{"slug":"tmp780.tmp780.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp780.tmp780.opp-lat1","title":"Contra Haeresim Nestorianam Impii Nestorianii Sermones","title_source":"Contra Haeresim Nestorianam Impii Nestorianii Sermones","author":"Marius Mercator","genre":"homily","date":"","tradition":"latin","coverage":"not-located","coverage_claim":{"status":"not-located","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — 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":"2026-11-15T21:27:55Z","cost_usd":0.012526},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp780.tmp780.opp-lat1","work_id":"tmp780.tmp780.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/tmp780/tmp780/tmp780.tmp780.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":148,"english_words":33766,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":131290,"commentary_units":0,"commentary_kinds":0,"derived_notes":57,"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/tmp780/tmp780/tmp780.tmp780.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"tmp780.tmp780.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":148,"translated":148,"commentary_passages":0,"commentary_units":0,"english_words":33766,"source_letters":131284,"commentary_kinds":0},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[],"derived_work_notes":[{"kind":"coverage","severity":"info","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — 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: homily in Latin; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 148 narrative."},{"kind":"caution","severity":"caution","text":"55 passage(s) are fragmentary in the source; the English bridges each break and says so in the note."},{"kind":"scripture","severity":"info","text":"2 scriptural phrase match(es) noted: John 1:1; John 1:14."},{"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":148},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"LIBER PRIMUS,\n\nIn quo continentur nestorii sermones tredecim, cum uno Procli; ejusdem nestorii epistolae tres, cum quatuor S. Cyrilli; mercatoris epistola una, de Nestorii haeresi;· excerpta s. cyrilli ex operibus nestorii.\n\nMARII MERCATORIS SERVI CHRISTI, PRAEFATIO IN VARIOS SERMONES IMPII NESTORII DE INCARNATIONE DOMINI NOSTRI JESU CHRISTI,\n\ne Graeco versos, Cum ejusdem Nestorii et Cyrilli epistolis et capitulis a sancto Cyrillo de diversis Nestorii libris excerptis.\n\nmarius mercator servus Christi, lectori conservo suo parem [Baluz. et parens] in Domino fidei salutem·\n\nNestorii quondam episcopi Constantinopolitanae urbis nonnulla ad plebem blasphemiarura dicta vel scripta, ex Graeco in Latinum sermonem, fervore catholicae; fidei incitatus, curavi transferre, a fidelibus linguae; meae fratribus cognoscenda atque vitanda: in quibus verbum de verbo, in quantum fleri potuit, conatus sum translator exprimere, ne prius falsarius magis quam verus postea probarer interpres.","english":"BOOK ONE,\n\nIn which are contained thirteen sermons of Nestorius, with one of Proclus; three letters of the same Nestorius, with four of St. Cyril; one letter of Mercator, on the heresy of Nestorius; excerpts of St. Cyril from the works of Nestorius.\n\nPREFACE OF MARIUS MERCATOR, SERVANT OF CHRIST, TO THE VARIOUS SERMONS OF THE IMPIOUS NESTORIUS ON THE INCARNATION OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST,\n\ntranslated from Greek, with the letters and chapters of the same Nestorius and Cyril, excerpted by St. Cyril from various books of Nestorius.\n\nMarius Mercator, servant of Christ, to his fellow reader, greeting of equal faith in the Lord.\n\nCertain blasphemous sayings or writings of Nestorius, formerly bishop of the city of Constantinople, addressed to the people, I have taken care to translate from Greek into Latin speech, stirred by zeal for the catholic faith, so that they might be known and avoided by the faithful brothers of my tongue; in these I, as translator, have endeavored to render word for word, as far as could be done, lest I be first proved a falsifier rather than afterward a true interpreter.","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":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Da igitur veniam, pie lector, si aut minus oratio luculenta [Baluz. add. est], aut verborum ubicumque praesumptorum novitas, aurem forte perculerit: elegi obtrectatorum linguis magis exponi, quam a veritate sensuum exprimenda; ubi omne est de falsitate periculum, longius aberrare.\n\nOccupent igitur se ex hoc instanti [Balux, idem] Isti a nostri disertuli, ad singulas syllabas nostras scrutandas et verba rimanda: non id curo, nec magni pendo, securus quod mihi de hoc opere nullus falsarii nomen imponat.\n\nScio etiam, ab istis exprobranda nobis esse aliqua dicta vitiosa, quae nobis vis servandae Graecae proprietatis extorsit. Dicat hinc [Baluz, add, de] nobis quisque quod volet, sentiat quod placet, ego sapientum judicio fretus sum, quibus absque lenocinio fuooque verboram, et scholaribus nugis, simplex veritatis semper grata est pulchritudo.","english":"Grant pardon, then, pious reader, if either my speech is less polished or the novelty of words presumed upon anywhere has perhaps struck your ear; I have chosen to be exposed to the tongues of detractors rather than to be pressed away from the truth of the meanings, where the whole danger concerns falsehood, to wander further astray.\n\nLet these little eloquent men of ours occupy themselves from this very moment in scrutinizing each of our syllables and sifting our words; I do not care about this, nor do I value it greatly, secure in the knowledge that no one will impose upon me the name of a falsifier on account of this work.\n\nI know also that some faulty expressions will be reproached to us by them, which the force of preserving Greek propriety has wrung from us. Let anyone say what he wishes about us on this point, let him think what pleases him; I rely on the judgment of the wise, to whom, without the allurement and charm of words and scholarly trifles, the simple beauty of truth is always pleasing.","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":3,"ref":"p3","source":"Nunc hic ejus primus impietatis in ecclesia ad populum sermo est, in quo de incarnatione Dominica male lapsus infeliciter corruit.\n\nIMPII NESTORII SERMONES.\n\nSERMO PRIMUS.\n\nDe Incarnatione Domini nostri Jesu Christi.\n\na Doctrina pietatis est sensatorum in Ecclesia intentio; pietatis autem doctrina Providentiae cognitio est: cognoscit namque Dei providentiam, qui Deum cognoverit corporum ammorumque creatorem. Quotquot igitur id nescientes adorant Deum, ignorare eos manifestum est veritatem: Deum enim confitentur se nosse, factis vero, ut scriptum est, negant (Tit. i, 16).\n\nOportet autem creatorem horum curam gerere, quos creavit: oportet dominum iis, quibus dominatur, sollicitudinem impertiri: oportet patremfamilias domus suae esse defensorem.\n\nImpar est vita nostra ad hujus tanti regiminis dignitatem: fingit me [Baluz. add. denique] in materno utero opifex Deus, et in illis matris [Baluz. mihi] viscerum secretis conservandi me prima et summa tutela est. Nascor, et fontes lactis invenio. Incipio opus habere ciborum sectione, et cultris quibusdam, dentibus videlicet, armatus invenior. Virum ago, et vectigalis mihi efficitur creatura: deorsum namque me pascit terra, et de coelo mihi lucerna accenditur sol, flores mihi vernum tempus attribuit, affert mihi aestas spicas, hiems pluvias generat, a(??)- tumnus tributum in vino dependit.","english":"Now this is his first sermon of impiety delivered in the church to the people, in which, having badly stumbled concerning the Lord's incarnation, he fell wretchedly.\n\nTHE SERMONS OF THE IMPIOUS NESTORIUS.\n\nSERMON ONE.\n\nOn the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.\n\nThe intent of those who have understanding in the Church is the doctrine of piety; and the doctrine of piety is the knowledge of Providence: for he knows God's providence who has known God as the creator of bodies and souls. All, therefore, who worship God without knowing this, are manifestly ignorant of the truth: for they confess that they know God, but in deeds, as it is written, they deny him (Tit. 1:16).\n\nBut it is fitting that the creator take care of those whom he created; it is fitting that the lord impart solicitude to those over whom he rules; it is fitting that the father of a household be the defender of his own house.\n\nOur life is unequal to the dignity of so great a governance: God the craftsman fashions me in the maternal womb, and in those secret recesses of my mother's entrails the first and highest guardianship is to preserve me. I am born, and I find fountains of milk. I begin to have need of the cutting of foods, and I am found armed with certain knives, namely teeth. I act the man, and creation is made tributary to me: for the earth feeds me from below, and the sun kindles a lamp for me from heaven, the spring season allots me flowers, summer brings me ears of grain, winter generates rains for me, autumn pays down its tribute in wine.","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":4,"ref":"p4","source":"Quam inaequalem ex paupertate et divitiis consistentem ducimus vitam! non enim sustentari [Baluz. subsistere] mortales aliter potuissent. Vide namque in his ipsis quanta nostri tutela sit. Facilis frumenti putredo cogit divitem timore corruptionis indigentibus vendere; mutabilis vini natura possessorem mercaturam inire damni terrore compellit. Imputribile ideo est et repugnans tempori aurum, quia retentura nihil pauperi nocet. Quae enim mala edunt [Baluz. Quid enim me laedunt] divitiae, si aurum suum restringant, cum ea quae tue pascunt, vendere divites compellantur?\n\nDecem millibus donis humanum genus honoratum ultimo et finitimo Dominicae Incarnationis munere decoratum est. Quoniam enim homo divinae imago naturae est, hanc autem impulit et dejecit diabolus in corruptionem: e doluit [Baluz. add, pro sua imagine] tamquam pro propria statua rex, et corruptum renovat simulacrum, sine semine fingens de Virgine naturam, sicut et Adam, qui et ipse sine semine figuratus est, humani generis operatur restitutionem [Baluz, suscitationem] per hominem, quoniam, inquit, per hominem mors, et per hominem resurrectio mortuorum (I Cor. xv, 12).","english":"How unequal we consider life to be, consisting as it does of poverty and riches! For mortals could not otherwise have been sustained. For see in these very things how great is our protection. The easy rotting of grain compels the rich man, through fear of corruption, to sell to the needy; the changeable nature of wine compels its owner to enter into trade through dread of loss. Gold is therefore incorruptible and resistant to time, because when it is retained it harms the poor in no way. For what evils do riches cause, if they restrain their gold, when they are compelled to sell those things by which they feed those whom they protect?\n\nThe human race was honored with ten thousand gifts, and adorned with the last and final gift of the Lord's Incarnation. For since man is the image of the divine nature, and the devil drove and cast this image down into corruption, the King grieved for it as for his own statue, and renews the corrupted likeness, fashioning nature from the Virgin without seed, just as Adam, who was himself also formed without seed, and he works the restoration of the human race through a man, since, he says, through a man came death, and through a man the resurrection of the dead (1 Cor 15:12).","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":5,"ref":"p5","source":"6.a Audiant haec, qui in dispensatione Dominicae innovationis [Baluz. incarnationis] cӕcati non intelligunt. neque quӕ loquuntur, neque de quibus affirmant (I Tim. ɪ, 7): qui, sicut modo cognovimus, a [Baluz. in] nobis invicem frequenter sciscitantur, an dicenda sit [Baluz. sciscitantur,, inquit], id est, puerpera Dei, sive genitrix Dei Maria, an autem, id est, hominis genitrix. Habet matrem Deus? Ergo excusabilis gentilitas matres diis subintroducens. Paulus ergo mendax de Christi Deitate dicens, e (Heb. vɪɪ, 3), id est, sine patre, sine matre, sine generationis narratione.\n\nNon, vir optime, Maria peperit Deum. Quod enim de carne natum est, caro est; et quod de spiritu, spiritus est (Joan, iii, 6). a Non peperit creatura eum, qui est increabilis; non recentem de Virgine Deum Verbum genuit Pater: In principio enim erat Verbum (Joan. i, 1), sient Joannes ait. Non peperit creatura Creatorem [Baluz. increabilem], sed peperit hominem Deitatis instrumentum; non creavit Deum Verbum Spiritus sanctus: Quod enim ex ea natum est de Spiritu sancto est (Matth. i, 20); sed Deo Verbo templum fabricatus est, quod habitaret ex Virgine.","english":"Let them hear these things who, blinded in the dispensation of the Lord's renewal, do not understand, nor what they are saying, nor the things about which they make assertions: who, as we have just learned, frequently ask one another in turn whether she should be called—that is, the woman who gave birth to God, or the bearer of God, Mary—or rather, that is, the bearer of a man. Does God have a mother? Then the paganism that introduces mothers to the gods is excusable. Paul, then, is a liar when he speaks of the Godhead of Christ and says, without father, without mother, without record of generation.\n\nNo, excellent sir, Mary did not give birth to God. For what is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is of the Spirit is spirit. The creature did not give birth to him who is uncreated; the Father did not beget the Word of God newly from the Virgin: for in the beginning was the Word, as John says. The creature did not give birth to the Creator, but gave birth to a man, the instrument of the Godhead; the Holy Spirit did not create the Word of God: for what is born of her is of the Holy Spirit; but a temple was fashioned for God the Word, in which he might dwell, from the Virgin.","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."},{"kind":"scripture","severity":"info","ref":"John 1:1","text":"The English carries the scriptural phrase “in the beginning was the word”, which matches John 1:1. The match is on the English draft; check the Coptic before quoting the verse."}]},{"i":6,"ref":"p6","source":"e Incarnatus est quidem Deus, sed non est mortuus: sed illum in quo incarnatus est suscitavit; inclinatus est elevare quod ruerat, ipse vero non cecidit: Dominus de caelo prospexit super filios hominum (Psal. xiii, 2); nempe inclinans eum [Baluz. reum] levare qui cecidit, tamquam ille corruerit, vituperatur. Vidit Deus naturam collapsam, eamque Deitatis potentia apprehendit elisam, et illam elisam [Baluz. om. elisam]. tenens, et manens quod erat, in altum sublevavit: exempli causa, quod dicitur, nosce. Si jacentem elevare volueris, nonne continges corpus corpore, et te ipsum illi conjungendo elisum eriges, atque ita illi conjunctus ipse manes quod eras? sic et illud incarnationis aestima sacramentum.\n\nPropter utentem illud indumentum quo [Ba luz. quod] utitur colo; propter absconditum adoro [Baluz. adorans] quod foris videtur, inseparabilis ab eo qui foris [Baluz. oculis] paret est Deus.","english":"God was indeed incarnate, but he did not die; rather, he raised up the one in whom he was incarnate. He stooped down to lift up what had fallen, but he himself did not fall. The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men; that is, he who stoops to lift up the one who fell is blamed as though he himself had fallen. God saw the fallen nature, and by the power of the Godhead he took hold of it as it lay crushed, and holding it crushed and remaining what he was, he raised it on high. For example, consider what is said: if you wish to lift up one who lies prostrate, do you not touch body with body, and by joining yourself to him raise up the crushed man, and thus, joined to him, remain what you were? So also understand that mystery of the incarnation.\n\nBecause of the garment he uses, I honor what he uses; because of what is hidden, I adore what is seen outwardly—God is inseparable from him who appears outwardly.","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":7,"ref":"p7","source":"Quomodo igitur ejus qui non dividitur, honorem [Baluz. add. ego] et dignitatem audeam separare? Divido naturas, sed conjungo reverentiam.\n\nIntende in haec quae dicuntur. Non per seipsum Deus est qui in utero figuratus est: nam si sic esset, essemus hominis vere cultores; sed quoniam in assumpto Deus est, ex illo qui assumpsit qui assumptus est, appellatus est, et [Baluz. om. appellatus est, et] appellatur Deus.\n\nFormavit Deus i Dominicam incarnationem, Intremiscamus susceptricem Dei formam a una ac pari qua Deum Verbum reverentia, tamquam Divinitatis vere inseparabilis simulacrum, tamquam imaginem absconditi judicis. Duplicem confiteamur, et adoremus ut: unum duplum emin naturarum unum est propter unitatem. Audi Paulum utrumque clamantem, et Deitatis Unigeniti aeternitatem, et societatis vel conjunctionis unam factam esse dignitatem: Jesus, inquit, heri et hodie, idem ipse et in saecula saeculorum. Amen (Heb. xiii, 8).","english":"How, then, shall I dare to separate the honor and dignity of him who is not divided? I divide the natures, but I join them in reverence.\n\nAttend to what is said. It is not by himself God who was formed in the womb; for if it were so, we would truly be worshippers of a man. But because God is in the one assumed, from him who assumed, the one assumed has been called and is called God.\n\nGod formed the Lord's incarnation. Let us tremble before the form that bore God with one and equal reverence as we do the Word God, as a truly inseparable image of the Divinity, as the image of the hidden Judge. Let us confess and adore him as twofold: one is twofold in natures, one because of unity. Hear Paul proclaiming both things—both the eternity of the Godhead of the Only-begotten and that the dignity of the fellowship or conjunction has been made one: Jesus, he says, is the same yesterday and today and forever. Amen.","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":8,"ref":"p8","source":"SERMO II.\n\nDe dogmate seu, id est, de conjunctione inconfusa duarum naturarum in Christo, et communione nominum, velut in Apollinaristas.\n\nHabitum in ecclesia docet Cyrillus (Epist. ad Acacium Melitenum): inscriptum de dogmate ostendunt tituli excerptorum concilii Ephesini. Dogmatis nomine intelligi, atque adeo cognitionem humanitatis simul et Divinitatis Christi, loquitur exordium. Seriem partium non excogitatam a nobis ad arbitrium, sed veram esse facile noverit, quisquis loca unde singulae sumptae sunt inter se contulerit.\n\nNon clamoribus probo erga me studium nostrum; sed laudo circa dogmata desiderium, et quod Deitatis et humanitatis Domini meministis.\n\nEt post pauca: Aspicio populos multam quidem reverentiam el pietatem prodentissimam possidere; ignorantia vero caecutire. Hoc autem non est crimen plebis; sed ut verecunde dicam, propterea quod doctores elimatius et liquidius vobis aliquid etiam de dogmatibus tempus non habuerint apponendi.","english":"SERMON II.\n\nOn the doctrine, or rather on the unconfused conjunction of the two natures in Christ, and the communion of names, as it were against the Apollinarists.\n\nCyril teaches that this was delivered in the church (Epistle to Acacius of Melitene): the titles of the excerpts of the Council of Ephesus show that it was inscribed concerning the doctrine. That by the name of doctrine is understood—and indeed the knowledge of—both the humanity and the Divinity of Christ, the opening words declare. That the sequence of the parts was not devised by us at our own discretion, but is true, anyone will easily know who has compared with one another the passages from which the individual parts were taken.\n\nI do not approve our zeal toward me by acclamations; but I praise your desire concerning the doctrines, and that you have been mindful of the Godhead and the manhood of the Lord.\n\nAnd after a few words: I see that the peoples possess indeed much reverence and a most abundant piety, but are blinded by ignorance. Yet this is not the fault of the common people; but, to speak with modesty, it is because your teachers have not had the time to set before you anything more carefully and more clearly even concerning the doctrines.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":9,"ref":"p9","source":"Meministis autem prorsus eorum quae saepe dixi vobis, cum duas in Christo Domino naturas distinguerem: duae sunt enim, si naturam spectes; si dignitatem, simplex. Naturarum enim auctoritas una est, propter conjunctionem; naturis quidem semper In suo ordine permanentibus, sed dignitate conjuncta, ut jam dixi, in auctoritatem unicam.\n\nPropterea volo vos cautius favere, vel plaudere: divisio non est, neque conjunctionis, neque potentiae, neque filiationis, neque hujus, quod est Christus. In his divisio non est; in Deitate vero et humanitate divisio est. Christus, secandum quod est Christus, indivisus est; et Filius, secundum quod est Filius, indivisus est. Non enim habemus duos Christos vel duos filios; neque est apud nos primus Christus, et secundus; neque alter et alter; neque iterum alter Filius, et iterum alter Filius; sed idem ipse est duplex, non dignitate, sed natura.","english":"You remember, of course, all the things I have often said to you when I distinguished the two natures in Christ the Lord: for there are two, if you look to the nature; if to the dignity, one. For the authority of the natures is one, on account of the conjunction; the natures indeed always remaining in their own order, but by dignity conjoined, as I have already said, into a single authority.\n\nTherefore I wish you to give your support, or rather your assent, more cautiously: there is no division, neither of the conjunction, nor of the power, nor of the sonship, nor of this, which is Christ. In these there is no division; but in the Godhead and the manhood there is division. Christ, according as He is Christ, is undivided; and the Son, according as He is the Son, is undivided. For we do not have two Christs or two sons; nor is there with us a first Christ and a second; nor one and another; nor again one Son and again another Son; but the same one is double, not in dignity, but in nature.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":10,"ref":"p10","source":"Sed quemadmodum dicimus, Deum omnium opificem, el Deum Mosem: Deum enim, inquit, posui te Pharaonis (Exod. vii, 1); et Israel Filium Dei: Filius enim, inquit, primogenitus mihi Israel (Exod., iv, 22); et quemadmodum dicimus christum Saul: Non, inquit, imponam meam manum super ipsum, eo quod christus Domini sit (I Reg. xxiv, 7); similiter et Cyrum: Haec dicit, inquit, Dominus christo meo Cyro (Isai. xlv, 1); et Babylonium sanctum: Ego enim, inquit, praecipio ipsis sanctificutis, et ego duco ipsos (Isai. xiii, 3); ita dicimus Dominum, et Christum, et Deum, et Filium, et sanctum; sed communio quidem nominum similis est, dignitas vero non eadem est.\n\nQuoties igitur sancta Scriptura dictura est, vel generationem Christi ex beata Virgine, vel mortem, nusquam Deum dicit, sed aut Christum, aut Jesum, aut Dominum; quoniam haec tria naturas indicant duas, modo hanc, modo illam, modo utramque. Est autem tale quod dico, quoties nobis generationem ex Virgine Scriptura commemorat, quid dicit? Misit Deus Filium suum (Gal. iv, 4); non dicit: Misit Deus Verbum; sed utitur eo nomine, quod naturas indicat duas. Quia enim Filius homo est et Deus, dicit: Misit Deus Filium suum factum ex muliere; ut cum audieris, factum ex muliere, stalim reputes nomen positum, quod naturas indicat duas; et generationem ex beata Virgine Filii voces.","english":"But just as we call God the maker of all things, and call Moses God—for \"I have made you,\" he says, \"a god to Pharaoh\" (Exod. 7:1)—and Israel the Son of God—for \"Israel,\" he says, \"is my firstborn son\" (Exod. 4:22)—and just as we call Saul christ—\"I will not,\" he says, \"put forth my hand against him, because he is the Lord's christ\" (1 Sam. 24:7)—and likewise Cyrus: \"Thus says,\" he says, \"the Lord to my christ Cyrus\" (Isa. 45:1)—and the holy one of Babylon: \"For I,\" he says, \"command these sanctified ones, and I lead them\" (Isa. 13:3)—so we call him Lord, and Christ, and God, and Son, and holy; but the sharing of names is similar, yet the dignity is not the same.\n\nWhenever, then, holy Scripture is about to speak either of the generation of Christ from the blessed Virgin, or of his death, it nowhere says \"God,\" but either \"Christ,\" or \"Jesus,\" or \"Lord\"; since these three indicate two natures—now this one, now that one, now both. And what I say is this: whenever Scripture recounts to us the generation from the Virgin, what does it say? \"God sent his Son\" (Gal. 4:4); it does not say, \"God sent the Word\"; but it uses that name which indicates two natures. For because the Son is both man and God, it says: \"God sent his Son, made of a woman\"; so that when you hear \"made of a woman,\" you may immediately reckon that the name used indicates two natures, and you may call the generation from the blessed Virgin that of the Son.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":11,"ref":"p11","source":"Filium enim Dei peperit Virgo: nam quoniam Filius Dei duplex est in naturis, peperit quidem Filium Dei, quia peperit hominem, qui est Filius Dei, propter conjunctum ei Filium Dei.\n\nQuod in nativitate ex Christi genitrice Virgine divina Scriptura ponat Filii nomen, declaravimus. Audi jam et in morte, et vide sicubi tandem Dei nomen est positum, ut passibilem Deum inducamus. Cum inimici essemus, inquit, reconciliati sumus Deo per mortem Fidi ejus (Rom. v, 10); non dicit, per mortem Dei Verbi.\n\nErat quidem Deus Verbum ante incarnationem, et Filius, et Deus cum Patre; sumpsit vero novissimis temporibus servi formam: sed cum sit et antea Filius, et ita vocetur post assumptionem, non potest vocari divisus Filius, ne duos filios constituamus; sed quia illi conjunctus est, qui erat a principio Filius, non potest secundum dignitatem filiationis divisionem suscipere. Quoad dignitatem filiationis, inquam, non quoad naturas; propterea et Deus Verbum nominatur Christus, quia habet conjunctionem cum Christo perpetuam; neque contingit ut Deus Verbum sine humanitate faciat aliquid; perducta est enim ad summam conjunctionem, non tamen ad deificationem, ut sapientes e recentioribus dogmatistis asserunt.","english":"For the Virgin bore the Son of God; for since the Son of God is twofold in natures, she bore indeed the Son of God, because she bore the man who is the Son of God, on account of the Son of God conjoined to him.\n\nWe have declared that in the nativity from Christ's mother the Virgin, divine Scripture places the name of the Son. Now hear also in the death, and see whether the name of God is anywhere placed, so that we may introduce a passible God. \"When we were enemies,\" he says, \"we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son\" (Rom. 5:10); he does not say, through the death of God the Word.\n\nGod the Word indeed existed before the incarnation, both Son and God with the Father; but in the last times he took the form of a servant: yet since he was also Son beforehand, and is so called after the assumption, he cannot be called a divided Son, lest we establish two sons; but because he is conjoined to him who was Son from the beginning, he cannot undergo division with respect to the dignity of sonship. With respect to the dignity of sonship, I say, not with respect to the natures; therefore also God the Word is named Christ, because he has a perpetual conjunction with Christ; nor does it happen that God the Word does anything without the humanity; for it has been brought to the highest conjunction, yet not to deification, as the wise among the more recent dogmatists assert.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":12,"ref":"p12","source":"Ita etiam Christum secundum carnem, propter conjunctionem, quam habet cum Deo Verbo, Deum nominamus, scientes esse hominem, qui apparet. Audi utrumque Paulum praedicantem: Ex Judaeis, inquit, Christum secundum carnem, qui est supra omnes deos (Rom. ix, 5). Prius hominem confitetur, deinde, conjunctione ad Deum, dicit Deum eum qui apparet, ne quis Christianitatem hominis putet esse cultricem.\n\nAudi etiam hoc nomen. Dominus, aliquando de humanitate Christi, aliquando de Divinitate ejus, aliquando de utraque positum. Quotiescumque manducabitis panem, et calicem bibetis, mortem Domini annuntiabitis (I Cor. xi, 26). Audi ex praecedentibus imperitiam objicientium, quod maximam esse legant hujus mysterii utilitatem, et cujus commemorationem hominibus afferat; atque audi non me hoc dicentem, sed beatum Paulum: Quotiescumque manducabitis panem hunc; non dixit, quotiescumque manducabitis Divinitatem hanc, sed quotiescumque manducabitis panem hunc. Vide de corpore Dominico illi propositum esse: Quotiescumque manducabitis panem hunc, cujus est ipsum corpus antitypum. Videamus ergo cujus mors. Quotiescumque manducabitis panem hunc, et calicem hunc bibetis, mortem Domini annuntiabitis. Audi in sequentibus apertius, donec veniat. Quis autem veniet? Videbunt Filium hominis venientem in nubibus caeli cum gloria multa (Matth. xxiv, 30).","english":"So too we call Christ according to the flesh God, on account of the conjunction which he has with God the Word, knowing that the man who appears is [what he is]. Hear Paul proclaiming both: From the Jews, he says, is Christ according to the flesh, who is above all gods. First he confesses the man, then, by conjunction to God, he calls him who appears God, lest anyone think that Christianity is a worshipper of a man.\n\nHear also this name. Lord is used sometimes of the humanity of Christ, sometimes of his Divinity, sometimes of both. As often as you shall eat the bread and drink the cup, you shall announce the death of the Lord. Hear from the preceding words the ignorance of those who object, that they read the greatest benefit of this mystery to be, and of what it brings commemoration to men; and hear not me saying this, but the blessed Paul: As often as you shall eat this bread; he did not say, as often as you shall eat this Divinity, but as often as you shall eat this bread. See that it is set forth concerning the Lord's body: As often as you shall eat this bread, of which the body itself is the antitype. Let us see, therefore, whose death. As often as you shall eat this bread and drink this cup, you shall announce the death of the Lord. Hear more openly in what follows, until he comes. But who will come? They shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with great glory.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":13,"ref":"p13","source":"Et, quod majus est, ante apostolos propheta manifestius venientem ostendit, et clamat de Judaeis dicens: Videbunt in quem compunxerunt (Zach. xii, 10). Quid igitur illud compunctum est? Latus. Latus vero non est Dei, sed hominis.\n\nInconfusam igitur servemus naturarum conjunctio· nem; confiteamur in homine Deum; colamus divina quadam conjunctione cum Deo omnipotente adorandum hominem.\n\nDic de assumente quod Deus sit; adjice de assumpto quod servi forma; infer postea conjunctionis dignitatem, quod communis sit duorum auctoritas, quod ea dem sit duorum dignitas; manentibusque naturis, con fitere unitatem.\n\nSERMO III.\n\nHabitus a Nestorio velut in Arianos et Macedonianos, reipsa adversus catholicos verae naturarum unionis in Christo defensores.\n\na Ampliorem in Christum injuriam excogitantes, Spiritum sanctum a divina dissecant natura, qui ejus humanitatem figuravit in utero Virginis: Quod enim, inquit Scriptura, in ea natum est, de Spiritu sancto est (Matt. i, 20); qui secundum justitiam, quod figuratum est, reformavit: Manifestum enim, inquit, in carne, justificatum est in spiritu (I Tim. iii, 16); qui eum terribilem et formidabilem daemonibus faciebat: Ego enim, inquit, in Spiritu Dei ejicio daemonia (Luc. xi, 20); qui ejus carnem templum est fabricatus: Vidi enim spiritum, inquit, descendentem tamquam columbam, et manentem super eum (Joan.","english":"And, what is greater, the prophet showed him more plainly as he was coming, before the apostles, and cries out concerning the Jews, saying: They shall look upon him whom they pierced. What then is that which was pierced? The side. But the side is not God's, but a man's.\n\nLet us therefore preserve the unconfused conjunction of the natures; let us confess God in the man; let us worship the man who is to be adored, by a certain divine conjunction, together with God Almighty.\n\nSay of the one who assumed that he is God; add of the one assumed that he is the form of a servant; then bring in the dignity of the conjunction, that the authority of the two is common, and that the dignity of the two is the same; and, with the natures remaining, confess the unity.\n\nHOMILY III.\n\nDelivered by Nestorius as though against the Arians and Macedonians, but in reality against the catholics who defend the true union of the natures in Christ.\n\nDevising a greater injury against Christ, they cut the Holy Spirit off from the divine nature—the Spirit who formed his humanity in the Virgin's womb: for, says Scripture, that which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit; who according to righteousness reformed what was formed: for, he says, he was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit; who made him terrible and formidable to demons: for, he says, I cast out demons by the Spirit of God; who fashioned his flesh as a temple: for, he says, I saw the Spirit descending like a dove and remaining upon him.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":14,"ref":"p14","source":"i, 32); qui ei in coelum ascensionem donavit: Praecipiens enim, inquit Scriptura, Apostolis quos elegit per Spiritum sanctum, elevatus in coelum est (Act. i, 32). Hic, inquam, Spiritus, qui tam magnam gloriam donavit, esse ab his asseritur Christi servus.\n\nQuomodo vero sit servus, qui cura Filio cooperatur et Patre? Nam si quis requirat opera Spiritus, ea inveniet nec distantia nec dissimilia operibus Patris et Filii; non quia una Deitas dividatur, sed quia divina Scriptura ea quae sunt unius virtutis, singulis substantiis dispertiat, ut Trinitatis similitudo demonstretur. Hoc considera, incipiens ab operibus suo tempore factis: Deus Verbum factum est caro, et habitavit in nobis (Joan. i, 14). Considere sibi fecit assumptam hominem Pater: Dixit enim Dominus Domino meo: Sede ad dexteram meam (Ps. cix, 1). Ejus qui assumptus, gloriam clarificavit Spiritus: Quando enim venerit spiritus veritatis, ipse me clarificabit (Joan. xvi, 4).","english":"(Acts 1:32); who gave him ascension into heaven: For, the Scripture says, commanding the apostles whom he chose through the Holy Spirit, he was lifted up into heaven (Acts 1:32). This Spirit, I say, who gave such great glory, is asserted by these men to be the servant of Christ.\n\nBut how is he a servant, who cooperates with the Son and the Father? For if anyone should ask about the works of the Spirit, he will find them neither distant nor dissimilar from the works of the Father and the Son; not because the one Godhead is divided, but because divine Scripture distributes the things that belong to one power among the individual substances, so that the likeness of the Trinity may be demonstrated. Consider this, beginning from the works done in his own time: The Word of God was made flesh, and dwelt among us (John 1:14). The Father made the man he assumed to sit beside himself: For the Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand (Ps. 109:1). The Spirit glorified the glory of him who was assumed: For when the Spirit of truth shall come, he will glorify me (John 16:4).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":15,"ref":"p15","source":"Visne etiam aliam ad haec adjiciamus Trinitatis efficientiam? Habitavit Filius in corpore. Commendavit baptizatum Pater. Efformavit eum in Virgine Spiritus. Apostolos Filius elegit: Ego, inquit, elegi vos (Joan. xv, 19). Pater sanctiticavit: Pater, inquit, sanctifica eos in veritate tua (Joan. xvii, 17). Spiritus effecit oratores (Act. ii, 4).\n\nEt isti quidem (Ariani), tametsi majestate paternae Deitatis Verbum Deum minorem delirent, non tamen novellum fatentur: hi autem eum etiam beatae Mariae secundum et posteriorem esse pronuntiant, et temporalem matrem opifici temporum Divinitati consignant: quin immo nec matrem Christi esse concedunt. Si enim non hominis natura, sed Deus Verbum erat, quem illa pariebat, quae peperit, nequaquam mater ejus qui natus est invenitur; quomodo enim aliqua tiet ejus mater, qui a natura genitricis est alienus? Quod si vera mater ab iis appellatur; ergo qui editus est, non Divinitatis natura est, sed homo; siquidem proprium omnis est matris consubstantivum sibi parere.","english":"Do you wish that we add yet another working of the Trinity to these? The Son dwelt in a body. The Father commended him when he was baptized. The Spirit formed him in the Virgin. The Son chose the apostles: I, he says, chose you (John 15:19). The Father sanctified them: Father, he says, sanctify them in your truth (John 17:17). The Spirit made them orators (Acts 2:4).\n\nAnd these men (the Arians), although in their madness they make the Word God less than the majesty of the Father's Deity, nevertheless do not confess him to be a new thing; but these men (the Nestorians) pronounce him also to be second and later than blessed Mary, and assign a temporal mother to the Divinity that is the maker of the ages; indeed, they do not even concede that she is the mother of Christ. For if it was not a human nature, but God the Word, whom she was bearing, then she who gave birth is by no means found to be the mother of him who was born; for how could anyone be his mother, who is alien to the nature of the one who gave birth? But if she is called a true mother by them, then he who was brought forth is not of the nature of the Divinity, but a man; since it belongs to every mother to bear one consubstantial with herself.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":16,"ref":"p16","source":"Ergo non erit mater, quae consubstantivum sibi minime peperit. Ergo, quia mater ab iis dicitur, eum qui secundum substantiam similis est genuit. Quis autem secundum substantiam ejus erit similis? Is sine dubio qui Spiritus sancti opificio exstitit: Quod enim in ea natum est, de Spiritu sancto est (Matt. i, 20); cum quo indesinenter erat Verbum Deus.\n\nVerbum ergo Deus non est natus ex Maria, sed in illo, qui ex ea natus est, mansit. Non ex Virgine initium habuit, sed illi qui crescendo per menses paulalim compositus in utero Virginis est, inseparabiliter omni tempore sociatus esi. Aliud est autem dicere: Cum illo qui natus est, manet; et aliud, illum qui cum nato manet, hunc esse cui ut nasceretur mensium opus fuisset curriculo.\n\nCum Nestorius in media Ecclesia profanis uteretur vocum novitatibus (quibus et, et geminam Christi nativitatem insectabatur), a vir quidam sane probus, qui adhuc inter laicos erat, sed tamen admirabilem sibi collegerat eruditionem, ferventi et religioso zelo permotus, et contentiori voce inclamans: Ipsum, inquit, ante saecula Verbum etiam secundam subiisse generationem, id est, illam secundum carnem, et ex muliere.","english":"Therefore she will not be a mother who did not give birth to one consubstantial with herself. Therefore, because she is called mother by them, she gave birth to one who is similar according to substance. But who will be similar to him according to substance? Doubtless the one who came into being by the working of the Holy Spirit: For what is born in her is of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:20); with whom the Word, God, was unceasingly present.\n\nTherefore the Word, God, was not born of Mary, but remained in the one who was born of her. He did not have his beginning from the Virgin, but was inseparably joined at all times to the one who, growing gradually through the months, was formed in the Virgin's womb. Yet it is one thing to say: He remains with the one who was born; and another thing to say that the one who remains with the one born is the very one for whom the course of months would have been needed in order to be born.\n\nWhen Nestorius in the midst of the Church was employing profane novelties of words (by which he also attacked the twofold nativity of Christ), a certain man, truly upright, who was still among the laity but had nevertheless gathered for himself admirable learning, moved by fervent and religious zeal, and crying out in a rather loud voice, said: The very Word, he says, who existed before the ages also underwent a second generation, that is, the one according to the flesh, and from a woman.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":17,"ref":"p17","source":"Tumultuantibus ad ista populis, et majori ac saniori parte maximis illum laudibus attollente, ut pium et sapientem in primis, et rectorum dogmatum haud expertem, aliis nihilominus adversus illum efferatis, ipse (Nestorius) se interponit, moxque illos approbat, quos sua docendo perdiderat: coeterum in eum linguam exacuit qui ipsius dogmata non sustinuerat, et in sanctos Patres qui piam fidei definitionem nobis constituerant, atque ait:\n\nGaudeo vestrum aspiciens zelum: indidem enim perspicue coargui possunt, quae ab infelici homine sunt flagitiose dicta. Nam quorum duae sunt generationes, eorum duo sint filii necesse; sed Ecclesia unum agnoscit Filium ipsum Dominum Christum.\n\nNos autem oportet nosse id quod modo venit in recordationem concilii Nicaeni, quod nusquam ausum est dicere quia Verbum Deus natum est ex virgine Maria; ait enim: Credimus in unum Patrem omnipotentem, et in unum Dominum Jesum Christum. Attendite, quia prius cum Patres posuissent Christum, quod duarum naturarum conjunctionem demonstrat, non dixerunt, umum Deum Verbum; sed acceperunt nomen quod significaret utrumque, ut subdescendendo, cum audis mortem, nulla novitate turberis, et cum crucifixum et sepultum, tamquam Divinitate ita patiente, non vulnereris auditu.","english":"When the people were in an uproar over these things, and the greater and sounder part was extolling him with the highest praises, as a pious and wise man above all, and not unskilled in right doctrines, while others nonetheless were raging against him, he (Nestorius) interposed himself, and presently approved those whom he had ruined by his teaching; but he sharpened his tongue against him who had not endured his doctrines, and against the holy Fathers who had established for us the pious definition of the faith, and he says:\n\nI rejoice, seeing your zeal; for from this very source those things which have been shamefully said by that wretched man can be clearly refuted. For those who have two generations must necessarily have two sons; but the Church acknowledges one Son, the Lord Christ himself.\n\nBut we ought to know what has just now come to mind from the Council of Nicaea, which nowhere dared to say that God the Word was born of the virgin Mary; for it says: We believe in one Father almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ. Attend, because when the Fathers had first set down Christ, which demonstrates the conjunction of two natures, they did not say, one God the Word; but they took a name that would signify both, so that by descending, when you hear of death, you may not be disturbed by any novelty, and when you hear of him crucified and buried, as if the Divinity suffered in this way, you may not be wounded by the hearing.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":18,"ref":"p18","source":"Deinde videamus quid illi subjungunt. Credimus et in unum Dominum Jesum Christum, unigenitum Patri, qui propter nos descendit, et incarnatus est de Spiritu sancto. Non dixerunt quia natus est de Spiritu sancto. Vide quemadmodum interpretentur subdescendendo, quia dixerunt hominem factum. Deum, inquiunt, dicimus incarnatum, non mutabilitatem in carnem suscipiente divina patura, sed inhabitationem, quam gessit in homine, demonstrantes.\n\nEt post aliquanta: Hoc retinete, quoniam praetermittentes dicere: Credimus in Deum Verbum Filium ejus unigenitum, dixerunt: Credimus in unum Dominum Jesum Christum, consubstantivum Patri, Deum verum de Deo vero, per quem omnia facta, qui propter nos homines et nostram salutem descendit, atque incarnatus est de Spiritu sancto, ex Maria virgine, et homo factus est. Nusquam dixerunt, natus est. Cur, putamus? Ut non duas nativitates introducerent Divinitatis.","english":"Then let us see what they add next. We believe also in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten of the Father, who for our sake descended and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit. They did not say that he was born of the Holy Spirit. See how they interpret \"descended,\" in that they said he was made man. We say, they claim, that God was incarnate, not that the divine nature took on change into flesh, but demonstrating the indwelling which he bore in a man.