quaternity be made from them. But why this is so, I do not know the reason, and I confess that I am ignorant.\n\nHeretic: But why is the flesh numbered with the nature of the Trinity, so that, as you say, there be made two, when it is not numbered with the persons of the Trinity? Therefore neither is it numbered with this one; and now there are not two natures of Christ, but one.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":140,"ref":"p140","source":"Rust. Puto quod neque esse velis carnem: necesse est enim, aut unam hanc esse, aut nec unam: dum vcro necqua sit, nihil esse; dum vero nihil sit, neque esse:: ut enim minuine tribus personis connumcretur, repercutimur eo, ne quaternitas fiat. Rursus: ut nec naturae uni Trinitatis congeminetur, perfecta carnis videtur esse negatio; si enim una est, alteri uni connumeratur. Verum illud affirmo, quia hic necesse est a me exigi causam: etenim et omnes sancti Patres, et vos ipsi naturae divinitatis connuIt e: atis carnem: ex duabus enim naturis dicitis Christum. Quod si divinitati non connumeratur humanitas, non solum in cis esse, sed ct ex ipsis esse, dicere non debemus. Non igitur ex duabus cst. Sed et Ambrosius male|, secundumvos, inquit: « Unus in utroque loquitur Dei Filius, quia in eo utraque natura est; » et Gregorius dicens: Duæ naturæ Deus et homo, quia et anima et corpus; » et Cyrillus dicens: Duarum enim naturarum unitio facta est; et qui I diversa quidem quae ad unitionem veram Convenere naturæ; unus vero ex ambabus Christus et Filius, non tanquam naturarum differentia interempta propter unitionem, sed potius efficientibus nobis.","english":"Rusticus: I think that you do not wish the flesh to exist either; for it must be either one or not one. But while it is not one, it is nothing; and while it is nothing, it does not exist. For as it is in no way counted together with the three persons, we are struck back from that, lest a quaternity be made. Again, lest it be reckoned together with the one nature of the Trinity, the denial of the flesh seems to be complete; for if it is one, it is counted together with another one. But I affirm this, because here the reason must be demanded of me: for both all the holy Fathers and you yourselves have counted the flesh together with the nature of the divinity; for you say that Christ is from two natures. But if humanity is not counted together with the divinity, we ought not to say that it is not only in them but from them. Therefore he is not from two. But Ambrose also speaks badly, according to you, saying: \"The one Son of God speaks in both, because in him is both nature\"; and Gregory, saying: \"Two natures, God and man, because both soul and body\"; and Cyril, saying: \"For the union of two natures has been made; and the natures which have come together for a true union are indeed different; but one Christ and Son from both, not as though the difference of the natures were destroyed because of the union, but rather as we maintain.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":141,"ref":"p141","source":"»Et h.rc universalis synodus Ephesina firmavit, et Cœlestinus ac Xystus papæ Romani approbaverunt; similiter vero et quasdam voces eorum quæ de Domino dicta sunt; et communificari tanquam super una persona, et dividi tanquam super duabus naturis.\n\nHæret. Novimus hoc: connumerantur naturæ ut ex ipsis sit, non ad hoc ut in ipsis: nam et quæ dicuntur æquivocata, eo quod solo nomine ac non c'iam definitione participent, connumerantur ad invicem, ut canis pictus, et verus: Demo enim unum dicet hunc atque illum, sed omnimodis duo.\n\nRust. Gloria Domino Christo, quia confessus es interim, quod quolibct modo verumtamen connumerentur naturæ, unde erat sermo: hoc autem concesso, non jam nccesse est demonstrationes repetere cæterorum. Jam enim simul ostensum est quia duarum est unitio naturarum, et quia diversæ naturæ, et quia non sit interempta differentia naturarum, et quia effecerunt (Sic), ct unus in utraque, quoniam in codem, utraque natura est; et quia dux naturæ, Deus cl homo. Sed ct illud necessarie dico: quia si humana natura divinæ non connumeratur, non est ex duabus naturis una per unitionem facta natura Domini Christi; sed ipsa una sempiterne existens, ips a sola nunc usque ita est sicut erat.","english":"And the universal synod of Ephesus confirmed this, and the Roman popes Caelestinus and Xystus approved it; and likewise also certain of their statements which were spoken concerning the Lord; and that they are reckoned together as upon one person, and divided as upon two natures.\n\nHeretic: We know this: the natures are reckoned together so that from them it may be, not so that in them it may be; for even things that are called equivocal, because they share in name only and not also in definition, are reckoned together with one another, as a painted dog and a true one: for one may call this one and that one by one name, but they are in every way two.\n\nRusticus: Glory to the Lord Christ, because you have confessed for the present that, in whatever way, nevertheless the natures are reckoned together, which was the subject of the discourse; but this being granted, it is no longer necessary to repeat the demonstrations of the rest. For it has already been shown at the same time that the union is of two natures, and that the natures are diverse, and that the difference of the natures has not been destroyed, and that they have effected one, and one in both, since in the same one both natures are; and that the one who is of two natures is God and man. But I also say this necessarily: that if the human nature is not reckoned together with the divine, then the one nature of the Lord Christ has not been made out of two natures through union; but that one, existing eternally, is itself alone even now just as it was.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":142,"ref":"p142","source":"Si vero compositio aut explicatio, vel concursus factus est, ex æquo illius naturæ quæ ex compositione, ut dicis, facta est, completiva humanitas est: quare ex æquo sicut divina quantitatis cst particeps. Si igitur una est divina natura, una est etiam carnis; si vero media hæc, media etiam illa; et si nulla ista, nulla est illa. Quare, et quod ex nullo, secundum vos, factum est, ali quid esse non potesl.\n\nHæret. Habes unde ostendere quod non solum Trinitatis natura communis a natnra carns quæ Verbo unita cst differat, sed et ipsum Verbum ac servi formam habeat aliquam distinctionem, an non\n\nRust. Et hoc ostendetur pr. cedente sermone, quo niam nostra quidem natura quæ Deo Verbo unita est, nec altera persona, nec alterius est personæ, verumtamen altera præter Verbum est caro; alte a vero natura, non altera persona. In Christo enim, non solum de communi ad reliquas de divinitate personas, et propria ejus carne, alterum et alterum communiter dicitur a Patribus; sed et proprie de Deo Verbo et assumpta carne, quod alterum sit atque alterum.","english":"But if the composition, or the unfolding, or the concurrence has been made, from the equal of that nature which, as you say, has been made from composition, the humanity is completive: therefore equally, just as the divine nature, it is a partaker of quantity. If, then, the divine nature is one, the nature of the flesh is also one; but if these are intermediate, that also is intermediate; and if these are nothing, that is nothing. Therefore even that which, according to you, has been made from nothing cannot be anything.\n\nHe sticks. You have the means to show whether the common nature of the Trinity differs from the nature of the flesh which has been united to the Word, and whether the Word himself also and the form of a servant have some distinction, or not.\n\nRusticus. This too will be shown by the preceding discourse, since our nature indeed which has been united to God the Word is neither another person nor belongs to another person, yet the flesh is other than the Word; but the nature is other, not another person. For in Christ, not only is \"one and another\" said in common by the Fathers concerning the persons of the divinity besides the rest and his own flesh, but also properly concerning God the Word and the assumed flesh, that he is one and another.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":143,"ref":"p143","source":"Intende, quæso, subtiliter veritatem, no te viæ ad vitam ducentis angustia difficultatis labore perterreat: non enim diximus quod aliud ea, ci aHia carnis persona sit; amboenim hæc unius et solius personæ sunt; sed quia et praeter Deum Verbum, q: i una persona cst illarum ineO' bilium personarum, altera est humana natura; ita ut Deus Verbum, perfecta quidem ex sempiterno persona sit; caro vero, licet perfecta natura, persona vero nequaquam. Itursus dico: non alteram personam dixi, et iterum alteram personam, sed alteram substantiam et naturam. Alterum namque definitur evidenter Dei Verbum, et alterum ejus humanitas: non alter et rursus alter; sed ille quidem, a carne alter: illud vero. alterum et non alterum. Ostendimus enim et ex lectione synodica Gregorium dicentem, duæ naturæ Deus et homo, quia et anima et corpus. Vidcs igitur quod de hac ipsa loquatur Domini Christi persona: cum enim dixisset, duæ naturæ Deus et homo, adjeCit, quia anima et corpus: hæc vero unius personæ sunt. Et rursus, Filii vero non duo. Vides quod non de tota Trinitate, sed de Verbo solo dixerit, Deus. El iterum post modicum, aliud et aliud, ex quibus Salvator. Intendis quod de solo dixerit Salvalore? Et rursus, ambo enim unum; et de uno, Deo quidem inhumanato: non autem tota Trinitas inhumanata est.","english":"Attend, I ask, subtly to the truth, lest the narrowness of the way that leads to life terrify you with the labor of difficulty. For we have not said that there is another person of the flesh besides that one; for both these things belong to one and only one person. But because, besides God the Word, who is one person of those ineffable persons, the other is the human nature; so that God the Word is indeed a perfect person from eternity, but the flesh, although a perfect nature, is by no means a person. Again I say: I have not spoken of another person, and again another person, but another substance and nature. For evidently God the Word is defined as one thing, and his humanity as another; not one and again another, but he is one thing, and other than the flesh; and that is another thing and not another. For we have shown also from the synodical reading that Gregory says, two natures, God and man, because also soul and body. You see, therefore, that he speaks of this very person of the Lord Christ. For when he had said, two natures, God and man, he added, because soul and body; but these belong to one person. And again, but of the Son, not two. You see that he spoke not of the whole Trinity, but of the Word alone, God. And again after a little, one thing and another, from which the Savior. Do you attend that he spoke of the Savior alone? And again, for both are one; and of the one, God indeed made man, but not the whole Trinity has been made man.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":144,"ref":"p144","source":"Dcindc adjecit et hæc: « Dico autem aliud et aliud, e converso quam in Trinitate se habet: nam illic quidem alius et alius, ut non substentias confundaitus, non aliud vero et aliud. Vides, quod non de tota Trinitate sit sermo communis, sed proprius de Filio solo? Nam de Trinitate quidem dicens: lllic quidem alius et alius, dixit; de Filio vero solo, aliud et aliud, e converso quam in Trinitate se habet, inquit. Alterum igitur, Deus Verbum, præter propriam carnem. Proponatur vero pradictum testimonium, et quæ dicta sunt, manifesta erunt.\n\nHæret. Si et non connumeratur natura personis, sed tamen purus numerus puro numero connumeratur, quare duo et duae quatuor sunt? nam quomodo aliter unus Trinitatis dicitur Christus, non simplex nec absque carne existe s, sed in unam personam compositus, dum certe duas simplices et absque carne, et incompositæ sunt?","english":"Then he added these words as well: “But I say ‘another and another,’ the reverse of how it is in the Trinity; for there, indeed, ‘another and another,’ so that the substances are not confused, but not ‘another thing and another thing.’ Do you see that the discourse is not common to the whole Trinity, but proper to the Son alone? For when speaking of the Trinity, indeed, he said ‘another and another’; but of the Son alone, ‘another thing and another thing,’ the reverse of how it is in the Trinity, he says. Therefore the other, God the Word, is apart from his own flesh. But let the aforementioned testimony be set forth, and what has been said will be manifest.\n\nHe is stuck. If nature is not counted together with persons, but nevertheless pure number is counted together with pure number, why are two and two four? For how otherwise is Christ called one of the Trinity, not simple nor existing without flesh, but composed into one person, when certainly there are two simple and without flesh and incomposite?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":145,"ref":"p145","source":"Rust. Numeri nomen absque rcrum nomine tum profertur, quando rei quidem similitudo communis adjacet numero alicui; sicut uuicuiquc trium esse personam, etsi non camdem personam: quomodo enim pium sit, non distinguere in Trinitate subsistentias? Sed hoc diximus, quia sicut Pater persona est, sic et Filius, et sanctus Spiritus: hic enim tres persona?, tres quædam res sunt. Ergo quando dicimus, hæ tres: si interrogaret aliquis, quæ? possumus respondere, personæ. Quando autem dicimus, ii tres: interrogati, qui tres? ambigimus respondere, persenæ: propter indecentem sermonum compositionem: ne videamur dicere, ii personæ, vel, ii tres personæ. Quia igitur res quidem adjacent, nomen vero talc quod iis tribus commune sit, interim positum non est: hos quidem tres dicerc licet; et si interrogati, qui tres? dicere continuo apte non invenimus. Quando vero simpliciter dicentes prius, hæ tres, interrogamur, quæ tres? adjiciamus mox apte, personæ. At in i!lo vestro quaternione, nulla res communis ct æque coaptabilis quaternario numero invenitur; et non solum in verbis, sed e iam in rebus impossibile sequitur: quare nec numerum esse possibile est, eo quod res nulla subjaceat communis. Quod et illud ostendit, quia personæ apud Latinos hæ personæ dicuntur, et non hæc personæ: id est, per hoc quod apud grammaticos femininum genus vocatur, non per illud quod neutrum.","english":"Rusticus: The name of a number is then brought forward without the name of a thing when a common likeness of a thing accompanies some number; as, for instance, that each of the three is a person, even if not the same person. For how would it be pious not to distinguish the subsistences in the Trinity? But we have said this because, just as the Father is a person, so also is the Son and the Holy Spirit; for here the three persons are three certain things. Therefore, when we say \"these three,\" if someone should ask \"which?\" we can answer \"persons.\" But when we say \"these three,\" if asked \"who are the three?\" we are at a loss to answer \"persons,\" on account of the unseemly composition of words, lest we seem to say \"these persons\" or \"these three persons.\" Since, therefore, the things are indeed present, but a name of such a kind as would be common to these three has not for the present been posited, it is permissible indeed to say \"these three\"; but if asked \"who are the three?\" we do not immediately find a fitting way to say it. When, however, saying simply first \"these three,\" we are asked \"which three?\" we presently add fittingly \"persons.\" But in that quaternion of yours, no thing is found common and equally fit for the number four; and not only in words, but even in things, an impossibility follows; wherefore it is not possible for it to be a number, because no common thing underlies it. This too shows it, that persons among the Latins are called \"hae personae\" and not \"haec personae\"—that is, by this, that among the grammarians it is called the feminine gender, not by that which is neuter.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":146,"ref":"p146","source":"Paracletus vero similiter masculine cilur, et Latine et Graece. Sed de Filio quidem cl de sancto Spiritu invenimus dici, ita ut possimus duo dicere; et interrogati quos duos dicamus? respondere, Paracletos De Patre vero id nondum dicere audeo eoquod hic sermo nec scriptus sit, nec ab ulla quatuor synodorum nominatim dicatur quod et Pater Paracletus nominetur. Si vero id concedo'tur, interrogati qui tres? respondere utique poterimus, quia tres Paracleti, sicut Ires persona; et tres substantiæ.\n\nHæret. Si propter consolationem Paracletus dictus cst, et Pater Paracletus est; consolatur etenim animas justorum, et mitigat dolores, sicut scriptum est: Memor fui Dei, et consolatus sum (Psal. LXXVI, 4); sed et ipsum quod Dominus inquit: Et ego rogabu Patrem meum, et alium paracletum dabit vobis, Spiritum veritatis (Joan. xiv, 16, 17): ostendit non duo tantum, sed tres esse paracletus: alius enim, non duorum, sed trium dicitur; alter vero, duorum: quare in Trinitate et tres paracleti dicuntur.","english":"But the Paraclete is likewise called by the masculine name, both in Latin and in Greek. Yet concerning the Son and concerning the Holy Spirit we find it said, so that we can speak of two; and when asked, which two do we speak of? we can answer, Paracletes. But concerning the Father I do not yet dare to say this, because this expression is neither written, nor is it named by any of the four synods specifically, that the Father also is called Paraclete. If however this is granted, when asked who are the three? we shall certainly be able to answer, because there are three Paracletes, just as there are three persons and three substances.\n\nHeretic. If on account of consolation he is called Paraclete, and the Father is a Paraclete—for he consoles the souls of the just and soothes their sorrows, as it is written: I remembered God, and I was consoled (Ps. 76:4)—but also that very saying of the Lord: And I will ask my Father, and he will give you another Paraclete, the Spirit of truth (John 14:16, 17): he shows that there are not only two, but three Paracletes; for \"another\" is said not of two but of three; but \"the other\" is of two. Wherefore in the Trinity three Paracletes are spoken of.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":147,"ref":"p147","source":"Rust. Hæc acribia sermonum apud divinas Scripturas minime observatur, neque a sanctis Patribus, eo quod ncc digna sit, quia hominum sunt adinven tiones: nam et in synodo jacere ostendi, aliud et aliud, ex quibus Salvator: de duobus ergo dicens: aliud, dixit, et aliud. Nec non et testimonium sacræ memoriæ Athanasii quod illic approbatum est, ita dixit: « Aut quomodo Christiani volunt nominari, qui dicunt in hominem sanctum quasi in unum prophetarum venisse Verbum; et non ipsum hominem factum, accipientem ex Maria corpus; sed alterum Dei Verbum ante Mariam ct ame sæcula Filium existentem Patris: aut quomodo Christiani esse possunt, qui dicunt alium esse Filium, et alium Dei Verbum? Ecce indiscrete superius quidem po uit, incn pans eos qui alterum dicunt: infe. ius vero eos qui alium et ulMum. Maxime vero Gregorii testimonium crebro hunc sermonem repetit dicens: « Non alius vero et alius: absit: ambo enim unum commixtione. » Ecce et ambo dixit, id est non tria: ne forte suspicareris quia veluti de tribus loqueretur: de Deo, de anima, de corpore; maxime, eo quod subsequatur: « E converso quam se in Trinitate habet: illic enim alius et alius, ut non subsistentias confuudamus; non aliud vero et aliud, etc.","english":"Rusticus: This exactness of words is scarcely observed in the divine Scriptures, nor by the holy Fathers, because it is not worthy, since they are the inventions of men. For I have shown that even in the synod it lies, \"another and another,\" from which the Savior, speaking of two, said \"another\" and \"another.\" Moreover also the testimony of Athanasius of sacred memory, which was approved there, spoke thus: \"Or how do Christians wish to be named, who say that the Word came into a holy man as into one of the prophets, and that he did not himself become man, receiving a body from Mary, but that another Word of God existed before Mary and before the ages as the Son of the Father? Or how can they be Christians who say that one is the Son and another the Word of God?\" Behold, he placed it indiscriminately above, refuting those who say \"another\"; but below, those who say \"another\" and \"another.\" But especially the testimony of Gregory repeatedly repeats this word, saying: \"Not another and another: far be it: for both are one by commixture.\" Behold, he also said \"both,\" that is, not three, lest perhaps you should suspect that he was speaking as it were of three: of God, of the soul, of the body; especially since it follows: \"The reverse of how it is in the Trinity: for there it is another and another, so that we do not confuse the subsistences; but not another and another, etc.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":148,"ref":"p148","source":"» En, et de Trinitate, alius, inquit, et de Christo, non alius et alius; et non ait, non alter et alter: dum certe Felicis sanctae memoriæ jaceat lectio dicens ita: « Et non homo a Deo assumplus, ut alter sit præter illum; non enim hominem suscepit Dei Filius, ut alter sit præter illum. » Ect v indiscrete positum in sancla et universali synodo Ephesina ostensum est aliud et alterum, vel potius alius atque alter.\n\nHæret. Ecce interim tu quoque confessus es quia si tres demonstraverimus esse Trinitatis naturas, clare, hos qui duas in Christo naturas dicunt, consequatur ut naturarum quaternitatem inducant: si igitur demonstraverimus tres in sancta Trinitate naturas, quoniam omnimodo Patris et sancti Spiritus duæ naturæ sunt, connumeratis per adjectionem duabus. sicut vos creditis, naturis Filii circa irrecusabilem numeri computum, quaternitatis culturam consequi vestram confessionem demonstravimus.","english":"See, he says, both concerning the Trinity, one thing, and concerning Christ, not one and another; and he did not say, not one and a second; whereas certainly the reading of Felix of holy memory stands, saying thus: \"And the man was not assumed by God so as to be another besides him; for the Son of God did not take up a man so as to be another besides him.\" And indeed it has been shown that in the holy and universal synod of Ephesus \"another\" and \"a second\" are used without distinction, or rather \"one\" and \"a second.\"\n\nHeretic. See, meanwhile you too have confessed that if we have demonstrated that there are three natures of the Trinity, it clearly follows that those who say there are two natures in Christ introduce a quaternity of natures; if therefore we have demonstrated three natures in the holy Trinity, since in every way there are two natures of the Father and of the Holy Spirit, with the two natures of the Son, as you believe, added in by way of addition, in accordance with the irrefutable reckoning of number, we have demonstrated that your confession results in the worship of a quaternity.