Hæret. Sed misericordia pertulit, qui propria natura non est passus; quare, circa hoc, ct injuriis succubuit secundum quod passus cst: quomodo igitur dicitis cum Leone, quia hoc quidem coruscat miraculis, illud vero succumbit injuriis.
Rust. Et sanctissimus Leo, de propria ipsius Dci Verbi natura, inquit, uia coruscat miraculis; de carne vero, quod reliquum est; et tu nunc confessus es quia Deus Verbum propria natura non per ulit; rur igitur eadem confiteris pariter et accusas' Non enim dixit: Iste quidem coruscat miraculis, ille vero succumbit injuriis, ut suspicionem, daret, quasi da duabus personis loqueretur; sed hoc quidem tanquam de duahus naturis: aliud enim et aliud ea ex quibus Salvator, siquidem non est idem intemporale ei quod sub tempore est.
Hæret. Non solum de propria Dei Verbi natura, sed ct de ipso Verbo ait, et hoc frequenter, quia non fierit passus; verumtamen et dicere quia Verbi natura non passa esi, hoc idem est dicere quod Verbum minime passum sit: nihilo namque impassibilior est, ut ita dixerim, Verbi natura ab eo cujus natura est. Eadem igitur natura, impassibilis manens, nostri miseratione passa est.
Heretic: But the mercy endured, he who by his own nature did not suffer; therefore, in this respect, he also succumbed to injuries insofar as he suffered. How then do you say with Leo that the one shines forth with miracles, but the other succumbs to injuries?
Rusticus: The most holy Leo also speaks of the very nature of God the Word himself when he says that it shines forth with miracles; but of the flesh, what remains; and you have now confessed that God the Word did not suffer by his own nature. Therefore do you now both confess and accuse the same things? For he did not say, "The one shines forth with miracles, but the other succumbs to injuries," so as to give the suspicion that he was speaking of two persons; but this indeed as of two natures: for one thing and another are those from which the Savior consists, since indeed the timeless is not the same as that which is under time.
Heretic: Not only concerning the proper nature of God the Word, but also concerning the Word himself he says, and this frequently, that he did not suffer; yet to say that the nature of the Word did not suffer is the same as to say that the Word did not suffer at all: for the nature of the Word is no more impassible, so to speak, than he whose nature it is. Therefore the same nature, remaining impassible, suffered out of compassion for us.
Rust. In Dci bonitate contrarium nihil est, qn2re miserationis [forte miseratio] impassibilitatem ejus non solvit. Si vero Deus Verbum sempiteme impassibi is, et nunquam perpessus, nuper propter misericordiam, qualiter vos dicitis, pertulit; majus ct infinite maius damnificatus est quam lucratus. Lucratus enim est nos, creaturam suam, ct propriæ amisit impassibilitatem substantiae? Vos igitur valde erratis, sic aliquid laudantes in Deo, ut rursus aliquid blasphematis. Non indiget Deus laude vestra, ut subdole ejus misericordiam exaltetis ad impassibilitatis ejus præjudicium; nos competenter superexaltamus sericordiam ejus, salva inconvertibilitate pjus. Eos enim qui dicunt vertibilem aut mutabilem Filium Dei, anathematizat catholica et apostolica Ecclesia, sicut synodus Nicaena definivit. Quinimo non inconvertibilitatis solum, sed et potentiæ ejus, quod absit, additio est, si aliter crealuram suam salvare non potuit, nisi suam proprietatem Creator amitteret; aut consilii vituperatio, si potuit quidem et hoc non amittere, et illud salvare; sed, dum posset quod est melius, elegit quod deterius eral.
Rusticus: In God's goodness there is nothing contrary, so mercy does not dissolve his impassibility. But if God the Word was always impassible and never suffered, and recently, because of mercy, as you say, he endured suffering, then he has been harmed more, and infinitely more, than he has gained. For he gained us, his creation, and lost the impassibility of his own substance? You therefore greatly err, praising something in God in such a way that you again blaspheme something. God does not need your praise, so that you might subtly exalt his mercy to the prejudice of his impassibility; we duly exalt his mercy beyond measure, while his inconvertibility remains intact. For those who say that the Son of God is convertible or mutable, the catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes, as the Council of Nicaea defined. Indeed, it would be, God forbid, an addition not only to his inconvertibility but also to his power, if the Creator could not save his creation in any other way than by losing his own property; or else a reproach to his counsel, if he could indeed both not lose this and save that, but, when he could do what is better, chose what was worse.
