Migne Reading Room
PL 65 · cols. 392–434
Fulgentius of Ruspe, Letters
Letters XIII–XIV
dexteram Patris. Quomodo est panis corpus ejus, et calix, vel quod habet calix quomodo est sanguis ejus? Ista, fratres, ideo dicuntur sacramenta, quia in eis aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur. Quod videtur speciem habet corporalem, quod intelligitur fructum habet spiritalem. Corpus ergo Christi si vis intelligere, Apostolum audi dicentem fidelibus: Vos estis corpus Christi et membra (I Cor. X, 27). Si ergo vos estis corpus Christi et membra, mysterium vestrum in mensa Domini positum est, mysterium Domini accipitis. Ad id quod estis, Amen respondetis, et respondendo subscribitis. Audis ergo, Corpus Christi, et respondes Amen. Esto membrum corporis Christi, ut verum sit Amen. Quare ergo in pane? Nihil hic de nostro asseramus, ipsum Apostolum item audiamus. Cum ergo de isto sacramento loqueretur, ait: Unus panis, unum corpus multi sumus. Intelligite, et gaudete. Unitas, pietas, veritas, caritas, unus panis, unum corpus multi sumus (I Cor. X, 17). Recolite enim quia panis non fit de uno grano, sed de multis. Quando exorcizabamini, quasi molebamini; quando baptizati estis, quasi conspersi estis; quando Spiritus sancti ignem accepistis, quasi cocti estis. Estote quod videtis, et accipite quod estis. Hoc Apostolus de pane dixit, jam de calice quid intelligeremus, etiam hoc dictum satis ostendit. Sicut enim ut sit species visibilis panis multa grana in unum consperguntur; tanquam illud fiat quod de fidelibus ait Scriptura sancta: Erat illis anima [una] et cor unum in Deum (Act. IV, 32); sic et de vino, fratres, recolite unde sit unum. Grana multa pendent ad botrum, sed liquor granorum in unitate confunditur. Ita Dominus Jesus Christus nos significavit, nos ad se pertinere voluit: mysterium pacis et unitatis nostrae in sua mensa consecravit. Qui accipit mysterium unitatis, et non servat (al. tenet) vinculum pacis, non mysterium accipit pro se, sed testimonium contra se. »
the right hand of the Father. How is the bread His body, and the cup, or what the cup holds, how is it His blood? These things, brethren, are called sacraments for this reason, that in them one thing is seen, another understood. What is seen has a bodily appearance; what is understood has spiritual fruit. If, then, you wish to understand the body of Christ, hear the Apostle saying to the faithful: You are the body of Christ and [His] members (1 Cor. 12:27). If, then, you are the body of Christ and [His] members, your own mystery has been placed on the Lord's table; you receive your own mystery. To that which you are you answer Amen, and by answering you subscribe to it. You hear, then, The body of Christ, and you answer Amen. Be a member of the body of Christ, that your Amen may be true. Why, then, in bread? Let us assert nothing here of our own; let us hear the Apostle himself again. When he was speaking of this sacrament he said: We, being many, are one bread, one body. Understand, and rejoice. Unity, piety, truth, charity: we, being many, are one bread, one body (1 Cor. 10:17). For remember that bread is not made from one grain but from many. When you were being exorcized, you were as it were being ground; when you were baptized, you were as it were moistened into dough; when you received the fire of the Holy Spirit, you were as it were baked. Be what you see, and receive what you are. This the Apostle said of the bread; and what we should understand of the cup this saying too shows clearly enough. For just as, for the visible form of bread to exist, many grains are moistened together into one, as if that came to pass which holy Scripture says of the faithful: They had one soul and one heart towards God (Acts 4:32); so too with the wine, brethren, remember whence it is one. Many grapes hang on the cluster, but the juice of the grapes is mingled in unity. So the Lord Jesus Christ signified us, willed us to belong to Him: He consecrated on His table the mystery of our peace and unity. He who receives the mystery of unity and does not keep (another reading: hold) the bond of peace receives not a mystery for himself but a testimony against himself.”
26. Arbitror, sancte frater, disputationem nostram, praeclari doctoris Augustini sermone firmatam, nec cuiquam esse aliquatenus ambigendum, tum unumquemque fidelium corporis sanguinisque Dominici participem fieri, quando in baptismate membrum corporis Christi efficitur, nec alienari ab illo panis calicisve consortio, etiamsi antequam panem illum comedat, et calicem bibat, de hoc saeculo in unitate corporis Christi constitutus abscedat. Sacramenti quippe illius participatione ac beneficio non privatur, quando ipse hoc quod illud sacramentum significat invenitur. Ora pro nobis semper vegetatus fortis in Christo, sancte et venerabilis frater.
26. I think, holy brother, that our discussion, confirmed by the sermon of the illustrious doctor Augustine, [has shown that] it is not to be doubted by anyone in any degree that each one of the faithful is then made a partaker of the Lord's body and blood when in baptism he is made a member of the body of Christ, and that he is not estranged from the fellowship of that bread and cup even if, before he eats that bread and drinks the cup, he departs from this world established in the unity of the body of Christ. For he is not deprived of the participation and benefit of that sacrament when he himself is found to be that which the sacrament signifies. Pray for us, ever flourishing and strong in Christ, holy and venerable brother.
EPISTOLA XIII.
LETTER XIII.
Ferrandus Fulgentio, quaestiones quinque proponens.
Ferrandus to Fulgentius, putting forward five questions.
Domino beatissimo, et cum omni veneratione inspiciendo Patri FULFENTIO episcopo, FERRANDUS diaconus in Domino salutem.
To the most blessed lord and father, to be looked upon with all veneration, Bishop Fulgentius, Ferrandus the deacon: greeting in the Lord.
1. Saepe multa volui affectu interrogare discendi, sed absentem magistrum frequentibus epistolis compellare, portitorum raritas ex itineris longinquitate
1. Often I have wished, from a desire to learn, to ask many things; but to address an absent master in frequent letters, the scarcity of carriers, owing to the length of the journey,
Editors' notes and page, col. 392
Page
- running head: EPISCOPI RUSPENSIS. 392 (the page head runs "391 S. FULGENTII EPISCOPI RUSPENSIS. 392")
- marginal letters: A ‹dexteram Patris. Quomodo›; B ‹Nihil hic de nostro›; C ‹cor unum in Deum›; D ‹calicisve consortio›
- old-edition numerals: 228 after ‹sacramentum› (before ‹significat invenitur›)
- other: the column continues Augustine's Sermo 272 quoted by Fulgentius, from col. 391, to its close at "contra se. »". Migne sets « at the head of every line and scatters » « around the quoted words (Vos estis ... membra; Amen; Corpus Christi; Unus panis ...; Erat illis ...); these typographic marks are not repeated; the closing » of the whole quotation is set. "[una]" is printed in square brackets and kept; "(al. tenet)" is Migne's inline variant, kept. "consperguntur", "tum unumquemque" set as printed. EPISTOLA XIII (Ferrandus to Fulgentius) begins in this column: the title, the italic sub-caption and the address are set as layer 1 (a letter written to Fulgentius); the sub-caption reads as a heading, not editors' prose. Names in the address are in small capitals in the print. The column ends mid-sentence. No editors' prose.
prohibuit. Unde nunc beneficio praesentis occasionis admonitus, in unum congessi quae potui, et responsione vestra melius dilatanda breviter quaero; rogans obsecransque Christum, a quo intus audis quod doceas foris, ut veraciter dicas mihi.
prevented. So now, prompted by the kindness of the present opportunity, I have gathered into one what I could, and I ask briefly things that are better to be enlarged upon by your reply; asking and beseeching Christ, from whom you hear within what you are to teach without, that you may tell me truly.
2. Utrum Trinitas inseparabilis propter unam eamdemque naturam, operationem ac voluntatem, dici debeat separabiles habere personas, an etiam in personis sit omnino inseparabilis praedicanda. Vel, utrum Deus Dei Filius sicut dicitur natus, passus, mortuus, crucifixus; ita ejus divinitatem confirmare nos oporteat natam, passam, mortuam, crucifixam: quamvis sive Deus, sive divinitas nominetur, sola caro intelligatur mutabilis atque passibilis, secundum quam Deus aut divinitas pati potuit, quod in sua natura non potuit. Tertio adhuc requiro, utrum anima Christi susceptricis deitatis plenam habeat omnino notitiam, et quemadmodum se invicem norunt Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus, ita idem Filius semetipsum per id quod homo est, in eo quod Deus, noverit; ex utraque, atque in utraque substantia totum capiens Patrem. An fortasse sicut oculis corporalibus Deum spiritum minime videt, ne non homini dignitas addita, sed natura credatur penitus commutata; sic rationalis animae quamvis pio intellectu, et corde mundissimo, non videri, neque comprehendi omnem divinitatis essentiam, ne quaelibet creatura inveniatur capere Creatorem. Patere me, obsecro, iterum quaerere; volo enim simul plura proponere, quia non est ubi sigillatim de singulis percontemur. Unum regnum Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti credimus et fatemur, simul eos dominari creaturis omnibus sentientes. Quare ergo in orationibus sacerdotum, per Jesum Christum Filium tuum Dominum nostrum, qui tecum vivit, et regnat in unitate Spiritus sancti, per universas pene Africae regiones catholica dicere consuevit Ecclesia? Tanquam solus Filius cum Patre possideat regnum; in unitate, scilicet Spiritus sancti, aut (al. ut) regnantes adunare, non simul regnare Spiritus sanctus intimetur. Responde ad haec, rogo, celeriter, et inculto eloquio de rebus ignotis consulentem, suavissimo melle coelestis pasce sermonis. Illud etiam dilucidans, quid sit quod Lucas evangelista coenam Domini narraturus, prius eum dicit calicem accepisse, et discipulis dividendum inter se continuo tradidisse; et tum deinde accepto pane dixisse: Hoc est corpus meum; et accepto similiter postquam coenavit calice, tunc dixisse: Hic calix novum Testamentum est in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis funditur (Luc. XXII, 17 et seq.). Nunquid unus calix secundo est datus, an alius prius, alius postea? Et si ita est, ad cujus rei pertinet sacramentum illud de quo maxime caeteri qui scripserunt Evangelia, tacuerunt? Noli, quaeso, differre responsum, nec paratum animum longa exspectatione suspendas. Occupationum quippe vestrarum debemus mereri vel partem.
2. Whether the Trinity, inseparable on account of one and the same nature, operation and will, ought to be said to have separable persons, or whether it is to be proclaimed wholly inseparable in the persons as well. Or, whether, just as God the Son of God is said to have been born, to have suffered, died, been crucified, so we ought to affirm that His divinity was born, suffered, died, was crucified: although, whether God or divinity be named, the flesh alone is understood to be mutable and passible, according to which God or divinity was able to suffer what in His own nature He could not. Thirdly I further ask whether the soul of Christ has an altogether full knowledge of the Godhead that took it up, and whether, just as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit know one another, so the same Son, through that by which He is man, has known Himself in that by which He is God; grasping the whole Father from both and in both substances. Or perhaps, just as with bodily eyes He by no means sees God, who is spirit, lest it be believed not that dignity was added to the man but that his nature was wholly changed, so the whole essence of the Godhead is not seen nor comprehended by the rational soul, though with devout understanding and a most pure heart, lest any creature whatever be found to contain the Creator. Bear with me, I beseech you, in asking again; for I wish to put forward several things at once, since there is no occasion for us to inquire about each one singly. We believe and confess one kingdom of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, holding that they rule over all creatures together. Why then, in the prayers of the priests, has the Catholic Church throughout almost all the regions of Africa been accustomed to say, "through Jesus Christ Thy Son our Lord, who lives and reigns with Thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit"? As though the Son alone possessed the kingdom with the Father; and the Holy Spirit, that is, "in the unity", were indicated as uniting those who reign, not as reigning together with them. Answer these things, I ask, quickly, and feed with the sweetest honey of heavenly discourse one who consults you in unpolished speech on things unknown to him. Clarify this also: what it means that Luke the evangelist, about to narrate the Lord's supper, says that He first took the cup and at once handed it to the disciples to be divided among themselves; and that then afterwards, having taken bread, He said, "This is my body"; and having likewise taken the cup after He had supped, He then said, "This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is poured out for you" (Luke 22:17 ff.). Was one cup given a second time, or one first, another afterwards? And if so, to what reality does that sacrament belong, about which above all the others who wrote the Gospels were silent? Do not, I pray, delay your reply, and do not hold a ready mind in suspense by long waiting. For we ought to merit at least a share of your labours.
3. Rogo etiam, ut librum de Regula verae fidei
3. I ask also that the book on the Rule of the True Faith
Editors' notes and page, col. 393
Footnotes
(a) ‹anchor: Regula verae fidei› · call in col 393
Liber est de Fide ad Petrum, infra.
This is the book On the Faith, to Peter, below.
(printed under page 202)
(b) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 393 or 394 (not visible)
Haec epistola non exstat.
This letter is not extant.
(printed under page 202)
Page
- running head: 393 EPISTOLA X… (right half of the head cut off at the image edge)
- marginal letters: A ‹prohibuit. Unde nunc›; B ‹Christi susceptricis deitatis›; C ‹et fatemur, simul eos›; D ‹dixisse: Hoc est corpus meum›
- old-edition numerals: 229 after ‹coelestis›
relegendum nobis jubeas destinare, et epistolam ad Joannem †Tharsensem episcopum, ubi de malefico quodam judici non tradendo memini plenissime disputatum. Codices duos suscepi, et infanti †Hermiae proprium reddidi. Jube etiam epistolam de Oratione, quam ad me hic positum mandare dignatus es, iterum huc scriptam dirigere. Dum enim pro splendore sui a multis quaeritur ad legendum, faciente nostra oblivione, apud quem remanserit ignoramus. Sanctos presbyteros, diaconos, beatamque congregationem supplex saluto. Deus noster paternitatem tuam ad aedificationem nostram conservare dignetur incolumem, domine pater. Amen.
you would order to be sent to us to be read again, and the letter to John, bishop of †Tharsa, in which I remember it was most fully argued about a certain sorcerer who was not to be handed over to the judge. I have received two codices, and returned his own to the child †Hermias. Order also that the letter on Prayer, which you deigned to send to me when I was placed here, be written out again and directed here. For while, because of its splendour, it is sought by many for reading, through our forgetfulness we do not know with whom it has remained. I humbly greet the holy priests, the deacons, and the blessed community. May our God deign to keep your paternity unharmed for our edification, lord father. Amen.
EPISTOLA XIV.
LETTER XIV.
Fulgentius Ferrando, respondens ad propositas quinque quaestiones.
Fulgentius to Ferrandus, answering the five questions put forward.
1. Epistola tua sancta frater, et condiacone Ferrande, laetificavit cordis mei simul, et excitavit affectum; ut et certus de tua salute gauderem, et intentus quod quaeris inquirerem; ab illo utique cui et debetur gratiarum actio, et a quo est vera salubrium rerum exspectanda ac postulanda cognitio: ut idem qui prospero auditu gaudium donat, etiam infusione gratiae spiritalis intelligentiam tribuat; et sicut ipse ad inquirendum se accendit studium, ita pulsantibus ad se largiatur ingressum. Tunc enim in gaudium Domini nostri poterimus intrare, si nos hic dignatus fuerit in illud magnum pietatis sacramentum dono gratiae spiritalis inducere, et ad devitandum vitae hujus defectum, qui nobis subrepit frequenter infirmis, panem nobis ipse tribuat intelligentiae spiritalis; nec nos permittat veternosae corruptioni exterioris hominis subjici, sed ad studium sanctae cogitationis (al. cognitionis), et operis interiorem nostrum de die in diem faciat coelesti lumine (al. munere) renovari. Dicta tuae igitur epistolae jam ponamus; ut quod Dominus donaverit, quaestionibus singulis respondere possimus.
1. Your letter, holy brother and fellow deacon Ferrandus, has at once gladdened and stirred the affection of my heart, so that I both rejoiced, being sure of your well-being, and set myself attentively to inquire into what you ask; inquiring, that is, of Him to whom thanksgiving is owed, and from whom the true knowledge of saving things is to be awaited and asked: that the same One who gives joy by good news may also grant understanding by the infusion of spiritual grace; and as He Himself kindles zeal to seek Him, so may He grant entrance to those who knock at His door. For then shall we be able to enter into the joy of our Lord, if here He deigns to lead us by the gift of spiritual grace into that great sacrament of godliness, and, so that we may avoid the failing of this life which often creeps upon us in our weakness, Himself grants us the bread of spiritual understanding; and does not allow us to be made subject to the lethargic corruption of the outward man, but causes our inner man to be renewed from day to day by heavenly light (al. gift) for zeal in holy thought (al. knowledge) and work. Let us now therefore set down the words of your letter, so that we may answer each question as the Lord shall give.
QUAESTIO PRIMA.
FIRST QUESTION.
2. Exigis namque ut veraciter dicam tibi, Utrum Trinitas inseparabilis propter unam eamdemque naturam, operationem, ac voluntatem, dici debeat separabiles habere personas, an etiam in personis sit omnino inseparabilis praedicanda. Haec esse verba primae quaestionis procul dubio recognoscis.
2. For you require me to tell you truly whether the Trinity, inseparable on account of one and the same nature, operation and will, ought to be said to have separable persons, or whether it is to be proclaimed wholly inseparable in the persons as well. You recognize without doubt that these are the words of the first question.
RESPONSIO.
ANSWER.
3. Ubi nobis illud est principaliter intuendum, quia Trinitas inseparabilis dici non debet, si possunt illae tres personae aliquatenus separari. Hoc enim vere inseparabile dicitur, quod nullatenus separationem potest recipere. Nam quod non separatur, sed separari potest, inseparabile non est. Quod si quisquam separari posse putat in Trinitate personas, non Trinitas est inseparabilis dicenda, sed unitas. In personis quippe Trinitas constat, unitas in natura. Sed nescio utrum nostra possit assertio veritate fulciri, quando
3. Here we must first of all observe that the Trinity ought not to be called inseparable if those three persons can in any degree be separated. For that is truly called inseparable which can in no way admit of separation. For what is not separated, but can be separated, is not inseparable. But if anyone thinks that the persons in the Trinity can be separated, it is not the Trinity that is to be called inseparable, but the unity. For the Trinity consists in the persons, the unity in the nature. But I do not know whether our assertion can be supported by the truth, when
Editors' notes and page, col. 394
Footnotes
(c) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 394 (not visible)
Epistola 4 ad Probam, supra.
Letter 4, to Proba, above.
(printed under page 202)
Page
- running head: …ISTOLA XIV. 394 (left part cut off at the image edge; final numeral soft, read as XIV)
- marginal letters: A ‹relegendum nobis jubeas›; B ‹que quaestiones. / 1. Epistola tua›; C ‹nobis ipse tribuat›; D ‹RESPONSIO›
- old-edition numerals: 230 before ‹QUAESTIO PRIMA›
sic inseparabilem naturam dicimus ut ejusdem naturae personas separabiles asseramus: cum utique una natura, quae non potest in personis dividi, ipsa inseparabilitate sua, nec ipsas ostendat separari posse personas. Nam separationem naturae, absque separatione personae, ut non longius eamus, in ipsis hominibus invenimus. Carnem quippe humanam nemo dubitat ad naturam hominis pertinere; cujus tamen potest fieri separatio, si quodlibet membrum praecidatur a corpore: quae tamen praecisio non in se potest separationem habere personae. Neque enim cum manus aut pes a corpore praeciditur, cum eodem membro etiam persona hominis separatur; quamvis fiat quaedam naturae separatio, cujus pars praecisa invenitur in membro. Sed sicut ille homo si vivit postquam membro caruerit, naturalis definitionis plenitudine non carebit, qua dicitur homo animal rationale, mortale: sic habens naturae definitionem veram, necesse est ut propriam quoque habeat cum natura personam, quamvis partem naturae, id est partem carnis a se habeat separatam. Cum vero separantur homines personis, natura quoque sine dubio separantur. Quoniam non separatur persona, cum manus aut pes separatur a corpore: separatur autem in personarum separatione natura, cum homo separatur ab homine. Inseparabilis igitur naturae unitas non potest separabiles habere personas.
we call the nature inseparable in such a way as to assert that the persons of the same nature are separable: since surely one nature, which cannot be divided in the persons, by its very inseparability shows that the persons themselves cannot be separated either. For a separation of nature without a separation of person we find, not to go further, in men themselves. No one doubts that human flesh belongs to the nature of man; yet a separation of it can take place, if any limb is cut off from the body: yet this cutting off cannot in itself involve a separation of the person. For when a hand or a foot is cut off from the body, the person of the man is not also separated along with that limb; although a certain separation of nature takes place, a part of which, cut off, is found in the limb. But just as that man, if he lives after he has lost the limb, will not lack the fullness of the natural definition by which man is called a rational, mortal animal: so, having the true definition of the nature, he must also have, together with the nature, his own person, although he has a part of the nature, that is, a part of the flesh, separated from himself. But when men are separated in persons, they are without doubt separated in nature too. For the person is not separated when a hand or a foot is separated from the body; but in the separation of persons the nature is separated, when man is separated from man. Therefore the unity of an inseparable nature cannot have separable persons.
4. Proinde considerare debemus illam Trinitatis unam eamdemque naturam ita totum implere, ut non sit aliquid ubi non sit. Inde est enim quod et ubique tota est, et loco nullatenus continetur; tota scilicet in spiritibus et corporibus singulis, et tota simul in omnibus creaturis. Nunc enim non de gratia loquimur, qua se Deus gratuito munere misericordiae suae salvandis hominibus praebet; sed de natura, qua Deus omnia quae fecit, et implet, et continet; secundum quam dicit: Coelum et terram ego impleo (Jer. XXIII, 24); et secundum quam ipsi Deo beatus David dicit: Quo ibo a Spiritu tuo, et a facie tua quo fugiam? Si ascendero in coelum, tu illic es; et si descendero ad infernum, ades (Psal. CXXXVIII, 7). Et de Christo qui est sapientia Dei, dicitur: Attingit a fine usque ad finem fortiter et disponit omnia suaviter (Sap. VIII, 1). De Spiritu quoque sancto Scriptura divinitus inspirata sic loquitur: Quia Spiritus Domini replevit orbem terrarum; et hoc quod continet omnia, scientiam habet vocis (Sap. I, 7). Invenitur autem hic vocem cordis significasse, non corporis, vocem scilicet non corporeae locutionis, sed intimae cogitationis. Vocem illam, quam solus Deus audit clamantem, quando in occulto solus aspicit cogitantem. Ideo sequitur dicens: Propter hoc qui loquitur iniqua, non potest latere; sed nec praeteriet illum corripiens judicium suum (Ibid., 8). Ostendens autem ubi sit haec iniqua locutio, ut agnoscatur conscientiae magis esse quam linguae, hoc sancta Scriptura subsequenter aperuit dicens: In cogitationibus enim impii interrogatio erit (Ibid., 9). Haec ideo dixi propter quod de sancto Spiritu dicitur, quia quod continet omnia, scientiam habet vocis. Omnia quippe continens non est minor
4. Accordingly we must consider that the one and the same nature of the Trinity so fills the whole that there is nothing where it is not. For hence it is that it is both everywhere whole and in no way contained by place; whole, that is, in each spirit and body singly, and whole at once in all creatures. For we are not now speaking of grace, by which God, by the free gift of His mercy, offers Himself to men who are to be saved; but of the nature by which God both fills and contains all things that He has made; according to which He says, "I fill heaven and earth" (Jer. 23:24); and according to which blessed David says to God Himself, "Whither shall I go from Thy Spirit, and whither shall I flee from Thy face? If I ascend into heaven, Thou art there; and if I descend into hell, Thou art present" (Ps. 138:7). And of Christ, who is the wisdom of God, it is said, "She reaches from end to end mightily and orders all things sweetly" (Wis. 8:1). Of the Holy Spirit also the divinely inspired Scripture speaks thus: "For the Spirit of the Lord has filled the world; and that which contains all things has knowledge of the voice" (Wis. 1:7). Here it is found to have meant the voice of the heart, not of the body; the voice, that is, not of bodily speech but of inmost thought: that voice which God alone hears crying out, when He alone beholds one thinking in secret. Therefore it goes on to say, "For this reason he who speaks unjust things cannot be hidden; nor shall the judgement that reproves him pass him by" (Wis. 1:8). And showing where this unjust speaking is, so that it may be recognized as belonging to the conscience rather than to the tongue, holy Scripture next disclosed it, saying, "For there shall be an inquiry into the thoughts of the ungodly" (Wis. 1:9). I have said these things because of what is said of the Holy Spirit, that "that which contains all things has knowledge of the voice." For, containing all things, [the Holy Spirit] is not less
Editors' notes and page, col. 395
Page
- running head: 395 S. FULGENTII EPISCOP… (right part cut off at the image edge)
- marginal letters: A ‹sic inseparabilem naturam›; B ‹membro caruerit, naturalis›; C ‹in spiritibus et corporibus›; D ‹scientiam habet vocis›
- old-edition numerals: 231 after ‹David›
- other: column ends on "mi-", completed as "minor" from the first line of col. 396 ("nor Patre vel Filio Spiritus sanctus"), set whole here; col. 396 begins at "Patre". "natura quoque sine dubio separantur" set as printed.
Patre vel Filio Spiritus sanctus; et habens intimae cogitationis scientiam, Deus verus agnoscitur qui occultorum cognitor invenitur. Scientia vero quae comprehendit occulta, sine dubio continet et futura quod summo ac vero Deo vera fides assignat, sancta Susanna Deum verum taliter invocante: Deus, qui occultorum es cognitor, qui scis omnia antequam fiant (Dan. XIII, 42). Trinitas itaque, id est Deus unus, verus, et bonus, aeternus, incommutabilis, et immensus, ubique totus est secundum immensitatem atque omnipotentiam naturalem, quamvis non in omnibus habitet secundum gratiae largitatem.
than the Father or the Son, the Holy Spirit; and, having knowledge of inmost thought, He is recognized as true God, who is found to be the knower of hidden things. And the knowledge which comprehends hidden things without doubt contains future things also, which true faith assigns to the supreme and true God, as holy Susanna calls upon the true God thus: "O God, who art the knower of hidden things, who knowest all things before they come to be" (Dan. 13:42). The Trinity, then, that is, the one God, true and good, eternal, unchangeable and immeasurable, is everywhere whole according to His natural immensity and omnipotence, although He does not dwell in all according to the bounty of grace.
5. Hinc est quod cum Deus per Hieremiam dicat: Ego sum Deus approximans, et non Deus de longinquo (Jer. XXIII, 23), memoratus tamen propheta eidem Deo dicit de quibusdam: Juxta est ori eorum, et longe a renibus eorum (Jer. XII, 2). Deus ergo bonis et natura propinquat et gratia: natura, qua creat; gratia, qua salvat: natura, qua facit esse homines; gratia, qua justificat peccatores: natura, qua eos facit ex hominibus nasci, gratia, qua dat eis potestatem filios Dei fieri (Joan. I, 12): natura, qua facit ut vivant; gratia, qua facit ut sobrie, et juste, et pie vivant (Tit. II, 12): natura, qua eos facit in hoc mundo parvo tempore vivere; gratia, qua eos facit in coelo sine fine regnare. In malis vero sola est Deus immensitate atque omnipotentia naturali; qua eos facit esse, vivere, atque sentire; rationales esse, liberum quoque habere voluntatis arbitrium; sed liberum, non liberatum. Liberum enim arbitrium manet etiam nunc in hominibus per naturam, quod in quibus voluerit Deus, dignatur liberare per gratiam. Ex quo enim primus homo libero arbitrio venundatus est sub peccato, ideo mala coepit esse libertas hominis, quia ipsi libero arbitrio ablata est bonitas voluntatis: et sic in eodem hominis arbitrio coepit esse mala libertas; ut ipsa illi, et omnibus deinde per concubitum nascituris fieret inimica captivitas. Deus ergo, sicut supra diximus, per immensitatem naturae suae, totam creaturam suam et continet et implet; ac per hoc, totum implet Pater, totum Filius totum Spiritus sanctus; quia et Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus naturaliter unus est Deus. Non sic est autem una natura Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti, id est trium illarum personarum, sicut est humana natura, trium quorumlibet hominum; quorum sic est una natura, ut eorum tamen et animae separentur et corpora: cumque sit in tribus hominibus unitas naturalis, nullius tamen est cum duobus caro, animave communis. Hinc est quod separari ab invicem creaturae quaelibet consubstantiales possunt: quia singulae earum totae ubique esse non possunt: nam et cum in illis fit per gratiam fidei, ut multitudinis credentium sit cor et anima una (Act. IV, 32); possunt tamen in personis separari locorum situ, licet cordis non separentur affectu; possunt et aliquae infideles ex fidelibus fieri, et ab illus unius animae societate disjungi. Natura vero Trinitatis, quae sola est ubique tota, sicut ubique suum habet et unum et totum, sic separationem non potest recipere personarum.
5. Hence it is that, though God says through Jeremiah, "I am a God who draws near, and not a God from afar" (Jer. 23:23), yet the same prophet says to the same God about certain people, "Thou art near to their mouth, and far from their reins" (Jer. 12:2). God therefore draws near to the good both by nature and by grace: by nature, whereby He creates; by grace, whereby He saves: by nature, whereby He makes them to be men; by grace, whereby He justifies sinners: by nature, whereby He makes them to be born of men; by grace, whereby He gives them power to become sons of God (John 1:12): by nature, whereby He makes them live; by grace, whereby He makes them live soberly and justly and godly (Titus 2:12): by nature, whereby He makes them live a short time in this world; by grace, whereby He makes them reign without end in heaven. But in the wicked God is present only by His natural immensity and omnipotence, by which He makes them be, live and perceive; be rational, and also have free choice of the will; but free, not freed. For free choice remains even now in men by nature, which in whom God wills He deigns to free by grace. For from the time when the first man by free choice was sold under sin, the freedom of man began to be bad, because goodness of will was taken away from free choice itself: and so in that same choice of man freedom began to be bad, so that for him, and thereafter for all who were to be born by intercourse, it became a hostile captivity. God therefore, as we said above, by the immensity of His nature both contains and fills His whole creation; and accordingly the Father fills the whole, the Son the whole, the Holy Spirit the whole; because the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are by nature one God. But the one nature of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, that is, of those three persons, is not so as human nature is of any three men; whose nature is one in such a way that their souls and bodies are nevertheless separated: and though there is a natural unity in the three men, yet no one of them has flesh or soul in common with the other two. Hence it is that any consubstantial creatures can be separated from one another: because each of them cannot be whole everywhere: for even when it comes about in them by the grace of faith that the multitude of believers has one heart and one soul (Acts 4:32), they can nevertheless be separated in their persons by the position of places, though they are not separated in the affection of the heart; and some can also become unbelievers from believers, and be cut off from the fellowship of that one soul. But the nature of the Trinity, which alone is everywhere whole, as it has everywhere what is its own, both one and whole, so cannot admit a separation of persons.
Editors' notes and page, col. 396
Page
- running head: …II EPISCOPI RUSPENSIS 396 (left part cut off at the image edge)
- marginal letters: A ‹nor Patre vel Filio›; B ‹eidem Deo dicit de quibusdam›; C ‹quibus voluerit Deus›; D ‹quorum sic est una natura›
- old-edition numerals: 232 after ‹Spiritus sanctus›
- other: the column's first syllable "nor" completes "minor", set whole at the end of col. 395; this column is set from "Patre". "ori" in Jer. XII, 2 is soft in the scan. "Filius totum" printed without a comma, as set.
6. Nominantur quidem illae personae aliquando singulae; sed ita se voluit ipsa Trinitas inseparabilem ostendere in personis, ut nullum ibi nomen sit quo sic vocetur quaelibet una persona, ut non aut tribus naturali unitate conveniat, aut alteram ad alteram referri, etiam ipso nomine singularitatis ostendat. Nam de illis vocabulis, quibus ad se proprie dicuntur Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus; in quibus scilicet non singularitas cujusque personae, sed communio monstratur unius essentiae, non est aliquod nomen quod sic Patri convenire possit aut Filio, ut Spiritui sancto convenire non possit. Dicitur enim Pater naturaliter Deus, sed naturaliter est Deus et Filius, naturaliter est Deus et Spiritus sanctus, nec tamen tres Dii, sed unus naturaliter Deus est Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus. Omnipotens est Pater, sed omnipotens est Filius, omnipotens est Spiritus sanctus, nec tamen tres Dii omnipotentes, sed unus Deus omnipotens est Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus. Aeternus est sine initio Pater, aeternus est sine initio Filius, aeternus est sine initio Spiritus sanctus; nec tamen tres Dii aeterni, sed unus Deus aeternus est Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus. Immensus est Pater, sed immensus est Filius, et immensus est et Spiritus sanctus; nec tamen tres Dii immensi, sed unus Deus immensus est Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus. Ubi ergo sic est nomen quodlibet unum, ut simul et tribus et singulis indifferenter possit convenire personis; et ita singulare in natura est, ut in personis esse plurale non possit; quomodo separabiles esse personas dicimus, quando pluralem numerum in nomine recipi non videmus? Quidquid enim singulariter tantum secundum naturam dicitur, necesse est ut in personis quoque inseparabiliter intimetur: et ostendit ipsa veritas personas non posse dividi, ubi quodlibet nomen, quod tamen ad se, non ad alteram unaquaeque persona dicitur, sicut singulariter in una dicitur, sic etiam in tribus singulariter nominatur. Nam in una persona dicitur unus angelus, dicitur unus homo: sed si tres personae fuerint angelorum aut hominum, nec unus angelus, nec unus homo poterit nominari: quia in illis tribus personis, quae in natura vel angelica vel humana reperiuntur, non unus angelus aut unus homo, sed sine dubio tres angeli vel tres homines necesse est nuncupentur: caeterum nec unus angelus, nec unus homo dici potest illa vel angelicarum vel humanarum pluralitas personarum; quia vero tres illae personae vel angelorum vel hominum separari possunt, ideo ipsae tres personae non recipiunt simul unum naturae singulare vocabulum; sed vel tres angeli vel tres homines sine dubio nominantur.
