Salvation by St. Thomas

5/4/2016 dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles4.
htm
CONTRA GENTILES
BOOK FOUR: SALVATION
translated by
Charles J. O’Neil

CONTENTS
1. Foreword 53. Arguments which seem to
2. That there is generation, paternity, and prove that God’s
sonship in the Divinity Incarnation was not
3. That the Son of God is God suitable
4. The opinion of Photinus on the Son of God, 54. That it was suitable for
and its refutation God to be made flesh
5. The opinion of Sabellius on the Son of God, 55. Answer to the arguments
and its refutation previously set down
6. The opinion of Arius about the Son of God against the suitability of
7. Refutation of the opinion of Arius on the Son the Incarnation
of God 56. On the necessity of the
8. Solution of the authorities which Arius sacraments
proposed for himself 57. The distinction of the
9. Solution of the authorities of Photinus and of sacraments of the Old and
Sabellins the New Law
10. Arguments against divine generation and 58. On the number of the
procession sacraments of the New
11. How generation is to be understood in Law
divinity, and what is said of the Son of God 59. On baptism
in Scripture 60. On confirmation
12. How the Son of God may be called the 61. On the Eucharist
wisdom bf God 62. On the error of the infidels
13. That there is but one Son in the Divinity about the sacrament of the
14. Solution of the arguments against divine Eucharist
generation previously introduced 63. Solution of the difficulties
15. On the Holy Spirit, that He is in divinity set down: first, about the
16. Arguments which made some think the Holy conversion of the bread
Spirit a creature into the body of Christ
17. That the Holy Spirit is true God 64. Solution of the objections
18. That the Holy Spirit is a subsistent Person made regarding place
19. How one must understand what is said 65. Solution of the objections
about the Holy Spirit regarding accidents
20. On the effects attributed to the Holy Spirit in 66. Solution of the objections
Scripture regarding the whole creation regarding action and
21. On the effects attributed to the Holy Spirit in passion
Scripture regarding the rational creature, so 67. Solution of the objections
far as God’s gifts to us are concerned regarding fraction
22. On the effects attributed to the Holy Spirit in 68. Solution of the authority
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles4.htm 1/347
5/4/2016 dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles4.htm
that He moves the creature to God introduced
23. An answer to the arguments given above 69. On the kind of bread and
against the divinity of the Holy Spirit wine that are to be used in
24. That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son this sacrament
25. Arguments of those who want to show that 70. On the sacrament of
the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the penance, and, first, that
Son and the answers men after receiving
26. That there are but three Persons in divinity: sacramental grace are
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit able to sin
27. On the Incarnation of the Word according to 71. That a man sinning after
the tradition of Scripture the grace of the
28. On the error of Photinus about the sacraments can be
Incarnation converted by grace
29. On the error of the Manicheans about the 72. On the necessity of
Incarnation penance and of its parts
30. On the error of Valentine about the 73. On the sacrament of
Incarnation extreme unction
31. On the error of Apollinaris about the body of 74. On the sacrament of
Christ orders
32. On the error of Arius and Apollinaris about 75. On the distinction of orders
the soul of Christ 76. On the episcopal power
33. On the error of Apollinaris, who says there and that therein one is the
was no rational soul in Christ; and the error highest
of Origen, who says the soul of Christ was 77. That the sacraments can
created before the world be dispensed by evil
34. On the error of Theodore of Mopsueste and ministers
Nestorius on the union of the Word to man 78. On the sacrament of
35. Against the error of Eutyches matrimony
36. On the error of Macarius of Antioch, who 79. That through Christ the
holds there is but one will in Christ resurrection of bodies is to
37. Against those who said that the soul and come
body do not constitute a unity in Christ 80. Objections against the
38. Against those who put two supposits or resurrection
hypostases in the one Person of Christ 81. Solution of the objections
39. What the Catholic faith holds about the mentioned
Incarnation of Christ 82. That men will rise immortal
40. Objections against faith in the Incarnation 83. That among the risen
41. How one should understand the Incarnation there will be no use of food
of the Son of God or sexual love
42. That the assumption of human nature was 84. That the bodies of those
most suited to the Word of God who rise will be the same
43. That the human nature assumed by the in nature
Word did not preexist its assumption, but 85. That the bodies of the
was assumed in the conception itself risen will have another
44. That the human nature assumed by the disposition
Word in the conception itself was perfect in 86. On the quality of glorified
soul and body bodies
45. That it became Christ to be born of a virgin 87. On the place of the
46. That Christ was born of the Holy Spirit glorified bodies
47. That Christ was not the son of the Holy 88. On the sex and age of the
Spirit in the flesh risen
48. That Christ must not be called a creature 89. On the quality of the risen
49. Solution of the arguments against the bodies among the damned
Incarnation given above 90. How incorporeal
50. That original sin is transmitted from the first substances may suffer
parent to his descendants from bodily fire
51. Objections against original sin 91. That immediately after
52. Solution of the objections proposed their separation from the
body the souls will receive
punishment or reward
92. That the souls of the saints
have after death an
unchangeable will in the
good
93. That after death the souls
of the wicked have a will
unchangeable in evil
94. On the immutability of will
in souls detained in
purgatory
95. On the immutability of wills
commonly in all souls after
their separation from the
body
96. On the last judgment
97. On the state of the world
after the judgment
Caput 1 Chapter 1
FOREWORD
Ecce, haec ex parte dicta sunt [Douay, altered:] Lo, these things are said

viarum eius, et cum vix parvam in part of His ways: and seeing we have
stillam sermonum eius heard scarce a little drop of His word,
audiverimus, quis poterit tonitruum who shall be able to behold the thunder
magnitudinis eius intueri. Iob, 26 of His greatness? (Job 26:14).
14.
Intellectus humanus, a rebus [1] The human intellect, to which it is
sensibilibus connaturaliter sibi connatural to derive its knowledge from
scientiam capiens, ad intuendam sensible things, is not able through itself
divinam substantiam in seipsa, to reach the vision of the divine
quae super omnia sensibilia, immo substance in itself, which is above all
super omnia alia entia sensible things and, indeed,
improportionaliter elevatur, improportionately above all other things.
pertingere per seipsum non valet.
Sed quia perfectum hominis Yet, because man’s perfect good is that
bonum est ut quoquo modo Deum he somehow know God, lest such a
cognoscat, ne tam nobilis creatura noble creature might seem to be created
omnino in vanum esse videretur, to no purpose, as being unable to reach
velut finem proprium attingere non its own end, there is given to man a
valens, datur homini quaedam via certain way through which he can rise to
per quam in Dei cognitionem the knowledge of God: so that, since the
ascendere possit: ut scilicet, quia perfections of things descend in a certain
omnes rerum perfectiones order from the highest summit of things—
quodam ordine a summo rerum God—man may progress in the
vertice Deo descendunt, ipse, ab knowledge of God by beginning with
inferioribus incipiens et gradatim lower things and gradually ascending.
ascendens, in Dei cognitionem Now, even in bodily movements, the way
proficiat; nam et in corporalibus of descending is the same as the way of
motibus eadem est via qua ascending, distinguished by beginning
descenditur et ascenditur, ratione and end.
principii et finis distincta.
Praedicti autem descensus [2] There is a twofold account of the
perfectionum a Deo duplex est descent of perfections from God just
ratio. Una quidem ex parte primae mentioned. One account looks to the first
rerum originis: nam divina origin of things: for divine Wisdom, to put
sapientia, ut perfectio esset in perfection in things, produced them in
rebus, res produxit in ordine, ut such order that the universe of creatures
creaturarum universitas ex should embrace the highest of things and
summis rerum et infimis the lowest. The other account comes
compleretur. Alia vero ratio ex from the things themselves. For, since
ipsis rebus procedit. Nam cum causes are more noble than their effects,
causae sint nobiliores effectibus, the very first caused things are lower
prima quidem causata deficiunt a than the First Cause, which is God, and
prima causa, quae Deus est, quae still stand out above their effects. And so
tamen suis effectibus praeminent; it goes until one arrives at the lowest of
et sic deinceps quousque ad things.
ultima rerum perveniatur.
Et quia in summo rerum vertice And because in the highest summit of
Deo perfectissima unitas invenitur; things, God, one finds the most perfect
et unumquodque, quanto est unity—and because everything, the more
magis unum, tanto est magis it is one, is the more powerful and more
virtuosum et dignius: consequens worthy—it follows that the farther one
est ut quantum a primo principio gets from the first principle, the greater is
receditur, tanto maior diversitas et the diversity and variation one finds in
variatio inveniatur in rebus. things. The process of emanation from
Oportet igitur processum God must, then, be unified in the principle
emanationis a Deo uniri quidem in itself, but multiplied in the lower things
ipso principio, multiplicari autem which are its terms. In this way, according
secundum res infimas, ad quas to the diversity of things, there appears
terminatur. Et ita, secundum the diversity of the ways, as though these
diversitatem rerum, apparet ways began in one principle and
viarum diversitas, quasi ab uno terminated in various ends.
principio inchoatarum, et
terminatarum ad diversa.
Per has igitur vias intellectus [3] Through these ways our intellect can
noster in Dei cognitionem rise to the knowledge of God. But
ascendere potest, sed propter because of the weakness of the intellect
debilitatem intellectus nostri, nec we are not able to know perfectly even
ipsas vias perfecte cognoscere the ways themselves. For the sense,
possumus. Nam cum sensus unde from which our knowledge begins, is
nostra cognitio incipit, circa occupied with external accidents, which
exteriora accidentia versetur, quae are the proper sensibles—for example,
sunt secundum se sensibilia, ut color, odor, and the like. As a result,
color et odor et huiusmodi; through such external accidents the
intellectus vix per huiusmodi intellect can scarcely reach the perfect
exteriora potest ad perfectam knowledge of a lower nature, even in the
notitiam inferioris naturae case of those natures whose accidents it
pervenire, etiam illarum rerum comprehends perfectly through the
quarum accidentia sensu perfecte sense. Much less will the intellect arrive
comprehendit. Multo igitur minus at comprehending the natures of those
pertingere poterit ad things of which we grasp few accidents
comprehendendum naturas by sense; and it will do so even less in
illarum rerum quarum pauca the case of those things whose accidents
accidentia capimus sensu; et cannot be grasped by the senses, though
adhuc minus illorum quorum they may be perceived through certain
accidentia sensu capi non deficient effects. But, even though the
possunt, etsi per quosdam natures of things themselves were known
deficientes effectus percipiantur. to us, we can have only a little knowledge
Sed etsi ipsae naturae rerum of their order, according as divine
essent nobis cognitae, ordo tamen Providence disposes them in relation to
earum, secundum quod a divina one another and directs them to the end,
providentia et ad invicem since we do not come to know the plan of
disponuntur et diriguntur in finem, divine Providence. If, then, we imperfectly
tenuiter nobis notus esse potest: know the ways themselves, how shall we
cum ad cognoscendam rationem be able to arrive at a perfect knowledge
divinae providentiae non of the source of these ways? And
pertingamus. Si igitur ipsae viae because that source transcends the
imperfecte cognoscuntur a nobis, abovementioned ways beyond
quomodo per eas ad perfecte proportion, even if we knew the ways
cognoscendum ipsarum viarum themselves perfectly we would yet not
principium poterimus pervenire? have within our grasp a perfect
Quod quia sine proportione knowledge of the source.
excedit vias praedictas, etiam si
vias ipsas cognosceremus
perfecte, nondum tamen perfecta
principii cognitio nobis adesset.
Quia igitur debilis erat Dei cognitio [4] Therefore, since it was a feeble

ad quam homo per vias praedictas knowledge of God that man could reach
intellectuali quodam quasi intuitu in the ways mentioned—by a kind of
pertingere poterat, ex intellectual glimpse, so to say—out of a

superabundanti bonitate, ut firmior superabundant goodness, therefore, so
esset hominis de Deo cognitio, that man might have a firmer knowledge
quaedam de seipso hominibus of Him, God revealed certain things about
revelavit quae intellectum Himself that transcend the human
humanum excedunt. intellect.
In qua quidem revelatione, In this revelation, in harmony with man, a

secundum congruentiam hominis, certain order is preserved, so that little by
quidam ordo servatur, ut paulatim little he comes from the imperfect to the
de imperfecto veniat ad perfectum: perfect—just as happens in the rest of
sicut in ceteris rebus mobilibus changeable things. First, therefore, these
accidit. Primo igitur sic homini things are so revealed to man as, for all
revelantur ut tamen non that, not to be understood, but only to be
intelligantur, sed solum quasi believed as heard, for the human intellect
audita credantur: quia intellectus in this state in which it is connected with
hominis secundum hunc statum, things sensible cannot be elevated
quo sensibilibus est connexus, ad entirely to gaze upon things which
ea intuenda quae omnes exceed every proportion of sense. But,
proportiones sensus excedunt, when it shall have been freed from the
omnino elevari non potest. Sed connection with sensibles, then it will be
cum a sensibilium connexione elevated to gaze upon the things which
fuerit liberatus, tunc elevabitur ad are revealed.
ea quae revelantur intuenda.
Est igitur triplex cognitio hominis [5] There is, then, in man a threefold
de divinis. Quarum prima est knowledge of things divine. Of these, the
secundum quod homo naturali first is that in which man, by the natural
lumine rationis, per creaturas in light of reason, ascends to a knowledge
Dei cognitionem ascendit. of God through creatures. The second is
Secunda est prout divina veritas, that by which the divine truth—exceeding
intellectum humanum excedens, the human intellect—descends on us in
per modum revelationis in nos the manner of revelation, not, however,
descendit, non tamen quasi as something made clear to be seen, but
demonstrata ad videndum, sed as something spoken in words to be
quasi sermone prolata ad believed. The third is that by which the
credendum. Tertia est secundum human mind will be elevated to gaze
quod mens humana elevabitur ad perfectly upon the things revealed.
ea quae sunt revelata perfecte
intuenda.
Hanc igitur triplicem cognitionem [6] It is this threefold cognition which Job

Iob in verbis propositis insinuat. suggests in the words set down. The
Quod enim dicit, ecce, haec ex words, “Lo, these things are said in part
parte dicta sunt viarum eius, ad of His ways,” refer to that knowledge by
illam cognitionem pertinet qua per which our intellect ascends to a
vias creaturarum in Dei knowledge of God by the ways of
cognitionem noster intellectus creatures. And because we know these
ascendit. Et quia has vias ways imperfectly, he rightly added: “in
imperfecte cognoscimus, recte part.” “For we know in part,” as the
adiunxit, ex parte. Ex parte enim Apostle says (1 Cor. 23:9).
cognoscimus: sicut apostolus dicit,
1 Cor. 139.
Quod vero subdit, et cum vix [7] What is added, however, “and seeing
parvam stillam sermonum eius we have heard scarce a little drop of His
audiverimus, ad secundam word,” refers to the second knowledge, in
cognitionem pertinet, prout divina that the divine things we are to believe
nobis credenda per modum are revealed to us in, speech; “faith then,”
locutionis revelantur: fides enim, ut as Romans (10:17) says, “comes by
dicitur Rom. 1017, est ex auditu, hearing; and hearing by the word of
auditus autem per verbum Dei; de God.” Of this John (17:17) also says:
quo etiam dicitur Ioan. 1717, “sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth.”
sanctifica eos in veritate: sermo Thus, then, since the revealed truth is
tuus veritas est. Sic igitur, quia proposed not about divine things to he
revelata veritas de divinis non seen, but to be believed, Job rightly says:
videnda, sed credenda proponitur, “we have heard.” But, since this imperfect
recte dicit, audiverimus. Quia vero knowledge flows down from that perfect
haec imperfecta cognitio effluit ab knowledge wherein the divine Truth is
illa perfecta cognitione qua divina seen in itself, while God reveals it to us
veritas in seipsa videtur, dum a through the ministry of angels who “see
Deo nobis mediantibus Angelis the face of the Father” (Mat. 18:10), Job
revelatur, qui vident faciem patris, rightly names it “a drop.” Hence, Joel
recte nominat stillam. Unde et Ioel (3:18) also says: “In that day the
318 dicitur: in die illa stillabunt mountains shall drop down sweetness.”
montes dulcedinem. Sed quia non Since not all the mysteries known in the
omnia mysteria quae in prima vision of the First Truth by the angels and
veritate visa Angeli et alii beati the other blessed, but a certain few are
cognoscunt, sed quaedam pauca revealed to us, Job adds significantly: “a
nobis revelantur, signanter addit, little.” For Sirach (43:3536) says: “Who
parvam. Dicitur enim Eccli. 4335 shall magnify Him as He is from the
quis magnificat eum sicut est ab beginning? There are many things hidden
initio? Multa abscondita sunt from us that are greater than these: for
maiora his: pauca enim vidimus we have seen but a few of His words”
operum eius. Et dominus discipulis And our Lord says to the disciples in
dicit, Ioan. 1612: multa habeo John (11:12): “I have yet many things to
vobis dicere, sed non potestis say to you: but you cannot hear them
portare modo. Haec etiam pauca now.” The few things also which are
quae nobis revelantur, sub revealed to us are set forth in similitudes
quibusdam similitudinibus et and the obscurities of words—as a result,
obscuritatibus verborum nobis only the studious arrive at any sort of
proponuntur: ut ad ea grasp of them at all. Others, however,
quomodocumque capienda soli venerate them as things hidden, and
studiosi perveniant, alii vero quasi unbelievers cannot attack them; hence,
occulta venerentur, et increduli the Apostle says: “We see now through a
lacerare non possint: unde dicit glass in a dark manner” (1 Cor. 13:12).
apostolus, I ad Cor. 1312: Significantly, then, does Job add “scarce”
videmus nunc per speculum in to bring out the difficulty.
aenigmate. Signanter igitur addit,
vix ut difficultas ostenderetur.
Quod vero subdit, quis poterit [8] But this addition, “Who shall be able to

tonitruum magnitudinis eius behold the thunder of His greatness,”
intueri? Ad tertiam cognitionem refers to the third kind of knowledge, in
pertinet, qua prima veritas which the First Truth will be known, not
cognoscetur, non sicut credita, sed as believed, but as seen; “We shall see
sicut visa: videbimus enim eum Him as He is,” we read (1 John 3:2). So
sicuti est, ut dicitur I Ioan. 32. Job adds: “to behold.” Nor will one
Unde dicit, intueri. Nec aliquid perceive some measure of the divine
modicum de divinis mysteriis mysteries: the divine majesty itself will be
percipietur, sed ipsa maiestas seen and all the perfection of goods;
divina videbitur, et omnis bonorum hence, the Lord said to Moses: “I will
perfectio: unde dominus ad show you all good” (Ex. 33:19). Rightly,
Moysen dixit, Exodi 3319: ego then, does Job say “greatness.” Nor will
ostendam tibi omne bonum. Recte the truth be set before man hidden under
ergo dicit, magnitudinis. Non any veils, but will be entirely manifest;
autem proponetur veritas homini hence, our Lord says to His disciples:
aliquibus velaminibus occultata, “The hour cometh when I will no more
sed omnino manifesta: unde speak to you in proverbs; but will show
dominus discipulis suis dicit, Ioan. you plainly of the Father” (John 16:25).
1625: venit hora cum iam non in Significantly, therefore, does Job speak of
proverbiis loquar vobis, sed palam “the thunder” to suggest the
de patre annuntiabo vobis. manifestation.
Signanter ergo dicit, tonitruum, ad
manifestationem insinuandam.
Competunt autem verba [9] Now, the words set down fit our
praemissa nostro proposito. Nam purpose. In what has preceded we have
in praecedentibus de divinis sermo dealt with divine things according as the
est habitus secundum quod ad natural reason can arrive at the
cognitionem divinorum naturalis knowledge of divine things through
ratio per creaturas pervenire creatures. This way is imperfect,
potest: imperfecte tamen, et nevertheless, and in keeping with the
secundum proprii possibilitatem reason’s native capacity. That is why we
ingenii, ut sic possimus dicere can say with Job (26:14): “These things
cum Iob, ecce, haec ex parte dicta are said in part of His ways.” We must
sunt viarum eius. Restat autem now deal with those divine things that
sermo habendus de his quae have been divinely revealed to us to be
nobis revelata sunt divinitus ut believed, since they transcend the human
credenda, excedentia intellectum intellect.
humanum.
Circa quae qualiter procedendum [10] And the manner of proceeding in
sit, praemissa verba nos docent. such matters the words set down do
Cum enim huiusmodi veritatem vix teach us. For, since we have hardly
audiverimus in sermonibus sacrae heard the truth of this kind in sacred
Scripturae quasi stillam parvam ad Scripture as a little drop descending upon
nos descendentem; nec possit us, and since one cannot in the state of
aliquis in huius vitae statu this life behold the thunder of the
tonitruum magnitudinis intueri; erit greatness, this will be the method to
hic modus servandus, ut ea quae follow: What has been passed on to us in
in sermonibus sacrae Scripturae the words of sacred Scripture may be
sunt tradita, quasi principia taken as principles, so to say; thus, the
sumantur; et sic ea quae in things in those writings passed on to us
sermonibus praedictis occulte in a hidden fashion we may endeavor to
nobis traduntur, studeamus grasp mentally in some way or other,
utcumque mente capere, a defending them from the attacks of the
laceratione infidelium defendendo; infidels. Nonetheless, that no
ut tamen praesumptio perfecte presumption of knowing perfectly may be
cognoscendi non adsit; probanda present, points of this kind must be
enim sunt huiusmodi auctoritate proved from sacred Scripture, but not
sacrae Scripturae, non autem from natural reason. For all that, one
ratione naturali. Sed tamen must show that such things are not
ostendendum est quod rationi opposed to natural reason, in order to
naturali non sunt opposita, ut ab defend them from infidel attack. This was
impugnatione infidelium also the method fixed upon in the
defendantur. Qui etiam modus in beginning of this work.
principio huius operis
praedeterminatus est.
Quia vero naturalis ratio per [11] But, since natural reason ascends to

creaturas in Dei cognitionem a knowledge of God through creatures
ascendit, fidei vero cognitio a Deo and, conversely, the knowledge of faith
in nos e converso divina descends from God to us by a divine
revelatione descendit; est autem revelation—since the way of ascent and
eadem via ascensus et descent is still the same—we must
descensus: oportet eadem via proceed in the same way in the things
procedere in his quae supra above reason which are believed as we
rationem creduntur, qua in proceeded in the foregoing with the
superioribus processum est circa investigation of God by reason. First, to
ea quae ratione investigantur de be specific, we must treat of the things
Deo: ut primo scilicet ea tractentur about God Himself which surpass reason
quae de ipso Deo supra rationem and are proposed for belief: such is the
credenda proponuntur, sicut est confession of the Trinity; second, of
confessio Trinitatis. Secundo course, the things which surpass reason
autem, de his quae supra that have been done by God, such as the
rationem a Deo sunt facta, sicut work of the Incarnation and what follows
opus incarnationis, et quae thereon; third, however, the things
consequuntur ad ipsam. Tertio surpassing reason which are looked for in
vero, ea quae supra rationem in the ultimate end of man, such as the
ultimo hominum fine expectantur, resurrection and glorification of bodies,
sicut resurrectio et glorificatio the everlasting beatitude of souls, and
corporum, perpetua beatitudo matters related to these.
animarum, et quae his
connectuntur.
Caput 2 Chapter 2
Quod sit generatio, paternitas THAT THERE IS GENERATION,
et filiatio in divinis PATERNITY, AND SONSHIP IN THE
DIVINITY
Principium autem considerationis [1] Let us take the beginning of our study

a secreto divinae generationis from the secret of the divine generation,
sumentes, quid de ea secundum and first set down what one must hold
sacrae Scripturae documenta about it according to the testimonies of
teneri debeat, praemittamus. sacred Scripture. Then we may set out
Dehinc vero ea quae contra the arguments against the truth of the
veritatem fidei infidelitas adinvenit faith which unbelief has invented; by
argumenta ponamus: quorum achieving the solution of these we will be
solutione subiecta, huius pursuing the purpose of this study.
considerationis propositum
consequemur.
Tradit igitur nobis sacra Scriptura [2] Sacred Scripture, then, hands on to us

in divinis paternitatis et filiationis the names of “paternity” and “sonship” in
nomina, Iesum Christum filium the divinity, insisting that Jesus Christ is
Dei contestans. Quod in Scriptura the Son of God. One finds this most
novi testamenti frequentissime frequently in the books of the New
invenitur. Dicitur enim Matth. 11 Testament. Thus, Matthew (1: 27): “No
27: nemo novit filium nisi pater: one knows the Son but the Father: neither
neque patrem quis novit nisi filius. doth any one know the Father but the
Ab hoc Marcus suum Evangelium Son.” With this Mark begins his Gospel,
coepit, dicens: initium Evangelii saying: “The beginning of the gospel of
Iesu Christi, filii Dei. Ioannes Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” John the
etiam Evangelista hoc frequenter Evangelist also frequently points to this,
ostendit: dicitur enim Ioan. 335: for he says: “The Father loves the Son
pater diligit filium, et omnia dedit and He hath given all things into His
in manu eius; et Ioan. 521: sicut hand” (3:35) and “As the Father raises up
pater suscitat mortuos et vivificat, the dead, and gives life: so the Son also
sic et filius quos vult vivificat. gives life to whom He will” (5:21). Paul the
Paulus etiam apostolus haec Apostle also frequently inserts these
verba frequenter interserit: dicit words, for he calls himself in Romans
enim, Rom. 1, se segregatum in (1:13) “separated unto the gospel of God,
Evangelium Dei, (quod ante which He had promised before by His
promiserat per prophetas suos in prophets in the holy scriptures concerning
Scripturis sanctis) de filio suo; et His Son”; and says in Hebrews (1:1):
ad Hebr. 11: multifariam “God, who, at sundry times and in divers
multisque modis olim Deus manners, spoke in times past to the
loquens patribus in prophetis, fathers by the prophets, last of all in these
novissime diebus istis locutus est days hath spoken to us by His Son.”
nobis in filio.
Hoc etiam traditur, licet rarius, in [3] This is also. given us, although more
Scriptura veteris testamenti. rarely, in the books of the Old Testament.
Dicitur enim Proverb. 304: quod Thus, Proverbs (30:4) says: “What is His
nomen eius? Et quod nomen filii name, and what is the name of His Son, if
eius, si nosti? In Psalmo etiam you know?” One reads it also in the
legitur: dominus dixit ad me, filius Psalms (2:7; 88:27): “The Lord said to me:
meus es tu. Et iterum: ipse You are My Son”; and again: “He shall cry
invocavit me, pater meus es tu. out to Me: You are My Father.”
Et quamvis haec duo ultima verba [4] To be sure, some would like to twist
aliqui vellent ad sensum alium these last two sayings into another sense,
retorquere, ut quod dicitur, so as to refer “The Lord hath said to Me:
dominus dixit ad me, filius meus You are My Son” to David; and so as to
es tu, ad ipsum David referatur; ascribe “He shall cry out to Me: You are
quod vero dicitur, ipse invocavit My Father” to Solomon.
me, pater meus es tu, Salomoni
attribuatur.
Tamen ea quae coniunguntur Nevertheless, the additions in each

utrique, hoc non omnino ita esse instance show that this cannot be quite
ostendunt. Neque enim David the case. For David cannot be fitted into
potest competere quod additur, this addition: “This day have I begotten
ego hodie genui te; et quod You” (Ps. 2:7); nor into this one: “I will give
subditur, dabo tibi gentes You the Gentiles for your inheritance, and
hereditatem tuam, et the utmost parts of the earth for your
possessionem tuam terminos possession” (2:8); since David’s kingdom
terrae, cum eius regnum usque was not extended to the utmost parts of
ad terminos terrae non fuerit the earth, as the history of the Book of
dilatatum, ut historia libri regum Kings shows. No more is the saying: “He
declarat. Neque etiam Salomoni shall cry out to Me: You are My Father”
potest omnino competere quod fitting to Solomon, since there follows: “I
dicitur, ipse invocavit me, pater will make His rule to endure for evermore:
meus es tu: cum subdatur ponam and His throne as the days of heaven”
in saeculum saeculi sedem eius, (Ps. 88:30). Hence, one is given to
et thronum eius sicut dies caeli. understand that because some of the
Unde datur intelligi quod, quia things joined to the texts mentioned are
quaedam praemissis verbis suitable to David and Solomon, some
annexa David vel Salomoni absolutely unsuitable, what is said of
possint congruere, quaedam vero David and Solomon in these words is
nequaquam, quod de David et said, as customarily in Scripture,
Salomone haec verba dicantur, figuratively of that other in whom the
secundum morem Scripturae, in whole is fulfilled.
alterius figuram, in quo universa
compleantur.
Quia vero nomina patris et filii [5] However, since the names of “Father”
generationem aliquam and “Son” follow on a generation,
consequuntur, ipsum etiam Scripture has not been silent about the
divinae generationis nomen very name of “divine generation.” For in

Scriptura non tacuit. Nam in the Psalm (2:7), as was said, one reads:
Psalmo, ut dictum est, legitur: ego “This day have I begotten You.” And
hodie genui te. Et Proverb. 8, Proverbs (8:242.5): “The depths were not
dicitur: nondum erant abyssi et as yet and I was already conceived:
ego iam concepta eram: ante before the hills I was brought forth”; or,
omnes colles ego parturiebar; vel according to another reading: “Before all
secundum aliam litteram: ante the hills did the Lord beget me.” And
omnes colles generavit me Isaiah (66:9, 8) also says: “Shall not I that
dominus. Dicitur etiam Isaiae ult.: make others to bring forth... Myself bring
numquid ego, qui alios parere forth, says the Lord? Shall I that give
facio, ipse non pariam? Dicit generation to others be barren, says the
dominus. Si ego, qui Lord your God?” We grant that one can
generationem ceteris tribuo, say that this text must be related to the
sterilis ero? Ait dominus Deus. Et multiplication of the children of Israel
licet dici possit hoc esse returning from captivity into their own
referendum ad multiplicationem country, because earlier this is said: “Zion
filiorum Israel de captivitate has been in labour and has brought forth
revertentium in terram suam, quia her children.” But this does not defeat our
praemittitur, parturivit et peperit purpose. For, however the essence of it
Sion filios suos, tamen hoc be adapted, the essence of it which is
proposito non obsistit. Ad given from the voice of God remains fixed
quodcumque enim ratio aptetur, and stable thus: If He Himself grants
ipsa tamen ratio, quae ex Dei ore generation to others, He is not sterile. Nor
inducitur, firma et stabilis manet: would it become Him who makes others
ut, si ipse aliis generationem generate truly to generate Himself not
tribuat, sterilis non sit. Nec esset truly but by a likeness. For a thing must
conveniens ut qui alios vere he more nobly in its cause than in that
generare facit, ipse non vere, sed which is caused, as was shown. Again, it
per similitudinem generet: cum says in John (1:14): “We saw His glory,
oporteat nobilius esse aliquid in the glory as it were of the onlybegotten of
causa quam in causatis, ut the Father”; and later: “The onlybegotten
ostensum est. Ioan. etiam 1 Son ho is in the bosom of the Father, He
dicitur: vidimus gloriam eius quasi has declared him” (1:18). And Paul says:
unigeniti a patre, et iterum: “And again when He brings his first
unigenitus filius, qui est in sinu begotten into the world He says: ‘And let
patris, ipse enarravit. Et Paulus all the angels of God adore Him’” (Heb.
dicit, Hebr. 16: et cum iterum 1:6).
introducit primogenitum in orbem
terrae, dicit: et adorent eum
omnes Angeli Dei.
Caput 3 Chapter 3
Quod filius Dei sit Deus THAT THE SON OF GOD IS GOD
Considerandum tamen quod [1] Consideration must, of course, be

praedictis nominibus divina given to the fact that the names
Scriptura utitur etiam ad mentioned are used by the divine
creationem rerum ostendendam: Scripture in its exposition of the creation of
dicitur enim Iob 3829 quis est things, for in Job (38:2829) it says: “Who
pluviae pater? Vel quis genuit is the father of rain? Or who begot the
stillas roris? De cuius utero drops of dew? Out of whose womb came
egressa est glacies? Et gelu de the ice; and the frost from heaven who
caelo quis genuit? Ne igitur nihil engendered it!” Therefore, lest nothing
aliud ex paternitatis, filiationis et more be understood by the words for
generationis vocabulis “paternity,” “sonship,” and “generation”
intelligeretur quam creationis than the efficacy of creation, the authority
efficacia, addidit Scripturae of Scripture added something: When it
auctoritas ut eum quem filium et was naming Him “Son” and “begotten”, it
genitum nominabat, etiam Deum was not silent about His being God, so
esse non taceret, ut sic praedicta that the generation mentioned might be
generatio aliquid amplius quam understood as something more than
creatio intelligeretur. Dicitur enim creation. For John (1:1) says: “In the
Ioan. 11: in principio erat beginning was the Word, and the Word
verbum, et verbum erat apud was with God, and the Word was God.”
Deum, et Deus erat verbum. Et That by the name “Word” one should
quod verbi nomine filius understand Son is made plain in the
intelligatur, ex consequentibus sequel, for he adds: “The Word was made
ostenditur: nam subdit: verbum flesh and dwelt among us, and we saw
caro factum est, et habitavit in His glory, the glory as it were of the only
nobis, et vidimus gloriam eius, begotten of the Father” (1:14). And Paul
gloriam quasi unigeniti a patre. Et says: “The goodness and kindness of God
Paulus dicit, Tit. 34: apparuit our Savior appeared” (Titus 3:4).
benignitas et humanitas
salvatoris nostri Dei.
Hoc etiam veteris testamenti [2] Neither was the writing in the Old
Scriptura non tacuit, Christum Testament silent about this; it named
Deum nominans. Dicitur enim in Christ God. For a Psalm (44:78) says:
Psalmo: sedes tua, Deus, in “Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever:
saeculum saeculi, virga the sceptre of your kingdom is a sceptre of
directionis virga regni tui: dilexisti uprightness. You loved justice, and hated
iustitiam, et odisti iniquitatem. Et iniquity.”—That this is spoken to Christ is
quod ad Christum dicatur, patet clear from what follows: “Therefore God,
per id quod subditur: propterea your God, has anointed You with the oil of
unxit te Deus, Deus tuus, oleo gladness above your fellows.” And Isaiah
laetitiae prae consortibus tuis. Et (9:6) says: “A Child is born to us, and a
Isaiae 96 dicitur: parvulus natus son is given to us, and the government is
est nobis, et filius datus est nobis, upon His shoulder: and His name shall be
et factus est principatus super called, Wonderful, Counsellor, God the
humerum eius; et vocabitur Mighty, the Father of the world to come,
nomen eius admirabilis, the Prince of peace.”
consiliarius, Deus fortis, pater
futuri saeculi, princeps pacis.
Sic igitur ex sacra Scriptura [3] Thus, then, are we taught from sacred

docemur filium Dei, a Deo Scripture that the Son of God, begotten of
genitum, Deum esse. Filium God, is God. And Peter confessed that
autem Dei Iesum Christum Petrus Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He said:
confessus est, ei dicens: tu es “You are Christ, the Son of the living God”
Christus, filius Dei vivi. Ipse igitur (Mat. 16:16). He Himself, therefore, is
et unigenitus est, et Deus est. both the Onlybegotten and God.
Caput 4 Chapter 4
Quid opinatus sit Photinus de THE OPINION OF PROTINUS ON THE
filio Dei, et eius improbatio SON OF GOD, AND ITS REFUTATION
Huius autem doctrinae veritatem [1] Now, certain men, who perversely
quidam perversi homines suo presumed to measure the truth of this
sensu metiri praesumentes, de doctrine by their own comprehension of
praemissis vanas et varias it, conceived on the points just mentioned
opiniones conceperunt. opinions both vain and various.
Quorum quidem consideraverunt [2] Some among these took into

hanc esse Scripturae consideration Scripture’s custom of
consuetudinem, eos qui divina calling those who are justified by divine
gratia iustificantur, filios Dei dici: grace “sons of God,”, as in John (1:12):
secundum illud Ioan. 112, dedit “He gave them power to be made the
eis potestatem filios Dei fieri, his sons of God, to them that believe in His
qui credunt in nomine eius. Et name.” And Romans (8:16) says: “The
Rom. 816, dicitur: ipse enim Spirit Himself gives testimony to our
spiritus testimonium reddit spiritui spirit, that we are the sons of God.” And 1
nostro quod sumus filii Dei. Et 1 John (3: 1) : “Behold what manner of
Ioan. 31: videte qualem caritatem charity the Father has bestowed upon us,
dedit nobis pater, ut filii Dei that we should be called, and should be
nominemur et simus. Quos etiam the sons of God.” And Scripture does not
a Deo genitos esse Scriptura non hesitate to call these “begotten of God,”
tacet. Dicitur enim Iac. 118: for it says in James (1:18): “For of His
voluntarie genuit nos verbo own will bath He begotten us by the word
veritatis. Et 1 Ioan. 39, dicitur: of truth”; and 1 John (3:9) says:
omnis qui natus est ex Deo, “Whosoever is born of God commits not
peccatum non facit, quoniam sin: for His seed abides in him.” Also, to
semen ipsius in eo manet. Et, the same men, which is more marvelous,
quod est mirabilius, eiusdem the name of “divinity” is applied. For the
nomen divinitatis adscribitur. Lord said to Moses: “I have appointed
Dominus enim dixit ad Moysen: you the God of Pharaoh” (Ex. 7:1); and
ego constitui te Deum Pharaonis. the Psalmist says: “I have said: You are
Et in Psalmo: ego dixi, dii estis, et gods and all of you the sons of the most
filii excelsi omnes; et, sicut High” (Ps. 81:6); and, as our Lord said:
dominus dicit, Ioan. 1035: illos “He called them gods, to whom the word
dixit deos ad quos sermo Dei of God was spoken” (John 10:35).
factus est.
Per hunc ergo modum, opinantes [3] After this fashion, therefore, they
Iesum Christum purum hominem formed the opinion that Jesus Christ was
esse, et ex Maria virgine initium pure man, that He had had a beginning
sumpsisse, et per beatae vitae from the Virgin Mary, that by the merit of
meritum divinitatis honorem prae His blessed life He had received the
ceteris fuisse adeptum, honor of divinity above all others; and
aestimaverunt eum, similiter aliis they thought that He was, like other men,
hominibus, per adoptionis spiritum a son of God by the spirit of adoption,
Dei filium; et per gratiam ab eo begotten of God by grace, and by a kind
genitum; et per quandam of likens to God called God in Scripture
assimilationem ad Deum in not by nature, but by partaking in the
Scripturis dici Deum, non per divine goodness, just as it says of the
naturam, sed per consortium saints in 2 Peter (1:4): “That by these you
quoddam divinae bonitatis, sicut et may be made partakers of the divine
de sanctis dicitur II Petr. 14: ut nature: flying the corruption of that
efficiamini divinae consortes concupiscence which is in the world.”
naturae, fugientes eius quae in
mundo est concupiscentiae
corruptionem.
Hanc autem positionem sacrae [4] Such was the position they were trying

Scripturae auctoritate confirmare to establish by the authority of sacred
nitebantur. Scripture.
Dicit enim dominus, Matth. ult.: [5] For our Lord says in Matthew (28:18):

data est mihi omnis potestas in “All power is given to Me in heaven and
caelo et in terra. Quod si ante in earth.” But, if He were God before all
tempora Deus esset, potestatem times, He would not have received power
ex tempore non accepisset. in time.
Item, Rom. 1, dicitur de filio quod [6] Again, Romans (1:34) says of the
factus est ei, scilicet Deo, ex Son: “Who was made to Him,” to God,
semine David secundum carnem; namely, “of the seed of David according
et quod praedestinatus est filius to the flesh”; and says that He was
Dei in virtute. Quod autem “predestinated the Son of God in power.”
praedestinatur et factum est, But what was predestinated and was
videtur non esse aeternum. made seems not to be eternal.
Item. Apostolus dicit, ad Philipp. 2 [7] The Apostle also says (Phil. 2:8): “He
8: factus est obediens usque ad humbled Himself, becoming obedient
mortem, mortem autem crucis: unto death, even to the death of the
propter quod Deus exaltavit illum, cross. For which cause God also bath
et dedit illi nomen quod est super exalted Him, and bath given Him a name
omne nomen. Ex quo videtur which is above all names.” From this it
ostendi quod propter obedientiae appears clear that by the merit of His
et passionis meritum divino sit obedience and passion He was given
honore donatus, et super omnia divine honor and was exalted above all
exaltatus. things.
Petrus etiam dicit, Act. 236: [8] Peter also says: “Therefore let all the
certissime ergo sciat omnis domus house of Israel know most certainly, that
Israel quia dominum eum et God bath made both Lord and Christ, this
Christum Deus fecit hunc Iesum, same Jesus, whom you crucified” (Acts
quem vos crucifixistis. Videtur 2:36). Therefore, it seems that He was
igitur ex tempore Deus esse made God in time, not born before time.
factus, non ante tempora natus.
Adducunt etiam in fulcimentum [9] They also bring in to shore up their
suae opinionis ea quae in opinion whatever Scripture says which
Scripturis de Christo ad defectum seems to imply a defect in Christ: that He
pertinere videntur: sicut quod was carried in a woman’s womb, that He
femineo portatur utero, et progressed in age, that He suffered
profectum aetatis accepit, esuriem hunger, was wearied with fatigue, and
passus est, et lassitudine was subject to death; that He advanced
fatigatus, et morti subiectus; quod in wisdom, confessed He did not know
sapientia profecit, iudicii se the day of judgment; that He was stricken
nescire diem confessus est, et with the fear of death; and other things of
mortis terrore concussus est; et this sort which could not be in agreement
alia huiusmodi, quae Deo per with a God existing by His nature. Hence
naturam existenti convenire non their conclusion: that by merit Christ
possent. Unde concludunt quod acquired divine honor through grace and
per meritum honorem divinum that He was not by nature divine.
adeptus est per gratiam, non quod
esset naturae divinae.
Hanc autem positionem primo [10] Now, this position was first invented
adinvenerunt quidam antiqui by certain ancient heretics, Cerinthus and
haeretici, Cerinthus et Ebion; Ebion. Later, Paul of Samosata renewed
quam postea Paulus it; and later it was strengthened by
Samosatenus instauravit; et Photinus, so that those who dogmatize
postea a Photino est confirmata, thus are called Photinian.
ut qui hoc dogmatizant, Photiniani
nuncupentur.
Diligenter autem verba sacrae [11] However, those who diligently

Scripturae considerantibus examine the words of sacred Scripture do
apparet non hunc sensum in ea not find in them the meaning which these
contineri quem praedicti homines men have by their own opinion
sua opinione conceperunt. Nam constructed. For, when Solomon says:
cum Salomon dicat, nondum erant “The depths were not as yet, and I was
abyssi et ego iam concepta eram, already conceived,” (Prov. 8:24), he
satis ostendit hanc generationem makes it clear enough that this
ante omnia corporalia extitisse. generation existed before all bodily
Unde relinquitur quod filius a Deo things. Hence, it follows that the Son
genitus initium essendi a Maria begotten by God received no beginning
non sumpsit. Et licet haec, et alia of being from Mary. To be sure, they
similia testimonia depravare conati endeavored to debase these and other
fuerint perversa expositione, like testimonies by their perverse
dicentes haec secundum exposition. These, they said, should be
praedestinationem debere intelligi, understood after the manner of
quia scilicet ante mundi predestination: that before the foundation
conditionem dispositum fuit ut ex of the world it was arranged that a Son of
Maria virgine Dei filius nasceretur, God should be born of the Virgin Mary,
non quod Dei filius fuerit ante not that the Son of God had been before
mundum; convincantur quod non the world. But they are refuted by this:
solum in praedestinatione, sed Not only in predestination, but in reality
etiam realiter fuerit ante Mariam. as well, He had been before Mary. For
Nam post praemissa verba after the words of Solomon just quoted
Salomonis subiungitur: quando this is added: “When He balanced the
appendebat fundamenta terrae, foundations of the earth: I was with Him
cum eo eram cuncta componens: forming all things” (Prov. 8:2930); but if
si autem in sola praedestinatione He had been present in predestination
fuisset, nihil agere potuisset. Hoc only, He would have been able to do
etiam ex verbis Ioannis nothing. One gets this also from the
Evangelistae habetur: nam cum words of John the Evangelist, for, when
praemisisset, in principio erat he had first set down: “In the beginning
verbum, quo nomine filius was the Word” (by which name the Son is
intelligitur, ut ostensum est; ne understood as was shown) to keep
quis hoc secundum anyone from taking this as
praedestinationem accipere predestination, he adds: “All things were
possit, subdit: omnia per ipsum made by Him: and without Him was made
facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nothing” (1:1, 3); and this could not be
nihil, quod verum esse non posset true if He had not really existed before
nisi realiter ante mundum the world. Again, the Son of God says in
extitisset. Item, filius Dei dicit, John (3:13): “No man has ascended to
Ioan., 313: nemo ascendit in heave except He who descended from
caelum nisi qui descendit de heaven, the Son of man who is in
caelo, filius hominis, qui est in heaven”; again in John (6:38): “I came
caelo; et iterum, Ioan. 638: down from heaven, not to do my own will,
descendi de caelo, non ut faciam but the will of Him who sent me.” Clearly,
voluntatem meam, sed voluntatem therefore, he was before He descended
eius qui misit me. Apparet ergo from heaven.
eum fuisse antequam de caelo
descenderet.
Praeterea. Secundum praedictam [12] There is more. According to the
positionem, homo per vitae position described above, a man by the
meritum profecit in Deum. merit of his life advanced to being God.
Apostolus autem e converso The Apostle shows, on the contrary, that
ostendit quod, cum Deus esset, when He was God He became man. For
factus est homo. Dicit enim, ad he says: ‘Who being in the form of God,
Philipp. 26 cum in forma Dei thought it not robbery to be equal with
esset, non rapinam arbitratus est God: but emptied himself, taking the form
esse se aequalem Deo: sed of a servant, being made in the likeness
semetipsum exinanivit, formam of men, and in habit found as a man”
servi accipiens, in similitudinem (Phil. 2:6). Therefore, the position
hominum factus, et habitu described is in conflict with apostolic
inventus ut homo. Repugnat igitur teaching.
praedicta positio apostolicae
sententiae.
Adhuc. Inter ceteros qui Dei [13] Furthermore, among all the rest of
gratiam habuerunt, Moyses eam those who had the grace of God, Moses
habuit copiose, de quo dicitur had it in abundance; it says of him in
Exod. 3311, quod loquebatur ei Exodus (33:11) : “The Lord spoke to
dominus facie ad faciem, sicut Moses face to face, as a man speaks to
loqui solet homo ad amicum his friend.” If, therefore, Jesus Christ is
suum. Si igitur Iesus Christus non not said to be a son of God except by the
diceretur Dei filius nisi propter grace of adoption, like other saints, on
gratiam adoptionis, sicut alii the same grounds Moses should be
sancti, eadem ratione Moyses called son and Christ, even though Christ
filius diceretur et Christus, licet was endowed with more abundant grace:
etiam abundantiori gratia Christus among the other saints, also, one is
fuerit dotatus: nam et inter alios endowed with greater grace than another,
sanctos, unus alio maiori gratia but all are called sons of God on the
repletur, et tamen omnes eadem same ground. But Moses is not called
ratione filii Dei dicuntur. Moyses son on the same ground that Christ is so
autem non eadem ratione dicitur called, for the Apostle distinguishes
filius qua Christus. Distinguit enim Christ from Moses as the Son from the
apostolus Christum a Moyse sicut servant. He says in Hebrews (3:56):
filium a servo: dicitur enim ad “Moses indeed was faithful in all His
Hebr. 35: Moyses quidem fidelis house as a servant, for a testimony of
erat in tota domo eius tanquam those things which were to be said: But
famulus, in testimonium eorum Christ as the Son in His own house.”
quae dicenda erant: Christus Manifestly, then, Christ is not called the
autem tanquam filius in domo sua. Son of God by the grace of adoption, as
Manifestum est ergo quod other saints are.
Christus non dicitur Dei filius per
adoptionis gratiam, sicut alii
sancti.
Similis etiam ratio ex pluribus aliis [14] One can gather a similar

Scripturae locis colligi potest, quae understanding from several other places
quodam singulari modo Christum in Scripture, in which Christ is named in
prae aliis Dei filium nominat, some singular way and prior to others as
quandoque quidem, absque aliis, the Son of God. Sometimes singularly
singulariter eum filium nominat: and without others He is named “Son”: as
sicut vox patris intonuit in the voice of the Father thundered at the
Baptismo, hic est filius meus baptism: “This is my beloved Son, in
dilectus, in quo mihi complacui. whom I am well pleased” (Mat. 3:17).
Quandoque eum unigenitum Sometimes He is named “Onlybegotten”
nominat: sicut Ioan. 114, vidimus as in John: “We saw His glory, the glory
eum quasi unigenitum a patre; et as it were of the onlybegotten of the
iterum, unigenitus, qui est in sinu Father”; and again: “The onlybegotten
patris, ipse enarravit. Si autem Son who is in the bosom of the Father,
communi modo, sicut et alii, filius He has declared Him” (1:14, 18). If He
diceretur, unigenitus dici non were to be called son in some common
posset. Quandoque etiam et fashion like others, He could not be
primogenitus nominatur, ut called the Onlybegotten. Sometimes,
quaedam derivatio filiationis ab eo also, He is named “Firstbegotten” to
in alios ostendatur: secundum illud show an overflowing of sonship from Him
Rom. 829: quos praescivit et to others: as in Romans (8:29): ‘Whom
praedestinavit fieri conformes He foreknew, He also predestinated to be
imagini filii eius, ut sit ipse made conformable to the image of His
primogenitus in multis fratribus; et Son; that He might be the firstborn
Gal. 44 dicitur: misit Deus filium amongst many brethren; and Galatians
suum ut adoptionem filiorum (4:45) says: “God sent His Son that we
reciperemus. Alia ergo ratione might receive the adoption of sons. On
ipse est filius, per cuius filiationis another ground, therefore, is He a Son,
similitudinem alii filii dicuntur. through likeness to whose sonship others
are called sons.
Amplius. Quaedam opera in [15] In sacred Scripture, moreover,

Scripturis sacris ita Deo proprie certain works are properly attributed to
attribuuntur quod alteri convenire God, and in such wise that they cannot
non possunt, sicut sanctificatio be assigned to another: such are the
animarum, et remissio sanctification of souls and the remission
peccatorum: dicitur enim Levit. 20 of sins; for it is said in Leviticus (20:8): “I
8: ego dominus, qui sanctifico vos; am the Lord that sanctify you”; and in
et Isaiae 4325: ego sum qui deleo Isaiah (45:25): “I am He that blot out your
iniquitates vestras propter me. iniquities for My own sake.” Yet Scripture
Utrumque autem horum Christo attributes each of these to Christ, for we
Scriptura attribuit. Dicitur enim ad read in Hebrews (2:11; 13:12): “Both he
Hebr. 211: qui sanctificat et qui that sanctifies, and they who are
sanctificantur, ex uno omnes; et sanctified, are all of one”; and again:
ad Hebr. ult.: Iesus, ut sanctificaret “Jesus also, that He might sanctify the
per suum sanguinem populum, people by His own blood, suffered without
extra portam passus est. Ipse the gate.” Our Lord Himself insisted that
etiam dominus de se protestatus He had the “power to forgive sins,” and
est quod haberet potestatem confirmed this by a miracle as is told in
remittendi peccata, et miraculo Matthew (9:16). This is also what the
confirmavit, ut habetur Matth. 96. angel foretold of Him when he said: “He
Hoc etiam Angelus de ipso shall save His people from their sins”
praenuntiavit, ipse, inquiens, (Mat. 1:21). Christ, therefore, who both
salvum faciet populum suum a sanctifies and forgives sins, is not called
peccatis eorum. Non igitur God as they are called gods who are
Christus, et sanctificans et sanctified, and whose sins are forgiven,
peccata remittens, sic dicitur Deus but as one who has the power and the
sicut dicuntur dii hi qui nature of divinity.
sanctificantur, et quorum peccata
remittuntur: sed sicut virtutem et
naturam divinitatis habens.
Illa vero Scripturae testimonia [16] The Scriptural testimonies by which
quibus ostendere nitebantur quod they tried to show that Christ was not
Christus non esset Deus per God by nature are useless for
naturam, efficacia non sunt ad establishing their proposition. For it is our
eorum propositum ostendendum. confession that in Christ the Son of God,
Confitemur enim in Christo Dei after the mystery of the Incarnation, there
filio, post incarnationis mysterium, were two natures; namely, human and
duas naturas, humanam scilicet et divine. And so, things are said of Him
divinam. Unde de eo dicuntur et which are proper to God by reason of the
quae Dei sunt propria, ratione divine nature, and things are also said
divinae naturae; et quae ad which seem to involve deficiency by
defectum pertinere videntur, reason of the human nature, as will be
ratione humanae naturae, ut infra more fully explained later. But now, for
plenius explanabitur. Nunc autem, the present consideration of the divine
ad praesentem considerationem generation, let it suffice to have pointed
de divina generatione, hoc sufficiat out in accord with the Scriptures that
monstratum esse secundum Christ the Son of God is also called God,
Scripturas quod Christus Dei filius not only as a pure man is by the grace of
et Deus dicitur non solum sicut adoption, but by reason Of the nature of
purus homo per gratiam divinity.
adoptionis, sed propter divinitatis
naturam.
Caput 5 Chapter 5
Opinio Sabellii de filio Dei, et THE OPINION OF SABELLIUS ON THE
eius improbatio SON OF GOD, AND ITS REFUTATION
Quia vero omnium de Deo recte [1] Since, of course, the fixed mental
sentientium haec est fixa mentis conception of all who think rightly about
conceptio, quod non possit esse God is this: There can be but one God—
nisi unus Deus, quidam, ex certain men, conceiving from the
Scripturis concipientes quod Scriptures that Christ is truly and
Christus sit vere et naturaliter naturally God and the Son of God, have
Deus ac Dei filius, unum Deum confessed that the one God is Christ the
esse confessi sunt Christum Dei Son of God and God the Father; and that
filium et Deum patrem: nec tamen God, nevertheless, is not called Son in
quod Deus filius dicatur secundum His nature or from eternity, but that He
suam naturam aut ab aeterno, sed then received the name of sonship when
ex tunc filiationis nomen accepit He was born of the Virgin Mary in the
ex quo de Maria virgine natus est mystery of the Incarnation. Thus, all the
per incarnationis mysterium. Et sic things which Christ bore in the flesh they
omnia quae Christus secundum used to attribute to God the Father: for
carnem sustinuit, Deo patri example, that He was the son of the
attribuebant: puta esse filium Virgin, conceived and born of her, that He
virginis, conceptum et natum esse suffered, died and rose again, and all
ex ipsa, passum, mortuum et else which the Scriptures say of Christ in
resurrexisse, et alia omnia quae the flesh.
Scripturae de Christo secundum

carnem loquuntur.
Hanc autem positionem [2] They attempted to strengthen their

confirmare nitebantur Scripturae position by Scriptural authorities. For it
auctoritatibus. Dicitur enim Exod. says in Exodus (i.e., Deut. 6:41): “Hear,
20: audi, Israel, dominus Deus O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord”;
tuus Deus unus est. Et Deut. 32 and in Deuteronomy (32:39): “I alone am
39: videte quod ego sum solus, et and there is no other God besides Me”;
non est alius praeter me. Et Ioan. and John (14:10, 9, 11): “The Father who
5: pater in me manens, ipse facit abides in Me, He doth the works”; and
opera et 149 qui videt me, videt et again: “He that sees Me, sees the Father
patrem; et, ego in patre, et pater in also... I am in the Father and the Father
me est. Ex quibus omnibus in Me.” From all these they used to
concipiebant Deum patrem ipsum conceive that God the Father was being
filium dici ex virgine incarnatum. called the very Son incarnate of the
Virgin.
Haec autem fuit opinio [3] This was, of course, the opinion of the

Sabellianorum, qui et Patripassiani Sabellians, who were also called
sunt dicti, eo quod patrem passum Patripassionists because they confess
esse confitentur, asserentes ipsum that the Father suffered, holding that the
patrem esse Christum. Father Himself was Christ.
Haec autem positio, etsi a [4] Now, the latter position differs from the

praedicta differat quantum ad one just de scribed with respect to
Christi divinitatem, nam haec Christ’s divinity (for the latter confesses
Christum verum et naturalem that Christ is true and natural God which
Deum esse confitetur, quod prima the first denied); nevertheless, with
negabat; tamen quantum ad respect to generation and sonship, each
generationem et filiationem, of the two opinions conforms with the
utraque est conformis opinio: nam other: for, as the first holds that there was
sicut prima positio asserit no sonship and generation by which
filiationem et generationem qua Christ is said to be Son before Mary, so
Christus filius dicitur, non fuisse the latter also maintains. Therefore,
ante Mariam, ita et haec opinio neither of these positions relates the
confitetur. Neutra igitur positio generation and sonship to the divine
generationem et filiationem ad nature, but to the human nature only. The
divinam naturam refert, sed solum second position has this special feature:
ad naturam humanam. Habet that when one says “Son of God” one
etiam et hoc proprium ista positio, designates not a subsisting person but a
quod, cum dicitur filius Dei, non kind of additional property of a pre
designatur aliqua subsistens existing person, for the Father Himself, in
persona, sed quaedam proprietas that He assumed flesh from the Virgin,
superveniens praeexistenti received the name of Son; it is not as
personae: nam ipse pater, though the Son is a subsisting Person
secundum quod carnem sumpsit distinct from the Person of the Father.
ex virgine, filii nomen accepit; non
quasi filius sit aliqua subsistens
persona a persona patris distincta.
Huius autem positionis falsitas [5] The authority of Scripture makes the
manifeste ostenditur auctoritate falsity of this position quite manifest. For
Scripturae. Nam Christus non Scripture does not call Christ merely the
solum virginis filius dicitur in Virgin’s son, but also the Son of God. We
Scripturis, sed etiam filius Dei: ut made this clear before. But it cannot be
ex superioribus patet. Hoc autem that one be his own son, for, since a son
esse non potest, ut idem sit filius is begotten by a father, and he who
sui ipsius: cum enim filius begets gives being to the begotten, it
generetur a patre, generans would follow that he who gives is
autem det esse genito, sequeretur identified with him who receives being
quod idem esset dans et accipiens and this is entirely impossible. Therefore,
esse; quod omnino esse non God the Father is not Himself the Son,
potest. Non est igitur Deus pater but the Son is other than He, and the
ipse filius, sed alius est filius et Father is other than the Son.
alius pater.
Item. Dominus dicit: descendi de [6] Then, too, our Lord says: “I came
caelo, non ut faciam voluntatem down from heaven, not to do My own will,
meam, sed voluntatem eius qui but the will of Him that sent Me”; and:
misit me, Ioan. 638; et 175: “Glorify Me, O Father with Yourself” (John
clarifica me, pater, apud 6:38; 17:5). From all, of these and similar
temetipsum. Ex quibus omnibus, sayings the Son is shown to be other
et similibus, ostenditur filius esse than the Father.
alius a patre.
Potest autem dici secundum hanc [7] Of course, it can be said within this
positionem, quod Christus dicitur position that Christ is called the Son of
filius Dei patris solum secundum God the Father in His human nature only;
humanam naturam: quia scilicet namely, because God the Father Himself
ipse Deus pater humanam created and sanctified the human nature
naturam quam assumpsit, creavit which He assumed. Thus, then, the same
et sanctificavit. Sic igitur ipse one is in His divinity called His own
secundum divinitatem sui ipsius Father in His humanity. Thus, there is
secundum humanitatem dicitur also no objection to saying that the same
pater. Et ita etiam nihil prohibet one in His humanity is distinct from
eundem secundum humanitatem Himself in His divinity.
distinctum esse a seipso
secundum divinitatem.
Sed secundum hoc sequetur quod But in this fashion it will follow that Christ
Christus dicatur filius Dei sicut et is called a son of God as are other men,
alii homines, vel ratione creationis, whether by reason of creation, or by
vel ratione sanctificationis. reason of sanctification. It has, however,
Ostensum est autem quod alia already been shown that Christ is called
ratione Christus dicitur Dei filius the Son of God for another reason than
quam alii sancti. Non igitur modo other holy men are. It cannot, therefore,
praedicto potest intelligi quod ipse be understood that the Father Himself is
pater sit Christus et filius sui Christ and His very own son.

ipsius.
Praeterea. Ubi est unum [8] There is more. Where there is one
suppositum subsistens, pluralis subsisting supposit, it does not receive a
praedicatio non recipitur. Christus, plural predication. But Christ speaks of
autem de se et de patre pluraliter Himself and the Father in the plural; He
loquitur, dicens: ego et pater unum says: “I and the Father are one (John
sumus. Non est ergo filius ipse 10:30). The Son, therefore, is not the
pater. Father Himself.
Adhuc. Si filius a patre non [9] Furthermore, if it is by the mystery of
distinguitur nisi per incarnationis the Incarnation alone that the Son is
mysterium, ante incarnationem distinguished from the Father, there was
omnino nulla distinctio erat. no distinction whatever before the
Invenitur autem ex sacra Scriptura Incarnation. In the sacred Scripture,
etiam ante incarnationem filius a however, the Son is found to have been
patre fuisse distinctus. Dicitur distinct from the Father even before the
enim Ioan. 11: in principio erat Incarnation. For it says in John (1:1): “In
verbum, et verbum erat apud the beginning was the Word, and the
Deum, et Deus erat verbum. Word was with God, and the Word was
Verbum igitur, quod apud Deum God.” So, the Word who was with God
erat, aliquam distinctionem ab ipso had some distinction from Him. This is
habebat: habet enim hoc our usual manner of speaking: one is
consuetudo loquendi, ut alius said “to be with” another. In the same
apud alium esse dicatur. Similiter way in Proverbs (8:30) the Begotten
etiam Proverb. 830, genitus a says: “I was with Him forming all things.”
Deo dicit: cum eo eram Here, again, an association and some
componens omnia. In quo rursus distinction is designated. It says also in
associatio et quaedam distinctio Hosea (1:7): “I will have mercy on the
designatur. Dicitur etiam Osee 17: house of Judah, and I will save them by
domui Iuda miserebor, et salvabo the Lord their God,” where God the
eos in domino Deo suo: ubi Deus Father is speaking of saving the people in
pater de salvandis in Deo filio God the Son, as of a person distinct from
populis loquitur quasi de persona Himself, who is held worthy of the name
a se distincta, quae Dei nomine of God. We read, also, in Genesis (1:26):
digna habeatur. Dicitur etiam Gen. “Let us make man to our image and
126: faciamus hominem ad likeness”; and in this the plurality and
imaginem et similitudinem distinction of those who make man is
nostram: in quo expresse expressly designated. Yet Scripture
pluralitas et distinctio facientium teaches that man was made by God
hominem designatur. Homo autem alone. Thus, there was a plurality and
per Scripturas a solo Deo conditus distinction of God the Father and God the
esse docetur. Et sic Dei patris et Son even before the Incarnation of
Dei filii pluralitas et distinctio fuit Christ. Therefore, the Father Himself is
etiam ante Christi incarnationem. not called the Son by reason of the
Non igitur ipse pater filius dicitur mystery of the Incarnation.
propter incarnationis mysterium.
Amplius. Vera filiatio ad ipsum [10] Furthermore, true sonship relates to
suppositum pertinet eius qui dicitur the supposit of the one called son, for it is
filius: non enim manus vel pes not a man’s hand or foot which receives
hominis filiationis nomen proprie the name of sonship properly speaking,
accipit, sed ipse homo, cuius ista but the man himself whose parts they
sunt partes. Paternitatis autem et are. But the names of “paternity” and of
filiationis nomina distinctionem “sonship” require a distinction in those to
requirunt in illis de quibus dicuntur: whom they are applied, just as
sicut et generans et genitum. “begetting” and “begotten” do.
Oportet igitur, si aliquis vere dicitur Necessarily, then, if one is truly called
filius, quod supposito a patre son he must be distinguished in supposit
distinguatur. Christus autem vere from his father. But Christ is truly the Son
est Dei filius: dicitur enim 1 Ioan. of God, for we read in 1 John (5:20):
ult.: ut simus in vero filio eius Iesu “That we may be in His true Son, Jesus
Christo. Oportet igitur quod Christ.” Necessarily, then, Christ is
Christus sit supposito distinctus a distinct in supposit from the Father.
patre. Non igitur ipse pater est Therefore, the Father Himself is not the
filius. Adhuc. Post incarnationis Son. Furthermore, after the mystery of
mysterium pater de filio the Incarnation the Father proclaims of
protestatur: hic est filius meus the Son: “This is My beloved Son” (Mat.
dilectus. Haec autem demonstratio 3:17). Such a designation is a reference
ad suppositum refertur. Christus to a supposit. Christ is, therefore, as a
igitur secundum suppositum est supposit other than the Father.
alius a patre.
Ea vero quibus Sabellius suam [11] The points by which Sabellius
positionem nititur confirmare, id attempts to strengthen his position do not
quod intendit non ostendunt, ut prove what he intends to prove. We will
infra plenius ostendetur. Non enim make this clear more fully later on. For,
per hoc quod Deus est unus, vel by reason of the truth that “God is one,”
quod pater est in filio et filius in or that “the Father is in the Son and the
patre, habetur quod filius et pater Son in the Father,” one does not bold that
sit unum supposito: potest enim et the Father and the Son are one in
duorum supposito distinctorum supposit; there can be a unity of two who
aliqua unitas esse. are distinct in supposit.
Caput 6 Chapter 6
De opinione Arii circa filium Dei THE OPINION OF ARIUS ABOUT THE
SON OF GOD
Cum autem doctrinae sacrae non [1] Now, sacred doctrine does not agree
congruat quod filius Dei a Maria that the Son of God took His beginning
initium sumpserit, ut Photinus from Mary, as Photinus used to say, nor
dicebat; neque ut is qui ab aeterno that He who was God from eternity and is
Deus fuit et pater est, per carnis the Father began to be the Son by taking
assumptionem filius esse coeperit, flesh, as Sabellius had said. And so,
ut Sabellius dixerat: fuerunt alii there were others who developed this
hanc de divina generatione quam opinion about the divine generation of
Scriptura tradit opinionem which Scripture treats: that the Son of

sumentes, quod filius Dei ante God existed before the mystery of the
incarnationis mysterium extiterit, et Incarnation and even before the
etiam ante mundi conditionem; et foundation of the world; and, because
quia iste filius a Deo patre est that Son of God is other than God the
alius, aestimaverunt eum non esse Father, they judged He was not of the
eiusdem naturae cum Deo patre; same nature with God the Father, for
non enim intelligere poterant, nec they could not understand and did not
credere volebant, quod aliqui duo, wish to believe that any two who are
secundum personam distincti, distinct as persons have one essence
habeant unam essentiam et and nature. And because in the faith’s
naturam. Et quia sola natura Dei teaching only the nature of God the
patris, secundum fidei doctrinam, Father is believed to be eternal, they
aeterna creditur, crediderunt believed that the nature of the Son did
naturam filii non ab aeterno not exist from eternity, although the Son
extitisse, licet fuerit filius ante alias was before other creatures. And since
creaturas. Et quia omne quod non whatever is not eternal is made from
est aeternum, ex nihilo factum est nothing and created by God, they used to
et a Deo creatum, filium Dei ex preach that the Son of God was made
nihilo factum esse, et creaturam from nothing and was a creature. But,
praedicabant. Sed quia auctoritate since the authority of Scripture forced
Scripturae cogebantur ut etiam them to name the Son also, as was
filium Deum nominarent, sicut in brought out in the foregoing they used to
superioribus est expressum, say that He was one with God the Father
dicebant eum unum cum Deo —not to be sure, by nature, but by a kind
patre, non quidem per naturam, of union of consent, and by a
sed per quandam consensus participation in the divine likeness above
unionem, et per divinae all other creatures. Now, the highest
similitudinis participationem super creatures whom we call angels are
ceteras creaturas. Unde, cum named “gods” and “sons of God” in
supremae creaturae, quas Scripture, as in Job (58:4, 7): “Where
Angelos dicimus, in Scripturis et dii were you when the morning stars praised
et filii Dei nominentur, secundum Me together, and all the sons of God
illud Iob 384 ubi eras cum me made a joyful melody?” and in a Psalm
laudarent astra matutina, et (81:1): “God has stood in the
iubilarent omnes filii Dei? Et in congregation of gods: Accordingly, this
Psalmo, Deus stetit in synagoga one should be called Son of God and
deorum, hunc Dei filium et Deum God more than the others, to show that
prae aliis dici oportebat, utpote He is more noble than any other creature
nobiliorem inter ceteras creaturas, in that through Him God the Father
in tantum quod per eum Deus established all the rest of creation.
pater omnem aliam condiderit
creaturam.
Hanc autem positionem confirmare [2] They used to try to strengthen this

nitebantur sacrae Scripturae position by the testimonies of sacred
documentis. Scripture.
Dicit enim filius, Ioan. 173, ad [3] For the Son says, speaking to the
patrem loquens: haec est vita Father in John (17:3): “This is eternal life:
aeterna, ut cognoscant te solum that they may know You, the only true
Deum verum. Solus ergo pater God.” The Father alone, therefore, is true
Deus verus est. Cum ergo filius God. Since, therefore, the Son is not the
non sit pater, filius Deus verus Father, the Son cannot be true God.
esse non potest.
Item. Apostolus dicit, I ad Tim. ult.: [4] The Apostle also says: “Keep the

serves mandatum sine macula commandment without spot, blameless,
irreprehensibile usque in unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,
adventum domini nostri Iesu which in His times He shall show who is
Christi, quem suis temporibus the Blessed and only Mighty, the King of
ostendet beatus et solus potens kings, and Lord of lords; who only has
rex regum et dominus immortality, and inhabits light
dominantium, qui solus habet inaccessible” (1 Tim. 6:1416). These
immortalitatem et lucem habitat words make a distinction between the
inaccessibilem, in quibus verbis Father who shows and Christ who is
ostenditur distinctio Dei patris shown. Therefore, only the Father who
ostendentis ad Christum shows is the King of kings and Lord of
ostensum. Solus ergo Deus pater lords; He alone is immortal and dwells in
ostendens est potens rex regum et inaccessible light. Therefore, the Father
dominus dominantium, et solus alone is true God. Therefore, the Son is
habet immortalitatem et lucem not.
habitat inaccessibilem. Solus ergo
pater Deus verus est. Non ergo
filius.
Praeterea. Dominus dicit, Ioan. 14 [5] Furthermore, our Lord says: “The

28: pater maior me est; et Father is greater than I” (John 14:28);
apostolus dicit filium patri esse and the Apostle says: “When all things
subiectum, I ad Cor. 1528: cum shall be subdued unto Him, then the Son
omnia subiecta illi fuerint, tunc ipse also Himself shall be subject unto Him,”
filius subiectus erit illi, scilicet patri, namely, to the Father, “that put all things
qui sibi subiecit omnia. Si autem under Him” (1 Cor. 15:28). But if the
esset una natura patris et filii, nature of the Father and Son were one,
esset etiam una magnitudo et their greatness and majesty would also
maiestas: non enim filius esset be one. For then the Son would not be
minor patre, nec patri subiectus. less than the Father, or subject to the
Relinquitur ergo ex Scripturis quod Father. It follows, then, from Scripture
filius non sit eiusdem naturae cum that the Son is not of the same nature as
patre ut credebant. the Father, so they believed.
Adhuc. Natura patris non patitur [6] The nature of the Father, furthermore,

indigentiam. In filio autem suffers no need. But one finds need in
indigentia invenitur: ostenditur the Son, for it is shown from Scripture
enim ex Scripturis quod a patre that He receives from the Father—and
recipit; recipere autem indigentis he who receives is in need. For Matthew
est. Dicitur enim Matth. 1127: (13:27) says: “All things are delivered to
omnia tradita sunt mihi a patre Me by My Father”; and John (3:35): “The
meo, et Ioan. 335: pater diligit Father loves the Son: and He has given
filium, et omnia dedit in manu eius. all things into His hand.” The Son,

Videtur igitur filius non esse therefore, seems not to be of the same
eiusdem naturae cum patre. nature with the Father.
Amplius. Doceri et adiuvari [7] He is in need, moreover, who is
indigentis est. Filius autem a patre taught and is helped. But the Son is
docetur et iuvatur. Dicitur enim taught and is helped by the Father. For
Ioan. 519: non potest filius a se John (5:1920; 14:15) says: “The Son
facere quicquam, nisi quod viderit cannot do any thing of Himself, but what
patrem facientem; et infra: 20 pater He sees the Father doing”; and later:
diligit filium, et omnia demonstrat “The Father loves the Son, and shows
ei quae ipse facit; et Ioan. 1515, Him all that he is doing”; and the Son
filius dicit discipulis: omnia says to the disciples: “What I have heard
quaecumque audivi a patre meo, of My Father, I have made known to
nota feci vobis. Non igitur videtur you.” Therefore, the Son appears not to
esse eiusdem naturae filius cum be of the same nature as the Father.
patre.
Praeterea. Praeceptum recipere, [8] There is more. To receive a

obedire, orare, et mitti, inferioris command, to obey, to be sent seem
esse videtur. Haec autem de filio proper to an inferior. But these we read
leguntur. Dicit enim filius, Ioan. 14 about the Son. For the Son says in John
31: sicut mandatum dedit mihi (14:31): “As the Father has given Me
pater, sic facio. Et Philipp. 28: commandment, so do I”; and the Apostle:
factus est obediens patri usque ad “Becoming obedient unto death” (Phil.
mortem. Et Ioan. 1416: ego 2:8). And John (1436): “I shall ask the
rogabo patrem, et alium Father, and He will give you another
Paracletum dabit vobis. Et Galat. paraclete!” And the Apostle also says:
44, dicit apostolus: cum venit “When the fulness of the time was come
plenitudo temporis, misit Deus God sent His Son” (Gal. 4:4). Therefore,
filium suum. Est ergo filius minor the Son is less than the Father and is
patre, et ei subiectus. subject to Him.
Item. Filius clarificatur a patre: [9] Furthermore, the Son is glorified by
sicut ipse dicit, Ioan. 1228: pater, the Father, as He Himself says in John
clarifica nomen tuum; et sequitur: (13:28): “Father, glorify your name”; and
venit vox de caelo, et clarificavi, et thereafter: “A voice, therefore, came from
iterum clarificabo. Apostolus etiam heaven: I have both glorified it, and will
dicit, ad Rom. 811, quod Deus glorify it again.” The Apostle also says
suscitavit Iesum Christum a that God “raised up Jesus Christ from the
mortuis. Et Petrus dicit, Act. 233, dead” (Rom. 8:11). And Peter says that
quod est dextera Dei exaltatus. Ex He “was exalted by the right hand of
quibus videtur quod sit patre God” (Acts 2:33). And from these it
inferior. seems that the Son is inferior to the
Father.
Praeterea. In natura patris nullus [10]] In the Father’s nature, furthermore,
defectus esse potest. In filio autem there can be no failure. But one finds a

invenitur defectus potestatis: dicit failure in power in the Son, for He says in
enim Matth. 2023: sedere ad Matthew (20:23): “To sit on My right or
dexteram meam vel sinistram, non left hand is not Mine to give to you, but to
est meum dare vobis, sed quibus them for whom it is pre pared by My
paratum est a patre meo. Defectus Father.” There is a failure also in
etiam scientiae: dicit enim ipse, knowledge; for He Himself says: “That
Marc. 1332: de die autem illa et day or hour no man knows, neither the
hora nemo scit, neque Angeli in angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the
caelo, neque filius, nisi pater. Father” (Mark 13:22). There is also a
Invenitur etiam in eo defectus failure in stability of love, since Scripture
quietae affectionis: cum in eo asserts that there was sadness in the
Scriptura asserat tristitiam fuisse, Son and anger and other changes of this
et iram, et alias huiusmodi sort. Therefore, the Son does not appear
passiones. Non igitur videtur filius to be of the same nature as the Father.
esse eiusdem naturae cum patre.
Adhuc. Expresse in Scripturis [11] It is, furthermore, found expressly in

invenitur quod filius Dei sit Scripture that the Son of God is a
creatura. Dicit enim Eccli. 2412: creature. For Sirach (24:12, 14) says:
dixit mihi creator omnium, et qui “The creator of all things said to Me: and
creavit me, requievit in tabernaculo He that made Me rested in My
meo. Et iterum: ab initio et ante tabernacle”; and again: “From the
saecula creata sum. Est igitur filius beginning, and before the world, was I
creatura. created.” Therefore, the Son is a
creature.
Praeterea. Filius creaturis [12] What is more, the Son is numbered
connumeratur. Dicitur enim Eccli. among creatures. For it says in the
245, ex persona sapientiae: ego person of Wisdom: “I came out of the
ex ore altissimi prodii, primogenita mouth of the most High, the firstborn
ante omnem creaturam. Et before all creatures” (Sirach 24:5). And
apostolus, ad Coloss. 115, dicit the Apostle says of the Son that He is
de filio quod est primogenitus “the firstborn of every creature” (Col.
creaturae. Videtur ergo quod filius 1:15). The Son, then, seems to belong to
ordinem cum creaturis habeat, the order of creatures as one who holds
quasi primum inter eas obtinens the first rank therein.
gradum.
Amplius. Filius dicit, Ioan. 1722, [13] The Son, moreover, says in John
pro discipulis ad patrem orans: (17:22), praying for the disciples to the
ego claritatem quam dedisti mihi, Father: “The glory which You hast given
dedi eis, ut sint unum, sicut et nos Me, I have given to them; that they may
unum sumus. Sic igitur pater et be one, as We also are one.” Therefore,
filius unum sunt sicut discipulos the Father and Son are one as He
unum esse volebat. Non autem wished the disciples to be one. But He
volebat discipulos esse per did not wish the disciples to be
essentiam unum. Non ergo pater essentially one. Therefore, the Father
et filius sunt per essentiam unum. and Son are not essentially one. Thus it
Et sic sequitur quod sit creatura, et follows that He is a creature and subject
patri subiectus. to the Father.
Est autem haec positio Arii et [14] Now, this is the position of Arius and

Eunomii. Et videtur a Platonicorum Eunomius. And it seems to have arisen
dictis exorta, qui ponebant from the sayings of the Platonists, who
summum Deum, patrem et used to hold that there was a supreme
creatorem omnium rerum, a quo God, the Father and Creator of all things,
primitus effluxisse dicebant and from Him there emanated a certain
quandam mentem, in qua essent “Mind” in which were the forms of all
omnium rerum formae, superiorem things, and it was superior to all things;
omnibus aliis rebus, quam and they named this the “paternal
paternum intellectum nominabant; intellect”; after this they put the soul of
et post hanc, animam mundi; et the world, and then the other creatures.
deinde alias creaturas. Quod ergo Therefore, what is said in sacred
in Scripturis sacris de Dei filio Scripture of the Son of God they used to
dicitur, hoc de mente praedicta understand of the mind just mentioned;
intelligebant: et praecipue quia and the more so because sacred
sacra Scriptura Dei filium Dei Scripture names the Son of God “the
sapientiam nominat et verbum Dei. Wisdom of God” and “the Word of God.”
Cui etiam opinioni consonat positio And with this opinion the position of
Avicennae, qui supra animam Avicenna agrees; he holds that above
primi caeli ponit intelligentiam the soul of the first heaven there is a first
primam, moventem primum intelligence moving the first heaven, and
caelum, supra quam ulterius Deum further beyond this he placed God at the
in summo ponebat. summit.
Sic igitur Ariani de Dei filio [15] In this way, then, the Arians were
suspicati sunt quod esset inclined to think that the Son of God was
quaedam creatura supereminens a kind of creature, preeminent over all
omnibus aliis creaturis, qua other creatures, the medium by which
mediante Deus omnia creasset: God had created all things; they were all
praecipue cum etiam quidam the more so inclined by the fact that
philosophi posuerunt quodam certain philosophers also held that things
ordine res a primo principio proceeded from their first source in an
processisse, ita quod per primum order, resulting in the creation of all
creatum omnia alia sint creata. things through one first creature.
Caput 7 Chapter 7
Improbatio opinionis Arii de filio REFUTATION OF THE OPINION OF
Dei ARIUS ON THE SON OF GOD
Hanc autem positionem divinae [1] That this opinion is manifestly
Scripturae repugnare manifeste repugnant to divine Scripture anyone
potest percipere, si quis sacrarum can see who considers diligently what
Scripturarum dicta diligenter sacred Scripture says.
consideret.
Cum enim Scriptura divina et [2] For, when divine Scripture names
Christum Dei filium, et Angelos Dei Christ the Son of God and angels the
filios nominet, alia tamen et alia sons of God it does so for different
ratione: unde apostolus, Hebr. 15, reasons. Hence, the Apostle says: “To
dicit: cui dixit aliquando Angelorum, which of the angels has He said at any
filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui time, ‘You are My Son, today have I
te? Quod ad Christum asserit esse begotten You” (Heb. 1:5). And it was to
dictum. Secundum autem Christ that this was said, he asserts. But,
positionem praedictam, eadem according to the aforesaid position,
ratione Angeli filii dicerentur et angels are called sons for the same
Christus: utrisque enim nomen reason as Christ, for the name of
filiationis competeret secundum sonship is fitting to each according to a
quandam sublimitatem naturae, in kind of sublimity of nature in which they
qua creati sunt a Deo. were created by God.
Nec obstat si Christus sit [3] Neither is this objection met if Christ
excellentioris naturae prae aliis is of a nature more excellent than other
Angelis: quia etiam inter Angelos angels. For, even among the angels
ordines diversi inveniuntur, ut ex diverse orders are discovered, which
superioribus patet, et tamen became clear above, and for all that, to
omnibus eadem filiationis ratio all of them the same notion of sonship is
competit. Non igitur Christus filius suitable. Therefore, Christ is not called
Dei dicitur secundum quod asserit the Son of God in the way the position
praedicta positio. described maintains.
Item. Cum ratione creationis [4] Again, since by reason of creation the

nomen filiationis divinae multis name of divine sonship is suitable to
conveniat, quia omnibus Angelis et many—for it belongs to all the angels
sanctis; si etiam Christus eadem and saints—if Christ also were called
ratione filius diceretur, non esset Son on the same ground, He would not
unigenitus, licet, propter be “onlybegotten; although by reason of
excellentiam suae naturae, inter the excellence of His nature over all
ceteros primogenitus posset dici. others He could be called “firstborn.”
Asserit autem eum Scriptura esse However, Scripture asserts that He is
unigenitum, Ioan. 114: vidimus onlybegotten: “We saw His glory, the
eum quasi unigenitum a patre. Non glory as it were of the onlybegotten of
igitur ratione creationis Dei filius the Father” (John 1:14). It is not,
dicitur. therefore, by reason of creation that He
is called the Son of God.
Amplius. Nomen filiationis proprie [5] Moreover, the name of sonship
et vere generationem viventium properly and truly follows on the
consequitur, in quibus genitum ex generation of living things in which the
substantia generantis procedit: begotten proceeds from the substance
alias enim nomen filiationis non of the one begetting; otherwise, the
secundum veritatem, sed potius name of sonship is taken not in truth but
secundum similitudinem accipitur, in similitude, as when we call either
cum filios dicimus aut discipulos, students or others who are in our charge

aut hos quorum gerimus curam. Si our sons. If, then, Christ were not called
igitur Christus non diceretur filius Son except by reason of creation, since
nisi ratione creationis, cum id quod that which is created by God is not
creatur a Deo, non ex substantia derived from the substance of God,
Dei derivetur, Christus vere filius Christ could not be called Son truly. But
dici non posset. Dicitur autem He is called the true Son in 1 John
verus filius, I Ioan. ult.: ut simus, (5:20): “that we may be; he says, “in His
inquit, in vero filio eius, Iesu true Son, Jesus Christ.” Therefore, He is
Christo. Non igitur Dei filius dicitur, not called the Son of God as created by
quasi a Deo creatus in God in an excellence of nature, however
quantacumque naturae excellentia, great, but as one begotten of God’s
sed quasi ex Dei substantia substance.
genitus.
Praeterea. Si Christus ratione [6] What is more, if Christ is called Son
creationis filius dicitur, non erit by reason of creation, He will not be truly
verus Deus: nihil enim creatum God. For nothing created can be called
Deus potest dici nisi per quandam God unless by some similitude to God.
similitudinem ad Deum. Ipse autem But this same Jesus Christ is true God,
Iesus Christus est verus Deus: cum for, when John had said: “that we may
enim Ioannes dixisset, ut simus in be in His true Son,” he added: “This is
vero filio eius, subdit: hic est verus the true God and life eternal.” Therefore,
Deus et vita aeterna. Non igitur Christ is not called the Son of God by
Christus filius Dei dicitur ratione reason of creation.
creationis.
Amplius. Apostolus, ad Rom. 95, [7] Furthermore, the Apostle says: “Of
dicit: ex quibus Christus est whom is Christ, according to the flesh,
secundum carnem, qui est super who is over all things, God blessed
omnia Deus benedictus in saecula, forever. Amen” (Rom. 9:5); and in Titus
amen. Et Tit. 213: expectantes (2:13): “Looking for the blessed hope
beatam spem, et adventum gloriae and coming of the glory of the great God
magni Dei et salvatoris nostri Iesu and our Savior Jesus Christ.” And
Christi. Et Ierem. 23 dicitur: Jeremiah (23:56) says: “I will raise up to
suscitabo David germen iustum et David a just branch”; and adds below:
postea subditur, et hoc est nomen “and this is the name that they shall call
quod vocabunt eum, dominus Him: The Lord our just one.” There in
iustus noster, ubi in Hebraeo Hebrew the name is the
habetur nomen tetragrammaton, tetragrammaton, which certainly is said
quod de solo Deo certum est dici. of God alone. From these sayings it is
Ex quibus apparet quod filius Dei clear that the Son of God is true God.
est verus Deus.
Praeterea. Si Christus verus filius [8] Moreover, if Christ be the true Son, of

est, de necessitate sequitur quod necessity it follows that He is true God.
sit verus Deus. Non enim vere filius For, that cannot truly be called son which
potest dici quod ab alio gignitur, is begotten of another, even if the thing
etiam si de substantia generantis be born of the substance of the one
nascatur nisi in similem speciem begetting unless it comes forth in
generantis procedat: oportet enim species like the one begetting; the son of
quod filius hominis homo sit. Si a man must be a man. If, therefore,
igitur Christus est verus filius Dei, Christ be the true Son of God, He must
oportet quod sit verus Deus. Non be true God. Therefore, He is not
est igitur aliquid creatum. anything created.
Item. Nulla creatura recipit totam [9] Again, no creature receives the
plenitudinem divinae bonitatis: complete fullness of divine goodness,
quia, sicut ex superioribus patet, because, as was made clear above,
perfectiones a Deo in creaturas per perfections proceed from God to
modum cuiusdam descensus creatures in a kind of descent. But Christ
procedunt. Christus autem habet in has in Himself the complete fullness of
se totam plenitudinem divinae the divine goodness, for the Apostle
bonitatis: dicit enim apostolus, ad says: “In Him dwells all the fulness of the
Coloss. 29: in ipso habitat omnis Godhead” (Col. 2:9). Therefore, Christ is
plenitudo divinitatis. Christus ergo not a creature.
non est creatura.
Adhuc. Licet intellectus Angeli [10] Grant, furthermore, that the intellect

perfectiorem cognitionem habeat of an angel has a more perfect
quam intellectus hominis, tamen knowledge than the intellect of man; it is
multum deficit ab intellectu divino. still in great want from the divine
Intellectus autem Christi non deficit intellect. But the intellect of Christ is not
in cognitione ab intellectu divino: in want of knowledge from the divine
dicit enim apostolus, ad Coloss. 2 intellect, for the Apostle says that in
3, quod in Christo sunt omnes Christ “are hidden all the treasures of
thesauri sapientiae et scientiae wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3).
absconditi. Non est igitur Christus Therefore, Christ the Son of God is not a
filius Dei creatura. creature.
Amplius. Quicquid Deus habet in [11] Furthermore, whatever God has in

seipso, est eius essentia, ut in Himself is His essence, as was shown in
primo ostensum est. Omnia autem Book I. But, all things the Father has are
quae habet pater, sunt filii: dicit the Son’s. For the Son Himself says: “All
enim ipse filius, Ioan. 1615: omnia things whatsoever the Father has are
quae habet pater, mea sunt; et Mine” (John 16:15); and in John (17:10),
Ioan. 1710, ad patrem loquens, ait: speaking to the Father, he says: “All My
mea omnia tua sunt, et tua mea things are Yours, and Yours are Mine.”
sunt. Est ergo eadem essentia et The essence and nature, then, of the
natura patris et filii. Non est igitur Father and Son is the very same.
filius creatura. Therefore, the Son is not. a creature.
Praeterea. Apostolus dicit, Philipp. [12] What is more, the Apostle says that

2, quod filius, antequam exinaniret the Son, before He emptied himself
semetipsum formam servi taking the form of a servant, was “in the
accipiens, in forma Dei erat. Per form of God” (Phil. 2:67). By the form of
formam autem Dei non aliud God, however, nothing is understood but
intelligitur quam natura divina: sicut the divine nature, just as by the form of

per formam servi non intelligitur the servant human nature is understood.
aliud quam humana natura. Est The Son, then, is in the divine nature.
ergo filius in natura divina. Non est Therefore, He is not a creature.
igitur creatura.
Item. Nihil creatum potest esse [13] Furthermore, nothing created can
Deo aequale. Filius autem est patri be equal to God. The Son, however, is
aequalis. Dicitur enim Ioan. 518: equal to the Father. For John (5:18)
quaerebant eum Iudaei interficere, says: “The Jews sought the more to kill
quia non solum solvebat sabbatum, Him, because He did not only break the
sed et patrem suum dicebat Deum, Sabbath, but also said God was His
aequalem se Deo faciens. Haec est Father, making Himself equal to God.”
autem Evangelistae narratio, cuius And this is the narrative of the Evangelist
testimonium verum est, quod whose “testimony is true” (John 19:13;
Christus filium Dei se dicebat et 21:74): that Christ said He was the Son
Deo aequalem, et propterea eum of God and the equal of God, and that
Iudaei persequebantur. Nec for these things the Jews were
dubium est alicui Christiano quin persecuting Him. Nor is there doubt for
illud quod Christus de se dixit, any Christian that what Christ said of
verum sit: cum et apostolus dicat, Himself is true, when the Apostle also
Philipp. 26, hoc non fuisse says that He “thought it not robbery to be
rapinam, quod aequalem se esse equal with God” (Phil. 2:6). The Son,
patri arbitratus est. Est ergo filius therefore, is equal to the Father. He is
aequalis patri. Non est igitur not, then, a creature.
creatura.
Amplius. In Psalmo legitur non [14] Moreover, in the Psalms (88:7; 82:1)

esse similitudinem alicuius ad we read that there is no likeness of
Deum etiam inter Angelos qui filii anyone to God even among the angels
Dei dicuntur: quis, inquit, similis who are called the sons of God. “Who,” it
Deo in filiis Dei? Et alibi: Deus, quis says, “among the sons of God shall be
similis erit tibi? Quod de perfecta like God?” And elsewhere: “O God, who
similitudine accipi oportet: quod shall be like to You?” This should be
patet ex his quae in primo libro understood of perfect likeness; which is
tractata sunt. Christus autem clear from the things treated in Book I.
perfectam sui similitudinem ad But Christ showed his perfect likeness to
patrem ostendit etiam in vivendo: the Father even in living, for John (5:26)
dicitur enim Ioan. 526: sicut pater says: “As the Father has life in Himself,
habet vitam in semetipso, sic dedit so He has given to the Son also to have
et filio vitam habere in semetipso. life in Himself.” Therefore, Christ is not to
Non est igitur Christus be counted among the created sons of
computandus inter filios Dei God.
creatos.
Adhuc. Nulla substantia creata [15] Furthermore, no created substance

repraesentat Deum quantum ad represents God in His substance, for,
eius substantiam: quicquid enim ex whatever be the perfection of any
perfectione cuiuscumque creaturae creature whatever that appears, it is less
apparet, minus est quam quod than that which God is; hence, there is
Deus est; unde per nullam no creature through whom we can know
creaturam sciri potest de Deo quid whatHeis about God. But the Son does
est. Filius autem repraesentat represent the Father, for of Him the
patrem: dicit enim de eo apostolus, Apostle says that He “is the image of the
ad Coloss. 115, quod est imago invisible God” (Col. 1:15). And lest He be
invisibilis Dei. Et ne aestimetur judged a deficient image, one not
esse imago deficiens, essentiam representing the essence of God, one
Dei non repraesentans, per quam through which whatHeis could not be
non possit cognosci de Deo quid known of God (thus is man called the
est, sicut vir dicitur imago Dei, I ad “image of God” in 1 Cor. 11:7); He is
Cor. 117; ostenditur perfecta esse shown to be the perfect image,
imago, ipsam Dei substantiam representing the very substance of God,
repraesentans, Hebr. 13, dicente when the Apostle says: “Who being the
apostolo: cum sit splendor gloriae, brightness of His glory, and the figure of
et figura substantiae eius. Non est His substance” (Heb. 1:3). Therefore,
igitur filius creatura. the Son is not a creature.
Praeterea. Nihil quod est in aliquo [16] There is more. Nothing which is in a

genere, est universalis causa genus is the universal cause of those
eorum quae sunt in genere illo, things which are in that genus. So, the
sicut universalis causa hominum universal cause of men is not a man for
non est aliquis homo, nihil enim est nothing is the cause of itself, but the sun
sui ipsius causa: sed sol, qui est which is outside the human genus is the
extra genus humanum, est universal cause of human generation,
universalis causa generationis and beyond it God is. But, the Son is the
humanae, et ulterius Deus. Filius universal cause of creatures, for John
autem est universalis causa (1:3) says: “All things were made by
creaturarum: dicitur enim Ioan. 13: Him”; and in Proverbs (8:30) the
omnia per ipsum facta sunt; et begotten Wisdom says: “I was with Him
Proverb. 830, dicit sapientia forming all things”; and the Apostle says:
genita: cum eo eram componens “In Him were all things created in heaven
omnia, et apostolus dicit, ad and on earth” (Col. 1:16). Therefore, He
Coloss. 116: in ipso condita sunt Himself is not in the genus of creatures.
universa in caelo et in terra. Ipse
igitur non est de genere
creaturarum.
Item. Ex ostensis in secundo libro [17] Similarly, it is clear from what was
manifestum est quod substantiae shown in Book II that the incorporeal
incorporeae, quas Angelos substances that we call angels cannot
dicimus, non possunt aliter fieri be made except by creation, and it was
quam per creationem; et etiam also shown that no substance can create
ostensum est quod nulla substantia but God alone. But the Son of God,
potest creare nisi solus Deus. Sed Jesus Christ, is the cause of the angels,
Dei filius Iesus Christus est causa bringing them into being, for the Apostle
Angelorum, eos in esse producens: says: “whether thrones, or dominations,
dicit enim apostolus: sive throni, or principalities, or powers: all things
sive dominationes, sive principatus, were created by Him and in Him” (Col.
sive potestates, omnia per ipsum et 1:16)., Therefore, the Son Himself, is not
in ipso creata sunt. Ipse igitur filius a creature.
non est creatura.
Praeterea. Cum propria actio [18] Furthermore, since the proper action

cuiuslibet rei sequatur naturam of anything at all follows its very nature,
ipsius, nulli competit propria actio a thing’s proper action is fitting to
alicuius rei cui non competit illius nothing to which the nature of that thing
rei natura: quod enim non habet is not fitting; thus, what does not have
humanam speciem, nec actionem the human species does not have the
humanam habere potest. Propriae human action. Now, the proper actions
autem actiones Dei conveniunt filio: of God belong to the Son: to create (as
sicut creare, ut iam ostensum est; already shown), to contain and conserve
continere et conservare omnia in all things in being; and to wipe away
esse; et peccata purgare; quae sins. That these are proper to God is
propria esse Dei ex superioribus clear from the foregoing. But of the Son
patet. Dicitur autem de filio, ad it is said that “by Him all things consist”
Coloss. 117, quod omnia in ipso (Col. 1: 37); and that He upholds “all
constant; et ad Hebr. 13, dicitur things by the word of His power, making
quod portat omnia verbo virtutis purgation of sins” (Heb. 1:3). The Son of
suae, purgationem peccatorum God, then, is of the divine nature, and is
faciens. Filius igitur Dei est naturae not a creature.
divinae, et non est creatura.
Sed quia posset Arianus dicere [19] But because an Arian might say that

quod haec filius facit non tanquam the Son does these things not as a
principale agens, sed sicut principal agent, but as an instrument of
instrumentum principalis agentis, the principal agent which acts not by its
quod per propriam virtutem non own power but by the power of the
agit, sed solum per virtutem principal agent, our Lord excluded this
principalis agentis, hanc rationem argument, saying in John (5:19): “what
dominus excludit, Ioan. 519, things soever the Father doth, these the
dicens: quaecumque pater facit Son also doth in like manner.” Then, just
haec et filius similiter facit. Sicut as the Father operates of Himself and by
igitur pater per se operatur et His proper power, so also does the Son.
propria virtute, ita et filius.
Ulterius etiam ex hoc verbo [20] A still further conclusion from this
concluditur, quod sit eadem virtus saying is that virtue and power are
et potestas filii et patris. Non solum identified in the Son and the Father. For
enim dicit quod filius similiter He says that the Son works not only like
operatur sicut et pater, sed quod the Father but the same things “in like
eadem et similiter. Idem autem non manner.” But the same operation cannot
potest esse operatum eodem modo be performed by two agents unless in
a duobus agentibus nisi vel dissimilarity: as the same thing done by
dissimiliter, sicut idem fit a principali a principal agent and its instrument; or, if
agente et instrumento: vel, si in similarity, it must be that the agents
similiter, oportet quod conveniant in come together in one power. Now, this
una virtute. Quae quidem virtus power is sometimes collected from
quandoque congregatur ex diversis diverse powers in diverse agents, as

virtutibus in diversis agentibus when many men draw up a boat, for they
inventis, sicut patet in multis all draw it up in the same way, and
trahentibus navem: omnes enim because the power of each is imperfect
similiter trahunt, et quia virtus and insufficient for that effect, from the
cuiuslibet imperfecta est et diverse powers is collected one power of
insufficiens ad istum effectum, ex them all which is sufficient for drawing
diversis virtutibus congregatur una up the boat. But, one cannot say this in
virtus omnium, quae sufficit ad the case of the Father and the Son, for
trahendum navem. Hoc autem non the power of the Father is not imperfect
potest dici in patre et filio: virtus but infinite, as was shown in Book I.
enim Dei patris non est imperfecta, There must, then, be numerical identity
sed infinita, ut in primo ostensum in the power of the Father and the Son.
est. Oportet igitur quod eadem And since power follows nature, there
numero sit virtus patris et filii. Et must be numerical identity in the nature
cum virtus consequatur naturam and essence of the Father and the Son.
rei, oportet quod eadem numero sit This also can be concluded from the
natura et essentia patris et filii. things that were said earlier. For, if in the
Quod etiam ex praecedentibus Son there is the divine nature (as has
concludi potest. Nam si in filio est been shown in many ways), and if the
natura divina, ut multipliciter divine nature cannot be multiplied as
ostensum est; cum natura divina was shown in Book I, it follows
multiplicari non possit, ut in primo necessarily that there is numerical
libro ostensum est: sequitur de identity of nature and essence in the
necessitate quod sit eadem Father and the Son.
numero natura et essentia in patre
et filio.
Item. Ultima nostra beatitudo in [21] Again, our beatitude is ultimately in

solo Deo est; in quo etiam solo God alone, in whom alone also the hope
spes hominis debet poni; et cui soli of man must be placed, to whom alone
est honor latriae exhibendus, ut in also the honor of adoration must be
tertio libro ostensum est. Beatitudo given, as was shown in Book III. But our
autem nostra in Dei filio est. Dicit beatitude is in the Son of God. For He
enim, Ioan. 173: haec est vita says in John (17:3): “This is eternal life:
aeterna, ut cognoscant te, scilicet that they may know You,” namely, the
patrem, et quem misisti, Iesum Father, “and Jesus Christ whom You
Christum. Et I Ioan. ult., dicitur de hast sent.” And 1 John (5:20) says of the
filio quod est verus Deus et vita Son that He is “true God and life
aeterna. Certum est autem nomine eternal,” Now, it is certain that by the
vitae aeternae in Scripturis sacris name “life eternal” the sacred Scripture
ultimam beatitudinem significari. signifies ultimate beatitude. Isaiah also
Dicit etiam Isaias de filio, ut says of the Son, as the Apostle brings
apostolus inducit: erit radix Iesse, out: “‘there shall be a root of Jesse, and
et qui exurget regere gentes, in eo He that shall rise up to rule the Gentiles,
gentes sperabunt. Dicitur etiam in in Him the Gentiles shall hope” (Rom.
Psalmo: et adorabunt eum omnes 15:12; Isa. 11:10). It is said also in a
reges, omnes gentes servient ei. Et Psalm (71:11): “And all the kings of the
Ioan. 523 dicitur: omnes earth shall adore Him; all nations shall
honorificent filium sicut honorificant serve Him.” And John (5:23): “That all
patrem. Et iterum in Psalmo dicitur: men may honour the Son, as they

adorate eum omnes Angeli eius: honour the Father.” And again a Psalm
quod de filio apostolus introducit (96:7) says: “Adore Him, all you His
Hebr. 16. Manifestum est igitur angels.” That this is said of the Son the
filium Dei verum Deum esse. Apostle sets forth in Hebrews (1:6).
Manifestly, therefore, the Son of God is
true God.
Ad hoc etiam ostendendum valent [22] The arguments are also valid for
ea quae superius contra Photinum establishing this point which were
inducta sunt ad ostendendum previously used against Photinus to
Christum Deum esse non factum, show that Christ is not made God but
sed verum. true God.
Ex praemissis igitur et consimilibus [23] Taught, therefore, by those

sacrae Scripturae documentis mentioned and very similar testimonies
Ecclesia Catholica docta, Christum of sacred Scripture, the Catholic Church
verum et naturalem Dei filium maintains that Christ is the true and
confitetur, aeternum, patri natural Son of God, eternal, equal to the
aequalem, et verum Deum, Father, true God, identical in essence
eiusdem essentiae et naturae cum and nature with the Father, begotten, not
patre, genitum, non creatum nec created, and not made.
factum.
Unde patet quod sola Ecclesiae [24] Wherefore it is clear that only in the