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":149,"ref":"p149","source":"Rust. Nec hoc necesse est, quod interim sine praejudicio dictum sit. nisi forte si tres naturæ sint Trinitatis, ut non sit una communis. Nam si cst una quidem communis, tres vero propriæ, æquivoce jain natura nominatur: altera namque intelligitur illa quæ singillatim idem est unicuique personæ, et ahera quæ nullius est singillatim, sed communis est tribus: illa namque una in tribus: hæ vero tres in una speculabuntur. Si igitur duas dicentes Christi esse naturas, communem Trinitatis connumeramus nostræ, id est ei quæ in Cliris o est humanæ substantiæ, nullo modo introducimus quaternionem: non enin. tres illi coacervantes, quatuor facimus, sed unam et solam uni et soli conjungentes, tantummodo duas facimus. Insuper etiam si sic, sit propria Verbo natura ut eidem personæ idem sit, quam coadunantes humanæ duas esse dicamus: non tamen consequetur quaternitas, quia aliter dicetur natura, quæ etiam persona sit (quoniam et per omnia cum ea est idem), et aliter caro quæ natura solummodo est, et non persona pariter a que natura hæc eadem.","english":"Rusticus: Nor is this necessary, which for the present has been said without prejudice—unless perhaps if there are three natures of the Trinity, so that there is not one common nature. For if there is indeed one common nature, but three proper natures, then nature is now named equivocally: for one thing is understood to be that which is individually the same for each person, and another which is individually no one's, but is common to the three; for that one is contemplated in the three, but these three in the one. If therefore, saying that there are two natures of Christ, we number the common nature of the Trinity among our own—that is, with that human substance which is in Christ—we in no way introduce a quaternity; for we do not, heaping up those three, make four, but joining one alone to one alone, we make only two. Moreover, even if the nature proper to the Word is such that it is the same for the same person, and joining this to the human nature we say there are two, nevertheless a quaternity will not follow, because nature is spoken of in one way when it is also a person (since it is the same as that person through all things), and in another way when it is flesh, which is only a nature and not equally a person, and this same nature.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":150,"ref":"p150","source":"Sed nec adjiciemus, si ita sit, naturam quae etiam persona est, naturæ quæ non etiam persona est a; nec ob hoc dicimus duas, sed coaptabimus unam quidem naturam quae etiam persona est, alteram vcro quae uonctiam persona est, sed natura tantummodo: id est divinam condicimus naturam, quæ ipsa est et persona: humanam vero naturam quæ solum natura est, et non etiam persona, et sic dualitatem efticimus naturarum.\n\nHæret. Ergo ut dicis multo magis quatuor, secundum te, erunt Trinitatis, imo potius, ut dicit s, quaternitatis naturæ, si ejus quod sunt naturæ, quatuor enim dixisti; multo magis efficit differentiam naturarum; non solum enim quia altera et altera Verbi et hominis est natura, sed etiam naturæ altera definitio, neque idern secundum speciem: veluti quis dicai, aut genus unum erit quid unum. Quare multo magis distat ad efficiendum quartum, id quod modis omnibus differt, si tamen, secundum vos, differentiam etiam secundum numerum quantitas sequitur. Quanto igitur amplius naturae differunt, tanto magis efficiunt numerum, et tanto evidentius quaternio inducitur. Omnis igitur necessitas est: aut humanitalis naturam dualitatem minime facere, cum copulatur Dei Verbi naturæ; aut quaternionem perficere, connumeratam Trinitatis naturis.","english":"But we shall not add, if it is so, a nature which is also a person to a nature which is not also a person; nor for this reason do we say two, but we shall fit together one nature which is also a person, and the other which is not also a person but only a nature: that is, we declare the divine nature, which is itself also a person; but the human nature, which is only a nature and not also a person, and thus we produce a duality of natures.\n\nHeretic: Therefore, as you say, much more, according to you, there will be four natures of the Trinity, or rather, as he says, of a quaternity, if [the number is taken] from that which they are natures of; for you said four; for it produces a difference of natures much more; for not only is the nature of the Word and of the man one and another, but also the definition of the nature is different, nor is it the same according to species: as if someone should say, either there will be one genus, one thing. Wherefore that which differs in every way is much more distant for producing a fourth, if nevertheless, according to you, quantity according to number also follows difference. Therefore by how much more the natures differ, by so much the more do they produce number, and by so much the more evidently is a quaternity introduced. There is therefore every necessity: either that the nature of humanity make no duality at all, when it is joined to the nature of God the Word; or that it complete a quaternity, counted together with the natures of the Trinity.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":151,"ref":"p151","source":"Rust. Sed illud intende quia, quantælibet sint naturæ, Trinitas manet: a personis enim tribus, et non a naturis nominatur.\n\nHæret. Nec a naturis solum, nec a personis solum, sed magis a numero sic vocata est.\n\nRust. Sed numerus nihrl est cui res nulla subjacet.\n\nHæret. Sed subjacet etiam res, naturæ cnim quatuor sunt, et a numero naturarum vocari debet ve stra quaternitas. Quanqunm et si res communis quatuor naturis nulla subjacet, ipsum nomen mihi naturæ sufficiet: nam connumerantur æquivoca, licet aliud sit æquivoca aut unius nominis connumerari aliud ipsas res, ut canis marinus atque terrenus, non ut duo ines, sed ut duo connumerantur æquivoca.\n\nRust. Concedentes dicimus omnia. Sit ergo, ut tu dicis, et a naturarum et a personarum pariter numero Trinitas sic vocanda. Sicut igitur Trinitas minime dicitur, nisi tres personæ exdemque nature subsistant, ita non dicitur quaternio unquam, nisi quatior exstiterint non tantum naturæ, sed etiam personaT. Nos vero, etsi quatuor, ut dicis, naturas, non quatuor tamen personas, sed tres asserimus solum: non igitur quaternitatis culturam inducimus.","english":"Rusticus: But attend to this, that however many natures there are, the Trinity remains; for it is named from three persons, and not from natures.\n\nHeretic: It is called so not from natures alone, nor from persons alone, but rather from number.\n\nRusticus: But number is nothing when no thing underlies it.\n\nHeretic: But a thing does underlie it too, for there are four natures, and your quaternity ought to be named from the number of natures. Although no common thing underlies the four natures, the name of nature itself will suffice for me; for equivocals are counted together, even though it is one thing for equivocals or things of one name to be counted together, and another for the things themselves—as the sea dog and the land dog are counted not as two dogs, but as two equivocals.\n\nRusticus: Conceding, we say all things. Let it be, then, as you say, that the Trinity is to be so called equally from the number of natures and of persons. Just as, therefore, the Trinity is in no way spoken of unless three persons of the same nature subsist, so a quaternity is never spoken of unless four have existed, not only natures but also persons. But we assert, even if there are four natures, as you say, yet not four persons, but only three; therefore we do not introduce the worship of a quaternity.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":152,"ref":"p152","source":"Hæret. Magis vero et vobis ipsis adversantes Trinitatem quaternitatemque pariter colitis. Trinitatem quidem personarum, quaternitatem vero naturarum. Sicut enim si solae tres personæ essent, ut solæ tres naturæ, nihilominus Trinitas esset; et si quatuor aut personx aut naturae, quaternitas: sic, e si Trinitas quidem personarum, naturarum vero quaternitas, Trinitas simul est atque quaternitas.\n\nRust. Sed nos etsi confiteamur, quod absit, tres ex sempi erno esse naturas, non tamen secundum quod naturæ sunt, sed secundum quod persona, adoramus et colimus.\n\nflaret. Si tres naturae sunt Trinitatis, et altera carnis, quatuor fiunt; quod si et non colas quarterniatem, sit tamen secundum tuam confessionem quaternitas, prodesse tibi nihil poterit. Imo, et quod vis elige: aut quaternitas est, et male facis in divinis rebus non colere atque adorare quod et est et esse confileris; aut non est, et impie agis, confitens et asserens esse quod non est. Deinde s: duas naturas sic esse asseris, ut qui communem Trinitatis connumeras propriæ carnis, aut ut hanc illi, igitur dualitatem coles.","english":"Heretic: Indeed, you even contradict yourselves, and you worship both a Trinity and a quaternity alike: a Trinity of persons, but a quaternity of natures. For just as, if there were only three persons, as there are only three natures, it would nonetheless be a Trinity; and if there were four, whether persons or natures, it would be a quaternity: so, if there is a Trinity of persons but a quaternity of natures, it is at once a Trinity and a quaternity.\n\nRusticus: But even if we were to confess—which God forbid—that there are three natures from eternity, we do not worship and venerate them according as they are natures, but according as they are persons.\n\nHeretic: If there are three natures of the Trinity, and another of the flesh, they become four; but if you do not worship the quaternity, yet according to your confession there is a quaternity, it will be able to profit you nothing. Nay, choose what you will: either it is a quaternity, and you do wrong in divine matters not to worship and adore what both is and which you confess to be; or it is not, and you act impiously, confessing and asserting to be what is not. Then you assert that there are two natures in such a way that, since you count the common nature of the Trinity together with the proper nature of the flesh, either you will worship this duality as that one, or likewise that one.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":153,"ref":"p153","source":"Rust. Quoniam id quidem qnod assumptum est, proprium per dispensationem factum sit assumentis, manifestum est, non tamen commune trium. Quod etsi quartum sit aliquid, neque tamen consempiternum, nec absque initio, nec increatum, neque per se, et ex sua substantia est; sed per unitionem est id quod esse glorificatur: illa vero tria, et coæterna, ct consubstantialia, et absque inchoatione, increata sunt ob hoc, etiamsi ad existendum quartum quis, aliquid esse id quod humanum est, dicat, non tamen quartum similiter erit neque ad adorandum. neque ad colendum, neque ad glorificandum. Aliud est enim quod, tanquam alterum quiddam (quippe quod creata est), his quae increata sunt secundum quantitatem facit additamentum, eo quod non hoc idem, sed alterum quiddam sit; et aliud, tanquam consubstanti le et consempiternum coadorari quid illud et glorificari et pariter coli. Insuper nec adoratio et cultura veluti sub numero offertur: nec enim tres culturæ aut tres adorationes sunt Trinitatis; quare neque quatuor, neque dux, vel si, ut dixi, unius aut etiam trium, proprium sit aliquid alterum. Nec enim tabernaculum in eremo, nec arca, nec templum, nec altaria, Deo ab antiquis coadorabantur et concolebantur; et neque una est Dei et horum. facta natura.","english":"Rusticus: Since indeed what was assumed became, by the dispensation, the property of the one who assumed it, it is manifest, yet not common to the three. And even if it is something fourth, it is nevertheless neither coeternal, nor without beginning, nor uncreated, nor is it through itself and from its own substance; but through union it is that which is glorified to be. But those three are coeternal, consubstantial, and without beginning, and are uncreated for this reason, even if someone says that the fourth, insofar as it exists, is something human, it will nevertheless not be a fourth in like manner, neither for adoring, nor for worshiping, nor for glorifying. For one thing is that which, as something other (since indeed it is created), makes an addition according to quantity to those things which are uncreated, because it is not this same thing, but something other; and another thing is that which, as consubstantial and coeternal, is adored together and glorified and equally worshiped. Moreover, adoration and worship are not offered as it were under number: for there are not three worships or three adorations of the Trinity; wherefore neither four, nor two, even if, as I said, something other is the property of one or even of the three. For neither the tabernacle in the desert, nor the ark, nor the temple, nor the altars were adored together with God and worshiped together by the ancients; and the nature of God and of these things is not one.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":154,"ref":"p154","source":"Nec 9djecit numerum adorabili et colendæ Trinitati, eo quod Trinitas quidem coadoretur, hæ vero creaturæ non coadorentur Trinitati, sed per eas Trinitas adoretur. Quid enim? die mihi: nonne scriptum est: Et adorate scabellum pedum ejus (Psal. XCVIII, 5)? Hoc vero est terra: adoratur enim corpus quod de terra est, non ut per semetipsum aut propter semetipsum adoretur ut Deus, sed ut per corpus ct per carnem sive humanitatem, Deus, Verbo qui inhumanatus est, coadoretur. Certe ebim et per fimbriam vestimentorum operatus est in illa quæ sanguine fluebat: et nullus tamen dicit unam naturam esse vestimentorum et Verbi; et actu salvavit multos; et vocem mittens a propriotore, quatriduanum suscitavit Lazarum. Per quod igi;ur operatur, dum per hoc ct in ipso adoratur et colitur, complacet colentibus se. Nec non et clavos quibus confixus esi, et lignum venerabilis crucis, omnis per totum mundum Ecclesia absque ulla contradictione adorat; et non solum quæ duæ naturae sunt Deus et crux, sed et illud sanctum ferrum, praeter illud venerabile lignum, alia est natura, et altera rursus ipsa Domini caro.","english":"Nor did he diminish the number of the adorable and worshipful Trinity, in that the Trinity is indeed co-worshipped, but these creatures are not co-worshipped with the Trinity, but through them the Trinity is worshipped. For what then? Tell me: is it not written, \"And worship the footstool of his feet\" (Psalm 98:5)? But this is earth; for the body which is of earth is worshipped, not so that it is worshipped as God through itself or for its own sake, but so that through the body and through the flesh, that is, the humanity, God the Word who was made incarnate is co-worshipped. For certainly he also worked through the fringe of his garments in her who was flowing with blood; and yet no one says that the garments and the Word are one nature; and by that touch he saved many; and sending his voice from his own temple, he raised Lazarus, four days dead. Therefore, through that by which he works, while through it and in it he is worshipped and honored, he is well-pleasing to those who worship him. And moreover the nails with which he was fastened, and the wood of the venerable cross, the whole Church throughout the world worships without any contradiction; and not only are God and the cross two natures, but even that holy iron, besides that venerable wood, is one nature, and again the flesh of the Lord itself is another.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":155,"ref":"p155","source":"Et si, ut dicis, tres naturæ sunt Trinitatis, hæ vero proprium numerum habent, et omnia hæc adoramus universi; et nullus unquam Cliri Hunorum dixit quia quaternionem colimus aut quinionem vel senionem: quae enim segregantur et propria Deo fiunt, per quae et colitur et adoratur, illa jam velut organa et coadjuvantia infirmitatem nostram sunt ad propinquandum Deo: et ad id ut sint quidem, quantitatis non amittunt proprietat In; ad colendum vero ei adorandum et venerandum, non jam connumerantur qux creata sant creatori: alterum namque est, per hoc coli illud, ct alterum secundum naturam et sempiterne et maxime proprie colendum aliquid illud esse.\n\nHæret. Ergone, non modis omnibus quidquid confitendum est, illud et adorandum, vel colondum sive venerandum in sancta Trinitate?\n\nRust. Dixi jam, quoniam non per omnia et modis omnibus similiter. Verum et illud adjiciam, quia nec dualitatem naturarum in Trinitate confitemur aut colimus: una enim carnis natura, non totius est Trinitatis, sed unius personas Dei Verbi. In Trinitate vero illa connumerantur quæ vel similiter vel æqualiter trium sunt personarum. Quod si nos dualitatem, et vos ergo compositam colitis Trinitatem; aut compositam simul ac simplicem: nam simplices dicitis Patris et Spiritus sancti naturas sive personas, Christi vero compositam. Amplius, unus Deus in Trinitate et unus colitur Christus.","english":"And if, as you say, there are three natures of the Trinity, and these have their own number, and we all worship all these things; and no Cliri of the Huns ever said that we worship a quaternity or a quinary or a senary: for those things which are set apart and become God's own, through which he is both worshipped and adored, are already, as it were, instruments and aids to our weakness for drawing near to God: and as for their being at all, they do not lose the property of quantity; but as for worshipping and adoring and venerating him, things created are no longer counted together with the Creator: for it is one thing for that to be worshipped through this, and another thing for that to be something to be worshipped according to nature, both eternally and most properly.\n\nHe hesitates. Is it not then, in all ways, whatever must be confessed, that same thing also to be adored, or worshipped, or venerated in the holy Trinity?\n\nRusticus. I have already said that it is not in all respects and in all ways alike. But I will add this also, that we neither confess nor worship a duality of natures in the Trinity: for the one nature of the flesh is not of the whole Trinity, but of one person, that of God the Word. But in the Trinity those things are counted together which are either similarly or equally of the three persons. But if we [confess] a duality, then you also worship a composite Trinity; or a composite and at the same time simple one: for you say that the natures or persons of the Father and the Holy Spirit are simple, but that of Christ is composite. Furthermore, one God in the Trinity and one Christ is worshipped.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":156,"ref":"p156","source":"Tres personae unus Deus est; duae naturae unius Christi sunt; quatuor autcin naturæ, dum nec Deus sint nec Chrislus, unde poterunt colidum vel in tribus vel in duabus nil nisi aut unum aut unus colatur? Ut autem non sermones amplius prolongentur, demonstramus unam solam et non tres sanctæ Trinitatis esse naturas, sed tres tantum personas sive subsistentias. Si enim et tres naturae et una, idem vero est natura atque persona, et una erit, quod absit, Trinitatis persona! Si vero natura quidem et una et tres, persona vero non una, sed tantummodo tres; nec secundum naturam sive substantiam, nec secundum personam sive subsistentiam unus erit Deus. Secundum quid ergo Trinitas ninus est Deus?\n\nliceret. Nos sic tres substantias et naturas dicimus Trinitatis, ut tamen carum consubstantialitas salva sit: et una igitur et tres substantiae atque natura sun, ct unus Deus non secundum tres, sed secundum unam substantiam et naturam glorificatur.","english":"Three persons are one God; the two natures are of the one Christ; but four natures, since they are neither God nor Christ, how can they be worshiped, when in three or in two nothing else is worshiped but either one or one? But so that we may not prolong our words further, we show that there is one only, and not three, nature of the holy Trinity, but only three persons or subsistences. For if there are both three natures and one, and nature and person are the same thing, then there will be, God forbid, one person of the Trinity! But if nature is both one and three, while person is not one but only three, then neither according to nature or substance nor according to person or subsistence will God be one. According to what, then, is the Trinity one God?\n\nIt would be permitted. We so speak of three substances and natures of the Trinity that nevertheless their consubstantiality is preserved; and therefore both one and three are the substances and natures, and one God is glorified not according to three, but according to one substance and nature.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":157,"ref":"p157","source":"Rust. Ergo, secundum te, et unus Deus et tres Dei. Si enim propter substantiam naturamque unam unus est, propter tres suh tantias sive naturas, tres, secundum te, dii sunt. Sed et multo amplius tres erunt, quam unus Deus, et proprie quidem, quod absit. tres erunt dii; improprie autem Trinitas unus Deus, circa errorem paganorum: unum enim Deum esse ob hoc scripserunt cuncti Patres atque doctores, quia una est ejus ac sola substantia sive natura. Si igitur una quidem Trinitatis substantia est, et natura tantum; tres autem non tantum personæ sed et naturae atque substantiae: multo magis, tribus existentibus universis, et nullo indiviso, tres erunt et dii.\n\nHæret. In tantum tres naturae sunt Trinitatis, ut ostendamus quod unaquaeque persona propriam habeat ex sempilerno naturam, quæ alteri minime sit communis: hoc vero manifeste probabitur, si id vel de una ex eis persona fuerit demonstratum. Si enim tres æquales et per omnia similes sunt, quidquid habet una persona, habebit et altera. Si igitur ostenderimus unumquemlibet ex eis habere sic propriam naturam, ut alteri nulli communis sit, pariter estis etiam de reliquis absque ulla contradictione convicti. Esse vero propriam Dei Verbi naturam Patres affirmant, dicentes: Confitemur unam naturam Dei Verbi incarnatam.","english":"Rusticus: Therefore, according to you, there is both one God and three Gods. For if on account of one substance and nature there is one, then on account of three substances or natures there are, according to you, three Gods. But indeed there will be far more three than one God, and properly speaking—which God forbid—there will be three Gods; improperly, however, the Trinity is one God, bordering on the error of the pagans. For all the Fathers and teachers wrote that God is one for this reason, that His substance or nature is one and only. If, then, the substance of the Trinity is one, and its nature only one, but there are three not only persons but also natures and substances, then all the more, since all three exist and none is undivided, there will be three Gods as well.\n\nHaeretic: The Trinity has three natures to such a degree that we show that each person has its own nature from eternity, which is in no way common to another. But this will be clearly proved if it is demonstrated concerning even one person among them. For if the three are equal and in all respects alike, whatever one person has, the other will have as well. If, therefore, we show that each one of them has its own nature in such a way that it is common to no other, you are likewise convicted concerning the rest without any contradiction. But that the nature of God the Word is proper, the Fathers affirm, saying: We confess that one nature of God the Word has been incarnate.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":158,"ref":"p158","source":"Si igitur banc unam illam communem magis esse credamus, incarnata ista, quæ totius Trinitatis communis est, necessarie inducetur Trinitas incarnata: quia vero id impium est, quippe sanctis Scripturis et Patrum doctrinæ contrarium, manifestum est, quia una natura quæ inhumanata est, solius est Filii. Prædictum vero sermonem Patrum, nec vos poteritis abnuere. Flavianus enim, qui quondam fuit Constantinopolitanus episcopus, et quem suscipitis a, ita scripsit in illo libello proprias fidei quem imperatori Theodosio destinavit, qui et in Chalcedonensi synodo susceptus est.