6. Those persons are indeed sometimes named singly; but the Trinity itself willed so to show itself inseparable in the persons that there is no name there by which any one person is so called that it does not either belong to the three by natural unity, or show, by the very name of singularity, that one is referred to the other. For of those words by which the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are properly spoken of with respect to themselves, in which, that is, not the singularity of each person but the communion of one essence is shown, there is no name which could so belong to the Father or to the Son that it could not belong to the Holy Spirit. For the Father is called God by nature, but the Son also is God by nature, the Holy Spirit also is God by nature; and yet not three Gods, but the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are by nature one God. The Father is almighty, but the Son is almighty, the Holy Spirit is almighty; and yet not three almighty Gods, but the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one almighty God. The Father is eternal without beginning, the Son is eternal without beginning, the Holy Spirit is eternal without beginning; and yet not three eternal Gods, but the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one eternal God. The Father is immeasurable, but the Son is immeasurable, and the Holy Spirit too is immeasurable; and yet not three immeasurable Gods, but the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one immeasurable God. Where, then, any one name is such that it can belong without distinction both to the three persons together and to each, and is so singular in the nature that it cannot be plural in the persons, how do we say that the persons are separable, when we see that the plural number is not admitted in the name? For whatever is said only in the singular according to the nature must be signified inseparably in the persons also: and the truth itself shows that the persons cannot be divided, where any name which each person is called with respect to itself, not with respect to another, is named in the singular in the three just as it is said in the singular in one. For in one person one says one angel, one says one man: but if there are three persons of angels or of men, they cannot be named one angel or one man: because those three persons who are found in the angelic or the human nature must without doubt be called not one angel or one man, but three angels or three men: and that plurality of angelic or human persons cannot be called one angel or one man; and because those three persons, whether of angels or of men, can be separated, therefore those three persons do not admit together one singular name of the nature; but are without doubt named either three angels or three men.
7 Non autem ignoramus per gratiam Dei fieri ut plures homines possint aliquo singulari nomine nuncupari: sicut est illud quod supra jam posuimus: Multitudinis autem credentium erat cor [unum] et anima una (Act. IV, 32): quae tamen sic dicitur anima una, ut dicantur et animae, fidelium scilicet, non impiorum. Fidelibus enim discipulis Dominus loquebatur, quibus
7. We are not unaware, however, that it comes about by the grace of God that many men can be called by some singular name: as in that which we have already set down above: "And the multitude of believers had [one] heart and one soul" (Acts 4:32): which, however, is called one soul in such a way that they are also called souls, those, that is, of the faithful, not of the ungodly. For the Lord was speaking to faithful disciples, to whom
Editors' notes and page, col. 397
Page
- running head: 397 EPISTOLA X… (right part cut off at the image edge)
- marginal letters: A ‹6. Nominantur quidem›; B ‹est Filius, omnipotens›; C ‹in nomine recipi non videmus›; D ‹test illa vel angelicarum›
- old-edition numerals: 233 after ‹necesse›
- other: the column ends on "qui-", completed as "quibus" from the first line of col. 398 ("bus"), set whole here. Section numeral "7" printed without a full stop, set as printed. "[unum]" printed in brackets in the scripture, kept. The upper third is very soft; "aut alteram ad alteram referri" read with some uncertainty.
ait: In patientia vestra possidebitis animas vestras (Luc. XXI, 19). Fidelibus etiam beatus Petrus dicit: Credentes autem exsultate laetitia inenarrabili, et honorificata, recipientes finem fidei vestrae, salutem animarum (I Petr. I, 8). Dicitur etiam in libro Sapientiae: Justorum animae in manu Dei sunt (Sap. III, 1). Scimus etiam Thessalonicensibus beatum dixisse Apostolum, quorum electionem sciebat a Deo: Ipse autem Deus pacis sanctificet vos per omnia, et integer spiritus vester, et anima, et corpus sine querela in die Domini nostri Jesu Christi servetur (I Thess. V, 23). Sed etiam in hymno trium puerorum nihilominus legitur: Benedicite, spiritus et animae justorum, Domino (Dan. III, 86). Scimus per gratiam Dei et sanctam Ecclesiam unam virginem nuncupari, dicente Apostolo: Despondi enim vos uni viro virginem castam exhibere Christo (II Cor. XI, 2), sed in ipsa una virgine plurali numero etiam virgines nuncupantur. Legimus etiam: Afferentur Regi virgines post eam (Psal. XLIV, 15). Nec illud est dubium, unam esse Ecclesiam quae per totum est orbem diffusa terrarum, quae ab Apostolo appellatur Ecclesia Dei vivi, columna et firmamentum veritatis (I Tim. III, 15): quae tamen sic una, sic est et Ecclesia, ut in ea plures appellentur Ecclesiae. Ipse enim beatus Apostolus dicit: Eram autem ignotus facie Ecclesiis Judaeae, quae erant in Christo (Gal. I, 22). Sed et fratrem se dicit Corinthiis destinasse, cujus laus est in Evangelio per omnes Ecclesias (II Cor. VIII, 18). Ecclesiis quoque Galatiae se scripsisse in ejusdem epistolae demonstravit exordio. Fideles quoque suos unum lumen esse Dominus noster ostendens, ait discipulis suis: Vos estis lumen mundi (Matth. V, 14); et tamen Dei filios lumina beatus Jacobus appellare non dubitat, dicens: Omne datum optimum, et omne donum perfectum desursum est, descendens a Patre luminum (Jac. I, 17). In his itaque omnibus et singulare invenimus vocabulum, et plurale: ideo autem plurale, quia omnes creaturas separabiles esse ipsa qualitas naturalis ostendit; ideo vero singulare, quia ut sit una anima, unus spiritus, una virgo, una Ecclesia, unum lumen, hoc illa una Trinitas per suam gratiam fecit; quae tam in natura quam in personis sic est inseparabilis, ut quidquid ibi tam de una quam de tribus personis singulariter dicitur, pluraliter non dicatur. Non itaque possunt Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti separari personae, quibus unum nomen naturale sic convenit, ut in tribus personis plurale esse non possit: excepto enim hoc ipso, quo personae dicuntur, nullum nomen aliud in Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu sancto potest inveniri, quod non singulariter tantummodo nominetur. Vix autem hoc unum reperire potuit humani sermonis inopia, ut saltem tres diceret esse personas; ne si vel hoc non diceretur, Trinitas esse nullatenus crederetur, et in illa omnimoda taciturnitate, fidei periculum nasceretur.
he says, "In your patience you shall possess your souls" (Luke 21:19). To the faithful also blessed Peter says, "Believing, exult with joy unspeakable and glorified, receiving the end of your faith, the salvation of souls" (1 Pet. 1:8). It is said also in the book of Wisdom, "The souls of the just are in the hand of God" (Wis. 3:1). We know also that the blessed Apostle said to the Thessalonians, whose election by God he knew, "And may the God of peace Himself sanctify you in all things, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept without complaint in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thess. 5:23). And in the hymn of the three young men too it is read none the less, "Bless the Lord, you spirits and souls of the just" (Dan. 3:86). We know that by the grace of God the holy Church also is called one virgin, as the Apostle says, "For I have espoused you to one husband, to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ" (2 Cor. 11:2); but in that one virgin they are also called virgins in the plural number. We read also, "Virgins shall be brought to the King after her" (Ps. 44:15). Nor is it doubtful that the Church is one which is spread through the whole world, which is called by the Apostle "the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15): which yet is so one, and so is the Church, that in it many are called Churches. For the blessed Apostle himself says, "But I was unknown by face to the Churches of Judaea which were in Christ" (Gal. 1:22). And he says that he sent to the Corinthians a brother "whose praise is in the Gospel through all the Churches" (2 Cor. 8:18). That he wrote to the Churches of Galatia too he showed at the opening of that same epistle. Our Lord also, showing that His faithful are one light, says to His disciples, "You are the light of the world" (Matt. 5:14); and yet blessed James does not hesitate to call the sons of God lights, saying, "Every best gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights" (Jas. 1:17). In all these, therefore, we find both a singular word and a plural: plural because the natural quality itself shows that all creatures are separable; but singular because that there should be one soul, one spirit, one virgin, one Church, one light, the one Trinity has brought about by its grace; which is so inseparable both in nature and in persons that whatever is said there in the singular, whether of one or of the three persons, is not said in the plural. Therefore the persons of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit cannot be separated, to whom one natural name so belongs that it cannot be plural in the three persons: for, apart from this very thing, that they are called persons, no other name can be found in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit which is not named in the singular only. And the poverty of human speech could scarcely find this one thing, so as at least to say that there are three persons; lest, if not even this were said, it should in no way be believed that there is a Trinity, and from that complete silence a danger to faith should arise.
8. Quocirca, secundum veritatem fidei Christianae dicimus, unum Deum esse naturaliter Patrem, et Filium, et Spiritum sanctum. Necesse est autem ut sicut
8. Wherefore, according to the truth of the Christian faith, we say that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are by nature one God. And it is necessary that, just as
Editors' notes and page, col. 398
Page
- running head: …ISTOLA XIV. 398 (left part cut off at the image edge)
- marginal letters: A ‹bus ait: In patientia›; B ‹stolo: Despondi enim›; C ‹Dominus noster ostendens›; D ‹rari personae, quibus unum›
- old-edition numerals: 234 after ‹inopia›
- other: the column's first syllable "bus" completes "quibus", set whole at the end of col. 397; this column is set from "ait". The column ends on "sic-", completed as "sicut" from the first line of col. 399 ("ut Trinitatem"), set whole here. The upper third is very soft; the reference "(I Petr. I, 8)" read with some uncertainty.
Trinitatem dicimus unum Deum, ita dicamus unum omnipotentem, unum aeternum, unum immensum, unum magnum, unum altissimum; et quidquid, in quantum Deus hominibus dedit, non solum in singulis personis, sed etiam simul in tribus ad seipsum singulariter nominatur. Ne vero ex hoc quod Pater unius est personae vocabulum, Filius quoque una tantum dicitur in Trinitate persona, similiter et cum Spiritus sanctus proprie dicitur, unius personae singularitas intimatur, quisquam velit istas tres separabiles asserere et affirmare personas: in quo unicuique personae sic unum ex his tribus nominibus convenit, ut commune tribus personis esse non possit. Quisquis hoc tentat objicere, si sic sentit ut loquitur, et hoc tenet conscientia quod indicat lingua, minus attendit, haec nomina esse sine dubio relativa. In quolibet autem relativo nomine sic certum est unam in seipsa significari personam, ut hinc referatur ad alteram: et non solum in his quae eadem sunt, sicut dicitur frater ad fratrem, amicus ad amicum, vicinus ad vicinum; sed etiam in his quae diversa sunt, sicut dicitur pater ad filium, filius ad patrem, genitor ad genitum, vel genitus ad genitorem; ex quolibet horum nomine geminam intelligi solere personam. Neque enim in his nominibus sic una persona singulariter dicitur, ut non ad alteram ipso suo nomine referatur: relativo enim vocabulo sic persona quaelibet dicitur in se, ut non dicatur ad se. Ad agnoscendum itaque inseparabilitatis indicium ita se illa una veraque divinitas in singulis personis voluit incommunicabiliter nominari, ut una tamen persona sine altera non posset intelligi. Nam cum Pater ad Filium, vel Filius referatur ad Patrem, licet singula singulis tantum possint nomina convenire personis, et communionem illorum duorum nominum omnino recuset proprietas personarum, non tamen Pater sine Filio cognoscitur, nec sine Patre Filius invenitur. Relatio quippe illa vocabuli personalis personas separari vetat: quas etiam dum non simul nominat, simul insinuat. Nemo autem audire potest unumquodque istorum nominum, in quo non intelligere cogatur et alterum: quod nobis beatus Joannes insinuat, dicens: Omnis qui negat Filium, nec Patrem habet; qui confitetur Filium et Patrem habet (I Joan. II, 23). Quod utique propterea dixit, quia inseparabiliter Pater referatur ad Filium, et inseparabiliter Filius referatur ad Patrem. Non ergo separatur persona Patris a persona Filii, quotiens aut Pater tantum nominatur, aut Filius: quandoquidem Pater non dicitur, nisi referatur ad Filium, nec Filius dicitur, nisi referatur ad Patrem: in Patris enim nomine ita genitor agnoscitur, ut ex hoc et ille qui est genitus intimetur, et appellatio geniti admonet personam genitoris agnosci. Hinc est quod sicut ab eo qui confitetur Filium, Pater habetur, sic ab eo qui Filium negaverit, non habetur.
we call the Trinity one God, so we should call it one almighty, one eternal, one immeasurable, one great, one most high; and whatever, so far as God has granted to men, is named in the singular with respect to Himself, not only in the single persons but also in the three together. But let no one, because "Father" is the name of one person, and "Son" also is said of only one person in the Trinity, and likewise, when "Holy Spirit" is said properly, the singularity of one person is signified, wish to assert and affirm that these three persons are separable, on the ground that one of these three names so belongs to each person that it cannot be common to the three persons. Whoever tries to raise this objection, if he thinks as he speaks and holds in his conscience what his tongue declares, pays too little attention to the fact that these names are without doubt relative. And in any relative name it is certain that one person is signified in itself in such a way that it is thereby referred to another: and not only in things that are the same, as one says brother in relation to brother, friend to friend, neighbour to neighbour; but also in things that are different, as one says father in relation to son, son to father, begetter to begotten, or begotten to begetter; from any of these names a twofold person is customarily understood. For in these names one person is not said singly in such a way as not to be referred by its very name to another: for by a relative word any person is so spoken of in itself that it is not spoken of with respect to itself. So, for the recognition of a sign of inseparability, that one and true divinity willed to be named incommunicably in the single persons in such a way that one person nevertheless could not be understood without the other. For when the Father is referred to the Son, or the Son to the Father, though single names can belong only to single persons, and the property of the persons wholly refuses the sharing of those two names, yet the Father is not known without the Son, nor is the Son found without the Father. For that relation of the personal word forbids the persons to be separated: and even when it does not name them together, it implies them together. And no one can hear either of these names without being compelled to understand the other as well: which blessed John suggests to us, saying, "Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who confesses the Son has the Father also" (1 John 2:23). Which he said precisely because the Father is inseparably referred to the Son, and the Son is inseparably referred to the Father. The person of the Father, then, is not separated from the person of the Son whenever only the Father is named, or only the Son: since the Father is not so called unless He is referred to the Son, nor is the Son so called unless He is referred to the Father: for in the name of Father the Begetter is so recognized that by it He also who is begotten is signified, and the appellation of the Begotten reminds us to recognize the person of the Begetter. Hence it is that, just as the Father is had by him who confesses the Son, so He is not had by him who has denied the Son.
9. Quisquis ergo separabiles dicit esse personas Patris et Filii, ostendat in quolibet earum aliquod
9. Whoever, then, says that the persons of the Father and of the Son are separable, let him show in either of them some
Editors' notes and page, col. 399
Footnotes
(a) ‹anchor: voluit incommunicabiliter› · call in col 399
Ms. Thu., Incommutabiliter.
The Thuanus manuscript reads incommutabiliter ("unchangeably").
(printed under page 205)
Page
- running head: 399 S. FULGENTII EPISCOP… (right part cut off at the image edge)
- marginal letters: A ‹ut Trinitatem dicimus›; B ‹In quolibet autem relativo›; C ‹sona sine altera non posset›; D ‹ratur persona Patris›
- old-edition numerals: 235 after ‹confitetur Filium,›
vocabulum personale quod ita unius personae sit, ut ad alteram referri non possit. Sed quia hoc nullatenus invenitur, hoc sine dubio ad veram pertinet fidem: ut tres illas unius atque inseparabilis naturae personas sicut non confundimus, ita separare nullatenus audeamus. Quandoquidem ita nobis hoc dignata est ipsa Trinitas evidenter ostendere, ut etiam in his nominibus, quibus voluit singillatim personas agnosci, unam sine altera non permittat intelligi. Nam excepto quod ad se relative dicuntur Pater et Filius, ubi inseparabiliter necesse est referatur alter ad alterum, cum ista nomina sint utique personarum, non minus omnis contradictio deficit in illo personali nomine Spiritus sancti; qui non aliud personaliter vocatur cum dicitur Spiritus sanctus, quam hoc quod naturaliter et Pater vocatur et Filius. Nam et Pater naturaliter spiritus est, et Filius naturaliter spiritus est; et Pater naturaliter sanctus est, et Filius naturaliter sanctus est. Quomodo ergo potest persona Spiritus sancti a persona Patris aut Filii aliquatenus separari, cum hoc habeat Spiritus sanctus in ipso personali nomine, quod cum Patre et Filio unitate naturali cognoscitur habere commune? Hoc enim nomine non ad solum Patrem, sicut Filius; nec ad solum Filium, sicut Pater: sed simul et ad Patrem et ad Filium refertur, quando et Patris et Filii Spiritus nuncupatur. Nam et cum ipse Spiritus sanctus dicitur donum, ad donatorem inseparabiliter refertur. Hanc inseparabilitatem personarum sciens beatus David, dicebat Deo: Quo ibo a Spiritu tuo, et a facie tua quo fugiam? Si ascendero in coelum, tu illic es; si descendero in infernum, ades (Psal. CXXXVIII, 7). Quod utique non diceret, si personam Spiritus sancti a persona Patris separabilem sciret. Propterea autem se nec ab Spiritu Dei abire, nec ab ipso Deo fugere quoquam posse dicebat, quia noverat, inseparabiliter et Deum esse in Spiritu suo, et Spiritum Dei esse in Deo: non sicut est in Deo creatura, sed sicut spiritus ejus, qui non alterius naturae est quam est ipse Deus in quo est. Quod illo loco sanctus ostendit Apostolus, ubi cum dixisset: Nobis enim revelavit Deus per Spiritum suum: Spiritus enim omnia scrutatur, etiam profunda Dei; continuo humani spiritus induxit exemplum, dicens: Quis enim scit hominum quae sunt hominis, nisi spiritus hominis qui in ipso est? Ita ea quae Dei sunt, nemo cognovit nisi Spiritus Dei (I Cor. II, 10-12). Sicut ergo spiritus hominis, qui in ipso est, ideo scit quae sunt hominis, quia ejusdem naturae est cujus est homo in quo est (ubi magis interiorem hominem accipiendum existimo): ita et quae Dei sunt ideo nemo cognovit nisi Spiritus Dei, quia sic in Deo est per unitatem naturae, ut non sit aliquid in Deo, quod non possit Spiritus ejus naturali unitate cognoscere.
personal word which so belongs to one person that it cannot be referred to another. But since this is nowhere found, this without doubt belongs to the true faith: that, as we do not confound those three persons of one and inseparable nature, so we in no way dare to separate them. Since the Trinity itself has deigned to show us this so plainly that, even in those names by which it willed the persons to be recognized one by one, it does not allow one to be understood without the other. For, apart from the fact that Father and Son are said relatively to each other, where one must inseparably be referred to the other, since these names are certainly names of persons, no less does all contradiction fail in that personal name of the Holy Spirit; who, when He is called the Holy Spirit, is personally called nothing other than what both the Father and the Son are called by nature. For the Father is by nature spirit, and the Son is by nature spirit; and the Father is by nature holy, and the Son is by nature holy. How then can the person of the Holy Spirit be in any degree separated from the person of the Father or of the Son, when the Holy Spirit has in His very personal name that which He is known to have in common with the Father and the Son by natural unity? For by this name He is referred not to the Father alone, as the Son is; nor to the Son alone, as the Father is: but to the Father and to the Son together, when He is called the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son. For when the Holy Spirit Himself is called a gift, He is inseparably referred to the giver. Knowing this inseparability of the persons, blessed David said to God, "Whither shall I go from Thy Spirit, and whither shall I flee from Thy face? If I ascend into heaven, Thou art there; if I descend into hell, Thou art present" (Ps. 138:7). Which he certainly would not have said if he had known the person of the Holy Spirit to be separable from the person of the Father. And he said that he could neither go away from the Spirit of God nor flee anywhere from God Himself for this reason, that he knew that God is inseparably in His Spirit and the Spirit of God is in God: not as a creature is in God, but as His spirit, which is not of another nature than God Himself in whom it is. Which the holy Apostle showed in that place where, having said, "For God has revealed to us through His Spirit: for the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God," he at once brought in the example of the human spirit, saying, "For who among men knows the things that are of a man, except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also the things that are of God no one has known except the Spirit of God" (1 Cor. 2:10–12). As, therefore, the spirit of a man, which is in him, knows the things that are of the man for this reason, that it is of the same nature as the man in whom it is (where I think the inner man is rather to be understood): so also no one has known the things that are of God except the Spirit of God for this reason, that He is in God through unity of nature in such a way that there is nothing in God which His Spirit cannot know by natural unity.
10. Istam quippe plenitudinem cognitionis sola possidet unitas naturalis; per quam sic est in Deo Spiritus ejus, ut unus cum illo sit naturaliter Deus. Qui tamen sic in Deo est, et unus cum illo Deus
10. For natural unity alone possesses this fullness of knowledge; through which His Spirit is in God in such a way that He is by nature one God with Him. Who yet is in God in such a way, and one God with Him,
Editors' notes and page, col. 400
Page
- running head: …II EPISCOPI RUSPENSIS 400 (left part cut off at the image edge)
- marginal letters: A ‹vocabulum personale quod›; B ‹naturaliter spiritus est›; C ‹si descendero in infernum›; D ‹Spiritus Dei (I Cor. II›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: the reference printed as "10 12" with the joining stroke lost in soft type, set as "10-12". The scripture lines in the lower third (I Cor. II) are very soft and read with some uncertainty.
est, ut non cum eo unam personam habet, sicut habet cum homine spiritus qui in homine est. Sed illud cognitionis exemplum pro unitate naturali, quae nullam in Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu sancto differentiam cognitionis esse permittit, beatum Apostolum posuisse certissimum est: quia una illa natura inseparabilis, totum quidquid in se naturaliter est, non diversum sed unum, et totum sicut in tribus, sic in singulis constat esse personis. Ubi ad demonstrandam propriam Spiritus sancti personam, vere in ejusdem doctrina Spiritus apostolica vigilavit auctoritas, ut diceret: Nos autem non spiritum mundi accepimus, sed Spiritum qui ex Deo est (I Cor. II, 12): quod dici de spiritu hominis nullatenus potest, qui sic esse in homine dicitur, ut esse ex homine non dicatur. Spiritus autem sanctus in Deo est unitate naturae, ex Deo est etiam proprietate personae. Per illam ergo unitatem naturae, per quam ea quae Dei sunt nemo cognovit, nisi Spiritus Dei, etiam illud intelligitur quod Filius dicit: Nemo novit Filium nisi Pater, neque Patrem quis novit nisi Filius, et cui voluerit Filius revelare (Matth. XI, 27). Per eamdem naturae inseparabilis unitatem, et se in Patre, et in se Patrem Filius esse testatur. Nam cum discipulis dixisset: Si me cognovissetis, et Patrem meum utique cognovissetis (Joan. XIV, 7): Philippus verum cum Patrem sibi postularet ostendi, sic Dominus ipse respondit: Tanto tempore vobiscum sum, et non cognovistis me? Philippe, qui me vidit, vidit et Patrem. Quomodo tu dicis, ostende nobis Patrem? Non credis quia ego in Patre, et Pater in me est? Verba quae ego loquor vobis, non a me ipso loquor; Pater autem in me manens, ipse facit opera. Non creditis quia ego in Patre, et Pater in me est? Alioquin propter opera ipsa credite (Ibid., 9 et seq.). Ex eo igitur quod inseparabiles sunt Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus, consequens est ut inseparabiliter operentur. Quod si Trinitas illa separabiles posset habere personas, essent et aliqua separata opera Trinitatis. Nam si attendamus illud quod Scriptura sancta dicit de sapientia: Splendor est enim lucis aeternae (Sap. VII, 26), sicut splendorem luci videmus inseperabiliter inhaerere, sic agnoscamus Filium a Patre separari non posse. Ipsum enim apostolica praedicat auctoritas splendorem gloriae, et figuram substantiae Dei (Hebr. I, 3: quod sequens beatus Ambrosius in hymno matutino splendorem paternae gloriae Filium esse pronuntiat.
is, that He does not have one person with Him, as the spirit which is in a man has with the man. But it is most certain that the blessed Apostle set down that example of knowledge on behalf of the natural unity, which does not allow any difference of knowledge to be in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit: because that one inseparable nature, the whole of whatever is naturally in it, not diverse but one, and whole, is evidently in the single persons just as in the three. Here, to show the proper person of the Holy Spirit, the apostolic authority was truly watchful in the teaching of that same Spirit, so as to say, "But we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God" (1 Cor. 2:12): which can in no way be said of the spirit of a man, which is said to be in the man in such a way that it is not said to be from the man. But the Holy Spirit is in God by unity of nature, and is from God also by the property of person. Through that unity of nature, then, by which no one has known the things that are of God except the Spirit of God, that also is understood which the Son says: "No one knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and he to whom the Son wills to reveal Him" (Matt. 11:27). Through the same unity of inseparable nature the Son testifies both that He is in the Father and that the Father is in Him. For when He had said to the disciples, "If you had known Me, you would surely have known My Father also" (John 14:7), and Philip asked that the Father be shown to him, the Lord Himself answered thus: "Have I been with you so long a time, and you have not known Me? Philip, he who has seen Me has seen the Father also. How do you say, Show us the Father? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak from Myself; but the Father abiding in Me, He does the works. Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? Otherwise believe for the works' sake" (John 14:9 ff.). From the fact, then, that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are inseparable, it follows that they work inseparably. But if that Trinity could have separable persons, there would also be some separate works of the Trinity. For if we attend to what holy Scripture says of wisdom, "For she is the brightness of the eternal light" (Wis. 7:26), as we see brightness cling inseparably to light, so let us recognize that the Son cannot be separated from the Father. For apostolic authority proclaims Him "the brightness of the glory and the figure of the substance of God" (Heb. 1:3); following which blessed Ambrose, in the morning hymn, declares the Son to be the brightness of the Father's glory.
11. Illo quoque exemplo inseparabiles personas Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti, convenit ut credamus, quo ipse Unigenitus Deus sic in unitate personae suae naturam divinam humanamque conjunxit atque univit, ut a se omnino non possint separari. In una enim persona Unigeniti Dei, qui tanquam sponsus processit de thalamo suo (Psal. XVIII, 5), inseparabilis permanet utriusque naturae unitio. Nec ideo debet aliquis aestimare utramque ab invicem divelli potuisse naturam; quia per susceptionem
11. By that example also it is fitting that we believe the persons of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit to be inseparable, by which the only-begotten God Himself so joined and united the divine and the human nature in the unity of His person that they cannot at all be separated from each other. For in the one person of the only-begotten God, who "came forth as a bridegroom from his chamber" (Ps. 18:5), the union of each nature abides inseparable. Nor ought anyone therefore to think that the two natures could have been torn apart from each other; because through the taking up
Editors' notes and page, col. 401
Footnotes
(a) ‹anchor: in hymno matutino› · call in col 401
S. Ambr. in hymno fer. 2, ad laudes.
St Ambrose, in the hymn for Monday at Lauds.
(printed under page 206)
Page
- running head: 401 EPISTOLA XI… (right part cut off at the image edge)
- marginal letters: A ‹est, ut non cum eo›; B ‹dicatur. Spiritus autem sanctus›; C ‹ego in Patre, et Pater in me›; D ‹hymno matutino splendorem›
- old-edition numerals: 236 after ‹spiritus›
mortis, et caro exanimis in sepulcro jacuit, et anima in infernum, carne moriente, descendit; quandoquidem etiam cum interveniente morte anima discessisset a carne, inseparabilis in Christo utraque natura permansit, quia nec in inferno animam ejus, nec in sepulcro carnem suam divinitas immensa deseruit. †In tantum autem inseparabilis est in Christo utraque natura, ut ex hoc Eutyches in errorem caderet, et unam videns in Christo personam, unam quoque in eo naturam impie praedicaret, volens confundere quod vidit separari non posse. Sic autem iste in duabus naturis quas inseparabiliter unius esse personae cognovit, crimen impietatis incurrit, sicut Sabellius in tribus personis, propter unitatem naturae, caecitate mortiferae infidelitatis erravit; non intelligens personas Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti sine confusione subsistere, quas audiebat unitate naturali prorsus inseparabiles permanere. Sed utrumque Trinitas inseparabilis vicit, utrumque unitas inconfusa contrivit, uterque a vulva Ecclesiae matris alienatus abscessit, uterque a ventre piissimae genitricis erravit, et semetipsum, suosque complices barathro impietatis immersit. Vera quippe in Trinitate Deo non solum naturae unitas, verum etiam inconfusa atque inseparabilis manet personarum proprietas: et nihilominus in una Christi persona, duarum permanet inconfusibilis atque inseparabilis plena veritas naturarum.
of death, the flesh both lay lifeless in the tomb, and the soul, when the flesh died, descended into hell; since, even when by the intervention of death the soul had departed from the flesh, each nature remained inseparable in Christ, because the immeasurable divinity forsook neither His soul in hell nor His flesh in the tomb. So far, indeed, is each nature inseparable in Christ that Eutyches fell into error from this very thing, and, seeing one person in Christ, impiously proclaimed one nature also in Him, wishing to confound what he saw could not be separated. And this man incurred the charge of impiety in the two natures, which he knew to be inseparably of one person, just as Sabellius, in the three persons, erred on account of the unity of nature through the blindness of a deadly unbelief; not understanding that the persons of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit subsist without confusion, which he heard remain wholly inseparable by natural unity. But the inseparable Trinity has overcome both, the unconfused unity has crushed both; each went away estranged from the womb of mother Church, each strayed from the belly of a most loving mother, and plunged himself and his accomplices into the abyss of impiety. For in God the Trinity there abides not only the true unity of nature but also the unconfused and inseparable property of the persons: and none the less, in the one person of Christ, there abides the full truth of two natures, unconfused and inseparable.
12. Quod si in Christo propter unitatem personae, inseparabilis invenitur unitio divinae humanaeque naturae (cum utrique naturae nec sine initio aeternitas, nec sine mutabilitate simplicitas, nec sine termino immensitas invenitur naturaliter esse communis; quia in uno eodemque Christo et vera est divina natura, qua naturaliter est sine initio Deus natus de Patre, et vera humana natura, qua naturaliter est in plenitudine temporum Deus homo creatus ex virgine; in illa coaeternus Patri, in ista posterior matre; secundum divinam semper ubique totus, nec unquam vel usquam loco conclusus; secundum humanam, certo die de coelo ad judicandos vivos mortuosque venturus), quanta inseparabilitas credenda est illis tribus inesse personis, quarum est et unitas, et aeternitas, et simplicitas, et immensitas naturalis? Hanc beatus Ambrosius veraciter praedicat et confirmat in libro primo de Spiritu sancto (Cap. 6), haec dicens: Quis igitur audeat dicere discretum a Deo Patre et Christo esse Spiritum sanctum, cum per ipsum ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei esse mereamur? Alio quoque loco dicit: « Quis autem potest a Patre et Filio Spiritum sanctum separare, cum vel appellare Patrem et Filium sine Spiritu sancto non queamus? Nemo enim dicit Dominum Jesum, nisi in Spiritu sancto. Ergo si appellare Dominum Jesum sine Spiritu sancto utique non possumus, possumus sine Spiritu praedicare (Lib. I de Spiritu sancto, cap. 10)? » Ista trium inseparabilitas personarum a beato quoque Augustino indubitanter asseritur. In libro primo de Trinitate
12. But if in Christ, on account of the unity of the person, the union of the divine and human nature is found to be inseparable (although neither eternity without beginning, nor simplicity without mutability, nor immensity without limit is found to be naturally common to both natures; because in one and the same Christ there is both the true divine nature, by which He is by nature God born of the Father without beginning, and the true human nature, by which He is by nature God made man of a virgin in the fullness of time; in the former coeternal with the Father, in the latter later than His mother; according to the divine, always whole everywhere, and never anywhere enclosed by place; according to the human, to come on a fixed day from heaven to judge the living and the dead), how great an inseparability must be believed to be in those three persons whose unity, eternity, simplicity and immensity are natural? This blessed Ambrose truly proclaims and confirms in the first book on the Holy Spirit (Chapter VI), saying this: "Who then would dare to say that the Holy Spirit is separate from God the Father and Christ, when through Him we merit to be after the image and likeness of God?" In another place too he says: "But who can separate the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, when we cannot even name the Father and the Son without the Holy Spirit? For no one says Lord Jesus except in the Holy Spirit. If, then, we certainly cannot name the Lord Jesus without the Holy Spirit, can we preach Him without the Spirit (Book I on the Holy Spirit, Chapter X)?" This inseparability of the three persons is asserted without hesitation by blessed Augustine also. In the first book on the Trinity
Editors' notes and page, col. 402
Page
- running head: …STOLA XIV. 402 (left part cut off at the image edge)
- marginal letters: A ‹nem mortis, et caro›; B ‹erravit; non intelligens›; C ‹naturae (cum utrique naturae›; D ‹Quis igitur audeat›
- old-edition numerals: 237 after ‹naturam›
- other: the column's first syllable "nem" completes "susceptionem", set whole at the end of col. 401; this column is set from "mortis". The upper third (to "naturarum") is very soft and read with real uncertainty throughout; †In tantum: the first word of that sentence could not be made out with confidence. Migne's line-initial » continuation marks inside the Ambrose quotation are not repeated; the opening « and closing » are kept. The left "(cum" of § 12 is printed as "(cum" with the bracket closing after "venturus".