Catholicae fides vere confitetur Catholic Church does faith truly confess
generationem in Deo, dum ipsam generation in God, when it relates the
generationem filii ad hoc refert very generation of the Son to this: the
quod filius accepit divinam naturam Son has received the divine nature from
a patre. Alii vero haeretici ad the Father. But others who are heretics
aliquam extraneam naturam hanc relate this generation to some
generationem referunt: Photinus extraneous nature: Photinus and
quidem et Sabellius ad humanam; Sabellius to human nature, indeed;
Arius autem non ad humanam, sed Arius, however, to some created nature
ad quandam naturam creatam more worthy than all other creatures.
digniorem ceteris creaturis.
Differt etiam Arius a Sabellio et Arius also differs from Sabellius and
Photino quod hic generationem Photinus in this: the former asserts that
praedictam asserit ante mundum such generation was before the world
fuisse; illi vero eam fuisse negant was; the latter two deny that it was
ante nativitatem ex virgine. before the birth from the Virgin.
Sabellius tamen a Photino differt in Sabellius nevertheless differs from

hoc, quod Sabellius Christum Photinus in this: Sabellius confesses that
verum Deum confitetur et Christ is true and natural God, but
naturalem, non autem Photinus Photinus does not; neither does Arius.
neque Arius: sed Photinus purum Photinus holds that He is pure man;
hominem; Arius autem quasi Arius, that He is a kind of mixture of a
commixtum ex quadam certain very excellent creature both
excellentissima creatura divina et divine and human. The latter two,
humana. Hi tamen aliam esse however, confess that the Person of the
personam patris et filii confitentur, Father is other than the Person of the
quod Sabellius negat. Son; this Sabellius denies.
Fides ergo Catholica, media via [25] Therefore, the Catholic faith,
incedens, confitetur, cum Ario et keeping to the middle road, holds with
Photino, contra Sabellium, aliam Arius and Photinus against Sabellius
personam patris et filii, et filium that the Person of the Father is other
genitum, patrem vero omnino than the Person of the Son, that the Son
ingenitum: cum Sabellio vero, is begotten, but the Father entirely
contra Photinum et Arium, unbegotten; but with Sabellius against
Christum verum et naturalem Photinus and Arius that Christ is true
Deum et eiusdem naturae cum and natural God, the same in nature as
patre, licet non eiusdem personae. the Father, although not the same in
Ex quo etiam indicium veritatis person. And from this, also, an indication
Catholicae sumi potest: nam vero, of the Catholic truth can be gathered.
ut philosophus dicit, etiam falsa For, as the Philosopher says, [Prior
attestantur: falsa vero non solum a Analytics II, 2] even falsehoods give
veris, sed etiam ab invicem distant. witness, for falsehoods stand apart not
only from the truth but from one another.
Caput 8 Chapter 8
Solutio ad auctoritates quas SOLUTION OF THE AUTHORITIES
Arius pro se inducebat WHICH ARIUS PROPOSED FOR
HIMSELF
Quia vero veritas veritati contraria [1] Since, however, truth cannot be
esse non potest, manifestum est ea truth’s contrary, it is obvious that the
quae ex Scripturis veritatis ab points of Scriptural truth introduced by
Arianis introducta sunt ad suum the Arians to confirm their error cannot
errorem confirmandum, eorum be helpful to their teaching. For, since it
sententiae accommoda non esse. was shown from divine Scripture that
Cum enim ex Scripturis divinis the essence and divine nature of the
ostensum sit patris et filii eandem Father and Son are numerically
numero essentiam esse et naturam identical, and according to this each is
divinam, secundum quam uterque called true God, it must be that the
verus dicitur Deus, oportet patrem Father and Son cannot be two gods, but
et filium non duos deos, sed unum one God. For, if there were many gods,
Deum esse. Si enim plures dii a necessary consequence would be the
essent, oporteret per consequens partition in each of the essence of
divinitatis essentiam in utroque divinity, just as in two men the humanity
partitam esse sicut in duobus differs in number from one to the other;
hominibus est alia et alia humanitas and the more so because the divine
numero: et praecipue cum non sit nature is not one thing and God Himself
aliud divina natura et aliud ipse another. This was shown above. From
Deus, ut supra ostensum est; ex this it follows necessarily that, since
quo de necessitate consequitur there exists one divine nature in the
quod, existente una natura divina in Father and the Son, the Father and the
patre et filio, quod sint pater et filius Son are one God. Therefore, although
unus Deus. Licet ergo patrem we confess that the Father is God and
confiteamur Deum, et filium Deum, the Son God, we are not withdrawing
non tamen recedimus a sententia from the teaching which sets down that
qua ponitur unus solus Deus, quam there is one only God, which we
in primo et rationibus et established both by reasonings and by
auctoritatibus firmavimus. Unde, authorities in Book I. Hence, although
etsi sit unus solus verus Deus, there is one only true God, we confess
tamen hoc et de patre et de filio that this is predicated of the Father and
praedicari confiteamur. of the Son.
Cum ergo dominus, ad patrem [2] When our Lord, therefore, speaking
loquens, dicit, ut cognoscant te to the Father, says “that they may know
solum Deum verum, non sic You the only true God,” it is not so to be
intelligendum est quod solus pater understood that the Father alone is true
sit verus Deus, quasi filius non sit God, as though the Son is not true God
verus Deus, quod tamen manifeste (the contrary is proved clearly by
Scripturae testimonio probatur: sed Scriptural testimony); but it must be
quod illa quae est una sola vera understood that the one sole true deity
deitas patri conveniat, ita tamen belongs to the Father, in such wise,
quod non excludatur inde et filius. nonetheless, that the Son is not
Unde signanter non dicit dominus, excluded therefrom. Hence, it is
ut cognoscant solum Deum verum, significant that our Lord does not say:
quasi solus ipse sit Deus; sed dixit, “that they may know the one only true
ut cognoscant te, et addit solum God,” as though He alone be God, but
verum Deum, ut ostenderet patrem, said: “that they may know You,” and
cuius se filium protestabatur, esse added “the only true God” to show that
Deum in quo invenitur illa quae sola the Father, whose Son He insisted He
est vera divinitas. Et quia oportet was, is the God in whom one finds that
verum filium eiusdem naturae esse only true divinity. And because a true
cum patre, magis sequitur quod illa son must be of the same nature as his
quae sola est vera divinitas filio father, it follows that the only true
conveniat, quam ab ea filius divinity belongs to the Son, rather than
excludatur. Unde et Ioannes, in fine that the Son is excluded from it.
primae suae canonicae, quasi haec Wherefore John, also, at the end of his
verba domini exponens, utrumque first canonical Epistle (5:20)—
istorum vero filio attribuit quae hic expounding, as it were, these words of
dominus dicit de patre, scilicet quod our Lord—attributes to the true Son
sit verus Deus, et quod in eo sit vita each of the things which our Lord here
aeterna, dicens: ut cognoscamus says of the Father; namely, that He is
verum Deum, et simus in vero filio true God and that in Him is eternal life.
eius. Hic est verus Deus, et vita John says (5:20): “That we may know
aeterna. the true God, and may be in His true
Son. He is the true God and life eternal.”
Si tamen confessus esset filius If the Son had nevertheless confessed
quod solus pater esset verus Deus, that the Father alone is true God, one
non propter hoc a vera divinitate would not for this reason need to
filius excludi intelligendus esset: understand that the Son is excluded
nam quia pater et filius sunt unus from true divinity. For, since the Father
Deus, ut ostensum est, quicquid and Son are one God, as was shown,
ratione divinitatis de patre dicitur, whatever is said of the Father by reason
idem est ac si de filio diceretur, et e of divinity is the same as if it were said
converso. Non enim propter hoc of the Son, and conversely. For, by
quod dominus dicit, Matth. 1127, reason of the fact that our Lord says:
nemo novit filium nisi pater, neque “No one knows the Son but the Father:
patrem quis novit nisi filius, neither does any one know the Father
intelligitur vel pater a sui cognitione but the Son” (Mat. 11:27), it is not
excludi, vel filius. understood that the Father is excluded
from knowledge of Himself, or that the
Son is.
Ex quo etiam patet quod vera filii [3] It is also clear from this that the true

divinitas non excluditur ex verbis divinity of the Son is not excluded by the
apostoli quibus dicit, quem suis words of the Apostle: “Which in His
temporibus ostendet beatus et times He shall show who is the Blessed
solus potens, rex regum et dominus and only Mighty, the King of kings, and
dominantium. Non enim in his Lord of lords.” In these words the Father
verbis pater nominatur, sed id quod is not named, but that which is common
est commune patri et filio. Nam to the Father and the Son. That the Son
quod et filius sit rex regum et is the King of kings and Lord of lords is
dominus dominantium, manifeste manifestly shown in the Apocalypse
ostenditur Apoc. 1913, ubi dicitur: (19:13), which says: “He was clothed
vestitus erat veste aspersa with a garment sprinkled with blood; and
sanguine, et vocabatur nomen eius: His name is called THE WORD OF
verbum Dei et postea subditur: et GOD”; and adds below: “And He has on
habet in vestimento et in femore His garment and on His thigh written:
suo scriptum: rex regum et dominus KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF
dominantium. Nec ab hoc quod LORDS” (19:16). Nor is the Son
subditur, qui solus habet excluded from that which is added:
immortalitatem, excluditur filius: “Who only has immortality,” since He
cum et sibi credentibus also bestows immortality on those who
immortalitatem conferat; unde believe in Him. Thus, John (11: 26)
dicitur Ioan. 1126: qui credit in me, says: “Who believes in Me shall not die
non morietur in aeternum. Sed et for ever.” But what is added,” “Whom no
hoc quod subditur, quem nemo man has seen, nor can see,” certainly is
hominum vidit, sed nec videre also suitable to the Son, since our Lord
potest, certum est filio convenire: says: “No one knows the Son but the
cum dominus dicat, Matth. 1127: Father” (Mat. 11:27). To this it is not an
nemo novit filium nisi pater. Cui non objection that He appeared visibly, for
obstat quod visibilis apparuit: hoc this was according to the flesh.
enim secundum carnem factum est. However, He is invisible in His deity just
Est autem invisibilis secundum as the Father is; wherefore the Apostle
deitatem, sicut et pater: unde says in the same Epistle (1 Tim. 3:16):
apostolus, in eadem epistola, dicit: “Evidently great is the mystery of
manifeste magnum est pietatis godliness, which was manifested in the
sacramentum, quod manifestatum flesh.” Nor are we forced to understand
est in carne. Nec cogit quod haec these sayings of the Father alone
de solo patre dicta intelligamus quia because it is said that there must be
dicitur quasi oporteat alium esse one who shows and another who is
ostendentem et alium ostensum. shown. The Son also shows Himself, for
Nam et filius seipsum ostendit: dicit He says: “He that loves Me shall be
enim ipse, Ioan. 1421: qui diligit loved of My Father: and I will love him,
me, diligetur a patre meo, et ego and will manifest Myself to him” (John
diligam eum, et manifestabo ei 14:21.). Accordingly, we also say to
meipsum. Unde et ei dicimus: Him: “Show us your face, and we shall
ostende faciem tuam, et salvi be saved” (Ps. 79:4).
erimus.
docet. Cum enim maius referatur ad [4] But how the saying of our Lord, “The
minus, oportet intelligi hoc dici de Father is greater than I” must be
filio secundum quod est minoratus. understood we are taught by the
Ostendit autem apostolus eum esse Apostle. Since “greater” is referred to
minoratum secundum ‘lesser,” one must understand that this is
assumptionem formae servilis, ita said of the Son so far as He is lessened.
tamen quod Deo patri aequalis Now, the Apostle shows that He is
existat secundum formam divinam: lessened by taking on the servile form—
dicit enim, ad Philipp. 26 cum in in such wise, however, that in the divine
forma Dei esset, non rapinam form He exists the equal of God the
arbitratus est esse se aequalem Father, for he says: “Who being in the
Deo, sed semetipsum exinanivit, form of God, thought it not robbery to be
formam servi accipiens. Nec est equal with God: but emptied Himself,
mirum si ex hoc pater eo maior taking the form of a servant” (Phil. 2:6
dicatur, cum etiam ab Angelis eum 7). Nor is it wondrous if for this reason
minoratum apostolus dicat, Hebr. 2 the Father be said to be greater than
9: eum inquit, qui modico ab He, since He was even made lesser
Angelis minoratus est, vidimus than the angels; the Apostle says: “We
Iesum, propter passionem mortis, see Jesus, who was made a little lesser
gloria et honore coronatum. than the angels, for the suffering of
death, crowned with glory and honour”
(Heb. 2:9).
Quod autem dominus dicit, pater From this it is also clear that in the same

maior me est, qualiter sit way the Son is said to be “subject to the
intelligendum, apostolus Ex quo Father”; namely, in His human nature.
etiam patet quod secundum This is to be gathered from the very
eandem rationem dicitur filius esse context of the expression. For the
patri subiectus, scilicet secundum Apostle had already said: “For by a man
humanam naturam. Quod ex ipsa came death, and by a man the
circumstantia litterae apparet. resurrection of the dead”; and
Praemiserat enim apostolus: per afterwards he had subjoined: “Everyone
hominem mors, et per hominem shall rise in his own order: the firstfruits
resurrectio mortuorum; et postea Christ, then they that are of Christ”; and
subiunxerat quod unusquisque later he added: “Afterwards the end,
resurget in suo ordine: primum when He shall have delivered up the
Christus, deinde ii qui sunt Christi; kingdom to God and the Father”; and
et postea addit, deinde finis, cum when he has shown what sort of
tradiderit regnum Deo et patri; et kingdom this is, namely, that things must
ostenso quale sit hoc regnum, quia be subject to it, he consequently
scilicet oportet ei omnia esse subjoins: “When all things shall be
subiecta consequenter subiungit: subdued unto Him, then the Son also
cum subiecta illi fuerint omnia, tunc Himself shall be subject unto Him that
ipse filius subiectus erit ei qui put all things under Him” (1 Cor. 15:23
subiecit sibi omnia. Ipse ergo 28). The very context of the expression,
contextus litterae, ostendit hoc de therefore, shows that this ought to be
Christo debere intelligi secundum understood of Christ so far as He is
quod est homo: sic enim mortuus man, for thus did He die and rise again.
est et resurrexit. Nam secundum Now, in His divinity, since “whatever He
divinitatem, cum omnia faciat quae does the Father does,” as was shown,
facit pater ut ostensum est, etiam He Himself also subjects all things to
ipse sibi subiecit omnia: unde Himself; wherefore the Apostle says:
apostolus dicit ad Philipp. 320 “We look for the Savior, our Lord Jesus
salvatorem expectamus dominum Christ, who will reform the body of our
Iesum Christum, qui reformabit lowliness, made like to the body of His
corpus humilitatis nostrae glory, according to the operation
configuratum corpori claritatis suae, whereby also He is able to subdue all
secundum operationem qua possit things unto Himself” (Phil. 3:2021).
sibi subiicere omnia.
Ex eo autem quod pater filio dare [5] From the fact that the Father is said

dicitur in Scripturis, ex quo sequitur in the Scriptures “to give!” to the Son—
ipsum recipere, non potest ostendi from which it follows that He
aliqua indigentia esse in ipso, sed “receives”—one cannot show any
hoc requiritur ad hoc quod filius sit: indigence in Him.” But this is required by
non enim filius dici posset nisi a His being the Son, for He could not be
patre genitus esset; omne autem called Son if He were not begotten by
genitum a generante naturam the Father. For everything which is
recipit generantis. Per hoc ergo generated receives from the generator
quod pater filio dare dicitur, nihil the nature of the generator. Therefore,
aliud intelligitur quam filii generatio, by this giving of the Father to the Son is
secundum quam pater filio dedit understood nothing but the generation
suam naturam. Et hoc ipsum ex eo of the Son in which the Father gave the
quod datur, intelligi potest. Dicit, Son His nature. This very thing can be
enim dominus, Ioan. 1029: pater understood from that which is given. For
quod dedit mihi, maius omnibus est. our Lord says: “That which My Father
Id autem quod maius omnibus est, has given Me is greater than all” (John
divina natura est, in qua filius est 10:29). But that which is greater than all
patri aequalis. Quod ipsa verba is the divine nature, in which the Son is
domini ostendunt. Praemiserat equal to the Father. And this our Lord’s
enim quod oves suas nullus de very words show, for He had said before
manu eius rapere posset; ad cuius that no man should pluck His sheep
probationem inducit verbum from His hand (John 10:2830). For
propositum, scilicet quod id quod proof of this He introduces the word
est sibi a patre datum, maius stated; namely, that which is given to
omnibus sit, et quia de manu patris, Him by the Father is greater than all,
ut subiungit, nemo rapere potest. and that “out of the hand of My
Ex hoc sequitur quod nec etiam de Father”—as He adds—nothing can be
manu filii. Non autem sequeretur plucked.” From this it follows that neither
nisi per id quod est sibi a patre can it be plucked from the hand of the
datum, esset patri aequalis. Unde, Son. But this would not follow unless
ad hoc clarius explicandum, subdit: through that which is given to Him by
ego et pater unum sumus. the Father He were equal to the Father.
And so, to explain this more clearly, He
adds: “I and the Father are one.”
Similiter etiam apostolus, ad Similarly, the Apostle also says that God

Philipp. 29, dicit: et dedit illi nomen “has given Him a name which is above
quod est super omne nomen, ut in all names: that in the name of Jesus
nomine Iesu omne genu flectatur, every knee should bow, of those that
caelestium, terrestrium et are in heaven, on earth, and under the
Infernorum. Nomen autem omnibus earth” (Phil. 2:910). But the name
nominibus altius, quod omnis higher than all names which every
creatura veneratur, non est aliud creature venerates is none other than
quam nomen divinitatis. Ex hac the name of divinity. By this giving,
ergo datione generatio ipsa therefore, the generation itself is
intelligitur, secundum quam pater understood in which the Father gave the
filio veram divinitatem dedit. Idem Son true divinity. The same thing is
etiam ostenditur ex hoc quod omnia shown by His saying that “all things are
sibi dicit esse data a patre. Non delivered to Me by My Father” (Mat.
autem essent sibi data omnia, nisi 11:27). But all things would not be given
omnis plenitudo divinitatis, quae est to Him unless “all the fullness of the
in patre, esset in filio. Godhead” (Col. 2:9) which is in the
Father were in the Son.
Sic igitur ex hoc quod sibi patrem [6] Thus, by asserting that the Father
dedisse asserit, se verum filium has given to Him He therefore
confitetur, contra Sabellium. Ex confesses that He is the true Son—
magnitudine vero eius quod datur, against Sabellius. Yet, from the
patri se confitetur esse aequalem, greatness of that which is given He
ut Arius confundatur. Patet igitur confesses that He is equal to the Father
quod talis donatio indigentiam in —so Arius is confounded. Clearly,
filio non designat. Non enim ante therefore, such giftgiving does not
fuit filius quam sibi daretur: cum indicate indigence in the Son. He was
generatio eius sit ipsa donatio. not the Son before He was given to
Neque plenitudo dati hoc patitur, ut Himself, since His generation is the very
indigere possit ille cui constat esse giftgiving. Nor does the fullness of the
donatum. given allow that He can be in need to
whom this gift was clearly made.
Nec obviat praedictis quod ex [7] Nor is this an obstacle to what has
tempore filio pater dedisse legitur in been said: that one reads in Scripture
Scripturis: sicut dominus post that the Father has given to the Son at a
resurrectionem dicit discipulis, data point in time; our Lord after the
est mihi omnis potestas in caelo et Resurrection, for example, says to the
in terra; et apostolus, ad Philipp. 2, disciples: “All power has been given to

dicit quod propter hoc Deus Me in heaven and in earth” (Mat. 28:18);
Christum exaltavit et dedit illi and the Apostle speaks of the cause for
nomen quod est super omne which God “exalted” Christ and “gave
nomen, quia factus fuerat obediens Him a name which is above all names”
usque ad mortem, quasi hoc nomen (Phil. 2:89), that is, He had become
non habuerit ab aeterno. Est enim “obedient unto death,” as though He has
consuetus Scripturae modus ut not had this name from eternity. For it is
aliqua dicantur esse vel fieri quando usual of Scripture to say that some
innotescunt. Hoc autem quod filius things are or are made when they begin
ab aeterno universalem potestatem to be known. Now, the fact that the Son
et nomen divinum acceperit, post has from eternity received all power and
resurrectionem, praedicantibus the divine name was made known to the
discipulis, mundo est manifestatum. world after the Resurrection by the
Et hoc etiam verba domini preaching of the disciples. And this, too,
ostendunt. Dicit enim dominus, the words of our Lord reveal. For our
Ioan. 175: clarifica me, pater, apud Lord says: “Glorify Me, O Father, with
temetipsum, claritate quam habui Thyself, with the glory which I had,
priusquam mundus fieret. Petit before the world was” (John 17:5). For
enim ut sua gloria, quam ab He asks that His glory which eternally
aeterno a patre recepit ut Deus, in He has received from the Father as God
eo iam homine facto esse be declared to be in Him now made
declaretur. man.
Ex hoc autem manifestum est [8] Now, from this it is manifest how the

quomodo filius doceatur, cum non Son is taught, although He is not
sit ignorans. Ostensum est enim in ignorant. For it was shown in Book II
primo libro quod intelligere et esse that in God to understand and to be are
in Deo idem sunt. Unde identical. Wherefore, communication of
communicatio divinae naturae est the divine nature is also the
etiam intelligentiae communicatio. communication of understanding. Now,
Communicatio autem intelligentiae the communication of understanding
demonstratio, vel locutio, sive can be called “showing” or “speech” or
doctrina potest dici. Per hoc ergo “teaching.” By reason of the fact, then,
quod filius sua nativitate a patre that the Son received the divine nature
naturam divinam acceperit, dicitur in His birth from the Father, it is said that
vel a patre audivisse, vel pater ei He has “heard something from the
demonstrasse, vel si quid aliud Father,” or that the Father “has shown
simile legitur in Scripturis: non quod Him something,” or one reads
prius filius ignorans aut nesciens something else like this in the
fuerit, et postmodum eum pater Scriptures; but not that first the Son was
docuerit. Confitetur enim apostolus, ignorant or did not know and afterward
I ad Cor. 124, Christum Dei the Father taught Him. For the Apostle
virtutem et Dei sapientiam: non est confesses: “Christ the power of God,
autem possibile quod sapientia sit and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:24).
ignorans, neque quod virtus Now, it is not possible that wisdom be
infirmetur. ignorant, nor that power be feeble.
Ideo etiam quod dicitur, non potest [9] The saying also, then, “the Son
filius a se facere quicquam, nullam cannot do anything of Himself,’” does
infirmitatem agendi demonstrat in not point to any Weakness of action in
filio: sed quia, cum Deo non sit the Son. But, because for God to act is
aliud agere quam esse, nec sua not other than to be, and His action is
actio sit aliud quam sua essentia ut not other than His essence, as was
supra probatum est, ita dicitur quod proved above, so one says that the Son
filius non possit a se agere sed agat cannot act from Himself but only from
a patre, sicut quod non potest a se the Father, just as He is not able to be
esse, sed solum a patre: si enim a from Himself but only from the Father.
se esset, iam filius non esset. Sicut For, if He were from Himself, He would
ergo filius non potest non esse no longer be the Son. Therefore, just as
filius, ita a se agere non potest. the Son cannot not be the Son, so
Quia vero eandem naturam accipit neither can He act of Himself. However,
filius quam pater, et ex consequenti because the Son receives the same
eandem virtutem, licet filius a se nature as the Father and, consequently,
non sit nec a se operetur, tamen the same power, although the Son
per se est et per se operatur: quia neither is of Himself nor operates of
sicut est per propriam naturam, Himself, He nevertheless is through
quam accepit a patre, ita per Himself and operates through Himself,
propriam naturam, a patre since just as He is through His own
acceptam, operatur. Unde nature received from the Father, so He
postquam dominus dixerat, non operates through His own nature
potest filius a se facere quicquam, received from the Father. Hence, after
ut ostenderet quod, licet non a se, our Lord had said: “the Son cannot do
tamen per se filius operatur, anything of Himself,” to show that,
subiungit: quaecumque ille fecerit, although the Son does not operate of
scilicet pater, haec et filius similiter Himself, He does operate through
facit. Himself, He adds: “Whatever He
does”—namely, the Father—“these the
Son does likewise.”
Ex praemissis etiam apparet [10] From the foregoing it also is clear
qualiter pater praecipiat filio; aut how “the Father commands the Son” or
filius obediat patri; aut patrem oret; “the Son obeys the Father” or “the Son
aut mittatur a patre. Haec enim prays to the Father” or “is sent by the
omnia filio conveniunt secundum Father.” For, all these things are suitable
quod est patri subiectus, quod non to the Son inasmuch as He is subject to
est nisi secundum humanitatem the Father. And this is only according to
assumptam, ut ostensum est. Pater the humanity He has assumed, as was
ergo filio praecipit ut subiecto sibi shown. The Father, therefore,
secundum humanam naturam. Et commands the Son as subject to Him in
hoc etiam verba domini His human nature. The very words of
manifestant. Nam cum dominus our Lord make this clear. For, when our
dicat: ut cognoscat mundus quia Lord says “that the world may know that
diligo patrem, et sicut mandatum I love the Father: and as the Father has
dedit mihi pater, sic facio, quod sit given Me commandment, so do I,” (John
istud mandatum ostenditur per id 24:31), what the commandment is is
quod subditur, surgite, eamus hinc: shown by what is added: “Arise, let us
hoc enim dixit ad passionem go hence.” He said this approaching His
accedens, mandatum autem passion. But the commandment to suffer
patiendi manifestum est filio non clearly pertains to the Son only in His
competere nisi secundum human nature. In the same way, where
humanam naturam. Similiter, ubi ait, He says: “If you keep My
si praecepta mea servaveritis, commandments, you shall abide in My
manebitis in dilectione mea: sicut et love; as I also have kept My Father’s
ego praecepta patris mei servavi, et commandments, and do abide in His
maneo in eius dilectione, love,” (John 15:10), these precepts
manifestum est haec praecepta ad clearly pertain to the Son as He is loved
filium pertinere prout a patre by the Father as man; just as He loved
diligebatur ut homo, sicut ipse His disciples as men.
discipulos ut homines diligebat.
Et quod praecepta patris ad filium That the Father’s commandments to the

accipienda sint secundum Son must be understood as pertaining
humanam naturam a filio to the human nature assumed by the
assumptam, apostolus ostendit, Son is shown by the Apostle. He calls
dicens filium obedientem patri the Son obedient to the Father in the
fuisse in his quae pertinent ad things which belong to His human
humanam naturam: dicit enim, ad nature, for he says: “He humbled
Philipp. 28: factus est obediens himself, becoming obedient unto death,
patri usque ad mortem. Ostendit even to the death of the cross” (Phil.
etiam apostolus quod orare filio 2:8). The Apostle also shows that
conveniat secundum humanam praying belongs to the Son in His
naturam. Dicit enim, ad Hebr. 57, human nature, for he says: “Who in the
quod in diebus carnis suae preces days of His flesh, with a strong cry and
supplicationesque ad eum qui tears, offering up prayers and
possit eum salvum a morte facere, supplications to Him that was able to
cum clamore valido et lacrimis save Him from death, was heard for His
offerens, exauditus est pro sua reverence” (Heb. 5:7). The way in which
reverentia. Secundum quid etiam He “was sent” by the Father is also
missus a patre dicatur, apostolus shown by the Apostle. “God sent His
ostendit, ad Gal. 44, dicens: misit Son, made of a woman” (Gal. 4:4). He
Deus filium suum factum ex is, therefore, said to be sent in that He
muliere. Eo ergo dicitur missus quo was made of a woman, and certainly
est factus ex muliere: quod quidem this belongs to Him in the flesh He has
secundum carnem assumptam assumed. Clearly, then, in none of these
certum est sibi convenire. Patet can it be shown that the Son is subject
igitur quod per haec omnia non to the Father except in His human
potest ostendi filius patri esse nature. For all that, one should
subiectus nisi secundum humanam recognize that the Son is said to be sent
naturam. Sed tamen sciendum est by the Father invisibly and as divine,
quod filius mitti a patre dicitur etiam without prejudice to His equality to the
invisibiliter inquantum Deus, sine Father, as will he shown below when we
praeiudicio aequalitatis quam habet deal with the sending of the Holy Spirit.
ad patrem: ut infra ostendetur, cum
agetur de missione spiritus sancti.
Similiter etiam patet quod per hoc [11] It is clear, and in the same way, that

quod filius a patre clarificatur; vel from the fact that “the Son is glorified by
suscitatur; vel exaltatur, non potest the Father” or “raised up” or “exalted”
ostendi quod filius sit minor patre, one cannot show that the Son is less
nisi secundum humanam naturam. than the Father except in His human
Non enim filius clarificatione indiget nature. For, the Son needs no glory as
quasi de novo claritatem accipiens, one who receives new glory, since He
cum eam profiteatur se ante professes that He had it “before the
mundum habuisse: sed oportebat world was” (John 17:5). But His glory,
quod sua claritas, quae sub hidden under the weakness of the flesh,
infirmitate carnis erat occultata, per necessarily had to be manifested by the
carnis glorificationem et glorification of the flesh, and the working
miraculorum operationem of miracles, in the faith of peoples
manifestaretur in fide credentium believing. Hence, of His glory being
populorum. Unde de eius hidden, Isaiah (53:3) says: “His look
occultatione dicitur Isaiae 533: was as it were hidden and despised,
vere absconditus est vultus eius. whereupon we esteemed him not.” And
Unde nec reputavimus eum. the way in which Christ was raised up is
Similiter autem secundum hoc like the way He s ere and died, that is,
Christus suscitatus est quod est in the flesh. For it says in 1 Peter (4:1):
passus et mortuus, idest secundum “Christ having suffered in the flesh, be
carnem. Dicitur enim I Petr. 41: you also armed with the same thought.”
Christo passo in carne, et vos To be exalted also became Him in the
eadem cogitatione armamini. way in which He was humiliated, for the
Exaltari etiam eum oportuit Apostle says: “He humbled Himself,
secundum hoc quod fuit humiliatus. becoming obedient unto death.... For
Nam et apostolus dicit, Philipp. 28: which cause God also has exalted Him”
humiliavit semetipsum factus (Phil. 2:89).
obediens usque ad mortem, propter
quod Deus exaltavit illum.
Sic ergo per hoc quod pater [12] Thus, then, the fact that the Father

clarificat filium, suscitat et exaltat, glorifies, raises up, and exalts the Son
filius non ostenditur minor patre, does not show that the Son is less than
nisi secundum humanam naturam. the Father, except in His human nature.
Nam secundum divinam naturam, For, in the divine nature by which He is
qua est patri aequalis, est eadem equal to the Father, the power of the
virtus patris et filii, et eadem Father and the Son is the same and
operatio. Unde et ipse filius propria their operation is the same. Hence, the
virtute se exaltat: secundum illud Son Himself exalts Himself by His own
Psalmi: exaltare, domine, in virtute power, as the Psalmist says: “Be Thou.
tua. Ipse seipsum suscitat: quia de exalted, O Lord, in your own strength”
se dicit, Ioan. 1018: potestatem (Ps. 70:14). He Himself raises Himself
habeo ponendi animam meam, et up, because He says of Himself: “I have
iterum sumere eam. Ipse etiam non power to lay down My life, and I have
solum seipsum clarificat, sed etiam power to take it up again!” (John 10:18).
patrem: dicit enim Ioan. 171: He also glorifies not Himself alone, but
clarifica filium tuum, ut et filius tuus the Father as well, for in John (17:1) He
clarificet te; non quod pater says: “Glorify your Son, that your Son
velamine carnis assumptae sit may glorify You.” This is not because
occultatus, sed suae invisibilitate the Father is hidden by the veil of flesh
naturae. Quo etiam modo filius est He has assumed, but by the invisibility
occultus secundum divinam of His nature. In this way the Son also is
naturam: nam patri et filio commune hidden according to the divine nature,

est quod dicitur Isaiae 4515: vere for common to both Father and Son is
tu es Deus absconditus, sanctus the saying of Isaiah (45:35): “Verily You
Israel, salvator. Filius autem patrem are a bidden God, the God of Israel, the
clarificat, non claritatem ei dando, savior.” The Son, of course, glorifies the
sed eum mundo manifestando: nam Father, not by giving Him glory, but by
et ipse ibidem dicit: manifestavi manifesting Him to the world; for He
nomen tuum hominibus. Himself says in the same place: “I have
manifested your name to men” (John
17:6).
Non est autem credendum quod in [13] One must not, however, believe that

Dei filio sit aliquis potestatis in the Son of God there is any failure of
defectus: cum ipse dicat: data est power, since He Himself says: “All
mihi omnis potestas in caelo et in power is given to Me in heaven and in
terra. Unde quod ipse dicit: sedere earth” (Mat. 28:18). Hence, His own
ad dexteram meam vel sinistram saying, “To sit on My right or left hand is
non est meum dare vobis, sed not Mine to give to you, but to those for
quibus paratum est a patre meo, whom it is prepared by My Father” (cf.
non ostendit quod filius Mat. 20:23), does not show that the Son
distribuendarum caelestium sedium lacks the power of distribution over the
potestatem non habeat: cum per seats of heaven, since by seating of this
huiusmodi sessionem participatio kind one understands participation in
vitae aeternae intelligatur, cuius eternal life, and that its bestowal
collationem ad se pertinere ostendit belongs to Him He shows when He
cum dicit, Ioan. 1027 oves meae says: “My sheep hear My voice: and I
vocem meam audiunt, et ego know them, and they follow Me. And I
cognosco eas, et sequuntur me, et give them life everlasting” (John 10: 27).
ego vitam aeternam do eis. Dicitur One reads also: “The Father has given
etiam Ioan. 522, quod pater omne all judgment to the Son” (John 5:22);
iudicium dedit filio; ad iudicium and it does belong to judgment that
autem pertinet ut pro meritis aliqui some are to be established in heavenly
in caelesti gloria collocentur: unde glory according to their merits. Hence,
et Matth. 2533 dicitur quod filius we read that the Son of Man “shall set
hominis statuet oves a dextris et the sheep on His right hand, but the
haedos a sinistris. Pertinet ergo ad goats on His left” (Mat. 25:33). It does,
potestatem filii statuere aliquem vel then, belong to the Son’s power to set
a dextris vel a sinistris: sive someone on His. right hand or His left.
utrumque referatur ad differentem This is true if each of these acts refers
gloriae participationem; sive unum to differing participation in glory, or if the
referatur ad gloriam, et alterum one refers to glory and the other to
referatur ad poenam. Oportet igitur punishment. Therefore, one must take
ut verbi propositi sensus ex the meaning of the sentence proposed
praemissis sumatur. Praemittitur (Mat. 20: 23) from what went before it
namque quod mater filiorum Now, this is what went before it (Mat.
Zebedaei accesserat ad Iesum 20:2021): The mother of the sons of
petens ut unus filiorum eius sederet Zebedee had approached Jesus to ask
ad dextram et alius ad sinistram: et Him that one of her sons should sit at
ad hoc petendum mota videbatur ex His right hand and the other at His left.
quadam fiducia propinquitatis She seems to have been stimulated to
carnalis quam habebat ad hominem this request by a certain confidence in

Christum. Dominus ergo sua her close blood relationship to the man,
responsione non dixit quod ad eius Christ. Our Lord, then, in His answer did
potestatem non pertineret dare not say that it did not belong to His
quod petebatur, sed quod ad eum power to give what was asked, but that
non pertinebat illis dare pro quibus it did not belong to Him to give it to
rogabatur. Non enim dixit, sedere those for whom it was asked. For He did
ad dextram meam vel sinistram non not say: “To sit on My right hand or My
est meum dare alicui: quin potius left is not Mine to give anyone.” Indeed,
ostendit quod suum erat hoc dare He shows rather that it is His to give to
illis quibus erat paratum a patre “those for whom it is prepared” by His
suo. Non enim hoc dare ad eum Father. For to give this was not proper
pertinebat secundum quod erat to Him as the Son of the Virgin, but as
filius virginis, sed secundum quod the Son of God. Accordingly, this favor
erat filius Dei. Et ideo non erat was not His to give to some just
suum hoc dare aliquibus propter because they belonged to Him in so far
hoc quod ad eum pertinebant as He was the Virgin’s Son, that is, in
secundum quod erat filius virginis, close blood relationship. It was His to
scilicet secundum propinquitatem give to those who belonged to Him as
carnalem: sed propter hoc quod the Son of God; namely, to those for
pertinebant ad eum secundum whom it had been prepared by the
quod erat filius Dei, quibus scilicet Father through eternal predestination.
paratum erat a patre per But, that this very preparation is
praedestinationem aeternam. Sed included in the power of the Son, our
quod etiam haec praeparatio ad Lord Himself indicates, saying: “In My
potestatem filii pertineat, ipse Father’s house there are many
dominus confitetur dicens, Ioan. 14 mansions. If not, I would have told you:
2: in domo patris mei mansiones because I go to prepare a place for you”
multae sunt. Si quo minus, dixissem (John 14:2). The many mansions are
vobis: quia vado parare vobis the different grades of participation in
locum. Mansiones autem multae beatitude, which in predestination God
sunt diversi gradus participandae has eternally prepared. When,
beatitudinis, qui ab aeterno a Deo therefore, our Lord says: “If not,” that is,
in praedestinatione praeparati sunt. if there were a deficiency of mansions
Cum ergo dominus dicit, quod si in prepared for the men who are to enter
aliquo minus esset, idest, si into beatitude, and adds: “I would have
deficerent praeparatae mansiones told you: because I go to prepare a
hominibus ad beatitudinem place for you,” He is showing that
introducendis; et subdit, dixissem, preparation of this sort belongs to His
quia vado parare vobis locum; power.
ostendit huiusmodi praeparationem
ad suam potestatem pertinere.
Neque etiam potest intelligi quod [14] Nor, again, can it be understood
filius horam adventus sui ignoret: that the Son is ignorant of the hour of
cum in eo sint omnes thesauri His coming, since in Him “are hid all the
sapientiae et scientiae absconditi, treasures of wisdom and knowledge”
ut apostolus dicit; et cum id quod (Col. 7:3), as the Apostle says, and
maius est perfecte cognoscat, since He knows perfectly that which is
scilicet patrem. Sed hoc greater; namely, the Father (Mat. 11:27).

intelligendum est quia filius, inter But one must understand here that the
homines homo constitutus, ad Son, set as a man among men,
modum ignorantis se habuit, dum considered Himself as ignoring
discipulis non revelavit. Est enim something so long as He did not reveal
consuetus modus loquendi in it to His disciples. For it is usual in
Scripturis ut Deus dicatur aliquid Scripture to say that God knows
cognoscere si illud cognoscere something if He makes someone know
facit: sicut habetur Gen. 2212: it; so we find in Genesis (22:12): “Now I
nunc cognovi quod timeas know that you fear God,” that is, “now I
dominum idest, nunc cognoscere have made men begin to know it.” Thus,
feci. Et sic, per oppositum, filius conversely, the Son is said not to know
nescire dicitur quod non facit nos that which He does not make us know.
scire.
Tristitia vero et timor, et alia [15] Sorrow, of course, and fear, and
huiusmodi, manifestum est ad other things of this sort manifestly
Christum pertinere secundum quod belong to Christ so far as He is man.
homo. Unde per hoc nulla minoratio Hence, one cannot apprehend in this
potest in divinitate filii deprehendi. fact any lessening of the divinity of the
Son.
Quod autem dicitur sapientia esse [16] Consider, now, the saying that
creata primo quidem, potest wisdom “is created.” First of all, one can
intelligi, non de sapientia quae est understand it not of the Wisdom which
filius Dei, sed de sapientia quam is the Son of God, but of the wisdom
Deus indidit creaturis. Dicitur enim which God bestowed on creatures. For
Eccli. 19 ipse creavit eam, scilicet one reads in Sirach (1:910): “He
sapientiam, spiritu sancto, et effudit created her,” namely, wisdom, “in the
illam super omnia opera sua. Potest Holy Spirit.... and He poured her out
etiam referri ad naturam creatam upon all His works.” One can also refer
assumptam a filio: ut sit sensus, ab this to the created nature assumed by
initio et ante saecula creata sum, the Son. Then the meaning is: “From
idest, praevisa sum creaturae uniri. the beginning, and before the world,
Vel, per hoc quod sapientia et was I created” (Sirach 24:14); that is, “I
creata et genita nuncupatur, modus was foreseen in union with a creature.”
divinae generationis nobis Or it may be that Wisdom is named (cf.
insinuatur. In generatione enim Prov. 8:2425), since both “created” and
quod generatur accipit naturam “begotten” suggest to us the mode of
generantis, quod perfectionis est: divine generation. For in generation the
sed in generationibus quae sunt begotten receives the nature of him who
apud nos, generans ipse mutatur, begets, and this is a mark of perfection.
quod imperfectionis est. In But, in the generations which take place
creatione vero creans non mutatur, among us, he who begets is himself
sed creatum non recipit naturam changed, and this is a mark of
creantis. Dicitur ergo simul filius imperfection. In creation, on the other
creatus et genitus, ut ex creatione hand, the creator is not changed, but
accipiatur immutabilitas patris, et ex the created does not receive the nature
generatione unitas naturae in patre of the creator. Therefore, the Son is
et filio. Et sic huiusmodi Scripturae called “created” and “begotten” at the
intellectum synodus exposuit: ut per very same time, that from creation one

Hilarium patet. may gather the immutability of the
Father, and from generation the unity of
nature in the Father and the Son. It was
thus that the Synod expounded the
meaning of this sort of Scriptural
expression. Hilary makes this clear [De
synodis, 1718].
Quod vero filius dicitur primogenitus [17] However, that the Son is called the
creaturae, non ex hoc est quod “firstborn of every creature” is not
filius sit in ordine creaturarum: sed because the Son is in the order of
quia filius est a patre et a patre creatures, but because the Son both is
accipit, a quo sunt et accipiunt from the Father and receives from the
creaturae. Sed filius accipit a patre Father, from whom creatures both are
eandem naturam: non autem and receive. But the Son receives from
creaturae. Unde et filius non solum the Father the very same nature;
primogenitus dicitur, sed etiam creatures do not. Hence, the Son is not
unigenitus, propter singularem called merely “first begotten,” but “only
modum accipiendi. begotten” as well (John 1:18), by reason
of His unique manner of receiving from
the Father.
Per hoc autem quod dominus ad [18] Now, our Lord says to the Father
patrem dicit de discipulis, ut sint about the disciples: “that they may be
unum sicut et nos unum sumus, one, as We also are one” (John 17:22).
ostenditur quidem quod pater et This only shows that the Father and Son
filius sunt unum eo modo quo are one in the way in which the disciples
discipulos unum esse oportet, should be one, namely, through love.
scilicet per amorem: hic tamen Nevertheless, this mode of union does
unionis modus non excludit not exclude unity of essence; rather, it
essentiae unitatem, sed magis eam points to it, for John (3:35) says. “The
demonstrat. Dicitur enim Ioan. 335: Father loves the Son: and He has given
pater diligit filium, et omnia dedit in all things into His hand.” By this is the
manu eius: per quod plenitudo fullness of divinity shown to be in the
divinitatis ostenditur esse in filio, ut Son, as was said.
dictum est.
Sic igitur patet quod testimonia [19] Thus, then, it is clear that the
Scripturarum quae Ariani pro se testimonies of the Scriptures which the
assumebant, non repugnant veritati Arians were taking for themselves are
quam fides Catholica confitetur. not hostile to the truth which the
Catholic faith maintains.
Caput 9 Chapter 9
Solutio ad auctoritates Photini SOLUTION OF THE AUTHORITIES OF
et Sabellii PHOTINUS AND OF SABELLIUS
Ex his autem consideratis, [1] From these considerations, of course, it

apparet quod nec ea quae appears that the points from Scripture
Photinus et Sabellius pro suis which both Photinus and Sabellius used to
opinionibus ex sacris Scripturis bring up in support of their opinions cannot
adducebant, eorum errores confirm their errors.
confirmare possunt.
Nam quod dominus post [2] For what our Lord says after the
resurrectionem dicit, Matth. ult., resurrection, “All power has been given to
data est mihi omnis potestas in Me in heaven and in earth” (Mat. 28: 18),
caelo et in terra, non ideo dicitur is not said for this reason: that at that time
quia tunc de novo hanc He had newly received this power; but for
potestatem acceperat: sed quia this reason: that the power which the Son
potestas quam filius Dei ab of God had eternally received had—
aeterno acceperat, in eodem because of the victory He had had over
homine facto apparere death by resurrection—begun to appear in
incoeperat per victoriam quam the same Son made man.
de morte habuerat resurgendo.
Quod vero apostolus dicit, ad [3] Now, as to the Apostle’s word
Rom. 1 de filio loquens, qui concerning the Son, “Who was made to
factus est ei ex semine David, Him of the seed of David” (Rom. 1:3), one
manifeste ostenditur qualiter sit sees clearly how it should be understood
intelligendum, ex eo quod from the addition: “according to the flesh.”
additur, secundum carnem. Non For he did not say that the Son of God had
enim dixit quod filius Dei esset been made simply, but that He had been
simpliciter factus: sed quod made of the seed of David, according to
factus esset ex semine David the flesh,” by the assumption of human
secundum carnem, per nature as John (1:14) puts it: “The Word
assumptionem humanae was made flesh.” Hence, also, the following
naturae; sicut Ioan. dicitur, phrase—“Who was predestinated the Son
verbum caro factum est. Unde of God in power”—clearly refers to the Son
etiam patet quod hoc quod in His human nature. For, that a human
sequitur, qui praedestinatus est nature he united to the Son of God, that
filius Dei in virtute, secundum thus a man could be called the Son of God,
humanam naturam ad filium was not a matter of human merit. It was by
pertinet. Quod enim humana the grace of God’s predestination.
natura filio Dei uniretur, ut sic
homo possit dici filius Dei, non
fuit ex humanis meritis, sed ex
gratia Dei praedestinantis.
Similiter etiam quod idem [4] In a, similar fashion, what the Apostle
apostolus, ad Philipp. dicit, quod says in Philippians, “God exalted Christ
Deus Christum propter passionis through the merit of His passion,” must be
meritum exaltavit, ad humanam referred to the human nature; the humility
naturam referendum est, in qua of the passion was in this human nature.
fuerat humilitas passionis. Unde Hence, also, what follows—“He has given
et quod subditur, dedit illi nomen Him a name which is above all names”—

quod est super omne nomen, ad must be referred to this: the name
hoc referendum est quod nomen belonging to the Son in His eternal birth
conveniens filio ex nativitate had to be manifested in the peoples’ faith
aeterna, manifestandum esset in as belonging to the incarnate Son.
fide populorum convenire filio
incarnato.
Per quod et manifestum est, [5] In this way it also is plain that what
quod id quod dicit Petrus, quod Peter says, “God has made both Lord and
Deus Iesum et Christum et Christ, this same Jesus,” (Acts 2:36), must
dominum fecit, ad filium be referred to the Son in His human nature;
referendum est secundum in which He began to have temporally what
humanam naturam, in qua He had in the nature of divinity eternally.
incoepit id habere ex tempore
quod in natura divinitatis habuit
ab aeterno.
Quod etiam Sabellius introducit [6] The point which Sabellius introduces on

de unitate deitatis, audi, Israel the unity of the Deity—“Hear, O Israel: the
dominus Deus tuus, Deus unus Lord our God is one Lord” and “See that I
est; et, videte quod ego sim alone am, and there is no other God
solus, et non sit alius Deus besides Me”—is not hostile to the teaching
praeter me sententiae of the Catholic faith, which holds that the
Catholicae fidei non repugnat, Father and the Son are not two gods, but
quae patrem et filium non duos one God, as we said before.
deos, sed unum Deum esse
confitetur, ut dictum est.
Similiter etiam quod dicitur, pater [7] In the same way, the sayings, “The

in me manens, ipse facit opera, Father who abides in Me, He does the
et ego in patre, et pater in me works,” and “I am in the Father and the
est, non ostendit unitatem Father in Me,” do not show a unity of
personae, ut volebat Sabellius, person, as Sabellius chose to understand,
sed unitatem essentiae, quam but that unity of essence which Arius
Arius negabat. Si enim esset una denied. For, if there were one person of the
persona patris et filii, non Father and the Son, one could not say
congrue diceretur pater esse in suitably that the Father is in the Son and
filio et filius in patre: cum non the Son in the Father, since properly the
dicatur proprie idem suppositum same supposit is not said to be in its very
in seipso esse, sed solum self; this is said only with reference to its
ratione partium; quia enim partes parts. For, seeing that parts are in a whole,
in toto sunt, et quod convenit and that what is proper to parts can be
partibus solet attribui toti, attributed to a whole, sometimes a whole is
quandoque dicitur aliquod totum said to he in itself. But this manner of
esse in seipso. Hic autem modus speech does not suit speech about divinity,
loquendi non competit in divinis, in which there can be no parts, as was
in quibus partes esse non shown in Book I. It remains true, then, that,
possunt, ut in primo ostensum when the Father is said to be in the Son
est. Relinquitur igitur, cum pater and the Son in the Father, the Father and
in filio et filius in patre esse Son are not identical in supposit. One can
dicatur quod pater et filius non see from this that the essence of the
sint idem supposito. Sed ex hoc Father and the Son is one. For, once this is
ostenditur quod patris et filii sit given, it is very clear in what way the
essentia una. Hoc enim posito, Father is in the Son and the Son in the
manifeste apparet qualiter pater Father. For, since the Father is His
est in filio et filius in patre. Nam essence, because in God essence is not
cum pater sit sua essentia, quia other than what has essence, as we
in Deo non est aliud essentia et showed in Book I, it follows that in anything
essentiam habens, ut in primo in which the essence of the Father is the
ostensum est, relinquitur quod in Father is; and by the same reasoning in
quocumque sit essentia patris, anything in which the essence of the Son is
sit pater: et eadem ratione, in the Son is. Hence, since the essence of the
quocumque est essentia filii, est Father is in the Son and the essence of the
filius. Unde, cum essentia patris Son in the Father, because the essence of
sit in filio, et essentia filii in patre, each of the two is one essence (as the
eo quod una est essentia Catholic faith teaches), it clearly follows
utriusque, ut fides Catholica that the Father is in the Son and the Son in
docet; sequitur manifeste quod the Father. Thus, the selfsame saying
pater sit in filio et filius sit in (John 14:11) confutes the error of Sabellius
patre. Et sic eodem verbo et as well as that of Arius.
Sabellii et Arii error confutatur.
Caput 10 Chapter 10
Rationes contra generationem et ARGUMENTS AGAINST DIVINE
processionem divinam GENERATION AND PROCESSION
Omnibus igitur diligenter [1] When all things are carefully

consideratis, manifeste apparet hoc considered, it is clear and manifest that
nobis de generatione divina in sacred Scripture proposes this for belief
sacris Scripturis proponi about the divine generation: that the
credendum, quod pater et filius, etsi Father and Son, although distinguished
personis distinguantur, sunt tamen as persons, are nevertheless one God
unus Deus, et unam habent and have one essence or nature. But
essentiam seu naturam. Quia vero one finds this far removed from the
a creaturarum natura hoc invenitur nature of creatures: that any two be
valde remotum, ut aliqua duo distinguished in supposit, yet one in their
supposito distinguantur et tamen essence; so, human reason, proceeding
eorum sit una essentia; humana from the properties of things,
ratio ex creaturarum proprietatibus experiences difficulties in a great variety
procedens, multipliciter in hoc of ways in this secret of divine
secreto divinae generationis patitur generation.
difficultatem.
Nam cum generatio nobis nota [2.] Since the generation known to us is

mutatio quaedam sit, cui opponitur a certain mutation to which corruption is
corruptio, difficile videtur in Deo opposed, it seems hard to put
generationem ponere, qui est generation in God, who is immutable,
immutabilis, incorruptibilis, et incorruptible, and eternal, as is clear
aeternus, ut ex superioribus patet. from the foregoing.
Amplius. Si generatio mutatio est, [3] If generation, moreover, is a change,

oportet omne quod generatur, whatever is generated must be
mutabile esse. Quod autem changeable. But what is changed goes
mutatur, exit de potentia in actum: from potency to act, for “change is the
nam motus est actus existentis in act of the potential as such.” If,
potentia secundum quod therefore, the Son of God is begotten,
huiusmodi. Si igitur filius Dei est He is not eternal, it seems, as one going
genitus, videtur quod neque from potency to act; nor is He true God,
aeternus sit, tanquam de potentia since He is not pure act, but something
in actum exiens; neque verus which has potentiality.
Deus, ex quo non est actus purus,
sed aliquid potentialitatis habens.
Adhuc. Genitum naturam accipit a [4] The begotten, furthermore, receives

generante. Si ergo filius genitus est its nature from the generator. If, then,
a Deo patre, oportet quod naturam the Son is begotten by the Father, it
quam habet, a patre acceperit. Non follows that He has received the nature
est autem possibile quod acceperit which He has from the Father. But it is
a patre aliam naturam numero not possible that He has received from
quam pater habet et similem the Father a nature numerically other
specie, sicut fit in generationibus than the Father has, but the same in
univocis, ut cum homo generat species, as happens in univocal
hominem, et ignis ignem: supra generations, when man generates man,
enim ostensum est quod or fire, fire. For we showed above the
impossibile est esse plures numero impossibility of a numerical plurality of
deitates. Videtur etiam esse deities. It seems equally impossible that
impossibile quod receperit eandem He has received nature numerically the
naturam numero quam pater habet. same as the Father has. For, if He
Quia si recipit partem eius, sequitur receives a part of it, it follows that the
divinam naturam esse divisibilem; divine nature is divisible; but, if the
si autem totam, videtur sequi quod whole is transfused into the Son, it
natura divina, si sit tota transfusa in ceases to be in the Father; and so, in
filium, desinat esse in patre; et sic generation, the Father is corrupted. Nor,
pater generando corrumpitur. again, can it be said that by a kind of
Neque iterum potest dici quod exuberance the divine nature flows from
natura divina per quandam the Father to the Son, as the water of a
exuberantiam effluat a patre in spring flows into a stream and the spring
filium, sicut aqua fontis effluit in is not emptied, for the divine nature
rivum et fons non evacuatur: quia cannot be divided, just as it cannot be
natura divina, sicut non potest increased. It seems, therefore, to remain
dividi, ita nec augeri. Videtur ergo that the Son has received from the
reliquum esse quod filius naturam a Father a nature which is neither in
patre acceperit, non eandem number nor in species the same as the
numero nec specie quam pater Father’s, but of another genus
habet, sed omnino alterius generis: altogether. This is what happens in
sicut accidit in generatione equivocal generation when animals born

aequivoca, ut, cum animalia ex of putrefaction are generated by the
putrefactione nata virtute solis power of the sun, but do not belong to
generantur, ad huius speciem non its species. It follows, then, that the Son
attingunt. Sequitur ergo quod Dei of God is neither a true Son, since the
filius neque verus filius sit, cum non Father’s species is not His; nor true
habeat speciem patris: neque verus God, since He does not receive the
Deus, cum non recipiat divinam divine nature.
naturam.
Item. Si filius recipit naturam a Deo [5] If the Son, again, receives a nature

patre, oportet quod in eo aliud sit from God the Father, the recipient in Him
recipiens, et aliud natura recepta: must be other than the nature received,
nihil enim recipit seipsum. Filius for nothing receives itself. The Son,
igitur non est sua essentia vel then, is not His own essence or nature.
natura. Non est igitur verus Deus. Therefore, He is not true God.
Praeterea. Si filius non est aliud [6] Moreover, let the Son be not other
quam essentia divina; cum essentia than the divine essence; let the divine
divina sit subsistens, ut in primo essence be something subsistent, as
probatum est; constat autem quod was proved in Book I; clearly, the Father,
etiam pater est ipsa essentia also, is the divine essence. The
divina: videtur relinqui quod pater et conclusion appears to be that the Father
filius conveniant in eadem re and Son coincide in the very same
subsistente. Res autem subsistens subsisting thing. Now, “the subsistent
in intellectualibus naturis vocatur thing in intellectual natures is called a
persona. Sequitur igitur, si filius est person.” It follows, then, that if the Son
ipsa divina essentia, quod pater et is Himself the divine essence the Father
filius conveniant in persona. Si and the Son coincide in person. But if
autem filius non est ipsa divina the Son is not the very divine essence
essentia, non est verus Deus: hoc He is not true God. For we proved this
enim de Deo probatum est in primo about God in Book I. It seems, therefore,
libro. Videtur igitur quod vel filius either that the Son was not true God, as
non sit verus Deus, ut dicebat Arius used to say, or that personally He
Arius: vel non sit alius personaliter is not other than the Father, as Sabellius
a patre, ut Sabellius asserebat. asserted.
Adhuc. Illud quod est principium [7] Furthermore, that in a thing which is
individuationis in unoquoque, the principle of its individuation cannot
impossibile est inesse alteri quod possibly be in a second thing
supposito distinguatur ab eo: quod distinguished as a supposit from the
enim in multis est, non est first. For what is in many is not a
individuationis principium. Ista principle of individuation. But the
autem essentia Dei est per quam essence of God is that by which God is
Deus individuatur: non enim individuated, for the essence of God is
essentia Dei est forma in materia, not a form in matter so that God could
ut per materiam individuari posset. be individuated by matter. There is,
Non est igitur aliud in Deo patre per therefore, nothing in God the Father by
quod individuetur, quam sua which He might be individuated except
essentia. Eius igitur essentia in His essence. Therefore, His essence

nullo alio supposito esse potest. cannot be in any other supposit. His
Aut igitur non est in filio: et sic filius essence, therefore, is not in the Son,
non est verus Deus, secundum and so the Son is not true God, following
Arium. Aut filius non est alius Arius; or the Son is not other in supposit
supposito a patre: et sic est eadem than the Father, and so the Person of
persona utriusque, secundum each is the same, following Sabellius.
Sabellium.
Amplius. Si pater et filius sunt duo [8] Again, if the Father and Son are two

supposita, sive duae personae, et supposits or two Persons, yet are one in
tamen sunt in essentia unum, essence, there must be in them
oportet in eis esse aliquid praeter something other than the essence by
essentiam per quod distinguantur: which they are distinguished, for a
nam essentia communis utrique common essence is ascribed to each
ponitur; quod autem commune est, and what is common cannot be a
non potest esse distinctionis distinguishing principle. Therefore, that
principium. Oportet igitur id quo which distinguishes the Father from the
distinguuntur pater et filius, esse Son must be other than the divine
aliud ab essentia divina. Est ergo essence. The Person of the Son, then,
persona filii composita ex duobus, is a composite of two, and so is the
et similiter persona patris: scilicet Person of the Father a composite of two:
ex essentia communi, et ex the common essence and the
principio distinguente. Uterque distinguishing principle. Therefore, each
igitur est compositus. Neuter ergo of the two is a composite and neither of
est verus Deus. the two is true God.
Si quis autem dicat quod [9] But one may say that they are
distinguuntur sola relatione, prout distinguished by a relation only,
unus est pater et alius filius; quae inasmuch as one is the Father, the other
autem relative praedicantur, non the Son. What is predicated relatively,
aliquid videntur praedicare in eo de however, seems not to predicate a
quo dicuntur, sed magis ad aliquid; something in that of which it is said, but
et sic per hoc compositio non rather a to something. Thus, by such
inducitur: videtur quod haec predication no composition is brought in.
responsio non sit sufficiens ad But this answer appears not adequate
praedicta inconvenientia vitanda. for avoiding the awkward results just
mentioned.
Nam relatio non potest esse [10] For there can be no relation without

absque aliquo absoluto: in quolibet something absolute. In whatever is
enim relativo oportet intelligi quod relative there must be understood that
ad se dicitur, praeter id quod ad which is said of itself (ad se) and,
aliud dicitur; sicut servus aliquid est additionally, that which is said referring
absolute, praeter id quod ad to another (ad aliud). Thus is something
dominum dicitur. Relatio igitur illa said absolutely of “servant” and,
per quam pater et filius additionally, something is said referring
distinguuntur, oportet quod habeat “to the master.” Therefore, that relation
aliquod absolutum in quo fundetur. by which the Father and the Son are
Aut igitur illud absolutum est unum distinguished must have something
tantum: aut sunt duo absoluta. Si absolute on which it is founded. Now,
est unum tantum, in eo non potest then, either that absolute is one only, or
fundari duplex relatio: nisi forte sit there are two absolutes. If it is one only,
relatio identitatis, quae a twofold relation cannot be founded
distinctionem operari non potest, upon it, unless, of course, it be a relation
sicut dicitur idem eidem idem. Si of identity which can produce no
ergo sit talis relatio quae distinction—as when one says that the
distinctionem requirat, oportet quod same is the same as the same.
praeintelligatur absolutorum Therefore, if the relation be such that it
distinctio. Non ergo videtur calls for a distinction, there must be a
possibile quod personae patris et prior understanding of a distinction of
filii solis relationibus distinguantur. absolutes. Accordingly, it does not seem
possible that the Persons of the Father
and the Son are distinguished by
relations only.
Praeterea. Oportet dicere quod [11] One ought, along the same line, to
relatio illa quae filium distinguit a say that the relation which distinguishes
patre, aut sit res aliqua: aut sit in the Son from the Father either is a thing
solo intellectu. Si autem sit res or is in the intellect alone. Let it, then, be
aliqua; non autem videtur esse illa a thing, and it seems not to be that thing
res quae est divina essentia, quia which is the divine essence, since the
divina essentia communis est patri divine essence is common to the Father
et filio; erit ergo in filio aliqua res and the Son. Therefore, in the Son there
quae non est eius essentia. Et sic will be something which is not His
non est verus Deus: ostensum est essence. Thus, He is not true God, for
enim in primo quod nihil est in Deo we showed in Book I that there is
quod non sit sua essentia. Si autem nothing in God which is not His essence.
illa relatio sit in intellectu tantum, But let that relation be in the intellect
non ergo potest personaliter only, and it cannot, then, distinguish the
distinguere filium a patre: quae Son from the Father personally, for
enim personaliter distinguuntur, things which are personally
realiter oportet distingui. distinguished must be really
distinguished.
Item. Omne relativum dependet a [12] Again, every relative depends on its

suo correlativo. Quod autem correlative. But what depends on
dependet ab altero, non est verus another is not true God. If, then, the
Deus. Si igitur personae patris et persons of the Father and the Son are
filii relationibus distinguantur, distinguished by relations, neither of
neuter erit verus Deus. them is true God.
Adhuc. Si pater est Deus et filius [13] If the Father, moreover, is God and

est Deus, oportet quod hoc nomen the Son is God, this name “God” ought
Deus de patre et filio substantialiter to be predicated substantially of the
praedicetur: cum divinitas accidens Father and the Son, since divinity
esse non possit. Praedicatum cannot be an accident.” But a
autem substantiale est vere ipsum substantial predicate is truly that of
de quo praedicatur: nam cum which it is predicated. For, when one
dicitur, homo est animal, quod vere says “Man is animal,” what is truly man
homo est, animal est; et similiter, is animal; in the same way, when one
cum dicitur, Socrates est homo, says “Socrates is man,” what is truly
quod vere Socrates est, homo est. Socrates is man. And from this there
Ex quo videtur sequi quod seems to follow the impossibility of
impossibile sit ex parte subiectorum discovering a plurality on the part of the
inveniri pluralitatem, cum unitas sit subjects when there is unity on the part
ex parte substantialis praedicati: of the substantial predicate: Socrates
non enim Socrates et Plato sunt and Plato are not one man, although
unus homo, licet sint unum in they are one in humanity. Nor are man
humanitate; neque homo et asinus and ass one animal, although they are
sunt unum animal, licet sint unum one in animal. Therefore, if the Father
in animali. Si ergo pater et filius and the Son are two Persons, it seems
sunt duae personae, impossibile impossible that they are one God.
videtur quod sint unus Deus.
Amplius. Opposita praedicata [14] Opposed predicates, furthermore,

pluralitatem ostendunt in eo de quo show a plurality in that of which they are
praedicantur. De Deo autem patre predicated. But opposites are predicated
et de Deo filio opposita of God the Father and of God the Son.
praedicantur: nam pater est Deus The Father is God unbegotten and
ingenitus et generans, filius autem generating, but the Son is God begotten.
est Deus genitus. Non igitur videtur Therefore, it does not seem possible
esse possibile quod pater et filius that the Father and Son are one God.
sint unus Deus.
Haec igitur et similia sunt ex quibus [15] These, then, and others like these

aliqui, divinorum mysteria propria are the arguments by which some
ratione metiri volentes, divinam whose will it is to measure divine
generationem impugnare nituntur. mysteries by their own reason strive to
Sed quia veritas in seipsa fortis est attack divine generation. But, because
et nulla impugnatione convellitur, truth is strong in itself and is overcome
oportet intendere ad ostendendum by no attack, it must be our intention to
quod veritas fidei ratione superari show that the truth of faith cannot he
non possit. overcome by reason.
Caput 11 Chapter 11
Quomodo accipienda sit HOW GENERATION IS TO BE
generatio in divinis, et quae de UNDERSTOOD IN DIVINITY, AND
filio Dei dicuntur in Scripturis WHAT IS SAID OF THE SON OF GOD
IN SCRIPTURE
Principium autem huius intentionis [1] As starting point for this intention, one

hinc sumere oportet, quod must take this: Following a diversity of
secundum diversitatem naturarum natures, one finds a diverse manner of
diversus emanationis modus emanation in things, and, the higher a

invenitur in rebus: et quanto aliqua nature is, the more intimate to the nature
natura est altior, tanto id quod ex is that which flows from it.
ea emanat, magis ei est intimum.
In rebus enim omnibus inanimata [2] For, in all things, inanimate bodies
corpora infimum locum tenent: in have the lowest place. There can be no
quibus emanationes aliter esse emanations in these except by the action
non possunt nisi per actionem of some one upon another one. For this
unius eorum in aliquod alterum. is the way in which fire is generated by
Sic enim ex igne generatur ignis, fire, when an extraneous body is
dum ab igne corpus extraneum changed by the fire and is brought to the
alteratur, et ad qualitatem et quality and species of fire.
speciem ignis perducitur.
Inter animata vero corpora [3] Among animate bodies the next place

proximum locum tenent plantae, in is held by the plants, and in these the
quibus iam emanatio ex interiori emanation does proceed somewhat from
procedit inquantum scilicet humor what is within: to the extent, namely, that
plantae intraneus in semen the internal humor of the plant is
convertitur, et illud semen, terrae converted into seed and that the seed
mandatum, crescit in plantam. Iam committed to the soil grows into a plant.
ergo hic primus gradus vitae Here, then, one has already found the
invenitur: nam viventia sunt quae first grade of life, for living things are
seipsa movent ad agendum; illa those which move themselves to action,
vero quae non nisi exteriora but those which can move only things
movere possunt, omnino sunt vita external to them are entirely devoid of
carentia. In plantis vero hoc life. And in plants this is the mark of life:
indicium vitae est, quod id quod in that which is within, them moves toward
ipsis est, movet ad aliquam some form. The life of plants is
formam. Est tamen vita plantarum nevertheless imperfect; this is because,
imperfecta: quia emanatio in eis although the emanation in plants
licet ab interiori procedat, tamen proceeds from what is within, what
paulatim ab interioribus exiens comes forth little by little in the emanation
quod emanat, finaliter omnino is, at the end, found to be entirely
extrinsecum invenitur. Humor enim external. For the humor first emerging
arboris primo ab arbore egrediens from the tree becomes a blossom, and at
fit flos; et tandem fructus ab length a fruit distinct from the tree’s bark,
arboris cortice discretus, sed ei yet still fastened to it. But, when the fruit
colligatus; perfecto autem fructu, is perfected, it is separated from the tree
omnino ab arbore separatur, et in altogether; it falls to the ground and its
terram cadens, sementina virtute seeding power produces another plant. If
producit aliam plantam. Si quis one also considers this carefully, he will
etiam diligenter consideret, primum see that originally this emanation comes
huius emanationis principium ab from what is external, for the internal
exteriori sumitur: nam humor humor of the tree is taken through the
intrinsecus arboris per radices a roots from the soil from which the plant
terra sumitur, de qua planta receives nourishment.
suscipit nutrimentum.
Ultra plantarum vero vitam, altior [4] Beyond the life of plants one finds a
gradus vitae invenitur, qui est higher grade of life: that of the sensitive
secundum animam sensitivam: soul. Its emanation may have an external
cuius emanatio propria, etsi ab beginning, but has an internal
exteriori incipiat, in interiori termination, and, the more fully the
terminatur; et quanto emanatio emanation proceeds, the more it reaches
magis processerit, tanto magis ad what is within. For the exterior sensible
intima devenitur. Sensibile enim impresses its form on the exterior
exterius formam suam exterioribus senses; from these it proceeds to the
sensibus ingerit; a quibus procedit imagination and, further, to the
in imaginationem; et ulterius in storehouse of the memory. Nevertheless,
memoriae thesaurum. In quolibet in each step of this emanation the
tamen huius emanationis principle and the term refer to different
processu, principium et terminus things; no sensitive power reflects upon
pertinent ad diversa: non enim itself. This grade of life, then, is higher
aliqua potentia sensitiva in than the life of plants—higher to the
seipsam reflectitur. Est ergo hic extent that its operation takes place
gradus vitae tanto altior quam vita within the principles which are within; it
plantarum, quanto operatio huius is, nevertheless, not an entirely perfect
vitae magis in intimis continetur: life, since the emanation is always from
non tamen est omnino vita some first to some second.
perfecta, cum emanatio semper
fiat ex uno in alterum.
Est igitur supremus et perfectus [5] That, then, is the supreme and perfect

gradus vitae qui est secundum grade of life which is in the intellect, for
intellectum: nam intellectus in the intellect reflects upon itself and the
seipsum reflectitur, et seipsum intellect can understand itself. But even
intelligere potest. Sed et in in the intellectual life one finds diverse
intellectuali vita diversi gradus grades. For the human intellect, although
inveniuntur. Nam intellectus it can know itself, does indeed take the
humanus, etsi seipsum first beginning of its knowledge from
cognoscere possit, tamen primum without, because it cannot understand
suae cognitionis initium ab without a phantasm, as is clear from the
extrinseco sumit: quia non est things said before. There is, therefore, a
intelligere sine phantasmate, ut ex more perfect intellectual life in the
superioribus patet. Perfectior igitur angels. In them the intellect does not
est intellectualis vita in Angelis, in proceed to selfknowledge from anything
quibus intellectus ad sui exterior, but knows itself through itself.
cognitionem non procedit ex aliquo Nonetheless, it is not the ultimate
exteriori, sed per se cognoscit perfection to which their life belongs. The
seipsum. Nondum tamen ad reason is this: Although the intention
ultimam perfectionem vita ipsorum understood is entirely intrinsic to them,
pertingit: quia, licet intentio the very intention understood is not their
intellecta sit eis omnino intrinseca, substance, for in them understanding is
non tamen ipsa intentio intellecta not identified with being (as is clear from
est eorum substantia; quia non est the foregoing). Therefore, the ultimate
idem in eis intelligere et esse, ut ex perfection of life belongs to God, in
superioribus patet. Ultima igitur whom understanding is not other than
perfectio vitae competit Deo, in being, as has been shown; accordingly,
quo non est aliud intelligere et the intention understood in God must be
aliud esse, ut supra ostensum est, the divine essence itself.
et ita oportet quod intentio
intellecta in Deo sit ipsa divina
essentia.
Dico autem intentionem intellectam [6] Now, I mean by the “intention

id quod intellectus in seipso understood” what the intellect conceives
concipit de re intellecta. Quae in itself of the thing understood. To be
quidem in nobis neque est ipsa res sure, in us this is neither the thing which
quae intelligitur; neque est ipsa is understood nor is it the very substance
substantia intellectus; sed est of the intellect. But it is a certain likeness
quaedam similitudo concepta in of the thing understood conceived in the
intellectu de re intellecta, quam intellect, and which the exterior words
voces exteriores significant; unde signify. So, the intention itself is named
et ipsa intentio verbum interius the “interior word” which is signified by
nominatur, quod est exteriori verbo the exterior word. Indeed, that the
significatum. Et quidem quod intention aforesaid is not within us the
praedicta intentio non sit in nobis thing understood is clear from this: It is
res intellecta, inde apparet quod one thing to understand a thing, and
aliud est intelligere rem, et aliud another to understand the intention itself,
est intelligere ipsam intentionem yet the intellect does so when it reflects
intellectam, quod intellectus facit on its own work; accordingly, some
dum super suum opus reflectitur: sciences are about things, and others are
unde et aliae scientiae sunt de about intentions understood. Now, that
rebus, et aliae de intentionibus the intention understood is not the very
intellectis. Quod autem intentio intellect within us is clear from this: The
intellecta non sit ipse intellectus in act of being of the intention understood
nobis, ex hoc patet quod esse consists in its very being understood; the
intentionis intellectae in ipso being of our intellect does not so consist;
intelligi consistit: non autem esse its being is not its act of understanding.
intellectus nostri, cuius esse non
est suum intelligere.
Cum ergo in Deo sit idem esse et [7] Since in God, therefore, being and
intelligere, intentio intellecta in ipso understanding are identical, the intention
est ipse eius intellectus. Et quia understood in Him is His very intellect.
intellectus in eo est res intellecta, And because understanding in Him is the
intelligendo enim se intelligit omnia thing understood (for by understanding
alia, ut in primo ostensum est; Himself He understands all other things,
relinquitur quod in Deo intelligente as was shown in Book I), it follows that in
seipsum sit idem intellectus, et res God, because He understands Himself,
quae intelligitur, et intentio the intellect, the thing understood, and
intellecta. the intention understood are all identical.
His igitur consideratis, utcumque [8] From these considerations, then, we

concipere possumus qualiter sit can somehow conceive how divine
divina generatio accipienda. Patet generation is to be taken. For, it is clearly
enim quod non est possibile sic impossible that divine generation is to be

accipi generationem divinam sicut taken as one finds generation in
in rebus inanimatis generatio inanimate things wherein the generating
invenitur, in quibus generans thing impresses its species on an exterior
imprimit suam speciem in matter. For, as the faith sets down, the
exteriorem materiam. Oportet Son begotten by the Father must have
enim, secundum positionem fidei, true deity and be true God. But deity is
quod filius a Deo genitus veram not a form inhering in matter, nor is God
habeat deitatem, et sit verus Deus. a form existing out of matter, as was
Ipsa autem deitas non est forma proved in Book I. In the same way, divine
materiae inhaerens; neque Deus generation cannot be taken in the mode
est ex materia existens; ut in primo of the generation one finds in plants, and
probatum est. Similiter autem non even in animals which have nutritive and
potest accipi divina generatio ad generative powers in common with
modum generationis quae in plants. For something which was in the
plantis invenitur, et etiam in plant or the animal is separated from it
animalibus, quae communicant for the generation of one like it in
cum plantis in nutritiva et species, and this, at the term of
generativa virtute. Separatur enim generation, is entirely outside the
aliquid quod erat in planta vel generator. But, since God is indivisible,
animali, ad generationem similis in nothing can be separated from Him. The
specie, quod in fine generationis very Son begotten by the Father is not
est omnino extra generantem. A outside the Father, but in Him (which is
Deo autem, cum indivisibilis sit, clear from the authorities cited above).
non potest aliquid separari. Ipse Neither can one understand divine
etiam filius a Deo genitus non est generation in the manner of emanation
extra patrem generantem, sed in found in the sensitive soul. For, God
eo: sicut ex superioribus does not receive from something exterior
auctoritatibus patet. Neque etiam so as to able to influence some second
potest generatio divina intelligi thing, He would not then be the primary
secundum modum emanationis agent. Nor are the operations of the
quae invenitur in anima sensitiva. sensitive soul completed without bodily
Non enim Deus ab aliquo exteriori instruments. But, God is manifestly
accipit ut in alterum influere possit: incorporeal. We are, therefore, left to
non enim esset primum agens. understand the divine generation
Operationes etiam animae according to an intellectual emanation.
sensitivae non complentur sine
corporalibus instrumentis: Deum
autem manifestum est
incorporeum esse. Relinquitur
igitur quod generatio divina
secundum intellectualem
emanationem sit intelligenda.
Hoc autem sic manifestari oportet. [9] This should be made clear in the