Sic ergo illa quæ nohis prosunt, laudemus in Deo, ut ea quæ digna sunt non feremur: hoc vero ex Manichæorum cognatione descendit ad vos: ipsorum natuque est passibibilem cogitare Deum, et omnem bonam naturam esse solius boni Dei; et quia præce lens [forte prævidens] Deus futurum ut periclitaretur proprium regnum, si princeps tenebrarum prior iujiceret ci prælium, propter hoc misit de substantia sua, commiscendo cum illa substantia nequam, ut regnum proprium præ.. muinret; et ex bonarum malarumque potestatum mixtione mundum factum esse blasphemant. Sic et vos dicitis quod non aliter nos salvaverit Deus, nisi pro nobis ipse passibilis factus.
Hæret. Memini te dixisse quod illa humanitas Deo comparata sit magis ut accidens quam subjecta substantia: quomodo igitur jam dux sint Christi substantiæ, dum quando accidens additamentum non fiat substantiæ, sed quamitatis?
Therefore let us praise in God those things that benefit us, so that we may not endure the things that are unworthy of him. But this has descended to you from kinship with the Manichaeans; for it is their nature to think that God is passible, and that every good nature belongs to the good God alone; and because God, foreseeing that his own kingdom would be endangered if the prince of darkness first joined battle against him, for this reason sent from his own substance, mingling it with that wicked substance, so that he might fortify his own kingdom; and they blasphemously claim that the world was made from a mixture of good and evil powers. So you too say that God saved us in no other way than by himself becoming passible for us.
Here he sticks. I remember you said that that humanity, compared to God, is more like an accident than an underlying substance. How then are there now two substances of Christ, when an accident does not become an addition to substance, but of quantity?
Rust. Huc non de substantia, sed de subsistentia dixi. Ad divinam vero substantiam sive naturam caro collata nihilominus substantia et natura est. Demonstratum est enim quia et Patres qui dicunt, duæ naturæ Deus et Aonio, et utramque naturam et ambas, non dicerent hac, nisi eas ad invicem compararent. Et vos ipsi vero, id in fadlis ex duabus substantiis et naturis; et insuper ex duabus quoque subsistentiis Christum esse dicentes. Quod autem culpare Leonem sanctissimum voluisti dicentem: Hoc quidem illud, illud vero aliud, sus' ipe de Ephesina synodo lectonem quam superaddiderunt jam, postquam venerunt, vicarii sanctissimi Cœlestini papæ Romani: ex iis demon trantes quomodo debeant sanctorum Patrum symbolum declarari ex testimonio sanctæ memoriæ AUlici: « Et hæc omnia suscipit, non natura Deitatis, sed assumptione carnis: illa qui dem in propriæ impa sibilitatis inviolabilitatibus permanens, ila vero omnia patiens sustinensque. » Ecce: illa quidem de div;na natura loquens ait; illa vero de corpore inquit assumpto, quo pertulit Filius Dei, sicut et idem Dominus inquit: Nolite timere eos qui occidunt corpus, animam vcro non possunt occidere (Matth. x, 28). Et rursus: Spiritus quidem promptus, caro autem infirma (Matth. XXVI, 41).
Rusticus: I said this not of substance but of subsistence. But compared to the divine substance or nature, the flesh is nonetheless a substance and a nature. For it has been demonstrated that even the Fathers who say "two natures, God and the man," and "each nature" and "both natures," would not say this unless they were comparing them to one another. And you yourselves indeed say this in your writings: that Christ is from two substances and natures, and moreover from two subsistences also. But as for your wish to censure the most holy Leo when he says, "This indeed is that, but that is another," hear the reading from the Council of Ephesus which the vicars of the most holy Celestine, pope of Rome, added after they had come—demonstrating from these things how the symbol of the holy Fathers ought to be expounded from the testimony of Aulicus of holy memory: "And all these things he receives, not by the nature of the Godhead, but by the assumption of the flesh: that [nature] indeed remaining in the inviolabilities of its own impassibility, but that [flesh] suffering and enduring all things." Behold: speaking of the divine nature he says "that," but of the assumed body he says "that," through which the Son of God suffered, just as the same Lord also said: "Do not fear those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul" (Matthew 10:28). And again: "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak" (Matthew 26:41).
Hæret. Quid ad illud dicere poteris, quia major unitio Dei ad humanitatem facta est, quam sit carnis ad animam in homine quocunque communi? Per mortem siquidem anima separatur a corpore: Deus vero ab anima illa et illo incontaminato corpore inseparabilis est in perpetuum: si igitur ex minore unitione ur.a natura fit, multo amplius ex majore, una vero hominis est natura, muto amplius igitur divinitatis et humanitatis una natura est.