(Cap. 4), cum solum dixisset Filium de Virgine Maria natum, solumque Spiritum sanctum in specie columbae super Jesum baptizatum, et die Pentecostes linguis divisis velut ignem super discipulos advenisse; soliusque Patris fuisse vocem dicentis: Tu es Filius meus (Marc. I, 11; Luc. III, 22), quando Filius baptizatus est a Joanne, et quando sonavit vox, dicens: Et clarificavi, et iterum clarificabo (Joan. XII, 28), ostendens tamen inseparabiles esse Patrem, et Filium et Spiritum sanctum, istam sententiam intulit, dicens: Quamvis Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus, sicut inseparabiles sunt, sic inseparabiliter operentur. Cernis nempe quomodo beatus Augustinus nullam hic separabilium personarum suspicionem relinquit, quando Patrem, et Filium et Spiritum sanctum, sicut inseparabiles sunt, sic inseparabiliter asserit operari. Quam sententiam tali conclusione confirmans (Cap. 8), ait: Haec et mea fides est, quando haec est catholica fides.
(Chapter 4), when he had said that the Son alone was born of the Virgin Mary, and that the Holy Spirit alone came down in the form of a dove upon Jesus when He had been baptized, and on the day of Pentecost came upon the disciples in divided tongues as of fire; and that the voice was the Father's alone, saying: You are my Son (Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22), when the Son was baptized by John, and when the voice sounded, saying: I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again (John 12:28), showing nevertheless that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are inseparable, he brought in this sentence, saying: Although the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as they are inseparable, so work inseparably. You see, surely, how blessed Augustine here leaves no suspicion of separable persons, when he asserts that the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit, as they are inseparable, so work inseparably. Confirming this sentence with such a conclusion (Chapter 8), he says: This is my faith also, since this is the catholic faith.
13. Item alio ejusdem libri loco dicit: Denique propter ipsam inseparabilitatem sufficienter aliquando nominatur vel Pater solus, vel Filius solus adimpleturus nos laetitia cum vultu suo, nec inde separatur utriusque Spiritus, id est, Patris, et Filii Spiritus, qui Spiritus sanctus proprie dicitur, Spiritus veritatis, quem hic mundus accipere non potest (Joan. XIV, 17). Hoc est enim plenum gaudium nostrum, quo amplius non est, frui Trinitate Deo, ad cujus imaginem facti sumus. Propter hoc aliquando ita loquimur de Spiritu sancto, tanquam solus ipse sufficiat ad beatitudinem nostram; et ideo solus sufficit, quia separari a Patre et Filio non potest; sicut Pater solus sufficit, quia separari a Filio et Spiritu sancto non potest; et Filius ideo sufficit solus, quia separari a Patre et Spiritu sancto non potest. Haec est beati Augustini, secundum catholicae fidei veritatem, de Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti inseparabilitate sententia: quam ne quisquam secundum solam naturam, et non etiam secundum personas acciperet, planius hoc et manifestius paulo post in eodem libro (Cap. 9, ad finem) curavit ostendere, dicens: Sed propter insinuationem Trinitatis, personis etiam singulis nominatis dicuntur quaedam separatim, non tamen aliis separatis intelliguntur; propter ejusdem Trinitatis unitatem, unamque substantiam atque deitatem Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti. Alio quoque memorati libri loco (Sub finem cap. 10) plenissime hoc inculcans, cum de Filio dixisset: Ex hoc enim rogat, quo minor est Patre; quo vero aequalis est, exaudit cum Patre; inseparabilitatem personarum ostendens, ait: Unde se ab eo quod dixit: Ipse enim Pater amat vos (Joan. XVI, 27), utique ipse non separat; sed secundum ea facit intelligi, quae supra commemoravi, satisque insinuavi, plerumque ita nominari unamquamque in Trinitate personam, ut et aliae illic intelligantur. Sic itaque dictum est: Ipse enim Pater amat vos, ut consequenter intelligatur et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus. Item post aliquanta (Cap. †12, ante medium) idem sanctus Augustinus sic ait: « Jam enim ostendimus in †hoc Trinitate
13. Likewise in another place of the same book he says: In short, because of this very inseparability, sometimes the Father alone, or the Son alone, is sufficiently named as the one who will fill us with joy with His countenance, and the Spirit of both is not thereby separated, that is, the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, who is properly called the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, whom this world cannot receive (John 14:17). For this is our full joy, beyond which there is none: to enjoy God the Trinity, to whose image we have been made. For this reason we sometimes speak of the Holy Spirit as though He alone sufficed for our blessedness; and He alone suffices for this reason, that He cannot be separated from the Father and the Son; just as the Father alone suffices, because He cannot be separated from the Son and the Holy Spirit; and the Son suffices alone for this reason, that He cannot be separated from the Father and the Holy Spirit. This is blessed Augustine's sentence, according to the truth of the catholic faith, on the inseparability of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: and lest anyone should take it according to the nature only, and not also according to the persons, he took care to show this more plainly and more clearly a little later in the same book (Chapter 9, at the end), saying: But for the sake of making the Trinity known, certain things are said separately even of the persons named singly; yet they are not understood with the others separated, because of the unity of that same Trinity, and the one substance and deity of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. In another place too of the said book (towards the end of chapter 10), driving this home most fully, when he had said of the Son: For He asks by that in which He is less than the Father; but by that in which He is equal, He hears together with the Father; showing the inseparability of the persons, he says: Hence by what He said, For the Father Himself loves you (John 16:27), He certainly does not separate Himself; but He makes it understood according to what I recalled above, and have sufficiently made known, that for the most part each person in the Trinity is so named that the others also are understood there. So therefore it was said: For the Father Himself loves you, so that consequently the Son also, and the Holy Spirit, may be understood. Likewise, after some passages (Chapter †12, before the middle), the same holy Augustine speaks thus: "For we have already shown in this Trinity
Editors' notes and page, col. 403
Page
- running head: 403 S. FULGENTII EPISCOPI [rest beyond the crop]
- marginal letters: A ‹(Cap. 4), cum solum dixisset›; B ‹liter asserit operari›; C ‹non potest ; sicut Pater solus›; D ‹nissime hoc inculcans›
- old-edition numerals: 238 after ‹sic›
per multos locutionum divinarum modos, etiam de singulis dici quod omnium est, propter inseparabilem operationem unius ejusdemque substantiae. » In quinto decimo vero libro de Trinitate (Cap. 25), cum de hac imagine quae in nobis est, aliquas lineas praeberet ad intelligentiam Trinitatis, inter alia sic ait: « Verum in illa summa Trinitate quae incomparabiliter rebus omnibus antecellit, tanta est inseparabilitas, ut cum trinitas hominum non possit dici unus homo, illa unus Deus et dicatur, et sit; nec in uno Deo sit illa Trinitas, sed unus Deus. Nec rursus quemadmodum ista imago, quae est homo, habens illa tria una persona est, ita est et illa Trinitas; sed tres personae sunt, Pater Filii, et Filius Patris, et Spiritus Patris et Filii. » Item post aliqua (Ibidem) sic ait: « Non tamen sicut in ista imagine Trinitatis; non haec tria unus homo, sed unius hominis sunt; ita in ipsa summa Trinitate, cujus haec imago est, unius Dei sunt illa tria; sed unus Deus est; et tres sunt illae, non una persona. » Haec dicens beatus Augustinus, et inseparabilitatem earumdem trium personarum, revelatione ipsius Trinitatis intelligens, cum admiratione sequitur, dicens « (Ibidem): Quod sane mirabiliter ineffabile est, vel ineffabiliter mirabile: cum sit una persona haec imago Trinitatis, ipsa vero summa Trinitas tres personae sint, inseparabilior est illa Trinitas personarum trium, quam haec unius.
through many modes of divine speech, that what belongs to all is said even of each singly, because of the inseparable operation of one and the same substance." In the fifteenth book on the Trinity, however (Chapter 25), when he was offering some outlines, from this image which is in us, towards the understanding of the Trinity, among other things he speaks thus: "But in that supreme Trinity, which incomparably surpasses all things, so great is the inseparability that, whereas a trinity of men cannot be called one man, that Trinity both is called and is one God; nor is that Trinity in one God, but it is one God. Nor again, as this image, which is man, having those three, is one person, so is that Trinity also; but they are three persons, the Father of the Son, and the Son of the Father, and the Spirit of the Father and of the Son." Likewise after some things (in the same place) he speaks thus: "Yet not as in this image of the Trinity: these three are not one man, but are of one man; so in that supreme Trinity, whose image this is, those three are of one God; but they are one God; and they are three persons, not one." Saying this, blessed Augustine, understanding by the revelation of the Trinity itself the inseparability also of those same three persons, goes on with wonder, saying "(in the same place): Which is indeed wonderfully ineffable, or ineffably wonderful: that, while this image of the Trinity is one person, but the supreme Trinity itself is three persons, that Trinity of three persons is more inseparable than this [trinity] of one.
14. Ista, sicut non dubito, quae de primo atque novissimo libro de Trinitate verba beati Augustini posuimus, omnino sufficiunt: praesertim ingenio atque studio tuo, quo ejus dicta sic acutissime ac frequentissime legis, ut in eis plurima possis similia reperire, quae non solum in natura, sed etiam in personis inseparabilitatem sanctae Trinitatis ostendunt. Dicuntur ergo singillatim tres illae personae, ut agnoscantur, non ut separentur: in quibus sic nulla est separatio, sicut in eis nulla potest inesse confusio. Neque enim tres illae personae, quia non possunt confundi, propterea debent separabiles aestimari, cum omnino inseparabiles inveniantur, et in eo quod sunt, et in eo quod faciunt. Nec quisquam separabiles audeat illas tres personas asserere, cum nullam ante aliam, nullam post aliam, nullam sine alia vel existentem, vel operantem valeat invenire. Ubi sicut naturaliter nulla potest esse separabilitas operis, ita naturaliter manet incommutabilis unitas voluntatis. Attendamus autem †quoniam modo fuerit vel homo, vel angelus separatus a Deo, ut possimus indubitanter inseparabilem intelligere Trinitatem. Nempe Scriptura sancta dicit quia « perversae cogitationes separant a Deo, et quia in malevolam animam non introibit sapientia, nec habitabit in corpore subdito peccatis (Sap. I, 3); et quia Spiritus sanctus disciplinae effugiet fictum, et auferet se a cogitationibus quae sunt sine intellectu » (Ibid., 5). Nam et Isaias propheta (Isai. LIX, 2) testatur iniquitates inter Deum et homines separare.
14. These words of blessed Augustine, which we have set down from the first and the last book on the Trinity, are, as I do not doubt, wholly sufficient: especially for your talent and zeal, with which you read his sayings so very keenly and so very often that you can find in them a great many like ones, which show the inseparability of the Holy Trinity not only in nature but also in the persons. Those three persons, then, are spoken of singly, that they may be recognized, not that they may be separated: in them there is no separation, just as there can be no confusion in them. For those three persons, because they cannot be confused, ought not on that account to be thought separable, since they are found wholly inseparable, both in what they are and in what they do. Nor let anyone dare to assert that those three persons are separable, since he can find none existing or working before another, none after another, none without another. Where, just as by nature there can be no separability of work, so by nature there abides an unchangeable unity of will. Let us consider, then, in what way either man or angel has been separated from God, so that we may understand without doubt that the Trinity is inseparable. Holy Scripture, of course, says that "perverse thoughts separate from God, and that wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins (Wis. 1:3–4); and that the Holy Spirit of discipline will flee from the deceitful, and will withdraw Himself from thoughts that are without understanding" (ibid. 1:5). For the prophet Isaiah too (Isa. 59:2) testifies that iniquities separate between God and men.
Editors' notes and page, col. 404
Footnotes
(a) ‹anchor: studio tuo› · call in col 404
Ant., officio tuo.
The older edition (Ant.) reads officio tuo ("your office/duty").
(printed under page 207)
Page
- running head: EPISCOPI RUSPENSIS 404
- marginal letters: A ‹« per multos locutionum›; B ‹« ritus Patris et Filii›; C ‹vissimo libro de Trinitate›; D ‹operantem valeat invenire›
- old-edition numerals: 239 after ‹beatus›
Sancta autem Trinitas ipse est Deus fidelis, in quo non est iniquitas. Venit autem Filius Dei, ut peccata tolleret, et peccatum in eo non est, et peccatum est iniquitas (I Joan. III, 4, 5). Tollens autem iniquitatem, tribuit caritatem. Abstulit ergo per quod a Deo separabamur, et donavit per quod sanctae Trinitati inseparabiliter jungeremur. Ideo confidenter clamat Apostolus: « Quia neque mors, neque vita, neque angeli, neque principatus, neque instantia, neque futura, neque fortitudines, neque altitudo, neque profundum, neque creatura alia poterit nos separare a caritate Dei, quae est in Christo Jesu Domino nostro (Rom. VIII, 38) » Si ergo Trinitas, infusa caritate, inseparabiliter sibi facit adhaerere animas nostras, quia qui adhaeret Deo, unus spiritus est (I Cor. VI, 17): quomodo ipsa Trinitas unus sit Deus, ac per hoc una sit caritas, quia Deus caritas est? Caritas autem divisionem nunquam recipit, quae de multis cordibus multisque animabus in seipsa unum cor unamque animam facit.
But the Holy Trinity is itself the faithful God, in whom there is no iniquity. Now the Son of God came to take away sins, and in Him there is no sin, and sin is iniquity (1 John 3:4–5). And taking away iniquity, He bestowed charity. He took away, then, that through which we were separated from God, and gave that through which we might be inseparably joined to the Holy Trinity. Therefore the Apostle cries out confidently: "For neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the charity of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom. 8:38–39)." If, then, the Trinity, by charity poured in, makes our souls cleave to itself inseparably, since he who cleaves to God is one spirit (1 Cor. 6:17): how is the Trinity itself one God, and thereby one charity, since God is charity? But charity, which out of many hearts and many souls makes in itself one heart and one soul, never admits division.
240 QUAESTIO SECUNDA.
QUESTION THE SECOND.
15. Secunda deinde interrogatio tua hoc invenitur tenore subjuncta: « Utrum Deus Dei Filius, sicut dicitur natus, passus, mortuus, crucifixus: ita ejus divinitatem confirmare nos oporteat natam, passam, mortuam, crucifixam: quamvis sive Deus, sive divinitas nominetur, sola caro intelligatur mutabilis atque passibilis, secundum quam Deus aut divinitas pati potuit, quod in sua natura non potuit ».
15. Your second question is then found appended in this tenor: "Whether, just as God the Son of God is said to have been born, to have suffered, died, been crucified, so we ought to affirm that His divinity was born, suffered, died, was crucified: although, whether God or the divinity be named, the flesh alone is to be understood as mutable and passible, according to which God or the divinity was able to suffer what in its own nature it could not."
RESPONSIO.
REPLY.
16. His tuis verbis breviter respondeo, quidquid horum dicatur, nihil praejudicare fidei qua veraciter Ecclesia catholica credit, et praedicat divinitatem Filii Dei impassibilem atque incommutabilem naturaliter permanere. Beatus quippe Apostolus ait: Nos autem praedicamus Christum crucifixum, Judaeis quidem scandalum, gentibus autem stultitiam: ipsis autem vocatis Judaeis et Graecis, Christum Dei virtutem, et Dei sapientiam (I Cor. I, 23). Ecce Christum Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam, dicit Apostolus crucifixum. Alio autem loco simul virtutem divinitatemque conjungens ait: Sempiterna quoque ejus virtus et divinitas (Rom. I, 20) Si ergo virtus Christi secundum carnem crucifixa non indigne dicitur, cur eodem modo etiam crucifixa secundum carnem divinitas non dicatur? Quando enim additur, secundum carnem, ostenditur utique non ejus divinitatem passioni subjacuisse, sed carnem. Quod etiam apostolica videmus auctoritate monstratum. Nam cum beatus Paulus apostolus dixerit, Christum crucifixum, Dei virtutem, et Dei sapientiam, ne ipsa virtus et sapientia putaretur naturaliter esse passibilis, curavit alio loco crucifixae virtutis et sapientiae salubriter aperire mysterium, dicens de Christo: Nam etsi crucifixus est ex infirmitate, sed vivit ex virtute Dei (II Cor. XIII, 4), Scimus autem Christum Dei Filium prophetico eloquio Deum fortem veraciter nominari, Isaia dicente, Puer natus est nobis, filius datus est nobis, et factus est principatus super humeros ejus: et vocabitur
16. To these words of yours I reply briefly that, whichever of these things be said, it in no way prejudges the faith by which the catholic Church truly believes, and preaches, that the divinity of the Son of God remains by nature impassible and unchangeable. For the blessed Apostle says: But we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews indeed a stumbling block, and to the gentiles foolishness: but to them that are called, Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:23–24). See: Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God, the Apostle calls crucified. But in another place, joining power and divinity together, he says: His eternal power also and divinity (Rom. 1:20). If, then, the power of Christ is not unfittingly said to have been crucified according to the flesh, why should the divinity not in the same way also be said to have been crucified according to the flesh? For when "according to the flesh" is added, it is surely shown that not His divinity but the flesh was subject to the passion. And this we see shown also by apostolic authority. For when the blessed apostle Paul had said, Christ crucified, the power of God, and the wisdom of God, lest that power and wisdom should be thought to be passible by nature, he took care in another place to open, to our salvation, the mystery of the crucified power and wisdom, saying of Christ: For though He was crucified out of weakness, yet He lives by the power of God (2 Cor. 13:4). Now we know that Christ the Son of God is truly named by the prophetic word the mighty God, as Isaiah says: A child is born to us, a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulders: and his name shall be called
Editors' notes and page, col. 405
Footnotes
(a) ‹anchor: call mark not visible in the foot images (perhaps at "Ecclesia catholica credit")› · call in col 405 (not visible)
Ant., et credit.
The older edition (Ant.) reads et credit ("and believes").
(printed under page 208)
Page
- running head: 405 EPISTOLA X [rest beyond the crop]
- marginal letters: A ‹Sancta autem Trinitas›; B ‹modo ipsa Trinitas unus sit›; C ‹horum dicatur, nihil›; D ‹nem, ostenditur utique›
- old-edition numerals: 240 before ‹QUAESTIO SECUNDA›
nomen ejus, Admirabilis, Consiliarius, Deus fortis, Pater futuri saeculi, Princeps pacis (Isai. IX, 6). Nonne istius Dei fortis †alio loco Apostolus sempiternam virtutem divinitatemque commendat? Neque enim vera fides ita sempiternam virtutem ac divinitatem Patris praedicat, ut Filii aut Spiritus sancti sempiternam virtutem divinitatemque non credat; cum una sit naturaliter sempiterna virtus ac divinitas Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti. Deus ergo fortis Christus; ideo autem veraciter Deus, quia divinitas, sicut ideo veraciter fortis, quia virtus. Vera itaque fides, quae Christum Deum fortem veraciter credit et praedicat, et Christum crucifixum Dei virtutem, Deique sapientiam novit ab Apostolo praedicari; sicut secundum carnem, crucifixam virtutem fiducialiter novit et dicit, ita secundum carnem, crucifixam divinitatem confiteri non ambigit: Christus enim †Deus fortis, sic est Deus, ut ipse sit divinitas sua; quemadmodum sic est fortis, ut ipse sit virtus sua.
Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of peace (Isa. 9:6). Does not the Apostle in another place commend the eternal power and divinity of this mighty God? For the true faith does not so preach the eternal power and divinity of the Father as not to believe the eternal power and divinity of the Son or of the Holy Spirit; since the eternal power and divinity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is by nature one. Christ, then, is the mighty God; and He is truly God for this reason, that He is divinity, just as He is truly mighty for this reason, that He is power. Therefore the true faith, which truly believes and preaches Christ the mighty God, and knows that Christ crucified is preached by the Apostle as the power of God and the wisdom of God; just as it knows and says with confidence that the power was crucified according to the flesh, so it does not hesitate to confess that the divinity was crucified according to the flesh: for Christ, the mighty God, is God in such a way that He is Himself His divinity; just as He is mighty in such a way that He is Himself His power.
16bis. Nosti hoc quod dico, in libris de Trinitate a beato Augustino plenissime disputatum; in quibus ostendit unamquamque in Trinitate personam, in his duntaxat nominibus quibus ad se non translate, sed proprie dicitur, ipsam sibi esse quod habere naturaliter praedicatur. Dicimus enim sive Patrem, sive Filium, sive Spiritum sanctum, esse Deum vivum, magnum, sapientem, fortem, bonum. In his omnibus, quae ad se unaquaeque dicitur in Trinitate persona; quia Deus divinitate Deus est, magnus magnitudine magnus est, sapiens sapientia sapiens est, fortis virtute fortis est, bonus bonitate bonus est: sic est utique Deus, ut ipse sit divinitas sua; sic est magnus, ut ipse sit magnitudo sua; sic est sapiens, ut ipse sit sapientia sua; sic est fortis, ut ipse sit virtus sua; sic etiam bonus, ut ipse sit bonitas sua. Quod cum in supra memoratis libris idem sanctus Augustinus frequenter insinuet, quemdam locum de libro ejus quinto (Lib. V de Trinitate, cap. 10) huic opusculo inserere curavi. Cum enim de Deo et de ejus magnitudine loqueretur, inter alia sic ait: « Ea igitur magnitudine magnus est, qua ipse est eadem magnitudo. Et ideo sicut non dicimus tres essentias, sic nec tres magnitudines: hoc est enim Deo esse, quod est magnum esse. Eadem causa nec magnos tres dicimus, sed unum magnum; quia non participatione magnitudinis Deus magnus est, sed seipso magno magnus est; quia ipse sua est magnitudo. Hoc et de bonitate, et de aeternitate, et de omnipotentia Dei dictum sit, omnibusque omnino praedicamentis, quae de Deo possunt pronuntiari; quod ad seipsum dicitur, non translate ac per similitudinem, sed proprie; si tamen de illo proprie aliquid ore hominis dici potest ». In libro quoque octavo (In praefatione) eamdem promens de illa naturali Trinitatis simplicitate sententiam, inter alia sic ait: « Sicut Deus Pater, Deus Filius, Deus Spiritus sanctus: et bonus Pater, bonus Filius, bonus Spiritus sanctus; et omnipotens Pater, omnipotens Filius, omnipotens Spiritus
16bis. You know that what I am saying has been argued most fully by blessed Augustine in the books on the Trinity; in which he shows that each person in the Trinity, at least in those names by which it is spoken of with reference to itself, not figuratively but properly, is itself to itself what it is preached as having by nature. For we say that the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit is the living God, great, wise, mighty, good. In all these things which each person in the Trinity is called with reference to itself; since God is God by divinity, great is great by greatness, wise is wise by wisdom, mighty is mighty by power, good is good by goodness: He is certainly God in such a way that He is Himself His divinity; He is great in such a way that He is Himself His greatness; He is wise in such a way that He is Himself His wisdom; He is mighty in such a way that He is Himself His power; He is good too in such a way that He is Himself His goodness. Since the same holy Augustine frequently suggests this in the books mentioned above, I have taken care to insert in this little work a certain passage from his fifth book (Book V on the Trinity, chapter 10). For when he was speaking of God and of His greatness, among other things he speaks thus: "He is great, then, by that greatness by which He Himself is that same greatness. And therefore, just as we do not speak of three essences, so neither of three greatnesses: for to God, to be is the same as to be great. For the same reason we do not speak of three great ones either, but of one great one; since God is great not by participation in greatness, but He is great by Himself the great one; since He Himself is His greatness. Let this be said also of the goodness, and of the eternity, and of the omnipotence of God, and of absolutely all the predicates that can be pronounced of God; what is said of Him with reference to Himself is said not figuratively and by likeness, but properly; if indeed anything can be said of Him properly by the mouth of man." In the eighth book also (in the preface), bringing out the same sentence on that natural simplicity of the Trinity, among other things he speaks thus: "Just as the Father is God, the Son God, the Holy Spirit God: and the Father good, the Son good, the Holy Spirit good; and the Father almighty, the Son almighty, the Spirit
Editors' notes and page, col. 406
Page
- running head: [E]PISTOLA XIV. 406
- marginal letters: A ‹tur nomen ejus, Admirabilis›; B ‹cit, ita secundum carnem›; C ‹que Deus, ut ipse sit›; D ‹« seipso magno magnus est›
- old-edition numerals: 241 after ‹ambigit:›
sanctus: nec tamen tres Dii, aut tres boni, aut tres omnipotentes, sed unus Deus, bonus, et omnipotens, ipsa Trinitas; et quidquid aliud non ad invicem relative, sed ad se singuli dicuntur: hoc enim secundum essentiam dicuntur, quia hoc est ibi esse quod magnum esse, quod bonum, quod sapientem esse, et quidquid aliud ad se unaquaeque ibi persona, vel ipsa Trinitas dicitur ».
Holy: yet not three Gods, or three good ones, or three almighty ones, but one God, good and almighty, the Trinity itself; and whatever else they are each called, not relatively to one another, but with reference to themselves: for these things are said according to the essence, since there to be is the same as to be great, as to be good, as to be wise, and whatever else each person there, or the Trinity itself, is called with reference to itself."
17. Claret nempe ex his beati Augustini verbis, hoc esse catholicae veritatis, ut cum in Deo divinitatem, magnitudinem, bonitatem, virtutem, et quaelibet alia in his quae ad se proprie dicitur nominamus; non in istis diversis nominibus quaedam diversa (sicut in homine qui subjacet qualitati), sed unum illud quod est essentia vel natura certissime noverimus. Inde est enim quod ipse beatus Augustinus dicit in libro quinto de Trinitate, intelligendum sine qualitate bonum, sine quantitate magnum: quia incommutabilitas simplicis atque omnipotentis essentiae nullis potest accidentibus subjacere: ubi eadem est divinitas quae aeternitas et majestas; eadem magnitudo quae virtus est bonitas. Ex hac ergo regula veritatis quidquid †de majestate, de aeternitate, de virtute Christi secundum carnem veraciter dici cognoscimus, de divinitate quoque ejus dici veraciter non negemus. Ipse quippe beatus Augustinus in primo libro de Trinitate (Cap. 12, post medium), ostendens Deum Filium secundum divinitatem hoc habere quod est, et hoc esse quod habet, ita loquitur: « Non enim sicut creatura, ita Deus Filius, ante Incarnationem et ante assumptam creaturam unigenitus, per quem facta sunt omnia, aliud est, et aliud habet: sed hoc ipsum est, quod est et quod habet. Quod illo loco manifestius dicitur, si quis ad capiendum sit idoneus ubi ait: » Sicut habet Pater vitam in semetipso, ita dedit Filio vitam habere in semetipso (Joan. V, 26). Neque enim jam existenti et vitam non habenti dedit, ut haberet vitam in semetipso, cum eo ipso quod est, vita sit. Hoc est ergo, dedit Filio habere vitam in semetipso: genuit Filium incommutabilem vitam, quod est vita aeterna. Idem beatus Augustinus in expositione Evangelii secundum Joannem (Tract. 22, post medium), cum de ipso Domini sermone tractaret, sic ait: Filius autem Dei non quasi primo fuit sine vita, et accepit vitam: si enim sic illam acciperet, non eam haberet in semetipso. Quid est enim in semetipso? Ut ipse vita ipsa esset. Et paulo post, haec in eodem sermone confirmat dicens: Ait enim apostolus: Fuistis enim aliquando tenebrae, nunc autem lux in Domino (Ephes. V, 8). Cum dixisset, nunc autem lux, addidit, in Domino. « In te ergo tenebrae, lux in Domino. Lux quare? Quia participatione lucis illius, lux es. Si autem a luce qua illuminaris recesseris, ad tenebras tuas redis. Non sic Christus, non sic Verbum Dei. Sed quomodo? » Sicut habet Pater vitam in semetipso, sic dedit et Filio vitam habere in semetipso (Joan. V, 26): ut non participatione vivat, sed incommutabiliter vivat, †et omnino ipse
17. It is clear, surely, from these words of blessed Augustine, that this belongs to catholic truth: that when in God we name divinity, greatness, goodness, power, and any other things among those which are said of Him properly with reference to Himself, we should know most certainly that under these diverse names there are not certain diverse things (as in man, who is subject to quality), but that one thing which is the essence or nature. For hence it is that blessed Augustine himself says in the fifth book on the Trinity that He is to be understood as good without quality, great without quantity: since the unchangeableness of the simple and almighty essence can be subject to no accidents: where the divinity is the same as the eternity and the majesty; the greatness the same as the power and the goodness. By this rule of truth, then, whatever we know to be truly said of the majesty, of the eternity, of the power of Christ according to the flesh, let us not deny to be truly said also of His divinity. For blessed Augustine himself in the first book on the Trinity (Chapter 12, after the middle), showing that God the Son according to the divinity is what He has, and has what He is, speaks thus: "For not as the creature, so is God the Son, the Only-begotten before the Incarnation and before the creature was assumed, through whom all things were made, one thing and has another: but He is this very thing, both what He is and what He has. Which is said more plainly in that place, if anyone is fit to grasp it, where He says: As the Father has life in Himself, so He has given to the Son to have life in Himself (John 5:26). For He did not give to one already existing and not having life, that he might have life in himself, since by the very fact that He is, He is life. This, then, is: He gave to the Son to have life in Himself: He begot the Son as unchangeable life, which is eternal life. The same blessed Augustine, in the exposition of the Gospel according to John (Tractate 22, after the middle), when he was treating of this saying of the Lord, speaks thus: But the Son of God was not, as it were, first without life, and received life: for if He had received it so, He would not have it in Himself. For what is "in Himself"? That He Himself should be life itself. And a little later he confirms this in the same sermon, saying: For the apostle says: For you were once darkness, but now light in the Lord (Eph. 5:8). When he had said, but now light, he added, in the Lord. "In yourself, then, darkness; light in the Lord. Why light? Because by participation in that light you are light. But if you withdraw from the light by which you are enlightened, you go back to your darkness. Not so Christ, not so the Word of God. But how? As the Father has life in Himself, so He has given also to the Son to have life in Himself (John 5:26): that He may live not by participation, but may live unchangeably, and He Himself altogether
Editors' notes and page, col. 407
Footnotes
(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 407 or 408 (not visible)
Epistola est, ut nunc sunt digestae, decima.
This is the tenth letter, as they are now arranged.
(printed under page 209)
Page
- running head: 407 S. FULGENTII EPISCOPI [rest beyond the crop]
- marginal letters: A ‹« sanctus : nec tamen tres Dii›; B ‹nus dicit in libro quinto›; C ‹« facta sunt omnia, aliud est›; D ‹Ut ipse vita ipsa esset›
- old-edition numerals: 242 after ‹hac›
vita sit. Et paulo post idem sanctus doctor egregius Augustinus ait: « Quod dicitur, dedit Filio, tale est ac si diceretur, genuit Filium; generando enim dedit. Quomodo dedit ut esset, sic dedit ut vita esset, et sic dedit ut in semetipso vita esset. Quid est, in semetipso vita esset? Non aliunde vita indigeret, sed ipse esset plenitudo vitae, unde credentes alii viverent, dum viverent ».
may be life. And a little later the same holy and excellent doctor Augustine says: "What is said, He gave to the Son, is as if it were said, He begot the Son; for by begetting He gave. As He gave that He should be, so He gave that He should be life, and so He gave that He should be life in Himself. What is 'He should be life in Himself'? That He should not need life from elsewhere, but should Himself be the fullness of life, from which others, believing, might live, while they live."