Manifestum est enim ex his quae following way. It is manifest, on the basis
in primo declarata sunt, quod Deus of Book I, that God understands Himself.
seipsum intelligit. Omne autem Now, whatever is understood should, as
intellectum, inquantum intellectum, understood, be in him who understands,
oportet esse in intelligente: for the significance of the very act of
significat enim ipsum intelligere understanding is this: the grasping of that
apprehensionem eius quod which is understood by an intellect;
intelligitur per intellectum; unde hence, even our intellect understanding
etiam intellectus noster, seipsum itself is within itself, not only as identified
intelligens, est in seipso, non with itself by its essence, but also as
solum ut idem sibi per essentiam, grasped by itself in the act of
sed etiam ut a se apprehensum understanding. God, therefore, must be
intelligendo. Oportet igitur quod in Himself as the thing understood in him
Deus in seipso sit ut intellectum in who understands. But, the thing
intelligente. Intellectum autem in understood is in him who understands
intelligente est intentio intellecta et the intention understood and the word.
verbum. Est igitur in Deo There is, therefore, in God understanding
intelligente seipsum verbum Dei Himself the Word of God, as it were, God
quasi Deus intellectus: sicut understood; so the intellect’s word of the
verbum lapidis in intellectu est stone is the stone understood. And to
lapis intellectus. Hinc est quod this point is the saying in John (1:1) :
Ioan. 11 dicitur: verbum erat apud “The Word was with God.”
Deum.
Quia vero intellectus divinus non [10] The divine intellect, of course, since

exit de potentia in actum, sed it does not pass from potency to act, but
semper est actu existens, ut in is always actually existent (which was
primo probatum est; ex necessitate proved in Book I), must necessarily have
oportet quod semper seipsum always understood itself. And from its
intellexerit. Ex hoc autem quod se understanding of itself it follows that the
intelligit, oportet quod verbum Word of that intellect is in it; this has
ipsius in ipso sit, ut ostensum est. been shown. Therefore, His Word
Necesse est igitur semper verbum necessarily always existed in God. His
eius in Deo extitisse. Est igitur Word, then, is coeternal with God, and is
coaeternum Deo verbum ipsius, not acquired by Him in time, as our
nec accedit ei ex tempore, sicut intellect acquires in time its interiorly
intellectui nostro accedit ex conceived word which is the intention
tempore verbum interius understood. Hence is the saying in John
conceptum, quod est intentio (1:1): “In the beginning was the Word.”
intellecta. Hinc est quod Ioan. 11
dicitur: in principio erat verbum.
Cum autem intellectus divinus non [11] Now, since the divine intellect is not

solum sit semper in actu, sed only always in act, but is itself pure act,
etiam sit ipse actus purus, ut in as we proved in Book I, the substance of
primo probatum est; oportet quod the divine intellect must be its very act of
substantia intellectus divini sit understanding, and this is the act of the
ipsum suum intelligere, quod est intellect. But the being of the Word
actus intellectus; esse autem verbi interiorly conceived, or intention
interius concepti, sive intentionis understood, is the very act of being
intellectae, est ipsum suum understood. Therefore, the being of the
intelligi. Idem ergo esse est verbi divine Word is identical with that of the
divini, et intellectus divini; et per divine intellect and, consequently, with
consequens ipsius Dei, qui est that of God, who is His own intellect. The
suus intellectus. Esse autem Dei being of God, of course, is His essence
est eius essentia vel natura, quae or nature, which is the same as God
idem est quod ipse Deus, ut in Himself, as was shown in Book I. The
primo ostensum est. Verbum igitur Word of God, therefore, is the divine
Dei est ipsum esse divinum et being and His essence, and is true God
essentia eius, et ipse verus Deus. Himself. Of course, such is not the case
Non autem sic est de verbo with the word of the human intellect. For,
intellectus humani. Cum enim when our intellect understands itself, the
intellectus noster seipsum intelligit, being of the intellect is one being, and
aliud est esse intellectus, et aliud that of its act of understanding another,
ipsum eius intelligere: substantia for the substance of the intellect was in
enim intellectus erat in potentia potency to understanding before it
intelligens antequam intelligeret actually understood. Consequently, the
actu. Sequitur ergo quod aliud sit being of the intention understood is one
esse intentionis intellectae, et aliud being and that of the intellect itself is
intellectus ipsius: cum intentionis another being, since the being of the
intellectae esse sit ipsum intelligi. intention understood is the very being
Unde oportet quod in homine understood. Necessarily, then, in a man
intelligente seipsum, verbum understanding himself, the word interiorly
interius conceptum non sit homo conceived is not a true man having the
verus, naturale hominis esse natural being of man, but is only man
habens; sed sit homo intellectus understood, a kind of likeness, as it were,
tantum, quasi quaedam similitudo of the true man which the intellect
hominis veri ab intellectu grasps. But the Word of God, precisely
apprehensa. Ipsum vero verbum because He is God understood, is true
Dei, ex hoc ipso quod est Deus God, having the divine being naturally,
intellectus, est verus Deus, habens because the natural being of God is not
naturaliter esse divinum: eo quod one being and that of His understanding
non est aliud naturale esse Dei et another, as was said. This is why it says
aliud eius intelligere, ut dictum est. in John (1:1): “God was the Word.” The
Hinc est quod Ioan. 11 dicitur: fact that this is said absolutely shows that
Deus erat verbum. Quod quia the Word of God must be understood to
absolute dicitur, demonstrat be true God. For the word of man could
verbum Dei verum Deum debere not be called “man” simply and
intelligi. Verbum enim hominis non absolutely, but relatively: namely, “man
posset dici simpliciter et absolute understood”; hence, this would be false: “
homo, sed secundum quid, scilicet man is a word”; but this can be true:
homo intellectus: unde haec falsa “man understood is a word.” When,
esset, homo est verbum; sed haec therefore, this is said: “God was the
vera potest esse, homo intellectus Word,” this is shown: The divine Word is
est verbum. Cum ergo dicitur, not merely an intention understood, as
Deus erat verbum, ostenditur our word is, but it is also a thing existing
verbum divinum non solum esse and subsisting in nature. For God is a
intentionem intellectam, sicut true subsistent thing, since His is
verbum nostrum; sed etiam rem in substantial being in the highest degree.
natura existentem et subsistentem.
Deus enim verus res subsistens
est: cum maxime sit per se ens.
Non sic autem natura Dei est in [12] But the nature of God is not in the
verbo ut sit una specie et numero Word of God thus: it is one in species
differens. Sic enim verbum habet and differs in number. The way in which
naturam Dei sicut intelligere Dei the Word has the nature of God is the
est ipsum esse eius, ut dictum est. way in which God’s act of understanding
Intelligere autem est ipsum esse is His very being, as was said. Now, the
divinum. Verbum igitur habet act of understanding is the divine being
ipsam essentiam divinam non itself. The Word, therefore, has the divine
solum specie, sed numero essence itself; has it with an identity not
eandem. only of species but of number.
Item, natura quae est una A nature, again, which is one in species,

secundum speciem, non dividitur is not divided into a numerical many
in plura secundum numerum nisi except by reason of matter. But the
propter materiam. Divina autem divine nature is entirely immaterial. It is,
natura omnino immaterialis est. therefore, impossible that the divine
Impossibile est igitur quod natura nature be specifically one and
divina sit una specie et numero numerically different. The Word of God,
differens. Verbum igitur Dei in therefore, has a nature in common with
eadem natura numero communicat God and has it with numerical identity.
cum Deo. Propter quod verbum For this reason the Word of God and the
Dei, et Deus cuius est verbum, non God whose Word He is are not two gods,
sunt duo dii, sed unus Deus. Nam but one God. For the fact that among us
quod apud nos duo habentes two who have human nature are two men
humanam naturam sint duo hinges on the fact that human nature is
homines, ex hoc contingit quod numerically divided in those two. But we
natura humana numero dividitur in showed in Book II that things which are
duobus. Ostensum est autem in divided in creatures are in God simply
primo libro ea quae in creaturis one being; thus, in creatures the essence
divisa sunt, in Deo simpliciter is one thing and the act of being another;
unum esse: sicut in creatura aliud and in some creatures even what
est essentia et esse; et in subsists in the essence is one thing, and
quibusdam est etiam aliud quod its essence or nature another; for this
subsistit in sua essentia, et eius man is neither his humanity nor his act of
essentia sive natura, nam hic being. But God is both His essence and
homo non est sua humanitas nec His act of being.
suum esse; sed Deus est sua
essentia et suum esse.
Et quamvis haec in Deo unum sint [13] And although in God these are most
verissime, tamen in Deo est truly one, there is still in God whatever
quicquid pertinet ad rationem vel belongs to the notion of a subsistent, or
subsistentis, vel essentiae, vel of essence, or of being itself: for it is
ipsius esse: convenit enim ei non suitable to Him that He should not be in
esse in aliquo, inquantum est something, in that He is subsistent; that
subsistens; esse quid, inquantum He be what He is, in that He is essence;
est essentia; et esse in actu, and that He be in act, by reason of His
ratione ipsius esse. Oportet igitur, act of being. Therefore, since in God the
cum in Deo sit idem intelligens, et one understanding, the act of
intelligere, et intentio intellecta, understanding, and the intention

quod est verbum ipsius; quod understood are the same as His own
verissime in Deo sit et quod Word, there must most truly be in God
pertinet ad rationem intelligentis; et that which belongs to the notion of the
quod pertinet ad rationem eius one understanding, that which belongs to
quod est intelligere; et quod the notion of the act of understanding,
pertinet ad rationem intentionis and that which belongs to the notion of
intellectae, sive verbi. Est autem the intention understood, or word. But in
de ratione interioris verbi, quod est the essence of interior word which is the
intentio intellecta, quod procedat intention understood there is this: that it
ab intelligente secundum suum proceeds from the one understanding in
intelligere, cum sit quasi terminus accord with his act of understanding,
intellectualis operationis: since it is, so to say, the intellectual term
intellectus enim intelligendo of the operation. For, in the act of
concipit et format intentionem sive understanding, the intellect conceives
rationem intellectam, quae est and forms the intention or the essence
interius verbum. Oportet igitur understood, and this is the interior word.
quod a Deo secundum ipsum From God, therefore, in His very act of
suum intelligere procedat verbum understanding must His Word proceed.
ipsius. Comparatur igitur verbum The Word of God is, therefore, compared
Dei ad Deum intelligentem, cuius to God understanding (whose Word He
est verbum, sicut ad eum a quo is) as to Him from whom He is, for this is
est: hoc enim est de ratione verbi. essential to a word. Therefore, although
Cum igitur in Deo intelligens, in God the one understanding, the act of
intelligere, et intentio intellecta, understanding and the intention
sive verbum, sint per essentiam understood, or Word, are by essence
unum, et per hoc necesse sit quod one, and although for this reason each is
quodlibet horum sit Deus; remanet necessarily God, there remains the
tamen sola distinctio relationis, distinction of relation alone, in so far as
prout verbum refertur ad the Word is related to the one who
concipientem ut a quo est. Hinc conceives as to Him from whom He is.
est quod Evangelista, quia dixerat, This is why the Evangelist, seeing that he
Deus erat verbum; ne omnino had said: “God was the Word,” to keep
distinctio sublata intelligeretur verbi one from understanding that all
a Deo dicente sive concipiente distinction between the Word and God
verbum, subiunxit: hoc erat in speaking or conceiving the Word was
principio apud Deum: quasi dicat: taken away, added this: “This was in the
hoc verbum, quod Deum esse dixi, beginning with God”; as though to say:
aliquo modo distinctum est a Deo “This Word, whom I have called God, is
dicente, ut sic possit dici apud in a way distinct from God speaking, and
Deum esse. so it can be said that He was with God.”
Verbum autem interius conceptum [14] Of course, the word interiorly
est quaedam ratio et similitudo rei conceived is a kind of account and
intellectae. Similitudo autem likeness of the thing understood. Now, a
alicuius in altero existens vel habet likeness of one thing existing in another
rationem exemplaris, si se habeat is essentially an exemplar if it stands to
ut principium: vel habet potius the other as principle, or it is essentially
rationem imaginis, si se habeat ad an image if it is related to that whose
id cuius est similitudo sicut ad likeness it is as to a principle. Now, in our
principium. Utriusque autem intellect one sees an example of each of

exemplum in nostro intellectu these situations. For, since the likeness
perspicitur. Quia enim similitudo of the artefact existing in the mind of the
artificiati existens in mente artificis artist is the principle of the operation
est principium operationis per which constitutes the artefact, the
quam artificiatum constituitur, likeness is related to the artefact as an
comparatur ad artificiatum ut exemplar to that exemplified; but the
exemplar ad exemplatum: sed likeness of a natural thing conceived in
similitudo rei naturalis in nostro our intellect is related to the thing whose
intellectu concepta comparatur ad likeness it is as to its beginning, for our
rem cuius similitudo existit ut ad act of understanding takes its beginning
suum principium, quia nostrum from the senses which are changed by
intelligere a sensibus principium natural things. Since, of course, God
accipit, qui per res naturales understands both Himself and other
immutantur. Cum autem Deus et things, as was shown in Book I, His act
seipsum intelligat et alia, ut in of understanding is the principle of things
primo ostensum est, eius understood by Him, since they are
intelligere principium est rerum caused by His intellect and will; but His
intellectarum ab ipso, cum ab eo act of understanding is referred to the
causentur per intellectum et intelligible which He Himself is as to a
voluntatem: sed ad intelligibile beginning, for this intelligible is identified
quod est ipse, comparatur ut ad with the intellect understanding, whose
principium; est enim hoc emanation, so to say, is the Word
intelligibile idem cum intellectu conceived. Therefore, the Word of God
intelligente, cuius quaedam must be referred to the other things
emanatio est verbum conceptum. understood by God as exemplar, and
Oportet igitur quod verbum Dei must be referred to God Himself whose
comparetur ad res alias intellectas Word He is as image. Hence, one reads
a Deo sicut exemplar; et ad ipsum of the Word of God in Colossians (1:15)
Deum, cuius est verbum, sicut eius that He is “the image of the invisible
imago. Hinc est quod de verbo Dei God.”
dicitur, Coloss. 115, quod est
imago invisibilis Dei.
Est autem differentia inter [15] Now, there is a difference between
intellectum et sensum: nam intellect and sense, for sense grasps a
sensus apprehendit rem quantum thing in its exterior accidents, which are
ad exteriora eius accidentia, quae color, taste, quantity and others of this
sunt color, sapor, quantitas, et alia kind, but intellect enters into what is
huiusmodi; sed intellectus interior to the thing. And, since every
ingreditur ad interiora rei. Et quia knowledge is perfected by the likeness
omnis cognitio perficitur secundum between the knower and the known,
similitudinem quae est inter there must be in the sense a likeness of
cognoscens et cognitum, oportet the thing in its sensible accidents, but in
quod in sensu sit similitudo rei the intellect there must be a likeness of
sensibilis quantum ad eius the thing understood in its essence.
accidentia: in intellectu vero sit Therefore, the word conceived in the
similitudo rei intellectae quantum intellect is the image or the exemplar of
ad eius essentiam. Verbum igitur in the substance of the thing understood.
intellectu conceptum est imago vel Since, then, the Word of God is the
exemplar substantiae rei image of God (as we have shown), it is
intellectae. Cum ergo verbum Dei necessarily the image of God in His
sit imago Dei, ut ostensum est, essence. Hence, we have what the
necesse est quod sit imago Dei Apostle says, that He is “the figure of the
quantum ad eius essentiam. Hinc substance of God” (Heb. 1:3).
est quod apostolus dicit, Hebr. 13,
quod est figura substantiae Dei.
Imago autem alicuius rei est [16] However, things have images of two

duplex. Est enim aliqua imago kinds. For there is an image which does
quae non communicat in natura not share the nature with that whose
cum eo cuius est imago: sive sit image it is: whether it be its image in
imago eius quantum ad exteriora respect to the exterior accidents (a
accidentia, sicut statua aenea est bronze statue is the image of a man, yet
imago hominis, nec tamen est is not, for all that, a man); or if it be an
homo; sive sit imago quantum ad image in respect of the thing’s
substantiam rei; ratio enim hominis substance, for the essence of man in the
in intellectu non est homo, nam, ut intellect is not a man. The reason, as the
philosophus dicit, lapis non est in Philosopher says, is that “it is not the
anima sed species lapidis. Imago stone which is present in the soul, but the
autem alicuius rei quae eandem species of the stone.” But the image of a
naturam habet cum re cuius est thing which has the same nature with
imago, est sicut filius regis, in quo that whose image it is is like the son of a
imago patris apparet et est king: in him the image of his father
eiusdem naturae cum ipso. appears and he is the same in nature as
Ostensum est autem quod verbum his father. Now, it was shown that the
Dei est imago dicentis quantum ad Word of God is the image of the speaker
ipsam eius essentiam; et quod in in respect of His very essence and that
eadem natura cum dicente the Word has the very nature in common
communicat. Relinquitur igitur with the speaker. The conclusion,
quod verbum Dei non solum sit therefore, is that the Word of God is not
imago, sed etiam filius. Non enim only the image, but also the Son. For so
sic esse imaginem alicuius ut to be one’s image as to be of the same
eiusdem naturae cum illo sit, in nature with him is not discovered in one
aliquo invenitur qui filius dici non who cannot be called a sonso long as
possit, dummodo hoc in viventibus we are speaking of living things. For that
accipiatur: nam quod procedit ex which proceeds from a living thing in the
aliquo vivente in similitudinem likeness of species is called son. Hence,
speciei, dicitur filius eius. Hinc est we read in a Psalm (2:7): “The Lord bath
quod in Psalmo dicitur: dominus said to Me: You are My Son.”
dixit ad me, filius meus es tu.
Rursus considerandum est quod, [17] Consideration must, furthermore, be

cum in qualibet natura processio given to this: Since in any nature the
filii a patre sit naturalis, ex quo procession of the son from the father is
verbum Dei filius Dei dicitur, natural, from the fact that the Word of
oportet quod naturaliter a patre God is called the Son of God He must
procedat. Et hoc quidem supra proceed naturally from the Father. This is
dictis convenit: ut ex his quae in in agreement with the things said above,
intellectu nostro accidunt, perspici as one can perceive from what takes
potest. Intellectus enim noster place in our intellect. For our intellect
aliqua naturaliter cognoscit: sicut knows some things naturally; thus the
prima intelligibilium principia, first principles of the intelligibles, whose
quorum intelligibiles conceptiones, intelligible conceptions—called interior
quae verba interiora dicuntur, words—naturally exist in the intellect and
naturaliter in ipso existunt et ex eo proceed from it. There are also certain
procedunt. Sunt etiam quaedam intelligibles which our intellect does not
intelligibilia quae non naturaliter know naturally; rather, it arrives at the
intellectus noster cognoscit, sed in knowledge of these by reasoning. The
eorum cognitionem ratiocinando conceptions of these last do not exist in
pertingit: et horum conceptiones in our intellect naturally, but are sought after
intellectu nostro naturaliter non by study. Manifestly, however, God
existunt, sed cum studio understands Himself naturally just as He
quaeruntur. Manifestum est autem is naturally. For His act of understanding
quod Deus seipsum naturaliter is His being (as was proved in Book I).
intelligit, sicut et naturaliter est: Therefore, the Word of God
suum enim intelligere est suum understanding Himself naturally
esse, ut in primo probatum est. proceeds from Him. And, since the Word
Verbum igitur Dei seipsum of God is of the same nature as God
intelligentis naturaliter ab ipso speaking and His likeness, this follows:
procedit. Et cum verbum Dei sit This natural proceeding is unto a
eiusdem naturae cum Deo dicente, likeness of Him from whom He does
et sit similitudo ipsius; sequitur proceed with identity of nature. But, this
quod hic naturalis processus sit in is the essential of true generation in living
similitudinem eius a quo est things: that which is generated proceeds
processio cum identitate naturae. from him who generates as his likeness,
Haec est autem verae generationis and as identified with him in nature.
ratio in rebus viventibus, quod id Therefore, the Word of God is truly
quod generatur, a generante begotten by God speaking the Word; and
procedat ut similitudo ipsius et His proceeding can be called
eiusdem naturae cum ipso. Est “generation” or “birth.” This is why the
ergo verbum Dei genitum vere a Psalmist says: “This day have I begotten
Deo dicente: et eius processio You” (Ps. 7:7); that is, in eternity which
generatio vel nativitas dici potest. always is present and in which
Hinc est quod in Psalmo dicitur: essentially there is neither past nor
ego hodie genui te: idest, in future. In this way the falsity of what the
aeternitate, quae semper est Arians maintained is clear, that the
praesens, et nulla est in ea ratio Father generated the Son by His will. For
praeteriti et futuri. Unde patet things which are by will are not natural
falsum esse quod Ariani dixerunt, things.
quod pater genuit filium voluntate.
Quae enim voluntate sunt, non
naturalia sunt.
Considerandum est etiam quod id [18] One must also consider that what is

quod generatur, quandiu in generated, so long as it remains in the
generante manet, dicitur esse generator, is said to be “conceived.” But
conceptum. Verbum autem Dei ita the Word of God is begotten by God in
est a Deo genitum quod tamen ab such wise that it does not withdraw from
ipso non recedit, sed in eo manet, Him, but abides in Him. (This is clear

ut ex superioribus patet. Recte from the above.) Rightly, therefore, the
ergo verbum Dei potest dici a Deo Word of God can be called “conceived”
conceptum. Hinc est quod by God. Hence, the Wisdom of God says
Proverb. 824, Dei sapientia dicit: in Proverbs (8:24): “The depths were not
nondum erant abyssi, et ego iam as yet, and I was already conceived.” But
concepta eram. Est autem there is a difference between the
differentia inter conceptionem verbi conception of the Word of God and the
Dei, et materialem conceptionem material conception discovered by us in
quae apud nos in animalibus animals. For the offspring, so long as it is
invenitur. Nam proles, quandiu conceived and is inclosed in the womb,
concepta est et in utero clauditur, does not have its final perfection so as to
nondum habet ultimam subsist of itself in a place distinct from
perfectionem, ut per se subsistat a the one generating; hence, in the
generante secundum locum corporeal generation of animals, the
distinctum: unde oportet quod in conception of the offspring begotten is
corporali generatione animalium necessarily one thing and the delivery
aliud sit genitae prolis conceptio, another; in the latter the offspring
atque aliud partus ipsius, begotten is even spatially separated from
secundum quem etiam loco the generator when it proceeds from the
separatur proles genita a womb. Now, the Word of God existing in
generante, ab utero generantis God Himself speaking the Word is
egrediens. Verbum autem Dei, in perfect, subsists in Himself, and is
ipso Deo dicente existens, est distinct from God speaking: for one does
perfectum, in se subsistens, not look for a local distinction there, but
distinctum a Deo dicente: non they are distinguished only by a relation
enim expectatur ibi localis as was said. Therefore, in the generation
distinctio, sed sola relatione of the Word of God conception and
distinguuntur, ut dictum est. Idem delivery are identified. Therefore, after
est ergo in generatione verbi Dei this saying from the mouth of Wisdom, “I
et conceptio et partus. Et ideo, was already conceived,” there is shortly
postquam ex ore sapientiae dictum added: “Before the hills I was brought
est, ego iam concepta eram, post forth” (Prov. 8:2425).
pauca subditur: ante colles ego
parturiebar.
Sed quia conceptio et partus in However, since in corporeal things
rebus corporalibus cum motu sunt, conception and bearing involve motion,
oportet in eis quandam in these things there must be a certain
successionem esse: cum succession: the term of conception is the
conceptionis terminus sit esse being of the conceived in the one
concepti in concipiente; terminus conceiving, the term of bearing is the
autem partus sit esse eius qui being of the one born apart from the
paritur distinctum a pariente. parent. Thus, in corporeal things, that
Necesse est igitur in corporalibus which is conceived is necessarily not yet
quod id quod concipitur, nondum in being and that which is brought forth is
sit; et id quod parturitur, in in the bearing not distinct from the
parturiendo non sit a parturiente parent. Now, the conception and birth of
distinctum. Conceptio autem et an intelligible word involves neither
partus intelligibilis verbi non est motion nor succession. Hence, at once it
cum motu, nec cum successione: is conceived and it is; at once it is born
unde simul dum concipitur, est; et and is distinct; just as that which is
simul dum parturitur, distinctum illuminated, at the moment of being
est; sicut quod illuminatur, simul illuminated, is illuminated because in
dum illuminatur, illuminatum est, illumination there is no succession. Since
eo quod in illuminatione successio one discovers this situation in our
nulla est. Et cum hoc inveniatur in intelligible word, by so much the more is
intelligibili verbo nostro, multo it proper to the Word of God—not only
magis competit verbo Dei: non because the intelligible conception is also
solum quia intelligibilis conceptio birth, but because each of the two exists
et partus est; sed quia in in eternity in which there can be neither
aeternitate existit utrumque, in qua before nor after. Accordingly, after the
prius et posterius esse non saying of Wisdom: “Before the hills I was
possunt. Hinc est quod, postquam brought forth,” to keep us from thinking
ex ore sapientiae dictum est, ante that while He was being brought forth He
colles ego parturiebar; ne was not, this is added: “While He was
intelligeretur quod, dum preparing the heavens I was present”
parturiretur, non esset, subditur: (Prov. 8:27). In this way—although in the
quando praeparabat caelos, fleshly generation of animals first a thing
aderam: ut sic, cum in generatione is conceived, then it is brought forth, and
carnali animalium prius aliquid finally it acquires a presence to the
concipiatur, deinde parturiatur, et parent at once associated with and
deinde conveniat sibi adesse distinct from the parent—we can
parturienti, quasi sibi consociatum understand that in divine generation all
ut ab eo distinctum; haec omnia in these are simultaneous. For the Word of
divina generatione simul esse God is at once conceived, brought forth,
intelligantur; nam verbum Dei and present. And since what is born
simul concipitur, parturitur et adest. proceeds from a womb, just as the
Et quia quod paritur, ex utero generation of the Word of God to convey
procedit, sicut generatio verbi Dei, His perfect distinction from the generator
ad insinuandam perfectam is called birth, it is called for a like reason
distinctionem eius a generante, “generation from the womb”; so we read
dicitur partus, simili ratione dicitur in a Psalm (109:3): “From the womb
generatio ex utero, secundum illud before the day star I begot You.”
Psalmi: ex utero ante Luciferum Nevertheless, since the distinction of the
genui te. Quia tamen non est talis Word from the speaker is not the kind
distinctio verbi a dicente quae which prevents the Word from being in
impediat verbum esse in dicente, the speaker (as the things said make
ut ex dictis patet; sicut ad clear)—just as the distinctness of the
insinuandam distinctionem verbi, Word is conveyed by calling Him
dicitur parturiri, vel ex utero “brought forth” or “begotten from the
genitum esse; ita, ad womb”—so, to show that this kind of
ostendendum quod talis distinctio distinction does not keep the Word from
non excludit verbum esse in being in the speaker, John (1:8) says that
dicente, dicitur Ioan. 118, quod He is “in the bosom of the Father.”
est in sinu patris.
Attendendum est autem quod [19] One should, of course, note carefully

generatio carnalis animalium that the fleshly generation of animals is
perficitur per virtutem activam et perfected by an active power and by a
passivam: et ab activa quidem passive power; and it is from the active
virtute dicitur pater, a passiva vero power that one is named “father,” and
dicitur mater. Unde eorum quae ad from the passive power that one is
generationem prolis requiruntur, named “mother.” Hence, in what is
quaedam conveniunt patri, required for the generation of offspring,
quaedam conveniunt matri: dare some things belong to the father, some
enim naturam et speciem prolis things belong to the mother: to give the
competit patri; concipere autem et nature and species to the offspring
parturire competit matri, tanquam belong to the father, and to conceive and
patienti et recipienti. Cum autem bring forth belong to the mother as
processio verbi secundum hoc patient and recipient. Since, however, the
dicta sit esse quod Deus seipsum procession of the Word has been said to
intelligit; ipsum autem divinum be in this: that God understands Himself;
intelligere non est per aliquam and the divine act of understanding is not
virtutem passivam, sed quasi through a passive power, but, so to say,
activam, quia intellectus divinus an active one; because the divine
non est in potentia, sed actu intellect is not in potency but is only
tantum: in generatione verbi Dei actual; in the generation of the Word of
non competit ratio matris, sed God the notion of mother does not enter,
solum patris. Unde quae in but only that of father. Hence, the things
generatione carnali distinctim patri which belong distinctly to the father or to
et matri conveniunt, omnia in the mother in fleshly generation, in the
generatione verbi patri attribuuntur generation of the Word are all attributed
in sacris Scripturis: dicitur enim to the Father by sacred Scripture; for the
pater et dare filio vitam, et Father is said not only “to give life to the
concipere et parturire. Son” (cf. John 5:26), but also “to
conceive” and to “bring forth.”
Caput 12 Chapter 12
Quomodo filius Dei dicatur Dei HOW THE SON OF GOD MAY BE
sapientia CALLED THE WISDOM OF GOD
Quia vero ea quae de sapientia [1] However, since what is said of the
divina dicuntur, ad generationem divine Wisdom has been brought to bear
verbi adduximus, consequens est on the generation of the Word, one
ostendere quod per divinam should in consequence show that by the
sapientiam, ex cuius persona, divine Wisdom—from whose person the
praemissa verba proponuntur, words adduced came forth—the Word of
verbum Dei intelligi possit. God can be understood.
Et ut a rebus humanis ad [2] And in order to arrive at a knowledge

divinorum cognitionem of divine things from things human, this
perveniamus, considerare oportet must be considered: One calls wisdom in
quod sapientia in homine dicitur a man a kind of habit by which our mind
habitus quidam quo mens nostra is perfected in knowledge of the highest
perficitur in cognitione matters, and the divine are of this kind.
altissimorum: et huiusmodi sunt But, when in accord with the habit of
divina. Cum vero secundum wisdom a conception of divinity is formed

sapientiae habitum in intellectu in our intellect, that same conception of
nostro aliqua formatur conceptio the intellect which is its interior word
de divinis, ipsa conceptio usually receives the name of wisdom.
intellectus, quae est interius This follows that manner of speaking in
verbum, sapientiae nomen which acts and effects are named by the
accipere solet: secundum illum names of the habits from which they
modum loquendi quo actus et proceed, for what is done justly is
effectus nominibus habituum a sometimes called justice, and what is
quibus procedunt, nominantur; done courageously is called courage,
quod enim iuste fit, interdum and, generally speaking, what is done
iustitia dicitur; et quod fit fortiter, virtuously is called virtue. And in this
fortitudo; et generaliter quod manner, that which is wisely thought out
virtuose fit, virtus dicitur. Et per is called someone’s wisdom.
hunc modum, quod sapienter
excogitatur, dicitur sapientia
alicuius.
In Deo autem sapientiam quidem [3] Now, that there is wisdom in God
oportet dici, ex eo quod seipsum must certainly be said by reason of the
cognoscit: sed quia non cognoscit fact that God knows Himself; but, since
se per aliquam speciem nisi per He does not know Himself by any
essentiam suam, quinimmo et species except His own essence—in fact,
ipsum eius intelligere est eius His very act of understanding is His
essentia, sapientia Dei habitus essence—the wisdom of God cannot be
esse non potest, sed est ipsa Dei a habit, but is God’s very essence. But
essentia. Manifestum est autem ex from what has been said, this is clear:
dictis quod Dei filius est verbum et The Son of God is the Word and
conceptio Dei intelligentis conception of God understanding
seipsum. Sequitur igitur quod Himself. It follows, then, that the same
ipsum Dei verbum, tanquam Word of God, as wisely conceived by the
sapienter mente divina divine mind, is properly said to be
conceptum, proprie concepta seu “conceived or begotten Wisdom”; and so
genita sapientia dicatur: unde the Apostle calls Christ: “the Wisdom of
apostolus Christum Dei sapientiam God” (1 Cor. 1:24).
nominat, I ad Cor. 124.
Ipsum autem sapientiae verbum [4] But the very word of wisdom
mente conceptum est quaedam conceived in the mind is a kind of
manifestatio sapientiae manifestation of the wisdom of the one
intelligentis: sicut et in nobis who understands, just as in our case all
omnes habitus per actus habits are manifested by their acts.
manifestantur. Quia ergo divina Since, then, the divine Wisdom is called
sapientia lux dicitur, prout in puro light (for it consists in the pure act of
actu cognitionis consistit; lucis cognition, and the manifestation of light is
autem manifestatio splendor ipsius the brightness proceeding therefrom) the
est ab ea procedens: convenienter Word of divine Wisdom is named “the
et verbum divinae sapientiae brightness of light.” Thus the Apostle
splendor lucis nominatur, speaks of the Son of God: “Who being
secundum illud apostoli de filio the brightness of His glory” (Heb. 1:3).
dicentis: cum sit splendor gloriae. Hence, also, the Son ascribes to Himself

Unde et filius manifestationem the manifestation of the Father. He says
patris sibi adscribit, Ioan. 176, in John (17:6): “Father, I have manifested
dicens: pater, manifestavi nomen your name to men.”
tuum hominibus.
Sed tamen, licet filius, qui est Dei [5] But note: Although the Son who is the

verbum, proprie sapientia Word of God is properly called
concepta dicatur; nomen tamen “conceived Wisdom,” the name of
sapientiae absolute dictum oportet “wisdom” must, nonetheless, when taken
esse commune patri et filio: cum absolutely, be common to the Father and
sapientia quae per verbum the Son; since the wisdom resplendent
resplendet sit patris essentia, ut by the Word is the Father’s essence, as
dictum est essentia vero patris sit was said; but the Father’s essence is
sibi et filio communis. common to Him and to the Son.
Caput 13 Chapter 13
Quod non est nisi unus filius in THAT THERE IS BUT ONE SON IN THE
divinis DIVINITY
Quia vero Deus, intelligendo [1] However, since God by understanding

seipsum omnia alia intelligit, ut in Himself understands all else, as Book I
primo ostensum est; seipsum showed, but understands Himself by a
autem uno et simplici intuitu single simple inward look, since His act
intelligit, cum suum intelligere sit of understanding is His act of being,
suum esse necesse est verbum necessarily the Word of God is unique.
Dei esse unicum tantum. Cum Since, of course, in divinity the
autem in divinis nihil aliud sit filii generation of the Son is not other than
generatio quam verbi conceptio, the conception of the Word. it follows that
sequitur quod una sola sit there is one sole generation in divinity
generatio in divinis, et unicus filius and that a unique Son is alone, begotten
solus a patre genitus. Unde Ioan. by the Father. Hence, John says: “We
114 dicitur: vidimus eum quasi saw Him, as it were the onlybegotten of
unigenitum a patre; et iterum: the Father”; and again: “The only
unigenitus, qui est in sinu patris, begotten Son who is in the bosom of the
ipse nobis enarravit. Father, He has declared Him” (1:14, 18).
Videtur tamen ex praemissis sequi [2] For all that, it seems to follow from the
quod et verbi divini sit aliud foregoing both that the divine Word has
verbum, et filii sit alius filius. another word and the divine Son another
Ostensum est enim quod verbum son. For it was shown that the Word of
Dei sit verus Deus. Oportet igitur God is true God. Whatever, therefore,
omnia quae Deo conveniunt, verbo belongs to God must belong also to the
Dei convenire. Deus autem ex Word of God. But God necessarily
necessitate seipsum intelligit. Et understands Himself. Therefore, the
verbum igitur Dei seipsum intelligit. Word of God also understands Himself.
Si igitur ex hoc quod Deus If, then, one says that because He
seipsum intelligit, verbum ab eo understands Himself there is in God a
genitum in Deo ponitur, consequi Word begotten by Him, it seems to follow

videtur quod etiam et verbo, that in the Word so far as He
inquantum seipsum intelligit, aliud understands Himself one must allow
verbum attribuatur. Et sic verbi erit another word. And thus there will be a
verbum, et filii filius; et illud word of the Word and a son of the Son.
verbum, si Deus est, iterum And that word, if he be God, will again
seipsum intelliget et habebit aliud understand himself and will have another
verbum; et sic in infinitum word. In this way, the divine generation
generatio divina procedet. will proceed to infinity.
Huius autem solutio ex praemissis [3] Now, the solution of this difficulty can
haberi potest. Cum enim ostensum be gathered from the foregoing. For,
sit quod verbum Dei sit Deus, when it was shown that the Word of God
ostensum tamen est quod non est is God, it was nevertheless shown that
alius Deus a Deo cuius est He is not a god other than that God
verbum, sed unus omnino, hoc whose Word He is, but a God entirely
solo ab eo distinctum quod ab eo one. In this alone is He distinct from Him:
est ut verbum procedens. Sicut He is the Word proceeding from Him.
autem verbum non est alius Deus, But, just as the Word is not another god,
ita nec est alius intellectus, et per so neither is He another intellect;
consequens nec aliud intelligere: consequently, not another act of
unde nec aliud verbum. Nec tamen understanding; hence, not another word.
sequitur quod sit verbum sui Neither does it follow from this that there
ipsius, secundum quod verbum is a word of the Word Himself because
seipsum intelligit. Nam in hoc solo the Word understands Himself. For, in
verbum a dicente distinguitur, ut this alone is the Word distinguished from
dictum est, quod est ab ipso. the speaker (as we said): that it is from
Omnia ergo alia communiter Him. Everything else, therefore, must be
attribuenda sunt Deo dicenti, qui attributed commonly to God speaking,
est pater, et verbo, quod est filius, who is the Father, and to the Word, who
propter hoc quod etiam verbum est is the Son, precisely because the Word
Deus: sed hoc solum, ut ab eo sit also is God. But this alone: that the Word
verbum, adscribendum est proprie is from Him must be ascribed properly to
patri; et hoc quod est esse a Deo the Father; and this alone: being from
dicente, attribuendum est proprie God speaking must be attributed properly
filio. to the Son.
Ex quo etiam patet quod filius non [4] From this it is also clear that the Son
est impotens, etsi generare filium is not impotent, although He cannot
non possit, cum tamen pater generate a Son, whereas the Father
generet filium. Nam eadem does generate a Son. For the very same
potentia est patris et filii, sicut et power is the Father’s and the Son’s as is
eadem divinitas. Et cum generatio the very same divinity. And, since
in divinis sit intelligibilis verbi generation in divinity is the intelligible
conceptio, secundum scilicet quod Word’s conception, namely, in that God
Deus intelligit seipsum, oportet understands Himself, it must be that the
quod potentia ad generandum in power to generate in God is like the
Deo sit sicut potentia ad power to understand Himself. And, since
intelligendum seipsum. Et cum the act of understanding Himself is in
intelligere seipsum in Deo sit unum God one and simple, the power of

et simplex, oportet et potentiam understanding Himself, which is not other
intelligendi seipsum, quae non est than His act, must be only one power.
aliud quam suus actus, esse unam Therefore, it is from the same power that
tantum. Ex eadem ergo potentia the Word is conceived and that the
est et quod verbum concipiatur et speaker conceives the Word. Hence, it is
quod dicens verbum concipiat. from the same power that the Father
Unde ex eadem potentia est quod generates and that the Son is generated.
pater generet, et quod filius Therefore, the Father has no power
generetur. Nullam ergo potentiam which the Son does not have, but the
habet pater quam non habeat Father has the generative power to
filius; sed pater habet ad generare beget, the Son has it to be begotten; that
generativam potentiam, filius these are different only in relation is clear
autem ad generari; quae sola from what has been said.
relatione differre ex dictis patet.
Sed quia apostolus filium Dei dicit [5] However, since the Apostle says that
verbum habere, ex quo sequi the Son of God has a word from which it
videtur quod filii sit filius, et verbi seems to follow that there is a son of the
verbum; considerandum est Son and a word of the Word, one must
qualiter verba apostoli hoc dicentis weigh the fashion in which the words of
sint intelligenda. Dicit enim Hebr. the Apostle as he says this are to be
12 diebus istis locutus est nobis in understood. He says in Hebrews (1:23):
filio, et postea: qui, cum sit “In these days He has spoken to us by
splendor gloriae et figura His Son,” and, later: “Who being the
substantiae eius, portans omnia brightness of His glory and the figure of
verbo virtutis suae, et cetera. His substance, and upholding all things
Huius autem intellectum sumere by the word of His power,” etc. Now, our
oportet ex his quae iam dicta sunt. understanding of this must be taken from
Dictum est enim quod conceptio the things already said, for it was said
sapientiae, quae est verbum, that the conception of wisdom, which is a
sapientiae sibi vindicat nomen. word, deserves the name of wisdom for
Ulterius autem procedentibus itself. Now, if one goes further, it is
apparet quod etiam exterior apparent that even the exterior effect
effectus ex conceptione sapientiae which comes from the conception of
proveniens sapientia dici potest, wisdom can be called wisdom in the way
per modum quo effectus nomen in which an effect takes for itself the
causae sibi assumit: dicitur enim name of its cause. One’s wisdom is not
sapientia alicuius esse non solum only that which he thinks out wisely, but
id quod sapienter excogitat, sed also that which be does wisely. Thus it
etiam id quod sapienter facit. Ex happens that even the unfolding of divine
quo contingit ut etiam explicatio wisdom by His work in things created is
divinae sapientiae per opus in called God’s wisdom; for example, Sirach
rebus creatis Dei sapientia dicatur: (1:910): “He created her” (wisdom) “in
secundum illud Eccli. 19 ipse the Holy Spirit”; and later: “And He
creavit illam, scilicet sapientiam, poured her out upon all His works.” Thus,
spiritu sancto et postea dicit, et also, then, what is effected by the Word
effudit illam super omnia opera gets the name of word. Even in our case
sua. Sic igitur et id quod ex verbo the expression of the interior word by the
efficitur, verbi accipit nomen: nam voice is called a word, as though it were
et in nobis expressio interioris the “word’s word,” because it tends to
verbi per vocem, dicitur verbum, manifest the interior word. Thus, then,
quasi sit verbum verbi, quia est not only is the conception of the divine
interioris verbi ostensivum. Sic intellect called a Word, which is the Son,
igitur non solum divini intellectus but even the unfolding of the divinely
conceptio dicitur verbum, quod est conceived in exterior works is named the
filius, sed etiam explicatio divini word of the Word. And thus must one
conceptus per opera exteriora, understand that the Son upholds all
verbum verbi nominatur. Et sic things “by the word of His power,” and
oportet intelligi quod filius portet thus what one reads in the Psalmist:
omnia verbo virtutis suae, sicut et “Fire, hail, snow, ice, stormy winds which
id quod in Psalmo legitur: ignis, fulfill His word” (Ps. 148:8); and that is
grando, nix, glacies, spiritus this: by the powers of creatures the
procellarum, quae faciunt verbum effects of the divine conception are
eius: quia scilicet per virtutes unfolded in things,
creaturarum explicantur divinae
conceptionis effectus in rebus.
Cum vero Deus, intelligendo [6] However, since God by understanding

seipsum, omnia alia intelligat, ut Himself understands all other things—as
dictum est, oportet quod verbum in was said—the Word conceived in God by
Deo conceptum ex eo quod His understanding of Himself must also
seipsum intelligit, sit etiam verbum be the Word of all things. Nevertheless,
omnium rerum. Non tamen eodem He is not in the very same way the Word
modo est verbum Dei, et aliarum of God and of other things. For He is
rerum. Nam Dei quidem verbum God’s Word as proceeding from Him; and
est ex eo procedens: aliarum He is the Word of other things, but not as
autem rerum, non sicut ex eis proceeding from them. For God does not
procedens, non enim Deus a gather knowledge from things; rather, by
rebus scientiam sumit, sed magis His knowledge He produces things in
per suam scientiam res in esse being, as was shown above. Therefore,
producit, ut supra ostensum est. the Word of God must for all the things
Oportet igitur quod verbum Dei which are made be the perfect existing
omnium quae facta sunt, ratio intelligibility. But how He can be the
perfecta existat. Qualiter autem intelligibility Of things taken singly is
singulorum ratio esse possit, ex his manifest from the points treated in Book
quae in primo libro tractata sunt, I. There it was shown that God has a
manifestum est, ubi ostensum est proper knowledge of all things.
quod Deus omnium propriam
cognitionem habet.
Quicumque autem facit aliquid per [7] Whoever, of course, makes anything

intellectum, operatur per rationem by understanding does his work through
rerum factarum quam apud se the account of the things made which be
habet: domus enim quae est in has in himself, for the house which is
materia, fit ab aedificatore per material is made by the builder according
rationem domus quam habet in to the account of the house which he has
mente. Ostensum est autem supra in his mind. Now, it was shown above
quod Deus res in esse produxit, that God produced, things in being not by
non naturali necessitate, sed quasi a natural necessity, but as an intellectual
per intellectum et voluntatem and voluntary agent. Therefore, God
agens. Fecit igitur Deus omnia per made all things by His Word, which is the
verbum suum, quod est ratio rerum intelligibility of things made by Him.
factarum ab ipso. Hinc est quod Hence, we read in John (1:3): “All things
dicitur Ioan. 13: omnia per ipsum were made by Him.” In agreement with
facta sunt. Cui consonat quod this, Moses, describing the origin of the
Moyses, mundi originem universe, uses such a manner of speech
describens, in singulis operibus tali for the single works: “God said: Be light
utitur modo loquendi, dixit Deus, made and light was made... God said:
fiat lux, et facta est lux; dixit Deus, Let there be a firmament made” (Gen.
fiat firmamentum; et sic de aliis. 1:13), and so of the rest, All of which the
Quae omnia Psalmista Psalmist includes, saying: “He spoke and
comprehendit, dicens, dixit, et they were made (Ps. 148:5), for to speak
facta sunt: dicere enim est verbum is to produce a word. Thus, therefore,
producere. Sic ergo intelligendum one must understand that God spoke
est quod Deus dixit et facta sunt, and they were made because He
quia verbum produxit, per quod res produced the Word by which He
in esse produxit, sicut per earum produced things in being as by their
rationem perfectam. perfect intelligibility.
Sed quia idem est causa [8] But, since there is identity between
conservationis rerum et the cause of the conservation of things
productionis ipsarum, sicut omnia and of their production as all things were
per verbum facta sunt, ita omnia made by the Word, so by the Word of
per Dei verbum conservantur in God all things are conserved in being.
esse. Unde Psalmista dicit: verbo Hence, the Psalmist says: “By the Word
domini caeli firmati sunt; et of the Lord the heavens were
apostolus dicit, ad Hebr. 13, de established,” (Ps. 32:6), and the Apostle
filio, quod portat omnia verbo speaks of the Son “upholding all things
virtutis suae; quod quidem qualiter by the word of His power” (Heb. 1:3).
accipi oporteat, iam dictum est. How this is to be taken was explained
above.
Sciendum tamen quod verbum Dei [9] One nevertheless ought to know that

in hoc differt a ratione quae est in the Word of God differs from an account
mente artificis, quia verbum Dei in the mind of an artist in this: The Word
Deus subsistens est: ratio autem of God is subsistent God; the account of
artificiati in mente artificis non est the artefact in the mind of the artist is not
res subsistens, sed solum a subsistent thing, but only an intelligible
intelligibilis forma. Formae autem form. But, if a form is not subsistent, it
non subsistenti non competit does not properly belong to it to act, for
proprie ut agat, agere enim rei action belongs to a finished and
perfectae et subsistentis est: sed subsistent thing; but the latter acts by the
est eius ut ea agatur, est enim form, for form is the principle by which an
forma principium actionis quo agent acts. Therefore, the plan of the
agens agit. Ratio igitur domus in house in the mind of the architect does
mente artificis non agit domum: not build the house; the architect builds it
sed artifex per eam domum facit. according to the plan. However, the Word
Verbum autem Dei, quod est ratio of God, which is a plan of things made by
rerum factarum a Deo, cum sit God, does—since He is subsistent—act,
subsistens, agit, non solum per there is not merely an action through
ipsum aliquid agitur. Et ideo Dei Him. For this reason, the Wisdom of God
sapientia loquitur, Proverb. 830: says: I was with Him forming all things”
cum eo eram cuncta componens; (Prov. 8:30); and in John (5:17) our Lord
et Ioan. 517, dominus dicit: pater says: “My Father works, and I work.”
meus operatur, et ego operor.
Considerandum est etiam quod [10] Consideration should also be given
res facta per intellectum praeexistit to this: A thing made by an
in ratione intellecta ante etiam understanding preexists in the plan
quam sit in seipsa: prius enim understood even before it is in itself, for
domus est in ratione artificis quam the house exists in the understanding of
perducatur in actum, verbum the architect before it is brought to
autem Dei est ratio omnium eorum actuality. Now, the Word of God is the
quae a Deo sunt facta, ut knowledge of all those things which are
ostensum est. Oportet igitur quod made by God—as was shown.
omnia quae sunt facta a Deo, Necessarily, then, all those things which
praeextiterint in verbo Dei are made by God have preexisted in the
antequam sint etiam in propria Word of God even before they are in
natura. Quod autem est in aliquo their own proper nature. Now, what is in
est in eo per modum eius in quo something is in it in the way proper to
est, et non per proprium modum: that in which it is; it is not in that thing in
domus enim in mente artificis its own proper manner, for the building in
intelligibiliter et immaterialiter the mind of the architect exists intelligibly
existit. Res igitur intelligendae sunt and immaterially. Things must, therefore,
in verbo Dei praeextitisse be understood to have preexisted in the
secundum modum verbi ipsius. Est Word of God in the manner of the Word
autem modus ipsius verbi quod sit Himself. The manner of the Word Himself
unum, simplex, immateriale, et non is this: He is one, simple, immaterial, and
solum vivens, sed etiam vita: cum not only living but even life, since He is
sit suum esse. Oportet igitur quod His own being. Necessarily, then, the
res factae a Deo praeextiterint in things made by God have preexisted in
verbo Dei ab aeterno, the Word of God from eternity,
immaterialiter, et absque omni immaterially, without any composition.
compositione, et quod nihil aliud in Moreover, they can be nothing else in
eo sint quam ipsum verbum, quod Him but the Word Himself who is life. For
est vita. Propter quod dicitur Ioan. this reason, we read: “that which was
13 quod factum est, in ipso vita made in Him,” that is, in the Word, “was
erat, idest, in verbo. life” (John 1:34).
Sicut autem operans per [11] Now, just as an intellectual agent,
intellectum per rationem quam because of the account he has in
apud se habet, res in esse himself, produces things in being, so also
producit; ita etiam qui alium docet, a teacher, because of the account he has
per rationem quam apud se habet, in himself, causes science in another,
scientiam causat in illo: cum since the science of the learner is drawn
scientia discipuli sit deducta a from the science of the teacher, as a kind
scientia docentis, sicut imago of image of the latter. God is not only the
quaedam ipsius. Deus autem non cause by His intellect of all things which
solum est causa per intellectum naturally subsist, but even every
suum omnium quae naturaliter intellectual cognition is derived from the
subsistunt, sed etiam omnis divine intellect, as is clear from the
intellectualis cognitio ab intellectu foregoing.” Necessarily, then, it is by the
divino derivatur, sicut ex Word of God, which is the knowledge of
superioribus patet. Oportet igitur the divine intellect, that every intellectual
quod per verbum Dei, quod est cognition is caused. Accordingly, we read
ratio intellectus divini, causetur in John (1:4): “The life was the light of
omnis intellectualis cognitio. men,” that is, because the Word Himself
Propter quod dicitur Ioan. 14: vita who is life and in whom all things are life
erat lux hominum: quia scilicet does, as a kind of light, make the truth
ipsum verbum, quod vita est, et in manifest to the minds of men. Nor is it a
quo omnia vita sunt, manifestat, ut failure of the Word that not all men arrive
lux quaedam, mentibus hominum at a knowledge of the truth, but that
veritatem. Nec est ex defectu verbi some exist in darkness. This comes,
quod non omnes homines ad rather, from a failure of men who are not
veritatis cognitionem perveniunt, converted to the Word and cannot fully
sed aliqui tenebrosi existunt. grasp Him. Hence, there still remains
Provenit autem hoc ex defectu darkness among men greater or less, as
hominum, qui ad verbum non men are more or less converted to the
convertuntur, nec eum plene Word and cleave to Him. Hence, John, to
capere possunt: unde adhuc in exclude every defect from the clarifying
hominibus tenebrae remanent, vel power of the Word when he had said that
maiores vel minores, secundum the “life was the light of men,” adds that it
quod magis et minus convertuntur “shines in the darkness and the darkness
ad verbum et capiunt ipsum. Unde did not comprehend it” (1:5). The
Ioannes, ut omnem defectum a darkness is not because the Word does
manifestativa verbi virtute not shine, but because some do not
excludat, cum dixisset quod vita grasp the light of the Word, just as with
est lux hominum, subiungit quod in the light of the bodily sun diffused
tenebris lucet, et tenebrae eam through the world there is darkness for
non comprehenderunt. Non enim him whose eyes are closed or weak.
tenebrae sunt ex hoc quod verbum
non luceat, sed ex hoc quod aliqui
lucem verbi non capiunt: sicut, luce
corporei solis per orbem diffusa,
tenebrae sunt ei qui oculos vel
clausos vel debiles habet.
Haec igitur sunt quae de [12] Such, then, are the points on divine
generatione divina, et de virtute generation and the power of the only
unigeniti filii Dei, ex sacris begotten Son which—taught by holy
Scripturis edocti, utcumque Scripture—we can in some way
concipere possumus. comprehend.
Caput 14 Chapter 14
Solutio ad rationes supra SOLUTION OF THE ARGUMENTS
inductas contra generationem AGAINST DIVINE GENERATION
divinam PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED
Quia vero veritas omnem [1] The truth, of course, excludes every
falsitatem excludit et dubietatem falsehood and dissolves every doubt
dissolvit, in promptu iam fit ea therefore it is now time to dispose of the
dissolvere quae circa arguments which appeared to offer
generationem divinam difficultatem difficulty about divine generation.
afferre videbantur.
Iam enim ex dictis patet quod in [2] From what we have said it is already

Deo generationem intelligibilem clear that we assert an intelligible
ponimus, non autem talem qualis generation in God, and not such as that
est in materialibus rebus, quarum we find in material things wherein the
generatio mutatio quaedam est, generation is a kind ?of change which is
corruptioni opposita: quia neque the opposite of corruption. For not even
verbum in intellectu nostro cum in our intellect is the word conceived with
aliqua mutatione concipitur, neque some change, nor does it have an
habet oppositam corruptionem; cui opposing corruption. It is to this
quidem conceptioni similem esse conception that the generation of the Son
filii Dei generationem, iam patet ex of God is similar, as is now clear.
dictis.
Similiter etiam verbum quod in [3] In like manner, too, the word
mente nostra concipitur, non exit conceived by our intellect does not
de potentia in actum nisi quatenus proceed from potency to act except in so
intellectus noster procedit de far as the intellect proceeds from potency
potentia in actum. Nec tamen to act. For all that, the word does not
verbum oritur ex intellectu nostro arise in our intellect except as it exists in
nisi prout existit in actu: simul act; rather, simultaneously with its
autem cum in actu existit, est in eo existence in act, there is a word
verbum conceptum. Intellectus conceived therein. But the divine intellect
autem divinus nunquam est in is never in potency, but is actual only, as
potentia, sed solum in actu ut was shown above. Therefore, the
supra ostensum est. Generatio generation of the Word Himself is not like
igitur verbi ipsius non est the process from potency to act rather, it
secundum exitum de potentia in is like the origin of act from act, as is
actum: sed sicut oritur actus ex brilliance from light and an understanding
actu, ut splendor ex luce, et ratio understood from an understanding in act.
intellecta ex intellectu in actu. Hence, clearly also, generation does not
Unde etiam apparet quod prevent the Son of God from being true
generatio non prohibet Dei filium God, nor from being Himself eternal.
esse verum Deum, aut ipsum esse Rather, He is indeed necessarily
aeternum. Quin magis necesse est coeternal with God whose Word He is,
ipsum esse coaeternum Deo, cuius for an intellect in act is never without its
est verbum: quia intellectus in actu word.
nunquam est sine verbo.
Et quia filii Dei generatio non est [4] And since the Son of God’s
materialis, sed intelligibilis, stulte generation is not material, but intelligible,

iam dubitatur si pater totam it is now stupid to doubt whether the
naturam dedit aut partem. Father gave His nature wholly or
Manifestum est enim quod, si Deus partially. For, manifestly, if God
se intelligit, oportet quod tota understands Himself, the whole fullness
plenitudo ipsius contineatur in of Himself must be contained in His
verbo. Nec tamen substantia filio Word. Nevertheless, the substance given
data desinit esse in patre: quia nec to the Son does not cease to be in the
etiam apud nos desinit esse Father, for not even in our case does the
propria natura in re quae proper nature cease to be in the thing
intelligitur, ex hoc quod verbum which is understood. ne word of our
nostri intellectus ex ipsa re intellect owes it to the very thing
intellecta habet ut intelligibiliter understood that it contains intelligibly that
eandem naturam contineat. very same nature.
Ex hoc etiam quod divina generatio [5] Since, again, divine generation is not
non est materialis, manifestum est material, clearly there need not be in the
quod non oportet in filio Dei esse Son of God something which receives
aliud recipiens, et aliud naturam and something else which is the nature
receptam. Hoc enim in received. For this necessarily happens in
materialibus generationibus material generations in that the matter of
accidere necesse est inquantum the generated receives the form of the
materia generati recipit formam one generating. But, in an intelligible
generantis. In generatione autem generation, such is not the case. For it is
intelligibili non sic est. Non enim not thus that a word arises within an
sic verbum ab intellectu exoritur intellect: one part of it is previously
quod pars eius praeintelligatur ut understood as receiving, and one part as
recipiens, et pars eius ab intellectu flowing from the intellect; but in its
effluat, sed totaliter verbum ab entirety the word has its origin from the
intellectu originem habet: sicut et in intellect, as even in our case one word in
nobis totaliter unum verbum ex its entirety has its origin from others—a
aliis oritur, ut conclusio ex conclusion, for example, from principles.
principiis. Ubi autem totaliter Where one thing in its entirety rises from
aliquid ex alio oritur, non est another there is no marking off a receiver
assignare recipiens et receptum, from the thing received, but the entire
sed totum quod exoritur ab eo est thing which arises is from him from
a quo oritur. whom it rises.
Similiter etiam patet quod non [6] In this same way it is clear that the
excluditur divinae generationis truth of divine generation is not ruled out
veritas ex hoc quod in Deo plurium by this: in God there can be no
subsistentium distinctio esse non distinction of a plurality of subsistents.
possit. Essentia enim divina, etsi The divine essence, subsistent though it
subsistens sit, non tamen potest be, cannot for all that be separated from
separari a relatione quam oportet the relation which must be understood to
in Deo intelligi ex hoc quod verbum be in God, because the conceived Word
conceptum divinae mentis est ab of the divine mind is from God Himself
ipso Deo dicente. Nam et verbum speaking. For the Word, too, is the divine
est divina essentia, ut ostensum essence, as was shown, and God
est; et Deus dicens, a quo est speaking—from whom the Word is—is
verbum, est etiam divina essentia; the divine essence; not a first and a
non alia et alia, sed eadem second, but an essence numerically the
numero. Huiusmodi autem same. But relations like this are not
relationes non sunt accidentia in accidents in God; they are subsistent
Deo, sed res subsistentes: Deo things; for nothing can happen to God,
enim nihil accidere potest, ut supra as was proved above. There are,
probatum est. Sunt igitur plures res therefore, many things subsisting if one
subsistentes, si relationes looks to the relations; there is but one
considerentur: est autem una res subsistent thing, of course, if one looks
subsistens, si consideretur to the essence. And on this account we
essentia. Et propter hoc dicimus speak of one subsisting God, because
unum Deum, quia est una essentia He is one subsisting essence; and we
subsistens: et plures personas, speak of a plurality of Persons, because
propter distinctionem of the distinction of subsisting relations.
subsistentium relationum. For the distinction of persons, even in
Personarum enim distinctio, etiam things human, is not worked out in
in rebus humanis, non attenditur accordance with the specific essence,
secundum essentiam speciei, sed but in accordance with things adjoined to
secundum ea quae sunt naturae the specific nature. Now, in all the
speciei adiuncta: in omnibus enim persons of men there is unity in the
personis hominum est una speciei specific nature; there is, nevertheless, a
natura, sunt tamen plures plurality of persons simply because men
personae, propter hoc quod are distinguished in these things which
distinguuntur homines in his quae are adjoined to the nature. In divinity,
sunt adiuncta naturae. Non ergo in therefore, one must not speak of one
divinis dicenda est una persona Person by reason of the unity of the
propter unitatem essentiae subsisting essence, but of many Persons
subsistentis: sed plures, propter by reason of the relations.
relationes.
Ex hoc autem patet quod id quod [7] From this, of course, it clearly does
est quasi individuationis not follow that what serves as principle of
principium, non sequitur esse in individuation is in some other, because
alio: nam neque essentia divina est the divine essence is not in another god,
in alio Deo, neque paternitas est in nor is the paternity in the Son.
filio.
Quamvis autem duae personae, [8] Although, of course, the two Persons

patris scilicet et filii, non —namely, that of the Father and that Of
distinguantur essentia, sed the Son—are differentiated not by
relatione, non tamen relatio est essence, but by a relation, the relation is
aliud quam essentia secundum not, for all that, other than the essence in
rem: cum relatio in Deo accidens reality, since a relation in God cannot be
esse non possit. Nec hoc an accident. Neither will this be looked
impossibile reputabitur si quis on as impossible if one earnestly
diligenter consideret ea quae in considers the points established in Book
primo determinata sunt, ubi I. There it was shown that in God are the
ostensum est quod in Deo sunt perfections of all beings, not in any
omnium entium perfectiones, non composition, but in the unity of a simple
secundum compositionem essence, for the diversity of perfections

aliquam, sed secundum simplicis which a created thing acquires by many
essentiae unitatem. Nam diversae forms is God’s in His one and simple
perfectiones quas res creata per essence. For a man lives by one form, is
multas obtinet formas, Deo wise by another, and is just by another;
competunt secundum unam et and all of these belong to God by His
simplicem eius essentiam. Homo essence. Therefore, just as wisdom and
enim aliquis per aliam formam vivit, justice in a man are accidents indeed,
et per aliam est sapiens, et per but in God the same as the divine
aliam est iustus: quae omnia Deo essence, so a relation (say, that of
per essentiam suam conveniunt. paternity or of sonship), although it be an
Sicut igitur sapientia et iustitia in accident in men, in God is the divine
homine quidem sunt accidentia, in essence.
Deo autem sunt idem quod divina
essentia: sic aliqua relatio, puta
paternitatis et filiationis, etsi in
hominibus sit accidens, in Deo est
divina essentia.
Non autem ideo dicitur quod divina [9] It is not, of course, said that the divine
sapientia sit eius essentia, cum in wisdom is His essence whereas in us
nobis sapientia super essentiam wisdom adds something to the essence,
addat, quasi divina sapientia a because the divine wisdom is, as it were,
nostra sapientia deficiat: sed quia something lesser than our wisdom; it is
eius essentia nostram essentiam said because His essence exceeds our
excedit, ita quod id ad quod essence, so that a thing which exceeds
essentia nostra non sufficit, scilicet our essence (namely, to know and to be
scire et iustum esse, Deus just) is possessed by God in His essence
secundum suam essentiam habet perfectly. Therefore, whatever is fitting to
perfecte. Oportet igitur quod us which is distinguished in accord with
quicquid nobis convenit secundum essence and with wisdom must be
essentiam et sapientiam ascribed to God by reason of His
distinctum, simul Deo secundum essence at one and the same time. And
essentiam suam attribuatur. Et a like proportion must be observed in
similis ratio in aliis est observanda. other cases. Now, since the divine
Cum igitur divina essentia sit ipsa essence is the very relation of paternity
paternitatis vel filiationis relatio, or of sonship, whatever is the property of
oportet quod quicquid est paternity must belong to God, although
paternitatis proprium Deo paternity be His very essence. However,
conveniat, licet paternitas sit ipsa this is the property of paternity: to be
essentia. Est autem hoc proprium distinguished from sonship. For one is
paternitatis, ut a filiatione said to be a father to a son as to another.
distinguatur: dicitur enim pater ad And this is, essential to a father: to be
filium quasi ad alium, et haec est the father of a son. Therefore, although
ratio patris ut sit filii pater. Licet God the Father is the divine essence,
ergo Deus pater sit divina essentia, and in the same way God the Son is,
et similiter Deus filius, ex hoc from His being the Father He is
tamen quod est pater, distinguitur a distinguished from the Son, even though
filio, licet sint unum ex hoc quod they be one in that each of the two is the
uterque est divina essentia. divine essence.
Ex hoc etiam patet quod relatio in [10] From this it is also evident that a
divinis non est absque absoluto. relation in divinity is not without an
Aliter tamen comparatur ad absolute. But a comparison to an
absolutum in Deo quam in rebus absolute in God is other than a
creatis. Nam in rebus creatis comparison to an absolute in created
comparatur relatio ad absolutum things. For in created things a relation is
sicut accidens ad subiectum: non compared to an absolute as an accident
autem in Deo, sed per modum to a subject; not in God, of course—there
identitatis, sicut est et de aliis quae the comparison is by way of identity, just
de Deo dicuntur. Idem autem as it is also in other. things which are
subiectum non potest oppositas said about God. An identical subject, of
relationes in se habere, ut sit idem course, cannot have opposed relations in
homo pater et filius. Sed essentia itself: the same man, for example, being
divina, propter omnimodam eius his father and his son. But the divine
perfectionem, idem est et essence, by reason of its all round
sapientiae et iustitiae et aliis perfection, is identified with its wisdom
huiusmodi, quae apud nos in and its justice and other things of this
diversis generibus continentur. Et kind, which in our case are contained in
similiter nihil prohibet unam differing genera. And in the same way
essentiam esse idem et paternitati nothing stops the one essence from
et filiationi, et patrem et filium being identified with paternity and
unum Deum esse, licet pater non sonship, and the Father and the Son
sit filius: eadem enim essentia est from being one God, although the Father
quae est res habens esse is not the Son; for it is by an identical
naturaliter, et verbum intelligibile essence that God has by nature being
sui ipsius. and His very own intelligible Word.
Ex his etiam quae dicta sunt, [11] From what has been said it can be
potest esse manifestum quod made clear that the relations in God are
relationes in Deo sunt secundum in reality, and not in understanding alone.
rem, et non solo intellectu. Omnis For every relation which follows on the
enim relatio quae consequitur proper operation of any thing—whether
propriam operationem alicuius rei, potency, or quantity, or anything of this
aut potentiam aut quantitatem aut kind—really exists in that thing;
aliquid huiusmodi, realiter in eo otherwise, it would be in the thing by
existit: aliter enim esset in eo solo understanding alone, as is apparent in
intellectu, sicut apparet de scientia the instance of knowledge and the
et scibili. Relatio enim scientiae ad knowable. For the relation of knowledge
scibile consequitur actionem to the knowable follows on the action of
scientis, non autem actionem the knower; not, of course, on the action
scibilis, scibile enim eodem modo of the knowable. The knowable
se habet, quantum in se est, et maintains itself as it is in itself, both when
quando intelligitur et quando non it is understood and when it is not
intelligitur: et ideo relatio in sciente understood. Accordingly, the relation is in
realiter est, in scibili autem the knower really, but it is in the
secundum intellectum tantum; knowable consequently upon
dicitur enim quod intelligitur scibile understanding only, since one says that
ad scientiam relative ex eo quod the knowable is understood relatively to
scientia refertur ad ipsum. Simile the knowledge because the knowledge is

quoque apparet in dextro et related to the knowable. A like situation
sinistro. In animalibus enim appears in the case of right and left. For
distinctae sunt virtutes ex quibus there is in animals a distinction of the
relatio dextri et sinistri consurgit: powers from which the relation of right
propter quod talis relatio vere et and left arises, on which account such a
realiter in animali existit; unde, relation truly and really exists in the
qualitercumque vertatur animal, animal. Hence, no matter how the animal
semper relatio eodem modo is turned around, the relation always
manet, nunquam enim pars dextra maintains itself in the same way, for the
sinistra dicetur. Res vero right part is never called the left.
inanimatae, quae praedictis Inanimate things, to be sure, which lack
virtutibus carent, non habent in se the powers just mentioned, have no
huiusmodi relationem realiter relation of this kind really existing in
existentem sed nominantur them, but one names them in the relation
secundum relationem dextri aut of right or of left from this: the animals in
sinistri ex eo quod animalia aliquo some way present themselves to the
modo se habent ad ipsam: unde inanimate. Hence, the same column is
eadem columna nunc dextra, nunc called now right, now left, inasmuch as
sinistra dicitur, secundum quod the animal is compared to it in a different
animal ex diverso situ ei situation. Of course, the relation of the
comparatur. Relatio autem verbi ad Word to God who speaks and whose
Deum dicentem, cuius est verbum, Word He is in the divinity is based on the
in Deo ponitur ex hoc quod Deus fact that God understands Himself. This
seipsum intelligit, quae quidem operation is, indeed, in God, or, rather, is
operatio in Deo est, vel magis est God Himself, as was shown above. One
ipse Deus, ut supra ostensum est. concludes that the relations aforesaid are
Relinquitur igitur praedictas in God truly and really and not solely
relationes in Deo esse vere et according to our understanding.
realiter, et non solum secundum
intellectum nostrum.
Quamvis autem in Deo ponatur [12] Although, of course, one holds that
esse relatio, non tamen sequitur there is a relation in God, it does not, for
quod in Deo sit aliquid habens all that, follow that there is in God
esse dependens. In nobis enim something which has a dependent being,
relationes habent esse dependens, for in us the relations have a dependent
quia earum esse est aliud ab esse being because their being is other than
substantiae: unde habent proprium the being of the substance. Hence, they
modum essendi secundum have a proper mode of being in their
propriam rationem, sicut et in aliis proper essence, just as happens in the
accidentibus contingit. Quia enim case of the other accidents. In view of
omnia accidentia sunt formae the fact that all accidents are forms of a
quaedam substantiae sort superadded to the substance and
superadditae, et a principiis caused by the principles of the
substantiae causatae; oportet quod substance, it must be that their being is
eorum esse sit superadditum supra superadded to the being of the
esse substantiae, et ab ipso substance and dependent on that being.
dependens; et tanto uniuscuiusque And by as much as the being of each
eorum esse est prius vel posterius, and every one of them is prior or
quanto forma accidentalis, posterior, by that much the accidental

secundum propriam rationem, form in its proper essence will be more
fuerit propinquior substantiae vel like a substance or more perfect. For this
magis perfecta. Propter quod et reason even a relation really accruing to
relatio realiter substantiae a substance has a being which is last in
adveniens et postremum et order and quite imperfect: last in order,
imperfectissimum esse habet: that is, because not only is the being of
postremum quidem, quia non the substance prerequisite, but also the
solum praeexigit esse substantiae, being of other accidents, out of which the
sed etiam esse aliorum relation is caused (thus to be one in
accidentium, ex quibus causatur quantity causes equality, and one in
relatio, sicut unum in quantitate quality similarity); quite imperfect in turn,
causat aequalitatem, et unum in because the proper essence of the
qualitate similitudinem; relation consists in its being toward
imperfectissimum autem, quia another—hence, its proper being, which
propria relationis ratio consistit in it adds to the substance, depends not
eo quod est ad alterum, unde esse only on the being of the substance, but
eius proprium, quod substantiae on the being of some exterior thing as
superaddit, non solum dependet well. This situation, of course, has no
ab esse substantiae, sed etiam ab place in divinity, since there is in God no
esse alicuius exterioris. Haec other being than that of substance, for
autem in divinis locum non habent: whatever is in God is substance. Just as
quia non est in Deo aliquod aliud the being of wisdom in God, therefore, is
esse quam substantiae; quicquid not being by depending on substance
enim in Deo est, substantia est. (since the being of wisdom is the being
Sicut igitur esse sapientiae in Deo of substance), so the being of relation is
non est esse dependens a not being by depending either on
substantia, quia esse sapientiae substance or on another exterior thing
est esse substantiae; ita nec esse (since the being of relation is also the
relationis est esse dependens being of substance). From the fact, then,
neque a substantia, neque ab alio that one puts a relation in God it does not
exteriori, quia etiam esse relationis follow that there is in Him some
est esse substantiae. Non igitur dependent being, but only that there is in
per hoc quod relatio in Deo ponitur, Him some aspect in which aspect the
sequitur quod sit in eo aliquod essence of relation consists. just so from
esse dependens; sed solum quod the fact that one puts wisdom in God it
in Deo sit respectus aliquis, in quo does not follow that there is something
ratio relationis consistit; sicut ex accidental in Him, but only that there is a
hoc quod sapientia in Deo ponitur, certain perfection in which the essence
non sequitur quod sit in eo aliquid of wisdom consists.
accidentale, sed solum perfectio
quaedam in qua ratio sapientiae
consistit.
Per quod etiam patet quod ex [13] Thus clearly, also, from the
imperfectione quae in relationibus imperfection in created relations it does
creatis esse videtur, non sequitur not follow that the divine persons—
quod personae divinae sint distinguished by relations—are
imperfectae, quae relationibus imperfect, but it does follow that the
distinguuntur: sed sequitur quod distinction of the divine persons is

divinarum personarum minima sit minimal.
distinctio.
Patet etiam ex praedictis quod, [14] Clearly, also, from the points made,
licet Deus de patre et filio although God is substantially predicated
substantialiter praedicetur, non of the Father and the Son, it does not for
tamen sequitur, si pater et filius sint all that follow that, if the Father and the
plures quidam, quod sint plures dii. Son are a kind of plurality, they are a
Sunt enim plures propter plurality of gods. For they are many by
distinctionem subsistentium reason of the distinction of subsistent
relationum: sed tamen sunt unus relations, yet one God, nevertheless, by
Deus propter unitatem essentiae reason of the unity of subsistent
subsistentis. Hoc autem in essence. This does not happen among
hominibus non contingit, ut plures men, of course—that is, that some
aliqui sint unus homo: quia plurality is one man—since the essence
essentia humanitatis non est una of humanity is not numerically one in
numero in utroque; neque essentia each of the plurality, nor is the essence
humanitatis est subsistens, ut of humanity subsistent; that is, humanity
humanitas sit homo. is not a man.
Ex hoc autem quod in Deo est [15] From the fact that in God there is
essentiae unitas et relationum unity of essence and distinction of
distinctio, manifestum fit quod nihil relations it becomes manifest that
prohibet in uno Deo opposita nothing stops one’s finding opposites in
quaedam inveniri: illa dumtaxat the one God, at least those opposites
opposita quae relationis which follow the distinction of relation:
distinctionem consequuntur, ut begetting and begotten, for instance,
generans et genitum, quae which are opposed relatively, and
opponuntur relative, et genitum et begotten and unbegotten which are
ingenitum, quae opponuntur ut opposed as affirmation and negation. For
affirmatio et negatio. Ubicumque wherever there is a distinction one must
enim est aliqua distinctio, oportet find the opposition of negation and
inveniri negationis et affirmationis affirmation. Things which differ in no
oppositionem. Quae enim affirmation or negation are entirely
secundum nullam affirmationem et undifferentiated, for the first would have
negationem differunt, penitus to be in every respect one with the
indistincta sunt: oportet enim quod second, and thus they would be
quantum ad omnia unum esset thoroughly identified, and in no way
quod et alterum, et sic essent distinct.
penitus idem, et nullo modo
distincta.
Haec igitur de generatione divina [16] Let these points on the divine
dicta sufficiant. generation suffice, then.
Caput 15 Chapter 15
De spiritu sancto, quod sit in ON THE HOLY SPIRIT, THAT HE IS IN
divinis DIVINITY
Divinae autem Scripturae [1] Now, divine Scriptures’ authority not

auctoritas non solum nobis in only tells us about the Father and the
divinis patrem et filium annuntiat, Son in divinity, but together with these
sed his duobus spiritum sanctum two also numbers the Holy Spirit. For our
connumerat. Dicit enim dominus, Lord says: “Going, therefore, teach ye all
Matthaei ult.: euntes docete omnes nations: baptizing them in the name of
gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine the Father, and of the Son, and of the
patris et filii et spiritus sancti; et I Holy Spirit” (Mat. 2.8:1g). And 1 John
Ioannis 57: tres sunt qui (5:7) says: “there are three who give
testimonium dant in caelo, pater, testimony in heaven, the Father, the
verbum et spiritus sanctus. Huius Word, and the Holy Ghost.” Sometimes,
etiam spiritus sancti processionem also, the procession of this Holy Spirit is
quandam sacra Scriptura mentioned by Scripture. We read in John
commemorat. Dicit enim Ioannis (15:26): “When the Paraclete comes,
1526: cum venerit Paraclitus, whom I will send you from the Father, the
quem ego mittam vobis a patre, Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the
spiritum veritatis, qui a patre Father, He shall give testimony of Me.”
procedit, ille testimonium perhibebit
de me.
Caput 16 Chapter 16
Rationes ex quibus aliqui ARGUMENTS WHICH MADE SOME
spiritum sanctum THINK THE HOLY SPIRIT A CREATURE
existimaverunt esse creaturam
Opinati sunt autem quidam [1] Now, in the opinion of some, the Holy

spiritum sanctum creaturam esse, Spirit is a creature exalted over other
aliis creaturis excelsiorem: ad creatures. They used the testimony of
cuius assertionem sacrae sacred Scripture for this assertion.
Scripturae testimoniis utebantur.
Dicitur enim Amos 413, [2] Amos (4:13) says, if we take the
secundum litteram Septuaginta: Septuagint literally: “Behold He who
ecce formans montes, et creans forms the mountains and creates the
spiritum, et annuntians homini spirit and declares His word to man.” And
verbum eius. Et Zach. 121: dicit Zechariah (12:1): “Thus says the Lord
dominus, extendens caelum, et who stretches forth the heavens, and lays
fundans terram, et creans spiritum the foundations of the earth, and creates
hominis in eo. Videtur igitur quod the spirit of man in it.” It seems, then, that
spiritus sanctus sit creatura. the Holy Spirit is a creature.
Adhuc. Dicit dominus, Ioan. 1613, [3] Moreover, our Lord says, speaking of

de spiritu sancto loquens: non the Holy Spirit: “He shall not speak of
loquetur a semetipso, sed Himself, but what things soever He shall
quaecumque audiet, loquetur: ex hear, He shall speak” (John 16:23), and
quo videtur quod nihil ultroneae from this it appears that He speaks not
potestatis auctoritate loquatur, sed with the authority of a further power, but
iubenti per ministerium famuletur; to one who commands He is in a service
loqui enim quae quis audit, of obedience, for to speak what one
famulantis esse videtur. Videtur hears is proper to a servant. Therefore,
igitur spiritus sanctus esse the Holy Spirit seems to he a creature
creatura Deo subiecta. subject to God.
Item. Mitti inferioris esse videtur: [4] Again, “to be sent” appears proper to
cum in mittente importetur an inferior, since there is in the sender an
auctoritas. Spiritus autem sanctus implication of authority. The Holy Spirit, of
a patre et filio mittitur. Dicit enim course, is sent by the Father and the
dominus, Ioan. 1426: Paraclitus Son, for our Lord says: “The Paraclete,
spiritus sanctus, quem mittet pater the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will
in nomine meo, ille vos docebit send in My name, He will teach you all
omnia; et Ioan. 1526: cum venerit things”; and: “Men the Paraclete cometh,
Paraclitus, quem ego mittam vobis whom I will send you from the Father”
a patre. Spiritus ergo sanctus et (John 14:26; 25:26). The Holy Spirit,
patre et filio minor esse videtur. therefore, appears to be less than the
Father and the Son.
Adhuc. Scriptura divina, filium [5] Moreover, divine Scripture,

patri associans in his quae associating the Son with the Father in
divinitatis esse videntur, de spiritu matters of divinity, makes no mention of
sancto mentionem non facit: ut the Holy Spirit. This is clear from Matthew
patet Matth. 1127, cum dominus (11:27), when our Lord says: “No one
dicit: nemo novit filium nisi pater, knows the Son but the Father: neither
neque patrem quis novit nisi filius, doth any one know the Father but the
de spiritu sancto mentione non Son,” making no mention of the Holy
facta. Et Ioan. 173 dicitur: haec Spirit. And John (17:3) says: “This is
est vita aeterna, ut cognoscant te, eternal life: that they may know You, the
solum Deum verum, et quem only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom
misisti, Iesum Christum, ubi etiam You sent.” There, again, no mention is
de spiritu sancto mentio non fit. made of the Holy Spirit. The Apostle also
Apostolus etiam, ad Rom. 17, says: “Grace to you and peace from God
dicit: gratia vobis et pax a Deo our Father, and from the Lord Jesus
patre nostro, et domino Iesu Christ” (Rom. 2:7); and: “To us there is
Christo; et I ad Cor. 86: nobis but one God, the Father, of whom are all
unus Deus pater, ex quo omnia et things, and we unto Him; and one Lord
nos in illo et unus dominus Iesus Jesus Christ by whom are all things and
Christus, per quem omnia et nos we by Him” (1 Cor. 8:6); and in these
per ipsum: in quibus etiam nihil de places also there is nothing said about
spiritu sancto dicitur. Videtur igitur the Holy Spirit. It seems, therefore, that
spiritus sanctus Deus non esse. the Holy Spirit is not God.
Amplius. Omne quod movetur [6] There is more. Whatever is moved is
creatum est: ostensum est enim in created, for it was shown in Book I that
primo Deum immobilem esse. God is immobile. But to the Holy Spirit
Spiritui autem sancto Scriptura motion is attributed by divine Scripture.
divina motum attribuit. Dicitur enim One reads in Genesis (1:2): “And the
Gen. 12: spiritus domini ferebatur Spirit of God was moved over the
super aquas. Et Ioel. 228: waters”; and in Joel (2:28): “I will pour out
effundam de spiritu meo super My spirit upon all flesh.” It seems,
omnem carnem. Videtur igitur therefore, that the Holy Spirit is a
spiritus sanctus creatura esse. creature.
Praeterea. Omne quod potest [7] Moreover, everything that can be

augeri vel dividi, mutabile est et increased or divided is mutable and
creatum. Haec autem spiritui created. These seem to be attributed to
sancto in Scripturis sacris attribui the Holy Spirit in sacred Scripture. For the
videntur. Dicit enim dominus, Lord said to Moses: “Gather unto Me
Num. 11, ad Moysen: congrega seventy men of the ancients of Israel; and
mihi septuaginta viros de I will take of your spirit, and will give to
senioribus Israel, et auferam de them” (Num. 11:1617). And 2 Samuel
spiritu tuo, tradamque eis. Et IV (2:910) says that Elishah begged of
Reg. 2, dicitur quod Eliseus ab Elijah: “I beseech you that in me may be
Elia petiit, obsecro quod fiat your double spirit”; and Elijah answered:
spiritus tuus duplex in me et Elias “If you see me when I am taken from you,
respondit, si videris quando tollar you shall have what you asked.” The Holy
a te, erit quod petisti. Videtur ergo Spirit, therefore, appears to be mutable
spiritus sanctus esse mutabilis, et and not to be God.
non esse Deus.
Item. In Deum tristitia cadere non [8] Again, no sorrow can come upon God,

potest: cum tristitia passio since sorrow is passion of a sort and God
quaedam sit, Deus autem is not subject to passion. But passion
impassibilis est. Cadit autem does come upon the Holy Spirit; as the
tristitia in spiritum sanctum. Unde Apostle reveals: “Grieve not the Holy
apostolus dicit, Ephes. 430: nolite Spirit of God” (Eph. 4:30); and Isaiah
contristare spiritum sanctum Dei. (63:10) says: “They provoked to wrath
Et Isaiae 6310 dicitur: ipsi ad and afflicted His Holy Spirit.” The Holy
iracundiam provocaverunt, et Spirit, therefore, seems not to be God.
afflixerunt spiritum sanctum eius.
Videtur igitur spiritus sanctus
Deus non esse.
Adhuc. Deo non convenit orare, [9] What is more, it is not suitable for God

sed magis orari. Spiritui autem to entreat, but to be entreated. But to
sancto orare convenit: dicitur enim entreat is suitable to the Holy Spirit; we
ad Rom. 826: ipse spiritus read in Romans (8:2.6): “The Spirit
postulat pro nobis gemitibus Himself asks for us with unspeakable
inenarrabilibus. Spiritus ergo groanings.” Therefore, the Holy Spirit
sanctus non esse Deus videtur. appears not to be God.
Amplius. Nullus congrue donat nisi [10] Moreover, no one makes a thing a

id cuius habet dominium. Sed gift appropriately unless he has dominion

Deus pater dat spiritum sanctum, over it. But God the Father gives the Holy
et similiter filius. Dicit enim Spirit, and so does God the Son. For our
dominus, Lucae 1113: pater Lord says: “Your Father from heaven will
vester de caelo dabit spiritum give the good Spirit to them that ask Him”
bonum petentibus se; et Act. 532, (Luke 11:13); and Peter speaks of “the
Petrus dicit quod Deus spiritum Holy Spirit whom God has given to all
sanctum dedit obedientibus sibi. that obey Him” (Acts 5:32).
Ex his igitur videtur quod spiritus [11] For these reasons it seems, then,
sanctus Deus non sit. that the Holy Spirit is not God.
Item. Si spiritus sanctus verus [2] Once again, if the Holy Spirit is truly
Deus est, oportet quod naturam God, He ought to have the divine nature.
divinam habeat: et sic, cum Thus, when the Holy Spirit “proceeds
spiritus sanctus a patre procedat, from the Father” (as John 15:26 has it),
ut dicitur Ioan. 1526, necesse est necessarily He receives the divine nature
quod ab eo naturam divinam from the Father. Of course, what receives
accipiat. Quod autem accipit its nature from a thing which produces it
naturam eius a quo producitur, ab is generated by that thing. For it is proper
eo generatur: proprium enim est to one begotten to be produced unto a
geniti ut in similem speciem sui similarity in species to its principle.
principii producatur. Spiritus ergo Therefore, the Holy Spirit will be begotten
sanctus genitus erit, et per and, consequently, the Son. And this is
consequens filius. Quod sanae repugnant to sound faith.
fidei repugnat.
Praeterea. Si spiritus sanctus [13] If the Holy Spirit, furthermore,
naturam divinam a patre accipit et receives the divine nature from the Father
non quasi genitus, oportet divinam and not as one begotten, the divine
naturam duobus modis nature must be communicated in two
communicari: scilicet per modum ways: by way of generation in which the
generationis, quo procedit filius; et Son proceeds, and in that way in which
per illum modum quo procedit the Holy Spirit proceeds. But one nature
spiritus sanctus. Hoc autem uni seems not to have two fitting modes of
naturae competere non videtur, ut communication if one examines natures
duobus modis communicetur, si universally. It seems, therefore, that the
quis universas naturas inspiciat. Holy Spirit, since He does not receive the
Oportet igitur, ut videtur, cum divine nature by generation, does not
spiritus sanctus, naturam per receive it in any way at all. He thus
generationem non accipiat quod appears not to be true God.
nullo modo accipiat eam. Et sic
videtur non esse verus Deus.
Fuit autem haec positio Arii, qui [14] Now, this was the position of Arius,
filium et spiritum sanctum dixit who said that the Son and the Holy Spirit
esse creaturas; filium tamen were creatures: the Son, to be sure,
maiorem spiritu sancto, et spiritum greater than the Holy Spirit, and the Holy
sanctum eius ministrum; sicut et Spirit the servant of the Son; just so, he
filium minorem patre esse dicebat. said that the Son was lesser than the

Quem etiam quantum ad spiritum Father. Arius was followed in respect of
sanctum secutus est Macedonius, the Holy Spirit by Macedonius, “who
qui de patre et filio recte sensit rightly held that the Father and the Son
quod unius eiusdemque were of one and the same substance, but
substantiae sint, sed hoc de spiritu was unwilling to believe this of the Holy
sancto credere noluit, creaturam Spirit. He said that the Holy Spirit was a
eum esse dicens. Unde quidam creature.” Hence, some call the
Macedonianos Semiarianos Macedonians SemiArians, because they
vocant, eo quod cum Arianis in are in partial agreement with the Arians,
parte conveniunt, et in parte and in partial disagreement with the same
differunt ab eisdem. group.
Caput 17 Chapter 17
Quod spiritus sanctus sit verus THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT IS TRUE
Deus786 GOD
Ostenditur autem evidentibus [1] One shows, of course, by clear
Scripturae testimoniis quod spiritus testimonies from Scripture that the Holy
sanctus sit Deus. Nulli enim Spirit is true God. For to none but God is
templum consecratur nisi Deo: a temple consecrated, and so the
unde et in Psalmo dicitur: Deus in Psalmist speaks of “God in His holy
templo sancto suo. Deputatur temple” (Ps. 10:5). Yet there is a temple
autem templum spiritui sancto: dicit assigned to the Holy Spirit, for the
enim apostolus, I ad Cor. 619: an Apostle says: “Or know you not that your
nescitis quoniam membra vestra members are the temple of the Holy
templum sunt spiritus sancti? Spirit?” The Holy Spirit, therefore, is
Spiritus ergo sanctus Deus est. Et God. This is especially clear since our
praecipue cum membra nostra, members, which the Apostle calls the
quae templum spiritus sancti esse temple of the Holy Spirit, are the
dicit, sint membra Christi: nam members of Christ. For just above he
supra praemiserat: nescitis had set down: “Know you not that your
quoniam corpora vestra membra bodies are the members of Christ?” (1
sunt Christi? Inconveniens autem Cor. 6:19, 15). It obviously would be
esset, cum Christus sit verus Deus, awkward (since Christ is true God, as is
ut ex superioribus patet, quod clear from the foregoing) to have the
membra Christi templum spiritus members of Christ a temple of the Holy
sancti essent, nisi spiritus sanctus Spirit if the Holy Spirit were not God.
Deus esset.
Item. A sanctis latriae servitus non [2] Again, holy men do not give the cult
nisi vero Deo exhibetur: dicitur of adoration except to the true God, for
enim Deut. 613: dominum Deum Deuteronomy (6:13) says: “You shall
tuum timebis, et illi soli servies. fear the Lord your God, and shall serve
Serviunt autem sancti spiritui Him only.” But holy men serve the Holy
sancto: dicit enim apostolus, Spirit, as the Apostle says: “We are the
Philipp. 33: nos sumus circumcision who serve the Spirit of
circumcisio, qui spiritui Deo God” (Phil. 3:3). And although some
servimus. Et licet quidam libri books have “who serve in the spirit of
habeant, qui spiritu domini the Lord,” the Greek books and some Of
servimus, tamen Graeci libri, et the more ancient Latin ones have: “who
antiquiores Latini, habent, qui serve the Spirit of God.” And from the
spiritui Deo servimus. Et ex ipso Greek itself, this clearly must be
Graeco apparet quod hoc de understood as the cult of adoration
servitute latriae intelligendum est, which is due to God alone. Therefore,
quae soli Deo debetur. Est igitur the Holy Spirit is true God to whom
spiritus sanctus verus Deus, cui adoration is due.
latria debetur.
Adhuc. Sanctificare homines [3] Further, to sanctify men is the proper

proprium Dei opus est: dicitur enim work of God, for Leviticus (22:32) says:
Levit. 2232: ego dominus, qui “I am the Lord who sanctify you.” It is, of
sanctifico vos. Est autem spiritus course, the Holy Spirit who sanctifies, as
sanctus qui sanctificat: dicit enim the Apostle says: “You are washed, you
apostolus, I Cor. 611: abluti estis, are sanctified, you are justified in the
sanctificati estis, iustificati estis, in name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the
nomine domini nostri Iesu Christi, Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11). And in 2
et in spiritu Dei nostri; et II ad Thessalonians (2:12) one reads: “God
Thess. 213, dicitur: elegit nos has chosen you first fruits unto
Deus primitias in salutem in salvation, in sanctification of the Spirit
sanctificatione spiritus et fide and faith of the truth.” Necessarily,
veritatis. Oportet igitur spiritum therefore, the Holy Spirit is God.
sanctum Deum esse.
Amplius. Sicut vita naturae corporis [4] And further, just as the life of

est per animam, ita vita iustitiae corporeal nature is from the soul, so the
ipsius animae est per Deum: unde life of justice of the soul itself is from
dominus dicit, Ioan. 658: sicut misit God; and so our Lord says: “As the
me vivens pater, et ego vivo propter living Father has sent Me, and I live by
patrem, et qui manducat me, et the Father, so He that eats Me, the
ipse vivet propter me. Huiusmodi same also shall live by Me” (John 6:58).
autem vita est per spiritum Of course, this kind of life is from the
sanctum: unde ibidem subditur: Holy Spirit, and so our Lord adds in the
spiritus est qui vivificat; et ad Rom. same place: “It is the Spirit that gives
813, dicit apostolus: si spiritu facta life” (John 6:54); and the Apostle says:
carnis mortificaveritis, vivetis. “If by the Spirit you mortify the deeds of
Spiritus ergo sanctus divinae the flesh, you shall live” (Rom. 8:13).
naturae est. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is of the divine
nature.
Praeterea. Dominus, in [5] Our Lord, furthermore, when arguing

argumentum suae divinitatis contra His divinity against the Jews who could
Iudaeos, qui sustinere non poterant not bear the fact that He made Himself
ut se Deo aequalem faceret, asserit equal to God, asserts that there is in
in se esse resuscitandi virtutem: Him a power of raising to life. He says in
dicens, Ioan. 521: sicut pater John (5:21): “As the Father raises up the
suscitat mortuos et vivificat, sic et dead and gives life, so the Son also
filius quos vult vivificat. Virtus gives life to whom He will.” The power of

autem resuscitativa ad spiritum raising to life, of course, belongs to the
sanctum pertinet: dicit enim Holy Spirit; as the Apostle says: “If the
apostolus, Rom. 811: si spiritus Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from
eius qui suscitavit Iesum Christum the dead dwell in you; He that raised up
a mortuis, habitat in vobis, qui Jesus Christ from the dead shall quicken
suscitavit Iesum Christum a also your mortal bodies, because of His
mortuis, vivificabit et mortalia Spirit that dwells in you” (Rom. 8:11).
corpora vestra, propter Therefore, the Holy Spirit is of the divine
inhabitantem spiritum eius in vobis. nature.
Spiritus ergo sanctus est divinae
naturae.
Item. Creatio solius Dei opus est, ut [6] Again, creation is the work of God

supra ostensum est. Pertinet autem alone, as was shown above. But
creatio ad spiritum sanctum: dicitur creation belongs to the Holy Spirit; as
enim in Psalmo: emitte spiritum the Psalmist says: “Send forth your
tuum, et creabuntur; et Iob 334, Spirit, and they shall be created” (Ps.
dicitur: spiritus Dei fecit me; et 103:30); and Job (33:4) says: “The Spirit
Eccli. 19, dicitur de Deo: ipse of God made me”; and Sirach (1:9) says
creavit illam, scilicet sapientiam, of God: “He created her,” meaning
spiritu sancto. Est ergo spiritus wisdom, “in the Holy Spirit.” Therefore,
sanctus divinae naturae. the Holy Spirit is of the divine nature.
Adhuc. Apostolus dicit, I ad Cor. 2 [7] The Apostle says, further: “The Spirit
10 spiritus omnia scrutatur, etiam searches all things, yea, the deep things
profunda Dei. Quis enim scit quae of God. For what man knows the things
sunt hominis nisi spiritus hominis, of a man but the spirit of a man that is in
qui in ipso est? Ita et quae Dei sunt him? So the things also that are of God
nemo cognovit nisi spiritus Dei. no man knows, but the Spirit of God” (1
Comprehendere autem omnia Cor. 2:1011). But to comprehend all the
profunda Dei non est alicuius deep things of God is not the act of a
creaturae: quod patet ex hoc quod creature. And this is clear from our
dominus dicit, Matth. 1127: nemo Lord’s words: “No one knows the Son
novit filium nisi pater, neque patrem but the Father, neither doth any one
quis novit nisi filius. Et Isaiae 2416, know the Father but the Son” (Mat.
ex persona Dei, dicitur: secretum 11:27). And Isaiah (24:16) says in the
meum mihi. Ergo spiritus sanctus person of God: “My secret to Myself.”
non est creatura. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is not a
creature.
Praeterea. Secundum praedictam [8] What is more, in the comparison by
apostoli comparationem, spiritus the Apostle just given, the Holy Spirit is
sanctus se habet ad Deum sicut to God as the spirit of man is to man.
spiritus hominis ad hominem. Now, the spirit of man is intrinsic to man
Spiritus autem hominis intrinsecus and is not extraneous to him in nature,
est homini, et non est extraneae but is of his nature. Therefore, the Holy
naturae ab ipso, sed est aliquid Spirit as well is not by nature extraneous
eius. Igitur et spiritus sanctus non to God.

est naturae extraneae a Deo.
Amplius. Si quis conferat verba [9] If one further compares the just
apostoli praemissa verbis Isaiae quoted words of the Apostle with those
prophetae, manifeste percipiet of the Prophet Isaiah, he will see clearly
spiritum sanctum Deum esse. that the Holy Spirit is God. For Isaiah
Dicitur enim Isaiae 644: oculus (64:4) says: “The eye has not seen, O
non vidit, Deus, absque te, quae God, besides You, what things You hast
praeparasti expectantibus te. Quae prepared for them that wait for You.” And
quidem verba apostolus cum the Apostle, indeed, when he had
introduxisset, subiungit verba introduced these words (1 Cor. 7:9)
praemissa scilicet quod spiritus adds the words just mentioned, to wit,
scrutatur profunda Dei. Unde that “the Spirit searches the deep things
manifestum est quod spiritus of God” (1 Cor. 2:910). Manifestly,
sanctus illa profunda Dei cognoscit therefore, the Holy Spirit knows those
quae praeparavit expectantibus deep things of God “which He has
eum. Si ergo haec nullus vidit prepared for those that wait for Him.”
praeter Deum, ut Isaias dicit, Therefore, if none sees these besides
manifestum est spiritum sanctum God, as Isaiah says, clearly the Holy
Deum esse. Spirit is God.
Item. Isaiae 6 dicitur: audivi vocem [10] Isaiah, once again (6:89), says: “I

Dei dicentis: quem mittam, et quis heard the voice of God saying: Whom
ibit nobis? Et dixi: ecce ego sum, shall I send? And I said: Lo, here am I,
mitte me. Et dixit: vade, et dices send me. And He said: Go, and you
populo huic: audite audientes et shall say to His people: Hearing, hear,
nolite intelligere. Haec autem verba and understand not.” Now, Paul ascribes
Paulus spiritui sancto attribuit: unde these words to the Holy Spirit; and thus
dicitur Act. ult., quod Paulus dixit we are told that Paul said to the Jews:
Iudaeis: bene spiritus sanctus “Well, did the Holy Spirit speak... by
locutus est per Isaiam prophetam Isaiah the Prophet, saying: Go to this
dicens: vade ad populum istum et people and say to them: With the ear
dic ad eos: aure audietis et non you shall hear and shall not understand”
intelligetis. Manifestum est ergo (Acts 28:2526). Manifestly, therefore, the
spiritum sanctum Deum esse. Holy Spirit is God.
Adhuc. Ex sacris Scripturis apparet [11] It is further apparent from sacred