\n\nAnd after some things: Hold fast to this, because, omitting to say, We believe in God the Word, his only-begotten Son, they said: We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, consubstantial with the Father, true God from true God, through whom all things were made, who for us men and for our salvation descended, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit, of the Virgin Mary, and was made man. Nowhere did they say, he was born. Why, do we suppose? So that they would not introduce two births of the Divinity.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":19,"ref":"p19","source":"Et post aliquanta: sic enim Scriptura dicit: Misit Deus Filium suum factum ex muiieret factum sub lege (Gal. iv, 4). Hic quidem duas demonstrat naturas. Quod autem tantum circa hominem contingit, narrat. Exige certe a contentioso quis sub lege sit factus. Verbum Deus? nequaquam.\n\nQuid igitur dicebamus? Ne timeas accipere Mariam conjugem tuam; quod enim natum est (sive natum, sive factum dixerimus, sensui nihil nocet), quod enim in ea natum est, ex Spiritu sancto est (Matt. x, 20). Si dixerimus, quod Deus Verbum natum est in utero (est euim aliud simul esse cum nascente, aliud nasci), quod enim, inquit, in ea natum est, ex Spiritu sancto Est, hoc est, Spiritus sanctus creavit id quod est in ea. Viderunt igitur Patres, utpote scientes sanctarum Scripturarum, quod si eum qui incarnatus est natum dixerimus, invenietur Deus Verbum Filius Spiritus sancti, aut duos Patres habens. Si vero factum dixerimus, invenietur Deus Verbum creatura Spiritus ( sancti. Fugientes igitur generationis dictionem, dixerunt ita: Qui descendit propter nostram salutem et incarnatus est. Quid est, incarnatus? non conversus a Divinitate in carnem.","english":"And after some things: for thus the Scripture says: God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law (Gal. 4:4). Here indeed he demonstrates two natures. But what happened only concerning the man, he relates. Certainly demand from the contentious one who was made under the law. God the Word? By no means.\n\nWhat then were we saying? Do not fear to take Mary your wife; for what is born (whether we say born or made, it does no harm to the sense), for what is born in her is of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 10:20). If we say that God the Word was born in the womb (for it is one thing to be together with the one being born, another to be born), for what, he says, is born in her is of the Holy Spirit, that is, the Holy Spirit created what is in her. The Fathers therefore saw, as those knowing the holy Scriptures, that if we say that he who was incarnate was born, God the Word will be found to be the Son of the Holy Spirit, or to have two Fathers. But if we say he was made, God the Word will be found to be a creature of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, fleeing the expression of generation, they said thus: Who descended for our salvation and was incarnate. What is incarnate? Not converted from Divinity into flesh.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":20,"ref":"p20","source":"In eo quod dixerunt, incarnatus ex Spiritu sancto, secuti sunt evangelistam: nara cum evangelista venisset ad, fugit generationem de Verbo dicere, et dixit incarnationem. Audi: Et Verbum caro factum est (Joan. i, 14); non dixit: Verbum per carnem factum. Ubi enim aut apostoli aut evangelistae Filii faciunt mentionem, dicunt natum ex muliere. Adverte, quaeso, ubi dicunt nomen Filii, id quod natum est, ex muliere natum dicunt. Ubi vero Verbi faciunt mentionem, nemo audet dicere generationem per humanitatem. Audi beatum Joannem evangeli- stam, cura venisset ad Verbum et ejus. Audi quid dicat: Verbum caro factum est; hoc est, assumpsit carnem; et habitavit in nobis; hoc est, nostram induit naturam. Et vidimus gloriam ipsius Filii; non dixit; Vidimus generationem Verbi.\n\nEt post aliquanta: Quoniam vero si dixissent: Credimur in unum Deum Verbum, futurum erat ut mors divinae naturae tribueretur; ideo nomen accipiunt commune, nempe Jesus Christus, ut et mortuum illum signiticarent, et illum non mortuum. Itaque perinde ac si quis dicat, ille homo est mortuus, quamvis anima sit immortalis; tamen quia nomen dixit quod significat duas naturas, et corpus quod moritur, et animam immortalem, ideo nihil est periculi in ea voce; utrumque enim vocatur homo, et corpus, et anima. Ita igitur etiam magnus ille chorus de Christo dixit.","english":"In that they said, incarnate of the Holy Spirit, they followed the evangelist; for when the evangelist had come to the Word, he refrained from speaking of the generation of the Word, and spoke of the incarnation. Hear: And the Word was made flesh (John 1:14); he did not say: the Word was made through the flesh. For wherever either the apostles or the evangelists make mention of the Son, they say born of a woman. Observe, I ask, where they say the name of the Son, they say that what was born was born of a woman. But where they make mention of the Word, no one dares to speak of a generation through the humanity. Hear the blessed John the evangelist, when he had come to the Word and his. Hear what he says: The Word was made flesh; that is, he assumed flesh; and dwelt among us; that is, he put on our nature. And we saw his glory, the glory of the Son; he did not say: We saw the generation of the Word.\n\nAnd after some things: But since, if they had said: We believe in one God the Word, it would have come about that death was attributed to the divine nature; therefore they take a common name, namely Jesus Christ, so that they might signify both that he died and that he did not die. And so it is just as if someone should say, that man has died, although the soul is immortal; yet because he has spoken a name that signifies two natures, both the body which dies and the immortal soul, therefore there is no danger in that word; for both are called man, both the body and the soul. So therefore that great chorus also spoke concerning Christ.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":21,"ref":"p21","source":"Symbolum Nicaenum, quod et Constantinepolitanum.\n\nCredimus in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, omnium visibilium et invisibilium creatorem.\n\nEt in unum Dominum Jesum Christum, Filium Dei unigenitum, natum ex Patre, hoc est, ex Patris substantia, Deum de Deo, lumen de lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero, genitum non factum, consubstantialem Patri: per quem omnia facta sunt, et quae in coelo, et quaae in terra.\n\nQui propter nos homines, et propter nostram salutem descendit, et incarnatus est, et homo factus est, et passus est, et tertia die resurrexit; ascendit ad coelos, venturus judicare vivos et mortuos.\n\nEt in Spiritum sanctum.\n\nQui autem dicunt: Erat aliquando cum non esset, et priusquam nasceretur, non erat: vel quod ex non existentibus, aut ex alia substautia, vel essentia sit: aut qui Filium Dei mutationi, aut alterationi obnoxium asserunt; hos catholica et apostolica anathematizat Ecclesia.","english":"The Nicene Creed, which is also the Constantinopolitan.\n\nWe believe in one God, the Father almighty, creator of all things visible and invisible.\n\nAnd in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father: through whom all things were made, both those in heaven and those on earth.\n\nWho for us men and for our salvation descended, and was incarnate, and became man, and suffered, and on the third day rose again; ascended to the heavens, about to come to judge the living and the dead.\n\nAnd in the Holy Spirit.\n\nBut those who say: There was a time when he was not, and before he was born, he was not: or that he is from things that do not exist, or from another substance or essence: or who assert that the Son of God is subject to change or alteration; these the catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":22,"ref":"p22","source":"Symbolum Antiochenum.\n\nCredo in unum et solum verum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, creatorem omnium visibilium et invisibilium creaturarum.\n\nEt in Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, Filium ejus unigenitum, et primogenitum totius creaturae, ex eo natum ante omnia saecula, et non factum, Deum verum ex Deo vero, Patri, per quem et saecula compaginata sunt, et omnia facta.\n\nQui propter nos venit, et natus est ex Maria virgine, et crucifixus sub Pontio Pilato, et sepultus, et tertia die resurrexit secundum Scripturas, et in coelos ascendit, et iterum veniet judicare vivos et mortuos.\n\nEPISTOLA a MARII MERCATORIS De discrimine inter haeresim Nestorii, et dogmata Pauli Samosateni, Ebionis, Photini atque Marcelli.\n\nMarius Mercator, servus Christi, lectori conservo salutem.\n\n1.d Samosateni Pauli atque Nestorii est ista non minus impia quam vana doctrina.","english":"The Antiochene Creed.\n\nI believe in one and only true God, the Father almighty, creator of all visible and invisible creatures.\n\nAnd in our Lord Jesus Christ, his only-begotten Son, and the firstborn of all creation, born of him before all ages, and not made, true God from true God, through whom both the ages were compacted together and all things were made.\n\nWho for our sake came, and was born of the virgin Mary, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was buried, and on the third day rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into the heavens, and will come again to judge the living and the dead.\n\nTHE EPISTLE of Marius Mercator On the difference between the heresy of Nestorius and the doctrines of Paul of Samosata, Ebion, Photinus, and Marcellus.\n\nMarius Mercator, servant of Christ, to his fellow servant the reader, greeting.\n\n1.d This doctrine, no less impious than vain, is that of Paul of Samosata and of Nestorius.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":23,"ref":"p23","source":"Nestorius circa [Baluz. quidem] Verbum Dei, non quidem ut Paulus sentit, qui non substantivum, sed prolalitium potentiae Dei efficax Verbum esse definit: e non confitetur tamen idem Nestorius de Verbo substantivo. ipsum Filium Dei naturaliter esse; sed dicit, argute quidem, quia nonexpresse, ab aeternitate Filium non esse, sed Verbum tantum, quod in substantia Patris manens, Deus sit consubstantialis, quem Greci dicunt; Filium vero illum esse et dici debere asserit, qui ex Maria sit natus.\n\nAtque ita dividit aeternum a temporali; illi quidem Deo et Dei Verbo quae majestatis sunt, huic vero alteri quae humanae infirmitatis sunt, deputans: propter individuam autem atque inseparabilem connexionem dignum fuisse habitum nuncupatione Filii Dei, quippe [Baluz. om. quippe] qui hoc ipsum pro meritis, et ex adoptione habeat, non ex natura.","english":"Nestorius, concerning the Word of God—not indeed as Paul understands it, who defines the Word as not a substantive but a prolative power of God, effective—nevertheless the same Nestorius does not confess concerning the substantive Word that the Son of God is naturally [Son]; but he says, cleverly indeed, though not expressly, that the Son is not from eternity, but only the Word, which abiding in the substance of the Father is God consubstantial, as the Greeks say; but he asserts that that one is and ought to be called the Son who was born of Mary.\n\nAnd so he divides the eternal from the temporal; assigning to that God and Word of God the things that are of majesty, but to this other the things that are of human infirmity; and on account of the indivisible and inseparable connection, he says that he was considered worthy of the appellation Son of God, inasmuch as he has this very thing by merits and by adoption, not by nature.","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":24,"ref":"p24","source":"Verum cum ei a catholicis objicitur, cur per hunc sensum duos [Baluz. add. Jesus] Christos et duos Filios sentiat, pro se ipse ita respondet: Ego, inquit, unum Christum definio, qui a chrismate unctus sit dicendus; unum hunc ipsum esse Filium Dei, quia [Baluz. qui], ut superius dictum est, indivisibili societate Deo Verbo conjunctus est; nonnumquam [Baluz. add. sane] propter hanc ipsam inseparabilem conjunctionem, vel connexionem, etiam Verbum illud iisdem cognominibus connuncupari, quae ab ejus natura sunt penitus aliena; ex merito tandem hunc Jesum Christum singularis nativitatis, et incomparabilis vitae, dignum fuisse habitum, tamquam templum, tota pleniludine divinitatis, atque ab hoc Deo et Dei Verbo inhabitari.\n\nIn eo igitur Paulo Samosateno conjungitur, in quo habitatorem et habitaculum pro meritis separat, dividens quod unicuique eorum sit proprium, ex diversitate naturae; quod quidem illis ambobus cum Ebione, et Pbotino, et Galata Marcello commune est.","english":"But when it is objected to him by the catholics, why through this understanding he holds that there are two Christs and two Sons, he himself answers on his own behalf thus: I, he says, define one Christ, who is to be called anointed from the chrism; that this one same person is the Son of God, because, as was said above, he is joined to God the Word in an indivisible fellowship; sometimes, on account of this very inseparable conjunction or connection, even that Word is jointly named with the same titles, which are wholly alien to his nature; and finally that this Jesus Christ, by the merit of his singular birth and incomparable life, was held worthy, as a temple, of the whole fullness of divinity, and to be inhabited by this God and Word of God.\n\nIn this, therefore, he is joined with Paul of Samosata, in that he separates the inhabitant and the habitation according to merits, dividing what is proper to each of them, from the diversity of nature; which indeed is common to both of them with Ebion, and Photinus, and Marcellus of Galatia.","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":25,"ref":"p25","source":"In eo vero, quod [Baluz. In id quod vero] substantiale Verbum Dei confitetur, et esse ab aeterno cum Patre Deum asserit, a memoratis recte dissentit, et fidel rectae conjungitur.\n\nSed quod iterum idem Verbum Deum naturaliter Dei Patris non esse Filium dicit, sed Verbum tantum, ut superius exposuimus, et in Christo Domino [Baluz. nihilominus] dividit merita uniuscujusque substantiae, impietatis magnum crimen incurrit, et hinc tamquam alienus et extorris ab ecclesiastica fide jure i damnatus est.\n\na HOMILIA PROCLI, episcopi Cyzici, habita sedente Nestorio in magna ecclesia Constantinopolis, in incarnationem Domini nostril Jesu Christi, quod Deipara sit beata virgo Maria, et ex ea natus, neque Deus tantum, neque purus homo, sed Emmanuel, inconfuse et incommutabiliter Deus et homo.\n\na Interprete, ut videtur, Mario Mercatore.\n\nVirginalis hodie solemnitas linguam nostram, fratres, in praeconium vocat, et praesens festivitas his, qui convenerunt, quasi provisor utilitatis efficitur, et valde competenter. Castitatis enim habet materiam, et feminei gloriam sexus, propter eam quae in tempore mater est, et semper virgo.","english":"But in that he confesses the substantial Word of God, and asserts that God is with the Father from eternity, he rightly disagrees with the aforementioned and is joined to the right faith.\n\nBut in that he again says that the same Word is not by nature the Son of God the Father, but only the Word, as we have set forth above, and in Christ the Lord he divides the merits of each substance, he incurs the great crime of impiety, and on this account, as an alien and stranger, he has been rightly condemned by the ecclesiastical faith.\n\nHOMILY OF PROCLUS, bishop of Cyzicus, delivered while Nestorius was presiding in the great church of Constantinople, on the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, that the blessed virgin Mary is the God-bearer, and that he who was born of her is neither God only nor a mere man, but Emmanuel, God and man without confusion and without change.\n\nTranslated, as it seems, by Marius Mercator.\n\nThe virginal solemnity today, brothers, summons our tongue to proclamation, and the present festival becomes, as it were, a provider of benefit for those who have assembled, and very fittingly so. For it has as its subject chastity, and the glory of the female sex, on account of her who in time is a mother, and always a virgin.","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":26,"ref":"p26","source":"Ecce enim et terra et mare munera Virgini offerunt: illud quidem fluctibus dorsum suum tranquille substernens; haec autem gradientium sine impedimento dirigens vestigia. Gaudeat natura, mulieres honorentur, choros ducat humanitas, glorificentur virgines: Ubi enim abundavit peccatum, superabundavit gratia (Rom. v, 20). Convocavit nos beata Maria, immaculatum virginitatis vas, rationalis secundi Adam paradisus, opificium unitionis naturarum, solemnitas salubris commutationis, rubus quem divini partus ignis non combussit, vere levis nubes, quae eum, qui supra cherubim est, cum corpore portavit. O coelestis imbris purissimum vellus, ex quo pastor ove indutus est!\n\nMaria mater et ancilla, Virgo et coelum, solus Dei ad homines pons, terribilis dispensationis tela, in qua ineffabilis incarnationis texta est tunica, cujus operis supertextor Spiritus sanctus est; textrix, ex altissimis obumbrans virtus; vestis autem, antiquum Adam indumentum; ilocci, ex Virgine immaculata care; radius, immensurabilis induentis gratia; artifex, quod per obedientiam insiluit Verbum. Quis vidit, quis audivit, quia vulvam Deus incircumscriptus habitavit, et quem coelum non caperet, venter Virginis cepit.","english":"For behold, both earth and sea offer gifts to the Virgin: the one calmly spreads its back beneath the waves; the other directs the footsteps of those who walk without hindrance. Let nature rejoice, let women be honored, let humanity lead the dance, let virgins be glorified: for where sin abounded, grace superabounded (Rom 5:20). Blessed Mary has called us together, the immaculate vessel of virginity, the paradise of the rational second Adam, the handiwork of the union of natures, the celebration of the saving exchange, the bush that the fire of the divine birth did not burn, truly the light cloud that bore him who is above the cherubim with a body. O most pure fleece of the heavenly rain, with which the shepherd was clothed as with a sheep!\n\nMary, mother and handmaid, virgin and heaven, the only bridge of God to men, the web of the awesome dispensation, in which the tunic of the ineffable incarnation was woven, whose master-weaver is the Holy Spirit; the weaver, the power from on high that overshadows; the garment, the covering of the old Adam; the thread, the precious thread from the immaculate Virgin; the shuttle, the immeasurable grace of the one who puts it on; the craftsman, the Word who by obedience leapt into it. Who has seen, who has heard that the uncircumscribed God dwelt in a womb, and that the womb of a virgin contained him whom heaven could not contain?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":27,"ref":"p27","source":"Natus est ex muliere Deus, sed non nudus; et natus est homo, sed non purus; et qui natus est veteris peccati portam, portam salutis ostendit: ubi enim serpens per inobeuientiam venenum effudit, ibi Verbum per obedientiam ingrediens templum vivitice plasmavit. Unde primus peccati discipulus Cam emersit, inde generis nostri liberator Christus sine semine pullulavit.\n\nNon erubuit amator hommum muliebres partus, vitae enim erat negotiatio quae agebatur. Non coinquinatus est habitans viscera, quae ipse sine contumelia condiderat. Si non virgo mansit mater, purus est homo qui natus est, et non exstitit mirabilis partus; si autem et post partum virgo permansit, ille ineffabiliter ex ea natus est, qui sine prohibitione januis clausis ingressus est, cujus conjunctionem naturarum agnoscens Thomas, exclamavit dicens: Dominus meus et Deus meus (Joan. xx, 28).","english":"God was born of a woman, but not naked; and a man was born, but not pure; and he who was born showed the gate of salvation, the gate of ancient sin: for where the serpent poured out poison through disobedience, there the Word, entering through obedience, formed a living temple. Whence the first disciple of sin, Ham, emerged, thence Christ, the liberator of our race, sprang forth without seed.\n\nThe lover of mankind did not blush at a woman's childbirth, for the business being conducted was that of life. He was not defiled by dwelling in the womb, which he himself had created without dishonor. If the mother did not remain a virgin, then the man who was born is pure, and the birth was not wonderful; but if she remained a virgin even after giving birth, then he was born from her ineffably, who entered through closed doors without hindrance, whose conjunction of natures Thomas recognized and exclaimed, saying: My Lord and my God (John 20:28).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":28,"ref":"p28","source":"Non erubescas, o homo, partum, ipse enim nobis factus est occasio salutis. Si non ex muliere nasceretur, nequaquam moreretur; si non moreretur, nequaquam per mortem destrueret eum qui habet mortis imperium (Hebr. ii, 14), id est, diabolum. Non est injuria architecto manere in his quae ipse aedificavit; non coinquinat figulum lutum renovantem, quod plasmaverat: sic non coinquinat incontaminabilem ex Virginis ventre procedere; quam enim dum plasmaret, non coinquinatus est, per eam transiens non pollutus est.\n\nO utere, in quo communis libertatis cautio composita est! O venter, in quo contra mortem fabricata sunt arma! O area, in qua natura agricola Christus, sicut spica, sine semine pullulavit! O templum, in quo Deus factus est sacerdos, non naturam commutans, sed eum, qui secundum ordinem est Melchisedech, propter miserationem indutus est!","english":"Do not be ashamed, O man, of the birth; for it has itself become for us the occasion of salvation. If he had not been born of a woman, he would by no means have died; if he had not died, he would by no means have destroyed through death him who holds the empire of death (Heb. 2:14), that is, the devil. It is no injury to an architect to remain in the things which he himself built; the clay does not defile the potter who renews what he had formed: so it does not defile the undefilable one to come forth from the womb of the Virgin; for she, while he was forming her, was not defiled, and passing through her he was not polluted.\n\nO use her, in whom the safeguard of common liberty has been composed! O womb, in which weapons have been forged against death! O field, in which Christ, the farmer of nature, has sprouted like an ear of grain without seed! O temple, in which God has been made a priest, not changing nature, but, for the sake of mercy, clothing himself in him who is according to the order of Melchisedech!","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":29,"ref":"p29","source":"Verbum caro factum est (Joan. i, 14), etsi Judaei non credunt partum. Deus hominis formam indutus est, etsi pagani detrahunt miraculo: propter hoc enim et Judaeis scandalum, et gentibus stultitia (1 Cor. i, 23) est mysterium, quia ultra rationem est miraculum. Si non Verbum habitasset in utero, nequaquam caro sederet super thronum. Si Deo injuria luisset in vulvam ingredi, et angelis injuria esset hominibus ministrare.\n\nQui est secundum naturam, utpote Deus,, propter misericordiam factus est. Non ex provectu factus est Deus Christus, absit, sed propter miserationem, quemadmodum credimus, factus est homo. Non hominem deificatum praedicamus, sed Deum incarnatum confitemur. Propriam ancillam conscripsit matrem. Qui secundum essentiam sine matre est, est secundum dispensationem sine patre: nam quomodo ipse, secundum Paulum, sine patre et sine matre est (Hebr. vii, 3)? Si purus homo est, non est sine matre; si nudus Deus est, non est sine patre: nunc autem idem ipse est, sine matre quidem ut plasmator; sine patre autem, ut plasmatus.","english":"The Word was made flesh, even though the Jews do not believe in the birth. God has put on the form of a man, even though the pagans disparage the miracle; for this is why the mystery is both a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles, because the miracle is beyond reason. If the Word had not dwelt in the womb, the flesh would by no means sit upon the throne. If it were an injury to God to enter the womb, it would also be an injury to the angels to minister to men.\n\nHe who is according to nature, inasmuch as he is God, was made for the sake of mercy. Christ was not made God by advancement—far be it—but for the sake of compassion, as we believe, he was made man. We do not preach a deified man, but we confess an incarnate God. He wrote his own handmaid as his mother. He who according to essence is without a mother is according to dispensation without a father: for how is he, according to Paul, without father and without mother? If he is a mere man, he is not without a mother; if he is God bare and simple, he is not without a father: but now the same one is both, without a mother indeed as the fashioner; without a father, however, as the one fashioned.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":30,"ref":"p30","source":"Erubesce vel appellationem archangeli, o homo; qui Mariam evangelizavit, Gabriel dicitur. Quid autem interpretatur Gabriel? Deus et homo. Praecessit appellatio, ut crederetur dispensatio.\n\nDisce causam praesentiae, et glorifica incarnati virtutem. Multum debebat genus humanum, et deficiebat ad debitum. Per Adam omne peccatum conscripsimus, et servos nos retinebat diabolus: instrumenta nostra proferebat, pro chartis utens multa patiente corpore: stabat malus passionum falsarius coucutiens contra nos debitum, et postulans judicium. Erat igitur necessarium alterum e duobus, aut importari ex judicio mortem, quia omnes peccaverunt; aut talem dari in compensationem, qui totius repetitionis justificatio existeret. Et homo quidem salvare non poterat, subjacebat enim debito: angelus redimere non valebat, deficiebat enim in pretio liberationis; eum qui sine peccato erat pro peccatoribus mori oportebat: ipsa enim haec et sola relicta est mall solutio.","english":"Be ashamed, at least, of the archangel's name, O man; the one who announced the good news to Mary is called Gabriel. But what does Gabriel mean? God and man. The name came first, so that the dispensation might be believed.\n\nLearn the reason for his presence, and glorify the power of the incarnate one. The human race owed much, and was failing to meet its debt. Through Adam we wrote down every sin, and the devil kept us as slaves; he brought out our instruments, using our much-suffering body in place of documents; the wicked forger of passions stood by, hammering out the debt against us and demanding judgment. It was necessary, then, that one of two things happen: either that death be brought in by judgment, because all have sinned; or that such a one be given as compensation, who would be the justification of the whole reckoning. And indeed a man could not save, for he was subject to the debt; an angel could not redeem, for he fell short in the price of liberation; it was necessary that the one who was without sin die for sinners; for this alone was left as the solution to evil.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":31,"ref":"p31","source":"Quid ergo? Ipse qui ex nihilo universam naturam ut esset adduxerat, qui in nullo bonitatis dono deficiebat, adinvenit, et adjudicatis morti vitam certissimam, et morti solutionem decentissimam: fit enim homo, sicut novit ipse (sermo enim interpretari miraculum non potest), et eo moritur, quod homo factus est; et eo liberat, quod prius exstiterat, secundum Paulum dicentem: In quo habemus redemptionem, per sanguinem ejus remissionem peccatorum (Eph. i, 7).\n\nO stupenda res! aliis negotiatus est immortalitatem, ipse enim erat immortalis; talis enim alter secundum dispensationem, nec erat, nec factus est, nec est, nec erit, solus est qui ex Virgine natus est Deus et homo, non solum, quae contraponi ad appretiationem possit, habens dignitatem ad multitudinem reorum, sed omnibus sententiis supereminentem. In hoc quidem quod Filius erat, id quod incommutabilis est ad Patrem conservans; in hoc autem quod conditor, id quod virtutis est indeficienter habens; in hoc quod amans misereri, ea quae compassionis sunt sine ulla publicans collatione; in id denique quod sacerdos est, id quod ad repraesentationem erat idoneum offerens: quorum nihil simile inveniet quis,aut vicinum aliquando in aliquo.","english":"What then? He who had brought the whole of nature into being out of nothing, who failed in no gift of goodness, devised both a most certain life for those condemned to death and a most fitting dissolution of death. For he becomes man, as he himself knew (for speech cannot interpret the miracle), and by that he dies, in that he was made man; and by that he sets free, in that he had existed before, as Paul says: In whom we have redemption, through his blood the forgiveness of sins.\n\nO wondrous thing! For others he procured immortality, for he himself was immortal; for such another according to the dispensation neither was, nor was made, nor is, nor will be; he alone is the one born of the Virgin, God and man, having a dignity not only such as can be set in comparison by way of valuation against the multitude of the guilty, but surpassing all judgments. In this indeed, that he was the Son, preserving that which is unchangeable toward the Father; in this, that he was the Creator, having that which belongs to power without fail; in this, that he loves to have mercy, dispensing the things that belong to compassion without any public contribution; finally, in this, that he is a priest, offering that which was suitable for representation: of which things no one will find anything similar, or ever near in anything.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":32,"ref":"p32","source":"Attende enim ejus in homines amorem. Voluntarie adjudicatus morti, eam, quae contra crucifigentes erat, dissolvit mortem, et convertit perimentium se iniquitatem in iniquorum salutem.\n\nHominis igitur puri salvare non erat, etenim ipse etiam indigebat salvatore, secundum Paulum dicentem: Omnes enim peccaverunt, et egent gloria Dei (Rom. iii, 28). Quia vero peccatum diabolo reum tradebat hominem, diabolus traditum in mortem agebat: in magno periculo ea quae circa nos sunt, erant, impossibilisque erat solutio mortis.\n\nQui missi sunt mediei, accusabant; quid igitur? Cum viderent prophetae ultra humanam artem valnus esse, ad coelestem medicum clamabant: et hic quidem dicebat: Domine, inclina caetos tuos, ei descende (Ps. cxliii, 5). Alius: Sana me, Domine, et sanabor (Jer. xvii, 14). Alius clamabat: Excita potentiam tuam, et veni, ut liberes nos (Ps. lxxix, 3). Alius dicebat: Heu me! anima mea, quia periit misericors a terra. Alius dicebat: Si vere Deus habitavit eam hominibus. Alter: Cito apprehendat nes misericordia tua, Domine. Item alter: Deus, in adjutorium meum intende, Domine, ad adjuvandum me festina (Ps. lxix, 2). Alter: Qui venturus est veniet, et non tardabit (Habac. ii, 3). Alias: Erravi sicut ovis quae perierat; require servum tuum (Ps. cxviii, 176).","english":"For attend to his love for men. Voluntarily sentenced to death, he dissolved the death that stood against those who crucified him, and turned the wickedness of those who killed him into the salvation of the wicked.\n\nTo save a mere man, then, was not possible, for he himself also needed a savior, according to Paul saying: For all have sinned, and need the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). But because sin handed man over as guilty to the devil, the devil drove the man handed over to death: the things concerning us were in great danger, and the dissolution of death was impossible.\n\nThose who were sent as physicians accused; what then? When the prophets saw that the wound was beyond human skill, they cried out to the heavenly physician: and one indeed said: Lord, incline your heavens, and come down (Ps. 144:5). Another: Heal me, Lord, and I shall be healed (Jer. 17:14). Another cried out: Stir up your power, and come, that you may deliver us (Ps. 80:2). Another said: Woe is me! my soul, for the merciful one has perished from the earth. Another said: If truly God has dwelt among men. Another: Let your mercy quickly overtake us, Lord. Again another: God, attend to my help, Lord, hasten to help me (Ps. 70:1). Another: He who is to come will come, and will not delay (Hab. 2:3). Another: I have gone astray like a sheep that has perished; seek your servant (Ps. 119:176).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":33,"ref":"p33","source":"Non despexit igitur humanae naturae oppressionem, qui natura exstat rex et Deus; sed venit qui semper aderat, et exsolvit redemptionem proprium sanguinem, et dedit pro genere humano compensationem morti, quod ex Virgine indutus est corpus, et redemit mundum ex maledicto legis; unde clamat Paulus: Christus nos redemit de maledicto legis (Gal. iii, 13).\n\nQui igitur redemit nos, non purus homo, o Judaee: hominum enim natura peccato serviebat; sed nec Dens nudus, corpus enim habebat, o Manichaee, nisi enim me indutus esset, me non salvasset; sed qui in utero Virginis sententiam tulerat, indutus est reum, et ibi terribilis facta esi commutatio: dans enim Spiritum accepit carnem, idem ipse cum Virgine et ex Virgine; et Spiritus quidem obumbravit eam, ipse vero ex ea caro factus est.\n\nSi alter Christus et alter Deus Verbum, non jam trinitas, sed quaternilas erit. Non disrmmpas dispensationis tunicam, quae desuper contexta est, hon sis discipulus Arii; impie ille essentiam dividit, lu unitatem ne partiaris, ut non dividaris a Deo.","english":"He did not, then, despise the oppression of human nature—he who by nature is King and God; but he came who was always present, and paid the redemption with his own blood, and gave for the human race a compensation to death, in that he was clothed with a body from the Virgin, and redeemed the world from the curse of the law; whence Paul cries out: Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law (Gal. 3:13).\n\nHe, therefore, who redeemed us is not a mere man, O Jew—for the nature of men was enslaved to sin; but neither is he God bare and naked, O Manichaean—for he had a body; unless he had put me on, he would not have saved me. But he who in the womb of the Virgin had passed sentence, was clothed with the guilty one, and there a fearful exchange was made: for giving the Spirit, he received flesh—the same one both with the Virgin and from the Virgin; and the Spirit indeed overshadowed her, but he himself was made flesh from her.\n\nIf Christ is one and the Word of God another, there will no longer be a Trinity, but a Quaternity. Do not tear apart the tunic of the dispensation, which is woven from above, lest you be a disciple of Arius; impiously he divides the essence; do not share in his unity, that you may not be divided from God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":34,"ref":"p34","source":"Dic age, quis apparuit in tenebris et in umbra mortis sedentibus (Luc. i, 79)? Homo? Et quomodo, si in tenebris degebat, secundum Paulum dicentem: Qui eripuit nos ex potestate tenebrarum (Col. i, 13); et iterum: Eratis enim aliquando tenebrae (Ephes. v, 8). Quis ergo illuxit? David te doceat dicens: Deus Dominus, et illuxit nobis (Ps. cxvii, 27); convenerunt naturae, et inconfusa permansit unitas.\n\nVenit salvare, sed oportebat et pati: quomodo ergo poterant utraque fieri? Homo purus salvare non valebat, Deus nudus pati non poterat, ipse existens Deus natura, factus est homo, et eo quod quidem erat salvavit; eo autem quod factus est, pertulit.\n\nPropterea quando vidit Ecclesia coronasse eum spinis Synagogam, deplorans praesumptionem dicebat: Filiae Jerusalem, exite et videte coronam, qua coronavit eum mater sua (Cant.","english":"Tell me, then, who appeared to those sitting in darkness and in the shadow of death (Luke 1:79)? A man? And how could that be, if he was dwelling in darkness, according to Paul who says: Who has delivered us from the power of darkness (Col. 1:13); and again: For you were once darkness (Eph. 5:8). Who, then, shone upon us? Let David teach you, saying: The Lord is God, and he has shone upon us (Ps. 117:27); the natures came together, and the union remained without confusion.\n\nHe came to save, but it was also necessary that he suffer: how, then, could both be accomplished? A mere man could not save, a bare God could not suffer; he who is God by nature became man, and by what he was he saved; by what he became, he endured.\n\nTherefore, when the Church saw that the Synagogue had crowned him with thorns, lamenting the presumption, she said: Daughters of Jerusalem, go out and see the crown with which his mother crowned him (Song","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":35,"ref":"p35","source":"iii, 11); ipse enim ex spinis corenam portavit, ut spinarum sententiam dissolveret; ipse in sinu Patris et in ventre Virginis, inter ulnas matris et super pennas ventorum: sursum ab angelis adorabatur, et deorsum cum telonibus recumbebat: Seraphim non prespiciebant prae reverentia, et Pilatus interrogabat: servus percutiebat, et creatura tenebatur: in cruce figebatur, et thronus gloriae nudus non erat: hi sepulcro jacebat, et coelum extendebat, sicut pellem: inter mortuos reputabatur, et infernum spoliabat: deorsum quasi seductor calumniabatur, et sursum a sanctis glorificabatur. O stupendum mysterium!\n\nVideo miracula, et praedico deitatem: aspicio passiones, et non abnego humanitatem; sed Emmanuel naturae quidem portas aperuit, ut homo; virginale autem claustrum non disrupit, ut Deus; sed sic ex vulva egressus est, quomodo per auditum ingressus est. Sic natus est, quomodo conceptus; impatibiliter introiit, incorruptibiliter egressus est secundum prophetam Ezechiel dicentem: Convertit me Dominus ad viam portae sanctuarii exteriorem, quae attendit ad Orientem, et haec clausa erat. Et dixit Dominus ad me: Fili hominis, porta ista clausa erit, et non aperietur: nullus transibit per eam, sed solus Dominus Deus ingredietur, et erit clausa (Ezech. xliv, 1).","english":"For he himself wore a crown of thorns, that he might dissolve the sentence of thorns; he himself was in the bosom of the Father and in the womb of the Virgin, between the arms of his mother and above the wings of the winds: above he was adored by angels, and below he reclined with tax collectors; the Seraphim did not behold him for reverence, and Pilate questioned him; a servant struck him, and creation was held fast; he was fastened to the cross, and the throne of glory was not bare; here he lay in the tomb, and he stretched out heaven like a skin; he was reckoned among the dead, and he despoiled hell; below he was slandered as a deceiver, and above he was glorified by the saints. O wondrous mystery!\n\nI see the miracles, and I proclaim the deity; I behold the sufferings, and I do not deny the humanity; but Emmanuel opened the gates of nature, indeed, as a man; yet he did not break open the virginal enclosure, as God; but he came forth from the womb just as he entered through the ear. He was born just as he was conceived; he entered without suffering, he came forth without corruption, according to the prophet Ezekiel, who says: The Lord turned me toward the way of the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces toward the East, and this was closed. And the Lord said to me: Son of man, this gate shall be closed, and it shall not be opened: no one shall pass through it, but the Lord God alone shall enter, and it shall be closed (Ezek. 44:1).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":36,"ref":"p36","source":"Ecce approbatio manifesta sanctae genitricis Dei Mariae, dissolvatur deinceps omnis contradictio, et sanctarum Scripturarum illuminemur doctrina, ut coelorum regnum obtineamus in Christo Jesu Domino nostro, ipsi gloria in saecula saeculorum. Amen.\n\nSERMO IV.\n\nDe incarnatione. Qui primus atque a extemporalis adversus Prodi orationem panegyricam in Virginem.\n\nb. Amatores Christi populos plausus his conferre, qui pro beata Maria impendunt sermonis officium, non est mirandum: hoc ipsum enim quod templum facta est [ Baluz. ad. illius] Dominicae carnis, excedit omne quod est laude dignissimum. Sed in illud vestra amabilitas debet intendere, ne cum plusquam oportet aut decet [ Baluz., debet] circa illius beatae honorem laudemque versamur, dignitatem Dei Verbi confundere videamur, bis eum faciendo generatum.\n\nEt ut rem intelligatis, e simpliciore sermone fungamur, utamurque eloquio omnibus ad capiendum facillimo, ne auditorum quod dicitur excedat auditum.","english":"Behold the manifest approval of the holy Mother of God Mary; let every contradiction henceforth be dissolved, and let us be enlightened by the teaching of the holy Scriptures, that we may obtain the kingdom of heaven in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.\n\nSERMON IV.\n\nOn the Incarnation. The first, and delivered extempore, against the panegyric of Proclus on the Virgin.\n\nb. It is not to be wondered at that the peoples who love Christ give their applause to those who devote the service of their speech on behalf of the blessed Mary; for this very thing, that she was made the temple of the Lord's flesh, exceeds all that is most worthy of praise. But your loving-kindness ought to attend to this, lest, while we dwell upon the honor and praise of that blessed one more than is fitting or proper, we seem to confound the dignity of God the Word by making him begotten twice.\n\nAnd that you may understand the matter, let us employ a simpler discourse, and use an eloquence most easy for all to grasp, so that what is said may not exceed the hearing of the listeners.","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":37,"ref":"p37","source":"Qui Deum simpliciter dicit de Maria natum, primo omnium nobilitatem gentibus prostituit dogmatis, atque exponens in medium, vituperandum id ridendumque proponit; statim enim paganus cum reprehensione accipiens, quia de Maria Deus est natus, inferet adversus Christianum: necessario enim qui dicit simpliciter [ Baluz. similiter] de Maria natum Deum, et non illum qui natus est [ Baluz. om, qui natus est], conjunctione duarum naturarum, divinae scilicet et humanae, Deum [Baluz. om. Deum] esse reputaverit, audiet: Ego natum et mortuum Deum et sepultum adorare non queo. Liquida autem divisio dogmatis ista est: Qui natus est, et per partes incrementorum temporibus eguit, et mensibus legitimis portatus in ventre est, hic humanam habet naturam, sed Deo sane conjunctam.\n\nAliud est autem dicere quia nato de Maria conjunctus erat Deus ille qui est Verbum Patris, quod est liquidissimum ac firmum atque irreprehensibile gentilibus; et aliud, quia ipsa Divinitas indiguit nativitate in mensibus decurrente: Verbum enim Deus temporum est opifex, non in tempore fabricatus.","english":"Whoever says simply that God was born of Mary, first of all exposes the nobility of the doctrine to the Gentiles, and setting it out in public, presents it as something to be censured and ridiculed; for immediately the pagan, receiving it with reproach because God was born of Mary, will bring an accusation against the Christian: for necessarily the one who says simply that God was born of Mary, and does not [say] that he who was born is God by the conjunction of the two natures, namely the divine and the human, will hear: I cannot adore a God who was born and died and was buried. But the clear division of the doctrine is this: he who was born, and in the course of time needed the stages of growth, and was carried in the womb for the appointed months, has a human nature, but one plainly conjoined to God.\n\nBut it is one thing to say that to him who was born of Mary that God was conjoined who is the Word of the Father, which is most clear and firm and beyond reproach among the Gentiles; and another thing to say that the Divinity itself needed a birth running through months: for God the Word is the maker of times, not made in time.","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":38,"ref":"p38","source":"Divisionem igitur super hoc praecedentis magistri valde sum admiratus dicentis (Parte 3): Qui ex muliere natus est, nec Deus nudus, nec purus homo a; quia neque Deum oportet dicere nude et utcumque eneratum: nemo enim qui se est antiquior generat; nec iterum humanitatem nudam esse protitendum est, sed humanitatem conjunctam Deo esse generatam.\n\nIn illud attractos vos esse volo, qui estis intenti examinatores religionis (hanc enim et de vobis, quam de Antiochenis, habeo opinionem), in illud ergo, ut dicebam, attractos vos esse volo, quia Deus pontifex factus est, ferre non possum; si enim Deus opifex et pontifex est, cujus a pontificibus legatio exhibenda est?