18. Ex his igitur verbis praeclari antistitis Augustini, remotis docemur ambagibus, salva incommutabilitate, aeternitate, atque impassibilitate divinitatis Filii Dei, quidquid de ejus majestate, aeternitate, ac virtute secundum susceptionem carnis dicitur, incongruum non esse, si eodem modo secundum carnem de ejus divinitate dicatur. Quod ergo a Dei Filio susceptum est, ab ejus divinitate, ab ejus majestate, ab ejus virtute, ab ejus aeternitate probatur esse susceptum. Quod ut sanctorum Patrum veridica demonstret assertio, primum beatissimi papae Leonis apostolicae sedis gloriosi pontificis proferimus epistolam, quam scribens ad Flavianum Constantinopolitanae urbis episcopum, in eo quod veram de Incarnatione Domini expressit mirabiliter fidem, omnem haereticae pravitatis destruxit errorem. In illa namque epistola (Cap. 3) idem gloriosus antistes non minus apostolicae fidei veritate praeditus, quam apostolicae sedis dignitate praecellens, haec dicit: « Salva igitur proprietate utriusque naturae, et in unam coeunte personam, suscepta est a majestate humilitas, a virtute infirmitas, ab aeternitate mortalitas: et ad resolvendum †nostra conditionis debitum, natura inviolabilis naturae est unita passibili: ut (quod nostris remediis congruebat) unus atque idem mediator Dei et hominum homo Christus Jesus (I Tim. II, 5), et mori posset ex uno, et mori non posset ex altero ». Adhuc sequitur memoratus apostolicae sedis antistes, et dicit: In integra ergo veri hominis, perfectaque natura verus natus est Deus, totus in suis, totus in nostris. Nostra autem dicimus, quae in nobis ab initio Creator condidit, et quae reparanda suscepit. Cernis nempe quemadmodum ille apostolicus doctor, qua fide dicit, Deum eo quae in nobis ab initio condidit, reparanda suscepisse, eadem fide dicat humilitatem a majestate, infirmitatem a virtute, mortalitatem ab aeternitate susceptam. Cum vero majestas, virtus, atque aeternitas Filii Dei dicitur, non aliud quam ejus divinitas intimatur. Non ergo dubitemus quod divinitas Christi susceperit, quidquid Christi majestas, Christi virtus, aeternitasque suscepit. Hinc est quod in eadem epistola non dissimilis denuo sententia continetur: cum idem beatissimus Romanae praesul Ecclesiae, sicut Deum et hominem, ita divinitatem et humanitatem manifestissima praedicatione confirmat. In eadem quippe epistola dicit: Assumpta est de matre Domini natura, non culpa; nec in Domino Jesu Christo ex utero virginis genito, quia nativitas est mirabilis, ideo nostri est
18. From these words of the illustrious bishop Augustine, then, we are taught, with all ambiguity removed, that, the unchangeableness, eternity and impassibility of the divinity of the Son of God being kept safe, whatever is said of His majesty, eternity and power according to the taking up of the flesh is not unfitting if it is said in the same way, according to the flesh, of His divinity. What, then, was taken up by the Son of God is proved to have been taken up by His divinity, by His majesty, by His power, by His eternity. And that the truthful assertion of the holy Fathers may show this, we bring forward first the letter of the most blessed pope Leo, glorious pontiff of the apostolic see, which he wrote to Flavian, bishop of the city of Constantinople, in which, by expressing wonderfully the true faith about the Lord's Incarnation, he destroyed every error of heretical depravity. For in that letter (Chapter 3) the same glorious bishop, endowed no less with the truth of the apostolic faith than eminent in the dignity of the apostolic see, says this: "The property of each nature, then, being kept safe, and coming together into one person, lowliness was taken up by majesty, weakness by power, mortality by eternity: and to pay the debt of our condition, the inviolable nature was united to the passible nature: so that (as befitted our healing) one and the same mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5), could both die from the one, and could not die from the other." The aforesaid bishop of the apostolic see goes on further, and says: In the entire and perfect nature, then, of true man, true God was born, whole in what is His, whole in what is ours. And by ours we mean what the Creator established in us from the beginning, and what He took up to be restored. You see, surely, how that apostolic doctor, with the same faith with which he says that God took up, to be restored, the things which He established in us from the beginning, says that lowliness was taken up by majesty, weakness by power, mortality by eternity. And when the majesty, power and eternity of the Son of God are spoken of, nothing other than His divinity is signified. Let us not doubt, then, that the divinity of Christ took up whatever the majesty of Christ, the power of Christ, and His eternity took up. Hence it is that in the same letter a not dissimilar sentence is found again: where the same most blessed prelate of the Roman Church affirms with most manifest preaching that, as [Christ is] God and man, so [He is] divinity and humanity. For in the same letter he says: The nature was assumed from the Lord's mother, not the guilt; nor in the Lord Jesus Christ, born from the virgin's womb, because the birth is wonderful, is the nature therefore unlike ours
Editors' notes and page, col. 408
Footnotes
(b) ‹anchor: sedis dignitate praecellens› · call in col 408
Ms. Thu., praecelsus.
The Thuanus manuscript reads praecelsus ("exalted").
(printed under page 209)
(c) ‹anchor: haec dicit› · call in col 408
In ms. Thu. non habetur haec dicit, sed legitur, Salva, inquit, proprietate.
In the Thuanus manuscript haec dicit ("he says this") is not found; it reads instead Salva, inquit, proprietate ("'The property being kept,' he says").
(printed under page 209)
Page
- running head: EPISCOPI RUSPENSIS 408
- marginal letters: A ‹vita sit. Et paulo post›; B ‹ceptum est, ab ejus divinitate›; C ‹« talitas : et ad resolvendum›; D ‹vero majestas, virtus›
- old-edition numerals: 243 after ‹proprietate›
natura dissimilis. Qui enim verus est Deus, idem verus est homo, et nullum est in hac unitate mendacium; dum invicem sunt et humilitas hominis, et altitudo deitatis. Sicut enim Deus non mutatur miseratione, ita homo non consumitur dignitate. Alio quoque loco (Eodem cap. 6) idem beatissimus papa †Deo divinitatem carnis tectam velamine profitetur, dicens: « Jam cum ad praecursoris sui Joannis baptismum venit, ne lateret quod carnis velamine divinitas tegeretur, vox Patris de coelo intonans dixit: » Hic est Filius meus dilectus, in quo mihi bene complacui (Matth. III, 17). Ubi continuo divinitatem illam confidenter Deum nuncupat, et illam carnem, hominem indubitanter appellat, dicens: « Quem itaque sicut hominem, diaboli tentat astutia, eidem sicut Deo angelica famulantur obsequia. » Item alio ejusdem epistolae loco (Ibidem) dicit: « Quamvis enim in Domino Jesu Christo, Dei et hominis una persona sit: aliud tamen est unde in utroque communis est contumelia, aliud unde communis est gloria. De nostro enim illi est minor Patre humanitas, de Patre illi est aequalis cum Patre divinitas. » Cujus sententiae firmitatem sensibus cunctorum fidelium sic insinuat atque inculcat, ut in hac fide vitam profectumque catholicae constare testetur Ecclesiae, dicens (Cap. 5) quia catholica Ecclesia hac fide vivit ac proficit, ut nec sine vera credatur humanitate divinitas.
unlike [ours]. For He who is true God is likewise true man, and there is no falsehood in this unity; while both the lowliness of man and the loftiness of the deity are [present] to one another. For as God is not changed by His compassion, so man is not consumed by the dignity. In another place too (the same, chapter 6) the same most blessed pope professes the divinity, hidden by the veil of the flesh, to God, saying: "Now when He came to the baptism of John, His forerunner, lest it should be hidden that the divinity was covered by the veil of the flesh, the voice of the Father thundering from heaven said: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased (Matt. 3:17). Where he straightway confidently names that divinity God, and without doubt calls that flesh man, saying: "Him, then, whom as man the cunning of the devil tempts, as God the services of angels attend." Likewise in another place of the same letter (in the same place) he says: "For although in the Lord Jesus Christ there is one person of God and man, yet that from which the reproach is common to both is one thing, that from which the glory is common is another. For from what is ours He has the humanity less than the Father; from the Father He has the divinity equal with the Father." The firmness of which sentence he so suggests and drives home to the minds of all the faithful as to testify that the life and progress of the catholic Church stand in this faith, saying (Chapter 5) that the catholic Church lives and advances by this faith, that neither is the divinity believed without true humanity.
19. Hoc etiam beatae memoriae papa Gelasius servato tenore doctrinae, per viam verae fidei atque apostolicae confessionis, paribus incedit omnino vestigiis. In eo quippe libro quem memoratus venerabilis conscripsit antistes adversus eos qui in Domino Jesu Christo duarum naturarum nolunt indivisam credere veritatem, sed eas unius naturae professione confundunt, ipso tenore praedicationis apostolicae custodito, duas naturas in Christo inconfusas atque inseparabiles esse confirmat, dicens: « Has easdem necessarium est proferri sub una eademque persona sic indiscretas atque inseparabiles illa unitione constare, ut permaneant esse quod sunt. » Et paulo post: « Nunquid cum tantummodo Deus dicitur, homo denegatur? Nunquid cum humanitas dicitur, deitas inde removetur? Nunquid cum Filius hominis dicitur, non etiam Filius Dei consequenter advertitur? Nunquid cum Verbum dicitur non simul intelligitur et caro quod factum est? Nunquid cum caro ejus corpusque depromitur, non etiam divinitas indubitanter ostenditur? » Item alio ejusdem libri loco, de his qui unam tantum in Christo naturam nituntur asserere, sic loquitur: « Nam et cum dicunt unam fuisse naturam incarnatam, volentes hoc modo velut ostendere singularem, nullatenus evadunt significationem duarum. Dum enim dicitur unam divinitatis naturam fuisse incarnatam; remotis ambiguitatibus, altera erit quae incarnata est, altera qua incarnata perhibetur: quoniam non eadem erit natura « deitatis quae incarnata est quae est natura carnis qua incarnata firmatur; neque seipsa natura deitatis incarnata est, sed natura carnis incarnata cognoscitur.
19. Pope Gelasius too, of blessed memory, keeping the tenor of this teaching, walks with altogether equal steps along the way of the true faith and of the apostolic confession. For in that book which the aforesaid venerable bishop wrote against those who will not believe the undivided truth of the two natures in the Lord Jesus Christ, but confound them by professing one nature, keeping the very tenor of the apostolic preaching, he affirms that the two natures in Christ are unconfused and inseparable, saying: "It is necessary that these same be declared, under one and the same person, so to subsist undivided and inseparable in that union that they remain what they are." And a little later: "When He is called God only, is man denied? When humanity is spoken of, is the deity thereby removed? When He is called Son of man, is He not also consequently perceived to be Son of God? When the Word is spoken of, is not the flesh which it was made understood at the same time? When His flesh and body are set forth, is not the divinity also shown without doubt?" Likewise in another place of the same book, of those who strive to assert only one nature in Christ, he speaks thus: "For even when they say that one nature was incarnate, wishing in this way to show, as it were, a single one, they by no means escape the signification of two. For when it is said that the one nature of the divinity was incarnate, ambiguities being removed, that which was incarnate will be one thing, that by which it is said to have been incarnate another: since the nature of the deity which was incarnate will not be the same as the nature of the flesh by which it is affirmed to have been incarnate; nor was the nature of the deity incarnate by itself, but it is known to have been incarnate by the nature of the flesh.
Editors' notes and page, col. 409
Footnotes
(none) <!-- CHECK: a call "(a)" stands in col 409 at "necessarium est proferri (a)", but no footnote is printed in the foot images of this page; the note may be printed on the next page or have been cut from the render. --> (printed under page 210)
Page
- running head: 409 EPISTOLA XI[V] [rest beyond the crop]
- marginal letters: A ‹« natura dissimilis›; B ‹« quia. » Item alio›; C ‹stigiis. In eo quippe›; D ‹« intelligitur et caro›
- old-edition numerals: 244 after ‹naturae›
Sicut neque seipsa natura carnis †extitit deitate †sublimis, quia et non aliunde divinitas, quam de utero Virginis matris incarnata processit; et caro non nisi in iisdem visceribus sancto Spiritu superveniente et Altissimi obumbrante virtute, est unita deitati. » Item paulo post ait: « Quomodo ergo isti qua suae dementiae foveas quibus circumdantur evadant; et palam se aut illorum esse de numero fateantur, qui verum Christi corpus impugnant; aut negare non audeant, non nisi hac ratione verum esse sine qua verum esse non possit: sicut et eum eumdem Deum dicimus, vel secundum Deum loqui aut facere praedicamus, aliter verum esse non possit, nisi veram illic divinitatem, et in suae proprietate substantiae permanentem deitatis fateamur esse naturam.
Just as neither did the nature of the flesh by itself become exalted by the deity, since the divinity, too, came forth incarnate from nowhere else than from the womb of the Virgin mother; and the flesh was united to the deity only in that same womb, by the Holy Spirit coming upon it and the power of the Most High overshadowing it." Likewise a little later he says: "How, then, are these men to escape the pits of their madness with which they are surrounded? And let them either confess openly that they are of the number of those who attack the true body of Christ; or let them not dare to deny that it is true only in that way without which it could not be true: just as, when we call Him that same God, or preach that He speaks or acts according to God, it could not otherwise be true unless we confess that true divinity is there, and that the nature of the deity abides in the property of its own substance.
20. Sanctus quoque Ambrosius in libro primo de Fide (Cap. 2), uno eodemque loco sicut Christum Deum et hominem, sic in uno divinitatem profitetur et carnem, dicens: « Unum Deum prophetae dicunt, apostoli audiunt, unum Deum Magi crediderunt, et aurum, thus, et myrrham supplices ad Christi cunabula detulerunt, auro Regem fatentes, et Deum thure venerantes. Thesaurus enim regni aurum; sacrificium Dei thus, myrrha est sepulturae. Quid igitur voluerunt sibi mystica munera inter abjecta praesepia, nisi ut intelligamus in Christo differentiam divinitatis et carnis? Ut homo nascitur, ut Deus adoratur. Jacet in pannis, sed fulget in stellis. Cunae nascentem indicant, stellae dominantem. Caro est quae involvitur, divinitas cui ab angelis ministratur. Ita nec dignitas naturalis majestatis amittitur, et assumptae carnis veritas comprobatur. Haec omnia quae superius posita sunt hac beatus Ambrosius conclusione (Ibidem) firmavit, dicens: « Haec est fides nostra. Sic se Deus agnosci voluit ab hominibus. » Nempe beatus Ambrosius superiorem disputationem hac definitione concludens (Cap. 4), ita ut hanc esse diceret fidem nostram, evidentissime docuit, ut sicut Deum hominemque dicimus, sic divinitatem et carnem nullatenus dicere dubitemus. In secundo quoque ejusdem operis libro haec ait; « Sileant igitur inanes de sermonibus quaestiones, » quoniam regnum Dei, « sicut scriptum est. » non in persuasione verbis est, sed in ostensione spiritus et virtutis (I Cor. II, 4). Sequitur (Ibidem) adhuc idem sanctus Ambrosius dicens: « Servemus distinctionem divinitatis, et carnis: unus in utroque loquitur Dei Filius, quia in eodem utraque natura est. » Et infra: « Hic est qui descendit, hic est quem Pater sanctificavit et misit in hunc mundum. Et ipsa littera nos docet, sanctificatione non divinitatem eguisse, sed carnem. Beatus quoque Augustinus in libro de Fide, Spe, et Caritate, quem nosti a multis Enchiridion nuncupari, sic dicit (Cap. 34): « Quis enim hoc solum congruentibus explicet verbis, quod Verbum caro factum est ut habitaret in nobis; ut credamus Dei Patris omnipotententis unicum Filium, natum de Spiritu sancto et Vi⟨r⟩gine Maria? Ita quippe Verbum caro factum est, a divinitate carne suscepta, non in carnem divinitate
20. Saint Ambrose too, in the first book on the Faith (Chapter 2), in one and the same place professes in one [Christ] the divinity and the flesh, just as [he professes] Christ God and man, saying: "The prophets speak of one God, the apostles hear of one God, the Magi believed in one God, and as suppliants brought gold, frankincense and myrrh to Christ's cradle, confessing the King with the gold, and venerating God with the frankincense. For gold is the treasure of a kingdom; frankincense the sacrifice of God; myrrh is for burial. What, then, did the mystical gifts amid the lowly manger mean, unless that we should understand in Christ the difference of divinity and flesh? As man He is born, as God He is adored. He lies in swaddling clothes, but shines in the stars. The cradle shows Him being born, the stars show Him ruling. It is flesh that is wrapped, divinity that is served by angels. So neither is the dignity of the natural majesty lost, and the truth of the assumed flesh is proved." All these things set down above blessed Ambrose confirmed with this conclusion (in the same place), saying: "This is our faith. So God willed to be acknowledged by men." Blessed Ambrose, surely, concluding the foregoing discussion with this definition (Chapter 4), so that he said this is our faith, taught most evidently that, just as we say God and man, so we should by no means hesitate to say divinity and flesh. In the second book of the same work too he says this: "Let empty questions about words be silent," since the kingdom of God, "as it is written," is not in the persuasion of words, but in the showing of the spirit and of power (1 Cor. 2:4). The same Saint Ambrose goes on further (in the same place), saying: "Let us keep the distinction of the divinity and of the flesh: in both, one Son of God speaks, since in the same [Son] both natures are." And below: "This is He who came down, this is He whom the Father sanctified and sent into this world. And the very letter teaches us that not the divinity but the flesh needed sanctification." Blessed Augustine too, in the book on Faith, Hope and Charity, which you know is called by many the Enchiridion, speaks thus (Chapter 34): "For who could set out in fitting words this alone, that the Word was made flesh that He might dwell among us; so that we believe the only Son of God the Father almighty, born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary? For so was the Word made flesh: by the flesh being taken up by the divinity, not by the divinity
Editors' notes and page, col. 410
Page
- running head: [EPI]STOLA XIV. 410
- marginal letters: A ‹« Sicut neque seipsa natura›; B ‹« teamur esse naturam›; C ‹« ministratur. Ita nec dignitas›; D ‹adhuc idem sanctus Ambrosius›
- old-edition numerals: 245 after ‹beatus›
- other: the top fifteen lines (to "teamur esse naturam") and the first lines of §20 are barely legible: the wording there is read through heavy blur and is UNSURE throughout, with "extitit" and "sublimis" (†) the weakest. "verbis est" in the I Cor. quotation may be a misprint for verbi; too soft to record. "Vi⟨r⟩gine": the r is not visible at the line break. Repeated line-start guillemets are not set.
mutata. Ecce beatus Augustinus ostendit divinitatem susceptricem carnis quam nihilominus susceptricem testatur et mortis. In libre enim de Praesentia Dei sic dicit: Per caput nostrum reconciliamur Deo, quia in illo est divinitas Unigeniti facta particeps mortalitatis nostrae, ut et nos participes ejus immortalitatis essemus. Ubi continuo magnitudinem hujus sacramenti commendans, haec verba subjunxit: Hoc sacramentum longe est a cordibus sapientium superborum, et ideo non Christianorum ac per hoc nec vere sapientium.
being changed." See: blessed Augustine shows the divinity to be the taker-up of the flesh, which he nonetheless testifies to be the taker-up of death as well. For in the book on the Presence of God he speaks thus: Through our Head we are reconciled to God, because in Him the divinity of the Only-begotten was made partaker of our mortality, that we too might be partakers of His immortality. Where, straightway commending the greatness of this sacrament, he added these words: This sacrament is far from the hearts of the proud wise, and therefore of those who are not Christians, and so not truly wise either.
21. His omnibus sanctorum Patrum sententiis ostenditur, quod dicitur de Unigenito Deo, etiam de ejus divinitate non incongrue praedicari. Scimus autem in hac assertione catholicae veritatis, aut haereticos perversitati deditos, aut catholicos minus my⟨s⟩terio rectae credulitatis instructos; cum audiunt quod de Deo filio dicitur, de ejus quoque divinitate dici; et tamen unam a nobis Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti divinitatem noverunt praedicari; aliquatenus permovendos, quod communio divinitatis, communionem faciat humanae susceptionis; ac perinde ex carnis communione putetur in Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto communio humanae nativitatis, passionis et mortis. Ut ergo nec illi maligne insidientur, nec isti forsitan incaute fallantur, debent utrique cogitare, sic a nobis unam Trinitatis praedicari substantiam, ut non tamen dicamus unam ejusdem Trinitatis esse personam. Unde sic totum, quod est ipsa natura, commune tribus invenitur esse personis, ut aliquid tamen inveniatur, quo proprio (al. proprie unaquaque persona noscatur, quod tamen nec inveniatur separabile, nec possit esse commune. Nam proprium Patris dicimus esse, quod genuit; proprium Filii dicimus esse, quod solus de solo Patre natus est; proprium etiam Spiritus sancti, quod de Patre Filioque procedit. In his vero propriis nulla est naturae separatio, sed quaedam personalis agnitio. Cum enim propria solius sit generatio Patris, non ab ea tamen separatus est Filius, quia generante Patre natus est Filius. Et cum propria sit nativitas Filii, non tamen est a Patre gignente separabilis; quia nativitas Filii naturaliter vera non esset, nisi de Patre genitus exstitisset. Quamvis itaque nascente Filio Pater genuerit, et gignente Patre Filius natus sit, non tamen aut cum Patre genuit Filius, aut cum Filio natus est Pater; licet de natura Patris natus sit Filius, et naturam Filii de seipso genuerit Pater. Quia sic est personarum illa proprietas inseparabilis, ut tamen nec generatio, nec nativitas duarum personarum possit esse communis. Quamvis nisi duae personae Patris et Filii naturaliter essent, nec una gignere, nec gigni altera potuisset. Quod si hoc in Deo Patre et Deo Filio haeretici recusare contendunt, humanae generationis perspicuo aut instruantur aut confundantur exemplo. Nempe homo pater hominem filium tempore praecedit, quia ipse quoque esse temporaliter coepit; de quo filius non utique temporaliter nasceretur, nisi patris natura temporis initio subderetur.
21. By all these sentences of the holy Fathers it is shown that what is said of the Only-begotten God is not unfittingly preached of His divinity also. But we know that in this assertion of catholic truth either heretics given over to perversity, or catholics less instructed in the mystery of right belief, are somewhat disturbed when they hear that what is said of God the Son is said also of His divinity, and yet know that one divinity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is preached by us: [disturbed] lest the communion of the divinity should make a communion in the taking up of the human; and accordingly, from the communion of the flesh, a communion in human birth, passion and death be thought to be in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. So, then, that neither the former may lie in wait with malice, nor the latter perhaps be deceived through want of care, both ought to consider that one substance of the Trinity is preached by us in such a way that we do not however say that there is one person of that same Trinity. Hence the whole, which is the nature itself, is found to be common to the three persons in such a way that something is nevertheless found by which, as its own, each person is known, which yet is neither found separable, nor can be common. For we say that it is proper to the Father that He begot; we say that it is proper to the Son that He alone was born of the Father alone; proper also to the Holy Spirit that He proceeds from the Father and the Son. In these proper things, however, there is no separation of nature, but a certain personal recognition. For although the begetting is proper to the Father alone, the Son is nevertheless not separated from it, since the Son was born by the Father's begetting. And although the birth is proper to the Son, it is nevertheless not separable from the begetting Father; since the birth of the Son would not be true by nature, unless He had been begotten of the Father. Although, then, the Father begot as the Son was born, and the Son was born as the Father begot, yet neither did the Son beget with the Father, nor was the Father born with the Son; although the Son was born of the nature of the Father, and the Father begot the nature of the Son from Himself. For that property of the persons is so inseparable that nevertheless neither the begetting nor the birth can be common to the two persons. Although, unless there were by nature two persons, of the Father and of the Son, neither could the one have begotten, nor the other have been begotten. But if the heretics strive to refuse this in God the Father and God the Son, let them be either instructed or confounded by the clear example of human generation. A man who is a father, surely, precedes in time a man who is his son, because he too began to be in time; of whom the son would certainly not be born in time, unless the father's nature had been subjected to the beginning of time.
Editors' notes and page, col. 411
Page
- running head: 411 S. FULGENTII EPISCOP[I] [rest beyond the crop]
- marginal letters: A ‹mutata. Ecce beatus Augustinus›; B ‹de Deo filio dicitur›; C ‹separabile, nec possit esse›; D ‹et naturam Filii de seipso›
- old-edition numerals: 246 after ‹non›
Unde liquido apparet ideo Deum Filium de Deo Patre sine initio natum, quia ille Pater de se Filium genuit, qui sic esse non coepit, sicut esse non desinit (al. desinet); et tamen cum homo pater nativitatem filii praecessisse naturaliter agnoscatur, in eadem generatione filii nec filius a patre, nec pater a filio separatur, quia patre gignente filius gignitur. Et cum generatio illa causa sit nativitatis, nec a generatione possit separari nativitas, sic illa generatio a nativitate non separatur, ut in una eademque natura unus generet, alterque nascatur.
Hence it plainly appears that God the Son was born of God the Father without beginning for this reason, that that Father begot the Son from Himself who did not begin to be, just as He does not cease (al. will not cease) to be; and yet, although a man who is a father is acknowledged by nature to have preceded the birth of his son, in that same begetting of the son neither is the son separated from the father, nor the father from the son, since the son is begotten as the father begets. And since that begetting is the cause of the birth, and the birth cannot be separated from the begetting, so that begetting is not separated from the birth, that in one and the same nature the one begets, and the other is born.
22. Sic ergo est illa generatio atque nativitas naturaliter inseparabilis, ut nec generandi nec nascendi communio simul ambabus possit inesse personis. Quia hoc habet proprietates personarum, ut nec Filius seipsum cum Patre gignat de quo gignitur. nec Pater cum Filio de se nascente nascatur. Permanet ergo in unitate naturae inconfusa veritas personarum, in quibus est aliquid quod non commune reperiatur esse, sed proprium. Deus itaque Unigenitus, qui cum Patre et Spiritu sancto sic habet unam eamdemque naturam, ut tamen personam non communem habeat omnino, sed propriam, ideo acceptionem formae servilis communem cum Patre et Spiritu sancto non habuit, quia non unitate naturae, sed in unitate personae suae solius, veritatem ac plenitudinem formae servilis accepit. Qui enim verus et plenus est Deus, idem verus et plenus factus est homo, quando ab Unigenito Deo in unitatem personae accepta est sine peccato anima rationalis et caro. Natura itaque humana sic ab Unigenito Deo accepta est, ut divinitatis atque humanitatis persona una tantum existeret, non natura. Proinde non est quidem separatus Filius a Patre et Spiritu sancto, quando plenam suscepit humanitatis nostrae naturam; sed non simul cum Patre et Spiritu sancto eamdem naturam accepit, quia non una in eo facta est natura divinitatis et carnis, ut ex hoc totius crederetur incarnatio Trinitatis, sed persona est in Christo una, quam invenitur Unigenitus Deus inseparabilem quidem a Patre et Spiritu sancto habere, sed unam tamen cum Patre et spiritu sancto non habere. Propriam ergo Christus habet humanitatem suam, cum qua divinitas ejus non unam naturam, sed unam invenitur habere personam. Quae persona Unigeniti Dei quia neque Patris est, neque Spiritus sancti, ideo forma servilis a solo Filio accepta recte creditur; quin divinitatis ejus et carnis persona una est, non natura. In Christo enim non est altera divinitatis et altera humanitatis, sed una est naturae utriusque persona. Quocirca quia inseparabilis est operatio Trinitatis, servilem formam quam Unigenitus Deus accepit, tota Trinitas fecit; quam tamen certum est a tota Trinitate factam, sed ad solam Filii Dei pertinere personam. Neque enim sicut est in ea totius Trinitatis una operatio, sic in ea Trinitatis invenitur communis acceptio. Etenim proprietas personalis (quia non ipse Pater est qui Filius, nec Spiritu sanctus
22. So, then, that begetting and birth are by nature inseparable in such a way that no communion either of begetting or of being born can be in both persons together. For the properties of the persons have this, that neither does the Son, together with the Father, beget Himself, of whom He is begotten, nor is the Father born together with the Son who is born of Him. There abides, then, in the unity of the nature the unconfused truth of the persons, in whom there is something which is found to be not common, but proper. And so the Only-begotten God, who with the Father and the Holy Spirit so has one and the same nature that He nevertheless has a person not common at all, but proper, for that reason did not have the taking of the form of a servant in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit, since He took the truth and fullness of the form of a servant not in the unity of the nature, but in the unity of His own person alone. For He who is true and full God, the same was made true and full man, when a rational soul and flesh without sin were taken by the Only-begotten God into the unity of the person. Human nature, then, was so taken by the Only-begotten God that there came to be one person only of the divinity and the humanity, not one nature. Accordingly the Son was indeed not separated from the Father and the Holy Spirit when He took up the full nature of our humanity; but He did not take that same nature together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, since there was not made in Him one nature of the divinity and the flesh, so that from this the incarnation of the whole Trinity should be believed; but there is in Christ one person, which the Only-begotten God is found to have as inseparable indeed from the Father and the Holy Spirit, but yet not to have as one with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Christ, then, has His humanity as His own, with which His divinity is found to have not one nature, but one person. And since this person of the Only-begotten God is neither the Father's nor the Holy Spirit's, the form of a servant is therefore rightly believed to have been taken by the Son alone; because of His divinity and flesh there is one person, not one nature. For in Christ there is not one [person] of the divinity and another of the humanity, but there is one person of both natures. Wherefore, since the working of the Trinity is inseparable, the whole Trinity made the form of a servant which the Only-begotten God took; which nevertheless, it is certain, was made by the whole Trinity, but belongs to the person of the Son of God alone. For it is not the case that, as there is in it one working of the whole Trinity, so in it a common taking by the Trinity is found. For the personal property (since the Father Himself is not He who is the Son, nor the Holy Spirit
Editors' notes and page, col. 412
Footnotes
(a) ‹anchor: personae suae solius› · call in col 412
Ant., in unitate personae solus.
The older edition (Ant.) reads in unitate personae solus ("alone, in the unity of the person").
<!-- CHECK: the note's letter is blurred in the foot image and could be read as "(c)"; the call in col 412 reads as "(a)". Set as (a). --> (printed under page 211)
Page
- running head: [...]II EPISCOPI RUSPENSIS 412
- marginal letters: A ‹deretur. Unde liquido apparet›; B ‹Filius seipsum cum Patre›; C ‹est, ut divinitatis atque›; D ‹forma servilis a solo Filio›
- old-edition numerals: 247 after ‹Unigenitus›
est ipse qui Pater aut Filius) ostendit aliquid a Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto factum, quod tamen a solo inveniatur acceptum.
is the same as the Father or the Son) shows something done by the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit which is nevertheless found to have been received by one alone.
23. Cujus exemplum rei in creaturis non potest inveniri, quia excepta Trinitate, quae unus est naturaliter verus Deus, nulla natura est quae in se tres inseparabiles possit habere personas. Quia vero in unoquoque homine invenimus carnem non hoc esse quod animam, nec utramque unius esse naturae, quamvis ex utraque perficiatur et constet humana natura; quae tamen in unoquoque homine unam inveniuntur habere personam: proinde in istis duabus naturis quas unam personam habere cognoscimus, simile aliquid inquiramus; ut cum hic invenerimus aliquid fieri animae carnisque communi opere, quod tamen aut ad solius animae, aut ad solius carnis inveniatur pertinere substantiam, inde conjiciamus, et quantum ipsa tribuit Trinitas intelligamus, potuisse aliquid ab eisdem tribus personis uno simul opere fieri, quod sic tota quidem Trinitas† inseparabiliter faceret, ut ad unam ex Trinitate personam illud quod factum est pertineret. Nempe quando cibos sumimus, carni utique et non animae providemus; et in ipsa tamen acceptione ciborum qua sola caro pascitur, anima cum carne pariter operatur, quia caro sine anima, sicut non vivit, ita nec comedit. Ecce, ut sola caro accipiat cibum, simul et carnis et animae unum invenitur officium: et quod proprietate naturali caro accipit sola, per unitatem personae simul cum carne operatur et anima. Communis est itaque operatio, sed non est communis acceptio: nec comedentem carnem anima in opere deserit: quae tamen sic operationis suae cum carne miscet officium, ut eadem communione operis sola caro accipiat vitale subsidium. Tale aliquid invenitur in eadem unitate personae ipsa quoque hominis sibi anima vindicare, si quando intentionem cordis officio divinae deputat lectionis, qua procul dubio non exterior, sed interior homo pascitur, et plerumque jejunante carne magis anima saginatur. Nonne ut anima capiat ex lectione cibum, etiam corporalium membrorum admiscet officium? Legere quippe non potest nisi per oculos corporis; quod tamen cum oculis corporis legit, oculis cordis intellegit; ac per hoc cum carne simul operatur et anima unde sola pascatur, et sola in se accipit quod non sola facit. Ecce duae naturae propter unam personam inseparabiliter operantur, sed propter suas proprietates una plerumque accipit quod non sola facit, imo quod sine altera nullatenus facit. Et quamvis hoc ad integram cognitionis lineam omnino sufficiat, ut ex eo quod hic in duabus naturis et una persona videmus, ad illarum in una natura trium personarum intelligentiam, quantam ipsa Trinitas dignatur tribuere, conscendamus: tamen etiam in ipso Redemptore nostro hujus rei manifesta nobis atque indubitata probetur agnitio. Qui
23. An example of this thing cannot be found among creatures, because, the Trinity excepted, which is by nature the one true God, there is no nature that can have in itself three inseparable persons. But since in each man we find that the flesh is not the same thing as the soul, nor are both of one nature, although human nature is completed and constituted from both; and yet in each man they are found to have one person: let us therefore seek something similar in these two natures which we know to have one person; so that when we find here something done by the common work of soul and flesh which is nevertheless found to belong to the substance either of the soul alone or of the flesh alone, we may infer from it, and understand as far as the Trinity Itself grants, that something could be done by those same three persons in one joint work, which the whole Trinity would indeed do inseparably in such a way that what was done would belong to one person of the Trinity. Certainly, when we take food, we provide for the flesh, of course, and not for the soul; and yet in that very taking of food, by which the flesh alone is fed, the soul works together with the flesh, because the flesh without the soul, just as it does not live, so neither does it eat. See: in order that the flesh alone may receive food, one task is found to belong at once to both flesh and soul; and what the flesh alone receives by its natural property, the soul too works at together with the flesh through the unity of the person. The working, then, is common, but the receiving is not common: the soul does not abandon the eating flesh in the work; yet it so mingles the task of its working with the flesh that by that same partnership in the work the flesh alone receives the support of life. Something of the kind is found, in the same unity of the person, which the very soul of man claims for itself, whenever it devotes the attention of the heart to the task of divine reading, by which beyond doubt not the outer but the inner man is fed, and often, while the flesh is fasting, the soul is fattened the more. Does it not, so that the soul may take food from reading, also bring in the task of the bodily members? For it cannot read except through the eyes of the body; yet what it reads with the eyes of the body it understands with the eyes of the heart; and so the soul works together with the flesh at that by which it alone is fed, and it alone receives in itself what it does not do alone. See: two natures work inseparably on account of the one person, but on account of their own properties one often receives what it does not do alone, indeed what it in no way does without the other. And although this wholly suffices for the full line of knowledge, so that from what we see here in two natures and one person we may climb to the understanding of those three persons in one nature, as far as the Trinity Itself deigns to grant: yet in our Redeemer Himself too let a clear and undoubted knowledge of this matter be proved to us. He who
Editors' notes and page, col. 413
Footnotes
(a) ‹anchor: officio divinae deputat lectionis› · call in col 413
Ms. Thu., intentione cordis divinae decumbit lectioni.