Deum esse qui locutus est per Scripture that it is God who speaks by
prophetas: dicitur enim Num. 126, the Prophets. For from the mouth of
ex ore Dei: si quis fuerit inter vos God, Numbers (12:6) says: “If there be
propheta domini, in visione among you a prophet of the Lord, I will
apparebo ei, vel per somnium appear to him in a vision, or I will speak
loquar ad illum; et in Psalmo dicitur: to him in a dream.” And a Psalm (84:9)
audiam quid loquatur in me says: “I will hear what the Lord God will
dominus Deus. Manifeste autem speak in me.” But it is plain to see that
ostenditur spiritum sanctum the Holy Spirit has spoken in the
locutum esse in prophetis. Dicitur Prophets. One reads in Acts (1:16): “The
enim Act. 116: oportet enim impleri Scripture must needs be fulfilled, which
Scripturam quam praedixit spiritus the Holy Spirit spoke before by the
sanctus per os David. Et Matth. 22, mouth of David.” And in Matthew our
dominus dicit: quomodo dicunt Lord says: “How do the scribes say that
Scribae Christum filium David Christ is the son of David. For David
esse? Ipse enim dicebat in spiritu himself says by the Holy Spirit: The Lord
sancto: dixit dominus domino meo, said to my Lord: Sit you at My right
sede a dextris meis. Et II Petr. 121 hand.” And in 2 Peter (1:71) we read:
dicitur: non enim voluntate humana “For prophecy came not by the will of
allata est aliquando prophetia, sed man at any time, but the holy men of
spiritu sancto inspirati locuti sunt God spoke, inspired by the Holy Spirit.”
sancti Dei homines. Manifeste ergo Therefore, one plainly gathers from the
ex Scripturis colligitur spiritum Scriptures that the Holy Spirit is God.
sanctum Deum esse.
Item. Revelatio mysteriorum [ 12] Again, that the revelation of

proprium opus Dei ostenditur in mysteries is a proper work of God is
Scripturis: dicitur enim Dan. 228: shown in Scripture, for in Daniel (2:28) it
est Deus in caelo revelans says: “There is a God in heaven that
mysteria. Mysteriorum autem reveals mysteries.” But the revelation of
revelatio opus spiritus sancti mysteries is seen to be a work of the
ostenditur: dicitur enim I ad Cor. 2 Holy Spirit, for we read in 1 Corinthians
10: nobis revelavit Deus per (2:10; 14:2): “To us God has revealed
spiritum suum; et 142 dicitur: them, by his Spirit”; and: “By the Spirit
spiritus loquitur mysteria. Spiritus He speaks mysteries.” The Holy Spirit,
ergo sanctus Deus est. therefore, is God.
Praeterea. Interius docere proprium [13] What is more, to teach within is a

opus Dei est: dicitur enim in proper work of God, for the Psalmist
Psalmo de Deo: qui docet hominem says of God: “He who teaches man
scientiam; et Dan. 221: dat knowledge” (93:16); and Daniel (2:21):
sapientiam sapientibus, et “He gives wisdom to the wise, and
scientiam intelligentibus knowledge to them that have
disciplinam. Hoc autem proprium understanding.” ]out that such is the
opus spiritus sancti esse proper work of the Holy Spirit is plain, for
manifestum est: dicit enim our Lord speaks in John (14:26): of “the
dominus, Ioan. 1426: Paraclitus Paraclete, the Holy Spirit whom the
spiritus sanctus, quem mittet pater Father will send in My name: He will
in nomine meo, ille vos docebit teach you all things.” The Holy Spirit,
omnia. Spiritus ergo sanctus est therefore, is of the divine nature.
divinae naturae.
Adhuc. Quorum est eadem [14] Furthermore, those who are

operatio, oportet esse eandem identical in operation must be identical in
naturam. Est autem eadem nature. But the operation of the Son and
operatio filii et spiritus sancti. Quod the Holy Spirit is identical. For Christ
enim Christus in sanctis loquatur, speaks in the saints, as the Apostle
apostolus ostendit, II ad Cor. ult., shows in the words of 2 Corinthians
dicens: an experimentum quaeritis (13:3): “Do you seek a proof of Christ
eius qui in me loquitur, Christus? that speaks in me?” This also plainly
Hoc etiam opus spiritus sancti esse appears to be a work of the Holy Spirit,
manifeste apparet: dicitur enim for we read in Matthew (10:20): “It is not
Matth. 1020: non vos estis qui you that speak, but the Spirit of your
loquimini, sed spiritus patris vestri, Father who speaks in you.” There is,
qui loquitur in vobis. Est ergo then, an identical nature in the Son and
eadem natura filii et spiritus sancti, the Holy Spirit and, consequently, the
et per consequens patris: cum Father, since it has been shown that the
ostensum sit patrem et filium unam Father and Son are one nature.
esse naturam.
Amplius. Inhabitare mentes [15] Moreover, to dwell in the minds of
sanctorum proprium Dei est: unde the saints is the proper work of God, and
apostolus dicit, II ad Cor. 616: vos so the Apostle says: “You are the temple
estis templum Dei vivi, sicut dicit of the living God; as God says: I will
dominus. Quoniam inhabitabo in dwell in you” (2 Cor. 6:16). But the
illis. Hoc autem idem apostolus Apostle attributes the same thing to the
spiritui sancto attribuit: dicit enim, I Holy Spirit, for he says: “Know you not
ad Cor. 316: nescitis quia templum that you are the temple of God, and that
Dei estis, et spiritus sanctus habitat the Spirit of God dwells in you?” (1 Cor.
in vobis? Est ergo spiritus sanctus 3:16). Therefore, the Holy Spirit is God.
Deus.
Item. Esse ubique proprium Dei [16] Once again, to be everywhere is
est, qui dicit Ier. 2324: caelum et proper to God, who says in Jeremiah
terram ego impleo. Hoc spiritui (23:24): “I fill heaven and earth.” This
sancto convenit. Dicitur enim Sap. belongs to the Holy Spirit, for we read in
17: spiritus domini replevit orbem Wisdom (1:7): “The Spirit of the Lord
terrarum; et in Psalmo: quo ibo a bath filled the whole world,” and the
spiritu tuo? Et quo a facie tua Psalmist says: “Whither shall I go from
fugiam? Si ascendero in caelum, tu your Spirit? Or whither shall I flee from
illic es, et cetera. Dominus etiam your face? If I ascend into heaven, You
discipulis dicit, Act. 18: accipietis are there,” and so forth (Ps. 138:78).
virtutem supervenientis spiritus Our Lord also says to the disciples: “You
sancti in vos, et eritis mihi testes in shall receive the power of the Holy Spirit
Ierusalem, et in omni Iudaea et coming upon you, and you shall be
Samaria, et usque ad ultimum witnesses unto Me in Jerusalem, and in
terrae. Ex quo patet quod spiritus all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the
sanctus ubique est, qui ubicumque uttermost parts of the earth” (Acts 1:8),
existentes inhabitat. Spiritus ergo from which it is clear that the Holy Spirit
sanctus Deus est. is everywhere; He dwells in those
existing in every place. The Holy Spirit,
therefore, is God.
Praeterea. Expresse in Scriptura [17] There is more. Scripture expressly
spiritus sanctus Deus nominatur. names the Holy Spirit God, for Peter
Dicit enim Petrus, Act. 53: Anania, says: “Ananias, why did Satan tempt
cur tentavit Satanas cor tuum your heart, that you should lie to the
mentiri te spiritui sancto? Et postea Holy Spirit?” Later on, he adds: “You
subdit: non es mentitus hominibus, hast not lied to men, but to God” (Acts
sed Deo. Spiritus ergo sanctus est 5:34). The Holy Spirit, therefore, is God.
Deus.
Item. I ad Cor. 142 dicitur: qui [18] We read again, in 1 Corinthians
loquitur lingua, non hominibus (14:2, 21): “He that speaks in a tongue
loquitur, sed Deo: nemo enim audit, speaks not unto men, but unto God; for
spiritus autem loquitur mysteria, ex no one hears. Yet by the Spirit He
quo dat intelligere quod spiritus speaks mysteries,” from which he gives
sanctus loquebatur in his qui variis one to understand that the Holy Spirit
linguis loquebantur. Postmodum was speaking in those who spoke with
autem dicit: in lege scriptum est: different tongues. Later on, of course, he
quoniam in aliis linguis et labiis aliis says: “In the Law it is written: In other
loquar populo huic, et nec sic tongues and other lips I will speak to this
exaudiet me, dicit dominus. Spiritus people; and neither so will they hear me,
ergo sanctus, qui loquitur mysteria says the Lord.” Therefore, the Holy Spirit
diversis labiis et linguis, Deus est. who speaks mysteries with diverse lips
and tongues is God.
Adhuc. Post pauca subditur: si [19] Furthermore, after a bit, this is

omnes prophetent, intret autem added: “If all prophesy, and there come
quis infidelis vel idiota, convincitur in one that believes not, or an unlearned
ab omnibus, diiudicatur ab person, he is convinced of all, he is
omnibus: occulta enim cordis eius judged of all. The secrets of his heart
manifesta fiunt, et ita, cadens in are made manifest; and so, falling down
faciem, adorabit Deum, pronuntians on his face, he will adore God, affirming
quod vere Deus in vobis sit. Patet that God is among you indeed” (1 Cor.
autem per id quod praemisit, quod 14:2425). Clearly, of course, from what
spiritus loquitur mysteria, quod he had previously set down, “the Spirit
manifestatio occultorum cordis a speaks mysteries,” the manifestation of
spiritu sancto sit. Quod est the secrets of the heart is from the Holy
proprium divinitatis signum: dicitur Spirit. And this is a proper mark of
enim Ierem. 179 pravum est cor divinity, for we read in Jeremiah (17:9
hominis et inscrutabile: quis 10): “The heart of man is perverse... and
cognoscet illud? Ego dominus, inscrutable, who can know it? I am the
scrutans corda et probans renes. Lord who search the heart and prove the
Unde ex hoc indicio etiam infidelis reins: And so from this indication even
perpendere dicitur quod ille qui an unbeliever (cf. 1 Cor. 14:24) is said to
haec occulta cordium loquitur, sit consider carefully that He who speaks
Deus. Ergo spiritus sanctus Deus these secrets of hearts is God.
est. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is God.
Item. Parum post dicit: spiritus [20] Again, a bit later, the Apostle says:
prophetarum prophetis subiecti “The spirits of the prophets are subject
sunt; non enim est dissensionis to the prophets. For God is not the God
Deus, sed pacis. Gratiae autem of dissension, but of peace” (1 Cor.
prophetarum, quas spiritus 14:3233). Of course, the graces of the
prophetarum nominavit, a spiritu Prophets which he named “the spirits of
sancto sunt. Spiritus ergo sanctus, the prophets” are from the Holy Spirit.
qui huiusmodi gratias sic distribuit Therefore, he shows that the Holy Spirit

ut ex eis non dissensio, sed pax who distributes graces of this kind in
sequatur, Deus esse ostenditur in such wise that from them follows not
hoc quod dicit, non est dissensionis dissension but peace is God by these
Deus, sed pacis. words: “God is not the God of
dissension, but of peace.”
Amplius. Adoptare in filios Dei non [21] Furthermore, to adopt as sons can
potest esse opus alterius nisi Dei. be the work of no other than God. For
Nulla enim creatura spiritualis no spiritual creature is called son of God
dicitur filius Dei per naturam, sed by nature, but by the grace of adoption.
per adoptionis gratiam: unde et hoc Hence, the Apostle attributes this work
opus filio Dei, qui verus Deus est, to the Son of God who is true God: “God
apostolus attribuit, ad Gal. 4, sent His Son that we might receive the
dicens: misit Deus filium suum, ut adoption of sons” (Gal. 4:45). But the
adoptionem filiorum reciperemus. Holy Spirit is the cause of the adoption,
Spiritus autem sanctus est as the Apostle says: “You have received
adoptionis causa: dicit enim the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby
apostolus, ad Rom. 815: accepistis we cry: Abba (Father)” (Rom. 8:15).
spiritum adoptionis filiorum, in quo Therefore, the Holy Spirit is not a
clamamus, abba (pater). Ergo creature, but God.
spiritus sanctus non est creatura,
sed Deus.
Item. Si spiritus sanctus non est [22] Again, if the Holy Spirit is not God,
Deus, oportet quod sit aliqua He must be a creature. Plainly enough,
creatura. Planum est autem quod He is not a bodily creature, And neither
non est creatura corporalis. Nec is He a spiritual creature, for no creature
etiam spiritualis. Nulla enim is infused into a spiritual creature, since
creatura spirituali creaturae a creature is not participable, but rather
infunditur: cum creatura non sit participating. The Holy Spirit, of course,
participabilis sed magis participans. is infused into the minds of the saints, as
Spiritus autem sanctus infunditur it were participated by them, for we read
sanctorum mentibus, quasi ab eis that Christ was full of Him (Luke 4:1) and
participatus: legitur enim et even the Apostles (Acts 7:4). The Holy
Christus eo plenus fuisse, et etiam Spirit, therefore, is not a creature but
apostoli. Non est ergo spiritus God.
sanctus creatura, sed Deus.
Si quis autem dicat praedicta [23] But, if one says that the aforesaid
opera, quae sunt Dei, spiritui works which are God’s are not attributed
sancto attribui non per auctoritatem to the Holy Spirit in principalship as to
ut Deo, sed per ministerium quasi God, but in ministry as it were to a
creaturae: expresse hoc esse creature, he says what is expressly
falsum apparet ex his quae false. And this is clear from the words of
apostolus dicit, I Cor. 126, dicens: the Apostle: “There are diversities of
divisiones operationum sunt, idem operations, but the same God, who
vero Deus qui operatur omnia in works all in all.” Afterwards, when the
omnibus; et postea, connumeratis Apostle had enumerated the different
diversis donis Dei, subdit: haec gifts of God, he adds: “All these things
omnia operatur unus atque idem one and the same Spirit works, dividing
spiritus, dividens singulis prout vult. to every one according as He will” (1
Ubi manifeste expressit spiritum Cor. 12:6, 11). Therein clearly he has set
sanctum Deum esse: tum ex eo forth that the Holy Spirit is God: not only
quod spiritum sanctum operari dicit by saying that the Holy Spirit performs
quae supra dixerat Deum operari; the works which he said before that God
tum ex hoc quod eum pro suae performs, but also by proclaiming that
voluntatis arbitrio operari confitetur. the Holy Spirit performs them according
Manifestum est igitur spiritum to a decision of His will. Manifestly,
sanctum Deum esse. therefore, the Holy Spirit is God.
Caput 18 Chapter 18
Quod spiritus sanctus sit THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT IS A
subsistens persona SUBSISTENT PERSON
Sed quia quidam spiritum sanctum [1] But, since some assert that the Holy

asserunt non esse personam Spirit is not a subsistent person, but,
subsistentem, sed vel ipsam rather, the divinity of the Father and the
divinitatem patris et filii, ut quidam Son (so some Macedonians are held to
Macedoniani dixisse perhibentur; vel have said); or even an accidental
etiam aliquam accidentalem perfection of the mind bestowed on us
perfectionem mentis a Deo nobis by God—wisdom, for instance, or
donatam, puta sapientiam vel charity or something of this sort (and
caritatem, vel aliquid huiusmodi, these are participated by us as certain
quae participantur a nobis sicut created accidents); one must on the
quaedam accidentia creata: contra contrary show that the Holy Spirit is
hoc ostendendum est spiritum nothing of this kind.
sanctum non esse aliquid
huiusmodi.
Non enim formae accidentales [2] For accidental forms have no proper

proprie operantur, sed magis operations; instead, one has them in
habens eas pro suae arbitrio accord with the decision of his will, for
voluntatis: homo enim sapiens utitur the wise man uses wisdom when he
sapientia cum vult. Sed spiritus wills. But the Holy Spirit operates in
sanctus operatur pro suae arbitrio accord with the decision of His will. This
voluntatis, ut ostensum est. Non has been shown. One must not,
igitur est aestimandus spiritus therefore, think of the Holy Spirit as an
sanctus velut aliqua accidentalis accidental perfection of the mind.
perfectio mentis.
Item. Spiritus sanctus, ut ex [3] The Holy Spirit, again, so we are
Scripturis docemur, causa est taught by Scripture, is the cause of all
omnium perfectionum humanae the perfections of the human mind. For
mentis. Dicit enim apostolus, ad the Apostle says: “The charity of God is
Rom. 55: caritas Dei diffusa est in poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy
cordibus nostris per spiritum Spirit, who is given to us” (Rom. 5:5)”
sanctum, qui datus est nobis; et I ad and: “To one indeed, by the Spirit, is
Cor. 128 alii per spiritum datur given the word of wisdom, and to
sermo sapientiae, alii sermo another, the word of knowledge,
scientiae, secundum eundem according to the same Spirit” (1 Cor.
spiritum, et sic de aliis. Non ergo 12:8), and so of the rest. The Holy
spiritus sanctus est aestimandus Spirit, therefore, must not be thought of
quasi aliqua accidentalis perfectio as an accidental perfection of the
mentis humanae, cum ipse omnium human mind, since He is, of all
huiusmodi perfectionum causa perfections of this kind, the existing
existat. cause.
Quod autem in nomine spiritus [4] Of course, that in the name of the
sancti designetur essentia patris et Holy Spirit the essence Of the Father
filii, ut sic a neutro personaliter and Son is designated so as to be
distinguatur, repugnat his quae personally distinguished from neither of
divina Scriptura de spiritu sancto them conflicts with what divine Scripture
tradit. Dicitur enim Ioan. 1526, quod hands on to us about the Holy Spirit. It
spiritus sanctus procedit a patre; et says that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from
Ioan. 1614, quod accipit a filio: the Father” and that He receives from
quod non potest de divina essentia the Son (John 15:26; 16:14). And this
intelligi, cum essentia divina a patre cannot be understood of the divine
non procedat, nec a filio accipiat. essence, since the divine essence
Oportet igitur dicere quod spiritus neither proceeds from the Father nor
sanctus sit subsistens persona. receives from the Son. One must, then,
say that the Holy Spirit is a subsisting
Person.
Item. Sacra Scriptura manifeste de [5] Again, sacred Scripture manifestly

spiritu sancto loquitur tanquam de speaks of the Holy Spirit as of a
persona divina subsistente: dicitur subsisting divine person, for it says: “As
enim Act. 132: ministrantibus illis they were ministering to the Lord, and
domino et ieiunantibus, dicit illis fasting, the Holy Spirit said to them:
spiritus sanctus: segregate mihi “Separate Me Saul and Barnabas, for
Barnabam et Saulum in opus ad the work whereunto I have taken them”;
quod assumpsi eos; et infra: et ipsi and later: “So they, being sent by the
quidem, missi a spiritu sancto, Holy Spirit, went” (Acts 13:2). And in
abierunt; et Act. 1528, dicunt Acts (15:28) the Apostles say: “It has
apostoli: visum est spiritui sancto et seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to
nobis nihil ultra imponere oneris us, to lay no further burden upon you,”
vobis etc.; quae de spiritu sancto and so forth; and these things would not
non dicerentur nisi esset subsistens be said of the Holy Spirit if He were not
persona. Est igitur spiritus sanctus a subsistent person. The Holy Spirit is,
subsistens persona. therefore, a subsistent person.
Amplius. Cum pater et filius sint [6] Furthermore, since the Father and
personae subsistentes et divinae Son are subsisting persons and of the
naturae, spiritus sanctus non divine nature, the Holy Spirit would not
connumeraretur eisdem nisi et ipse be numbered along with them unless
esset persona subsistens in divina He also were a person subsisting in the

natura. Connumeratur autem divine nature. He is numbered with
eisdem: ut patet Matth. ult., dicente them, of course. This is clear from
domino discipulis, euntes docete Matthew (28:19), where our Lord says
omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in to the disciples: “Go, therefore, teach all
nomine patris et filii et spiritus nations; baptizing them in the name of
sancti; et II ad Cor. ult., gratia the Father, and of the Son, and of the
domini nostri Iesu Christi, et caritas Holy Spirit”; and from 2 Corinthians
Dei, et communicatio sancti spiritus, (13:13): “The grace of our Lord Jesus
sit semper cum omnibus vobis; et I Christ, and the charity of God, and the
Ioan. ult., tres sunt qui testimonium communication of the Holy Spirit be
dant in caelo, pater, verbum et with you all”; and from 1 John (5:7):
spiritus sanctus, et hi tres unum “There are three who give testimony in
sunt. Ex quo manifeste ostenditur heaven, the Father, the Word, and the
quod non solum sit persona Holy Spirit.” From this it shows clearly
subsistens, sicut pater et filius, sed that He is not only a subsistent person
etiam cum eis essentiae habeat like the Father and the Son, but has
unitatem. unity of essence with them.
Posset autem aliquis contra [7] One could, of course, calumniate
praedicta calumniari, dicens aliud against the foregoing, saying that the
esse spiritum Dei, et aliud spiritum “Spirit of God” is one thing and the
sanctum. Nam in quibusdam “Holy Spirit” another. To be sure, in
praemissarum auctoritatum certain of the authorities set down, the
nominatur spiritus Dei, in quibusdam “Spirit of God” is named, and in certain
vero spiritus sanctus. Sed quod others “the Holy Spirit,” but the identity
idem sit spiritus Dei et spiritus of the “Spirit of God” and “the Holy
sanctus, manifeste ostenditur ex Spirit” is clearly shown from the words
verbis apostoli dicentis, I ad Cor. 2 of the Apostle, when he had premised:
10, ubi, cum praemisisset, nobis “God has revealed them, by His Spirit,”
revelavit Deus per spiritum sanctum, by way of confirmation he says: “the
ad huius confirmationem inducit: Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep
spiritus enim omnia scrutatur, etiam things of God”; and finally he
profunda Dei; et postea concludit: concludes: “so the things also that are
ita et quae sunt Dei, nemo novit nisi of God no man knows, but the Spirit of
spiritus Dei; ex quo manifeste God” (1 Cor. 2:1011). From this there is
apparet quod idem sit spiritus manifestly apparent the identity of the
sanctus et spiritus Dei. Holy Spirit and the Spirit of God.
Idem apparet ex hoc quod Matth. [8] The same point is apparent from
1020, dominus dicit: non estis vos this: our Lord says in Matthew (10:20):
qui loquimini, sed spiritus patris “It is not you that speak but the Spirit of
vestri qui loquitur in vobis. Loco your Father that speaks in you.” But in
autem horum verborum Marcus place of these words Mark says (13:11):
dicit: non estis vos loquentes, sed “It is not you that speak, but the Holy
spiritus sanctus. Manifestum est Spirit.” Manifestly, the Holy Spirit is the
igitur idem esse spiritum sanctum et same as the Spirit of God.
spiritum Dei.
Sic ergo, cum ex praemissis [9] Since from the authorities set down
auctoritatibus multipliciter appareat it is clear in so many ways that the Holy
spiritum sanctum non esse Spirit is not a creature, but true God, it
creaturam, sed verum Deum; is accordingly manifest that we are not
manifestum est quod non cogimur compelled to say that one must
dicere eodem modo esse understand the Holy Spirit filling and
intelligendum quod spiritus sanctus dwelling in the minds of the saints in the
mentes sanctorum impleat et eos same way that one understands the
inhabitet, sicut Diabolus aliquos devil to be filling and dwelling in some
implere vel inhabitare dicitur: minds. One finds in John (13:27): “After
habetur enim Ioan. 1327, de Iuda, the morsel, Satan entered into him”;
quod post bucellam introivit in eo and in Acts (5:3) Peter says—so some
Satanas; et Act. 53 dicit Petrus, ut books have it: “Ananias, why has Satan
quidam libri habent: Anania, cur tempted your heart?” For, since the
implevit Satanas cor tuum? Cum devil is a creature, as was manifested in
enim Diabolus creatura sit, ut ex the foregoing, he fills no one by a
superioribus est manifestum, non participation in himself, and he cannot
implet aliquem participatione sui; dwell in a mind through his substance;
neque potest mentem inhabitare per rather, he is said to fill some men by the
suam substantiam; sed dicitur effect of his wickedness. Hence, Paul
aliquos implere per effectum suae says to a certain one: “O full of all guile
malitiae, unde et Paulus dicit ad and of all deceit” (Acts 13:10). The Holy
quendam, Act. 1310: o plene omni Spirit, of course, since He is God,
dolo et omni fallacia. Spiritus autem dwells in a mind by His substance and
sanctus, cum Deus sit, per suam makes men good by participation in
substantiam mentem inhabitat, et Himself. For He is His own goodness,
sui participatione bonos facit: ipse since He is God. And this can be true of
enim est sua bonitas, cum sit Deus; no creature. Neither does this, for all
quod de nulla creatura verum esse that, change the fact that by the effect
potest. Nec tamen per hoc of His power He fills the minds of the
removetur quin per effectum suae holy.
virtutis sanctorum impleat mentes.
Caput 19 Chapter 19
Quomodo intelligenda sunt quae HOW ONE MUST UNDERSTAND
de spiritu sancto dicuntur WHAT IS SAID ABOUT THE HOLY
SPIRIT
Sanctarum igitur Scripturarum [1] Taught by holy Scripture, therefore,

testimoniis edocti, hoc firmiter de we maintain this firmly about the Holy
spiritu sancto tenemus, quod verus Spirit: that He is true God, subsistent,
sit Deus, subsistens, et personaliter personally distinct from the Father and
distinctus a patre et filio. Oportet the Son. But one ought to consider how
autem considerare qualiter a truth of this kind must be grasped
huiusmodi veritas utcumque accipi somehow, in order to defend it from the
debeat, ut ab impugnationibus attacks of unbelievers.
infidelium defendatur.
Ad cuius evidentiam praemitti [2] To get at the evidence one must first

oportet quod in qualibet intellectuali premise that in every intellectual nature
natura oportet inveniri voluntatem. a will must be discovered. For an
Intellectus enim fit in actu per intellect is made to be in act by an
formam intelligibilem inquantum est intelligible form so far as it is
intelligens, sicut res naturalis fit understanding, as a natural thing is
actu in esse naturali per propriam made to be in act in its natural being by
formam. Res autem naturalis per its proper form. But a natural thing,
formam qua perficitur in sua specie, through the form by which it is perfected
habet inclinationem in proprias in its species, has an inclination to its
operationes et proprium finem, proper operations and to its proper end,
quem per operationes consequitur: which it achieves by operations, “for as
quale enim est unumquodque, talia everything is so does it operate,” and it
operatur, et in sibi convenientia tends to what is fitting for itself. Hence,
tendit. Unde etiam oportet quod ex also, from an intelligible form there must
forma intelligibili consequatur in follow in one who understands an
intelligente inclinatio ad proprias inclination to his proper operations and
operationes et proprium finem. his proper end. Of course, this
Haec autem inclinatio in intellectuali inclination in an intellectual nature is the
natura voluntas est, quae est will, which is the principle of operations
principium operationum quae in in us, those by which he who
nobis sunt, quibus intelligens understands operates for an end. For
propter finem operatur: finis enim et end and the good are the will’s object.
bonum est voluntatis obiectum. One must, therefore, discover a will in
Oportet igitur in quolibet intelligente everyone who understands.
inveniri etiam voluntatem.
Cum autem ad voluntatem plures [3] Although several acts seem to
actus pertinere videantur, ut belong to the will, to desire, to delight in,
desiderare, delectari, odire, et to hate, and others of this kind,
huiusmodi, omnium tamen amor et nevertheless for all of these love is
unum principium et communis radix found to be the one principle and the
invenitur. Quod ex his accipi potest. common root. This can be gathered
Voluntas enim, ut dictum est, sic se from the following points. The will, as
habet in rebus intellectualibus sicut was said, is related to intellectual things
naturalis inclinatio in rebus as natural inclination to natural things
naturalibus, quae et naturalis (this is also called natural appetite). But
appetitus dicitur. Ex hoc autem natural inclination arises thus: The
oritur inclinatio naturalis, quod res natural thing has an affinity and
naturalis habet affinitatem et correspondence from its form (which we
convenientiam secundum formam, have called the principle of the
quam diximus esse inclinationis inclination) with that to which it is
principium, cum eo ad quod moved. The heavy has such a relation
movetur, sicut grave cum loco with the lower place. Hence, also, every
inferiori. Unde etiam hinc oritur inclination of the will arises from this: by
omnis inclinatio voluntatis, quod per an intelligible form a thing is
formam intelligibilem aliquid apprehended as suitable or affective. To
apprehenditur ut conveniens vel be affected toward something—so far as
afficiens. Affici autem ad aliquid, it is of this kind—is to love that thing.
inquantum huiusmodi, est amare Therefore, every inclination of will and
ipsum. Omnis igitur inclinatio even of sensible appetite has its origin
voluntatis, et etiam appetitus from love. For from the fact that we love
sensibilis, ex amore originem habet. something we desire that thing if it be
Ex hoc enim quod aliquid amamus, absent; we rejoice, of course, if it be
desideramus illud si absit, present; and we are sad when we are
gaudemus autem cum adest, et kept from it; and we hate those things
tristamur cum ab eo impedimur, et which keep us from the beloved, and
odimus quae nos ab amato grow angry against them.
impediunt, et irascimur contra ea.
Sic igitur quod amatur non solum [4] Thus, then, what is loved is not only

est in intellectu amantis, sed etiam in the intellect of the lover, but in his will
in voluntate ipsius: aliter tamen et as well; but in one way and another. It is
aliter. In intellectu enim est in the intellect by reason of the likeness
secundum similitudinem suae of its species; it is in the will of the lover,
speciei: in voluntate autem amantis however, as the term of a movement is
est sicut terminus motus in principio in its proportioned motive principle by
motivo proportionato per reason of the suitability and proportion
convenientiam et proportionem which the term has for that principle. just
quam habet ad ipsum. Sicut in igne so, in a certain way, there is in fire the
quodammodo est locus sursum upper place by reason of that lightness
ratione levitatis, secundum quam which gives it proportion and suitability
habet proportionem et to such a place, but the fire which is
convenientiam ad talem locum: generated is in the fire which generates
ignis vero generatus est in igne by reason of the likeness of its form.
generante per similitudinem suae
formae.
Quia igitur ostensum est quod in [5] Since, then, it has now been shown
omni natura intellectuali est that in every intellectual nature there is
voluntas; Deus autem intelligens will, and that God, of course, is
est, ut in primo ostensum est: intelligent was shown in Book I, there
oportet quod in ipso sit voluntas: must, then, be will in Him; the will of
non quidem quod voluntas Dei sit God, to be sure, is not something which
aliquid eius essentiae accrues to His essence, just as His
superveniens, sicut nec intellectus, intellect is not, as was shown above, but
ut supra ostensum est, sed the will of God is His very substance.
voluntas Dei est ipsa eius And since the intellect of God, as well, is
substantia. Et cum intellectus etiam His very substance, it follows that the
Dei sit ipsa eius substantia, sequitur one thing in God is intellect and will.
quod una res sint in Deo intellectus However, the manner in which what in
et voluntas. Qualiter autem quae in other things are many things in God are
aliis rebus plures res sunt, in Deo one thing can be manifest from the
sint una res, ex his quae in primo points made in Book I.
dicta sunt, potest esse manifestum.
Et quia ostensum est in primo quod [6] And because it was shown in Book I
operatio Dei sit ipsa eius essentia; that the operation of God is His very
et essentia Dei sit eius voluntas: essence, and that the essence of God is
sequitur quod in Deo non est His will, it follows that will is not in God

voluntas secundum potentiam vel by way of potency, or of habit, but by
habitum, sed secundum actum. way of act. It was shown, of course, that
Ostensum est autem quod omnis every act of will is rooted in love. Hence,
actus voluntatis in amore radicatur. in God there must be love.
Unde oportet quod in Deo sit amor.
Et quia, ut in primo ostensum est, [7] And because, as was shown in Book

proprium obiectum divinae I, the proper object of the divine will is
voluntatis est eius bonitas, necesse His goodness, necessarily it is first and
est quod Deus primo et principaliter principally His goodness and Himself
suam bonitatem et seipsum amet. that God loves. But, since it has been
Cum autem ostensum sit quod shown that the beloved must somehow
amatum necesse est aliqualiter be in the will of the lover, and that God
esse in voluntate amantis; ipse Himself loves Himself, it needs must be
autem Deus seipsum amat: that God Himself is in His will as the
necesse est quod ipse Deus sit in beloved in the lover. But the beloved is
sua voluntate ut amatum in amante. in the lover so far as it is loved—an act
Est autem amatum in amante of love, of course, is a kind of act of will
secundum quod amatur; amare —but the act of will of God is His being,
autem quoddam velle est; velle just as His will is His being. Therefore,
autem Dei est eius esse, sicut et the being of God in His will by way of
voluntas eius est eius esse; esse love is not an accidental one—as it is in
igitur Dei in voluntate sua per us—but is essential being. And so it
modum amoris, non est esse must be that God, when He is
accidentale, sicut in nobis, sed considered existing in His own will, is
essentiale. Unde oportet quod truly and substantially God.
Deus, secundum quod consideratur
ut in sua voluntate existens, sit vere
et substantialiter Deus.
Quod autem aliquid sit in voluntate [8] But a thing’s being in the will as a
ut amatum in amante, ordinem beloved in a lover bears a certain order
quendam habet ad conceptionem to the conception by which the intellect
qua ab intellectu concipitur, et ad conceives the thing, and to the thing
ipsam rem cuius intellectualis itself whose intellectual conception is
conceptio dicitur verbum: non enim called a word. For it would not be loved
amaretur aliquid nisi aliquo modo unless it were somehow known; neither
cognosceretur; nec solum amati is the beloved’s knowledge alone loved,
cognitio amatur, sed secundum but the beloved as good in itself.
quod in se bonum est. Necesse est Necessarily, therefore, does the love by
igitur quod amor quo Deus est in which God is in the divine will as a
voluntate divina ut amatum in beloved in a lover proceed both from the
amante, et a verbo Dei, et a Deo Word of God and from the God whose
cuius est verbum, procedat. Word He is.
Cum autem ostensum sit quod [9] Now, since it has been shown that
amatum in amante non est the beloved is not in the lover by a
secundum similitudinem speciei, likeness of species, as the thing

sicut intellectum in intelligente; understood is present in the one
omne autem quod procedit ab understanding, whereas whatever
altero per modum geniti, procedit proceeds from another as one
secundum similitudinem speciei a generated does proceed by a likeness
generante: relinquitur quod of species from the generator, this
processus rei ad hoc quod sit in follows: A thing’s proceeding in order to
voluntate sicut amatum in amante, be in the will as the beloved is in the
non sit per modum generationis, lover is not a proceeding by way of
sicut processus rei ad hoc quod sit generation, just as a thing’s proceeding
in intellectu habet rationem in order to be in the intellect does have
generationis, ut supra ostensum the essentials of generation, as was
est. Deus igitur procedens per shown above. Therefore, God
modum amoris, non procedit ut proceeding by way of love does not
genitus. Neque igitur filius dici proceed as begotten. And He, therefore,
potest. cannot be called Son.
Sed quia amatum in voluntate [10] But, because the beloved in the will

existit ut inclinans, et quodammodo exists as inclining, and somehow
impellens intrinsecus amantem in inwardly impelling the lover toward the
ipsam rem amatam; impulsus very thing beloved, and an impulse of a
autem rei viventis ab interiori ad living thing from within belongs to a
spiritum pertinet: convenit Deo per spirit, this is suitable: that God
modum amoris procedenti ut proceeding by way of love be called His
spiritus dicatur eius, quasi quadam “spirit; as it were a kind of existing
spiratione existente. spiration.
Hinc est quod apostolus spiritui et [11] Hence it is that the Apostle
amori impulsum quendam attribuit: attributes to the Spirit and to Love a kind
dicit enim, Rom. 814: qui spiritu of impulse; for he says in Romans
Dei aguntur, hi filii Dei sunt; et II ad (8:14): “Whoever are led by the Spirit of
Cor. 514. Caritas Christi urget nos. God, they are the sons of God,” and:
“The charity of Christ presses us” (2
Cor. 5:14).
Quia vero omnis intellectualis [12] However, since every intellectual

motus a termino denominatur; amor motion is named from its term, and the
autem praedictus est quo Deus ipse love aforesaid is that by which God
amatur: convenienter Deus per Himself is loved, quite fittingly is God
modum amoris procedens dicitur proceeding by way of love called “Holy
spiritus sanctus; ea enim quae Deo Spirit”; for the things assigned to God
dicata sunt, sancta dici have customarily been called “holy.”
consueverunt.
Caput 20 Chapter 20
De effectibus attributis spiritui ON THE EFFECTS ATTRIBUTED TO
sancto in Scripturis respectu THE HOLY SPIRIT IN SCRIPTURE
totius creaturae REGARDING THE WHOLE CREATION
Oportet autem, secundum [1] One must, of course, in harmony with

convenientiam praedictorum, what has been said, give thought to the
considerare effectus quos spiritui effects which sacred Scripture attributes
sancto sacra Scriptura attribuit. to the Holy Spirit.
Ostensum est enim in [2] For it was shown in the foregoing that

superioribus quod bonitas Dei est the goodness of God is His reason for
eius ratio volendi quod alia sint, et willing that other things be, and that by
per suam voluntatem res in esse His will He produces things in being. The
producit. Amor igitur quo suam love, then, by which He loves His own
bonitatem amat, est causa goodness is the cause of the creation of
creationis rerum; unde et quidam things: whence, even certain ancient
antiqui philosophi amorem philosophers held that “the love of the
deorum causam omnium esse gods” is the cause of all things as is plain
posuerunt, ut patet in I Metaph.; et in Metaphysics I [4]; and Dionysius says
Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. that “the divine love did not allow itself to
Nom., quod divinus amor non be without seed” [De div. nom. 4]. But it
permisit ipsum sine germine esse. was held in the preceding that the Holy
Habitum est autem ex praemissis Spirit proceeds by way of the love by
quod spiritus sanctus procedit per which God loves Himself. Therefore, the
modum amoris quo Deus amat Holy Spirit is the principle of the creation
seipsum. Igitur spiritus sanctus est of things. And this is signified in the word
principium creationis rerum. Et of the Psalmist: “Send forth your Spirit,
hoc significatur in Psalmo: emitte and they shall be created” (Ps. 103:30).
spiritum tuum et creabuntur.
Ex hoc etiam quod spiritus [3] It is also from the fact that the Holy
sanctus per modum amoris Spirit proceeds by way of love—and love
procedit; amor autem vim has a kind of driving and moving force—
quandam impulsivam et motivam that the movement which is from God in
habet: motus qui est a Deo in things seems properly to be attributed to
rebus, spiritui sancto proprie the Holy Spirit. Of course, the first existing
attribui videtur. Prima autem mutation in things from God is understood
mutatio in rebus a Deo existens to be this: He produced the different
intelligitur secundum quod ex species out of formless created matter.
materia creata informi species Hence, this work is what sacred Scripture
diversas produxit. Unde hoc opus attributes to the Holy Spirit. For we read
spiritui sancto sacra Scriptura in Genesis (1:2): “The Spirit of God
attribuit: dicitur enim Gen. 12: moved over the waters.” For by “waters”
spiritus domini ferebatur super Augustine wants one to understand prime
aquas. Vult enim Augustinus per matter over which the Spirit of the Lord is
aquas intelligi materiam primam said to be borne, not as though He
super quam spiritus domini ferri Himself is moved, but because He is the
dicitur, non quasi ipse moveatur, principle of the movement.
sed quia est motionis principium.
Rursus. Rerum gubernatio a Deo [4] Again, the government of things by
secundum quandam motionem God is understood to be according to a
esse intelligitur, secundum quod kind of motion, in that God directs and
Deus omnia dirigit et movet in moves all things to their proper ends. If,
proprios fines. Si igitur impulsus et then, drive and motion belong to the Holy
motio ad spiritum sanctum ratione Spirit by reason of love, the government
amoris pertinet, convenienter and propagation of things is fittingly
rerum gubernatio et propagatio attributed to the Holy Spirit. Hence Job
spiritui sancto attribuitur. Unde Iob (33:4) says: “The Spirit of God made me”;
334 dicitur: spiritus domini fecit and the Psalmist: “Thy good spirit shall
me et in Psalmo: spiritus tuus lead me into the right land” (Ps. 142:10).
bonus deducet me in terram
rectam.
Et quia gubernare subditos [5] And because a master’s proper act is

proprius actus domini est, to govern subjects, dominion is fittingly
convenienter spiritui sancto attributed to the Holy Spirit, for the
dominium attribuitur. Dicit enim Apostle says: “Now the Lord is a Spirit” (2
apostolus, II ad Cor. 317: spiritus Cor. 3:17); and the Creed of our faith
autem dominus est. Et in symbolo says: “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the
fidei dicitur: credo in spiritum Lord.”
sanctum dominum.
Item. Vita maxime in motu [6] Life also is especially manifested in
manifestatur: moventia enim motion, for we say that selfmoving things
seipsa vivere dicimus, et live and in general we say this of
universaliter quaecumque a everything which puts itself into operation.
seipsis aguntur ad operandum. Si If, then, by reason of love, drive and
igitur ratione amoris spiritui sancto motion are suited to the Holy Spirit, life is
impulsio et motio competit, also suitably attributed to Him. For John
convenienter etiam sibi attribuitur (6:64) says: “It is the Spirit who gives life”;
vita. Dicitur enim Ioan. 664: and Ezekiel (37:5): “I will send Spirit into
spiritus est qui vivificat; et Ezech. you, and you shall live”; and in the Creed
376: dabo vobis spiritum et of our faith we profess to believe in the
vivetis, et in symbolo fidei nos in Holy Spirit, “the giver of life.” This also
spiritum sanctum vivificantem harmonizes with the name “Spirit,” for
credere profitemur. Quod etiam et even the bodily life of animals is due to a
nomini spiritus consonat: nam vital spirit diffused from the principle of life
etiam corporalis vita animalium into the rest of the members.
est per spiritum vitalem a principio
vitae in cetera membra diffusum.
Caput 21 Chapter 21
De effectibus attributis spiritui ON THE EFFECTS ATTRIBUTED TO
sancto in sacra Scriptura THE HOLY SPIRIT IN SCRIPTURE
respectu rationalis creaturae, REGARDING THE RATIONAL
quantum ad ea quae Deus nobis CREATURE, SO FAR AS GOD’S
largitur GIFTS TO US ARE CONCERNED
Considerandum est etiam, quantum [1] Looking to the effects which He

ad effectus quos proprie in natura properly produces in the rational nature,
rationali facit, quod ex hoc quod we must also give consideration to this
divinae perfectioni utcumque fact: When we are somehow made like
assimilamur, huiusmodi perfectio a a divine perfection, perfection of this
Deo nobis dari dicitur: sicut kind is said to be given us by God; so
sapientia a Deo nobis donatur wisdom is said to be a gift from God to
secundum quod divinae sapientiae us when we are somehow made like the
utcumque assimilamur. Cum igitur divine wisdom. Since, then, the Holy
spiritus sanctus procedat per Spirit proceeds by way of the love by
modum amoris quo Deus seipsum which God loves Himself, as was
amat, ut ostensum est; ex hoc quod shown, from the fact that in loving God
huic amori assimilamur Deum we are made like to this love, the Holy
amantes, spiritus sanctus a Deo Spirit is said to be given to us by God.
nobis dari dicitur. Unde apostolus Hence the Apostle says: “The charity of
dicit, Rom. 55: caritas Dei diffusa God is poured forth in our hearts, by the
est in cordibus nostris per spiritum Holy Spirit, who, is given to us” (Rom.
sanctum, qui datus est nobis. 5:5).
Sciendum tamen est quod ea quae [2] One should realize, for all that, that
a Deo in nobis sunt, reducuntur in what is in us from God is related to God
Deum sicut in causam efficientem et as to an efficient and as to an exemplar
exemplarem. In causam quidem cause. We say as to an efficient cause
efficientem, inquantum virtute inasmuch as something is
operativa divina aliquid in nobis accomplished in us by the divine
efficitur. In causam quidem operative power. We say as to an
exemplarem, secundum quod id exemplar cause so far as we are,
quod in nobis a Deo est, aliquo thanks to that in us which is from God,
modo Deum imitatur. Cum ergo imitating God. Since, then, the power of
eadem virtus sit patris et filii et the Father, and of the Son, and of the
spiritus sancti, sicut et eadem Holy Spirit is identical just as the
essentia; oportet quod omne id essence is, necessarily whatever God
quod Deus in nobis efficit, sit, sicut effects in us must be, as from an
a causa efficiente, simul a patre et efficient cause, simultaneously from the
filio et spiritu sancto. Verbum tamen Father and the Son and the, Holy Spirit.
sapientiae, quo Deum cognoscimus, Nevertheless, the “word of wisdom” (cf.
nobis a Deo immissum, est proprie Dan. 1:20) by which we know God, and
repraesentativum filii. Et similiter which God sends into us, is properly
amor quo Deum diligimus, est representative of the Son. And in like
proprium repraesentativum spiritus fashion the love by which we love God
sancti. Et sic caritas quae in nobis is properly representative of the Holy
est, licet sit effectus patris et filii et Spirit. And thus the charity which is in
spiritus sancti, tamen quadam us, although it is an effect of the Father,
speciali ratione dicitur esse in nobis the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is
per spiritum sanctum. nonetheless for a special sort of reason
said to be in us through the Holy Spirit.
Quia vero effectus divini non solum [3] However the divine effects not only
divina operatione esse incipiunt, sed begin to be by the divine operation, by it
etiam per eam tenentur in esse, ut they are also maintained in being (as is

ex superioribus patet, nihil autem clear from the foregoing). And nothing
operari potest ubi non est, oportet operates where it is not, for the agent
enim operans et operatum in actu and that acted upon must be
esse simul, sicut movens et motum: simultaneously in act, just as the mover
necesse est ut, ubicumque est and the moved. Necessarily, then,
aliquis effectus Dei, ibi sit ipse Deus wherever there is an effect of God,
effector. Unde, cum caritas, qua there God Himself is efficient. Hence,
Deum diligimus, sit in nobis per since the charity by which we love God
spiritum sanctum, oportet quod ipse is in us by the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit
etiam spiritus sanctus in nobis sit, Himself must also be in us, so long as
quandiu caritas in nobis est. Unde the charity is in us. And so the Apostle
apostolus dicit, I Cor. 316: nescitis says: “Know you not that you are the
quoniam templum Dei estis, et temple of God, and that the Spirit of
spiritus sanctus habitat in vobis? God dwells in you?” (1 Cor. 3:16).
Cum igitur per spiritum sanctum Dei Therefore, since we are made lovers of
amatores efficiamur; omne autem God by the Holy Spirit, and every
amatum in amante est, inquantum beloved is in the lover as such, by the
huiusmodi: necesse est quod per Holy Spirit necessarily the Father and
spiritum sanctum pater etiam et the Son dwell in us also. And so our
filius in nobis habitent. Unde Lord says: “We will come to him”—He
dominus dicit, Ioan. 1423: ad eum means to one who loves God—“and will
veniemus, scilicet diligentem Deum, make our abode with him” (John 14:23).
et mansionem apud eum faciemus. And in 1 John. (3:7.4) we read: “In this
Et I Ioan. 324, dicitur: in hoc scimus we know that He abides in us, by the
quoniam manet in nobis de spiritu Spirit which He has given us.”
quem dedit nobis.
Rursus. Manifestum est quod Deus [4] Moreover, God manifestly loves in
maxime amat illos quos sui the greatest degree those whom He has
amatores per spiritum sanctum made lovers of Himself through the Holy
constituit, non enim tantum bonum Spirit, for He would not confer so great
nisi amando conferret, unde a good save by loving us. Hence, we
Proverb. 817 dicitur ex persona read in Proverbs (8:17) from the Person
domini: ego diligentes me diligo; of God: “I love those who love Me”; “not
non quasi nos prius dilexerimus as though we had loved God, but
Deum, sed quoniam ipse prior because He has first loved us,” as we
dilexit nos, ut dicitur I Ioan. 410. read in 1 John (4:10). Of course, every
Omne autem amatum in amante beloved is in a lover. Therefore, by the
est. Necesse est igitur quod per Holy Spirit not only is God in us, but we
spiritum sanctum non solum Deus also are in God. Hence, we read in 1
sit in nobis, sed etiam nos in Deo. John (4:16, 13): “He who abides in
Unde dicitur I Ioan. 416: qui manet charity abides in God, and God in him;”
in caritate in Deo manet, et Deus in and: “In this we know that we abide in
eo; et iterum: in hoc intelligimus Him and He in us: because He has
quoniam in eo manemus, et ipse in given us of His Spirit.”
nobis, quoniam de spiritu suo dedit
nobis.
Est autem hoc amicitiae proprium, [5] Of course, this is the proper mark of

quod amico aliquis sua secreta friendship: that one reveal his secrets to

revelet. Cum enim amicitia his friend. For, since charity unites
coniungat affectus, et duorum faciat affections and makes, as it were, one
quasi cor unum, non videtur extra heart of two, one seems not to have
cor suum aliquis illud protulisse dismissed from his heart that which he
quod amico revelat: unde et reveals to a friend; and so our Lord
dominus dicit discipulis, Ioan. 1515: says to His disciples: “I will not now call
iam non dicam vos servos, sed you servants but friends: because all
amicos meos: quia omnia quae things whatsoever I have heard of My
audivi a patre meo, nota feci vobis. Father I have made known to you”
Quia igitur per spiritum sanctum (John 15:15). Therefore, since by the
amici Dei constituimur, convenienter Holy Spirit we are established as friends
per spiritum sanctum hominibus of God, fittingly enough it is by the Holy
dicuntur revelari divina mysteria. Spirit that men are said to receive the
Unde apostolus dicit, I ad Cor. 29 revelation of the divine mysteries.
scriptum est quod oculus non vidit, Hence, the Apostle says: “It is written
nec auris audivit, nec in cor hominis that eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
ascendit, quae praeparavit Deus neither has it entered into the heart of
diligentibus se; nobis autem man, what things God has prepared for
revelavit Deus per spiritum them that love Him. But to us God has
sanctum. revealed them, by His Spirit” (1 Cor.
2:910).
Et quia ex his quae homo novit, [6] It is from the things a man knows
formatur eius loquela, convenienter that his speech is formed; fittingly,
etiam per spiritum sanctum homo therefore, a man speaks the mysteries
loquitur divina mysteria: secundum through the Holy Spirit. Hence, the
illud I Cor. 142: spiritu loquitur words of 1 Corinthians (14:2): “By the
mysteria; et Matth. 1020: non enim Spirit He speaks mysteries”; and
vos estis qui loquimini, sed spiritus Matthew (10:20): “It is not you that
patris vestri qui loquitur in vobis. Et speak, but the Spirit of your Father that
de prophetis dicitur II Petr. 121, speaks in you.” And of prophets, 2
quod spiritu sancto inspirati locuti Peter (1:21) says that “the holy men of
sunt sancti Dei homines. Unde God spoke, inspired by the Holy Spirit.”
etiam in symbolo fidei dicitur de Hence, also, in the Creed of our faith
spiritu sancto: qui locutus est per we say of the Holy Spirit: “Who spoke
prophetas. through the prophets.”
Non solum autem est proprium [7] Now, it is not only proper to love that

amicitiae quod amico aliquis revelet one reveal his secrets to a friend by
sua secreta propter unitatem reason of their unity in affection, but the
affectus, sed eadem unitas requirit same unity requires that what he has he
quod etiam ea quae habet, amico have in common with the friend. For,
communicet: quia, cum homo “since a man has a friend as another
amicum habeat ut se alterum, self,” he must help the friend as he does
necesse est quod ei subveniat sicut himself, making his own possessions
et sibi sua ei communicans; unde et common with the friend, and so one
proprium amicitiae esse ponitur takes this as the property of friendship
velle et facere bonum amico; “to will and to do the good for a friend.”
secundum illud I Ioan. 317: qui This agrees with 1 John (3:17): “He who

habuerit substantiam huius mundi, has the substance of this world, and
et viderit fratrem suum necessitatem sees his brother in need, and shuts up
habentem, et clauserit viscera sua his bowels from him: how does the
ab eo: quomodo caritas Dei manet charity of God abide in him?” But such
in eo? Hoc autem maxime in Deo is especially the case with God whose
habet locum, cuius velle est efficax will is efficacious on its effect.
ad effectum. Et ideo convenienter Therefore, it is fitting that all the gifts of
omnia dona Dei per spiritum God are said to be gifts from the Holy
sanctum nobis donari dicuntur: Spirit; thus, in 1 Corinthians (12:8, 11):
secundum illud I Cor. 128: alii datur “To one, indeed, by the Spirit is given
per spiritum sermo sapientiae; alii the word of wisdom, to another, the
autem sermo scientiae secundum word of knowledge, according to the
eundem spiritum; et postea, multis same Spirit”; and later on, having
enumeratis: haec omnia operatur mentioned many, it says: “One and the
unus atque idem spiritus, dividens same Spirit works, dividing to every one
singulis prout vult. according as He will.”
Manifestum est autem quod, sicut [8] This, too, is manifest: just as, to get

ad hoc quod corpus aliquod ad a body to the place of fire, it must be
locum ignis perveniat, oportet quod likened to fire by acquiring that lightness
igni assimiletur levitatem acquirens, according to which fire is moved by its
ex qua motu ignis proprio moveatur; own motion; so also, to get a man to the
ita ad hoc quod homo ad beatitude of divine enjoyment which is
beatitudinem divinae fruitionis, quae proper to God in His own nature, these
Deo propria est secundum suam are necessary: first, that by spiritual
naturam, perveniat, necesse est, perfections he be likened to God; then,
primo quidem quod per spirituales that he operate with these perfections;
perfectiones Deo assimiletur; et and thus, lastly, achieve that beatitude
deinde secundum eas operetur; et we mentioned. Of course, the spiritual
sic tandem praedictam beatitudinem gifts are given to us by the Holy Spirit,
consequetur. Dona autem spiritualia as was shown. And thus by the Holy
nobis per spiritum sanctum dantur, Spirit we are configured to God and
ut ostensum est. Et sic per spiritum through Him we are made ready for
sanctum Deo configuramur; et per good operation. And by the same Spirit
ipsum ad bene operandum habiles the road to beatitude is opened to us.
reddimur; et per eundem ad The Apostle implies all three of these
beatitudinem nobis via paratur. when he says: “He who confirms us... is
Quae tria apostolus insinuat nobis, God who also has sealed us, and given
II Cor. 1, dicens: unxit nos Deus; et the pledge of the Spirit in our hearts” (2
signavit nos; et dedit pignus spiritus Cor. 1:21, 22). And in Ephesians (1:13,
in cordibus nostris. Et Ephes. 113 14): ‘You were signed with the Holy
signati estis spiritu promissionis Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of
sancto, qui est pignus hereditatis our inheritance: For the “signing” seems
nostrae. Signatio enim ad to belong to the likeness of
similitudinem configurationis configuration; the “confirming” to man’s
pertinere videtur; unctio autem ad readiness for perfect operation; the
habilitatem hominis ad perfectas “pledge,” of course, to the hope by
operationes; pignus autem ad spem which we are ordered to the heavenly
qua ordinamur in caelestem inheritance, and this is perfect
hereditatem, quae est beatitudo beatitude.

perfecta.
Et quia ex benevolentia quam quis [9] Further, since out of the good will
habet ad aliquem, contingit quod which one has to another it comes
eum sibi adoptat in filium, ut sic ad about that he adopt that other as his
eum hereditas adoptantis pertineat; son—and so the inheritance belongs to
convenienter spiritui sancto adoptio that other as adopted—it is fitting that
filiorum Dei attribuitur; secundum the adoption of the sons of God is
illud Rom. 815: accepistis spiritum attributed to the Holy Spirit, in the words
adoptionis filiorum, in quo of Romans (8:15): “You have received
clamamus, abba (pater). the Spirit of adoption of sons, whereby
we cry: Abba (Father).”
Per hoc autem quod aliquis alterius [10] Of course, by the fact that one is
amicus constituitur, omnis offensa established as the friend of another,
removetur, amicitiae enim offensa every offense is removed, because
contrariatur: unde dicitur Proverb. friendship and offense are contraries.
1012: universa delicta operit Thus, we read in Proverbs (10:12):
caritas. Cum igitur per spiritum “Charity covers all sins.” Therefore,
sanctum Dei amici constituamur, since we are established as friends of
consequens est quod per ipsum God by the Holy Spirit, it is by Him that
nobis a Deo remittantur peccata: et God remits our sins, and so our Lord
ideo dominus dicit discipulis, Ioan. says to His disciples (John 20:2223):
2022: accipite spiritum sanctum: “Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins
quorum remiseritis peccata, you shall forgive, they are forgiven.”
remittentur. Et ideo Matth. 1231, Therefore, also, in Matthew (12:31)
blasphemantibus in spiritum blasphemers against the Holy Spirit are
sanctum peccatorum remissio denied the remission of sins, as though
denegatur, quasi non habentibus they do not have that by which a man
illud per quod homo remissionem achieves the remission of his sins.
consequitur peccatorum.
Inde etiam est quod per spiritum [11] Hence, also, it is by the Holy Spirit

sanctum dicimur renovari, et that we are said to be renewed, and
purgari, sive lavari: secundum illud cleansed or washed; as the Psalmist
Psalmi: emitte spiritum tuum et has it: “Send forth your Spirit, and they
creabuntur, et renovabis faciem shall be created, and You shall renew
terrae; et Ephes. 423: renovamini the face of the earth” (Ps. 103:30); and
spiritu mentis vestrae; et Isaiae 44: Ephesians (4:23): “Be renewed in the
si abluerit dominus sordes filiorum Spirit of your mind”; and Isaiah (4:4): “If
Sion, et sanguinem filiarum laverit the Lord shall wash away the filth of the
de medio eius, in spiritu iudicii et sons of Zion and cleanse away the
spiritu ardoris. blood of her daughters in the midst by
the Spirit of judgment and the Spirit of
burning.”
Caput 22 Chapter 22

De effectibus attributis spiritui
ON THE EFFECTS ATTRIBUTED TO
sancto secundum quod movet THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THAT HE
creaturam in Deum MOVES THE CREATURE TO GOD
His igitur consideratis quae per [1] Now that we have considered the
spiritum sanctum in sacris things which are said to be done in us
Scripturis nobis a Deo fieri dicuntur, by God through the Holy Spirit, we ought
oportet considerare quomodo per to consider how through the Holy Spirit
spiritum sanctum moveamur in we are moved to God.
Deum.
Et primo quidem, hoc videtur esse [2] First, indeed, this appears to be
amicitiae maxime proprium, simul especially proper to friendship: really to
conversari ad amicum. Conversatio converse with the friend. Now, the
autem hominis ad Deum est per conversation of man with God is by
contemplationem ipsius: sicut et contemplation of Him, just as the
apostolus dicebat, Philipp. 320: Apostle used to say: “Our conversation
nostra conversatio in caelis est. is in heaven” (Phil. 3:20). Since,
Quia igitur spiritus sanctus nos therefore, the Holy Spirit makes us
amatores Dei facit, consequens est lovers of God, we are in consequence
quod per spiritum sanctum Dei established by the Holy Spirit as
contemplatores constituamur. Unde contemplators of God. Hence, the
apostolus dicit, II Cor. 318: nos Apostle says: “But we all beholding the
autem omnes, revelata facie glory of the Lord with open face, are
gloriam Dei speculantes, in transformed into the same image from
eandem imaginem transformamur a glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the
claritate in claritatem, tanquam a Lord” (2 Cor. 3:18).
domini spiritu.
Est autem et amicitiae proprium [3] It is also a property of friendship that

quod aliquis in praesentia amici one take delight in a friend’s presence,
delectetur, et in eius verbis et factis rejoice in his words and deeds, and find
gaudeat, et in eo consolationem in him security against all anxieties; and
contra omnes anxietates inveniat: so it is especially in our sorrows that we
unde in tristitiis maxime ad amicos hasten to our friends for consolation.
consolationis causa confugimus. Since, then, the Holy Spirit constitutes
Quia igitur spiritus sanctus Dei nos us God’s friends, and makes Him dwell
amicos constituit, et eum in nobis in us, and us dwell in Him (as was
habitare facit et nos in ipso, ut shown), it follows that through the Holy
ostensum est, consequens est ut Spirit we have joy in God and security
per spiritum sanctum gaudium de against all the world’s adversities and
Deo et consolationem habeamus assaults. And so we read in the
contra omnes mundi adversitates et Psalmist: “Restore unto me the joy of
impugnationes. Unde et in Psalmo your salvation and strengthen me with
dicitur: redde mihi laetitiam your lordly Spirit” (Ps. 50:14); and in
salutaris tui, et spiritu principali Romans (14:17): “The kingdom of God
confirma me; et Rom. 1417: is not meat and drink; but justice, and
regnum Dei est iustitia et pax et peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit”; and in
gaudium in spiritu sancto, et Act. 9 Acts (9:31): “The church had peace and
31 dicitur: Ecclesia habebat pacem was edified, walking in the fear of the
et aedificabatur, ambulans in timore Lord, and was filled with the consolation
Dei, et consolatione spiritus sancti of the Holy Spirit.” For this reason, too,
replebatur. Et ideo dominus our Lord calls the Holy Spirit the
spiritum sanctum Paraclitum, idest Paraclete, that is, Comforter, in John
consolatorem, nominat, Ioan. 14 (14:26): “But the Paraclete, the Holy
26: Paraclitus autem spiritus Spirit,” and so forth.
sanctus, et cetera.
Similiter autem et amicitiae [4] Similarly, too, it is proper to friendship

proprium est consentire amico in to consent to a friend in what he wills. Of
his quae vult. Voluntas autem Dei course, the will of God is set forth for us
nobis per praecepta ipsius by His precepts. Therefore, it belongs to
explicatur. Pertinet igitur ad the love by which we love God that we
amorem quo Deum diligimus, ut fulfill His commandments, as the Word
eius mandata impleamus: in John (14:15) says: “If you love Me,
secundum illud Ioan. 1415: si keep My commandments.” Hence, since
diligitis me, mandata mea servate. we are established as God’s lovers by
Unde, cum per spiritum sanctum the Holy Spirit, by Him, too, we are in a
Dei amatores constituamur, per way driven to fulfill the precepts of God,
ipsum etiam quodammodo agimur as the Apostle’s word goes: “Whosoever
ut praecepta Dei impleamus: are led by the Spirit of God, they are the
secundum illud apostoli, Rom. 8 sons of God” (Rom. 8:14).
14: qui spiritu Dei aguntur, hi filii
Dei sunt.
Considerandum tamen est quod a [5] For all that, one must bear in mind
spiritu sancto filii Dei aguntur non that the sons of God are driven not as
sicut servi, sed sicut liberi. Cum slaves, but as free men. For, since he is
enim liber sit qui sui causa est, illud free who is for his own sake, we do that
libere agimus quod ex nobis ipsis freely which we do of our very selves.
agimus. Hoc vero est quod ex But this is what we do of our will, but
voluntate agimus: quod autem what we do against our will we do not
agimus contra voluntatem, non freely but as slaves: be the violence
libere, sed serviliter agimus; sive sit absolute, as when “the whole principle is
violentia absoluta, ut quando totum extrinsic, with the sufferer contributing
principium est extra, nihil nothing—for instance, a man is pushed
conferente vim passo, puta cum into motion, or be the violence mixed
aliquis vi impellitur ad motum; sive with the voluntary—for instance, when
sit violentia voluntario mixta, ut cum one wishes to do or to suffer what is less
aliquis vult facere vel pati quod contrary to his will to avoid what is more
minus est contrarium voluntati, ut contrary to it. But the Holy Spirit so
evadat quod magis voluntati inclines us to act that He makes us act
contrariatur. Spiritus autem sanctus voluntarily, in that He makes us lovers of
sic nos ad agendum inclinat ut nos God. Therefore, the sons of God are
voluntarie agere faciat, inquantum impelled by the Holy Spirit freely out of
nos amatores Dei constituit. Filii love, not slavishly out of fear. Hence, the
igitur Dei libere a spiritu sancto Apostle says: “You have not received
aguntur ex amore, non serviliter ex the spirit of bondage again in fear, but
timore. Unde apostolus, Rom. 815, the Spirit of adoption of sons” (Rom.

dicit: non accepistis spiritum 8:15).
servitutis iterum in timore, sed
spiritum adoptionis filiorum.
Cum autem voluntas ordinetur in id [6] The will, of course, is ordered to that
quod est vere bonum, sive propter which is truly good. But if, by reason of
passionem sive propter malum passion or of bad habit or disposition, a
habitum aut dispositionem homo ab man be turned away from that which is
eo quod est vere bonum avertatur, truly good, he acts slavishly, in that he is
serviliter agit, inquantum a quodam diverted by some extraneous thing, if
extraneo inclinatur, si consideretur consideration be given the will’s natural
ipse ordo naturalis voluntatis. Sed order itself. But if one considers the act
si consideretur actus voluntatis ut of the will as inclined to an apparent
inclinatae in apparens bonum, good, one acts freely when he follows
libere agit cum sequitur passionem passion or a corrupt habit he acts
aut habitum corruptum; serviliter slavishly, of course, if while his will
autem agit si, tali voluntate remains such he—for fear of a law to the
manente, propter timorem legis in contrary—refrains from that which he
contrarium positae, abstinet ab eo wills. Therefore, since the Holy Spirit
quod vult. Cum igitur spiritus inclines the will by love toward the true
sanctus per amorem voluntatem good, to which the will is naturally
inclinet in verum bonum, in quod ordered, He removes both that servitude
naturaliter ordinatur, tollit et in which the slave of passion infected by
servitutem qua, servus passionis et sin acts against the order of the will, and
peccati effectus, contra ordinem that servitude in which, against the
voluntatis agit; et servitutem qua, movement of his will, a man acts
contra motum suae voluntatis, according to the law; its slave, so to say,
secundum legem agit, quasi legis not its friend. This is why the Apostle
servus, non amicus. Propter quod says: “Where the Spirit of the Lord is,
apostolus dicit, II Cor. 317: ubi there is liberty” (2 Cor. 3:17); and: “If you
spiritus domini, ibi libertas; et Galat. are led by the Spirit, you are not under
518: si spiritu ducimini, non estis the law” (Gal. 5: 18).
sub lege.
Hinc est quod spiritus sanctus facta [7] Hence it is that the Holy Spirit is said
carnis mortificare dicitur, secundum to mortify the deeds of the flesh,
quod per passionem carnis a vero inasmuch as a passion of the flesh does
bono non avertimur, in quod spiritus not turn us away from the true good, and
sanctus per amorem nos ordinat: to this the Holy Spirit orders us by love;
secundum illud Rom. 813: si spiritu hence, we read in Romans (8:13): “If by
facta carnis mortificaveritis, vivetis. the Spirit you mortify the deeds of the
flesh, you shall live.”
Caput 23 Chapter 23
Solutio rationum supra AN ANSWER TO THE ARGUMENTS
inductarum contra divinitatem GIVEN ABOVE AGAINST THE DIVINITY
spiritus sancti OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
Restat autem solvere supra [1] One must now answer the arguments
positas rationes, quibus concludi previously given, those in which the
videbatur quod spiritus sanctus sit conclusion seemed to be that the Holy
creatura, et non Deus. Spirit is a creature, and not God.
Circa quod considerandum est [2] In this matter our first consideration
primo, quod nomen spiritus a must be that the name “spirit” seems to be
respiratione animalium sumptum taken from the respiration of animals, in
videtur, in qua aer cum quodam which with some change air is taken in
motu infertur et emittitur. Unde and expelled. And so the name “spirit” is
nomen spiritus ad omnem extended to every impulse and movement
impulsum et motum vel of every single airy body; thus, the wind is
cuiuscumque aerei corporis called a “spirit” in the words of the
trahitur: et sic ventus dicitur Psalmist: “Fire, hail, snow, ice, stormy
spiritus, secundum illud Psalmi, winds which fulfill His word” (Ps. 148:8).
ignis, grando, nix, glacies, spiritus Thus, also, the fine vapor diffused through
procellarum, quae faciunt verbum the members for their movements is
eius. Sic etiam vapor tenuis called “spirit.” Again, because air is
diffusus per membra ad eorum invisible, the name “spirit” was carried
motus, spiritus vocatur. Rursus, further to all invisible and motive powers
quia aer invisibilis est, translatum and substances. And on this account the
est ulterius spiritus nomen ad sensible soul, the rational soul, the
omnes virtutes et substantias angels, and God are called “spirits”—and
invisibiles et motivas. Et propter properly God proceeding by way of love,
hoc et anima sensibilis, et anima because love implies a kind of moving
rationalis, et Angeli, et Deus, force. Accordingly, one understands the
spiritus dicuntur: et proprie Deus saying of Amos, “creating a spirit,” as
per modum amoris procedens, referring to the wind; so our translation
quia amor virtutem quandam more expressly says, and this is also
motivam insinuat. Sic igitur quod harmonious with what goes before:
Amos dicit, creans spiritum, de “forming mountains.” But what Zechariah
vento intelligit: ut nostra translatio says about God “creating” or “forming the
expressius habet; quod etiam spirit of man in him” one understands of
consonat ei quod praemittitur, the human soul. Hence, the conclusion
formans montes. Quod vero cannot be that the Holy Spirit is a
Zacharias de Deo dicit, quod est creature.
creans, vel fingens spiritum
hominis in eo, de anima humana
intelligit. Unde concludi non
potest quod spiritus sanctus sit
creatura.
Similiter autem nec ex hoc quod [3] In the same way, of course, one cannot

dominus dicit de spiritu sancto, from our Lord’s saying about the Holy
non loquetur a semetipso, sed Spirit, “He shall not speak of Himself; but
quaecumque audiet loquetur, what things soever He shall hear, He shall
concludi potest quod sit creatura. speak,” conclude that the Holy Spirit is a
Ostensum est enim quod spiritus creature. For it was shown that the Holy
sanctus est Deus de Deo Spirit is God. Hence, He must have His
procedens. Unde oportet quod essence from another, just as we said
essentiam suam ab alio habeat: about the Son of God above. And thus,
sicut et de filio Dei dictum est since in God the knowledge and the
supra. Et sic, cum in Deo et power and the operation of God are His
scientia et virtus et operatio Dei essence, in the Son and in the Holy Spirit
sit eius essentia, omnis filii et all the knowledge and power and
spiritus sancti scientia et virtus et operation are from another. But the Son’s
operatio est ab alio: sed filii a is from the Father only; that of the Holy
patre tantum, spiritus autem Spirit is from the Father and from the Son.
sancti a patre et filio. Quia igitur Therefore, since one of the operations of
una de operationibus spiritus the Holy Spirit is His speaking in saintly
sancti est quod loquatur in sanctis men, as was shown, it is on this score
viris, ut ostensum est, propter hoc said that “He shall not speak of Himself,”
dicitur quod non loquitur a since He does not operate of Himself. “To
semetipso, quia a se non bear,” of course, in His case is to receive
operatur. Audire autem ipsius est knowledge, as He does essence, from the
accipere scientiam, sicut et Father and the Son; and this because we
essentiam, a patre et filio, eo receive knowledge by bearing, for it is
quod nos per auditum scientiam customary in Scripture to deal with things
accipimus: est enim consuetum in divine in the fashion of things human. Nor
Scriptura ut divina per modum need one be disturbed by His saying: “He
humanorum tradantur. Nec shall hear,” speaking of future time, so to
movere oportet quod dicit, audiet, say. For the Holy Spirit receives eternally,
quasi de futuro loquens, cum and the verbs of any tense can be applied
accipere spiritum sanctum sit to the eternal, because eternity embraces
aeternum: nam aeterno verba the whole of time.
cuiuslibet temporis aptari possunt,
eo quod aeternitas totum tempus
complectitur.
Secundum eadem etiam apparet [4] Following the same points, it is also
quod missio qua spiritus sanctus clear that the sending of the Holy Spirit by
mitti dicitur a patre et filio, non the Father and the Son does Hot justify
potest concludere eum esse concluding that He is a creature. For it
creaturam. Dictum est enim supra was said above that in this the Son of God
quod filius Dei secundum hoc is said to have been sent: that He
missus fuisse dicitur, quod in appeared to men in visible flesh. Thus, He
carne visibili hominibus apparuit, was in a new kind of fashion in the world,
et sic novo quodam modo fuit in a fashion in which previously He had not
mundo, quo prius non fuerat, been—namely, visibly; and for all that He
scilicet visibiliter, in quo tamen had always been in it invisibly as God.
fuerat semper invisibiliter ut Deus. The Son’s doing so, of course, was His
Quod autem hoc filius ageret, ei a from the Father, and so in this He is said
patre fuit: unde et secundum hoc to have been sent by the Father. Thus, of
a patre dicitur missus. Sic autem course, the Holy Spirit visibly appeared:
et spiritus sanctus visibiliter “as a dove” (Mat. 3:1.6) above Christ at
apparuit: vel in specie columbae His baptism, or “in tongues of fire” (Acts
super Christum in Baptismo; vel 2:3) above the Apostles. And, granted He
in linguis igneis super apostolos. did not become a dove or a fire as the
Et licet non fuerit factus columba Son became man, He nevertheless did
vel ignis, sicut filius factus est appear in certain signs of His own in
homo; tamen sicut in signis visible appearances Of this kind; thus, He
quibusdam ipsius in huiusmodi also .in a new kind of fashion—namely,
visibilibus speciebus apparuit; et visibly—was in the world. And this
sic etiam ipse quodam novo presence was His from the Father and the
modo, scilicet visibiliter, in mundo Son; wherefore, He, too, is called sent by
fuit. Et hoc ei fuit a patre et filio: the Father and the Son. Yet this indicates
unde et ipse a patre et filio dicitur not His being the lesser, but His
missus. Quod non minorationem proceeding.
in ipso, sed processionem
ostendit.
Est tamen et alius modus quo tam [5] Nevertheless, there is another way in

filius quam spiritus sanctus which both the Son and the Holy Spirit are
invisibiliter mitti dicuntur. Patet said to be invisibly sent. For from what
enim ex dictis quod filius procedit has been said it is plain that the Son
a patre per modum notitiae, qua proceeds from the Father by way of the
Deus cognoscit seipsum; et knowledge by which God knows Himself,
spiritus sanctus procedit a patre and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the
et filio per modum amoris, quo Father and the Son by way of the love by
Deus amat seipsum. Unde, sicut which God loves Himself. Hence, as was
dictum est, cum aliquis per said,” when by the Holy Spirit one is made
spiritum sanctum amator Dei a lover of God, the Holy Spirit is dwelling
efficitur, spiritus sanctus est within that one, and thus in a new kind of
inhabitator ipsius: et sic quodam way He is in a man: to wit, dwelling in the
novo modo in homine est, scilicet man according to a new proper effect.
secundum novum proprium And that the Holy Spirit produce this effect
effectum ipsum inhabitans. Et in man is His from the Father and the Son;
quod hunc effectum in homine and on this account He is said to be sent
faciat spiritus sanctus, est ei a invisibly by the Father and the Son. And
patre et filio: et propter hoc a reasoning equally, in a human mind the
patre et filio invisibiliter dicitur Son is said to be invisibly sent when a
mitti. Et pari ratione, in mente man is in such wise established in the
hominis filius dicitur mitti divine knowledge that the love of God
invisibiliter, cum aliquis sic in comes forth in the man. Hence, clearly,
divina cognitione constituitur quod neither does that fashion of being sent
ex tali cognitione Dei amor indicate in the Son or in the Holy Spirit His
procedat in homine. Unde patet being the lesser, but His proceeding from
quod nec iste etiam modus another.
missionis in filio aut spiritu sancto
minorationem inducit, sed solum
processionem ab alio.
Similiter etiam nec spiritum [6] Similarly, also, the Holy Spirit is not
sanctum a divinitate excludit quod excluded from the Divinity by the
pater et filius interdum occasional connumeration of the Father
connumerantur, non facta and the Son without mention of the Holy
mentione de spiritu sancto: sicut Spirit, just as the Son is not excluded from
nec filium a divinitate excludit the Divinity by occasional mention of the
quod interdum fit mentio de patre, Father without the Son. In this way
non facta mentione de filio. Per Scripture tacitly suggests that whatever
hoc enim tacite Scriptura insinuat relating to Divinity is said of one of the
quod quicquid, ad divinitatem Three must be understood of all, because
pertinens, de uno trium dicitur, de they are one God. Nor is it possible to
omnibus est intelligendum, eo understand God the Father without a
quod sunt unus Deus. Nec etiam Word and a Love, nor is the converse
potest Deus pater sine verbo et possible. For this reason, in one of the
amore intelligi, nec e converso: et Three all Three are understood. Hence,
propter hoc in uno trium omnes mention occasionally is made of the Son
tres intelliguntur. Unde et on a point common to the Three; such is
interdum fit mentio de solo filio, in the case in Matthew (11:27): “Neither
eo quod commune est tribus: does any one know the Father, but the
sicut est illud Matth. 1127, neque Son,” although both the Father and the
patrem quis novit nisi filius: cum Holy Spirit know the Father. In the same
tamen et pater et spiritus sanctus way, we read about the Holy Spirit in 1
patrem cognoscant. Similiter Corinthians (2:11): “The things... of God
etiam de spiritu sancto dicitur I no one knows, but the Spirit of God,”
Cor. 211: quae sunt Dei, nemo whereas it is certain that from this
novit nisi spiritus Dei, cum tamen cognition of Divinity neither the Father nor
certum sit quod ab hac cognitione the Son is excluded.
divinorum neque pater neque
filius excludantur.
Patet etiam quod non potest [7] Clearly, also, one cannot show that the

ostendi spiritus sanctus esse Holy Spirit is a creature because one finds
creatura per hoc quod de ipso in sacred Scripture saying things about Him
Scriptura sacra aliqua ad motum which pertain to motion. They must be
pertinentia dicta inveniuntur. Sunt taken metaphorically. For sometimes,
enim accipienda metaphorice. Sic also, sacred Scripture attributes motion to
enim et Deo aliquando Scriptura God; for example, Genesis (3:8; 18:21):
sacra motum attribuit: ut est illud “When they heard the voice of the Lord
Gen. 38, cum audissent vocem God walking in paradise; and later: “I will
domini deambulantis in Paradiso; go down and see whether they have done
et 1821, descendam, et videbo according to the cry that is come to Me.”
utrum clamorem opere Therefore, the saying, “the Spirit of God
compleverint. Quod ergo dicitur, was borne over the waters,” must be
spiritus domini ferebatur super understood to be said as the will is said to
aquas, intelligendum est eo modo be borne on the willed, or the love on the
dictum esse sicut dicitur quod beloved. This, also, by the way, some
voluntas fertur in volitum, et amor choose not to understand of the Holy
in amatum. Quamvis et hoc Spirit, but of the air which has its natural
quidam non de spiritu sancto, sed place above the water, and so it was to
de aere intelligere velint, qui indicate its manifold mutation that
habet naturalem locum super Scripture said it “was moved over the
aquam, unde ad eius multimodas waters.” This further saying, “I will pour
transmutationes significandas, out My Spirit upon all flesh,” must be
dictum est quod ferebatur super understood as said of the way in which
aquas. Quod etiam dicitur, the Holy Spirit is sent to men by the
effundam de spiritu meo super Father and the Son. This was mentioned.
omnem carnem, ea ratione Of course, in the word, “poured out,” the
dictum esse oportet intelligi qua abundance of the effect of the Holy Spirit
spiritus sanctus dicitur mitti is grasped: He will not be stopped at one
hominibus a patre vel filio, ut but will move on to many, and from these
dictum est. In verbo autem also somehow to others; this is clear when
effusionis abundantia effectus things are poured out corporeally.
spiritus sancti intelligitur; et quod
non stabit in uno, sed ad plures
deveniet, a quibus etiam
quodammodo in alios derivetur,
sicut patet in his quae corporaliter
effunduntur.
Similiter autem quod dicitur, [8] In like manner, the saying, “I will take
auferam de spiritu tuo tradamque of your Spirit, and will give to them,” must
eis, non ad ipsam essentiam seu not be referred to the essence or person
personam spiritus sancti of the Holy Spirit, since He is indivisible.
referendum est, cum indivisibilis The reference is to His effects, by which
sit: sed ad ipsius effectus, He dwells in us, and these can be
secundum quos in nobis habitat, increased or diminished in a man: not with
qui in homine possunt augeri et the result, for all that, that what is
minui; non tamen ita quod id quod subtracted from one is bestowed on
subtrahitur uni, idem numero another remaining numerically identical
alteri conferatur sicut in rebus (this happens in bodily things), but so that
corporalibus accidit; sed quia a like thing may increase in one which
aliquid simile potest accrescere decreases in another. Nor does this
uni in quo alii decrescit. Nec demand that to increase the effect in one
tamen requiritur quod ad hoc it must be subtracted from another, for a
quod accrescat uni, alteri spiritual thing can be possessed by many
subtrahatur: quia res spiritualis simultaneously without any loss. Hence,
potest simul absque detrimento concerned with spiritual gifts, one must
cuiuslibet a pluribus possideri. not understand that something was
Unde nec intelligendum est quod withdrawn from Moses to be conferred on
de donis spiritualibus oportuerit others; the reference is rather to his act or
aliquid subtrahi Moysi ad hoc office, for what the Holy Spirit had
quod aliis conferretur, sed ad previously done through Moses alone He
actum sive ad officium later effected through many.
referendum est: quia quod spiritus
sanctus prius per solum Moysen
effecerat, postea per plures
implevit.
Sic etiam nec Elisaeus petiit ut Thus, also, Elishah did not beg that the
spiritus sancti essentia seu essence or person of the Holy Spirit be
persona duplicata augeretur: sed increased by duplication, but that the
ut duos effectus spiritus sancti qui twofold effect of the Holy Spirit which had
fuerant in Elia, scilicet prophetia been in Elijah—namely, prophecy and the
et operatio miraculorum, essent working of miracles—be also in himself.
etiam in ipso. Quamvis etiam non To be sure, there is no awkwardness in
sit inconveniens quod effectum one’s participating in the Holy Spirit more
spiritus sancti unus alio abundantly than another, be it by the
abundantius participet, secundum double or by any other ratio whatever, for
duplam vel quantamcumque the measure in each participant is finite.
aliam proportionem: cum For all that, Elishah would not have had
mensura utriusque sit finita. Non the presumption to ask that in a spiritual
tamen hoc praesumpsisset effect he should be greater than his
Elisaeus petere, ut in effectu master.
spirituali superaret magistrum.
Patet etiam ex consuetudine [9] Again, it is plainly the custom of sacred

sacrae Scripturae quod per Scripture to pass over into God a likeness
quandam similitudinem humani to the passions of the human spirit; we
animi passiones transferuntur in read in the Psalms (105:4041): “And the
Deum: sicut dicitur in Psalmo: Lord was exceedingly angry with His
iratus est furore dominus in people.” God is said to be angered by
populum suum. Dicitur enim Deus similarity in the effect, for He punishes,
iratus per similitudinem effectus: which is what the angered do; so this is
punit enim, quod et irati faciunt; added below: “And He delivered them into
unde et ibidem subditur: et tradidit the hands of the nations.” Thus, the Holy
eos in manus gentium. Sic et Spirit is said to be ‘made sorrowful,” for
spiritus sanctus contristari dicitur He leaves sinners as those who are made
per similitudinem effectus: deserit sorrowful leave those who make them
enim peccatores, sicut contristati sorrowful.
deserunt contristantes.
Est etiam consuetus modus [10] It is also the usual manner of speech

loquendi in sacra Scriptura ut illud in sacred Scripture to attribute to God
Deo attribuatur quod in homine what He does in man; hence, Genesis
facit: secundum illud Gen. 2212: (22:12): “Now I know that you fear God”—
nunc cognovi quod timeas that is, “now I have made you know.” And
dominum, idest, nunc cognoscere in this way the Holy Spirit is said to
feci. Et hoc modo dicitur quod petition, for He makes others petition; He
spiritus sanctus postulat, quia makes the love of God be in our hearts;
postulantes facit: facit enim out of this we desire to enjoy Him, and in
amorem Dei in cordibus nostris, our desiring we petition.
ex quo desideramus ipso frui, et
desiderantes postulamus.
Cum autem spiritus sanctus [11] Of course, since the Holy Spirit
procedat per modum amoris quo proceeds by way of the love by which God
seipsum Deus amat; eodem loves Himself, and by that same love and
autem amore Deus se et alia for His own goodness God loves Himself
propter suam bonitatem amat: and other things, manifestly that love
manifestum est quod ad spiritum pertains to the Holy Spirit, the love by
sanctum pertinet amor quo Deus which God loves us. So, also, does the
nos amat. Similiter etiam et amor love by which we love God, for He makes
quo nos Deum amamus: cum nos us lovers of God. This has been
Dei faciat amatores, ut ex dictis explained. It is in regard to each of these
patet. Et quantum ad utrumque, loves that “to be bestowed” is fitting to the
spiritui sancto competit donari. Holy Spirit. It is fitting by reason of the
Ratione quidem amoris quo Deus love by which God loves us in that manner
nos amat, eo modo loquendi quo of speech wherein each is said “to give his
unusquisque dicitur dare amorem love” to someone when he begins to love
suum alicui cum eum amare him. Although there is no one whom God
incipit: quamvis Deus neminem begins to love in time, if one considers the
ex tempore amare incipiat, si divine will by which He loves us, there is,
respiciatur ad voluntatem divinam nevertheless, an effect of His love caused
qua nos amat; effectus tamen sui in time in the one whom He draws to
amoris ex tempore causatur in Himself. It is fitting to the Holy Spirit by
aliquo, cum eum ad se trahit. reason of the love by which we love God,
Ratione autem amoris quo nos for the Holy Spirit makes this love in us.
Deum amamus, quia hunc Hence, in accord with this love, He dwells
amorem spiritus sanctus facit in in us—clearly from what has been said—
nobis: unde secundum hunc and so we possess Him as one whose
amorem in nobis habitat, ut ex resources we enjoy. Now, this is in the
dictis patet, et sic eum habemus Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son:
ut cuius ope fruimur. Et quia hoc that by the love which He causes in us He
est spiritui sancto a patre et filio, be in us and be possessed by us. Fittingly,
quod per amorem quem in nobis therefore, He is said “to be bestowed”
causat, in nobis sit et habeatur a upon us by the Father and the Son. Nor
nobis, convenienter dicitur a patre does this show Him to be one lesser than
et filio nobis dari. Nec per hoc the Father and the Son, but to be one who
patre et filio minor ostenditur: sed has His origin from them. He is said also
ab ipsis habet originem. Dicitur to be given us even by Himself in that He
etiam et a seipso dari nobis, causes in us the love by which He dwells
inquantum amorem secundum in us together with the Father and the
quem nos inhabitat, simul cum Son.
patre et filio in nobis causat.
Quamvis autem spiritus sanctus [12] Although the Holy Spirit is, of course,

verus sit Deus, et veram naturam true God and has the true divine nature
divinam habeat a patre et filio, from the Father and the Son, He need not,
non tamen oportet quod filius sit. for all that, be a son. For son is said of
Filius enim dicitur aliquis ex eo one because he is begotten. Hence, if a
quod genitus est: unde, si res thing should receive its nature from
aliqua naturam alterius ab eo another not by begetting, but in any other
acciperet non per genituram, sed way whatever, it would lack the essential
per alium quemcumque modum, of sonship. If, for example, a man had the
ratione filiationis careret; ut puta power divinely conceded to him to make a
si aliquis homo, virtute sibi man out of some part of his own body, in
divinitus ad hoc concessa, faceret some exterior fashion as one makes
hominem ex aliqua sui corporis artefacts, the man produced would not be
parte, vel etiam exteriori modo, called the son of the producing, for he
sicut facit artificiata, productus would not proceed from him by birth. But
homo producentis filius non the procession of the Holy Spirit does not
diceretur, quia non procederet ab have the essentials of birth (as was shown
eo ut natus. Processio autem above). Hence, the Holy Spirit, although
spiritus sancti rationem nativitatis He has the divine nature from the Father
non habet, ut supra ostensum est. and the Son, cannot, for all that, be called
Unde spiritus sanctus, licet a Their son.
patre et filio divinam naturam

habeat, non tamen eorum filius
dici potest.
Quod autem in sola natura divina [13] But that in the divine nature alone

pluribus modis natura nature be communicated in several ways
communicatur, rationabile est. is reasonable. For in God alone is His
Quia in solo Deo eius operatio est operation His being. Hence, since in Him,
suum esse. Unde, cum in eo, as in any intellectual nature, there is an
sicut in qualibet intellectuali act of understanding and an act of will,
natura, sit intelligere et velle, id that which proceeds in Him by way of
quod procedit in eo per modum understanding as Word, or by way of love
intellectus ut verbum, aut amoris and will as Love, must have the divine
et voluntatis ut amor, oportet quod being and be God. And thus, not only the
habet esse divinum, et sit Deus. Son but the Holy Spirit is true God.
Et sic tam filius quam spiritus
sanctus est verus Deus.
Haec igitur de spiritus sancti [14] Let these, then, be our points about
divinitate dicta sint. Alia vero quae the divinity of the Holy Spirit. But other
circa eius processionem difficulties about His procession ought to
difficultatem habent, ex his quae he considered in the light of what has
de nativitate filii dicta sunt, been said about the nativity of the Son.
considerare oportet.
Caput 24 Chapter 24
Quod spiritus sanctus procedat a THE HOLY SPIRIT PROCEEDS FROM
filio THE SON
Quidam vero circa spiritus sancti [1] We find some who make this mistake

processionem errare inveniuntur, about the procession of the Holy Spirit:
dicentes spiritum sanctum a filio they say the Holy Spirit does not
non procedere. Et ideo proceed from the Son. For this reason
ostendendum est spiritum sanctum we must show that the Holy Spirit does
a filio procedere. proceed from the Son.
Manifestum est enim ex sacra [2] It is manifest in sacred Scripture that

Scriptura quod spiritus sanctus est the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son,
spiritus filii: dicitur enim Rom. 89: for Romans (8:9) says: “If any man have
si quis spiritum Christi non habet, not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of
hic non est eius. Sed ne aliquis His.” But that one might not be able to
posset dicere quod alius sit spiritus say that the Spirit that proceeds from
qui procedit a patre, et alius qui est the Father is one, and the Son’s Spirit
filii, ostenditur ex verbis eiusdem another, it is shown from the words of
apostoli quod idem spiritus sanctus the same Apostle that the Holy Spirit of
sit patris et filii. Nam hoc quod the Father and of the Son is identified.
inductum est, si quis spiritum For the words just cited, “If any man
Christi non habet, hic non est eius, have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none
subiunxit postquam dixerat, si of His,” the Apostle added after he had
spiritus Dei habitat in nobis, et said: “If so be that the Spirit of God
cetera. Non autem potest dici dwell in us,” and so forth. But one
spiritus sanctus esse spiritus Christi cannot say that the Holy Spirit is the
ex hoc solo quod eum habuit Spirit of Christ merely because He had
tanquam homo, secundum illud Him as man, according to the words of
Luc. 41, Iesus, plenus spiritu Luke (4:1): “Jesus being full of the Holy
sancto, regressus est a Iordane. Spirit, returned from the Jordan.” For
Dicitur enim Galat. 46: quoniam one reads in Galatians (4:6): “Because
estis filii Dei, misit Deus spiritum filii you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of
sui in corda vestra, clamantem, His Son into your hearts, crying: Abba
abba (pater). Ex hoc ergo spiritus (Father).” The Holy Spirit, therefore,
sanctus nos facit filios Dei, makes us the sons of God precisely
inquantum est spiritus filii Dei. because He is the Spirit of the Son of
Efficimur autem filii Dei adoptivi per God. But we are made the adoptive
assimilationem ad filium Dei sons of God by assimilation to the
naturalem: secundum illud Rom. 8 natural Son of God, as Romans (8:29)
29: quos praescivit, et has it: “Whom He foreknew, He also
praedestinavit fieri conformes predestined to be made conformable to
imaginis filii eius, ut sit ipse the image of His Son, that He might be
primogenitus in multis fratribus. Sic the firstborn amongst many brethren.”
igitur est spiritus sanctus spiritus Thus, then, is the Holy Spirit the Spirit of
Christi, inquantum est filius Dei Christ: so far as He is God’s natural
naturalis. Non potest autem Son. But there is no relation in accord
secundum aliam habitudinem with which the Holy Spirit can be called
spiritus sanctus dici spiritus filii Dei the Spirit of the Son of God except a
nisi secundum aliquam originem: relation of origin, for this is the only
quia haec sola distinctio in divinis distinction we find in divinity. Therefore,
invenitur. Necesse est igitur dicere one must say that the Holy Spirit is the
quod spiritus sanctus sic sit filii Son’s Spirit by proceeding from Him.
quod ab eo procedat.
Item. Spiritus sanctus a filio mittitur: [3] The Holy Spirit, again, is sent by the
secundum illud Ioan. 1526: cum Son; consider John (15:26): “When the
venerit Paraclitus, quem ego Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you
mittam vobis a patre. Mittens autem from the Father.” But whoever sends
auctoritatem aliquam habet in has an authority over the one sent. One
missum. Oportet igitur dicere quod must, then, say that the Son has an
filius habeat aliquam auctoritatem authority in regard to the Holy Spirit: not,
respectu spiritus sancti. Non autem of course, that of being master or being
dominii vel maioritatis, sed greater, but in accord with origin only. In
secundum solam originem. Sic this wise, then, the Holy Spirit is from
igitur spiritus sanctus est a filio. Si the Son. Now, let one say that the Son
quis autem dicat quod etiam filius is sent by the Holy Spirit as well,
mittitur a spiritu sancto, quia dicitur because we read in Luke (4:1821) that
Luc. 418.21, quod dominus dixit in our Lord said Isaiah’s words (61:1) were
se impletum illud Isaiae, spiritus fulfilled in Him: “The Spirit of the Lord is
domini super me, evangelizare upon Me, He has sent Me to preach the
pauperibus misit me: sed gospel to the poor.” But consideration
considerandum est quod filius a must be given this: the Son is sent by
spiritu sancto mittitur secundum the Holy Spirit in accord with the
naturam assumptam. Spiritus assumed nature. But the Holy Spirit has
autem sanctus non assumpsit not assumed a created nature, so that in
naturam creatam, ut secundum accord with it He can be called sent by
eam possit dici missus a filio, vel the Son, or so as to give the Son
filius habere auctoritatem respectu authority in His regard. Therefore, this
ipsius. Relinquitur igitur quod remains: it is considered as an eternal
respectu personae aeternae filius person that the Son has authority over
super spiritum sanctum the Holy Spirit.
auctoritatem habeat.
Amplius. Ioan. 1614, dicit filius de [4] There is more. In John (16:1415),
spiritu sancto: ille me clarificabit, the Son says of the Holy Spirit: “He shall
quia de meo accipiet. Non autem glorify Me because He shall receive of
potest dici quod accipiat id quod est Mine.” Of course, this cannot be said:
filii, non tamen accipiat a filio: He receives what is the Son’s, but does
utputa si dicatur quod accipiat not receive from the Son; by saying, for
essentiam divinam, quae est filii a instance, that He receives the Son’s
patre; unde et subditur, omnia divine essence from the Father. Hence,
quaecumque habet pater, mea our Lord adds: “All things whatsoever
sunt. Propterea dixi vobis quia de the Father has are mine. Therefore, I
meo accipiet: si enim omnia quae said that He shall receive of Mine.” For,
patris sunt et filii sunt, oportet quod if all things which are the Father’s are
auctoritas patris, secundum quam the Son’s as well, the Father’s authority
est principium spiritus sancti, sit et as principle of the Holy Spirit must be
filii. Sicut ergo spiritus sanctus the Son’s as well. Therefore, just as the
accipit de eo quod est patris a Holy Spirit receives what is the Father’s
patre, ita accipit de eo quod est filii from the Father, so He receives what is
a filio. the Son’s from the Son.
Ad hoc etiam induci possunt [5] Here one can also introduce the
auctoritates doctorum Ecclesiae, testimonies of the Doctors of the
etiam Graecorum. Dicit enim Church, the Greeks included.
Athanasius: spiritus sanctus a patre Athanasius says: “The Holy Spirit is
et filio, non factus nec creatus nec from the Father and the Son—not made,
genitus, sed procedens. Cyrillus not created, not begotten, but
etiam, in epistola sua, quam proceeding.” Cyril, too, in his epistle
synodus Chalcedonensis recepit, received by the Council of Chalcedon,
dicit: spiritus veritatis nominatur et says: “The Spirit of the truth is named
est spiritus veritatis et profluit ab and is the Spirit of the Truth and flows
eo, sicut denique et ex Deo patre. from Him just as, indeed, from God the
Didymus etiam dicit, in libro de Father.” Didymus also says in his book
spiritu sancto: neque quid est aliud On the Holy Spirit: “The Son is nothing
filius exceptis his quae ei dantur a else than what is given to Him by the
patre; neque alia est spiritus sancti Father, and the substance of the Holy
substantia praeter id quod ei datur Spirit is no other than that given Him by
a filio. the Son.”
Ridiculosum est autem quod Of course, it is ridiculous that some
quidam concedunt spiritum concede that the Holy Spirit “is from the
sanctum esse a filio, vel profluere Son” or “flows from the Son” but does
ab ipso, sed non procedere ab ipso. not “proceed from. Him.” For the verb “to
Verbum enim processionis inter proceed,” among all those which refer to
omnia quae ad originem pertinent, origin, turns up most commonly; for, if
magis invenitur esse commune: anything is in any way at all from
quicquid enim quocumque modo something, we say it proceeds from that
est ab aliquo, ab ipso procedere thing. And since divinity is better
dicimus. Et quia divina melius per designated by what is common than by
communia quam per specialia what is special, in the origin of the divine
designantur, verbum processionis persons the verb proceeding is the most
in origine divinarum personarum suitable. And so, if one concedes that
maxime est accommodum. Unde si the Holy Spirit “is from the Son” or “flows
concedatur quod spiritus sanctus sit from the Son,” it follows that “He
a filio, vel profluat ab eo, sequitur proceeds from the Son.”
quod ab eo procedat.
Item. Habetur in determinatione [6] There is this, too, in the
quinti Concilii: sequimur per omnia determination of the Fifth Council: “In all
sanctos patres et doctores matters we follow the holy Fathers and
Ecclesiae, Athanasium, Hilarium, Doctors of the Church: Athanasius,
Basilium, Gregorium theologum et Hilary, Basil, Gregory the theologian,
Gregorium Nyssenum, Ambrosium, and Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose,
Augustinum, Theophilum, Ioannem Augustine, Theophilus, John of
Constantin., Cyrillum, Leonem, Constantinople, Cyril, Leo, Proclus; and
Proclum: et suscipimus omnia quae we accept what they have set down on
de recta fide et condamnatione the correct belief and the condemnation
haereticorum exposuerunt. of heretics.” But it is manifest from many
Manifestum est autem ex multis testimonies of Augustine, especially his
auctoritatibus Augustini, et On the Trinity and his Exposition of
praecipue in libro de Trinitate, et John, that the Holy Spirit is from the
super Ioannem, quod spiritus Son. It must, then, be conceded that the
sanctus sit a filio. Oportet igitur Holy Spirit is from the Son just as He is
concedi quod spiritus sanctus sit a from the Father.
filio sicut et a patre.
Hoc etiam evidentibus rationibus [7] This is also clarified by straight
apparet. In rebus enim, remota reasoning. For among things, with the
materiali distinctione, quae in material distinction gone (and in the
divinis personis locum habere non divine Persons such can have no place),
potest, non inveniuntur aliqua one discovers no differentiation except
distingui nisi per aliquam by some opposition. For things which
oppositionem. Quae enim nullam have no opposition to one another can
oppositionem habent ad invicem, be simultaneously in something
simul esse possunt in eodem, unde identical; thus, no distinction can be
per ea distinctio causari non potest: caused by them. Take white and
album enim et triangulare, licet triangular. Although they are diverse,
diversa sint, quia tamen non they can, because they are not
opponuntur, in eodem esse opposed, be in an identical thing. But
contingit. Oportet autem one must set down, according to the
supponere, secundum fidei documents of the Catholic faith, that the
Catholicae documenta, quod Holy Spirit is distinct from the Son;
spiritus sanctus a filio distinguatur: otherwise, there would not be a Trinity,
aliter enim non esset Trinitas, sed but a duality of Persons. Therefore, a
dualitas in personis. Oportet igitur distinction of this kind must take place
huiusmodi distinctionem per through some opposition. But it is not
aliquam oppositionem fieri. Non the opposition of affirmation and
autem oppositione affirmationis et negation. for such is the distinction of
negationis: quia sic distinguuntur being from nonbeing. Nor is it the
entia a non entibus. Nec etiam opposition of privation and habit, for
oppositione privationis et habitus: such is the distinction of the perfect from
quia sic distinguuntur perfecta ab the imperfect. Neither is it the opposition
imperfectis. Neque etiam of contrariety, for such is the distinction
oppositione contrarietatis. Quia sic of diversity of form. For contrariety as
distinguuntur quae sunt secundum philosophers teach, is a “difference
formam diversa: nam contrarietas, following on form.” And this difference is
ut philosophi docent, est differentia not suited to the divine Persons, since
secundum formam. Quae quidem their form is one, just as their essence
differentia divinis personis non is. Hence, the Apostle says, speaking of
convenit, cum earum sit una forma, the Son, “being in the form of God” (Phil.
sicut una essentia: secundum illud 2:6), the form, namely, of the Father.
apostoli, Philipp. 26, de filio
dicentis, qui cum in forma Dei
esset, scilicet patris.
Relinquitur igitur unam personam Therefore, the conclusion remains that

divinam ab alia non distingui nisi one divine Person is not distinguished
oppositione relationis: sic enim filius from another except by the opposition of
a patre distinguitur secundum relation: thus, the Son is distinguished
oppositionem relativam patris et filii. from the Father consequently to the
Non enim in divinis personis alia relative opposition of father and son. It is
relativa oppositio esse potest nisi because in the divine Persons there can
secundum originem. Nam relative be no relative opposition except,
opposita vel supra quantitatem consequently, on origin. For a relative
fundatur, ut duplum et dimidium; vel opposition is founded on quantity—say
super actionem et passionem, ut the double or the half; or on action and
dominus et servus, movens et passion—say master and servant,
motum, pater et filius. Rursus, mover and moved, father and son.
relativorum quae super quantitatem Further, among the relative oppositions
fundantur, quaedam fundantur founded on quantity, some are founded
super diversam quantitatem, ut on diversity of quantity—say the double
duplum et dimidium, maius et and the half, the greater and the lesser,
minus; quaedam super ipsam some on unity itself—say identity, which
unitatem, ut idem, quod significat means one in substance, and equality,
unum in substantia; et aequale, which means one in quantity, and
quod significat unum in quantitate; similarity, which means one in quality.
et simile, quod significat unum in The divine Persons, therefore, cannot
qualitate. Divinae igitur personae be distinguished by relations founded on
distingui non possunt relationibus diversity of quantity, because this would

fundatis super diversitatem take away the equality of the three
quantitatis: quia sic tolleretur trium Persons. Nor, again, by the relations
personarum aequalitas. Neque which are founded on unity, because
iterum relationibus quae fundantur relations of this kind cause no
super unum: quia huiusmodi distinction; rather, in them one finds
relationes distinctionem non more of what pertains to agreement,
causant, immo magis ad although some of them may presuppose
convenientiam pertinere a distinction. In all relations founded on
inveniuntur, etsi forte aliqua eorum action and passion, however, there is
distinctionem praesupponunt. In always one of the two which is a subject
relationibus vero omnibus super and unequal in power to the other; here,
actionem vel passionem fundatis, exception is made only for the relations
semper alterum est ut subiectum, et of origin, and in such there is no lesser
inaequale secundum virtutem, nisi indicated, because one finds there
solum in relationibus originis, in something producing that which is
quibus nulla minoratio designatur, similar and equal to itself in nature and
eo quod invenitur aliquid producere power. The conclusion, therefore, must
sibi simile et aequale secundum be that the divine Persons cannot be
naturam et virtutem. Relinquitur distinguished except by relative
igitur quod divinae personae opposition in origin. Therefore, if the
distingui non possunt nisi Holy Spirit is distinguished from the Son,
oppositione relativa secundum He is necessarily from the Son, for we
originem. Oportet igitur quod, si do not say that the Son is from the Holy
spiritus sanctus a filio distinguitur, Spirit, since the Holy Spirit is, rather,
quod sit ab eo: non enim est dicere said to be of the Son and given by the
quod filius sit a spiritu sancto, cum Son.
spiritus sanctus magis filii esse
dicatur, et a filio detur.
Item. A patre est filius et spiritus [8] Again, the Son is from the Father
sanctus. Oportet igitur patrem and so is the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the
referri et ad filium et ad spiritum Father must be related both to the Son
sanctum ut principium ad id quod and the Holy Spirit as a principle to that
est a principio. Refertur autem ad which is from the principle. He is related
filium ratione paternitatis, non to the Son by reason of paternity, but not
autem ad spiritum sanctum: quia to the Holy Spirit; for then the Holy Spirit
tunc spiritus sanctus esset filius; would be the Son, because paternity is
paternitas enim non dicitur nisi ad not said except of a son. There must,
filium. Oportet igitur in patre esse then, be another relation in the Father
aliam relationem qua referatur ad by which He is related to the Holy Spirit;
spiritum sanctum, et vocetur and spiration is its name. In the same
spiratio. Similiter, cum in filio sit way, since there is in the Son a relation
quaedam relatio qua refertur ad by which He is related to the Father, the
patrem, quae dicitur filiatio, oportet name of which is sonship, there must
quod in spiritu sancto sit etiam alia also be in the Holy Spirit another
relatio qua referatur ad patrem, et relation by which He is related to the
dicatur processio. Et sic secundum Father, and this is called procession.
originem filii a patre sint duae And thus, in accord with the origin of the
relationes, una in originante, alia in Son from the Father, there are two
originato, scilicet paternitas et relations, one in the originator, the other