Rust. Ante demonstrationem habes obstupescere? admirando enim ego tecum confiteor, quia et major unitio est in Domino Christo, et quæ multo majus tffecit; et unam tamen naturam minime fecit: tanto enim unitio Deitatis et humanitatis quæ in Domino Christo facta est, et ipse eOectus unitionis, illam qua: fit in homine superexcellit, quanto longius a se distantia univit: multum namque, et quantum dici non potest, superat ut Deitatis et humanitatis vel solum una possit esse persona, quam ut ex anima et carlo non solum una persona sit, sed et fiat una qu que natura. Deus enim infinite, et quantum dici non potest, superat creaturam; et tautum quod distat, vicit unitio ineffabilis in unam personam dicens [Sic], tam longe naturæ terminis seu rationibus separatæ. Anima vero, parvum quid carnem excellit; conserva enim sum utraque et creaturæ, et ex nihilo factae a Creatore.
He clings to it. What can you say to this, that the union of God with humanity is greater than that of flesh with soul in any ordinary man? For by death the soul is separated from the body; but God is inseparable from that soul and that undefiled body forever. If, therefore, from a lesser union one nature is made, much more from a greater; but the nature of man is one, therefore much more is the nature of divinity and humanity one.
Rusticus: Do you have to be stunned before the demonstration? For in my wonder I confess with you that there is both a greater union in the Lord Christ, and one that accomplished much more; and yet it by no means made one nature. For the union of Deity and humanity that was made in the Lord Christ, and the effect of that union itself, surpasses that which is made in man by as much as it united things farther distant from each other. For it is much, and beyond what can be said, greater that the Deity and humanity should be only one person, than that from soul and flesh there should be not only one person but also one nature. For God infinitely, and beyond what can be said, surpasses creation; and the ineffable union overcame so great a distance, bringing into one person things separated by the boundaries or principles of nature so far apart. But the soul excels the flesh by a little; for both are preserved as belonging to creation, and made from nothing by the Creator.
Si vero Dei virtus infinita non esset, minime tanta ex uihilo constare fecisset, ab eo enim quod nullatenus est distant omnia infinite. Si igitur Dei quidem virtus infinita est, nostræ autem substantiæ finita, magna illa et supereffulgens unitio est, quae valuit imer illa tantum discrepantia unam personam lacere. Sicut enim superexcellit virtus ejus qui montem suspendit ad calum, et illi conjungit, si possit vel contingat id fieri, ultra illius qui glebam monti conjungit: sic unitio quæ in Christo est facta, eam quæ per singula in communibus hominibus fit. Verumtamen et illud iuquio: quia non necesse est a majore unitione majus aliquid effici; alioquin quanto am plius ali ua uniuntur, tanto potentiore vi uniuntur i sed ea quæ confunduntur, ultra quae minime confunduntur amplius uniuntur, ut humentia. Rursus anima quia minime confunditur corpori, non tamen major est eorum quæ confunduntur unitio unitione rationalium animarum ad propria corpora; hanc enim solus facit Deus, illæ vero subjacent etiam nobis. Super hæc vero indefinite assumpta est major. Responsio vero sufficiet, etsi definite dicatur, veluti si quis dicat a inopinabilior: mirabilius esi enim sic fieri unam personam et unam naturam, quam illo modo unam personam unamque naturam.
But if the power of God were not infinite, he could by no means have made such great things consist out of nothing; for all things are infinitely distant from that which in no way exists. If, then, the power of God is infinite, but our substance is finite, that great and supereffulgent union is great, which was able to make one person amid such great discrepancy. For just as the power of him who suspends a mountain to the sky and joins it to it—if this could or should happen—excels beyond that of him who joins a clod of earth to a mountain, so the union that was made in Christ excels that which takes place individually in ordinary men. Yet I also say this: that it is not necessary that something greater be effected by a greater union; otherwise, the more things are united, the more they are united by a more powerful force; but those things that are confounded are united more than those that are not confounded at all, as moist things are. Again, because the soul is not confounded with the body, the union of things that are confounded is not thereby greater than the union of rational souls with their own bodies; for God alone makes this union, whereas those things are subject even to us. Beyond these, the assumed union is indefinitely greater. But the answer will suffice even if it is stated definitely, as if someone should say it is more unexpected: for it is more wonderful that one person and one nature should come to be in this way than that one person and one nature should come to be in that way.