The Thuanus manuscript reads intentione cordis divinae decumbit lectioni ("with the intent of the heart it lies down to holy reading").
(printed under page 212)
(b) ‹anchor: Legere› · call in col 413
Ms. Thu., Legi.
The Thuanus manuscript reads Legi ("to be read").
(printed under page 212)
(c) ‹anchor: oculis cordis intellegit› · call in col 413
Ms. Thu., hoc tamen quod oculus corporis legit, oculus cordis intelligit.
The Thuanus manuscript reads hoc tamen quod oculus corporis legit, oculus cordis intelligit ("yet what the eye of the body reads, the eye of the heart understands").
(printed under page 212)
Page
- running head: 413 EPISTOLA X… (truncated at the image's right edge; the rest of the head is not visible)
- marginal letters: A est ipse qui Pater; B men aut ad solius animae; C carnem anima in opere deserit; D naturae propter unam personam
- old-edition numerals: 248 after potest
utique sic in unitate personae suae naturam utramque conjunxit insolubiliter et univit, ut in una persona Unigeniti Dei, nec divinitas ab humanitate sua, nec humanitas a sua possit divinitate sejungi. Indissolubilis quippe facta est Verbi et carnis unitio, quando Verbum factum est caro: in quo† sic mansit personalis unitas, ut tamen naturalis non dividi† possit, nec confundi proprietas. Proinde sic in uno Christo communia naturae utriusque inveniuntur officia, ut cum non dividatur in virtutibus atque infirmitatibus Christus, sit tamen aliquid quod in uno naturae utriusque opere non sit naturae utriusque commune.
certainly so joined and united both natures indissolubly in the unity of His person that in the one person of the Only-begotten of God neither can the divinity be separated from its humanity nor the humanity from its divinity. For the union of the Word and the flesh was made indissoluble when the Word was made flesh (John 1:14): in which the personal unity so remained that the natural property can nevertheless neither be divided nor confused. Accordingly, the tasks of both natures are so found common in the one Christ that, while Christ is not divided in His powers and His weaknesses, there is nevertheless something which, in the one work of both natures, is not common to both natures.
24. Nam ut de illo ineffabili conceptu partuque nunc taceam, quo sic aeternus temporaliter conceptus et natus est Deus, ut tamen in ipsa communione conceptus partusque virginei, solius esset proprium naturaliter carnis initialiter de carne Genitricis existere, in membra formari, et usque ad maturitatem partus processu temporis operisque perduci, deinde decedentibus ac succedentibus aetatibus crescere, et ad perfectum juventutis modum suo tempore pervenire; quid dicemus de illis deinceps operibus et passionibus, cum in illo esset quidem inseparabilis naturaliter vera caro, vera rationalis anima, veraque divinitas? Verumtamen sic ea quae naturalis veritas habuit, aut pati dignaretur, aut facere, ut et totus Christus in passione vel opere permansisset inseparabilis, et quod personalis unitas commune divinitatis atque humanitatis ostenderet, hoc tamen in se idem Christus naturae uniuscujusque proprium naturali veritate monstraret. Suscipiens quippe nostrae infirmitatis esuriem, illam famem suam totus operatus est Christus, et ut cibum sumeret, totus Christus similiter fecit: naturaliter tamen sicut sola caro esuriem pertulit, ita sola caro cibum opere totius Christi comedentis (al. comedendum) accepit. Fatigatus ab itinere† Jesu sedit super puteum (Joan. IV, 6): illam vero fatigationem divinitas sentire non potuit; sed neque secundum animam ullatenus eam fatigationem sensisse dicendus est Christus. Illud ergo quod sedit, ad solam refectionem pertinuit carnis naturaliter fatigatae; in qua tamen refectione communis fuit operatio deitatis et animae. In ipso deinde tempore passionis et mortis, quis in uno eodemque Christo in ipsa communione operum non videat inseparabiliter manere propria naturarum? Tristis fuit anima ejus usque ad mortem (Matth. XXVI, 38). Sed neque divinitas incommutabilis receptrix potest esse tristitiae, nec caro tristitiam potest aliquando sentire. Tristitia itaque solius est animae rationalis, quae nec divinitati potest naturaliter inesse, nec carni; personaliter tamen totus Christus dignatus est in se tristitiam operari: in se (al. ipse) quippe suas passiones invenitur operatus, qui nihil habuit quod pateretur invitus. Ut ergo tristaretur, totus Christus fecit; sed illam tristitiam sola in se naturaliter anima rationalis
24. For, to say nothing now of that ineffable conception and birth, by which the eternal God was so conceived and born in time that, even in that very partnership of the virgin conception and birth, it was by nature proper to the flesh alone to come into being initially from the flesh of His Mother, to be formed into members, and to be brought on by the progress of time and of the work to the ripeness of birth, then to grow as ages passed and followed, and in its own time to reach the full measure of youth; what shall we say of those works and sufferings that followed, when there was in Him, inseparably, true flesh by nature, a true rational soul, and true divinity? Yet He deigned so to suffer or to do the things that the truth of His natures had, that the whole Christ remained inseparable in suffering or in work, and yet what the personal unity showed to be common to divinity and humanity, the same Christ showed in Himself, by the truth of nature, to be proper to each nature. For, taking on the hunger of our weakness, the whole Christ worked that hunger of His, and the whole Christ likewise brought it about that He took food: yet by nature, just as the flesh alone endured hunger, so the flesh alone received food by the work of the whole Christ eating (alias: to be eaten). Jesus, wearied from the journey, sat on the well (John 4:6): but the divinity could not feel that weariness; nor indeed must Christ be said to have felt that weariness in any way according to the soul. That He sat, then, belonged to the refreshment of the flesh alone, wearied by nature; yet in that refreshment the working of the deity and of the soul was common. Then, in the very time of the passion and death, who does not see that in one and the same Christ, in that very partnership of works, the properties of the natures remain inseparably? His soul was sorrowful unto death (Matt. 26:38). But neither can the unchangeable divinity be a receiver of sorrow, nor can flesh ever feel sorrow. Sorrow, then, belongs to the rational soul alone, which can be by nature neither in the divinity nor in the flesh; yet personally the whole Christ deigned to work sorrow in Himself: for He is found to have worked His sufferings in Himself (alias: Himself), He who had nothing that He suffered unwillingly. That He was sorrowful, then, the whole Christ brought about; but that sorrow the rational soul alone
Editors' notes and page, col. 414
Page
- running head: EPISTOLA XIV. 414
- marginal letters: A utique sic in unitate personae; B conceptus partusque virginei; C rali veritate monstraret; D 249 ejus usque ad mortem
- old-edition numerals: 249 after anima (before ejus)
- other: the top third of this column (to "nunc taceam") is very faded; read with difficulty. "in quo†" could be "in qua"; "dividi†" uncertain in the faded type. "ab itinere†": the scan seems to show "ab tinere"; the i may be lost or omitted; check at higher zoom. "rationa-" breaks at the column end (rationa|lis); set as visible, next column not seen. English closing supplement [received] anticipates the next column's verb, not seen.
accepit. Jam vero cum Christus uno eodemque tempore et in sepulcro jacuit, et in infernum descendit, quis non inseparabile naturae utriusque opus videat? et quis in ipso uno atque inseparabili opere propria carnis, et animae, ac divinitatis non evidenter agnoscat? Ut enim secundum carnem in sepulcro jaceret, totus Christus fecit; sed sepulturae capax sola caro naturaliter fuit. In infernum quoque ut secundum animam Christus descenderet, naturae utriusque, id est divinae atque humanae, unum fuit opus; sed solius animae naturalis fuit ille descensus. Sicut eodem tempore totus in coelo et in terra non cessabat Christus operari; sed solius divinitas fuit, et loco non contineri, et quae ad gubernationem universitatis pertinebant, cum Patre naturaliter et aequaliter operari. Inde est, quod in omnibus illis operibus passionis et mortis, auctoritas apostolica quod totus in se operatus est Christus, sic uni personae operantis assignat, ut quid cujusque naturae sit indubitanter ostendat. Nam et apostolus Paulus de uno eodemque Christo dicit: Et si crucifixus est ex infirmitate, sed vivit ex virtute Dei (II Cor. XIII, 4). Et beatus Petrus propheticum sic protulit de Psalmis eloquium, ut Christi animam, quam infernum noverat descendisse, ipsam diceret in inferno non derelictam. Sic enim de beato David idem Petrus apostolus loquitur: Propheta igitur cum esset, et sciret quia jurejurando jurasset illi Deus, de fructu lumbi ejus sedere super sedem ejus, providens locutus est de resurrectione Christi, quia neque derelicta est anima ejus in inferno, neque caro ejus vidit corruptionem (Act. II, 30. Haec itaque omnia totus Christus secundum unam personam fecit, et sic unum naturae utriusque opus agnoscitur, ut tamen quid cui naturae deputari debeat, non negetur. His ergo unusquisque instruatur exemplis, ut quod hic in naturam consideratione cognoscit, hoc illic in personis intelligat: nec dubitet humanam Christi naturam totius Trinitatis opere factam, sed ad solam Unigeniti Dei pertinere personam.
received in itself by nature. Now, when Christ at one and the same time both lay in the tomb and descended into hell, who does not see the inseparable work of both natures? And who does not plainly recognize, in that one and inseparable work, what is proper to the flesh, and to the soul, and to the divinity? For that He should lie in the tomb according to the flesh, the whole Christ brought about; but the flesh alone was by nature capable of burial. That Christ should descend into hell according to the soul was likewise one work of both natures, that is, the divine and the human; but that descent was natural to the soul alone. Just so, at the same time, the whole Christ did not cease to work in heaven and on earth; but it belonged to the divinity alone both not to be contained by place and to work, by nature and equally with the Father, the things that pertained to the government of the universe. Hence it is that in all those works of the passion and death, the apostolic authority so assigns to the one person of the One working what the whole Christ worked in Himself as to show without doubt what belongs to each nature. For the apostle Paul too says of one and the same Christ: For though He was crucified out of weakness, yet He lives by the power of God (II Cor. 13:4). And blessed Peter so brought forward the prophetic utterance from the Psalms as to say that the soul of Christ, which he knew had descended into hell, was not left in hell. For so the same apostle Peter speaks of blessed David: Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn to him with an oath that of the fruit of his loins one should sit upon his throne, foreseeing it he spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that neither was His soul left in hell, nor did His flesh see corruption (Acts 2:30–31). All these things, then, the whole Christ did according to the one person, and so one work of both natures is recognized that it is nevertheless not denied what ought to be assigned to which nature. Let each one, then, be instructed by these examples, so that what he comes to know here by considering the natures, he may understand there in the persons: and let him not doubt that the human nature of Christ was made by the work of the whole Trinity, but belongs to the person of the Only-begotten of God alone.
QUAESTIO TERTIA.
THE THIRD QUESTION.
25. Tertia est inquisitio tua, Utrum anima Christi susceptricis deitatis plenam habeat omnino notitiam: et quemadmodum se invicem norunt Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus, ita idem Filius seipsum per id quod homo est, in eo quod Deus, noverit; ex utraque, atque in utraque substantia totum capiens Patrem. An forte sicut oculis corporalibus Deum spiritum minime videt, ne non homini dignitas addita, sed natura credatur penitus commutata: sic rationalis animae quamvis pio intellectu et corde mundissimo non videri, neque comprehendi omnem divinitatis essentiam, ne quaelibet creatura inveniatur capere Creatorem.
25. Your third inquiry is whether the soul of Christ has an entirely full knowledge of the deity that took it up: and whether, just as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit know one another, so the same Son, through that which He is as man, knows Himself in that which He is as God; grasping the whole Father from both, and in both, substances. Or perhaps, just as with bodily eyes He by no means sees God, who is spirit, lest it be believed that a dignity was not added to the man but that his nature was wholly changed: so the whole essence of the divinity is neither seen nor comprehended by a rational soul, however devout its understanding and however pure its heart, lest any creature be found to contain the Creator.
RESPONSIO.
REPLY.
26. Haec in tuis litteris verba, frater carissime, cum legissem, magnis me fateor angustiis coarctatum,
26. When I had read these words in your letter, dearest brother, I confess that I was hemmed in by great straits
Editors' notes and page, col. 415
Footnotes
(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 415 (not visible)
Ms. Thu., operanti.
The Thuanus manuscript reads operanti ("to the one working").
(printed under page 213)
(b) ‹anchor: quid cui naturae› · call in col 415
Forte legendum cuique naturae, ut superius habetur.
Perhaps read cuique naturae ("to each nature"), as it stands above.
(printed under page 213)
Page
- running head: 415 S. FULGENTII EPISCOP… (truncated at the image's right edge)
- marginal letters: A lis accepit. Jam vero; B operari. Inde est, quod in omnibus; C itaque omnia totus Christus; D utraque, 250 atque in utraque
- old-edition numerals: 250 after utraque,
quia compellimur dicere quod sufficienter ac digne non possumus cogitare. Nam considerata Creatoris creaturaeque distinctio incomprehensibilem monstrat atque inexplicabilem intellectui creaturae magnitudinem Creatoris: quippe cum pax Dei exsuperet omnem intellectum (Philip. IV, 7), et ille qui ascendit super Cherubin, volet super pennas ventorum (Psal. XVII, 10). Nosti autem Cherubin interpretari plenitudinem scientiae. Quid est ergo super Cherubin ascendere, nisi omnem scientiae plenitudinem incomprehensibili altitudine superare? Sed haec confidenter atque indubitanter dicimus de sanctis angelis atque hominibus sanctis: quorum quilibet sic divinae adoptionis gratuito munere deus dicitur, ut tamen Deus angelorum vel hominum nulla ratione dicatur. Cum autem de anima Christi loquimur, de illo loquimur rationali spiritu, ad quem non solum Deus per gratiam venit, sed quem ipsa divinitas in unitate personae suscepit. Anima quippe illa cum Verbo unus est Christus, anima illa cum Verbo unus est Unigenitus Deus. Et quia Unigenitus Deus aequalis est Patri, nec potest totum nosse Filium qui totum non noverit Patrem nosse non creditur, ipsi uni Christo ex aliqua parte, non solum Patris, sed etiam sui et Spiritus sancti, cognitio denegetur: perquam vero durum est; et a sanitate fidei penitus alienum, ut dicamus animam Christi non plenam suae deitatis habere notitiam, cum qua naturaliter unam creditur habere personam.
because we are compelled to say what we cannot think adequately and worthily. For the distinction between Creator and creature, once considered, shows the greatness of the Creator to be incomprehensible and inexplicable to the understanding of a creature: since indeed the peace of God surpasses all understanding (Phil. 4:7), and He who ascended upon the Cherubim flies upon the wings of the winds (Ps. 17:10). Now you know that Cherubim is interpreted "fullness of knowledge". What, then, is it to ascend upon the Cherubim, if not to surpass all fullness of knowledge by an incomprehensible height? But these things we say confidently and without doubt of the holy angels and of holy men: any one of whom is so called a god by the free gift of divine adoption that he is nevertheless in no way called the God of angels or of men. But when we speak of the soul of Christ, we speak of that rational spirit to which God not only came through grace, but which the divinity itself took up into the unity of its person. For that soul together with the Word is one Christ; that soul together with the Word is one only-begotten God. And since the only-begotten God is equal to the Father, nor is he believed able to know the whole Son who has not known the whole Father, [and yet] knowledge, not only of the Father but also of Himself and of the Holy Spirit, should in some part be denied to the one Christ Himself: it is very hard indeed, and wholly foreign to soundness of faith, that we should say that the soul of Christ does not have full knowledge of its deity, with which it is believed by nature to have one person.
27. Quod si sic crediderimus, necesse est et illa frustretur praedicatio Joannis Baptistae, quae Christo singularem ac sine mensura tribuit Spiritus largitatem, dicens: Non enim ad mensuram dat Deus Spiritum (Joan. III, 34): cum et majores nostri in nobis mensuram hujus largitatis accipiant, in Christo autem plenitudinem manere sancti Spiritus videantur†. Beatus namque Ambrosius in libro primo (Cap. 6) de Spiritu sancto, inter alia sic ait: De Spiritu meo, inquit, effundam (Act. II, 17). Non Spiritum ait, sed de Spiritu: neque enim nos capere possumus plenitudinem Spiritus sancti, sed tantum accipimus, quantum de suo arbiter nostri pro sua voluntate diviserit. Ostendens ergo nos sanctus Ambrosius non plenitudinem, sed de plenitudine Spiritus accipere, ut ostenderet Christum omnem plenitudinem Spiritus accepisse, paulo post (Ibidem) haec dicit: De Spiritu sancto Pater se dicit effundere super omnem carnem. Non enim totum effundit, sed quod effudit, omnibus abundavit. Super nos ergo effusum est de Spiritu sancto. At vero super Dominum Jesum, cum in forma esset hominis, manebat Spiritus; sicut scriptum est: Supra quem videris Spiritum descendentem de coelo, et manentem super eum, hic est qui baptizat in Spiritu Sancto (Joan. I, 33.) Circa nos ex affluenti commodo liberalitas largientis est, in illo totius manet in aeternum Spiritus plenitudo. Nempe beatus Ambrosius
27. But if we believe so, that preaching of John the Baptist must also be made void, which attributes to Christ a singular and measureless bounty of the Spirit, saying: For God does not give the Spirit by measure (John 3:34): since our forefathers too are seen to take it that in us there is a measure of this bounty, but in Christ the fullness of the Holy Spirit abides. For blessed Ambrose, in the first book On the Holy Spirit (ch. 6), says among other things: Of My Spirit, He says, I will pour out (Acts 2:17). He does not say "My Spirit", but "of My Spirit": for we cannot contain the fullness of the Holy Spirit, but we receive only as much as the Arbiter of our affairs has apportioned from what is His according to His will. Holy Ambrose, then, showing that we receive not the fullness but from the fullness of the Spirit, in order to show that Christ received all the fullness of the Spirit, says a little later (ibid.): The Father says that He pours out of the Holy Spirit upon all flesh. For He did not pour out the whole, but what He poured out abounded for all. Upon us, then, there was poured out of the Holy Spirit. But upon the Lord Jesus, when He was in the form of man, the Spirit remained; as it is written: He upon whom you see the Spirit descending from heaven and remaining upon Him, this is He who baptizes in the Holy Spirit (John 1:33). Towards us the generosity of the Giver is from an overflowing abundance; in Him the fullness of the whole Spirit remains for ever. Blessed Ambrose, indeed,
Editors' notes and page, col. 416
Page
- running head: S. FULGENTII EPISCOPI RUSPENSIS 416
- marginal letters: A tum, quia compellimur; B dicatur. Cum autem de anima; C frustretur praedicatio Joannis; D accepisse, paulo post
- old-edition numerals: 251 after nos (Super nos 251 ergo)
- other: "videantur†" partly lost in the faded type (only "…deantur" clear). "Spiritu Sancto" before (Joan. I, 33.) appears capitalised as printed. "tum" at the head completes "coarcta-" of col. 415. The Ambrose quotation is printed in italic, the Gospel citation within it in roman; no markup set.
evidenter atque indubitanter ostendit animae Christi plenam totius divinitatis inesse notitiam, cum dicit, quia circa nos ex affluenti commodo liberalitas largientis est, in illo totius manet in aeternum Spiritus plenitudo. Hoc autem ut diceret, illum sermonem beati Joannis attendit, quo ait, cum de ipso Filio loqueretur: Non enim ad mensuram dat Deus Spiritum (Joan. III, 34). Quod beatus quoque Augustinus eadem sancti Spiritus illum ratione† percipiens atque intelligens, in sola persona Christi accipi debere confirmat. Nam cum eumdem locum Evangelii explanasset (Tract. 14 in Joan.), ipso sermone Joannis Baptistae proposito quo ait: Non enim ad mensuram dat Deus Spiritum, idem beatus Augustinus ita subjecit: Quid est hoc: Non enim ad mensuram dat Deus Spiritum? Invenimus, quia ad mensuram dat Deus Spiritum? Audi Apostolum dicentem: Secundum mensuram donationis Christi (Ephes. IV, 7). Hominibus ad mensuram dat, unico Filio non dat ad mensuram. Item in eadem homilia dicit: Sic sunt etiam diversa dona fidelium, tanquam membris ad mensuram cuique propriam distributa. Sed Christus qui dat, non ad mensuram accepit. Audi enim adhuc quod sequitur, quia de Filio dixerat: Non enim ad mensuram dat Deus Spiritum; Pater diligit Filium, et omnia dedit in manu ejus (Joan. III, 34).» Nempe beatus Augustinus ostendit hoc evangelico testimonio quid debeamus de anima Christi sentire, quando ipse Christus qui Spiritum dat, non ad mensuram accipit. Ipse est enim qui dat, ipse est qui accipit; et quia potens est ad mensuram dare, ideo non potuit ad mensuram accipere. In forma enim Dei manens, Spiritum dat; formam servi accipiens, Spiritum accepit. Sed quia ipse ad mensuram dat, ideo non ipse ad mensuram accepit: ipsum enim quem ad mensuram dat, totum accepit: ad mensuram quippe dat multis filiis, sed non ad mensuram accipit unicus Filius; quia sic est verus homo, ut verus sit Deus.
declares clearly and without doubt that a full knowledge of the whole divinity is in the soul of Christ, when he says that towards us the generosity of the Giver is from an overflowing abundance, while in Him the fullness of the whole Spirit remains for ever. To say this, he attended to that saying of blessed John in which, speaking of the Son Himself, he says: For God does not give the Spirit by measure (John 3:34). Blessed Augustine too, perceiving and understanding it by the same reasoning about the Holy Spirit, affirms that it must be taken of the person of Christ alone. For when he had expounded that same passage of the Gospel (Tract. 14 on John), having set out the very saying of John the Baptist in which he says: For God does not give the Spirit by measure, the same blessed Augustine went on thus: What is this: For God does not give the Spirit by measure? Do we find that God gives the Spirit by measure? Hear the Apostle saying: According to the measure of the gift of Christ (Eph. 4:7). To men He gives by measure; to the only Son He does not give by measure. Again in the same homily he says: So too the gifts of the faithful are diverse, distributed as to members, to each by its own measure. But Christ, who gives, did not receive by measure. For hear further what follows, since he had said of the Son: For God does not give the Spirit by measure; the Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand (John 3:34–35)." Blessed Augustine indeed shows by this Gospel testimony what we ought to think of the soul of Christ, since Christ Himself, who gives the Spirit, does not receive by measure. For He Himself is the one who gives, He Himself the one who receives; and since He is able to give by measure, for that reason He could not receive by measure. For abiding in the form of God He gives the Spirit; taking the form of a servant He received the Spirit. But since He Himself gives by measure, for that reason He Himself did not receive by measure: for the very Spirit whom He gives by measure He received whole: for He gives by measure to many sons, but the only Son does not receive by measure; because He is true man in such a way as to be true God.
28. Hunc Evangelii locum aliter beatus Augustinus aliquando posuerat in duobus libris quos scripsit de Sermone Domini in monte (S. Aug. lib. I de Serm. Domini in monte, cap. 6). Quem tamen sensum in suis Retractationibus (Lib. I, cap. 19) emendavit, hoc approbans atque affirmans quod postea melius intelligens, in illa expositione Evangelii de solo Christo accipi debere firmavit. Quod in primo libro Rectratationum suarum ostendens, inter alia sic ait: «Alio loco quod interposui testimonium: Non enim ad mensuram dat Deus Spiritum (Joan. III, 34), nondum intellexeram de Christo proprie verius accipi. Aliis quippe hominibus nisi ad mensuram daretur Spiritus, non duplum peteret Elisaeus quam fuit in Elia (IV Reg. II, 9).» In his ergo dictis beati Augustini illud maxime attendamus, quod ait, aliis hominibus ad mensuram Spiritum dari. Quod utique ideo dixit, ut hoc se non de divinitate, sed de humanitate Christi sensisse monstraret, cui non ad mensuram dedit Deus spiritum, cum unicuique dari gratiam secundum mensuram donationis Christi testetur Apostolus. Quare ergo beatus Augustinus non dixit hominibus,
28. Blessed Augustine had at one time set out this passage of the Gospel otherwise in the two books which he wrote On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount (Augustine, On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount, Book I, ch. 6). Yet he corrected that sense in his Retractations (Book I, ch. 19), approving and affirming what, understanding it better afterwards, he had established in that exposition of the Gospel: that it must be taken of Christ alone. Showing this in the first book of his Retractations, he says among other things: "In another place, as to the testimony I inserted: For God does not give the Spirit by measure (John 3:34), I had not yet understood that it is more truly taken as proper to Christ. For if the Spirit were not given to other men by measure, Elisha would not have asked for double what there was in Elijah (IV Kgs. 2:9)." In these words of blessed Augustine, then, let us attend above all to what he says, that the Spirit is given to other men by measure. He said this, certainly, in order to show that he had meant it not of the divinity but of the humanity of Christ, to which God gave the spirit not by measure, since the Apostle testifies that grace is given to each one according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Why, then, did blessed Augustine not say "to men",
Editors' notes and page, col. 417
Page
- running head: 417 EPISTOLA X… (truncated at the image's right edge)
- marginal letters: A sius evidenter atque; B Spiritum? Audi Apostolum; C mensuram accipere. In forma enim Dei; D tationum suarum ostendens
- old-edition numerals: 252 after secundum
- other: the top third (to "Item in eadem homilia") is very faded and read with difficulty; "ratione†" uncertain. The opening guillemet of the Augustine quotation (before "Quid est hoc") is not visible on the scan; the closing » after (Joan. III, 34) is set as printed. "(Lib. I, cap. 19)" closing parenthesis faint. "Rectratationum" read across the line break Rectra-|tationum; check at higher zoom. "spiritum" lowercase as printed. "homini-" breaks at the column end (homini|bus), set as visible.
sed aliis hominibus, nisi ut ostenderet illi homini singulariter non ad mensuram, sed omnem inesse Spiritus plenitudinem, qui sic est naturaliter homo verus, ut idem sit naturaliter etiam Deus verus, totum accipiens in veritate carnis, quem ad mensuram largitur munere deitatis? Illi ergo qui secundum mensuram donationis suae dat gratiam, non ad mensuram dedit Deus Spiritum. In Christo autem, secundum catholicae fidei veritatem, in unitate personae simul et deitatem, et animam rationalem fatemur, et carnem: in quo tamen deitas Spiritum accipere non potuit, quia secundum deitatem Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus, unus est Deus. Ubi tantus est Pater solus quantus cum Filio et Spiritu sancto; tantusque solus Filius, quantus cum Patre et Spiritu sancto; tantusque solus Spiritus sanctus, quantus cum Patre simul ac Filio. Ubi nulla de tribus personis habet aliquid minus duabus, ubi in unaquaque persona sic est plena deitas, ut et in tribus personis una sit, et in singulis tota. Non ergo potuit Spiritum sanctum divinitas Filii accipere, cum ipse Spiritus sanctus sic procedat a Filio sicut procedit a Patre, et sic detur a Filio sicut datur a Patre; nec illa natura unde Spiritus sanctus habet originem, potuit ejus vel exspectare vel accipere largitatem. Spiritus ille totus est Patris, totus est Filii, quia unus naturaliter est Spiritus Patris et Filii. Proinde totus de Patre procedit et Filio, totus in Patre manet ac Filio; quia sic manet ut procedat, sic procedit ut maneat. Unde naturaliter hanc habet cum Patre ac Filio unitatis plenitudinem, et plenitudinis unitatem, ut totum Patrem habeat, totumque Filium; ipseque totus habeatur a Patre, totus habeatur a Filio. Non ergo accepit Spiritum sanctum divinitas Filii, cum qua unius naturae est Spiritus sanctus, et ex qua habet quidquid habet, imo de qua est hoc quod est; quia quod naturaliter habet, hoc est. Restat itaque ut anima Christi Spiritum sanctum acceperit, quem tamen non ad mensuram accepit, sed totum accepit; ubi enim mensura non esse dicitur, plenitudo perfectionis et perfectio plenitudinis invenitur.
but "to other men", except to show that in that man, uniquely, there is not a measure but the whole fullness of the Spirit, since He is by nature true man in such a way that the same is by nature also true God, receiving whole in the truth of the flesh the Spirit whom He bestows by measure by the gift of the deity? To Him, then, who gives grace according to the measure of His gift, God did not give the Spirit by measure. Now in Christ, according to the truth of the catholic faith, we confess in the unity of the person at once the deity, and a rational soul, and flesh: in whom, however, the deity could not receive the Spirit, because according to the deity the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God. There the Father alone is as great as with the Son and the Holy Spirit; and the Son alone as great as with the Father and the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit alone as great as with the Father and the Son together. There none of the three persons has anything less than the two; there in each person the deity is so full that it is both one in the three persons and whole in each. The divinity of the Son, then, could not receive the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit Himself so proceeds from the Son as He proceeds from the Father, and is so given by the Son as He is given by the Father; nor could that nature from which the Holy Spirit has His origin either await or receive His bounty. That Spirit is wholly the Father's, wholly the Son's, because by nature there is one Spirit of the Father and of the Son. Accordingly He proceeds whole from the Father and the Son, abides whole in the Father and the Son; for He so abides as to proceed, so proceeds as to abide. Hence by nature He has with the Father and the Son this fullness of unity and unity of fullness, that He has the whole Father and the whole Son, and He Himself is had whole by the Father, had whole by the Son. The divinity of the Son, then, did not receive the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit is of one nature with it, and from it has whatever He has, indeed from it is what He is; for what He has by nature, that He is. It remains, therefore, that the soul of Christ received the Holy Spirit, whom, however, it received not by measure but whole; for where there is said to be no measure, the fullness of perfection and the perfection of fullness are found.
29. Quis sit autem iste Spiritus, quem non ad mensuram Christus accepit, propheta nobis Isaias ostendit, qui de ipso (al. de Christo) loquens, ait: Egredietur virga de radice Jesse, et flos de radice ejus ascendet, et requiescet super eum Spiritus Domini Spiritus sapientiae et intellectus, Spiritus consilii et fortitudinis, Spiritus scientiae et pietatis, et replebit eum Spiritus timoris Domini (Isai. XI, 1). Accepit ergo Christus Spiritum, sed non ad mensuram accepit. Quod si animae Christi non ad mensuram dedit Deus Spiritum, necesse est ut nihil minus habeat sapientiae, nihil scientiae: Spiritus enim ille, Spiritus est sapientiae et intellectus, consilii et fortitudinis, scientiae et pietatis. Ac per hoc, non solum ad divinitatem Christi, sed ad ejus quoque animam illa perfectionis praerogativa pertinet, quam ipsi Christo beatus assignat Apostolus, dicens: In quo sunt omnes thesauri sapientiae et scientiae absconditi (Coloss. II, 3). Si enim non ad mensuram accepit Spiritum sapientiae et scientiae, necesse est ut omnes thesauros sapientiae
29. But who this Spirit is whom Christ received not by measure, the prophet Isaiah shows us, who, speaking of Him (alias: of Christ), says: A rod shall come forth from the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up from its root, and the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and fortitude, the Spirit of knowledge and godliness, and the Spirit of the fear of the Lord shall fill Him (Isa. 11:1–3). Christ, then, received the Spirit, but He did not receive Him by measure. But if God gave the Spirit to the soul of Christ not by measure, it must be that it has nothing less of wisdom, nothing less of knowledge: for that Spirit is the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, of counsel and fortitude, of knowledge and godliness. And so that prerogative of perfection belongs not only to the divinity of Christ but also to His soul, which the blessed Apostle assigns to Christ Himself, saying: In whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col. 2:3). For if He received the Spirit of wisdom and knowledge not by measure, it must be that all the treasures of wisdom
Editors' notes and page, col. 418
Page
- running head: EPISTOLA XIV. 418
- marginal letters: A bus, sed aliis hominibus; B Spiritus sanctus, quantus cum Patre simul; C ipseque totus habeatur a Patre; D tudinis, Spiritus scientiae
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: the top third (to "Non ergo potuit") is very faded and read with difficulty; the words are clear in outline but individual letters soft. "Spiritus Domini Spiritus sapientiae" set without a comma as it appears.
et scientiae habeat. Quod si ei aliquid hujus plenitudinis demitur, consequens est ut ad mensuram accepisse Spiritum praedicetur. Et quis est cui non ad mensuram Deus Spiritum dederit, si eum ad mensuram Christus accepit? In quantum enim Spiritus datur, in tantum cognitio divinitatis accipitur: ubi autem Spiritus non est mensura, necesse est ut plena sit divinitatis immensae notitia. Tota enim plenitudo datur, ubi Spiritus non ad mensuram datur. Non autem plenitudinem ejus, sed de plenitudine nos omnes accepimus, et gratiam pro gratia (Joan. I, 16). Ubi ostenditur etiam in illa gratia speciei, quae dabitur (al. datur) pro gratia fidei, non ipsam plenitudinem. sed de plenitudine ejus nos esse accepturos gratiam pro gratia: et hoc ipso quod de plenitudine ejus accepimus, nos esse implendos, in quantum per ejus gratiam capaces erimus. Quod ostendit nobis propheta, dicens: Adimplebis me laetitia cum vultu tuo (Psal. XV, 11); et iterum: Repleti sumus mane misericordia tua (Psal. LXXXIX, 14); et iterum: Replebimur bonis domus tuae (Psal. LXIV, 5); sed ut repleamur, de plenitudine ejus accipiemus; de Christo autem Paulus doctor gentium dicit, quia in ipso complacuit omnem plenitudinem inhabitare (Coloss. I, 19); de quo idem dicit. quia in ipso inhabitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis corporaliter (Coloss. II, 9). Non ergo existimo illi animae in aliquo plenam divinitatis deesse notitiam, cujus una est persona cum Verbo; quam sic sapientia suscepit, ut eadem sapientia ipsa sit; quae rerum omnium in tantum facta est domina, ut cum ipsa divinitate sua una sit in Trinitate persona, id est Christus crucifixus, quem Dei virtutem Deique sapientiam Paulus apostolus praedicat (I Cor. I, 24).
and knowledge are in Him. But if anything of this fullness is taken from Him, it follows that He is declared to have received the Spirit by measure. And who is there to whom God has not given the Spirit by measure, if Christ received Him by measure? For in so far as the Spirit is given, so far is knowledge of the divinity received: but where there is no measure of the Spirit, the knowledge of the immeasurable divinity must be full. For the whole fullness is given where the Spirit is given not by measure. But we have all received not His fullness but of His fullness, and grace for grace (John 1:16). Here it is shown that even in that grace of sight which will be given (alias: is given) for the grace of faith, we shall receive not the fullness itself but of His fullness, grace for grace: and that by this very fact, that we have received of His fullness, we are to be filled, in so far as through His grace we shall be capable. This the prophet shows us, saying: Thou wilt fill me with joy with Thy countenance (Ps. 15:11); and again: We were filled in the morning with Thy mercy (Ps. 89:14); and again: We shall be filled with the good things of Thy house (Ps. 64:5); but that we may be filled, we shall receive of His fullness; whereas of Christ Paul, the teacher of the Gentiles, says that in Him it pleased [God] that all fullness should dwell (Col. 1:19); of whom the same says that in Him dwells all the fullness of the divinity bodily (Col. 2:9). I do not think, then, that full knowledge of the divinity is lacking in any respect to that soul whose person is one with the Word; which Wisdom so took up that it is that same Wisdom; which has been made lady of all things to such a degree that together with its divinity it is one person in the Trinity, that is, Christ crucified, whom the apostle Paul preaches as the power of God and the wisdom of God (I Cor. 1:24).