\n\nHaec ad vestram dilectionem sermocinatus sum, et dicerem plura, nisi hoc subintrasset animum meum, quod Ecclesiae doctoribus videor contraria disputare.\n\nVolo igitur vos perspicaces esse in examinandis dogmatibus, et neque susceptam humanitatem a Deo Verbo confundere, neque e hominem nudum eum qui natus est dicere; sed nec Deum Verbum contemperatum, vel commixtum propriam amisisse essentiam.","english":"I was greatly astonished at the division made on this point by the preceding teacher, who says (Part 3): \"He who was born of a woman is neither God bare nor pure man,\" because neither ought we to call God bare and in some way unbegotten; for no one begets himself who is older than himself; nor again is humanity to be proclaimed bare, but humanity conjoined to God was begotten.\n\nI wish you to be drawn to that point, you who are intent examiners of religion (for I hold this opinion of you as well as of the Antiochenes)—to that point, then, as I was saying, I wish you to be drawn, because I cannot bear that God has been made a high priest; for if God is both creator and high priest, by whom is the embassy to be presented from high priests?\n\nI have spoken these things to your love, and I would say more, had it not stolen into my mind that I seem to dispute against the teachers of the Church.\n\nI wish you, therefore, to be perspicacious in examining doctrines, and neither to confound the humanity assumed by God the Word, nor to call him who was born a bare man; but neither [to say] that God the Word, tempered or mingled, has lost his own essence.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":39,"ref":"p39","source":"Propterea enim, discipulis in stupore constitutis, tempore quo sublevatur in coelum, et apud se, quantum arbitrandum est, hoc reputantibus: putasne resoluta est humana natura? putasne in coelis in eadem essentia permanet? Et eis de hac visione stupentibus advenientes angeli dicebant: Hic Jesus qui videtur, hic qui mensium incrementis indiguit, hic qui mortuus est, hic qui crucem pertulit, sic veniet quemadmodum vidistis eum ascendentem in coelum(Act.. i, 11). Et iterum beatus Paulus in Actibus apostolorum: In viro, inquit, in quo decrevit Deus judicare orbem terrae, fidem praestans omnibus, suscitans eum a mortuis (Ibid. xvii, 31). Numquid Verbum Deus surrexit a mortuis? Si autem vivificator mortificatus est, quis erit qui conferat vitam?\n\nPraeter hoc et Arianis hinc valde reprehensibiles sumus; si enim utcumque natum [Baluz. om. natum] Deum Verbum et simpliciter nominemus, vide ex hoc quid conficiatur. Dicis simpliciter: Deus est qui natus est de Maria, statim haereticus infert reprehendens: Ergo immerito nos arguitis, filium minorem Patre et creatum dicentes; quoniam apud vos etiam hoc in confessione est, inquiens Verbum Deum esse qui natus est de Maria.","english":"For this reason, when the disciples were struck with amazement at the time when he was taken up into heaven, and were pondering this within themselves, as far as we may judge: \"Has human nature perhaps been dissolved? Does it perhaps remain in heaven in the same essence?\"—and while they were astonished at this vision, angels came and said: \"This Jesus who is seen, this one who needed the increase of months, this one who died, this one who endured the cross, will come in the same way as you saw him ascending into heaven\" (Acts 1:11). And again the blessed Paul in the Acts of the Apostles says: \"In the man in whom God has decreed to judge the whole world, giving assurance to all, raising him from the dead\" (Acts 17:31). Did God the Word rise from the dead? But if the life-giver was put to death, who will be the one to confer life?\n\nBesides this, we are also greatly reproachable to the Arians on this account; for if we in any way call the Word God born, and simply [call him] so, see what is made of this. You say simply: \"God is he who was born of Mary\"; immediately the heretic draws the objection, reproving: \"Then you accuse us unjustly, when we say that the Son is lesser than the Father and created; since among you also this is in your confession,\" saying that the Word God is he who was born of Mary.","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":40,"ref":"p40","source":"Audi quae idem Deus Verbum de se ipse testatur: Euntes renuntiate fratribus meis: Vado ad Patrem meum et Patrem vestrum, Deum meum et Deum vestrum (Joan. xx, 17). Sed cum hoc diceret,qui natus est de beata Maria, humanitate quidem nobis consubstantialis erat; in eo autem quod conjunctus Deo, [Baluz. ad. a] nostra erat longe, quia Deus, substantia melior.\n\nTunc illorum blasphemia liberaberis: et facile ac breviter sacramentum religionis edices hoc modo: Alius quidem Deus Verbum est, qui erat i in templo, quod operatus est Spiritus, et aliud templum praeter habitantem Deum. Templi est morte dissolvi; inhabitantis autem templum, id ut resuscitet proprium est. Non hic meus sermo, sed vox est Domini: Solvite templum, inquit, hoc, et in triduo suscitabo illud (Joan. ii, 19).\n\nConjunctionis igitur confiteamur unitatem [Baluz. dignitatem], naturas autem et substantias duplices, alioquin invenietur Verbum [Baluz. add Deus] esse sancti Spiritus creatura: quid enim ait evangelistaa? Quod in ea natum est, de Spiritu sancto est (Matth.. i, 20). Quod si Verbum Deus nudus ac solus erat, qui natus est [Baluz. ad. creatus est], nec, quod dicit evangelista, Spiritus creavit illius templum in beata Maria, invenietur Deus Verbum sancti Spiritus opificium.","english":"Hear what the same God the Word himself testifies concerning himself: \"Go, report to my brothers: I am going to my Father and your Father, my God and your God\" (John 20:17). But when he said this, he who was born of blessed Mary was indeed consubstantial with us in his humanity; but in that he is joined to God, he was far from us, because as God he is better in substance.\n\nThen you will be freed from their blasphemy, and you will set forth the mystery of religion easily and briefly in this way: On the one hand, God the Word is one thing, who was in the temple that the Spirit wrought, and the temple is another thing besides the God who dwells in it. It belongs to the temple to be dissolved by death; but to raise up the temple of the indweller is his own proper work. This is not my word, but it is the voice of the Lord: \"Destroy this temple,\" he says, \"and in three days I will raise it up\" (John 2:19).\n\nLet us therefore confess the unity of the conjunction, but the natures and substances as twofold, otherwise God the Word will be found to be a creature of the Holy Spirit. For what does the evangelist say? \"That which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit\" (Matthew 1:20). But if God the Word was bare and alone, he who was born was not—as the evangelist says—a temple created by the Spirit in blessed Mary, and God the Word will be found to be the workmanship of the Holy Spirit.","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":41,"ref":"p41","source":"Fugiamus itaque hujus confusionis errorem: Dominum nostrum Christum, secundum naturam, duplicem dicamus; secundum quod est Filius, unum.\n\nEgo autem quibusdam mihi et illud renuntiantibus, cum laetitia saepius risi, quoniam, inquiunt, episcopus, quae Photini sunt, sapit, nescientes neque quae loquuntur, neque de quibus affirmant (I Tim. i, 7); hoc enim quod a me dicitur, Photini [Baluz. add. dogmatis] eversio invenitur. Photini enim sensus a partu Mariae Verbo Deo dat principium, me dicente Verbum Deum semper existere ante saecula.\n\nAd illos mihi quidem proverbialis sermo sufficiat: Noli respondere imprudenti secundum imprudentiam ejus (Prov. xxvi, 4). Vos autem volo perspicaces examinatores dogmatum, neque plausibus uti, neque attrahi sermonis illecebra, neque dogmatum aliquid, examinatamque rationem novitatis praesumptionem putare, sed veritatis eam magis gloriam judicare.","english":"Let us therefore flee the error of this confusion: let us say that our Lord Christ is twofold according to nature, but one according to that which he is, the Son.\n\nBut I have often laughed with joy at certain people who report this to me as well, saying, \"The bishop savors the things of Photinus\"—not knowing either what they say or about what they make assertions (1 Tim 1:7). For what is said by me is found to be the overthrow of Photinus. For the opinion of Photinus gives a beginning to God the Word from the birth from Mary, whereas I say that God the Word always existed before the ages.\n\nFor them, indeed, let the proverbial saying suffice for me: Do not answer a fool according to his folly (Prov 26:4). But I want you to be discerning examiners of doctrines, neither to make use of applause nor to be drawn by the allurements of speech, nor to consider any doctrine, or a reasoned account of novelty, to be presumption, but rather to judge it the glory of truth.","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":42,"ref":"p42","source":"SERMO V.\n\nDe Deo nato et Virgine, qui secundus e adversus Proclum.\n\nSaepe illos rogavi, qui defendunt: Num Deitatem dicitis ex sancta Virgine natam? Ad haec verba illico resiliunt: Ecquis, inquiunt, tanto blasphemiae morbo laborat, ut quae templum genuit, Spiritus sancti opera, in ea Deum ipsum creatum dicat? Deinde cum ad haec subjicio: Quid igitur absurde dicitur a nobis, cum vocem hanc efferre quidem suademus, sed ad commune duabus naturis significatum pergere? Tum vero putant blasphemum esse, quod dicimus: Aut aperte confitere Divinitatem ex beata Maria genitam; aut, si ut blasphemam fugis hanc vocem, cur qui eadem atque ego dicis, te haud dicere simulas?\n\nSi fide simplici Deiparam proferres, nulla esset apud me dictionis invidia verbi sensum exquirentem; sed quia video te, praetextu erga beatam Mariam honoris, haereticorum confirmare blasphemiam, ideo dictionis prolationem caute praemunio, cum periculum in ea dictione latens suspectum habeam.","english":"SERMON V.\n\nOn God born and the Virgin, which is the second against Proclus.\n\nI have often asked those who defend [the point]: Do you say that the Deity was born of the holy Virgin? At these words they immediately recoil: Who, they say, is afflicted with so great a disease of blasphemy as to say that God himself was created in her whom the Holy Spirit's work made a temple? Then when I add to this: What then is said absurdly by us, when we urge that this word indeed be uttered, but proceed to the meaning common to the two natures? Then indeed they think it blasphemous that we say: Either openly confess that the Divinity was born of blessed Mary; or, if you flee this word as blasphemous, why do you, who say the same things as I, pretend that you do not say them?\n\nIf you brought forth the God-bearer by simple faith, there would be no ill will in my speaking as I search out the sense of the word; but because I see you, under the pretext of honor toward blessed Mary, confirming the blasphemy of the heretics, for that reason I cautiously guard beforehand the utterance of the word, since I hold suspect the danger lurking in that word.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":43,"ref":"p43","source":"Id ut clarius dicam, et ut ab hominibus percipi facilius possit, qui Arium sectati sunt, et Eunomium et Apollinarium, et omnium hujusmodi familiae hominum chori, studuerunt appellationem invehere, ut facta mixtione, duabusque naturis minime distinctis, nihil ex his quae viliora sunt de humanitate dictum acciperetur; ac locus illis jam adversus ipsam Divinitatem pateret, tamquam omnia de uno dicerentur, non ratione dignitatis ex ipsa conjunctione consequentis, sed ipsius ratione naturae. Unus est namque Christus, et unus Dominus; sed in Christo, inunigenito, inquam, Filio, et Christi nomen et Filii, nunc de divinitate, nunc de humanitate divinitateque dicitur.\n\nDixi jam saepius: Si quis inter vos simplicior, sive inter quoscumque alios, voce hac gaudet, apud me nulla est de voce invidia, tantum ne Virginem faciat deam.\n\nSi Deus est Christus, inquiunt, et Christus ex beata Maria est ortus, cur Virgo non est Dei genitrix? Nihil occulto, quod ab illis objicitur. Nam veritatis amator omnia quae a falsitate dici possunt accepta sibi objicit. Formatur in utero infans, sed quoad figuram acceperit, nondum habet animam: at ubi figuratus fuerit, jam anima informatur a Deo.","english":"To say this more clearly, and so that it can be more easily grasped by those men who have followed Arius and Eunomius and Apollinarius and the whole chorus of every family of this kind, they have striven to introduce the term, so that by a certain mixing together, with the two natures in no way distinguished, nothing of the things that are more lowly would be accepted as said of the humanity; and thus a place would already lie open for them against the Divinity itself, as though all things were said of one, not by reason of the dignity that follows from that conjunction itself, but by reason of its nature. For there is one Christ and one Lord; but in Christ, in the only-begotten, I say, Son, both the name of Christ and of the Son is spoken now of the divinity, now of the humanity and the divinity.\n\nI have said already rather often: If anyone among you is simpler, or among any others whatsoever, and takes pleasure in this word, there is no envy in me concerning the word, only let him not make the Virgin a goddess.\n\nIf Christ is God, they say, and Christ was born of the blessed Mary, why is the Virgin not the Mother of God? I hide nothing of what is objected by them. For the lover of truth brings against himself all the things that can be said by falsehood. The infant is formed in the womb, but as to the figure it has received, it does not yet have a soul; but when it has been formed, then the soul is informed by God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":44,"ref":"p44","source":"Ut igitur mulier corpus parit, sed Deus animam tribuit; neque ideo mutier dicetur animae genitrix, quia peperit animatum, sed potius hominis genitrix: sic quoque beata Virgo, etsi peperit hominem, simul eum illo pertranseunte Dei Verbo, non ideo esi Dei genitrix: non enim Verbi Divinitas a beata Virgine initium cepit, sed erat natura Deus.\n\nDe beato Joanne Baptista praedicatur a sanctis angelis, implendum esse infantem Spiritu saneto, adhuc ex utero matris suae (Luc.. i, 15); atque ita beatus Joannes Baptista Spiritum sanctum habens editus est. Quid igitur? Appellabisne ipsam Elisabeth Spiritus genitricem? Huc animum referte, ac si qui in vobis fuerint qui ad ea quae dicuntur, tamquam ad inaudita et insolita, moveantur, veniam date illorum imperitiae.\n\nAudi etiam aliud ipsorum testimonium, si enim cognovissent, numquam Dominum gloriae crucifixissent. Ecce Dominum gloriae dicit. Non sic appellat humanitatem, sed Divinitatem; hoc autem est hominum summam illam copulationem distrahentium: cum enim dicis hunc non esse Dominum, illum esse, tu nudum hominem focis Christum. Quid ergo sub ecclesiastica persona dicis, haeretice? Dominusne est etiam ipse homo, an secus? Siquidem Dominus, communicant inter se quae dicuntur. Sin minus, noli tu, cum nudum ac simplicem hominem Christum facias, mihi hoc probrum impingere. Audiamus beatum Paulum aperte clamantem quisnam sit ille crucifixus.","english":"Therefore, just as a woman gives birth to a body, but God bestows the soul; and she is not for that reason called the mother of the soul, because she gave birth to one who has a soul, but rather the mother of a man: so too the blessed Virgin, even though she gave birth to a man, with the Word of God passing through him at the same time, is not for that reason the mother of God; for the Divinity of the Word did not take its beginning from the blessed Virgin, but was God by nature.\n\nConcerning blessed John the Baptist it is proclaimed by the holy angels that the child was to be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb (Luke 1:15); and so blessed John the Baptist was brought forth having the Holy Spirit. What then? Will you call Elisabeth herself the mother of the Spirit? Turn your attention here, and if there are any among you who are disturbed by what is said, as though by things unheard of and unusual, pardon their ignorance.\n\nHear also another testimony of theirs: for if they had known, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory. Behold, he calls him the Lord of glory. He does not call his humanity this, but his Divinity; and this is the work of men who tear apart that supreme union: for when you say that this one is not the Lord, but that one is, you make Christ a bare man. What then do you say under the person of the Church, heretic? Is he himself also a man, the Lord, or not? If indeed he is the Lord, the things that are said apply to both in common. If not, do not you, when you make Christ a bare and simple man, cast this reproach upon me. Let us hear blessed Paul openly crying out who it is that was crucified.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":45,"ref":"p45","source":"Audi igitur apertissime ejus vocem: Etenim (crucifixus est ex infirmitate, sed vivit ex virtute Dei. Si crucifixus est ex infirmitate, quis infirmatus est, haeretice? Itlene Deus Verbum?\n\nVide quid aecidas, haeretice. Non invideo nomen Virgini: fateor enim reverendam esse eam quae conceperit Deum; per quam transierit Dominus omnium; per quam justitiae sol illexerit: Deus enim erat Verbum, et cum homine conjunctum, et in eo habitans; sed porro suspicer plausum. Quomodo hoc, quod dixi, transierit, intellexistis? Non dixi, pertransiit, pro eo quod est genitus: non enim ita facile meae sententiae obliviscor. Transiiese Deum per Virginem, a Scriptura perdoctus sum; natum, non, edoctus sum.\n\nNusquam divina Scriptura Deum ex Virgine asserit natum; sed Jesum Christum, Filium, Dominum. Haec omnes confiteamur: quae enim docuit divina Scriptura, qui non statim accipit, miser est. Surge, accipe puerum et matrem ejus (Matth. ii, 13). Haec angelorum vox est, immo tua. Fortasse generationem ipsius noverat archangelus, Surge, et accipe puerum et matrem ejus; non dixit: Surge et accipe Deum et matrem ejus.","english":"Hear, then, his voice most plainly: For indeed he was crucified out of weakness, but he lives by the power of God. If he was crucified out of weakness, who is it that was made weak, heretic? Was it God the Word?\n\nSee what you are saying, heretic. I do not begrudge the name to the Virgin: for I confess that she who conceived God is to be revered; through whom the Lord of all passed; through whom the sun of righteousness shone forth: for God was the Word, both joined to the man and dwelling in him; but further, I suspect, you look for applause. Have you understood how this that I said—\"passed through\"? I did not say \"came forth,\" in the sense of \"was begotten\": for I do not so easily forget my own meaning. That God passed through the Virgin I have been thoroughly taught by Scripture; that he was born, I have not been taught.\n\nNowhere does divine Scripture assert that God was born of the Virgin, but Jesus Christ, the Son, the Lord. Let us all confess these things: for whoever does not immediately accept what divine Scripture has taught is wretched. Rise, take the child and his mother. This is the voice of angels—no, it is yours. Perhaps the archangel himself knew his generation: Rise, and take the child and his mother; he did not say: Rise and take God and his mother.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":46,"ref":"p46","source":"SERMO VI.\n\nDe dictis Epistolae Apostoli ad Hebraeos: Considerate apostolum et pontificem confessionis nostrae Jesum, etc. (Hebr. iii, 1).\n\nApostoli nomen in Christo audientes, Deum Verbum male intelligunt apostolum esse. Legentes item pontificis vocabulum, Deum esse imaginantur pontificem, mira dementia. Quis enim apostoli officium audiens, non statim videat hominem demonstrari? Quis summi sacerdotis nomen audiens, Divinitatis naturam ad sacerdotis ministerium vocet?\n\nSi enim Deus pontifex est, quis erit qui officio ejus debeat coli? Si Deus oblaturus est sacrificia tamquam pontifex, nullus erit cui offerantur Deus. Quid enim dignum jam Divinitate est, si tamquam inferior offerat sacrificia superiori?\n\nUnde igitur eis Deus appellandus pontifex visus est, qui sacrificio, secundum sacerdotii ritum, ad profectum suum omnino non indiget? perpetuus quippe possessor est Divinitatis. Ex hominibus nempe electus, atque susceptus pontifex, pro hominibus constituitur apud Deum (Hebr. v, 1).","english":"SERMON VI.\n\nOn the words of the Apostle's Epistle to the Hebrews: Consider the apostle and high priest of our confession, Jesus, etc. (Heb. 3:1).\n\nHearing the name \"apostle\" in Christ, they wrongly understand that God the Word is an apostle. Likewise, reading the term \"high priest,\" they imagine that God is the high priest—a wondrous folly. For who, hearing of the office of an apostle, does not at once see that a man is being pointed out? Who, hearing the name of high priest, would call the nature of the Godhead to the ministry of a priest?\n\nFor if God is a high priest, who will be the one who ought to be worshiped by his office? If God is to offer sacrifices as a high priest, there will be no one to whom God may be offered. For what is now worthy of the Godhead, if he offers sacrifices to a superior as one inferior?\n\nFrom what source, then, did God appear to them to be called a high priest, when by sacrifice, according to the rite of the priesthood, he has no need at all for his own advancement? For he is the perpetual possessor of the Godhead. Indeed, chosen from among men and taken up, a high priest is appointed on behalf of men before God (Heb. 5:1).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":47,"ref":"p47","source":"Non angeles apprehendit, sed semen Abrahae apprehendit (Hebr. ii, 16). Numquid semen Abrahoe es ipsa Divinitas? Audi consequentem etiam vocem: Unde debuit per omnia fratribus simitis fieri (Ibid. 17). Numquid Divinitati? Quos enim Deus Verbum habere potuit fratres similes sui\n\nRespice etiam illud, quod his dictis adjungitur: Ut misericors fieret et fidetis pontifex ad Deum; in es enim, in quo passus est et ipse tentatus, potest et bis, qui tentantur, auxilium ferre (Ibid. 18). Qui igitur passus est, ille est pontifex misericors; pasibile autem templum est, non hie qui vivificator est Deus.\n\nSemen Abrahae is est qui heri et hodie, secundum Pauli apostoli vocem (Hebr. xiii, 8); non ille qui dixit: Antequam Abraham esset, ego sum (Joan. viii, 58). Simitis hic fratribus per omnia (Hebr. ii, 17); qui humanae animae eorporisque suscepit fraternitatem, non ille qui dixit: Qui me videt, videt et Patrem meum (Joan. xiv, 9).","english":"He did not take hold of angels, but he took hold of the seed of Abraham (Heb. 2:16). Is the Godhead itself the seed of Abraham? Hear also the voice that follows: Therefore it was fitting that he be made like his brothers in all things (Ibid. 17). Is the Godhead? For whom could God the Word have as brothers like himself?\n\nConsider also what is joined to these words: That he might become a merciful and faithful high priest before God; for in that he himself suffered and was tempted, he is able also to bring help to those who are tempted (Ibid. 18). Therefore the one who suffered is that merciful high priest; but the passible temple is not the one who is God the life-giver.\n\nThe seed of Abraham is the one who is yesterday and today, according to the voice of the apostle Paul (Heb. 13:8); not the one who said: Before Abraham was, I am (John 8:58). This one is like his brothers in all things (Heb. 2:17); he who took on the brotherhood of human soul and body, not the one who said: Whoever sees me sees also my Father (John 14:9).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":48,"ref":"p48","source":"Missus est autem ille, nobis consubstantialis, et unctus, et praedicans captivis remissionem, et caecis visum: Spiritus enim Domini super me, propter quod unxit me; pauperibus evangelizare misit me, sanare contritos corde, praedicare captivis remissionem, et caecis visum (Isai.. lxi, 1).\n\nCum porro de Christo diceret quod missus esset denuntiare captivis remissionem; Apostolus addidit hoc etiam, et dixit: Hic qui fidelis Deo factus est pontifex (Hebr. ii, 17). Factus est enim hic, non perpetuo antea fuerat. Hic paulatim in pontificis profecit, haeretice, dignitatem. Audi vocem tibi hoc evidentius declamentem: Qui in diebus, inquit, carnis suae poeces supplicationesque ad eum qui posset salvum a morte facere, cum clamore valido et lacrymis offerens, exauditus est pro sua reverentia; et quidem cum esset Filius, didicit ex illis quae passus est obedientiam, et consummatus factus est omnibus obtemperantibus sibi causa salutis aeternae (Hebr, v, 7).","english":"But he who is consubstantial with us was sent, and anointed, and proclaiming remission to captives and sight to the blind: for the Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to evangelize the poor, to heal the contrite of heart, to proclaim remission to captives, and sight to the blind (Isa. 61:1).\n\nMoreover, when he was speaking of Christ, that he had been sent to announce remission to captives, the Apostle added this also and said: This one who was made faithful to God as high priest (Heb. 2:17). For he was made this; he had not been it perpetually beforehand. This one advanced gradually, O heretic, into the dignity of high priest. Hear the voice declaring this to you more clearly: Who, he says, in the days of his flesh, offering prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to him who was able to save him from death, was heard because of his reverence; and indeed, though he was the Son, he learned obedience from the things which he suffered, and being made perfect, he became to all who obey him the cause of eternal salvation (Heb. 5:7).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":49,"ref":"p49","source":"Consummatur autem id quod paulatim proficit, haeretice, de quo etiam et Lucas in Evangelio clamat: Jesus proficiebat aetate, et sapientia, et gratia (Luc. ii 52). Quibus congrue etiam Paulus dicens: Consummatus factus est omnibus obtemperantibus sibi causa salutis aeternae, appellatus a Deo pontifex secundum ordinem Melchisedeck (Hebr. v, 6), Hic ille cum Mose, quoad ducendi exercitus typum, coparatus; ille semen Abrahae vocatus ille per omnia similes fratribus, ille tempore factus pontifex, ille per passiones consummatus; ille qui in quo passus est, ipse tentatus, potest tentatis auxiliari; ille secundum ordinem Melchisedech pontifex appellatus. Cur igitur diversa sentis a Paulo? Cur impassibilem Deum Verbum corpore terreno commiscens, passibilem pontificem facis?\n\nCum sit igitur nobis hic solus pontifex condolens, et cognatus, et firmus, de ejus fide numquam depellamini. Ipse enim nobis ex promissa benedictione, ex semine Abrahae missus est, utpote pro se, et pro suo genere, corporis sacrificium offerens.","english":"But that which advances gradually is brought to completion, you heretic, of whom Luke also cries out in the Gospel: Jesus advanced in age, and wisdom, and grace (Luke 2:52). To these things Paul also fittingly says: He was made complete for all who obey him the cause of eternal salvation, called by God a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 5:6). This one was joined with Moses in the figure of leading armies; that one was called the seed of Abraham; that one was made like his brothers in all things; that one was made high priest in time; that one was made complete through sufferings; that one, in that in which he suffered, being himself tempted, is able to help those who are tempted; that one was called high priest according to the order of Melchizedek. Why, therefore, do you think differently from Paul? Why, mixing the impassible God the Word with an earthly body, do you make him a passible high priest?\n\nSince, therefore, this one alone is our high priest, compassionate, and kin, and steadfast, never be driven away from faith in him. For he was sent to us from the promised blessing, from the seed of Abraham, as one offering the sacrifice of his body for himself and for his kind.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":50,"ref":"p50","source":"SERMO VII.\n\nQui quartus in Proclum. a Adversus eos qui propter conjunctionem, vel divinitatem Verbi mortificant, vel humanitatem deificant.\n\nContumelias quidem in me haereticorum arbitror tamquam delirantium machinas, et horum in mare comminatas submersiones, perturbationum quoque desideria, et persecutionum nova quae intenduntur molimina, et indigentium negligentiam, quam nobis objiciunt, et aliorum in nos garrulitatis deliramenta, tamquam ranarum ego strepitus rideo, aut certe quantum infantium jacula, aut castra contemno, qualia propheta quondam deridehat dicens: Sagittos parvulorum factos sunt plagae eorum (Ps. lxiii, 8).\n\nNihil autem illo est pastore miserius, qui luporum laudibus gloriatur, quibus si placere voluerit, atque ab his amari delegerit, erit hinc ovibus magna pernicies. Nullus igitur pastorum placere lupis et gregibus ovium potest; illorum ergo, sicut praedixi, despiciam voces, Domini contra eos proferens dicta: Progenies viperarum, quomodo potestis bona loqui, cum sitis mali (Matth. xii, 34)?","english":"SERMON VII.\n\nWhich is the fourth against Proclus. Against those who, because of the conjunction, either put the divinity of the Word to death or deify the humanity.\n\nI indeed regard the insults of the heretics against me as the contrivances of madmen, and their plots, like the drownings they devise against us in the sea, and their desires for disturbances, and the new devices of persecutions that are being prepared, and the negligence of the needy which they impute to us, and the delirious babblings of others against us—these I laugh at as the croaking of frogs, or certainly I despise them as the darts of infants, or as camps such as the prophet once derided, saying: The arrows of little children have become their wounds (Ps. 63:8).\n\nBut nothing is more wretched than that shepherd who glories in the praises of wolves; for if he wishes to please them and chooses to be loved by them, great destruction will come from this upon the sheep. No shepherd, therefore, can please both the wolves and the flocks of sheep; so, as I said before, I will despise their voices, bringing forth against them the words of the Lord: You brood of vipers, how can you speak good things, when you are evil (Matt. 12:34)?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":51,"ref":"p51","source":"His tamen sensibus, quibus contra Dominum armantur, obsistere et adversari necessarium est. Mortalem enim vivificatricem Deitatem appellant, et in theatricas fabulas Deum Verbum audent deducere, tamquam idem sit pannis involutus, et mortuus, proh nefas! Ut Dominus Christus in nos benignitatem suam extenderet, periclitatur apud eos de Deitatis dignitate decidere.\n\na Audi, miserrime, et quamvis rabidus, curam ad te sanitatis admitte: non occidit Pilatus Deitatem, sed Deitatis vestimentum; non Deus Verbum sindone a Joseph involutus sepulturae mandatus est Quomodo enim ille hoc poterat pati, qui tenet circulum terrae, et omnes habitantes in ea, tamquam locustas, sicut ait propheta (Isai. xl, 22)?\n\nSed quis ille est, qui involvitur linteis sepulturae? Audi evangelicis vocibus personari: Venit homo divet ab Arimathia, cui nomen erat Joseph, qui et ipse fuerat discipulus Jesu. Hic adiit Pilatum, et postulavit corpus Jesu. Tunc Pilatus jussit reddi corpus; et accipiens corpus illud Joseph involvit in sindone munda, et posuit illud in monumento (Matth. xxvii, 57). Ter dixit corpus, et nec semel meminit Deitatis; nec enim vulneraverant milites lancea Deitatem. Sed quid est quod ab illis est vulneratum? A Joanne docere: Unus, inquit, militum lancea sua pupugit latus ejus (Joan. xix, 34) Et audi adhuc argumentum, quo constat Deitatem minime vulneratam.","english":"Nevertheless, it is necessary to resist and oppose these opinions by which they are armed against the Lord. For they call the life-giving Godhead mortal, and they dare to drag God the Word into theatrical fables, as if the same one were wrapped in swaddling cloths and died—oh, abomination!—so that the Lord Christ might extend his kindness upon us, he is in danger, in their view, of falling from the dignity of the Godhead.\n\nHear, most wretched man, and however rabid, admit the care of health for yourself: Pilate did not kill the Godhead, but the garment of the Godhead; God the Word was not wrapped in a linen cloth by Joseph and consigned to burial. For how could he suffer this, who holds the circle of the earth and all who dwell in it like locusts, as the prophet says (Isa. 40:22)?\n\nBut who is he who is wrapped in the linens of burial? Hear it proclaimed by the voices of the Gospel: A rich man came from Arimathea, whose name was Joseph, who himself had also been a disciple of Jesus. He approached Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered the body to be handed over; and Joseph, taking that body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth and placed it in the tomb (Matt. 27:57). Three times he said \"body,\" and not even once did he mention the Godhead; for the soldiers had not wounded the Godhead with a spear. But what is it that was wounded by them? Let John teach: One, he says, of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear (John 19:34). And hear yet another proof, by which it is established that the Godhead was in no way wounded.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":52,"ref":"p52","source":"Exiit, inquit, statim sangu's et aqua (Ibid.).\n\nNon ipse mortuus est, qui vivificat; qui enim subsisteret? qui mortuum suscitaret? Venit homines mortuos suscitare: nam ipse mortuis invenitur auxilium ferre jacentibus; non ipse tamquam jacens auxilii inops esse.\n\nNon est mutatus conjunctione seu societate hominis Deus; ipse enim est, qui per prophetam clamat: Ego sum, ego sum, et non sum mutates (Mal. iii, 6). Et iterum: Tu autem idem ipse es, et anni tui non deficient (Ps. ci, 28). Sed unitus humanae naturae, et Deitatis eam complexibus stringens in altum levavit, manens id quod existebat.\n\nIpse propterea Petrus de primitiis nostris praedicans, et illam altitudinem narrans, quam huic visibili naturae contulit Deus: Hunc, inquit, Jesum suscitavit Deus (Act. x, 40). Non ergo mortuus est Deus, sed suscitavit.\n\nAudi Petrum dicentem, o Apollinaris. Audi cum Apollinare tu quoque impietas Ariana. Hunc, inquit, Jesum suscitavit Deus; hunc qui paret; hunc quem oculi intuentur, qui affixus est liguo, qui palpatus est manibus Thomae, qui ad eum clamavit: Palpate et videte quia spiritus ossa et carnem non habet, sicut me videtis habentem (Luc. xxiv, 39). Et his certior vocibus factus, ipsius palpati et crucifixi corporis resurrectione, mira haec facientem glorificabat Deum: Deus meus, dicens, et Dominus meus (Joan. xx, 28).","english":"He went forth, it says, immediately blood and water (Ibid.).\n\nHe himself did not die, who gives life; for who would then subsist? Who would raise the dead? He came to raise dead men; for he himself is found to bring aid to the dead who lie low; he himself is not, as one lying low, destitute of aid.\n\nGod was not changed by conjunction or association with man; for he himself is the one who cries through the prophet: I am, I am, and I am not changed (Mal. iii, 6). And again: But you yourself are the same, and your years shall not fail (Ps. ci, 28). But united to human nature, and binding it in the embraces of his Godhead, he raised it on high, remaining what he was.\n\nFor this reason Peter himself, preaching concerning our firstfruits, and declaring that height which God conferred on this visible nature, says: This Jesus God raised up (Act. x, 40). Therefore God did not die, but raised up.\n\nHear Peter speaking, O Apollinaris. Hear, you too, Arian impiety, along with Apollinaris. This Jesus, he says, God raised up; this one who is obedient; this one whom eyes behold, who was fastened to the wood, who was touched by the hands of Thomas, who cried out to him: Touch and see that a spirit does not have bones and flesh, as you see me having (Luc. xxiv, 39). And made more certain by these words, by the resurrection of his own body that was touched and crucified, he glorified God who did these marvelous things, saying, My God, and My Lord (Joan. xx, 28).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":53,"ref":"p53","source":"Non illud quod palpaverat, appellans Deum; nec enim indagatur Deitas isto palpatu. Si enim Deum Verbum cognoscere, vel addiscere palpatu isto Thomas inciperet, dixisset sine dubio ad eum Dominus: Contrecta et vide, quia spiritus sum et Deus. Nunc autem e diverso palpa, inquit, et vide, quia spiritus non sum: nam spiritus carnem et ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habentem (Luc. xxiv, 39). Me scilicet, quem secundum id quod videtur et paret videtis esse compositum, et secundum corporis substantiam esse contrectabilem cernitis.\n\nNon enim, Apollinaris, ossa et caro est Deitas Verbi paterni. De isto palpabili clamat Petrus: Hunc Jesum suscitavit Deus (Act. x, 40). Dextera itaque exaltatus est Dei, non tamen dextera adjuvante Verbum. O insania Ariana! Promissione quoque sancti Spiritus accepta a Patre (Act. ii, 33), effudit hunc, quem vos videtis et auditis.","english":"He was not calling \"God\" that which he had touched; for the Godhead is not traced out by such touching. For if Thomas were to begin to know or learn God the Word by this touching, the Lord would undoubtedly have said to him: Touch and see, for I am spirit and God. But now, on the contrary, he says: Touch and see, for I am not a spirit; for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see me having (Lk 24:39). Namely me, whom you see to be composed according to what is seen and appears, and whom you perceive to be touchable according to the substance of the body.\n\nFor the Godhead of the Father's Word is not, Apollinaris, bones and flesh. Of this touchable one Peter cries out: This Jesus God raised up (Acts 10:40). Therefore he was exalted by the right hand of God, yet not with the Word assisted by the right hand. O Arian madness! Having also received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father (Acts 2:33), he poured out this one whom you see and hear.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":54,"ref":"p54","source":"Et audi Paulum de Deo ratiocinantem, et illam inconvertibilem Dei et hominis exponentem conjunctionem. In forma, inquit, Dei constitutus, non rapinam arbitratus est esse se aequalem Deo; sed semetipsum exinanivit, formam servi accipiens (Philipp. ii, 6). Sic et in aliis quidem, inquit, locutus est nobis in Filio, quem constituit haeredem universorum, per quem fecit et saecula, qui est splendor gloriae (Heb. i, 2). Prorsus filium caute eum, et splendorem gloriae nuncupat, et positivum haeredem: a haeredem quidem positivum secundum carnem; splendorem autem gloriae paternae secundum Deitatem, quia nec discessit incarnatus a similitudine, quae ei cum Patre est. Propter quod et Paulus inquit: Qui est splendor gloriae; ne forte cum audisset quispiam: Erat in forma Dei; tamquam transeuntis et commutatae suspicaretur eum esse naturae.\n\nJoannes quidem Verbi et Patris adinvicem coaeternitatem describendo, utebatur his dictis: In principio erat Verbum (Joan. i, 1), Est praetermittens; non enim dixit: In principio est Verbum, et Verbum est apud Deum; sed: In principio Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum. Quaerebatur enim quae prima esset existentia sive essentia ejus qui hominem gessit.","english":"And hear Paul reasoning about God, and setting forth that unchangeable conjunction of God and man. \"Being,\" he says, \"in the form of God, he did not consider it robbery to be equal to God; but he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant\" (Philippians 2:6). So also in other places, he says, he spoke to us in the Son, \"whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the ages, who is the splendor of his glory\" (Hebrews 1:2). Altogether he cautiously calls him Son, and splendor of glory, and positive heir: positive heir indeed according to the flesh; but splendor of the Father's glory according to the Godhead, because even incarnate he did not depart from the likeness which he has with the Father. For this reason Paul also says: \"Who is the splendor of his glory\"; lest perhaps when someone had heard: \"He was in the form of God,\" he might suspect that he was of a nature that passes and changes.\n\nJohn indeed, in describing the coeternity of the Word and the Father with each other, used these words: \"In the beginning was the Word\" (John 1:1), omitting \"is\"; for he did not say: \"In the beginning is the Word, and the Word is with God\"; but: \"In the beginning the Word was with God, and the Word was God.\" For it was being asked what was the first existence or essence of him who bore the man.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":55,"ref":"p55","source":"Paulus autem omne simul quod accidit narrat, et incarnatam essentiam, et incarnatae Deitatis unitionem incommutabilem ac semper manentem, propter quod et scribens clamabat: Hoc sentiatur in vobis, quod et in Christo Jesu, qui cum in forma Dei esset constitutus, semetipsum exinanivit, formam servi accipiens (Philipp. ii, 5). Non dixit: Hoc sentiatur in vobis, quod et in Deo Verbo, qui cum in forma Dei esset constitutus, formam servi accepit. Sed accipiens Apostolus Christi nomen, tamquam duarum naturarum appellationem significativam, absque sui periculo, eum, et servi formam, et Deum nuncupat irreprehensibiliter: his divisis quae ad naturam duplicem significandam dicuntur; et non hoc solum christianis praedicans, quia incommutabilis est Deus Christus, sed et benignus, formam servi accipiens, et quod subsistebat existens, ut noveris non mutatum post unitionem, sed visum simul benignum et justum: mors enim pro impiis sine peccato carnis est ejus; et quod eam pro inimicis non refugit, inaestimabilis benignitatis est gratia. Vix enim, secundum Paulum, pro justo quis moriatur (Rom. v, 7)?","english":"But Paul narrates at once everything that happened—both the incarnate essence and the unchangeable and ever-abiding union of the incarnate Deity—and for this reason, when he wrote, he cried out: \"Let this be understood in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being established in the form of God, emptied himself, taking the form of a servant\" (Philippians 2:5). He did not say: \"Let this be understood in you which was also in God the Word, who, being established in the form of God, took the form of a servant.\" But the Apostle, taking the name of Christ as significative of the appellation of the two natures, without danger to himself, names him both the form of a servant and God irreprehensibly, dividing those things which are said to signify the twofold nature; and he preaches this to Christians not only, that Christ is God unchangeable, but also benign, taking the form of a servant, and that he was subsisting as existing, so that you may know he was not changed after the union, but was seen to be at once benign and just: for his death for the impious is without the sin of the flesh; and that he did not shrink from it for his enemies is the grace of inestimable benignity. For scarcely, according to Paul, would anyone die for a just man (Romans 5:7)?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":56,"ref":"p56","source":"Suscipere autem humanum genus per hominem, et reconciliare Adam, multa justitiae circumspectio est: justum enim erat naturam quae offenderat, hanc denuo Deo placitam liberare; et justum est obnoxiam quondam, quae debitum incurrit, absolvere: irreprehensibilem namque et sine querela hominum natura debebat Deo conversationem; sed deficiebat in exsolutione. Negligentiae enim passionis animam huc atque illuc trahentes, nudam eam a virtutibus impellebant, et rari erant pietatis ac justitiae professores: et tunc illi, ad illius temporis paupertatem, qui viderentur vel putarentur esse professores? Per universum autem terrarum orbem debitum erat: Omnes enim, inquit, peccaverunt, et egent gloria Dei (Rom. iii, 23). Peccati fenus quoque crescebat.