\n\nRust. Nequaquam necesse est ut ii qui confitentur unam naturam Dei Verbi incarnatam, si hoc de communi sanctæ Trinitatis natura dicatur, inhumanationeiii sanctæ Trinitatis inducant: maxime quando pcr explanationeom sermonis signantissimum Dei Verbi nomen adjiciunt. Sicut enim quando dicunt Patres Deum Verbum incarnatum ct inhumanatum, etsi commune nomen Dei tribus a personis indifferenter prædicatur, non tamen ob hoc eos consequitur quod incarnaLa sit Trinitas, licet Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus unus sit Deus: et ob hoc, qui incarnatus est, dicatur et Deus, et unus Deus, et solus Deus, et Deus Verbum. Sicut igitur Deum esse vel unum Deum esse licet unitioscujusque personæ commune sit, non tamen quando Deum confitemur incarnatum, seu virginem Deipartricem.","english":"If, therefore, we believe that this one nature is rather that common one, then that incarnate nature which is common to the whole Trinity will necessarily introduce an incarnate Trinity; but since that is impious, as being contrary to the holy Scriptures and the teaching of the Fathers, it is manifest that the one nature that was made man belongs to the Son alone. But you will not be able to deny the aforesaid statement of the Fathers. For Flavianus, who was once bishop of Constantinople, and whom you receive, wrote thus in that little book of his own faith which he sent to the emperor Theodosius, and which was also received at the synod of Chalcedon.\n\nRusticus: It is by no means necessary that those who confess one incarnate nature of God the Word, if this is said of the common nature of the holy Trinity, should introduce an incarnation of the holy Trinity; especially since by the explanation of their statement they add the most distinctive name of God the Word. For just as, when the Fathers say that God the Word was incarnate and made man, although the common name of God is predicated indifferently of the three persons, yet it does not follow from this that the Trinity was incarnate, even though the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God; and for this reason he who was incarnate is called both God and one God and alone God and God the Word. Just as, therefore, to be God, or to be one God, although it is common to each person, yet when we confess God incarnate, or the Virgin Mother of God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":159,"ref":"p159","source":"consequitur nos quod absit, inhumanatam dicere Trinitatem, sed unam ex illis personis, id est ex illa Trinitate quæ Deus cst. Sic quando unam naturam Dei Verbi dicimus incarnatam; non nos consequitur ipsam cum propria natura incarnatam dicere Trinitatem, sed magis unam illarum personarum qu in illa natura sunt confitendæ. Et. sicut ne videamur, dum Deum dicimus incarnatum, Ti inilatem dicere incarnatam, non pro qualibet cautela tres dicimus Deos: sic neque ob hoc ne forte videa.ur unam naturam Dei Verbi incarnatam dicentes, Trinitatem dicere incarnatam, uon dicimus pro quacunque cautela tres in Trinitate esse naturas. Si enim Deus dicitur incarnatus, et rursus minime incarnatus, quando hoc quidem de Filio dicitur, illud vero de Patre et Spiritu sancto, et non in duos Deos unus Deus vel separatur vel dividitur sive discernitur: quid consequetur incongruum, si de eodem Deo, id est de una eademque natura, dicamus, quia et incarnata est in Filio, et non est incarnata in Patre et S. iritu sancto? Nam vos quoque, in eo quod dicitis quamlibet naturam sive substantiam case communem, non potenitis hanc consequentiam refutare: illam namque substantiam, nec incarnatam denegare in Filio poteritis, nec affirmare quod in Patre ct Spiritu sancto inhumanata sit. Erit igi ur una eadem simplexque natura, et incarnata, ut Filii; et non incarnata, ut Patris et Spiritus sancti.","english":"It follows that—God forbid—we would be saying that the Trinity is unincarnate, but rather one of those persons, that is, one from that Trinity which is God. So when we say that the one nature of God the Word is incarnate, it does not follow that we are saying the Trinity itself is incarnate with its own nature, but rather one of those persons who must be confessed to be in that nature. And just as, when we say that God is incarnate, we do not, to avoid appearing to say that the Trinity is incarnate, call the three \"Gods\" for the sake of any precaution: so neither, lest we should perhaps appear to be saying that the Trinity is incarnate when we say that the one nature of God the Word is incarnate, do we say for any precaution that there are three natures in the Trinity. For if God is said to be incarnate, and again not incarnate—when the one is said of the Son, but the other of the Father and the Holy Spirit—and the one God is not separated or divided or distinguished into two Gods, what incongruity will follow if we say of the same God, that is, of one and the same nature, that it is both incarnate in the Son and not incarnate in the Father and the Holy Spirit? For you too, in saying that any nature or substance is common, cannot refute this consequence: for you will neither be able to deny that that substance is incarnate in the Son, nor to affirm that it is unincarnate in the Father and the Holy Spirit. There will therefore be one and the same simple nature, both incarnate, as of the Son, and not incarnate, as of the Father and the Holy Spirit.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":160,"ref":"p160","source":"Quare non necesse est ob hoc propriam Filii esse naturani, quia una Dei Verbi natura dicitur incarnata; quippe cui, etsi esset aliqua non communis, hoc idem tamen de illa natura communi rectissime diceretur. Non igitur obhoc demonstratum est propriam esse solius Filii naturam; nec igitur cujuslibet et alterius cx Trinitale personæ. Insuper, vos potius quat rnitatem inducere demonstramus, qui eain quae dicitur Ephesina secunda synodus, non potestis abnuere, quia Dioscorum condemnare non vultis.\n\nIlle enim cum tota illa nefaria synodo approbavit Eutychis haeretici vocem illic inter monumenta deponentis: « Quia confiteor duas naturas fuisse ante unitionem, post unitionem vero unam naturam confiteor. » Si igitur ante inhumanationem duæ natune fuerunt, id est, una Patris, altera Spiritus sancti (nec enim poteruntaliter trium tres esse naturæ), duæ vero tunc ei Christi naturæ ante unitionem; quatuor igitur naturas circa vestras rationes, etsi non esse nunc usque, tamen ante unitionem fuisse inducitis; et ex quaternitate præexistente sanctam Trinitatem postea factam inducitis. Insuper has præexistentes, ut dicis, unitioni naturas, siquidem permanere nunc usque dicitis, quaternitatem, sicut inquitis nobis, vos magis veraciter impie colitis: quia quod consequitur ex his quæ dicuntur a vobis, vos i; si non poteritis abuuere.","english":"Therefore it is not necessary on this account that the nature be proper to the Son, because the one nature of God the Word is said to be incarnate; since, even if there were some nature not common to him, this same thing would still be most correctly said of that common nature. Therefore it has not been demonstrated on this account that the nature is proper to the Son alone; nor, consequently, to any other person of the Trinity either. Moreover, we demonstrate that you rather introduce a quaternity, since you cannot deny the second synod said to be of Ephesus, because you are unwilling to condemn Dioscorus.\n\nFor he, together with that whole abominable synod, approved the voice of the heretic Eutyches, deposing it there among the records: \"Because I confess that there were two natures before the union, but after the union I confess one nature.\" If therefore before the incarnation there were two natures, that is, one of the Father, the other of the Holy Spirit (for otherwise there could not be three natures of the three), and there were then two natures of Christ before the union, therefore you introduce four natures according to your reasonings—even if not up to now, yet as having existed before the union; and you introduce the holy Trinity as having afterward been made from a pre-existing quaternity. Moreover, these natures pre-existing, as you say, before the union—if indeed you say they remain up to now—then you more truly and impiously worship a quaternity, as you say to us; because what follows from these things which are said by you, you yourselves, if you cannot deny it, [maintain].","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":161,"ref":"p161","source":"Si vero non sunt usque bactenu dux determinatæ, aliquando vestra quaternitas esse desierit: el nos quidem demonstravimus, quia netne tres naturae sint Trinitatis, neque, si essent, nos quaternitatis credulitas sequeretur. Vos vero qui hoc tanquam consequens ponitis, vincemini ex vestra vesania: quae si vobis displicet, ante omnia ergo anath matizate Dioscorum.\n\nHæret. Nos interim non de causis singularum colloquimar personarum, sed de fide universaliter disceplamus. Hoc vero negotium illi servabimus tempori quando de Diodoro, et Tbeodoro, et Iba, et Theodoreto disputabimus, causas personarum quæstioni de fide miscentes. Igitur, etsi tres dicimus, pro personarum distinctione, naturas in sacrosancta Triuitate; unam tamen communem substantiam confitemur, secundum quam consubstantialem dicimus Trinitatem v et nec audire quaternitatem contenti su aus.","english":"If, however, they have not been determined up to this point, at some time your quaternity will cease to be. And we indeed have demonstrated that neither are there three natures of the Trinity, nor, if there were, would the belief in a quaternity follow for us. But you who posit this as a consequence will be conquered by your own madness; and if this displeases you, then before all things anathematize Dioscorus.\n\nHe clings [to this]. Meanwhile let us not speak of the causes of individual persons, but let us learn concerning the faith universally. But we will reserve this business for that time when we shall dispute concerning Diodorus, and Theodore, and Ibas, and Theodoret, mixing the causes of persons into the question of faith. Therefore, even if we say that there are three natures in the sacrosanct Trinity for the distinction of persons, nevertheless we confess one common substance, according to which we say the Trinity is consubstantial, and we are content not even to hear of a quaternity.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":162,"ref":"p162","source":"Rust. Sed ista communis substantia indiscrete etiam natura Patribus appellatur, quæ sol Ibus personis communis est, et alia illic præter hanc nou est tanquam propria unicuique personæ. Vel si creaturarum naturis comparata tantummodo, hæc ipsa propria dicitur uniuscujusque personæ, ut quando dicimus, sicut et sancti Patres, quia Deus Verbum Filius Dei, non impropriam pertulit naturam. Insuper, si idem esi natura atque subsistentia b, quatuor naturas et substantias introfertis. Si vero alterum, ut re et nomine apparet; quanto differt, tanto magis connumerata numero personarum, redundat in quatuor; nisi forte nostri, rationibus te dedas, quia tum posset esse quaternitas, si haec carnis natura non tantum substantia, sed esset quoque persona. Nun autem quæ mentis inspectione diversa est, eo quod non sit etiam persona, non connumeratur Trinitati illi quam similis determinat ratio; quia illic personz tres sunt, hæc vero non persona est, sed natura tantummodo sive substantia.","english":"Rusticus: But that common substance is also called, without distinction, the nature of the Fathers, which is common to the three persons, and there is no other there besides this one, as though it were proper to each person. Or if, compared only with the natures of created things, this very thing is said to be proper to each person—as when we say, just as the holy Fathers also do, that God the Word, the Son of God, did not endure a nature that was not his own. Moreover, if nature and subsistence are the same, you introduce four natures and substances. But if they are different, as is evident in reality and in name, then by however much they differ, by so much the more, when counted together with the number of persons, it overflows into four—unless perhaps you would surrender to our arguments, since then there could be a quaternity if this nature of the flesh were not only a substance but also a person. But what is distinct by the inspection of the mind, in that it is not also a person, is not counted together with that Trinity to which a similar reckoning assigns it; because there there are three persons, but this is not a person, but only a nature or substance.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":163,"ref":"p163","source":"Hæret. Sed hæc natura Trinitatis, in tribus illis naturis cst; et idcirco, etiamsi altera est præter illas, per singulas tamen omnibus illis connumerari non potest; quia in illis exis ens, et in semetipsa ea habens, nihil est præter illas: Trinitas namque unitas, et unitas Trinitas.\n\nRust. Quomodo ergo ante unitionem, duas dicitis Filii Dei naturas, si propriae illi connumeratur ista communis? Quam enim omnino Dominus habuit atteram naturam ante inhumanationem, nisi eam quæ ante sæcula est, essentiam suam?\n\nHceret. De divinitale Christi et carne hoc dicimus: dico autem duas ante unitionem, non tanquam commutem hominum naturam conjungens Deo: nam si hoc esset, quomodo non etiam nunc duæ fuissent, dum ccrte nihilominus hominum quisque homo sit solum, excepto illo tantummodo qui inhumanatus est? nec quasi prius una fuerit caro et postea unita sit Verbo: hæc enim qui dicit hæreticus est. Sed quia intellectu præcognoscentes duas naturas, deinde admoventes unitionem, unam continuo effici dicimus: ergo id quod dicimUs ante unitionem vel post unitionem, non distinctionem temporis, sed speculationis significat ordinem, eo quod pariter horum nequeamus deprehendere intellectum, sed præspeculemur compositioni simplicia.","english":"Heerr. But this nature of the Trinity is in those three natures; and therefore, even if one is besides those, it cannot be counted together with all of them through each individually; because existing in them and having them in itself, it is nothing besides them: for the Trinity is a unity, and the unity a Trinity.\n\nRusticus: How then, before the union, do you say there are two natures of the Son of God, if this common one is counted as proper to him? For what other nature did the Lord altogether have before the incarnation, except his own essence which is before the ages?\n\nHeerr. It is of the divinity of Christ and the flesh that we say this: I say two before the union, not as though joining a nature common to men to God; for if this were so, how would there not also now be two, since certainly nonetheless each man is only a man, except for that one alone who was incarnated? Nor as though the flesh was first one thing and afterwards was united to the Word: for he who says this is a heretic. But because, foreknowing two natures by understanding, and then applying the union, we say that one is immediately made, therefore what we say before the union or after the union signifies not a distinction of time, but an order of contemplation, in that we cannot grasp the understanding of these things equally, but we fore-contemplate the simple elements in relation to the composition.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":164,"ref":"p164","source":"Est namque impossibile ut alter rerum naturæ sit ordo, et alter speculationis quæ est circa intellectum: sicut in oratione, cum litteræ natura priores sint, multo tamen sunt adinventæ posteritis.\n\nRust. Speculatio hæc secundum quam dicis duas naturas inte ligi, si quidem nunc usque verax est, ut existentibus rebus incumbens: sunt igitur duæ naturæ veraciter, quas veraci intellectu conspicimus; si autem semper falsa, nec ante unitionem duas naturas confiteri debetis. Si vero ante unitionem quidem quondam vera, nunc autem de cætero falsa; erat igitur Domini caro, quod absit, ante unitionem: quæ si animata anima rationali fu sse credatur, præexstitit igitur secundum vos prius purus homo, et post hæc unitus est Verbo. Ex duabus ergo personis, et ex duobus Christis, ex duobus filiis, ex duobus Dominis, unum Christum blasphematis existere. Haec vero modis omnibus abdicanda sunt: ex præexistenlibus enim per sese personis unione secundum subsistentiam fieri nequit. Si vero et post inhumanationem aliquando duæ naturæ substilerunt, quam ergo aliarn dicitis unitionem, qua facta jam duæ non sint? Sed et omnia quae dicitis contra nos qui nunc usque duas dicimus esse naturas, convertite contra vosmetipsos; usque tunc enim easdem naturas dicitis exstitisse, quas uos in perpetuum dicimus permanere.","english":"For it is impossible that the order of things in nature be one thing and the order of contemplation which is concerned with the intellect be another, just as in speech, although the nature of letters is prior, they were nevertheless invented much later.\n\nRusticus: This contemplation according to which you say that two natures are understood—if indeed it is now up to the present true, as resting upon things that exist—then there are truly two natures, which we behold with a true intellect. But if it is always false, then you ought not to confess two natures even before the union. If, however, it was once true before the union, but is now and henceforth false, then the Lord's flesh existed before the union—which be far from us. And if it is believed that this flesh was animated by a rational soul, then according to you a mere man existed beforehand, and afterward was united to the Word. Therefore you blasphemously claim that one Christ comes to be out of two persons, and out of two Christs, out of two sons, out of two lords. But these things must be rejected in every way; for from persons that pre-exist by themselves, a union according to subsistence cannot come about. But if even after the incarnation two natures at some time subsisted, what other union do you speak of, by which, once it has been made, they are no longer two? But also all the things you say against us, who even now say that there are two natures, turn back against yourselves; for you say that those same natures existed up to that point, which we say remain forever.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":165,"ref":"p165","source":"Hæret. Autumo quod quidam nostrorum melius dicant: quoniam non individua illa humanitas Christi unitioni præexstitit, sed communis humana natura ex qua illa est care.\n\nRust. Sed ad alia inconscquentia vos ducit hic sermo. Nec enim vel post unitionem communis nostra natura unum quid per unitionem facta cum Deo est, sed illa individua quæ assumpta est: non enim Patres h: de i.Ia, sed de hac dicunt; nec possibile est communem naturam efficere nunquam personam per semetipsam. Insuper nec in semetipsa illa subsistit, sed intellectu rationalium tantummodo, qui fit ex individnis ejus a quo et esse accipit, sicut et ca quae omnium genera vel species esse dicuntur apud sæculi sapientes: si enim ct esset alii. ma, et tamen non esset rationalis, non erat communis creaturarum natura, sjve quod dicitur genus atque species. Nihilominus autem qui d'cit ante unitionem quidem duas, post unitionem vero jam minime, sed potius unam indifferenter omnino ex ipsis rebus quae duæ fuerunt, unum quiddam perfici vult; alioquin id quod dicitur jam minime non habet locum. Nunc autem communem naturam cunctis hominibus, non dicitis unam factam cum Verbi natura, ne forte omnes homines in communi nalura videantur iidem Christo esse, aut sit, quw abs t, tota Trinitas incarnata.","english":"He is stuck. I maintain that some of our people put it better: that that individual humanity of Christ did not pre-exist the union, but the common human nature from which that individual is.\n\nRusticus: But this discourse leads you to other inconsistencies. For neither after the union has our common nature become one thing through union with God, but that individual nature which was assumed; for the Fathers say this of the latter, not of the former; nor is it possible for the common nature to make a person ever by itself. Moreover, it does not subsist in itself, but only in the understanding of rational beings, which comes about from its individuals, from which it also receives its being, just as also those things which are said to be the genera or species of all things among the wise of this world; for if it were also something else, and yet were not rational, it would not be the common nature of creatures, or what is called genus and species. Nevertheless, he who says that before the union there were two, but after the union no longer two, but rather one indiscriminately altogether from the very things which were two, wants one something to be completed; otherwise what is said no longer has a place. But now you do not say that the common nature of all men has become one with the nature of the Word, lest perhaps all men in the common nature seem to be the same as Christ, or the whole Trinity be incarnate, which is absurd.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":166,"ref":"p166","source":"Sed unum quid individuum, id est una et sola caro, ct una et sola:mima, in unam personam Deo Verbo unita est, et in unam solamque subsistentiam.\n\nHæret. Sed prius intelligendæ sunt duae naturae, et post hæc continuo unitio amovenda est; et ideo non dicendum est Christum in duabus, sed ex duabus esse naturis.\n\nRust. Ergo, secundum te, unitio unitarum naturarum duarum peremptio est.\n\nHæret. Non naturarum, sed dualitatis peremptio est unitio; ita ut duæ jam non sint duae, sed unum quiddam secuudum unitionem.\n\nRust. Si, ut inquis, dualitas interempta est, erat ergo ante interemptionem et ante unitionem: super quod si easdem complexiones de dualitate quam de ipsis duabus naturis voluero facere, supradicta denuo consequentur incongrua: nihil namque interimitur, nisi quod prius fuit. Quare si interempta est erat ergo dualitas, et omnia illa quae praediximus incongrua ad medium veniunt.","english":"But one individual thing, that is, one and only flesh, and one and only soul, has been united to God the Word in one person, and in one only subsistence.\n\nHe is stuck. But first the two natures must be understood, and after this the union must be removed; and therefore it must not be said that Christ is in two natures, but from two natures.\n\nRusticus: Therefore, according to you, the union is the destruction of the two united natures.\n\nHe is stuck. It is not the destruction of the natures, but of the duality; so that the two are now not two, but one single thing according to the union.\n\nRusticus: If, as you say, the duality has been destroyed, then it existed before its destruction and before the union: on which, if I wish to make the same arguments about the duality as about the two natures themselves, the incongruities mentioned above will follow again: for nothing is destroyed except what previously existed. Therefore, if it has been destroyed, then the duality existed, and all those incongruities which we mentioned before come back into play.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":167,"ref":"p167","source":"Hæret. Ante dualitati præclusit unitio, ut nec posset esse haec ipsa: et de hoc dico, interemit potestate, non actu; nondum enim erat perfecte dualitas.