30. Quod si anima Christi minorem habet in aliquo deitatis suae notitiam, non in se habet totam sapientiam totamque virtutem. Participium ergo habet Christi, non ipsa est Christus, si partem habet notitiae divinitatis suae. Nos autem participes Christi Apostolus asserit, dicens: Participes enim Christi effecti sumus (Hebr. III, 14). Unde ipsi Christo dicitur: Unxit te Deus, Deus tuus oleo exsultationis prae participibus tuis (Psal. XLIV, 8). Oleum autem exsultationis quo unctus est Christus, Spiritum sanctum esse non dubium est, dicente beato Petro: Jesum a Nazareth quem unxit Deus Spiritu sancto et virtute (Act. II, 38). Ipsum ergo Deus unxit prae participibus suis, cui (al. cum) non ad mensuram dedit Spiritum, in quo inhabitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis corporaliter, in quo sunt omnes thesauri sapientiae et scientiae absconditi. Cujus sapientiae et scientiae altitudinem beatus Apostolus miratur, dicens: O altitudo divitiarum sapientiae et scientiae Dei (Rom. XI, 33)! Christum autem non solum secundum divinitatem, sed etiam secundum humanitatem vera fides totum altissimum confitetur. Mater enim Sion dicit: homo, et homo factus (al. natus) est in ea, et ipse fundavit eam Altissimus (Psal. LXXXIV, 5). Et revera quis audeat
30. But if the soul of Christ has in any respect a lesser knowledge of its deity, it does not have in itself the whole wisdom and the whole power. It has, then, a participation in Christ; it is not itself Christ, if it has a part of the knowledge of its divinity. But the Apostle asserts that we are partakers of Christ, saying: For we have been made partakers of Christ (Heb. 3:14). Hence it is said to Christ Himself: God, Thy God, has anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy partakers (Ps. 44:8). And it is not in doubt that the oil of gladness with which Christ was anointed is the Holy Spirit, since blessed Peter says: Jesus of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power (Acts 10:38). Him, then, God anointed above His partakers, to whom (alias: since) He gave the Spirit not by measure, in whom dwells all the fullness of the divinity bodily, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. The height of whose wisdom and knowledge the blessed Apostle marvels at, saying: O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God (Rom. 11:33)! And the true faith confesses that Christ, not only according to the divinity but also according to the humanity, is wholly the Most High. For mother Sion says: a man, and a man was made (alias: born) in her, and the Most High Himself founded her (Ps. 86:5). And truly, who
Editors' notes and page, col. 419
Page
- running head: 419 S. FULGENTII EPISCOP… (truncated at the image's right edge)
- marginal letters: A et scientiae habeat. 253 Quod si; B cepimus, nos esse implendos; C sona, id est Christus crucifixus; D Ipsum ergo Deus unxit
- old-edition numerals: 253 after habeat.
Altissimum denegare, quem Deus non solum de se altissimum genuit, sed etiam de Virgine natum exaltavit, et donavit illi nomen quod est super omne nomen, ut in nomine Jesu omne genu flectatur coelestium, terrestrium et infernorum, et omnis lingua confiteatur quia Dominus Jesus Christus in gloria est Dei Patris (Philip. II, 9)? Si autem non plenam habet anima Christi notitiam divinitatis suae, non pervenit ad altitudinem plenam sapientiae et scientiae Dei. Non ergo totus, sed ex parte Christus praedicetur Altissimus, si anima ejus infra altitudinem divitiarum sapientiae et scientiae Dei a fidelibus praedicatur. In quo enim nos Deus exaltat, nisi in quo ad se levat animas nostras? In tantum autem ad se animas nostras levat, in quantum nobis veritatem suae cognitionis ac dilectionis insinuat. Quis autem dicat animam Christi aut minus aliquid percipere veritatis, aut minus habere aliquid caritatis? Ipse autem Christus est veritas. Quomodo ergo illa anima minus in se notitiam veritatis habere dicitur, quae ipsius veritatis anima singulariter invenitur? Non sic est de Christi anima disputandum, sicut disputatur de quolibet angelico spiritu vel humano, qui particeps potest esse Dei veri, non Deus verus, quod est Christus; qui perfectam carnem, perfectamque animam rationalem, id est plenam humanam naturam, in illam sempiternam personam suae divinitatis accipiens, sicut naturaliter totus est homo verus, sic totus Deus est verus: quia sicut in divinitate sua totam habet humanitatis suae naturam, sic in humanitate sua totam habet divinitatis suae substantiam, totam majestatem, totam incommutabilitatem, totam virtutem, totam sapientiam, totam omnipotentiam. Sic enim humanam naturam Deus Unigenitus suscipere dignatus est, ut ipse sit Deus qui homo est, et idem sit homo qui Deus est. Proinde sicut est plenitudo divinitatis in homine Christo, sic ibi est plenitudo humanitatis in Deo. Sicut ergo Christus homo singulariter habet, ut Deus verus sit, sic totam divinitatem suam singulariter novit.
would dare to deny that He is the Most High, whom God not only begot most high from Himself, but also, born of the Virgin, exalted, and gave Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father (Phil. 2:9–11)? But if the soul of Christ does not have full knowledge of its divinity, it does not reach the full height of the wisdom and knowledge of God. Then Christ would be proclaimed Most High not wholly but in part, if His soul is proclaimed by the faithful to be beneath the height of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God. For in what does God exalt us, if not in raising our souls to Himself? And He raises our souls to Himself in so far as He imparts to us the truth of the knowledge and love of Himself. But who would say that the soul of Christ either perceives somewhat less of truth or has somewhat less of charity? Yet Christ Himself is the truth. How, then, is that soul said to have in itself less knowledge of the truth, which is found to be uniquely the soul of the truth itself? The soul of Christ is not to be argued about as one argues about any angelic or human spirit, which can be a partaker of the true God, not the true God, which Christ is; who, taking perfect flesh and a perfect rational soul, that is, full human nature, into that everlasting person of His divinity, as He is by nature wholly true man, so is He wholly true God: for as in His divinity He has the whole nature of His humanity, so in His humanity He has the whole substance of His divinity, the whole majesty, the whole unchangeableness, the whole power, the whole wisdom, the whole omnipotence. For the only-begotten God deigned to take up human nature in such a way that He Himself is God who is man, and the same is man who is God. Accordingly, as there is the fullness of divinity in the man Christ, so there is the fullness of humanity in God. As, then, the man Christ uniquely has it that He is true God, so He uniquely knows His whole divinity.
31. Possumus plane dicere animam Christi habere plenam notitiam deitatis suae; nescio tamen utrum debeamus dicere quod anima Christi sic suam deitatem noverit quemadmodum seipsa deitas novit, an hoc potius dicendum est, quia novit quantum illa, sed non sicut illa. Ipsa enim deitas sic se novit, ut hoc se naturaliter inveniat esse quod novit; anima autem illa sic totam deitatem suam novit, ut ipsa tamen deitas non sit. Deitas ergo illa ipsa est naturaliter notitia sua; anima vero illa ab ipsa deitate quam plene novit accepit ut noverit: naturaliter ergo deitas Christi hoc est quod novit; anima vero illa in eo quod scit deitatem suam, non hoc se invenit esse quod novit. Non ergo quemadmodum se noverunt Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus, sic animae suae secundum divinitatem notus est Christus: quoniam quidem habet anima illa plenam Trinitatis notitiam, non tamen habet unam cum Trinitate naturam. Aliud est autem unicuique rei nosse quod naturaliter est,
31. We can plainly say that the soul of Christ has full knowledge of its deity; yet I do not know whether we ought to say that the soul of Christ knows its deity in the way the deity knows itself, or whether this is rather to be said, that it knows as much as the deity, but not as the deity does. For the deity itself so knows itself that it finds itself by nature to be what it knows; but that soul so knows its whole deity that it is nevertheless not itself the deity. That deity, then, is by nature its own knowledge; but that soul received from the very deity which it fully knows that it should know: by nature, then, the deity of Christ is what it knows; but that soul, in knowing its deity, does not find itself to be what it knows. Christ, then, is not known to His soul according to the divinity in the way in which the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit know themselves: since, although that soul has full knowledge of the Trinity, it does not, however, have one nature with the Trinity. But it is one thing for each thing to know what it is by nature,
Editors' notes and page, col. 420
Footnotes
(a) ‹anchor: quod est Christus› · call in col 420
Ant., vel humano. Quis particeps potest esse Dei veri, nisi Deus verus qui est Christus?
The older edition (Ant.) reads vel humano. Quis particeps potest esse Dei veri, nisi Deus verus qui est Christus? ("or human. Who can be a partaker of the true God, except the true God who is Christ?").
(printed under page 215)
Page
- running head: S. FULGENTII EPISCOPI RUSPENSIS 420
- marginal letters: A deat Altissimum denegare; B nis ac dilectionis insinuat; C incommutabilitatem, totam virtutem; D autem illa sic totam deitatem
- old-edition numerals: 254 after Christus (ex parte Christus 254 praedicetur)
aliud nosse quod naturaliter non est. Oculis porro corporalibus Deus spiritus non videtur. Unde quosdam beatus Augustinus, qui hoc voluerunt de Christo credere, quod Deum Patrem oculis corporalibus videat, in epistola quam ad Italicam scripsit (Epist. alias 6, nunc 92†), licet brevi sermone, sufficienti tamen responsione convincit. Hoc habent quippe oculi corporis ut non solum corpora videant, sed nec videre possint, si inter ipsos et ea quae vident, spatii cujusquam media intervalla non fuerint. Inde est quod cum alia plurima videant, seipsos videre non possunt, nec vident in se, cum videant extra se: nam et ipsa acies visionis obtunditur, si aliquid videndum ipsis oculis adjungatur. Quisquis ergo putat Deum posse oculis corporalibus cerni, prius est ut eum dicat ab ipsis oculis corporali spatio separari: quisquis autem vult agnoscere quibus oculis Deus videatur, ipsum Deum cogitet quia et sapientia, et veritas, et caritas est. Quocirca quibus oculis videtur sapientia, veritas et caritas, ipsis oculis videtur illa sapiens, vera caraque divinitas. Non itaque corporis, sed oculis animae humanae Deus suam visionem promittit, quam capacem sapientiae, veritatis, caritatisque constituit. Spiritus ergo rationalis accepit a Deo, ut videat Deum: accepit utique per gratiam; quem (al. quae) tamen non extra se potest videre, sed in se; Deus enim non loco continetur, sed affectu percipitur, et ideo in quo non habitat, non videtur. Multo enim interius animam inhabitat Deus, quam anima inhabitat corpus; quoniam creator spiritus ille est, iste creatus. In tantum ergo habet quaelibet sancti hominis anima illius summi Dei notitiam, in quantum internae visionis acceperit gratiam. Unde nescio quomodo accipiamus Unigenitum a Patre plenum gratiae et veritatis, si vel illi plenitudini veritatis aliquid plenitudinis gratiae deesse dicimus, vel illi plenitudini gratiae non totam inesse veritatis plenitudinem aestiemmus: cum utique in eo certissime Unigenitus a Patre plenus agnoscatur gratiae et veritatis, si non solum in ipso uno plena gratia humanitatis, plenaque divinitatis veritas agnoscatur; sed etiam plenitudo veritatis in seipsa plenitudinem habeat gratiae, qua est tota humanitas in divinitate sua; et plenitudo gratiae plenitudinem in se habeat veritatis, qua est tota divinitas in humanitate sua: ita ut plenitudo veritatis plenitudinem in se habeat gratiae, et plenitudo gratiae plenitudinem in se habeat veritatis.
and another to know what it is not by nature. Further, God, who is spirit, is not seen with bodily eyes. Hence blessed Augustine, in the letter which he wrote to Italica (Letter 6 in the old numbering, now 92), refutes, briefly indeed but with a sufficient reply, certain people who wished to believe this of Christ, that He sees God the Father with bodily eyes. For the eyes of the body have this property, that they not only see bodies, but cannot even see unless there are intervening distances of some space between them and the things they see. Hence it is that, while they see very many other things, they cannot see themselves, nor do they see within themselves, though they see outside themselves: for even the very keenness of sight is blunted if something to be seen is put right against the eyes themselves. Whoever, then, thinks that God can be perceived with bodily eyes must first say that He is separated from those eyes by bodily space: but whoever wishes to recognize with what eyes God is seen, let him consider God Himself, that He is wisdom, and truth, and charity. Wherefore with whatever eyes wisdom, truth and charity are seen, with those eyes is that wise, true and dear divinity seen. It is not, then, to the eyes of the body but to the eyes of the human soul that God promises the sight of Himself, the soul which He has made capable of wisdom, truth and charity. The rational spirit, then, has received from God that it should see God: it has received this, surely, through grace; yet it cannot see Him (alias: which, however, it cannot see) outside itself, but within itself; for God is not contained by place but perceived by affection, and therefore He is not seen in one in whom He does not dwell. For God dwells in the soul far more inwardly than the soul dwells in the body; since that Spirit is the creator, this spirit created. The soul of any holy man, then, has knowledge of that supreme God in so far as it has received the grace of inward sight. Hence I do not know how we are to take the Only-begotten from the Father as full of grace and truth, if we either say that something of the fullness of grace is lacking to that fullness of truth, or reckon that the whole fullness of truth is not in that fullness of grace: since surely the Only-begotten from the Father is most certainly recognized in Him as full of grace and truth if, in Him who is one, not only is the full grace of the humanity and the full truth of the divinity recognized, but also the fullness of truth has in itself the fullness of grace, by which the whole humanity is in its divinity; and the fullness of grace has in itself the fullness of truth, by which the whole divinity is in its humanity: so that the fullness of truth has in itself the fullness of grace, and the fullness of grace has in itself the fullness of truth.
33. Non autem tota plenitudo veritatis habetur, quando ipsius veritatis aliquid ignoratur, quod absit ut de Christo aliquatenus sentiamus. Sic enim tota plenitudo gratiae est in illa plenitudine veritatis, ut illa plena deitas totam impleat humanitatem suam; et sic est plenitudo veritatis in illa plenitudine gratiae, ut illa plena humanitas sicut plenam habet et singularem incorruptionem atque immortalitatem carnis, ita secundum animam, plenam singulariter habeat notitiam deitatis. Sic est ergo Christus plenus
33. But the whole fullness of truth is not had when anything of the truth itself is unknown; which God forbid that we should think in any degree of Christ. For the whole fullness of grace is so in that fullness of truth that that full deity fills the whole of its humanity; and the fullness of truth is so in that fullness of grace that that full humanity, as it has a full and singular incorruption and immortality of the flesh, so according to the soul has, singularly, full knowledge of the deity. So, then, Christ is full
Editors' notes and page, col. 421
Page
- running head: 421 EPISTOLA X… (truncated at the image's right edge)
- marginal letters: A aliud nosse quod naturaliter; B quisquis autem vult agnoscere; C hominis anima illius summi Dei; D et plenitudo gratiae plenitudinem in se habeat veri-
- old-edition numerals: 255 after adjungatur's line start (before ipsis oculis adjungatur)
gratiae et veritatis, ut sicut est in divinitate ejus plena humanitatis acceptio, sic in humanitate ejus plena sit divinitatis agnitio. Nec metuamus asserere quod Christi anima totam deitatem suam novit, ne ex hoc dicatur, cum ipsa deitate unius esse naturae; cum utique si hoc ratiocinatio† vera deposcit†, ut in plenitudine cognitionis continuo sit unitas naturalis; ipse primitus† Deus, quia omnia quae fecit, plene utique novit, ejus dicetur esse naturae, cujus sunt illa quae fecit et novit. Quod qui credit aut asserit, non catholica veritate praeditus, sed Manichaea fit impietate possessus. Deinde illud est nihilominus intuendum, quod ipsa Christi anima ex quantacunque parte dicatur deitatis suae habere notitiam, statim dicitur (al. dicetur) ex tanta parte unam habere cum sua deitate naturam; quod utique magnae insaniae est. Nam et nos speramus per Dei gratiam visuros esse Deum: in quantum autem visuros, in tantum sine dubio cognituros; quoniam utrumque nobis apostolica commendat auctoritas; nam et beatus Apostolus dicit: Nunc cognosco ex parte, tunc autem cognoscam sicut et cognitus sum (I Cor. XIII, 12); et dilectus Christi Joannes indubitanter asserit: Quia cum apparuerit, similes ei erimus, quoniam (al. et) videbimus eum sicuti est (I Joan. III, 2). Visio autem illa non solius carnis erit, secundum quam solam solus Filius ab impiis videbitur ad eorum condemnationem perpetuam; sed erit visio deitatis, secundum quam se ipsa Trinitas ita videndam praebebit justis, ut illa divinitatis indesinens visio, ipsa sit beatitudinis indeficiens plenitudo. Inde enim sunt beati mundo corde, quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt (Matth. V, 8). In tantum ergo divinitatem sanctae Trinitatis videbimus, in quantum accipiemus (al. capiemus) dono gratiae ut videre possimus. Nec tamen in quantum videbimus, in tantum ipsi divinitati consubstantiales erimus. Nam et corpore videmus multa, quae cum nostra carne non sunt unius ejusdemque naturae. Vident enim oculi nostri lucem, cum tamen alterius naturae sint illi, alterius illa. Dixit quidem beatus Joannes: Quoniam cum apparuerit, similes ei erimus, quoniam videbimus eum sicuti est (I Joan. III, 2). Similes autem dixit, imitatione scilicet justitiae, non unitate naturae: secundum quam imitationem, dicit beatus Paulus: Imitatores mei estote, sicut et ego Christi (I Cor. XI, 1); et beatus Joannes ait: Qui dicit se in Christo manere, debet quemadmodum (al. sicut) ille ambulavit, et ipse ambulare (I Joan. II, 6). Creatorem vero capit creatura, quantum accipit ut capiat.
of grace and truth, so that, as there is in His divinity the full taking up of the humanity, so in His humanity there is full knowledge of the divinity. Nor let us be afraid to assert that the soul of Christ knows its whole deity, lest it be said on this account to be of one nature with the deity itself; since surely, if true reasoning demands this, that in fullness of knowledge there is at once unity of nature, God Himself in the first place, because He fully knows all that He has made, will be said to be of the nature of which the things He made and knows are. Whoever believes or asserts this is not endowed with the catholic truth but becomes possessed by the Manichaean impiety. Then this too must be considered no less: that in whatever measure the soul of Christ itself is said to have knowledge of its deity, in that same measure it is at once said (alias: will be said) to have one nature with its deity; which is surely great madness. For we too hope by the grace of God to see God: and in so far as we shall see, in so far without doubt we shall know; since apostolic authority commends both to us; for the blessed Apostle says: Now I know in part, but then I shall know even as I am known (I Cor. 13:12); and John, the beloved of Christ, asserts without doubt: That when He appears we shall be like Him, because (alias: and) we shall see Him as He is (I John 3:2). But that sight will not be of the flesh alone, according to which alone the Son alone will be seen by the wicked, to their everlasting condemnation; but it will be a sight of the deity, according to which the Trinity Itself will so offer Itself to be seen by the just that that unceasing sight of the divinity will itself be the unfailing fullness of blessedness. For hence the clean of heart are blessed, because they shall see God (Matt. 5:8). We shall see the divinity of the holy Trinity, then, in so far as we shall receive (alias: be capable), by the gift of grace, to be able to see. Yet we shall not, in so far as we see, be to that extent consubstantial with the divinity itself. For with the body too we see many things which are not of one and the same nature with our flesh. For our eyes see light, though they are of one nature and it of another. Blessed John did say: Because when He appears we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him as He is (I John 3:2). But he said "like", namely by imitation of righteousness, not by unity of nature: according to which imitation blessed Paul says: Be imitators of me, as I also am of Christ (I Cor. 11:1); and blessed John says: He who says that he abides in Christ ought himself to walk just as (alias: as) He walked (I John 2:6). The creature, indeed, contains the Creator in so far as it receives the power to contain Him.
34. Inde est quod beatus Augustinus hunc sermonem non refugit, sed indubitanter assumit. Nam in eadem homilia (Tract. 14 in Joan., versus finem) in qua exposuit illum locum, Quia non ad mensuram dat Deus Spiritum (Joan. III, 34), sic quodam loco de ipso Filio dicit: Manens enim Deus apud Patrem, apud homines factus est homo, ut tu per illum qui apud te factus est homo, fieres talis qualis capit Deum: non enim homo poterat capere Deum; videre poterat homo
34. Hence it is that blessed Augustine does not shrink from this expression but takes it up without doubt. For in the same homily (Tract. 14 on John, towards the end) in which he expounded that passage, That God does not give the Spirit by measure (John 3:34), he says in a certain place of the Son Himself: For abiding as God with the Father, He was made man among men, so that you, through Him who was made man with you, might become such as contains God: for man could not contain God; man could see
Editors' notes and page, col. 422
Footnotes
(a) ‹anchor: capit creatura, quantum› · call in col 422
Ant., in quantum.
The older edition (Ant.) reads in quantum ("in so far as").
(printed under page 216)
Page
- running head: EPISTOLA XIV. 422
- marginal letters: A gratiae et veritatis, ut sicut; B naturam; quod utique magnae insaniae; C quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt; D manere, debet quemadmodum
- old-edition numerals: 256 after cognituros;
hominem, capere Deum non poterat. Unde non poterat capere Deum? Quia oculum cordis unde caperet non habebat. Erat ergo aliquid intus saucium, et aliquid foris sanum: corporis oculos habebat sanos, cordis habebat saucios. Factus est ille homo ad corporis oculum, ut credens in eum qui videri corporaliter potuit, curareris ad eum ipsum videndum, quem spiritaliter videre non poteras. His verbis ostendit beatus Augustinus in spiritalibus rebus hoc esse capere quod videre, neque aliud esse videre quam intelligere, nec intelligere aliud esse quam nosse. Hinc est quod in libro de Praesentia Dei (Epist. ad Dardanum alias 57, nunc 187), cum soli Filio dat plenam divinitatis capacitatem, soli plenam divinitatis ostendit inesse notitiam. In memorato quippe libro his utitur verbis: « Deus igitur ubique praesens est, et ubique totus praesens, nec ubique habitans, sed in templo suo, cui per gratiam benignus est et propitius. Capitur autem habitans, ab aliis amplius, et ab aliis minus. De ipso vero capite nostro Apostolus ait: Quoniam in ipso habitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis corporaliter (Coloss. II, 9) » Attende, quaeso, in his verbis beati Augustini discretionem capitis membrorumque certissimam. Ab illis enim quibus ad mensuram dat Deus Spiritum, capitur habitans, ab aliis amplius, ab aliis minus. Quid est autem capi nisi intelligi atque cognosci? Cum autem de Christo idem beatus Augustinus loqui vellet, vide quid ait: « De ipso, inquit, capite nostro Apostolus ait: Quoniam in ipso habitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis corporaliter (Coloss. II, 9). » Nempe ipse beatus Augustinus ait, quoniam Deus habitans capitur: quocirca ab illo plenitudo divinitatis sine dubio capitur, in quo ipsa divinitatis habitat plenitudo. In eo autem capitur, in quo cognoscitur. Illi ergo in quo habitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis, non potest ipsius plenitudinis plena non inesse notitia. Inde est quod beatus Augustinus in eodem libro (Ibidem) paulo post haec dicit: Quid ergo est? Haeccine interesse arbitramur inter caput et membra caetera, quod in quolibet quamvis praecipuo membro, velut in aliquo magno propheta aut apostolo, quamvis divinitas habitet, non tamen, sicut in capite quod est Christus, omnis plenitudo divinitatis? Nam et in nostro corpore inest sensus singulis membris, sed non tantus quantus in capite, ubi prorsus omnis est quinque partitus. Ibi enim est visus, et auditus, et olfactus, et gustus, et tactus. In caeteris autem solus est tactus. An etiam praeter hoc, quod tanquam in templo, in illo corpore habitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis, est aliud quod intersit inter illud caput et cujuslibet membri excellentiam? Est plane, quod singulari quadam susceptione hominis illius una facta est persona cum Verbo. De nullo enim sanctorum dici potuit, aut potest, aut poterit: Verbum caro factum est (Joan. I, 14). Nullus sanctorum quolibet praestantia gratiae Unigeniti nomen accepit; ut quod est ipsum Dei Verbum ante saecula, hoc simul cum assumpto homine diceretur. Singularis ergo est illa susceptio, nec cum hominibus
man, could not grasp God. Why could he not grasp God? Because he did not have the eye of the heart with which to grasp [Him]. So there was something wounded within, and something sound without: he had the eyes of the body sound, those of the heart he had wounded. That Man was made for the eye of the body, so that, believing in Him who could be seen bodily, you might be healed for seeing that very One whom you could not see spiritually. By these words blessed Augustine shows that in spiritual things to grasp is the same as to see, and that to see is nothing other than to understand, nor to understand anything other than to know. Hence it is that in the book On the Presence of God (Letter to Dardanus, formerly 57, now 187), when he gives the full capacity of the Godhead to the Son alone, he shows that to Him alone belongs the full knowledge of the Godhead. For in the book mentioned he uses these words: "God, then, is present everywhere, and everywhere present whole, yet not dwelling everywhere, but in His temple, to which by grace He is kind and favourable. And as indwelling He is grasped, by some more, and by others less. But of our Head Himself the Apostle says: For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Col. 2:9)." Mark, I pray you, in these words of blessed Augustine the most certain distinction between the Head and the members. For by those to whom God gives the Spirit by measure He is grasped as indwelling, by some more, by others less. And what is it to be grasped but to be understood and known? But when the same blessed Augustine wished to speak of Christ, see what he says: "Of our Head Himself," he says, "the Apostle says: For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Col. 2:9)." Plainly blessed Augustine himself says that God, as indwelling, is grasped: wherefore the fullness of the Godhead is without doubt grasped by Him in whom that very fullness of the Godhead dwells. And He is grasped in the one in whom He is known. Therefore He in whom all the fullness of the Godhead dwells cannot fail to have full knowledge of that fullness. Hence it is that blessed Augustine in the same book (Ibid.) says a little after this: What then? Do we think that the difference between the Head and the other members is this, that in any member, however eminent, as in some great prophet or apostle, although the Godhead dwells, yet not all the fullness of the Godhead, as in the Head which is Christ? For in our body too there is sensation in each of the members, but not so much as in the head, where it is plainly all divided into five. For there is sight, and hearing, and smell, and taste, and touch. But in the others there is touch alone. Or is there, besides this, that all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in that body as in a temple, something else that differs between that Head and the excellence of any member whatever? There is indeed: that by a certain singular taking-up of that Man, one Person was made with the Word. For of none of the saints could it be said, or can it be, or will it be: The Word was made flesh (John 1:14). None of the saints, by whatever excellence of grace, received the name of the Only-begotten; so that what the very Word of God is before the ages, this might be said together with the man assumed. Singular, therefore, is that taking-up, nor with men
Editors' notes and page, col. 423
Page
- running head: 423 S. FULGENTII EPISCOP[I …] (cut at image edge)
- marginal letters: A ‹hominem, capere Deum non poterat›; B ‹« Deus igitur ubique praesens›; C ‹(Coloss. II, 9). » Nempe ipse›; D ‹factus, et gustus, et tactus›
- old-edition numerals: 257 after ‹membrorumque›
aliquibus sanctis quantalibet sapientia ac sanctitate praestantibus, ullo modo potest esse communis. Certum est itaque sanctorum Patrum sententiam Scripturis coelestibus convenire, quae manifestissime protestantur, et divinitus inspiratae proclamant nobis, id est omnibus adoptivis, partem cognoscendae atque capiendae divinitatis, prout voluntas donaverit largitoris, infundi per gratiam; Christo vero, id est animae ejus, plenam totius divinitatis inesse notitiam.
who are holy, however excellent in wisdom and holiness, can it in any way be shared. It is certain, therefore, that the judgement of the holy Fathers agrees with the heavenly Scriptures, which most plainly testify and, being divinely inspired, proclaim to us, that is, to all the adopted, that a share in knowing and grasping the Godhead is poured in by grace, as the will of the Giver has granted; but that in Christ, that is, in His soul, there is full knowledge of the whole Godhead.
QUAESTIO QUARTA.
QUESTION FOUR.
35. Quartam deinde quaestionem series tuarum sic continet litterarum. Unum, inquis, regnum Patris et, Filii, et Spiritus sancti credimus et fatemur, simul eos dominari creaturis omnibus sentientes. Quare ergo in orationibus sacerdotum, « Per Jesum Christum Filium tuum Dominum nostrum, qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitate Spiritus sancti, » per universas pene Africae regiones catholica dicere consuevit, Ecclesia, tanquam solus Filius cum Patre possideat regnum, in unitate scilicet Spiritus sancti, ut regnantes adunare, non simul regnare Spiritus sanctus intimetur?
35. The course of your letter then contains the fourth question in these words. We believe and confess, you say, one kingdom of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, holding that they rule together over all creatures. Why, then, has the catholic Church throughout almost the whole of the regions of Africa been accustomed to say in the prayers of the priests, "Through Jesus Christ Thy Son our Lord, Who lives and reigns with Thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit", as though the Son alone possessed the kingdom together with the Father, namely in the unity of the Holy Spirit, so that the Holy Spirit is intimated to unite those who reign, not to reign together with them?
RESPONSIO.
REPLY.