filiatio; et aliae duae ex parte in the originated: to wit, paternity and
originis spiritus sancti, scilicet sonship; and there are two others in
spiratio et processio. Paternitas reference to the Holy Spirit: namely,
igitur et spiratio non constituunt spiration and procession. Therefore,
duas personas, sed ad unam paternity and spiration do not constitute
personam patris pertinent: quia non two Persons, but pertain to the one
habent oppositionem ad invicem. Person of the Father, for they have no
Neque igitur filiatio et processio opposition to one another. Therefore,
duas personas constituerent, sed neither would sonship and procession
ad unam pertinerent, nisi haberent constitute two persons, but would
oppositionem ad invicem. Non est pertain to one, unless they had an
autem dare aliam oppositionem nisi opposition to one another. But there is
secundum originem. Oportet igitur no opposition to assign save that by way
quod sit oppositio originis inter of origin. Hence, there must be an
filium et spiritum sanctum, ita quod opposition of origin between the Son
unus sit ab alio. and the Holy Spirit so that the one is
from the other.
Adhuc. Quaecumque conveniunt in [9] What is more, when things come
aliquo communi, si distinguantur ad together by something common to them,
invicem, oportet quod distinguantur they must, if they are to be
secundum aliquas differentias per distinguished, be distinguished by
se, et non per accidens, pertinentes differences which belong per se and not
ad illud commune: sicut homo et accidentally to that common thing. Thus,
equus conveniunt in animali, et man and horse meet in animal, and are
distinguuntur ab invicem, non per distinguished from one another not by
album et nigrum, quae se habent black and white, which are related
per accidens ad animal, sed per accidentally to animal, but by rational
rationale et irrationale, quae per se and irrational, which are per se pertinent
animal pertinent; quia, cum animal to animal. This is because animal is
sit quod habet animam, oportet what has soul [animam], and this must
quod hoc distinguatur per hoc quod be distinguished by having this or that
est habere animam talem vel talem, kind of soul—say, rational or irrational.
utputa rationalem vel irrationalem. Now, manifestly, the Son and the Holy
Manifestum est autem quod filius et Spirit agree in their being from another,
spiritus sanctus conveniunt in hoc since each is from the Father. And in
quod est esse ab alio, quia uterque this the Father suitably differs from
est a patre: et secundum hoc pater each, in that He can have no birthorigin
convenienter differt ab utroque, [innascibilis]. Therefore, if the Holy Spirit
inquantum est innascibilis. Si igitur be distinguished from the Son, this must
spiritus sanctus distinguatur a filio, take place by differences which per se
oportet quod hoc sit per differentias divide this being from another. And
quae per se dividant hoc quod est such, indeed, can only be differences of
ens ab alio. Quae quidem non the same genus—namely, pertaining to
possunt esse nisi differentiae origin—so that one of them is from the
eiusdem generis scilicet ad other. One concludes, then, that the
originem pertinentes, ut unus distinction of the Holy Spirit from the
eorum sit ab alio. Relinquitur igitur Son requires that He be from the Son.
quod ad hoc quod spiritus sanctus
distinguatur a filio, necesse est

quod sit a filio.
Amplius. Si quis dicat spiritum [10] Let one say, further, that the Holy
sanctum distingui a filio, non quia Spirit is distinguished from the Son not
sit a filio, sed propter diversam because He is from the Son, but by
originem utriusque a patre: in idem reason of their differing origin from the
hoc realiter redire necesse est. Si Father. The difficulty really returns to the
enim spiritus sanctus est alius a same point, for, if the Holy Spirit is other
filio, oportet quod alia sit origo vel than the Son, the origin or procession of
processio utriusque. Duae autem each must be other. But two origins
origines non possunt distingui nisi cannot be distinguished except by term,
per terminum, vel principium, vel or by principle, or by subject. Thus, the
subiectum. Sicut origo equi differt origin of a horse differs from the origin of
ab origine bovis ex parte termini: a cow by way of term, in that these two
secundum quod hae duae origines origins have their terms in natures
terminantur ad naturas specie diverse in species. There is difference
diversas. Ex parte autem principii: by way of principle if we suppose that
ut si supponamus in eadem specie some animals in the same species are
animalis quaedam generari ex generated by the active power of the
virtute activa solis tantum; sun alone, and some others along with
quaedam autem, simul cum hac, ex this power by the active power of the
virtute activa seminis. Ex parte vero seed. There is difference by way of
subiecti, differt generatio huius equi subject when the generation of this
et illius secundum quod natura horse differs from that as the nature of
speciei in diversa materia recipitur. the species is received in diverse
Haec autem distinctio quae est ex matters. But this distinction on the part
parte subiecti, in divinis personis of subject can have no place in the
locum habere non potest: cum sint divine Persons, since they are entirely
omnino immateriales. Similiter immaterial. In the same way, also, on
etiam ex parte termini, ut ita liceat the part of the term, granting one may
loqui, non potest esse speak so, there can be no distinction of
processionum distinctio: quia unam processions. For the divine nature, one
et eandem divinam naturam quam and the same, which the Son receives
accipit filius nascendo, accipit by His birth, the Holy Spirit receives by
spiritus sanctus procedendo. His proceeding. It remains, therefore,
Relinquitur igitur quod utriusque that the distinction of each origin can be
originis distinctio esse non potest only on the part of the principle.
nisi ex parte principii. Manifestum Manifestly, of course, the principle of the
est autem quod principium originis origin of the Son is the Father alone. If,
filii est pater solus. Si igitur therefore, the principle of the procession
processionis spiritus sancti of the Holy Spirit is the Father alone, the
principium sit solus pater, non erit procession of the Holy Spirit will not be
alia processio spiritus sancti a other than the generation of the Son;
generatione filii: et sic nec spiritus thus, neither will the Holy Spirit be
sanctus distinctus a filio. Ad hoc distinct from the Son. Therefore, that
igitur quod sint aliae processiones there may be otherness in processions
et alii procedentes, necesse est and otherness in those proceeding, one
dicere quod spiritus sanctus non sit of necessity says that the Holy Spirit is
a solo patre, sed a patre et filio. not from the Father alone, but from the
Father and the Son.
Si quis vero iterum dicat quod [11] But, again, if one says that the
differunt processiones secundum processions differ in principle, in that the
principium inquantum pater producit Father produces the Son by way of
filium per modum intellectus ut intellect as Word, and the Holy Spirit by
verbum, spiritum autem sanctum way of will as Love, it will be necessary
per modum voluntatis quasi to say that in accord with a difference of
amorem: secundum hoc oportebit intellect and will in God the Father the
dici quod secundum differentiam two processions and the two proceeding
voluntatis et intellectus in Deo patre are to be distinguished. Will and intellect
distinguantur duae processiones et in God the Father are not distinguished
duo procedentes. Sed voluntas et really, but only rationally, as was shown
intellectus in Deo patre non in Book I. It follows, then, that the two
distinguuntur secundum rem, sed processions and the two proceeding
solum secundum rationem: ut in differ only rationally. Now, things which
primo libro ostensum est. Sequitur differ only rationally are predicated of
igitur quod duae processiones et each other: it will be truly said that the
duo procedentes differant solum divine intellect is the divine will, and
ratione. Ea vero quae solum ratione conversely. Therefore, it will be true to
differunt, de se invicem say that the Holy Spirit is the Son, and
praedicantur: verum enim dicetur conversely. This is the Sabellian impiety.
quod divina voluntas est intellectus Therefore, it does not suffice for the
eius, et e converso. Verum ergo, distinction of the Holy Spirit and the Son
erit dicere quod spiritus sanctus est to say that the Son proceeds by way of
filius et e converso: quod est intellect and the Holy Spirit by way of
Sabellianae impietatis. Non igitur will, unless along with this one says the
sufficit ad distinctionem spiritus Holy Spirit is from the Son.
sancti et filii dicere quod filius
procedat per modum intellectus, et
spiritus sanctus per modum
voluntatis, nisi cum hoc dicatur
quod spiritus sanctus sit a filio.
Praeterea. Ex hoc ipso quod dicitur [12] There is more. From the very fact of
quod spiritus sanctus procedit per saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds by
modum voluntatis, et filius per way of will and the Son by way of
modum intellectus, sequitur quod intellect it follows that the Holy Spirit is
spiritus sanctus sit a filio. Nam from the Son. For love proceeds from a
amor procedit a verbo: eo quod word: we are able to love nothing but
nihil amare possumus nisi verbo that which a word of the heart
cordis illud concipiamus. conceives.
Item. Si quis diversas species [13] Again, if one considers the diverse
rerum consideret, in eis quidam species of things, a certain order
ordo ostenditur: prout viventia sunt appears in them: the living are above
supra non viventia, et animalia the nonliving; animals are above plants;
supra plantas, et homo super alia and man is above the other animals.
animalia, et in singulis horum And in each of these, different grades
diversi gradus inveniuntur are discovered according to different

secundum diversas species; unde species; hence, even Plato said that the
et Plato species rerum dixit esse species of things are numbers, which
numeros qui specie variantur per are varied in species by the addition and
additionem vel subtractionem subtraction of unity. Hence, in immaterial
unitatis. Unde in substantiis substances there can be no distinction
immaterialibus non potest esse except that of order. But in the divine
distinctio nisi secundum ordinem. In Persons who are entirely immaterial
divinis autem personis, quae sunt there can be no other order than that of
omnino immateriales, non potest origin. Therefore, there are not two
esse alius ordo nisi originis. Non Persons proceeding from one, unless
igitur sunt duae personae ab una one of those proceeds from a second.
procedentes, nisi una earum And thus, necessarily, the Holy Spirit
procedat ab altera. Et sic oportet proceeds from the Son.
spiritum sanctum procedere a filio.
Adhuc. Pater et filius, quantum ad [14] Moreover, the Father and the Son,
unitatem essentiae, non differunt unity of essence considered, do not
nisi in hoc quod hic est pater et hic differ save in this: He is the Father and
est filius. Quicquid igitur praeter hoc He is the Son. So, anything other than
est, commune est patri et filio. Esse this is common to the Father and the
autem principium spiritus sancti est Son. But to be the principle of the Holy
praeter rationem paternitatis et Spirit is not included in the notion of
filiationis: nam alia relatio est qua paternity and of sonship, for it is one
pater est pater, et qua pater est relation by which the Father is Father,
principium spiritus sancti, ut supra and another by which He is the principle
dictum est. Esse igitur principium of the Holy Spirit, as was said above.
spiritus sancti est commune patri et Therefore, to be the principle of the Holy
filio. Spirit is common to the Father and the
Son.
Amplius. Quicquid non est contra [15] Furthermore, whenever one thing is

rationem alicuius, non est not opposed to the essential intelligibility
impossibile ei convenire, nisi forte of another, there is no impossibility—
per accidens. Esse autem unless, perhaps, accidentally—about
principium spiritus sancti non est their coming together. But to be the
contra rationem filii. Neque principle of the Holy Spirit is not contrary
inquantum est Deus: quia pater est to the intelligibility of the Son: not in so
principium spiritus sancti. Neque far as He is God, because the Father is
inquantum est filius: eo quod alia the principle of the Holy Spirit; nor in so
est processio spiritus sancti et filii; far as He is Son, because the
non est autem repugnans id quod procession of the Holy Spirit is other
est a principio secundum unam than that of the Son. It is, of course, not
processionem, esse principium repugnant to have what is from a
processionis alterius. Relinquitur principle according to one procession he
igitur quod non sit impossibile filium the principle of another procession. It
esse principium spiritus sancti. follows, then, that it is not impossible for
Quod autem non est impossibile, the Son to be the principle of the Holy
potest esse. In divinis autem non Spirit. But that which is not impossible
differt esse et posse. Ergo filius est can be. “In divinity being and possibility

principium spiritus sancti. do not differ.” Therefore, the Son is the
principle of the Holy Spirit.
Caput 25 Chapter 25
Rationes ostendere volentium ARGUMENTS OF THOSE WHO WANT
quod spiritus sanctus non TO SHOW THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT
procedat a filio, et solutio DOES NOT PROCEED FROM THE SON
ipsarum AND THE ANSWERS
Quidam vero, pertinaciter veritati [1] There are some, pertinacious in their
resistere volentes, quaedam in willful resistance to the truth, who make
contrarium inducunt, quae vix some points to the contrary which are
responsione sunt digna. Dicunt hardly worth an answer. They say that our
enim quod dominus, de Lord, speaking of the procession of the
processione spiritus sancti Holy Spirit, says that He proceeds from
loquens, eum a patre procedere the Father, without mentioning the Son. So
dixit, nulla mentione facta de filio: one reads in John (15:26): “When the
ut patet Ioan. 1526, ubi dicitur: Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you
cum venerit Paraclitus, quem ego from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who
mittam vobis a patre, spiritum proceeds from the Father.” Hence, since
veritatis, qui a patre procedit. nothing must be held about God which is
Unde, cum de Deo nihil sit not given in Scripture, it must not be said
sentiendum nisi quod in Scriptura that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.
traditur, non est dicendum quod
spiritus sanctus procedat a filio.
Sed hoc omnino frivolum est. [2] But this is entirely frivolous. For, by
Nam propter unitatem essentiae, reason of unity of essence, what is said in
quod in Scripturis de una the Scriptures about one Person ought to
persona dicitur, et de alia oportet be understood of another, unless it is
intelligi, nisi repugnet proprietati repugnant to His propriety as a Person,
personali ipsius, etiam si dictio and this even if some exclusive phrase is
exclusiva adderetur. Licet enim added. For, although it says in Matthew
dicatur, Matth. 1127, quod nemo (12:27): “No one knows the Son, but the
novit filium nisi pater, non tamen Father,” neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit
a cognitione filii vel ipse filius, vel is, for all that, excluded from knowledge of
spiritus sanctus excluditur. Unde the Son. Hence, even if it is said in the
etiam si diceretur in Evangelio Gospel that the Holy Spirit does not
quod spiritus sanctus non proceed from any but the Father, this
procedit nisi a patre, non per hoc would not exclude His proceeding from the
removeretur quin procederet a Son. For this is not repugnant to the
filio: cum hoc proprietati filii non propriety of the Son, as was shown.
repugnet, ut ostensum est. Nec Neither is there cause to marvel if our Lord
est mirum si dominus spiritum said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the
sanctum a patre procedere dixit, Father, saying nothing about Himself, His
de se mentione non facta: quia custom is to refer everything to His Father
omnia ad patrem referre solet, a from whom He has whatever He has.
quo habet quicquid habet; sicut Thus, He says in John (7:16): “My doctrine

cum dicit, Ioan. 716: mea is not Mine, but His that sent Me.” Many
doctrina non est mea, sed eius things of this kind are discovered in the
qui misit me, patris. Et multa words of our Lord which establish in the
huiusmodi in verbis domini Father the authority of the principle. And,
inveniuntur, ad commendandam for all that, in the passage just mentioned
in patre auctoritatem principii. our Lord was not altogether silent about
Nec tamen in auctoritate His being the principle of the Holy Spirit.
praemissa omnino reticuit se He called Him “the Spirit of Truth,” and He
esse spiritus sancti principium: had previously called Himself “the Truth”
cum dixit eum spiritum veritatis, (John 24:6).
se autem prius dixerat veritatem.
Obiiciunt etiam quod in [3] They further object that in certain
quibusdam Conciliis invenitur sub councils one finds it prohibited under
interminatione anathematis penalty of anathema to add anything to the
prohibitum ne aliquid addatur in Creed ordered by the council. In this, they
symbolo in Conciliis ordinato: in say, there is no mention of the procession
quo tamen de processione of the Holy Spirit from the Son. And so
spiritus sancti a filio mentio non they hold the Latins guilty of anathema
habetur. Unde arguunt Latinos because they have added this to the
anathematis reos, qui hoc in Creed.
symbolo addiderunt.
Sed haec efficaciam non habent. [4] But such arguments are inefficacious.

Nam in determinatione synodi For the declaration of the Synod of
Chalcedonensis, dicitur quod Chalcedon says that the Fathers gathered
patres apud Constantinopolim at Constantinople corroborated the
congregati doctrinam Nicaenae doctrine of the Synod of Nicea. This they
synodi corroboraverunt, non did, “not as though to imply that the
quasi aliquid minus esset doctrine was something less, but to
inferentes, sed de spiritu sancto declare by Scriptural testimonies the
intellectum eorum, adversum eos understanding of the Holy Spirit Of their
qui dominum eum respuere predecessors against those who
tentaverunt, Scripturarum attempted to reject that understanding.”
testimoniis declarantes. Et One must say, similarly, that the
similiter dicendum est quod procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son
processio spiritus sancti a filio is implicitly contained in the Creed of
implicite continetur in Constantinople, for the latter says that “He
Constantinopolit. symbolo, in hoc proceeds from the Father,” and what is
quod ibi dicitur quod procedit a understood of the Father must be
patre: quia quod de patre understood of the Son, as was said. And
intelligitur, oportet et de filio the authority of the Roman Pontiff sufficed
intelligi, ut dictum est. Et ad hoc for this addition; by this authority, too, all
addendum suffecit auctoritas the ancient councils were confirmed.
Romani pontificis, per quam
etiam inveniuntur antiqua
Concilia esse confirmata.
Inducunt etiam quod spiritus [5] They maintain, also, that the Holy
sanctus, cum sit simplex, non Spirit, since He is simple, cannot be from
potest esse a duobus; et quod two; and that the Holy Spirit, if He
spiritus sanctus, si perfecte proceeds perfectly from the Father, does
procedat a patre, non procedit a not proceed from the Son; and other
filio; et alia huiusmodi. Quae arguments of this sort. These are easy to
facile est solvere etiam parum in solve, even if one is but little skilled in
theologicis exercitato. Nam pater theological matters. For the Father and the
et filius sunt unum principium Son are a single principle of the Holy Spirit
spiritus sancti, propter unitatem by reason of the unity of divine power, and
divinae virtutis, et una by one production they produce the Holy
productione producunt spiritum Spirit; thus, also, the three Persons are
sanctum: sicut etiam tres one principle of creatures and by one
personae sunt unum principium action they produce creatures.
creaturae, et una actione
creaturam producunt.
Caput 26 Chapter 26
Quod non sunt nisi tres personae THAT THERE ARE BUT THREE
in divinis pater, filius et spiritus PERSONS IN DIVINITY: THE FATHER,
sanctus THE SON, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT
Ex his igitur quae dicta sunt, [1] From what has been said, then, one

accipere oportet quod in divina must hold that in the divine nature three
natura tres personae subsistunt, Persons subsist: the Father, the Son,
pater et filius et spiritus sanctus, et and the Holy Spirit; and that these three
quod hi tres sunt unus Deus, solis are one God, distinguished from one
relationibus ad invicem distincti. another by relations only. For the
Pater enim a filio distinguitur Father is distinguished from the Son by
paternitatis relatione, et the relations of paternity and
innascibilitate; filius autem a patre innascibility; the Son from the Father by
relatione filiationis; pater autem et the relation of sonship; the Father and
filius a spiritu sancto spiratione, ut the Son from the Holy Spirit by
dicatur; spiritus autem sanctus a spiration, so to say; and the Holy Spirit
patre et filio processione amoris, from the Father and the Son by the
qua ab utroque procedit. procession of love, by this He proceeds
from each of Them.
Praeter has tres personas non est [2] Beside these three Persons, no
quartam in divina natura ponere. fourth in the divine nature can be
Personae enim divinae, cum in asserted. For the divine Persons, since
essentia conveniant, non possunt they agree in essence, cannot be
distingui nisi per relationem originis, distinguished except by relation of
ut ex dictis patet. Has autem originis origin, as is clear. These relations of
relationes accipere oportet, non origin one must understand not as a
secundum processionem in procession which inclines to what is
exteriora tendentem, sic enim without—for what proceeds thus is not
procedens non esset coessentiale coessential with its principle—one
suo principio: sed oportet quod must understand them as proceeding
processio interius consistat. Quod within. Of course, a thing which
autem aliquid procedat manens intra proceeds and remains its own principle
suum principium, invenitur solum in is found only in the operation of the
operatione intellectus et voluntatis, intellect and will, as was made clear.
ut ex dictis patet. Unde personae Hence, the divine Persons cannot be
divinae multiplicari non possunt nisi multiplied save by the requirements of
secundum quod exigit processio the procession of the intellect and will in
intellectus et voluntatis in Deo. Non God. It is, of course, not possible that
est autem possibile quod in Deo sit there be in God more than one
nisi una processio secundum proceeding within His understanding,
intellectum: eo quod suum intelligere because His act of understanding is
est unum et simplex et perfectum, one, simple, and perfect, for in,
quia intelligendo se intelligit omnia understanding Himself He understands
alia. Et sic non potest esse in Deo all things else. And thus, there can be
nisi una verbi processio. Similiter in God but one proceeding of the Word.
autem oportet et processionem In like manner, too, must the
amoris esse unam tantum: quia proceeding of Love be one only, for the
etiam divinum velle est unum et divine will act is one and simple—by
simplex, amando enim se amat loving Himself He loves all things else.
omnia alia. Non est igitur possibile Therefore, it is not possible that in God
quod sint in Deo nisi duae personae there be more than two Persons
procedentes: una per modum proceeding: one by way of intellect, as
intellectus ut verbum, scilicet filius; Word—namely the Son; the other by
et alia per modum amoris, ut spiritus way of Love, as the Holy Spirit. There is
sanctus. Est etiam et una persona also one Person who does not proceed
non procedens, scilicet pater. Solum —namely, the Father. Therefore, in the
igitur tres personae in Trinitate esse Trinity there can be only three Persons.
possunt.
Item. Si secundum processionem [3] Again, let the divine Persons be
oportet personas divinas distingui; distinguished by proceeding. But the
modus autem personae quantum ad mode of a person in proceeding can be
processiones non potest esse nisi but threefold: namely, to be altogether
triplex; ut scilicet sit aut omnino non not proceeding, which is the Father’s
procedens, quod patris est; aut a mode; to be proceeding from one who
non procedente procedens, quod filii does not proceed, which is the Son’s; to
est; aut a procedente procedens, be proceeding from one who Proceeds,
quod spiritus sancti est: impossibile which is the Holy Spirit’s. Therefore, it
est igitur ponere plures quam tres is impossible to assert more than three
personas. Persons.
Licet autem in aliis viventibus [4] We grant, of course, that in other
possint relationes originis living things relations of origin can be
multiplicari, ut scilicet sint in natura multiplied—for example, in human
humana plures patres et plures filii, nature there can be many fathers and
in divina natura hoc omnino many sons—but in the divine nature
impossibile est esse. Nam filiatio, this is altogether impossible. For
cum in una natura sit unius speciei, sonship, since in one nature it is of one
non potest multiplicari nisi species, cannot be multiplied except by
secundum materiam aut subiectum, matter or by subject; this is also the
sicut est etiam de aliis formis. Unde, case with other forms. Hence, since in
cum in Deo non sit materia aut God there is neither matter nor subject,
subiectum; et ipsae relationes sint and since the relations are themselves
subsistentes, ut ex supra dictis subsistent (which is clear from what
patet: impossibile est quod in Deo was said above) it is impossible that
sint plures filiationes. Et eadem ratio there be a plurality of sonships of God.
est de aliis. Et sic in Deo sunt solum The same reasoning holds for the other
tres personae. Persons. Thus, in God there are only
three Persons.
Si quis autem obiiciens dicat quod in [5] Of course, an objector may say that
filio, cum sit perfectus Deus, est in the Son who is perfect God there is
virtus intellectiva perfecta, et sic infinite intellective power, and thus He
potest producere verbum; et can produce a word; in like fashion,
similiter, cum in spiritu sancto sit since there is in the Holy Spirit infinite
bonitas infinita, quae est goodness which is the principle of
communicationis principium, poterit communication, He will be able to
alteri divinae personae naturam communicate the divine nature to
divinam communicare: considerare another person. But such a one ought
debet quod filius est Deus ut to consider that the Son is God, as
genitus, non ut generans: unde begotten not as begetting; and so the
virtus intellectiva est in eo ut in intellective power is in Him as
procedente per modum verbi, non ut proceeding in the way of the Word, and
in producente verbum. Et similiter, not in Him as producing the Word.
cum spiritus sanctus sit Deus ut Similarly, since the Holy Spirit is God as
procedens, est in eo bonitas infinita proceeding, there is infinite goodness in
ut in persona accipiente, non ut in Him as the Person receiving, and not in
communicante alteri bonitatem Him as communicating the infinite
infinitam. Non enim distinguuntur ab goodness to another. For the Persons
invicem nisi solis relationibus, ut ex are not distinguished from one another
supra dictis patet. Tota igitur except by relations, as is clear from the
plenitudo divinitatis est in filio, et things said above. Therefore, all the
eadem numero quae est in patre: fullness of divinity is the Son,
sed cum relatione nativitatis, sicut in numerically identical with that in the
patre cum relatione generationis Father, but with the relation of birth, as
activae. Unde, si relatio patris it is in the Father with the relation of
attribueretur filio, omnis distinctio active generation. Hence, if the relation
tolleretur. Et eadem ratio est de of the Father be attributed to the Son,
spiritu sancto. all distinction is removed. And the same
reasoning holds for the Holy Spirit.
Huius autem divinae Trinitatis [6] Now, this divine Trinity has a
similitudinem in mente humana likeness in the human mind which we
possumus considerare. Ipsa enim can consider. For the mind itself,
mens, ex hoc quod se actu intelligit, because it understands itself, conceives
verbum suum concipit in seipsa: within itself a word. And this is nothing
quod nihil aliud est quam ipsa but the intelligible intention of the mind,
intentio intelligibilis mentis, quae et which is called the mind understood
mens intellecta dicitur, in mente and exists within the mind. When this
existens. Quae dum ulterius mind further loves itself, it produces its
seipsam amat, seipsam producit in very self in the will as beloved. Of
voluntate ut amatum. Ulterius autem course, it does not proceed further
non procedit intra se, sed within itself, but the cycle is concluded
concluditur circulo, dum per amorem when by love it returns to the very
redit ad ipsam substantiam a qua substance from which the proceeding
processio incoeperat per began by the intention understood. The
intentionem intellectam: sed fit proceeding extends to external effects
processio ad exteriores effectus, when from love of itself it proceeds to
dum ex amore sui procedit ad make something. Thus, three things are
aliquid faciendum. Et sic tria in discovered in the mind: the mind itself,
mente inveniuntur: mens ipsa, quae the source of the proceeding, existing in
est processionis principium, in sua its nature; and mind conceived in the
natura existens; et mens concepta intellect; and mind beloved in the will.
in intellectu; et mens amata in For all that~ these three are not one
voluntate. Non tamen haec tria sunt nature, for the mind’s act of
una natura: quia intelligere mentis understanding is not its being; and its
non est eius esse, nec eius velle est will act is neither its being, nor its act of
eius esse aut intelligere. Et propter understanding. For this reason, also,
hoc etiam mens intellecta et mens the mind understood and the mind
amata non sunt personae: cum non beloved are not persons, since they are
sint subsistentes. Mens etiam ipsa, not subsisting. Even the mind itself
in sua natura existens, non est existing in its nature is not a person, for
persona: cum non sit totum quod it is not the whole which subsists, but a
subsistit, sed pars subsistentis, part of the subsistent; namely, of the
scilicet hominis. man.
In mente igitur nostra invenitur [7] Therefore, in our mind one finds a
similitudo Trinitatis divinae quantum likeness of the divine Trinity in regard to
ad processionem, quae multiplicat proceeding, “and this multiplies the
Trinitatem cum ex dictis manifestum Trinity.” For from the exposition this is
sit esse in divina natura Deum clear: there is in the divine nature God
ingenitum, qui est totius divinae unbegotten, who is the source of the
processionis principium, scilicet whole divine proceeding, namely the
patrem; et Deum genitum per Father; there is God begotten by way of
modum verbi in intellectu concepti, a word conceived in the intellect,
scilicet filium; et Deum per modum namely the Son; there is God by way of
amoris procedentem, scilicet love proceeding, namely the Holy Spirit.
spiritum sanctum. Ulterius autem Of course, no further proceeding is
intra divinam naturam nulla discovered within the divine nature, but
processio invenitur, sed solum only a proceeding to exterior effects. In
processio in exteriores effectus. In this, of course, the mind fails in
hoc autem deficit a repraesentatione representing the divine Trinity: the
divinae Trinitatis, quod pater et filius Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit
et spiritus sanctus sunt unius are one in nature, and in each of these
naturae, et singulis horum est the person is perfect, simply because
persona perfecta, eo quod intelligere the act of understanding and the act of
et velle sunt ipsum esse divinum, ut will are the divine being itself, as was
ostensum est. Et propter hoc, sic shown. For this reason one considers
consideratur divina similitudo in the divine likeness in man just as one
homine sicut similitudo Herculis in considers the likeness of Hercules in
lapide: quantum ad stone: with regard to the representation
repraesentationem formae, non of form, not with regard to the
quantum ad convenientiam naturae. agreement of nature. And so one says
Unde et in mente hominis dicitur that in the mind of man there is the
esse imago Dei: secundum illud “image of God” according to the Word:
Gen. 126: faciamus hominem ad “Let us make man to our image and
imaginem et similitudinem nostram. likeness” (Gen. 1:26).
Invenitur etiam in aliis rebus divinae [8] One also finds in other things a

Trinitatis similitudo: prout quaelibet likeness of the divine Trinity, so far as
res in sua substantia una est: et anything in its substance is one, formed
specie quadam formatur; et ordinem in a kind of species, ordered in some
aliquem habet. Sicut autem ex dictis fashion. just as is clear from the things
patet, conceptio intellectus in esse said, the conception of the intellect in
intelligibili est sicut informatio intelligible being is like the species
speciei in esse naturali: amor autem formation in natural being, love, of
est sicut inclinatio vel ordo in re course, is like the inclination or order in
naturali. Unde et species naturalium a thing of nature. And so the species of
rerum a remotis repraesentat filium: things in nature from afar represent the
ordo autem spiritum sanctum. Et Son; their order, of course, the Holy
ideo, propter remotam Spirit. Accordingly, by reason of the
repraesentationem et obscuram in remote and obscure representation in
irrationabilibus rebus, dicitur in eis irrational things, one speaks of the
esse Trinitatis vestigium, non imago: “vestige” of the Trinity in them, not of
secundum illud Iob 117: numquid the “image”; so we read in Job (11:7):
vestigia Dei comprehendes et “Would you comprehend the steps of
cetera. God?” and so forth.
Et haec de divina Trinitate ad [9] And this is enough to say about the

praesens dicta sufficiant. divine Trinity for the present.
Caput 27 Chapter 27
De incarnatione verbi secundum ON ME INCARNATION OF THE WORD
traditionem sacrae Scripturae ACCORDING TO THE TRADITION OF
SCRIPTURE
Quoniam autem supra, cum de [1] Since, of course, when divine
generatione divina ageretur, dictum generation was dealt with above, it was
est Dei filio, domino Iesu Christo, said of the Son of God, our Lord Jesus
quaedam secundum divinam Christ, that some things belong to Him in
naturam, quaedam secundum His divine nature, and some in that
humanam convenire, quam ex human nature by the assumption of
tempore assumendo, Dei aeternus which in time the eternal Son chose to be
filius voluit incarnari: de ipso nunc incarnate, it now remains to speak of the
incarnationis mysterio restat mystery of the Incarnation itself. Indeed,
dicendum. Quod quidem inter among divine works, this most especially

divina opera maxime rationem exceeds the reason: for nothing can be
excedit: nihil enim mirabilius thought of which is more marvelous than
excogitari potest divinitus factum this divine accomplishment: that the true
quam quod verus Deus, Dei filius, God, the Son of God, should become
fieret homo verus. Et quia inter true man. And because among them all it
omnia mirabilissimum est, is most marvelous, it follows that toward
consequitur quod ad huius maxime faith in this particular marvel all other
mirabilis fidem omnia alia miracula miracles are ordered, since “that which is
ordinentur: cum id quod est in greatest in any genus seems to be the
unoquoque genere maximum, cause of the others.”
causa aliorum esse videatur.
Hanc autem Dei incarnationem [2] This marvelous incarnation of God, of

mirabilem, auctoritate divina course, which divine authority hands
tradente, confitemur. Dicitur enim down, we confess. For it says in John
Ioan. 114: verbum caro factum (2:14): “The Word was made flesh, and
est, et habitavit in nobis. Et dwelt among us.” And the Apostle Paul
apostolus Paulus, Philipp. 2, dicit, says: “Who being in the form of God,
de filio Dei loquens: cum in forma thought it not robbery to be equal with
Dei esset, non rapinam arbitratus God: But emptied Himself, taking the
est se esse aequalem Deo: sed form of a servant being made in the
semetipsum exinanivit formam likeness of men, and in habit found as a
servi accipiens, in similitudinem man” (Phil. 2:67).
hominum factus, et habitu inventus
ut homo.
Hoc etiam ipsius domini Iesu [3] This is also shown clearly by the
Christi verba manifeste ostendunt: words of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself,
cum de se quandoque loquatur since at times He says lowly and human
humilia et humana, ut est illud, things of Himself, such as: “The Father is
pater maior me est, et tristis est greater than I” (John 14:28) and “My soul
anima mea usque ad mortem, is sorrowful even unto death” (Matt
quae ei secundum humanitatem 26:38), which become Him in His
assumptam conveniunt; assumed humanity, but at times He says
quandoque vero sublimia et divina, sublime and divine things, such as: “I
ut est illud, ego et pater unum and the Father are one” (John 10: 30)
sumus, et omnia quae habet pater, and “whatever the Father has is Mine
mea sunt, quae certum est ei (John 16:15), which certainly belong to
secundum naturam divinam Him in His divine nature.
competere.
Ostendunt etiam hoc ipsius domini [4] Even the things which we read about
facta quae de ipso leguntur. Quod what our Lord did show this. That He
enim timuit, tristatus est, esuriit, feared, that He was grieved, that He
mortuus est, pertinet ad humanam thirsted, that He died: these belong to the
naturam. Quod propria potestate human nature. That by His own power
infirmos sanavit, quod mortuos He healed the sick, that He raised the
suscitavit, et quod elementis mundi dead, that He effectively commanded the
efficaciter imperavit, quod elements of the world, that He drove out

Daemones expulit, quod peccata devils, that He forgave sins, that when
dimisit, quod a mortuis cum voluit He chose He rose from the dead: these
resurrexit, quod denique caelos reveal the divine power in Him.
ascendit divinam in eo virtutem
demonstrant.
Caput 28 Chapter 28
De errore Photini circa ON THE ERROR OF PROTINUS ABOUT
incarnationem THE INCARNATION
Quidam autem, Scripturarum [1] There are, of course, those who have

sensum depravantes, circa domini debased Scripture and have conceived a
nostri Iesu Christi divinitatem et perverse understanding of the divinity and
humanitatem perversum sensum humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ.
conceperunt.
Fuerunt enim quidam, ut Ebion et [2] For there have been some, like Ebion
Cerinthus, et postea Paulus and Cerinthus, and, later, Paul of
Samosatenus et Photinus, qui in Samosata and Photinus, who confess in
Christo solum naturam humanam Christ a human nature only. But divinity
confitentur; divinitatem vero non was in Him, not by nature, but by a kind of
per naturam, sed per quandam outstanding participation of divine glory
excellentem divinae gloriae which He had merited by His deeds.
participationem, quam per opera Hence, they fabricate, as was said above.
meruerat, in eo fuisse confingunt,
ut superius dictum est.
Sed, ut alia praetermittamus quae [3] But—to pass over the other things said
contra positionem huiusmodi dicta against this position above—this position
sunt superius, haec positio destroys the Incarnation’s mystery.
incarnationis mysterium tollit.
Non enim, secundum positionem [4] For, according to this position, God
huiusmodi, Deus carnem would not have assumed flesh to become
assumpsisset, ut fieret homo: sed man; rather, an earthly man would have
magis homo carnalis Deus factus become God. Thus, the saying of John
fuisset. Et sic non verum esset (1:14) would not be true: “The Word was
quod Ioannes dicit. Verbum caro made flesh”; on the contrary, flesh would
factum est: sed magis e contrario, have been made the Word.
caro verbum facta fuisset.
Similiter etiam non convenirent [5] In the same way, also, emptying
Dei filio exinanitio aut descensio, Himself and descent would not fit the Son
sed magis homini glorificatio et of God; rather, glorification and ascent
ascensio, et sic non verum esset would fit the man. Thus, there would be
quod apostolus dicit, qui cum in no truth in the Apostle’s saying: “Who
forma Dei esset, exinanivit being in the form of God emptied Himself,
semetipsum formam servi taking the form of a servant” (Phil. 2:67,
accipiens: sed sola exaltatio 9), but only in the exaltation of the man to
hominis in divinam gloriam, de divine glory about which he adds later:
qua postmodum subditur, propter “For which cause God also has exalted
quod et Deus exaltavit illum. Him.”
Neque verum esset quod dominus [6] Neither would there be truth in our

dicit, descendi de caelo, sed Lord’s word: “I came down from heaven,”
solum quod ait, ascendo ad but only in His saying: “I ascend to My
patrem meum: cum tamen Father,” in spite of the Scripture which
utrumque Scriptura coniungat. joins these two, for our Lord says: “No
Dicit enim dominus, Ioan. 313: one has ascended into heaven, except
nemo ascendit in caelum nisi qui him who descended from heaven, the
de caelo descendit, filius hominis, Son of man who is in heaven” (John 6:38;
qui est in caelo; et Ephes. 410, 20:17; 3:13); and, again: “He who
qui descendit, ipse est qui descended is the same who ascended
ascendit super omnes caelos. above all the heavens” (Eph. 4: 10).
Sic etiam non conveniret filio quod [7] Thus, also, it would not become the

missus esset a patre neque quod Son to have been sent by the Father, nor
a patre exiverit ut veniret in to have gone out from the Father to come
mundum, sed solum quod ad into the world, but only to go to the Father,
patrem iret: cum tamen ipse although He Himself, for all that, unites
utrumque coniungat, dicens, Ioan. the two, saying: “I go to Him that sent
165, vado ad eum qui misit me; Me?” and “I came forth from the Father,
et iterum 28, exivi a patre et veni and am come into the world: again I leave
in mundum et iterum relinquo the world, and I go to the Father” (John
mundum et vado ad patrem; in 16:5, 28). In each of these cases both the
quorum utroque et humanitas et humanity and the divinity is established.
divinitas comprobatur.
Caput 29 Chapter 29
De errore Manichaeorum circa ON THE ERROR OF THE
incarnationem MANICHEANS ABOUT THE
INCARNATION
Fuerunt autem et alii qui, veritate [1] There also have been others who
incarnationis negata, quandam denied the truth of the Incarnation and
fictitiam incarnationis similitudinem introduced a kind of fictional
introduxerunt. Dixerunt enim incarnation. The Manicheans said that
Manichaei Dei filium non verum God’s Son assumed not a real, but a
corpus, sed phantasticum phantasy, body; thus, He could not be a
assumpsisse. Unde nec verus homo true man, but only an apparent one.
esse potuit, sed apparens: neque Consequently, the things He did as man
ea quae secundum hominem gessit, —such as being born, eating, drinking,
sicut quod natus est, quod comedit, walking, suffering, and being buried—

bibit, ambulavit, passus est et were done not in truth but in a kind of
sepultus, in veritate fuisse, sed in false appearance. Thus, clearly, they
quadam simulatione, consequitur. Et reduce the whole mystery of the
sic patet quod totum incarnationis Incarnation to a fiction.
mysterium ad quandam fictionem
deducunt.
Haec autem positio primo quidem [2] First, of course, this position wipes
Scripturae auctoritatem evacuat. out the authority of Scripture. Since the
Cum enim carnis similitudo caro non likeness of flesh is not flesh, the
sit, neque similitudo ambulationis likeness of walking not walking, and so
ambulatio, et in ceteris similiter, of the rest, Scripture lies in saying: “The
mentitur Scriptura dicens, verbum Word was made flesh” (John 1:14)—if it
caro factum est, si solum was but phantasy flesh. It also lies
phantastica caro fuit. Mentitur etiam when it says that Jesus Christ walked,
dicens Iesum Christum ambulasse, ate, died, and was buried—if these
comedisse, mortuum fuisse et things took place only in an apparent
sepultum, si haec in sola phantasy. But, if even in a moderate
phantastica apparitione contigerunt. way the authority of Scripture be
Si autem vel in modico auctoritati decried, there will no longer be anything
sacrae Scripturae derogetur, iam fixed in our faith which depends on
nihil fixum in fide nostra esse sacred Scripture, as in John’s words
poterit, quae sacris Scripturis (20:31): “These are written, that you
innititur, secundum illud Ioan. 2031: may believe.”
haec scripta sunt ut credatis.
Potest autem aliquis dicere [3] Someone can say, of course, that
Scripturae quidem sacrae veritatem the truth is certainly not lacking to
non deesse, dum id quod apparuit, sacred Scripture when it deals with an
refert ac si factum fuisset: quia appearance as though it were a fact,
rerum similitudines aequivoce ac because the likenesses of things are
figurate ipsarum rerum nominibus equivocally and figuratively called by
nuncupantur, sicut homo pictus the names of the things themselves; a
aequivoce dicitur homo; et ipsa man in a picture, for example, is called
sacra Scriptura consuevit hoc modo a man equivocally. Sacred Scripture
loquendi uti, ut est illud I Cor. 104, itself is accustomed to this manner of
petra autem erat Christus. Plurima speech; thus the Apostle: “And the rock
autem corporalia in Scripturis de was Christ” (1 Cor. 10:4). Of course,
Deo inveniuntur dici propter many bodily things are found to be said
similitudinem solam: sicut quod of God in Scripture by reason of mere
nominatur agnus vel leo, vel aliquid metaphor: so He is named lamb, or lion,
huiusmodi. or something of the sort.
Sed licet rerum similitudines [4] However, although the likenesses of

aequivoce rerum sibi nomina things may at times take the names of
interdum assumant, non tamen things by equivocation, it is nonetheless
competit sacrae Scripturae ut unsuitable to sacred Scripture to set
narrationem unius facti totam sub down the whole story of one event
tali aequivocatione proponat, ita under such an equivocation, and so to
quod ex aliis Scripturae locis do it that from other Scriptural passages
manifesta veritas haberi non possit: the plain truth cannot be had. For from
quia ex hoc non eruditio hominum, this would follow not men’s instruction,
sed magis deceptio sequeretur; cum but their deception instead, whereas the
tamen apostolus dicat, Rom. 154, Apostle says: “For what things soever
quod quaecumque scripta sunt, ad were written, were written for our
nostram doctrinam scripta sunt; et II learning” (Rom. 15:4); and in 2 Timothy
Tim. 316, omnis Scriptura divinitus (3:16): “All scripture, inspired of God, is
inspirata utilis est ad docendum et profitable to teach and to instruct.”
erudiendum. Esset praeterea tota Moreover, the entire Gospel story would
evangelica narratio poetica et be but poetry and fable if it narrated the
fabularis, si rerum similitudines apparent similarities of things as the
apparentes quasi res ipsas narraret: things themselves; whereas 2 Peter
cum tamen dicatur II Petr. 116: non (1:16) says: “For we have not by
enim indoctas fabulas secuti notam following artificial fables made known to
fecimus vobis domini nostri Iesu you the power of the Lord, Jesus
Christi virtutem. Christ.”
Sicubi vero Scriptura narrat aliqua [5] But, when the Scriptural narrative is
quae apparentiam et non rerum of things which had appearance, but not
existentiam habuerunt, ex ipso more existence, the very manner of the
narrationis hoc intelligere facit. narration makes us understand this. For
Dicitur enim Gen. 182: cumque Genesis (18:2, 27, 25) says: “And when
elevasset oculos, Abraham scilicet, he” (Abraham) “had lifted up his eyes,
apparuerunt tres viri, ex quo datur there appeared to him three men.” This
intelligi quod secundum gives us to understand that they were
apparentiam viri fuerunt. Unde et in men by appearance. And so in them he
eis Deum adoravit et deitatem adored God and acknowledged Divinity,
confessus est, dicens, 27 loquar ad and he said: “I will speak to my Lord
dominum meum, cum sim pulvis et whereas I am but dust and ashes”; and
cinis; et iterum, 25 non est tuum again: “This is not beseeming You, You
hoc, qui iudicas omnem terram. who judge all the earth.” However, the
Quod vero Isaias et Ezechiel et alii fact that Isaiah and Ezekiel and other
prophetae aliqua descripserunt Prophets have described some things
quae imaginarie visa sunt, errorem which were seen in imagination
non generat: quia huiusmodi ponunt produces no error, for they do not set
non in narratione historiae, sed in these things down in the narration of
descriptione prophetiae. Et tamen history, but in the description of
semper aliquid addunt per quod prophecy. And they nonetheless add
apparitio designatur: sicut Isaiae 6 something which designates apparition:
1, vidi dominum sedentem etc.; thus, Isaiah (6:1): “I saw the Lord
Ezech. 13, facta est super me sitting,” and so forth; Ezekiel (1:34;
manus domini et vidi etc., Ezech. 8 8:3): “The hand of the Lord was there
3, emissa similitudo manus upon him. And I saw,” and so forth: “The
apprehendit me et adduxit et veni in likeness of a hand was put forth and
Ierusalem in visione Dei. took me and brought me in the vision of
God into Jerusalem.”
Quod etiam aliqua in Scripturis de [6] Even the fact that Scripture
rebus divinis per similitudinem sometimes speaks of things divine
dicuntur, errorem generare non through a comparison cannot produce
potest. Tum quia similitudines error, and this both for this reason—the
sumuntur a rebus tam vilibus ut likenesses are taken from things so
manifestum sit quod haec lowly it is manifest that the passage
secundum similitudinem, et non deals with similitude and not with the
secundum rerum existentiam existence of things; and for this reason
dicuntur. Tum quia inveniuntur —some things are found said properly
aliqua proprie dicta in Scripturis per in Scripture through which the truth is
quae veritas expresse manifestatur expressly clarified, and this truth in
quae sub similitudinibus in locis aliis other places is hidden under similitudes.
occultatur. Quod quidem in This, indeed, does not take place in this
proposito non accidit: nam nulla case, for there is no Scriptural authority
Scripturae auctoritas veritatem touching what is read of Christ’s
eorum quae de humanitate Christi humanity which precludes the truth of
leguntur, excludit. what is said.
Forte autem quis dicat quod hoc [7] Perhaps one may say that we are
datur intelligi per hoc quod given so to understand by the words of
apostolus dicit, Rom. 83: misit the Apostle: “God sending His own Son,
Deus filium suum in similitudinem in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom.
carnis peccati. Vel per hoc quod 8:3). Or by this in Philippians (2:7):
dicit Philipp. 27: in similitudinem “Made in the likeness of men, and in
hominum factus, et habitu inventus habit found as a man.” But here the
ut homo. Hic autem sensus per ea meaning is excluded by what is added,
quae adduntur excluditur. Non enim for it does not merely say “in the
dicit solum in similitudinem carnis, likeness of flesh,” but adds “sinful,”
sed addit peccati: quia Christus because Christ had, indeed, true flesh,
veram quidem carnem habuit, sed but not “sinful flesh”, for there was no
non carnem peccati, quia in eo sin in Him. But His was similar to “sinful
peccatum non fuit, sed similem flesh,” for His was the captive of
carni peccati, quia carnem suffering, and such did the flesh of man
passibilem habuit, qualis est facta become through sin. In the same way, a
caro hominis ex peccato. Similiter fictional understanding is excluded from
fictionis intellectus excluditur ab hoc the saying, “Made in the likeness of
quod dicit in similitudinem hominum men,” by the addition: “taking the form
factus, per hoc quod dicitur, formam of a servant.” It is clear that “form” is put
servi accipiens. Manifestum est here in place of nature rather than of
enim formam pro natura poni, et likeness because he had said: “Who
non pro similitudine, ex hoc quod being in the form of God” (Phil. 7:6).
dixerat, qui cum in forma Dei esset, There, for nature, “form” is put, for the
ubi pro natura ponitur forma: non words do not assert that Christ was God
enim ponunt quod Christus fuerit by some mere similarity. Further
similitudinarie Deus. Excluditur exclusion of fictional understanding is in
etiam fictionis intellectus per hoc the addition: “Becoming obedient even
quod subdit, factus obediens usque unto death” (Phil. 2:8). Likeness is not,
ad mortem. Non ergo similitudo therefore, taken for the likeness of an
accipitur pro similitudine appearance, but for natural likeness of
apparentiae, sed pro naturali the species; as all men are said to he
similitudine speciei: sicut omnes alike in species.

homines similes specie dicuntur.
Magis autem sacra Scriptura [8] But sacred Scripture more expressly

expresse phantasmatis suspicionem excludes the suspicion of apparition.
excludit. Dicitur enim Matth. 1426, For we read in Matthew (14:2627) that
quod videntes discipuli Iesum the disciples, seeing Jesus “walking
ambulantem supra mare, turbati upon the sea, were troubled, saying: It
sunt, dicentes, quia phantasma est, is an apparition. And they cried out for
et prae timore clamaverunt. Quam fear.” This very suspicion of theirs our
quidem eorum suspicionem Lord consequently took away; and so
dominus consequenter removit: the addition: “And immediately Jesus
unde subditur, 27 statimque Iesus spoke to them saying: Be of good heart;
locutus est eis, dicens: habete it is I, fear not.” However one takes it,
fiduciam, ego sum, nolite timere. this appears irrational: that it should
Quamvis non rationabile videatur escape the disciples’ notice that He had
quod aut discipulos lateret quod non assumed but a phantasy body, since He
nisi corpus phantasticum had chosen them to give testimony of
assumpsisset, cum eos ad hoc the truth about Him from what they “had
elegerit ut de eo testimonium seen and heard” (Acts 4:20); or, if it did
perhiberent veritatis ex his quae not escape their notice, then the
viderant et audierant: aut si eos non thought of an apparition should not
latebat, aestimatio phantasmatis have stricken them with fear.
non incussisset tunc eis timorem.
Adhuc autem expressius [9] But again, more expressly, the

suspicionem phantastici corporis a suspicion of a phantasy body was
mentibus discipulorum removit removed from the minds of the disciples
dominus post resurrectionem. by our Lord after the resurrection. For
Dicitur enim Lucae ult. quod we read in Luke (24:3739) that the
discipuli, conturbati et conterriti, disciples, “being troubled and
aestimabant se spiritum videre, dum frightened, supposed that they saw a
scilicet viderunt Iesum. Et dixit eis: spirit,” namely, when they saw Jesus.
quid turbati estis, et cogitationes “And He said to them: Why are you
ascendunt in corda vestra? Videte troubled and why do thoughts arise in
manus meas et pedes meos, quia your hearts? See My hands and feet,
ego ipse sum. Palpate et videte: that it is I Myself. Handle and see: for a
quia spiritus carnem et ossa non spirit has not flesh and bones, as you
habet, sicut me videtis habere. see Me to have.” For in vain did He
Frustra enim se palpandum offer Himself to be touched, if he had
praebuit, si non nisi corpus had none but a phantasy body.
phantasticum habuisset.
Item. Apostoli seipsos idoneos [10] Again, the Apostles show

Christi testes ostendunt: dicit enim themselves suitable witnesses of Christ,
Petrus, Act. 1040 hunc, scilicet for Peter says: “Him,” namely, Jesus,
Iesum, Deus suscitavit tertia die, et “God raised up the third day, and gave
dedit eum manifestum fieri non omni Him to be made manifest. Not to all the
populo, sed testibus praeordinatis a people, but to witnesses preordained by
Deo, nobis qui manducavimus et God, even to us, who did eat and drink
bibimus cum illo postquam with Him after He arose again from the
resurrexit a mortuis. Et Ioannes dead” (Acts 10:4041). And John the
apostolus, in principio suae Apostle, at the beginning of his Epistle,
epistolae, dicit: quod vidimus oculis says: “That which we have heard, which
nostris, quod perspeximus, et we have seen with our eyes, which we
manus nostrae contrectaverunt de have looked upon, and our hands have
verbo vitae, hoc testamur. Non handled of the word of life: we witness”
potest autem efficax sumi (1 John 1:12). But there can be no
testimonium veritatis per ea quae efficacy in witness to the truth based on
non in rei existentia, sed solum in things done, not in real existence, but in
apparentia sunt gesta. Si igitur appearance only. If, therefore, the body
corpus Christi fuit phantasticum, et of Christ was a phantasy and He did not
non vere manducavit et bibit, neque truly eat and drink, and if He was not
vere visus est et palpatus, sed truly seen and handled, but in phantasy
phantastice tantum, invenitur non only, no fitness is found in the testimony
esse idoneum testimonium of the Apostles about Christ. And thus,
apostolorum de Christo. Et sic “vain is their preaching, and our faith is
inanis est eorum praedicatio, inanis vain,” as Paul says (1 Cor. 15:14).
est et fides nostra, ut dicit Paulus I
Cor. 1514.
Amplius autem, si Christus verum [11] But, again, if Christ had no true
corpus non habuit, non vere body, He did not truly die. Therefore,
mortuus est. Ergo nec vere neither is He truly risen. Therefore, the
resurrexit. Sunt igitur apostoli falsi Apostles are false witnesses of Christ
testes Christi, praedicantes mundo when they preach to the world that He
ipsum resurrexisse. Unde apostolus has risen. Hence, the Apostle says in
ibidem dicit: 15 invenimur autem et the same place: “We are found false
falsi testes Dei: quoniam witnesses of God: because we have
testimonium diximus adversus given testimony against God, that He
Deum, quod suscitaverit Iesus, has raised up Christ; whom He has not
quem non suscitavit. raised up” (1 Cor. 15:15).
Praeterea. Falsitas non est idonea [12] What is more, falsity is not a
via ad veritatem: secundum illud suitable way to the truth. As Sirach
Eccli. 344: a mendace quid verum (34:4) has it: “What truth can come from
dicetur? Adventus autem Christi in that which is false?” But Christ’s coming
mundum ad veritatis into the world was for the manifestation
manifestationem fuit: dicit enim ipse, of truth. He Himself says: ‘Tor this was I
Ioan. 1837: ego autem in hoc natus born, and for this came I into the world;
sum, et ad hoc veni, ut testimonium that I should give testimony to the truth”
perhibeam veritati. Non igitur in (John 18:37). There was not then, any
Christo fuit aliqua falsitas. Fuisset falsity in Christ. But there would have
autem si ea quae dicuntur de ipso, been if what He says of Himself had
in apparentia tantum fuissent: nam been about mere appearance, for the
falsum est quod non est ut videtur. “false is that which is not as it seems.”
Omnia igitur quae de Christo Therefore, everything said of Christ was
dicuntur, secundum rei existentiam in accord with real existence.
fuerunt.
Adhuc. Rom. 59, dicitur quod [13] Moreover, we read in Romans (5:9)

iustificati sumus in sanguine Christi; that “we are justified by His blood” and
et Apoc. 59, dicitur: redemisti nos, in the Apocalypse (5:9): “You have
domine, in sanguine tuo. Si igitur redeemed us, O Lord, in your blood.”
Christus non habuit verum Therefore, if Christ did not have true
sanguinem, neque vere pro nobis blood, He did not truly shed it for us.
ipsum fudit. Neque igitur vere Therefore, we are neither truly justified
iustificati, neque vere redempti nor truly redeemed. Therefore, there is
sumus. Ad nihil igitur utile est esse no usefulness to being in Christ.
in Christo.
Item. Si non nisi phantasia [14] Again, if there is nothing but
intelligendus est adventus Christi in apparition to be understood of Christ’s
mundum, nihil novum in Christi coming into the world, nothing new took
adventu accidit: nam et in veteri place in Christ’s coming. For, in the Old
testamento Deus apparuit Moysi et Testament, God appeared to Moses
prophetis secundum multiplices and the Prophets under multiple figures,
figuras, ut etiam Scriptura novi as even the writings of the New
testamenti testatur. Hoc autem Testament witness. Yet this position
totam doctrinam novi testamenti wipes out the whole teaching of the
evacuat. Non igitur corpus New Testament. Therefore, it was not a
phantasticum, sed verum filius Dei phantasy body, but a true one, which
assumpsit. the Son of God assumed.
Caput 30 Chapter 30
De errore Valentini circa THE ERROR OF VALENTINE ABOUT
incarnationem THE INCARNATION
His autem et Valentinus propinque 11] The opinions of Valentine, of course,

de mysterio incarnationis sensit. were close to these in regard to the
Dixit enim quod Christus non mystery of the Incarnation. For he said
terrenum corpus habuit, sed de that Christ did not have an earthly body,
caelo portavit: et quod nihil de but brought one from heaven; that He
virgine matre accepit, sed per eam received nothing from the Virgin Mother,
quasi aquaeductum transivit. but passed through her as through an
Occasionem autem sui erroris ex aqueduct. The occasion of his error he
quibusdam verbis sacrae Scripturae seems to have found in some words of
accepisse videtur. Dicitur enim sacred Scripture. For we read in John
Ioan. 313 nemo ascendit in caelum (3:13, 31): “No man has ascended into
nisi qui de caelo descendit, filius heaven, but He that descended from
hominis, qui est in caelo (...). Qui de heaven, the Son of man who is in
caelo venit, super omnes est. Et heaven... He that comes from above, is
Ioan. 638, dicit dominus: descendi above all”; and in John (6:38) our Lord
de caelo, non ut faciam voluntatem says: “I came down from heaven not to
meam, sed voluntatem eius qui do My own will but the will of Him that
misit me. Et I Cor. 1547: primus sent Me.” And 1 Corinthians (15:47)
homo de terra, terrenus; secundus has: “The first man was of the earth,
homo de caelo, caelestis. Quae earthly; the second man, from heaven,
omnia sic intelligi volunt ut Christus heavenly.” All of these they want to have
de caelo etiam secundum corpus so understood that one believes that
descendisse credatur. Christ came down from heaven even in
the body.
Procedit autem tam haec Valentini [2] But this position of Valentine and that

positio, quam Manichaeorum of the Manicheans just mentioned
praemissa, ex una falsa radice: proceed from one false root: they
quia credebant quod haec omnia believed that all these earthly things
terrena a Diabolo sint creata. Unde, were created by the devil. And so, since
cum filius Dei in hoc apparuerit ut “the Son of God appeared that He might
dissolvat opera Diaboli, sicut dicitur destroy the works of the devil,” as 1
I Ioan. 38, non ei competebat ut de John (3:8) says, it was unsuitable for
creatura Diaboli corpus assumeret: Him to assume a body from a creature
cum etiam Paulus dicat, II Cor. 614 of the devil, since Paul also says: “What
quae societas lucis ad tenebras? fellowship has light with darkness?
Quae autem conventio Christi ad What concord has Christ with Belial?” (Il
Belial? Cor. 6:1415).
Et quia quae ab eadem radice 13] And since things which come from
procedunt, similes fructus the same root produce similar fruits, this
producunt, in idem falsitatis position lapses into the same discordant
inconveniens relabitur haec positio falsity as the previous one. For in every
cum praedicta. Uniuscuiusque enim single species there are determined
speciei sunt determinata essentialia essential principles (matter, I mean, and
principia, materiam dico et formam, form) from which comes the essential
ex quibus constituitur ratio speciei constitution of the species in things
in his quae sunt ex materia et forma composed of matter and form. But just
composita. Sed sicut caro humana as human flesh and bone and the like
et os et huiusmodi sunt materia are the proper matter of man, so fire, air,
propria hominis, ita ignis, aer, aqua earth, and water and the like, such as
et terra, et huiusmodi, qualia we sense, are the matter of flesh and
sentimus, sunt materia carnis et bone and parts of this kind. Therefore, if
ossis et huiusmodi partium. Si igitur the body of Christ was not earthly, it was
corpus Christi non fuit terrenum, not true flesh and true bone, but in
non fuit in ipso vera caro et verum appearance only. And thus, also, He
os, sed omnia secundum was not a true, but an apparent man,
apparentiam tantum. Et ita etiam whereas, as was noted, He Himself
non fuit verus homo, sed apparens: nonetheless says: “A spirit has not flesh
cum tamen, ut dictum est, ipse and bones, as you see Me to have
dicat: spiritus carnem et ossa non (Luke 24:39).
habet, sicut me videtis habere.
Adhuc. Corpus caeleste secundum [4] A heavenly body, moreover, is in its
suam naturam est incorruptibile et nature incorruptible and inalterable, and
inalterabile, et extra suum ubi non cannot be moved outside of its own
potest transferri. Non autem decuit place. Of course, it was not seemly that
quod Dei filius dignitati naturae the Son of God should diminish the
assumptae aliquid detraheret, sed dignity of the nature He assumed, but
magis quod eam exaltaret. Non that He exalt it. Therefore, He did not
igitur corpus caeleste aut carry a celestial or incorruptible body
incorruptibile ad inferiora portavit, below; rather, He assumed an earthly
sed magis assumptum terrenum body, capable of suffering, and rendered
corpus et passibile incorruptibile it incorruptible and heavenly.
reddidit et caeleste.
Item. Apostolus dicit, Rom. 13, de [5] Again, the Apostle says about the
filio Dei, quod factus est ex semine Son of God that He “was made of the
David secundum carnem. Sed seed of David according to the flesh”
corpus David terrenum fuit. Ergo et (Rom. 1:3). But the body of David was
corpus Christi. earthly. Therefore, too, was the body of
Christ.
Amplius. Idem apostolus dicit, [6] The Apostle further says that “God
Galat. 44, quod Deus misit filium sent His Son, made of a woman” (Gal.
suum factum ex muliere. Et Matth. 4:4). And Matthew (1:16) says: “Jacob
116, dicitur quod Iacob genuit begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of
Ioseph, virum Mariae, de qua natus whom was born Jesus, who is called
est Iesus, qui vocatur Christus. Non Christ.” But He would not be called
autem vel ex ea factus, vel de ea made of her, or born of her, if He had
natus diceretur, si solum per eam only passed through her as a channel,
sicut per fistulam transisset, nihil ex assuming nothing from her. Therefore,
ea assumens. Ex ea igitur corpus He assumed His body from her.
assumpsit.
Praeterea. Non posset dici mater [7] Furthermore, Mary could not be
Iesu Maria, quod Evangelista called the Mother of Jesus, which the
testatur, nisi ex ea aliquid Evangelist (Mat. 1:18) witnesses, unless
accepisset. He had received something from her.
Adhuc. Apostolus dicit, Hebr. 211 [8] Again, the Apostle says: “Both He
qui sanctificat, scilicet Christus, et that sanctifies,” namely, Christ, “and
qui sanctificantur, scilicet fideles they who are sanctified,” namely,
Christi, ex uno omnes. Propter Christ’s faithful, “are all of one. For
quam causam non confunditur eos which cause He is not ashamed to call
vocare fratres, dicens: narrabo them brethren saying: I will declare your
nomen tuum fratribus meis. Et infra: name to My brethren”; and farther on:
14 quia ergo pueri “Therefore, because the children are
communicaverunt carni et sanguini, partakers of the flesh and blood, He
et ipse similiter participavit eisdem. also Himself in like manner has been
Si autem Christus corpus caeleste partaker of the same” (Heb. 2:1112,
solum habuit, manifestum est, cum 14). But if Christ had a heavenly body
nos corpus terrenum habeamus, only, clearly, since we have an earthly
quod non sumus ex uno cum ipso, body, we are not one with Him, and,
et per consequens neque fratres consequently, we cannot be called His
eius possumus dici. Neque etiam brothers. Neither did He Himself partake
ipse participavit carni et sanguini: of flesh and blood, for we know that
nam notum est quod caro et flesh and blood are composed of the
sanguis ex elementis inferioribus lower elements, and are not of the
componuntur, et non sunt naturae celestial nature. Plainly, therefore, the
caelestis. Patet igitur contra position aforesaid is contrary to the
apostolicam sententiam praedictam Apostolic teaching.
positionem esse.
Ea vero quibus innituntur, [9] The points on which they rely are
manifestum est frivola esse. Non clearly frivolous. For Christ did not
enim Christus descendit de caelo descend from heaven according to soul
secundum corpus aut animam, sed or to body, but inasmuch as He was
secundum quod Deus. Et hoc ex God. And this can be gathered from the
ipsis verbis domini accipi potest. very words of our Lord. For, when He
Cum enim diceret, Ioan. 313, nemo was saying: “No man has ascended into
ascendit in caelum nisi qui heaven, but He that descended from
descendit de caelo, adiunxit, filius heaven,” he added: “the Son of Man
hominis, qui est in caelo: in quo who is in heaven” (John 3:13); in which
ostendit se ita descendisse de He is pointing out that He has so
caelo quod tamen in caelo esse descended from heaven that He has
non desierit. Hoc autem proprium not, for all that, ceased to be in heaven.
deitatis est, ut ita in terris sit quod et But this is proper to deity: so to be on
caelum impleat: secundum illud Ier. earth as to fill the heaven also, as
2324: caelum et terram ego Jeremiah (23:24) has it: “I fill heaven
impleo. Non ergo filio Dei, and earth.” Therefore, the Son of God
inquantum Deus est, descendere does not have to descend from heaven
de caelo competit secundum by a local motion, for what is moved
motum localem: nam quod localiter locally so approaches one place as to
movetur, sic ad unum locum accedit withdraw from another. Therefore, the
quod recedit ab altero. Dicitur igitur Son of God is said to have descended
filius Dei descendisse secundum in that He joined an earthly substance to
hoc quod terrenam substantiam sibi Himself: just as the Apostle calls Him
copulavit: sicut et apostolus eum ‘emptied” in that He took the form of a
exinanitum dicit, inquantum formam servant, in such wise, nonetheless, that
servi accepit, ita tamen quod He did not lose the nature of divinity.
divinitatis naturam non perdidit.
Id vero quod pro radice huius [10] However, that which they assume
positionis assumunt, ex for the root of this position the foregoing
superioribus patet esse falsum. shows to be false, for it was made plain
Ostensum est enim in secundo libro in Book II that bodily things are not from
quod ista corporalia non a Diabolo, the devil, but are made by God.
sed a Deo sunt facta.
Caput 31 Chapter 31
De errore Apollinaris circa ON THE ERROR OF APOLLINARIS
corpus Christi ABOUT THE BODY OF CHRIST
Irrationabilius autem his circa [1] Even more irrational than these were

incarnationis mysterium Apollinaris the errors of Apollinaris about the
erravit in hoc tamen cum praedictis mystery of the Incarnation. Nonetheless,
concordans, quod corpus Christi he agrees with those mentioned in one
non fuit de virgine assumptum, sed, thing: Christ’s body was not assumed
quod est magis impium, aliquid from the Virgin, but (and this is a greater
verbi dicit in carnem Christi fuisse impiety) he says that something of the
conversum: occasionem erroris Word was changed into the flesh of
sumens ex eo quod dicitur Ioan. 1 Christ The occasion of his error he finds
14, verbum caro factum est, quod in John (1:24): “The Word was made
sic intelligendum putavit quasi flesh.” He thought this must be
ipsum verbum sit conversum in understood as though the Word Himself
carnem, sicut et intelligitur illud were changed into flesh, as the other
quod legitur Ioan. 29, ut gustavit text in John (2:9) is understood: “When
architriclinus aquam vinum factam, the steward tasted the water made
quod ea ratione dicitur, quia wine.” For this latter is said because the
conversa est aqua in vinum. water was changed into wine.
Huius autem erroris [2] The impossibility in this error is easy

impossibilitatem ex his quae supra to grasp from the things shown above.
ostensa sunt, facile est For it was shown that God is entirely
deprehendere. Ostensum est enim immutable, but whatever is changed into
supra quod Deus omnino another is manifestly mutable. Since,
immutabilis est. Omne autem quod then, the Word of God is true God, as
in aliud convertitur, manifestum est was shown, it is impossible that the
mutari. Cum igitur verbum Dei sit Word of God be changed into flesh.
verus Deus, ut ostensum est,
impossibile est quod verbum Dei
fuerit in carnem mutatum.
Item. Verbum Dei, cum sit Deus, [3] The Word of God, again, since He is

simplex est: ostensum est enim God, is simple, for it was shown above
supra in Deo compositionem non that there is no composition in God.
esse. Si igitur aliquid verbi Dei sit Therefore, if something of the Word of
conversum in carnem, oportet God is changed into flesh, the whole
totum verbum conversum esse. Word must be changed. But what is
Quod autem in aliud convertitur, changed into another ceases to be what
desinit esse id quod prius fuit: sicut it was before; just as the water changed
aqua conversa in vinum, iam non into wine is no longer water, but wine.
est aqua sed vinum. Igitur post Therefore, after the Incarnation,
incarnationem, secundum according to the position described the
positionem praedictam, verbum Dei Word will simply not be. And this is
penitus non erit. Quod apparet evidently impossible: both because the
impossibile: tum ex hoc quod Word is eternal, as in John (1:1): “In the
verbum Dei est aeternum, beginning was the Word”; as well as
secundum illud Ioan. 11, in because after the Incarnation Christ is
principio erat verbum; tum quia post said to be the Word of God, as in the
incarnationem Christus verbum Dei Apocalypse (19:13): “He was clothed
dicitur, secundum illud Apoc. 1913, with a garment sprinkled with blood; and
vestitus erat veste aspersa His name is called THE WORD OF
sanguine, et vocabatur nomen eius: GOD.”
verbum Dei.
Amplius. Eorum quae non [4] There is more. Things which do not
communicant in materia et in share matter and are not in one genus
genere uno, impossibile est fieri cannot possibly undergo conversion into
conversionem in invicem: non enim one another. For from a line whiteness
ex linea fit albedo, quia sunt is not made: they are of different
diversorum generum; neque corpus genera; nor can an elementary body be
elementare potest converti in converted into one of the celestial
aliquod corporum caelestium, vel in bodies, or into some incorporeal
aliquam incorpoream substantiam, substance, nor conversely, since they
aut e converso, cum non have no matter in common. But the
conveniant in materia. Verbum Word of God, since He is God, has
autem Dei, cum sit Deus, non neither genus nor matter in common
convenit neque in genere neque in with anything else whatsoever, for God
materia cum quocumque alio: eo is not in a genus and has no matter. It
quod Deus neque in genere est, is, therefore, impossible that the Word
neque materiam habet. Impossibile was converted into flesh or into anything
est igitur verbum Dei fuisse in else whatever.
carnem conversum, vel in
quodcumque aliud.
Praeterea. De ratione carnis, ossis [5] Furthermore, it is essential to flesh,
et sanguinis et huiusmodi partium to bone, to other parts of this sort that
est quod sit ex determinata materia. they be of determined matter. Therefore,
Si igitur verbum Dei sit in carnem if the Word of God be converted into
conversum, secundum positionem flesh, as the position described holds, it
praedictam, sequetur quod in will follow that there was not in Christ
Christo non fuerit vera caro nec true flesh or anything else of the sort.
aliquid aliud huiusmodi. Et sic etiam And thus, also, He will not be true man,
non erit verus homo, sed apparens but an apparent one only; and so for the
tantum, et alia huiusmodi quae other points which we made against
supra contra Valentinum posuimus. Valentine previously.
Patet igitur hoc quod Ioannes dicit, [6] Plainly, then, the saying of John,
verbum caro factum est, non sic “The Word was made flesh,” must not
intelligendum esse quasi verbum sit be understood as though the Word had
conversum in carnem: sed quia been changed into flesh, but that He
carnem assumpsit, ut cum assumed flesh so as to dwell with men
hominibus conversaretur et eis and appear visible to them. Hence there
visibilis appareret. Unde et subditur: is added: “And dwelt among us, and we
et habitavit in nobis et vidimus saw His glory,” and so forth; just as
gloriam eius etc.: sicut et in Baruch Baruch (3:38) also says of God: “He
de Deo dicitur quod in terris visus was seen upon earth, and conversed
est, et cum hominibus conversatus with men.”

est.
Caput 32 Chapter 32
De errore Arii et Apollinaris circa ON THE ERROR OF ARIUS AND
animam Christi APOLLINARIS ABOUT THE SOUL
OF CHRIST
Non solum autem circa corpus [1] It is, however, not only about the
Christi, sed etiam circa eius animam body of Christ but also about His soul
aliqui male sensisse inveniuntur. that one finds some bad opinions.
Posuit enim Arius quod in Christo [2] For Arius held that in Christ there
non fuit anima, sed quod solam was no soul, but that He assumed only
carnem assumpsit, cui divinitas loco flesh, and that divinity stood to this as
animae fuit. Et ad hoc ponendum soul. And he seems to have been led
necessitate quadam videtur fuisse to this position by a certain necessity.
inductus. Cum enim vellet asserere For he wanted to maintain that the Son
quod filius Dei sit creatura et minor of God was a creature and less than
patre, ad hoc probandum illa the Father, and so for his proof he
Scripturarum assumpsit testimonia picked up those Scriptural passages
quae, infirmitatem humanam which show human infirmity in Christ.
ostendunt in Christo. Et ne aliquis And to keep anyone from refuting him
eius probationem refelleret, dicendo by saying that the passages he picked
assumpta ab eo testimonia Christo referred to Christ not in His divine, but
non secundum divinam naturam, sed in His human, nature, he evilly
humanam convenire, nequiter removed the soul from Christ to this
animam removit a Christo, ut, cum purpose: since some things are not
quaedam corpori humano convenire harmonious with a human body, that
non possint, sicut quod miratus est, He wondered, for example, that He
quod timuit, quod oravit, feared, that He prayed—all such must
necessarium fiat huiusmodi in ipsum necessarily imply the inferiority of the
filium Dei minorationem inferre. Son of God Himself. Of course, he
Assumpsit autem in suae positionis picked up for the assertion of his
assertionem praemissum verbum position the words of John just
Ioannis dicentis, verbum caro factum mentioned, “The Word was made
est: ex quo accipere volebat quod flesh,” and from this he wanted to
solam carnem verbum assumpserit, gather that the Word only assumed
non autem animam. Et in hac flesh, not a soul. And in this position
positione etiam Apollinaris eum even Apollinaris followed him.
secutus est.
Manifestum est autem ex praemissis [3] But it is clear from what has been
hanc positionem impossibilem esse. said that this position is impossible. For
Ostensum est enim supra quod it was shown Ames that God cannot be
Deus forma corporis esse non the form of a body. Since, therefore,
potest. Cum igitur verbum Dei sit the Word of God is God, as was
Deus, ut ostensum est, impossibile shown, it is impossible that the Word of
est quod verbum Dei sit forma God be the form of a body, so as to be

corporis, ut sic carni pro anima esse able to stand as a soul to flesh.
possit.
Utilis autem est haec ratio contra [4] This argument, of course, is useful
Apollinarem, qui verbum Dei verum against Apollinaris, who confessed the
Deum esse confitebatur: et licet hoc Word of God to be true God; and
Arius negaret, tamen etiam contra granted Arius would deny this last, the
eum praedicta ratio procedit. Quia argument just given goes against him,
non solum Deus non potest esse also. For it is not God alone who
forma corporis, sed nec etiam aliquis cannot be the form of a body, neither
supercaelestium spirituum, inter can any of the supercelestial spirits
quos supremum filium Dei Arius among whom Arius held the Son of
ponebat: nisi forte secundum God supreme. Exception might be
positionem Origenis, qui posuit made for the position of Origen, who
humanas animas eiusdem speciei et held that human souls were of the very
naturae cum supercaelestibus same species and nature as the
spiritibus esse. Cuius opinionis supercelestial spirits. The falsity of this
falsitatem supra ostendimus. opinion was explained above.
Item. Subtracto eo quod est de [5] Take away, moreover, what is of the

ratione hominis, verus homo esse essence of man, and no true man can
non potest. Manifestum est autem be. Clearly, of course, the soul is
animam principaliter de ratione chiefly of the essence of man, since it
hominis esse: cum sit eius forma. Si is his form. Therefore, if Christ had no
igitur Christus animam non habuit, soul He was not true man, whereas the
verus homo non fuit: cum tamen Apostle does call Him man: “There is
apostolus eum hominem asserat, one mediator of God and men, the
dicens, I ad Tim. 25: unus est man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5).
mediator Dei et hominum, homo
Christus Iesus.
Adhuc. Ex anima non solum ratio [6] It is on the soul, furthermore, that
hominis, sed et singularium partium not only man’s essence, but that of his
eius dependet: unde, remota anima, single parts, depends; and so, with the
oculus, caro et os hominis mortui soul gone, the eye, the flesh, and the
aequivoce dicuntur, sicut oculus bone of a dead man are equivocally
pictus aut lapideus. Si igitur in named, “like a painted or a stone eye.”
Christo non fuit anima, necesse est Therefore, if in Christ there was no
quod nec vera caro in eo fuerit, nec soul, of necessity there was neither
aliqua alia partium hominis: cum true flesh in Him nor any of the other
tamen dominus haec in se esse parts of man, whereas our Lord says
perhibeat, dicens, Lucae, ult.: that He has these in Himself: “A spirit
spiritus carnem et ossa non habet, has not flesh and bones, as you see
sicut me videtis habere. Me to have (Luke 24:39).
Amplius. Quod generatur ex aliquo [7] Further, what is generated from
vivente, filius eius dici non potest nisi another cannot be called his son
in eandem speciem procedat: non unless he comes forth in the same
enim vermis dicitur filius animalis ex species; the maggot is not called the
quo generatur. Sed si Christus son of the animal from which it is
animam non habuit, non fuit eiusdem generated. But, if Christ had no soul,
speciei cum aliis hominibus: quae He was not of the same species as
enim secundum formam differunt, other men, for things which differ in
eiusdem speciei esse non possunt. form cannot be identical in species.
Non igitur dici poterit quod Christus Therefore, one will not be able to say
sit filius Mariae virginis, aut quod illa that Christ is the Son of the Virgin Mary
sit mater eius. Quod tamen in or that she is His Mother. Nonetheless,
evangelica Scriptura asseritur. Scripture asserts this in the Gospels
(Mat. 1:18; Luke 7:7).
Praeterea. In Evangelio expresse [8] There is mo re. The Gospel
dicitur quod Christus animam habuit: expressly says that Christ had a soul;
sicut est illud Matth. 2638, tristis est Matthew (26:38) for instance: “My soul
anima mea usque ad mortem; et is sorrowful even unto death,” and
Ioan. 1227, nunc anima mea turbata John (17:2.7): “Now is My soul
est. troubled.”
Et ne forte dicant ipsum filium Dei [9] And lest they say perhaps that the
animam dici, eo quod, secundum very Son of God is called soul because
eorum positionem, loco animae carni in their position He stands to the flesh
sit: sumendum est quod dominus as soul, one must take our Lord’s own
dicit, Ioan. 1018, potestatem habeo saying: “I have power to lay My soul
ponendi animam meam, et iterum down: and I have power to take it up
sumendi eam; ex quo intelligitur aliud again” (John 10:18). From this one
esse quam animam in Christo, quod understands that there is another than
habuit potestatem ponendi animam the soul in Christ, which had the power
suam et sumendi. Non autem fuit in of laying the soul down and taking it up
potestate corporis quod uniretur filio again. It was, of course, not in the
Dei vel separaretur ab eo: cum hoc power of the body to be united to the
etiam naturae potestatem excedat. Son of God or be separated from Him,
Oportet igitur intelligi in Christo aliud since this, too, exceeds the power of
fuisse animam, et aliud divinitatem nature. One must, then, understand
filii Dei, cui merito talis potestas that in Christ the soul was one thing
tribuitur. and the divinity of the Son of God
another, to whom such power justly is
attributed.
Item. Tristitia, ira et huiusmodi [10] Another reason: Sorrow, anger
passiones sunt animae sensitivae: ut and the like are passions of the
patet per philosophum in VII Phys. sensitive soul; the Philosopher makes
Haec autem in Christo fuisse ex this plain. [Therefore Christ must have
Evangeliis comprobatur. Oportet had a sensitive soul: This is plainly
igitur in Christo fuisse animam different from the divine nature of the
sensitivam: de qua planum est quod Son of God.]
differt a natura divina filii Dei.
Sed quia potest dici humana in [11] But, since one can say that the
Evangeliis metaphorice dici de human things in the Gospels are said
Christo, sicut et de Deo in plerisque of Christ metaphorically, just as the
locis sacrae Scripturae loquuntur, sacred Scriptures speak of God in
accipiendum est aliquid quod many places, one must take something
necesse sit ut proprie dictum which is understood properly of
intelligatur. Sicut enim alia corporalia necessity. For, just as other bodily
quae de Christo Evangelistae things which the Evangelists relate of
narrant, proprie intelliguntur et non Christ are understood properly and not
metaphorice, ita oportet non metaphorically, so it must not be
metaphorice de ipso intelligi quod understood of Christ metaphorically
manducaverit et esurierit. Esurire that He ate and that He hungered.
autem non est nisi habentis animam Only he who has a sensitive soul
sensitivam: cum esuries sit appetitus hungers, since hunger is the appetite
cibi. Oportet igitur quod Christus for food. Necessarily, then, Christ had
habuit animam sensitivam. a sensitive soul.
Caput 33 Chapter 33
De errore Apollinaris dicentis ON THE ERROR OF APOLLINARIS,
animam rationalem non fuisse in WHO SAYS THERE WAS NO
Christo, et de errore Origenis RATIONAL SOUL IN CHRIST; AND
dicentis animam Christi ante THE ERROR OF ORIGEN, WHO
mundum fuisse creatam SAYS THE SOUL OF CHRIST WAS
CREATED BEFORE THE WORLD
His autem testimoniis evangelicis [1] Won over, however, by this Gospel

Apollinaris convictus, confessus est in testimony, Apollinaris confessed that
Christo animam sensitivam fuisse: there was a sensitive soul in Christ;
tamen sine mente et intellectu, ita nonetheless, it was without mind and
quod verbum Dei fuerit illi animae intellect, so that the Word of God was
loco intellectus et mentis. in that soul in place of intellect and
mind.
Sed nec hoc sufficit ad inconvenientia [2.] But even this is not sufficient to

praedicta vitanda. Homo enim avoid the awkward consequences
speciem sortitur humanam ex hoc described, for man gets his human
quod mentem humanam et rationem species from his having a human mind
habet. Si igitur Christus haec non and reason. Therefore, if Christ did not
habuit, verus homo non fuit, nec have these, He was not true man, nor
eiusdem speciei nobiscum. Anima was He of the same species with us.
autem ratione carens ad aliam For a soul which lacks reason belongs
speciem pertinet quam anima to a species other than that of the soul
rationem habens. Est enim secundum which has reason. For, according to
philosophum, VIII Metaphys., quod in the Philosopher [Metaphysics VIII, 3],
definitionibus et speciebus quaelibet in definitions and species any
differentia essentialis addita vel essential difference which is added or
subtracta variat speciem, sicut in subtracted varies the species, just as
numeris unitas. Rationale autem est unity does in numbers. But rational is
differentia specifica. Si igitur in the specific difference. Therefore, if in
Christo fuit anima sensitiva sine Christ there was a sensitive soul
ratione, non fuit eiusdem speciei cum without reason, it was not of the same
anima nostra, quae est rationem species with our soul, which does
habens. Nec ipse igitur Christus fuit have reason. Neither, then, was Christ
eiusdem speciei nobiscum. Himself of the same species with us.
Adhuc. Inter ipsas animas sensitivas [3] Again, among the sensible souls
ratione carentes diversitas secundum themselves which lack reason there
speciem existit: quod patet ex exists diversity by reason of species.
animalibus irrationalibus, quae ab This appears from consideration of the
invicem specie differunt, quorum irrational animals which differ from one
tamen unumquodque secundum another in species; nonetheless, each
propriam animam speciem habet. Sic of them has its species according to
igitur anima sensitiva ratione carens its proper soul. Thus, then, the
est quasi unum genus sub se plures sensitive soul lacking reason is, so to
species comprehendens. Nihil autem say, one genus including within itself
est in genere quod non sit in aliqua many species. But nothing is in a
eius specie. Si igitur anima Christi fuit genus which is not in one of its
in genere animae sensitivae ratione species. If, then, the soul of Christ was
carentis, oportet quod contineretur in the genus of sensitive soul lacking
sub aliqua specierum eius: utpote reason, it must have been included in
quod fuerit in specie animae leonis one of its species; for example, it was
aut alicuius alterius belluae. Quod est in the species of lion soul, or some
omnino absurdum. other beast. And this is entirely
absurd.
Amplius. Corpus comparatur ad [4] The body, moreover, is compared

animam sicut materia ad formam, et to the soul as matter to form, and as
sicut instrumentum ad principale instrument to principal agent. But the
agens. Oportet autem materiam matter must be proportionate to the
proportionatam esse formae, et form, and the instrument to the
instrumentum principali agenti. Ergo principal agent. Therefore, consequent
secundum diversitatem animarum on the diversity of souls, there must be
oportet et corporum diversitatem a diversity of bodies. And this is
esse. Quod et secundum sensum sensibly evident, for in diverse animals
apparet: nam in diversis animalibus one finds diverse dispositions of the
inveniuntur diversae dispositiones members, in which they concord with
membrorum, secundum quod the diverse dispositions of the souls.
conveniunt diversis dispositionibus Therefore, if in Christ there was not a
animarum. Si ergo in Christo non fuit soul such as our soul is, neither would
anima qualis est anima nostra, nec He have had members like the human
etiam membra habuisset sicut sunt members.
membra humana.
Praeterea. Cum secundum [5] There is more. Since, according to

Apollinarem verbum Dei sit verus Apollinaris, the Word of God is true
Deus, ei admiratio competere non God. wonder cannot be seemly in
potest: nam ea admiramur quorum Him, for we wonder at those things
causam ignoramus. Similiter autem whose cause we ignore. But, in the
nec admiratio animae sensitivae same way, wonder cannot be fitting for
competere potest: cum ad animam the sensitive soul, since solicitude for
sensitivam non pertineat sollicitari de the knowledge of causes does not
cognitione causarum. In Christo belong to the sensitive soul. But there
autem admiratio fuit, sicut ex was wonder in Christ; so one proves
Evangeliis probatur: dicitur enim from the Gospels. It says in Matthew
Matth. 810, quod audiens Iesus (8:10) that Jesus heard the words of
verba centurionis miratus est. Oportet the centurion and “marveled.” One
igitur, praeter divinitatem verbi et must, then, in addition to the divinity of
animam sensitivam, in Christo aliquid the Word and His sensitive soul put in
ponere secundum quod admiratio ei Christ that which can make wonder
competere possit, scilicet mentem seemly in Him; namely, a human
humanam. mind.
Manifestum est igitur ex praedictis [6] Manifestly, therefore, from the
quod in Christo verum corpus aforesaid there was in Christ a human
humanum et vera anima humana fuit. body and a true human soul. Thus,
Sic igitur quod Ioannes dicit, verbum therefore, John’s saying (1:14), ‘The
caro factum est, non sic intelligitur Word was made flesh,” is not thus to
quasi verbum sit in carnem be understood, as though the Word
conversum; neque sic quod verbum has been converted into flesh; or as
carnem solam assumpserit; aut cum though the Word has assumed the
anima sensitiva, sine mente; sed flesh only; or with a sensitive soul
secundum consuetum modum without a mind; but after Scripture’s
Scripturae, ponitur pars pro toto, ut usual manner the part is put for the
sic dictum sit, verbum caro factum whole, so that one says: “The Word
est, ac si diceretur, verbum homo was made man.” “Soul” is sometimes
factum est; nam et anima interdum used in place of man in Scripture;
pro homine ponitur in Scriptura, Exodus (1:5) says: “And all the souls
dicitur enim Exod. 15, erant omnes that came out of Jacob’s thigh were
animae quae egressae sunt de seventy”; in the same way, also,
femore Iacob septuaginta, similiter “flesh” is used for the whole man;
etiam caro pro toto homine ponitur, Isaiah (40:5) says: “All flesh together
dicitur enim Isaiae 405, videbit omnis shall see that the mouth of the Lord
caro pariter quod os domini locutum has spoken.” Thus, then, “flesh” is
est. Sic igitur et hic caro pro toto here used for the whole man, also, to
homine ponitur, ad exprimendam express the weakness of the human
humanae naturae infirmitatem, quam nature which the Word of God
verbum Dei assumpsit. assumed.
Si autem Christus humanam carnem [7] But, if Christ had human flesh and

et humanam animam habuit, ut a human soul, as was shown, it is
ostensum est, manifestum est plain that there was no soul of Christ
animam Christi non fuisse ante before His body’s conception. For it
corporis eius conceptionem. was shown that human souls do not
Ostensum est enim quod humanae preexist their proper bodies. Hence is
animae propriis corporibus non clear the falsity of that tenet of Origen,
praeexistunt. Unde patet falsum esse who said that in the beginning, before
Origenis dogma, dicentis animam all bodily creatures, the soul of Christ
Christi ab initio, ante corporales was created with all other spiritual
creaturas, cum omnibus aliis creatures and assumed by the Word
spiritualibus creaturis creatam et a of God, and that finally, toward the end
verbo Dei assumptam, et demum, of the ages, for men’s salvation it was
circa fines saeculorum, pro salute endowed with flesh.
hominum carne fuisse indutam.
Caput 34 Chapter 34
De errore Theodori Mopsuesteni ON THE ERROR OF THEODORE OF
et Nestorii circa unionem verbi MOPSUESTE AND NESTORIUS ON
ad hominem THE UNION OF THE WORD TO MAN
Ex praemissis igitur apparet quod [1] From the things set down, therefore,

Christo nec divina natura defuit, ut it appears that Christ was not without
Ebion, Cerinthus et Photinus divine nature, as Ebion, Cerinthus, and
dixerunt; nec verum corpus Photinus said; nor without a true human
humanum, secundum errorem body, as in the error of Mani and
Manichaei atque Valentini; nec Valentine; nor without a human soul, as
etiam humana anima, sicut Arius and Apollinaris held. Since, then,
posuerunt Arius et Apollinaris. His these three substances met in Christ—
igitur tribus substantiis in Christo namely, divinity, the human soul, and
convenientibus, scilicet divinitate, the true human body—what one should
anima humana, et vero humano think about their union following the
corpore, circa horum unionem quid Scriptural teachings remains for inquiry.
sentiendum sit secundum
Scripturarum documenta,
inquirendum restat.
Theodorus igitur Mopsuestenus et [2] Now, then, Theodore of Mopsueste

Nestorius eius sectator, talem and Nestorius, his follower, offered one
sententiam de praedicta unione sort of opinion on the aforesaid union.
protulerunt. Dixerunt enim quod They said that the human soul and the
anima humana et corpus humanum true human body came together in
verum naturali unione convenerunt Christ by a natural union to constitute
in Christo ad constitutionem unius one man of the same species and
hominis eiusdem speciei et naturae nature with other men, and that in this
cum aliis hominibus; et quod in hoc man God dwelt as in His temple,
homine Deus habitavit sicut in namely, by grace, just as in other holy
templo suo, scilicet per gratiam, men. Hence, it says in John (2:19, 21),
sicut et in aliis hominibus sanctis; that He said to the Jews: “Destroy this
unde dicitur Ioan. 219, quod ipse temple and in three days I will raise it
Iudaeis dixit, solvite templum hoc, up”; and later the Evangelist by way of
et in tribus diebus excitabo illud, et exposition adds: “But he spoke of the
postea Evangelista, quasi temple of His body”; and the Apostle
exponens, subdit, 21 ille autem says: “In Him it has well pleased the
dicebat de templo corporis sui; et Father, that all fullness should dwell”
apostolus, Coloss. 119, dicit quod (Col. 1:19). And out of these arose
in ipso complacuit omnem further a certain affective union between
plenitudinem habitare. Et ex hoc that man and God, when that man
consecuta est ulterius quaedam cleaved to God with his own good will,
affectualis unio inter hominem illum and God lifted up that man with His will,
et Deum, dum et homo ille bona in the words of John (8:29): “He that
sua voluntate Deo inhaesit, et Deus sent me is with me, and He has not left
sua voluntate illum acceptavit, me alone: for I do always the things that
secundum illud Ioan. 829, qui me please Him.” Let one thus understand
misit, mecum est, et non reliquit me that the union of that man to God is
solum, quia quae placita sunt ei such as was the union of which the
facio semper; ut sic intelligatur talis Apostle said: “He who is joined to God
esse unio hominis illius ad Deum, is one spirit” (1 Cor. 6:17). And just as,
qualis est unio de qua apostolus from the latter union, names which
dicit, I ad Cor. 617, qui adhaeret properly befit God are transferred to
Deo, unus spiritus est. Et sicut ex men so that they are called “gods,” and
hac unione nomina quae proprie “sons of God,” and “lords,” and “holy
Deo conveniunt, ad homines ones,” and “christs”—as is clear from a
transferuntur, ut dicantur dii, et filii diversity of places in Scripture; so also
Dei, et domini, et sancti, et Christi, the divine names befit that man so that,
sicut ex diversis locis Scripturae by reason of God’s indwelling and the
patet; ita et nomina divina homini illi affective union, he is called God, and
conveniunt, ut, propter Dei the Son of God, and Holy, and Christ.
inhabitationem et unionem affectus, Nonetheless, because there was in that
dicatur et Deus, et Dei filius, et man a greater fullness of grace than in
dominus, et sanctus, et Christus. other holy men, he was before all the
Sed tamen, quia in illo homine rest the temple of God, he was united to
maior plenitudo gratiae fuit quam in God, more closely in affection, and it
aliis hominibus sanctis, fuit prae was by a singular kind of privilege that
ceteris templum Dei, et arctius Deo he shared the divine names. And
secundum affectum unitus, et because of this outstanding grace he
singulari quodam privilegio divina was established in a share of the divine
nomina participavit. Et propter hanc dignity and honor—namely, that he be
excellentiam gratiae, constitutus est coadored with God. So, then,
in participatione divinae dignitatis et consequently on the things just said
honoris, ut scilicet coadoretur Deo. there must be one Person of the Word
Et sic, secundum praedicta, oportet of God, and another person of that man
quod alia sit persona verbi Dei, et who is coadored with the Word of God.
alia persona illius hominis qui verbo And if one Person of each of the two be
Dei coadoretur. Et si dicatur una mentioned, this will be by reason of the
persona utriusque, hoc erit propter affective union aforesaid; so that man
unionem affectualem praedictam: ut and the Word of God may be called one
sic dicatur homo ille et Dei verbum Person, as is said of man and woman
una persona, sicut dicitur de viro et that “now they are not two, but one
muliere quod iam non sunt duo, sed flesh” (Mat. 19:6).
una caro.
Et quia talis unio non facit ut quod Now, such a union does not bring it
de uno dicitur, de altero dici possit, about that what is said of the first can be
non enim quicquid convenit viro, said of the second (for not everything
verum est de muliere, aut e which becomes the man is true of the
converso; ideo in unione verbi et woman, or conversely); therefore in the
illius hominis hoc observandum union of the Word and that man they
putant, quod ea quae sunt propria think this must be observed: The things
illius hominis, ad humanam proper to that man and pertinent to the
naturam pertinentia, de verbo Dei, human nature cannot be said
aut de Deo, convenienter dici non becomingly of God’s Word, or of God.
possunt; sicut homini illi convenit just so it becomes that man that he was
quod sit natus de virgine, quod born of a virgin, that he suffered, died,
passus, mortuus et sepultus, et was buried, and this kind of thing; and
huiusmodi; quae omnia asserunt de all of these, they assert, ought not be
Deo, vel de Dei verbo, dici non said of God, or of the Word of God. But,
debere. Sed quia sunt quaedam since there are certain names which,
nomina quae, etsi Deo principaliter although they are chiefly befitting to
conveniant, communicantur tamen God, are nonetheless communicated to
hominibus per aliquem modum, men in a fashion—“christ,” for instance,
sicut Christus, dominus, sanctus, et “lord,” “holy,” and even “son of God”—
etiam filius Dei, de huiusmodi nothing according to them keeps one
nominibus secundum eos nihil from the use of such names in
prohibet praedicta praedicari. predication of the things just mentioned.
Convenienter enim dicimus For, according to them, we say fittingly
secundum eos quod Christus, vel that Christ, or the “Lord of glory,” or the
dominus gloriae, vel sanctus “Saint of saints,” or “God’s son” was
sanctorum, vel Dei filius, sit natus born of a virgin, suffered, died and was
de virgine, passus, mortuus et buried. Hence, too, the Blessed Virgin
sepultus. Unde et beatam virginem must not be named the mother of God,
non matrem Dei vel verbi Dei, sed or of the Word of God, but the mother of
matrem Christi nominandam esse Christ, they say.
dicunt.
Sed si quis diligenter consideret, [3] But let one earnestly consider the
praedicta positio veritatem matter and he will see that the position
incarnationis excludit. Non enim described excludes the truth of the
secundum praedicta verbum Dei Incarnation. For, in that position, the
fuit homini illi unitum nisi secundum Word of God was united to that man
inhabitationem per gratiam, ex qua only through an indwelling by grace, on
consequitur unio voluntatum. which a union of wills follows. But the
Inhabitatio autem verbi Dei in indwelling of God’s Word in a man is not
homine non est verbum Dei for God’s Word to be made flesh. For
incarnari. Habitavit enim verbum the Word of God and God Himself have
Dei, et Deus ipse, in omnibus been dwelling in all the holy men since
sanctis a constitutione mundi, the world was founded; as the Apostle
secundum illud apostoli II ad Cor. 6 says: “You are the temple of the living
16, vos estis templum Dei vivi: sicut God; as God says: I will dwell in them”
dicit dominus: quoniam inhabitabo (2 Cor. 6: 16). And this indwelling, for all
in illis: quae tamen inhabitatio that, cannot be called incarnation;
incarnatio dici non potest; alioquin otherwise, God would have repeatedly
frequenter ab initio mundi Deus been made flesh since the beginning of
incarnatus fuisset. Nec hoc etiam the world. Nor does it suffice for the
ad incarnationis rationem sufficit si notion of incarnation if the Word of God
verbum Dei, aut Deus, pleniori or God dwelt in that man with a fuller
gratia habitavit in illo homine: quia grace, for “greater and less do not
magis et minus speciem non diversify the species of union.” Since the
diversificant unionis. Cum igitur Christian religion is based on faith in the
Christiana religio in fide Incarnation, it is now quite evident that
incarnationis fundetur, evidenter the position described removes the
apparet quod praedicta positio basis of the Christian religion.
fundamentum Christianae religionis
tollit.
Praeterea. Ex ipso modo loquendi [4] In addition is the very manner of
Scripturarum, falsitas praedictae speech of Scripture, which makes the
positionis apparet. Inhabitationem falsity of the position described plain.
enim verbi Dei in sanctis hominibus For the indwelling of the Word of God in
consuevit sacra Scriptura his modis holy men is usually designated by
significare: locutus est dominus ad Scripture in these ways: “The Lord
Moysen; dicit dominus ad Moysen; spoke to Moses”; ‘ne word of the Lord
factum est verbum domini ad came to Jeremiah” (or to some other
Ieremiam (aut ad aliquem aliorum Prophet); “The word of the Lord came to
prophetarum); factum est verbum the hand of Haggai the Prophet.” But
domini in manu Aggaei prophetae. one never reads the Word of the Lord
Nunquam autem legitur quod was made Moses, or Jeremiah, or one
verbum domini factum sit vel of the others. Yet thus uniquely was the
Moyses, vel Ieremias, vel aliquis union of God’s Word to the flesh of
aliorum. Hoc autem modo Christ marked by the Evangelist: “The
singulariter unionem Dei verbi ad Word was made flesh,” as was
carnem Christi designat explained before. Clearly, then, it was
Evangelista, dicens, verbum caro not by indwelling alone that God’s Word
factum est, ut supra expositum est. was in the man, Christ, if we follow
Manifestum est igitur quod non Scripture.
solum per modum inhabitationis
verbum Dei in homine Christo fuit,
secundum traditiones Scripturae.
Item. Omne quod factum est [5] Again, whatever was made is what it

aliquid, est illud quod factum est: was made; thus, what was made man is
sicut quod factum est homo, est man, and what was made white is white.
homo; et quod factum est album est But God’s Word was made man, as is
album. Sed verbum Dei factum est gathered from the foregoing. So God’s
homo, ut ex praemissis habetur. Word is man. It is, of course, impossible
Igitur verbum Dei est homo. when two things differ in person, or
Impossibile est autem ut duorum hypostasis or supposit that one he
differentium persona aut hypostasi predicated of the other, for, when we
vel supposito, unum de altero say “Man is animal,” that which is
praedicetur: cum enim dicitur, homo animal man is. And when we say “Man
est animal, id ipsum quod animal is white,” the signification is that man
est, homo est; et cum dicitur, homo himself is white, although whiteness is
est albus, ipse homo albus esse other than the essence of humanity.
significatur, licet albedo sit extra Accordingly, there is no way to say
rationem humanitatis. Et ideo nullo Socrates is Plato or anyone of the
modo dici potest quod Socrates sit singulars of his own or another species.