\n\nRust. Ergo non existentem, sed adhuc futuram peremit. Die igitur quid cujusque naturæ imperfectum fecerit ut minime dualistas esset. Ego enim nec immunitionem a divinae naturae vos suspicor dicere, et humanæ inæstimabilem ineffabilemque profectum: quo ergo modo est imminuta dualitas, dum sit additum rei? quomodo substantiarum quantitas est præclusa, dum nullus substantiarum defectus evenerit? Si vero et, ut ais, connumerantur aequivoca, quomodo duae Filii potestate naturae, duabus actu Patris videlicet ac Spiritus sancti connumeratæ, quatuor non erunt? Si vero nunquam non duæ naturæ fuerunt, divinitas et humanitas Christi, quomodo ex duabus naturis dicitur, qui ex istis esse coufessione depromitur?","english":"He is stuck. The union shut out duality beforehand, so that this very duality could not exist; and on this point I say that it destroyed it by power, not in act; for the duality was not yet perfect.\n\nRusticus: Therefore it destroyed not what existed, but what was still to come. Tell me, then, what imperfect thing of each nature made it so that there should be no duality. For I do not suspect you to mean a diminution of the divine nature, nor the inestimable and ineffable progress of the human nature. In what way, then, was the duality diminished, when something was added to the thing? How was the quantity of the substances shut out, when no defect of the substances occurred? But if, as you say, equivocal things are counted together, how will the two natures of the Son by power—that is, counted together with the two in act of the Father and of the Holy Spirit—not be four? But if there were never not two natures, the divinity and the humanity of Christ, how is he said to be from two natures, who is shown by confession to be from these?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":168,"ref":"p168","source":"Iceret. Quid enim, dic mihi, nonne omnia duarum perfectarum personarum Dominus habet? Sicut ergo præclusit unitio ne esset dualitas personarum, sic etiam substantiarum.\n\nRust. Sed nostra natura in Chrislo, non etiam persona est: non enim in semetipsa et secundum seipsam segregatim habet esse suum, sed in Verbo subsibtit; et ideo, nec ex duabus personis sicut ex duabus naturis dicitur, quia Verbum hominis personam sibimetipsi amierit: quia vero humanam naturam sibimetipsi unierit, et qui in Epheso et reliqui sancti Patres docent, et de his omnibus superius sufficienter ostendimus.\n\nHæret. Non negamus duas esse naturas, sed nec unam propter unitionem: hoc enim circa naturam est; illud vero secundum unitionem. Quare dux sunt circa speculationem, non secundum rem.\n\nRust. Si verax est speculatio hæc, duæ natine sunt et circa ipsam rem; si vero dicis non esse veram, ecce negasti duas esse naturas.","english":"Iceret. For tell me, does the Lord not have all things of two perfect persons? Therefore, just as the union shut out duality of persons so that it would not exist, so also it shut out duality of substances.\n\nRusticus: But our nature in Christ is not also a person; for it does not have its being in itself and separately according to itself, but subsists in the Word; and therefore it is not said to be from two persons as it is from two natures, because the Word took the person of the man to itself; but because it united human nature to itself, both the holy Fathers at Ephesus and the rest teach, and we have shown sufficiently above concerning all these things.\n\nHaeretic: We do not deny that there are two natures, but neither do we deny one on account of the union; for this pertains to nature, but that according to the union. Therefore they are two in speculation, not according to the thing itself.\n\nRusticus: If this speculation is true, there are two natures also with respect to the thing itself; but if you say it is not true, behold, you have denied that there are two natures.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":169,"ref":"p169","source":"Hæret. Quid igitur est quod distat iuter impia ferentes et pia, circa id quod duæ nature dicuntur? Nam si (pula, i!!e quilibct homo purus, et Deus Pater) duae naturae sunt, quid differt seu sic, sive sic duas naturas dicere, dum sicut de puro dicimus Deo et de homine nudo, sic vos de Christo loquamini, quia duas naturas dicitis?\n\nRust. Multa sunt quæ imprimis quidem communiter videmur confiteri cum impiis; adjectione vero, determinata jam fiunt, et per se quidem vel si suspecta sunt, nondum tamen et impia, nec econtra rursus, quæ accusari ex toto non queant. Dcit ergo Apollinarius unum Christum, unum Filium, unam ejus personam et substentiam; dicit et Nestorius duas naturas. Et hi quidem sermones, nondum quales ipsi sint produnt, in additamento autem sermonum, cognoscimus qui sint. Nam Apollinarius quidem unum dicit, quasi et convertibilis Deitate sit et imperfectus humanitate; Nestorius vero duas male quidem conjungens: secundum requivocationem namque, secundum auctoritatem, secundum appositionem, secundum habitum; male vero etiam dividens separansque naturas in duas subsistentias et personas, et filios et Dominos.","english":"It sticks. What then is the difference between those who hold impious views and those who hold pious ones, regarding the point that two natures are spoken of? For if (suppose, for instance, that mere man and God the Father) there are two natures, what difference does it make whether one speaks of two natures in this way or that, provided that just as we speak of God as pure and of man as bare, so you speak of Christ, because you say there are two natures?\n\nRusticus: There are many things that at first sight we seem to confess in common with the impious; but by the addition of terms they become determinate, and in themselves, even if they are suspect, they are not yet impious, nor on the other hand are those things that cannot be wholly accused. So Apollinarius says one Christ, one Son, one person and substance of him; Nestorius also says two natures. And these words do not yet reveal of what sort they themselves are; but in the addition of words we recognize what they are. For Apollinarius says one, as though he were both changeable in divinity and imperfect in humanity; but Nestorius, while he joins the two natures badly—according to equivocation, according to authority, according to apposition, according to habit—also divides and separates them badly into two subsistences and persons, and sons and lords.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":170,"ref":"p170","source":"Ergo, quando dicimus duas naturas, si nihil præcedit neque subsequitur quod unitionem significare sufficiat, habebit occasionem vestra suspicio: si vero hoc, et ante quam dicamus duas naturas, et postea dicimus, quia una est duarum naturarum persona, una subsislentia inseparabiliter, indivise, inconvertibiliter, quid ultra remanet quod suspectum sit calumniari volentibus?\n\nHæret. Hoc reprehendo quia non post duas unitiones, sed post unitionem, duas dicitis naturas; cum deberetis prius quidem confiteri duas naturas, postea vero unitionem, et unam naturam de reliquo. Hoc significatex duabus quidem, quia post hæc unitio; in duabus autem, quia duæ post unitionem.\n\nRust. Si et duæ naturæ confitendæ. sunt, et unitio:.movenda, non video quare non ex duabus ct in duabus recte dicamus: si enim te id quod est delectat usque adeo, dicere non unum Christum in duabus naturis, sed in duabus naturis unum Christum, ut non prius nominantes Christum, post hxc eum duabus naturis, ut dicitis, partiatis, sed prius dicentes duas naturas, tunc unurn Christum nominetis: et illud vcro similiter observate, ut non dicatis unum Christum ex duabus naturis. sed potius dicatis ex duabus naturis unum Christum.","english":"Therefore, when we say two natures, if nothing precedes or follows that suffices to signify the union, your suspicion will have an occasion; but if this is so, both before we say two natures and afterward we say that the person of the two natures is one, the subsistence one, inseparably, indivisibly, unchangeably, what remains beyond this that those who wish to slander might suspect?\n\nIt sticks. I reproach this, that you say two natures not after two unions but after the union; when you ought first indeed to confess two natures, then the union, and thereafter one nature. This is signified by \"from two,\" because the union comes after these; but by \"in two,\" because the two are after the union.\n\nRusticus: If both two natures are to be confessed and the union is to be brought forward, I do not see why we should not rightly say both \"from two\" and \"in two.\" For if what is [said] pleases you to such a degree, say not \"one Christ in two natures\" but \"in two natures one Christ,\" so that, not first naming Christ and afterward applying two natures to him, as you say, but first saying two natures, you then name one Christ. And observe that other point similarly, that you do not say \"one Christ from two natures,\" but rather say \"from two natures one Christ.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":171,"ref":"p171","source":"Sed nunquam Christi Ecclesia intendit vaniloquiis talibus: etenim dum præextiterit ex infinito divinitas Filii, tamen nonnunquam post carnem nominatur: usque adeo veritas verborum ordine nullum præjudicium patitur, et maxime hic ubi simul duæ naturae, simul unitio. In sancta enim synodo Epbesi inter alia testimonia, magis vero ante alia, jac: saneti Petri, quod ita se babet: « Unde et evangelista veraciter dicit: Verbum caro factum est, et habitarit in nobis (Joan. I, 14)? tunc utique ex quo angelus Virginem salutavit, dicens: Ave, gratia plena, Dominus tecum (Luc. I, 28). Ecce ex quo salutalio angeli, et nunc est unitio celebrata. » Quia vera nonnunquam prænominatur caro, et postea dctas, ostendit cxinde sanctissimi Gregorii lectio, dicens ita: « Ne decipiant homines, nec ipsi decipiantur, hominem dominicum sine mente credentes magis autem Dominum nostrum et Deum: nec enim separamus bominem a divinitate. » Ecce aperte ponitur in priucipio verbi prius quidem nominans hominem, et postea Dominum et Deum, et rursus hominem et divinitatem. Et post pauca iterum habet: « Passibilem carne, impassibilem deitate; circumscriptum corpore, incircumscriptum spiritu; eumdem terrenum et cœlestem, visibilem et intellectulem, capitalem et incapitalem, ut toto homine eodemque Deo totus homo reformetur, qui ceciderat sub peccato.","english":"But the Church of Christ has never directed its attention to such idle babblings. For although the divinity of the Son existed beforehand from eternity, nevertheless it is sometimes named after the flesh; to such a degree does the truth suffer no prejudice from the order of words, and especially here, where the two natures and the union are simultaneous. For in the holy synod of Ephesus, among other testimonies, and indeed before the others, lies the testimony of Saint Peter, which reads as follows: \"Hence also the evangelist truthfully says: The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (John 1:14). At that time, surely, from when the angel greeted the Virgin, saying: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee (Luke 1:28). Behold, from the greeting of the angel, even now the union has been accomplished.\" Because the true flesh is sometimes named first, and afterward the Word, the reading of the most holy Gregory shows this from that point, saying thus: \"Lest men be deceived, nor let them deceive themselves, believing the man of the Lord to be without a mind, but rather our Lord and God; for we do not separate the man from the divinity.\" Behold, it is plainly set forth that at the beginning of the Word he first names the man, and afterward Lord and God, and again the man and the divinity. And after a few words he has again: \"Passible in the flesh, impassible in the divinity; circumscribed in the body, uncircumscribed in the spirit; the same earthly and heavenly, visible and intellectual, having a head and without a head, so that by the whole man and the same God the whole man may be reformed, who had fallen under sin.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"scripture","severity":"info","ref":"Luke 1:28","text":"The English carries the scriptural phrase “full of grace”, which matches Luke 1:28. The match is on the English draft; check the Coptic before quoting the verse."}]},{"i":172,"ref":"p172","source":"» Ecce quoties, ordine permutato, prius eun: passibilem, deinde impassibilem nominavit; post hæc circumscriptura et tunc incircumscriptum; ct post plura talia adjecit: ut, toto homine eodem et Deo. Synodus autem Chalcedonensis, postquam dixerat, in duabus naturis, adjecit dicens, indivise, inseparabiliter, inconvertibiliter agnoscendum. Et non ait agnoscendos, ut duos, sed unum agnoscendum. Ei rursua: Sicut Dominus noster Jesus Christus nos docuit, et Patrum nobis tradidit sumbolum. Si vero, ut di eis, una est facta natura; ergo non ex duabus, sed ex tribus naturis dicere debebatis: quippe qui etiam talem unitionem Verbi ad humanitatem dicitis, qualem caro babct ad animam. Quid enim vesta concessione vicinius anima habet ad carnem, quam hæc ad deitatem, ut sit Dominus ex duabus et non tribus?\n\nHæret. Simpliciter nobis respondete. Duas naturas ad hoc dicitis substisse, ut efficerent unum Chrislum, ad hoc unum Christum, ut duæ naturæ subsisterent? Sed dux naturæ, ct in aliis pridem subsistentiis substiterunt? si igitur non ad hoc ut ipsæ subsisterunt, sed ut Christus esset, du æ naturae fuerunt, non jam degunt duæ naturæ, sed illud tantum propter quod et substiterunt et unite sunt duae uaturæ. sed unus. Igitur non dux naturæ Christus confitendus.","english":"Behold how many times, with the order changed, it first named him passible, then impassible; after this, circumscribed and then uncircumscribed; and after many such things it added: so that the whole man is the same and God. But the Synod of Chalcedon, after it had said \"in two natures,\" added, saying, \"to be acknowledged indivisibly, inseparably, inconvertibly.\" And it did not say \"to be acknowledged\" as two, but one to be acknowledged. And again: \"As our Lord Jesus Christ taught us, and the symbol of the Fathers handed down to us.\" But if, as they say, one nature has been made, then you ought to say that he is not from two natures but from three: since you even say that the union of the Word with the humanity is such as the flesh has with the soul. For what, by your concession, is closer to the soul than the flesh, than this is to the deity, so that the Lord is from two and not three?\n\nHere he sticks. Answer us simply. Do you say that two natures existed for this purpose, that they might make one Christ, or one Christ for this purpose, that the two natures might subsist? But the two natures also formerly subsisted in other subsistences? If therefore they were not for this purpose, that they themselves might subsist, but that Christ might be, the two natures were, but now the two natures no longer exist, but only that for which both the two natures subsisted and were united, but one. Therefore Christ is not to be confessed as two natures.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":173,"ref":"p173","source":"Rust. Mira dementia, ob hoc non subsistere arbitrari naturas, co quod idcirco substiterint ut in Christum concurrerent; dum nihil plus sit necesse subsistere, quam ea quæ ob hoc substiterunt ut Christus exstaret; et illud potius sit fatendum, quod unita subsistant, quæ ut. unirentur exstiterant. Quin potius divinitas, nec ut uniretur, substitit, es sempitermo est enim; sed humanitas illa quæ simul mox unita est, ut cœpit existere: ergo, secundum te, Christi humanitas jam non est humanitas, quæ ut uniretur substitit. Quare manifestum est duas naturas unitas subsistere. Quis igitur nisi captus mente jam dicat, quia, quae propter quiddam substiterunt, aut ipsa jam non sunt, aut non tot; sed illud solum propter quod substiterunt, dum nihil utrorumque peremisset unitio, licet unum immense exaltaverit; et hoc, dum perfectissimum sit utrumque secundum propriæ naturæ ratione...? lloc vero simile est ac si aliquis dica:, quia ob hoc hæ lilterae factæ sunt, ut esset hic sermo; quare non sunt jam hæ litteræ, sed solus hic sermo? At vero, hoc quid erit insanius","english":"Rusticus: What great madness, to think that natures do not subsist for this reason, that they subsisted in order to converge in Christ; when nothing more needs to subsist than those things which subsisted for this reason, that Christ might exist; and rather it must be confessed that the united things subsist, which existed in order to be united. Nay rather, the divinity did not subsist even in order to be united, for it is eternal; but that humanity which was united as soon as it began to exist: therefore, according to you, the humanity of Christ is now not humanity, which subsisted in order to be united. Wherefore it is manifest that the two united natures subsist. Who therefore, unless seized in mind, would now say that things which subsisted for the sake of something either are themselves now not, or are not so many; but only that for the sake of which they subsisted, when the union has destroyed nothing of either, although it has immensely exalted one; and this, when each is most perfect according to the principle of its own nature...? This is indeed similar to someone saying that these letters were made for this reason, that this word might exist; wherefore these letters are now not, but only this word? But what will be more insane than this","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":174,"ref":"p174","source":"Hæret. Quidquid aliud dicere velis, ut ad propositum revertamur, quaternionem nos inducere, quaternitatem colere minime possumus.\n\nRust. Imo vero, quia fuisse quaternitatem inducitis ex rationibus vestris, inevitabiliter docui: et oportebat quidem inordinate tibi super hoc jactanti sermones no!! dare responsum. Sed ne his qui ita ut tu vesaniunt dicere placeat, « Non nobis est ad omnia satisfactum, » et illud adjiciam, quia Ires dicitis sanctæ Trinitatis esse naturas. Si nihil omnino distant, unde illas tres esse cognoscitis, qui divinitatis et humanitatis tantum distantes duas esse abnuilis? Nos enim tres esse subsistentias ob hoc confitemur, quod non in eo quod quid est secundum naturam, sed in eo quod qualiter sit unumquodque, propr ietatibus distinguatur. Nam Pater quidem genuit, ct acuimus non est; et ex aliquo alio non est, sicut es eo sunt alii: Filius vero genitus est, et nihil consempiternum genuit; et Spiritus sanctus a Patre procedit, et nihil consempiternum procedit vel genitum est ab eo a. Quidam vero antiquorum et hoc proprietatibus adjecerunt, quia sicut Spiritus cum Patre Filium sempiterne non genuit, sic nec proredit Spiritus a Filio sicut a Patre. Ego vero, quia Spiritus quidem Filium non genuerit sempiterne, confiteor (nec cnim duos dicimus Patres); utrum vero a Filio codem modo quo a Patre procedat, nondum perfecte habeo satisfactum.","english":"It sticks. Whatever else you wish to say, to return to the matter at hand, we can by no means introduce a quaternion or worship a quaternity.\n\nRusticus: On the contrary, because you introduce that there was a quaternity by your own reasonings, I have shown it inevitably; and indeed it was fitting to give you no answer at all, vaunting your speeches over this matter as you do. But lest it please those who rave as you do to say, \"We have not been satisfied on all points,\" I shall add this as well: that you say there are three natures of the holy Trinity. If they differ in nothing at all, how do you recognize that they are three, when you refuse to allow that divinity and humanity, which differ so greatly, are two? For we confess that there are three subsistences for this reason, that they are distinguished by properties not in that which is according to nature, but in how each one is. For the Father indeed begot, and is not begotten; and he is not from any other, as the others are from him. But the Son was begotten, and begot nothing coeternal; and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and nothing coeternal proceeds or was begotten from him. Some of the ancients also added this to the properties: that just as the Spirit did not eternally beget the Son with the Father, so neither does the Spirit proceed from the Son as from the Father. But I confess that the Spirit did not eternally beget the Son (for we do not speak of two Fathers); yet whether he proceeds from the Son in the same way as from the Father, I have not yet fully satisfied.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":175,"ref":"p175","source":"Quoniam vero, ad id quod nunc quæritur nihil attinet, signandum qvidem est, sed transeundum,\n\nHæret. Et ego nunc interim de his ipsis loqui non arbitror utile; ad tuam vero contra nos objectionem, tibi breviter respondebo; imo vero temetipsum tibimetipsi faciam respondere. Quibus distare dicitis ut tres sint credanturque personæ, his ea differre dicimus, ut tres sint credanturque naturæ.\n\nRust. Sed multo magis differunt Christi naturæ, quas duas esse non vultis, quam tres personae, quas vultis etiam tres esse naturas.\n\nHæret. Cur ergo non sunt et qUatuor personæ, tanquam duæ omnino personæ sum Filii?\n\nRust. Quia humanitas Domnini Christi non est persona, licet differat ratione; sed quod attinet ad Deum Verbum, sola natura cst; non enim, veluti quis dicat, sua ipsius, sed Dei Verbi est illa caro, ut sæpius dixi.\n\nHæret. Quid igitur a persona minus habet humanitas? animæ aliquid rationalis, an carnis, au quantitatis?","english":"Since, however, it has no bearing on what is now being asked, it must indeed be noted, but passed over.\n\nIt sticks. And for my part, for the present I do not think it useful to speak about these very matters; but to your objection against us I shall answer you briefly—indeed, I shall make you answer yourself. Those things by which you say they differ so that there are and are believed to be three persons, we say those same things differ so that there are and are believed to be three natures.\n\nRusticus: But the natures of Christ, which you refuse to allow to be two, differ far more than the three persons, which you even wish to be three natures.\n\nIt sticks. Why, then, are there not also four persons, as though there were altogether two persons of the Son?\n\nRusticus: Because the humanity of the Lord Christ is not a person, although it differs in account; but as regards God the Word, it is only a nature; for that flesh is not, as one might say, its own, but belongs to God the Word, as I have often said.\n\nIt sticks. What, then, does the humanity lack that belongs to a person—something of a rational soul, or of the flesh, or of quantity?