\n\nQuid ergo Dominus Christus? Peccatis obligatum videns genus humanum, et indignum ad redhibitionem, non imperio exsolvit debitum, ne justitiam benignitas laederet; et hujus rei testis Paulus apostolus clamans: Christus, inquit, quem proposuit Deus propitiatorium per fidem in sanguine ipsius ad ostensionem justitiae ejus (Ibid. 25); ut ostendatur, inquit, benignitas justa, non sine judicio passim et utcumque donata: propterea Christus debentis suscepit personam naturae, et per eam debitum tamquam Adae filius reddidit.","english":"But that the human race should be taken up through a man, and Adam reconciled, is a matter of great circumspection of justice; for it was just that the nature which had offended should be set free, made pleasing to God once again; and it is just to absolve the nature that was once liable, which incurred the debt. For the nature of men owed to God a blameless and faultless manner of life, but it fell short in the payment. For dragging the soul hither and thither by the negligence of passion, they drove it bare of virtues, and those who professed piety and justice were few; and then, in proportion to the poverty of that time, who were there who seemed or were thought to be professors? But the debt was owed throughout the whole world: for, he says, All have sinned, and do need the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). The interest of sin also was growing.\n\nWhat then did the Lord Christ do? Seeing the human race bound by sins, and unworthy to make repayment, he did not discharge the debt by command, lest kindness should injure justice; and the apostle Paul is a witness of this, crying out: Christ, he says, whom God has set forth as a propitiation through faith in his blood, to show forth his justice (Ibid. 25); so that, he says, the kindness may be shown to be just, not given indiscriminately and at random without judgment. For this reason Christ took up the person of the nature that owed the debt, and through it, as a son of Adam, he repaid the debt.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":57,"ref":"p57","source":"a Oportebat enim debitum luentem ex genere deduci ejus qui id aliquando contraxerat; ex muliere debitum, ex muliere absolution: sed disce debitum, ut discas retributionem.\n\nEscae causa Adam poenae debitor factus est. Solvit hanc Christus in deserto esuriens, diaboli super escae refectione consilium spernens.\n\nIlle Divinitatis contra Deum appetitae reatum incidit, cum audisset a diabolo: Eritis tamquam dii (Genes. iii, 5), et escam promptus invasit. Sed hanc Christus exsolvit, quando daemoni potentiam promittenti, haec enim ad eum dicebat: Omnia tibi dabo, si procidens adoraveris me (Matth. iv, 9), et ejus vocem ipse respuens respondebat: Vade, Satana; Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, et illi soli servies (Ibid., 10).\n\nEx inobedientia in ligno poenae Adam debitor fuit; reddidit et hanc Christus in ligno obediens factus (Philipp. ii, 8). Propterea et Paulus ait: Chirographum peccatorum nostrorum, quad erat nobis contrarium, tulit de medio, affigens illud cruoi (Col. ii, 14). Et qui reddebat pro nobis, Christus est; in ipso autem nostra debitum natura solvebat, Personam enim ejusdem naturae susceperat, cujus passiones in sua passione solvebat, quia habemus redemptionem in sanguine ipsius, ut dictum est a Paulo (Eph. i, 7; Col. i, 14).","english":"For it was necessary that the one paying the debt be drawn from the race of him who had once contracted it; the debt from the woman, the discharge from the woman—but learn the debt, that you may learn the repayment.\n\nFor the sake of food Adam became a debtor to punishment. Christ paid this in the desert by hungering, spurning the devil's counsel concerning the refreshment of food.\n\nThat man fell into the guilt of desiring divinity against God, when he had heard from the devil, \"You shall be as gods\" (Gen. 3:5), and eagerly seized the food. But Christ discharged this, when the demon promised him power—for he was saying these things to him: \"All these things I will give you, if falling down you worship me\" (Matt. 4:9)—and, himself rejecting his voice, he answered: \"Go, Satan; the Lord your God shall you worship, and him only shall you serve\" (ibid., 10).\n\nFrom disobedience on the tree Adam was a debtor to punishment; Christ also repaid this on the tree, being made obedient (Phil. 2:8). Therefore Paul also says: \"The handwriting of our sins, which was contrary to us, he took out of the midst, fastening it to the cross\" (Col. 2:14). And he who was repaying for us is Christ; in him our nature was paying its debt, for he had taken up the Person of the same nature whose sufferings he was discharging in his own passion, because we have redemption in his blood, as was said by Paul (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":58,"ref":"p58","source":"Vide nunc naturam nostram in Christo apud Deum causam adversus diabolum perorantem, et justis hisce utentem allegationibus: Injuria opprimor, justissime judex, diabolus me iniquus impugnat, evidenti adversus me utitur impotentiae tyrannide. Esto priorem Adam tradiderit morti, quia ejus peccati occasio fuit; secundum Adam, quem es Virgine figurasti, ob quam, rex, noxam crucifixit? Qua etiam causa latrones cum ipso una suspendit? Cur qui peccatum non fecit, nec dolus inventus est in ore ejus, cum iniquis est deputatus (I Petr. ii, 22; Luc. xxii, 37)? An forte exsecranda ejus istentio non manifesta est? Aperte mihi tamquam imagini tuoe, Domine, invidet. Sine ulla occasione irruens in me, subvertere me nititur; sed tu mihi justum te judicem tribue. Iratus es mihi causa praevaricationis Adae, pro quo si habes Adam sine peccato tibi conjunctum, ut propitieris exoro, Este propter illum corruptioni me tradideris, propter hunc de incorruptione participa. De mea uterque eorum natura est. Sicut prioris in morte particeps fui, et immortalis vitae secundi particeps fiam. Indubitatis et inexpugnabilibus firmor allegationibus. Omnifariam adversarium supero. Si de corruptione, quae ex Adam mihi facta est, controversiam moverit, ex illius qui peccatum non fecit vita ego e diverso praescribam. Et si me ille ea illius accusat inoberdientia, ex hujus eum obedientia reum ego constituam.","english":"See now our nature in Christ pleading its cause before God against the devil, and using these just allegations: I am oppressed by injury, most just judge; the unjust devil assails me and wields against me the evident tyranny of his impotence. Granted that he delivered the first Adam to death, because he was the occasion of his sin; why, O king, did he crucify the second Adam, whom you formed from the Virgin? For what cause did he even hang the robbers together with him? Why was he who committed no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth, reckoned with the wicked? Or is the abominable intent of his perhaps not manifest? Openly he envies me as your image, O Lord. Rushing upon me without any occasion, he strives to overthrow me; but do you grant me yourself as a just judge. You are angry with me for the cause of Adam's transgression; if for his sake you have Adam joined to you without sin, I beseech you to be propitiated. If for that one's sake you delivered me to corruption, for this one's sake let me share in incorruption. The nature of both of them is mine. As I was a partaker of the former's death, so let me also be a partaker of the second's immortal life. I am strengthened by indubitable and invincible allegations. In every way I overcome the adversary. If he raises a dispute concerning the corruption that was brought upon me from Adam, I on the other hand will plead prescription from the life of him who committed no sin. And if he accuses me by that one's disobedience, I will establish him as guilty by this one's obedience.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":59,"ref":"p59","source":"Hunc de diaboli victoria Christus agens triumphum: Nunc judicium, inquit, est mundi hujus; nunc princeps mundi mittetur foras (Joan. xii, 31). Sicut enim protoplasti tenuit diabolus culpam adversus omnem ejus posteritatem, et originariam habuit actionem; sic inculpatas in Christo primitias massae suae natura cum possedisset, adversus diabolum nitens, ipsis vincebat defensionibus de quibus adversarius praesumebat: in Christo enim justissime primitiarum suarum contra eum inculpatam originem profert, si priores ex Adam reatus causas diabolus ingerit. Et hoc est quod Paulus ait: Christus mortuus est pro peccatis nostris; immo qui et resurrexit, qui est in dextera Dei, etiam interpellat pro nobis (Rom. viii, 34).\n\nInterpellat namque a Christe induta massa nostra, libera prorsus ab omni peccate, et oritur injusta defensio contra poenam nostram, quam ex initio ille qui prior figuratus est suo generi intulit: haec suscepti hominis occasio, ut homo per carnem dissolveret, quam per carnem meritus est corruptionem.","english":"Christ, speaking of this triumph over the devil's victory, says: Now is the judgment of this world; now the prince of this world shall be cast out (John 12:31). For just as the devil held the guilt of the first-formed man against all his posterity and had an original claim, so when he had gained possession of the guiltless firstfruits of its nature in Christ, our nature, striving against the devil, was conquering by the very defenses on which the adversary presumed; for in Christ it most justly brings forward the guiltless origin of its firstfruits against him, if the devil presses the charges of guilt that came first from Adam. And this is what Paul says: Christ died for our sins; indeed, he who also rose again, who is at the right hand of God, also intercedes for us (Rom 8:34).\n\nFor our mass, clothed in Christ, intercedes, wholly free from every sin, and an unjust defense arises against our punishment, which from the beginning that first-formed one brought upon his own kind: this is the occasion of the man he took up, that man might dissolve through the flesh the corruption he deserved through the flesh.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":60,"ref":"p60","source":"Hujus hominis, non Deitatis, tertii diei sepultura est. Hujus pedes tenti sunt elavis. Hunc Spiritus sanctus in utero figuravit. De hac carne Dominus ad Judaeos: Solvite, inquit, hoc temptum, et in triduo suscitabo illud (Joan. ii, 19).\n\nNumquid ego duplicem Christum solus appello? Nonne semetipsum et templum solubile, et Dominum nuncupat suscitantem. Si autem Deus erat, qui solvebatur (quae iu caput Arii blasphemia convertatur), dixisset Dominus: Solvite Deum istum, et in triduo suscitabitur; si Deus mortificatus est in sepulcro, mentitur Christus, qui dixit: Quid me quaeritis occidere hominem, qui vera locutus sum vobis (Joan. viii, 40)?\n\nSed non nudus homo Christus, o calumniator; sed homo simul et Deus: si autem Deus tantummodo existeret, oportebat eum, secundum Apollinarem, dicere: Quid me quaeritis occidere Deum, qui vobis veritatem locutus sum? Nunc autem dicit: Quid me quaeritis occidere hominem istum, qui spinis coronatus est; istum, qui dixit: Deus Deus meus, quare me dereliquisti (Matth. xxvii, 46, seq.)? istum, qui triduanam sustinuit mortem?","english":"The burial on the third day is of this man, not of the Deity. His feet were stretched with nails. The Holy Spirit formed this one in the womb. Concerning this flesh the Lord said to the Jews: Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up (John 2:19).\n\nAm I alone the one who calls Christ twofold? Does he not himself name both the destroyable temple and the Lord who raises it? But if it was God who was being destroyed (a blasphemy that turns back upon the head of Arius), the Lord would have said: Destroy this God, and in three days he will be raised up; if God was put to death in the tomb, Christ lies when he said: Why do you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth to you (John 8:40)?\n\nBut Christ is not a bare man, O slanderer, but at once man and God; yet if he existed only as God, he ought, according to Apollinaris, to have said: Why do you seek to kill me, a God who has spoken the truth to you? But as it is he says: Why do you seek to kill this man, who has been crowned with thorns; this one, who said: My God, my God, why have you forsaken me (Matthew 27:46 ff.)? this one, who endured death for three days?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":61,"ref":"p61","source":"Adoro hunc autem cum Deitate, tamquam divinae cooperarium auctoritatis. Manifestum sit enim, inquit Scriptura, viri fratres, quia nobis per Christum remissio peccatorum annuntiatur (Act. xiii, 38).\n\nTamquam Dominicae bonitatis veneror instrumentum. Estote enim, inquit, invicem benigni et misericordes, sicut et Deus in Christo donavit nobis (Ephes. iv, 32).\n\nHonoro tamquam consittorum Dei curiam: Volo enim vos scire cognitionem sacramenti Dei Patris et Jesu Christi, in quo sunt omnes thesauri sapientiae et scientiae absconditi (Col. ii, 1).\n\nSuscipio tamquam formam pro Deo apud nos spondentem. Qui me misit, inquit, verax est, et ego quae ab ipso audivi, haec loquor (Joan. viii, 26).\n\nBeatifico tamquam obsidem pacis aeternae: Ipse enim est pax nostra, qui fecit utraque unum, et medium parietem maceriae, solvens inimicitias in carne sua, etc. (Ephes. ii, 14).","english":"I adore this one together with the Deity, as a co-worker of divine authority. For let it be manifest, says the Scripture: Men and brethren, that through Christ forgiveness of sins is announced to us (Acts 13:38).\n\nAs the instrument of the Lord's goodness I venerate him. For be, it says, kind and merciful to one another, as God also in Christ has forgiven us (Ephesians 4:32).\n\nI honor him as the court of God's counsels: For I would have you know the knowledge of the mystery of God the Father and of Jesus Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:1).\n\nI receive him as the form that pledges for God among us. He who sent me, he says, is true, and I speak these things which I have heard from him (John 8:26).\n\nI bless him as the pledge of eternal peace: For he himself is our peace, who has made both one, and the middle wall of partition, abolishing enmities in his flesh, etc. (Ephesians 2:14).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":62,"ref":"p62","source":"Colo tamquam divinae indignationis propitiatorium. Christum, inquit, proposuit Deus propitiatorium fidei per fidem in sanguine ipsius (Rom. iii, 25).\n\nAmo et revereor tamquam mortalium immortalitatis initium. Ipse enim est, inquit, caput corporis Ecclesiae, qui est initium, primogenitus ex mortuis (Col. i, 18).\n\nAmplector tamquam speculum divinitatis resplendentis. Deus enim, inquit, erat in Christo mundum reconciliatis sibi (II Cor. v, 19).\n\nAdoro tamquam animatam regis purpuram. In forma enim, ait, constitutus Dei, semetipsum exinanivit formam servi accipiens, et habitu inventus ut homo (Philipp. ii, 6).\n\nLaudo tamquam manum Divinitatis in vitam me eripientem de morte. Cum enim exaltatus, inquit, fuero de terra, tunc omnes ad me attrahaem (Joan. xii, 30). Et quis ille exaltatur, estendens scriba fidelis, ait: Hoc enim dicebat significans qua morte esset moriturus (Ibid., 33).","english":"I venerate him as the propitiation of divine wrath. Christ, he says, God set forth as a propitiation through faith in his blood (Rom 3:25).\n\nI love and revere him as the beginning of immortality for mortals. For he is, it says, the head of the body, the Church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead (Col 1:18).\n\nI embrace him as the mirror of the resplendent Deity. For God, it says, was in Christ reconciling the world to himself (2 Cor 5:19).\n\nI adore him as the living purple of the King. For being, it says, established in the form of God, he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, and was found in fashion as a man (Phil 2:6).\n\nI praise him as the hand of the Deity snatching me from death into life. For when, it says, I am lifted up from the earth, then I will draw all to myself (John 12:32). And who is this who is lifted up, the faithful scribe showing, says: For this he said, signifying by what death he was to die (John 12:33).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":63,"ref":"p63","source":"Admiror tamquam januam'ad divina introitus. Ego enim sum janua, inquit; per me qui ingressus fuerit, liberabitur, et intrabit, et exibit, et habitationem inveniet (Joan. x, 9).\n\nAdoro tamquam omnipotentis imaginem Deitatis. Superexaltavit enim eum, inquit, Deus, et donavit illi nomen quod est super omne nomen, ut in nomine ejus omne genu flectatur coelestium, terrestrium et infernorum (Philipp. ii, 9).\n\nPropter occultum adore quod oculis paret. In· separabilis est Deus. Ejus qui paret dignitatem non separo, inseparabilis est enim; separo naturas, sed conjungo reverentiam.\n\nNon per se ipsum Deus est, quod in utero figuratum est; non per se Deus est, quod creatum est a Spiritu sancto; non per se Deus est, quod in monumento sepultum est: sic enim essemus hominis et mortui manifesti cultores.\n\nSed quoniam in assumpto Deus, ex assumente qui assumptus est, tamquam assumenti conjunctus, appellatur Deus. Propterea et crucifixae carnis daemones vocabulum perhorrescunt, crucifixae scilicet carni conjunctum, non compassum, scientes Deum. Ideo et judex venturus est iste, qui visui paruit, quoniam omnipotenti conjungitur Deitati. Tunc enim, inquit, parebit signum Filii hominis in coelo, et videbunt Filium hominis venientem in nubibus coeli cum virtute et gloria multa (Matth. xxiv, 30).","english":"I marvel at him as at the door of entrance to divine things. For he says, I am the door; through me whoever has entered will be set free, and will go in and out and find a dwelling (Jn 10:9).\n\nI adore him as the image of the omnipotent Deity. For God, he says, has highly exalted him and given him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of things in heaven, of things on earth, and of things under the earth (Phil 2:9).\n\nBecause of the hidden God I adore what is visible to the eyes. God is inseparable. I do not separate the dignity of him who is visible, for he is inseparable; I separate the natures, but I join together the reverence.\n\nHe is not God in himself, that which was formed in the womb; he is not God in himself, that which was created by the Holy Spirit; he is not God in himself, that which was buried in the tomb: for thus we would be manifest worshippers of a man and of one dead.\n\nBut since God is in the one assumed, from the one assuming he who was assumed is called God, as being joined to the one assuming. Therefore even the demons dread the name of the crucified flesh—of the crucified flesh, that is, joined to him, not suffering with him, knowing him to be God. Therefore this same one who appeared to sight is also to come as judge, because he is joined to the omnipotent Deity. For then, he says, the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and they will see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory (Mt 24:30).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":64,"ref":"p64","source":"Sicut enim rex parta victoria cum his in civitatibus videtur armis cum quibus hostem in bello superavit, et se cum iisdem conspicuum vult esse; sic et omnium Dominus rex cum cruce et carne in suam veniet creaturam, cum his armis videndus, quibus impietatem superavit, et judicabit orbem in hominis forma, omnipotenti virtute, secundum Pauti praeconium, qui ait: Tempora ignorantiae despiciens Deus, qui nunc sunt omnibus hominibus praecepit paenitentiam agere; siquidem statuit diem, in quo judicaturus est orbem in viro in quo constituit fidem praestare omnibus, suscitans eum a mortuis (Act. xvii, 30). Quod ideo dictum est, ut nullus mortuam suspicetur esse Deitatem.\n\nNam etsi omnem omnino simul novam Scripturam perscruteris, non apud eam usquam invenies, mortem Dei esse; sed cum scriptum est, aut Christo, aut Filio, aut Domino assignari. Christus enim et Filius et Dominus in unigenito in Scripturis acceptus, duarum significatio est naturarum; et aliquando quidem Deitatem, vel humanitatem, aliquando simul utrumque designat: verbi causa, cum Paulus scribens praedicat: Qui cum essemus inimici, reconciliati sumus Deo per mortem Filii ejus (Rom. v, 10); humanitatem ejus demonstrat. Quando iterum ipse dicit ad Hebraeos: Deus locutus est nobis in Filio, per quem fecit et saecula (Hebr. i, 2); indicat et Filii Deitatem. Nec enim caro opifex est saeculorum, post multa saecula fabricata.","english":"For just as a king, when victory has been won, is seen in the cities with the very arms with which he overcame the enemy in war, and wishes to be conspicuous with them, so too the King, the Lord of all, will come to his own creation with the cross and the flesh, to be seen with those arms by which he overcame impiety, and he will judge the world in the form of a man, by almighty power, according to the proclamation of Paul, who says: God, overlooking the times of ignorance, has now commanded all men to repent; inasmuch as he has appointed a day on which he will judge the world in the man in whom he has established faith for all, raising him from the dead (Acts 17:30). This was said so that no one might suspect that the Deity is dead.\n\nFor even if you search the entire New Scripture, you will nowhere find in it that God died; but when it is written, it is assigned either to Christ, or to the Son, or to the Lord. For Christ and Son and Lord, as received in the Scriptures concerning the Only-begotten, is the signification of the two natures; and sometimes indeed it designates the Deity, or the humanity, sometimes both together: for example, when Paul, writing, proclaims: While we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son (Rom 5:10), he shows his humanity. When again he himself says to the Hebrews: God has spoken to us in the Son, through whom he also made the ages (Heb 1:2), he indicates also the Deity of the Son. For the flesh is not the maker of the ages, having been fashioned after many ages.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":65,"ref":"p65","source":"a Ecce Filii Dei et Deitatis, et humanitatis essentiae appellationis conveniens documentum.\n\nInterrogemus jam, si nomen hoc, id est, Christus, etiam Filius accipiatur, et hoc ipsum ad utraque designanda pertineat. Jesus Christus, inquit, heri et hodie, ipse idem in saecula (Hebr. xiii, 8). Sicut enim Deus existens, et homo idem ipse, secundum Paulum, et novissimus et ante saecula; sicut homo quidem, recens; sicut Deus autem, ante saecula.\n\nOstensum est igitur tibi quia Christi appellatio modo templum, modo inhabitantem Deum in illo demonstrat: exige ubi etiam Dominus in Filii persona ponatur, et nunc quidem hominem illum, nunc Deum ostendat. Venite, inquit, videte locum, ubi positus erat Dominus (Matth. xxviii, 6). Et iterum mulieres tamquam furto a Judaeis deflentes ablatum corpus Domini: Tulerunt, ait Scriptura, Dominum meum (Joan. xx, 13). Et ad Galatas Paulus: Alium, inquit, apostolorum vidi neminem, nisi Jacobum fratrem Do- Mini (Gal. i, 19). Et iterum ipse ad Corinthios: Quoties hunc panem munducatis, et hunc calicem bibitis, mortem Domini annuntiatis, donec veniat (I Cor. xi, 26). Et iterum: Domine, ut video, propheta es tu (Joan. iv, 19). Haec omnia Dominicae incarnationis sunt documenta, quia neque Deus Verbum erat in monumento projectus. Quomodo enim resurrexit, qui universitatem sustentat verbo potentiae suae, si jacebat secundum Arium?","english":"Behold, a fitting proof of the appellation of the Son of God, both of the Godhead and of the essence of humanity.\n\nLet us now ask whether this name, that is, Christ, is also understood as Son, and whether this very name pertains to designating both natures. Jesus Christ, it says, is the same yesterday and today and forever (Heb. xiii, 8). For just as, being God, he is also the same man, according to Paul, both the last and before the ages; as man indeed, recent; as God, however, before the ages.\n\nIt has therefore been shown to you that the appellation of Christ sometimes points to the temple, sometimes to the God who dwells in it. Show where the Lord is also placed in the person of the Son, and now indeed shows that man, now God. Come, it says, see the place where the Lord was laid (Matt. xxviii, 6). And again, the women lamenting that the body of the Lord had been taken away by the Jews as if by theft: They have taken away, says Scripture, my Lord (John xx, 13). And Paul to the Galatians: I saw no other of the apostles, it says, except James the brother of the Lord (Gal. i, 19). And again he himself to the Corinthians: As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord, until he comes (1 Cor. xi, 26). And again: Lord, as I see, you are a prophet (John iv, 19). All these things are proofs of the Lord's incarnation, because neither was God the Word cast into the tomb. For how did he rise again, who sustains the universe by the word of his power, if according to Arius he lay dead?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":66,"ref":"p66","source":"Sed neque Dei essentiam flebant mulieres, tamquam quae esset de sepulcro furto subducta. Quis enim suspicetur Deitatem furacibus manibus capessibilem esse? Nec iterum Jacobum Divinitatis habuit fratrem: nec Dei Verbi mortem nos annuntiamus, cum Domini corpore et sanguine pascimur. Dei enim natura sacrificium suscipit, non ipsa sacrificio immolatur; nec propheta Deus, sed dator prophetiae, ut sit hoc loco Dominus, sicut dixi, carnis expressio tamquam habentis Dominicam dignitatem, quae tamen temperamento, vel admixtione, minime in substantiam transierit Deitatis.\n\nAlibi enim Dominus demonstrativum est Deitatis, sicut est illud: Unus Deus Pater, ex quo omnia; et unus Dominus Jesus Christus, per quem omnia (I Cor. viii, 6). Ex Deitate enim opifex omnium Christus est, non ex humanitate, quae post creaturam condita invenitur.\n\nAlibi autem, sicut dixi, Dominus utrarumque rerum significativum est, sicut est: Domine Jesu, ne statuas illis hoc peccatum (Act. vii, 59). Et: Multi mihi dicent in illa die: Domine, Domine, nonne in nomine tuo daemonia ejecimus (Matth. vii, 22)? Et Paulus: Quam mihi reddet Dominus justus judex in illa die, non solum mihi, sed et omnibus qui pie diligunt adventum ejus (II Tim. iv, 8). Vidisti quemadmodum Christus, et Filius, et Dominus est.","english":"But neither were the women bewailing the essence of God, as though it had been stolen away from the tomb. For who would suppose that the Godhead could be seized by thieving hands? Nor again did James have him as a brother of the Godhead; nor do we proclaim the death of God the Word, when we are fed with the body and blood of the Lord. For the nature of God receives the sacrifice, it is not itself immolated as a sacrifice; nor is God a prophet, but the giver of prophecy, so that in this place \"Lord\" is, as I said, an expression of the flesh, as having the Lord's dignity, which nevertheless by no blending or admixture has in the least passed over into the substance of the Godhead.\n\nFor elsewhere \"Lord\" is demonstrative of the Godhead, as is that passage: One God the Father, from whom are all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things (1 Cor. 8:6). For Christ is the maker of all things from the Godhead, not from the humanity, which is found to have been created after the creation.\n\nElsewhere, however, as I said, \"Lord\" is significative of both natures, as is: Lord Jesus, do not lay this sin to their charge (Acts 7:59). And: Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, did we not cast out demons in your name (Matt. 7:22)? And Paul: Which the Lord, the righteous judge, will render to me in that day, not only to me, but also to all who love his appearing (2 Tim. 4:8). You have seen how Christ is both Son and Lord.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":67,"ref":"p67","source":"Quando de unigenito meminit Scriptura, modo humanitatis, modo divinitatis, modo autem utriusque vult existere significativa vocabula.\n\nQuid ergo confundis quae sunt inconfusa? Quid Dei nomen deputas morti, quod a divina Scriptura nusquam in mortis commemoratione profertur? Quid Paulo clamante, cum audias: In viro, in quo definivit Deus.... suscitans eum a mortuis (Act. xvii, 31); tu natam et mortuam inani imaginatione judicas Deitatem.\n\nBene autem et judicem esse venturum, Paulus hunc virum, qui visibilis fuit, designat, quoniam ad imaginem suam a Deo figuratum et regno terrae honoratum hominem escam vermium diabolus praeparavit. Venit secundum futurum Christus in hominis forma omnipotentis, ut experimento agnoscat ipse quoque diabolus, qui cum omnibus etiam ipse erat sub dominatione Dei, quia vere homo ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei factus est, et rex terrae, ac dominus constitutus, auctor merito ad coelorum etiam regna est sublimatus.","english":"When Scripture makes mention of the Only-begotten, it intends terms that are significative sometimes of the humanity, sometimes of the divinity, and sometimes of both.\n\nWhy then do you confound things that are unconfused? Why do you assign the name of God to death, which is nowhere brought forward by divine Scripture in the commemoration of death? Why, when you hear Paul crying out: In the man in whom God has defined... raising him from the dead (Acts 17:31), do you judge with empty imagination that the Godhead was born and died?\n\nWell indeed does Paul designate this man, who was visible, as also the one who is to come as judge, since the devil prepared as food for worms the man who was formed by God according to his own image and honored with the kingdom of the earth. Christ comes in the form of a man, according to what is to come, as the Almighty, so that the devil himself also may learn by experience—he who with all things was himself also under the dominion of God—that truly man was made according to the image and likeness of God, and was appointed king of the earth and lord, and was deservedly exalted by the Author even to the kingdoms of the heavens.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":68,"ref":"p68","source":"Sed nostrum sermonem vestra audientia vincit, et me vinci confessus ad taciturnitatem confugio, optans semper hac cupiditate vestrae audientiae separari.\n\nDominicae itaque humanitatis susceptionem colamus: incarnationis sacramentum hymnis incessabilibus extollamus: susceptricem Dei Virginem cum Deo ratiocinemur: cum Deo ad divina non elevemus, dico, non litteram, non exprimi volens. Unus est enim, ut ego secundum ipsos dicam, Pater Deus, id est, genitor Dei, qui hoc nomen compositum habet. Visibilem igitur cum invisibili conjunctam formam cum Deo ad divina deputemus:, id est, naturam quae indumentum est Dei, cum eo qui ea utitur honoremus, tamquam radium Divinitatis, ut ita dicam, incarnatae: eam formidemus tamquam divinae auctoritatis inseparabile simulacrum, tamquam occulti imaginem vel statuam judicis. Dividentes naturas, conjungamus honorem; confiteamur duplicem, et adoremus ut unum: duplum enim naturarum unum est secundum unitatem.","english":"But your hearing overcomes our discourse, and, having confessed myself overcome, I take refuge in silence, always desiring to be separated from this eagerness of your hearing.\n\nLet us therefore venerate the assumption of the Lord's humanity; let us extol the mystery of the incarnation with unceasing hymns; let us reason of the Virgin who conceived God together with God; with God let us not raise to divine things—I say, not the letter, not wishing it to be expressed. For there is one, as I say according to them, God the Father, that is, the begetter of God, who has this composite name. Let us therefore reckon the visible form joined with the invisible together with God among divine things, that is, let us honor the nature which is the garment of God together with him who uses it, as a ray, so to speak, of the incarnate Divinity; let us fear it as the inseparable image of divine authority, as the image or statue of the hidden judge. Dividing the natures, let us join the honor; let us confess a double one, and adore as one; for the double of natures is one according to unity.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":69,"ref":"p69","source":"Si haereticus tibi ex persona ecclesiastica mortuum Deum tuum exprobraverit, iratus tu ad dictum reclama: Deus est qui suscitavit de mortuis pastorem ovium magnum (Hebr. xiii, 20); non ipse mortificatus est, et sublevatus. Si te Judaeus hominem colere dixerit, apostolicam responde traditionem: Deus erat in Christo mundum reconcilians (II Cor. v, 19). Si a gentilis causam susceptae humanitatis petat, assertionem fit remissio peccatorum. Responde ei quae Pauli sunt: Quoniam per hominem mors, et per hominem resurrectio mortuorum; sicut in Adam omnes moriuntur, ita in Christo omnes vivificabuntur (I Cor. xv, 21). Ipsi gloria in saecula saeculorum.\n\nEPISTOLA PRIMA S. CYRILLI episcopi Alexandrini ad Nestorium, e Graeco sermone versa a Mario Mercatore.\n\nVenerabiles viri ac fide digni Alexandriam venientes retulerunt nobis aegre aliquid ferre religionem tuam valde, et ad laedendum me cuncta movere, et modis omnibus niti; meque doloris tui volente causas addiscere, dixerunt quod epistolam meam ad sanctos monachos circumferant Alexandrini quidam, et odii adversum me excitati atque fastidii tui hanc fecerint causam.","english":"If a heretic, speaking in the person of the Church, has reproached you with your dead God, answer angrily to what he says: It is God who raised up from the dead the great shepherd of the sheep; he himself was not put to death and lifted up. If a Jew has said that you worship a man, reply with the apostolic tradition: God was in Christ reconciling the world. If a Gentile asks the reason for the humanity that was undertaken, the assertion is the forgiveness of sins. Answer him with Paul's words: For since by man came death, by man also came the resurrection of the dead; for as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive. To him be glory for ever and ever.\n\nThe First Letter of Saint Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, to Nestorius, translated from the Greek discourse by Marius Mercator.\n\nVenerable and trustworthy men coming to Alexandria have reported to us that your religion bears something grievously, and that you stir up everything to my hurt and strive by all means; and when I wished to learn the causes of your grief, they said that certain Alexandrians are carrying about my letter to the holy monks, and that, stirred up to hatred against me and to your disgust, they have made this the occasion.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":70,"ref":"p70","source":"Miratus sum igitur, cur non magis tua apud se veneratio reputaverit, quia non primum epistola mea scripta, sed quaedam dicta religionis tuae occasionem perturbationis de fide attulerint: namque non solum chartulas, sed etiam expositiones tuas circumferunt multi, et laboramus corrigentes quicumque ex bis sunt depravati: prope enim fuerunt quidam ut jam confiteri minime patiantur quia Deus est Christus, sed potius (quae Latine instrumentum, vel ferramentum Deitatis, et homo indutus seu ulens Deo, vel portans Deum, possumus dicere). Quid autem horum non est ultra modum absurdum?\n\nNostrum ergo erat irasci super his quae dixit, sive non dixit religio tua (chartulis enim quae circumferuntur valde non credo). Quomodo igitur, quaeso, nobis tacendum est, cum recta vulneretur fides, et tot tantique quotidie depraventur? An non stabimus ante tribunal Christi, aut rationem non reddemus, tamquam praepositi ad loquendum, de silentio non opportuno?","english":"I have therefore been astonished that your reverence did not rather reflect within itself that it was not my letter that was written first, but certain utterances of your religion that brought the occasion of disturbance concerning the faith; for many circulate not only your little papers but even your expositions, and we labor correcting whoever among them are depraved; for some have come near to not even tolerating to confess that Christ is God, but rather (what in Latin we can call the instrument, or tool, of the Godhead, and a man clothed with or using God, or bearing God). But which of these is not beyond measure absurd?\n\nIt was ours, then, to be angry over what your religion said, or did not say (for I greatly distrust the papers that are circulated). How, then, I ask, are we to be silent when the right faith is wounded and so many and such great men are daily depraved? Shall we not stand before the tribunal of Christ, or shall we not give account, as those set over others to speak, for silence at an unseasonable time?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":71,"ref":"p71","source":"Quid postremo faciam? Tempus enim loquendi est, vel conferendi cum veneratione tua, interrogante de chartulis quibusdam, quae nescio quo modo Romam perlatae sunt, reverendo ac religiosissimo Romanorum episcopo Coelestino, cum omnibus qui cum eo sunt episcopis venerandis, quia utrum sint religionis tuae, an non, habetur incertum: scribunt enim nobis inde vehementer offensi.\n\nQuo pacto etiam de Oriente ex omnibus Ecclesiis venientibus satisfaciemus, eosque curabimus, qui contra easdem chartulas murmurant? An arbitraris parvam Ecclesiis esse ortam de hujusmodi tractatibus perturbationem? Omnes sumus in sollicitudine, et in procinctu laboris constituti ad hos corrigendos, ut ad rectum tramitem revocentur, quibus nescio quomodo persuasum sit aliter sapere.\n\nCum igitur harum susurrationum necessitatem et causam tua religio attulerit, quomodo nos existimas jure arguendos? vel quo jure adversum me vociferaris in vanum, et non potius sermonem tuum corrigis, ut totius orbis de te offensio conquiescat?","english":"What finally shall I do? For it is time to speak, or to confer with your reverence, since the most reverend and most religious bishop of the Romans, Celestine, together with all the venerable bishops who are with him, is asking about certain little papers which have been brought to Rome I know not how, because it is uncertain whether they are of your religion or not; for they write to us from there, greatly offended.\n\nHow also shall we satisfy those coming from the East from all the churches, and how shall we take care of those who murmur against these same papers? Or do you think that a small disturbance has arisen in the churches from treatises of this kind? We are all in anxiety, and set in readiness for labor to correct these men, so that they may be recalled to the right path, men who have been persuaded I know not how to think otherwise.\n\nSince, therefore, your religion has brought the necessity and cause of these whisperings, how do you think we are justly to be accused? Or by what right have you cried out against me in vain, and not rather corrected your own speech, so that the offense of the whole world concerning you may be put to rest?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":72,"ref":"p72","source":"Si in plebe lapsus est sermo, in retractatibus corrigatur. Dignare unam locutionem donare offensis auribus, Dei puerperam, id est, pronuntians virginem sanctam, ut curatis iis qui tristitia obnubilati sunt, rectam apud omnes de religione gloriam tenentes, in pace et unanimitate coetus plebium celebremus.\n\nQuod vero pro fide quae in Christo est omnia sumus parati tolerare, et vincula, et carceres experiri, et ipsam mortem libenter subire, non ambigat religio tua.\n\nIn veritate autem dico, quod, adhuc beato Attico constituto in rebus humanis, de sancta et consubstantiali Trinitate liber est elaboratus, a in quo etiam de incarnatione Dominica tractatus überior continetur, et his quae nunc scripsi, consonus invenitur. Relegi hunc episcopis et clero, necnon et studiosis auditoribus plebis; edidi vero nulli: forsitan si edidero eum, esse me iterum arbitror accusandum, cum tamen librum composuerim etiam ante ordinationem venerationis tuae. Saluta fraternitatem quae apud te est; te in Domino qui nobiscum sunt salutant.","english":"If a word has slipped in the congregation, let it be corrected in retractions. Deign to grant one expression to offended ears, proclaiming the mother of God, that is, the holy virgin, so that, with those healed who are clouded by sadness, holding the right glory concerning religion before all, we may celebrate in peace and unanimity the assemblies of the people.\n\nBut that for the faith which is in Christ we are all prepared to endure all things, and to experience chains and prisons, and willingly to undergo death itself, let your religion not doubt.\n\nIn truth I say that, while the blessed Atticus was still established among human affairs, a book was elaborated concerning the holy and consubstantial Trinity, in which also a more abundant treatise concerning the Lord's incarnation is contained, and it is found consonant with these things which I have now written. I read this to the bishops and clergy, and also to the studious hearers of the people; but I published it to no one: perhaps if I publish it, I think that I am again to be accused, although I composed the book even before the ordination of your reverence. Greet the brotherhood which is with you; those who are with us greet you in the Lord.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":73,"ref":"p73","source":"Religiosissimo et sanctissimo comministre Cyrillo, Nestorius in Domino sal.\n\nNihil sane Christiana modestia potentius est, nihil firmius. Ea at in praesentia per Lamponem presbyterum religiosissimum scriberemus, nos commovit. Cum enim ille de tua pietate multa referret, multaque vicissim audiret, postremo urgendi finem nullum fecit, donec hasce a nobis impetravit. Quapropter hominis importunitati manus dedimus: nam, ut quod res est ingenue fatear, non mediocrem cujuscumque Christiani viri modestia (utpote in cujus pectore Deus inhabitet) timorem mini afferre assolet.\n\nProinde quod ad nos ipsos nostraque attinet, etsi non pauca a pietate tua designata sint fraternae charitati parum congruentia (oportet enim modeste lequi), ita nihilominus affecti sumus, ut solidam animi lenitatem eonservare, neenon in pristino benevole amiceque per litteras salutandi officio permanere decreverimus. Quantum vero Lamponis religiosissimi presbyteri vehemens impulsus ille fructum nobis allaturus sit, experientia ipsa demonstrabit. Universam quae tecum est fraternitatem ego quique mecum sunt salutatam cupimus.","english":"To the most religious and most holy fellow-minister Cyril, Nestorius sends greeting in the Lord.\n\nNothing indeed is more powerful than Christian modesty, nothing more firm. And it is this that has moved us to write at present through the most religious presbyter Lampon. For when he reported many things concerning your piety, and in turn heard many things, in the end he made no end of urging until he obtained these letters from us. Wherefore we have yielded to the man's importunity; for, to confess frankly what the case is, the modesty of any Christian man (inasmuch as God dwells in his breast) is accustomed to bring no small fear upon me.\n\nAccordingly, as far as concerns ourselves and our own affairs, although not a few things have been designated by your piety that are little in keeping with brotherly charity (for one must speak modestly), we are nonetheless so affected that we have determined to preserve a solid gentleness of mind, and also to remain in our former office of benevolently and amicably greeting you by letter. But how much fruit that vehement impulse of the most religious presbyter Lampon is going to bring us, experience itself will demonstrate. I and those who are with me wish the whole brotherhood that is with you to be greeted.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":74,"ref":"p74","source":"EPISTOLA SECUNDA S. CYRILLI episcopi Alexandrini, ad Nestorium; cui impiissime contradicens idem Nestorius respondendum esse putavit. Ex Graeco in Latinum.\n\nGarriunt, sicut audio, quidam de existimatione mea apud religionem tuam, et hoc frequenter, [Ba─ luz. add. processionum videlicet] conventuum opportuna tempora aucupantes [Baluz. occupantes], forsitan arbitrantes delectare se aures tuas, adversum nos inconditas voces emittunt; qui loesi quidem in nullo sunt, objurgati autem a nobis, el hoc leniter: unos quod caeeos et pauperes vexabat injuria; alter quod contra matrem evaginaverat gladium; tertius quia cum ancitla aerum furatus sit alienum, et quia [Baluz. qui] talem semper habuerit existimationem, qualem nullus provenire, vel gravissimis inimicis, optaverit.\n\nVerum non mihi de talibus sermo est, ut neque supra deminum et magistrum, neque supra patres, pusibilitatis, quae mihi inest, modus excrescat: non enim freite est cuiquam, licet vitam suam habeat circumspectam, nequam hominum maledicta vitare, sed illi maledictione et amaritudine plenum os habentes (Ps. xiii, 3), reddent quandoque omnium judici rationem.","english":"THE SECOND LETTER OF ST. CYRIL, bishop of Alexandria, to Nestorius; to which the same Nestorius, most impiously contradicting it, thought a reply must be made. From Greek into Latin.\n\nCertain persons, as I hear, are prattling about my reputation before your Religiosity, and this frequently, watching for [Baluzius adds: namely of processions] the opportune times of gatherings [Baluzius: seizing], perhaps thinking to delight your ears, they utter intemperate words against us; men who have indeed been injured in nothing, but have been rebuked by us, and that gently: one because the injury of the blind and the poor was vexing him; another because he had drawn the sword against his mother; a third because he had stolen another's property together with a maidservant, and because [Baluzius: he] had always held such a reputation as no one would wish to come even to the most bitter enemies.