Plato, vel aliquod aliud singularium So, if “the Word was made flesh,” that
eiusdem vel alterius speciei. Si is, “man,” as the Evangelist witnesses
igitur verbum caro factum est, idest (John 1:14). it is impossible that there
homo, ut Evangelista testatur; be two persons, or hypostases, or
impossibile est quod verbi Dei et supposits of the Word of God and of that
illius hominis sint duae personae, man.
vel duae hypostases, vel duo
supposita.
Adhuc. Pronomina demonstrativa [6] Demonstrative pronouns, moreover,

ad personam referuntur, vel refer to the person, or hypostasis, or
hypostasim vel suppositum: nemo supposit. For no one says “I run” when
enim diceret, ego curro, alio another is running, except figuratively,
currente; nisi forte figurative, utpote perhaps, when another is running in his
quod alius loco eius curreret. Sed place. But the man called Jesus says
ille homo qui dictus est Iesus, dicit about Himself: “Before Abraham was
de se, antequam Abraham fieret, made, I am”, and “I and the Father are
ego sum, Ioan. 858; et Ioan. 1030, one” (John 8:59; 10:30), and several
ego et pater unum sumus; et plura other things which clearly pertain to the
alia quae manifeste ad divinitatem divinity of the Word. Therefore, the
verbi pertinent. Ergo manifestum person and hypostasis of the man
est quod persona illius hominis speaking is plainly the very person of
loquentis et hypostasis est ipsa the Word of God.
persona filii Dei.
Amplius. Ex superioribus patet [7] There is more. From our exposition
quod neque corpus Christi de caelo one sees that the body of Christ did not
descendit, secundum errorem descend from heaven as in Valentine’s
Valentini; neque anima, secundum error, nor did His soul according to
errorem Origenis. Unde restat quod Origen’s. What is left is this: one can
ad verbum Dei pertineat quod say pertinently of the Word of God that
dicitur descendisse, non motu He descended, not by some local
locali, sed ratione unionis ad motion, but by reason of the union to a
inferiorem naturam, ut supra dictum lower nature. This was said above. But
est. Sed ille homo, ex persona sua that man, speaking in His own person,
loquens, dicit se descendisse de says that He descended from heaven in
caelo, Ioan. 651: ego sum panis John (6:51): “I am the living bread which
vivus, qui de caelo descendi. came down from heaven.” Necessarily,
Necesse est igitur personam et then, the person and hypostasis of that
hypostasim illius hominis esse man must be the person of the Word of
personam verbi Dei. God.
Item. Manifestum est quod [8] Again, to ascend into heaven plainly

ascendere in caelum Christo homini belongs to Christ the man who “was
convenit, qui videntibus apostolis raised up while the disciples looked on,”
elevatus est, ut dicitur Act. 19. as Acts (1:9) says. But to descend from
Descendere autem de caelo verbo heaven is proper to the Word of God.
Dei convenit. Sed apostolus dicit, But the Apostle says: “He that
Ephes. 410: qui descendit, ipse est descended is the same also that
et qui ascendit. Ipsa igitur est ascended above all the heavens” (Eph.
persona et hypostasis illius hominis, 4:10). The very person and hypostasis
quae est persona et hypostasis of that man is, accordingly, the person
verbi Dei. and hypostasis of the Word of God.
Adhuc. Ei quod originem habet ex [9] Moreover, that whose origin is in the

mundo, et quod non fuit antequam world, which had no being before the
esset in mundo, non convenit world, does not properly “come into the
venire in mundum. Sed homo world.” But the man Christ in the flesh
Christus secundum carnem had His origin in the world, since He had
originem habet ex mundo, quia a true, human, earthly body, as was
verum corpus humanum et shown. In His soul, as well, He had no
terrenum habuit, ut ostensum est. being before He was in the world, for He
Secundum animam vero non fuit had a true human soul in whose nature
antequam esset in mundo: habuit there is no being before it is united to
enim veram animam humanam, de the body. So, then, it does not belong to
cuius natura est ut non sit that man’s humanity to “come into the
antequam corpori uniatur. world.” He Himself says, of course, that
Relinquitur igitur quod homini illi ex He came into the world: “I came forth
sua humanitate non conveniat from the Father,” He says, “and I came
venire in mundum. Ipse autem se into the world” (John 16:28). Plainly,
dicit venisse in mundum: exivi, then, what belongs to the Word of God
inquit, a patre, et veni in mundum, is truly said of that man. For, that it
Ioan. 1628. Manifestum est igitur belongs to the Word of God to come into
quod id quod verbo Dei convenit, the world John the Evangelist clearly
de homine illo dicitur vere: nam shows (1:1011) : “He was in the world,
quod verbo Dei conveniat venire in and the world was made by Him, and
mundum, manifeste ostendit the world knew Him not; He came unto
Ioannes Evangelista, dicens: in His own.” So, the person and hypostasis
mundo erat, et mundus per ipsum of the man speaking is the person and
factus est, et mundus eum non hypostasis of the Word of God.
cognovit: in propria venit. Oportet
igitur personam et hypostasim illius
hominis loquentis esse personam et
hypostasim verbi Dei.
Item apostolus dicit, Hebr. 105: [10] Again, the Apostle says: “When He

ingrediens mundum dicit: hostiam comes into the world He says: Sacrifice
et oblationem noluisti, corpus and oblation You did not want: but a
autem aptasti mihi. Ingrediens body You fitted for Me” (Heb. 10:5). But
autem mundum verbum Dei est, ut He who enters the world is the Word of
ostensum est. Ipsi igitur Dei verbo God, as was shown. It is, then, to God’s
corpus aptatur, ut scilicet sit very Word that a body is fitted; namely,
proprium corpus eius. Quod dici so as to be His own body. And one
non posset nisi esset eadem could not say this if the hypostasis of
hypostasis Dei verbi et illius God’s Word were not identified with that
hominis. Oportet igitur esse of the man. Therefore, the hypostasis of
eandem hypostasim Dei verbi et the Word of God and of that man are the

illius hominis. very same.
Amplius. Omnis mutatio vel passio [11] Every change or passion,
conveniens corpori alicuius, potest furthermore, proper to ones body can be
attribui ei cuius est corpus: si enim ascribed to him whose body it is, So, if
corpus Petri vulneretur, flagelletur, the body of Peter is wounded, scourged,
aut moriatur, potest dici quod or dies, it can be said that Peter is
Petrus vulneratur, flagellatur, aut wounded, scourged, or dies. But the
moritur. Sed corpus illius hominis body of that man is the body of the
fuit corpus verbi Dei, ut ostensum Word of God, as was just proved.
est. Ergo omnis passio quae in Therefore, every suffering that took
corpore illius hominis facta fuit, place in the body of that man can be
potest verbo Dei attribui. Recte ascribed to the Word of God. So it is
igitur dici potest quod verbum Dei, right to say that the Word of God—and
et Deus, est passus, crucifixus, God—suffered, was crucified, died, and
mortuus et sepultus. Quod ipsi was buried. And this they used to deny.
negabant.
Item. Apostolus dicit, Hebr. 210: [12] The Apostle also says: “It became
decebat eum propter quem omnia, Him, for whom are all things, and by
et per quem omnia, qui multos filios whom are all things, who, had brought
in gloriam adduxerat, auctorem many children into glory, to perfect the
salutis eorum, per passionem author of their salvation, by His passion”
consummari: ex quo habetur quod (Heb. 2:10). Thus one holds: He for
ille propter quem sunt omnia, et per whom all things are, through whom all
quem sunt omnia, et qui homines in things are, He who leads men to glory,
gloriam adducit, et qui est auctor and who is the Author of human
salutis humanae, passus est et salvation suffered and died. But these
mortuus. Sed haec quatuor four are God’s in a singular way; they
singulariter sunt Dei, et nulli alii are attributed to no other. For we read in
attribuuntur: dicitur enim Proverb. Proverbs (16:4): “The Lord has made all
164, universa propter semetipsum things for Himself”; in John (1:3) of the
operatus est dominus; et Ioan. 13, Word of God: “All things were made by
de verbo Dei dicitur, omnia per Him”; in the Psalmist: “The Lord will give
ipsum facta sunt; et in Psalmo, grace and glory”; and elsewhere: “The
gratiam et gloriam dabit dominus; et salvation of the just is from the Lord”
alibi, salus autem iustorum a (Ps. 83:12; 36:39). It is, then, plainly
domino. Manifestum est igitur recte right to say that “God, God’s Word,
dici Deum, Dei verbum, esse suffered and died.”
passum et mortuum.
Praeterea. Licet aliquis homo [13] There is more. Granted someone
participatione dominii dominus dici may be called a lord by sharing in
possit, nullus tamen homo, neque lordship: no man at all, no creature in
creatura aliqua, potest dici dominus fact, can be called “Lord of glory,” for
gloriae: quia gloriam futurae God alone by His nature possesses the
beatitudinis solus Deus ex natura glory of the future beatitude. But others
possidet, alii vero per donum do so by the gift of grace, and so the
gratiae; unde et in Psalmo dicitur, Psalmist says: “The Lord of hosts, He is

dominus virtutum ipse est rex the King of glory” (Ps. 23:810). But the
gloriae. Sed apostolus dicit Apostle says the Lord of glory was
dominum gloriae esse crucifixum, I crucified (1 Cor. 2:8). Then truly it can
ad Cor. 28. Vere igitur dici potest be said: God was crucified.
quod Deus sit crucifixus.
Adhuc. Verbum Dei dicitur Dei filius [14] The Word of God, furthermore, is

per naturam, ut ex supra dictis called God’s Son by nature, this was
patet: homo autem, propter made plain above. But a man through
inhabitationem Dei, dicitur Dei filius the indwelling is called God’s son by the
per gratiam adoptionis. Sic igitur in grace of adoption. But in the position
domino Iesu Christo, secundum now opposed, one must accept in our
positionem praedictam, est Lord Jesus Christ each of these modes
accipere utrumque filiationis of sonship, for the indwelling Word is the
modum: nam verbum inhabitans est Son of God by nature; the man in whom
Dei filius per naturam; homo He dwells is a son of God by the grace
inhabitatus est Dei filius per gratiam of adoption. Hence, that man cannot be
adoptionis. Unde homo ille non called “the very own” or “onlybegotten
potest dici proprius, vel unigenitus Son of God”; the Word of God alone in
Dei filius, sed solum Dei verbum, His own proper birth is uniquely
quod, secundum proprietatem begotten of the Father. But Scripture
nativitatis, singulariter a patre attributes the passion and death to
genitum est. Attribuit autem God’s very own and onlybegotten Son,
Scriptura proprio et unigenito Dei for the Apostle says: “He has spared not
filio passionem et mortem. Dicit even His own Son, but delivered Him up
enim apostolus, Rom. cap. 832: for us all” (Rom. 8:32); and John (3:16)
proprio filio suo non pepercit, sed says: “God so loved the world as to give
pro nobis omnibus tradidit illum. Et His onlybegotten Son, that whosoever
Ioan. 316: sic Deus dilexit mundum believes in Him may not perish, but may
ut filium suum unigenitum daret, ut have life everlasting.” And that He
omnis qui credit in illum non pereat, spoke of “giving” Him over to death is
sed habeat vitam aeternam. Et clear from this: John had previously
quod loquatur de traditione ad used the very same words about the
mortem, patet per id quod eadem crucified Son of Man when he said: “As
verba supra praemiserat de filio Moses lifted up the serpent in the
hominis crucifixo, dicens: sicut desert, so must the Son of man be lifted
Moyses exaltavit serpentem in up, that whosoever believes in Him”
deserto, ita oportet exaltari filium (John 3:14), and the rest. And the
hominis, ut omnis qui credit in illum Apostle makes the death of Christ an
et cetera. Et apostolus mortem indication of the divine love for the world
Christi indicium divinae dilectionis by saying: “God commends His charity
ad mundum esse ostendit, dicens, towards us; because when as yet we
Rom. 58 commendat suam were sinners, according to the time,
caritatem Deus in nobis, quoniam, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:89). Rightly,
cum adhuc inimici essemus, then, does one say that the Word of
Christus pro nobis mortuus est. God, that God, suffered and died.
Recte igitur dici potest quod verbum
Dei, Deus, sit passus et mortuus.
Item. Ex hoc dicitur aliquis filius [15] Again, one is said to be the son of a

alicuius matris, quia corpus eius ex mother because his body is taken from
ea sumitur, licet anima non sumatur her, although his soul is not taken from
ex matre, sed ab exteriori sit. her, but has an exterior source. But the
Corpus autem illius hominis ex body of that man was taken from the
virgine matre sumptum est: Virgin Mother. Now, it was proved that
ostensum est autem corpus illius the body of that man is the body of the
hominis esse corpus filii Dei natural Son of God, that is, of the Word
naturalis, idest verbi Dei. of God. So it becomes us to say that the
Convenienter igitur dicitur quod Blessed Virgin is “the Mother of the
beata virgo sit mater verbi Dei, et Word of God,” and even “of God”. Of
etiam Dei, licet divinitas verbi a course, the divinity of the Word is not
matre non sumatur: non enim taken from His Mother, for a son need
oportet quod filius totum quod est not take the whole of his substance from
de sua substantia a matre sumat, his mother, but his body only.
sed solum corpus.
Amplius. Apostolus dicit, ad Galat. [16] The Apostle says further that “God
44: misit Deus filium suum factum sent His Son, made of a woman” (Gal.
ex muliere: ex quibus verbis 4:4). These words show us how to
ostenditur qualiter missio filii Dei sit understand the sending of the Son of
intelligenda: eo enim dicitur missus God: He is called sent thither, where He
quo factus est ex muliere. Quod was made of a woman. This could not,
quidem verum esse non posset nisi of course, be true if the Son of God had
filius Dei ante fuisset quam factus not been before He was made of a
esset ex muliere: quod enim in woman, for that which is sent into
aliquid mittitur, prius esse intelligitur another is understood to be previously
quam sit in eo quo mittitur. Sed to its being in that other to which it is
homo ille, filius adoptivus, sent. But that man, the Nestorian
secundum Nestorium, non fuit adoptive son, had no being before he
antequam natus esset ex muliere. was born of the woman. The Apostle’s
Quod ergo dicit, misit Deus filium word, “God sent His Son,” cannot,
suum, non potest intelligi de filio therefore, be understood of the adoptive
adoptivo, sed oportet quod son, but must be understood of the
intelligatur de filio naturali, idest de natural Son, that is, of God the Word of
Deo Dei verbo. Sed ex hoc quod God. But if one is made of a woman, he
aliquis factus est ex muliere, dicitur is called the woman’s son. Therefore,
filius mulieris. Deus ergo, Dei God the Word of God is the Son of a
verbum, est filius mulieris. woman.
Sed forte dicet aliquis non debere [17] Perhaps we will be told not to
verbum apostoli sic intelligi quod understand the word of the Apostle
Dei filius ad hoc sit missus ut sit thus: that the Son of God was sent to be
factus ex muliere: sed ita quod Dei made of a woman; but to understand it
filius qui est factus ex muliere et thus: that God’s Son, made of a woman
sub lege, ad hoc sit missus ut eos and under the Law, was sent “that He
qui sub lege erant redimeret. Et might redeem them who were under the
secundum hoc, quod dicit filium Law” (Gal. 4:5). And in this reading “his
suum, non oportebit intelligi de filio son” need not be understood of the
naturali, sed de homine illo qui est natural Son, but of that man who was
filius adoptionis. Sed hic sensus the son by adoption. But the very words
excluditur ex ipsis apostoli verbis. of the Apostle exclude this meaning. For
Non enim a lege potest absolvere no one can release from the Law save
nisi ille qui supra legem existit, qui him who exists above the Law, the
est auctor legis. Lex autem a Deo author of the Law. But the Law was
posita est. Solius igitur Dei est a established by God. Only God, then,
servitute legis eripere. Hoc autem can take away servitude to the Law. But
attribuit apostolus filio Dei de quo the Apostle attributes this to the Son of
loquitur. Filius ergo Dei de quo God of whom he speaks. So, the Son of
loquitur, est filius naturalis. Verum God of whom he speaks is the natural
est ergo dicere quod naturalis Dei Son. Therefore, it is true to say: The
filius, idest Deus Dei verbum, est natural Son of God, that is, God the
factus ex muliere. Word of God, is made of a woman.
Praeterea. Idem patet per hoc quod [18] The very same point is clarified by

redemptio humani generis ipsi Deo Scripture’s attribution of the redemption
attribuitur in Psalmo: redemisti me, of the human race to God Himself, thus
domine Deus veritatis. the Psalmist: “You have redeemed me,
O Lord, the God of truth” (Ps. 30:6).
Adhuc. Adoptio filiorum Dei fit per [19] Furthermore, the adoption of God’s

spiritum sanctum: secundum illud sons is made by the Holy Spirit,
Rom. 815: accepistis spiritum according to Romans (8:15): “You have
adoptionis filiorum. Spiritus autem received the spirit of adoption of sons.”
sanctus non est donum hominis, But the Holy Spirit is a gift, not of man,
sed Dei. Adoptio ergo filiorum non but of God. And so, the adoption of sons
causatur ab homine, sed a Deo. is not caused by man, but by God. But it
Causatur autem a filio Dei misso a is caused by the Son of God sent by
Deo et facto ex muliere: quod patet God and made of a woman. This is
per id quod apostolus subdit, ut clear from the Apostle’s addition: “That
adoptionem filiorum reciperemus. we might receive the adoption of sons”
Oportet igitur verbum apostoli (Gal. 4:5). One ought, then, to
intelligi de filio Dei naturali. Deus understand the Apostle’s expression of
igitur, Dei verbum, factus est ex God’s natural Son. It is, accordingly,
muliere, idest ex virgine matre. God the Word of God who “was made of
a woman”; that is, of the Virgin Mother.
Item. Ioannes dicit: verbum caro [20] And, again, John says: “The Word
factum est. Non autem habet was made flesh.” But He has no flesh,
carnem nisi ex muliere. Verbum except from a woman. The Word, then,
igitur factum est ex muliere, idest ex is made of a woman; that is, of the
virgine matre. Virgo igitur est mater Virgin Mother. Therefore, the Virgin is
Dei verbi. the Mother of God the Word.
Amplius. Apostolus dicit, Rom. 95, [21] The Apostle further says that Christ

quod Christus est ex patribus is from the father, according to the flesh,
secundum carnem, qui est super Who is over all things, God blessed for
omnia Deus benedictus in saecula. ever” (Rom. 9:5). But he is not from the

Non autem est ex patribus nisi fathers save through the Virgin. God,
mediante virgine. Deus igitur, qui then, who is above all things, is from the
est super omnia, est ex virgine Virgin in the flesh. The Virgin, then, is
secundum carnem. Virgo igitur est the Mother of God in the flesh.
mater Dei secundum carnem.
Adhuc. Apostolus dicit, Philipp. 2 de [22] The Apostle, once more, says of

Christo Iesu, quod cum in forma Dei Christ Jesus that, “being in the form of
esset, exinanivit semetipsum, God, emptied Himself, taking the form of
formam servi accipiens, in a servant, being made in the likeness of
similitudinem hominum factus. Ubi men” (Phil. 2:67). Now, clearly, if,
manifestum est si, secundum following Nestorius, we divide Christ into
Nestorium, Christum dividamus in two—into that man who is the adoptive
duos, scilicet in hominem illum qui son, and into God’s natural Son who is
est filius adoptivus, et in filium Dei the Word of God—this text cannot be
naturalem, qui est verbum Dei, understood of that man. For that man, if
quod non potest intelligi de homine he be pure man, was not first in the form
illo. Ille enim homo, si purus homo of God, so as to be made later in the
sit, non prius fuit in forma Dei, ut likeness of man; rather conversely: the
postmodum in similitudinem existing man was made to share in
hominum fieret: sed magis e divinity; in this he was not emptied, but
converso homo existens divinitatis exalted. The text must, then, be
particeps factus est, in quo non fuit understood of the Word of God who first
exinanitus, sed exaltatus. Oportet was eternally in the form of God, that is,
igitur quod intelligatur de verbo Dei, in the nature of God, and later emptied
quod prius fuerit ab aeterno in Himself, made in the likeness of man.
forma Dei, idest in natura Dei, et
postmodum exinanivit semetipsum,
in similitudinem hominum factus.
Non potest autem intelligi ista But that emptying cannot be understood

exinanitio per solam inhabitationem solely by the indwelling of the Word of
verbi Dei in homine Iesu Christo. God in the man Jesus Christ. For, since
Nam verbum Dei in omnibus the beginning of the world, the Word of
sanctis, a principio mundi, habitavit God has dwelt in all the saints by grace.
per gratiam, nec tamen dicitur It is not, for all that, emptied, since God
exinanitum: quia Deus sic suam communicates His goodness to
bonitatem creaturis communicat creatures so that nothing is subtracted
quod nihil ei subtrahitur, sed magis from Him. Rather, He is somehow
quodammodo exaltatur, secundum exalted, in that the goodness of the
quod eius sublimitas ex bonitate creatures manifests His sublimity, and
creaturarum apparet, et tanto so much the more so as the creatures
amplius quanto creaturae fuerint have been better. Hence, if the Word of
meliores. Unde, si verbum Dei God has dwelt more fully in the man
plenius habitavit in homine Christo Christ than in the other saints, then
quam in aliis sanctis, minus etiam even less in this case than in others is
hic quam in aliis convenit exinanitio the emptying harmonious with the Word.
verbi.
Manifestum est igitur quod unio Plainly, then, the union of the Word with

verbi ad humanam naturam non est the human nature must not be
intelligenda secundum solam understood in accordance merely with
inhabitationem verbi Dei in homine the indwelling of the Word of God in that
illo, ut Nestorius dicebat: sed man (as Nestorius held), but in
secundum hoc quod verbum Dei accordance with this fact: The Word of
vere factum est homo. Sic enim God truly was made man. In this wise
solum habebit locum exinanitio: ut only, then, will there be place for
scilicet dicatur verbum Dei “emptying”: namely, let the Word of God
exinanitum, idest parvum factum, be called “emptied,” that is, made small,
non amissione propriae not by the loss of His own greatness,
magnitudinis, sed assumptione but by the assumption of human
humanae parvitatis; sicut si anima smallness; just so would it be if the soul
praeexisteret corpori, et diceretur were to preexist the body, and were
fieri substantia corporea quae est said to be made the corporeal
homo, non mutatione propriae substance which man is: not by a
naturae, sed assumptione naturae change of its own nature, but by the
corporeae. assumption of corporeal nature.
Praeterea. Manifestum est quod [23] There is more. Manifestly, the Holy

spiritus sanctus in homine Christo Spirit dwelt in the man Christ, for Luke
habitavit: dicitur enim Lucae 41, (4:11) says: “Jesus, being full of the
quod Iesus plenus spiritu sancto Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan.” If,
regressus est a Iordane. Si igitur then, our understanding of the
incarnatio verbi secundum hoc Incarnation of the Word is this alone—
solum intelligenda est quod verbum the Word of God dwelt most fully in that
Dei in homine illo plenissime man—we will have to say that the Holy
habitavit, necesse erit dicere quod Spirit was incarnate also. And this is
etiam spiritus sanctus erit altogether foreign to the teaching of the
incarnatus. Quod est omnino faith.
alienum a doctrina fidei.
Adhuc. Manifestum est verbum Dei [24] This is also clear: The Word of God

in sanctis Angelis habitare, qui dwells in the holy angels, and by
participatione verbi intelligentia sharing the Word they are filled with
replentur. Dicit autem apostolus, understanding. But the Apostle says:
Hebr. 216: nusquam Angelos “Nowhere doth He take hold of the
apprehendit, sed semen Abrahae angels: but of the seed of Abraham he
apprehendit. Manifestum est igitur takes hold” (Heb. 2:16). Clearly, then,
quod assumptio humanae naturae the assumption of human nature by the
a verbo non est secundum solam Word is not merely to be taken as
inhabitationem accipienda. indwelling.
Adhuc. Si, secundum positionem [25] If, furthermore, as in the Nestorian
Nestorii, Christus separaretur in position, Christ be separated into two
duos secundum hypostasim differing in hypostasis—that is, into the
differentes, idest in verbum Dei et Word of God and that man—the Word of
hominem illum, impossibile est God cannot possibly be called “Christ.”
quod verbum Dei Christus dicatur. This is clear, for one thing, from
Quod patet tum ex modo loquendi Scripture’s manner of speaking:
Scripturae, quae nunquam ante Scripture before the Incarnation never
incarnationem Deum, aut Dei names God, or the Word of God, Christ.
verbum, nominat Christum. Tum It is clear, as well, from the very account
etiam ex ipsa nominis ratione. of the name. For one says “Christ” only
Dicitur enim Christus quasi unctus. as though to say “anointed.” But one
Unctus autem intelligitur oleo understands anointed with the “oil of
exultationis, idest spiritu sancto, ut gladness” (Heb. 1:9; Ps. 44:8), that is,
Petrus exponit, Act. 1038. Non “with the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:38), as
autem potest dici quod verbum Dei Peter explains. Yet, one cannot say that
sit unctum spiritu sancto: quia sic the Word of God is anointed with the
spiritus sanctus esset maior filio, ut Holy Spirit, for the Holy Spirit would thus
sanctificans sanctificato. Oportebit be greater than the Son, as the
igitur quod hoc nomen Christus sanctifier is greater than the sanctified.
solum pro homine illo possit intelligi. It will be necessary, then, to understand
Quod ergo dicit apostolus, ad the name “Christ” only of that man.
Philipp. 25, hoc sentite in vobis Therefore, this word of the Apostle, “Let
quod et in Christo Iesu, ad this mind be in you, which was also in
hominem illum referendum est. Christ Jesus” (Phil. 2:56), must be
Subdit autem, 6 qui cum in forma referred to that man. Yet he adds: “Who
Dei esset, non rapinam arbitratus being in the form of God, thought it not
est esse se aequalem Deo. Verum robbery to be equal with Cod.” Truly,
est igitur dicere quod homo ille est then, one speaks of that man in the
in forma, idest in natura Dei, et form, that is, the nature of God, and
aequalis Deo. Licet autem homines equal to God. Yet, granted men are
dicantur dii, vel filii Dei, propter called “gods” or “sons of God” by God’s
inhabitantem Deum, nunquam indwelling, one never calls them “equal
tamen dicitur quod sint aequales to God.” Clearly, then, the man Christ is
Deo. Patet igitur quod homo not called God merely by reason of the
Christus non per solam indwelling.
inhabitationem dicitur Deus.
Item. Licet nomen Dei ad sanctos [26] Granted, again, that the name of
homines transferatur propter God is used for holy men by reason of
inhabitationem gratiae, nunquam the indwelling of grace, nonetheless
tamen opera quae sunt solius Dei, works which are God’s alone—the
sicut creare caelum et terram, vel creation of heaven and earth, for
aliquid huiusmodi, de aliquo example, or something of the sort—are
sanctorum propter inhabitationem never ascribed to any saint by reason of
gratiae dicitur. Christo autem homini the indwelling of grace. But to Christ the
attribuitur omnium creatio. Dicitur man the creation of all things is
enim Hebr. 31 considerate attributed. We read in Hebrews (3:14):
apostolum et pontificem “Consider the apostle and high priest of
confessionis nostrae Iesum our confession Jesus Christ who is
Christum, qui fidelis est ei qui fecit faithful to Him that made Him, as also
illum sicut et Moyses, in omni domo was Moses in all His house.” This must
illius: quod oportet de homine illo, et be understood of that man and not of
non de Dei verbo intelligi tum quia God’s Word; both because it was shown

ostensum est quod, secundum that in the Nestorian position God’s
positionem Nestorii, verbum Dei Word cannot be called Christ, as well as
Christus dici non potest; tum quia because God’s Word is not made, but
verbum Dei non est factum, sed begotten. The Apostle, of course, adds:
genitum. Addit autem apostolus: 3 “This man was counted worthy of
ampliori gloria iste prae Moyse greater glory than Moses, by so much
dignus habitus est, quanto as He that built the house bath greater
ampliorem honorem habet domus honor than the house.” Now, the man
qui fabricavit illam. Homo igitur Christ built the house. This the Apostle
Christus fabricavit domum Dei. proves subsequently when he adds:
Quod consequenter apostolus “For every house is built by some man:
probat, subdens: omnis namque but He that created all things is God.”
domus fabricatur ab aliquo: qui Thus, then, the Apostle proves that the
autem omnia creavit, Deus est. Sic man Christ built the house of God from
igitur apostolus probat quod homo the fact that God created all things. But
Christus fabricavit domum Dei, per this would be no proof at all if Christ
hoc quod Deus creavit omnia. Quae were not the God who creates all things.
probatio nulla esset nisi Christus And so to that man the creation of the
esset Deus creans omnia. Sic igitur worlds is ascribed, a thing which is
homini illi attribuitur creatio God’s very own work. The man Christ,
universorum: quod est proprium then, is God Himself by hypostasis and
opus Dei. Est igitur homo Christus not merely by reason of indwelling.
ipse Deus secundum hypostasim,
et non ratione inhabitationis tantum.
Amplius. Manifestum est quod [27] Further, it is clear that the man
homo Christus, loquens de se, Christ, speaking of Himself, says many
multa divina dicit et supernaturalia: divine and supernatural things: so this in
ut est illud Ioan. 640, ego John (6:40): “I will raise him up in the
resuscitabo illum in novissimo die; last day”; and again: “I give them life
et Ioan. 1028, ego vitam aeternam everlasting” (10:28). This would be the
do eis. Quod quidem esset height of pride if that man speaking
summae superbiae, si ille homo were not by hypostasis Cod Himself, but
loquens non esset secundum merely had God indwelling. But pride is
hypostasim ipse Deus, sed solum not suited to the man Christ, who says
haberet Deum inhabitantem. Hoc of Himself: “Learn of me, because I am
autem homini Christo non competit, meek, and humble of heart” (Mat.
qui de se dicit, Matth. 1129: discite 11:29). There is, then, identity in person
a me quia mitis sum et humilis between that man and God.
corde. Est igitur eadem persona
hominis illius et Dei.
Praeterea. Sicut legitur in Scripturis [28] There is more. just as we read in

quod homo ille est exaltatus, dicitur Scripture that the man is “exalted”—as
enim Act. 233, dextera igitur Dei in Acts (2:33): “Exalted therefore by the
exaltatus etc., ita legitur quod Deus right hand of God,” and the rest, so also
sit exinanitus, Philipp. 27, we read that God is “emptied” in
exinanivit semetipsum et cetera. Philippians (2:7): “He emptied himself,”
Sicut igitur sublimia possunt dici de and the rest. Thus, just as sublime

homine illo ratione unionis, ut quod things can be said of that man by
sit Deus, quod resuscitet mortuos, reason of the union—that He is God,
et alia huiusmodi; ita de Deo that He raises the dead, and others of
possunt dici humilia, ut quod sit this sort—so of God can lowly things be
natus de virgine, passus, mortuus said: that He was born of the Virgin,
et sepultus. suffered, died, and was buried.
Adhuc. Relativa tam verba quam [29] Then, too, both relative verbs and
pronomina idem suppositum pronouns bring out identity of supposit.
referunt. Dicit autem apostolus, The Apostle says, speaking of the Son
Coloss. 116, loquens de filio Dei, in of God: “In Him were all things created
ipso condita sunt universa in caelo in heaven and on earth, visible and
et in terra, visibilia et invisibilia; et invisible; then, later, he adds: “And He is
postea subdit, 18 et ipse est caput the head of the body, the Church, who is
corporis Ecclesiae, qui est the beginning, the firstborn from the
principium, primogenitus ex dead” (Col. 1:16, 18). Now, clearly, the
mortuis. Manifestum est autem text, “In Him were all things created,”
quod hoc quod dicitur, in ipso refers to the Word of God; whereas the
condita sunt universa, ad verbum text, “firstborn from the dead,” belongs
Dei pertinet: quod autem dicitur, to the man Christ. Therefore, God’s
primogenitus ex mortuis, homini Word and the man Christ are one
Christo competit. Sic igitur Dei supposit and, consequently, one
verbum et homo Christus sunt Person; and whatever is said of that
unum suppositum, et per man must he said of the Word of God,
consequens una persona; et and conversely.
oportet quod quicquid dicitur de
homine illo, dicatur de verbo Dei, et
e converso.
Item. Apostolus dicit, I ad Cor. 86: [30] Again, the Apostle says: “There is
unus est dominus Iesus Christus, one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are A
per quem omnia. Manifestum est things” (1 Cor. 8:6). But Jesus, the
autem quod Iesus, nomen illius name of that man through whom all
hominis per quem omnia, convenit things are, clearly befits the Word of
verbo Dei. Sic igitur verbum Dei et God. Thus, then, the Word of God and
homo ille sunt unus dominus, nec that man are one Lord; and these are
duo domini nec duo filii, ut not two lords, or two sons, as Nestorius
Nestorius dicebat. Et ex hoc ulterius held. From this it follows further that
sequitur quod verbi Dei et hominis there is one person of the Word of God
sit una persona. and the man.
Si quis autem diligenter consideret, [31] Let one consider the matter

haec Nestorii opinio quantum ad earnestly and he sees that this
incarnationis mysterium, parum Nestorian opinion on the Incarnation
differt ab opinione Photini. Quia differs very little from that of Photinus.
uterque hominem illum Deum dici For each held that the man was called
asserebat solum propter God only by reason of the indwelling
inhabitationem gratiae: quamvis grace. Photinus, of course, said that the
Photinus dixerit quod ille homo man merited the name and glory of
nomen divinitatis et gloriam per divinity by suffering and good works;
passionem et bona opera meruit; and Nestorius confessed that from the
Nestorius autem confessus est beginning of his conception he had this
quod a principio suae conceptionis name and glory by reason of the
huiusmodi nomen et gloriam habuit, fullness of God’s dwelling within him. Of
propter plenissimam habitationem course, on the eternal generation of the
Dei in ipso. Circa generationem Word they differed greatly: Nestorius
autem aeternam verbi multum confessed it, but Photinus denied it
differebant: nam Nestorius eam completely.
confitebatur; Photinus vero negabat
omnino.
Caput 35 Chapter 35
Contra errorem Eutychetis AGAINST THE ERROR OF EUTYCHES
Quia ergo, sicut multipliciter [1] Since the mystery of the Incarnation
ostensum est, ita oportet mysterium —as has been shown in many ways—
incarnationis intelligi quod verbi Dei must be understood thus: there is one
et hominis sit una eademque and the same person of the Word of
persona, relinquitur quaedam circa God and the man, a certain difficulty
huius veritatis considerationem remains in the consideration of this truth.
difficultas. Naturam enim divinam For necessarily its personality follows
necesse est ut sua personalitas the divine nature. The case seems to be
consequatur. Similiter autem the same for human nature, for
videtur et de humana natura: nam everything which subsists in an
omne quod subsistit in intellectuali intellectual or a rational nature fulfills the
vel rationali natura, habet rationem account of person. Hence, it does not
personae. Unde non videtur esse seem possible that there be one Person
possibile quod sit una persona et and two natures, divine and human.
sint duae naturae, divina et
humana.
Ad huius autem difficultatis [2] Now, for the solution of this difficulty
solutionem diversi diversas various men have proposed various
positiones attulerunt. Eutyches positions. Eutyches, for instance, to
enim, ut unitatem personae contra preserve the unity of person in Christ
Nestorium servaret in Christo, dicit against Nestorius, says there is one
in Christo esse etiam unam nature, also. He says that, although
naturam, ita quod, quamvis ante before the union there were two distinct
unionem essent duae naturae natures, the divine and human, they
distinctae, divina et humana, in came together, nevertheless, in the
unione tamen coierunt in unam union into one nature. And so he said
naturam. Et sic dicebat Christi that the person of Christ “is from two
personam ex duabus naturis esse, natures,” but does not “subsist in two
non autem in duabus naturis natures.” For this he was condemned by
subsistere. Propter quod in the Council of Chalcedon.
Chalcedonensi synodo est
condemnatus.
Huius autem positionis falsitas ex [3] The falsity of this position, of course,

multis apparet. Ostensum enim est appears in many ways. For we showed
supra quod in Christo Iesu et above that there was in Christ Jesus a
corpus fuit, et anima rationalis, et body, a rational soul, and divinity. And,
divinitas. Et manifestum est quod clearly, the body of Christ even after the
corpus Christi, etiam post unionem, union was not the very divinity of the
non fuit ipsa verbi divinitas: nam Word; for the body of Christ even after
corpus Christi, etiam post unionem, the union could be touched, could be
palpabile fuit, et corporeis oculis seen with bodily eyes, and had distinctly
visibile, et lineamentis membrorum outlined members. All of these are
distinctum; quae omnia aliena sunt foreign to the divinity of the Word, as the
a divinitate verbi, ut ex superioribus foregoing make clear. And in like fashion
patet. Similiter etiam anima Christi the soul of Christ after the union was
post unionem aliud fuit a divinitate other than the divinity of the Word,
verbi: quia anima Christi, etiam because after the union the soul of
post unionem, passionibus tristitiae Christ was affected by the passions of
et doloris et irae affecta fuit; quae sadness, of sorrow, and of anger.
etiam divinitati verbi nullo modo These, too, are entirely disproportionate
convenire possunt, ut ex to the divinity of the Word, as the
praemissis patet. Anima autem foregoing shows. But a human soul and
humana et corpus constituunt a human body constitute a human
humanam naturam. Sic igitur, etiam nature. Thus, then, even after the union,
post unionem, humana natura in the human nature in Christ was other
Christo fuit aliud a divinitate verbi, than the divinity of the Word which is the
quae est natura divina. Sunt igitur divine nature. Therefore, in Christ, even
in Christo, etiam post unionem, after the union, there are two natures.
duae naturae.
Item. Natura est secundum quam [4] Again. It is by its nature that
res aliqua dicitur res naturalis. something is called a natural thing. One
Dicitur autem res naturalis ex hoc calls it a natural thing because it has a
quod habet formam, sicut et res form, as one does with an artificial thing;
artificialis: non enim dicitur domus one does not call a house a house
antequam habeat formam artis, et before it has the form of its architecture,
similiter non dicitur equus nor a horse a horse before it has the
antequam habeat formam naturae form of its nature. The form of a natural
suae. Forma igitur rei naturalis est thing is, then, its nature. But one must
eius natura. Oportet autem dicere say that in Christ there are two forms,
quod in Christo sint duae formae, even after the union. For the Apostle
etiam post unionem. Dicit enim says of Christ Jesus, when he was “in
apostolus, Philipp. 2, de Christo the form of God, He took the form of a
Iesu, quod, cum in forma Dei esset, servant” (Phil. 2:67). Of course, one
formam servi accepit. Non autem cannot say that the form of God is the
potest dici quod sit eadem forma same as the form of the servant. For
Dei, et forma servi: nihil enim nothing receives what it already has,
accipit quod iam habet; et sic, si and so, if the form of God and of the
eadem est forma Dei et forma servant are the same, He would not—
servi, cum iam formam Dei since He already had the form of God—
habuisset, non accepisset formam have received the form of servant.
servi. Neque iterum potest dici Neither, again, can one say that the form
quod forma Dei in Christo per of God in Christ is corrupted by the
unionem sit corrupta: quia sic union, because thus after the union
Christus post unionem non esset Christ would not be God. Nor, again, can
Deus. Neque iterum potest dici one say that the form of the servant was
quod forma servi sit corrupta in corrupted in the union, because thus He
unione: quia sic non accepisset would not have received the form of the
formam servi. Sed nec dici potest servant. But neither can one say that the
quod forma servi sit permixta form of the servant is mixed thoroughly
formae Dei: quia quae with the form of God, for things mixed
permiscentur, non manent integra, thoroughly do not retain their integrity;
sed partim utrumque corrumpitur; rather, each is in part corrupted, and so
unde non diceret quod accepisset the Apostle would not say that He had
formam servi, sed aliquid eius. Et received the form of the servant, but
sic oportet dicere, secundum verba something of the servant. Hence, One
apostoli, quod in Christo, etiam ought to say respecting the words of the
post unionem, fuerunt duae formae. Apostle that in Christ even after the
Ergo duae naturae. union there were two forms; therefore,
two natures.
Amplius. Nomen naturae primo [5] The name “nature,” moreover, in its
impositum est ad significandum first imposition had as meaning the very
ipsam generationem nascentium. generation of things being born. Thence
Et exinde translatum est ad it was carried over to meaning the
significandum principium principle of this kind of generation, and
generationis huiusmodi. Et inde ad then to signifying the principle of motion
significandum principium motus intrinsic to the moveable thing. And
intrinsecum mobili. Et quia because this kind of principle is matter
huiusmodi principium est materia or form, nature is further called the form
vel forma, ulterius natura dicitur or matter of a thing which has in itself a
forma vel materia rei naturalis principle of motion. And since form and
habentis in se principium motus. Et matter constitute the essence of the
quia forma et materia constituunt natural thing, the name was extended to
essentiam rei naturalis, extensum meaning the essence of everything
est nomen naturae ad whatsoever which exists in nature. As a
significandum essentiam result of this, the nature of a thing is
cuiuscumque rei in natura called “the essence signified by the
existentis: ut sic natura alicuius rei definition.”O In this last fashion nature is
dicatur essentia, quam significat in question here, for thus we say that
definitio. Et hoc modo hic de natura there is in Christ human nature and
est quaestio: sic enim dicimus divine.
humanam naturam esse in Christo
et divinam.
Si igitur, ut Eutyches posuit, [6] Now, then, if, as Eutyches held, the
humana natura et divina fuerunt human nature and the divine were two
duae ante unionem, sed ex eis in before the union, but from those in the
unione conflata est una natura, union one nature was breathed together,
oportet hoc esse aliquo modorum this should take place in one of the ways
secundum quos ex multis natum in which it is natural that one comes to
est unum fieri. be from many.
Fit autem unum ex multis, uno [7] Now, one way in which one comes
quidem modo, secundum ordinem from many is the way of order alone; so
tantum: sicut ex multis domibus fit from many homes a city comes to be, or
civitas, et ex multis militibus fit from many soldiers an army. Another
exercitus. Alio modo, ordine et way is that of order and composition; so
compositione: sicut ex partibus a house comes to be when they join
domus coniunctis et parietum together its parts and its walls. But
colligatione fit domus. Sed hi duo neither of these two ways fits the
modi non competunt ad constitution of one nature from a
constitutionem unius naturae ex plurality. For things whose form is order
pluribus. Ea enim quorum forma est or juxtaposition are not natural things.
ordo vel compositio, non sunt res The result is that their unity cannot be
naturales, ut sic eorum unitas called a unity of nature.
possit dici unitas naturae.
Tertio modo, ex pluribus fit unum [8] In a third way, one comes from many

per commixtionem: sicut ex quatuor by mixture, as from the four elements
elementis fit corpus mixtum. Hic one gets a mixed body. And this way,
etiam modus nullo modo competit too, does not fit the present
ad propositum. Primo quidem, quia consideration. The first reason is this:
mixtio non est nisi eorum quae Mixture is only of things which have
communicant in materia, et quae matter in common and by nature act and
agere et pati ad invicem nata sunt. react reciprocally. Such cannot~ indeed,
Quod quidem hic esse non potest: be the case here, for it was shown in
ostensum est enim in primo libro Book I that God is entirely immaterial
quod Deus immaterialis et omnino and subject to no action. The second
impassibilis est. Secundo, quia ex reason is this: When one thing greatly
his quorum unum multum excedit exceeds another there can be no
aliud, mixtio fieri non potest: si quis mixture, for, if a man puts a drop of wine
enim guttam vini mittat in mille into a thousand measures of water, he is
amphoras aquae, non erit mixtio, not mixing, but spoiling, the wine. For
sed corruptio vini; propter quod the same reason we do not say that
etiam nec ligna in fornacem ignis wood thrown into a furnace is mixed with
missa dicimus misceri igni, sed ab the fire, but—by reason of the superior
igne consumi, propter excellentem power of the fire—consumed by the fire.
ignis virtutem. Divina autem natura The divine nature, of course, exceeds
in infinitum humanam excedit: cum the human by infinity, since the divine
virtus Dei sit infinita, ut in primo power is infinite, as was shown in Book
ostensum est. Nullo igitur modo I. There cannot, then, be any mixture at
posset fieri mixtio utriusque all of each nature. The third reason is
naturae. Tertio quia, dato quod this: If a mixture were to come into
fieret mixtio, neutra natura being, neither nature would be
remaneret salvata: miscibilia enim preserved. For things subject to mixture
in mixto non salvantur, si sit vera are not preserved in the mixed product,
mixtio. Facta igitur permixtione if it be a true mixture. Given, then, a
utriusque naturae, divinae scilicet thorough mixture of each of the two
et humanae, neutra natura natures—the divine, namely, and the

remaneret, sed aliquod tertium: et human—neither of the two natures
sic Christus neque esset Deus would remain, but some third. What
neque homo. Non igitur sic potest Eutyches said, then, cannot be
intelligi quod Eutyches dixit, ante understood thus: There were two
unionem fuisse duas naturas, post natures before the union, but after the
unionem vero unam in domino Iesu union one nature in our Lord Jesus
Christo, quasi ex duabus naturis sit Christ, as though from two natures one
constituta una natura. Relinquitur nature has been established. Therefore,
ergo quod hoc intelligatur hoc the understanding of it which remains is
modo, quod altera tantum earum this: Either the one or the other
post unionem remanserit. Aut igitur remained after the union. Either, then,
fuit in Christo sola natura divina, et there was in Christ the divine nature
id quod videbatur in eo humanum only and what appeared human in Him
fuit phantasticum, ut Manichaeus was but phantasy as Mani said; or the
dixit; aut divina natura conversa est divine nature was converted into the
in humanam, ut Apollinaris dixit; human as Apollinaris said. But against
contra quos supra disputavimus. these we have previously disputed. The
Relinquitur igitur hoc esse conclusion, then, is that it is impossible
impossibile, ante unionem fuisse that before the union there were two
duas naturas in Christo, post natures in Christ; after the union, but
unionem vero unam. one.
Amplius. Nunquam invenitur ex [9] There is more. One never finds one
duabus naturis manentibus fieri coming to be from two abiding natures,
unam: eo quod quaelibet natura est because any nature is a kind of whole,
quoddam totum, ea vero ex quibus but its constituents are accounted for as
aliquid constituitur, cadunt in parts. Hence, when one comes to be
rationem partis; unde, cum ex from a soul and a body, neither the soul
anima et corpore fiat unum, neque nor the body can be called a nature (as
corpus neque anima natura dici we are now speaking of nature),
potest, sicut nunc loquimur de because neither has the complete
natura, quia neutrum habet species, but each is a part of the one
speciem completam, sed utrumque nature. Since human nature, then, is a
est pars unius naturae. Cum igitur kind of complete nature, and the divine
natura humana sit quaedam natura nature is similarly, it is impossible that
completa, et similiter natura divina, they concur in one nature without the
impossibile est quod concurrant in corruption either of each of the two, or of
unam naturam, nisi vel utraque vel one of the two. Now, this cannot be,
altera corrumpatur. Quod esse non since from our previous points” the one
potest: cum ex supra dictis pateat Christ clearly is both true God and true
unum Christum et verum Deum et man. It is impossible, then, that in Christ
verum hominem esse. Impossibile there is only one nature.
est igitur in Christo unam esse
tantum naturam.
Item. Ex duobus manentibus una [10] Again, from two abiding one nature

natura constituitur vel sicut ex is constituted: from bodily parts, if you
partibus corporalibus, sicut ex like, as an animal is constituted of its
membris constituitur animal: quod members—which cannot be said in this
hic dici non potest, cum divina case, since the divine nature is not
natura non sit aliquid corporeum. something bodily; if you like, something
Vel sicut ex materia et forma one is constituted from matter and form,
constituitur aliquid unum, sicut ex as an animal is constituted of its soul
anima et corpore animal. Quod and body. Neither can this be said in the
etiam non potest in proposito dici: present discussion, for it was shown in
ostensum est enim in primo libro Book II that God can neither be matter
quod Deus neque materia est, nor the form of anything. Then, if Christ
neque alicuius forma esse potest. is true God and true man, as was seen,
Si igitur Christus est verus Deus et it is impossible that in Him there be one
verus homo, ut ostensum est, nature only.
impossibile est quod in eo sit una
natura tantum.
Adhuc. Subtractio vel additio [11] The subtraction or addition of an
alicuius essentialis principii variat essential principle, furthermore, varies
speciem rei: et per consequens the species of a thing; consequently, it
mutat naturam, quae nihil est aliud changes the nature which is not other
quam essentia, quam significat than “the essence which the definition
definitio, ut dictum est. Et propter signifies.” For this reason we see that a
hoc videmus quod differentia specific difference added to a definition
specifica addita vel subtracta or subtracted from it makes a difference
definitioni, facit differre secundum in species; so the rational animal and
speciem: sicut animal rationale, et the one lacking reason differ in species,
ratione carens, specie differunt; just as in numbers the addition or
sicut et in numeris unitas addita vel subtraction of unity makes another
subtracta facit aliam speciem species of number. But form is an
numeri. Forma autem est essential principle. So, every addition of
essentiale principium. Omnis igitur form makes another species and
formae additio facit aliam speciem another nature (as we are now speaking
et aliam naturam, sicut nunc of nature). If, then, the divinity of the
loquimur de natura. Si igitur Word be added to the human nature as
divinitas verbi addatur humanae a form, it will make another nature. And
naturae sicut forma, faciet aliam thus Christ will not be of the human
naturam. Et sic Christus non erit nature but of some other, just as an
humanae naturae, sed cuiusdam animated body is of another nature than
alterius: sicut corpus animatum est that which is body only.
alterius naturae quam id quod est
corpus tantum.
Adhuc. Ea quae non conveniunt in [12] Then, again, things which do not
natura, non sunt similia secundum agree in nature are not similar in
speciem, ut homo et equus. Si species; man and horse, for example.
autem natura Christi sit composita But, if Christ’s nature be a composite of
ex divina et humana, manifestum the divine and human, clearly Christ’s
est quod non erit natura Christi in nature will not be in other men.
aliis hominibus. Ergo non erit similis Therefore, He will not be similar to us in
nobis secundum speciem. Quod species. And this is contrary to the
est contra apostolum dicentem, Apostle’s word: “It behooved Him in all
Hebr. 217, quod debuit per omnia things to be made like unto His brethren”

fratribus assimilari. (Heb. 2:17).
Praeterea. Ex forma et materia [13] There is more. One species is
semper constituitur una species, always constituted of form and matter
quae est praedicabilis de pluribus which is actually or potentially
actu vel potentia, quantum est de predicable of many according to the
ratione speciei. Si igitur humanae essentials of the species. If, then, the
naturae divina natura quasi forma divine nature accrues to the human
adveniat, oportebit quod ex nature as a form, some common species
commixtione utriusque quaedam must spring from the mixture of the two,
communis species resultet, quae sit and in this many should be able to
a multis participabilis. Quod patet share. And this is plainly false. For there
esse falsum: non enim est nisi unus is but one Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 8:6), God
Iesus Christus, Deus et homo. Non and man. Therefore, the divine and
igitur divina et humana natura in human natures have not established
Christo constituerunt unam one nature in Christ.
naturam.
Amplius. Hoc etiam videtur a fide [14] Moreover, even this saying of
alienum esse quod Eutyches dixit, Eutyches seems foreign to the faith, that
ante unionem in Christo fuisse before the union there were two natures
duas naturas. Cum enim humana in Christ. For, since a human nature is
natura ex anima et corpore constituted of a soul and a body, it would
constituatur, sequeretur quod vel follow that the soul, or the body, or both
anima, vel corpus, aut utrumque, were in being before Christ’s
ante Christi incarnationem fuerint. incarnation. And this the points made
Quod per supra dicta patet esse above show to be false. This, then, is
falsum. Est igitur fidei contrarium contrary to the faith: to say that before
dicere quod ante unionem fuerint the union there were two natures in
duae naturae Christi, et post Christ and, after the union, one.
unionem una.
Caput 36 Chapter 36
De errore Macarii Antiocheni ON THE ERROR OF MACARIUS OF
ponentis unam tantum voluntatem ANTIOCH, WHO HOLDS THERE IS
in Christo BUT ONE WILL IN CHRIST
Fere autem in idem redire videtur et [1] Now, the position of Macarius of
Macarii Antiocheni positio, dicentis in Antioch seems to come to just about
Christo esse unam tantum the same thing. He says that in Christ
operationem et voluntatem. there is only one operation and will.
Cuiuslibet enim naturae est aliqua [2] Every nature, of course, has a
operatio propria: nam forma est proper operation of its own, for the
operationis principium, secundum form is the principle of operation, and
quam unaquaeque natura habet in accord with its form every nature
propriam speciem. Unde oportet has the species proper to it. Hence, as
quod, sicut diversarum naturarum of diverse natures there are diverse
sunt diversae formae, ita sint et forms, there must be also diverse
diversae actiones. Si igitur in Christo actions. If, then, in Christ there be one
sit una tantum actio, sequitur quod in action, it follows that there is in him but
eo sit una tantum natura: quod est one nature. This last belongs to the
Eutychianae haeresis. Relinquitur Eutychean heresy. We then conclude
igitur falsum esse quod in Christo sit that it is false to say there is but one
una tantum operatio. operation in Christ.
Item. In Christo est divina natura [3] Again. In Christ there is the perfect

perfecta, per quam consubstantialis divine nature by which He is
est patri; et humana natura perfecta, consubstantial with the Father, and a
secundum quam est unius speciei perfect human nature by which He is
nobiscum. Sed de perfectione one in species, with us. But the
divinae naturae est voluntatem perfection of the divine nature includes
habere, ut in primo ostensum est: having will (this was shown in Book I);
similiter etiam de perfectione similarly, also, the perfection of human
humanae naturae est quod habeat nature includes having a will by which
voluntatem, per quam est homo liberi a man has free choice. There must,
arbitrii. Oportet igitur in Christo esse then, be in Christ two wills.
duas voluntates.
Adhuc. Voluntas est una pars [4] The will, further, is one potential
potentialis animae humanae, sicut et part of the human soul, as the intellect
intellectus. Si igitur in Christo non fuit is. If, then, in Christ there was no other
alia voluntas praeter voluntatem will than the will of the Word, by an
verbi, pari ratione nec fuit in eo equal account there was no other
intellectus praeter intellectum verbi. intellect than the intellect of the Word.
Et sic redibit positio Apollinaris. Thus we return to the position of
Apollinaris.
Amplius. Si in Christo fuit tantum una [5] If, moreover, there was in Christ but
voluntas, oportet quod in eo fuerit one will, surely it was only the divine
solum voluntas divina: non enim will. For the divine will which the Word
verbum voluntatem divinam, quam had from eternity He could not lose.
ab aeterno habuit, amittere potuit. Ad But the divine will is unrelated to merit
voluntatem autem divinam non because he merits who is tending
pertinet mereri: quia meritum est toward perfection. Thus, then, Christ
alicuius in perfectionem tendentis. by His passion would have merited
Sic igitur Christus nihil, neque sibi nothing—whether for Himself, or for
neque nobis, sua passione us. The contrary of this is taught by the
meruisset. Cuius contrarium docet Apostle: “He was made obedient to the
apostolus, Philipp. 2, dicens: factus Father even unto death, for which
est obediens patri usque ad mortem, cause God also has exalted Him” (Phil.
propter quod et Deus exaltavit illum. 2:89).
Praeterea. Si in Christo voluntas [6] What is more, if there was no
humana non fuit, sequitur quod human will in Christ~ it follows that by

neque secundum naturam His assumed nature He had no free
assumptam liberi arbitrii fuerit: nam choice. So, then, Christ used to act not
secundum voluntatem est homo after the fashion of man, but after the
liberi arbitrii. Sic igitur non agebat manner of the other animals who lack
Christus homo ad modum hominis, free choice. Then, nothing in His acts
sed ad modum aliorum animalium, was virtuous or laudable, nothing a
quae libero arbitrio carent. Nihil igitur model for imitation by us. In vain, then,
in eius actibus virtuosum et he says in Matthew (11:29): “Learn of
laudabile, aut nobis imitandum, fuit. Me because I am meek, and humble of
Frustra igitur dicit, Matth. 1129: heart”; and in John (13:15): “I have
discite a me, quia mitis sum et given you an example, that as I have
humilis corde; et Ioan. 1315: done to you, so do you also.”
exemplum dedi vobis, ut
quemadmodum ego feci, ita et vos
faciatis.
Adhuc. In uno homine puro, quamvis [7] Again, in one who is pure man,

sit supposito unus, sunt tamen plures although he is one in supposit there
et appetitus et operationes, are many appetites and operations
secundum diversa naturalia principia. according to the diversity of natural
Nam secundum rationalem partem, principles. For in his rational part there
inest ei voluntas; secundum is will; in his sensitive, the irascible and
sensitivam, irascibilis et concupiscible appetites; and, further,
concupiscibilis; et rursus naturalis the natural appetite following on
appetitus consequens vires natural powers. In the same way he
naturales. Similiter autem et sees with the eye, bears with the ear,
secundum oculum videt, secundum steps with the foot, speaks with the
aurem audit, pede ambulat, lingua tongue, and understands with the
loquitur, et mente intelligit: quae sunt mind, and these are diverse
operationes diversae. Et hoc ideo operations. The case is such because
est, quia operationes non the operations are not multiplied
multiplicantur solum secundum according to diverse subjects operating
diversa subiecta operantia, sed only, but as well according to diverse
etiam secundum diversa principia principles by which one and the same
quibus unum et idem subiectum subject operates, and from which the
operatur, a quibus etiam operationes operations take their species. But the
speciem trahunt. Divina vero natura divine nature is much more removed
multo plus distat ab humana quam from human nature than the principles
naturalia principia humanae naturae of human nature are from one another.
ab invicem. Est igitur alia et alia Therefore, the will and operation of the
voluntas et operatio divinae et divine and the human nature in Christ
humanae naturae in Christo, licet are distinguished from one another,
ipse Christus sit in utraque natura although Christ Himself is one in each
unus. of the natures.
Item. Ex auctoritate Scripturae [8] Furthermore, Scriptural authority

manifeste ostenditur in Christo duas clearly shows that in Christ there were
voluntates fuisse. Dicit enim ipse, two wills. He Himself says: “I came
Ioan. 638: descendi de caelo non ut down from heaven, not to do My own

faciam voluntatem meam, sed will, but the will of Him that sent Me
voluntatem eius qui misit me, et (John 6:38); and again: “Not My will,
Lucae 2242: non mea voluntas, sed but Yours be done” (Luke 22:42). From
tua fiat; ex quibus patet quod in these words it is clear that there was in
Christo fuit quaedam voluntas Christ another will apart from the will of
propria eius, praeter voluntatem the Father. But clearly, there was in
patris. Manifestum est autem quod in Him a will common to Him and the
eo fuit voluntas quaedam communis Father. For, just as the Father’s and
sibi et patri: patris enim et filii, sicut the Son’s nature is one, so also is their
est una natura, ita etiam est una will. Therefore, there are two wills in
voluntas. Sunt igitur in Christo duae Christ.
voluntates.
Idem autem et de operationibus [9] But this is as clear of their
patet. Fuit enim in Christo una operations. For in Christ there was an
operatio sibi et patri communis, cum operation common to Him and the
ipse dicat, Ioan. 519: quaecumque Father, for He says: “Whatever the
pater facit haec et similiter filius facit. Father does the Son does likewise”
Est autem in eo et alia operatio, (John 5:19). But there is another
quae non convenit patri, ut dormire, operation in Him which is not proper to
esurire, comedere, et alia huiusmodi, the Father: to sleep, for example, to be
quae Christus humanitus fecit vel thirsty, to eat, and others of this sort
passus est, ut Evangelistae tradunt. which Christ made man did or
Non igitur fuit in Christo una tantum suffered; so the Evangelists tell us.
operatio. Therefore, there was not one
operation.
Videtur autem haec positio ortum [10] Now, the present position seems
habuisse ex hoc quod eius auctores to have had its rise in this: its authors
nescierunt distinguere inter id quod did not know how to distinguish
est simpliciter unum, et ordine unum. between what is simply one, and what
Viderunt enim voluntatem humanam is one by order. For they saw the
in Christo omnino sub voluntate human will in Christ ordered entirely
divina ordinatam fuisse, ita quod nihil beneath the divine will, so that Christ
voluntate humana Christus voluit nisi willed nothing with His human will
quod eum velle voluntas divina except that which the divine will
disposuit. Similiter etiam nihil disposed Him to will. In like manner,
Christus secundum humanam also, Christ did nothing in His human
naturam operatus est, vel agendo vel nature, whether by acting or by
patiendo, nisi quod voluntas divina suffering, except as the divine will
disposuit: secundum illud Ioan. 829: disposed; hence we read: “I do always
quae placita sunt ei, facio semper. the things that please Him” (John
Humana etiam operatio Christi 8:29). The human operation of Christ,
quandam efficaciam divinam ex also, achieved a kind of divine efficacy
unione divinitatis consequebatur, by union with the divinity, just as the
sicut actio secundarii agentis action of a secondary agent achieves a
consequitur efficaciam quandam ex kind of efficacy from the principal
principali agente: et ex hoc contigit agent; and this resulted: every action
quod quaelibet eius actio vel passio or suffering of Hit was salutary. For this
fuit salubris. Propter quod Dionysius reason Dionysius calls the human
humanam Christi operationem vocat operation of Christ “theandric,” that is,
theandricam, idest deivirilem; et “Godmannish”; and also because it is
etiam quia est Dei et hominis. of God and a man. So, those men,
Videntes igitur humanam voluntatem seeing the human operation and will of
et operationem Christi sub divina Christ ordered beneath the divine in an
ordinari infallibili ordine, iudicaverunt infallible order, decided that there was
in Christo esse tantum voluntatem et in Christ only one will and operation,
operationem unam; quamvis non sit although there is no identity (as was
idem, ut dictum est, ordinis unum et said) between one by order and one
simpliciter unum. simply.
Caput 37 Chapter 37
Contra eos qui dixerunt ex anima AGAINST THOSE WHO SAID THAT
et corpore non esse aliquid THE SOUL AND BODY DO NOT
unum constitutum in Christo CONSTITUTE A UNITY IN CHRIST
Ex praemissis igitur manifestum est [1] From the foregoing it is clear that

quod in Christo est tantum una there is only one Person in Christ as the
persona, secundum fidei faith maintains; and that there are two
assertionem, et duae naturae, natures, contrarily to what Nestorius and
contra id quod Nestorius et Eutyches held. Yet this appears foreign
Eutyches posuerunt. Sed quia hoc to what natural reason experiences, and
alienum videtur ab his quae therefore there were some later on who
naturalis ratio experitur, fuerunt took a position on this union such as the
quidam posteriores talem de unione following. The soul and body union
positionem asserentes. Quia enim constitutes a man, but the union of this
ex unione animae et corporis soul and this body constitutes this man.
constituitur homo, sed ex hac And this is the designation of person or
anima et ex hoc corpore hic homo, hypostasis. Wishing, then, to avoid
quod hypostasim et personam being pushed into asserting in Christ
designat, volentes evitare ne some hypostasis or person other than
cogerentur in Christo ponere the hypostasis or Person of the Word,
aliquam hypostasim vel personam these men said that the soul and body
praeter hypostasim vel personam were not united in Christ, nor was a
verbi, dixerunt quod anima et substance made from them. In saying
corpus non fuerunt unita in Christo, this they were trying to avoid the
nec ex eis aliqua substantia facta Nestorian heresy. This also seemed
est, et per hoc Nestorii haeresim impossible: that one thing be substantial
vitare volebant. Rursus, quia hoc to another, yet not be of the nature
impossibile videtur quod aliquid sit which that other previously had, without
substantiale alicui et non sit de any mutation taking place; and the
natura eius quam prius habuit, Word, of course, is entirely immutable.
absque mutatione ipsius; verbum Therefore, lest they be forced to make
autem omnino immutabile est: ne the assumed soul and body belong to
cogerentur ponere animam et the nature which the Word had eternally,
corpus assumpta pertinere ad they laid it down that the Word assumed
naturam verbi quam habuit ab the human soul and body in an
aeterno, posuerunt quod verbum accidental fashion, just as a man puts
assumpsit animam humanam et on his clothes. By this they wished to
corpus modo accidentali, sicut exclude the error of Eutyches.
homo assumit indumentum; per hoc
errorem Eutychetis excludere
volentes.
Sed haec positio omnino doctrinae [2] But this position is entirely repugnant

fidei repugnat. Anima enim et to the teaching of the faith. For a soul
corpus sua unione hominem and body by their union constitute a
constituunt: forma enim materiae man, since a form which accrues to
adveniens speciem constituit. Si matter constitutes a species. If, then,
igitur anima et corpus non fuerint soul and body were not united in Christ,
unita in Christo, Christus non fuit Christ was not a man. This goes against
homo: contra apostolum dicentem I the Apostle’s words: The mediator of
ad Tim. 25: mediator Dei et God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1
hominum homo Christus Iesus. Tim. 2:5).
Item. Unusquisque nostrum ea [3] Again, everyone of us is said to be a

ratione homo dicitur quia est ex man on this account that he is
anima rationali et corpore constituted of a rational soul and a body.
constitutus. Si igitur Christus non ea But, if Christ is not called man on that
ratione dicitur homo, sed solum account but only because He had a soul
quia habuit animam et corpus licet and a body, although not united, He will
non unita, aequivoce dicetur homo, be called man equivocally and will not
et non erit eiusdem speciei be in the same species with us. This is
nobiscum: contra apostolum against the Apostle’s words: “It
dicentem, Hebr. 217, quod debuit behooved Him in all things to be made
per omnia fratribus assimilari. like unto His brethren” (Heb. 2:17).
Adhuc. Non omne corpus pertinet [4] Furthermore, not every body belongs

ad humanam naturam, sed solum to human nature, but the human body
corpus humanum. Non est autem alone. Of course, it is not a human body
corpus humanum nisi quod est per except for the fact that it has been
unionem animae rationalis vivified by union with the rational soul.
vivificatum: neque enim oculus, aut For one says neither eye, nor hand, nor
manus, aut pes, vel caro et os, foot, nor flesh, nor bone—with the soul
anima separata, dicuntur nisi gone—except by equivocation.
aequivoce. Non igitur poterit dici Therefore, one will not be able to say
quod verbum assumpsit naturam that the Word assumed human nature if
humanam, si corpus animae non He did not assume a body united to a
unitum assumpsit. soul.
Amplius. Anima humana naturaliter [5] What is more, the human soul by its

unibilis est corpori. Anima igitur nature has a capacity for union with the
quae nunquam corpori unitur ad body. Therefore, a soul which is never
aliquid constituendum, non est united to a body to constitute something
anima humana: quia quod est is not a human soul, for “what is apart
praeter naturam, non potest esse from nature can never be.” If then, the
semper. Si igitur anima Christi non soul of Christ is not united to His body to
est unita corpori eius ad aliquid constitute something, we conclude that
constituendum, relinquitur quod non it is not a human soul. And, thus, in
sit anima humana. Et sic in Christo Christ there was no human nature.
non fuit humana natura.
Praeterea. Si verbum unitum est [6] There is more. If the Word was
animae et corpori accidentaliter united to the soul and body accidentally,
sicut indumento, natura humana as one is to clothing, the human nature
non fuit natura verbi. Verbum igitur, was not the nature of the Word. Then
post unionem, non fuit subsistens in the Word, after the union, was not
duabus naturis: sicut neque homo subsisting in two natures; just as a man
indutus dicitur in duabus naturis in his clothing is not said to subsist in
subsistere. Quod quia Eutyches two natures. It was for saying this that
dixit, in Chalcedonensi synodo est Eutyches was condemned at the
damnatus. Council of Chalcedon.
Item. Indumenti passio non refertur [7] Again, what the clothes suffer is not
ad indutum: non enim dicitur homo referred to the wearer. One does not
nasci quando induitur, neque say a man is born when he is dressed,
vulnerari si vestimentum laceretur. nor wounded if his clothes are torn. If
Si igitur verbum assumpsit animam the Word, then, took on a soul and a
et corpus sicut homo indumentum, body, as a man does his clothes, no one
non poterit dici quod Deus sit natus will be able to say that God was born, or
aut passus propter corpus that He suffered by reason of the body
assumptum. He assumed.
Adhuc. Si verbum assumpsit [8] If the Word, moreover, assumed
humanam naturam solum ut human nature only as a garment in
indumentum, quo posset hominum which to be apparent to the eyes of
oculis apparere, frustra animam men, He would have assumed the soul
assumpsisset, quae secundum in vain. This by its nature is invisible.
suam naturam invisibilis est.
Amplius. Secundum hoc non aliter [9] Furthermore, in this fashion the
assumpsisset filius carnem Son’s assumption of the flesh would not
humanam quam spiritus sanctus have differed from the Holy Spirit’s
columbae speciem in qua apparuit. assumption of the form of a dove in
Quod patet esse falsum: nam which He appeared (Mat. 3:16). And this
spiritus sanctus non dicitur factus is plainly false. For one does not say the
columba, neque minor patre, sicut Holy Spirit has “become dove” or is
filius dicitur factus homo, et minor “less than the Father,” as one says that
patre secundum naturam the Son “has become man” and is less
assumptam. than the Father in the nature, assumed
(John 14:28).
Item. Si quis diligenter consideret [10] Again, when it is earnestly weighed,

ad hanc positionem diversarum the awkwardness of a diversity of

haeresum inconvenientia heresies follows on this position. For in
sequuntur. Ex eo enim quod dicit saying that the Son of God is united to
filium Dei unitum animae et carni the soul and the flesh in an accidental
accidentali modo, sicut hominem mode as a man is to his garments, it
vestimento, convenit cum opinione agrees with the opinion of Nestorius,
Nestorii, qui secundum who claimed the union took place by the
inhabitationem Dei verbi in homine indwelling of God’s Word in a man.
unionem esse factam asseruit: non God’s being clothed, of course, cannot
enim Deum esse indutum potest be understood through bodily touch but
intelligi per tactum corporeum, sed only through indwelling grace. And in
solum per gratiam inhabitantem. Ex saying that the union of the Word to the
hoc etiam quod dixit accidentalem soul and human flesh was accidental,
unionem verbi ad animam et one must be saying that the Word after
carnem humanam, sequitur quod the union was not subsistent in two
verbum post unionem non fuit natures. And this Eutyches said. For
subsistens in duabus naturis, quod nothing subsists in that to which it is
Eutyches dixit: nihil enim subsistit in accidentally united. But, when this
eo quod sibi accidentaliter unitur. position says that the soul and body are
Ex eo vero quod dicit animam et not united to constitute something, it
carnem non uniri ad aliquid partially agrees with Arius and
constituendum convenit partim Apollinaris: they held that the body of
quidem cum Ario et Apollinari, qui Christ was not animated by the rational
posuerunt corpus Christi non soul; and it partially agrees with Mani:
animatum anima rationali; et partim he held that Christ was not true man,
cum Manichaeo, qui posuit but a phantasy only. For, if the soul is
Christum non verum hominem, sed not united to the flesh for the
phantasticum fuisse. Si enim anima constitution of something, it was but
non est unita carni ad alicuius phantasy when Christ appeared similar
constitutionem, phantasticum erat to other men constituted by the union of
quod videbatur Christus similis aliis soul and body.
hominibus ex unione animae et
corporis constitutis.
Sumpsit autem haec positio [11] This position, of course, had as its
occasionem ex verbo apostoli occasion the words of the Apostle: “In
dicentis, Philipp. 27: habitu habit found as a man” (Phil. 2:70). They
inventus ut homo. Non enim did not understand that this was said
intellexerunt hoc secundum metaphorically. But things said
metaphoram dici. Quae autem metaphorically need not be similar in
metaphorice dicuntur, non oportet every respect. So, the human nature
secundum omnia similia esse. assumed by the Word has a kind of
Habet igitur natura humana likeness to clothing, in that the Word
assumpta quandam indumenti was seen in His visible flesh just as a
similitudinem, inquantum verbum man is seen in his clothing; but the
per carnem visibilem videbatur, likeness is not in this, that the union of
sicut homo videtur per indumentum: the Word to human nature in Christ was
non autem quantum ad hoc quod in an accidental mode.
unio verbi ad humanam naturam in
Christo fuerit modo accidentali.
Caput 38 Chapter 38
Contra eos qui ponunt duo AGAINST THOSE WHO PUT TWO
supposita vel duas hypostases SUPPOSITS OR HYPOSTASES IN THE
in una persona Christi ONE PERSON OF CHRIST
Hanc igitur positionem, propter [1] Others, indeed, have avoided this
praedicta inconvenientia, alii position by reason of the awkwardness
quidem vitantes, posuerunt ex described above. They have held that
anima et carne in domino Iesu soul and flesh in our Lord Jesus Christ
Christo unam substantiam constitutes one substance, namely, a
constitutam esse, scilicet hominem certain man of the same species as
quendam eiusdem speciei aliis other men. They call this man united to
hominibus; quem quidem hominem the Word of God, not in nature, indeed,
unitum dicunt verbo Dei, non but in person, so that there is one person
quidem in natura, sed in persona, of the Word of God and of that man. But,
ut scilicet sit una persona verbi Dei since that man is a kind of individual
et illius hominis; sed quia homo ille substance—and this is to be an
quaedam individua substantia est, hypostasis and supposit—some say that
quod est esse hypostasim et in Christ the hypostasis and supposit of
suppositum, dicunt quidam in that man is one and that of the Word of
Christo aliam esse hypostasim et God another, but that there is one
suppositum illius hominis et verbi person of each of the two. On account of
Dei, sed unam personam this unity, the Word of God, as they say,
utriusque; ratione cuius unitatis is predicated of that man and that man of
dicunt verbum Dei de homine illo the Word of God. This sense results:
praedicari, et hominem illum de Dei “The Word of God is man,” and that is:
verbo; ut sit sensus, verbum Dei “The person of the Word of God is the
est homo, idest, persona verbi Dei person of the man,” and conversely. And
est persona hominis, et e in this account whatever is predicated of
converso; et hac ratione, quicquid the Word of God is, they say, able to be
de verbo Dei praedicatur, dicunt de predicated of that man; and, conversely,
homine illo posse praedicari, et e although with a kind of reduplication, so
converso, cum quadam tamen that when it is said “God has suffered,”
replicatione, ut, cum dicitur, Deus the sense is “A man who is God by unity
est passus, sit sensus, homo, qui of person has suffered,” and “A man
est Deus propter unitatem created the stars” means “He who is
personae, est passus; et, homo man.”
creavit stellas, idest, ille qui est
homo.
Sed haec positio de necessitate in [2] But, of necessity, this position lapses

errorem Nestorii delabitur. Si enim into the error of Nestorius. For, if the
differentia personae et hypostasis difference of person and hypostasis be
attendatur, invenitur persona esse marked, one finds that person is not
non alienum ab hypostasi, sed foreign to hypostasis, but a kind of part
quaedam pars eius. Nihil enim of hypostasis. For a person is nothing
aliud est persona quam hypostasis else than a hypostasis of a certain
talis naturae scilicet rationalis: nature; namely, rational. This is clear
quod patet ex definitione Boetii from Boethius’ definition: “person is the
dicentis quod persona est rationalis individual substance of a rational
naturae individua substantia: ex nature.” Clearly, then, although not every
quo patet quod, licet non omnis hypostasis is a person, every hypostasis
hypostasis sit persona, omnis of human nature is, nonetheless, a
tamen hypostasis humanae person. If, therefore, from the mere
naturae persona est. Si igitur ex union of soul and body in Christ there is
sola unione animae et corporis constituted a certain particular substance
constituta est in Christo quaedam which is the hypostasis—namely, that
substantia particularis quae est man—it follows that from the same union
hypostasis, scilicet ille homo, a person is constituted. There will be,
sequitur quod ex eadem unione sit then, in Christ two persons: one, and
constituta persona. Sic igitur in newly constituted, of that man; the other,
Christo erunt duae personae, una eternal, of the Word of God. And this
illius hominis de novo constituta, et belongs to the Nestorian impiety.
alia aeterna verbi Dei. Quod est
Nestorianae impietatis.
Item. Etsi hypostasis illius hominis [3] Again, even if the hypostasis of that
non posset dici persona, tamen man could not be called a person, the
idem est hypostasis verbi Dei quod hypostasis of the Word of God is
persona. Si igitur hypostasis verbi nonetheless the same as His Person. If,
Dei non est illius hominis, neque therefore, the hypostasis of the Word of
etiam persona verbi Dei erit God is not that of the man, neither will
persona illius hominis. Et sic the Person Of the Word of God be the
falsum erit quod dicunt, quod person of the man. This will falsify their
persona illius hominis est persona own assertion that the person of that
verbi Dei. man is the Person of the Word of God.
Adhuc. Dato quod persona esset [4] If one were to grant, further, that
aliud ab hypostasi verbi Dei vel person is other than the hypostasis of
hominis, non posset alia differentia God’s Word or of the man, one could
inveniri nisi quod persona supra find no difference save one: person adds
hypostasim addit proprietatem some property to hypostasis. Nothing, of
aliquam: nihil enim ad genus course, pertaining to the genus of
substantiae pertinens addere substance can he added, since
potest, cum hypostasis sit hypostasis is the most complete thing in
completissimum in genere the genus of substance, and it is called
substantiae, quod dicitur substantia “first substance.” If, then, the union is
prima. Si igitur unio facta est made in person and not in hypostasis, it
secundum personam et non follows that the union takes place only
secundum hypostasim, sequitur according to some accidental property.
quod non sit facta unio nisi This, too, comes again back to the error
secundum aliquam proprietatem of Nestorius.
accidentalem. Quod iterum redit in
errorem Nestorii.
Amplius. Cyrillus dicit, in epistola [5] Cyril, moreover, in his letter to
ad Nestorium, quae est in Nestorius approved by the Council of
Ephesina synodo approbata: si Ephesus, has this to say: “If anyone
quis non confitetur carni secundum does not confess that the Word from the
subsistentiam unitum ex Deo patre Father is united to the flesh in
verbum, unumque esse Christum subsistence, that Christ is one with his
cum sua carne, eundem videlicet flesh, that is to say, that the same one is
Deum simul et hominem, God and man at the same time, let him
anathema sit. Et fere ubique in be anathema.” And almost everywhere
synodalibus scriptis hoc errori in the synodal writings this is assigned
Nestorii deputatur, qui posuit duas as the error of Nestorius, who put two
in Christo hypostases. hypostases in Christ.
Praeterea. Damascenus, in III libro, [6] Damascene, moreover, in Book III,

dicit: ex duabus naturis perfectis says: “It was from a two perfect natures,
dicimus esse factam unionem: non we say, that the union took place, and
secundum prosopicam, idest not in a prosopic,” that is, personal way,
personalem, ut Dei inimicus dicit “as God’s enemy Nestorius says, but
Nestorius, sed secundum according to the hypostasis.” Thus,
hypostasim. Unde patet expresse clearly and expressly, this was the
quod haec fuit positio Nestorii, position of Nestorius: to confess one
confiteri unam personam et duas person and two hypostases.
hypostases.
Item. Hypostasis et suppositum [7] Again, hypostasis and supposit must

oportet idem esse. Nam de prima be identified. Everything else is
substantia, quae est hypostasis, predicated of the first substance, which
omnia alia praedicantur: scilicet et is the hypostasis: namely, the universals
universalia in genere substantiae, in the genus of substance as well as
et accidentia, secundum accidents, as the Philosopher says in his
philosophum in praedicamentis. Si Categories [3]. If, therefore, there are not
igitur in Christo non sunt duae two hypostases in Christ, neither are
hypostases, per consequens there two supposits.
neque duo supposita.
Adhuc. Si verbum et homo ille [8] If the Word and that man,
supposito differunt, oportet quod, furthermore, differ in supposit, it must be
supposito homine illo, non that when that man is supposed the
supponatur verbum Dei, nec e Word of God is not supposed, nor is the
converso. Sed distinctis suppositis, converse true. But, if the supposits are
necesse est et ea quae de ipsis distinct, what is said of them must be
dicuntur, distingui: nam supposito distinguished, for the divine predicates
hominis non conveniunt praedicta mentioned are disproportionate to the
praedicata divina nisi propter man’s supposit except by reason of the
verbum, neque e converso. Word; and the converse is true.
Separatim igitur accipienda erunt Therefore, one must take separately the
quae de Christo in Scripturis things said of Christ in Scripture; namely,
dicuntur, divina scilicet et humana: the divine and the human. And this is
quod est contra sententiam Cyrilli, contrary to the opinion of Cyril confirmed
in synodo confirmatam, dicentis: si by the Synod: “If one divides between
quis personis duabus vel two persons or subsistences the words
subsistentiis vel eas quae sunt in said in the evangelical and apostolic
evangelicis et apostolicis Scripturis Scriptures—whether they be said about
impertit voces, aut de Christo a Christ by the saints, or by Him about
sanctis dictas, aut ab ipso de se; et Himself, and marks off some of them,
quasdam quidem velut homini indeed, as for a man especially
praeter illud ex Deo verbum understood alongside that Word from
specialiter intellecto applicat, God, and marks off others as capable of
quasdam vero velut Deo decibiles, being said by God, for that Word from
soli ex Deo patre verbo, anathema God the Father alone: let him be
sit. anathema.”
Amplius. Secundum positionem [9] Moreover, in the position described,

praedictam, ea quae verbo Dei things proportioned to the Word of God
conveniunt per naturam, de illo by nature would not be said of that man
homine non dicerentur nisi per except by a certain association in one
quandam associationem in una person; this is what the interposed
persona: hoc enim significat reduplication means when they expound
replicatio interposita cum sic thus: “That man created the stars,” that
exponunt, homo ille creavit stellas, is, “the Son of God, who is that man,”
idest, filius Dei, qui est homo ille, et and similarly with others of that sort.
similiter de aliis huiusmodi. Unde, Hence, when one says: “That man is
cum dicitur, homo ille est Deus, sic God,” one understands it thus: “That
intelligitur: homo ille verbo Deus man exists by the Word of God.” But it is
existit. Huiusmodi autem locutiones this kind of expression that Cyril
condemnat Cyrillus, dicens: si quis condemns when he says: “If anyone
audet dicere assumptum hominem dares to say that the man assumed
coadorari oportere Dei verbo, ought to be coadored with God’s Word,
conglorificari, et coappellari Deum, coglorified, and conamed God, a
quasi alterum alteri (id enim quod second of two with the first, so to speak
est co semper quoties additur hoc (for that is what “co” forces us to
intelligi cogit); et non magis una understand as often as it is added), and
adoratione honorificat Emanuelem, does not honor Emmanuel with one
et unam ei glorificationem adhibet, adoration and offer Him one glorification,
secundum quod factum est caro inasmuch as the Word was made flesh;
verbum: anathema sit. let him be anathema.”
Praeterea. Si homo ille supposito [10] There is more. If that man is other
est aliud a Dei verbo, non potest ad than the Word in supposit, he cannot
personam verbi pertinere nisi per belong to the person of the Word except
assumptionem qua assumptus est by the assumption by which He was
a verbo. Sed hoc est alienum a assumed by the Word. But this is foreign
recto sensu fidei. Dicitur enim in to a correct understanding of the faith,
Ephesina synodo, ex verbis Felicis for the Council of Ephesus says in the
Papae et martyris: credimus in words of Felix, Pope and martyr: “We
Deum nostrum Iesum de virgine believe in God our Jesus, born of the
Maria natum, quia ipse est Dei Virgin Mary: that He is God’s everlasting
sempiternus filius et verbum, et Son and Word, and not a an assumed by
non homo a Deo assumptus, ut God so that there is another beside Him.
alter sit praeter illum. Neque enim Nor did God’s Son assume a man that
hominem assumpsit Dei filius, ut sit there be another beside Him; but the
alter praeter ipsum: sed Deus perfect existing God was made at the
existens perfectus, factus simul et same time perfect man, made flesh of
homo perfectus, incarnatus de the Virgin.”
virgine.
Item. Quae sunt plura supposito, [11] Again, things which are many in
simpliciter plura sunt, nec sunt supposit are many simply, and they are
unum nisi secundum quid. Si igitur but incidentally one. If, then, in Christ
in Christo sunt duo supposita, there are two supposits, it follows that
sequitur quod sit simpliciter duo, et He is two simply and not incidentally.
non secundum quid. Quod est And this is “to dissolve Jesus” (1 John
solvere Iesum: quia unumquodque 4:3), for everything, in so far as it is, is
intantum est inquantum unum est; one.”
quod igitur non est simpliciter
unum, non est simpliciter ens.
Caput 39 Chapter 39
Quid Catholica fides sentiat de WHAT THE CATHOLIC FAITH HOLDS
incarnatione Christi ABOUT THE INCARNATION OF
CHRIST
Ex supra dictis igitur manifestum est [1] From what has been set down

quod, secundum Catholicae fidei above it is clear that according to the
traditionem, oportet dicere quod in tradition of the Catholic faith we must
Christo sit natura divina perfecta et say that in Christ there is a perfect
humana natura perfecta, ex anima divine nature and a perfect human
scilicet rationali et humana carne nature, constituted by a rational soul
constituta; et quod hae duae and human flesh; and that these two
naturae unitae sunt in Christo non natures are united in Christ not by
per solam inhabitationem; neque indwelling only, nor in an accidental
accidentali modo, ut homo unitur mode, as a man is united to his
vestimento; neque in sola personali garments, nor in a personal relation and
habitudine et proprietate; sed property only, but in one hypostasis and
secundum unam hypostasim et one supposit. Only in this way can we
suppositum unum. Hoc enim solum save what the Scriptures hand on about
modo salvari possunt ea quae in the Incarnation. Since, then, sacred
Scripturis circa incarnationem Scripture without distinction attributes
traduntur. Cum enim Scriptura sacra the things of God to that man, and the
indistincte quae sunt Dei homini illi things of that man to God (as is plain
attribuat, et quae sunt illius hominis from the foregoing), He of whom each
Deo, ut ex praemissis patet; oportet class is said must be one and the
unum et eundem esse de quo same.
utraque dicantur.
Sed quia opposita de eodem [2] But opposites cannot be said truly of

secundum idem dici vere non the same thing in the same way: the
possunt; divina autem et humana divine and human things said of Christ
quae de Christo dicuntur, are, of course, in opposition, suffering
oppositionem habent, utpote and incapable of suffering, for example,
passum et impassibile, mortuum et or dead and immortal, and the
immortale, et cetera huiusmodi; remainder of this kind; therefore, it is
necesse est quod secundum aliud necessarily in different ways that the
et aliud divina et humana divine and the human are predicated of
praedicentur de Christo. Sic igitur Christ. So, then, with respect to the
quantum ad id de quo utraque “about which” each class is predicated
praedicantur, non est distinctio no distinction must be made, but unity
facienda, sed invenitur unitas. is discovered. But with respect to what
Quantum autem ad id secundum is predicated, a distinction must be
quod praedicantur, distinctio est made. Natural properties, of course, are
facienda. Naturales autem predicated of everything according to its
proprietates praedicantur de nature; thus to be home downward is
unoquoque secundum eius predicated of this stone consequently
naturam: sicut de hoc lapide ferri on its nature as heavy. Since, then,
deorsum secundum naturam there are different ways of predicating
gravitatis. Cum igitur aliud et aliud things human and divine of Christ one
sit secundum quod divina et must say there are in Christ two natures
humana praedicantur de Christo, neither confused nor mixed. But that
necesse est dicere in Christo esse about which one predicates natural
duas naturas inconfusas et properties consequently on the proper
impermixtas. Id autem de quo nature pertaining to the genus of
praedicantur proprietates naturales substance is the hypostasis and
secundum naturam propriam ad supposit of that nature. Since, then, that
genus substantiae pertinentem, est is not distinct and is one about which
hypostasis et suppositum illius one predicates things divine and human
naturae. Quia igitur indistinctum est concerning Christ, one must say that
et unum id de quo humana et divina Christ is one hypostasis and one
praedicantur circa Christum, supposit of a human and a divine
necesse est dicere Christum esse nature. For thus truly and properly will
unam hypostasim et unum things divine be predicated of that man
suppositum humanae et divinae in accord with the fact that the man
naturae. Sic enim vere et proprie de bears the supposit not only of the
homine illo praedicabuntur divina, human but of the divine nature;
secundum hoc quod homo ille conversely, one predicates things
importat suppositum non solum human of God’s Word in that He is the
humanae naturae, sed divinae: et e supposit of the human nature.
converso de verbo Dei praedicantur
humana inquantum est suppositum
humanae naturae.
Ex quo etiam patet quod, licet filius [3] It is clear also from this that,
sit incarnatus, non tamen oportet although the Son is incarnate, neither
neque patrem neque spiritum the Father nor the Holy Spirit, for all
sanctum esse incarnatum: cum that, need be incarnate, since the
incarnatio non sit facta secundum Incarnation did not take Place by a
unionem in natura, in qua tres union in the nature in which the three
personae divinae conveniunt, sed divine Persons are tog . ether, but in
secundum hypostasim et hypostasis or supposit, wherein the

suppositum, prout tres personae three Persons are distinguished. And
distinguuntur. Et sic, sicut in thus, as in the Trinity there is a plurality
Trinitate sunt plures personae of Persons subsisting in one nature, so
subsistentes in una natura, ita in in the mystery of the Incarnation there
mysterio incarnationis est una is one Person subsisting in a plurality of
persona subsistens in pluribus natures.
naturis.
Caput 40 Chapter 40
Obiectiones contra fidem OBJECTIONS AGAINST FAITH IN
incarnationis THE INCARNATION
Sed contra hanc Catholicae fidei [1] But against this statement of the
sententiam, plures difficultates Catholic faith many difficulties come
concurrunt, propter quas adversarii together, and by reason of these the
fidei incarnationem impugnant. adversaries of the faith attack the
Incarnation.
Ostensum est enim in primo libro [2] We showed in Book I that God is
quod Deus neque corpus est, neque neither a body nor a power in a body.
virtus in corpore. Si autem carnem But, if He assumed flesh, it follows
assumpsit, sequitur quod vel sit either that He was changed into a body
mutatus in corpus, vel quod sit or that He was a power in a body after
virtus in corpore, post the Incarnation. It seems, then,
incarnationem. Impossibile igitur impossible that God was incarnate.
videtur Deum fuisse incarnatum.
Item. Omne quod acquirit novam [3] Again, whatever acquires a new
naturam, est substantiali mutationi nature is subject to substantial change;
subiectum: secundum hoc enim for in this is a thing generated, that it
aliquid generatur, quod naturam acquires a nature. Then, if the
aliquam acquirit. Si igitur hypostasis hypostasis of the Son of God becomes
filii Dei fiat de novo subsistens in a subsistent anew in human nature, it
natura humana, videtur quod esset appears that it was substantially
substantialiter mutata. changed.
Adhuc. Nulla hypostasis alicuius [4] Furthermore, no hypostasis of a