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":176,"ref":"p176","source":"Rust. Hæc oon vestra contra nos, sed aliorum contra nos simul et vos quæst o est. Non est igitur nobis necessitatem hanc subrucre loquentibus contra vos; maxime, quia superius est ostensum quod Deus Verbum non personam nostram sibi unierit, scd naturam. Verumtamen in sermone quem de definitionibus contra vos simul Nestorianosquc conscripsi, demonstratum est quod natura quidem communem, sicut dici sulct, spectcm repræsentet; persona vero sit concursus eorum quæ describunt subsistentiam ralionalcm. Individuam vero subsistentiam esse c;rca proportionem, velut fundamentum in quo incumbunt quæ circa sunt reliqua, sicut ipsum nomen ostendit, et tanquam maxime propriam causam, in qua universa quæ accidentia nomiuantur, ut color, ut mores, ut habitus et dispositiones, et quæ iis sunt similia, ct propriclates consuunt ipsæ: interempto enim primo subjecto eorum quæ circa sunt individuorum, nihil ultra esse possibile est: a maxima vero causa ut sit unumquodque, id vero est in quo incumbit ipsa totietas, nominatur; id est, ab illo subjecto quod tanquam fundamentum est iis quae circa sunt, tota consistentia, subsistentia nominatur. Sed quia, secundum redditam rationem, solent et irrationabilium subsistentiæ nominari, quin etiaminsensibilium et inanimatorum; haec vero universa personæ proprie non ab omnibus dicuntur, ideo adjeci hanc subsistentiam esse rationalem.","english":"Rusticus: This is not your question against us, but the question of others against us and against you at the same time. There is therefore no necessity for us to refute this when speaking against you, especially since it has been shown above that God the Word did not unite a person of ours to himself, but a nature. Nevertheless, in the discourse which I wrote concerning definitions against you and the Nestorians at the same time, it was demonstrated that nature indeed represents a common species, as it is said; but a person is the concurrence of those things which describe a rational subsistence. An individual subsistence, however, is, in its proportion, like a foundation on which the rest of the things around it rest, as the name itself shows, and like the most proper cause, in which all things that are called accidents—such as color, such as character, such as habit and dispositions, and things similar to these—and their properties themselves are joined together. For once the first subject of the individual things around it has been destroyed, nothing further is possible. But in order that each thing may exist from a most proper cause—that is, that in which the whole totality itself rests—it is named from that subject which is like a foundation for the things around it; the whole consistence is called subsistence. But because, according to the account given, the subsistences of irrational beings are also customarily named, and even of insensible and inanimate things, yet all these are not said by all to be properly persons, therefore I added that this subsistence is rational.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":177,"ref":"p177","source":"Quoniam vero aliqui rursus volunt et species et genera substantialium quae dicuntur subsistentias appellare, ideo adjectuw est hanc subsistentiam rationalem et individuam esse.\n\nIceret. Et quid pertinet hoc ad proposi'am quaestionem? quæsivi e nim cur perfectus homo personam habeat non perfectam, et hoc audire omnino desidero.\n\nRust. Hoc enim et dictum est; sed quia minime advertisti, audi cur humanitas Domini perfecta quidem natura sit, non vero per semetipsam habens quoque personarn; et cur non duae Christi personae, sed una solaque sit: causa enim, sicut et tu in sermonis initio, licet ad aliud quid intendens, dixisti, Verbum Deus est, carnis assumptae; in quo quasi in fundamento illa assumpta natura, quæ est servi forma, incumbit: ad hoc assumpta, ut Filius Dei. qui sempiternus est Deus, pro nostra salute homo in diebus ultimis fieret. Nec enim homo de virgine originem habere potuisset, nisi nos per eum Deus ineffabiliter secundum subsistentiam sibi unitam redimere complaceret; unitum vero, ex qno ejus quodlibet subsistere inchoavit in unam personam unamque subsistentiam, sicut saepius diximus.","english":"But since some again wish to call both the species and the genera of substantial things—which are spoken of as subsistences—therefore it has been added that this subsistence is rational and individual.\n\nIceretus: And what does this pertain to the question at hand? For I asked why a perfect man has an imperfect person, and this I desire above all to hear.\n\nRusticus: For this too has been said; but because you have paid very little attention, hear why the humanity of the Lord is indeed a perfect nature, yet does not also have a person through itself; and why there are not two persons of Christ, but one only: for the cause, as you too said at the beginning of your discourse—though intending it toward something else—is that the Word is God of the assumed flesh; in whom, as in a foundation, that assumed nature, which is the form of a servant, rests: assumed for this purpose, that the Son of God, who is eternal God, might for our salvation become man in the last days. For neither could man have had his origin from a virgin, unless it pleased God to redeem us through him ineffably according to the subsistence united to himself; united, moreover, from which each of his own began to subsist into one person and one subsistence, as we have said rather often.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":178,"ref":"p178","source":"Igitur, etsi in imaginatione mentis sive speculatione tenuissima, intellecta humanitas Domini Christi videtur et substantia esse et persona ( nec enim habet aliquid minus, praeter alias subsistentias rationales et individuas); sed tamen intellecta per semetipsam, hoc esse videtur, sed non jam sicut unita Sermoni: igitur non veritas rei, sed mentis hoc cogit putari defectus, quasi oblivio unilionis existens. Quando vero id quod humanum est, non quasi in semetipso manens, sed per unitionem proprium factum subsistentiæ Dei Verbi recommemorata mens fuerit, non pjtest id pro persona suscipere: quoniam neque proprie subsistentia nominatur, cujus altera circa intellectum res subsistendi causa, id est Verbum, est quid sempiternum. Nam si homo subsistentia esset, non oportebat ut cum solus Deus Verbum in semetipso susciperet, et fund nostrum est, ut ita dixerim, in scmetipso fundaret, sed potius ut aut præexistens homo proprium faceret Deum Verbum, et stahiliret atque fundaret sibimetipsi quod Dei; aut magis ut præexistens uterque ad invicem conveniret, et unus Christus, unus Filius, unus Dominus, unaque persona et subsistentia, et præexistente apud se puro unoquoque, non fieret. Nunc autem e diverso factum est: non ergo habet personam quod nostrum cst.","english":"Therefore, even if in the imagination of the mind or in the most tenuous speculation, the humanity of the Lord Christ, once understood, seems both to be a substance and to be a person (for it has nothing less than other rational and individual subsistences); yet when understood through itself, it seems to be this, but no longer as united to the Word. Therefore it is not the truth of the thing, but a defect of the mind that compels this to be thought, existing as a kind of forgetfulness of the union. But when the mind, having been reminded, considers that what is human does not remain as it were in itself, but through union has become proper to the subsistence of God the Word, it cannot take it as a person, since that is not properly called a subsistence whose reason for subsisting, around the intellect, is something else, that is, the Word, which is eternal. For if man were a subsistence, it would not be necessary that God the Word alone should receive him in himself and establish our foundation, so to speak, in himself, but rather that man, pre-existing, should make God the Word his own and establish and found for himself what is God's; or rather that both, pre-existing, should come together with each other, and one Christ, one Son, one Lord, and one person and subsistence would not come to be, with each remaining pure in itself and pre-existing. But now the opposite has happened; therefore what is ours does not have a person.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":179,"ref":"p179","source":"Hæret. Ergo si hæc unita non essent, omnimedo duæ possent esse personæ: quia et Deus Verbum nihil minus habet a persona (sicut enim Deus Pater, ita et Deus Verbum una persona est), et rursus nihi! habet minus a tota persona homo perfectus ex consubstantiali nobis carne et rationali, secundum nos, anima constans, horumqne unitione subsistens.\n\nRust. Etsi omnis homo individuus persona est, non tamen hæc causa est ut persona sit itidem, quæ est ut homo sit. Sed ut sit quidem homo, hæc causa cst quod sit anima! rationale de terra: ut autem sit persona, hæc causa est, co quod sit subsistentia rationaiis individua. Sed, ut diximus, iila humanitas, non in semetipsa in Verbo habet subsistentiæ rem: nec enim propter hoc ut sua ipsius separatim esset, sicut nos, sed ut Verbo uniretur, et ejus esset proprium indumentum et inæstimabile, ut ita quis inquiat, instrumentum, et ut Deus esset homo, creata est nostrae causa salutis: illa igitur causa magis in subjecto est quam subjectum. Sicut igitur, verbi gratia, in homine puro subsistendi carnem causa est anima immortalis; qua sejuncta, caro in sua non manet essentia, sed ad non esse properat incessanter, quippe quod omnino exterminari, quolibet corrumpatur modo, necesse est. Et rursus nunc animae hominum defunctorum absque corpore sunt.","english":"Heret. Therefore, if these things were not united, in every way there could be two persons: because both God the Word has nothing less than a person (for just as God the Father, so also God the Word is one person), and again the perfect man, consisting of flesh consubstantial with us and, according to us, a rational soul, has nothing less than a whole person, and subsists by the union of these.\n\nRust. Although every individual man is a person, yet this is not the cause of its being a person in the same way as it is the cause of its being a man. But indeed, that it be a man, the cause is that it be a rational soul from the earth; but that it be a person, the cause is that it be a rational individual subsistence. But, as we have said, that humanity does not have the reality of subsistence in itself in the Word; for it was not created for this, that it should be separately its own, as we are, but that it should be united to the Word, and be his own proper and inestimable garment and, so to speak, instrument, and that God should be man, for the sake of our salvation. That cause, therefore, is rather in the subject than the subject. Just as, for example, in a pure man the cause of the flesh's subsisting is the immortal soul; when it is separated, the flesh does not remain in its own essence, but hastens unceasingly toward non-being, since it must be altogether destroyed, in whatever way it is corrupted. And again now the souls of dead men are without a body.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":180,"ref":"p180","source":"sicut ait D 'minus Sadducæis: quia Deus Abraham, et Deus Isaac, et Deus Jacob, non est Deu mortuorum, sed viventium: omnes enim vivunt illi (Matth. XXII, 32). Et non ait, Deus animæ illis, et illius, sed, Deus illius. Et non dixit, non est Deus animarum mortuarum, sed viventium: Deum esse simpliciter dixit, et perfecto exisiente Abraham, et Isaac, et Jacob. Et adjecit: Omnes enim vivunt ei (Luc. xx, 38), et non dixit, oranium enim animæ vivunt ei.\n\nHæret. lloc inquit, non quod an;ma perfecti persona sit, quasi per hoc unum integer Abraham sit, et Isaac, et Jacob; sed quoniam Deus vocat ea quæ non sunt, tanquam quæ sunt (Rom. IV, 17), sicut seriptum cst.\n\nRust. Non intercipias importune sermonem: ubi enim fit de resurrectione memoria, illic necessario immortalitatem repræsentat animarum: non ut eorum quæ non sunt, et a Deo vocantur tanquam sin', eo quod ea quae nondum sunt, Deus futura esse prænoscat, sed ut corum quae sunt; nullus enim sapientum dicere audebit, quia commoriantur corporibus animae, ut ob hoc nec Abraham sit, nec reliqui, nisi in præscientia Dei. Quod ergo dicere volui.","english":"as he said to the Sadducees: \"Because the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, is not the God of the dead but of the living: for all live to him\" (Matthew 22:32). And he did not say, \"the God of the soul of that one and of that one,\" but \"the God of that one.\" And he did not say, \"he is not the God of dead souls,\" but \"of the living\": he said simply that he is God, and that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob exist perfectly. And he added: \"For all live to him\" (Luke 20:38), and he did not say, \"for the souls of all live to him.\"\n\nHeret. He said this, not because the soul of a perfected man is a person, as if by this Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were each one whole man; but because God calls those things that are not as though they were (Romans 4:17), as it is written.\n\nRust. Do not interrupt the discourse inopportunely: for where mention is made of the resurrection, there he necessarily represents the immortality of souls: not as of things that are not and are called by God as though they were, because God foreknows that the things which are not yet will be, but as of things that are; for none of the wise will dare to say that souls die together with bodies, so that for this reason neither Abraham nor the rest exist, except in the foreknowledge of God. What therefore I wished to say.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":181,"ref":"p181","source":"sicut extra corpus, etsi non est animat perfectum secundum naturam, tamen rationalis animæ persona perfecta est; et rursus, postquam corpus resurrectione receperit, nihilominus perfecta hominis est persona: sic quodammodo in Christo, ante inhumanationem quidem perfecta erat Dei Verbi persona, et post hoc perfecta Christi persona est, et una persona Deus simul et homo, ct causa ut sit illa bomanitas, est Deus Verbum; et hæc, comparatione Verbi, non est ut subjectum, sed ut accidens. Sicut enim instrumentum per quod nostram salutem fieri oporteret, et sicut superincumbens ei, quod utitur illo ut diximus. Sicut igitur quando circa Apostolum dici. mus: Caput mulieris vir, et caput viri Christus, et caput Christi Deus (I Cor.","english":"just as outside the body, although it is not animated perfectly according to nature, nevertheless the person of the rational soul is perfect; and again, after it has received the body in the resurrection, the person of the man is nonetheless perfect: so in a certain manner in Christ, before the incarnation indeed the person of God the Word was perfect, and after this the person of Christ is perfect, and there is one person, God and man at once, and the cause that that humanity exists is God the Word; and this, in comparison with the Word, is not as a subject but as an accident. For as an instrument through which our salvation had to be accomplished, and as resting upon him who uses it, as we have said. Just as, therefore, when we say concerning the Apostle: The head of the woman is the man, and the head of the man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God (1 Cor.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":182,"ref":"p182","source":"x!, 3); et neque virum duo capita habere dicimus, neque duo aut tria capita muliercm, id est virum et Christum, aut virunt et Christum et Deum, quia vir ad muherem quidem comparatus caput est, ad Christum vcro jam non caput, sed aliquid aliud; et rursus Christus ad virum quidem comparatus caput est: ad Deum vero, nequaquam (nec enim Verbum caput est Patris, neque natura quæ ei nobis est); sic quodammodo, prout est possibile similitudinibus incomparabilia explanare, humanitatis subjectum iis comparatum quae sibi omnino specialiter accidunt, proportionem subsistentiae ostendit: Deo autem Verbo collatum, sicut aliquid eorum quæ insunt subsistentiæ, non secundum personalem subsistentiam reperitur. Et sicut ibi dum vir caput sit mulieris, et Christus viri sit caput, tamen in ordinis contequentia, solum ejus caput est vir, dum certe per excellentiam gloriae Christus solus, quippe ut Deus, circa id quod proprie summum est. ita ct hic esse apparet circa ea quæ acciderunt naturæ nostræ, et Immanitas il!a subsistentia esse videtur; secundum vero summam subsistentiæ pro. prietatem, solum Verbum (a quo de reliquo una et sola subsistentia, vere totus est Christus), seu certe ea quæ in Christo sunt nominatur. Si quis tamen hæc legit, memor sit nos proportionem proportioni, prout est possibile, comparare, non multis personis unam Christi solamque personam: alioquin cur et tanta sunt dicta?","english":"and we do not say that a man has two heads, nor that a woman has two or three heads—that is, the man and Christ, or the man and Christ and God—because a man, when compared to a woman, is indeed a head, but when compared to Christ he is no longer a head, but something else; and again Christ, when compared to a man, is indeed a head, but when compared to God, by no means (for the Word is not the head of the Father, nor is the nature that is in him [the head] for us); so in a certain way, insofar as it is possible to explain things that cannot be compared by means of likenesses, the subject of humanity, when compared to those things that happen to it in an entirely special way, shows the proportion of its subsistence; but when compared to God the Word, it is found to be, as it were, one of the things that are present in a subsistence, not according to personal subsistence. And just as there, while the man is the head of the woman and Christ is the head of the man, nevertheless in the sequence of order, the man alone is her head, while certainly by the excellence of glory Christ alone, as being God, is [head] in respect of that which is properly the highest; so also here it appears to be the case with regard to the things that have happened to our nature, and that humanity seems to be a subsistence; but according to the highest property of subsistence, the Word alone (from whom, moreover, there is one and only one subsistence, and truly the whole Christ), or certainly the things that are in Christ, is named. If anyone, however, reads these things, let him remember that we are comparing a proportion to a proportion, insofar as it is possible, not many persons to the one and only person of Christ; otherwise, why are such great things said?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":183,"ref":"p183","source":"Hæret. In veritate, quia in incomparabilibus, vel modicam similitudinem adhiberi difficile est.\n\nRust. Sed et quod majus est dico; iliic enim forsan dicat, ut arbitror, aliquis impudentia fretus: duo vel tria esse capita mulieris (et forsan non impie, licet inconvenienter); hic vero duas personas impossibile est inveniri: nam si illic ad unum et idem, aut ad aliud et aliud re comparata, duo capita esse putentur, unumquodque enim uniuscujusque caput est; hic similiter erit: nec enim sic accidentia circa carnem carni sicut Verbo comparantur, sed carni quidem absque mediatione, Dco vero non ita: non enim quasi non incarnato. Mulieris autem caput et absque mediatione Deus est: Ecclesiæ enim caput Christus (Ephes. v, 23). Figuraliter autem Ecclesia sponsa est; et figuralilcr caput mulicris vir. Et ut simpliciler dicamus ac brevier, quia et cgo conGtcor quod exemplum non omnino sit aptum, sed assumpsi hoc, non ut demonstrationis, sed ut expianationis gratia; si quis vero aptiorem similitudinem repererit, dicat, me facile complacente et voluntarie ac libenter. Ne forLe autem sit hoc quoque præstantius dicere: quia sicut universus orbis (dico vero orbem terrae ) licet plerumque etiam solus, tamen totus dicitur mundus; et rursus cum toto coelo et omnibus clementis unus et solus dicitur mundus; fic dicatur et de illa solaque persona.","english":"Heret. In truth, because in incomparable matters it is difficult to apply even a slight likeness.\n\nRust. But I say even what is greater; for there perhaps someone, relying on impudence, might say, as I think: that a woman has two or three heads (and perhaps not impiously, though incongruously); but here it is impossible to find two persons. For if there, when one and the same thing, or one thing and another, is compared, they are thought to be two heads—for each one is the head of each one—so it will be here likewise. For accidents are not related to the flesh in the flesh as they are compared to the Word, but to the flesh indeed without mediation, to God however not so; for not as though he were not incarnate. But the head of the woman is God even without mediation; for Christ is the head of the Church (Eph. 5:23). Figuratively, however, the Church is the bride; and figuratively the head of the woman is the man. And to speak simply and briefly, because I also confess that the example is not entirely apt, but I took it up not for the sake of demonstration but for the sake of explanation; if anyone finds a more apt likeness, let him say it, with me easily agreeing and willingly and gladly. But lest perhaps this too be more excellent to say: that just as the whole orb (I mean the orb of the earth), although often even alone, is yet called the whole world; and again with the whole heaven and all the elements it is called one and the only world; so let it be said also concerning that one person alone.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":184,"ref":"p184","source":"Si vero ob hoc aliquos duas Christi subsistentias dicere creditis ( dico autem, non ut naturas, sed ut personas ), quia in subtilibus speculationibus et puris intellectibus per semetipsam contemplata humanitas Christi, videtur eis, quia potest et ut persona et ut subsistentia cogitari ad accidentia sua, quomodo vos ipsi negatis duas Domini Christi esse naturas; qui non in subtilibus intellectibus vel imaginationibus mentis intelligi solum, sed et in ipsa re subsistere humanam in Christo naturam negare minime quitis; quam, non solum illa quæ nostra est, sed et illa quæ vestra synodus Ephesina per sanctorum Patrum lectiones testatur, et præcipue beatissimi Cyrilli Alexandriæ præsulis epistolæ praedic ant? Non enim quod nos dicimus de persona, hoc vos poteritis re objicere de natura, cujus definitio longe abest a definitione personx. Sunt euim Christi naturæ, ut supcrius dictum est, et divinitas sanctæ Trinitatis mmunis, et humanitas communis omnibus nobis in individuo contemplata: persona vcro atque subsistentia Domini Christi, quas horum unitione celehrata est. In iis vcro substantiis, totum dicimus esse unum solumque Filium Dii Dominum nostrum Christum, quem in duabus confitemur esse naturis. Est autem non minus manifeste cx synodicis sanctorum Patrum doctrinis colligere, quia non sunt tres naturne sanctæ Trinitatis, sed una sol aque.","english":"But if you believe that some say there are two subsistences of Christ for this reason (I mean, not as natures, but as persons), because in subtle speculations and pure intellects the humanity of Christ, contemplated by itself, seems to them capable of being thought of both as a person and as a subsistence in relation to its accidents—how is it that you yourselves deny that there are two natures of the Lord Christ, who cannot at all deny that the human nature in Christ subsists not only in subtle intellects or imaginations of the mind but also in reality itself—which nature is attested not only by that synod which is ours but also by that Ephesine synod of yours through the readings of the holy Fathers, and especially the epistles of the most blessed Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, proclaim? For you will not be able to object against us concerning nature what we say concerning person, since the definition of nature is far removed from the definition of person. For the natures of Christ, as was said above, are both the divinity common to the holy Trinity and the humanity common to all of us, contemplated in the individual; but the person and subsistence of the Lord Christ are those whose union has been celebrated. In these substances, moreover, we say that the whole and only Son of God, our Lord Christ, is one, whom we confess to be in two natures. But it can be gathered no less clearly from the synodical teachings of the holy Fathers that there are not three natures of the holy Trinity, but one only.