Hæret. Dic mihi breviter: in Christo humana natura secundum substantiam Filius Dei est, an non? et Deus Verbum secundum naturam Filius Dei Genitricis, an non? Si quidem secundum naturam, daret quia amlo una natura est; si vero non secundum naturam. igitur et solute per ytaliam, et duo filii erunt: dum Deus Verbum quidem secundum naturam Filius Patris sit, et se undum gratiam matris; homo vcro secundum naturam quidem ma Iris, at vero per gratiam Pallis: et sicut neque hic illius, ita neque iste illius.
Rust. Si duo sola essent quæ præponeres, ncc sic quidem tibi simpliciter quod prosecutus es dedeam; veruntamen hoc dico, quia secundum personam et subsistentiam Filius Dei, Deus Verbum, Dei Genitricis est Filius; et sim littr (quinimo quod dicere idem est). quia servi forma secundum subsistentiam et non secundum substantiam et naturam Filius Dei est. Et sicut si esset, ut ante dixisti, una natura, sic nunc una subsistentia, ei unus ac solus est Filius.
Heretic. Tell me briefly: is the human nature in Christ the Son of God according to substance, or not? And is God the Word the Son of the Mother of God according to nature, or not? If indeed according to nature, it would follow that there is one nature; but if not according to nature, then both are dissolved, and there will be two sons: while God the Word is indeed the Son of the Father according to nature, and of the mother according to grace; but the man is the son of the mother according to nature, yet of the Father according to grace; and just as the one is not the other's, so neither is the other the one's.
Rusticus. If there were only two points that you were setting before me, not even so would I grant you without qualification what you have argued; nevertheless I say this, that according to person and subsistence, the Son of God, God the Word, is the Son of the Mother of God; and likewise (indeed, to say the same thing) that in the form of a servant he is the Son of God according to subsistence, and not according to substance and nature. And just as, as you said before, there was one nature, so now there is one subsistence, and he is one and the only Son.
Hæret. Quoniam longus sermo nobis non solum lah. nem et defectum, sed et fastidium injecit, quod intellectus valde confundit, si videtur, reliquam collocutionem in alinm diem, si Dco dictum placueril, reservemus. Verumtamen et hæc in nostris mentibus revolvamus: multa namq e apud semetipsum silentium ten ntis discussio, et mcmoriam, et intellectumł, ct doctrinam, p. ofectumque præstabit.
Rust. Ne, quæso, protrahas tempus convertendi al Deum: incertus est eni finis humanus; et præcipue dibus nostris, quando implacabilis ubique bacchatur interitus, et ignis gehennæ intransmeabilis est. Ne amicitias hominum verearis, ut non inimicitias incurras coelestium potestatum; ne affinium multitudinem, ut annumereris omnibus a sæculo sanctis; ne banc vestem, ut indnas Christum; ne hos temporalium flores, ut fulgeas sicut sol in regno Dei; non hujus mundi div tias, ut vitam hacreditate capias infinitam in perpetuo et inenarrabili gaudio; non sæculi frutiones, et erit tua esca Spiritus sancti manna; non transitorias dignitates, ut possis regnare cum Christo. Efficere excelsiorum particeps intellectum clevans. Suspende te ipsum a sæcularibus curis, et tunc comprehendes talium vilitatem. Gusta de dulcedne Dei, et sensum capies amarituadinis mundi. Appropria, et vide spiritale lumen, et erueris a carnalis confusionis tenebris.
Heretic. Since our long discourse has brought upon us not only weariness and weakness but also disgust, which greatly confuses the understanding, if it seems good, let us reserve the rest of our conversation for another day, if it pleases God. Nevertheless, let us also turn these things over in our minds: for much discussion, even when one keeps silence with oneself, will provide memory, understanding, teaching, and progress.
Rusticus. Do not, I beg you, delay the time of turning to God; for the end of human life is uncertain, and especially in our days, when an implacable destruction rages everywhere, and the fire of Gehenna is impassable. Do not fear the friendships of men, lest you incur the enmities of the heavenly powers; do not fear the multitude of kinsmen, lest you be numbered among all the saints from the beginning of the world; do not fear this garment, lest you put on Christ; do not fear these flowers of temporal things, lest you shine like the sun in the kingdom of God; do not fear the riches of this world, lest you receive eternal life as an inheritance in perpetual and ineffable joy; do not fear the enjoyments of the world, and the manna of the Holy Spirit will be your food; do not fear transitory dignities, lest you be able to reign with Christ. Raise your understanding on high, that you may become a partaker of the things that are above. Withdraw yourself from secular cares, and then you will understand the worthlessness of such things. Taste of the sweetness of God, and you will perceive the bitterness of the world. Draw near, and see the spiritual light, and you will be delivered from the darkness of carnal confusion.