naturae extenditur extra naturam nature extends outside that nature;
illam: quin potius natura invenitur rather, indeed, the nature is found
extra hypostasim, utpote multas outside the hypostasis, since there are
hypostases sub se habens. Si igitur many hypostases under the nature. If,
hypostasis filii Dei sit per then, the hypostasis of the Son of God
incarnationem facta hypostasis becomes by the Incarnation the
humanae naturae, sequitur quod hypostasis of a human nature, the Son
filius Dei non sit ubique post of God—one must conclude—is not
incarnationem: cum humana natura everywhere after the Incarnation, since
ubique non sit. the human nature is not everywhere.
Amplius. Rei unius et eiusdem non [5] Once again; one and the same thing

est nisi unum quod quid est: hoc has only one whatitis, for by this one
enim significat substantiam rei, means a thing’s substance and of one
quae unius una est. Sed natura there is but one. But the nature of any
cuiuslibet rei est quod quid est eius: thing at all is its whatitis, “for the
natura enim rei est quam significat nature of a thing is what the definition
definitio. Impossibile est igitur, ut signifies.” It seems impossible, then,
videtur, quod una hypostasis in that one hypostasis subsist in two
duabus naturis subsistat. natures.
Praeterea. In his quae sunt sine [6] Furthermore, in things which are
materia, non potest esse aliud without matter, the quiddity of a thing is
quidditas rei et res, ut supra not other than the thing, as was shown
ostensum est. Et hoc praecipue est above. And this is especially the case in
in Deo, qui est non solum sua God, who is not only His own quiddity,
quidditas, sed etiam suum esse. but also His own act of being. But
Sed humana natura non potest esse human nature cannot be identified with
idem quod divina hypostasis. Ergo a divine hypostasis. There, fore, it
impossibile esse videtur quod divina seems impossible that a divine
hypostasis subsistat in humana hypostasis subsist in human nature.
natura.
Item. Natura est simplicior et [7] Once again; a nature is more simple

formalior hypostasi quae in ea and more formal than the hypostasis
subsistit: nam per additionem which subsists therein, for it is by the
alicuius materialis natura communis addition of something material that the
individuatur ad hanc hypostasim. Si common nature is individuated to this
igitur divina hypostasis subsistat in hypostasis. If, then, a divine hypostasis
humana natura, videtur sequi quod subsists in human nature, it seems to
humana natura sit simplicior et follow that human nature is more simple
formalior quam divina hypostasis. and more formal than a divine
Quod est omnino impossibile. hypostasis. And this is altogether
impossible.
Adhuc. In his solum quae sunt ex [8] It is, furthermore, only in matter and

materia et forma composita, differre form composites that one finds a
invenitur singulare et quidditas eius: difference between the singular thing
ex eo quod singulare est and its quiddity. This is because the
individuatum per materiam singular is individuated by designated
designatam, quae in quidditate et matter, and in the quiddity and nature of
natura speciei non includitur; in the species the latter is not included.
signatione enim Socratis includitur For, in marking off Socrates, one
haec materia, non autem in ratione includes this matter, but one does not in
humanae naturae. Omnis igitur his account of human nature. Therefore,
hypostasis in natura humana every hypostasis subsisting in human
subsistens est constituta per nature is constituted by signate matter.
materiam signatam. Quod de divina This cannot be said of the divine

hypostasi dici non potest. Non est hypostasis. So, it does not seem
igitur possibile, ut videtur, quod possible that the hypostasis of God’s
hypostasis verbi Dei subsistat in Word subsist in human nature.
humana natura.
Amplius. Anima et corpus in Christo [9] Furthermore, the soul and body in

non fuerunt minoris virtutis quam in Christ were not less in power than in
aliis hominibus. Sed in aliis other men. But in other men their union
hominibus ex sua unione constitutes a supposit an hypostasis,
constituunt suppositum, hypostasim and a person. Therefore, in Christ the
et personam. Igitur in Christo ex union of soul and body constitutes a
unione animae et corporis supposit, hypostasis, and person of the
constituitur suppositum, hypostasis Word of God; this is eternal. Therefore
et persona. Non autem suppositum, in Christ there is another supposit,
hypostasis et persona Dei verbi, hypostasis, and person beside the
quae est aeterna. Igitur in Christo supposit, hypostasis, and person of the
est aliud suppositum, hypostasis et Word of God. Or so it seems.
persona, praeter suppositum,
hypostasim et personam Dei verbi,
ut videtur.
Praeterea. Sicut ex anima et [10] There is more. Just as soul and
corpore constituitur humana natura body constitute human nature in
in communi, ita ex hac anima et ex common, so this soul and this body
hoc corpore constituitur hic homo, constitute this man, and this is the
quod est hypostasis hominis. Sed in hypostasis of a man. But this soul and
Christo fuit haec anima et hoc this body were in Christ. Therefore, their
corpus. Igitur ex eorum unione union constitutes an hypostasis, it
constituta est hypostasis, ut videtur. seems. And we conclude exactly as
Et sic idem quod prius. before.
Item. Hic homo qui est Christus, [11] Again, this man who is Christ,
prout consideratur ex anima solum considered as consisting of soul alone
et carne consistens, est quaedam and body, is a certain substance; not, of
substantia. Non autem universalis. course, a universal one; therefore, a
Ergo particularis. Ergo est particular one. Therefore, it is an
hypostasis. hypostasis.
Adhuc. Si idem est suppositum [12] Moreover, if the supposit of the
humanae et divinae naturae in human and the divine nature in Christ is
Christo, oportet quod de intellectu identified, then in one’s understanding
hominis qui est Christus, sit of the man who is Christ there ought to
hypostasis divina. Non autem est de be a divine hypostasis. Of course, this
intellectu aliorum hominum. Homo is not in one’s understanding of other
igitur aequivoce de Christo dicetur men. Therefore, man will be said
et aliis. Et sic non erit eiusdem equivocally of Christ and others. Hence,
speciei nobiscum. He will not belong to the same species
with us.
Amplius. In Christo tria inveniuntur, [13] In Christ, what is more, one finds
ut ex dictis patet: scilicet corpus, three things, as is clear from what was
anima et divinitas. Anima autem, said: a body, a soul, and divinity. The
cum sit nobilior corpore, non est soul, of course, since it is nobler than
suppositum corporis, sed magis the body, is not the supposit of the body,
forma eius. Neque igitur id quod est but its form. Neither, then, is what is
divinum, est suppositum humanae divine the supposit of the human nature;
naturae, sed magis formaliter se it is, rather, formally related to that
habet ad ipsam. nature.
Praeterea. Omne quod advenit [14] Furthermore, whatever accrues to

alicui post esse completum, advenit something after its being is complete
ei accidentaliter. Sed, cum verbum accrues to it accidentally. But, since the
Dei sit ab aeterno, manifestum est Word is from eternity, plainly the flesh
quod caro assumpta advenit ei post assumed accrues to Him after His being
esse completum. Igitur advenit ei is complete. Therefore, it accrues to
accidentaliter. Him accidentally.
Caput 41 Chapter 41
Quomodo oporteat intelligere HOW ONE SHOULD UNDERSTAND
incarnationem filii Dei THE INCARNATION OF THE SON OF
GOD
Ad horum igitur solutionem [1] Now, to get at the solution of these

considerandam, paulo altius objections, one must begin somewhat
inchoandum est. Cum enim more fundamentally. Since Eutyches
Eutyches unionem Dei et hominis set it down that the union of God and
factam esse posuerit in natura; man took place in nature; Nestorius,
Nestorius autem nec in natura nec in that it was neither in nature nor in
persona; fides autem Catholica hoc person; but the Catholic faith holds
teneat, quod sit facta unio in this: that the union takes place in
persona, non in natura: necessarium Person, not in nature—it seems
videtur praecognoscere quid sit uniri necessary to know first what it is “to be
in natura, et quid sit uniri in persona. made one in nature,” and what it is “to
be made one in person.”
Natura igitur licet multis modis [2] Grant, then, that nature is a word
dicatur nam et generatio viventium, used in many ways: the generation of
et principium generationis et motus, living things, and the principle of
et materia et forma natura dicuntur: generation and of motion, and the
item et aliquando natura dicitur quod matter and the form are all called
quid est rei, continens ea quae ad nature. Sometimes, also, nature is said
speciei pertinent integritatem; sic of the whatitis of a thing, which
enim dicimus naturam humanam includes the things that bear on the
communem esse omnibus integrity of the species; in this way we
hominibus, et similiter in ceteris: illa say that human nature is common to

ergo uniuntur in natura ex quibus all men, and say the same in all other
constituitur integritas speciei alicuius: cases. Those things, therefore, are
sicut anima et corpus humanum made one in nature from which the
uniuntur ad constituendum speciem integrity of a species is established;
animalis, et universaliter just as the soul and human body are
quaecumque sunt partes speciei. made one to establish the species of
the animal, so, universally, whatever
the parts of a species are.
Est autem impossibile quod alicui [3] Of course, it is impossible that to a

speciei in sua integritate iam species already established in its
constitutae aliquid extraneum uniatur integrity something extrinsic be united
in unitatem naturae, nisi species for the unity of its nature without losing
solvatur. Cum enim species sint sicut the species. For, since species are like
numeri, in quibus quaelibet unitas numbers, and in these any unity added
addita vel subtracta variat speciem si or subtracted makes the species vary,
quid ad speciem iam perfectam if to a species already perfected
addatur, necesse est iam aliam something be added, necessarily it is
speciem esse: sicut si substantiae now another species; thus, if to
animatae tantum addatur sensibile, animate substance one adds only
erit alia species; nam animal et sensible, one will have another
planta diversae species sunt. species, for animal and plant are
Contingit tamen id quod non est de different species. It does happen,
integritate speciei, in aliquo individuo nonetheless, that one finds something
sub illa specie contento reperiri: sicut which is not integral to the species; in
album et vestitum in Socrate vel an individual included under that
Platone, aut digitus sextus, vel species—white and dressed, for
aliquid huiusmodi. Unde nihil instance, in Socrates or in Plato, or a
prohibet aliqua uniri in individuo sixth finger, or something of the sort.
quae non uniuntur in una integritate Hence, nothing prevents some things
speciei: sicut humana natura et being made one in the individual which
albedo et musica in Socrate, et are not united in one integrity of
huiusmodi, quae dicuntur esse unum species; thus, human nature and
subiecto. Et quia individuum in whiteness and music in Socrates; and
genere substantiae dicitur things of this kind are united and are
hypostasis, in substantiis autem called “one by subject.” Now, the
rationalibus dicitur etiam persona, individual in the genus of substance is
convenienter omnia huiusmodi called hypostasis, and even in rational
dicuntur uniri secundum hypostasim, substances is called person; therefore,
vel etiam secundum personam. Sic all things such as those mentioned are
igitur patet quod nihil prohibet aliqua suitably said to be, united “in the
non unita esse secundum naturam, hypostasis” or even “in the person.”
uniri autem secundum hypostasim Clearly, then, nothing prevents some
vel personam. things not united in nature from being
united in hypostasis or person.
Audientes autem haeretici in Christo [4] But when the heretics heard that in
unionem Dei et hominis esse factam, Christ a union of God and man took
contrariis viis incesserunt ad hoc place, they approached the exposition
exponendum, praetermisso tramite of this point in contrary ways, but
veritatis. Aliqui enim hanc unionem neglected the way of the truth. For
aestimaverunt ad modum eorum some thought of this union after the
quae uniuntur in unam naturam: mode of things united into one nature:
sicut Arius et Apollinaris, ponentes so Arius and Apollinaris, holding that
quod verbum erat corpori Christi pro the Word stood to the body of Christ as
anima, sive pro mente; et sicut soul or as mind, and so Eutyches, who
Eutyches, qui posuit ante held that before the Incarnation there
incarnationem duas naturas Dei et were two natures of God and man, but
hominis, post incarnationem vero after the Incarnation only one.
unam.
Sed eorum dictum omnino [not in O'Neil] But this opinion entails
impossibilitatem continet. an impossibility. It is clear that the
Manifestum est enim naturam verbi nature of the Word is from eternity
ab aeterno in sua integritate most perfect in its integrity, and cannot
perfectissimam esse, nec omnino be corrupted or changed in any way.
corrumpi aut mutari posse. Unde So it is impossible for anything
impossibile est aliquid extrinsecum a extrinsic to the divine nature, such as a
natura divina, utpote naturam human nature or any part of it, to come
humanam vel aliquam partem eius, into a union of nature with it.
in unitatem naturae ei advenire.
Alii vero, huius positionis [5] But others, seeing the impossibility
impossibilitatem videntes, in viam of this position, went off on a contrary
contrariam diverterunt. Ea enim quae road. Now, the things which accrue to
habenti aliquam naturam adveniunt one having a nature, but do not belong
nec tamen pertinent ad integritatem to the integrity of that nature, seem
naturae illius, vel accidentia esse either to be accidents—say, whiteness
videntur, ut albedo et musica; vel and music; or to stand in an accidental
accidentaliter se habere ad ipsum, relation—say, a ring, a garment, a
sicut anulus, vestimentum, domus, et house, and the like. Of course, they
similia. Consideraverunt autem, weighed this: Since the human nature
quod, cum humana natura verbo Dei accrues to the Word of God without
adveniat nec ad eius naturae belonging to the integrity of His nature,
integritatem pertineat, necesse est, it is necessary (so they thought) that
ut putaverunt, quod humana natura the human nature have an accidental
accidentalem unionem haberet ad union with the Word. To be sure, it
verbum. Et quidem manifestum est clearly cannot be in the Word as an
quod non potest inesse verbo ut accident: both because God is not
accidens: tum quia Deus non est susceptible to an accident (as was
susceptivum accidentis, ut supra previously proved); and because
probatum est; tum quia humana human nature, being in the genus of
natura, cum sit de genere substance, cannot be the accident of
substantiae, nullius accidens esse anything. Hence there appeared to be
potest. Unde reliquum videbatur this remaining: Human nature accrues
quod humana natura adveniret to the Word, not as an accident, but as
verbo, non sicut accidens, sed sicut a thing accidentally related to the
accidentaliter se habens ad ipsum. Word. Nestorius, then, held that the
Posuit igitur Nestorius quod humana human nature of Christ stood to the
natura Christi se habebat ad verbum Word as a kind of temple, so that only
sicut templum quoddam: ita quod by indwelling was the union of the
secundum solam inhabitationem erat Word to the human nature to be
intelligenda unio verbi ad humanam understood. And because a temple
naturam. Et quia templum seorsum possesses its individuation apart from
habet suam individuationem ab eo him who dwells in the temple, and the
qui inhabitat templum; individuatio individuation suitable to human nature
autem conveniens humanae naturae is personality, this was left: that the
est personalitas: reliquum erat quod personality of the human nature was
alia esset personalitas humanae one, and that of the Word another.
naturae, et alia verbi. Et sic verbum Thus, the Word and that man were two
et ille homo erant duae personae. persons.
Quod quidem inconveniens alii vitare [6] To be sure, others wished to avoid

volentes, circa humanam naturam this awkwardness. So, regarding the
talem dispositionem introduxerunt ut human nature they introduced a
ei personalitas proprie convenire non disposition such that personality could
possit, dicentes animam et corpus, in not be properly suitable to it. They said
quibus integritas humanae naturae that the soul and the body, in which the
consistit, a verbo sic esse assumpta integrity of human nature consists,
ut corpori anima non esset unita ad were so assumed by the Word that the
aliquam substantiam constituendam: soul was not united to the body to
ne cogerentur dicere illam establish any substance, lest they be
substantiam sic constitutam rationem forced to say that the substance so
personae habere. Unionem vero established fulfilled the account of
verbi ad animam et corpus person. But they held the union of the
posuerunt sicut ad ea quae Word to soul and body to be like a
accidentaliter se habent, puta induti union to things in an accidental
ad indumentum, in hoc relation, for instance, of the clothed to
quodammodo Nestorium imitantes. his clothes. In this they were somehow
imitating Nestorius.
His igitur remotis per supra dicta, [7] Now, with these accounts set aside

necessarium est ponere talem fuisse by the foregoing, it must be laid down
unionem verbi et hominis ut neque that the union of the Word and the man
ex duabus una natura conflata sit; was such that one nature was not
neque verbi ad humanam naturam breathed together out of two; and that
talis fuerit unio sicut est alicuius the union of the Word to the human
substantiae, puta hominis, ad nature was not like that of a substance
exteriora, quae accidentaliter se —a man, say—to those externals
habent ad ipsum, ut domus et which are accidentally related to him,
vestimentum; sed verbum in humana like a house and a garment. But let the
natura sicut in sibi propria facta per Word be set down as subsisting in a
incarnationem, subsistere ponatur; ut human nature as in one made His very
et corpus illud vere sit corpus verbi own by the Incarnation; and in
Dei; et similiter anima; et verbum Dei consequence that body is truly the
vere sit homo. body of the Word of God, and the soul
in like manner, and the Word of God is
truly man.
Et quamvis haec unio perfecte ab [8] And although to explain this union
homine non valeat explicari, tamen, perfectly is beyond man’s strength,
secundum modum et facultatem nonetheless, in accord with our
nostram, conabimur aliquid dicere ad measure and power, we will try to say
aedificationem fidei, ut circa hoc something “for the upbuilding of the
mysterium fides Catholica ab faith” (cf. Eph. 4:29), so that
infidelibus defendatur. concerning this mystery the Catholic
faith may be defended from the
infidels.
In omnibus autem rebus creatis nihil [9] Now, in all created things nothing is
invenitur huic unioni tam simile sicut found so like this union as the union of
unio animae ad corpus: et maior soul to body. And the likeness would
esset similitudo, ut etiam Augustinus be greater, as Augustine also says, in
dicit, contra Felicianum, si esset Against Felician, if there were one
unus intellectus in omnibus intellect in all men. So some have held,
hominibus, ut quidam posuerunt, and according to them one ought to
secundum quos oporteret dicere say that the preexisting intellect is in
quod intellectus praeexistens hoc such wise united anew to a man’s
modo de novo conceptui hominis conception that from each of these two
uniatur ut ex utroque fiat una a new person is made, just as we hold
persona, sicut ponimus verbum that the preexisting Word is united to
praeexistens humanae naturae in the human nature in a unity of person.
personam unam uniri. Unde et Accordingly, and by reason of the
propter hanc similitudinem utriusque likeness of these two unions,
unionis, Athanasius dicit, in symbolo Athanasius says in the Creed: “as the
quod, sicut anima rationalis et caro rational soul and flesh are one man, so
unus est homo, ita Deus et homo God and man are one Christ.”
unus est Christus.
Sed cum anima rationalis uniatur [10] However, since the rational soul is

corpori et sicut materiae et sicut united to the body both as to matter
instrumento, non potest esse and as to an instrument, there cannot
similitudo quantum ad primum be a likeness so far as the first mode of
modum unionis: sic enim ex Deo et union is concerned, for thus from God
homine fieret una natura, cum and man one nature would be made,
materia et forma proprie naturam since the matter and the form properly
constituant speciei. Relinquitur ergo establish the nature of a species.
ut attendatur similitudo secundum Therefore, what is left is to look upon
quod anima unitur corpori ut the likeness so far as the soul is united
instrumento. Ad quod etiam dicta to the body as an instrument. With this,
antiquorum doctorum concordant, also, there is the concordance of the
qui humanam naturam in Christo ancient Doctors, who held that the
organum quoddam divinitatis human nature in Christ was “a kind of
posuerunt, sicut et ponitur corpus organ of the divinity,” just as the body
organum animae. is held to be an organ of the soul.
Aliter enim est animae organum [11] Now, the body and its parts are the

corpus et eius partes, et aliter organ of the soul in one fashion;
exteriora instrumenta. Haec enim external instruments in quite another.
dolabra non est proprium For this axe is not the soul’s very own
instrumentum, sicut haec manus: per instrument, as this hand is, for by an
dolabram enim multi possunt operari, axe many can operate, but this hand is
sed haec manus ad propriam deputy to this soul in its very own
operationem huius animae operation. For this reason the hand is
deputatur. Propter quod manus est an instrument of the soul united to it
organum unitum et proprium: dolabra and its very own, but the axe is an
autem instrumentum exterius et instrument both external and common.
commune. Sic igitur et in unione Dei This is the way, then, in which even the
et hominis considerari potest. union of God and man can be
Omnes enim homines comparantur considered. For all men are related to
ad Deum ut quaedam instrumenta God as instruments of a sort, and by
quibus operatur: ipse enim est qui these He works: “for it is God who
operatur in nobis velle et perficere works in you both to will and to
pro bona voluntate, secundum accomplish according to His good will”
apostolum, Philipp. 213. Sed alii (Phil. 2:3), as the Apostle says. But
homines comparantur ad Deum other men are related to God as
quasi instrumenta extrinseca et extrinsic and separated instruments, so
separata: moventur enim a Deo non to say; for God does not move them
ad operationes proprias sibi tantum, only to operations which are His very
sed ad operationes communes omni own, but to the operations common to
rationali naturae, ut est intelligere every rational nature, to understand
veritatem, diligere bona, et operari the truth, for example, to love the good,
iusta. Sed humana natura in Christo to do what is just. But the human
assumpta est ut instrumentaliter nature in Christ is assumed with the
operetur ea quae sunt operationes result that instrumentally He performs
propriae solius Dei, sicut est the things which are the proper
mundare peccata, illuminare mentes operation of God alone: to wash away
per gratiam, et introducere in sins, for example, to enlighten minds
perfectionem vitae aeternae. by grace, to lead into the perfection of
Comparatur igitur humana natura eternal life. The human nature of
Christi ad Deum sicut instrumentum Christ, then, is compared to God as a
proprium et coniunctum, ut manus proper and conjoined instrument is
ad animam. compared, as the hand is compared to
the soul.
Nec discrepat a rerum naturalium [12] Nor is there departure from the
consuetudine quod aliquid sit course of natural things because one
naturaliter proprium instrumentum thing is by nature the proper instrument
alicuius quod tamen non est forma of another, and this other is not its
ipsius. Nam lingua, prout est form. For the tongue, so far as it is the
instrumentum locutionis, est instrument of speech, is the intellect’s
proprium organum intellectus: qui very own organ; and the intellect is
tamen prout philosophus probat, nevertheless, as the Philosopher
nullius partis corporis actus est. proves, not the act of any part of the
Similiter etiam invenitur aliquod body. In like manner, too, one finds an

instrumentum quod ad naturam instrument which does not pertain to
speciei non pertinet, et tamen ex the nature of the species, which is,
parte materiae competit huic nevertheless, on the material side fitted
individuo: ut sextus digitus vel aliquid to this individual; a sixth finger, for
huiusmodi. Nihil igitur prohibet hoc example, or something of the sort.
modo ponere unionem humanae Therefore, nothing prevents our putting
naturae ad verbum quod humana the union of the human nature to the
natura sit quasi verbi instrumentum Word in this way: that the human
non separatum sed coniunctum, nec nature be, so to speak, an instrument
tamen humana natura ad naturam of the Word—not a separated, but a
verbi pertinet, nec verbum est eius conjoined, instrument; and the human
forma; pertinet tamen ad eius nature, nonetheless, does not belong
personam. to the nature of the Word, and the
Word is not its form; nevertheless the
human nature belongs to His person.
Praedicta tamen exempla non sic [23] But the examples mentioned have

posita sunt ut omnimoda similitudo in not been set down so that one should
his sit requirenda: intelligendum est look in them for an allround likeness;
enim verbum Dei multo sublimius et for one should understand that the
intimius humanae naturae potuisse Word of God was able to be much
uniri quam anima qualicumque more sublimely and more intimately
proprio instrumento, praecipue cum united to human nature than the soul to
toti humanae naturae mediante its very own instrument of whatever
intellectu coniunctum dicatur. Et licet sort, especially since He is said to be
verbum Dei sua virtute penetret united to the entire human nature with
omnia, utpote omnia conservans et the intellect as medium. And although
portans, creaturis tamen the Word of God by His power
intellectualibus, quae proprie verbo penetrates all things, conserving all,
perfrui possunt et eius participes that is, and supporting all, it is to the
esse, ex quadam similitudinis intellectual creatures, who can properly
affinitate, et eminentius et ineffabilius enjoy the Word and share with Him,
potest uniri. that from a kind of kinship of likeness
He can be both more eminently and
more ineffably united.
Caput 42 Chapter 42
Quod assumptio humanae THAT THE ASSUMPTION OF HUMAN
naturae maxime competebat NATURE WAS MOST SUITED TO THE
verbo Dei WORD OF GOD
Ex quo etiam patet quod humanae [1] From this it is also clear that the
naturae assumptio potissime assumption of human nature was
competit personae verbi. Nam, si outstanding in—suitability to the person
assumptio naturae humanae ad of the Word. For, if the assumption of
salutem hominum ordinatur; ultima human nature is ordered to the salvation
autem salus hominis est ut of men, if the ultimate salvation of man
secundum intellectivam partem is to be perfected in his intellective part
perficiatur contemplatione veritatis by the contemplation of the First Truth, it
primae: oportuit per verbum, quod should have been by the Word who
secundum emanationem proceeds from the Father by an
intellectualem a patre procedit, intellectual emanation that human
humanam naturam assumi. nature was assumed.
Rursus. Affinitas quaedam videtur [2] There especially seems to be,
maxime verbi ad humanam furthermore, a kind of kinship of the
naturam. Homo enim propriam Word for human nature. For man gets
speciem sortitur secundum quod his proper species from being rational.
rationalis est. Verbum autem rationi But the Word is kin to the reason.
affine est: unde apud Graecos Hence, among the Greeks “word” and
logos verbum et ratio dicitur. reason” are called logos. Most
Convenientissime igitur verbum appropriately, then, was the Word united
rationali naturae unitum est: nam et to the reasonable nature, for by reason
propter affinitatem praedictam, of the kinship mentioned the divine
divina Scriptura nomen imaginis et Scripture attributes the name “image” to
verbo attribuit et homini; dicit enim the Word and to man; the Apostle says
apostolus, Coloss. 115, de verbo, of the Word that He is “the image of the
quod est imago invisibilis Dei; et invisible God” (Col. 1:15); and the same
idem de homine, I Cor. 117, quod writer says of man that “the man is the
vir est imago Dei. image of God” (1 Cor. 11:7).
Habet etiam verbum non solum ad [3] The Word also has a kind of
rationalem naturam, sed etiam essential kinship not only with the
universaliter ad omnem creaturam rational nature, but also universally with
quandam affinitatis rationem: cum the whole of creation, since the Word
verbum contineat rationes omnium contains the essences of all things
creatorum a Deo, sicut et artifex created by God, just as man the artist in
homo conceptione sui intellectus the conception of his intellect
rationes artificiatorum comprehends the essences of all the
comprehendit. Sic igitur omnes products of art. Thus, then, all creatures
creaturae nihil aliud sunt quam are nothing but a kind of real expression
realis quaedam expressio et and representation of those things
repraesentatio eorum quae in which are comprehended in the
conceptione divini verbi conception of the divine Word;
comprehenduntur: propter quod et wherefore all things are said (John 1: 3)
omnia per verbum facta esse to be made by the Word. There, fore,
dicuntur. Convenienter igitur suitably was the Word united to the
verbum creaturae, scilicet humanae creature, namely, to human nature.
naturae, unitum est.
Caput 43 Chapter 43
Quod humana natura assumpta THAT THE HUMAN NATURE
a verbo non praeextitit ASSUMED BY THE WORD DID NOT
assumptioni, sed in ipsa PREEXIST ITS ASSUMPTION, BUT
conceptione fuit assumpta WAS ASSUMED IN THE CONCEPTION
ITSELF
Cum autem verbum humanam [1] However, since the Word assumed
naturam assumpserit in unitatem the human nature into a unity of person
personae, ut ex dictis iam patet, (this is clear from the things already
oportuit humanam naturam non said), necessarily the human nature did
praeexistere antequam verbo not preexist before its union to the
uniretur. Word.
Si enim praeexisteret, cum natura [2] Now, if it were preexisting, since a
praeexistere non possit nisi in nature cannot preexist except in an
individuo, oportuisset esse aliquod individual, there would have had to be
individuum illius humanae naturae some individual of that human nature
praeexistentis ante unionem. preexisting before the union. But the
Individuum autem humanae individual of human nature is an
naturae est hypostasis et persona. hypostasis and person. Then one will be
Erit igitur dicere quod humana saying that the human nature to be
natura assumenda a verbo in assumed by the Word had preexisted in
aliqua hypostasi vel persona some hypostasis or person. If, then, that
praeextitisset. Si igitur natura illa nature had been assumed with the
assumpta fuisset manente priori previous hypostasis or person
hypostasi vel persona, remaining, two hypostases or persons
remansissent post unionem duae would have remained after the union:
hypostases vel personae, una one of the Word, the other of a man. And
verbi, et alia hominis. Et sic non thus the union would not have taken
esset facta unio in hypostasi vel place in the hypostasis or person. This is
persona. Quod est contra contrary to the teaching of the faith. But
sententiam fidei. Si vero hypostasis if that hypostasis or person in which the
vel persona illa non remaneret in nature to be assumed by the Word had
qua natura assumenda a verbo preexisted were not remaining, this
praeextitisset, hoc sine corruptione could not have happened without
accidere non potuisset: nullum corruption, for no singular ceases to be
enim singulare desinit esse hoc what it is except through corruption.
quod est nisi per corruptionem. Sic Thus, then, would that man have had to
igitur oportuisset illum hominem be corrupted who proexisted the union
corrumpi qui unioni praeextitisset: and, in consequence, the human nature,
et per consequens humanam as well, which was existing in him. It was
naturam in eo existentem. impossible, then, that the Word assume
Impossibile igitur fuit quod verbum into a unity of person some preexisting
assumeret in unitatem personae man.
aliquem hominem praeexistentem.
Simul autem et derogaretur 13] But at the same time it would detract

perfectioni incarnationis Dei verbi, from the perfection of the incarnation of
si aliquid eorum quae naturalia sunt God’s Word, if something natural to man
homini, ei deesset. Est autem were lacking to it But it is natural to man
naturale homini ut nascatur to he born in a human birth. But God’s
nativitate humana. Hoc autem Dei Word would not have this if He had
verbum non haberet si hominem assumed a preexisting man, for that
praeexistentem assumpsisset: nam man in his birth would have existed as
ille homo in sua nativitate purus pure man, and so his birth could not be
homo extitisset, unde eius nativitas attributed to the Word, nor could the
verbo non posset attribui, nec Blessed Virgin be called the Mother of
beata virgo mater verbi dici posset. the Word. But what the Catholic faith
Fides autem Catholica per omnia confesses regarding natural things is
sine peccato similem eum nobis in that He is “in all things like as we are,
naturalibus confitetur, dicens filium without sin” (Heb. 4:15); and it says that
Dei, secundum apostolum, factum the Son of God was “made of a woman,”
ex muliere et natum, et virginem following the Apostle (Gal. 4:4), that He
matrem Dei. Non igitur hoc decuit, was born and that the Virgin is the
ut praeexistentem hominem Mother of God. This, then, was not
assumeret. seemly, that He assume a preexisting
man.
Hinc etiam apparet quod ab ipso [4] Hence, also, it is clear that from the
conceptionis principio naturam first moment of conception He united
humanam sibi univit. Quia sicut human nature to Himself. Just as God’s
humanatio Dei verbi requirit quod Word’s being human demands that the
verbum Dei sit natum nativitate Word of God be born by a human birth,
humana, ad hoc quod sit verus in order to be a true and natural man in
homo et naturalis per omnia in complete conformity with us in respect to
naturalibus nobis conformis, ita nature, so, too, it requires that God’s
requirit quod Dei verbum sit Word be conceived by a human
conceptum conceptione humana: conception, for, in the order of nature, no
non enim secundum naturae man is born unless first he be conceived.
ordinem homo nascitur nisi prius But, if the human nature to be assumed
concipiatur. Si autem natura had been conceived in any state
humana assumenda prius in whatever before it was united to the
qualicumque statu concepta fuisset Word, that conception could not be so
quam verbo uniretur, illa conceptio attributed to the Word of God that one
verbo Dei attribui non posset, ut might call Him conceived by a human
diceretur conceptum conceptione conception. Necessarily, then, from the
humana. Oportuit igitur quod ab first moment of conception the human
ipso conceptionis principio verbum nature was united to the Word of God.
Dei humanae naturae uniretur.
Rursum. In generatione humana [5] Again, the active power in human
virtus activa agit ad complementum generation acts toward the completion of
humanae naturae in aliquo human nature in a determined individual.
determinato individuo. Si autem But, if the Word of God had not assumed
verbum Dei non a principio human nature from the first moment of
conceptionis humanam naturam His conception, the active power in the
assumpsisset, virtus activa in generation would, before the union, have
generatione, ante unionem, suam ordered its action to an individual in
actionem ordinasset ad aliquod human nature, and this is a human
individuum humanae naturae, quod hypostasis or person. But after the union
est hypostasis vel persona the entire generation would have had to

humana; post unionem autem, be ordered to another hypostasis or
oportuisset ordinari totam person, namely, to God’s Word who was
generationem ad aliam hypostasim being born in the human nature. Arid
vel personam, scilicet Dei verbum, such a generation would not have been
quod nascebatur in humana natura. numerically one, if thus ordered to two
Sic igitur non fuisset una numero persons. Neither would it—in its entirety
generatio: utpote ad duas personas —have been one in form; this seems
ordinata. Nec fuisset uniformis foreign to the order of nature. Therefore,
secundum totum: quod a naturae it was not suitable that the Word of God
ordine videtur alienum. Non igitur assume human nature after the
fuit conveniens quod verbum Dei conception, but in the conception itself.
post conceptionem humanam
naturam assumeret, sed in ipsa
conceptione.
Item. Hoc videtur generationis [6] Once again, this seems to be
humanae ordo requirere, ut qui required by the order of human
concipitur ipse idem nascatur, et generation: the one who is born must be
non alius: cum conceptio ad the same as the one conceived, not
nativitatem ordinetur. Unde, si filius another, for conception is ordered to
Dei natus est nativitate humana, birth. Hence, if the Son of God was born
oportet etiam quod filius Dei sit by a human birth, it must be that it was
conceptione humana conceptus, et the Son of God who was conceived in a
non purus homo. human conception, and not a pure man.
Caput 44 Chapter 44
Quod natura assumpta a verbo in THAT THE HUMAN NATURE
ipsa conceptione fuit perfecta ASSUMED BY THE WORD IN THE
quantum ad animam et corpus CONCEPTION ITSELF WAS
PERFECT IN SOUL AND BODY
Ulterius autem ex hoc manifestum [1] Now, this further point is also clear:
est quod in ipso conceptionis In the very beginning of conception the
principio anima rationalis corpori fuit rational soul was united to the body.
unita.
Verbum enim Dei mediante anima [2] The Word of God, of course,
rationali corpus assumpsit: corpus assumed the body through the soul’s
enim hominis non magis mediation, for the body of a man is not
assumptibile est a Deo quam alia more subject to assumption by God
corpora nisi propter animam than other bodies except because of
rationalem. Non igitur verbum Dei the rational soul. The Word of God,
assumpsit corpus absque anima then, did not assume the body without
rationali. Cum igitur verbum Dei the rational soul. Therefore, since the
assumpserit corpus ab ipso Word of God assumed the body in the
conceptionis principio, oportuit quod very beginning of conception,
in ipso conceptionis principio anima necessarily the rational soul was united
rationalis corpori uniretur. to the body in the very beginning of

conception.
Item. Posito eo quod est posterius in [3] Moreover, one who grants what is

generatione, necesse est et id quod posterior in a generation must grant
est prius secundum generationis also that which is prior in the order of
ordinem, poni. Posterius autem in generation. But the posterior in a
generatione est id quod est generation is that which is most perfect.
perfectissimum. Perfectissimum But the most perfect is the generated
autem est ipsum individuum individual, and this in human generation
generatum, quod in generatione is an hypostasis or person, and it is
humana est hypostasis vel persona, toward constituting this that the body
ad cuius constitutionem ordinantur and soul are ordered. Granted, then, a
et anima et corpus. Posita igitur personality of the man generated, there
personalitate hominis generati, must needs exist a body and a rational
necesse est quidem existere et soul. But the personality of the man
corpus et animam rationalem. Christ is not different from the
Personalitas autem hominis Christi personality of God’s Word. But the
non est alia quam personalitas Dei Word of God united a human body to
verbi. Verbum autem Dei in ipsa Himself in the very conception.
conceptione univit sibi corpus Therefore, the personality of that man
humanum. Fuit ergo ibi personalitas was there. Therefore, the rational soul
illius hominis. Ergo oportuit quod et must also have been there.
anima rationalis adesset.
Inconveniens etiam fuisset ut [4] It would also have been awkward if
verbum, quod est fons et origo the Word, the fount and origin of all
omnium perfectionum et formarum, perfections and forms, were united to a
alicui rei informi et nondum thing. not formed, which still was
perfectionem naturae habenti lacking the perfection of nature. Now,
uniretur. Quicquid autem fit anything corporeal that comes into
corporeum, ante animationem est being is, before its animation, formless
informe et nondum perfectionem and still lacking the perfection of nature.
naturae habens. Non igitur fuit It was, therefore, not fitting for the Word
conveniens ut verbum Dei uniretur of God to be united to a body not yet
corpori nondum animato. Et sic a animated. Thus, from the moment of
principio conceptionis oportuit conception that soul had to be united to
animam illam corpori uniri. the body.
Ex hoc etiam apparet quod corpus [5] Hence, this point too, is clear: The
illud assumptum a principio body assumed in the moment of
conceptionis fuit formatum, si nihil conception was a formed body, if the
informe Dei verbum assumere assumption of something not formed
debuit. Similiter autem anima was improper for the Word. But the soul
requirit propriam materiam: sicut et demands its proper matter, just as any
quaelibet alia forma naturalis. Est other natural form does. But the proper
autem propria materia animae matter of the soul is the organized body,
corpus organizatum: est enim anima for a soul is “the entelechy of a natural
entelechia corporis organici physici organic body having life potentially.” If,
potentia vitam habentis. Si igitur then, the soul from the beginning of the

anima a principio conceptionis conception was united to the body (this
corpori fuit unita, ut ostensum est, has been shown), the body from the
necessarium fuit ut corpus a beginning of the conception was of
principio conceptionis organizatum necessity organized and formed. And
et formatum esset. Et etiam even the organization of the body
organizatio corporis ordine precedes in the order of generation the
generationis praecedit animae introduction of the rational soul. Here,
rationalis introductionem. Unde, again, if one grants what is posterior, he
posito posteriori, necesse fuit et must grant what is prior.
ponere prius.
Crementum autem quantitatis usque [6] But there is no reason why a

ad debitam mensuram, nihil prohibet quantitative increase up to the due
sequi corporis animationem. Sic measure should not follow on the
igitur circa conceptionem hominis body’s being animated. And so,
assumpti sentiendum est, quod in regarding the conception of the man
ipso conceptionis principio fuit assumed, one should hold that in the
corpus organizatum et formatum, very beginning of conception the body
sed nondum habens debitam was organized and formed, but had not
quantitatem. yet its due quantity.
Caput 45 Chapter 45
Quod Christum decuit nasci ex THAT IT BECAME CHRIST TO. BE
virgine BORN OF A VIRGIN
Per hoc autem patet quod necesse [1] It is, of course, now plain that of

fuit hominem illum ex virgine matre necessity that man was born from a
nasci, absque naturali semine. Virgin Mother without natural seed.
Semen enim viri requiritur in [2] For the seed of the man is required
generatione humana tanquam in human generation as an active
principium activum, propter virtutem principle by reason of the active power
activam quae in ipso est. Sed virtus in it. But the active power in the
activa in generatione corporis generation of the body of Christ could
Christi non potuit esse naturalis, not be a natural power, in the light of the
secundum praedicta: quia virtus points we have seen. For the natural
naturalis non subito perficit totam power does not of a sudden bring about
corporis formationem, sed ad hoc the entire formation of the body, it
indiget tempore; corpus autem requires time for this, but the body of
Christi in ipso principio suae Christ was in the first moment of
conceptionis fuit formatum et conception formed and organized as
organizatum, ut ostensum est. was shown. Therefore, one concludes
Relinquitur igitur quod generatio that the generation of Christ was without
Christi humana fuit absque naturali natural seed.
semine.
Item. Semen maris, in generatione [3] Again, the male seed, in the
animalis cuiuscumque, trahit ad se generation of any animal at all, attracts
materiam quam mater ministrat, to itself the matter supplied by the
quasi virtus quae est in semine mother, as though the power which is in
maris intendat sui ipsius the male seed intends its own fulfillment
complementum ut finem totius as the end of the entire generation;
generationis; unde et, completa hence, also, when the generation is
generatione, ipsum semen, completed, the seed itself, unchanged
immutatum et completum, est and fulfilled, is the offspring which is
proles quae nascitur. Sed in born. But the human generation of
generatione humana Christi fuit Christ had as ultimate term union with
ultimus generationis terminus unio the divine Person, and not the
ad divinam personam, non autem establishment of a human person or
aliqua persona seu hypostasis hypostasis, as is clear from the
humana constituenda, ut ex dictis foregoing. In this generation, therefore,
patet. Non igitur in hac generatione the active principle could not be the
potuit esse activum principium seed of the man; it could only be the
semen viri, sed sola virtus divina: ut divine power. Just as the seed of the
sicut semen viri, in generatione man in the common generation of men
communi hominum, in suam attracts to its subsistence the matter
subsistentiam trahit materiam a supplied by the mother, so this same
matre ministratam, ita eandem matter in the generation the Word of
materiam, in generatione Christi, God has assumed into union with
verbum Dei ad suam unionem Himself.
assumpsit.
Similiter autem manifestum est [4] In like manner, of course, it was
quod conveniens erat ut in ipsa manifestly suitable that, even in the
generatione humana verbi Dei, human generation of the Word of God,
aliqua proprietas spiritualis some spiritual property of the generation
generationis verbi reluceret. of a word should shine out. Now, a word
Verbum autem, secundum quod a as it proceeds from a speaker—whether
dicente progreditur, sive interius conceived within or expressed without—
conceptum sive exterius prolatum, brings no corruption to the speaker,
corruptionem dicenti non affert, sed rather, the word marks the plenitude of
magis perfectionis plenitudo per perfection in the speaker. It was in
verbum attenditur in dicente. harmony with this that in His human
Conveniens igitur fuit ut sic verbum generation the Word of God should be
Dei secundum humanam so conceived and born that the
generationem conciperetur et wholeness of His Mother was not
nasceretur, ut matris integritas non impaired. And this, too, is clear: It
corrumperetur. Cum hoc etiam became the Word of God, by whom all
manifestum est quod verbum Dei, things are established and by whom all
quo omnia constituta sunt, et quo things are preserved in His wholeness,
omnia in sua integritate to be born so as to preserve His
conservantur, sic nasci decuit ut per Mother’s wholeness in every way.
omnia matris integritatem servaret. Therefore, suitably this generation was
Conveniens igitur fuit hanc from a virgin.
generationem fuisse ex virgine.
Neque tamen hic generationis [5] And for all that, this mode of
modus verae et naturali humanitati generation detracts in nothing from the
Christi derogat, licet aliter quam alii true and natural humanity of Christ,
homines generatus sit. Manifestum even though He was generated
est enim, cum virtus divina infinita differently from other men. For clearly,
sit, ut supra probatum est; et per since the divine power is infinite, as has
eam omnes causae virtutem been proved, and since through it all
producendi effectum sortiantur: causes are granted the power to
quod quicumque effectus per produce an effect, every effect whatever
quamcumque causam producitur, produced by every cause whatever can
potest per Deum absque illius be produced by God without the
causae adminiculo produci eiusdem assistance of that cause of the same
speciei et naturae. Sicut igitur virtus species and nature. Then, just as the
naturalis quae est in humano natural power which is in the human
semine producit hominem verum, seed produces a true man who has the
speciem et humanam naturam human species and nature, so the divine
habentem; ita virtus divina, quae power, which gave such power to the
talem virtutem semini dedit, absque seed, can without its power produce that
huius virtute potest effectus illius effect by constituting a true man who
virtutis producere, constituendo has the human species and nature.
verum hominem, speciem et
naturam humanam habentem.
Si vero aliquis dicat quod, cum [6] But let someone object: a naturally
homo naturaliter generatus habeat generated man has a body naturally
corpus naturaliter constitutum ex constituted from the seed of the male
semine maris et eo quod femina and what the female supplies—be that
subministrat, quicquid sit illud, what it may; therefore, the body of
corpus Christi non fuit eiusdem Christ was not the same in nature as
naturae cum nostro, si non est ex ours if it was not generated from the
maris semine generatum: ad hoc seed of a male. To this an answer may
manifesta responsio est, secundum be made in accordance with a position
Aristotelis positionem, dicentis quod of Aristotle, he says that the seed of the
semen maris non intrat materialiter male does not enter materially into the
in constitutionem concepti, sed est constitution of what is conceived; it is an
solum activum principium, materia active principle only, whereas the entire
vero corporis tota ministratur a matter of the body is supplied by the
matre. Et sic, quantum ad materiam mother. Taken thus, in respect of matter
corpus Christi non differt a corpore the body of Christ does not differ from
nostro: nam etiam corpora nostra ours; for our bodies also are constituted
materialiter constituta sunt ex eo materially of that which is taken from the
quod est sumptum ex matre. mother.
Si vero aliquis praedictae positioni [7] But, if one rejects the position of
Aristotelis repugnet, adhuc Aristotle just described, then the
praedicta obiectio efficaciam non objection just described has no efficacy.
habet. Similitudo enim aliquorum For the likeness or unlikeness of things
aut dissimilitudo in materia non in matter is not marked off by the state
attenditur secundum statum of the matter in the principle of

materiae in principio generationis, generation, but by the state of the
sed secundum conditionem matter already prepared as it is in the
materiae iam praeparatae, prout est term of the generation. There is no
in termino generationis. Non enim difference in matter between air
differt secundum materiam aer ex generated from earth and that from
terra, vel ex aqua generatus: quia water, because, although water and
licet aqua et terra in principio earth are different in the principle of
generationis differentia sint, tamen generation, they are nonetheless
per actionem generantis ad unam reduced by the generating action to one
dispositionem reducuntur. Sic igitur disposition. Thus, then, by the divine
divina virtute materia quae solum power the matter taken from the woman
ex muliere sumitur, potest reduci, in alone can be reduced at the end of the
fine generationis, ad eandem generation to a disposition identical with
dispositionem quam habet materia that which matter has if taken
si sumatur simul ex mare et femina. simultaneously from the male and
Unde non erit aliqua dissimilitudo, female. Hence, there will be no
propter diversitatem materiae, inter unlikeness by reason of diversity of
corpus Christi, quod divina virtute matter between the body of Christ which
formatum est ex materia a sola was formed by the divine power out of
matre assumpta, et corpora nostra, matter taken from the mother alone, and
quae virtute naturae formantur ex our bodies which are formed by the
materia, etiam si ab utroque natural power from matter, even though
parente assumantur. Manifestum they are taken from both parents. Surely
est enim quod plus differt a materia this is clear; the matter taken
quae ex viro et muliere simul simultaneously from a man and a
assumitur, limus terrae, de quo woman and that “slime of the earth”
Deus primum hominem formavit (Gen. 2:7) of which God formed the first
quem utique constat fuisse verum man (very certainly a true man and like
hominem et nobis per omnia us in everything) differ more from one
similem, quam materia sumpta another than from the matter taken
solum ex femina, ex qua corpus solely from the female from which the
Christi formatum est. Unde nativitas body of Christ was formed. Hence, the
Christi ex virgine nihil derogat birth of Christ from the Virgin does not at
veritati humanitatis ipsius, nec all diminish either the truth of His
similitudini eius ad nos. Licet enim humanity or His likeness to us. For,
virtus naturalis requirat although a natural power requires a
determinatam materiam ad determined matter for the production of
determinatum effectum ex ea a determined effect therefrom, the divine
producendum, virtus tamen divina, power, the power able to produce all
quae potest ex nihilo cuncta things from nothing, is not in its activity
producere, in agendo ad materiam circumscribed within determinate matter.
determinatam non coartatur.
Similiter etiam nec per hoc aliquid [8] In the same way, that she as a virgin

deperit dignitati matris Christi quod conceived and gave birth diminishes not
virgo concepit et peperit, quin vera at all the dignity of the Mother of Christ
et naturalis mater filii Dei dicatur. —so that she be not the true and natural
Virtute enim divina faciente, mother of the Son of God. For, while the
materiam naturalem ad divine power worked, she supplied the
generationem corporis Christi natural matter for the generation of the
ministravit, quod solum ex parte body of Christ—and this alone is
matris requiritur: ea vero quae in required on the part of the mother; but
aliis matribus ad corruptionem the things which in other mothers
virginitatis faciunt, non ordinantur contribute to the loss of virginity belong
ad id quod matris est, sed solum ad not to the process of being a mother, but
id quod patris est, ut semen maris to that of being a father, in order to have
ad locum generationis perveniat. the male seed arrive at the place of
generation.
Caput 46 Chapter 46
Quod Christus natus est de THAT CHRIST WAS BORN OF THE
spiritu sancto HOLY SPIRIT
Quamvis autem omnis divina [1] Although, of course, every divine
operatio qua aliquid in creaturis operation by which something is
agitur, sit toti Trinitati communis, ut accomplished in creatures is common to
ex supra habitis ostensum est, the entire Trinity (as has been shown in
formatio tamen corporis Christi, the points made above), the formation of
quae divina virtute perfecta est, Christ’s body, which was perfected by the
convenienter spiritui sancto divine power, is suitably ascribed to the
attribuitur, licet sit toti Trinitati Holy Spirit although it is common to the
communis. entire Trinity.
Hoc enim congruere videtur [2] Now, this seems to be in harmony with

incarnationi verbi. Nam sicut the Incarnation of the Word. For, just as
verbum nostrum in mente our word mentally conceived is invisible,
conceptum invisibile est, exterius but is made sensible in an external vocal
autem voce prolatum sensibile fit; expression, so the Word of God in the
ita verbum Dei secundum eternal generation exists invisibly in the
generationem aeternam in corde heart of the Father, but by the Incarnation
patris invisibiliter existit, per is made sensible to us. Thus, the
incarnationem autem nobis Incarnation of God’s Word is like the
sensibile factum est. Unde verbi vocal expression of our word. But the
Dei incarnatio est sicut vocalis vocal expression of our word is made by
verbi nostri expressio. Expressio our spirit, through which the vocal
autem vocalis verbi nostri fit per formation of our word takes place.
spiritum nostrum, per quem vox Suitably, then, it is through the Spirit of
verbi nostri formatur. Convenienter the Son Of God that the formation of His
igitur et per spiritum filii Dei eius flesh is said to have taken place.
carnis formatio dicitur facta.
Convenit etiam hoc et generationi [3] This is also in harmony with human
humanae. Virtus enim activa quae generation. The active power which is in
est in semine humano, ad se the human seed, drawing to itself the
trahens materiam quae fluit a matter which flows from the mother,
matre, per spiritum operatur: operates by the spirit, for this kind of
fundatur enim huiusmodi virtus in power is founded on the spirit, and by
spiritu, propter cuius continentiam reason of its control the seed must be
semen spumosum oportet esse et cloudy and white. Therefore, the Word of
album. Verbum igitur Dei, sibi God taking flesh to Himself from the
carnem assumens ex virgine, Virgin is suitably said to do this by His
convenienter hoc per spiritum Spirit—to form flesh by assuming it.
suum dicitur carnem assumendo
formare.
Convenit etiam hoc ad [4] This also helps to suggest a cause
insinuandam causam ad moving to the Incarnation of the Word.
incarnationem verbi moventem. And this could, indeed, be no other than
Quae quidem nulla alia esse potuit the unmeasured love of God for man
nisi immensus amor Dei ad whose nature He wished to couple with
hominem, cuius naturam sibi voluit Himself in unity of person. But in the
in unitate personae copulare. In divinity it is the Holy Spirit who proceeds
divinis autem spiritus sanctus est as love, as was said. Suitably, then, was
qui procedit ut amor, ut supra the task of Incarnation attributed to the
dictum est. Conveniens igitur fuit Holy Spirit.
ut incarnationis opus spiritui
sancto attribuatur.
Solet etiam in sacra Scriptura [5] Sacred Scripture, too, is accustomed
omnis gratia spiritui sancto attribui, to attributing every grace to the Holy
quia quod gratis datur, ex amore Spirit, for what is graciously given seems
donantis videtur esse collatum. bestowed by the love of the giver. But no
Nulla autem maior est gratia greater gift has been bestowed on man
homini collata quam quod Deo in than union with God in person. Therefore,
persona uniretur. Convenienter suitably is this work marked as the Holy
igitur hoc opus spiritui sancto Spirit’s own.
appropriatur.
Caput 47 Chapter 47
Quod Christus non fuit filius THAT CHRIST WAS NOT THE SON
spiritus sancti secundum carnem OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE FLESH
Quamvis autem Christus de spiritu [1] Now, although Christ is said to be
sancto et virgine conceptus dicatur, conceived of the Holy Spirit and of the
non potest tamen dici spiritus Virgin, one cannot for all that say that
sanctus pater Christi secundum the Holy Spirit is the father of Christ in
generationem humanam, sicut virgo the human generation as the Virgin is
dicitur mater eius. His mother.
Spiritus enim sanctus non produxit [2] For the Holy Spirit did not produce
humanam naturam in Christo ex sua the human nature of Christ out of His
substantia, sed sola sua virtute substance, but by His power alone
operatus est ad eius productionem. operated for its production. It cannot,
Non ergo potest dici spiritus sanctus therefore, be said that the Holy Spirit is
pater Christi secundum humanam the father of Christ in His human
generationem. generation.
Esset etiam inductivum erroris si [3] It would, furthermore, be productive

Christus spiritus sancti filius of error to say that Christ is the son of
diceretur. Manifestum est enim quod the Holy Spirit. Plainly, God’s Word has
verbum Dei secundum hoc habet a distinct Person in that He is the Son
personam distinctam quod est filius of God the Father. If, then, He were in
Dei patris. Si igitur secundum His human nature called the son of the
humanam naturam spiritus sancti Holy Spirit, one would have to
filius diceretur, daretur intelligi quod understand Christ as being two sons,
Christus esset duo filii: nam verbum since the Word of God cannot be the
Dei spiritus sancti filius esse non son of the Holy Spirit. And thus, since
potest. Et sic, cum filiationis nomen the name of sonship belongs to a
ad personam pertineat, non ad person and not to a nature, it would
naturam, sequeretur quod in Christo follow that in Christ there are two
essent duae personae. Quod est a Persons. But this is foreign to the
fide Catholica alienum. Catholic faith.
Inconveniens etiam esset ut [4] It would be unsuitable, also, to

auctoritas patris et nomen ad transfer the name and the authority of
personam aliam transferretur. Quod the Father to another. Yet this happens
contingit si spiritus sanctus pater if the Holy Spirit is called the father of
Christi diceretur. Christ.
Caput 48 Chapter 48
Quod non sit dicendum THAT CHRIST MUST NOT BE CALLED
Christum esse creaturam A CREATURE
Ulterius etiam manifestum est [1] It is clear, moreover, that, although
quod, quamvis humana natura a the human nature assumed by the Word
verbo assumpta sit aliqua creatura, is a creature, it cannot, for all that, be
non tamen potest simpliciter said without qualification that Christ is a
enuntiari Christum esse creaturam. creature.
Creari enim est fieri quoddam. Cum [2] For to be created is to become

autem fieri terminetur ad esse something. Now, since becoming is
simpliciter, eius est fieri quod habet terminated in being simply, a becoming
esse subsistens: et huiusmodi est is of that which has subsistent being,
individuum completum in genere and it is a thing of this kind which is a
substantiae, quod quidem in natura complete individual in the genus of
intellectuali dicitur persona aut substance, which, indeed in an
etiam hypostasis. Formae vero et intellectual nature is called a person or
accidentia, et etiam partes, non even an hypostasis. But one does not
dicuntur fieri nisi secundum quid, speak of forms and accidents and even
cum et esse non habeant in se parts becoming, unless relatively, since
subsistens, sed subsistant in alio: they have no subsistent being in
unde, cum aliquis fit albus, non themselves, but subsist in another;
dicitur fieri simpliciter, sed hence, when one becomes white, this is
secundum quid. In Christo autem not called becoming simply, but
non est alia hypostasis vel persona relatively. But in Christ there is no other
nisi verbi Dei, quae est increata, ut hypostasis or person save that of God’s
ex praemissis manifestum est. Non Word, and this person is uncreated, as is
igitur simpliciter potest enuntiari clear from the foregoing. Therefore, one
quod Christus sit creatura: licet cannot say without qualification: “Christ
cum additione possit hoc dici, ut is a creature;” although one may say it
dicatur creatura secundum quod with an addition, so as to say a creature
homo, vel, secundum humanam “so far as man” or “in His human nature.”
naturam.
Licet autem de subiecto quod est [3] Granted, however, that one does not,

individuum in genere substantiae, in the case of a subject which is an
non simpliciter dicatur fieri quod est individual in the genus of substance,
proprium eius propter accidentia refer to that as becoming simply which
vel partes, sed solum secundum belongs to it by reason of accidents or
quid; tamen simpliciter praedicantur parts, but that one calls it becoming only
de subiecto quaecumque relatively, one does predicate simply of
consequuntur naturaliter ad the subject whatever follows naturally on
accidentia vel ad partes secundum the accidents or parts in their own
propriam rationem; dicitur enim intelligibility; for one calls a man “seeing”
simpliciter homo esse videns, quia simply: this follows the eye; or “curly”
hoc consequitur ad oculum; et because of his hair; or “visible” because
Crispus, propter capillos; et of his color. Thus, then, the things which
visibilis, propter colorem. Sic igitur follow properly on human nature can be
et ea quae consequuntur proprie asserted of Christ simply: that He is
ad humanam naturam, simpliciter “man”; that He is “visible”; that He
possunt enuntiari de Christo: sicut “walked,” and that sort of thing. But what
quod est homo, quod est visibilis, is the person’s very own is not asserted
quod ambulavit, et omnia of Christ by reason of His human nature,
huiusmodi. Quod autem est unless with some addition whether
personae proprium, de Christo non expressed or implied.
enuntiatur ratione humanae
naturae nisi cum aliqua additione,
vel expressa vel subintellecta.
Caput 49 Chapter 49
Solutio rationum contra SOLUTION OF THE ARGUMENTS
incarnationem superius AGAINST THE INCARNATION GIVEN
positarum ABOVE
His igitur habitis, ea quae contra [1] With what has now been said the
incarnationis fidem supra opposita points made previously against faith in
sunt, facile solvuntur. the Incarnation are easily disposed of.
Ostensum est enim incarnationem [2] For it has been shown that one
verbi non sic esse intelligendam must not understand the Incarnation of
quod verbum sit in carnem the Word thus: that the Word was
conversum, aut sit corpori unitum ut converted into flesh or that He is united
forma. Unde non est consequens ex to the body as a form. Hence, it is not a
hoc quod verbum est incarnatum, consequence of the Word’s Incarnation
quod vere Deus sit corpus vel virtus that He who is truly God is a body or a
in corpore, ut prima ratio power in a body as the first argument
procedebat. was trying to proceed.
Similiter etiam non consequitur quod [3] Neither does it follow that the Word
verbum sit substantialiter mutatum was substantially changed by the fact
per hoc quod naturam humanam that He assumed human nature. For no
assumpsit. Nulla enim mutatio in change was made in the Word of God
ipso verbo Dei facta est, sed solum Himself, but only in the human nature
in humana natura quae est a verbo which was assumed by the Word, in
assumpta, secundum quam competit accord with which it is proper that the
verbo et generatum esse Word was both temporally generated
temporaliter et natum, non autem and born, but to the Word Himself this
secundum seipsum. was not fitting.
Quod etiam tertio proponitur, [4] What is proposed in the third
necessitatem non habet. Hypostasis argument is also without necessity. For
enim non extenditur extra terminos an hypostasis is not extended beyond
illius naturae ex qua subsistentiam the limits of that nature from which it
habet. Non autem verbum Dei has subsistence. The Word of God, of
subsistentiam habet ex natura course, has no subsistence from the
humana, sed magis naturam human nature, rather, He draws the
humanam ad suam subsistentiam human nature to His subsistence or
vel personalitatem trahit: non enim personality. It is not through, but in,
per illam, sed in illa subsistit. Unde human nature that He subsists. Hence,
nihil prohibet verbum Dei esse nothing prevents the Word of God from
ubique, licet humana natura a verbo being everywhere, although the human
Dei assumpta ubique non sit. nature assumed by the Word of God is
not everywhere.
Ex hoc etiam solvitur quartum. [5] Thus, also, the fourth is answered.
Cuiuslibet enim rei subsistentis For in any subsistent thing there must
oportet esse unam naturam tantum be only one nature by which it has
per quam simpliciter esse habeat. Et being simply. And so, the Word of God
sic verbum Dei per solam naturam has being simply by, the divine nature
divinam simpliciter esse habet: non alone, not, however, by the human
autem per humanam naturam, sed nature, by human nature He has being
per eam habet quod sit hoc, scilicet this—namely, being a man.
quod sit homo.
Quintum etiam solvitur per hoc idem. [6] The fifth also is disposed of in the
Impossibile est enim quod natura very same way. For it is impossible that
per quam verbum subsistit, sit aliud the nature by which the Word subsists
quam ipsa persona verbi. Subsistit be other than the very person of the
autem per naturam divinam: non Word. Of course, He subsists by the
autem per naturam humanam, sed divine nature and not by the human
eam ad suam subsistentiam trahit ut nature, but He draws the latter to His
in ea subsistat, ut dictum est. Unde own subsistence that He may subsist in
non oportet quod natura humana sit it, as was said. Hence, it is not
idem quod persona verbi. necessary that the human nature be
identical with the person of the Word.
Hinc etiam excluditur id quod sexto [7] From this also follows the exclusion

obiiciebatur. Hypostasis enim est of the sixth objection. For an
minus simplex, vel re vel intellectu, hypostasis is less simple—whether in
quam natura per quam constituitur in things or in the understanding—than
esse: re quidem, cum hypostasis the nature through which it is
non est sua natura; intellectu autem established in being: in the thing,
solo in illis in quibus idem est indeed, when the hypostasis is not its
hypostasis et natura. Hypostasis nature, or in the understanding alone in
autem verbi non constituitur the cases in which the hypostasis and
simpliciter per humanam naturam, ut the nature are identified. The
per eam sit: sed per eam solum hypostasis of the Word is not
habet verbum quod sit homo. Non established simply by the human
igitur oportet quod natura humana sit nature so as to have being through the
simplicior quam verbum inquantum human nature, but through it the Word
est verbum: sed solum inquantum has this alone: that He be man. It is,
verbum est hic homo. then, not necessary that the human
nature be more simple than the Word
so far as He is the Word, but only so far
as the Word is this man.
Ex quo etiam patet solutio ad id [8] From this also the way is open to
quod septimo obiicitur. Non enim solving the seventh objection. For it is
oportet quod hypostasis Dei verbi not necessary that the hypostasis of
simpliciter sit constituta per the Word of God be constituted simply
materiam signatam, sed solum by signate matter, but only so far as He
inquantum est hic homo. Sic enim is this man. For only as this man is He
solum per humanam naturam constituted by the human nature, as
constituitur, ut dictum est. was said.
Quod autem anima et corpus in [9] Of course, that the soul and body in

Christo ad personalitatem verbi Christ are drawn to the personality of
trahuntur, non constituentia aliquam the Word without constituting a person
personam praeter personam verbi, other than the person of the Word does
non pertinet ad minorationem not point to a lessened power, as the
virtutis, ut octava ratio procedebat, eighth argument” would have it, but to
sed ad dignitatem maiorem. a greater worthiness. For everything
Unumquodque enim melius esse whatever has, when united to what is
habet cum suo digniori unitur, quam worthier, a better being than it has
cum per se existit: sicut anima when it exists through itself; just so, the
sensibilis nobilius esse habet in sensible soul has a nobler being in nun
homine quam in aliis animalibus, in than it has in the other animals in which

quibus est forma principalis, non it is the principal form, for all that it is
tamen in homine. not such in man.
Hinc etiam solvitur quod nono [10] Hence, also, comes the solution to

obiiciebatur. In Christo enim vere the ninth objection. In Christ there was,
quidem fuit haec anima et hoc indeed, this soul and this body, for all
corpus: non tamen ex eis constituta that there was not constituted from
est persona aliqua praeter personam them another person than the person
Dei verbi, quia sunt ad of God’s Word, because they were
personalitatem Dei verbi assumpta; assumed unto the personality of God’s
sicut et corpus, cum est sine anima, Word; just as a body, too, when it is
propriam speciem habet, sed cum without the soul, does have its own
unitur animae, ab ea speciem species, but it is from the soul, when
sortitur. united to it, that it receives its species.
Ex hoc etiam solvitur quod decimo [11] Thus, also, one answers what the
proponebatur. Manifestum est enim tenth argument proposed. It is clear
quod hic homo qui est Christus, that this man who is Christ is a certain
substantia quaedam est non substance which is not universal, but
universalis, sed particularis. Et particular. And He is an hypostasis;
hypostasis quaedam est, non tamen nevertheless, not another hypostasis
alia hypostasis quam hypostasis than the hypostasis of the Word, for
verbi: quia humana natura ab human nature has been assumed by
hypostasi verbi assumpta est ut the hypostasis of the Word that the
verbum subsistat tam in humana Word may subsist in human as well as
natura quam in divina. Id autem in divine nature. But that which subsists
quod in humana natura subsistit, est in human nature is this man. Hence,
hic homo. Unde ipsum verbum the Word itself is supposed, when one
supponitur cum dicitur hic homo. says “this man.”
Sed si quis eandem obiectionem ad [12] But, let one move the very same
humanam naturam transferat, dicens objection over to human nature and
eam esse substantiam quandam say it is a certain substance, not
non universalem sed particularem, universal but particular and
et per consequens hypostasim: consequently an hypostasis—he is
manifeste decipitur. Nam humana obviously deceived. For human nature
natura etiam in Socrate vel Platone even in Socrates or Plato is not an
non est hypostasis: sed id quod in hypostasis, but that which subsists in
ea subsistit, hypostasis est. the nature is an hypostasis.
Quod autem substantia sit et [13] But to call a human nature a
particularis, non secundum illam substance and particular is not to use
significationem dicitur qua the meaning in which one calls an
hypostasis est particularis hypostasis a particular substance.
substantia. Substantia enim, “Substance” we speak of with the
secundum philosophum, dicitur Philosopher [Categories 5] in two ways:
dupliciter: scilicet pro supposito in for the supposit, namely, in the genus
genere substantiae, quod dicitur of substance which is called

hypostasis; et de eo quod quid est, hypostasis; and for the whatitis which
quod est natura rei. Sed neque is “the nature of a thing.” But the parts
partes alicuius substantiae sic of a substance are not thus called
dicuntur particulares substantiae particular substances—subsisting, so
quasi sint per se subsistentes, sed to say, in themselves; they subsist in
subsistunt in toto. Unde nec the whole. Hence, neither can one call
hypostases possunt dici: cum nulla them hypostases, for none of them is a
earum sit substantia completa. Alias complete substance. Otherwise, it
sequeretur quod in uno homine tot would follow that in one man there are
essent hypostases quot sunt partes. as many hypostases as there are parts.
Quod vero undecimo oppositum fuit, [14] Now, to the eleventh argument in

ex eo solvitur quod aequivocatio opposition. The solution is that
inducitur ex diversa forma significata equivocation is introduced by a
per nomen, non autem ex diversitate diversity of the form signified by a
suppositionis: non enim hoc nomen name, but not by diversity of
homo aequivoce sumitur ex eo quod supposition. For this name “man” is not
quandoque supponit pro Platone, taken as equivocal because sometimes
quandoque pro Socrate. Hoc igitur it supposes Plato, sometimes Socrates.
nomen homo, et de Christo et de Therefore, this name “man” said of
aliis hominibus dictum, semper Christ and of other men always
eandem formam significat, scilicet signifies the same form; namely,
naturam humanam. Unde univoce human nature. This is why it is
praedicatur de eis: sed suppositio predicated of them univocally; but it is
tantum variatur, in hoc quod quidem only the supposition which is changed,
secundum quod pro Christo sumitur, and, to be sure, in this: when it is taken
supponit hypostasim increatam; for Christ it supposes an uncreated
secundum vero quod pro aliis hypostasis, but when it is taken for
sumitur, supponit hypostasim others it supposes a created
creatam. hypostasis.
Neque etiam hypostasis verbi dicitur [15] Nor, again, is the hypostasis of the
esse suppositum humanae naturae Word said to be the supposit of the
quasi subiiciatur ei ut formaliori, sicut human nature, as though subjected to
duodecima ratio proponebat. Hoc the latter as to a more formal principle,
enim esset necessarium si as the twelfth argument proposed. This
hypostasis verbi per naturam would, of course, be necessary if it
humanam simpliciter constitueretur were the human nature which
in esse. Quod patet esse falsum: establishes the hypostasis of the Word
dicitur enim hypostasis verbi in being simply. This is obviously false:
humanae naturae supponi prout for the hypostasis of the Word is the
eam ad suam subsistentiam trahit, subject of the human nature so far as
sicut aliquid trahitur ad alterum He draws this latter unto His own
nobilius cui unitur. subsistence, just as something drawn
to a second and nobler thing to which it
is united.
Non tamen sequitur quod humana [16] For all that, it does not follow that
natura accidentaliter verbo adveniat, the human nature accrues to the Word
ex hoc quod verbum ab aeterno accidentally, because the Word pre
praeextitit, sicut ultima ratio exists from eternity, as the final
concludebat. Sic enim verbum argument was trying to conclude. For
humanam naturam assumpsit ut the Word assumed human nature so as
vere sit homo. Esse autem hominem to be truly man. But to be man is to be
est esse in genere substantiae. Quia in the genus of a substance. Therefore,
igitur ex unione naturae humanae since by union with human nature the
hypostasis verbi habet quod sit hypostasis of the Word has the being of
homo, non advenit ei accidentaliter: man, this does not accrue to the Word
nam accidentia esse substantiale accidentally. For accidents do not
non conferunt. bestow substantial being.
Caput 50 Chapter 50
Quod peccatum originale THAT ORIGINAL SIN IS
traducatur a primo parente in TRANSMITTED FROM THE FIRST
posteros PARENT TO HIS DESCENDANTS
Ostensum est igitur in praemissis [1] It has been shown, then, in the
non esse impossibile quod fides points set down that what the Catholic
Catholica de incarnatione filii Dei faith preaches about the Incarnation of
praedicat. Consequens autem est the Son of God is not impossible. And
ostendere quod conveniens fuit the next thing is to make plain the
filium Dei naturam assumpsisse suitability of the Son of God’s
humanam. assumption of human nature.
Huius autem convenientiae [2] Now, the reason for this suitability
rationem apostolus assignare the Apostle seems to situate in original
videtur ex peccato originali, quod in sin, which is passed on to all men; be
omnes pertransit: dicit enim Rom. says: “As by the disobedience of one
519: sicut per inobedientiam unius man many were made sinners: so also
hominis peccatores constituti sunt by the obedience of one many shall be
multi, ita et per unius hominis made just” (Rom. 5:19). However, since
obedientiam iusti constituentur the Pelagian heretics denied original
multi. Sed quia Pelagiani haeretici sin, we must now show that men are
peccatum originale negaverunt, born with original sin.
ostendendum est homines cum
peccato originali nasci.
Et primo quidem assumendum est [3] First, indeed, one must take up what

quod dicitur Gen. 215 tulit dominus Genesis (2:1517) says: “The Lord God
Deus hominem et posuit eum in took man and put him into the paradise
Paradiso, praecepitque ei dicens: of pleasure, saying: Of every tree of
ex omni ligno Paradisi comede, de paradise you shall eat but of the tree of
ligno autem scientiae boni et mali knowledge of good and evil you shall
ne comedas: in quacumque autem not eat. For in what day soever you
die comederis ex eo, morte shall eat of it, you shall die the death.”
morieris. Sed quia Adam nec eo die But, since it was not on the very day
quo comedit actu mortuus est, that he ate that Adam actually died, one

oportet sic intelligi quod dicitur, has to understand the words “you shall
morte morieris: idest, necessitati die the death” as “you will be handed
mortis eris addictus. Quod quidem over to the necessity of death.” And this
frustra diceretur si homo ex would be said pointlessly if man from
institutione suae naturae the institution of his nature had the
necessitatem moriendi haberet. necessity of dying. One must, then, say
Oportet igitur dicere quod mors, et that death and the necessity of dying is
necessitas moriendi, sit poena a penalty inflicted on man for sin. But a
homini pro peccato inflicta. Poena penalty is not justly inflicted except for a
autem non infligitur iuste nisi pro fault. Therefore, in every single one of
culpa. In quibuscumque igitur those in whom one finds this penalty
invenitur haec poena, necesse est one must of necessity find a fault. But
ut in eis inveniatur aliqua culpa. this penalty is found in all men, even
Sed in omni homine invenitur haec from the very moment of birth, for since
poena, etiam a principio suae that day man is born handed over to the
nativitatis: ex tunc enim nascitur necessity of death. Hence, too, some
necessitati mortis addictus; unde et are immediately after birth, “carried from
aliqui mox post nativitatem the womb to the grave” (Job 10:19). In
moriuntur, de utero translati ad them, therefore, there is some sin. But it
tumulum. Ergo in eis est aliquod is not actual sin, for children do not have
peccatum. Sed non peccatum the use of free will, and without this
actuale: quia non habent pueri nothing is imputed to man as sin (which
usum liberi arbitrii, sine quo nihil is clear from the things said in Book II).
imputatur homini ad peccatum, ut One must, therefore, say that sin is in
ex his quae dicta sunt in tertio libro them, passed on to them in their origin.
apparet. Necesse est igitur dicere
quod in eis sit peccatum per
originem traductum.
Hoc etiam expresse apparet ex [4] This is also, made clear and explicit
verbis apostoli Rom. 512: sicut per by the Apostle’s words: “As by one man
unum hominem in hunc mundum sin entered into this world and by sin
peccatum intravit, et per peccatum death, and so death pawed upon all
mors, ita et in omnes homines mors men, in whom all sinned” (Rom. 5:12).
pertransiit, in quo omnes
peccaverunt.
Non potest autem dici quod per [5] Of course, one cannot say that by
unum hominem in mundum one man sin entered the world by way
peccatum intraverit per modum of imitation. For, thus, sin would have
imitationis. Quia sic peccatum non reached only those who in sinning
pervenisset nisi ad eos qui imitate the first man; and, since death
peccando primum hominem entered the world by sin, death would
imitantur: et, cum mors per reach only those who sin in the likeness
peccatum in mundum intraverit, non of the first man sinning. It is to exclude
perveniret mors nisi ad eos qui this that the Apostle adds that “death
peccant in similitudinem primi reigned from Adam unto Moses even
hominis peccantis. Sed ad hoc over them also who have not sinned
excludendum, apostolus subdit after the similitude of the transgression
quod regnavit mors ab Adam usque of Adam” (Rom. 5:14). Therefore, the

ad Moysen etiam in eos qui non understanding of the Apostle is not that
peccaverunt in similitudinem sin entered the world through one man
praevaricationis Adae. Non ergo by way of imitation, but by way of origin.
intellexit apostolus quod per unum
hominem peccatum in mundum
intraverit per modum imitationis,
sed per modum originis.
Praeterea. Si secundum [6] There is more. If the Apostle were
imitationem apostolus loqueretur de speaking of the entry of sin into the
introitu peccati in mundum, potius world by way of imitation, he should
dixisset per Diabolum peccatum rather have said that sin entered the
intrasse in mundum quam per world by the devil than by one man; as
unum hominem: sicut etiam is said also expressly in Wisdom (2:24
expresse dicitur Sap. 224 invidia 25): “By the envy of the devil death
Diaboli mors introivit in orbem came into the world: they follow him that
terrarum: imitantur autem illum qui are of his side.”
sunt ex parte illius.
Adhuc. In Psalmo David dicit: ecce, [7] David says furthermore, in a Psalm

in iniquitatibus conceptus sum, et in (50:7): “Behold I was conceived in
peccatis concepit me mater mea. iniquities and in sins did my mother
Quod non potest intelligi de peccato conceive me “ But this cannot be
actuali: cum David ex legitimo understood of actual sin, since David is
matrimonio conceptus et natus said to be conceived and born of a
dicatur. Oportet igitur ut hoc ad legitimate marriage. Therefore, this
peccatum originale referatur. must be referred to original sin.
Amplius. Iob 144 dicitur: quis [8] Moreover, Job says (14:4): “Who can

potest facere mundum de immundo make him clean that is conceived of
conceptum semine? Nonne tu qui unclean seed? Is it not You only?” One
solus es? Ex quo manifeste accipi gathers clearly from this that from the
potest quod ex immunditia humani uncleanness of human seed there
seminis aliqua immunditia ad extends an uncleanness to the man
hominem ex semine conceptum conceived of the seed. One must
perveniat. Quod oportet intelligi de understand this of the uncleanness of
immunditia peccati, pro qua sola sin, the only one for which a man is
homo in iudicium deducitur: brought into judgment, for Job (14:3)
praemittitur enim: 3 et dignum ducis had already said: “And dost You think it
super huiuscemodi aperire oculos meet to open your eyes upon such a
tuos, et adducere eum tecum in one, and to bring him into judgment with
iudicium? Sic igitur aliquod You.” Thus, then, there is a sin
peccatum est quod homo contrahit contracted by man in his very origin
ab ipsa sui origine, quod originale which is called “original.”
dicitur.
Item. Baptismus et alia sacramenta [9] Once again; baptism and the other

Ecclesiae sunt quaedam remedia sacraments of the Church are remedies

contra peccatum, ut infra patebit. of a sort against sin, as will be clarified
Exhibetur autem Baptismus, later. But baptism, according to the
secundum communem Ecclesiae common custom of the Church, is given
consuetudinem, pueris recenter to children recently born. It would be
natis. Frustra igitur exhiberetur nisi given quite in vain unless there were sin
in eis esset aliquod peccatum. Non in them. But there is no actual sin in
est autem in eis peccatum actuale: them, for they lack the exercise of free
quia carent usu liberi arbitrii, sine will—without which no act is imputed to
quo nullus actus homini in culpam a man as a fault. Therefore, one must
imputatur. Oportet igitur dicere in say that there is in them a sin pissed on
eis esse peccatum per originem by their origin, since in the works of God
traductum: cum in operibus Dei et and the Church there is nothing futile or
Ecclesiae nihil sit vanum et frustra. in vain.
Si autem dicatur quod Baptismus [10] But one may say: Baptism is given

infantibus datur, non ut a peccato to infants not to cleanse them from sin,
mundentur, sed ut ad regnum Dei but to admit them to the kingdom of
perveniant, quo perveniri non potest Cod, to which there is no admission
sine Baptismo, cum dominus dicat, without baptism, since our Lord says:
Ioan. 35, nisi quis renatus fuerit ex “Unless a man be born again of water
aqua et spiritu sancto, non potest and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter into
introire in regnum Dei: hoc vanum the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). This
est. Nullus enim a regno Dei objection is in vain. For no one is
excluditur nisi propter aliquam excluded from the kingdom of God
culpam. Finis enim omnis rationalis except for some fault. The end of every
creaturae est ut ad beatitudinem rational creature is to arrive at beatitude,
perveniat, quae esse non potest and this cannot be save in the kingdom
nisi in regno Dei. Quod quidem nihil of God. And this, in turn, is nothing but
est aliud quam ordinata societas the ordered society of those who enjoy
eorum qui divina visione fruuntur, in the divine vision, in which true beatitude
qua vera beatitudo consistit, ut consists, which is clear from the points
patet ex his quae in tertio sunt made in Book III. But nothing fails its
ostensa. Nihil autem a fine suo end except through a sin. Therefore, if
deficit nisi propter aliquod children not yet baptized cannot reach
peccatum. Si igitur pueri nondum the kingdom of God, one must say there
baptizati ad regnum Dei pervenire is some sin in them.
non possunt, oportet dicere esse in
eis aliquod peccatum.
Sic igitur, secundum Catholicae [11] Thus, then, according to the
fidei traditionem, tenendum est tradition of the Catholic faith one must
homines nasci cum peccato hold that men are born with original sin.
originali.
Caput 51 Chapter 51
Obiectiones contra peccatum OBJECTIONS AGAINST ORIGINAL
originale SIN
Sunt autem quaedam quae huic [1] There are, of course, certain things

veritati adversari videntur. which appear to be adversaries of this
truth.
Peccatum enim unius aliis non [7] For the sin of one man is not
imputatur ad culpam: unde Ezech. imputed as fault to others. So Ezekiel
1820 dicitur quod filius non portat (18:7.0) says: “the son shall not bear
iniquitatem patris. Et huius ratio est the iniquity of the father.” And the
quia non laudamur neque reason for this is that we are neither
vituperamur nisi ex his quae in nobis praised nor blamed except for the
sunt. Haec autem sunt quae nostra things which are in ourselves. But
voluntate committimus. Non igitur these are the things to which we are
peccatum primi hominis toti humano committed by will. Therefore, the sin of
generi imputatur. the first man is not imputed to the
entire human race.
Si vero quis dicat quod, uno [3] But let one answer that when one
peccante, omnes peccaverunt in sinned, “all sinned in him,” as the
ipso ut apostolus dicere videtur, et Apostle seems to say and so the sin of
sic uni non imputatur peccatum one is not imputed to another, but the
alterius, sed suum peccatum: hoc sin is his own. Yet even this, it seems,
etiam, ut videtur, stare non potest. cannot stand. For those born of Adam
Quia illi qui ex Adam nati sunt, were, when Adam sinned, not yet in
quando Adam peccavit, in eo him actually, but only in his power, as in
nondum erant actu, sed virtute their first origin. But to sin, since it is to
tantum, sicut in prima origine. act, is proportionate only to one who
Peccare autem, cum sit agere, non actually exists. Therefore, we did not
competit nisi existenti in actu. Non all sin in Adam.
igitur in Adam omnes peccavimus.
Si autem ita dicatur nos in Adam [4] But let it be said that we sinned in
peccasse quasi originaliter ab eo in Adam as though originally the sin
nos peccatum proveniat simul cum comes from him to us along with the
natura: hoc etiam impossibile nature. Even this seems impossible.
videtur. Accidens enim, cum de For an accident, since it does not pass
subiecto ad subiectum non transeat, from one subject to another, cannot be
non potest traduci nisi subiectum passed on unless the subject is passed
traducatur. Subiectum autem peccati on. But the subject of sin is the rational
anima rationalis est, quae non soul, which is not passed on to us from
traducitur in nos ex primo parente, our first parent, but is created by God
sed a Deo singillatim creatur in in each and one by one, as was shown
unoquoque, ut in secundo ostensum in Book II. Therefore, it is not by origin
est. Non igitur per originem that the sin of Adam flowed on to us.
peccatum ad nos ab Adam derivari
potest.
Adhuc. Si peccatum a primo parente [5] Further, if the sin of our first parent
in alios derivatur quia ab eo originem flows into others because they take
trahunt, cum Christus a primo their origin from him, then, since Christ
parente originem duxerit, videtur took His origin from our first parent, He,
quod ipse etiam peccato originali also, it seems, was subject to original
subiectus fuerit. Quod est alienum a sin. And this is foreign to the faith.
fide.
Praeterea. Quod consequitur aliquid [6] Moreover, what follows on a thing
secundum suam originem from its natural origin is natural to that
naturalem, est ei naturale. Quod thing. But what is natural to a thing is
autem est alicui naturale, non est not a sin in it, thus, the lack of vision is
peccatum in ipso: sicut in talpa non not a sin in a mole. Therefore, sin
est peccatum quod visu caret. Non could not flow into others by reason of
igitur per originem a primo homine their origin from the first man.
peccatum ad alios potuit derivari.
Si autem dicatur quod peccatum a [7] But let it now be said that the sin
primo parente in posteros derivatur flows from the first parent into his
per originem, non inquantum est descendants by way of origin, not
naturalis, sed inquantum est vitiata: inasmuch as the origin is natural, but
hoc etiam, ut videtur, stare non inasmuch as the origin is vitiated; this
potest. Defectus enim in opere also, it seems, cannot stand. For a
naturae non accidit nisi per defectum failure in nature’s work takes place only
alicuius naturalis principii: sicut per through the failure of some natural
corruptionem aliquam quae est in principle, due to some corruption in the
semine, causantur monstrosi partus seed, for example, monstrous births in
animalium. Non est autem dare animals are caused. But one cannot
alicuius naturalis principii grant the corruption of a natural
corruptionem in humano semine. principle in human seed. It seems,
Non videtur igitur quod aliquod then, that a sin does not flow from the
peccatum ex vitiata origine derivetur first parent into his descendants by a
in posteros a primo parente. vitiated origin.
Item. Peccata quae proveniunt in [8] Once again; the sins of nature,
operibus naturae per corruptionem appearing among its works by the
alicuius principii, non fiunt semper corruption of a principle, take place
vel frequenter, sed ut in paucioribus. neither always nor frequently except in
Si igitur per vitiatam originem a few cases. Therefore, if by a vitiated
peccatum a primo parente in origin sin flows from the first parent into
posteros derivetur, non derivabitur in his descendants, it will not flow into all,
omnes, sed in aliquos paucos. but into some few.
Praeterea. Si per vitiatam originem [9] And if, furthermore, due to a vitiated

aliquis defectus in prole proveniat, origin, a failure appears in the
eiusdem generis oportet esse illum offspring, that failure ought to be of the
defectum cum vitio qui est in origine: same genus as the vice which is in the
quia effectus sunt conformes suis origin, for effects are conformed to their
causis. Origo autem, sive generatio causes. The origin, of course, of
humana, cum sit actus potentiae human generation, since it is a
generativae, quae nullo modo perfection of the generative power,
participat rationem, non potest which shares reason not at all, can
habere in se vitium quod pertineat have no vice in it which belongs to the
ad genus culpae: quia in his solis genus of fault. For only in those acts
actibus potest esse virtus vel vitium can there be virtue or vice, which are
qui subduntur aliqualiter rationi; unde subject to reason in some fashion. And
non imputatur homini ad culpam si so one does not call it a man’s fault if,
propter vitiatam originem, nascatur due to a vitiated origin, he is born a
leprosus vel caecus. Nullo igitur leper or blind. Therefore, there is no
modo defectus culpabilis provenire way for a blameworthy failure to come
potest a primo parente in posteros down from the first parent to his
per vitiatam originem. descendant by origin.
Adhuc. Naturae bonum per [10] Yet again; nature’s good is not
peccatum non tollitur: unde etiam in taken away by sin. Wherefore, even in
Daemonibus manent naturalia bona, the demons natural goods remain, as
ut Dionysius dicit. Generatio autem Dionysius says. But generation is an
est actus naturae. Non igitur per act of nature. Therefore, the sin of the
peccatum primi hominis vitiari potuit first man could not vitiate the origin of
humanae generationis origo, ut sic human generation so that the sin of the
peccatum primi hominis ad posteros first man should flow into his
derivaretur. descendants.
Amplius. Homo generat sibi similem [11] Man, moreover, generates one like

secundum speciem. In his ergo quae himself in species. In things, then,
non pertinent ad generationem which have no bearing on the
speciei, non oportet filium assimilari generation of the species, the son
parentibus. Peccatum autem non need not be made like his parents. But
potest pertinere ad rationem speciei: sin cannot bear on the essentials of the
quia peccatum non est eorum quae species, for sin is not among the things
sunt secundum naturam, sed magis of nature; rather, it is a corruption of the
corruptio naturalis ordinis. Non igitur natural order. There is, then, no
oportet quod ex primo homine necessity that from a first man sinning
peccante alii peccatores nascantur. other sinners be born.
Praeterea. Filii magis similantur [12] There is more. Sons are more
proximis parentibus quam remotis. likened to their proximate than to their
Contingit autem quandoque quod remote parents. But at times it happens
proximi parentes sunt sine peccato, that the proximate parents are without
et in actu etiam generationis nullum sin and even in the act of generation
peccatum committitur. Non igitur no sin takes place. It is not, therefore,
propter peccatum primi parentis by the sin of the first parent that all are
peccatores omnes nascuntur. born sinners.
Deinde, si peccatum a primo homine [13] And again, if the sin of the first
in alios derivatum est; maioris autem man flowed into others, and—on the
virtutis in agendo est bonum quam other hand—the good is more powerful
malum, ut supra ostensum est: multo in acting than the evil (as was shown

magis satisfactio Adae, et iustitia above), then by so much the more was
eius, per eum ad alios transivit. the satisfaction of Adam, and his
justice, transferred through him to
others.
Adhuc. Si peccatum primi hominis [14] If the sin of the first man,
per originem propagatur in posteros, moreover, was by origin propagated to
pari etiam ratione peccata aliorum his descendants, by an equal reason
parentum ad posteros deveniunt. Et the sins of other parents pass down to
sic semper posteriores essent magis their descendants. And in this way the
onerati peccatis quam priores. Quod later would always be more burdened
praecipue ex hoc sequi necesse est, with sins than the earlier generations.
si peccatum transit a parente in Especially must this follow if, in fact,
prolem, et satisfactio transire non the sin passes on from the parent to
potest. the offspring, and the satisfaction
cannot pass on.
Caput 52 Chapter 52
Solutio obiectionum positarum SOLUTION OF THE OBJECTIONS
PROPOSED
Ad horum igitur solutionem, [1] Now, for the solution of these points
praemittendum est quod peccati one should first set down that certain
originalis in humano genere signs of the original sin appear with
probabiliter quaedam signa probability in the human race. For, since
apparent. Cum enim Deus God takes care of human acts so as to
humanorum actuum sic curam give reward for good works and set a
gerat ut bonis operibus praemium penalty for bad works, as was previously
et malis poenam retribuat, ut in shown, it is from the very penalty that we
superioribus est ostensum, ex ipsa can assure ourselves of the fault. Now,
poena possumus certificari de the human race commonly suffers
culpa. Patitur autem communiter various penalties, both bodily and
humanum genus diversas poenas, spiritual. Greatest among the bodily ones
et corporales et spirituales. Inter is death, and to this all the others are
corporales potissima est mors, ad ordered: namely, hunger, thirst, and
quam omnes aliae ordinantur: others of this sort. Greatest~ of course,
scilicet fames, sitis, et alia among the spiritual penalties is the frailty
huiusmodi. Inter spirituales autem of reason: from this it happens that man
est potissima debilitas rationis, ex with difficulty arrives at knowledge of the
qua contingit quod homo difficulter truth; that with ease he falls into error,
pervenit ad veri cognitionem, et de and that he cannot entirely overcome his
facili labitur in errorem; et appetitus beastly appetites, but is over and over
bestiales omnino superare non again beclouded by them.
potest, sed multoties obnubilatur
ab eis.
Posset tamen aliquis dicere [2] For all that, one could say that defects

huiusmodi defectus, tam of this kind, both bodily and spiritual, are

corporales quam spirituales, non not penalties, but natural defects
esse poenales, sed naturales necessarily consequent upon matter. For,
defectus ex necessitate materiae necessarily, the human body, composed
consequentes. Necesse est enim of contraries, must be corruptible; and
corpus humanum, cum sit ex the sensible appetite must be moved to
contrariis compositum, corruptibile sense pleasures, and these are
esse; et sensibilem appetitum in ea occasionally contrary to reason. And,
quae sunt secundum sensum since the possible intellect is in potency
delectabilia moveri, quae interdum to all intelligibles, possessing none of
sunt contraria rationi; et cum them actually, but by nature acquiring
intellectus possibilis sit in potentia them from the senses, one must arrive at
ad omnia intelligibilia, nullum knowledge of the truth with difficulty, and
eorum habens in actu, sed ex due to the phantasms one with ease
sensibus natus ea acquirere, deviates from the truth. But, for all that,
difficulter ad scientiam veritatis let one weigh matters rightly, and he will
pertingere, et de facili propter be able to judge with probability enough
phantasmata a vero deviare. Sed —granted a divine providence which for
tamen si quis recte consideret, every perfection has contrived a
satis probabiliter poterit aestimare, proportionate perfectible—that God
divina providentia supposita, quae united a superior to an inferior nature for
singulis perfectionibus congrua this purpose: that the superior rule the
perfectibilia coaptavit, quod Deus inferior, and that, if some obstacle to this
superiorem naturam inferiori ad dominion should happen from a failure of
hoc coniunxit ut ei dominaretur; et nature, it would be removed by His
si quod huius dominii special and supernatural benefaction.
impedimentum ex defectu naturae And the result would be, since the
contingeret, eius speciali et rational soul is of a higher nature than
supernaturali beneficio tolleretur; ut the body, belief that the rational soul was
scilicet, cum anima rationalis sit united to the body under such a condition
altioris naturae quam corpus, tali that in the body there can be nothing
conditione credatur corpori esse contrary to the soul by which the body
coniuncta quod in corpore aliquid lives; and, in like fashion, if reason in
esse non possit contrarium man is united to the sensual appetite and
animae, per quam corpus vivit; et other sensitive powers, that the reason
similiter, si ratio in homine appetitui be not impeded by the sensible powers,
sensuali coniungitur et aliis but be master over them.
sensitivis potentiis, quod ratio a
sensitivis potentiis, non impediatur,
sed magis eis dominetur.
Sic igitur, secundum doctrinam [3] Thus, then, according to the teaching