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":185,"ref":"p185","source":"Si enim tres essent sanctae Triniiatis naturne, esset omnimodo, ut tu quoque dixisti, et Filii una et individua divini natura. Hæc vero idem foret per omnia, et non discerneretur ullo modo a Dei Verbi sempiterna persona: nihil enim plus vel minus, aut quolibet modo alterum, aut aliter ullatenus contineret. Quare, quidquid de Filio, id est de Deo Verbo ( hoc est autem dicere de persona ipsius Christi), seu tanquam ante inhumanationem, sive post haec recte dicimus, et de natura ejus orthodoxe dicerentur; et quidquid de persona Filii dicere devitandum est, de ejus Filii natura a Patribus dici vereatur. Sicut igitur nullus Patrum dixit alicubi, aliquando in propria passum Filium non esse persona: sic nullus eorum dicere sustineret in propria Filium passum non esse natura. Nunc autem econtrario fit: praedicant enim Filium Dei in propria quidem passum esse persona; negant vero iidem sancti Patres in propria eum pertulisse natura.","english":"For if there were three natures of the holy Trinity, it would be altogether the case, as you too have said, that the divine nature of the Son also is one and indivisible. But this would be the same in all respects, and would in no way be distinguished from the eternal person of the Word of God: for it would contain nothing more or less, or in any way one thing or another, or otherwise in any respect. Wherefore, whatever we rightly say of the Son, that is, of God the Word (and this is to say of His own person, that is, of Christ), whether as before the incarnation or after it, would also be spoken orthodoxly of His nature; and whatever must be avoided in speaking of the person of the Son, the Fathers would truly shrink from saying of the nature of the Son. Just as, therefore, none of the Fathers has anywhere said at any time that the Son suffered in His own person and not in His person, so none of them would endure to say that the Son suffered in His own nature and not in His nature. But now the contrary is done: for they preach that the Son of God suffered in His own person, but the same holy Fathers deny that He suffered in His own nature.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":186,"ref":"p186","source":"Ex iis igitur necessarie sequitur, et personæ Filii, ejusdem, non eamdem esse naturam, demonsTratum est: quia si esset sic propria solius Filii Dei natura, ut non esset ei hæc ipsa communis cum Patre et Spiritu sancto, consequens esset ex necessitate naturam cjus idem esse personæ ipsius: quod quia minime sequitur, constat quia non est natura solius Filii propria, tanquam quæ non sit et Patri communis et Spiritui sancto; non igitur tres naturæ sunt Trinitatis.\n\nHæret. Et unde mihi demonstrationes adhibebis, quia Filius Dei Deus Verbum, in propria quidem persona passus est, vel quodcunque suscepit eorum quæ carni contigerunt; in propria vero natura non pertulit?\n\nRust. Patienter ausculta, et continuo ostendetur: solummodo sermoni dem finem. Hæc igitur demonstratio, non ob hoc solum veritatis proficit dogmati, quia unam et solam sanctae Trinitatis naturam commendat; sed et per semctipsam causa victoria: est, dum concludit quia non debet Christi una credi natura, sicut inferius declarabitur. Nunc autem testimonia ex synodico sanctorum Patrum codice proferantur, atque directa nostræ collocutionis recognoscatur intentio.","english":"From these things, therefore, it necessarily follows—and it has been demonstrated—that the nature of the Son is not the same as His person, but belongs to it. For if the nature of the only-begotten Son of God were so proper to Him alone that it were not common to Him with the Father and the Holy Spirit, it would necessarily follow that His nature is the same as His person. But since that by no means follows, it is evident that the nature is not proper to the Son alone, as though it were not also common to the Father and the Holy Spirit. Therefore there are not three natures of the Trinity.\n\nHeretic. And from what source will you supply me with demonstrations that the Son of God, the Word, suffered in His own person—or whatever else of the things that happened to the flesh He took upon Himself—but did not endure in His own nature?\n\nRusticus. Listen patiently, and it will be shown at once; only let me bring my discourse to its end. This demonstration, then, advances the dogma of truth not only for this reason, that it commends the one and only nature of the holy Trinity, but is also in itself a cause of victory, in that it concludes that the one nature of Christ ought not to be believed, as will be declared below. But now let testimonies be brought forward from the synodal codex of the holy Fathers, and let the direct intent of our discourse be recognized.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":187,"ref":"p187","source":"Lectio ex epistola sanctæ memoriæ Cyrilli ad Nesto rium, quam et Ephesina sancta et universalis syno dua omnium episcoporum interlocutionibus rebo ravit.\n\nHæc nos sequi oportet et verba et dogmata, intelligentes quid hoc quod est incarnari, et hoc quoJ est inhumanari, significet id quod ex Deo est Verbum. Non enim dicimus quod Verbi natura transformata facta sit caro, sed nec quia in totum versa sit hominem qui est ex anima et corpore; sed it.. lud potius, quia carnem animatam anima rationali uniens Verbum sibimetipsi secundum subsistentiam, ineffabiliter atquc inexplicabiliter factus sit homo, et vocatus sii filius bominis, non secundum solam voluntatem vel benevolentiam, sed nec ut sola assumptione personx. Et quia diversae quidcmad unitionem veram conductæ naturae, unus vero ex ambabus Christus et Filius ( non quasi naturarum differentia interempta propter unitionem: quin potius perficientibus nobis unum Domioum et Christum, et Filium divinitate atque humanitate, per ineffabilem ct inenarrabilem ad unitionem concursum ), sic dicitur dum certe ante sæcula habeat subsistentiam, et ex Patre sit natus, nasci secundum carnem et muliere, nou tanquam propria ejus Datura in sancta Virgine principium sortitus sit existendi; nec vero quasi indiguerit necessarie propter seipsum nativitate secunda post illam quæ est ex Patre.","english":"A reading from the letter of Cyril of holy memory to Nestorius, which the holy and universal synod of Ephesus also ratified by the interlocutions of all the bishops.\n\nThese words and doctrines we ought to follow, understanding what this—being incarnate—and what this—being made man—signifies: namely, that the Word who is from God. For we do not say that the nature of the Word was transformed and became flesh, nor that it was entirely changed into a man who is of soul and body; but rather this: that the Word, uniting to Himself in subsistence a flesh animated with a rational soul, ineffably and inexplicably became man, and was called Son of man, not according to mere will or benevolence, nor by the mere assumption of a person. And because the different natures were brought together into a true union, yet there is one Christ and Son from both (not as though the difference of natures were destroyed because of the union; but rather, while we confess one Lord and Christ and Son, in divinity and humanity, through the ineffable and unutterable concurrence into union), so He is said—since He certainly has subsistence before the ages and is born of the Father—to be born according to the flesh and of a woman, not as though His own nature received in the holy Virgin the beginning of existing; nor indeed as though He needed, for His own sake, a second birth after that which is from the Father.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":188,"ref":"p188","source":"Est enim vanum simul ct imperitum, ut dicatur is qui ante omne sxculum substat et consempiternus est Patri, indigere, ad id ut sit, secundo principio. Quoniam vero propter nos et propter nostram salutem, uniens sibimetipsi secundum subsistentiam quod humanum est, processit ex muliere, ob hoc ipsum dicitur genitus esse carnaliter: non enim prius ex sancta Virgine natus est homo communis, ct jam post hæc Verbum descendit in eo, sed ex ipsa vulva unitus carnalem dicitur sustinere genituram, ut suæ carnis sufficans genesim. Sic eum dicimus et pati, et resurgere, non tanquam Deus Verbum in propria natura sustulerit vel clavorum transfixiones vel alia vulnera: impossibile est enim, quod divinum est, quia et incorporeum. Quia vero id quod ejus proprium factum est corpus pertulit, hæc rursus passus dicitur ipse pro nobis, erat enim impassibilis in corpore patiente. Circa acquum vero modum, et in Moyse intelligimus: immortalis enim secundum naturam, et incorruptibilis, et vita et vivificans Dei Verbum.","english":"For it is both vain and ignorant to say that he who subsists before every age and is co-eternal with the Father needs a second principle in order to exist. But because for us and for our salvation, uniting to himself in subsistence what is human, he came forth from a woman, for this very reason he is said to have been born carnally. For it was not that a common man was first born of the holy Virgin, and only after these things the Word descended into him; but from the very womb, being united, he is said to undergo a carnal birth, as one who supplies the origin of his own flesh. Thus we say that he both suffers and rises again, not as though God the Word in his own nature underwent either the piercings of nails or other wounds—for that is impossible, since what is divine is also incorporeal. But because the body that became his own proper body suffered, he is again said to have suffered these things himself for us; for he was impassible in the body that suffered. And we understand this in a fitting measure also in Moses: for the Word of God is immortal by nature, and incorruptible, and life and life-giving.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":189,"ref":"p189","source":"Quia vero proprium rursus ejus corpus, gratia Dei, sicut dixit Paulus, pro omnibus gustavit mortem, dicitur ipse mortem pati pro nobis, uou veniens in mortis experimentum, quod attinet ad ejus naturam (dementia tst enim hoc dicere aut sapere); sed quia, utdixi nuper, caro ejus gustavit mortem, sic et resuscitata carne, rursus ejus resurrectio dicitur, non tanquam qui in ullam corruptionem, quod absit, inciderit. » Et post pauca: Hoc asserit ubique integerrimae fidei sermo: sic iuvenimus sanctos Patres sapuisse; sic præsumpserunt Deipartricem sanctam Virginem dicere: non quiaD Verbi natura sive divinitas ejus principium subsistendi sortita sit ex sancta Virginc, sed lanquam genito ex ea sancto corpore animato rationaliter, cui et secundum subsistentiam Sermo unitus gigni dicitur secundum carnem.\n\nHæret. Si super tanta quæ ante dixisti, insuper testimonia profers vestro dogmati profutura; et nos parati sumus gloriosorum testimonia magi 'rorum jam pridem excreta diffundere; quippe qui deleemus ipsa potius sequi, quam proprias conclusiones intendore.","english":"Because again his own body, by the grace of God, as Paul said, tasted death for all, he himself is said to suffer death for us, not coming into the experience of death as regards his nature (for it is madness to say or think this); but because, as I said just now, his flesh tasted death, so too, when the flesh has been raised, his resurrection is again spoken of, not as though he had fallen into any corruption, which be far from us. And after a few things: The word of the most whole faith asserts this everywhere: thus we find the holy Fathers understood; thus they presumed to call the holy Virgin the Mother of God: not because the nature of the Word or his divinity obtained the principle of subsisting from the holy Virgin, but as the holy body, animated with reason, was born from her, to which the Word, united also according to subsistence, is said to be born according to the flesh.\n\nHeretic. If, in addition to such great things as you have said before, you bring forward testimonies that will benefit your dogma, we too are ready to pour out the testimonies of the glorious teachers, long since sifted out; since we ought rather to follow them than to press our own conclusions.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":190,"ref":"p190","source":"Rust. Nos inierim in præsenti nondum protulimus ullum testimonium ex codicibus aliis: per quod in duabus naturis esse Cbristus evidentissime demonstratur, sed ex syuodicis solis, quæ refutare non potes; ad demonstrandum tantummodo unam solamque rsse naturam sive substantiam sanctæ Trinitatis: quæ etsi propria Filii Dei a Patribus dicitur, non ad exclusionem Patris et Spiritus sancti, sed omnium quae creaturæ sunt atque facturæ, nihilominus vero et i lius substantiae hominis quam creavit simul ac sumpsit. Et ad ostendendum quia propria illa natura non dicitur Verbum et temporaliter genitum, neque passum, neque sustulisse aut plagas, aut fixuras clavorum, aut alia vulnera; neque mortuum esse, quod attinet ad ejus naturam, nec resurrexisse; verumtamen Verbum ex ipsa vulva unitum genituram carnalem dicitur sustulisse, ut propriae car. nis genituram suificans: similiter et reliqua quæ humana sunt, quoniam quod ejus propriuin factum est corpus, ista sustinuit. Rursus ipse dicitur pati pro nob s: erat namque impassibilis in corpore patiente.","english":"Rusticus: We have not yet brought forward in the present work any testimony from other books, by which it is most evidently demonstrated that Christ is in two natures, but only from the synodical [writings], which you cannot refute; [we have done so] only to demonstrate that there is one sole nature or substance of the holy Trinity, which, although it is called proper to the Son of God by the Fathers, is not [said] to the exclusion of the Father and the Holy Spirit, but [to the exclusion] of all things that are created and made, and nonetheless also of that substance of man which he both created and assumed. And to show that that proper nature is not said to be the Word both begotten in time, and having suffered, and having borne either blows, or the marks of nails, or other wounds, nor to have died, as pertains to his nature, nor to have risen again; yet the Word is said to have borne a carnal birth from that very womb, being united [to it], as making the birth of his own flesh his own; and likewise the other things that are human, since that body which was made his own endured these things. Again, he himself is said to suffer for us, for he was impassible in the suffering body.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":191,"ref":"p191","source":"Igitur nunc interim ex universalibus et communiter confessis synodicis inchoantes, quæ a te objecta sunt solvimus, et quæ opor ebal, firmavimus; alia vero minime attigimus, interim ne illa quae ad aliud opus pertinent commiscentes operemur confusionem; verumtamen et illarum lectionum discussio potest ad alteram collocutionem siuc præjudicio reservari.\n\nHæret. Velim et illud ediscere, quomodo putes hanc demonstrationem eis qui ea quæ vestra sunt sapiunt praestare victoriam, eo quod probet quoniam non debeat una per unitionem credi natura Domini Christi? hoc enim te esse dicturum promisisti superius.\n\nRust. Bene ad memoriam rcvocasti: dicam et hoc. Si una per unitionem natura Domini facta est, quidquid dicitur de Verbo, de Filio, de Christo, et de ista natura dicetur; ct rursus quidquid de illa natura, ut dicitis, dicetur, utique et de iis nominibus praedicabitur; et hoc non circa alium modum. Sicut igitur abominabile est dicere quia Deus Verbum in natura propria passus est, sic, si forte præsumitis, fugite dicere, quia passus est ia seipso vel persona sua, vel subsistentia. Aut sicut dicis, « non in experimentum veniens matris quod at. tinet ad ejus naturam: » hoc transferte dicentes: quod pertinet ad suam personam et ad seipsam Filium mortuus non est.","english":"Therefore, for now, beginning with the universal and commonly confessed synodical writings, we have resolved the objections you raised and confirmed what was needed; but other matters we have scarcely touched, lest in the meantime, by mixing in those things that belong to another work, we produce confusion; yet the discussion of those readings can be reserved for another conversation without prejudice.\n\nHeretic: I would like to learn this as well: how do you think this demonstration gives victory to those who understand what is yours, in that it proves that the nature of the Lord Christ ought not to be believed to be one through union? For you promised above that you would say this.\n\nRusticus: You have recalled it well to memory; I will say this too. If the nature of the Lord has been made one through union, whatever is said of the Word, of the Son, of Christ, will also be said of that nature; and again, whatever is said of that nature, as you say, will assuredly also be predicated of those names; and this not in another manner. Therefore, just as it is abominable to say that God the Word suffered in his own nature, so, if perhaps you presume, avoid saying that he suffered in himself or in his person or in his subsistence. Or, as you say, \"not coming into the experience of the mother as it pertains to his nature,\" transfer this by saying: as it pertains to his own person and to himself, the Son did not die.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":192,"ref":"p192","source":"» Quoniam vero ex iis dicere adjacet, quoniam Verbi natura substantiaque penulit: sic a vobis dicatur non pa sam subsistentiam Verbi, neque personam, neque ipsum Filium, neque hunc unigenitum, neque eumdem Dominum, vel ipsum Christum; sed eos qui hæc dicunt, duos filios introducere non potestis abnegare, qui novit [F. leg. novistis] quia talia dicens Nestorius, tanquam duerum praedicator accusatus est filiorum; inquit enim (propter quod ct damnamus est) ita: Ego hunc himestrem et trimestrem non dico Deum; » et rursus: « Non oportet lactis nutrimentum de Deo. » Et in epistola sua ad sanctissimum Cyrillum, dixit sanctam Virginem partricem Christi, non Dci: Manifestum vero est, quia David filius non erat Deus Verbum. » Et rursus quidem: « Corpus, divinitatis Filii templum, et templum secundum summam quamdam ct divinam cunjunctionem unitum, ita ut et propriificaret ea quæ hujus erant divina natura, bonum est conlite'i et evangelicis traditionibus dignum. Et rursus in iis quæ mox sequuntur, idem Nestorius negat id quod confessus est hic.","english":"But since it is fitting to speak from these points, since he [Nestorius] affirmed the nature and substance of the Word: so let it be said by you—not that the subsistence of the Word is the same, nor the person, nor the Son himself, nor this only-begotten one, nor the same Lord, nor Christ himself; but you cannot deny that those who say these things introduce two sons, since he knew that Nestorius, by saying such things, was accused as a preacher of two sons; for he says (on account of which he is also condemned) thus: \"I do not call this one of two months and three months God\"; and again: \"The nourishment of milk ought not to be attributed to God.\" And in his letter to the most holy Cyril, he said that the holy Virgin is the mother of Christ, not of God: \"But it is manifest that David the son was not God the Word.\" And again indeed: \"The body, the temple of the divinity of the Son, and a temple united according to some supreme and divine conjunction, so that it also appropriated to itself the things that belonged to the divine nature, is good to confess and worthy of the evangelical traditions.\" And again in what follows immediately, the same Nestorius denies what he confessed here.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":193,"ref":"p193","source":"Adjecit enim continue et hæc: i Propriificationis autem nomini deputare et carnis proprietates ( generationem dico, et mortificationem), aut errantis, frater, circa paganos vel gentiles, et mentis; aut per ea quae sunt vcsani Apollinarii ct Arii vel aliarum hæresum ægrotantis; quinimo et aliquid gravius, et ab illis: necesse est enim propriificationis nomine tractos, et lactis nutrimenti participem per propriificationem facere Deum Verbum, et augmenti quod paulatim evenit consottem, et in passionis tempore facti terroris et indigum angelici adjumenti. »\n\nHæret. Et quid præcipue culpatis in iis, vos qui naturarum proprietates ipsamque dualitatem nunc usque asseritis salvas? Si enim secunduin veritatem dicta sunt hæc, nec trimestris dicendus est Deus, nec lacte nutritus, nec recenti tempore natus ex Virgine, nec ipsius filius ct David, neque passus, neque mortificatus carne, nec crevisse paulatim, nec alias in semetipsum carnis excepisse proprietates per propriificationem dispensativam.","english":"For he added these things also in continuation: \"But to assign to the name of propriification both the properties of the flesh (I mean generation and mortification), or those of one who errs—brother, among the pagans or gentiles—and of the mind; or those of one sick through the things that belong to the mad Apollinarius and Arius or other heresies; indeed, something even more serious, and from those men: for it is necessary that those who are drawn by the name of propriification make God the Word a partaker of milk-nourishment through propriification, and a sharer in the growth that comes about gradually, and in the time of the passion one who was in need of angelic assistance because of the fear that came upon him.\"\n\nHe clings [to this]. And what especially do you censure in these things, you who up to now assert the properties of the natures and duality itself to be preserved? For if these things were said according to the truth, then God is not to be called a three-month-old, nor nourished on milk, nor born of the Virgin in recent time, nor is he the son of David himself, nor did he suffer, nor was he put to death in the flesh, nor did he grow gradually, nor did he otherwise receive in himself the properties of the flesh through dispensational propriification.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":194,"ref":"p194","source":"Rust. Dico quid reprehendimus, non nos primi, sed cum Patribus sanctis. Prius quidem tanquam per transitum dico, pessime dixit, quia ea quae sunt templi, divinitatis natura propriificat: non enim Trinitatis Datura, sed una persona illius naturæ existens, propria facit ea quae sunt carnis. Secundo vero, quia quoquomodo significans, quia Deus Verbum suificat propria carnis; et dum hoc explanare debuerij, hoc ipsum magis in iis quae dixit postea, denegavit. Si enim, ut inquit, Deus suificat ca quæ carnis sunt per propriificationem dispensativam, oportet magis propriificationis nomini deputare et carnis proprietates: generationem dico, et passionem, et mortificationem et alia. Ille vero hoc janu minime approbat, sed et (sibimet ipsi contrarius) ut hæreticum et gentile, et ut aliquid adhuc deterius, id accusat. Cur namque omnino, qui inhumanatus est Deus, ea quae proprii templi sunt, propria sibi fecit, si non habent etiam dici de eo, ad admirationem charitatis ejus circa nos? quid enim majus est, fieri illa Verbi propria, an dici? Naturarum vero proprietates salvas esse fatentes, nos similiter dualitatem illarum nihilominus affirmamus: quia sicut earum discretio est salva, sic et unitio. Unde quæ non sunt secundum naturam propria Verbi,.'jus sunt circa unitionem, etiamsi hoc multoties millies recusaverit impius.","english":"Rusticus the deacon: I say what we censure, not we first, but together with the holy Fathers. First, indeed, I say it by way of passing over, he spoke very badly, because he assigns to the nature of the divinity the things that belong to the temple: for it is not the nature of the Trinity, but one person of that nature existing, that makes its own the things that belong to the flesh. Secondly, however, because in whatever way he signifies that God the Word makes his own the things proper to the flesh; and when he ought to explain this, he rather denied this very thing in what he said afterward. For if, as he says, God makes his own the things that belong to the flesh through a dispensational propriification, one ought rather to assign to the name of propriification also the properties of the flesh: I mean generation, and passion, and mortification, and others. But he by no means approves this now, but even (being contrary to himself) accuses it as heretical and gentile, and as something still worse. For why, indeed, did God, who was made man, make his own the things that belong to his own temple, if they cannot also be said of him, to the wonder of his love toward us? For what is greater, that those things become the Word's own, or that they be said? But confessing that the properties of the natures are preserved, we likewise nonetheless affirm the duality of those natures: because just as their distinction is preserved, so also is their union. Hence the things that are not proper to the Word according to nature belong to him with respect to the union, even if the impious one has refused this many thousands of times.