\n\nBut my discourse is not about such men, so that neither above the Lord and Master, nor above the fathers, the measure of the lowliness that is in me should grow excessive: for it is not easy for anyone, even though he keep his life circumspect, to avoid the curses of wicked men, but those who have a mouth full of cursing and bitterness (Ps. 13:3) will at some time render an account to the judge of all.","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":75,"ref":"p75","source":"Convertar autem nunc ego ad id quod me maxime decet; et commonebo te, etiam nunc, tamquam fratrem in Christo, de doctrinae ratione, et sensu fidei cum omni cautela plebibus praedicando: exhortabor quoque cogitare debere quia si offendatur unus de pusittis illis, qui credunt in Christum (Marc. ix, 41), quam sit intolerabilis indignatio Dei. Si vero sit multitudo laesorum, quomodo, quaeso, non omni arte studendum est, ut prudenter auferatur offensio, et sanae fidei ratio insinuetur exposcentibus veritatem?\n\nEst autem hoc recte faciendum, a si sanctorum Patrum libros legentes, magni eos momenti esse fateamur; et probantes nosmetipsos, si sumus in fide (II Cor. xiii, 5), secundum quod scriptum est, illorum dictis el irreprehensibilibus definitis nostros sensus plene atque optime roboremus.\n\nSanctum ergo illud et magnum Patrum concilium, ipsum de Deo Patre genitum secundum naturam unicum Filium, Deum de Deo vero, lumen de lumine, per quem omnia creavit Pater, descendisse, incarnatum esse, atque hominem factum resurrexisse tertia die, et in coelum ascendisse, definivit.","english":"But now I will turn to what most becomes me; and I will admonish you, even now, as a brother in Christ, concerning the manner of doctrine and the understanding of the faith, that it must be preached to the peoples with all caution; and I will exhort you also to consider that if one of those little ones who believe in Christ is offended (Mark 9:41), how intolerable is the indignation of God. But if there be a multitude of the injured, how, I ask, must one not strive with every art, that the offense be prudently removed, and the reasoning of sound faith be instilled into those who demand the truth?\n\nNow this must be done rightly, if, reading the books of the holy Fathers, we acknowledge them to be of great weight; and proving ourselves, whether we are in the faith (2 Corinthians 13:5), according as it is written, we should fully and excellently strengthen our own understandings by their words and their irreprehensible definitions.\n\nThat holy and great council of the Fathers, therefore, defined that the only-begotten Son himself, begotten of God the Father according to nature, God from true God, light from light, through whom the Father created all things, descended, was incarnate, and having become man rose again on the third day, and ascended into heaven.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":76,"ref":"p76","source":"Haec etiam nos scita hac ratione sequentes, quid significet, incarnatum esse illud Dei Verbum de Deo, videamus. Neque vero dicimus quia Dei natura transformata facta sit caro; neque quia in totum hominem, qui est ex anima et corpore, commutata sit: sed illud potius sentimus [Baluz. sentiendum] quod carnem animatam, anima videlicet rationali, uniens sibimet substantialiter, vel essentialiter, Deus[Baluz. Dei] Verbum, inenarrabiliter atque inscrutabiliter factus homo, appellatus est Filius hominis, non tantum secundum voluntatem aut bonum placitum, nec sicut in personae tantummodo susceptione, sed quia diversae ad veram unitatem convenere naturae, unusque exstitit [Baluz. unus autem] ex utraque Christus et Filius: non quod naturarum per unitatem diversitas consumpta sit, sed iisdem naturis Deitate atque humanitate per ineffabilem et secretum ad unitatem concursum, perficientibus unum et Dominum, et Christum, et Filium e","english":"Following this same reasoning, let us also see what it means that that Word of God was incarnate from God. We do not say that the nature of God was transformed and became flesh, nor that it was changed into a whole man, who consists of soul and body; but rather we hold this: that God the Word, uniting to himself substantially, or essentially, flesh animated—that is, with a rational soul—became man in an ineffable and inscrutable manner, and was called the Son of Man, not only according to will or good pleasure, nor merely as in the mere assumption of a person, but because the distinct natures came together into a true unity, and one Christ and Son came forth from both: not that the diversity of the natures was consumed by the unity, but that the same natures, divinity and humanity, through an ineffable and secret concurrence into unity, accomplish one Lord, and Christ, and Son","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":77,"ref":"p77","source":"Et sic quamvis ante saecula habeat existentiam, quia est natus ex Deo Patre; dicitur tamen natus etiam ex muliere secundum carnem: non quod ejus divina natura, in qua consubstantivus, vel coessentialis, id est, est Patri, in sancta Virgine initium, ut esset, acceperit; neque quod ex necessitate propter seipsum secunda eguerit nativitate, post primam ex Patre [Baluz. post Patrem]: est enim impium, imperitumque id sentire, ante saecula existentem et consempiternum Patri, ut esset, secundo dicere initio eguisse; sed quod propter nos, et propter nostram salutem, substantialiter, vel essentialiter, unito sibi homine, ex muliere processerit, hoc modo dicitur natus esse etiam carnaliter.\n\nNon enim de sancta Virgine homo primum Baluz. om. primum] est natus, aut etiam in illa conceptus, atque in eum ita natum supervenit Verbum Patris; sed ex ipso atque in ipso utero unitum sustinuisse creditur et dicitur nativitatem carnalem, propriam ejusdem carnis nativitatem sibimet deputans.","english":"And thus, although he has existence before the ages, because he was born of God the Father, he is nevertheless said to be born also of a woman according to the flesh: not that his divine nature, in which he is consubstantial, or coessential, that is, is with the Father, received a beginning of existence in the holy Virgin; nor that he needed a second birth for his own sake, after the first from the Father—for it is impious and ignorant to think this, to say that he who existed before the ages and is coeternal with the Father needed a second beginning in order to exist—but because for us and for our salvation, having united a man to himself substantially, or essentially, he came forth from a woman, and in this way he is said to have been born also carnally.\n\nFor the man was not first born of the holy Virgin, or even conceived in her, and then the Word of the Father came upon him thus born; but from her and in her womb itself he is believed and said to have sustained the united carnal birth, assigning to himself the birth proper to that same flesh.","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":78,"ref":"p78","source":"Sic ipsum dicimus, et passum esse, et resurrexisse, non quod Verbum Dei in sua natura sit passum, aut plagas aut clavorum vim senserit, aut caetera vulnerum tormenta pertulerit (impassibilis est quippe Divinitas, siquidem etiam incorporea), sed quoniam, quod ei proprium factum est, corpus est passum, haec ipse pro nobis dicitur passus: erat enim ille qui impassibilis est in eo corpore quod patiebatur.\n\nHoc modo et mortuum inlelligimus, quamvis immortalis sit secundum naturam, et incorruptibilis, et vita, et vivificator, Deus [Baluz. add. Dei] Verbum; sed quoniam iterum proprium ejus corpus, gratia Dei, sicut dixit apostolus Paulus, pro omnibus gustavit mortem (Hebr. ii, 9); non quod ad ejus haec pertinerent naturam (namque hoc sentire vel dicere, summae dementiae est), sed quia, sicut paulo ante dixi, caro ejus gustavit mortem.\n\nSic etiam resurgente carne, iterum ejus resurrectio dicitur, non quod inciderit in corruptionem, absit, sed quia quod resurrexit, corpus ejus est [Baluz. om. est].","english":"Thus we say that he himself both suffered and rose again, not that the Word of God suffered in his own nature, or felt blows or the force of nails, or endured the other torments of wounds (for the Godhead is impassible, since it is also incorporeal), but because the body that became his own suffered, he himself is said to have suffered these things for us; for he who is impassible was in the body that suffered.\n\nIn this way we also understand that he died, although according to nature he is immortal and incorruptible, and is life and the giver of life, God the Word; but because again his own body, by the grace of God, as the apostle Paul said, tasted death for all (Hebr. ii, 9); not that these things belonged to his nature (for to think or say this is the height of madness), but because, as I said a little before, his flesh tasted death.\n\nSo too, when the flesh rose again, his resurrection is again spoken of, not that he fell into corruption—far be it—but because what rose again was his body.","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":79,"ref":"p79","source":"Sic unum Christum et Dominum confitemur, non tamquam coadorantes hominem [Baluz. eum in] Verbo Dei, ne unius syllabae occasione, id est, cum, fictio [Baluz. sectionis] intellectus vel cogitatio nobis obrepat; sed tamquam unum et eumdem in utroque adoremus, quia non est alienum corpus a Verbo, cum quo sedet ad dexteram Patris. Non iterum tamquam duobus considentibus filiis, sed tamquam uno secundum unitatem cum carne. Si enim illam substantialem unitatem tamquam vel impossibilem, vel indecentem, declinemus, incipimus duos filios confiteri: omnino enim necesse est separare, et dicere hominem quidem speciali vocabulo filii honoratum; illud vero Dei Verbum proprie filii nomen reipsa naturaliter possidere.\n\nNon igitur in duos filios dividendus est unus et idem Dominus noster Jesus Christus: nullo enim modo rectam fidei rationem, sic se habere et sic sentire, adjuvat [Baluz. add. quemquam]; etiamsi quispiam a personarum diffamandam putaverit unitatem, quia non dixit Scriptura, quod Dei Verbum hominis sibi personam univit, sed quia factum est caro: factum autem esse Verbum carnem, nihil est aliud, nisi quia nobis similis et [Baluz. om. similis et] comparatus, carnis quoque et sanguinis particeps, factus est noster, suumque fecit corpus nostrum, et processit homo.","english":"Thus we confess one Christ and Lord, not as though we were worshipping a man together with the Word of God—lest on the occasion of a single syllable, that is, the word \"with,\" the fiction or thought of a divided understanding steal upon us—but as one and the same we worship in both, because the body is not alien to the Word, with whom it sits at the right hand of the Father. Not again as though there were two sons sitting together, but as one according to the unity with the flesh. For if we decline that substantial unity as though it were either impossible or indecent, we begin to confess two sons; for it is altogether necessary to separate them and to say that the man was honored with the special title of \"son,\" while the Word of God properly possesses the name of \"son\" by nature in reality.\n\nTherefore our one and the same Lord Jesus Christ must not be divided into two sons; for in no way does it help the right reasoning of the faith that it should be so and be so understood, even if someone should think that the unity of persons is to be disparaged, because Scripture did not say that the Word of God united to itself the person of a man, but that the Word was made flesh; and for the Word to be made flesh is nothing other than that, made like and comparable to us, he became a partaker also of flesh and blood, and made our body his own, and came forth as a man.","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":80,"ref":"p80","source":"Super hoc legatione quasi [Baluz. om. quasi] fungitur ubique sanae ac liquidissimae fidei ratio; sic invenimus sanctos sapuisse Patres; sic fidenter Dei puerperam, id est, pronuntiaverunt Virginem sanctam: non quod natura Verbi Dei vel Divinitas ejus ex illa, ut esset, initium sumpserit, sed tamquam ex ipsa sumpto corpore anima rationali [Baluz. cum ratione] animato, cui secundum essentiam unitus Deus Verbum, secundum carnem creditur natus.\n\nHaec atque hujusmodi ex charitate Christi scribo, te [Baluz. om. te] deprecans tamquam fratrem, et obtestans in conspectu Dei, et electorum angelorum hortor, haec te nobiscum, et sapere et docere, ut Ecclesiarum salva sit pax et concordia, charitatisque vinculum indissolubile permaneat inter sacerdotes Dei.\n\ne EPISTOLA. S. CYRILLI Alexandrini episcopi ad clericos suos constitutos Constantinopoli; ex Graeco sermone versa a Mario Mercatore.","english":"On this point the reasoning of the sound and most limpid faith discharges, as it were, an embassy everywhere; thus we find that the holy Fathers understood it; thus they confidently declared the holy Virgin to be the bearer of God, that is, the God-bearer: not that the nature of the Word of God, or his Divinity, took its beginning from her so as to exist, but as though from her he took a body animated by a rational soul, to which God the Word was united according to essence, and is believed to have been born according to the flesh.\n\nThese things and things of this kind I write out of the love of Christ, entreating you as a brother, and adjuring you in the sight of God and of the elect angels I exhort you, both to understand and to teach these things with us, so that the peace and concord of the Churches may be preserved, and the bond of love may remain indissoluble among the priests of God.\n\nFrom the Letter of St. Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, to his clergy appointed at Constantinople; translated from the Greek discourse by Marius Mercator.","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":81,"ref":"p81","source":"Legi litteras missas a vobis, quibus didici quia a invidi nostri, conveniendo vos, fingebant se pacem atque amicitiam quaerere, et dicere [Baluz. add. quia], sicut scripsi ad monachos, sic se fidem tenere: deinde ad proprium sensum respicientes, dicere eosdem quia et ipse dixerim sanctum concilium non meminisse illius locutionis quae est.\n\nEgo autem scripsi, quod etiamsi non posuit concilium voculam hanc, convenienter tamen fecit [Baluz. om. convenienter tamen fecit]: nihil enim eorum tunc fuerat motum, nec in medium fuit opus afferri quod illo in tempore minime quaerebatur. Verumtamen, potentia et vi intellectus, arbitror genitricem Dei, id est,, ab illo [Baluz. illis] sanctam Virginem dictam; ipsum enim dicit: Qui natus est de Deo Patre, per quem omnia facta sunt, incarnatum, hominem factum, passum, surrexisse a mortuis, in coelum ascendisse, judicem quoque esse venturum.","english":"I have read the letter sent by you, from which I learned that our envious opponents, by meeting with you, were pretending to seek peace and friendship, and saying—as I wrote to the monks—that they hold the faith in this way; then, looking to their own meaning, they say that even I have said that the holy council did not remember that expression which is.\n\nBut I wrote that even if the council did not set down this little word, it nevertheless acted fittingly; for none of these matters had then been raised, nor was there any need to bring forward a work that at that time was not being sought at all. Nevertheless, by the power and force of the understanding, I believe that the Mother of God, that is, the holy Virgin, was called so by him; for he himself says: He who was born of God the Father, through whom all things were made, was incarnate, became man, suffered, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and will also come as judge.","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":82,"ref":"p82","source":"Non quod omnimodo Verbum, quod secundum naturam de Deo genitum est, mortuum esse credendum sit, aut lancea in latere vulneraturo (quod enim habet latus natura incorporea? aut quo pacto mortua est vita vitarum?), a sed quoniam unitum carni hoc Verbum est, ideo ea carne patiente, tamquam [Baluz. patientiam quam] proprio ejus videlicet corpore, in se hanc revocat [Baluz. Add. inire] passionem.\n\nArgutantur igitur, et seipsos seducunt, cum dicunt pacem se velle, et sensibus mentiuntur: habere enim eos proprium virus in corde, ex eo facile est inlelligere. Miserunt huic diacono, qui rerum ecclesiasticarum curam gerit, duas chartulas: unam quidem compositam a Photio [Baluz. Photino], aut ab alio quolibet, adversus librum meum quem ad monachos edidi; e et aliam veluti in speciem quaternionis, inconvenientem habentem etiam titulum, hoc modo: Adversus eos qui propter conjunctionem, vel Divinitatem [Baluz. divinitatem vel societatem] filii mortificant [Baluz. mortificati], vel humanitatem in Deum transferunt. Praefatio autem sic habet: Contumelias quidem in me Haereticorum, etc.","english":"Not that the Word, which by nature was begotten of God, is to be believed to have died in every respect, or that a spear was about to wound him in the side (for what side does an incorporeal nature have? or how did the life of lives die?), but since this Word is united to the flesh, therefore, when that flesh suffered—as being, that is, his own body—he draws this passion into himself.\n\nThey quibble, then, and deceive themselves, when they say they want peace and lie about their sentiments; for that they have their own poison in their heart is easy to understand from this. They sent to this deacon, who has charge of ecclesiastical affairs, two little papers: one indeed composed by Photius, or by anyone else you please, against my book which I published to the monks; and the other, as it were, in the form of a quaternion, having even an unsuitable title, as follows: Against those who because of the conjunction, or the Divinity of the Son, put to death, or transfer the humanity into God. The preface, however, reads thus: The insults indeed of the heretics against me, etc.","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":83,"ref":"p83","source":"Deinde conantur ostendere, quod corpus passum sit, et non Deus Verbum, quasi, vel nobis, vel quibuslibet dicentibus, Verbum illud, quod est impassibile, passibilitalis capax esse potuisset. Nemo est prorsus qui sic insaniat; sed, sicut saepe diximus, sanctum concilium dixit, ipsum Verbum, per quod facta sunt omnia, carne sua esse passum, secundum Scripturas: corpore enim ejus patiente, ipsum dicitur passum, quia et animus hominis, cum nihil in sua substantia et natura patiatur, pati tamen ipse dicitur, suo corpore pallente.\n\nSed quoniam propositum ipsis esi duos filios et duos Christos introducere: unum quidem specialiter hominem, alterum vero proprie Deum; in personis tantum faciunt [Baluz. add. vel sentiunt] unitatem, Deum [Baluz. add. Dei] Verbum nolentes proprie et substantialiter unitum homini hominem factum hominemque suscepisse: propterea et tergiversantur, et excusationes, sicut scriptum est, fingunt in peccatis (Ps. cxl, 4).","english":"Next they attempt to show that the body suffered, and not God the Word, as if either we or anyone else were saying that that Word, which is impassible, could have been capable of passibility. There is absolutely no one who is so insane; but, as we have often said, the holy council declared that the Word itself, through whom all things were made, suffered in his own flesh, according to the Scriptures: for when his body suffers, he himself is said to suffer, just as the soul of a man, though it suffers nothing in its own substance and nature, is nevertheless itself said to suffer when his body grows pale.\n\nBut since their purpose is to introduce two sons and two Christs—one specifically a man, the other properly God—they make a unity only in persons, unwilling that God the Word be properly and substantially united to the man, made man, and having taken up man; and for this reason they also shuffle and, as it is written, frame excuses in sins (Ps. 140:4).","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":84,"ref":"p84","source":"Vos igitur convenientes cum eis, haec dicite: Facere eos male, e quod introducant quosdam loquaces et garrulos adversum nos, et hos fovendo ac defendendo, causam faciunt [Baluz. causa fiunt] malignitatis suae.\n\nSed non haec propriae nostrae laesionis est causa. Dicite me nec huic, qui ibi degens praeest, esse inimicum; laedi autem propter hoc tam Orientales quam Occidentales venerandos episcopos, quod rectus de Christo doctrinae sermo non fiat, sed omnino perversus.\n\nSufficit autem hoc documentum ad confutandos eos, quod numquam a quoquam tale quid in Ecclesiis dictum sit, quale in ejus expositionibus continetur, quod sic se habet: Non clamoribus approbo erga me studium vestrum, sed laudo circa dogmata desiderium, in quo Deitatis et humanitatis Domini meministis. Et post pauca: Et aspicio populos multam quidem reverentiam et pietatem prudentissimam possidere, ignorantia vero dogmatis caecutire; hoc autem non crimen est plebium, sed, ut verecunde aut decenter dicam, propterea quod doctores elimatius et liquidius vobis aliquid etiam de dogmatibus tempus non habuerint apponendi.","english":"You, therefore, in agreement with them, say these things: that they do evil, in that they introduce certain talkative and garrulous persons against us, and by fostering and defending them, they create a cause for their own malice.\n\nBut this is not the cause of our own injury. Say that I am not an enemy even to this man who, dwelling there, presides; but that both the Eastern and the Western venerable bishops are injured on this account, that the right word of doctrine concerning Christ is not being proclaimed, but altogether a perverse one.\n\nThis evidence, moreover, is sufficient to refute them: that never by anyone in the Churches has such a thing been said as is contained in his expositions, which reads as follows: \"I do not approve your zeal toward me by your acclamations, but I praise your desire concerning the dogmas, in which you have been mindful of the Deity and the humanity of the Lord.\" And after a few words: \"And I see that the peoples indeed possess much reverence and most prudent piety, but are blinded by ignorance of the dogma; yet this is not the fault of the common people, but, to speak modestly or fittingly, because your teachers have not had the time to set before you anything concerning the dogmas more elaborately and clearly.","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":85,"ref":"p85","source":"Rogo, dicatur quomodo non habuerint tempus docendi praedecessores ejus? Eloquentiorne est Joanne, aut beato Attico comparandus? Aut aequalis eis, aut prudentior invenitur? a Quid hoc est superbius? [Baluz. quod est hoc supercilium?] Aut quomodo non evidenter confitetur, haec dicens, novam se et inconsuetam afferre doctrinam, et prorsus ignotam praedecessoribus suis, et hoc ipsum nefandum, hanc velle in Ecclesiam introducere?\n\nMihi autem nullus adversus eum sermo de aliis causis est: sed contingat eum poenitere, et rectam aliquando confiteri fidem; de iis autem quae adversum me molitur, irritans inimicos et provocans, satisfaciet Deo.\n\nNihil autem mirum, si male de nobis loquantur sterquilinia civitatis Chaeremon et Victor, et Sophronas, et decoctoris [Baluz. add. et] Flaviani mancipium; semper enim et circa se fuerunt, et erga alios nequam. Noverit autem qui cos irritat, quod nos numquam formidavimus peregrinationem suscipere [Baluz. om. suscipere], sed nec illorum accusationibus respondere, si tempus hoc exigat. Potest enim evenire, Salvatoris nostri dispensatione faciente, ob leves forte etiam et vilissimas causas, ad purgandam Ecclesiam, juberi concilium convocari.","english":"I ask, let it be said how his predecessors did not have the time to teach? Is he more eloquent than John, or to be compared with the blessed Atticus? Or is he found equal to them, or more prudent? What is more arrogant than this? Or how does he not evidently confess, by saying these things, that he is bringing in a new and unusual doctrine, and one altogether unknown to his predecessors, and that this very abomination, he wishes to introduce into the Church?\n\nBut I have no word against him concerning other matters: but may it happen that he repents, and at some time confesses the right faith; but concerning the things which he plots against me, provoking and challenging enemies, he will make satisfaction to God.\n\nBut it is no wonder if the dung-heaps of the city, Chaeremon and Victor, and Sophronas, and the slave of the bankrupt Flavianus, speak evil of us; for they have always been both among themselves and toward others worthless. But let him who provokes them know that we have never feared to undertake a journey, nor even to respond to their accusations, if the time should demand it. For it can happen, by the dispensation of our Savior, that for perhaps even light and most vile causes, to purify the Church, a council be ordered to be convened.","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":86,"ref":"p86","source":"Non igitur speret miser ille [Baluz. om. miser ille], etiamsi adhuc nos plures et fide digniores accusent, se nostrum judicem fore; quia etiamsi jubeatur ad illum nos venire debere, e refutabimus audientiam [Baluz. add. vel judicium] ejus, et Dei favore dilucidabimus res magis, quatenus de suis blasphemiis debeat satisfacere.\n\nNeque igitur pacem refugimus, sed et cupimus, si fides recta fuerit annuntiata atque professa, vel si talia cesset tandem aliquando praedicare. Tantam enim perversitatem ille ejus quaternio habet, ut merito de his qui scripserunt dicatur quia principatum in blasphemiis tenent.\n\nQuia vero causatur, locutionem inconsuetam flagitari, Dei genitricem [Baluz. puerperam], id es, Virginem sanctam, quam nec Scriptura, neque sancta synodus protulit; dicat nobis ipse interrogatus, ubi genitricem Christi, id est, Scriptura loquatur? An ullum episcopale concilium est, quod, id est, susceptricem vel capacem deitatis formam, nominaverit Christum?","english":"Let that wretched man not therefore hope that he will be our judge, even if more numerous and more trustworthy men still accuse us; because even if he should be ordered that we ought to come before him, we will reject his hearing and, with God's favor, we will make the matter clearer, to the extent that he ought to give satisfaction for his blasphemies.\n\nNor therefore do we flee peace, but we even desire it, if the right faith has been announced and professed, or if he at last ceases to preach such things. For his quaternion contains such great perversity that it is rightly said of those who wrote them that they hold the foremost place in blasphemies.\n\nBut since he complains that an unusual expression is demanded, namely \"God-bearer,\" that is, the holy Virgin, which neither Scripture nor the holy synod brought forth, let him himself tell us when questioned, where does Scripture speak of the \"Christ-bearer,\" that is, of Christ as the receiver or container of the Godhead? Or is there any episcopal council that has named Christ by this term?","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":87,"ref":"p87","source":"In illo enim quaternione, quem huc misit, nosque vehementer offendit, ita est,, id est, susceptricem Dei formam una ac pari, qua Deum Verbum, Deitatis ratione veneremur. Similiter, de illa quoque venerabili semper Virgine ita posuit,, id est, susceptricem deitatis Virginem cum Deo ad divina non attollamus.\n\nNescit vero quid loquatur. Si enim Virgo, ut vult, non peperit Deum, nec est, neque suscipere potuit Deum in utero, qui est Christus, quomodo saltem est, ut ipsi iterum placet?\n\nQuid in dictis suis Patrem dici mavult, quam illam Virginem sanctam, quem rectius et competentius (Latini Rei genitorem dicerent) enuntiare debuerit? Dicat ergo nobis, ubi legerit haec verba, vel a quibus audierit. Multa soni crimina expositionum ejus, sed servabuntur, et proferentur in tempore opportuno, nisi forte poenitudo aliqua subsequatur.\n\nOportet autem me meum vobis propositum facere manifestum, et ideo iterum scribo, quod etsi ego sim natura pacificus, et litium satis ignarus, opto tamen Ecclesias quietem habere, et sacerdotes Dei in pace degentes nostri memores esse, dicente omnium salvatore Domino Jesu Christo: Pacem meam do vobis, pacem meam relinquo vobis (Joan. xiv, 27).","english":"For in that notebook which he sent here, and by which he greatly offended us, it is stated thus—that is, that we should venerate the God-bearing form with one and the same reason of Deity as we do God the Word. Similarly, concerning that ever-venerable Virgin he also set down thus—that is, that we should not raise the Virgin who bore the Deity together with God to divine honors.\n\nBut he does not know what he is saying. For if the Virgin, as he wishes, did not give birth to God, then neither is Christ God, nor could she have received God in her womb; how then is it that, as it again pleases him, he is God?\n\nWhy does he prefer in his statements that the Father be named, rather than that holy Virgin, whom he ought more rightly and fittingly to have declared (the Latins would say the Begetter of the Thing)? Let him therefore tell us where he has read these words, or from whom he has heard them. Many are the charges of his expositions, but they will be preserved and brought forth at the opportune time, unless perhaps some repentance should follow.\n\nBut it is necessary for me to make my purpose clear to you, and therefore I write again, that although I am by nature peaceable and quite unacquainted with disputes, I nevertheless desire that the Churches have peace, and that the priests of God, living in peace, be mindful of us, as the Savior of all, the Lord Jesus Christ, says: Peace I give you, my peace I leave you (John 14:27).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":88,"ref":"p88","source":"a In colloquiis ergo hoc dicite, quia multa quidem ab eis quae nos laederent processerunt; verumtamen erit pax, cum ille docere destiterit talia, vel sentire: fides enim cum laeditur, inimicitias excitat, immo et exaggerat.\n\nSi rectam profiteatur fidem, fiet plena et firmissima pax, quam si in voto gerit, scribat catholicam fidem, et mittat Alexandriam: si haec ex affectu cordis intimi scribantur, paratus sum et ego pro viribus meis, similia scribere, et edere librum, ac dicere, nullum debere gravari consacerdotum nostrorum, quia ejus voces discimus habere intentionem rectam et propositum manifestum. Si vero in pravitate inanis gloriae permanet, petitque pacem, nihil restat, nisi ut obstemus totis viribus, ne consentire illi putemur [Baluz. add. et quae sunt nefanda sentire]. Nam mihi pro lide quae in Christo est, et laborare, et vivere, et mori, maximum votum est.","english":"Say this, then, in your conversations: that many things have indeed come forth from them which would injure us; yet there will be peace when he ceases to teach or to hold such things. For when the faith is injured, it stirs up enmity, and indeed even increases it.\n\nIf he professes the right faith, there will be full and most firm peace; and if he holds this in his desire, let him write the catholic faith and send it to Alexandria. If these things are written from the affection of the inmost heart, I too am ready, according to my strength, to write similar things, and to publish a book, and to say that no one of our fellow priests ought to be burdened, because we have learned that his words have a right intention and a manifest purpose. But if he persists in the wickedness of vainglory and seeks peace, nothing remains except that we oppose him with all our strength, lest we be thought to consent to him [and to hold things that are unspeakable]. For for the faith which is in Christ, both to labor and to live and to die is my greatest vow.","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":"COMMONITORIUM EPISTOLAE SUBJUNCTUM.\n\nLibellum supplicem a vobis ad me missum, qui imperatori porrigendus est, non tamen sine nostra sententia, accepi et legi: verum quod prolixe in eum invehatur, qui istic agit, sive fratris, sive alio quocumque nomine censeatur, hactenus suppressi, ne adversum nos insurgens, se per nos haereseos apud imperatorem delatum cavilletur. Itaque aliis verbis illum dictavimus, eum quoque nobis judicem detrectantes, expresso inimicitiarum modo, et praesentem controversiam, si omnino importuni esse perrexerint, ad aluid forum transferri rogantes. Cum itaque libellum perlegeritis, si qua necessitas poposcerit, tradite; et si eum in hisce insidiis perseverantem, et nihil non adversum nos molientem animadverteritis, diligenter perscribite. Eligam enim viros pios ac prudentes, cum episcopos, tum monachos quoque, quos etiam primo quoque tempore ad vos mittam. Neque enim oculis meis, ut scriptum est, somnum dabo, neque palpebris meis dormitationem, neque requiem temporibus meis (Ps. cxxxi, 4), donec certamine pro omnium salute perfunctus fuero. Quare cum meam nunc sententiam didiceritis, viriliter agite. Quam primum enim parabuntur a me litterae, et quales oportet, et ad quos oportet.","english":"ATTACHED TO THE COMMONITORY LETTER.\n\nI have received and read the petitionary libellus sent to me by you, which is to be handed to the emperor—though not without our opinion. But the fact that it inveighs at length against him who acts there, whether he is reckoned under the name of brother or any other whatsoever, I have suppressed up to this point, lest, rising up against us, he should quibble that he has been denounced by us to the emperor on a charge of heresy. And so we have dictated it in other words, declining him also as a judge for us, with the manner of our hostilities made explicit, and asking that the present controversy, if they persist in being altogether troublesome, be transferred to another forum. When, therefore, you have read through the libellus, if any necessity demands it, hand it over; and if you perceive that he persists in these plots and strives with all his might against us, write it down diligently. For I will choose pious and prudent men, both bishops and monks as well, whom I will send to you at the very first opportunity. For I will not give sleep to my eyes, as it is written, nor slumber to my eyelids, nor rest to my temples, until I have completed the struggle for the salvation of all. Wherefore, since you have now learned my opinion, act manfully. For letters will be prepared by me as soon as possible, both such as are fitting and to whom they are fitting.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":90,"ref":"p90","source":"Statui enim propter Christi fidem quemvis laborem subire, quaevis quoque perferre tormenta, etiam ea quae inter supplicia censentur gravissima, donec tandem mortem, hac de causa susceptam, mihi jucundam pertulero.\n\nSECUNDA NESTORII EPISTOLA ad S. Cyrillum Alexandrinum rescribentis; similiter ex Graeco sermone translata Latinum a Mario Mercatore.\n\nInjurias quidem tuarum adversum nos admirabilium litterarum, tamquam medicinali dignas patientia, et pro re ac tempore opportuna ad has responsione relinquam: quod vero silentium non patitur, quia affert periculum, si taceatur, prout sum, et mihi facultas adest, ad tui prolixitatem sermonis tentabo breviter et compendio respondere, refugiens et declinans tenebrosum indigestumque longi sermonis horrorem.\n\nIncipiam namque a sapientissimis charitatis tuae vocibus, ipsas interponens, vel potius ad verbum iustruens: Sanctum namque, ais, et magnum concilium, ipsum ex Deo Patre genitum secundum naturam, unicum Filium, Deum verum de Deo vero, lumen de lumine, per quem omnia creavit Pater, descendisse, incarnatum esse, atque hominem factum, passumque et resurrexisse definivit.","english":"For I have resolved for the sake of the faith of Christ to undergo any labor, and to endure any torments whatsoever, even those that are reckoned the most grievous among punishments, until at last I shall have borne a death undertaken for this cause as something pleasant to me.\n\nTHE SECOND LETTER OF NESTORIUS, writing back to St. Cyril of Alexandria; likewise translated into Latin from the Greek discourse by Marius Mercator.\n\nThe injuries, indeed, of your wondrous letters against us, as worthy of a medicinal patience, and suited to the matter and the occasion, I shall leave for a response to them at the proper time; but what silence does not permit—because it brings danger if it is kept silent—as I am, and as far as ability is granted me, I shall attempt to answer briefly and in summary the prolixity of your discourse, shunning and avoiding the dark and undigested horror of a long speech.\n\nFor I shall begin from the most wise utterances of your charity, setting them forth themselves, or rather expounding them word for word: For the holy and great council, you say, has defined that the very one begotten of God the Father according to nature, the only Son, true God from true God, light from light, through whom the Father created all things, descended, was incarnate, and became man, suffered, and rose again.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":91,"ref":"p91","source":"Haec tuae religionis verba sunt, et recognoscis protecto tamquam tua: e audi nunc et nos fraternam pro pietate offerentes exhortationem, hanc videlicet, quam a senex ille Paulus cbarissimo suo Timotheo protestatus est dicens: Attende lectioni, exhortationi, doctriae; hoc enim faciens, et te satvabis, et eos qui te audiunt (I Tim. iv, 16). Quid igitur, dic mihi tu, vult Ista vox attende? Sanctorum nempe illorum in superficie legens traditionem, venia dignam tibi inesse ignorantiam ignorasti, passibile eos dixisse arbitratus Verbum, quod Patri est. coaeternum.\n\nAttentius ergo, si placet, haec verba rimare, et invenies divinum illum Patrum conventum non illam consubstantivam Deitatem dixisse esse passibilem; neque de recenti natam hanc, quae Patri est consempiterna; neque istam resurrexisse, quae templum suscitavit solutum.\n\nSi mihi medicinam fraternam offerenti aures admoveas, ipsas tibi voces illorum interponens Patrum, a calumniae te nexu, quam illis ingerere niteris, et per illos scriptures [Baluz. add. moliris], absolvam.","english":"These are the words of your religion, and you recognize them as your own, assuredly; hear now us also, offering a brotherly exhortation out of piety, namely this which that old man Paul declared to his dearest Timothy, saying: Attend to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine; for in doing this you shall save both yourself and those who hear you (1 Tim. 4:16). What then, tell me, does that word \"attend\" mean? Surely, reading the tradition of those saints on the surface, you ignored the ignorance that was in you, worthy of pardon, thinking that they said the Word that is coeternal with the Father was passible.\n\nTherefore, if it pleases you, examine these words more attentively, and you will find that that divine assembly of the Fathers did not say that that consubstantial Deity was passible; nor that this one, consempiternal with the Father, was recently born; nor that this one rose again who raised up the temple that had been dissolved.\n\nIf you lend your ears to me as I offer brotherly medicine, interposing for you the very words of those Fathers, I shall absolve you from the bond of calumny which you strive to bring upon them, and through them from the scriptures you endeavor [to twist].","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":92,"ref":"p92","source":"Credimus, inquiunt illi, et in [Dominum nostrum i esum Christum, Filium ejus unigenitum. Pervide quomodo Domini, et Jesu Christi, et [e unigeniti Filii Prius, communia Deitatis [Baluz. add. et humanitatis] nomina, tamquam fundamenta ponentes, tum suscepti hominis, et resurrectionis, et passionis superaedificant traditionem, ut nominibus quibusdam utriusqne naturoe communibus et significativis positis, neque ea quae generationis filii et dominationis, dissecentur [Baluz. dijudicentur]; neque ea, quae naturarum sunt propria in singularitate nativitatis Filii, ulla confusionis abolitione [Baluz. absolutione] pe(??)clitentur, nomine unionis.\n\nIn hoc apud Illos Paulus doctor est factus, qui cum divinae incarnationis memoriam faceret, incipiens subjungere quae sunt passionis, prius posuit Christus, commune, ut paulo ante dixi, nomen naturarum; tunc decentem infert sermonem sive rationem ulriusque; etenim ait: Hoc sentiatur in vobis, quod et in Christo Jesu, qui cum in forma Dei esset, non rapinam arbitratus est esse se aequalem Deo; sed ne ad unum, quodque loquar, factus obediens usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis (Philip. ii, 5).","english":"They say: We believe also in our Lord Jesus Christ, his only-begotten Son. See how they lay down as foundations the names common to the Godhead and the manhood—of Lord, of Jesus Christ, and of the only-begotten Son—and then build upon them the tradition concerning the man assumed, the resurrection, and the passion; so that, with certain names common to both natures and expressive of both being set down, neither the things of the Son's generation and dominion are separated, nor are the things proper to the natures, in the singularity of the Son's nativity, endangered by any abolition of confusion through the name of union.\n\nIn this Paul became their teacher, who, when he made mention of the divine incarnation, beginning to add what belongs to the passion, first set down Christ, the name common to the natures, as I said a little before; then he brings in the fitting discourse or account of both; for he says: Let this be thought in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not think it robbery to be equal with God; but, not to speak of each one, he became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross (Philippians 2:5).","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":93,"ref":"p93","source":"Quoniam igitur coeperat mortis facere mentionem, ut ne quis hinc Verbum Deum passibilem suspicaretur, posuit Christus, tamquam passibilis et impassibilis essentiae, in singularitate personae, significativum vocabulum, ut impassibilis et passibilis Christus sine periculo nominetur: impassibilis quidem Deitate, passibilis vero natura corporea.\n\nMulta super hoc cum possim dicere, et primo quidem omnium, quod non Divinitatis in dispensatione, sed susceptionis humanitatis tantum meminisse sanctos illos Patres, ostendere valeam; sed recordor brevitatem orationis in praefatione promissam, et eam sentio frenare sermonem.\n\nVenio nunc et ad secundum a charitate tua ar ticulum motum, in quo naturarum quidem laudabam factam discretionem secundum Deitatis et humani tatis rationem, et in una persona consortium: nec non et illud, quod Deum Verbum secunda nativitate ex muliere minime dicebas eguisse; quodque passionis incapacem profitebaris Deitatem; catholica enim revera sunt haec, et omaino sectis ommnibus contra Dominicas naturas adversa.","english":"Since, therefore, he had begun to make mention of death, lest anyone from this should suspect that the Word, who is God, was passible, he set down \"Christ,\" as it were a term signifying an essence both passible and impassible, within the singularity of one person, so that Christ may be named without danger as both impassible and passible: impassible indeed in his Deity, but passible in his corporeal nature.\n\nAlthough I could say many things on this subject, and indeed first of all I could show that those holy Fathers made mention not of the Divinity in the dispensation, but only of the assumption of humanity; yet I remember the brevity of speech promised in the preface, and I feel it restraining my discourse.\n\nI come now also to the second point raised by your Charity, in which I was praising the distinction of natures that has been made according to the principle of Deity and humanity, and their fellowship in one person; and also that point, that you were saying the Word, who is God, by no means needed a second birth from a woman; and that you were professing the Deity to be incapable of suffering; for these things are truly catholic, and altogether opposed to all the sects that fight against the Lord's natures.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":94,"ref":"p94","source":"In reliquis vero, si aliquam latentem, et profundam, atque incomprehensibilem rationem legentium auribus afferas, tuae sit examinare prudentiae. Scite enim mihi priora videbaris destruere, cum eum, qui in primis impassibilis, et secumdam non recipere nativitatem fuerat praedicatus, iterum passibilem, et noviter creatum, nescio quomodo inferebas: tamquam quae Deo Verbo naturaliter inessent consortio templi corrupta sint, aut oporteat forsitan pro nihilo ab hominibus putari illud ipsum absque peccato templum, et inseparabile a divina natura, nativitatem et mortem pro peccatoribus non pertulisse; tamquam etiam voci Dominicae ad Judaeos clamanti: Solvite templum hoc, et in triduo suscitabo illud (Joan. ii, 19), non debeat credi. Non dixit: Solvite Divinitatem meam, et in triduo suscitabitur.