Exsuscita temetipsum et exsili ad alliorum munditiam, et discernes abominationes mundanæ sorddinis. Rumpe Satanicæ captivitatis vincula, ne perdas acquisiiam baptismate libertatem. Fuge participationem contaminatissimi dxmonis, ut in temet psum renoves adoptionem Dei. Rcpugna diabolo cupienti te pellere, et acquiesce Deo volenti salvare. Cogna dilectionem Dei, cogita frutionem regni coelorum, cogita futuri judicii nimis terribilem diem, cogita illud ipsius Domini Christi judicium quod a recto non potest detorqueri, cogita insustentabilia gehennæ tormenta, cogita indormitabiles vermes, cogita intransmeabilem et infinitam flammam; cogita illic inutilem pœntentiam, infrructuosa lamenta, surdos ululatus, improficuas pluvias lacrymatum: dum potes irrecusabiliter, impigre converte te ad veritatem. Non erit tibi nec hic excusatio, nec satisfactio apud Deum, si persistis in malis, maxime dum cuncta soluta sint quæ a vobis objecta sunt. Licet suffceret tibi unica auctoritas synodi uuiversalis, quæ numero superat universas, quæ toties cunctarum Ecclesiarum consona sententia confirmata eSI, tam per encyclicas epistolas regnante Lcone, quam per libellos sacerdotum forsan duorum millium et quingentorum, imperante Justino post schisma Petri Alexandrini et Acacii Constantinopolitani.
Rouse yourself and leap forth to the cleanness of garlic, and you will discern the abominations of worldly filth. Break the bonds of Satanic captivity, lest you lose the freedom acquired in baptism. Flee from participation with the most polluted demon, so that in yourself you may renew the adoption of God. Fight against the devil who wishes to drive you out, and yield to God who wishes to save you. Think on the love of God, think on the enjoyment of the kingdom of heaven, think on the exceedingly terrible day of the future judgment, think on that judgment of the Lord Christ himself which cannot be turned aside from what is right, think on the unbearable torments of Gehenna, think on the worms that never sleep, think on the impassable and infinite flame; think on the useless repentance there, the fruitless lamentations, the deaf wailings, the unprofitable rains of tears: while you can without refusal, turn eagerly to the truth. There will be no excuse for you here, nor satisfaction with God, if you persist in evils, especially since all the charges that have been brought by you have been dissolved. Although the single authority of the universal synod should have sufficed for you, which surpasses all in number, which has been confirmed so many times by the concordant sentence of all the Churches, both through the encyclical letters while Leo reigned, and through the libelli of perhaps two thousand five hundred priests, while Justin was emperor after the schism of Peter of Alexandria and Acacius of Constantinople.
Non te perturbet ea quæ nuper exorta est perturbatio universalis Ecclesiæ, sed potius confirmet ad fidem: si enim recta fides nostra non esset, iis temporilus proficere potius quam perturbari potuerat. Lege Scripturas divinas. et invenies præsens tempus incredulitatis esse atque discessionis a fide: unde magis ad conversionem correctionemque festinare debes, ut et a præsentibus et futuris malis erui dignus effectus, infinitis Dei bonis fruaris in regno coelorum. Quod nos impetrare contingat gratia et largitione Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti.
Hæret. Si, quae dixi, subtilius velis inspicere, piorecto reperies quia ego non secundum quod unam personam et subsi tentiam dicitis, duos vos introducere filios monstravi, sed secundum quod duas dicitis Christi, post unitionem quoque, naturas; ac per hoc nisi mcas enodaveris quæstiones, quantumlibet unum Filium prædices, duos tamen inducis.
Let not that universal disturbance of the Church which has recently arisen trouble you, but rather strengthen you in the faith; for if our faith were not right, in these times it could have prospered rather than been disturbed. Read the divine Scriptures, and you will find that the present time is one of unbelief and of departure from the faith; therefore you ought the more to hasten to conversion and correction, so that, being made worthy to be rescued from present and future evils, you may enjoy the infinite good things of God in the kingdom of heaven. May we obtain this by the grace and bounty of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
He sticks fast. If you wish to examine more subtly what I have said, you will find it more correct, because I have not shown that you introduce two sons according to your claim of one person and one substance, but according to your claim of two natures of Christ even after the union; and by this, unless you unravel my questions, however much you preach one Son, you nevertheless introduce two.