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":195,"ref":"p195","source":"Proprietates enim salvæ sunt quidem, in unam vero personam subsistentiamque concurrunt. Idcirco non tantum ut impium Nestor iu n, sed ct ut sibimentipsi contrarium, in synodo Valerianus incusat dicens: « Omnibus conspicua e contrarietas reverendi Nestorii, non solum fidei sanctorum Patrum qui in Nicæa convenerunt, et epistolae Deo amicissimi et sanctissimi archiepiscopi Cyrilli dissentiens, sed neque sibi conveniens. » Similiter vero ad eumdem Nestorium scripsit Cœlestinus sanctissimus papa, dicens: « Legimus ergo epistolarum tenorem, et eos libros qaos, illustri viro filio meo Antiocho reddente, suscepimus: in iis quidem nobis vestigatus, deprehensus et tentus, quodam multiloquio labebaris, dum vera involvis obMuris, rursus utraque confundens, vel cunfiteris negata, vel niteris negare confessi. »\n\nflaret. Quæ dixisti de propriificatione et uniLione vere orthodoxa sunt, et Nestorii verbositatibus ex adverso et quasi e regione contraria: in reliquis autem, puto quod illi eadem protuleris quem magnopere accua ti.","english":"For the properties are indeed preserved, but they converge into one person and one subsistence. Therefore Valerianus in the synod accuses him not only as an impious Nestorius, but also as one contrary to himself, saying: \"The contrariety of the revered Nestorius is evident to all, as he dissents not only from the faith of the holy Fathers who convened at Nicaea and from the letter of the most God-beloved and most holy archbishop Cyril, but is not even consistent with himself.\" Similarly, the most holy pope Celestine wrote to the same Nestorius, saying: \"We have therefore read the tenor of the letters, and those books which we received when the illustrious man, my son Antiochus, delivered them: in these you were tracked down, caught, and held fast by us, that you were slipping in a kind of loquacity, while you wrap true things in obscure words, again confounding both, either confessing what you denied, or striving to deny what you confessed.\"\n\nWhat you have said about propriification and union is truly orthodox, and directly opposed and, as it were, face to face with the wordiness of Nestorius; but in the rest, I think that you have brought forward the same things as that man whom you greatly accuse.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":196,"ref":"p196","source":"Rust. Absit, o calumniari edocte! incumbentes enim rationi praedictae, adhuc quae vestra sunt amplius subruemus, et nostram rectam fidem probando monstrabimus. Si enim qui dicit non ipsum Deum Verbum qui consubstantialis est Patri, qui unigenitus, quique iis quæ per eum facta sunt non potes! comparari (genitum secundum carnem, inhumanatum ex Yirgine), non lacle nutritum, non crevisse, non factum esse bimestrem atque trimestrem, non passum, non mortuum, non resurrexisse: si ergo, inquam, qui hæc dicit, duos filios producit et Christos, igitur qui dicit eumdem Dominum non habere secunduin Deitatem principium ex Virgine, neque lactatum secundum suam naturam, neque crevisse, neque factum fuisse bimestrem atque trimestrem, neque passum, neque mortuum, neque resurrexissc, nec caetera, adjiciens utique secundum propriam naturam, duas naturas n:odis omnibus introducit. S cut igitur juste abominamur ca quæ superius diximus, sic ea quæ nunc sunt dicta competenter amplectimur; quia sicut illa subruunt Patrum termini, sic ista recipiunt: unde judicio vestro damnamini.","english":"Rusticus: Far be it, O you who have been taught to slander! For pressing on with the argument already stated, we shall further tear down what is yours, and by proving it we shall show our right faith. For if he who says that the very God the Word, who is consubstantial with the Father, who is the Only-begotten, and who cannot be compared to the things that were made through him—(was begotten according to the flesh, was made man from the Virgin), was not nourished with milk, did not grow, was not made a two-month-old and a three-month-old, did not suffer, did not die, did not rise again: if, then, I say, he who says these things produces two sons and two Christs, then he who says that the same Lord did not have a beginning from the Virgin according to his Godhead, nor was he suckled according to his own nature, nor grew, nor was made a two-month-old and a three-month-old, nor suffered, nor died, nor rose again, nor [did] the rest—adding these things, surely, according to his own nature—introduces two natures in every way. Just as, therefore, we rightly abominate the things we have said above, so we fittingly embrace the things now said; because just as those things overturn the definitions of the Fathers, so these receive them: whence you are condemned by your own judgment.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":197,"ref":"p197","source":"In eo enim quod abominamini ac persecutioni subjicitis eos qui dicunt, vel qui putantur dicere, quia alter est Deus Verbum, et alter bomo assumptus ab eo qui ex Virgine natus est, qui est plasmatus in Virgine, qui est unus ex nobis, qui in summam et ineffabilem quamdam conjunctionum Deo Verbo unitus est ex ipso conceptu; in eo ergo quod contra eo! qui talia dicunt omnino ferventer insurgitis, et quasi latrantes illos indesinenter anathematizatis, ita ut si quis favere talibus volens fuerit visus, nulla pœna apud vos putetur indignus, tanquam parvum dicens hominem Christum, aut quasi duos filios inJucens; vos tamen ipsi, et communicantes vobis, alteram dicentes humanam Christi naturam et alteram ejusdem divinam, et boc audientes a Patribus esse confessum quos sequi praetenditis, tamen duas naturas Domini Christi post unitionem abaminamini confiteri. Videmini ergo mihi, quia in die judicii damnabimini ex ipsius Nestorii condemnatione. Natu si omnino juste odistis Nestorium vos, tanquam qui per talia verba duos introduxcrit filios, quare vos de naturis hæc ipsa dicentes, duas naturas non fatemini vos prædicare? Et certe vos non hæc solum dicitis de naturis, sed et pluraliter eas sæpius nominatis, vel etiam pares confitemini eos qui eas ita nominaverunt, quod Nestorius de Christi vel Fil i vel Domini nomine fecisse non scribitur.","english":"For in that you abominate and subject to persecution those who say, or who are thought to say, that one is God the Word and another the man assumed by him who was born of the Virgin, who was formed in the Virgin, who is one of us, who was united to God the Word in a certain supreme and ineffable conjunction from the very moment of conception—in that, therefore, you rise up altogether fervently against those who say such things, and as though they were barking dogs you ceaselessly anathematize them, so that if anyone wishing to favor such men should be seen, no punishment is thought unworthy of him among you, as though he were saying that Christ is a mere man, or were introducing, as it were, two sons; yet you yourselves, and those in communion with you, saying that one is the human nature of Christ and the other his divine nature, and hearing that this was confessed by the Fathers whom you claim to follow, nevertheless abominate confessing two natures of the Lord Christ after the union. You therefore seem to me to be condemned on the day of judgment by the very condemnation of Nestorius. For if you justly hate Nestorius altogether, as one who by such words introduced two sons, why do you, saying these very things about the natures, not confess that you preach two natures? And certainly you not only say these things about the natures, but also name them oftener in the plural, and even confess that those who so named them are equal, which Nestorius is not recorded to have done with the name of Christ or of the Son or of the Lord.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":198,"ref":"p198","source":"Quomodo igitur vos qui hæc dicitis de naturis, ita caecamini, ut ea quae confitemini non dicatis? Quomodo vero et Nestorio maledicitis, tanquam qui duos Christos induxerit, eo quod talia de Deo Verto et homine prædicaverit? Et, ut compendiose dicamus, hoc argumentum contra vos insuperahile invenitur, quamcunque hujus partem voluerimus inspicere. A nobis igitur Neslorius juste damnatur: at vero a vohis injusste, cum quo damnata est vestra sententia. Quare et nos quando Nestorium damnamus, contra vos promulgamus anathema; et vos ipsi quoties illum damnatis, recurrit in vos; cl quando id jaculamini cntra nos, ut contra Nestorianos, quippe calumniantes, et omnino odicntes; et quando a not is contra vestros hæresiarchas (dico vero Apollinarium, Eutychen et Dioscorum) talis procedit calculus, econtra vos eidem sententiæ irrecusabiliter crebreque succumbitis.","english":"How is it, then, that you who say these things about the natures are so blinded that you do not say what you confess? And how is it that you curse Nestorius, as though he had introduced two Christs, because he preached such things about God the Word and the man? And, to speak briefly, this argument is found invincible against you, whichever part of it we wish to examine. By us, therefore, Nestorius is justly condemned; but by you unjustly, and with him your own opinion has been condemned. Wherefore we too, when we condemn Nestorius, pronounce anathema against you; and you yourselves, as often as you condemn him, the same falls back upon you; and when you hurl this against us, as against Nestorians, as though we were slanderers and altogether hateful; and when from us against your heresiarchs (I mean Apollinarius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus) such a reckoning proceeds, on the contrary you irrefutably and frequently succumb to the same sentence.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":199,"ref":"p199","source":"Hæret. Ego illi synodo communicare non possum quae dicit quod præter Trinitatem sit inhumanatio Domini. Dicitur enim in ea quae vocatur definitio, de symbolo Patrum: de Patre enim et Filio ct Spiritu sancto, quae perfecta sunt docet, et Domini inhumanationem fideliter accipientibus repræsentat. Utique enim qui de Filio quæ perfecta sunt docet, de inhumanatione ejus, non extra et praeter Trinitatem tanquam de quarto aliquo, sed illic repraesentat: ii vero, postquam dixerunt de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Rancto, tunc alterum quemdam Dominum ejusque inhumanationem subintroduxerunt.\n\nRust. Olim demonstratum est quia non est qnartum quomodolibet introducere extra, et extra de sanctæ Trinitatis consubstantialitate facere ac de Verbi Dei inhumanatione sermonem; sed ita omnino ea quæ probata sunt, minime advertisti. Dixit enim synodus Ephesina: Quia e converso se habet in Satvatore quam in Triuitate: illic enim alter et alter, ut non subsistentias confundamus, non vero aliud et aliud: ahsit; unum enim, tria, et idem in divinitate; in Domino vero aliud et aliud quibus Christus, siquidem hoc illi non idem est. » Multum ergo ad veritatem cæcamini, nec illa vultis accipere quæ manifestius Ephesina quam Chalcedonensis synodus approbavit. Aliud est enim de Trinitatis communi substantia, et a'iud de propriis unius loqui personæ, ct hoc de servi quæ illic inconsubstantiaJis est forma.","english":"Heretic: I cannot communicate with that synod which says that the Lord's becoming man is outside the Trinity. For in what is called its definition, it is stated concerning the creed of the Fathers: for it teaches the perfect things concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and it sets forth the Lord's becoming man to those who faithfully receive it. For surely one who teaches the perfect things concerning the Son sets forth concerning his becoming man, not outside and beyond the Trinity as though concerning some fourth thing, but in that very place; but they, after they had spoken of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, then introduced another Lord, as it were, and his becoming man.\n\nRusticus: It was shown long ago that it is not introducing a fourth in any way whatever, outside, and making a speech outside the consubstantiality of the holy Trinity and concerning the becoming man of the Word of God; but you have by no means noticed all these things that have been approved. For the synod of Ephesus said: \"For the case is the reverse in the Savior from what it is in the Trinity: for there, one and another, so that we do not confuse the subsistences, but not one thing and another; let it be absent; for there is one, three, and the same in the divinity; but in the Lord, one thing and another by which Christ is, since indeed this is not the same for him.\" You are therefore greatly blinded as to the truth, and you do not wish to accept those things which the synod of Ephesus approved more clearly than the synod of Chalcedon. For it is one thing to speak of the common substance of the Trinity, and another of the proper attributes of one person, and this of the servant, which there is a form not consubstantial.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":200,"ref":"p200","source":"Hæret. Quis habet accipere synodum quæ Iconis approbat tomum, dicentem de Verbo et carne super alia et hæc: Horum unum coruscut miraculis, aliud succumbit injuriis. Quid ergo? die mihi, non injuriatus est Deus carne? non Verbum per carnem miracula operatum? Quid autem vult separatio ista, ut dicat hoc quidem illud, hoc vero illud?\n\nRust. Deus quidem Verbum, quia injuriatus sit carne, minime denegamus; sed non succumbit injuriis, id est, injuriarum passionumque non inferior. sed potior fuit; caro ejus non injuriata est solum, scd et succubuit contumeliis et passa est. Nam sicut existens natura passibilis et mortua est. et ei dominata est mors quae servit Deo. At vero Deus Verbum iubumanatus pati quidem propter unitionem dicitur a, propriificans ea quae sunt passibilis natune, per suificationem dispensativam, ut et antea jam dixi, non autem passus est sicut caro. Nam si impassibilis simpliciter passus est, superflue est impassihi!: ad quid enim aliud impassibilitas proficit, nisi ut id quod cst impassibile minime patiatur? Si igitur in Deo nihil superfluum neque inutile, sed perfecta et decora sunt universa et apta, clarel utique quia et impassibilitas ejns non est inutilis: non igitur passus est.","english":"Heretic: Who can accept a synod that approves the tome of the Icon, saying concerning the Word and the flesh, among other things, also this: \"Of these, one shines forth with miracles, the other succumbs to injuries.\" What then? Tell me, was God not injured by the flesh? Did the Word not work miracles through the flesh? But what does that separation mean, that it says this of one and that of the other?\n\nRusticus: We by no means deny that God the Word was injured by the flesh; but he does not succumb to injuries, that is, he is not inferior to injuries and passions, but was stronger. His flesh was not only injured, but also succumbed to insults and suffered. For being by nature passible, it also died, and death, which serves God, ruled over it. But God the Word, having become man, is said to suffer because of the union, appropriating to himself the things that belong to the passible nature, through the dispensation of vivification, as I have already said before, yet he did not suffer as the flesh did. For if the impassible one simply suffered, impassibility is superfluous; for to what other purpose does impassibility profit, except that what is impassible should in no way suffer? If therefore in God nothing is superfluous or useless, but all things are perfect and beautiful and fitting, it is clear that his impassibility also is not useless; therefore he did not suffer.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":201,"ref":"p201","source":"Hæret. Sed misericordia pertulit, qui propria natura non est passus; quare, circa hoc, ct injuriis succubuit secundum quod passus cst: quomodo igitur dicitis cum Leone, quia hoc quidem coruscat miraculis, illud vero succumbit injuriis.\n\nRust. Et sanctissimus Leo, de propria ipsius Dci Verbi natura, inquit, uia coruscat miraculis; de carne vero, quod reliquum est; et tu nunc confessus es quia Deus Verbum propria natura non per ulit; rur igitur eadem confiteris pariter et accusas' Non enim dixit: Iste quidem coruscat miraculis, ille vero succumbit injuriis, ut suspicionem, daret, quasi da duabus personis loqueretur; sed hoc quidem tanquam de duahus naturis: aliud enim et aliud ea ex quibus Salvator, siquidem non est idem intemporale ei quod sub tempore est.\n\nHæret. Non solum de propria Dei Verbi natura, sed ct de ipso Verbo ait, et hoc frequenter, quia non fierit passus; verumtamen et dicere quia Verbi natura non passa esi, hoc idem est dicere quod Verbum minime passum sit: nihilo namque impassibilior est, ut ita dixerim, Verbi natura ab eo cujus natura est. Eadem igitur natura, impassibilis manens, nostri miseratione passa est.","english":"Heretic: But the mercy endured, he who by his own nature did not suffer; therefore, in this respect, he also succumbed to injuries insofar as he suffered. How then do you say with Leo that the one shines forth with miracles, but the other succumbs to injuries?\n\nRusticus: The most holy Leo also speaks of the very nature of God the Word himself when he says that it shines forth with miracles; but of the flesh, what remains; and you have now confessed that God the Word did not suffer by his own nature. Therefore do you now both confess and accuse the same things? For he did not say, \"The one shines forth with miracles, but the other succumbs to injuries,\" so as to give the suspicion that he was speaking of two persons; but this indeed as of two natures: for one thing and another are those from which the Savior consists, since indeed the timeless is not the same as that which is under time.\n\nHeretic: Not only concerning the proper nature of God the Word, but also concerning the Word himself he says, and this frequently, that he did not suffer; yet to say that the nature of the Word did not suffer is the same as to say that the Word did not suffer at all: for the nature of the Word is no more impassible, so to speak, than he whose nature it is. Therefore the same nature, remaining impassible, suffered out of compassion for us.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":202,"ref":"p202","source":"Rust. In Dci bonitate contrarium nihil est, qn2re miserationis [forte miseratio] impassibilitatem ejus non solvit. Si vero Deus Verbum sempiteme impassibi is, et nunquam perpessus, nuper propter misericordiam, qualiter vos dicitis, pertulit; majus ct infinite maius damnificatus est quam lucratus. Lucratus enim est nos, creaturam suam, ct propriæ amisit impassibilitatem substantiae? Vos igitur valde erratis, sic aliquid laudantes in Deo, ut rursus aliquid blasphematis. Non indiget Deus laude vestra, ut subdole ejus misericordiam exaltetis ad impassibilitatis ejus præjudicium; nos competenter superexaltamus sericordiam ejus, salva inconvertibilitate pjus. Eos enim qui dicunt vertibilem aut mutabilem Filium Dei, anathematizat catholica et apostolica Ecclesia, sicut synodus Nicaena definivit. Quinimo non inconvertibilitatis solum, sed et potentiæ ejus, quod absit, additio est, si aliter crealuram suam salvare non potuit, nisi suam proprietatem Creator amitteret; aut consilii vituperatio, si potuit quidem et hoc non amittere, et illud salvare; sed, dum posset quod est melius, elegit quod deterius eral.","english":"Rusticus: In God's goodness there is nothing contrary, so mercy does not dissolve his impassibility. But if God the Word was always impassible and never suffered, and recently, because of mercy, as you say, he endured suffering, then he has been harmed more, and infinitely more, than he has gained. For he gained us, his creation, and lost the impassibility of his own substance? You therefore greatly err, praising something in God in such a way that you again blaspheme something. God does not need your praise, so that you might subtly exalt his mercy to the prejudice of his impassibility; we duly exalt his mercy beyond measure, while his inconvertibility remains intact. For those who say that the Son of God is convertible or mutable, the catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes, as the Council of Nicaea defined. Indeed, it would be, God forbid, an addition not only to his inconvertibility but also to his power, if the Creator could not save his creation in any other way than by losing his own property; or else a reproach to his counsel, if he could indeed both not lose this and save that, but, when he could do what is better, chose what was worse.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":203,"ref":"p203","source":"Sic ergo illa quæ nohis prosunt, laudemus in Deo, ut ea quæ digna sunt non feremur: hoc vero ex Manichæorum cognatione descendit ad vos: ipsorum natuque est passibibilem cogitare Deum, et omnem bonam naturam esse solius boni Dei; et quia præce lens [forte prævidens] Deus futurum ut periclitaretur proprium regnum, si princeps tenebrarum prior iujiceret ci prælium, propter hoc misit de substantia sua, commiscendo cum illa substantia nequam, ut regnum proprium præ.. muinret; et ex bonarum malarumque potestatum mixtione mundum factum esse blasphemant. Sic et vos dicitis quod non aliter nos salvaverit Deus, nisi pro nobis ipse passibilis factus.\n\nHæret. Memini te dixisse quod illa humanitas Deo comparata sit magis ut accidens quam subjecta substantia: quomodo igitur jam dux sint Christi substantiæ, dum quando accidens additamentum non fiat substantiæ, sed quamitatis?","english":"Therefore let us praise in God those things that benefit us, so that we may not endure the things that are unworthy of him. But this has descended to you from kinship with the Manichaeans; for it is their nature to think that God is passible, and that every good nature belongs to the good God alone; and because God, foreseeing that his own kingdom would be endangered if the prince of darkness first joined battle against him, for this reason sent from his own substance, mingling it with that wicked substance, so that he might fortify his own kingdom; and they blasphemously claim that the world was made from a mixture of good and evil powers. So you too say that God saved us in no other way than by himself becoming passible for us.\n\nHere he sticks. I remember you said that that humanity, compared to God, is more like an accident than an underlying substance. How then are there now two substances of Christ, when an accident does not become an addition to substance, but of quantity?