\n\nIterum me hic orationem dilatare cupientem ad professionem brevitatis promissae recordatio revocat; dicam tamen aliquid. Ubique per divinas Scripturas, quoties meminerunt Dominicae dispensationis, non Divinitatis Christi, sed humanitatis ejus, passio et nativitas traditur, ut secundum liquidissimam rationem convenientius ac aptius sit, sanctam Virginem, non genitricem Dei, id est,, sed Christi genitricem, id est, vocari.","english":"But in the remaining matters, if you bring forward some hidden, deep, and incomprehensible reason for the ears of readers, it is for your prudence to examine. For I thought you were wisely destroying the earlier points, when you were somehow introducing again as passible and newly created the one who had been proclaimed in the first place impassible and as not receiving a second birth; as if the things that were naturally in God the Word had been corrupted by association with the temple, or perhaps it ought to be reckoned as nothing by men that that very temple without sin, and inseparable from the divine nature, did not endure birth and death for sinners; as if also the Lord's voice crying out to the Jews, \"Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up\" (John 2:19), ought not to be believed. He did not say: Destroy my Divinity, and in three days it will be raised up.\n\nHere again the remembrance of the brevity I promised recalls me as I wish to expand my discourse; yet I will say something. Everywhere throughout the divine Scriptures, whenever they make mention of the Lord's dispensation, it is not the passion and birth of Christ's Divinity but of his humanity that is handed down, so that according to the clearest reasoning it is more fitting and appropriate that the holy Virgin be called not the mother of God, that is, Theotokos, but the mother of Christ, that is, Christotokos.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":95,"ref":"p95","source":"Ad haec evangelista quoque vociferante: Liber generationis Jesu Christi, filii David, filii Abraham (Matth. i, 1); evidens est, quia Deus Verbum Davidis non erat filius. Accipe, si videtur, et aliud testimonium: Jacob autem genuit Joseph, virum Mariae, de qua natus est Jesus, qui dicitur Christus (Ibid. xvi). Intende in aliud dictum: Christi autem generatio sic erat. Cum esset desponsata virgo Maria, inventa est in utero habens de Spiritu sancio (Ibid. xviii). Creaturam autem Spiritus sancti Unigeniti Deitatem quis possit [Baluz. om. possit] vel debeat suspicari? Quid etiam his superfundi debeat? audi iterum: Et erat mater Jesu ibi (Joan. ii, 1). Et iterum: Cum Maria matre Jesu (Act. i, 14). Illud quoque: Quod in ea natum est, de Spiritu sancto est (Matth. i, 20). Et iterum: Accipe puerum et matrem ejus, et fuge in AEgyptum (Matth. ii, 13). Et illud: De Filio ejus unigenite, qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem (Rom. i, 3). Et iterum de passione ejus: Quia Deus Filium suum misit in similitudinem camis peccati, et de peccato damnavit peccatum in carne (Rom. viii, 3). Et iterum: Christus mortuus est pro peccatis nostris (1 Cor. xv, 3). Et denuo: Christo passo in carne (I Petr. iv, 1). Et illud: Hoc est corpus meum, et hic sanguis meus (Luc. xxii, 19). Non dixit: Haec est Deitas mea.","english":"To this the evangelist also cries out: The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham (Matt. 1:1); it is evident that God the Word was not the son of David. Take, if it seems good, another testimony as well: But Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ (ibid. 1:16). Attend to another saying: Now the generation of Christ was in this manner. When his mother Mary was espoused, she was found to have in her womb by the Holy Spirit (ibid. 1:18). But who could or should suspect the Godhead of the Only-Begotten to be a creature of the Holy Spirit? What moreover should be poured upon these things? Hear again: And the mother of Jesus was there (John 2:1). And again: With Mary the mother of Jesus (Acts 1:14). That too: What is born in her is of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:20). And again: Take the child and his mother, and flee into Egypt (Matt. 2:13). And that: Of his Son, who was made to him of the seed of David according to the flesh (Rom. 1:3). And again concerning his passion: Because God sent his Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin, and of sin condemned sin in the flesh (Rom. 8:3). And again: Christ died for our sins (1 Cor. 15:3). And once more: Christ having suffered in the flesh (1 Pet. 4:1). And that: This is my body, and this is my blood (Luke 22:19). He did not say: This is my Godhead.","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":96,"ref":"p96","source":"Et decem millia alia sunt, aliis atque aliis vocibus protestantibus humanum genus, non Filii Deitatem recentem putare, aut novellam, aut corporalium passionum esse capacem, sed illam divinae naturae Conjunctam carnem, ex qua filium se David nominat Christus. Quid enim ait? Quid vobis videtur de Christo? cujus est filius? Responderunt, David. Respondit Jetus et dixit: Quomodo ergo David in spiritu Dominum eum vocat, dicens: Dixit Dominus Domino meo: Sede ad dextram meam (Matth. xxii, 42)? Est [Baluz. tamquam] filius profecto David secundum carnem, secundum Divinitatem vero Dominus. Esse quidem templum Divinitatis Filii corpus, et templum secundum excellentem quamdam et divinam unitum conjunctionem, certissimum est, ita ut ea quae sunt Dei asciscere sibi et ad se revocare divinam naturam, profiteri sit bonum, et dignum evangelica traditione.","english":"And there are ten thousand other things, protesting with various and manifold voices, that the human race should not think the Deity of the Son to be recent or novel, or capable of bodily passions, but that the flesh united to the divine nature is that from which Christ names himself the son of David. For what does he say? What do you think of Christ? Whose son is he? They answered, David's. Jesus answered and said: How then does David in the spirit call him Lord, saying: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand (Matt. 22:42)? He is indeed the son of David according to the flesh, but according to the Godhead, Lord. That the body of the Son is truly the temple of the Godhead, and a temple united according to a certain excellent and divine conjunction, is most certain, so that it is good to profess, and worthy of the evangelical tradition, that the divine nature takes to itself and recalls to itself the things that are God's.","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":"Hujus autem familiaritatis nomine affricare, et conjunctae carnis proprietates, generationem scilicet, et passionem, et mortalitatem Deo tribuere, aut errantis gentilitatis, frater, est sensus, aut mente capti Apollinaris et Arii, aut reliquarum pestium haereticarum, et his aliquid pejus: necesse est enim hujusmodi homines, attractos familiaritatis nomine, et lactationis socium propter familiaritatem; et aetatis, quae paulatim accessit, incrementorum participem Deum Verbum facere; et passionis in tempore cx timiditate auxilii angelici indigentem.\n\nTaceo circumcisionem et sacrificium, et sudorem, et famem, quae quidem carni pro nobis evenerunt: haec tamen, cum illi conjunguntur, etiam adoranda sunt: in Deitate autem ista et jam mendaciter accipiuntur, et nobis tamquam calumniatoribus justas damnationis causas important.\n\nHae sanctorum Patrum traditiones, haec Scripturarum mandata sanctarum: sic illi quae sunt divinae misericordiae et auctoritatis secundum Deum ratiocinantur: Haec meditare, in his esto, ut profectus manifestus sit (I Tim. iv, 15). Paulus ista omnibus dixit.","english":"But to attribute to God, under the name of this familiarity, the properties of the flesh joined to him—namely, generation, passion, and mortality—is, brother, the sentiment either of erring paganism, or of the deranged Apollinaris and Arius, or of the other heretical plagues, and something worse than these. For it necessarily follows that such men, drawn in by the name of familiarity, and by reason of that familiarity made sharers in his nursing and partakers in the increments of age that gradually came on, make the Word of God a partaker also of passion in time, as one who from fear needed the help of an angel.\n\nI pass over circumcision and sacrifice, and sweat, and hunger, which indeed befell the flesh for our sake; yet these, when they are joined to him, are even to be adored; but in the Deity these things are now falsely accepted, and they bring upon us, as though we were slanderers, just causes of condemnation.\n\nThese are the traditions of the holy Fathers, these the commands of the holy Scriptures: thus do they reason concerning the things that are of divine mercy and of authority according to God. Meditate on these things, be in them, that your progress may be manifest (1 Tim. 4:15). Paul said these things to all.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":98,"ref":"p98","source":"Bene autem facis eorum qui de nobis offenduntur curam gerere, a et de his sollicitudinem habere quae apud nos sunt. Unanimitati tuae gratiam habeo; scito autem seductum esse te ab his qui a sancto concilio depositi sunt c, propter quod morbo Manichaeorum essent repleti; aut quod potissimum est, a clericis magis affectionis tuae. Nam quae ad Ecclesiam nostram pertinent quotidie augentur in melius; et quae ad plebem, noveris in majorem extendi profectum, per gratiam Christi, in tantum, ut multitudo haec vocibus prophetae clamet: Replebitur terra scientia Domini, sicut aqua multa cooperiens maria (Isai. xi, 9).\n\na Noveris et regiam domum, dilucidato dogmate, in magno gaudio degere; et ut paginae finem faciam, illam de Ecclesia quoque [Baluz. om. de Ecclesia quoque] apud nos super omnibus haeresibus, quae adversus Deum litigant, vocem vide impleri: Ibat domus Saul, et infirmabatur; ibat domus David, et confortabatur (II Reg. iii, 2). Haec nostra tamquam fratris ad fratrem consilia; quod si quis contentiosus esse vult, clamabit per nos ei Paulus: Nos talem consuetudinem non habemus, neque Ecclesia Dei (II Cor. xi, 16).","english":"You do well to take thought for those who are offended on our account, and to have solicitude for the matters that concern us. I give thanks to your unanimity; but know that you have been deceived by those who were deposed by the holy council, because they were filled with the disease of the Manichaeans; or, what is most important, by clerics of your affection. For the things that pertain to our Church are daily increased for the better; and the things that pertain to the people, know that they are extended to greater progress, through the grace of Christ, to such an extent that this multitude cries out with the words of the prophet: The earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as the many waters covering the seas (Isa. 11:9).\n\nKnow also that the royal house, with the doctrine made clear, dwells in great joy; and, to make an end of the page, see that voice concerning the Church also among us fulfilled concerning all the heresies that strive against God: The house of Saul went and grew weak; the house of David went and grew strong (2 Sam. 3:2). These are our counsels, as of a brother to a brother; but if anyone wishes to be contentious, Paul will cry out to him through us: We have no such custom, nor does the Church of God (2 Cor. 11:16).","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":99,"ref":"p99","source":"SERMO VIII.\n\nIn Judam, adversus haereticos.\n\nLibenter hic ab illis haereticis interrogans requiram, qui Deitatis et humanitatis nataram in unam essentiam miscendo contemperant, quis ille hoc loco est qui proditur et traditur Judaeis. Si enim temperatio vel admixtio utriusque facta est, utrum a Judaeis est tentum? An Deus Verbum, an humanitatis natura? Quis videtur occisus? Cogor enim inferioribus uti sermonibus, ut fiat omnibus quod dicitur manifestum.\n\nIn quem, dicas velim, ea quae gesta sunt, cadunt? Numquid in Dei naturam, quam utroque confundens contemperare praesumis? Ergo Verbum Deus capessibilis, cui nihil commune in occisione cum carne. An a Judaeis in occisionem ductus est?\n\nUt quid autem, temperatis utrisque naturis, secundum te, Scripturam nuper audivimus de virtute sacramenti narrantem, quam Dominus tradidit discipulis suis, dicens: Quia in qua nocte tradebatur, accipiens panem, gratias agens, dedit discipulis suis, dicens: Accipite et manducate ex eo omnes, hoc est enim corpus meum. Quare non dixit: Haec est Divinitas mea, quae pro vobis confringetur? Et iterum cur sumptum calicem porrigens, non dixit: Haec Divinitas mea, quae pro vobis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum; sed hoc magis: Hic est sanguis meus, qui pro vobis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum (Matth. xxvi, 28)?","english":"SERMON VIII.\n\nAgainst the heretics, on Judas.\n\nGladly here, questioning, I would ask those heretics who, by mingling the nature of Divinity and humanity into one essence, blend them together, who it is in this passage that is betrayed and handed over to the Jews. For if a blending or admixture of both has been made, which of the two was held by the Jews? Was it God the Word, or the nature of humanity? Who is seen to have been killed? For I am compelled to use rather lowly words, so that what is said may be made clear to all.\n\nOn whom, pray tell, do the things that were done fall? Is it on the nature of God, which you presume to blend together by confounding both? Therefore God the Word is capable of being seized, who has nothing in common with the flesh in being slain. Or was he led to slaughter by the Jews?\n\nBut why, when both natures have been blended, according to you, have we just now heard the Scripture telling of the power of the sacrament, which the Lord handed down to his disciples, saying: Because on the night on which he was being betrayed, taking bread, giving thanks, he gave it to his disciples, saying: Take and eat from it, all of you, for this is my body. Why did he not say: This is my Divinity, which will be broken for you? And again, why, when offering the cup that had been taken, did he not say: This is my Divinity, which will be poured out for you for the remission of sins; but rather this: This is my blood, which will be poured out for you for the remission of sins (Matthew 26:28)?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":100,"ref":"p100","source":"Separa naturam, sed unitionem conjunge; Filium Dei Christum confitere, sed filium duplicem, hoiei nem et Deum, ut passio quidem humanae deputetur naturae; passionis vero absolutio, quae in homine qui passus est facta est, solius sit Divinitatis.\n\nSERMO IX.\n\nIn id quod scriptum est: Si habere aliquid recordatus fueris adversus te fratrem tuum (Matth. v, 23); veluti contra haereticos.\n\nAudite dictis intenti: Qui manducat, ait, carnem meam, et bibit meum sanguinem, in me manet, et ego in eo. Memento quoniam de carne est, quod dicitur: Sicut misit me vivens Pater, me visibilem. Numquid a me carnis nomen appositum est, ut mc male interpretari querantur: Qui manducat inquit, carnem meam, et bibit meum sanguinem? Numquid dixit: Qui manducat Divinitatem meam, et bibit meam Divinitatem? sed: Qui manducat carnem meam, et bibit meum sanguinem, in me manet, et ego in ipso.","english":"Separate the nature, but unite the union; confess Christ the Son of God, but a twofold son, man and God, so that the passion is indeed assigned to the human nature, while the deliverance from the passion, which was accomplished in the man who suffered, belongs to the Godhead alone.\n\nSERMON IX.\n\nOn what is written: If you remember that your brother has anything against you (Matt. 5:23); as against the heretics.\n\nListen with attentive minds: He who eats, it says, my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. Remember that it is of the flesh that it is said: As the living Father sent me, so I am visible. Was it not I who applied the name of flesh, that they might complain of being wrongly interpreted by me? He who eats, it says, my flesh and drinks my blood? Did he perhaps say: He who eats my Divinity and drinks my Divinity? But: He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":101,"ref":"p101","source":"Et post alia. Sed ad rem veniamus. Qui manducat carnem meam, et bibit meum sanguinem, in me manet, et ego in ipso, Mementote quod de carne dicamus: Sicut misit me vivens Pater, me, qui appareo; sed fortasse ego non recte interpretor. Videamus ex iis quae sequuntur: Sicut misit me vivus Pater, etc.; ille dicit de Divinitate, ego de humanitate. Videamus quis sit pravus interpres: Sicut misit me vivus Pater; haereticus dicit Divinitatem missam, et se profiteri Deum Verbum dicere: Sicut misit me vivus Pater. Ergo et hoc secundum ipsos ita erit intelligendum: Ego Deus Verbum vivo per Patrem. Post hoc enim videtur dictum: Et qui manducat me, et ille vivit. Quem ergo manducamus? Divinitatem, an carnem?\n\nDicam etiam illius scandali verba. De sua carne Dominus Christus cum illis disserebat: Nisi manducaveritis, inquit, carnem Filii hominis, et biberitis ejus sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis. Verborum sublimitatem qui audierant, non tulerunt; putabant enim ex inscitia illum anthropophagiam suadere.","english":"And after other things. But let us come to the point. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. Remember that we are speaking about the flesh: As the living Father sent me—me, who appear; but perhaps I interpret incorrectly. Let us see from what follows: As the living Father sent me, etc.; he speaks of the Divinity, I of the humanity. Let us see who is the corrupt interpreter: As the living Father sent me; the heretic says that the Divinity was sent, and claims to profess that he is speaking of God the Word: As the living Father sent me. Therefore this too, according to them, must be understood thus: I, God the Word, live through the Father. For after this it seems to have been said: And he who eats me, he also lives. Whom, then, do we eat? The Divinity, or the flesh?\n\nI shall also state the words of that scandal. The Lord Christ was discoursing with them about his own flesh: Unless, he said, you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you. Those who heard did not endure the sublimity of the words; for in their ignorance they thought he was urging cannibalism.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":102,"ref":"p102","source":"SERMO X.\n\na Velut in Macedonianos, revera in catholicos verae incarnationis defensores.\n\nAdhuc vobis multa habeo dicere, etc. (Joan. xvi, 12). Et post aliquanta: Communes sunt Trinitatis operationes, et tantum substantiis dividendae. Quare Unigeniti glorificatio, aliquando quidem Patri deputatur, sicut est illud: Pater est meus, qui me glorificat (Joan. vii, 54); aliquando vero Spiritui deputatur, ait enim: Spiritus veritatis, qui me glorificabit (Joan. xvi, 13); nonnunquam Christi potentiae assignatur, sicut scriptum est: Exeuntes praedicabant verbum ubique, Domino cooperante, et verbum confirmante, consequentibus eos signis (Marc. xvi, 16).\n\nAtque cooperationis hujus evidens est argumentum: Filius est factus homo; Paler in throno collocavit; Spiritus signis honestavit; inhabitavit Filius in corpore; commendavit baptizatum Pater; formavit in Virgine Spiritus.","english":"HOMILY X.\n\na As if against the Macedonians, but truly against the catholics, the defenders of the true incarnation.\n\nI still have many things to say to you, etc. (John 16:12). And after some things: The operations of the Trinity are common, and are to be divided only by their substances. Wherefore the glorification of the Only-begotten is sometimes ascribed to the Father, as in that passage: It is my Father who glorifies me (John 7:54); sometimes truly it is ascribed to the Spirit, for he says: The Spirit of truth, who will glorify me (John 16:13); sometimes it is assigned to the power of Christ, as it is written: Going forth, they preached the word everywhere, with the Lord cooperating and confirming the word by the signs that followed them (Mark 16:16).\n\nAnd of this cooperation there is clear proof: the Son became man; the Father placed him on the throne; the Spirit honored him with signs; the Son dwelt in the body; the Father commended him when baptized; the Spirit formed him in the Virgin.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":103,"ref":"p103","source":"SERMO XI.\n\nAdversus Arianos, in haec verba Isaiae: Puer datus est nobis, et filius natus est nobis (Is. ix, 6).\n\nMagnum sane tanti doni sacramentum; hic enim qui videtur infans, hic qui recens apparet; hic qui fasciis corporalibus eget, hic qui secundum visibilem essentiam recenter est editus, Filius est, ut Scriptura docet, oeternus, Filius universorum opifex, Filius qui suae opis fasciis dissolubilem creaturae naturam astringit.\n\nInfans enim Deus est suae potestatis; tantum abest, Arie, ut Deus Verbum sit sub Dei potestate. Novimus ergo humanitatem infantis ac divinitatem: filiationis unitatem servamus in Deitatis bumanitatisque natura.\n\nHoc autem dico, ut noveritis quam super excellens et summa quaedam Deitatis conjunctio existebat, etiam in infante ipso, cum Dominica caro conspiceretur; erat enim ipse, et infans, et infantis ipsius Dominus. Laudastis vocem, sed nolite eam parum curiose laudare; dixi enim quod idem erat infans et habitator infantis.","english":"HOMILY XI.\n\nAgainst the Arians, on these words of Isaiah: A child is given to us, and a son is born to us (Is. 9:6).\n\nGreat indeed is the sacrament of so great a gift; for this one who is seen as an infant, this one who appears newborn; this one who needs bodily swaddling clothes, this one who according to his visible essence has recently been brought forth, is the Son, as the Scripture teaches, eternal, the Son the craftsman of all things, the Son who by the swaddling clothes of his own power binds together the dissoluble nature of creation.\n\nFor the infant is God of his own power; so far is it, Arius, from being the case that God the Word is under the power of God. We therefore know the humanity of the infant and his divinity: we preserve the unity of sonship in the nature of Deity and humanity.\n\nBut I say this so that you may know how exceedingly surpassing and, as it were, supreme a certain conjunction of Deity existed even in the infant himself, when the Lord's flesh was beheld; for he himself was both the infant and the Lord of the infant himself. You have praised the utterance, but do not praise it with too little care; for I said that the same one was both the infant and the inhabitant of the infant.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":104,"ref":"p104","source":"Ut ergo demonstretur ipsis quoque magis quis hic est ab illis adoratus, et ad quem illos duxerit Spiritus sancti gratia; nempe non ad simplicem vulgo conspectum infantem, sed ad corpus quoddam ineffabiliter Deo conjunctum.\n\nQuis nunc benignitatis tam immensum aspiciat pelagus, naturam cum suo opifice dominantem, et conjunctam homini Divinitatem, nihil sine hoc jubentem, nullum absque isto judicantem: cum eo vivorum curam in summa providentia gerentem, et cum ipso mortuos suscitantem.\n\nEPISTOLA a TERTIA SYNODICA S. CYRILLI\n\nAlexandrini episcopi directa Nestorio Constantinopolitanae urbis episcopo, duodecim continens anathematismi capitula.\n\nReligioso et Deo amabili consacerdoti Nestorio Cyrillus, et quae convenit apud Alexandriam synodus ex AEgyptia dioecesi, in Domino salutem.\n\nCum Salvator noster aperte pronuntiet: Qui diligit patrem aut matrem super me, non est me dignus; et qui diligit filium aut filiam super me, non est me dignus (Matth. x, 37); quid nos patiemur, qui deposcimur a tua religione ut te super Christum Salvatorem omnium diligamus? Quid enim nobis in die judicii proderit, aut quam satisfactionem reperire poterimus, ita diuturnum silentium de prolatis a te contra eum blasphemiis continentes?","english":"So then, that it may be shown to them as well, more clearly, who this is who was adored by them, and to whom the grace of the Holy Spirit led them—namely, not to an infant plainly seen by the crowd, but to a certain body ineffably united to God.\n\nWho now could behold so immense a sea of kindness—nature reigning together with its own Maker, and the Godhead conjoined to the man, commanding nothing without him, judging no one apart from him: with him exercising care for the living in the highest providence, and with him raising the dead.\n\nEPISTLE, the Third Synodical Letter of St. Cyril\n\nof the bishop of Alexandria, sent to Nestorius, bishop of the city of Constantinople, containing twelve chapters of anathema.\n\nTo the religious and God-beloved fellow priest Nestorius, Cyril, and the synod assembled at Alexandria from the Egyptian diocese, greeting in the Lord.\n\nSince our Savior openly declares: He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me (Mt 10:37); what shall we suffer, who are demanded by your religiousness to love you more than Christ the Savior of all? For what will it profit us on the day of judgment, or what satisfaction will we be able to find, keeping so long a silence concerning the blasphemies uttered by you against him?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":105,"ref":"p105","source":"Et si quidem te tantummodo laederes, docens ista vel sentiens, sollicitudo nobis minor exisleret: cum vero totam scandalizaveris Ecclesiam, et fermentum insolitae pravitatis et novae haeresis miscueris in populis, nec tantum ibidem positis, sed ubique consistentibus (nam tuarum expositionum libri per cuncta vulgati sunt), quae super nostro silentio ratio ultra, vel excusationis sermo sufficiat? aut quomodo non necesse sit meminisse Christi Domini sic dicentis: Non putetis quod venerim pacem mittere in terram, sed gladium; veni enim separare hominem adversus patrem suum, et filiam adversus matrem suam (Matth. x, 34). Nam cum laeditur fides, parentum reverentia, velat inutilis et periculosa, despicitur, et amor erga filios fratresque vitatur. Ad postremum etiam post ipsam vitam [B. super ipsam vitam mors potius] a piis viris eligitur, ut meliorem resurrectionem, sicut scriptum est, consequantur (Heb. xi, 35).","english":"And if you were harming only yourself by teaching or holding these things, our concern would be less: but since you have scandalized the whole Church, and have mixed the leaven of an unusual depravity and a new heresy among the peoples, not only those situated there but those dwelling everywhere (for the books of your expositions have been spread through all places), what reason for our silence can suffice any longer, or what word of excuse? Or how is it not necessary to remember Christ the Lord speaking thus: Do not think that I have come to send peace upon the earth, but a sword; for I have come to separate a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother (Matt. 10:34). For when the faith is injured, reverence for parents is despised as useless and dangerous, and love toward children and brothers is shunned. Finally, even after this life [B: rather death above this life], it is chosen by pious men, that they may obtain a better resurrection, as it is written (Heb. 11:35).","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":106,"ref":"p106","source":"Ecce itaque te simul, cum sancta synodo, quae apud amplam urbem Romam congregata est, praesidente sanctissimo et venerandissimo fratre et consacerdote nostro Coelestino episcopo, his scriptis jam tertio convenimus, consilium dantes ut a pravis abstineas distortisque dogmatibus, quae et sentire cognosceris et docere, recipias vero fidem rectam Ecclesiis per beatissimos apostolos et evangelistas ab initio traditam, qui et oculis inspexerunt, et ministri Verbi fuisse monstrantur.\n\nQuod si hoc religio tua facere distulerit, juxta dilationem litteris praefinitam sanctissimi et venerandissimi consacerdotis nostri Romanae praesulis Ecclesiae Coelestini, scias te nullam sortem habere uobiscum, nec locum aut colloquium cum Dei sacerdotibus et episcopis obtinere; non enim est fas contemnere nos Ecclesias ita turbatas et scandalizatos populos, fidemque rectissimam violatam, dissipatum quin etiam gregem, quem custodire debueras, siquidem juxta nos amator recti dogmatis exstitisses, sancto rum Patrum vestigia pia consectans.","english":"Behold, therefore, we have now for the third time convened you in writing together with the holy synod gathered at the great city of Rome, under the presidency of our most holy and most venerable brother and fellow-priest Coelestinus the bishop, giving counsel that you abstain from depraved and distorted doctrines, which you are known both to hold and to teach, and that you receive the right faith handed down to the Churches from the beginning through the most blessed apostles and evangelists, who both saw with their eyes and are shown to have been ministers of the Word.\n\nBut if your religion shall have deferred to do this, according to the delay fixed in the letters of our most holy and most venerable fellow-priest Coelestinus, bishop of the Roman Church, know that you have no portion with us, nor do you obtain a place or converse with God's priests and bishops; for it is not right that we should be despised, with the Churches so troubled and the peoples scandalized, and the most right faith violated, and even the flock scattered which you ought to have guarded, if indeed according to us you had shown yourself a lover of right doctrine, piously following in the footsteps of the holy Fathers.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":107,"ref":"p107","source":"Omnes itaque quos propter fidem tua religio a communione removit, aut ab ordine suo deposuit, laicos et clericos, in nostra communione recipimus; non enim justum est eos tuis decretis opprimi, qui noverunt recta sentire, qui etiam bene facientes tibi prudentissime restiterunt: hoc idem namque in epistola quam misisti ad praesulem amplae Romae sanctum et coepiscopum nostrum Coelestinum, significare curasti.\n\nNon autem sufficit tuae religioni solummodo fidei symbolum confiteri, quod expositum est per idem tempus, sancti Spiritus largitate, a venerando et magno concilio apud Nicaeam congregato; hoc enim nec intellexisti, a nec recte interpretatus es, perversae licet sono vocis eadem verba protuleris. Sed [Baluz. add. nec] consequens est ut jurejurando fatearis quod anathematizes quidem tua polluta et profana dogmata; sentias autem et doceas quoe nos universi, sive per Orientem, sive per Occidentem, episcopi et magistri, praesulesque populorum credi nus et docemus.","english":"Therefore all those whom your religion has removed from communion on account of the faith, or has deposed from their order, both laymen and clerics, we receive into our communion; for it is not just that those be oppressed by your decrees who have known how to think rightly, who also, doing well, have most prudently resisted you: for you took care to signify this same thing in the letter which you sent to the prelate of great Rome, our holy fellow-bishop Celestine.\n\nBut it is not sufficient for your religion merely to confess the symbol of faith which was set forth at that same time, by the bounty of the Holy Spirit, by the venerable and great council gathered at Nicaea; for you have neither understood this, nor rightly interpreted it, although you uttered the same words with the sound of a perverse voice. But it follows that you should confess by oath that you indeed anathematize your own polluted and profane dogmas; but that you should hold and teach what we all, whether throughout the East or throughout the West, bishops and teachers and prelates of the peoples, believe and teach.","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":108,"ref":"p108","source":"Epistolis autem ab Alexandrina tuae religioni directis Ecclesia consensum praebuit, tam ea quae apud urbem Romam convenit sancta synodus, quam etiam nos omnes, velut recte irreprehensibiliterque conscriptis. Subdidimus autem his nostris litteris quae te sentire oporteat et docere, et a quibus abstinere conveniat.\n\nHaec est enim fides apostolicae et catholicae Ecclesiae, cui cuncti consentiunt orthodoxi per Orientem Occidentemque pontifices: Credimus in unum Dominum, Patrem omnipotentem, omnium visibilium et invisibilium conditorem, Et in unum Dominum Jesum Christum, Filium Dei, natum de Patre unigenitum, hoc est, de substantia Patris, Deum ex Deo, lumen ex lumine, Deum verum ex Deo vero, natum, non factum, Patri, hoc est, unius cum Patre substantiae. per quem omnia facta sunt in coelo et in terra; qui propter nos homines, et propter nostram salutem descendit, et incarnatus est, et homo factus est, passus est, et resurgens tertia die ascendit in coelos, unde venturus est judicare vivos et mortuos. Et in Spiritum sanctum. Eos autem qui dicunt: Erat tempus quando non erat, et antequam nasceretur non erat, et quia ex nullis exstantibus factus est, aut ex alia substantia vel essentia, dicentes esse aut convertibilem et commutabilem Filium Dei; anathematizat catholica et apostolica Ecclesia.","english":"But the Church has given its assent to the letters sent from Alexandria to your religion, both the holy synod that assembled in the city of Rome and also all of us, as to writings correctly and blamelessly composed. Moreover, we have subjoined to this our letter the things which you ought to believe and teach, and the things from which it is fitting to abstain.\n\nFor this is the faith of the apostolic and catholic Church, to which all orthodox bishops throughout the East and the West consent: We believe in one Lord, the Father almighty, creator of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, only-begotten, born of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, born, not made, of one substance with the Father, that is, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things were made in heaven and on earth; who for us men and for our salvation descended, and was incarnate, and became man, suffered, and rising on the third day ascended into heaven, whence he is to come to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit. But those who say: There was a time when he was not, and before he was born he was not, and that he was made out of nothing, or out of another substance or essence, or who say that the Son of God is convertible and changeable—the catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":109,"ref":"p109","source":"Sequentes itaque per omnia sanctorum Patrum confessiones quas, loquente in eis sancto Spiritu, protulerunt, et intentioni quae est in eorum intellectibus aequis vestigiis inhaerentes, atque iter ambulantes regium, profitemur quod ipse unigenitus Dei Verbum Deus, natus ex ipsa Patris essentia, de Deo vero Deus verus, lumen de lumine, per quem omnia facta sunt, sive in coelis, sive in terra, salutis nostrae causa descendens, ad exinanitionem sese dignatus est inclinare, incarnatus autem et homo factus, id est, carnem de Virgine sancta suscipiens, eamque sibi propriam faciens, nativitatem nostram ex vulva sustinuit, homo de muliere procedens, nec quod erat abjiciens; nam licet factus sit in assumptione carnis et sanguinis, tamen etiam sic quod erat, Deus natura scilicet et veritate, perstitit.\n\nNec carnem itaque dicimus in naturam Deitatis esse conversam, nec in substantiam carnis ineffabilem Dei Verbi essentiam commutatam: inconvertibilis etenim est, et incommutabilis, idemque ipse, juxta Scripturas, jugiter permanens (Psal. ci, 28). Visus est autem et parvulus, sed potius [Baluz. positus] adhuc in cunabulis, et in sinibus genitricis Virginis constitutus, universam creaturam replebat ut Deus, genitori suo indivisus existens: quod divinum est enim, sine quantitate et sine mole cognoscitur, nec ullis terminis continetur.","english":"Following therefore in all things the confessions of the holy Fathers, which they brought forth when the Holy Spirit spoke in them, and adhering with even steps to the intention that is in their understandings, and walking the kingly road, we profess that the only-begotten Word of God, God himself, born from the very essence of the Father, true God from true God, light from light, through whom all things were made, whether in heaven or on earth, descending for the sake of our salvation, deigned to lower himself to emptiness, and being incarnate and made man, that is, taking flesh from the holy Virgin and making it his own, he endured our birth from the womb, coming forth as man from a woman, nor did he cast aside what he was; for although he was made in the assumption of flesh and blood, yet even so he remained what he was, namely God in nature and in truth.\n\nNor do we say that the flesh was converted into the nature of the Godhead, nor that the ineffable essence of the Word of God was changed into the substance of flesh: for it is inconvertible and immutable, and the same himself, according to the Scriptures, continually remaining. He was seen even as a little child, but rather while still in the cradle, and established in the bosom of his Virgin mother, he was filling the whole creation as God, existing indivisible from his begetter: for what is divine is known without quantity and without bulk, nor is it contained by any boundaries.","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":110,"ref":"p110","source":"Unitum ergo carni Verbum secundum subsistentiam confitentes, unum adoramus Filium, Dominum Jesum Christum, non a seorsum ponentes et determinantes hominem et Deum, velut invicem sota [Baluz. sibi] dignitatis et auctoritatis unitate conjunctos; haec enim novitas vocis est, et aliud nihil. Nec item Christum specialiter nominantes Deum Verbum, quod ex Deo est; nec alterum similiter Christum specialiter, qui de muliere natus est, sed unum solummodo Christum Dei Patris Verbum, cum propria carne cognoscimus. Tunc enim ut homo [Baluz. om. ut homo], juxta nos, unctus est, quamvis Spiritum dignis ipse contulerit, sed non ad mensuram (Joan. iii, 33), sicut beatus evangelista Joannes asseruit.\n\nSed nec illud dicimus, quod Dei Verbum veluti in homine communi, qui de sancta Virgine natus est, habitarit, ne Deum homo Christus habitatorem possidere credatur. Quamvis enim Verbum habitaverit in nobis (Joan. i, 14), et dictum sit, in Christo habitare omnem plenitudinem Deitatis corporaliter (Col. ii, 9); haud tamen [Ba luz. attamen] intelligimus, quod caro factus, [Baluz. add. non] sicut in sanctis habitare dicatur, nec talem in ipso habitationem factam definire tentavimus; sed unitus juxta naturam, nec in carnem penitus commutatus, talem sibi fecit habitationem, qualem et anima hominis habere creditur ad proprium corpus.","english":"Confessing therefore that the Word is united to the flesh according to subsistence, we adore one Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, not setting apart and defining separately a man and a God, as though joined by a unity of equal dignity and authority; for this is a novelty of speech, and nothing else. Nor again do we specially name as Christ God the Word, who is from God; nor similarly another Christ specifically, who was born of a woman, but we know only one Christ, the Word of God the Father, together with his own flesh. For then, as a man, according to us, he was anointed, although he himself conferred the Spirit upon the worthy, but not by measure, as the blessed evangelist John asserted.\n\nBut neither do we say that the Word of God dwelt as it were in a common man, who was born of the holy Virgin, lest Christ the man be believed to possess God as an indweller. For although the Word dwelt in us, and it was said that in Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; yet we do not understand that, having been made flesh, he is said to dwell as in the saints, nor have we attempted to define that such an indwelling was made in him; but united according to nature, and not entirely changed into flesh, he made for himself such an indwelling as the soul of a man is believed to have in relation to its own body.","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":111,"ref":"p111","source":"Unus igitur est Christus, Filius et Dominus, non velut conjunctionem quamlibet, quae in unitate dignitatis et auctoritatis, homine habente ad Deum; non enim potest unire naturas sola dignitatis aequalitas, namque Petrus et Joannes aequalis sunt in alterutrum dignitatis, propter quod et apostoli et sancti discipuli esse monstrantur; verumtamen uterque non unus est. Nec juxta collationem vel connexionem modum conjunctionis advertimus, hoc enim ad unitatem non sufficit naturalem; nec secundum participationis effectum, sicut nos etiam adhaerentes Domino unus cum ipso spiritus sumus (I Cor. vi, 17).\n\nImmo potius conjunctionis nomen evitamus, tamquam non existens idoneum quod significet unitatis arcanum.\n\nl4.","english":"One therefore is Christ, the Son and Lord, not as any sort of conjunction in a unity of dignity and authority, with the man having it in relation to God; for a mere equality of dignity cannot unite natures, for Peter and John are of equal dignity with each other, on which account they are shown to be both apostles and holy disciples; yet the two are not one. Nor do we understand the mode of conjunction according to a comparison or connection, for this does not suffice for a natural unity; nor according to the effect of participation, as we also, cleaving to the Lord, are one spirit with him (1 Cor. 6:17).\n\nRather, we avoid the very name of conjunction, as not being suitable to signify the mystery of unity.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":112,"ref":"p112","source":"e Sed neque Deum aut Dominum Christi Verbum Dei Patris asserimus, ne iterum manifestius in duos dividamus unum Christum Filium et Dominum, et in crimen sacrilegii recidamus, Deum illum sui ipsius facientes et Dominum: unitus quippe, sicut superius diximus, Deus Verbum carni secundum substantiam, Deus quidem est omnium et dominator universitatis; verumtamen nec servus est sibi ipsi, nec Dominus, quia ineptum est, vel potius impium, hoc sentire, vel dicere; quamvis enim Deum suum Patrem dixerit, cum Deus sit etiam ipse natura, et de illius essentia; tamen nullatenus ignoramus quod manens Deus homo quoque factus sit, qui sub Deo juxta debitam legem naturae humanitatis exisleret; ipse vero sibi quomodo vel Deus poterit esse vel dominus? Ergo sicut homo, quantum decenter exinanitionis mensurae congruit, sub Deo se nobiscum esse disseruit. Hoc etiam modo sub lege factus est (Gal. iv, 4), quamvis ipse promulgaverit legem, et legislator ut Deus exstiterit.","english":"But neither do we assert that the Word of God the Father is God or Lord of Christ, lest we again more manifestly divide the one Christ, Son and Lord, into two, and fall into the charge of sacrilege, making him God and Lord of himself; for, as we said above, the Word of God, being united to the flesh according to substance, is indeed God of all and Lord of the universe; yet he is neither servant to himself nor Lord to himself, because it is absurd, or rather impious, to think or say this. For although he called his Father his God, since he is himself also God by nature and of his essence, nevertheless we in no way ignore that he who remained God also became man, who would be under God according to the due law of the nature of humanity; but how could he himself be either God or Lord to himself? Therefore, as man, insofar as it befits the measure of his emptying, he declared himself to be under God with us. In this way too he was made under the law, although he himself promulgated the law and existed as lawgiver, as God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":113,"ref":"p113","source":"Cavemus autem de Christo dicere: Propter assumentem veneror assumptum, et propter invisibilem adoro visibilem. Horrendum vero super hoc etiam illud adjicere: Is qui susceptus est, cum eo qui suscepit, connuncupatur Deus. Qui enim haec dicit, dividit iterum in duos Christos eum qui unus est, hominem seorsum in parte, et Deum similiter in parte constituens; evidenter enim denegat unitatem, secundum quam non alter cum altero adoratur, aut connuncupatur Deus, sed unus intelligitur Christus Jesus Filius Dei unigenitus, una servitute cum propria carne venerandus.