Rust. Si pater cujuscunque carnalis, et episcopus sit ejus et doctor; non solum secundum carnem, sed etiam secundum spiritum pater est ejus; et licet circa aliud et aliud aliter atque aliter pater sit, non tamen duorum circa Duum pater esse dicitur filiorum. Nam vos ipsi, licet unam per unitionem dicatis Deitatis carnisque naturam, non circa idem vel eumdem Patrem ejus dicitis convenire, ut natura sii Filius Dei circa quam naturaliter est filius hominis; nec cniin simplicem jam nunc Christi integri naturam, sicut ante incarnationem, nisi forte secundum solam Deitatem, dicere poterit s, quam dicitis et duabus inconfusis existere. Aut ergo tua objectio commun 'cer erit nobis vobisque contraria; et non potest vohis adversum nos afferre victoriam, quæ nec contra illos se expedit qui duos filios introducunt: aut si illos una nobiscum superare desideras, idem, responde illis quod audis a nobis. Vincere igitur, ut dupliciter vincas, et eam quæ in te, et illam quæ in illis est, falsitatem. Alioquin si consequitur nos inducere duos filios, et vos consequetur ex duobus filiis introducere unum: impossibile vero est ex duobus filiis fieri unum.
Rusticus: If anyone's carnal father is also his bishop and teacher, he is his father not only according to the flesh but also according to the spirit; and although he is father in one respect and another in another respect, and in one way and another in another way, he is not for that reason said to be the father of two sons in two respects. For you yourselves, although you say that there is one nature of the Godhead and the flesh through the union, do not say that his Father comes together in the same respect or as the same, so that the Son of God is naturally son of man in respect of that nature; nor indeed can he now be said to be of a simple nature, as Christ whole, as before the incarnation, unless perhaps according to the Godhead alone, which you say also exists from two natures without confusion. Either, therefore, your objection will be common to us and contrary to you; and it cannot bring you victory against us, since it does not even serve against those who introduce two sons; or if you wish to overcome them together with us, answer them the same thing that you hear from us. Conquer, then, so that you may conquer in two ways, both the falsehood that is in you and that which is in them. Otherwise, if it follows that we introduce two sons, it will also follow that you introduce one from two sons; but it is impossible for one to be made from two sons.
Haeret. Apertius cupio audire quæ dicis.
Rust. Responde si potes: secundum quid sit Filius Dci Deus Verbum, secundum simplicem Deitatis substantiam, quæ infinite incarnationi praexst tit: an, bicut dicitis, Secundum compositam Deitatis humanitatisque naturam?
Hæret. Secundum simplicem divinitatis substantiam.
Rust. Homo autem, vel humanitas, sive caro: secundum simplicem Deitatis naturam, an, sicut dicis, secundum compositam, filius est ejusdem?
Hæret. Non secundum simplicem, sed secundum compositam.
Rus. Quomodo ergo, circa vestra delirantenta, duo filii non sunt, Deus et homo, si Deus quidem Filius Dei non secundum compositam, sed secundum simplicem; homo vero filius Dei est, non secundum simplicem, sed secundum compositam naturam? Ecce tuis captus es nodis.
Hæret. Sed una cademque est simplex atque composita.
Rust. Sed etsi sic esset, rursus inerat differentia, quia non se simpliciter habet simplex atque composita; nec simpliciter idem est, quod ex una perfecta, et quod ex duabus est atque perfecta.
Heretic: I wish to hear more openly what you are saying.
Rusticus: Answer, if you can: in what respect is the Son of God, God the Word, [Son] according to the simple substance of the Godhead, which existed before the incarnation without limit; or, as you say, according to the composite nature of Godhead and humanity?
Heretic: According to the simple substance of the Godhead.
Rusticus: But man, or humanity, or flesh: is he the son of the same according to the simple nature of the Godhead, or, as you say, according to the composite?
Heretic: Not according to the simple, but according to the composite.
Rusticus: How then, on your raving view, are there not two sons, God and man, if God indeed is the Son of God not according to the composite but according to the simple, while man is the son of God not according to the simple but according to the composite nature? See, you are caught in your own knots.
Heretic: But the simple and the composite are one and the same.
Rusticus: But even if it were so, there would again be a difference, because the simple and the composite do not stand in the same relation simply; nor is that which is from one perfect [nature] simply the same as that which is from two and is perfect.