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":204,"ref":"p204","source":"Rust. Huc non de substantia, sed de subsistentia dixi. Ad divinam vero substantiam sive naturam caro collata nihilominus substantia et natura est. Demonstratum est enim quia et Patres qui dicunt, duæ naturæ Deus et Aonio, et utramque naturam et ambas, non dicerent hac, nisi eas ad invicem compararent. Et vos ipsi vero, id in fadlis ex duabus substantiis et naturis; et insuper ex duabus quoque subsistentiis Christum esse dicentes. Quod autem culpare Leonem sanctissimum voluisti dicentem: Hoc quidem illud, illud vero aliud, sus' ipe de Ephesina synodo lectonem quam superaddiderunt jam, postquam venerunt, vicarii sanctissimi Cœlestini papæ Romani: ex iis demon trantes quomodo debeant sanctorum Patrum symbolum declarari ex testimonio sanctæ memoriæ AUlici: « Et hæc omnia suscipit, non natura Deitatis, sed assumptione carnis: illa qui dem in propriæ impa sibilitatis inviolabilitatibus permanens, ila vero omnia patiens sustinensque. » Ecce: illa quidem de div;na natura loquens ait; illa vero de corpore inquit assumpto, quo pertulit Filius Dei, sicut et idem Dominus inquit: Nolite timere eos qui occidunt corpus, animam vcro non possunt occidere (Matth. x, 28). Et rursus: Spiritus quidem promptus, caro autem infirma (Matth. XXVI, 41).","english":"Rusticus: I said this not of substance but of subsistence. But compared to the divine substance or nature, the flesh is nonetheless a substance and a nature. For it has been demonstrated that even the Fathers who say \"two natures, God and the man,\" and \"each nature\" and \"both natures,\" would not say this unless they were comparing them to one another. And you yourselves indeed say this in your writings: that Christ is from two substances and natures, and moreover from two subsistences also. But as for your wish to censure the most holy Leo when he says, \"This indeed is that, but that is another,\" hear the reading from the Council of Ephesus which the vicars of the most holy Celestine, pope of Rome, added after they had come—demonstrating from these things how the symbol of the holy Fathers ought to be expounded from the testimony of Aulicus of holy memory: \"And all these things he receives, not by the nature of the Godhead, but by the assumption of the flesh: that [nature] indeed remaining in the inviolabilities of its own impassibility, but that [flesh] suffering and enduring all things.\" Behold: speaking of the divine nature he says \"that,\" but of the assumed body he says \"that,\" through which the Son of God suffered, just as the same Lord also said: \"Do not fear those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul\" (Matthew 10:28). And again: \"The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak\" (Matthew 26:41).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":205,"ref":"p205","source":"Hæret. Quid ad illud dicere poteris, quia major unitio Dei ad humanitatem facta est, quam sit carnis ad animam in homine quocunque communi? Per mortem siquidem anima separatur a corpore: Deus vero ab anima illa et illo incontaminato corpore inseparabilis est in perpetuum: si igitur ex minore unitione ur.a natura fit, multo amplius ex majore, una vero hominis est natura, muto amplius igitur divinitatis et humanitatis una natura est.\n\nRust. Ante demonstrationem habes obstupescere? admirando enim ego tecum confiteor, quia et major unitio est in Domino Christo, et quæ multo majus tffecit; et unam tamen naturam minime fecit: tanto enim unitio Deitatis et humanitatis quæ in Domino Christo facta est, et ipse eOectus unitionis, illam qua: fit in homine superexcellit, quanto longius a se distantia univit: multum namque, et quantum dici non potest, superat ut Deitatis et humanitatis vel solum una possit esse persona, quam ut ex anima et carlo non solum una persona sit, sed et fiat una qu que natura. Deus enim infinite, et quantum dici non potest, superat creaturam; et tautum quod distat, vicit unitio ineffabilis in unam personam dicens [Sic], tam longe naturæ terminis seu rationibus separatæ. Anima vero, parvum quid carnem excellit; conserva enim sum utraque et creaturæ, et ex nihilo factae a Creatore.","english":"He clings to it. What can you say to this, that the union of God with humanity is greater than that of flesh with soul in any ordinary man? For by death the soul is separated from the body; but God is inseparable from that soul and that undefiled body forever. If, therefore, from a lesser union one nature is made, much more from a greater; but the nature of man is one, therefore much more is the nature of divinity and humanity one.\n\nRusticus: Do you have to be stunned before the demonstration? For in my wonder I confess with you that there is both a greater union in the Lord Christ, and one that accomplished much more; and yet it by no means made one nature. For the union of Deity and humanity that was made in the Lord Christ, and the effect of that union itself, surpasses that which is made in man by as much as it united things farther distant from each other. For it is much, and beyond what can be said, greater that the Deity and humanity should be only one person, than that from soul and flesh there should be not only one person but also one nature. For God infinitely, and beyond what can be said, surpasses creation; and the ineffable union overcame so great a distance, bringing into one person things separated by the boundaries or principles of nature so far apart. But the soul excels the flesh by a little; for both are preserved as belonging to creation, and made from nothing by the Creator.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":206,"ref":"p206","source":"Si vero Dei virtus infinita non esset, minime tanta ex uihilo constare fecisset, ab eo enim quod nullatenus est distant omnia infinite. Si igitur Dei quidem virtus infinita est, nostræ autem substantiæ finita, magna illa et supereffulgens unitio est, quae valuit imer illa tantum discrepantia unam personam lacere. Sicut enim superexcellit virtus ejus qui montem suspendit ad calum, et illi conjungit, si possit vel contingat id fieri, ultra illius qui glebam monti conjungit: sic unitio quæ in Christo est facta, eam quæ per singula in communibus hominibus fit. Verumtamen et illud iuquio: quia non necesse est a majore unitione majus aliquid effici; alioquin quanto am plius ali ua uniuntur, tanto potentiore vi uniuntur i sed ea quæ confunduntur, ultra quae minime confunduntur amplius uniuntur, ut humentia. Rursus anima quia minime confunditur corpori, non tamen major est eorum quæ confunduntur unitio unitione rationalium animarum ad propria corpora; hanc enim solus facit Deus, illæ vero subjacent etiam nobis. Super hæc vero indefinite assumpta est major. Responsio vero sufficiet, etsi definite dicatur, veluti si quis dicat a inopinabilior: mirabilius esi enim sic fieri unam personam et unam naturam, quam illo modo unam personam unamque naturam.","english":"But if the power of God were not infinite, he could by no means have made such great things consist out of nothing; for all things are infinitely distant from that which in no way exists. If, then, the power of God is infinite, but our substance is finite, that great and supereffulgent union is great, which was able to make one person amid such great discrepancy. For just as the power of him who suspends a mountain to the sky and joins it to it—if this could or should happen—excels beyond that of him who joins a clod of earth to a mountain, so the union that was made in Christ excels that which takes place individually in ordinary men. Yet I also say this: that it is not necessary that something greater be effected by a greater union; otherwise, the more things are united, the more they are united by a more powerful force; but those things that are confounded are united more than those that are not confounded at all, as moist things are. Again, because the soul is not confounded with the body, the union of things that are confounded is not thereby greater than the union of rational souls with their own bodies; for God alone makes this union, whereas those things are subject even to us. Beyond these, the assumed union is indefinitely greater. But the answer will suffice even if it is stated definitely, as if someone should say it is more unexpected: for it is more wonderful that one person and one nature should come to be in this way than that one person and one nature should come to be in that way.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":207,"ref":"p207","source":"Hæret. Dic mihi breviter: in Christo humana natura secundum substantiam Filius Dei est, an non? et Deus Verbum secundum naturam Filius Dei Genitricis, an non? Si quidem secundum naturam, daret quia amlo una natura est; si vero non secundum naturam. igitur et solute per ytaliam, et duo filii erunt: dum Deus Verbum quidem secundum naturam Filius Patris sit, et se undum gratiam matris; homo vcro secundum naturam quidem ma Iris, at vero per gratiam Pallis: et sicut neque hic illius, ita neque iste illius.\n\nRust. Si duo sola essent quæ præponeres, ncc sic quidem tibi simpliciter quod prosecutus es dedeam; veruntamen hoc dico, quia secundum personam et subsistentiam Filius Dei, Deus Verbum, Dei Genitricis est Filius; et sim littr (quinimo quod dicere idem est). quia servi forma secundum subsistentiam et non secundum substantiam et naturam Filius Dei est. Et sicut si esset, ut ante dixisti, una natura, sic nunc una subsistentia, ei unus ac solus est Filius.","english":"Heretic. Tell me briefly: is the human nature in Christ the Son of God according to substance, or not? And is God the Word the Son of the Mother of God according to nature, or not? If indeed according to nature, it would follow that there is one nature; but if not according to nature, then both are dissolved, and there will be two sons: while God the Word is indeed the Son of the Father according to nature, and of the mother according to grace; but the man is the son of the mother according to nature, yet of the Father according to grace; and just as the one is not the other's, so neither is the other the one's.\n\nRusticus. If there were only two points that you were setting before me, not even so would I grant you without qualification what you have argued; nevertheless I say this, that according to person and subsistence, the Son of God, God the Word, is the Son of the Mother of God; and likewise (indeed, to say the same thing) that in the form of a servant he is the Son of God according to subsistence, and not according to substance and nature. And just as, as you said before, there was one nature, so now there is one subsistence, and he is one and the only Son.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":208,"ref":"p208","source":"Hæret. Quoniam longus sermo nobis non solum lah. nem et defectum, sed et fastidium injecit, quod intellectus valde confundit, si videtur, reliquam collocutionem in alinm diem, si Dco dictum placueril, reservemus. Verumtamen et hæc in nostris mentibus revolvamus: multa namq e apud semetipsum silentium ten ntis discussio, et mcmoriam, et intellectumł, ct doctrinam, p. ofectumque præstabit.\n\nRust. Ne, quæso, protrahas tempus convertendi al Deum: incertus est eni finis humanus; et præcipue dibus nostris, quando implacabilis ubique bacchatur interitus, et ignis gehennæ intransmeabilis est. Ne amicitias hominum verearis, ut non inimicitias incurras coelestium potestatum; ne affinium multitudinem, ut annumereris omnibus a sæculo sanctis; ne banc vestem, ut indnas Christum; ne hos temporalium flores, ut fulgeas sicut sol in regno Dei; non hujus mundi div tias, ut vitam hacreditate capias infinitam in perpetuo et inenarrabili gaudio; non sæculi frutiones, et erit tua esca Spiritus sancti manna; non transitorias dignitates, ut possis regnare cum Christo. Efficere excelsiorum particeps intellectum clevans. Suspende te ipsum a sæcularibus curis, et tunc comprehendes talium vilitatem. Gusta de dulcedne Dei, et sensum capies amarituadinis mundi. Appropria, et vide spiritale lumen, et erueris a carnalis confusionis tenebris.","english":"Heretic. Since our long discourse has brought upon us not only weariness and weakness but also disgust, which greatly confuses the understanding, if it seems good, let us reserve the rest of our conversation for another day, if it pleases God. Nevertheless, let us also turn these things over in our minds: for much discussion, even when one keeps silence with oneself, will provide memory, understanding, teaching, and progress.\n\nRusticus. Do not, I beg you, delay the time of turning to God; for the end of human life is uncertain, and especially in our days, when an implacable destruction rages everywhere, and the fire of Gehenna is impassable. Do not fear the friendships of men, lest you incur the enmities of the heavenly powers; do not fear the multitude of kinsmen, lest you be numbered among all the saints from the beginning of the world; do not fear this garment, lest you put on Christ; do not fear these flowers of temporal things, lest you shine like the sun in the kingdom of God; do not fear the riches of this world, lest you receive eternal life as an inheritance in perpetual and ineffable joy; do not fear the enjoyments of the world, and the manna of the Holy Spirit will be your food; do not fear transitory dignities, lest you be able to reign with Christ. Raise your understanding on high, that you may become a partaker of the things that are above. Withdraw yourself from secular cares, and then you will understand the worthlessness of such things. Taste of the sweetness of God, and you will perceive the bitterness of the world. Draw near, and see the spiritual light, and you will be delivered from the darkness of carnal confusion.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":209,"ref":"p209","source":"Exsuscita temetipsum et exsili ad alliorum munditiam, et discernes abominationes mundanæ sorddinis. Rumpe Satanicæ captivitatis vincula, ne perdas acquisiiam baptismate libertatem. Fuge participationem contaminatissimi dxmonis, ut in temet psum renoves adoptionem Dei. Rcpugna diabolo cupienti te pellere, et acquiesce Deo volenti salvare. Cogna dilectionem Dei, cogita frutionem regni coelorum, cogita futuri judicii nimis terribilem diem, cogita illud ipsius Domini Christi judicium quod a recto non potest detorqueri, cogita insustentabilia gehennæ tormenta, cogita indormitabiles vermes, cogita intransmeabilem et infinitam flammam; cogita illic inutilem pœntentiam, infrructuosa lamenta, surdos ululatus, improficuas pluvias lacrymatum: dum potes irrecusabiliter, impigre converte te ad veritatem. Non erit tibi nec hic excusatio, nec satisfactio apud Deum, si persistis in malis, maxime dum cuncta soluta sint quæ a vobis objecta sunt. Licet suffceret tibi unica auctoritas synodi uuiversalis, quæ numero superat universas, quæ toties cunctarum Ecclesiarum consona sententia confirmata eSI, tam per encyclicas epistolas regnante Lcone, quam per libellos sacerdotum forsan duorum millium et quingentorum, imperante Justino post schisma Petri Alexandrini et Acacii Constantinopolitani.","english":"Rouse yourself and leap forth to the cleanness of garlic, and you will discern the abominations of worldly filth. Break the bonds of Satanic captivity, lest you lose the freedom acquired in baptism. Flee from participation with the most polluted demon, so that in yourself you may renew the adoption of God. Fight against the devil who wishes to drive you out, and yield to God who wishes to save you. Think on the love of God, think on the enjoyment of the kingdom of heaven, think on the exceedingly terrible day of the future judgment, think on that judgment of the Lord Christ himself which cannot be turned aside from what is right, think on the unbearable torments of Gehenna, think on the worms that never sleep, think on the impassable and infinite flame; think on the useless repentance there, the fruitless lamentations, the deaf wailings, the unprofitable rains of tears: while you can without refusal, turn eagerly to the truth. There will be no excuse for you here, nor satisfaction with God, if you persist in evils, especially since all the charges that have been brought by you have been dissolved. Although the single authority of the universal synod should have sufficed for you, which surpasses all in number, which has been confirmed so many times by the concordant sentence of all the Churches, both through the encyclical letters while Leo reigned, and through the libelli of perhaps two thousand five hundred priests, while Justin was emperor after the schism of Peter of Alexandria and Acacius of Constantinople.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":210,"ref":"p210","source":"Non te perturbet ea quæ nuper exorta est perturbatio universalis Ecclesiæ, sed potius confirmet ad fidem: si enim recta fides nostra non esset, iis temporilus proficere potius quam perturbari potuerat. Lege Scripturas divinas. et invenies præsens tempus incredulitatis esse atque discessionis a fide: unde magis ad conversionem correctionemque festinare debes, ut et a præsentibus et futuris malis erui dignus effectus, infinitis Dei bonis fruaris in regno coelorum. Quod nos impetrare contingat gratia et largitione Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti.\n\nHæret. Si, quae dixi, subtilius velis inspicere, piorecto reperies quia ego non secundum quod unam personam et subsi tentiam dicitis, duos vos introducere filios monstravi, sed secundum quod duas dicitis Christi, post unitionem quoque, naturas; ac per hoc nisi mcas enodaveris quæstiones, quantumlibet unum Filium prædices, duos tamen inducis.","english":"Let not that universal disturbance of the Church which has recently arisen trouble you, but rather strengthen you in the faith; for if our faith were not right, in these times it could have prospered rather than been disturbed. Read the divine Scriptures, and you will find that the present time is one of unbelief and of departure from the faith; therefore you ought the more to hasten to conversion and correction, so that, being made worthy to be rescued from present and future evils, you may enjoy the infinite good things of God in the kingdom of heaven. May we obtain this by the grace and bounty of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.\n\nHe sticks fast. If you wish to examine more subtly what I have said, you will find it more correct, because I have not shown that you introduce two sons according to your claim of one person and one substance, but according to your claim of two natures of Christ even after the union; and by this, unless you unravel my questions, however much you preach one Son, you nevertheless introduce two.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":211,"ref":"p211","source":"Rust. Si pater cujuscunque carnalis, et episcopus sit ejus et doctor; non solum secundum carnem, sed etiam secundum spiritum pater est ejus; et licet circa aliud et aliud aliter atque aliter pater sit, non tamen duorum circa Duum pater esse dicitur filiorum. Nam vos ipsi, licet unam per unitionem dicatis Deitatis carnisque naturam, non circa idem vel eumdem Patrem ejus dicitis convenire, ut natura sii Filius Dei circa quam naturaliter est filius hominis; nec cniin simplicem jam nunc Christi integri naturam, sicut ante incarnationem, nisi forte secundum solam Deitatem, dicere poterit s, quam dicitis et duabus inconfusis existere. Aut ergo tua objectio commun 'cer erit nobis vobisque contraria; et non potest vohis adversum nos afferre victoriam, quæ nec contra illos se expedit qui duos filios introducunt: aut si illos una nobiscum superare desideras, idem, responde illis quod audis a nobis. Vincere igitur, ut dupliciter vincas, et eam quæ in te, et illam quæ in illis est, falsitatem. Alioquin si consequitur nos inducere duos filios, et vos consequetur ex duobus filiis introducere unum: impossibile vero est ex duobus filiis fieri unum.","english":"Rusticus: If anyone's carnal father is also his bishop and teacher, he is his father not only according to the flesh but also according to the spirit; and although he is father in one respect and another in another respect, and in one way and another in another way, he is not for that reason said to be the father of two sons in two respects. For you yourselves, although you say that there is one nature of the Godhead and the flesh through the union, do not say that his Father comes together in the same respect or as the same, so that the Son of God is naturally son of man in respect of that nature; nor indeed can he now be said to be of a simple nature, as Christ whole, as before the incarnation, unless perhaps according to the Godhead alone, which you say also exists from two natures without confusion. Either, therefore, your objection will be common to us and contrary to you; and it cannot bring you victory against us, since it does not even serve against those who introduce two sons; or if you wish to overcome them together with us, answer them the same thing that you hear from us. Conquer, then, so that you may conquer in two ways, both the falsehood that is in you and that which is in them. Otherwise, if it follows that we introduce two sons, it will also follow that you introduce one from two sons; but it is impossible for one to be made from two sons.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":212,"ref":"p212","source":"Haeret. Apertius cupio audire quæ dicis.\n\nRust. Responde si potes: secundum quid sit Filius Dci Deus Verbum, secundum simplicem Deitatis substantiam, quæ infinite incarnationi praexst tit: an, bicut dicitis, Secundum compositam Deitatis humanitatisque naturam?\n\nHæret. Secundum simplicem divinitatis substantiam.\n\nRust. Homo autem, vel humanitas, sive caro: secundum simplicem Deitatis naturam, an, sicut dicis, secundum compositam, filius est ejusdem?\n\nHæret. Non secundum simplicem, sed secundum compositam.\n\nRus. Quomodo ergo, circa vestra delirantenta, duo filii non sunt, Deus et homo, si Deus quidem Filius Dei non secundum compositam, sed secundum simplicem; homo vero filius Dei est, non secundum simplicem, sed secundum compositam naturam? Ecce tuis captus es nodis.\n\nHæret. Sed una cademque est simplex atque composita.\n\nRust. Sed etsi sic esset, rursus inerat differentia, quia non se simpliciter habet simplex atque composita; nec simpliciter idem est, quod ex una perfecta, et quod ex duabus est atque perfecta.","english":"Heretic: I wish to hear more openly what you are saying.\n\nRusticus: Answer, if you can: in what respect is the Son of God, God the Word, [Son] according to the simple substance of the Godhead, which existed before the incarnation without limit; or, as you say, according to the composite nature of Godhead and humanity?\n\nHeretic: According to the simple substance of the Godhead.\n\nRusticus: But man, or humanity, or flesh: is he the son of the same according to the simple nature of the Godhead, or, as you say, according to the composite?\n\nHeretic: Not according to the simple, but according to the composite.\n\nRusticus: How then, on your raving view, are there not two sons, God and man, if God indeed is the Son of God not according to the composite but according to the simple, while man is the son of God not according to the simple but according to the composite nature? See, you are caught in your own knots.\n\nHeretic: But the simple and the composite are one and the same.\n\nRusticus: But even if it were so, there would again be a difference, because the simple and the composite do not stand in the same relation simply; nor is that which is from one perfect [nature] simply the same as that which is from two and is perfect.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]}]}