36. Dicam simpliciter de hoc sermone quod sentio. Quoties exinde cogitavi, nihil ibi aliud majores nostros, quam fidei veritatem contra multas haereses praemunisse cognovi. Illud quippe primum attendendum est, quod in conclusione orationis, Per Jesum Christum Filium tuum Dominum nostrum dicimus; per Spiritum vero sanctum nullatenus dicimus: quod utique non inaniter catholica concelebrat Ecclesia, propter illud utique sacramentum, quod mediator Dei et hominum factus est homo Christus Jesus, Sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech, qui per proprium sanguinem semel introivit in sancta, non utique manufacta exemplaria verorum (Hebr. IX, 24), sed in ipsum coelum, ubi est in dextera Dei, et interpellat pro nobis. Hoc in eo pontificatus officium intuens Apostolus ait: Per ipsum ergo offeramus hostiam laudis semper Deo id est fructum labiorum confitentium nomini ejus (Hebr. XIII, 15). Per ipsum ergo hostiam laudis atque orationis offerimus, quia per ejus mortem reconciliati sumus cum inimici essemus. Per ipsum enim qui pro nobis hostia dignatus est fieri, potest in conspectu Dei nostra hostia acceptabilis inveniri. Propterea nos beatus Petrus admonet, dicens: Et vos tanquam lapides vivi aedificamini in domum spiritalem, in sacerdotium sanctum, offerentes spiritales hostias, acceptabiles Deo Per Jesum Christum (I Petr. II, 5). Hac igitur ratione dicimus Deo Patri Per Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum. Nam bene nosti nonnunquam dici: Per Sacerdotem aeternum Filium tuum Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum. Cum ergo sacerdotis fit mentio, quid aliud quam mysterium dominicae Incarnationis ostenditur, quo Dei Filius, cum in forma Dei esset, semetipsum exinanivit, formam servi accipiens; secundum quam se humiliavit, factus obediens usque ad mortem;
36. I will say simply what I think about this expression. As often as I have thought on it since, I have recognized that our forebears fortified there nothing other than the truth of the faith against many heresies. For this is first to be noted, that in the conclusion of a prayer we say, Through Jesus Christ Thy Son our Lord; but we in no way say, through the Holy Spirit: which the catholic Church certainly does not celebrate to no purpose, on account, surely, of that sacrament, that the mediator of God and men, Christ Jesus, was made man, a Priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech, Who through His own blood entered once into the holies, not indeed [holies] made by hand, the patterns of the true (Heb. 9:24), but into heaven itself, where He is at the right hand of God and intercedes for us. Looking upon this office of the pontificate in Him, the Apostle says: Through Him, therefore, let us offer the sacrifice of praise always to God, that is, the fruit of lips confessing His name (Heb. 13:15). Through Him, therefore, we offer the sacrifice of praise and of prayer, because through His death we have been reconciled, when we were enemies. For through Him Who deigned to become a victim for us, our sacrifice can be found acceptable in the sight of God. For this reason blessed Peter admonishes us, saying: And you, as living stones, be built up into a spiritual house, into a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God Through Jesus Christ (1 Pet. 2:5). For this reason, then, we say to God the Father, Through Jesus Christ our Lord. For you know well that it is sometimes said: Through Thy Son, the eternal Priest, our Lord Jesus Christ. When, then, mention is made of the priest, what else is shown than the mystery of the Lord's Incarnation, by which the Son of God, though He was in the form of God, emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant; according to which He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death;
Editors' notes and page, col. 424
Footnotes
(a) ‹manufacta exemplaria verorum› · call in col 424
Ita mss. Bon. et Aul., conformiter textui apostolico; alii codd., veritatis.
So the manuscripts Bon. and Aul., in agreement with the Apostle's text; other codices have "veritatis" (of the truth).
(printed under page 217)
Page
- running head: [S. FULGENT]I EPISCOPI RUSPENSIS 424
- marginal letters: A ‹aliquibus sanctis quantalibet›; B ‹tuum Dominum nostrum, qui tecum vivit›; C ‹utique non inaniter catholica›; D ‹monet, dicens: Et vos tanquam›
- old-edition numerals: 258 before ‹RESPONSIO.›
- other: the column's opening lines (from ‹aliquibus sanctis› to ‹inesse notitiam›, the end of the Augustine quotation begun in col 423 and the close of the third answer) were missing from the imported text and were set in QA Q1.
minoratus scilicet paulo minus ab angelis, et aequalitatem paternae possidens divinitatis (al. unitatis)? Eo quippe minoratus est Filius, aequalis permanens Patri, quo in similitudinem hominum dignatus est fieri. Ipse autem se minorem fecit, quando semetipsum exinanivit, formam servi accipiens. Christi porro minoratio, ipsa est exinanitio; nec tamen alia (al. aliud) est exinanitio quam formae servilis acceptio
made lower, that is, a little less than the angels, and possessing equality of the paternal divinity (other [readings]: unity)? For the Son was made lower, while remaining equal to the Father, in that He deigned to be made in the likeness of men. And He made Himself lower when He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant. Now the lowering of Christ is itself the emptying; nor yet is the emptying anything other (other [readings]: another thing) than the taking of the servile form.
37. Christus ergo in forma Dei permanens, Unigenitus Deus, cui cum Patre hostias offerimus, formam servi accipiens, sacerdos est factus, per quem hostiam vivam, sanctam, Deo placentem offerre possimus. Nec tamen hostia a nobis offerri potuisset, si Christus pro nobis factus hostia non fuisset: in quo ipsa natura nostri generis, vera est hostia salutaris. Ut enim ipse Unigenitus, qui verus naturaliter Deus est, verus fieret et sacerdos, in persona divinitatis suae, non humanitatis nostrae personam dignatus est accipere, sed naturam. Si enim naturam hominis cum persona simul accepisset in illo Incarnationis mysterio, non idem unus Christus in duabus naturis esset Deus et homo, sed in duabus personis alter esset Deus, et alter homo. Sed ideo unus est Christus, verus Dei et hominis Filius, quia ille unigenitus Dominus, qui personam propriam semper habuit, in ipsam personam suam veritatem naturae servilis accepit. Proinde Christus inseparabilis permanet, quia cum altera sit in eo natura divinitatis, altera vere natura servilis, in uno tamen eodemque Christo illa persona divinitatis aeternae, ipsa est etiam humanitatis assumptae. Propterea idem atque unus est Christus, quem et paulo minorem ab angelis ostendit acceptio formae servilis, et aequalem Patri demonstrat unitas naturalis. In quo sacramento sic offenderunt Ariani, ut attendentes in eo officium sacerdotis, nollent celsitudinem suscipere deitatis. Inde est quod etiam sic dicunt: Gloria Patri per Filium, ut nolint dicere, Gloria Patri et Filio. Quoniam ergo sunt haeretici qui Filium cum Patre unius deitatis esse non credunt, item sunt alii qui veritatem carnis in Dei Filio negare non metuant; hunc locum congrue atque utiliter Patres sanctissimi posuerunt. Nam cum nos ostendimus per aeternum Sacerdotem Dominum Christum nostras orationes offerri, veram in eo carnem nostri generis confitemur; secundum illud quod Apostolus dicit: Omnis enim pontifex ex hominibus assumptus, pro hominibus constituitur in his quae sunt ad Deum, ut offerat dona et sacrificia pro peccatis (Hebr. V, 1). Cum vero dicimus Filium tuum, et adjicimus, qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitate Spiritus sancti, illam utique unitatem commemoramus, quam naturaliter habet Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus: ubi ostenditur idem ipse Christus pro nobis sacerdotali functus officio, cui naturalis est unitas cum Patre et Spiritu sancto. Vide, quaeso, quanti ex hoc convincantur haeretici. Principaliter enim nostra fides a Manichaeorum errore discernitur, cum per
37. Christ, therefore, abiding in the form of God, the Only-begotten God, to Whom with the Father we offer sacrifices, by taking the form of a servant was made a priest, through Whom we may be able to offer a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing to God. Nor yet could a sacrifice have been offered by us, if Christ had not been made a sacrifice for us: in Whom the very nature of our race is the true saving sacrifice. For in order that the Only-begotten Himself, Who is true God by nature, might become also a true priest, He deigned to take, into the person of His divinity, not the person but the nature of our humanity. For if in that mystery of the Incarnation He had taken the nature of man together with a person, the one same Christ would not be God and man in two natures, but in two persons one would be God and the other man. But for this reason Christ is one, the true Son of God and of man, because that only-begotten Lord, Who always had His own person, took into that very person of His the reality of the servile nature. Hence Christ remains inseparable, because, though in Him the one nature is of the divinity and the other truly the servile nature, yet in one and the same Christ that person of the eternal divinity is itself also [the person] of the humanity assumed. Therefore Christ is the same and one, Whom both the taking of the servile form shows to be a little lower than the angels, and the natural unity demonstrates to be equal to the Father. In this sacrament the Arians so stumbled that, attending in Him to the office of priest, they would not accept the loftiness of the deity. Hence it is that they even say thus: Glory to the Father through the Son, so as not to have to say, Glory to the Father and to the Son. Since, therefore, there are heretics who do not believe the Son to be of one deity with the Father, [and] likewise there are others who do not fear to deny the reality of the flesh in the Son of God, the most holy Fathers fittingly and usefully set down this place. For when we show that our prayers are offered through the eternal Priest, the Lord Christ, we confess in Him the true flesh of our race; according to what the Apostle says: For every pontiff taken from among men is appointed for men in the things that pertain to God, that he may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins (Heb. 5:1). But when we say Thy Son, and add, Who lives and reigns with Thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, we commemorate that unity which the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have by nature: in which it is shown that the same Christ Himself, Who performed the priestly office for us, has a natural unity with the Father and the Holy Spirit. See, I pray, how many heretics are refuted by this. For in the first place our faith is distinguished from the error of the Manichaeans, when through
Editors' notes and page, col. 425
Footnotes
(a) ‹sacerdotis, nollent› · call in col 425
Ms. Thu., non noverint.
The Thu. manuscript has "non noverint" (they did not know).
(printed under page 218)
(b) ‹esse non credunt› · call in col 425
Ant., non credunt.
Ant. has "non credunt" (they do not believe).
(printed under page 218)
(c) ‹ut offerat dona› · call in col 425
Ant., ut offerat Deo dona.
Ant. has "ut offerat Deo dona" (that he may offer gifts to God).
(printed under page 218)
Page
- running head: 425 EPISTOLA XIV. [the title is centred over the page; its end is seen in the col 426 image]
- marginal letters (in the gutter to the right of the column): A ‹minoratus scilicet paulo minus›; B ‹ipsa natura nostri generis›; C ‹Christo illa persona divinitatis aeternae›; D ‹quod Apostolus dicit: Omnis enim pontifex›
- old-edition numerals: 259 after ‹Sed ideo unus est›
- other: page foot carries the signature line "PATROL. LXV." (not set).
illum Sacerdotem nostras orationes offerimus, qui propterea verus est Sacerdos, quia semetipsum veram pro nobis hostiam obtulit; quod Apostolus indubitanter affirmat, dicens: Estote ergo imitatores Dei, sicut filii carissimi, et ambulate in dilectione, sicut et Christus dilexit nos, et obtulit semetipsum pro nobis oblationem et hostiam Deo in odorem suavitatis (Ephes. V, 1). Qui utique veram hostiam non offerret, si carnis in eo veritas non fuisset. Hujus hostiae veritatem postquam a mortuis resurrexit, ipse summus Sacerdos discipulis suis ostendit, et contrectandam obtulit, dicens: Palpate et videte quia spiritus carnem et ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habere (Luc. XXIV, 39).
that Priest we offer our prayers, Who is for this reason a true Priest, that He offered Himself as a true sacrifice for us; which the Apostle affirms without doubting, saying: Be therefore imitators of God, as most dear sons, and walk in love, as Christ also loved us, and offered Himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odour of sweetness (Eph. 5:1). He would certainly not offer a true sacrifice if the reality of flesh had not been in Him. The reality of this sacrifice, after He rose from the dead, the high Priest Himself showed to His disciples, and offered it to be handled, saying: Handle and see, for a spirit has not flesh and bones, as you see me have (Luke 24:39).
38. Hinc etiam fides nostra discernitur ab Eutychetis errore: qui licet incarnatum Verbum negare non audent, ipsam tamen Verbi carnem cum non fatetur sumptam de carne Virginis, mysterium summi prorsus evacuat Sacerdotis. Cui Apostolus illa quam superius posui sententia contradicit: Omnis (inquiens) pontifex ex hominibus assumptus, pro hominibus constituitur in his quae sunt ad Deum (Hebr. V, 1). Et alio loco: Nusquam enim angelos apprehendit, sed semen Abrahae apprehendit. Unde debuit per omnia fratribus similari, ut misericors fieret, et fidelis pontifex ad Deum, ut repropitiaret delicta populi (Hebr. II, 16). Hoc itaque sermone quo per Jesum Christum nos ostendimus nostras orationes offerre, vera fides omni errori renititur, qui in Christo veritatem humani corporis non fatetur. Sed quia Christus non solum verus homo, sed et verus est naturaliter Deus, et unus cum Patre et Spiritu sancto Deus, digne dicimus Deo Patri: qui tecum vivit et regnat, in illa utique unitate naturali quam ostendens, ait: Ego et Pater unum sumus (Joan. X, 30). Ubi similiter fides nostra, non solum ab Arii et Sabellii, verum etiam a Nestorii errore discernitur: in ipso quippe unitatis vocabulo sicut Patris et Filii diversa cognoscitur non esse substantia, ita cum dicimus, qui tecum vivit et regnat, ostenditur Patris et Filii una non esse persona. Apparet etiam aeternum Sacerdotem ipsum verum Filium esse, qui cum Deo Patre regnat in unitate naturae. Cum vero in unitate Spiritus sancti dicimus, unam naturam Spiritus sancti cum Patre Filioque monstramus. Unitas autem naturae quid aliud quam Trinitatem unum Deum, et ex hoc unum ostendit et regnum? Diversitas quippe naturae potest in regno diversitatem potestatis ostendere. Ubi autem regni naturalis est unitas, una regnandi permanet et potestas: in illo autem regno illi diversitatem potestatis habere possunt, quibus ipsa potestas tribuitur ex gratia, non suppetit ex natura. Non est autem diversitas, sed unitas potestatis in Trinitate, quae ipsam potestatem unicuique secundum suam tribuit voluntatem, quia naturalem habet ineffabiliter unitatem. Vide autem quid beatus Augustinus in libro sexto (Cap. V) de Trinitate sentiat de Spiritu sancto, ubi dicens: Ergo aequalis est Patri Filius, et est unius
38. From this also our faith is distinguished from the error of Eutyches: who, although they do not dare deny the Word incarnate, yet since they do not confess that the very flesh of the Word was taken from the flesh of the Virgin, they utterly empty out the mystery of the supreme Priest. The Apostle contradicts this with the statement which I set down above: Every high priest (he says) taken from among men is appointed for men in those things which are towards God (Heb. 5:1). And elsewhere: For nowhere does He take hold of angels, but He takes hold of the seed of Abraham. Whence He had to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become merciful, and a faithful high priest towards God, to make propitiation for the offences of the people (Heb. 2:16). By this expression, then, whereby we show that we offer our prayers through Jesus Christ, true faith resists every error that does not confess in Christ the reality of a human body. But because Christ is not only true man, but also is truly God by nature, and is one God with the Father and the Holy Spirit, we fittingly say to God the Father: Who lives and reigns with Thee — in that natural unity, surely, which He showed when He said: I and the Father are one (John 10:30). In which likewise our faith is distinguished not only from the error of Arius and Sabellius, but also from that of Nestorius: for just as in that very word of unity it is known that the substance of the Father and the Son is not diverse, so, when we say, Who lives and reigns with Thee, it is shown that the person of the Father and the Son is not one. It is also apparent that the eternal Priest is Himself the true Son, Who reigns with God the Father in unity of nature. But when we say in the unity of the Holy Spirit, we show that the Holy Spirit is of one nature with the Father and the Son. And what else does unity of nature show but that the Trinity is one God, and from this one kingdom also? For diversity of nature can show diversity of power in a kingdom. But where the unity of a kingdom is natural, one power also of reigning remains; whereas in that kingdom those can have diversity of power to whom that power is granted by grace, not supplied by nature. But there is not diversity, but unity of power in the Trinity, Who grants that very power to each according to His own will, because He has ineffably a natural unity. See now what blessed Augustine holds concerning the Holy Spirit in the sixth book (chap. 5) On the Trinity, where, saying: Therefore the Son is equal to the Father, and is of one
Editors' notes and page, col. 426
Footnotes
(none) [footnote (c), printed under this column, belongs to a call in col 425 and is recorded there]
Page
- running head: [EPI]STOLA XIV. 426
- marginal letters (in the gutter to the left of the column): A ‹illum Sacerdotem nostras orationes›; B ‹chetis errore; qui licet›; C ‹non solum verus homo›; D ‹dit et regnum?›
- old-edition numerals: 260 before ‹et fidelis pontifex›
- other: page foot carries the gathering signature "14" (not set). ‹superius posui sententia›: the page shows no t after "posui" (soft type; read from the letter run); QA Q1 changed the imported "posuit".
ejusdem substantiae, continuo subjunxit. Quapropter Spiritus sanctus in eadem unitate substantiae aequalitate consistit (al. subsistit). Sive enim sit unitas amborum, sive sanctitas, sive caritas, sive ideo unitas quia caritas, et ideo caritas quia sanctitas, manifestum est quod non aliquis duorum est quo uterque conjungitur, quo genitus a gignente diligatur, generatoremque suum diligat; sintque non participatione, sed essentia sua; neque dono superioris alicujus, sed suo proprio, servantes unitatem Spiritus vinculo pacis. Et paulo post (Ibidem): Spiritus ergo sanctus commune aliquid est Patris et Filii, quidquid illud est: at ipsa communio consubstantialis et coaeterna. Quae si amicitia convenienter dici potest, dicatur; sed aptius dicitur caritas. Et haec quoque substantia, quia Deus substantia et Deus caritas (I Joan. IV, 16), sicut scriptum est. Item alio loco ejusdem libri (Eodem cap. 5) dicit: Aequalis est igitur etiam Spiritus sanctus; et si aequalis, in omnibus aequalis propter summam simplicitatem quae in illa substantia est. Et ideo non amplius quam tria sunt: unus diligens eum qui de illo est, et unus diligens eum de quo est, et ipsa dilectio: quae si nihil est, quomodo Deus dilectio est? si non est substantia, quomodo Deus substantia est? His itaque verbis beatus Augustinus non dubitavit, sicut caritatem et sanctitatem, sic etiam unitatem Patris et Filii Spiritum sanctum dicere; nec solum commune aliquid eorum, sed etiam communiouem consubstantialem coaeternamque fiducialiter praedicare. Quod utique ideo a catholicis dicitur, ut ex ipso unitatis nomine una essentia, et ex hoc unum regnum, et in eodem uno regno una Trinitatis potestas, unaque majestas a fidelibus agnoscatur; ne putetur aut Filius, aut Spiritus sanctus secundum divinam naturam ita cum Patre regnare, quemadmodum cum potiore regnat inferior; sed illa unitas Spiritus sancti, quae est communio Patris et Filii, dum illo regno unitatem divinitatis monstrat, unam esse regnandi aeternitatem, unam potestatem, unam majestatem, unamque dominationem summae Trinitatis edoceat.
and the same substance, he immediately added: Wherefore the Holy Spirit consists (other reading: subsists) in the same unity of substance [and] equality. For whether He be the unity of both, or their holiness, or their love, or unity because love, and therefore love because holiness, it is manifest that that by which both are joined is not one of the two, that by which the begotten is loved by the begetter, and loves in turn His begetter; and that they are so not by participation, but by their own essence; not by the gift of some superior, but by their own, keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. And a little after (in the same place): The Holy Spirit, then, is something common to the Father and the Son, whatever that is: but that communion itself is consubstantial and coeternal. Which, if it can fittingly be called friendship, let it be so called; but it is more aptly called love. And this too is substance, since God is substance and God is love (1 John 4:16), as it is written. Again, in another place of the same book (the same chapter 5) he says: The Holy Spirit, then, is equal also; and if equal, equal in all things, on account of the supreme simplicity that is in that substance. And therefore there are not more than three: one loving Him Who is from Him, and one loving Him from Whom He is, and love itself: which, if it is nothing, how is God love? if it is not substance, how is God substance? By these words, then, blessed Augustine did not hesitate to call the Holy Spirit, just as love and holiness, so also the unity of the Father and the Son; and confidently to declare not only that He is something common to them, but also their consubstantial and coeternal communion. This is indeed said by catholics for this reason: that from the very name of unity, one essence, and from this one kingdom, and in that same one kingdom one power of the Trinity, and one majesty, may be acknowledged by the faithful; lest it be thought that either the Son or the Holy Spirit reigns with the Father according to the divine nature in the way that an inferior reigns with a greater; but that that unity of the Holy Spirit, which is the communion of the Father and the Son, while in that kingdom it shows the unity of the Godhead, may teach that there is one eternity of reigning, one power, one majesty, and one dominion of the supreme Trinity.
QUAESTIO QUINTA.
QUESTION FIVE.
39. Quintam vero, id est novissimam, continet his verbis epistola quaestionem. Quid sit quod Lucas evangelista coenam Domini narraturus, prius eum dicit calicem accepisse, et discipulis dividendum inter se continuo tradidisse; et tum deinde accepto pane dixisse: « Hoc est corpus meum; » et accepto similiter postquam coenavit calice, tunc dixisse: « Hic calix Novum Testamentum est in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis funditur [al. effundetur] (Luc. XXII, 17 sqq.). » Ista vero quaestione proposita subjungis et dicis: Nunquid unus calix secundo est datus, an alius prius, alius postea? et si ita est, inquis, ad cujus rei sacramentum pertinet ille de quo maxime caeteri qui scripserunt evangelica (al., ut supra in epist. Ferrandi, Evangelica) tacuerunt?
39. The fifth question, that is, the last, the letter contains in these words. What does it mean that Luke the evangelist, about to narrate the Lord's supper, says that He first took the cup and at once handed it to the disciples to be divided among themselves; and then, having taken bread, said: "This is My body"; and having likewise taken the cup after He had supped, then said: "This cup is the New Testament in My blood, which is poured out [al. will be poured out] for you" (Luke 22:17ff.)? Having put this question, you go on to say: Was one cup given a second time, or one first and another afterwards? And if so, you say, to the sacrament of what does that cup belong, about which the others who wrote the Gospels (al., as above in Ferrandus's letter, the Gospels) were chiefly silent?
RESPONSIO.
REPLY.
40. Hunc Evangelii locum quidam sic intelligi voluerunt,
40. Some have wished this passage of the Gospel to be understood in this way,
Editors' notes and page, col. 427
Footnotes
(none) [footnote (a), "Ant., manducantibus autem.", printed under this column, belongs to the call after ‹Et manducantibus› in col 428 and is recorded there]
Page
- running head: 427 S. FULGENTII EPISCOP[I RUSPENSIS] [rest cut off at the image edge]
- marginal letters (in the gutter to the right of the column): A ‹ejusdem substantiae, continuo subjunxit›; B ‹Deus substantia et Deus caritas›; C ‹tia, et ex hoc unum›; D ‹calicem accepisse, et discipulis›
- old-edition numerals: 261 after ‹et ex hoc unum›
- other: the column's last part (‹QUAESTIO QUINTA.› to ‹intelligi vo-›) was missing from the imported text and was set in QA Q1; "voluerunt", split at the column break, is set whole here. ‹prius eum dicit›: the soft type looks like "cum"; read as "eum", which the sense requires. "communiouem" is clearly printed so and kept as a misprint.
ut non duos calices a Domino datos assererent, sed potius per anticipationem dictum esse firmarent; caeterum unum esse calicem qui et antea dividendus, et postea bibendus commemoratur datus esse discipulis. Quidam vero secundo datum calicem firmant. Sed sive hoc, sive illud quisque sentiat, talis est uterque sensus, ut a vera fide nullatenus inveniatur extraneus. Hi vero qui secundum (al. secundo) datum existimant calicem, hoc factum in significatione dixerunt: alii asserentes quod in primo calice suam, in secundo vero fidelium suorum Dominus praefiguraverit passionem. Alii vero dixerunt in utroque calice illud ostendi, quod in veteri Testamento praeceptum est (Exod. XII, 5; Num. IX, 11), ut qui Pascha primi mensis agnum comedendo non egerit, in secundo mense in haedi comestione peragat. Videtur autem hic mihi etiam aliud quoddam congruum christianae fidei reperiri mysterium, ut in utroque calice utrumque intelligi debeat Testamentum. Praesertim quia hoc nobis sic ipsa demonstravit Veritas, ut nulla remaneret quaerentibus difficultas: nam ipse Dominus calicem quem bibendum dedit, Novum appellare dignatus est Testamentum, quod evangelici tenor demonstrat eloquii. Sic quidem tribus evangelistis, Matthaeo, Marco et Luca, hoc indubitanter attestantibus, invenitur. Verba quippe Matthaei haec sunt: Coenantibus autem eis, accepit Jesus panem; et benedixit, ac fregit, deditque discipulis suis, et ait: Accipite, et comedite: Hoc est corpus meum. Et accipiens calicem, gratias egit, et dedit illis, dicens: Bibite ex hoc omnes: Hic enim sanguis meus Novi Testamenti, qui pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum (Matth. XXVI, 26). Marcus vero mysterium Dominici panis et calicis explicaturus, haec ait: Et manducantibus illis, accepit Jesus panem; et benedicens fregit, et dedit eis, et ait: Sumite, Hoc est corpus meum. Et accepto calice, gratias agens, dedit eis, et biberunt ex illo omnes. Et ait eis: Hic est sanguis meus Novi Testamenti, qui pro multis effunditur [al. effundetur] (Marc. IV, 22). Lucae vero, quem secundo certum est calicem nominasse, his invenitur verbis ordinata atque explicata narratio: Et accepto calice gratias egit, et dixit: Accipite et dividite inter vos. Dico enim vobis quod non bibam de generatione vitis donec regnum Dei veniat. Et accepto pane gratias egit, et fregit, et dedit eis, dicens: Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis datur: hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Similiter et calicem postquam coenavit, dicens: Hic calix Novum Testamentum est in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis funditur [al. fundetur] (Luc. XXII, 17). Hinc est quod etiam beatus Paulus commemorans sacratissimum illius coenae mysterium, non aliud calicem quam Novum a Domino nuncupatum insinuat Testamentum. Inter alia namque sic dicit: Ego enim accepi a Domino quod et tradidi vobis, quoniam Dominus Jesus in qua nocte tradebatur, accepit panem, et gratias agens fregit, et dixit: Hoc est corpus meum pro vobis: hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Similiter et calicem postquam
so that they did not assert that two cups were given by the Lord, but rather maintained that it was said by anticipation; and that, for the rest, there is one cup, which is recorded as given to the disciples, both to be divided beforehand and to be drunk afterwards. But some maintain that a cup was given a second time. Yet whether one holds this or that, each sense is such that it is found in no way foreign to the true faith. Those, however, who think that a cup was given a second (al. a second time), said that this was done as a sign: some asserting that in the first cup the Lord prefigured His own passion, but in the second that of His faithful. Others, however, said that in each cup there is shown what was commanded in the Old Testament (Exod. 12:5; Num. 9:11), that he who has not kept the Pasch of the first month by eating the lamb should keep it in the second month by eating a kid. But it seems to me that here another mystery too is found, fitting to the Christian faith: that in the two cups the two Testaments ought to be understood. Above all because the Truth Himself showed us this in such a way that no difficulty would remain for those who inquire: for the Lord Himself deigned to call the cup which He gave to be drunk the New Testament, as the course of the Gospel's discourse shows. So indeed it is found, with three evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke, attesting it beyond doubt. For the words of Matthew are these: And while they were eating, Jesus took bread; and He blessed, and broke, and gave to His disciples, and said: Take, and eat: This is My body. And taking the cup, He gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink of this, all of you: For this is My blood of the New Testament, which will be shed for many for the remission of sins (Matt. 26:26). Mark, when about to set out the mystery of the Lord's bread and cup, says this: And as they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing it He broke, and gave to them, and said: Take, This is My body. And having taken the cup, giving thanks, He gave to them, and they all drank of it. And He said to them: This is My blood of the New Testament, which is shed [al. will be shed] for many (Mark 14:22). But in Luke the account is found set in order and unfolded in these words, he whom it is certain to have named a cup a second time: And having taken the cup He gave thanks, and said: Take and divide among you. For I say to you that I will not drink of the generation of the vine until the kingdom of God comes. And having taken bread He gave thanks, and broke, and gave to them, saying: This is My body, which is given for you: do this in memory of Me. Likewise also the cup, after He had supped, saying: This cup is the New Testament in My blood, which is poured out [al. will be poured out] for you (Luke 22:17). Hence it is that blessed Paul too, recalling the most sacred mystery of that supper, intimates that the cup was none other than the one named by the Lord the New Testament. For among other things he speaks thus: For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night in which He was betrayed, took bread, and giving thanks broke, and said: This is My body for you: do this in memory of Me. Likewise also the cup, after
Editors' notes and page, col. 428
Footnotes
(a) ‹Et manducantibus› · call in col 428
Ant., manducantibus autem.
Ant. has "manducantibus autem" (but as they were eating).
(printed under page 219)
(b) ‹corpus meum pro vobis› · call in col 428
Sic mss. Thu. et Ant. Alii cod., quod pro vobis traditur.
So the manuscripts Thu. and Ant. Other codices have "quod pro vobis traditur" (which is given up for you).
(printed under page 219)
Page
- running head: I EPISCOPI RUSPENSIS 428 (start cut at image edge; S. FULGENTII on the facing column)
- marginal letters: A ‹luerunt, ut non duos calices›; B ‹non egerit, in secundo mense›; C ‹gratias egit, et dedit illis›; D ‹eis, dicens: Hoc est corpus›
- old-edition numerals: 262 after ‹Hic›
coenavit, dicens: Hic calix Novum Testamentum est in meo sanguine; hoc facite, quotiescunque bibetis [al. bibitis], in meam commemorationem (I Cor. XI, 23).
He had supped, saying: This cup is the New Testament in My blood; do this, as often as you shall drink [al. drink] it, in memory of Me (1 Cor. 11:23).
41. Haec igitur evangelicorum atque apostolicorum attestatione dictorum in calicis nomine, isto duntaxat loco, non aliud quam divinum permittimur accipere Testamentum. Neque enim dubium est aliis locis a Domino nomine calicis significatam gratiam passionis. Quod utique intelligi voluit dicens filiis Zebedaei: Potestis bibere calicem quem ego bibiturus sum (Matth. XX, 22)? Et in ipsa hora qua detineri manibus voluit impiorum, hoc sermone beatum Petrum, ut gladium reconderet in vaginam praemonens, calicem se bibiturum passionis ostendit, dicens: Mitte gladium in vaginam. Calicem quem dedit mihi Pater, non bibam illum (Joan. XVIII, 11)? In quo calice passionem esse intelligendam etiam illic ostendit, ubi avulsus a discipulis quantum jactus est lapidis, moriturus pro peccatis hominum, humanae quae infirmitatis veraciter in seipso demonstravit affectum; et ut desperationem ab infirmioribus (al. inferioribus) membris dignaretur auferre, ipsa virtus quae nostrum caput esse voluit, dicere divino amore non est dedignata quod membra ejus essent humano postmodum timore dictura. Inde est quod eum Lucas evangelista dixisse commemorat: Pater, si vis, transfer calicem istum a me (Luc. XXII, 42). Matthaeus quoque verba ejus haec esse testatur: Pater mi, si possibile est, transeat a me calix iste (Matth. XXVI, 39). Marcus vero, ut ostenderet quid in illo calice intelligere deberemus, ait: Et cum processisset paululum, procidit super terram, et oravit, ut, si fieri posset, transiret ab eo hora (Maac. XIV, 35). Quam hic horam putamus a sancto evangelista significatam, nisi illam de qua Dominus ait: Nondum venit hora mea (Joan. II, 4); et de qua Joannes evangelista dicit: Et nemo misit in eum manus, quia necdum venerat hora ejus (Joan. VII, 30)? Hora Utique non coactitiae mortis, sed voluntariae passionis; hora procul dubio illa qua triumphalem mortem susciperet, et solvens dolores inferni, mors ipse mortis misericorditer ac mirabiliter exstitisset, sicut jam dixerat per Prophetam: Ero mors tua, o mors; ero morsus tuus, inferne (Ose. X⟨I⟩II, 14). Hanc horam in oratione a Domino calicis nomine nuncupatam beatus evangelista subsequenter ostendit, ejusdem Domini oratione subjecta, qua dicit: Abba, Pater, omnia tibi possibilia sunt; transfer calicem hunc a me (Marc. XIV, 36). Nempe manifestum est hoc fuisse orare ut transiret ab eo hora, quod erat dicere ut calix transferretur ab eo. Ubi, ut dixi, caput nostrum in se membrorum suorum susceptam demonstravit infirmitatem, quibus se daturum noverat patiendi virtutem, ut doceret non ex hoc evacuandum meritum passionis, si homini pro Christi fide et caritate passuro, promptum spiritum quatere niteretur ex infirmitate carnis veniens trepidatio voluntatis, sed potius divinae voluntati seipsa voluntas
41. By this attestation, then, of the evangelical and apostolic sayings, we are permitted, in this place at least, to take nothing other under the name of the cup than the divine Testament. For neither is it doubtful that in other places the grace of the passion is signified by the Lord under the name of the cup. This indeed He wished to be understood when He said to the sons of Zebedee: Can you drink the cup which I am to drink (Matt. 20:22)? And in the very hour in which He willed to be held by the hands of the ungodly, forewarning blessed Peter with this word to put back his sword into the sheath, He showed that He would drink the cup of the passion, saying: Put the sword into the sheath. The cup which the Father has given Me, shall I not drink it (John 18:11)? That by this cup the passion is to be understood He showed also there where, withdrawn from the disciples about a stone's throw, about to die for the sins of men, He truly showed in Himself the feeling of human weakness; and, that He might deign to take despair away from the weaker (al. lower) members, that very Power which willed to be our Head did not disdain to say by divine love what His members would afterwards say by human fear. Hence it is that Luke the evangelist records that He said: Father, if You will, remove this cup from Me (Luke 22:42). Matthew also testifies that His words were these: My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me (Matt. 26:39). But Mark, to show what we ought to understand in that cup, says: And when He had gone forward a little, He fell upon the ground, and prayed that, if it could be, the hour might pass from Him (Mark 14:35). What hour do we think is signified here by the holy evangelist, if not that of which the Lord says: My hour has not yet come (John 2:4); and of which John the evangelist says: And no one laid hands on Him, because His hour had not yet come (John 7:30)? The hour, surely, not of a compelled death, but of a voluntary passion; the hour, beyond doubt, in which He was to undergo a triumphal death, and, loosing the pains of hell, would have become, mercifully and wonderfully, Himself the death of death, as He had already said through the Prophet: I will be your death, O death; I will be your bite, O hell (Hos. 13:14). This hour, named by the Lord in prayer by the name of the cup, the blessed evangelist shows next, adding the prayer of the same Lord, in which He says: Abba, Father, all things are possible to You; remove this cup from Me (Mark 14:36). Plainly it is evident that to pray that the hour might pass from Him was the same as to say that the cup might be removed from Him. Here, as I have said, our Head showed in Himself the weakness taken on of His members, to whom He knew He would give the strength to suffer, so as to teach that the merit of the passion is not made void by this, if, in a man about to suffer for the faith and charity of Christ, a trembling of the will coming from the weakness of the flesh should strive to shake the ready spirit, but rather [if] the will itself to the divine will
Editors' notes and page, col. 429
Footnotes
(a) ‹call not visible in the page foot› · call in col 429
In aliis, non vis ut bibam illum?