\n\nConfitemur etiam quod idem ipse qui ex Deo Patre Filius natus est unigenitus Deus, licet juxta naturam suam expers passionis exstiterit, pro nobis tamen, secundum Scripturas, carne perpessus sit (I Petr. iv, 1), et erat in crucifixo corpore propriae carnis impassibiliter ad se referens passiones: Gratia vero Dei pro omnibus gustavit mortem (Heb. ii, 9), tradens ei proprium corpus, quamvis naturaliter ipse vita sit, et resurrectio mortuorum. Nam ut mortem ineffabili potentia proculcaret, ac primus in sua carne primogenitus ex mortuis fieret et primitiae dormientium, [Baluz. add. viamque faceret] humanae naturae ad incorruptionis recursum, gratia Dei, ut supra dictum est, pro omnibus gustavit mortem (Ibid.), et tertio die resurgens spoliavit infernum.","english":"But let us beware of saying of Christ: \"Because of the one who assumed, I venerate the one assumed; and because of the invisible one, I adore the visible one.\" It is dreadful, moreover, to add even this to that: \"He who was received is named God together with him who received him.\" For whoever says these things divides again into two Christs the one who is one, setting the man separately on one side and God likewise on another side; for he plainly denies the unity according to which the one is not adored together with the other, nor named God together with him, but Christ Jesus, the only-begotten Son of God, is understood as one, to be venerated with one service together with his own flesh.\n\nWe also confess that the same one who was born as only-begotten God from God the Father, although according to his own nature he existed without suffering, nevertheless for us, according to the Scriptures, suffered in the flesh, and was in the crucified body of his own flesh, impassibly referring the sufferings to himself: for by the grace of God he tasted death for all, handing over to it his own body, although by nature he himself is life and the resurrection of the dead. For in order to trample down death by his ineffable power, and to become the firstborn from the dead in his own flesh and the firstfruits of those who sleep, and to make a way for human nature to return to incorruption, by the grace of God, as was said above, he tasted death for all, and rising again on the third day he despoiled hell.","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":114,"ref":"p114","source":"Idcirco quamvis dicatur quod per hominem facta sit resurrectio mortuorum (I Cor. xv, 21), tamen intelligimus hominem factum Verbum, quod ex Deo est, et per ipsum mortis imperium fuisse destructum (Heb. ii, 14). Veniet autem temporibus praefinitis, sicut est unus Filius et Dominus in gloria Patris, ut judicet orbem terrarum in aequitate (Act. xvii, 31), sicut Scriptura testatur.\n\nNecessario igitur et haec adjicimus; annuntiantes enim secundum carnem mortem unigeniti Filii Dei, id est, Jesu Christi, et resurrectionem ejus, et in coelis ascensionem pariter confitentes, incruentam celebramus in Ecclesiis sacrificii servitutem; sic etiam ad mysticas benedictiones accedimus, et sanctificamur participes corporis et pretiosi sanguinis Christi Omnium nostrum Redemptoris, effecti, non ut communem carnem recipientes, quod absit, nec ut viri sanctificati, et Verbo conjuncti secundum dignitatis unitatem, aut sicut divinam possidentis habitationem, sed ut vere vivificatricem, et ipsius Verbi Dei [Baluz. om. Dei] propriam factam; vita enim naturaliter ut Deus existens, quia propriae carni unitus est, vivificatricem eam esse professus est. Et ideo quamvis dicat ad nos [Baluz. add. veniens]: Amen amen dico vobis, nisi manducaveritis carnem Filii hominis, et biberitis ejus sanguinem (Joan.","english":"Therefore, although it is said that the resurrection of the dead came about through a man (1 Cor. 15:21), nevertheless we understand that the Word, who is from God, became man, and that through him the dominion of death was destroyed (Heb. 2:14). But he will come at the appointed times, as the one Son and Lord in the glory of the Father, to judge the world in equity (Acts 17:31), as the Scripture testifies.\n\nNecessarily, therefore, we add these things as well; for proclaiming the death according to the flesh of the only-begotten Son of God, that is, of Jesus Christ, and confessing his resurrection and likewise his ascension into heaven, we celebrate in the Churches the service of the unbloody sacrifice; thus too we approach the mystical blessings and are sanctified, having been made partakers of the body and precious blood of Christ, the Redeemer of us all—not as receiving common flesh, which be far from us, nor as men sanctified and joined to the Word according to a unity of dignity, or as one possessing a divine indwelling, but as flesh truly life-giving and made the very own of the Word of God himself; for existing naturally as God, since he is united to his own flesh, he has declared it to be life-giving. And therefore, although he says to us: Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood (John","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":115,"ref":"p115","source":"vi, 53), etc., non tamen eam ut unius hominis ex nobis aestimare debemus; quomodo enim juxta naturam suam vivificatrix esse caro hominis poterit? Sed ut vere propriam ejus factam, qui propter nos Filius hominis et factus est et vocatus.\n\nEas autem voces, quas Salvator noster in Evangeliis protulit, non in duabus subsistentiis aut personis omnino partimur; non enim duplex est unus Christus et solus, quamvis ex duabus diversisque rebus ad unitatem cognoscatur individuam convenisse; sicut homo quoque ex anima constans et corpore, non duplex potius, sed unus est ex utroque: humanas ergo et divinas insuper voces ab uno Christo dictas, animadvertentes recte sentimus, cura enim Deo dignissime loquitur de se ipso: Qui me videt, videt et Patrem (Joan. xiv, 9); et: Ego et Pater unum su- Mus (Joan. x, 30). Divinam ejus intelligimus, ineffabilemque naturam, secundum quam unum est cum Patre suo, propter unam eamdemque substantiam, imago et character splendorque gloriae ejus existens (Heb. i, 3). Cum vero humanae naturae mensuram nullatenus inhonorans Judaeos alloquitur: Nunc me quaeritis occidere hominem, qui veritatem vobis locutus sum (Joan. vii, 1); non minus eum qui in similitudine et aequalitate [Baluz. aequitate] Patris est, Deum Verbum etiam in mensuris humanitatis ejus agnoscimus.","english":"Nevertheless we ought not to reckon it as the flesh of one man among us; for how could the flesh of a man be life-giving according to its own nature? But as truly made his own, who for our sake both became and was called the Son of Man.\n\nBut those utterances which our Savior brought forth in the Gospels we do not at all divide between two subsistences or persons; for the one and only Christ is not twofold, although he is known to have come together into an indivisible unity from two different things; just as a man also, consisting of soul and body, is not twofold but one from both. Therefore, observing that both human and, beyond these, divine utterances were spoken by the one Christ, we rightly judge; for with care most worthy of God he speaks of himself: He who sees me sees also the Father (John 14:9); and: I and the Father are one (John 10:30). We understand these as his divine and ineffable nature, according to which he is one with his Father because of one and the same substance, existing as the image and character and splendor of his glory (Heb. 1:3). But when, in no way dishonoring the measure of human nature, he addresses the Jews: Now you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth to you (John 7:1); we recognize him no less—him who is in the likeness and equality of the Father—as God the Word even within the measures of his humanity.","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":116,"ref":"p116","source":"Si autem necessario creditur quod natura Deus existens factus est caro, immo potius homo animatus anima rationali, quae causa est ut in eis quilibet vocibus erubescat, si eas homine dignas effatus est? Quod si sermones homini congruentes abjiciat, juxta nos hominem fieri quis coegit? Cum vero se propter nos ad exinanitionem spontaneam misericorditer inclinarit, quam ob causam dignos exinanitione sermones effugerit? Uni igitur personae cunctas ejus in Evangelio voces ascribimus, [Baluz. add. uni] subsistentiae Verbi scilicet incarnati, quia unus est Dominus Jesus Christus, ut scriptum est.\n\nAppellatum vero apostolum et pontificem confessionis nostrae (Hebr. iii, 2), tamquam sacrificantem Deo et Patri fidei nostrae confessionem, quae a nobis ipsi et per ipsum Deo et Patri incessanter offertur. Iterum eum dicimus, qui ex Deo est secundum naturam Filius unigenitus, nec homini praeter eum alteri sacerdotii nomen et officium deputamus: Factus est enim mediator Dei et hominum (I Tim. ii, 5), et reconciliator ad pacem, semetipsum Deo et Patri pro nobis offerens in odorem suavitatis (Eph. ii, ); ideoque dicebat: Sacrificium et oblationem notuisti; holocausta et pro peccato non tibi placuerunt; corpus autem perfecisti mihi. Tunc dixi: Ecce venio, in capite libri scriptum est de me, ut faciam, Deus, voluntatem tuam (Heb. x, 5).","english":"If, however, it is necessarily believed that he who exists as God by nature was made flesh—or rather, a man animated by a rational soul—what cause is there for anyone to blush at these words, if he has declared them worthy of a man? But if he rejects words that befit a man, who compelled him to become a man according to us? Since, then, in his mercy he freely inclined himself to self-emptying for our sake, for what reason should he shun words worthy of that self-emptying? Therefore we ascribe all his words in the Gospel to one person—that is, to the one subsistence of the Word incarnate—because there is one Lord Jesus Christ, as it is written.\n\nHe is called apostle and high priest of our confession, as one who offers to God and the Father the confession of our faith, which is ceaselessly offered by us to him and through him to God and the Father. Again we say that he who is the only-begotten Son of God by nature is he, and we assign the name and office of priesthood to no other man besides him; for he was made mediator of God and men, and reconciler unto peace, offering himself to God and the Father for us as a sweet fragrance; and therefore he said: Sacrifice and offering you did not desire; burnt offerings and offerings for sin did not please you; but a body you have prepared for me. Then I said: Behold, I come; in the head of the book it is written of me, that I may do your will, O God.","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":117,"ref":"p117","source":"Obtulit enim proprium corpus, non pro se, sed pro nobis, in odorem suavitatis: nam pro se vel oblatione vel sacrificiis non indiget, ab omni peccato liber, ut Deus, existens. Quod si omnes peccaverunt, et egent gloria Dei (Rom. iii, 23), secundum hoc quod sumus ad mutabilitatis excessum proniores effecti, et peccatis aegrolavit humana natura, ipse vero non ita, ideoque nos gloria ejus egemus; cui [Baluz. cur] erit ultra jam dubium, quod Agnus verus propter nos et pro nobis sit immolatus? Qui dicit autem, quod semetipsum tam pro se quam pro nobis obtulerit, nullatenus impietatis crimen effugiat, cum nihil prorsus iste deliquerit, nec ullum fecerit omnino peccatum. Qua igitur egeret oblatione, nullo suo exstante facinore, pro quo, si esset, satis admodum convenienter offerret?\n\nDe Spiritu quoque cum dicit: Ille me glorificabit (Joan.","english":"For he offered his own body, not for himself, but for us, as a sweet odor; for he has no need of an offering or sacrifices for himself, being free from every sin, as God. But if all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23), inasmuch as we have been made more prone to the excess of mutability, and human nature has sickened with sins, while he is not so, and therefore we need his glory—for whom will it any longer be doubtful that the true Lamb was sacrificed for us and on our behalf? But whoever says that he offered himself both for himself and for us, in no way escapes the charge of impiety, since he himself committed nothing at all, nor did he commit any sin whatsoever. By what offering, then, would he be in need, when no crime of his own exists for which, if it existed, he would quite fittingly offer?\n\nConcerning the Spirit too, when he says: He will glorify me (John","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":118,"ref":"p118","source":"xvi, 14), hoc rectissime sentientes unum Christum et Filium, non velut alterius egentem gloria, confitemur a Spiritu sancto gloriam consecutum, quia Spiritus ejus nec melior ipso, nec superior est; sed quia mira opera faciens ad demonstrationem suae Deitatis, virtute proprii Spiritus utebatur, ab ipso glorificari dicitur, quemadmodum si quis de hominibus asseveret quod virtus sua vel disciplina quaelibet unumquemque clarificet: quamvis enim in sua sit subsistentia Spiritus, et ejus intelligatur in persona proprietas, juxta id quod Spiritus est, et non Filius, attamen alienus non est ab illo; nam Spiritus appellatus est veritatis (Joan. xvi, 13), et veritas Christus est (Joan. xiv, 6); unde ab isto similiter, sicot ex deo patre procedit. Denique hic ipse Spiritus etiam per sanctorum manus apostolorum miracula gloriosa perficiens, Dominum glorificat Jesum Christum, postquam ascendit in coelum: nam creditus est Christus natura Deus existens, per suum Spiritum virtutes efficiens, ideoque dicebat: De meo accipiet, et annuntiabit vobis (Joan. xvi, 14). Nequaquam vero participatione alterius idem Spiritus sapiens aut potens dicitur, quia per omnia perfectus est, et nullo prorsus indigens bono; nam paternae virtutis et sapientiae, id est Filii Spiritus creditur, et ideo ipsa re et subsistentia virtus et sapientia comprobatur.","english":"Understanding this most correctly, we confess one Christ and Son, not as though he needed another's glory, that he received glory from the Holy Spirit, because his Spirit is neither better nor greater than he; but because, working wondrous deeds for the demonstration of his own Deity, he used the power of his own Spirit, he is said to be glorified by that same Spirit, just as if someone should assert concerning men that each one is made illustrious by his own virtue or by any discipline whatever. For although the Spirit subsists in his own subsistence, and his property is understood in his person, according as he is Spirit and not the Son, yet he is not alien from him; for he was called the Spirit of truth (John 16:13), and Christ is the truth (John 14:6); whence he proceeds from him similarly, just as he proceeds from God the Father. Finally, this same Spirit also, accomplishing glorious miracles through the hands of the holy apostles, glorifies the Lord Jesus Christ after he ascended into heaven; for Christ was believed to be God by nature, effecting virtues through his own Spirit, and therefore he said: He shall receive of mine, and shall announce it to you (John 16:14). But by no means is the same Spirit called wise or powerful by participation in another, because he is perfect in all things and in need of no good whatsoever; for he is believed to be the Spirit of the Father's virtue and wisdom, that is, of the Son, and therefore in very reality and subsistence he is proved to be virtue and wisdom.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":119,"ref":"p119","source":"a Igitur quia Deum carni unitum juxta subsistentiam sancta Virgo corporaliter peperit, idcirco eam Dei genitricem esse profitemur; non quod Verbi natura existendi principium de carne sortita sit: Erat enim in principio Verbum, et Deus erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum (Joan. i, 1), et ipse est conditor saecilorum, Patri coaeternus, et universitatis creator; sed quoniam, superius ut diximus, juxta subsistentiam sibimet uniens naturam humanam, nativitatem sustinuerit ex ipsa vulva corpoream: non quod eguerit necessario, propter suam naturam, nativitate ista, quae est in extremis saeculi facta temporibus; sed ut ipsas benediceret substantiae nostrae primitias, et dum eum carni unitum mulier edidisset, illa quae adversus omne genus humanum maledictio fuerat prolata desineret, nec jam morti nostra corpora destinaret; illud quoque, quod dictum est: In tristitia paries filios (Gen. iii, 16), ipse dissolvens, verum esse monstraret quod prophetae voce praedixerat: Absorpta est mors victoria (I Cor. xv, 34). Et iterum: Abstulit Deus omnem lacrymam ab omni facie (Apoc. vii, 17). Propter hanc etenim causam dicimus eum dispensatorie, et ipsas benedixisse nuptias cum in Cana Galileae, cum sanctis vocatus apostolis adesse dignatus est.","english":"Therefore, because the holy Virgin bodily bore God united to flesh according to subsistence, for that reason we profess her to be the Mother of God; not that the nature of the Word received a beginning of existence from the flesh—for In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and the Word was with God (John 1:1), and he is the founder of the ages, coeternal with the Father, and the creator of the universe—but because, as we said above, uniting human nature to himself according to subsistence, he underwent a bodily birth from that very womb; not that he needed this birth, which took place in the last times of the ages, by necessity on account of his own nature, but so that he might bless the very firstfruits of our substance, and so that, when a woman had brought him forth united to flesh, the curse that had been pronounced against the whole human race might cease, and our bodies might no longer be destined for death; and also, dissolving that which was said, In sorrow you shall bear children (Gen. 3:16), he might show to be true what he had foretold by the voice of the prophet: Death is swallowed up in victory (1 Cor. 15:54). And again: God has wiped away every tear from every face (Rev. 7:17). For this reason, then, we say that he, by dispensation, also blessed marriage itself, when in Cana of Galilee he deigned to be present, called with his holy apostles.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":120,"ref":"p120","source":"Haec sapere sumus edocti a sanctis apostolis et evangelistis, et ab omni Scriptura divinitus inspirata, nec non et a beatis Patrum confessionibus veritate subnixis; his omnibus etiam tuam religionem concordare, et praeter aliquem dolum consentire jam convenit. Quae vero religionem tuam anathematizare necesse est, huic epistolae nostrae subjecta sunt.\n\nI. Si quis non confitetur Deum esse [Baluz. add. veraciter] Emmanuel, et propterea Dei genitricem sanctam Virginem, peperit enim secundum carnem, carnem factum Dei Verbum, anathema sit.\n\nII. Si quis non confitetur carni secundum subsistentiam unitum Dei Patris Verbum, unumque esse Christum cum propria carne, eumdem scilicet Deum simul et hominem, anathema sit.\n\nIII. Si quis in uno Christo dividit substantias post unitatem, sola eas connexione conjungens ea quae secundum dignitatem est, vel etiam auctoritatem aut potestatem, ac non potius conventu qui per unitatem factus est naturalem, anathema sit.","english":"We have been taught to hold these things by the holy apostles and evangelists, and by all divinely inspired Scripture, and also by the blessed confessions of the Fathers grounded in truth; and it is fitting that your religion also agree with all these things and consent without any guile. But the things which it is necessary for your religion to anathematize have been appended to this our letter.\n\nI. If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is God, and that for this reason the holy Virgin is the Mother of God—for she bore according to the flesh the Word of God made flesh—let him be anathema.\n\nII. If anyone does not confess that the Word of God the Father is united to the flesh according to subsistence, and that Christ is one with his own flesh, that is, the same both God and man, let him be anathema.\n\nIII. If anyone in the one Christ divides the substances after the union, joining them only by a connection that is according to dignity, or even by authority or power, and not rather by the conjunction that has been made natural through the union, let him be anathema.","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":121,"ref":"p121","source":"IV. Si quis dividit personis duabus vel subsistentiis eas voces quae in apostolicis scriptis continentur et evangelicis, quae de Christo a sanctis dicuntur, vel ab ipso etiam de se ipso, et has quidem velut homini qui praeter Dei Verbum specialiter intelligatur aptaverit; illas autem, tamquam dignas Deo, soli Dei Patris Verbo deputaverit; anathema sit.\n\nV. Si quis audet dicere Christum hominem, id est, Deum ferentem, ac non potius Deum esse veraciter dixerit, tamquam unum Filium per naturam, secundum quod Verbum caro factum est (Joan, i, 14), et communicavit similiter, ut nos, carni et sanguini (Heb. ii, 14), anathema sit.\n\nVI. Si quis dicit Deum vel Dominum Christi esse Dei Patris Verbum, et non magis eumdem ipsum confitetur Deum simul et hominem, propterea quod Verbum caro factum est, secundum Scripturas, anathema sit.\n\nVII. Si quis Jesum hominem operatione Dei Verbi dicit adjutum, seu, et ei unigeniti gloriam, tamquam alteri praeter ipsum existenti, tribui, anathema sit.","english":"IV. If anyone divides between two persons or two subsistences the utterances contained in the apostolic and evangelical writings which are spoken of Christ by the saints, or by himself also concerning himself, and applies some of them as to a man who is understood specially apart from the Word of God, but assigns others, as worthy of God, to the Word of God the Father alone, let him be anathema.\n\nV. If anyone dares to say that Christ is a man, that is, one who bears God, and does not rather truly say that he is God, as one Son by nature, according to that which the Word was made flesh (John 1:14), and shared alike with us in flesh and blood (Heb. 2:14), let him be anathema.\n\nVI. If anyone says that the God or Lord of Christ is the Word of God the Father, and does not rather confess that the same one is both God and man, because the Word was made flesh, according to the Scriptures, let him be anathema.\n\nVII. If anyone says that Jesus the man was aided by the operation of the Word of God, or that the glory of the Only-begotten was given to him as to another existing besides himself, let him be anathema.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":122,"ref":"p122","source":"VIII. Si quis audet dicere, assumptum hominem coadorandum Deo Verbo, et conglorificandum, et connuncupandum Deum, tamquam alterum cum altero (nam cum syllaba semper adjecta hoc cogit intelligi), ac non potius una supplicatione veneratur Emmanuel, unamque ei glorificationem dependit, juxta quod Verbum caro factum est, anathema sit.\n\nIX. Si quis unum Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum glorificatum dicit a Spiritu sancto, tamquam qui aliena virtute per eum usus fuerit, et ab eo acceperit efficaciam contra immundos spiritus, et posse in hominibus divina signa facere, ac non potius proprium ejus Spiritum dicit, per quem divina signa complevit, anathema sit.\n\nX. Pontificem et apostolum confessionis nostrae factum esse Christum divina Scriptura (Heb. iii, 2) commemorat: Obtulit autem semetipsum pro nobis in odorem suavitalis Deo et Patri (Eph. v, 2). Si quis ergo pontificem et apostolum nostrum dicit factum, non ipsum Dei Verbum, quando caro factum est, et juxta nos homo, sed velut alterum praeter ipsum specialiter hominem ex muliere: aut si quis dicit et pro se obtulisse semetipsum oblationem, et non potius pro nobis solis, non enim eguit oblatione, qui peccatum omnino nescivit; anathema sit.","english":"VIII. If anyone dares to say that the man assumed was to be worshipped together with God the Word, and glorified together with him, and named God together with him, as though one person with another (for the syllable \"with\" always added forces this to be understood), and does not rather worship Emmanuel with one supplication, and render one glorification to him, according as the Word became flesh, let him be anathema.\n\nIX. If anyone says that our one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by the Holy Spirit, as though he had used a power not his own through him, and received from him the efficacy against unclean spirits, and the power to perform divine signs among men, and does not rather say that it was his own Spirit, through whom he accomplished the divine signs, let him be anathema.\n\nX. Divine Scripture records that Christ was made high priest and apostle of our confession (Heb. 3:2). But he offered himself for us to God and the Father as a sweet-smelling savor (Eph. 5:2). If anyone, then, says that our high priest and apostle was made such, not the very Word of God himself, when he became flesh and a man like us, but as it were another man besides him, born specifically of a woman: or if anyone says that he also offered himself as an offering for himself, and not rather for us alone—for he had no need of an offering, who knew no sin at all—let him be anathema.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"scripture","severity":"info","ref":"John 1:14","text":"The English carries the scriptural phrase “the word became flesh”, which matches John 1:14. The match is on the English draft; check the Coptic before quoting the verse."}]},{"i":123,"ref":"p123","source":"XI. Si quis non confitetur carnem Domini vivificatricem esse, et propriam ipsius Verbi Dei Patris; sed velut alterius praeter ipsum conjuncti eidem per dignitatem, aut quasi divinam habentis habitationem, ac non potius, ut diximus, vivificatricem esse, quia facta est propria Verbi cuncta vivificare praevalentis; anathema sit.\n\nXII. Si quis non confitetur Dei Verbum passum carne, et crucifixum carne, et mortem carne gustasse, factumque primogenitum ex mortuis, secundum quod vita est et vivificator, ut Deus, anathema sit.\n\nEPISTOLA NESTORII episcopi Constantinopolitani, a ad Coelestinum papam.\n\nDidici honestissimum Cyrillum Alexandrinae urbis episcopum, propter libellos contra eum nobis oblatos, exterritum, ac sibi venantem latebras, ad evitandam sacram synodum propter bos ipsos libellos futuram, quasdam alias interea cogitationes excogitare verborum, et amplecti verba, quae sunt, quorum alterum admittit, alterum vero, modo quidem de Evangeliis eximit, modo vero rursus admittit, hoc est,, secundum quamdam, credo, prudentiae nimietatem.","english":"XI. If anyone does not confess that the flesh of the Lord is life-giving, and is the own flesh of the Word himself, God the Father; but says it is as though of another joined to him by dignity, or as though having a divine indwelling, and not rather, as we have said, that it is life-giving because it has become the own flesh of the Word who prevails to give life to all things: let him be anathema.\n\nXII. If anyone does not confess that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, and was crucified in the flesh, and tasted death in the flesh, and was made the firstborn from the dead, according as he is life and life-giver, as God: let him be anathema.\n\nTHE EPISTLE OF NESTORIUS, BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE, TO POPE CELESTINE.\n\nI have learned that the most honorable Cyril, bishop of the city of Alexandria, has been terrified by the little books offered to us against him, and, hunting out hiding places for himself, in order to avoid the sacred synod that is to be held on account of these very little books, is in the meantime devising certain other thoughts of words, and embracing words—of which he admits the one, but the other he sometimes removes from the Gospels, and sometimes again admits, that is, according to a certain excess, I believe, of prudence.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":124,"ref":"p124","source":"Ego autem et hanc quidem vocem, quae est, nisi secundum Apollinaris et Arii furorem ad confusionem naturarum proferatur, volentibus dicere non resisto; nec tamen ambigo quin haec vox; illi voci cedat, quae est, tam - quam prolatae ab angelis et evangelistis. Et nisi haec ad venerationem tuam scientem dicerem, opus mihi foret longo multoque de hac ipsa causa sermone.\n\nSed et fine hoc illud quoque omni modo beatitudini tuae notum est, quia si aestimemus duas sectas contrarias sibi stare, et harum altera hanc vocem proferat solam,; altera vero illam solam,; et utraque secta ad suam confessionem alteram trahat, ut, si hoc non impetraverit, periclitetur de Ecclesia cadere: necesse erit, tractandae huic rei deputatum, habentem pro utraque secta curam, mederi periculo utriusque partis, ex voce ab evangelistis tradita, quae utriusque naturae significatrix sit. Harum enim, sicut dixi, assertionem temperat vox illa, quae est, quia et blasphemiam Samosateni removet, quod est dictum de omnium Domino Christo tamquam puro homine; sed et Arii et Apollinaris malitiam fugat.","english":"But I do not resist those who wish to say this word as well—the one that is, \"unless\" —provided it is not brought forward according to the frenzy of Apollinaris and Arius to confound the natures; nor do I doubt that this word yields to that word which is \"as\" —as spoken by the angels and the evangelists. And were I not saying these things to your knowledgeable reverence, I would need a long and lengthy discourse on this very matter.\n\nBut also at the end, this too is known in every way to your blessedness: that if we consider two sects standing contrary to each other, and one of them brings forward this word alone, while the other brings forward that word alone, and each sect draws the other to its own confession, so that, if it does not obtain this, it risks falling away from the Church: it will be necessary for one appointed to treat this matter, having care for each sect, to heal the danger of both parties from the word handed down by the evangelists, which is the signifier of both natures. For, as I said, that word which is \"because\" tempers the assertion of these, since it both removes the blasphemy of Samosatenus—which is what was said of the Lord of all, Christ, as though of a mere man—and also puts to flight the malice of Arius and Apollinaris.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":125,"ref":"p125","source":"e Haec autem ipsa etiam honestissimo Alexandrinorum episcopo scripsi, sicut potest beatitudo tua cognoscere ex exemplaribus quae his meis litteris adjunxi, vel quae ad nos ab eo scripta sunt.\n\nPlacuit vero piissimis imperatoribus [Baluz. om. piissimis imperatoribus], Domino adjuvante, etiam synodum inexcusabiliter totius orbis terrarum indicere, propter inquisitionem aliarum rerum ecclesiasticarum. Nam dubitationem verborum non aestimo habituram inquisitionem difficilem, nec impedimento esse futuram a ad tractatum Divinitatis Domini Jesu.\n\nEPISTOLA NESTORII ad Coelestium rescribentis, de Graeco in Latinum translata a Mario Mercatore.\n\nHonorabili et religiosissimo presbytero Coelestio Nestorius in Domino salutem.\n\nNoli aegre ferre, venerabilis, perferens ab his qui ea quae inferuntur facere debent, et praesertim asserentibus veritatem, et refugientibus pollutorum vel contaminatorum communionem: quia et sanctis qui ante nostram aetatem exstiterunt, gratae fuerunt aerumnae, et ipsae quidem temporales erant, veritas autem aeterna. Sic Joannes Baptista de peccato arguens Herodem, et quidem regem existentem, capite condemnatus est: sed non formidavit, Christum enim habebat caput, quod non posset abscindi. Sic Paulus hoc modo quoque et Petrus sunt interfecti. Et quid amplius dici opus est? Ita actum est semper, per diversas tentationes pietate currente.","english":"I have written these very same things also to the most honorable bishop of the Alexandrians, as your blessedness can learn from the copies which I have attached to this letter of mine, or from the writings which have been sent to us by him.\n\nIt has pleased the most pious emperors, with the Lord's help, to summon without excuse a synod of the whole world as well, for the investigation of other ecclesiastical matters. For I do not reckon that the questioning of words will have a difficult investigation, nor that it will be an obstacle to the discussion of the Divinity of the Lord Jesus.\n\nTHE LETTER OF NESTORIUS, writing back to Celestine, translated from Greek into Latin by Marius Mercator.\n\nNestorius to the honorable and most religious presbyter Celestine, greeting in the Lord.\n\nDo not take it ill, venerable one, that you suffer from those who ought to do the things that are brought upon them, and especially from those who assert the truth and shrink from the communion of the polluted or contaminated: for even the saints who existed before our age found their hardships welcome, and these were indeed temporal, but the truth is eternal. Thus John the Baptist, reproving Herod for sin, and he a king, was condemned to lose his head: but he did not fear, for he had Christ as his head, which could not be cut off. Thus Paul and Peter were also killed in this manner. And what need is there for more to be said? It has always been so, piety running its course through various trials.","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":126,"ref":"p126","source":"Noli igitur a veritate deficiens eam prodere (siquidem epistolae missae episcopis a concilio Occidentis, et ab Alexandrino, multis rescriptis manifestam nobis nostram fecere sententiam), prudentibus scilicet ejusdem orthodoxae professionis; forsitan enim utile aliquid Ecclesiis rectae fidei proveniet, Domino cooperante. Omnem fraternitatem salutamus.\n\nEt alia manu. Incolumis, et forti animo, et plurimum orans pro nobis, doneris nobis, religiosissime frater.\n\naSERMO XII.\n\nIn ecclesia habitus, in qua litteras Coelestini Romani episcopi, Cyrilli Alexandrini denuntiationis accepit vii idus Decembris, consulatu Theodosii xiii et Valentiniani in Augg., post sextum diem quam easdem litteras sumpsit.\n\nDulcem nobis praecedens doctor mensam charitatis apposuit; non enim habet fraterni amaritudinem odii, non habet venenum livoris, non habet simulatae fraternitatis rubiginem. Sic sunt dulcia charitatis, ut ea et omnium Dominus diligat. Amat charitatem Deus tamquam suae benignitatis ingenitum bonum; et ex hac omnibus gentibus beneficas necessitates instruit; quoniam enim multa erant quae hominum amicitiam dividebant, inseruit Deus necessitates invitis, quae eos in amicitiam mutuam copularent.","english":"Do not, then, failing from the truth, betray it (since the letters sent to the bishops by the council of the West, and by the Alexandrian, and by many rescripts have made our own judgment manifest to us), to the wise, that is, of the same orthodox profession; for perhaps something useful will come to the Churches of the right faith, with the Lord cooperating. We salute all the brotherhood.\n\nAnd in another hand. May you be granted to us, most religious brother, safe and strong in spirit, and praying very much for us.\n\nSERMON XII.\n\nDelivered in the church in which he received the letters of Celestine, bishop of Rome, and the denunciation of Cyril of Alexandria, on the seventh day before the Ides of December, in the consulship of Theodosius the thirteenth and Valentinian Augustus, on the sixth day after he received those same letters.\n\nThe preceding teacher has set before us the sweet table of charity; for it has no bitterness of fraternal hatred, it has no poison of envy, it has no rust of feigned brotherhood. So sweet are the things of charity that even the Lord of all loves them. God loves charity as the inborn good of his own kindness; and from it he furnishes beneficial necessities for all nations; for since there were many things that divided the friendship of men, God implanted necessities, even against their will, which would bind them into mutual friendship.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":127,"ref":"p127","source":"Alia penes Dalmatas habentur terrae germina; alia penes Gothos rerum indigenarum ubertas; alia Hispanicae terrae fecunditas; altera locuples et opulenta Africae latitudo terrarum; ad hoc, ut quae unicuique desunt, sumat a proximo; et horum, quae non habet inops, aliunde petens, necessitate in amicitia proximi foederetur.\n\nPropterea et omnium Dominus a indutus est nostram naturam, numquam spoliabile scilicet Deitatis vestimentum, inseparabile indumentum divinae substantiae, speculum Domini omnium, quod cum naturae dignitatem propriam perdidisset, tametsi decies millies irascatur audiens Manichoeus, non ad usum naturalem accepit hoc vestimentum, sed in sempiternum, ut ad dextram suae Divinitatis faceret considere; nihil sine isto suo vestimento viventibus donat; non judicat mortuos sine isto; unum esse voluit cum isto Divinitatis suae regnum. In stupore remaneat dentium Paulus Samosatenus, qui nobis Dominicam humanitatem nudam a Deitate delirat, qui solam, praeter Divinitatem, fabulatur hanc quae semper conjuncta est atque connexa; quae eadem ac pariter potest quae Deus: Donavit enim illi Deus nomen quod est super omne nomen (Philip. ii, 9).","english":"Other lands have other produce; other the abundance of native things among the Goths; other the fertility of the land of Spain; other the broad, rich, and opulent expanse of Africa; and for this reason, what each one lacks, it takes from its neighbor; and seeking from elsewhere those things which it does not possess in its poverty, it is bound by necessity in friendship with its neighbor.\n\nTherefore also the Lord of all has put on our nature—that is, the garment of the Godhead, never to be stripped off, the inseparable clothing of the divine substance, the mirror of the Lord of all—which, when it had lost its own dignity of nature, even if the Manichaean rages ten thousand times at hearing it, he received this garment not for natural use, but forever, so as to make it sit at the right hand of his Divinity; without this his garment he gives nothing to the living; he does not judge the dead without it; he willed that his kingdom of Divinity be one with it. Let Paul of Samosata remain in the stupor of his teeth, who raves to us that the Lord's humanity is naked of the Godhead, who babbles that this alone, apart from the Godhead, is what has always been joined and connected; which can the same and equally as God: For God has given him a name which is above every name (Phil. 2:9).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":128,"ref":"p128","source":"Et ut nemo miretur carnis cum Divinitate audiens regnum, praemonuit per Scripturam Spiritus, quod videtur incredulum, in habitaculo habitantem demonstrans, ex quo et unde honor circa id quod videtur et paret accrevit: Donavit illi, inquit, nomen, quod est super omne nomen, ut in nomine Jesu omne genu fiectatur, coelestium, terrestrium, et infernorum, et omnis lingua confiteatur Deo, quia Dominus Jesus Christus in gloria est Dei Patris (Ibid.). Non depretiavit, inquit, divinam substantiam circa illud quod invisibile est, honor cuncta praecellens, quia demonstratur quemadmodum Filius diligatur a Patre; e unus enim Filius, quod visibile est, et quod invisibile; unus Christus, et iste qui utitur, et id quo utitur, naturae duplices, sed Filius singularis.\n\nQuid sermonem in calumniam vocas? Quid me latenter sagittis aureis jacularis? Quid in me sagittas aureas absconditus mittis? Experiamur nostra certamina, a causas invicem vitae nostrae religionisque praestemus. Pius est imperator; reginae Deum amant: esto in disputando vir fortis, quid prohibet in disputationem venire? quid perturbationes ferinis rugitibus afferre conaris? Novi et ego cum propheta clamare: Paratus sum, et non conturbatus (Psal. cxviii, 60).","english":"And so that no one should wonder when he hears of the kingdom of the flesh together with the Divinity, he forewarned through the Scripture of the Spirit, demonstrating what seems incredible—that the one who dwells in the dwelling place is shown from it, and from that source the honor concerning what is seen and appears has grown: He gave him, it says, a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of things in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, and every tongue should confess to God, that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father. He did not, it says, diminish the divine substance in regard to that which is invisible—the honor surpassing all things—because it is shown how the Son is loved by the Father; for there is one Son, both what is visible and what is invisible; one Christ, both he who uses and that which is used, of twofold natures, but the Son is singular.\n\nWhy do you call my discourse into calumny? Why do you secretly strike me with golden arrows? Why, hidden, do you shoot golden arrows at me? Let us test our own contests; let us furnish to one another the causes of our life and religion. The emperor is pious; the queens love God: be a strong man in disputing—what prevents you from coming into disputation? Why do you try to bring disturbances with the roarings of beasts? I too know how to cry out with the prophet: I am ready, and I was not troubled.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":129,"ref":"p129","source":"Docuit me et Moyses non conturbari, siquidem experimentum acceperis prophetae praedicti AEgyptiaca desperatio; nec beatum quondam Flavianum terruisti, cum tyrannico spiritu e epistolas mitteres; nec eum, qui ante hunc inter sanctos numeratur, Meletium perturbasti. Tu quae habes et donas (bonus homo de bono thesauro profert bona [Matth. xii, 35]), set beato Nectario talium munerum tuorum gustum dedisti. Taceo de Joanne, cujus nunc cineres i adorando veneraris invitus, j Me episcopatus cura nulla sollicitat, nec mihi de eo ullus est sermo; donec spiro, sano dogmati adsum.\n\nSed elegantem et speciatam eorum auferam occasionem. a Non dicit, inquiunt,, id est, genitricem Dei, et hoc est totum quod nostris sensibus ab illis opponitur: Nemo enim, aiunt, rectam fidei gloriam sequens, vocem hanc aliquando declinavit. Multa dogmatum ibi experimenta suppeditant, maxime quidem, quae sunt Apollinaris sectae et Arii, vel Eunomii. Si investiges, unusquisque eorum, id est. Dei genitricem, appellavit Virginem sanctam.","english":"Moses too taught me not to be disturbed, since if you have taken the test of the prophet foretold, the despair of the Egyptians is your experience; nor did you terrify the blessed Flavian of old, when you sent letters in a tyrannical spirit; nor did you disturb Meletius, who before him is numbered among the saints. You have what you have and you give (a good man brings forth good things from a good treasure [Matt. 12:35]), but you gave the blessed Nectarius a taste of such gifts of yours. I am silent about John, whose ashes you now venerate unwillingly by adoring them; no care of the episcopate troubles me, nor have I any word concerning him; as long as I breathe, I stand by sound doctrine.