In others: "non vis ut bibam illum?" (do you not wish that I drink it?)
(printed under page 220)
(b) ‹a Domino calicis› · call in col 429
Ant., Hanc horam a Domino in ratione calicis.
Ant. has "Hanc horam a Domino in ratione calicis" (this hour [named] by the Lord in the manner of a cup).
(printed under page 220)
Page
- running head: 429 EPISTOLA XI[…] (cut at image edge)
- marginal letters: A ‹quam coenavit, dicens›; B ‹vaginam. Calicem quem dedit›; C ‹beremus, ait: Et cum processisset›; D ‹ostendit, ejusdem Domini oratione›
- old-edition numerals: 263 after ‹processisset›
humana subjiceret, et ex infirmitate virtutem praevalente spiritalis gratiae munere perficeret; ab illo sibi facultatem retinens datam, cujus voluntatem suae voluntati non ambigeret †praeferendam: atque ita homo illud quod ex humana infirmitate vellet, patienter vinceret, ut ad illud ad quod divina voluntas utiliter vocat, feliciter perveniret.
as a human will should subject itself, and should bring strength to perfection out of weakness by the prevailing gift of spiritual grace; holding the power as given to it by Him whose will it would not doubt was to be preferred to its own will: and so the man should patiently overcome what he might wish from human weakness, so as to come happily to that to which the divine will profitably calls him.
42. Non ergo Christi voluntas alia potuit esse quam Patris, cum in Patre ac Filio unam semper voluntatem servet unitas naturalis. Sed ille qui humanam naturam suscipiens venit naturam salvare quam fecit, ejusdem quoque naturae verba non fallaci, sed veracissima susceptione protulit, cujus etiam affectum clementissima bonitate suscepit; affectum scilicet quem habet caro ex trepidatione moriendi, non ex cupiditate peccandi: ille enim qui non noverat peccatum sine peccato veram non iniquitatis, sed infirmitatis nostrae suscepit affectum. Vere enim de illo beatus Petrus ait: Qui peccatum non fecit, nec inventus est dolus in ore ejus (I Petr. II, 22). Proinde, quia peccatum non fecit, diversam voluntatem a Patris voluntate non habuit; et quia non est inventus dolus in ore ejus, ex affectu vero infirmitatis humanae, vera verba non ambigitur protulisse. Quamvis igitur in illis Salvatoris nostris dictis quibus calicem nominavit, passio sit intelligenda, tam ejus quam sanctorum ejus (quo sensu etiam beatus David calicem nuncupavit, illo duntaxat loco ubi ait: Quid retribuam Domino pro omnibus quae retribuit mihi Calicem salutaris accipiam, et nomen Domini invocabo (Psal. CXV, 3): ubi ostendens calicem istum non aliud quam mortem esse sanctorum, continuo subjunxit: Pretiosa in conspectu Domini mors sanctorum), accipitur in nomine calicis etiam perfecta gratia caritatis, qua virtus pro Christi nomine suscipiendae infunditur passionis; ita ut etiamsi opportunitas desit qua quisque pro Christo subeat passionem, virtus tamen tanta insit cordi dono divini muneris, ut nihil ei desit ad tolerandam poenam, ad contemnendam vitam, et ad mortem pro Christi nomine subeundam. Hoc illo loco bene intelligitur ubi dicitur in psalmo: Et calix tuus inebrians quam praeclarus est (Psal. XXII, 5)! praemisit autem: Impinguasti in oleo caput meum. Quid autem debemus intelligere impinguatum in oleo caput, nisi mentem dono sancti Spiritus roboratam? Olei enim hujus praeclara pinguedo, spiritalis est gratiae inseparabilis fortitudo, qua sancta ebrietas penetralibus cordis infunditur, ut omnis affectio carnis oblivioni tradita superetur. Hac ebrietate repletus animus discit gaudere semper in Domino, et contemptui deputare quidquid diligebat in mundo; hanc ebrietatem bibemus dum accepto Spiritu sancto, perfectae caritatis quae foras mittit timorem gratiam possidebimus. Hinc est quod beatus Ambrosius in hymno matutino, hujus nos postulare gratiam ebrietatis edocuit, dum dicimus: Laeti bibamus sobriam ebrietatem Spiritus (Fer. 2 ad laudes).
42. The will of Christ, then, could not be other than the Father's, since natural unity keeps always one will in the Father and the Son. But He who, taking up human nature, came to save the nature which He had made, uttered also the words of that same nature by no deceptive, but by a most true taking-up of it, whose feeling also He took up in His most merciful goodness; the feeling, namely, which the flesh has from trembling at death, not from desire of sinning: for He who knew no sin took up without sin the true feeling not of our iniquity but of our weakness. For truly blessed Peter says of Him: Who did no sin, nor was guile found in His mouth (1 Pet. 2:22). Accordingly, because He did no sin, He had no will differing from the Father's will; and because no guile was found in His mouth, it is not doubted that from the feeling of human weakness He uttered true words. Although, therefore, in those sayings of our Saviour in which He named the cup, the passion is to be understood, both His own and that of His saints (in which sense blessed David too named the cup, in that place at least where he says: What shall I render to the Lord for all that He has rendered to me? I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the Lord (Ps. 115:3): where, showing that this cup is nothing other than the death of the saints, he at once added: Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of the saints), there is also understood under the name of the cup the perfect grace of charity, by which strength is poured in for undergoing the passion for the name of Christ; so that, even if the opportunity is lacking by which one might undergo the passion for Christ, yet so great a strength is in the heart by the gift of the divine bounty that nothing is lacking to it for bearing punishment, for despising life, and for undergoing death for the name of Christ. This is well understood in that place where it is said in the psalm: And Your cup that inebriates, how glorious it is (Ps. 22:5)! And he had said before: You have anointed my head with oil. And what ought we to understand by the head anointed with oil, if not the mind strengthened by the gift of the Holy Spirit? For the glorious richness of this oil is the inseparable strength of spiritual grace, by which a holy inebriation is poured into the inmost parts of the heart, so that every affection of the flesh, consigned to oblivion, is overcome. Filled with this inebriation the soul learns to rejoice always in the Lord, and to count as contemptible whatever it loved in the world; we drink this inebriation when, having received the Holy Spirit, we shall possess the grace of perfect charity, which casts out fear. Hence it is that blessed Ambrose, in the morning hymn, taught us to ask for the grace of this inebriation, when we say: Joyful let us drink the sober inebriation of the Spirit (Monday, at Lauds).
43. In aliis itaque locis potest alio quolibet modo
43. In other places, therefore, [the cup] may in some other way
Editors' notes and page, col. 430
Page
- running head: [EP]ISTOLA XIV. 430 (start cut at image edge)
- marginal letters: A ‹humana subjiceret, et ex infirmitate›; B ‹cupiditate peccandi: ille enim›; C ‹tem esse sanctorum, continuo›; D ‹tiae inseparabilis fortitudo›
- old-edition numerals: 264 after ‹opportunitas›
secundum verae fidei regulam calicis nomen intelligi in hoc tamen Evangelii loco de quo nunc disputamus, non aliud intelligere sinimur nisi quod ipsius Domini et magistri nostri sermonibus edocemur, qui ait: Hic calix Novum Testamentum est in sanguine meo (Luc. XXII, 20); et ex hac regula qua iste calix Testamentum dicitur Novum, in illo calice quem prius dedit non absque ratione Vetus intelligitur Testamentum Ipse igitur Dominus utrumque calicem dedit, qui utrumque Testamentum suis fidelibus tribuit. Propterea et in eadem coena et Judaicum pascha comedit, quod oportebat offerri, et sacramentum corporis sui et sanguinis dedit, quod ad salutem fidelium oportebat institui: comedit pascha Judaeorum quo promissus est Christus, ut veniret ad pascha nostrum quo immolatus est Christus. Denique attende quid cum discipulis dixisse Lucas evangelista commemorat. Sic enim ait: Et cum facta esset hora, discubuit, et duodecim apostoli cum eo; et ait illis: Desiderio desideravi hoc pascha manducare vobiscum antequam patiar (Luc. XXII, 14) Manducavit ergo pascha quo passurus significabatur, antequam pro nobis voluntarie pateretur. Est autem etiam in ipsis dominicis sermonibus aliquid quod attentius est a fidelibus agnoscendum, in quo utriusque Testamenti potest apparare discretio. Beatus enim Lucas de calice quem primitus nominavit, ita dicit: Et accepto calice, gratias egit et dixit: Accipite et dividite inter vos; de pane vero et calice postea loquens ait: Et accepto pane gratias egit, et fregit, et dedit eis dicens: Hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis datur; hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Similiter et calicem postquam coenavit, dicens: Hic calix Novum Testamentum est in sanguine meo qui pro vobis funditur (Luc. XXI, 17-19). Non mihi videtur inaniter hic ab ipsa Dei sapientia verborum quaedam facta discretio; quandoquidem primum calicem sic accipiendum dedit, ut praeciperet dividendum, dicens: Accipite, et dividite inter vos; quod in eo calice quem cum pane dedit, omnino non dixit: ibi enim corpus suum sanguinemque commendat, et eumdem calicem novum in sanguine suo asserit Testamentum, dicens: Hic calix Novum Testamentum est in sanguine meo qui pro vobis funditur; nulla vero fit mentio calicis dividendi, quod in aliis quoque duobus evangelistis, Matthaeo scilicet et Marco, similiter invenitur, sicut eorum dicta superius a nobis posita evidenter ostendunt. Hunc itaque calicem, in quo vetus insinuari diximus Testamentum, ideo Dominus accipiendum dividendumque mandavit, ut apostoli dano sapientiae coelestis instructi, sic scripturam Veteris Testamenti reverenter acciperent, ut in ipsis praeceptis quid agendum quidve omittendum esset accepto discretionis spiritu cognovissent. Hoc enim est recte dividere, ut unusquisque noverit pro congruentia temporis quid omittere debeat, quid tenere.
may be understood according to the rule of the true faith, yet in this place of the Gospel about which we are now disputing we are allowed to understand nothing other than what we are taught by the words of our Lord and Master Himself, who says: This cup is the New Testament in My blood (Luke 22:20); and by this rule, by which this cup is called the New Testament, in that cup which He gave first the Old Testament is understood, not without reason. The Lord Himself, then, gave both cups, who bestows both Testaments on His faithful. Therefore at the same supper He both ate the Jewish pasch, which it was fitting to offer, and gave the sacrament of His body and blood, which it was fitting to institute for the salvation of the faithful: He ate the pasch of the Jews, by which Christ was promised, so as to come to our pasch, in which Christ was sacrificed. Lastly, mark what Luke the evangelist records that He said with the disciples. For he speaks thus: And when the hour had come, He reclined at table, and the twelve apostles with Him; and He said to them: With desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you before I suffer (Luke 22:14). So He ate the pasch by which He was signified as about to suffer, before He suffered of His own will for us. But there is also in the Lord's words themselves something which the faithful must recognize more attentively, in which the distinction of the two Testaments can appear. For blessed Luke speaks thus of the cup which he named first: And having taken the cup, He gave thanks and said: Take and divide among you; but speaking afterwards of the bread and the cup he says: And having taken bread He gave thanks, and broke, and gave to them, saying: This is My body, which is given for you; do this in memory of Me. Likewise also the cup, after He had supped, saying: This cup is the New Testament in My blood, which is poured out for you (Luke 22:17–20). It does not seem to me that some distinction of words was made here to no purpose by the very Wisdom of God; since He gave the first cup to be received in such a way as to command that it be divided, saying: Take, and divide among you; which He did not say at all of that cup which He gave with the bread: for there He commends His body and blood, and declares that same cup to be the New Testament in His blood, saying: This cup is the New Testament in My blood, which is poured out for you; but no mention is made of dividing the cup, which is likewise found in the other two evangelists also, namely Matthew and Mark, as their sayings set down by us above plainly show. This cup, then, in which we have said the Old Testament is intimated, the Lord ordered to be received and divided for this reason: that the apostles, instructed by the gift of heavenly wisdom, should receive the scripture of the Old Testament with reverence in such a way that, having received the spirit of discernment, they would know in its very precepts what was to be done and what was to be left aside. For this is rightly to divide: that each one should know, according to what befits the time, what he ought to leave aside and what to hold.
44. Hinc est quod cautissimo divisionis ordine Ecclesia Dei vivi, quae est columna et firmamentum veritatis (I Tim. III, 15), tempora venturi Christi venientisque †discernit; et omissis sacrificiis quibus
44. Hence it is that the Church of the living God, which is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15), by a most careful order of division distinguishes the times of Christ as about to come and as having come; and, the sacrifices being left aside by which
Editors' notes and page, col. 431
Page
- running head: 431 S. FULGENTII EPISCOP[I …] (cut at image edge)
- marginal letters: A ‹secundum verae fidei regulam›; B ‹eum discipulis dixisse Lucas›; C ‹meam commemorationem. Similiter›; D ‹perius a nobis posita evidenter›
- old-edition numerals: 265 after ‹novum›
- other: no full stop is printed after 'Vetus intelligitur Testamentum' nor after '(Luc. XXII, 14)'; set as printed. 'in-sanguine' is split at a line end: two words, set 'in sanguine'. Paragraph 44 is faint: the numeral and 'discernit' (†) are read from shape and sense. 'eum discipulis' at B read as 'cum discipulis' (the c is broken).
Christus passurus promittebatur, hoc sacrificium offert quo Christus jam pessus ostenditur. Dividit etiam tempus tllud celebrandae circumcisionis, ab isto tempore percipiendi baptismatis. Hujus divisionis saluberrimum retinet modum etiam in praecepto neomeniae, quandoquidem non tubis Judaicis inaniter personat, sed renovari unumquemque spiritu mentis suae, et induere novum hominem sancta Ecclesia praedicare non cessat. Haec omnia salubriter dividit quae nunc veneranter accipit in lectione, sed jam non celebrat in opere, aurem cordis admovens apostolicis dictis, quibus beatus Paulus fideles omnes instruit, dicens: Nemo vos judicet in cibo, aut in potu, aut in parte dici festi, aut neomeniae, aut sabbatorum, quae sunt umbra futurorum, corpus autem Christi (Coloss., I, 16). Nam et sacramentum circumcisionis exponens ait: Videte ne quis vos decipiat per philosophiam et inanem fallaciam, secundum traditionem hominum, secundum elementa mundi, et non secundum Christum: quia in ipso habitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis corporaliter, et estis in illo repleti qui est caput omnis principatus et potestatis, in quo et circumcisi estis circumcisione non manufacta in exspolatione corporis carnis sed in circumcisione Christi, consepulti et in baptismo (Coloss. II, 8-12). Haec et his similia et accepit Ecclesia sapienter, et dividit: accipiendo, credit a Deo in veritate promissa; dividendo, cognoscit ab ipso Deo in veritate jam reddita; nec in figuris exspectat implenda, sed in veritate retentat impleta. Scit enim sancta Ecclesia fidelem Deum in verbis suis, et sanctum in omnibus operibus suis: unde sicut in Veteri Testamento fidelia verba Dei promittentis intelligit sic in Testamento Novo sancta opera Dei quod promiserat reddentis agnoscit. Quaedam enim promittentis Dei verba fuerunt sacramenta Veteris Testamenti quibus nobis promittebatur Christus: quae verba transierunt, ex quo illis quibus promittebatur invenitur exhibitus. Ideo in ipso sacrificio corporis Christi a gratiarum actione incipimus, ut Christum non dandum, sed datum nobis in veritate monstremus; et in eo quod gratias agimus Deo in oblatione corporis et sanguinis Christi, cognoscamus non adhuc occidendum Christum pro nostris iniquitatibus, sed occisum; nec redimendos nos illo sanguine, sed redemptos. Vera est enim beati Petri praedicatio, dicentis: Non enim corruptibilibus argento vel auro redempti estis de vana vestra conversatione paternae traditionis, sed pretioso sanguine quasi Agni incontaminati et immaculati Christi (I Petr. I, 18).
was promised the Christ who would suffer, she offers this sacrifice by which Christ is shown as having already suffered. She also divides that time of celebrating circumcision from this time of receiving baptism. She keeps a most wholesome manner of this division in the precept of the new moon as well, since holy Church does not sound idly with Jewish trumpets, but never ceases to preach that each one be renewed in the spirit of his mind and put on the new man. All these things she wholesomely divides, which she now receives with reverence in the reading but no longer celebrates in deed, inclining the ear of the heart to the apostolic sayings with which blessed Paul instructs all the faithful, saying: Let no one judge you in food, or in drink, or in respect of a festival day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is Christ's (Col. 2:16). For, setting out the sacrament of circumcision as well, he says: See that no one deceives you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ: for in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and you are filled in Him who is the head of every principality and power, in whom you also are circumcised with a circumcision not made by hand in the stripping off of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him also in baptism (Col. 2:8–12). These things and things like them the Church has both wisely received and divides: by receiving, she believes that they were promised by God in truth; by dividing, she knows that they have already been rendered in truth by God Himself; nor does she await in figures things yet to be fulfilled, but holds fast in truth things fulfilled. For holy Church knows that God is faithful in His words, and holy in all His works: hence, as in the Old Testament she understands the faithful words of God promising, so in the New Testament she recognizes the holy works of God rendering what He had promised. For the sacraments of the Old Testament, by which Christ was promised to us, were certain words of God promising: those words passed away from the time when He is found shown forth to those to whom He was promised. Therefore in the very sacrifice of the body of Christ we begin from thanksgiving, so as to show that Christ is not to be given but has been given to us in truth; and in that we give thanks to God in the offering of the body and blood of Christ, let us know that Christ is not still to be slain for our iniquities, but has been slain; nor are we to be redeemed by that blood, but have been redeemed. For true is the preaching of blessed Peter, who says: For you were redeemed from your vain manner of life handed down from your fathers not with corruptible things, silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb undefiled and spotless (1 Pet. 1:18).
45. Dividit ergo sancta Ecclesia figuras a veritate, umbras a corpore: quod eam sancti apostoli docuerunt, qui dividendum inter se illum calicem a Domino salubriter acceperunt Hujus autem calicis ideo divisionem Dominus discipulis dedit, quia ipsis docentibus sancta Ecclesia cognitionem hujus divisionis accepit. Dicit autem ut inter se dividant, id est, ut in unitate spiritus et vinculo pacis, sacramenta Testamenti Novi sacramentorum veterum cessatione distinguant: quod in calice Testamenti Novi non praecipit ab apostolis fieri. In Novo enim Testamento non
45. Holy Church, then, divides the figures from the truth, the shadows from the body: which the holy apostles taught her, who wholesomely received from the Lord that cup to be divided among themselves. And the Lord gave the division of this cup to the disciples for this reason, that by their teaching holy Church received the knowledge of this division. And He says that they should divide it among themselves, that is, that in the unity of the spirit and the bond of peace they should distinguish the sacraments of the New Testament by the ceasing of the old sacraments: which He does not command the apostles to do in the cup of the New Testament. For in the New Testament not
Editors' notes and page, col. 432
Page
- running head: [S. FULGENT]I EPISCOPI RUSPENSIS 432 (start cut at image edge)
- marginal letters: A ‹Christus passurus promittebatur›; B ‹ponens ait: Videte ne quis›; C ‹Testamento fidelia verba Dei›; D ‹redempti estis de vana vestra›
- old-edition numerals: 266 after ‹nostris›
- other: no full stop printed after 'intelligit' (before 'sic') nor after 'acceperunt' (before 'Hujus'); set as printed. 'tllud' may be a broken i. The D-quadrant quotation (1 Pet. 1:18) is faint: 'redempti estis de vana vestra conversatione paternae traditionis' and 'Agni incontaminati' read from shape and sense.
est sacramentorum divisio, sed donorum, quae non in hominum facultate, sed in sancti Spiritus potestate consistit. Divisiones enim gratiarum sunt, idem autem Spiritus; et divisiones ministrationum sunt, idem autem Dominus; divisiones operationum sunt, idem vero Deus, qui operatur omnia in omnibus (I Cor. XII, 4). Inde est quod cum alii datur per Spiritum sermo sapientiae, alii autem sermo scientiae secundum eumdem Spiritum, alteri fides in eodem Spiritu, alii gratia sanitatum in uno Spiritu, et caetera quae apostolicus sermo contexuit, non hominibus dividenda dantur; sed haec omnia operatur unus idemque Spiritus, dividens propria singulis prout vult. Hanc divisionem quam non hominibus dedit, sed sibi tantum Trinitas reservavit, alio loco beatus Apostolus ostendens, admonet non plus sapere quam oportet sapere, sed sapere ad sobrietatem; unicuique sicut Deus divisit mensuram fidei (Rom. XII, 3). Et quia una est divisio Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, ideo Christus, qui est Dei sapientia, in Proverbiis dicit: In itineribus justitiae incedo, et inter medias semitas aequitatis conversor, ut dividam diligentibus me substantiam, et thesauros eorum impleam bonis (Prov. VIII, 20).
is a division of sacraments, but of gifts, which consists not in the capacity of men but in the power of the Holy Spirit. For there are divisions of graces, but the same Spirit; and there are divisions of ministries, but the same Lord; there are divisions of operations, but the same God, Who works all things in all (1 Cor. 12:4–6). Hence it is that when to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith in the same Spirit, to another the grace of healings in the one Spirit, and the other things which the apostolic discourse wove together, they are not given to men to be divided; but all these things the one and the same Spirit works, dividing to each his own as He wills. This division, which the Trinity did not give to men but reserved to Itself alone, the blessed Apostle shows in another place, when he admonishes not to be wise beyond what one ought to be wise, but to be wise unto sobriety; to each as God has divided the measure of faith (Rom. 12:3). And because the division of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is one, therefore Christ, Who is the wisdom of God, says in Proverbs: I walk in the ways of justice, and I move in the midst of the paths of equity, that I may divide substance to those who love me, and fill their treasuries with good things (Prov. 8:20–21).
46. Uterque ergo calix apostolis a Domino datur, non tamen dividendus uterque praecipitur: illius enim necessaria fuit divisio, in quo erat temporum consideranda discretio. Inde est quod in Testamento Veteri sacramenta quaedam illo tempore in figuris rite celebrata cognoscimus, et veneranter accipimus; quae tamen non eodem quo celebrabantur ordine celebramus; quia dividentes tempus promissionis a tempore redditae veritatis, ea sacramenta nunc nobis a Christo tradita retinemus, quibus Christum non passurum, sed passum pro nobis agnoscimus et tenemus, Nomine vero calicis etiam Vetus debere accipi Testamentum, non nostra praesumptione, sed paterna traditione monstramus. Sanctus quippe Augustinus, in explanatione psalmi septuagesimi quarti, cum ad illum locum venisset ubi dictum est: Quia calix in manu Domini vini meri plenus est mixto; inclinavit ex hoc in illud; verumtamen faex ejus non est exinanita (Psal. LXXIV, 9). inter alia sic ait: «Calix vini meri plenus mixto videtur mihi esse lex quae data est Judaeis, et omnis illa scriptura Veteris quod dicitur Testamenti, ubi sunt pondera omnium sententiarum: nam ibi Novum Testamentum absconditum latet, tanquam in faece corporalium sacramentorum.» Et cum idem beatus Augustinus a praeceptis vitae peragendae illa praeteriti temporis sacramenta discerneret, tanquam calicem dividens, postquam commemoravit quod dictum est: Non occides, non moechaberis (Deut. V, 17, 18), et aliquanta quae textu decalogi continentur, haec ipse sanctus Augustinus subjecit, dicens: «Omnia ista ad vinum pertinent; illa vero carnalia quasi resederunt, ut remanerent apud illos, et effunderetur ideo omnis spiritalis intellectus. Calix enim in manu Domini, id est in potestate Domini; vini meri, id est sincerae legis, plenus est mixto, id est cum faece corporalium sacramentorum:
46. Both cups, then, are given to the apostles by the Lord, yet both are not commanded to be divided: for the division of that one was necessary in which a distinction of times had to be considered. Hence it is that we recognize certain sacraments in the Old Testament duly celebrated at that time in figures, and we receive them reverently; yet we do not celebrate them in the same order in which they were celebrated; because, dividing the time of the promise from the time of the truth delivered, we now retain those sacraments handed down to us by Christ in which we acknowledge and hold Christ not as about to suffer but as having suffered for us. That the Old Testament too ought to be understood by the name of cup we show not by our own presumption but by the tradition of the fathers. For Saint Augustine, in the explanation of the seventy-fourth psalm, when he had come to that place where it is said: For a cup in the hand of the Lord, full of pure wine, is full of mixture; He has tilted it from this into that; yet its dregs are not emptied out (Ps. 74:9), says among other things: "The cup of pure wine full of mixture seems to me to be the law that was given to the Jews, and all that scripture of what is called the Old Testament, where are the weights of all the sentences: for there the New Testament lies hidden, as in the dregs of the bodily sacraments." And when the same blessed Augustine was distinguishing those sacraments of the past time from the precepts for the conduct of life, as though dividing the cup, after he had recalled what was said: You shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery (Deut. 5:17–18), and some of the things contained in the text of the decalogue, this same Saint Augustine added, saying: "All these belong to the wine; but those carnal things have as it were settled, so that they might remain with them, and therefore the whole spiritual understanding might be poured out. For a cup in the hand of the Lord, that is, in the power of the Lord; of pure wine, that is, of the unmixed law; is full of mixture, that is, with the dregs of the bodily sacraments:
Editors' notes and page, col. 433
Page
- running head: 433 EPISTOLA X… (rest of the head cut off at the image edge)
- marginal letters: A ‹est sacramentorum divisio, sed donorum›; B ‹oportet sapere, sed sapere ad sobrietatem›; C ‹bramus; quia dividentes tempus›; D ‹nam ibi Novum Testamentum absconditum latet›
- old-edition numerals: 267 after ‹Judaeis, et›
- other: "(I Cor. XII, 4)": the closing bracket is soft and could be read as a stop; "Prov. VIII" printed with a gap (VI I). "(Psal. LXXIV, 9). inter alia" lower-case after the stop, as printed.
et quia nunc humiliat superbum Judaeum, et nunc exaltat confitentem gentilem, inclinavit ex hoc in hunc, id est a Judaico populo in gentilem populum. Quid inclinavit? Legem, et eliquatus est inde spiritalis intellectus: verumtamen faex ejus non est exinanita, quia omnia sacramenta carnalia apud Judaeos remanserunt.» Ex his dictis beati Augustini †evidenter patere et calicis intellectum, quo possit in veritate spiritalis mysterii divisio †Testamenti utrique cognosci: sic tamen ut non ideo velit aliquis Testamentum Vetus abjicere, quia videt ejus sacramenta cessasse. Sic enim debet cum veneratione teneri Testamentum Novum, ut non sit Testamentum Vetus aliquatenus relinquendum: quod mihi videtur sub nomine amici antiqui et novi in libro Ecclesiastico commendari, ubi dicitur: Ne derelinquas amicum antiquum, novus enim non erit similis illi (Eccli. IX, 14). Hanc dissimilitudinem quae est in sacramentis utriusque Testamenti, per sanctum Hieremiam divinus sermo praenuntians ait: Ecce dies veniunt, dicit Dominus, et consummabo super domum Israel et super domum Juda Testamentum Novum, non secundum Testamentum quod feci cum patribus eorum (Jer. XXXI, 31). In eo autem invenitur Testamentum Novum, non secundum Testamentum Vetus a Domino consummatum, in quo et praeceptorum perfectionem Dominus dedit, et remotis veteribus sacramentis, dissimilia sacramenta revelatae veritatis instituit: ac sic quod in Vetere promisit, in Novo perfecit. Proinde quoniam sacramentorum Novi Testamenti tunc vere salubris ac suavis potest esse cognitio, si in sacramentis Veteris Testamenti cognoscatur vera praecessisse promissio, propterea cum Scriptura dixisset: Ne derelinquas amicum antiquum, novus enim non erit similis illi, continuo s⟨u⟩bjecit: Vinum novum amicus novus: veterescat, et cum suavitate bibes illud (Eccli. IX, 15). Quid est, veterescat, nisi ut in Vetere Testamento Novi Testamenti typus appareat? Tunc ergo cum suavitate hoc novum vinum bibitur, si ejus significatio atque promissio in Testamento Vetere cognoscatur.
and because He now humbles the proud Jew, and now exalts the confessing Gentile, He has tilted it from this one into this, that is, from the Jewish people into the Gentile people. What did He tilt? The Law, and from it the spiritual understanding was strained off: yet its dregs are not emptied out, because all the carnal sacraments remained with the Jews." From these words of blessed Augustine the understanding of the cup also [is] plainly evident, by which in the truth of the spiritual mystery the division of [the] Testament may be recognized in both: yet in such a way that no one should therefore wish to cast away the Old Testament because he sees that its sacraments have ceased. For the New Testament ought so to be held with veneration that the Old Testament is not in any degree to be abandoned: which seems to me to be commended under the name of the old friend and the new in the book of Ecclesiasticus, where it is said: Do not forsake an old friend, for the new will not be like him (Sir. 9:14). This dissimilarity which is in the sacraments of each Testament the divine word foretold through holy Jeremiah, saying: Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, and I will complete over the house of Israel and over the house of Judah a New Testament, not according to the Testament which I made with their fathers (Jer. 31:31–32). In that, then, is found the New Testament, completed by the Lord not according to the Old Testament, in which the Lord both gave the perfection of the precepts and, the old sacraments being removed, instituted dissimilar sacraments of the revealed truth: and so what He promised in the Old He accomplished in the New. Accordingly, since the knowledge of the sacraments of the New Testament can be truly wholesome and sweet only if a true promise is recognized to have gone before in the sacraments of the Old Testament, therefore, when Scripture had said: Do not forsake an old friend, for the new will not be like him, it at once added: A new friend is new wine: let it grow old, and you will drink it with sweetness (Sir. 9:15). What is "let it grow old", except that the type of the New Testament should appear in the Old Testament? Then therefore is this new wine drunk with sweetness, if its signification and promise is recognized in the Old Testament.
47. Hoc vinum novum in corde discipulorum veterescere Dominus fecit, quando illis duobus in castellum Emmaus pergentibus appropinquans ibat cum illis; et cum ei tanquam ignaro quae de ejus passione facta fuerant indicassent, tunc ipse dixit ad eos: O stulti et tardi corde ad credendum in omnibus quae locuti sunt prophetae (Luc. XXIV, 25)! Vide, quaeso, quemadmodum vinum novum veterescit, ut cum suavitate bibatur. Adjecit ergo Dominus: Nonne hoc oportuit pati Christum, et ita intrare in gloriam suam Ibid., 26). ? Ubi sanctus evangelista quemadmodum vinum novum cum suavitate bibendum illis veteresceret ait: Et incipiens a Moyse et omnibus prophetis, interpretabatur illis in omnibus scripturis quae de ipso erant (Ibid., 27. Deinde conceptum ex vino veterescente novitatis ac suavitatis ardorem, ipsi postmodum ostenderunt, dicentes: Nonne cor nostrum ardens erat in nobis dum loqueretur in via et aperiret nobis Scripturas (Ibid., 32)? Hoc denuo fecit dicens: Haec sunt verba quae locutus
47. This new wine the Lord made grow old in the heart of the disciples when, drawing near to those two as they were going to the village of Emmaus, He walked with them; and when they had told Him, as though He did not know, the things that had been done concerning His passion, then He said to them: O foolish and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken (Luke 24:25)! See, I pray, how the new wine grows old, so that it may be drunk with sweetness. The Lord therefore added: Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things, and so to enter into His glory (ibid., 26)? Where the holy evangelist, [showing] how the new wine, to be drunk with sweetness, grew old for them, says: And beginning from Moses and all the prophets, He interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things that were about Him (ibid., 27). Then the ardour of newness and sweetness conceived from the wine growing old they themselves afterwards showed, saying: Was not our heart burning within us while He spoke on the way and opened the Scriptures to us (ibid., 32)? This He did again, saying: These are the words which I spoke
Editors' notes and page, col. 434
Page
- running head: EPISTOLA XIV. 434 (opening letters of the head fall on the facing column)
- marginal letters: A ‹et quia nunc humiliat superbum Judaeum›; B ‹dari, ubi dicitur›; C ‹lubris ac suavis potest esse cognitio›; D ‹in omnibus quae locuti sunt prophetae›
- old-edition numerals: 268 after ‹quae de ejus›
- other: the top third of this column is very soft. "†evidenter" (a word of about nine letters after "Augustini"; reading uncertain, possibly "scilicet" or "credimus") and "†Testamenti utrique" (the word after "divisio" is short and blurred) are uncertain; the closing » after "remanserunt" is assumed from the sense. "s⟨u⟩bjecit": the u is a damaged sort. The Ecclesiasticus reference "IX, 14" is soft.