\n\nBut I will take away their elegant and specious occasion. They say that he does not say, that is, Mother of God, and this is the whole of what is objected by them against our senses: For no one, they say, following the right glory of the faith, has ever declined this word. Many proofs of doctrines supply evidence there, especially those which belong to the sect of Apollinaris and of Arius, or of Eunomius. If you investigate, each one of them, that is, called the holy Virgin Mother of God.","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":130,"ref":"p130","source":"Tu vero intende, quaeso, in haec quae dicuntur, ut contra haec ipsamque etiam escam quam hamo apponentes loquuntur, defensionem paratissimam habeas. Scis hoc Apollinarem dicentem? Scis hanc vocem, id est,, apud Arium plausus maximos excitare? Scis hanc quoque apud Eunomium frequentari? Etiam, inquis, sed non secundum illos [Baluz.. Filium], ais, hanc vocem enuntio. Laudo inficias tuas, inierim arguo te ipsum in eo quod dicis vocem hanc solam esse veritatis tenacem; sunt enim et dicentes, et tamen, secundum tuam confessionem, eos esse haereticos constat. Sed quoniam illi dicentes, hinc naturae utriusque conficiunt permixtionem, seu temperamentum, ut quae sunt humilia non videantur de carnis dicta esse substantia, nec quae alta sunt de Deo et Domino omnium intelligantur expressa: ideoque damna eos qui dicunt, secundum Apollinaris et Arii sensum, Dei genitricem; et ego una tecum clamo, sed et dico, et addo hominis genitricem, hoc est,; hoc enim haereticus non patitur dicere, propter eam divisionem quae ex distinctione facta est quoque verborum.","english":"But do you, I ask, attend to these things that are said, so that against them and against the very bait which they set on the hook when they speak, you may have a defense fully ready. Do you know that Apollinaris says this? Do you know that this word, that is, [the term], stirs up the greatest applause among Arius? Do you know that it is also frequently used among Eunomius? Yes, you say, but not in their sense, you say, I utter this word. I praise your denials, but I argue that you yourself are implicated in that you say this word alone is tenacious of the truth; for there are those who say it, and yet, according to your own confession, they are established as heretics. But since those who say it infer from this a mixture or blending of both natures, so that the lowly things are not seen to have been spoken of the substance of the flesh, nor are the lofty things understood to have been expressed of God and the Lord of all: therefore condemn those who say, according to the sense of Apollinaris and Arius, that she is the Mother of God; and I cry out together with you, but I also say, and I add, the Mother of the man, that is, [the term]; for the heretic does not endure to say this, on account of that division which has also been made from the distinction 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":131,"ref":"p131","source":"Igitur ut eorum conciones etiam elegantes et sapidulas superemus, dicamus; sciebat namque etiam Paulus talia facere, ne scissurae fierent per aliquam justitiam coloratam, cum gratiam praedicabat, legisque inutilitatem confidenter arguebat; sed Hierosolyma veniens docetur ab apostolis condescendere debere ibidem habitantibus, ut non fierent scissurae in Ecclesia, quod habere videtur speciem pietatis. Quid igitur facit? Suscipit legis observantiam, ita ut et purificaretur, et raderet caput, omnia faciens propter aedificationem Ecclesiae, quod postea hoc ipsum in Ecclesiarum institutione exponens atque doctrina dicebat: Factus sum Judaeis tamquam Judaeus, ut Judaeos lucrifaciam; his qui sub lege sunt, tamquam sub lege essem, cum ipse non essem sub lege, ut eos qui sub lege erant, lucrifacerem; iis qui sine lege erant, tamquam sine lege essem, cum sine lege Dei non essem, sed in lege essem Christi, ut eos qui sine lege sunt, lucrer: omnia factus sum omnibus, ut omnes lucrifaciam (I Cor. ix, 20).","english":"Therefore, so that we may overcome even their elegant and savory sermons, let us speak. For Paul also knew how to do such things, lest divisions arise through some colored justice, when he preached grace and confidently argued the uselessness of the law; but coming to Jerusalem he was taught by the apostles that he ought to condescend to those dwelling there, so that divisions might not arise in the Church, which has the appearance of piety. What then does he do? He undertakes the observance of the law, so that he even purified himself and shaved his head, doing all things for the edification of the Church, which afterward, expounding this very thing in the institution and doctrine of the Churches, he said: I became to the Jews as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to those who are under the law, as if I were under the law, though I myself was not under the law, that I might gain those who were under the law; to those who were without the law, as if I were without the law, though I was not without the law of God, but was in the law of Christ, that I might gain those who are without the law: I became all things to all men, that I might gain all (I Cor. 9:20).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":132,"ref":"p132","source":"Si igitur et tu non secundum Apollinaris morbum divulgas Mariam, abscondens in persona catholica rabiem Apollinaris, confitere mecum quae apud omnes catholicos dicuntur; hoc autem catholicorum est proprium eorum qui hanc vocem, id est, emittunt, ut et id est, hominis genitricem pronuntient Virginem sanctam.\n\nGenitrix Dei est, non propter nudam humanitate Divinitatem, sed a propter unitum templo Deum Verbum: hominis vero genitrix, id est, propter templum quod consubstantiale est naturaliter Virgini sanctae, quamquam et, id est, Christi genitricem dicere, nihil aliud sit quam communem Divinitatis et humanitatis rem confiteri. Et hoc Paulus docet, qui de una eademque persona clamans: Jesus, inquit, heri et hodie, idem ipse in saecula (Heb. xiii, 8).\n\nSoluta sit interim haec eis et ablata rationis speciem habens occasio, confitere utrumque, appellans sanctam Virginem pariter et: tu vero noli eam tantummodo appellare [Baluz. add. Hoc enim Apollinaris vociferatur], hoc enim Arius praedicat ac veneratur; sed adde vocem pariter catholicorum, quae et genitricis Dei praemuniat intellectum, Virgo sancta, secundum unitatem,, id est, hominis genitrix se cundum parem naturam. Sic et quae apostolorum sunt praedicabis; quae haereticorum prudenter effugies, et maxime quae sunt Samosateni Pauli, atque Photini, quae te scire confingens, prorsus ignoras.","english":"If therefore you too do not proclaim Mary according to the disease of Apollinaris, concealing the madness of Apollinaris under a catholic persona, confess with me the things that are said among all catholics; for this is proper to catholics, those who utter this word—that is, that they declare the holy Virgin to be the mother of a man.\n\nShe is the mother of God, not because of the bare Divinity in relation to the humanity, but because of the God Word united to the temple; but she is the mother of a man, that is, because of the temple which is naturally consubstantial with the holy Virgin, although also to call her—that is, the mother of Christ—is nothing other than to confess the common reality of Divinity and humanity. And Paul teaches this, who, crying out concerning one and the same person, says: Jesus, yesterday and today, the same himself forever (Heb. 13:8).\n\nFor the meantime let this occasion, which has the appearance of reason, be dissolved and taken away from them; confess both things, calling the holy Virgin both [mother of God and mother of a man]; but do not call her only [mother of a man]—for this is what Apollinaris shouts—for this is what Arius preaches and venerates; but add equally the word of the catholics, which also fortifies the understanding of the mother of God: holy Virgin, according to the unity, that is, mother of a man according to the equal nature. Thus you will also preach the things that are the apostles', and you will prudently flee the things that are the heretics', and especially those of Paul of Samosata and of Photinus, which, pretending to know, you utterly do not know.","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":133,"ref":"p133","source":"Nam Paulus atque Photinus nesciunt Filii Deitatem (vestram autem charitatem oportet haec nosse, ut ab his quae a praedictis dicuntur minime rapiamini); Paulus ac Photinus hominum imprudentissimi nesciunt Filii duas naturas, nesciunt Deum et hominem; dissentiunt autem sibi invicem, et a me Paulus quidem in eo quod dicit Christum hominem solum, et tunc solum initium habere, ex quo de Virgine natus est; ego autem tibi ideo hic resisto, ut Deitatem, quae aeterna est, carni contemporalem non audeas facere.\n\nQuid arguis eum tamquam Pauli doctrinam asserentem, qui quae sunt Pauli subvertit? Quis est hic qui Pauli asserit sensum? Qui dicit Deitatem contemporalem corpori? an qui dicit Deitatis in Filio essentiam ante saecula genitam esse de Patre?\n\nEt haec quidem pessima Samosateni Pauli est secta; Photini vero ad hanc distantia, non quia Deitatem Filio dicit, sed quia dicit Verbum aliud praeter quam quod ultimis temporibus venit, quia didi Verbum praeter templum.","english":"For Paul and Photinus do not know the Deity of the Son (but your charity ought to know these things, so that you may not be carried off by what is said by those aforementioned); Paul and Photinus, most foolish of men, do not know the two natures of the Son, they do not know God and man; but they disagree with each other, and Paul disagrees with me in that he says that Christ is man only, and then has a beginning only from the time when he was born of the Virgin; but I resist him here for this reason, that you may not dare to make the Deity, which is eternal, contemporary with the flesh.\n\nWhy do you accuse him as one asserting the doctrine of Paul, who subverts the things that are Paul's? Who is this who asserts the sense of Paul? He who says that the Deity is contemporary with the body? Or he who says that the essence of the Deity in the Son was begotten of the Father before the ages?\n\nAnd this indeed is the most wicked sect of Paul of Samosata; but the distance of Photinus from this is not because he says that the Deity belongs to the Son, but because he says that the Word is other than that which came in the last times, because he says that the Word is apart from the temple.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":134,"ref":"p134","source":"Oportet autem manifestius dicere ut liquidius et apertius uniuscujusque morbum sectae possitis agnoscere. Et Paulus et Photinus hanc inter se differentiam habent: unus eorum Christum solum hominem dicit, alter vero dicit quidem Verbum; non autem hoc confitetur esse Deum, sed dicit Verbum istud aliquando quidem Patris nomine vocitari, aliquando autem Verbi nomine nuncupari: unde etiam hoc appellat, hoc est, Verbum et e Pater, sive, si dici possit, Verbipater, accipiens ad hoc, pro sui sensus nequitia, illud bene in Evangelio dictum: In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum (Joan. i, 1). Vides, inquiens, quia Deum Verbum aliquando Deum, aliquando Verbum appellat, tamquam extentum atque collectum. Non autem introducit Deum Verbum hominem factum; nescit enim Christi Divinitatem, nescit divinam substantiam hominem suscepisse, nescit prorsus Verbi existentem ante saecula Deitatem.","english":"But it is necessary to speak more plainly, so that you may be able to recognize more clearly and openly the disease of each sect. Both Paul and Photinus have this difference between them: one of them says that Christ is only a man, while the other does indeed say that he is the Word; but he does not confess that this Word is God, but says that this Word is sometimes called by the name of the Father, and sometimes designated by the name of the Word: whence he also calls it this, that is, both Word and Father, or, if one may say so, Word-Father, applying to this purpose, in the wickedness of his own understanding, that well-spoken saying in the Gospel: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word (John 1:1). You see, he says, that he sometimes calls God the Word God, and sometimes Word, as though extended and gathered together. But he does not introduce God the Word as made man; for he does not know the Divinity of Christ, he does not know that the divine substance took up man, he does not know at all the Deity of the Word existing before the ages.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":135,"ref":"p135","source":"Hanc ergo Photinus adversus Paulum distantiam habet; istam vero Sabellius ad Photinum: quia Sabellius dicit ipsum Filium quem Patrem. et ipsum Patrem quem Filium, Photinus vero Photinus vero, sicut praedixi, Deitatem Verbi non habet; Sabellius autem dicit quidem Filium, non autem dicit substantiam Filii in proprietate consistere: unde et dicit, hoc est, ipsum Patrem esse quem Filium, propterea quod unam substantiam somniat. Sed ideo divina Scriptura contra eorum morbum praemuniens, exponit Verbi incarnationem: In principio, inquit, erat Verbum (Joan. i, 1), et caetera quae sequuntur; deinde descendens [Baluz. scandens] ait: Et Verbum caro factum est (Ibid. 14); ut ostendat substantiam Filii in proprietate sua existentem, praeter substantiam Patris. Denique cogitur Photinus arctatus Verbum dicere, non autem Verbum hoc Filium confitetur: haec Spiritus praevidens cordi scriptoris hujus se infudit, ut catholicorum animas muniat. Et quid ait? Verbum caro factum est.","english":"Photinus therefore has this difference from Paul, and Sabellius this difference from Photinus: because Sabellius says that the Son himself is the Father, and the Father himself is the Son; but Photinus, as I said before, does not hold the Deity of the Word; Sabellius, however, does indeed speak of the Son, but he does not say that the substance of the Son consists in its own proper character; hence he also says that the Father himself is the Son, for the reason that he dreams of a single substance. But for this reason divine Scripture, forearming against their disease, sets forth the incarnation of the Word: In the beginning, it says, was the Word, and the rest that follows; then, descending, it says: And the Word was made flesh; so that it may show that the substance of the Son exists in its own proper character, apart from the substance of the Father. Finally Photinus, pressed hard, is compelled to say “the Word,” but he does not confess that this Word is the Son: the Spirit, foreseeing these things, poured himself into the heart of this writer, so that he might fortify the souls of catholics. And what does he say? The Word was made flesh.","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":136,"ref":"p136","source":"Ecce agnovisti interim Verbi substantiam propriam, quomodo etiam agnoscamus Unigenitum, quia Pater non est secundum Photinum, nec, sed Deus Verbum et Filius:, inquit,, hoc est, in nostra habitavit natura. Et Verbum caro facium est, bona etiam locutionis ipsius designatio, ut undique curararum inanium sanitas auferatur: Et Verbum caro factum est, suscepit, inquit, nostram naturam. Deinde ui benignitas amplior et admiratio esset, a viliore parte naturae nominat humanitatis susceptionem, Verbum, dicens, caro factum est; non quod de sua essentia decesserit, propter hoc enim adjecit: Et habitavit in nobis; ut ostendat susceptae humanitatis inhabitationem, et Verbum, ait, caro facium est.\n\nQuoniam autem non demutationem demonstrat, dicendo, factum est, ex aliis verbis divinae Scripturae evangelistae vocem agnoscere possumus. Audiatur [Baluz. Videatur] apostolus Paulus de Domino vociferans: Christus nos redemit de maledicto legis, factus pro nobis maledictum (Gal. iii, 13). Certe si secundum mutabilitatem dictum esse intelligeretur, quod factum est, non poterat benedictionem donare quod maledictum est, non poterat maledictum a maledictione liberare. Quid ergo est factum est?","english":"Behold, you have now recognized the proper substance of the Word, and how we may also recognize the Only-begotten, that he is not the Father according to Photinus, nor [the Father], but God the Word and the Son: he says, that is, he dwelt in our nature. And \"the Word was made flesh\" is also a good indication of his own manner of speaking, so that on every side the healing of empty cares may be removed: \"And the Word was made flesh,\" he says, he took up our nature. Then, so that the kindness might be more abundant and the wonder greater, he names the assumption of humanity from the viler part of nature, saying, \"the Word was made flesh\"; not that he departed from his own essence, for on this account he added: \"And dwelt in us,\" so as to show the indwelling of the humanity that was taken up, and, he says, \"the Word was made flesh.\"\n\nBut since he does not demonstrate a change by saying \"was made,\" we can recognize the evangelist's voice from other words of the divine Scripture. Let the apostle Paul be heard crying out concerning the Lord: \"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us\" (Gal. 3:13). Surely if what was made were understood to have been said according to mutability, what is a curse could not bestow a blessing, a curse could not free from a curse. What then is \"was made\"?","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":137,"ref":"p137","source":"Nobis debitum maledictum in se ipse suscepit: nobis, inquit, peccatoribus crucis poena debebatur; nos manebat judiciaria condemnatio; nobis omnis poenae genus debitum erat; nos omnis excessus supplicii exspectabat: sed venit ipse, et eam quae nobis poena debebatur, innoxia carne suscepit, ut peccatum ipsum tamquam injuste irruens condemnaret, ad diabolum peccati patrem ista vociferans: Latrones tamquam pecati reos cruci tradidisti; me autem quam ob causam cum latronibus patibulo affixisti?\n\nHoc et Paulus demonstrans, peccati scilicet per Dominicum corpus condemnationem: Deus, inquit, Filium mittens in similitudinem carnis peccati (Rom. viii, 3). Bene quod in similitudinem carnis, quoniam corpus quod parebat peccatricis similitudinem carnis circumferebat. Deus Filium suum misit, nomen commune naturarum, hominis scilicet et Dei. Non dixit, Deus Deum Verbum mittens, ut accepta hac voce haereticus insiliat, et dicat: Vides quemadmodum alius mittit, alius autem mittitur. Filius, o Ariane, mittitur secundum humanitatis naturam; non autem mittitur secundum essentiam Deitatis, non enim est ullus locus a Dei potentia separatus.","english":"He himself took upon himself the curse that was owed by us. For us, he says, sinners, the penalty of the cross was owed; the condemnation of judgment awaited us; every kind of punishment was owed by us; every excess of torment awaited us. But he came himself, and took upon his innocent flesh the penalty that was owed by us, so that he might condemn sin itself as though it had rushed in unjustly, crying out to the devil, the father of sin: You handed over robbers to the cross as guilty of sin; but for what cause did you affix me to the gibbet with the robbers?\n\nPaul also demonstrates this—namely, the condemnation of sin through the Lord's body—saying: God, sending his Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin (Rom 8:3). Well does he say \"in the likeness of the flesh,\" since the body that was subject to it bore about the flesh in the likeness of a sinful woman. God sent his Son—a name common to the natures, that is, of man and of God. He did not say, \"God sending God the Word,\" so that the heretic might leap upon this word and say: You see how one sends and another is sent. The Son, O Arius, is sent according to the nature of his humanity; but he is not sent according to the essence of his Deity, for there is no place separated from the power of God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":138,"ref":"p138","source":"Inter plausus interea Photinus, cum arguitur, non debet effugere; de hoc enim disputans doctrinam Pauli apostoli interposui, ostendens [Baluz. attendens] quod Verbum sit Filius: Deus Filium suum misit in similitudinem camis peccati. Non dixit: Deus Deum Verbum misit; et certe Verbum Dei non erat a templi separatum natura. Statim ex imperitia in clamore insiliunt, dicentes: Quomodo alterum esse dixit Deum Verbum, et alterum Filium, qui missus est? Non dixi alterum Filium, aut alterum Deum Verbum; sed dixi Deum Verbum naturaliter et templum naturaliter alium filium conjunctione unum, sic et alibi dixi sub a principio.\n\nProdito in medium, et voces has argue; neli me sagittis aureis vulnerare; non sunt mihi sagittae aureae. Dico ego ad te beati Petri verbis: Aurum et argentum non est mihi; sed quod habeo, do tibi in nomine Domini nostri Jesu Christi Nazareni (Act. iii, 6). Disce hominem et Deum.","english":"Meanwhile amid the applause, Photinus, when he is accused, ought not to escape; for in discussing this matter I have interposed the doctrine of the apostle Paul, showing that the Word is the Son: God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. He did not say: God sent God the Word; and certainly the Word of God was not separated from the nature of the temple. At once, out of ignorance, they leap up with a shout, saying: How did he say that God the Word is one thing, and the Son who was sent is another? I did not say that the Son is another, or that God the Word is another; but I said that God the Word is naturally one thing, and the temple naturally another son, one by conjunction, and so I have also said elsewhere from the beginning.\n\nBring it out into the open, and refute these words; do not wound me with golden arrows; there are no golden arrows for me. I say to you in the words of blessed Peter: Silver and gold I have none; but what I have, I give to you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Learn the man and the God.","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":139,"ref":"p139","source":"Sed id quod dicebam, missionem a Patre nusquam divina Scriptura divino Verbo consignat, sed Filio, qui est Deus Verbum et homo; sic et alibi: Misit Deus Filium suum (Gal. iv, 4). Non dixit: Misit Deus Deum Verbum; ambo enim, si ita diceret, invenirentur locales et in parte. Si Divinitatis erat natura, qui mittebatur, et qui mittebat, localis et in parte est; qui enim mittitur, illuc mittitur ubi non est.\n\nMisit Deus Filium suum (Gal. iv, 4), quoniam inconveniens erat Deitatis naturam inter missos videri, Paulus senex omnium Dominum possidens Christum, verius ac liquidius de se ipso noscentem: Misit, inquit, Deus Filium suum facium ex muliere (Ibid.). Filius Dei natus est, Deus Verbum et homo: ergo quae peperit, propter unitatem dicatur genitrix Dei, id est,; propter naturam vero hominis, hominis genitrix, hoc est,; et quoniam utrumque una locutione dicere refugis, Deum et hominem dico, ne dixeris (ecce voce distinguor a te lautuna). Sed cum Dei genitricem, hoc est, vocas memineris et hominis genitricem, hoc est, vocare, ne dispensationem auferas, a quae est caput nostrae salutis.","english":"But what I was saying: divine Scripture nowhere assigns the sending to the Father as being of the divine Word, but of the Son, who is God the Word and man; so too elsewhere: God sent his Son (Gal. 4:4). He did not say: God sent God the Word; for if he had said so, both would be found to be local and in a place. If it was the nature of the Divinity that was being sent, and that was sending, then it is local and in a place; for what is sent is sent to that place where it is not.\n\nGod sent his Son (Gal. 4:4), since it was unfitting that the nature of the Deity be seen among those who are sent, Paul, an old man possessing Christ, the Lord of all, knowing more truly and clearly concerning himself: God, he says, sent his Son made of a woman (Ibid.). The Son of God was born, God the Word and man: therefore she who gave birth, on account of the unity, is called the mother of God, that is,; but on account of the nature of the man, the mother of a man, that is,; and because you shrink from saying both in one expression, I say God and man, do not say (behold, by my voice I am distinguished from you, lautuna). But when you call her the mother of God, that is, remember also to call her the mother of a man, that is, lest you remove the dispensation, which is the head of our salvation.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":140,"ref":"p140","source":"Misit Deus Filimn suum factum ex muliere, factum sub lege (Ibid.). Quis erat factus sub lege? Divinitatis natura? Quomodo? tamquam posset legis praecepta servare? Quomodo? tamquam posset ostendere sacerdotibus legis praevaricationem se non incurrisse? purificationes quoque legales suscipere habuit Divinitatis natura in templum ascendens hostias immolare? Et quis audebat Divinitatis naturam fuisse [Baluz. non fuisse] in legem praevaricatam sacerdotibus persuadere?\n\nSic Filius sub lege factus est, et non est factus: factus quidem est, humanitate suscepta; non est factus, majestate Deitatis; Deitas enim, quae legem promulgavit, cui alteri, tamquam legislatori, habuit, quae sunt legis offerre?\n\nMisit Deus Filium suum factum ex muliere, factum sub lege, ut eos qui sub lege erant redimeret, ut adoptionem filiorum reciperemus. Propter hoc eum qui non noverat peccatum pro nobis peccatum fecit (Ibid.). Sicut et illud: Factus est pro nobis maledictum (Gal. iii, 13); non benedictionem illam quae est Deitatis naturae in maledictum versam conscriptor nobis exposuit; sed quia suscepit in se naturae nostrae peccatum, improbam in eum poenam irruisse significavit: sic et quod pro nobis peccatum fecit, videri eum fecit conspectibus hominum, reis aequalia sustinere, et aequaliter cum latronibus crucifigi; sed non pro se. Sed pro quibus, o Paule?","english":"God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law (Ibid.). Who was it that was made under the law? The nature of the Godhead? How so? As though it could keep the precepts of the law? How so? As though it could show to the priests of the law that it had not incurred the transgression of the law? Was the nature of the Godhead, ascending into the temple, to undertake the legal purifications and to offer sacrifices? And who would dare to persuade the priests that the nature of the Godhead had been [Baluzius: had not been] in transgression of the law?\n\nThus the Son was made under the law, and was not made: he was made, indeed, by taking on humanity; he was not made, by the majesty of the Godhead; for the Godhead, which promulgated the law, to what other, as to a lawgiver, did it have to offer the things that are of the law?\n\nGod sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. For this reason he made him who knew no sin to be sin for us (Ibid.). As also that: He was made a curse for us (Gal. 3:13); the writer did not set before us that blessing which is of the nature of the Godhead as turned into a curse; but because he took upon himself the sin of our nature, he signified that the unjust penalty rushed upon him: so too, that he made him to be sin for us, he made him to appear in the sight of men as enduring things equal to the guilty, and to be crucified equally with robbers; but not for himself. But for whom, O Paul?","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":141,"ref":"p141","source":"Eum qui non noverat peccatum pro nobis peccatum fecit?\n\nSed id quaeritur, unde Verbum Filius. Ut Photinum maxime convincamus. Verbum quidem confitentem, non autem dicentem Deum Verbum Filium: Verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis (Joan. i, 14). Vide quomodo et susceptionem hominis demonstrat, cum ait: Et habitavit in nobis, et vidimus gloriam ejus. Cujus? Verbi sine dubio: Gloriam tamquam Umgeniti a Patre. Vides quod non alius quidem Unigenitus, alius vero a Patre: ergo Dei Verbum Filius. Quomodo igitur, Photine, subvertis substantiam Divinitatis [Baluz. deitatis]?\n\nSed si respicimus ad aviditatem studii vestri, hic nos sol ipse deficiet, et ad alteram doctrinam tendere forsitan non valebimus. Haec igitur apud vos conservate, scit enim diabolus hominibus et de bonis nociva moliri. Bonae quidem de Deo disputationes; vitae enim in se effundunt unguentum, sed disputationes generant contentiones, contentiones iracundiam movent, iracundia provocat manus, manus provocatae moventur ad vulnera, vulnera vero, absit experientia ab ipso sermone, quid faciant, et quem habeant iinem? Namque aliquoties ultimam generant mortem.","english":"Did he who knew no sin become sin for us?\n\nBut the question is raised from what source the Word is the Son. This is chiefly to refute Photinus. He confesses indeed that he is the Word, but does not say that God the Word is the Son: The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (John 1:14). See how he also demonstrates the assumption of a man, when he says: And dwelt among us, and we saw his glory. Whose glory? Of the Word, without doubt: Glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father. You see that it is not one who is the Only-begotten and another who is from the Father; therefore the Word of God is the Son. How then, Photinus, do you overthrow the substance of the Divinity?\n\nBut if we have regard to the eagerness of your zeal, here the sun itself will fail us, and perhaps we shall not be able to press on to another doctrine. Keep these things therefore among yourselves, for the devil knows how to contrive harmful things for men even from good things. Good indeed are disputations about God; for they pour out the ointment of life upon themselves, but disputations generate contentions, contentions stir up anger, anger provokes hands, hands once provoked are moved to wounds, and wounds—may the experience be far from this very discourse—what do they do, and what end do they have? For sometimes they generate final death.","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":142,"ref":"p142","source":"Quod, AEgyptiis quidem curantibus, in nullo continget; nullus enim locus eis insolentiae datur in civitate quae regnat; una namque illis cura est, totum ubique turbare. Sed nos aliis contra eos armis certemus, Pauli videlicet mandata sumentes: Oportet, inquit, episcopum irreprehensibilem esse, unius uxoris virum, sobrium, pudicum, decentem, ornatum, docibilem, amplectentem eum qui secundum doctrinam est, fidelem sermonem, ut potens sit exhortari in doctrina sana, et eos qui contradicunt arguere (i Tim. iii, 2); non dixit eosqui contradicunt potens sit vulnerare; sed, ut potens sit eos qui contradicunt redarguere; et sanam defendere atque amplecti doctrinam. Nam quid ergo si ille irritaverit, inquies? Oportet mansuetudine docere contradicentes: Nequando det illis Deus recognoscere, et resipiscant de diaboli laqueis, a quo captivi tenentur, secundum ejus voluntatem (II Tim. ii, 26).","english":"Which, indeed, with the Egyptians taking care, will come to pass in nothing; for no place is given to their insolence in the city that reigns; for their one care is to disturb everything everywhere. But let us strive against them with other arms, namely taking up the mandates of Paul: A bishop, he says, must be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, modest, decent, orderly, apt to teach, holding fast to the faithful word which is according to doctrine, that he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict (1 Tim. 3:2); he did not say that he should be able to wound those who contradict, but that he should be able to refute those who contradict, and to defend and hold fast sound doctrine. For what then, you will say, if that man has provoked? One must teach those who contradict with gentleness: Lest at any time God grant them to recognize, and they recover from the snares of the devil, by whom they are held captive according to his will (2 Tim. 2:26).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":143,"ref":"p143","source":"Nemo perturbationes perturbationibus sedat; nullus medicus vulnera vulneribus sanat. Propter pacem a tyrannidis temeritatem tolero; contra calcitrantem non calcitro; calcitrabatur Christus aliquando, sed ipse non calcitrabat; sed quid ad calcitrantem dicebat: Durum est contra stimulum calcitrare (Act. v, 5)?\n\nHaec igitur apud nosmetipsos memoriter, ut dixi, servemus; omnem haeresim aversati odio habeamus eum Paulo Samosateno Photinum; Arium cum Apollinari detestemur, et ad omnem prorsus seetam pravae fidei implacabiles, fidemque Ecclesiae amplectentes, ad membra propria non conturbemur. Et qui dicunt tantum, tametsi desit eis quod postea forte suscipient, et circa rectam fidem claudicent; verumtamen membra sunt Ecclesiae. Et qui dicunt tantum hominis genitrix, id est,, et isti sunt membra Ecclesiae, sed spiritalis inopes medicinae. Non ergo in fratres fraternitas irruat: Frater fratrem adjuvans exaltabitur, sicut civitas firma (Prov. xviii, 9). Et iterum Paulus: Fratres, inquit, etsi praeoccupatus fuerit quis in aliquo delicto, vos qui spirituales estis, instruite hujusmodi in spiritu mansuetudinis (Gal. vi, 1). Puta qui dicit, si et dicat, quod nomen sit duarum significatio naturarum. Et oportet ad aedificationem Ecclesiae omnia facere.","english":"No one calms disturbances by disturbances; no physician heals wounds by wounds. For the sake of peace I endure the rashness of tyranny; I do not kick against the one who kicks; Christ was once kicked against, but he himself did not kick back; but what did he say to the one who kicked? It is hard for you to kick against the goad (Acts 5:5)?\n\nLet us therefore keep these things in memory among ourselves, as I have said; let us turn away from every heresy and hate it; let us detest Photinus along with Paul of Samosata, Arius with Apollinaris, and let us be implacable toward every sect of depraved faith, and embracing the faith of the Church, let us not be disturbed against our own members. And those who say only this, even if there is lacking in them what perhaps they will later receive, and they limp concerning the right faith; nevertheless they are members of the Church. And those who say only that she is the mother of a man, that is, and these too are members of the Church, but destitute of spiritual medicine. Therefore let not brotherhood rush against brothers: A brother helped by his brother shall be exalted, like a strong city (Prov 18:9). And again Paul says: Brothers, even if someone has been overtaken in some fault, you who are spiritual, instruct such a one in a spirit of gentleness (Gal 6:1). Consider the one who says, if he also says, that the name is the signification of two natures. And it is necessary to do all things for the edification of the Church.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":144,"ref":"p144","source":"Est quidem, ut dixi, vox ista, id est,, significativa duarum naturarum, et Deitatis, et humanitatis: quando autem cum simplicioribus agitur, opus est voce manifestiore. Quid impedit intellectum dici, et et sicut qui dicit, Christus, confitetur quia Deus et homo sit: sic et et si dicas, utrumque confessus es.\n\nDeponamus igitur, quaeso, utrinque adversus membra nostra aciem contentionis; et si quisquam impudentior fuerit, ignoscamus; et si quislibet subtilius dicat, venia similiter dignus habeatur: unum tamen prospicientes, ne creaturam Verbum Deum quispiam dicat; ne humanitatem, quae suscepta est, imperfectam. Si quis dicat haec, justa adversus hunc ira suscipiatur; si vero in his quae tu confiteris distantiam affert, quid non ad eum dicis: Si locutio fratrem meum offendit, non eam proferam in aeternum. Quod si [Baluz. add. ego] alicui ad pacis consilium minus Idoneus videor, audite ad vos Paulum clamantem: Quae didicistis, et audistis, et accepistis, et vidistis in me, haec agite, et Deus pacis erit vobiscum (Philipp. iv, 9).","english":"This expression, as I said, is indeed a word—that is, [it is]—signifying the two natures, both of Divinity and of humanity; but when one deals with the simpler folk, a clearer expression is needed. What prevents one from saying it and understanding it, and just as one who says \"Christ\" confesses that he is God and man, so too if you say it, you have confessed both.\n\nLet us therefore, I ask, lay aside on both sides the edge of contention against our own members; and if anyone has been more shameless, let us forgive him; and if anyone speaks too subtly, let him likewise be deemed worthy of pardon: looking to one thing only, that no one call the Word God a creature, and that no one call the humanity that was assumed imperfect. If anyone says these things, let a just anger be roused against him; but if he introduces a distinction in those things which you yourself confess, why do you not say to him: \"If my manner of speaking offends my brother, I will not utter it forever.\" But if I seem to anyone less suitable for the counsel of peace, hear Paul crying out to you: \"What you have learned and heard and received and seen in me, do these things, and the God of peace will be with you\" (Philippians 4:9).","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":145,"ref":"p145","source":"SERMO XIII.\n\nDie altera, id est, Dominica dictus.\n\nAliis in terris sita est aliarum utilitas rerum, et quibusdam quidem in militia degere, magna videtur utilitas; quibusdam vero in foro rerum venalium oonvenit mercatura; item aliis optabile est arti maritimae studium commodare; nonnullis alterius cujuslibet terrestris conversationis inire negotium: pietatis autem scientia in commune omnibus hominibus, regibus scilicet et sacerdotibus, popularibus ac potentibus, utilis ac necessaria est.\n\nQuae est autem scientia pietatis? Si quis velit compendio discere; a parco enim, et mihi qui fessus sum, et vobis qui constipatione laboratis. Si quis ergo, ut dicebam, velit compendio discere; scientia pietatis est, de consubstantivae Trinitatis Divinitate rectam inire rationem, et fateri divinam naturam corporatum hominem assumpsisse. De his, quae frequenter dicta sunt, tamquam dicta non sint, urgetis, et circa exactionem vehementer insistitis: quoniam igitur necesse est violentiae vestrae succumbere, quae piam [Baluz. impiam] in nobis possidet tyrannidem, iterum apud vos eadem verba repetemus. Servate igitur compendio hanc scientiam pietatis.","english":"SERMON XIII.\n\nSpoken on the second day, that is, on Sunday.\n\nThe usefulness of other things is situated in other lands, and to some indeed to spend their time in military service seems a great usefulness; to some, however, trade in the marketplace of goods for sale is fitting; likewise to others it is desirable to devote their study to the maritime art; to not a few, to enter into the business of any other earthly occupation whatever. But the knowledge of godliness is useful and necessary in common for all men—for kings, that is, and priests, for common folk and the powerful alike.\n\nBut what is the knowledge of godliness? If anyone wishes to learn it in brief—for indeed from a sparing speaker, both for me who am weary and for you who labor under constipation. If anyone, then, as I was saying, wishes to learn it in brief: the knowledge of godliness is to enter into a right understanding of the Divinity of the consubstantial Trinity, and to confess that the divine nature assumed a man with a body. Concerning these things which have been said frequently, as though they had not been said, you press me, and you insist vehemently on exacting them. Since, therefore, it is necessary to succumb to your violence, which holds a pious tyranny over us, we shall again repeat the same words before you. Keep, therefore, this knowledge of godliness in brief.","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":146,"ref":"p146","source":"Quae est autem ista, nisi [Baluz, om. nisi ], et consubstantivae divinae Trinitatis, et assumentis hominem divinae naturae, et in virgineo utero camis susceptae, perfectique hominis assumpti a Divinitate; dehinc perfectae Divinitatis, et perfectae humanitatis in unum Filium conjunctarum excellentior contemplatio, duarum jus naturarum in umam auctoritatem ratione divina conveniens.\n\nHinc vobis saepe diximus, quomodo Christus, nominis utriusque sit appellatio significativa, id est, humanitatis et divinae naturae. Hinc si quis dicat Christum tantummodo expresse, sciat in isto nomine utramque significari et connuncupari naturam.\n\nHinc beatus Matthaeus Evangeliorum conscriptor, cum ad generationis venisset arcanum, a neutra natura generationis fecit narrationem, sed magis a Christi vocabulo; oportet autem expresse dicere, ut omnibus ad perspiciendum fiat facilior intellectus: Liber, inquit, generationis Jesu Christi (Matth. i, 1). Non dixit: Liber generationis Dei Verbi; neque liber generationis hominis. Si enim dixisset, liber generationis hominis, Christum nobis solum hominem demonstraret. Item si diceret, Liber generationis Dei Verbi, solam nobis sine humanitate introduceret Deitatem. In Christi ergo appellatione complectitur utramque naturam, ut neutra sine altera possit intelligi.","english":"What is this contemplation, then, if not the more excellent contemplation of the consubstantial divine Trinity, and of the divine nature that assumed a man, and of the flesh conceived in the virgin's womb, and of the perfect man assumed by the Godhead; and thereafter of perfect Divinity and perfect humanity joined together in one Son, the union of the two natures into one authority coming together by divine reason.\n\nHence we have often told you how Christ is a name signifying both, that is, both humanity and the divine nature. Hence if anyone says \"Christ\" only, let him know that in this name both natures are signified and named together.\n\nHence the blessed Matthew, writer of the Gospels, when he came to the mystery of the generation, made his account of the generation from neither nature, but rather from the name of Christ; for one ought to speak expressly, so that the understanding may become easier for all to perceive: The book, he says, of the generation of Jesus Christ (Matt. 1:1). He did not say, The book of the generation of God the Word; nor the book of the generation of a man. For if he had said, the book of the generation of a man, he would show us Christ as only a man. Likewise if he had said, The book of the generation of God the Word, he would introduce to us the Godhead alone, without humanity. In the name of Christ, therefore, he embraces both natures, so that neither can be understood without the other.","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":147,"ref":"p147","source":"Hinc et sanctae Virgini, eo quod eam Christi genitricem dicimus, nomen geminae appellationis convenienter aptamus, id est,, quod est genitrix Dei, e et, id est, hominis genitrix.\n\nQuoniam autem oportet, propter eos qui lucidiorem requirunt intellectum, maxime cum sint Ecclesiae filii, uti manifestiore locutione, propterea et modo eadem definitione qua prius breviter de illa beata Maria semper virgine praedicabam, etiam nunc evidentiore sermone summa voce proclamo, quoniam sancta Virgo, et Dei est, et hominis genitrix, id est et: genitrix quidem Dei, propterea quod templum, quod in ea creatum est a Spiritu sancto, unitum est Divinitati; hominis vero genitrix, propter susceptas a Divinitatis natura nostrae naturae primitias.\n\nHaec sunt in compendio dogmata pietatis. Haec per omnia retinentes memoriter servate, ubique hoereticorum pravam gloriam declinantes. Non quomodo apud illos detrita locutio est, ita putandum est etiam Ecclesiam dicere, quia neque cum illi Filium dicunt, et Ecclesia Filium confitetur, Filii apud utrosque par et similis intellectus est; sed apud illos quidem Filii nudum vocabulum est, non habens Patri consubstantivum aliquid; apud nos vero Filii apellatio cum causa vel re vel opere est. Sic apud illos iterum omnium Dominus Christus Deus nominatur, nominatur apud nos quoque; sed apud illos creatus, apud nos vero cum eo qui genuit increatus.","english":"Hence also to the holy Virgin, because we call her the mother of Christ, we fittingly apply a name of twofold designation, that is, Theotokos, which means mother of God, and Anthropotokos, that is, mother of man.\n\nBut since it is necessary, for the sake of those who require a clearer understanding, especially since they are children of the Church, to use more manifest language, therefore even now, with the same definition by which I previously preached briefly concerning that blessed Mary ever virgin, I now also proclaim with clearer speech and with the greatest voice, that the holy Virgin is both mother of God and mother of man, that is, both Theotokos and Anthropotokos: mother of God indeed, because the temple that was created in her by the Holy Spirit has been united to the Divinity; but mother of man, because of the firstfruits of our nature received by the nature of the Divinity.\n\nThese are, in summary, the doctrines of piety. Keeping these in mind in all things, preserve them in memory, everywhere avoiding the depraved glory of the heretics. For it must not be supposed that the Church speaks in the same way as their worn-out expression is used among them, because neither when they say \"Son\" and the Church confesses \"Son\" is the understanding of \"Son\" equal and similar among both; but among them \"Son\" is a bare word, having nothing consubstantial with the Father; among us, however, the designation \"Son\" is with cause, or reality, or work. So again among them the Lord of all, Christ, is named God, and He is named God among us also; but among them as created, among us however as uncreated with Him who begot Him.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":148,"ref":"p148","source":"Non igitur ex una eademque appellatione in unum deducamur cum haereticis intellectum; sed confiteamur simul humanitatem et Divinitatem in una generatione Filii esse conjunctam; neque Deitate in carnem decidente, immutabilis est enim Divinitas, et hoc Deus Judaeis manifestans dicebat: Ego sum, ego sum, et non sum mutatus (Mal. iii, 5); neque per in carnationem carne commutata; non enim pudet Deum naturae quam suscepit, non pudet possidere sibimet conregnantem; nam si puderet, non eam susciperet. Susceptam autem, propter humani generis dilectionem, habet naturam nostram Divinitatis inspoliabile vestimentum. Horum memoriam per omnia possidete in Christo, cui est gloria in saecula saeculorum.","english":"Therefore let us not be led by one and the same designation into a single understanding with the heretics; but let us confess that both the humanity and the Divinity are conjoined in the one generation of the Son; neither let the Divinity fall down into flesh—for the Divinity is unchangeable, and God, making this manifest to the Jews, said: I am, I am, and I am not changed; nor let the flesh be changed through the incarnation; for God is not ashamed of the nature which He took up, He is not ashamed to possess as co-king with Himself that which He took up; for if He were ashamed, He would not have taken it up. But having taken it up, out of love for the human race, He holds our nature as the inviolable garment of the Divinity. Keep the remembrance of these things in all things in Christ, to whom is glory for ever and ever.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]}]}