fidei, ponimus hominem a principio of the faith, we set it down that man from
taliter esse institutum quod, the beginning was thus established by
quandiu ratio hominis Deo esset God: As long as man’s reason was
subiecta, et inferiores vires ei sine subject to God, not only did the inferior
impedimento deservirent, et corpus powers serve reason without obstacle,
ab eius subiectione impediri non but the body also could not be impeded
posset per aliquod impedimentum in subjection to reason by any bodily
corporale, Deo et sua gratia obstacle—God and His grace supplying,
supplente quod ad hoc because nature had too little for
perficiendum natura minus perfecting this establishment. But, when
habebat; ratione autem aversa a reason turned away from God, not only
Deo, et inferiores vires a ratione did the inferior powers rebel from reason,
repugnarent, et corpus vitae, quae but the body also sustained passions
est per animam, contrarias contrary to that life which is from the
passiones susciperet. soul.
Sic igitur huiusmodi defectus, [4] Of course, although defects of this
quamvis naturales homini kind may seem natural to man in an
videantur, absolute considerando absolute consideration of human nature
humanam naturam ex parte eius on its inferior side, nonetheless, taking
quod est in ea inferius, tamen, into consideration divine providence and
considerando divinam the dignity of human nature on its
providentiam et dignitatem superior side, it can be proved with
superioris partis humanae naturae, enough probability that defects of this
satis probabiliter probari potest kind are penalties. And one can gather
huiusmodi defectus esse poenales. thus that the human race was originally
Et sic colligi potest humanum infected with sin.
genus peccato aliquo originaliter
esse infectum.
His igitur visis respondendum est [5] These things now seen, one must
ad ea quae in contrarium sunt answer to the points made as contrary
obiecta. objections.
Non enim est inconveniens quod, [6] Now, there is no awkwardness in
uno peccante, peccatum in omnes saying that when one sins the sin is
dicimus per originem esse propagated to all in their origin, even
propagatum, quamvis unusquisque though each is praised or blamed
ex proprio actu laudetur vel according to his own act; as the first
vituperetur: ut prima ratio argument attempted to proceed. For
procedebat. Aliter enim est in his things go one way in matters of a single
quae sunt unius individui, et aliter individual, and another way in matters of
in his quae sunt totius naturae the entire nature of a species, since “by
speciei: nam participatione speciei participation in the species many men
sunt plures homines velut unus are as one man,” as Porphyry says. A
homo, ut Porphyrius dicit. sin, then, which refers to an individual
Peccatum igitur quod ad aliquod man or his person is not imputed to
individuum sive personam hominis another as fault unless he be the sinner,
pertinet, alteri non imputatur ad since personally one is divided off from
culpam nisi peccanti: quia another. But, if there is a sin which looks
personaliter unus ab alio divisus to the nature of the species itself, there is
est. Si quod autem peccatum est nothing awkward about its propagation
quod ipsam naturam speciei from one to another, just as the nature of
respiciat, non est inconveniens the species is communicated through
quod ex uno propagetur in alterum: one to others. But, since sin is a kind of
sicut et natura speciei per unum evil of rational nature, and evil a privation
aliis communicatur. Cum autem of good, one judges on the basis of the
peccatum malum quoddam sit missing good whether a sin is related to

rationalis naturae; malum autem a nature commonly or to a person
est privatio boni: secundum illud
bonum quod privatur, iudicandum
est peccatum aliquod ad naturam
communem, vel ad aliquam
personam propriam pertinere.
Peccata igitur actualia, quae Of course, actual sins which are
communiter ab hominibus aguntur, committed by all men commonly deprive
adimunt aliquod bonum personae the person of the sinner of a good: grace,
peccantis, puta gratiam et ordinem for instance, and the due order of the
debitum partium animae: unde parts of the soul. This is why they are
personalia sunt, nec, uno personal, and why, when one sins, the
peccante, alteri imputatur. Primum sin is not imputed to another. But the first
autem peccatum primi hominis non sin of the first man not only deprived him
solum peccantem destituit proprio of his proper and personal good—
et personali bono, scilicet gratia et namely, grace, and the due order of the
debito ordine animae, sed etiam parts of the soul—he was deprived as
bono ad naturam communem well of a good related to the common
pertinente. Ut enim supra dictum nature. For—as we said above—human
est, sic natura humana fuit instituta nature was established in its first
in sui primordio quod inferiores beginning so that the inferior powers
vires perfecte rationi subiicerentur, were perfectly subject to reason, the
ratio Deo, et animae corpus, Deo reason to God, the body to the soul, and
per gratiam supplente id quod ad God was by His grace supplying what
hoc deerat per naturam. nature lacked for this arrangement. Now,
Huiusmodi autem beneficium, this kind of benefit which some call
quod a quibusdam originalis iustitia “original justice” was conferred on the
dicitur, sic primo homini collatum first man in such wise that he was to
fuit ut ab eo simul cum natura propagate it to his descendants along
humana propagaretur in posteros. with human nature. But in the sin of the
Ratione autem per peccatum primi first man reason withdrew itself from the
hominis se subtrahente a divine subjection. And it has followed
subiectione divina, subsecutum est thereon that the lower powers are not
quod nec inferiores vires perfecte perfectly subject to the reason nor is the
rationi subiiciantur, nec animae body to the soul; and this is not only the
corpus: et hoc non tantum in primo case for the first sinner, but the same
peccante, sed idem defectus consequent defect follows into his
consequens pervenit ad posteros, posterity and to the posterity in whom the
ad quos etiam dicta originalis original justice mentioned was going to
iustitia perventura erat. Sic igitur follow. Thus, then, the sin of the first man
peccatum primi hominis, a quo from whom all other men are derived
omnes alii secundum doctrinam according to the teaching of faith was not
fidei sunt derivati, et personale fuit, only personal in that it deprived the first
inquantum ipsum primum hominem man of his own good, but natural, also, in
proprio bono privavit; et naturale, that it deprived him and consequently his
inquantum abstulit sibi et suis descendants of the benefit bestowed on
posteris consequenter beneficium the entire human nature. Thus, too, this
collatum toti humanae naturae. Sic kind of defect which is in others as a
igitur huiusmodi defectus in aliis consequence from the first parent still
consequens ex primo parente, has in others the essentials of fault so far
etiam in aliis rationem culpae as all men are counted as one man by
habet, prout omnes homines participation in the common nature. For
computantur unus homo per one discovers the voluntary character in
participationem naturae communis. a sin of this kind in the will of the first
Sic enim invenitur voluntarium parent much as the action of the hand
huiusmodi peccatum voluntate has the essentials of fault from the will of
primi parentis quemadmodum et the first mover, which is the power of
actio manus rationem culpae habet reason; as a result, in a sin of nature
ex voluntate primi moventis, quod judgments are made about the diverse
est ratio: ut sic aestimentur in men as though parts of a common
peccato naturae diversi homines nature, much as they are made in a
quasi naturae communis partes, personal sin about diverse parts of one
sicut in peccato personali diversae man.
unius hominis partes.
Secundum hoc igitur verum est [7] In this way, then, it is true to say that

dicere quod, uno peccante, omnes when one sinned, “all sinned in him,” as
peccaverunt in ipso, ut apostolus the Apostle says, and on this basis the
dicit: secundum quod secunda second argument made its proposal.
ratio proponebat. Non quod essent Other men were present in Adam,
actu in ipso alii homines, sed however, not in act, but only in his power
virtute, sicut in originali principio. as in an Original principle. Nor are they
Nec dicuntur peccasse in eo quasi said to have sinned in him as exercising
aliquem actum exercentes: sed any act, but so far as they belong to
inquantum pertinent ad naturam Adam’s nature which was corrupted by
ipsius, quae per peccatum corrupta sin.
est.
Nec tamen sequitur, si peccatum a [8] Let the sin be propagated from the

primo parente propagatur in first parent to his descendants.
posteros, cum subiectum peccati Nevertheless, it does not follow, although
sit anima rationalis, quod anima the subject of sin is the rational soul, that
rationalis simul cum semine the rational soul is propagated along with
propagetur: secundum processum the seed; as the progress of the third
tertiae rationis. Hoc enim modo argument had it. For the manner of
propagatur hoc peccatum naturae propagating this sin of nature which is
quod originale dicitur, sicut et ipsa called original is like that of the very
natura speciei, quae, quamvis per nature of the species, and this nature,
animam rationalem perficiatur, non although it is perfected by the rational
tamen propagatur cum semine, soul, is for all that not propagated with
sed solum corpus ad the seed; such propagation is only of the
susceptionem talis animae aptum body fitted by nature to receive such a
natum, ut in secundo ostensum soul. It was in Book II that we showed
est. this.
Et licet Christus a primo parente [9] We grant that Christ was a
secundum carnem descenderit, descendant of the first parent in the
non tamen inquinationem originalis flesh. For all that, He did not incur the
peccati incurrit, ut quarta ratio contamination of original sin as the fourth
concludebat: quia materiam argument concluded. For it was only the
humani corporis solum a primo matter of His human body which He
parente suscepit; virtus autem received from the first parent; the power
formativa corporis eius non fuit a to form His body was not derived from
primo parente derivata, sed fuit the first parent, but was the power of the
virtus spiritus sancti, ut supra Holy Spirit, as was shown. Accordingly,
ostensum est. Unde naturam He did not receive human nature from
humanam non ab Adam accepit Adam as an agent although He did
sicut ab agente: licet eam de Adam receive it from Adam as from a material
susceperit sicut de materiali principle.
principio.
Considerandum est etiam quod [10] One should consider this, also: The
praedicti defectus per naturalem natures origin passes along the defects
originem traducuntur ex eo quod mentioned because the nature has been
natura destituta est auxilio gratiae, stripped of that help of grace which had
quod ei fuerat in primo parente been bestowed on it in the first parent to
collatum ad posteros simul cum pass on to his descendants along with
natura derivandum. Et quia haec the nature. Now, since this stripping
destitutio ex voluntario peccato came from a voluntary sin, the
processit, defectus consequens consequent defect has the character of
suscipit culpae rationem. Sic igitur fault. Hence, defects of this kind are
defectus huiusmodi et culpabiles faulty when referred to their first
sunt per comparationem ad principle, which is the sin of Adam; and
primum principium, quod est they are natural when referred to the
peccatum Adae; et naturales sunt nature already stripped. Accordingly, the
per comparationem ad naturam Apostle says: ‘We were by nature
iam destitutam; unde et apostolus children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3). In this way
dicit, Ephes. 23: eramus natura filii one answers the fifth objection.
irae. Et per hoc solvitur ratio
quinta.
Patet igitur secundum praedicta [11] Clearly, then, from what has been
quod vitium originis ex quo said, the vice of origin in which the
peccatum originale causatur, original sin is caused comes from the
provenit ex defectu alicuius failure of a principle, namely, the
principii, scilicet gratuiti doni quod gratuitous gift which human nature at its
naturae humanae in sui institutione institution had had bestowed upon it. To
fuit collatum. Quod quidem donum be sure, this gift was in a sense natural:
quodammodo fuit naturale: non not natural as caused by the principles of
quasi ex principiis naturae the nature, but natural because it was
causatum, sed quia sic fuit homini given to man to be propagated along
datum ut simul cum natura with his nature. But the sixth objection”
propagaretur. Obiectio autem sexta was dealing with the natural which is
procedebat secundum quod caused by the principles of the nature.
naturale dicitur quod ex principiis
naturae causatur.
Procedit etiam septima ratio, per [12] The seventh objection proceeds in
modum eundem, de defectu the same way, from a defect of a natural
principii naturalis quod pertinet ad principle belonging to the nature of the
naturam speciei: quod enim ex species. Of course, what comes from a
defectu huiusmodi naturalis defect of a natural principle of this kind
principii provenit, accidit ut in happens in but few cases. But the defect
paucioribus. Sed defectus of original sin comes from the defect of a
originalis peccati provenit ex principle added over and above the
defectu principii superadditi principles of the species, as we said.
principiis speciei, ut dictum est.
Sciendum est etiam quod in actu [13] Be it observed, also, that in the act
generativae virtutis non potest of the generative powers there can be no
esse vitium de genere actualis vice in the genus of actual sin which
peccati, quod ex voluntate depends on the will of a single person,
singularis personae dependet, eo because the act of the generative power
quod actus generativae virtutis non is not obedient to reason or to will, as the
obedit rationi vel voluntati, ut eighth objection went. But nothing
octava ratio procedebat. Sed prevents our finding the vice of original
vitium originalis culpae, quae ad sin—this refers to nature—in an act of
naturam pertinet, nihil prohibet in the generative power, since acts of the
actu generativae potentiae inveniri: generative powers are called natural.
cum et actus generativae potentiae
naturales dicantur.
Quod vero nono obiicitur, de facili [14] The ninth objection, of course, can
solvi potest secundum praemissa. readily be answered from the points
Per peccatum enim non tollitur already made. For sin does not take
bonum naturae quod ad speciem away that good of nature which belongs
naturae pertinet: sed bonum to the nature’s species. But that good of
naturae quod per gratiam nature which grace added over and
superadditum fuit, potuit per above nature could be removed by the
peccatum primi parentis auferri, ut sin of our first parent. This was said
supra dictum est. before.
Patet etiam ex eisdem de facili [15] From the same points one easily
solutio ad decimam rationem. Quia answers the tenth objection. For, since
cum privatio et defectus sibi privation and defect correspond to one
invicem correspondeant, ea ratione another mutually, in that characteristic in
in peccato originali filii parentibus original sin are the children made like to
similantur, qua etiam donum, a the parents in which the gift also, granted
principio naturae praestitum, the nature in the beginning, would have
fuisset a parentibus in posteros been propagated to their descendants;
propagatum: quia licet ad rationem for, although the gift did not belong to the
speciei non pertineret, tamen ex essentials of the species, it was given by
divina gratia datum fuit primo divine grace to the first man to flow from
homini ut ab eo in totam speciem him into the entire species.
derivandum.
Considerandum est etiam quod, [16] This, too, must be considered: Let
licet aliquis per gratiae sacramenta one by the sacraments of grace be
sic ab originali peccato mundetur cleansed from original sin so that it is not
ut ei non imputetur ad culpam, imputed a fault in him (and for him
quod est personaliter ipsum a personally this is to be freed from original
peccato originali liberari, non sin); for all that, the nature is not entirely
tamen natura totaliter sanatur: et healed; therefore, in an act of the nature
ideo secundum actum naturae the original sin is transmitted to his
peccatum originale transmittitur in descendants. Thus, then, in a man who
posteros. Sic igitur in homine generates there is no original sin in so far
generante inquantum est persona as he is a given person; and it also
quaedam, non est originale happens that in the act of generation
peccatum; et contingit etiam in there is no actual sin, which the eleventh
actu generationis nullum esse argument was proposing. But so far as
actuale peccatum, ut undecima the man who generates is the natural
ratio proponebat; sed inquantum principle of generation, the infection of
homo generans est naturale the original sin which bears on nature
generationis principium, infectio remains in him and in his act of
originalis peccati, quod naturam generation.
respicit, in eo manet et in actu
generationis ipsius.
Sciendum etiam est quod [17] Be it observed, also, that the actual

peccatum actuale primi hominis in sin of the first man passed over into
naturam transivit: quia natura in eo nature because the nature in him had
erat beneficio naturae praestito been further perfected by the benefit
adhuc perfecta. Sed per peccatum bestowed on the nature. But, when by
ipsius natura hoc beneficio his sin the nature was stripped of the
destituta, actus eius simpliciter benefit, his act was simply personal.
personalis fuit. Unde non potuit Hence, he could not satisfy for the entire
satisfacere pro tota natura, neque nature, nor could he make the good of
bonum naturae reintegrare per nature whole once more by his act. But
suum actum: sed solum the only satisfaction of which he was
satisfacere aliquatenus potuit pro somewhat capable was that which had a
eo quod ad ipsius personam bearing on his own person. Therein the
spectabat. Ex quo patet solutio ad answer to the twelfth argument appears.
duodecimam rationem.
Similiter autem et ad [18] In like manner, of course, one
tertiamdecimam: quia peccata answers the thirteenth, for the sins of
posteriorum parentum inveniunt later parents find a nature stripped of the
naturam destitutam beneficio benefit which was at the outset granted
primitus ipsi naturae concesso. to the nature itself. Hence, from those
Unde ex eis non sequitur aliquis sins no defect follows which is
defectus qui propagetur in propagated to the descendants, but only
posteros, sed solum qui personam a defect which infects the person of the
peccantis inficiat. one sinning.
Sic igitur non est inconveniens, [19] Thus, then, it is neither unsuitable
neque contra rationem, peccatum nor irrational to affirm the presence of
originale in hominibus esse: ut original sin in men, and thus the heresy
Pelagianorum haeresis of the Pelagians, which was a denial of
confundatur, quae peccatum original sin, is confounded.
originale negavit.
Caput 53 Chapter 53
Rationes quibus videtur probari ARGUMENTS WHICH SEEM TO
quod non fuit conveniens Deum PROVE THAT GOD’S INCARNATION
incarnari WAS NOT SUITABLE
Quia vero incarnationis fides ab [1] Faith in the Incarnation, of course, is

infidelibus stultitia reputatur, counted foolishness by unbelievers, as
secundum illud apostoli, I Cor. 121, the Apostle has it: “It pleased God by
placuit Deo per stultitiam the foolishness of our preaching to save
praedicationis salvos facere them that believe” (1 Cor. 1:21); and it
credentes; stultum autem videtur seems foolish to preach a thing which is
aliquid praedicare, non solum quia not just impossible, but also
est impossibile, sed etiam quia est unbecoming; therefore, the unbelievers
indecens: insistunt infideles ad press on their fight against the
incarnationis impugnationem, non Incarnation, and they try not only to
solum nitentes ostendere esse show that what the Catholic faith
impossibile quod fides Catholica preaches is impossible, but also that it
praedicat, sed etiam incongruum is inharmonious, and that it ill befits the
esse, et divinam bonitatem non divine goodness.
decere.
Est enim divinae bonitati conveniens [2] For it does befit the divine goodness
ut omnia suum ordinem teneant. Est that all things stand fast in order. Now,
autem hic ordo rerum, ut Deus sit the order of things is this: that God be
super omnia exaltatus, homo autem exalted above all things, but man
inter infimas creaturas contineatur. hemmed in among the lowest
Non igitur decet divinam maiestatem creatures. Therefore, it ill befits the
humanae naturae uniri. divine majesty to be united to human
nature.
Item. Si conveniens fuit Deum [3] Once more; if it was suitable for God

hominem fieri, oportuit hoc esse to become man, this had to be for some
propter aliquam utilitatem inde usefulness coming therefrom. But
provenientem. Sed quaecumque whatever be the usefulness granted,
utilitas detur, cum Deus omnipotens since God is omnipotent He could
sit, hanc utilitatem producere potuit produce this usefulness merely by His
sola sua voluntate. Cum igitur will. Therefore, since it becomes
unumquodque fieri conveniat quam everything whatever to be done as
brevissime potest, non oportuit quod quickly as possible, it was unnecessary
Deus propter huiusmodi utilitatem for a utility of this sort that God unite
humanam naturam sibi uniret. human nature to Himself.
Adhuc. Cum Deus sit universalis [4] Since God is, moreover, the
omnium causa, ad utilitatem totius universal cause of all things. He should
universitatis rerum eum praecipue especially attend the usefulness of
intendere oportet. Sed assumptio things in their universal entirety. But the
humanae naturae solum ad assumption of human nature looks only
utilitatem hominis pertinet. Non igitur to the usefulness of man. It was,
fuit conveniens quod, si alienam therefore, not seemly for God, if He was
naturam Deus assumere debuit, to take on a foreign nature, to assume
quod solum naturam humanam only human nature.
assumpserit.
Amplius. Quanto aliquid est alicui [5] Moreover, the more one thing is like

magis simile, tanto ei convenientius another, the more suitably it is united to
unitur. Deo autem similior et the other. But the angelic nature is more
propinquior est angelica natura like God and closer to Him than human
quam humana. Non igitur nature. Therefore, it was not suitable to
conveniens fuit assumere naturam assume human nature and pass over
humanam, angelica praetermissa. the angelic.
Praeterea. Id quod est praecipuum [6] There is more. The chief thing in
in homine est intelligentia veritatis. man is his understanding of the truth.
In quo videtur homini impedimentum And in this man seems to be impeded if
praestari si Deus humanam naturam God assumed human nature, for man is
assumpsit: datur enim ei ex hoc thus given an occasion of error, its
erroris occasio, ut consentiat his qui result is agreement with those who held
posuerunt Deum non esse super that God is not exalted above all
omnia corpora exaltatum. Non igitur bodies. Therefore, it contributed nothing
hoc ad humanae naturae utilitatem useful to human nature for God to
conveniebat, quod Deus humanam assume human nature.
naturam assumeret.
Item. Experimento discere [7] Again, we can learn from experience

possumus quod circa incarnationem that many an error concerning the
Dei plurimi errores sunt exorti. Incarnation of God has arisen. It seems,
Videtur igitur humanae saluti then, that it was not becoming human
conveniens non fuisse quod Deus salvation that God should be incarnate.
incarnaretur.
Adhuc. Inter omnia quae Deus fecit, [8] Furthermore, among all the things

istud videtur esse maximum, quod that God has done, that appears the
ipsemet carnem assumpserit. Ex greatest: His own assumption of flesh.
maximo autem opere maxima debet But from the greatest work one should
expectari utilitas. Si igitur incarnatio look for the greatest usefulness. If,
Dei ad salutem hominum ordinatur, then, the Incarnation of God is ordered
videtur fuisse conveniens quod ipse to the salvation of men, it appears that it
totum humanum genus salvasset: was becoming that He should have
cum etiam omnium hominum salus saved the entire human race, since
vix videatur esse competens utilitas even all men’s salvation scarcely
pro qua tantum opus fieri debuisset. seems to be useful enough that so
great a work should have been done for
it.
Amplius. Si propter salutem [9] What is more, if God assumed
hominum Deus humanam naturam human nature for the salvation of men,
assumpsit, videtur fuisse apparently it was suitable that there be
conveniens ut eius divinitas enough indications for men of His
hominibus per sufficientia indicia divinity. But it seems this did not
manifestaretur. Hoc autem non happen, for some other men simply
videtur contigisse: nam per aliquos assisted by the divine power and
alios homines, solo auxilio divinae without God’s union to their nature are
virtutis absque unione Dei ad eorum discovered doing miracles like or even
naturam, inveniuntur similia greater than those which Christ did (cf.
miracula esse facta, vel etiam John 24:12). It seems, then, that Gods,
maiora quam fecerit Christus. Non Incarnation did not take place with
igitur videtur Dei incarnatio enough care for human salvation.
sufficienter procurata fuisse ad
humanam salutem.
Praeterea. Si hoc necessarium fuit [10] There is more. If it was necessary
humanae saluti quod Deus carnem for human salvation that God take on
assumeret, cum a principio mundi flesh, since there were men from the
homines fuerint, videtur quod a beginning of the world, it appears that
principio mundi humanam naturam from the beginning of the world He
assumere debuit, et non quasi in ought to have assumed human nature,
fine temporum: videtur enim and not, so to say, in the last days, for it
omnium praecedentium hominum seems that the salvation of all the
salus praetermissa fuisse. preceding men was passed over.
Item. Pari ratione, usque ad finem [11] For the same reason, also, He
mundi debuisset cum hominibus should have dwelt among men to the
conversari, ut homines sua very end of the world, in order to
praesentia erudiret et gubernaret. instruct men by His presence and
govern them.
Adhuc. Hoc maxime hominibus utile [12] Then, too, this is, above all, useful
est, ut futurae beatitudinis in eis to men: to solidify in them the hope of
spes fundetur. Hanc autem spem future beatitude. But this hope would
magis ex Deo incarnato have been better conceived from an
concepisset, si carnem immortalem incarnate God if He had assumed an
et impassibilem et gloriosam immortal, impassible, and glorious flesh
assumpsisset, et omnibus and had displayed this to all men.
ostendisset. Non igitur videtur fuisse Therefore, it seems not suitable to have
conveniens quod carnem mortalem assumed a mortal and frail flesh.
et infirmam assumpserit.
Amplius. Videtur fuisse conveniens, [13] Apparently it was suitable,

ad ostendendum quod omnia quae furthermore, to show that whatever is in
in mundo sunt, sint a Deo, quod the world is from God, He should have
ipse abundantia rerum mundanarum put to use the abundance of earthly
usus fuisset, in divitiis et in maximis things, living in riches and the greatest
honoribus vivens. Cuius contraria de honors. It is the contrary we read of
ipso leguntur: quod pauperem et Him: that He. led a poor and abject life,
abiectam vitam duxit, et probrosam that He suffered a shameful death.
mortem sustinuit. Non igitur videtur Therefore, what the faith preaches
esse conveniens quod fides de Deo about the incarnate God is not suitable.
incarnato praedicat.
Praeterea. Ex hoc quod ipse abiecta [14] The fact, moreover, that He

passus est, eius divinitas maxime suffered abjectly did most to obscure
fuit occultata: cum tamen hoc His divinity. Nonetheless, the most
maxime necessarium fuerit necessary thing for men all the while
hominibus ut eius divinitatem was this: that they know His divinity—if
cognoscerent, si ipse fuit Deus He was God incarnate. It seems, then,
incarnatus. Non igitur videtur quod that what the faith preaches, is not in
fides praedicat humanae saluti harmony with human salvation.
convenire.
Si quis autem dicat quod propter [15] Let a man say that the Son of God

obedientiam patris filius Dei mortem underwent death by reason of His
sustinuit, hoc non videtur obedience to the Father—this also
rationabile. Obedientia enim appears unreasonable. For obedience
impletur per hoc quod obediens se consists in one’s conforming himself to
conformat voluntati praecipientis. the will of him who commands. But the
Voluntas autem Dei patris will of God the Father cannot be
irrationabilis esse non potest. Si unreasonable. If, then, it was
igitur non fuit conveniens Deum unbecoming for God made man to
hominem factum mortem pati, quia suffer death because death seems
mors contraria esse videtur contrary to divinity which is life, the
divinitati, quae vita est, huius rei reason for this thing cannot suitably be
ratio ex obedientia ad patrem found in obedience to the Father.
convenienter assignari non potest.
Praeterea. Voluntas Dei non est ad [16] God’s will, moreover, is not for the
mortem hominum, etiam death of men, even sinners, but for life,
peccatorum, sed magis ad vitam: as Ezekiel (18:23, 32) says: “I will not
secundum illud Ezech. 18: nolo the death Of the sinner, but rather that
mortem peccatoris, sed magis ut he be converted and live.” By so much
convertatur et vivat. Multo igitur the less, then, could it have been the
minus potuit esse voluntas Dei will of God that the most perfect man be
patris ut homo perfectissimus morti subject to death.
subiiceretur.
Amplius. Impium et crudele videtur [17] It seems, furthermore, impious and

innocentem praecepto ad mortem cruel to command an innocent to be led

inducere: et praecipue pro impiis, to death, especially on behalf of the
qui morte sunt digni. Homo autem impious who are worthy of death. But
Christus Iesus innocens fuit. Impium the man Christ Jesus was innocent.
igitur fuisset si praecepto Dei patris Therefore, it would have been impious if
mortem subiisset. at the command of God the Father He
had undergone death.
Si vero aliquis dicat hoc [18] But let a man say that this was
necessarium fuisse propter necessary as a demonstration of
humilitatem demonstrandam, sicut humility, as the Apostle appears to say,
apostolus videtur dicere, Philipp. 2, that Christ “humbled Himself, becoming
quod Christus humiliavit obedient unto death” (Phil. 2:8)—this
semetipsum factus obediens usque reason is not suitable either, because,
ad mortem: nec haec quidem ratio in the first place, one must commend
conveniens videtur. Primum quidem, humility in him who has a superior to
quia in eo commendanda est whom he can be subject. This cannot
humilitas qui habet superiorem, cui be said of God. Therefore, it was not
subiici possit: quod de Deo dici non suitable for God’s Word to be humbled
potest. Non igitur conveniens fuit unto death.
Dei verbum humiliari usque ad
mortem.
Item. Satis homines ad humilitatem [19] Again, men were able to be
informari poterant verbis divinis, informed sufficiently about humility by
quibus est fides omnimoda the divine words—to which faith must
adhibenda, et exemplis humanis. wholly cling—and by human examples.
Non igitur ad demonstrandum Therefore, to set an example of humility
humilitatis exemplum necessarium it was not necessary for the Word of
fuit verbum Dei aut carnem sumere, God either to assume flesh or to
aut mortem subire. undergo death.
Si quis autem iterum dicat quod [20] But, again, let one say that it was
propter nostrorum peccatorum necessary for the cleansing of our sins
purgationem necessarium fuit that Christ undergo death and the other
Christum mortem subire et alia quae seemingly abject things; as the Apostle
videntur esse abiecta, sicut says: “He was delivered up for our sins”
apostolus dicit quod traditus est (Rom. 4:25); and again: “He was
propter peccata nostra, et iterum, offered once to exhaust the sins of
mortuus est ad multorum many” (Heb. 9:28). This, too, seems
exhaurienda peccata: nec hoc awkward, because, in the first place,
videtur esse conveniens. Primo only by God’s grace are men cleansed
quidem, quia per solam Dei gratiam of sins.
hominum peccata purgantur.
Deinde quia, si aliqua satisfactio [21] In the next place, because, if
requirebatur, conveniens fuit ut ille satisfaction was required, it was
satisfaceret qui peccavit: quia in suitable that he should give satisfaction
iusto Dei iudicio unusquisque onus who had sinned. For in the just
suum debet portare. judgment of God “every one shall bear
his own burden” (Gal. 6:5).
Item. Si conveniens fuit ut aliquis [22] Again, if it was becoming for
homine puro maior pro homine someone greater than, pure man to
satisfaceret, sufficiens fuisse videtur satisfy for man, it seems it would have
si Angelus, carne assumpta, been sufficient for an angel to take flesh
huiusmodi satisfactionem implesset: and fulfill this sort of satisfaction, since
cum Angelus naturaliter sit superior an angel is by nature superior to a man.
homine.
Praeterea. Peccatum non expiatur [23] What is more, sin is not expiated by

peccato, sed magis augetur. Si igitur sin, but increased. Then, if Christ had to
per mortem Christus satisfacere satisfy by death, His death should have
debuit, talis debuit eius mors esse in been such that no man sinned therein;
qua nullus peccaret: ut scilicet non that is to say, He should have died not a
violenta morte, sed naturaliter violent, but a natural, death.
moreretur.
Adhuc. Si pro peccatis hominum [24] If Christ, moreover, had to die for
Christum mori oportuit, cum the sins of men, since men sin
frequenter homines peccent, frequently He should have had to
oportuisset eum frequenter mortem undergo death frequently.
subire.
Si quis autem dicat quod specialiter 125] Now, let one say that it was

propter peccatum originale especially because of original sin that
necessarium fuit Christum nasci et Christ had to be born and to suffer, and
pati, quod quidem totam naturam that sin had infected the whole human
humanam infecerat, homine primo race when the first man sinned. But this
peccante: hoc impossibile videtur. seems impossible. For, if other men are
Si enim alii homines ad not equal to satisfying for original sin,
satisfaciendum pro peccato originali neither does the death of Christ seem
sufficientes non sunt, nec mors to have been satisfactory for the sins of
Christi pro peccatis humani generis the human race, since He Himself died
satisfactoria fuisse videtur: quia et in His human, not in His divine nature.
ipse secundum humanam naturam
mortuus est, non secundum
divinam.
Praeterea. Si Christus pro peccatis [26] Furthermore, if Christ made
humani generis sufficienter satisfaction enough for the sins of the
satisfecit, iniustum videtur esse human race, it seems unjust that men
quod homines adhuc poenas still suffer the penalties which were
patiantur, quas pro peccato brought in, Scripture says, by sin.
Scriptura divina inductas esse
commemorat.
Adhuc. Si Christus sufficienter pro [27] There is more. If Christ made
peccatis humani generis satisfecit, satisfaction enough for the sins of the
non essent ultra remedia pro human race, no further remedies for the
absolutione peccatorum quaerenda. absolution of sins need be sought. But
Quaeruntur autem semper ab they are constantly sought by all who
omnibus qui suae salutis curam have care for their salvation. Therefore,
habent. Non igitur videtur it seems that Christ did not sufficiently
sufficienter Christum peccata take away the sins of men.
hominum abstulisse.
Haec igitur sunt, et similia, ex [28] These and similar points, then, can

quibus alicui videri potest ea quae make it appear to a man that what the
de incarnatione fides Catholica Catholic faith preaches about the
praedicat, divinae maiestati et Incarnation has not been harmonious
sapientiae convenientia non fuisse. with the divine majesty and wisdom.
Caput 54 Chapter 54
Quod conveniens fuit Deum THAT IT WAS SUITABLE FOR GOD
incarnari TO BE MADE FLESH
Si quis autem diligenter et pie [1] However, if one earnestly and
incarnationis mysteria consideret, devoutly weighs the mysteries of the
inveniet tantam sapientiae Incarnation, he will find so great a depth
profunditatem quod humanam of wisdom that it exceeds human
cognitionem excedat: secundum knowledge. In the Apostle’s words: “The
illud apostoli: quod stultum est Dei, foolishness of God is wiser then men”
sapientius est hominibus. Unde fit ut (1 Cor. 1:25). Hence it happens that to
pie consideranti semper magis ac him who devoutly considers it, more
magis admirabiles rationes huius and more wondrous aspects of this
mysterii manifestantur. mystery are made manifest.
Primum igitur hoc considerandum [2] First, then, let this be taken into
est, quod incarnatio Dei consideration: The Incarnation of God
efficacissimum fuit auxilium homini was the most efficacious assistance to
ad beatitudinem tendenti. Ostensum man in his striving for beatitude. For we
est enim in tertio quod perfecta have shown in Book III, that the perfect
beatitudo hominis in immediata Dei beatitude of man consists in the
visione consistit. Posset autem immediate vision of God. It might, of
alicui videri quod homo ad hunc course, appear to some that man would
statum nunquam possit pertingere never have the ability to achieve this
quod intellectus humanus state: that the human intellect be united
immediate ipsi divinae essentiae immediately to the divine essence itself
uniretur ut intellectus intelligibili, as an intellect is to its intelligible; for
propter immensam distantiam there is an unmeasured distance
naturarum: et sic circa inquisitionem between the natures, and thus, in the
beatitudinis homo tepesceret, ipsa search for beatitude, a man would grow
desperatione detentus. Per hoc cold, held back by very desperation. But
autem quod Deus humanam the fact that God was willing to unite
naturam sibi unire voluit in persona, human nature to Himself personally
evidentissime hominibus points out to men with greatest clarity
demonstratur quod homo per that man can be united to God by
intellectum Deo potest uniri, ipsum intellect, and see Him immediately. It
immediate videndo. Fuit igitur was, then, most suitable for God to
convenientissimum quod Deus assume human nature to stir up man’s
humanam naturam assumeret ad hope for beatitude. Hence, after the
spem hominis in beatitudinem Incarnation of Christ, men began the
sublevandam. Unde post more to aspire after heavenly beatitude;
incarnationem Christi homines as He Himself says: “I have come that
coeperunt magis ad caelestem they may have life and may have it
beatitudinem aspirare: secundum more abundantly” (John 10:10).
quod ipse dicit, Ioan. 1010: ego
veni ut vitam habeant, et
abundantius habeant.
Simul etiam per hoc homini [3] At the same time, too, some
auferuntur impedimenta obstacles to acquiring beatitude are
beatitudinem adipiscendi. Cum enim removed from man. For, since the
perfecta hominis beatitudo in sola perfect beatitude of man consists in the
Dei fruitione consistat, ut supra enjoyment of God alone, as shown
ostensum est, necessarium est above, necessarily every man is kept
quod quicumque his quae infra from participation in the true beatitude
Deum sunt inhaeret finaliter, a verae who cleaves as to an end to these
beatitudinis participatione things which are less than God. But
impediatur. Ad hoc autem homo man was able to be misled into this
deduci poterat quod rebus infra clinging as to an end to things less than
Deum existentibus inhaereret ut fini, God in existence by his ignorance of the
ignorando suae dignitatem naturae. worthiness of his nature. Thus it
Ex hoc enim contingit quod quidam, happens with some. They look on
considerantes se secundum themselves in their bodily and sentient
naturam corpoream et sensitivam, nature—which they have in common
quam cum aliis animalibus habent with other animals—and in bodily things
communem, in rebus corporalibus and fleshly pleasures they seek out a
et delectationibus carnis quandam kind of animal beatitude. But there have
beatitudinem bestialem requirunt. been others who considered the
Quidam vero, considerantes excellence of certain creatures superior
quarundam creaturarum to man in some respects. And to the
excellentiam super homines cult of these they bound themselves.
quantum ad aliqua, eorum cultui se They worshiped the universe and its
adstrinxerunt: colentes mundum et parts because of the greatness of its
partes eius, propter magnitudinem size and its long temporal duration; or
quantitatis et temporis diuturnitatem; spiritual substances, angels and
vel spirituales substantias, Angelos demons, because they found these
et Daemones, propter hoc quod greater than man both in immortality
hominem excedere inveniuntur tam and in sharpness of understanding.
in immortalitate quam in acumine They judged that in these, as existing
intellectus, aestimantes in his, above themselves, the beatitude of man
utpote supra se existentibus, should be sought. Now, although it is
hominis beatitudinem esse true, some conditions considered, that

quaerendam. Quamvis autem man stands inferior to some creatures,
quantum ad aliquas conditiones and even that in certain matters he is
homo aliquibus creaturis existat rendered like to the lowest creatures,
inferior: ac etiam infimis creaturis in nothing stands higher in the order of
quibusdam assimiletur: tamen end than man except God alone, in
secundum ordinem finis, nihil whom alone man’s perfect beatitude is
homine existit altius nisi solus Deus, to be found. Therefore, this dignity of
in quo solo perfecta hominis man—namely, that in the immediate
beatitudo consistit. Hanc igitur vision of God his beatitude is to be
hominis dignitatem, quod scilicet found—was most suitably manifested
immediata Dei visione beatificandus by God by His own immediate
sit, convenientissime Deus ostendit assumption of human nature. And we
per hoc quod ipse immediate look upon this consequence of God’s
naturam humanam assumpsit. Unde Incarnation: a large part of mankind
ex incarnatione Dei hoc consecutum passing by the cult of angels, of
videmus, quod magna pars demons, and all creatures whatsoever,
hominum, cultu Angelorum, spurning, indeed, the pleasures of the
Daemonum, et quarumcumque flesh and all things bodily, have
creaturarum praetermisso, spretis dedicated themselves to the worship of
etiam voluptatibus carnis et God alone, and in Him only they look for
corporalibus omnibus, ad solum the fulfillment of this beatitude; and so
Deum colendum se dedicaverunt, in the Apostle exhorts: “Seek the things
quo solo beatitudinis that are above where Christ is sitting at
complementum expectant; the right hand of God. Mind the things
secundum quod apostolus monet: that are above, not the things that are
quae sursum sunt quaerite, ubi upon the earth” (Col. 5:12).
Christus est in dextera Dei sedens;
quae sursum sunt sapite, non quae
super terram.
Adhuc. Quia beatitudo perfecta [4] Since man’s perfect beatitude,

hominis in tali cognitione Dei furthermore, consists in the sort of
consistit quae facultatem omnis knowledge of God which exceeds the
intellectus creati excedit, ut in tertio capacity of every created intellect (as
ostensum est, necessarium fuit was shown in Book III), there had to be
quandam huiusmodi cognitionis a certain foretaste of this sort of
praelibationem in homine esse, qua knowledge in man which might direct
dirigeretur in illam plenitudinem him to that fullness of blessed
cognitionis beatae: quod quidem fit knowledge; and this is done through
per fidem, ut in tertio ostensum est. faith, as we showed in Book III. But the
Cognitionem autem qua homo in knowledge by which man is directed to
ultimum finem dirigitur, oportet esse his ultimate end has to be most certain
certissimam, eo quod est principium knowledge, because it is the principle of
omnium quae ordinantur in ultimum everything ordered to the ultimate end;
finem: sicut et principia naturaliter so, also, the principles naturally known
nota certissima sunt. Certissima are most certain. But there cannot be a
autem cognitio alicuius esse non most certain knowledge of something
potest nisi vel illud sit per se notum, unless the thing be known of itself, as
sicut nobis prima demonstrationis the first principles of demonstration are
principia; vel in ea quae per se nota known to us; or the thing be resolved
sunt resolvatur, qualiter nobis into what is known of itself, in the way in
certissima est demonstrationis which the conclusion of a demonstration
conclusio. Id autem quod de Deo is most certain for us. Of course, what is
nobis per fidem tenendum set forth for us to hold about God by
proponitur, non potest esse homini faith cannot be known of itself to man,
per se notum: cum facultatem since it exceeds the capacity of the
humani intellectus excedat. Oportuit human intellect. Therefore, this had to
igitur hoc homini manifestari per be made known to man by Him to
eum cui sit per se notum. Et whom it is. known of itself. And,
quamvis omnibus divinam although to all who see the divine
essentiam videntibus sit essence this truth is somehow known of
quodammodo per se notum, tamen itself, nevertheless, in order to have a
ad certissimam cognitionem most certain knowledge there had to be
habendam oportuit reductionem fieri a reduction to the first principle of this
in primum huius cognitionis knowledge—namely, to God. To Him
principium, scilicet in Deum, cui est this truth is naturally known of itself, and
naturaliter per se notum, et a quo from Him it becomes known to all. And
omnibus innotescit: sicut et certitudo just so the certitude of a science is had
scientiae non habetur nisi per only by resolution into the first
resolutionem in prima principia indemonstrable principles. Therefore,
indemonstrabilia. Oportuit igitur man, to achieve perfect certitude about
hominem, ad perfectam the truth of faith, had to be instructed by
certitudinem consequendam de fidei God Himself made man, that man might
veritate, ab ipso Deo instrui homine in the human fashion grasp the divine
facto, ut homo, secundum modum instruction. And this is what John (1: 18)
humanum, divinam instructionem says: “No man has seen God at any
perciperet. Et hoc est quod dicitur time; the onlybegotten Son who is in
Ioan. 118: Deum nemo vidit the bosom of the Father, He has
unquam: unigenitus, qui est in sinu declared Him: And our Lord Himself
patris, ipse enarravit. Et ipse says: “For this was I born and for this
dominus dicit, Ioan. 1837: ego ad came I into the world, that I should give
hoc natus sum et veni in mundum, testimony to the truth” (John 18:37).
ut testimonium perhibeam veritati. And for this reason we see that after
Propter quod videmus post Christi Christ’s Incarnation men were the more
incarnationem evidentius et certius evidently and the more surely instructed
homines in divina cognitione esse in the divine knowledge; as Isaiah (11:9)
instructos: secundum illud Isaiae 11 has it: “The earth is filled with the
9: repleta est terra scientia domini. knowledge of the Lord.”
Item. Cum beatitudo hominis [5] Again, since man’s perfect beatitude

perfecta in divina fruitione consistat, consists in the enjoyment of divinity,
oportuit affectum hominis ad man’s love had to be disposed toward a
desiderium divinae fruitionis disponi: desire for the enjoyment of divinity, as
sicut videmus homini beatitudinis we see that there is naturally in man a
desiderium naturaliter inesse. desire of beatitude. But the desire to
Desiderium autem fruitionis alicuius enjoy anything is caused by love of that
rei ex amore illius rei causatur. thing. Therefore, man, tending to
Necessarium igitur fuit hominem, ad perfect beatitude, needed inducement
perfectam beatitudinem tendentem, to the divine love. Nothing, of course, so

ad amorem divinum induci. Nihil induces us to love one as the
autem sic ad amorem alicuius nos experience of his love for us. But God’s
inducit sicut experimentum illius ad love for men could be demonstrated to
nos. Amor autem Dei ad homines man in no way more effective than this:
nullo modo efficacius homini potuit He willed to be united to man in person,
demonstrari quam per hoc quod for it is proper to love to unite the lover
homini uniri voluit in persona: est with the beloved so far as possible.
enim proprium amoris unire Therefore, it was necessary for man
amantem cum amato, inquantum tending to perfect beatitude that God
possibile est. Necessarium igitur fuit become man.
homini, ad beatitudinem perfectam
tendenti, quod Deus fieret homo.
Amplius. Cum amicitia in quadam [6] Furthermore, since friendship

aequalitate consistat, ea quae consists in a certain equality, things
multum inaequalia sunt, in amicitia greatly unequal seem unable to be
copulari non posse videntur. Ad hoc coupled in friendship. Therefore, to get
igitur quod familiarior amicitia esset greater familiarity in friendship between
inter hominem et Deum, expediens man and God it was helpful for man that
fuit homini quod Deus fieret homo, God became man, since even by nature
quia etiam naturaliter homo homini man is man’s friend;” and so in this way,
amicus est: ut sic, dum visibiliter “while we know God visibly, we may
Deum cognoscimus, in invisibilium [through Him] be home to love of things
amorem rapiamur. invisible.”
Similiter etiam manifestum est quod [7] In like fashion, too, it is clear that
beatitudo virtutis est praemium. beatitude is the reward of virtue.
Oportet igitur ad beatitudinem Therefore, they who tend to beatitude
tendentes secundum virtutem must be virtuously disposed. But we are
disponi. Ad virtutem autem et verbis stimulated to virtue both by words and
et exemplis provocamur. Exempla by examples. Of course, his examples
autem alicuius et verba tanto and words of whose goodness we have
efficacius ad virtutem inducunt, the more solid opinion induce us the
quanto de eo firmior bonitatis more effectively to virtue. But an
habetur opinio. De nullo autem infallible opinion of goodness about any
homine puro infallibilis opinio pure man was never tenable— even the
bonitatis haberi poterat: quia etiam holiest of men, one finds, have failed in
sanctissimi viri in aliquibus some things. Hence, it was necessary
inveniuntur defecisse. Unde for man to be solidly grounded in virtue
necessarium fuit homini, ad hoc to receive from God made human both
quod in virtute firmaretur, quod a the teaching and the examples of virtue.
Deo humanato doctrinam et For this reason our Lord Himself says: “I
exempla virtutis acciperet. Propter have given you an example that as I
quod ipse dominus dicit, Ioan. 13 have done to you do also” (John 13:15).
15: exemplum dedi vobis, ut
quemadmodum ego feci, ita et vos
faciatis.
Item. Sicut virtutibus homo ad [8] By virtues, again, man is disposed to

beatitudinem disponitur, ita et beatitude, and so by sin he is blocked
peccatis impeditur. Peccatum autem therefrom. Sin, of course, the contrary
virtuti contrarium, impedimentum of virtue, constitutes an obstacle to
affert beatitudini, non solum beatitude; it not only induces a kind of
inordinationem quandam animae disorder in the soul by seducing it from
inducens secundum quod eam ab its due end, but it also offends God to
ordine debiti finis abducit, sed etiam whom we look for the reward of
Deum offendens, a quo beatitudinis beatitude, in that God has the custody
praemium expectatur, secundum of human acts. And sin is the contrary
quod Deus humanorum actuum of divine charity, as we showed more
curam habet, et peccatum fully in Book III. What is more, man,
contrarium est caritati divinae, ut in being aware of this offense, loses by sin
tertio plenius ostensum est. Et that confidence in approaching God
insuper huius offensae homo which is necessary to achieve
conscientiam habens, per peccatum beatitude. Therefore, the human race,
fiduciam accedendi ad Deum amittit, which abounds in sins, needed to have
quae necessaria est ad some remedy against sin applied to it.
beatitudinem consequendam. But this remedy can be applied only by
Necessarium est igitur humano Cod, who can move the will of man to
generi, quod peccatis abundat, ut ei good and bring it back to the order due;
remedium aliquod adhibeatur contra who can, as well, remit the offense
peccata. Hoc autem remedium committed against Him—for an offense
adhiberi non potest nisi per Deum, is not remitted except by him against
qui et voluntatem hominis movere whom the offense is committed. But, if
potest in bonum, ut eam ad debitum man is to be freed from awareness of
ordinem reducat, et offensam in se past offense, he must know clearly that
commissam potest remittere; God has remitted his offense. But man
offensa enim non remittitur nisi per cannot be clear on this with certainty
eum in quem offensa committitur. unless God gives him certainty of it.
Ad hoc autem quod homo a Therefore, it was suitable and helpful to
conscientia offensae praeteritae the human race for achieving beatitude
liberetur, oportet quod sibi de that God should become man; as a
remissione offensae per Deum result, man not only receives the
constet. Non autem per certitudinem remission of sins through God, but also
ei constare potest nisi a Deo de hoc the certitude of this remission through
certificetur. Conveniens igitur fuit, et the manGod. Hence, our Lord Himself
humano generi ad beatitudinem says: “But that you may know that the
consequendam expediens, quod Son of Man has power to forgive sins”
Deus fieret homo, ut sic et (Mat. 9:6), and the rest; and the Apostle
remissionem peccatorum says that “the blood of Christ will
consequeretur per Deum, et huius cleanse our conscience from dead
remissionis certitudinem per works to serve the living God” (Heb.
hominem Deum. Unde et ipse 9:14).
dominus dicit, Matth. 96: ut autem
sciatis quia filius hominis habet
potestatem dimittendi peccata etc.;
et apostolus, Hebr. 914, dicit quod
sanguis Christi emundabit
conscientias nostras ab operibus
mortuis, ad serviendum Deo viventi.
Adhuc. Ex traditione Ecclesiae [9] The tradition of the Church,
docemur totum humanum genus moreover, teaches us that the whole
peccato esse infectum. Habet human race was infected by sin. But the
autem hoc ordo divinae iustitiae, ut order of divine justice—as is clear from
ex superioribus patet, quod the foregoing—requires that God should
peccatum sine satisfactione non not remit sin without satisfaction. But to
remittatur a Deo. Satisfacere autem satisfy for the sin of the whole human
pro peccato totius humani generis race was beyond the power of any pure
nullus homo purus poterat: quia man, because any pure man is
quilibet homo purus aliquid minus something less than the whole human
est tota generis humani universitate. race in its entirety. Therefore, in order to
Oportuit igitur, ad hoc quod free the human race from its common
humanum genus a peccato sin, someone had to satisfy who was
communi liberaretur, quod aliquis both man and so proportioned to the
satisfaceret qui et homo esset, cui satisfaction, and something above man
satisfactio competeret; et aliquid that the merit might be enough to satisfy
supra hominem, ut eius meritum for the sin of the whole human race. But
sufficiens esset ad satisfaciendum there is no greater than man in the
pro peccato totius humani generis. order of beatitude, except God, for
Maius autem homine, quantum ad angels, although superior to man in the
ordinem beatitudinis, nihil est nisi condition of nature, are not superior in
solus Deus: nam Angeli, licet sint the order of end, because the same end
superiores quantum ad conditionem beatifies them. Therefore, it was
naturae, non tamen quantum ad necessary for man’s achievement of
ordinem finis, quia eodem beatitude that God should become man
beatificantur. Necessarium igitur fuit to take away the sin of the human race.
homini ad beatitudinem And this is what John the Baptist said of
consequendam, quod Deus homo Christ: “Behold the Lamb of God,
fieret ad peccatum humani generis behold Him who takes away the sin of
tollendum. Et hoc est quod Ioannes the world” (John 1:79). And the Apostle
Baptista dixit de Christo: ecce says: “As by the offense of one, unto all
agnus Dei: ecce qui tollit peccata men to condemnation; so also by the
mundi. Et apostolus, ad Romanos justice of one, unto all men to
dicit: sicut peccatum ex uno in justification” (Rom. 5:16).
omnes in condemnationem, ita
gratia ex uno in omnes ad
iustificationem.
Haec igitur sunt, et similia, ex [10] These points, then, and similar
quibus aliquis concipere potest non ones make us able too conceive that it
fuisse incongruum bonitati divinae was not out of harmony with the divine
Deum hominem fieri, sed goodness for God to become man, but
expedientissimum fuisse humanae extremely helpful for human salvation.
saluti.
Caput 55 Chapter 55

Solutio rationum supra positarum
ANSWER TO THE ARGUMENTS
contra convenientiam PREVIOUSLY SET DOWN AGAINST
incarnationis THE SUITABILITY OF THE
INCARNATION
Ea vero quae contra hoc superius [1] Now, then, the points opposed to this

sunt opposita, non difficile est doctrine above are disposed of easily.
solvere.
Non enim est contrarium ordini [2] It is not contrary to the order of
rerum Deum hominem fieri, ut prima things for God to become man, as the
ratio procedebat. Quia quamvis first argument proceeded. This is the
natura divina in infinitum naturam case because, although the divine
humanam excedat, tamen homo nature exceeds the human nature to
secundum ordinem suae naturae infinity, man in the order of his nature
habet ipsum Deum pro fine, et has God Himself for end and has been
natus est ei per intellectum uniri; born to be united to God by his intellect
cuius unionis exemplum et And this union had as example and
documentum quoddam fuit unio Dei testimony of a sort the union of God to
ad hominem in persona; servata man in person; nonetheless, what was
tamen proprietate utriusque proper to each nature was preserved,
naturae, ut nec excellentiae divinae so that nothing of the excellence of the
naturae aliquid deperiret, nec divine nature was lost, nor was there an
humana natura per exaltationem exaltation which drew the human nature
aliquam extra terminos suae speciei beyond the bounds of its species.
traheretur.
Considerandum etiam quod, propter [3] There is the following to be

perfectionem et immobilitatem considered, also. By reason of the
divinae bonitatis, nihil dignitatis Deo perfection and immobility of the divine
deperit ex hoc quod aliqua creatura goodness, God loses no dignity no
quantumcumque ei appropinquat, matter how closely a creature draws
etsi hoc creaturae accrescat. Sic near to Him, although this makes the
enim ipsis creaturis suam bonitatem creature grow in dignity. For He
communicat quod ex hoc ipse communicates His goodness to
nullum patitur detrimentum. creatures in such wise that He Himself
suffers no loss.
Similiter etiam, licet ad omnia [4] In like fashion, too, one grants that
facienda Dei voluntas sufficiat, God’s will suffices for doing all things;
tamen divina sapientia exigit ut nevertheless, the divine wisdom
rebus singulis secundum earum requires that provision be made for the
congruentiam provideatur a Deo: various classes of things in harmony
rebus enim singulis proprias causas with themselves, for He has suitably
convenienter instituit. Unde licet established the proper causes of
Deus sola sua voluntate efficere various things. Be it granted,
potuerit in humano genere omnes accordingly, that God was able by His
utilitates quas ex Dei incarnatione will alone to effect in the human race
dicimus provenisse, ut secunda every useful good which we are saying
ratio proponebat: tamen congruebat came from God’s Incarnation, as the
humanae naturae ut huiusmodi second argument was proposing;
utilitates inducerentur per Deum nevertheless, it was in harmony with
hominem factum, sicut ex inductis human nature to bring about these
rationibus aliquatenus apparere useful goods through God made man,
potest. just as the arguments giving make
apparent to some extent.
Ad tertiam etiam rationem patet [5] The answer to the third argument is
responsio. Homo enim, cum sit also plain. For, since man is constituted
constitutus ex spirituali et corporali of a spiritual and of a bodily nature, and
natura, quasi quoddam confinium stands, so to say, on the boundary of
tenens utriusque naturae, ad totam each nature, that appears to belong to
creaturam pertinere videtur quod fit the whole of creaturehood which is
pro hominis salute. Nam inferiores done for the salvation of man. For the
creaturae corporales in usum lesser bodily creatures seem to yield to
hominis cedere videntur et ei man’s use and are in some way subject
quodammodo esse subiectae. to him. But the superior spiritual, namely
Superior autem creatura spiritualis, the angelic, creature has the
scilicet angelica, commune habet achievement of the ultimate end in
cum homine ultimi finis common with man (this is plain from the
consecutionem, ut ex superioribus foregoing). Thus, it seems suitable that
patet. Et sic conveniens videtur ut the universal cause of all things assume
universalis omnium causa illam that creature into unity of person in
creaturam in unitatem personae which the cause shares more with other
assumeret in qua magis creatures.
communicat cum omnibus creaturis.
Considerandum est etiam quod [6] This fact should be considered, also:

solius rationalis naturae est per se To act of itself belongs only to the
agere: creaturae enim irrationales rational creature, for irrational creatures
magis aguntur naturali impetu quam are more acted upon by a rational force
agant per seipsas. Unde magis sunt than they are acting of themselves.
in ordine instrumentalium causarum Hence, they are rather in the order of
quam se habeant per modum instrumental causes than bearing
principalis agentis. Assumptionem themselves as principal agents. But the
autem talis creaturae a Deo oportuit assumption of a creature by God had to
esse quae per se agere posset be of the kind which could act of itself
tanquam agens principale. Nam ea as a principal agent. For whatever acts
quae agunt sicut instrumenta, agunt as an instrument acts as moved into
inquantum sunt mota ad agendum: action, but a principal agent acts of
principale vero agens ipsum per se itself. If, then, something was to be
agit. Si quid igitur agendum fuit done divinely by an irrational creature, it
divinitus per aliquam irrationalem sufficed, the creature’s condition
creaturam, suffecit, secundum huius considered, that it merely be moved by
creaturae conditionem, quod solum God. But it would not be assumed in
moveretur a Deo: non autem quod person for the person to act, since its
assumeretur in persona ut ipsamet natural condition was not susceptible of
ageret, quia hoc eius naturalis this, it was only the condition. of the
conditio non recepit, sed solum rational nature which was so

conditio rationalis naturae. Non susceptible. Therefore, for God to
igitur fuit conveniens quod Deus assume an irrational creature was not
aliquam irrationalem naturam suitable, whereas to assume a rational
assumeret, sed rationalem, scilicet one, whether human or angelic, was.
angelicam vel humanam.
Et quamvis angelica natura [7] And, although one finds in the
quantum ad naturales proprietates angelic nature natural properties making
inveniatur excellentior quam it more excellent than the human
humana natura, ut quarta ratio nature, as the fourth argument was
proponebat, tamen humana proposing, the human nature was
congruentius fuit assumpta. Primo nevertheless assumed with greater
quidem, quia in homine peccatum fitness. First, indeed, this is because in
expiabile esse potest: eo quod eius man sin is subject to expiation; and this
electio non immobiliter fertur in is so because his choice is not
aliquid, sed a bono potest perverti unchangeably fixed on something, but
in malum, et a malo reduci in can be perverted from good to evil, and
bonum: sicut etiam in hominis from evil restored to good. In man’s
ratione contingit, quae, quia ex reason, also, this happens: Since it
sensibilibus et per signa quaedam gathers the truth from sensible things
colligit veritatem, viam habet ad and certain signs, the way lies open to
utrumque oppositorum. Angelus contradictory positions. But an angel,
autem, sicut habet immobilem just as he has an unchangeable grasp
apprehensionem, quia per of truth because he knows by simple
simplicem intellectum immobiliter understanding, so also he has an
cognoscit, ita etiam habet unchangeable choice. Accordingly, he is
immobilem electionem: unde vel in either not fixed upon evil at all, or, if he
malum omnino non fertur; vel, si in is fixed on evil, is fixed so immutably.
malum feratur, immobiliter fertur; Hence, his sin is not subject to
unde eius peccatum expiabile esse expiation. Since, then, the chief cause
non potest. Cum igitur praecipua of the divine incarnation appears to be
causa videatur divinae incarnationis the expiation of sin, as divine Scripture
esse expiatio peccatorum, ut ex teaches us, it was more fitting that God
Scripturis divinis docemur, assume a human than an angelic
congruentius fuit humanam naturam nature. Second, the assumption of the
quam angelicam assumi a Deo. creature by God is in person, not in
Secundo, quia assumptio creaturae nature—as the foregoing makes clear. It
a Deo est in persona, non in natura, was, therefore, more suitable to assume
ut ex superioribus patet. the human than the angelic nature
Convenientius igitur assumpta est because in man the nature is other than
hominis natura quam angelica: quia the person, for man is composite of
in homine aliud est natura et matter and form; but this is not so in the
persona, cum sit ex materia et angel, who is immaterial. Third, the
forma compositus; non autem in angel, in what is proper to his nature, is
Angelo, qui immaterialis est. Tertio, closer to the knowledge of God than
quia Angelus, secundum man is whose knowledge arises from
proprietatem suae naturae, the senses. Therefore, it was sufficient
propinquior erat ad Deum for the angel to be intelligibly instructed
cognoscendum quam homo, cuius by God regarding divine truth. But the
cognitio a sensu oritur. Sufficiebat condition of man required that God
igitur quod Angelus a Deo instruct man sensibly about Himself as
intelligibiliter instrueretur de veritate Man. This was done by the Incarnation.
divina. Sed conditio hominis Then, again, the very distance of man
requirebat ut Deus sensibiliter from God seemed more repugnant to
hominem de seipso homine the divine enjoyment. Therefore, man
instrueret. Quod per incarnationem needed to be assumed by God more
est factum. Ipsa etiam distantia than an angel did, that man’s hope for
hominis a Deo magis repugnare beatitude be stimulated. Lastly, man,
videbatur fruitioni divinae. Et ideo since he is the term of creatures,
magis indiguit homo quam Angelus presupposing, so to say, all other
assumi a Deo, ad spem de creatures in the natural order of
beatitudine concipiendam. Homo generation, is suitably united to the first
etiam, cum sit creaturarum principle of things to finish a kind of
terminus, quasi omnes alias cycle in the perfection of things.
creaturas naturali generationis
ordine praesupponens,
convenienter primo rerum principio
unitur, ut quadam circulatione
perfectio rerum concludatur.
Ex hoc autem quod Deus humanam [8] But the fact that God assumed

naturam assumpsit, non datur human nature gives no occasion of
erroris occasio, ut quinta ratio error, as the fifth argument was trying to
proponebat. Quia assumptio show. For the assumption of humanity,
humanitatis, ut supra habitum est, as already said, took place in a unity of
facta est in unitate personae: non in person, not in a unity of nature, which
unitate naturae, ut sic oporteat nos might result in our agreement with those
consentire his qui posuerunt Deum who held that God is not exalted above
non esse super omnia exaltatum, all things, and said that God was the
dicentes Deum esse animam soul of the universe, or something of the
mundi, vel aliquid huiusmodi. sort.
Licet autem circa incarnationem Dei [9] We grant, of course, that respecting

sint aliqui errores exorti, ut sexto God’s Incarnation certain errors have
obiiciebatur, tamen manifestum est arisen, as the sixth argument objected;
multo plures errores post nevertheless, it is manifest that after the
incarnationem fuisse sublatos. Sicut Incarnation many more errors were
enim ex creatione rerum, a divina removed. For, just as in the creation of
bonitate procedente, aliqua mala things which proceeded from the divine
sunt consecuta, quod competebat goodness some evils followed, and this
conditioni creaturarum, quae was proportionate to the condition of
deficere possunt; ita etiam non est creatures which are able to fail, so also
mirum si, manifestata divina in the manifestation of divine truth it is
veritate, sunt aliqui errores exorti ex not astonishing that some errors have
defectu mentium humanarum. Qui arisen from the failure of human minds.
tamen errores exercuerunt fidelium And these errors, for all that, exercised
ingenia ad diligentius divinorum the talents of the faithful toward a more
veritatem exquirendam et diligent penetration and understanding

intelligendam: sicut et mala quae in of divine truth, just as the evils which
creaturis accidunt, ordinat Deus ad occur in creatures are ordered by God
aliquod bonum. to some good.
Quamvis autem omne bonum [10] Although, of course, every created

creatum, divinae bonitati good turns out to be negligible in
comparatum, exiguum inveniatur, comparison to the divine good,
tamen quia in rebus creatis nihil nevertheless, because in things created
potest esse maius quam salus nothing can be greater than the
rationalis creaturae, quae consistit salvation of the rational creature (which
in fruitione ipsius bonitatis divinae; consists in the enjoyment of the divine
cum ex incarnatione divina goodness itself)—since human
consecuta sit salus humana, non salvation has followed upon the divine
parum utilitatis praedicta incarnatio Incarnation—it was no small usefulness
attulit mundo, ut septima ratio which the Incarnation mentioned
procedebat. Nec oportuit propter brought to the universe (so the seventh
hoc quod ex incarnatione divina argument was proceeding). And it need
omnes homines salvarentur: sed not follow on this that all men should be
tantum illi qui praedictae saved, but only those who adhere to the
incarnationi adhaerent per fidem et Incarnation mentioned by faith and the
fidei sacramenta. Est siquidem sacraments of the faith. To be sure, the
incarnationis divinae virtus power of the divine Incarnation is equal
sufficiens ad omnium hominum to the salvation ‘of all men, but the fact
salutem: sed quod non omnes ex that some are not saved thereby comes
hoc salvantur, ex eorum from their indisposition: they are
indispositione contingit, quod unwilling to take unto themselves the
incarnationis fructum in se fruit of the Incarnation; they do not
suscipere nolunt, incarnato Deo per cleave to the incarnate God by faith and
fidem et amorem non inhaerendo. love. For men were not intended to lose
Non enim erat hominibus that freedom of choice by which they
subtrahenda libertas arbitrii, per are able to cleave or not to cleave to the
quam possunt vel inhaerere vel non incarnate God, lest the good of man be
inhaerere Deo incarnato: ne bonum produced by coercion—a good without
hominis coactum esset, et per hoc merit and without praise.
absque merito et illaudabile
redderetur.
Praedicta etiam Dei incarnatio [11] There have also been sufficient
sufficientibus indiciis hominibus indications to make this Incarnation of
manifestata est. Divinitas enim nullo God manifest to men. For there is no
modo convenientius manifestari more suitable way to manifest divinity
potest quam per ea quae sunt than by things which are God’s very
propria Dei. Est autem Dei proprium own. But this is God’s very own: the
quod naturae leges immutare power to change the laws of nature by
possit, supra naturam aliquid doing something above that nature
operando, cuius ipse est auctor. whose very author He is. Most suitably,
Convenientissime igitur probatur then, is something proved divine by
aliquid esse divinum per opera doing works above the laws of nature,
quae supra leges naturae fiunt, to enlighten the blind, for instance, or to

sicut quod caeci illuminentur, leprosi cleanse lepers, or to raise the dead.
mundentur, mortui suscitentur. Works of this kind are what Christ did.
Huiusmodi quidem opera Christus Accordingly, when He was asked: “Are
effecit. Unde et ipse per haec opera you He that is to come or look we for
quaerentibus tu es qui venturus es, another?” by these works He Himself
an alium expectamus? Suam indicated His divinity in His reply: “The
divinitatem demonstravit, dicens: blind see, the lame walk, the deaf hear”
caeci vident, claudi ambulant, surdi (Mat. 11:15, 5), And so forth. But to
audiunt et cetera. Alium autem create another world was not
mundum creare necesse non erat: necessary; and this was not consonant
nec ratio divinae sapientiae, nec either with the divine wisdom or with the
rerum natura hoc habebat. Si autem nature of things. One may, of course,
dicatur, ut octava ratio proponebat, say—as the eighth argument was
quod huiusmodi miracula etiam per proposing—that we read of others also
alios esse facta leguntur: tamen performing miracles of this kind, but it
considerandum est quod multo must be borne in mind that Christ
differentius et divinius Christus performed them very differently and
effecit. Nam alii orando haec fecisse more divinely. For we read of others
leguntur: Christus autem doing these things by praying; Christ did
imperando, quasi ex propria them by commanding by His very own
potestate. Et non solum ipse haec power, so to say. And He not only did
fecit, sed et aliis eadem et maiora these things Himself, but even granted
faciendi tribuit potestatem, qui ad to others the power to do the same, and
solam invocationem nominis Christi greater; and the latter used to do them
huiusmodi miracula faciebant. Et by the mere invocation of the name of
non solum corporalia miracula per Christ. And not merely bodily miracles
Christum facta sunt, sed etiam were worked through Christ, but
spiritualia, quae sunt multo maiora: spiritual ones as well, and these are
scilicet quod per Christum, et ad much greater: namely, by Christ and at
invocationem nominis eius, spiritus the invocation of His name the Holy
sanctus daretur, quo accenderentur Spirit is received, and so hearts are
corda caritatis divinae affectu; et inflamed by the affection of divine
mentes instruerentur subito in charity; and minds suddenly are
scientia divinorum; et linguae instructed in the knowledge of things
simplicium redderentur disertae, ad divine; and the tongues of the unlettered
divinam veritatem hominibus are rendered skilled for setting divine
proponendam. Huiusmodi autem truth forth to men. But works of this sort
opera indicia sunt expressa are express indications of the divinity of
divinitatis Christi, quae nullus purus Christ; they are things so pare man was
homo facere potuit. Unde able to do. Hence, the Apostle says that
apostolus, ad Hebr., dicit quod the salvation of men “which, having
salus hominum, cum initium begun to be declared by the Lord, was
accepisset enarrari per dominum, confirmed unto us by them that heard
per eos qui audierunt in nos Him, God also bearing them witness by
confirmata est, attestante Deo signs and wonders, and divers miracles,
signis et virtutibus et variis spiritus and distributions of the Holy Spirit”
sancti distributionibus. (Heb. 2:34).
Licet autem saluti totius humani [12] Granted, of course, that God’s
generis Dei incarnatio necessaria Incarnation was necessary for the entire

foret, non tamen oportuit quod a human race, it was not for all that,
principio mundi Deus incarnaretur, necessary that God be incarnate from
ut nono obiiciebatur. Primo quidem, the beginning of the world, as the ninth
quia per Deum incarnatum objection ran. Now first: by the incarnate
oportebat hominibus medicinam God a remedy against sin had to be
afferri contra peccata, ut superius brought to men, as was shown above.
habitum est. Contra peccatum But no one receives a suitable remedy
autem alicui convenienter medicina against sin unless first he acknowledges
non affertur nisi prius suum his failure, so that man in his lowliness,
defectum recognoscat: ut sic per not relying on himself, may put his ‘hope
humilitatem homo, de seipso non in God, by whom alone sin can be
praesumens, iactet spem suam in healed, as was said above. Man’s
Deum, a quo solo potest sanari presumption was possible, of course,
peccatum, ut supra habitum est. both in regard to knowledge and in
Poterat autem homo de seipso regard to virtue. He had, then, to be left
praesumere et quantum ad to himself for a while to discover that he
scientiam, et quantum ad virtutem. was not equal to his own salvation: not
Relinquendus igitur aliquando fuit equal by natural knowledge, for before
sibi, ut experiretur quod ipse sibi the time of the written law man
non sufficeret ad salutem: neque transgressed the law of nature; nor
per scientiam naturalem, quia ante equal by his own virtue, for, when he
tempus legis scriptae, homo legem was given knowledge of sin through the
naturae transgressus est; neque law, he still sinned out of weakness.
per virtutem propriam, quia, data Thus necessarily, man, presuming
sibi cognitione peccati per legem, neither on his knowledge nor on his
adhuc ex infirmitate peccavit. Et sic virtue, could at last be given efficacious
oportuit ut demum homini, neque de help against sin by Christ’s Incarnation;
scientia neque de virtute namely, the grace of Christ by which he
praesumenti, daretur efficax was not only to be instructed in doubtful
auxilium contra peccatum per matters lest he be deficient in
Christi incarnationem: scilicet gratia knowledge, but also to be strengthened
Christi, per quam et instrueretur in against the assaults of temptation lest
dubiis, ne in cognitione deficeret; et he be deficient through frailty. And so it
roboraretur contra tentationum happened that there were three states
insultus, ne per infirmitatem of the human race: the first, before the
deficeret. Sic igitur factum est quod Law; the second, under the Law; the
essent tres status humani generis: third, under grace.
primus ante legem; secundus sub
lege; tertius sub gratia.
Deinde per Deum incarnatum Then, again, by the incarnate God
praecepta et documenta perfecta precepts and perfect testimonies were
hominibus danda erant. Requirit to be given to men. Now, the condition
autem hoc conditio humanae of human nature requires that it be not
naturae, quod non statim ad led immediately to the perfect, but that it
perfectum ducatur, sed be led by the hand through the
manuducatur per imperfecta ut ad imperfect so as to arrive at perfection.
perfectionem perveniat: quod in We see this in the instruction of
instructione puerorum videmus, qui children. They are first instructed

primo de minimis instruuntur, nam a minimally; for they cannot grasp perfect
principio perfecta capere non things in the beginning. In the same
valent. Similiter etiam, si alicui way, also, if to some multitude things
multitudini aliqua inaudita unheard of were proposed as great, the
proponerentur et magna, non statim multitude would not grasp them
caperet nisi ad ea assuesceret prius immediately unless it became
per aliqua minora. Sic igitur accustomed to these things by
conveniens fuit ut a principio something less great. Thus, then, was it
humanum genus instrueretur de his suitable that from the beginning the
quae pertinent ad suam salutem per human race be instructed in the matter
aliqua levia et minora documenta of its salvation by some light and lesser
per patriarchas et legem et testimonies through the Patriarchs, and
prophetas, et tandem, in the Law, and the Prophets; and that at
consummatione temporum, perfecta last, at the consummate time, the
doctrina Christi proponeretur in perfect teaching of Christ be set forth on
terris: secundum quod apostolus earth. Thus, the Apostle says: “When
dicit, ad Gal.: at ubi venit plenitudo the fullness of the time was come “sent
temporis, misit Deus filium suum in His Son” into the world. And we read in
terris. Et ibidem dicitur quod lex the same place: “The law was our
paedagogus noster fuit in Christo, pedagogue in Christ. But we are no
sed iam non sumus sub longer under a pedagogue” (Gal. 4:4;
paedagogo. 3:2425).
Simul etiam considerandum est One must also consider this: as the
quod, sicut adventum magni regis coming of a great king must be
oportet aliquos nuntios praecedere, preceded by a number of envoys to
ut praeparentur subditi ad eum prepare his subjects to receive him
reverentius suscipiendum; ita more reverently, so many things had to
oportuit adventum Dei in terras precede the coming of God to the earth:
multa praecedere, quibus homines to prepare men for the reception of the
essent parati ad Deum incarnatum incarnate God. Indeed, this did take
suscipiendum. Quod quidem factum place when, because of the promises
est dum per praecedentia promissa and testimonies that had gone before,
et documenta hominum mentes the minds of men were disposed the
dispositae sunt, ut facilius ei more readily to believe Him who had
crederent qui ante praenuntiatus had envoys before Him, and the more
erat, et desiderantius susciperetur eagerly to receive Him because of the
propter priora promissa. previous promises.
Et licet adventus Dei incarnati in [13] One may also grant that the coming

mundum esset maxime necessarius of the incarnate God was extremely
humanae saluti, tamen non fuit necessary for human salvation;
necessarium quod usque ad finem nevertheless, it was not necessary for
mundi cum hominibus human salvation that He converse with
conversaretur, ut decima ratio men even unto the end of the world, as
proponebat. Hoc enim derogasset the tenth argument was proposing. For
reverentiae quam homines this would have worked against the
debebant Deo incarnato exhibere: reverence which men ought to show to
dum, videntes ipsum carne indutum the incarnate God, so long as, seeing
aliis hominibus similem, nihil de eo Him clothed in flesh similar to other
ultra alios homines aestimassent. men, they esteemed Him nothing
Sed eo, post mira quae gessit in beyond other men. But He, after the
terris, suam praesentiam hominibus wondrous things which He did upon the
subtrahente, magis ipsum revereri earth, withdrew His presence from men,
coeperunt. Propter quod etiam suis and they began to revere Him the more.
discipulis plenitudinem spiritus For this reason He did not even give His
sancti non dedit quandiu cum eis disciples the fullness of the Holy Spirit
conversatus fuit, quasi per eius so long as He conversed with them, as
absentiam eorum animis ad though by His absence their souls were
spiritualia munera magis more prepared for spiritual gifts. Hence,
praeparatis. Unde ipse eis dicebat: He Himself said to them: “If I go not the
si non abiero, Paraclitus non veniet Paraclete will not come to you; but if I
ad vos: si autem abiero, mittam go I will send Him to you” (John 16:7)
eum ad vos.
Non oportuit autem Deum carnem [14] It was not right for God to take flesh

impassibilem et immortalem incapable of suffering and death, as the
suscipere, secundum quod eleventh argument was proposing, but,
undecima ratio proponebat: sed rather, capable of suffering and death.
magis passibilem et mortalem. First, indeed, because it was necessary
Primo quidem, quia necessarium for men to know the beneficence of the
erat hominibus quod beneficium Incarnation so as to be thereby inflamed
incarnationis cognoscerent, ut ex in the divine love. But to manifest the
hoc ad divinum amorem truth of the Incarnation He had to same
inflammarentur. Oportuit autem, ad flesh like that of other men; namely,
veritatem incarnationis capable of suffering and death. For, if
manifestandam, quod carnem He had taken flesh incapable of
similem aliis hominibus sumeret, suffering and death, it would have
scilicet passibilem et mortalem. Si seemed to men who did not know such
enim impassibilem et immortalem flesh that it was a phantom and not the
carnem suscepisset, visum fuisset reality of flesh.
hominibus, qui talem carnem non
noverant, quod aliquod phantasma
esset, et non veritas carnis.
Secundo, quia necessarium fuit Second, because it was necessary that

Deum carnem assumere ut pro God assume flesh to satisfy for the sin
peccato humani generis of the human race. It happens, of
satisfaceret. Contingit autem unum course, that one does satisfy for another
pro alio satisfacere, ut in tertio (as was shown in Book III) in such wise,
ostensum est, ita tamen quod however, that the penalty for sin due to
poenam pro peccato alteri debitam the second, and not due to the first, the
ipse, sibi non debitam, voluntarie first voluntarily assumes. But the
assumat. Poena autem consequens penalty consequent on the sin of the
humani generis peccatum est mors human race is death and the other
et aliae passibilitates vitae capacities for suffering of the present
praesentis, sicut supra dictum est: life, as was said above. Hence, the
unde et apostolus dicit, ad Rom.: Apostle says: “By one man sin entered
per unum hominem peccatum in this world and by sin death” (Rom.
hunc mundum intravit, et per 5:17.). Therefore, God had to assume
peccatum mors. Oportuit igitur ut without sin flesh capable of suffering
carnem passibilem et mortalem and death, so that by suffering and
Deus assumeret absque peccato, ut dying He would satisfy for us and take
sic, patiendo et moriendo, pro nobis away sin. And this is what the Apostle
satisfaceret et peccatum auferret. Et says, that “God sent His own Son in the
hoc est quod apostolus dicit, ad likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3), that
Rom., quod Deus misit filium suum is, having flesh like that of sinners,
in similitudinem carnis peccati, namely, capable of suffering and death;
idest, habentem carnem similem and the Apostle adds “that of sin He
peccatoribus, scilicet passibilem et might condemn sin in the flesh,” that is,
mortalem; et subdit, ut de peccato in order that by the penalty which He
damnaret peccatum in carne, idest, sustained in the flesh for our sin He
ut per poenam quam in carne pro might take sin away from us.
peccato nostro sustinuit, peccatum
a nobis auferret.
Tertio, quia per hoc quod carnem Third, because by having flesh capable
passibilem et mortalem habuit, of suffering and death He gave us
efficacius dedit nobis exempla examples of virtue more effectively by
virtutis, passiones carnis fortiter overcoming bravely the sufferings of the
superando, et eis virtuose utendo. flesh, and making virtuous use of them.
Quarto, quia per hoc magis ad Fourth, because we are by this the
spem immortalitatis erigimur, quod more strengthened in the hope of
ipse de statu carnis passibilis et immortality: that He from a state of flesh
mortalis mutatus est in capable of suffering and death was
impassibilitatem et immortalitatem changed into a state of flesh incapable
carnis: quod etiam de nobis sperare of suffering and death; and this we can
possumus, qui carnem gerimus hope for ourselves, we who bear a flesh
passibilem et mortalem. Si vero a capable of suffering and death. But if
principio carnem impassibilem et from the beginning He had assumed
immortalem assumpsisset, nulla flesh incapable of suffering and death,
daretur occasio immortalitatem no occasion to hope for immortality
sperandi his qui in seipsis would be given those who experience in
mortalitatem et corruptibilitatem themselves mortality and corruptibility.
experiuntur. Hoc etiam mediatoris This, also, was required by His mission
officium requirebat quod, cum as mediator: that, while He had in
communem haberet nobiscum common with us flesh capable of
passibilem carnem et mortalem, suffering and death, but in common with
cum Deo vero virtutem et gloriam: God power and glory, He should take
ut auferens a nobis quod nobiscum away from us what He had in common
commune habebat, scilicet with us—namely, suffering and death—
passionem et mortem, ad id nos in order to lead us to that which was
duceret quod sibi et Deo erat common to Him and to God. For He
commune. Fuit enim mediator ad was the mediator for uniting us to God.
coniungendum nos Deo.
Similiter etiam non fuit expediens [15] In like fashion, also, it was not
quod Deus incarnatus vitam in hoc expedient that the incarnate God live in
mundo ageret opulentam et this world a life of riches, and one
honoribus seu dignitatibus excelling in honors or dignities, as the
sublimem, ut duodecima ratio twelfth argument was concluding. First,
concludebat. Primo quidem, quia ad to be sure, because He had come to
hoc venerat ut mentes hominum, draw the minds of men, devoted to
terrenis deditas, a terrenis earthly things, away from earthly things
abstraheret et ad divina elevaret. and to lift them up to things divine.
Unde oportuit, ut suo exemplo Hence, that His example might lead
homines in contemptum divitiarum men to a contempt of riches and the
et aliorum quae mundani desiderant other things which the worldly desire,
duceret, quod inopem et privatam He had to lead a needy and private life
vitam ageret in hoc mundo. in this world. Second, because, if He
Secundo quia, si divitiis abundasset had abounded in wealth and been
et in aliqua maxima dignitate established in some great dignity, what
constitutus fuisset, id quod divine He did divinely would have been
gessit magis potentiae saeculari attributed more to secular power than to
quam virtuti divinitatis fuisset the virtue of the divinity. Hence, the
attributum. Unde efficacissimum most efficacious argument for His
argumentum suae divinitatis fuit divinity has been this: Without the
quod absque adminiculo potentiae support of the secular power He has
saecularis totum mundum in melius changed the whole world for the better.
commutavit.
Unde patet etiam solutio ad id quod [16] Accordingly, the solution is open to
decimotertio obiiciebatur. what was said in the thirteenth
objection.
Non est autem procul a vero quod [17] It is not, of course, far from true to

filius Dei incarnatus obediens say that the incarnate Son of God bore
praecepto patris mortem sustinuit, His death in obedience to a command
secundum doctrinam apostoli. of His Father, according to the Apostle’s
Praeceptum enim Dei est ad teaching (Phil. 2:8). For God’s
homines de operibus virtutum: et commandment to men deals with the
quanto aliquis perfectius actum works of virtue; and the more perfectly
virtutis exequitur, tanto magis Deo one carries out an act of virtue, the
obedit. Inter alias autem virtutes more is he obedient to God. Among the
praecipua caritas est, ad quam other virtues, charity is the outstanding
omnes aliae referuntur. Christus one to which all the other are referred.
igitur, dum actum caritatis Christ then, when He fulfilled the act of
perfectissime implevit, Deo maxime charity most perfectly was most
obediens fuit. Nullus enim est actus obedient to God. For there is no act of
caritatis perfectior quam quod homo charity more perfect than the one by
pro amore alicuius etiam mortem which a man bears even death for
sustineat: secundum quod ipsemet another; as our Lord Himself says:
dominus dicit: maiorem caritatem “Greater love than this no man has that
nemo habet quam quod animam a man lay down his life for his friends”
suam ponat quis pro amicis suis. (John 15:13). Therefore, one finds that
Sic igitur invenitur Christus, mortem Christ bearing death for the salvation of
sustinens pro salute hominum et ad men and for the glory of God the Father
gloriam Dei patris, Deo maxime was extremely obedient to God and
obediens fuisse, actum caritatis carried out a perfect act of charity. Nor
perfectum exequendo. Nec hoc is this repugnant to His divinity, as the
repugnat divinitati ipsius, ut fourteenth argument ran. For the union
quartadecima ratio procedebat. Sic in person took place in such wise that
enim facta est unio in persona ut what was proper to each of the natures
proprietas utriusque naturae remained, namely to the divine and to
maneret, divinae scilicet et the human, as was explained above.
humanae, ut supra habitum est. Et Therefore, even when Christ suffered
ideo, patiente Christo etiam mortem death and other things proper to
et alia quae humanitatis sunt, humanity, the divinity remained
divinitas impassibilis mansit, incapable of suffering, although by the
quamvis, propter unitatem unity of person we say that God
personae, dicamus Deum passum suffered and died. And somewhat of an
et mortuum. Cuius exemplum instance of this appears in us because,
aliqualiter in nobis apparet, quia, although the flesh dies, the soul
moriente carne, anima remanet remains immortal.
immortalis.
Sciendum est etiam quod, licet [18] This, too, should be understood:
voluntas Dei non sit ad mortem Although the will of God is not for the
hominum, ut quintadecima ratio death of men, as the fifteenth argument”
proponebat, est tamen ad virtutem, set down, the will of God is for virtue by
per quam homo mortem fortiter which a man bears death bravely, and
sustinet, et ex caritate periculis in charity exposes himself to the
mortis se obiicit. Et sic voluntas Dei dangers of death. Thus, the will of God
fuit de morte Christi, inquantum was for the death of Christ, in that Christ
Christus eam ex caritate suscepit et undertook that death in charity and bore
fortiter sustinuit. it bravely.
Unde patet quod non fuit impium et [19] Hence, clearly, it was neither

crudele quod Deus pater Christum impiety nor cruelty that God the Father
mori voluit, ut sextadecima ratio willed Christ to die, as the sixteenth
concludebat. Non enim coegit argument was concluding, for He did
invitum, sed complacuit ei voluntas not coerce one who was unwilling but
qua ex caritate Christus mortem was pleased with that will in whose
suscepit. Et hanc etiam caritatem in charity Christ undertook His death. And
eius anima operatus est. God even wrought this charity in the
soul of Christ.
Similiter etiam non inconvenienter [20] In the same way, too, there is no
dicitur quod propter humilitatem awkwardness in saying that Christ
demonstrandam Christus mortem willed the death on the cross as a
crucis voluit pati. Et revera quidem demonstration of humility. To be sure,
humilitas in Deum non cadit, ut the humility does not touch God, as the
decimaseptima ratio proponebat: seventeenth argument was proposing.
quia virtus humilitatis in hoc Truly, the virtue of humility consists in
consistit ut aliquis infra suos this, that one keep himself within his
terminos se contineat, ad ea quae own limits; he does not stretch himself
supra se sunt non se extendens, to what is above him, but he subjects
sed superiori se subiiciat; unde himself to his superior. Hence, clearly,
patet quod Deo humilitas convenire God can have no proportionate humility,
non potest, qui superiorem non for He has no superior; He Himself
habet, sed ipse super omnia existit. exists above all things. But, if a man at
Si autem aliquis vel aequali vel times subjects himself in humility to an
inferiori se ex humilitate aliquando equal or inferior, this is because the one
subiiciat, hoc est quia secundum who is his equal or inferior simply is
aliquid eum qui simpliciter vel held by the man as his superior in a
aequalis vel inferior est, superiorem certain respect. Therefore, although the
se arbitratur. Quamvis igitur Christo virtue of humility was not fitting to Christ
secundum divinam naturam in His divine nature, it was fitting to Him
humilitatis virtus non competat, in His human nature, and His humility
competit tamen sibi secundum was Tendered the more praiseworthy by
humanam naturam, et eius His divinity. For the dignity of the person
humilitas ex eius divinitate contributes to the praise humility
laudabilior redditur: dignitas enim deserves; for example, when out of
personae adiicit ad laudem some necessity a great man has to
humilitatis; puta quando, pro aliqua suffer something lowly. But there can he
necessitate, expedit aliquem no dignity of man so great as this: that
magnum aliqua infima pati. Nulla he be God. Hence, the humility of the
autem tanta dignitas esse potest Godman was praiseworthy in the
hominis quam quod sit Deus. Unde extreme when He bore those abject
hominis Dei humilitas maxime things which He was called on to suffer
laudabilis invenitur, dum abiecta for the salvation of men. For men were
sustinuit quae pro salute hominum by reason of pride lovers of worldly
ipsum pati expediebat. Erant enim glory. Therefore, to change the spirits of
homines, propter superbiam, men over from love of worldly glory to
mundanae gloriae amatores. Ut love of divine glory He willed to bear
igitur hominum animos ab amore death—not just any sort of death, but a
mundanae gloriae in amorem death abject in the extreme. For there
divinae gloriae transmutaret, voluit are some who, although they do not
mortem sustinere, non fear death, abhor an abject death. And
qualemcumque, sed abiectissimam. even to the contempt of such a death
Sunt enim quidam qui, etsi mortem did our Lord inspire men by the example
non timeant, abhorrent tamen of His death.
mortem abiectam. Ad quam etiam
contemnendam dominus homines
animavit suae mortis exemplo.
Et licet homines ad humilitatem [21] One grants also that men instructed

informari potuerint divinis by the divine lessons were able to be
sermonibus instructi, ut informed about humility, as the
decimaoctava ratio proponebat: eighteenth argument was proposing.
tamen ad agendum magis For all that, deeds are more provocative
provocant facta quam verba et tanto of action than words; and deeds move
efficacius facta movent, quanto the more effectively, the more certain is
certior opinio bonitatis habetur de the opinion of the goodness of him who
eo qui huiusmodi operatur. Unde, performs such deeds. Hence, although
licet aliorum hominum multa many examples of humility of other men
humilitatis exempla invenirentur, are discoverable, it was most
tamen expedientissimum fuit ut ad expeditious to arouse men to humility by
hoc hominis Dei provocarentur the example of the Godman. He clearly
exemplo, quem constat errare non could not make a mistake, and His
potuisse; et cuius humilitas tanto humility is the more wondrous as His
est mirabilior quanto maiestas majesty is the more sublime.
sublimior.
Manifestum est etiam ex praedictis [22] This, too, is clear from what has
quod oportuit Christum mortem pati, been said: Christ had to suffer death not
non solum ut exemplum praeberet only to give an example of holding
mortem contemnendi propter death in contempt out of love of the
veritatis amorem, sed ut etiam truth, but also to wash away the sins of
aliorum peccata purgaret. Quod others. This indeed took place when He
quidem factum est dum ipse, qui who was without sin willed to suffer the
absque peccato erat, mortem penalty due to sin that He might take on
peccato debitam pati voluit, ut in se Himself the penalty due to others, and
poenam aliis debitam, pro aliis make satisfaction for others. And
satisfaciendo, susciperet. Et although the grace of God suffices by
quamvis sola Dei gratia sufficiat ad itself for the remission of sins, as the
remittendum peccata, ut nineteenth argument was proposing,
decimanona ratio proponebat, nonetheless in the remission of sin
tamen in remissione peccati exigitur something is required on the part of him
etiam aliquid ex parte eius cui whose sin is remitted: namely, that he
peccatum remittitur: ut scilicet satisfy the one offended. And since
satisfaciat ei quem offendit. Et quia other men were unable to do this for
alii homines pro seipsis hoc facere themselves, Christ did this for all by
non poterant, Christus hoc pro suffering a voluntary death out of
omnibus fecit, mortem voluntariam charity.
ex caritate patiendo.
Et quamvis in puniendo peccata [23] Be it granted, also, that in the
oportet illum puniri qui peccavit, ut punishment of sins he who sinned ought
vigesima ratio proponebat, tamen in to be punished, as the twenties
satisfaciendo unus potest alterius argument was proposing, for all that, in
poenam ferre. Quia dum poena pro the matter of satisfaction one can bear
peccato infligitur, pensatur eius qui another’s penalty. For, when penalty is
punitur iniquitas: in satisfactione inflicted for sin, we weigh his iniquity
vero, dum quis, ad placandum eum who is punished; in satisfaction,
quem offendit, voluntarie poenam however, when to placate the one
assumit, satisfacientis caritas et offended, some other voluntarily
benevolentia aestimatur, quae assumes the penalty, we consider the
maxime apparet cum quis pro alio charity and benevolence of him who
poenam assumit. Et ideo Deus makes satisfaction, and this most
satisfactionem unius pro alio especially appears when one assumes
acceptat, ut etiam in tertio libro the penalty of another. And, there. fore,
ostensum est. God does receive from one satisfaction
for another, as was shown in Book III.
Satisfacere autem pro toto humano [24] But to satisfy for the whole human
genere, ut supra ostensum est, race (this was shown previously) was
nullus homo purus poterat: nec ad beyond the power of any mere man;
hoc Angelus sufficiebat, ut neither was an angel equal to this, as
vigesimaprima ratio procedebat. the twentyfirst argument was
Angelus enim, licet quantum ad proceeding. For, granted an angel in
aliquas proprietates naturales sit some natural properties has a power
homine potior, tamen quantum ad beyond man, nonetheless in the sharing
beatitudinis participationem, in of beatitude (and by the satisfaction
quam per satisfactionem man was to be restored to this) the
reducendus erat, est ei aequalis. Et angel is man’s equal. And again, there
iterum: non plene redintegraretur would be no full restoration of man’s
hominis dignitas, si Angelo pro dignity if man were rendered obnoxious
homine satisfacienti obnoxius to the angel satisfying for man.
redderetur.
Sciendum autem est quod mors [25] One should, of course, know that
Christi virtutem satisfaciendi habuit the death of Christ had its satisfying
ex caritate ipsius, qua voluntarie power from His charity in which He bore
mortem sustinuit, non ex iniquitate death voluntarily, and not from the
occidentium, qui eum occidendo iniquity of His killers who sinned in
peccaverunt: quia peccatum non killing Him; because sin is not wiped out
deletur peccato, ut by sin, as the twentysecond argument
vigesimasecunda ratio proponebat. proposed.
Et quamvis mors Christi pro peccato [26] And although the death of Christ

satisfactoria fuerit, non tamen toties was satisfactory for sin, it was
eum mori oportuit quoties homines unnecessary for Him to die just as many
peccant, ut vigesimatertia ratio times as men sinned, as the twenty
concludebat. Quia mors Christi third argument was concluding. The
sufficiens fuit ad omnium expianda death of Christ was sufficient for the
peccata: tum propter eximiam expiation of all sins; and this by reason
caritatem qua mortem sustinuit; tum of the extraordinary charity in which He
propter dignitatem personae bore death, as well as by reason of the
satisfacientis, quae fuit Deus et dignity of the satisfying person who was
homo. Manifestum est autem etiam God and man. But even in human
in rebus humanis quod, quanto affairs it is clear that by as much as the
persona est altior, tanto poena person is higher, by so much is the
quam sustinet pro maiori penalty he bears reckoned for more,
computatur, sive ad humilitatem et whether reckoned by the humility and
caritatem patientis, sive ad culpam charity of the one suffering or by the
inferentis. fault of the one incurring the penalty.
Ad satisfaciendum autem pro [27] Of course, for the satisfaction of the

peccato totius humani generis mors sin of the entire human race the death
Christi sufficiens fuit. Quia, quamvis of Christ was sufficient. For, although
secundum humanam naturam He died only in His human nature, as
solum mortuus fuerit, ut the twentyfourth argument” was
vigesimaquarta ratio proponebat, proposing, the dignity of the person
tamen ex dignitate personae suffering—and this is the Person of the
patientis, quae est persona filii Dei, Son of God—renders His death
mors eius redditur pretiosa. Quia, ut precious. For, as was said above, just
supra dictum est, sicut maioris est as it is a greater crime to commit an
criminis alicui personae inferre injury to a person who stands out more
iniuriam quae maioris dignitatis in dignity, so it is more virtuous and
existit, ita virtuosius est, et ex maiori proceeds from greater charity that the
caritate procedens, quod maior greater person submit Himself
persona pro aliis se subiiciat voluntarily to suffering for others.
voluntariae passioni.
Quamvis autem Christus pro [28] But, although Christ has by His
peccato originali sua morte death satisfied sufficiently for original
sufficienter satisfecerit, non est sin, there is nothing awkward in this:
tamen inconveniens quod that the penalties consequent on
poenalitates ex peccato originali original sin still remain in all, even in
consequentes remaneant adhuc in those who are given a share in Christ’s
omnibus qui etiam redemptionis redemption, as the twentyfifth
Christi participes fiunt: ut argument was proceeding. For it was
vigesimaquinta ratio procedebat. both fitting and useful to have the
Hoc enim congruenter et utiliter penalty remain even when the fault was
factum est ut poena remaneret, taken away. First, indeed, to achieve
etiam culpa sublata. Primo quidem, conformity of the faithful to Christ as
ut esset conformitas fidelium ad members to the head; hence, just as
Christum, sicut membrorum ad Christ first bore many sufferings, and
caput. Unde sicut Christus prius thus arrived at the glory of immortality, it
multas passiones sustinuit, et sic ad also was becoming to His faithful first to
immortalitatis gloriam pervenit; sic undergo sufferings and so to arrive at
decuit ut fideles eius prius immortality, bearing in themselves, so to
passionibus subiacerent, et sic ad say, the marks of the passion of Christ,
immortalitatem pervenirent, quasi in order to achieve a likeness to His
portantes in seipsis insignia glory. So the Apostle says: “Heirs,
passionis Christi, ut similitudinem indeed of God, and jointheirs with
gloriae eius consequerentur; sicut Christ: yet so, if we suffer with Him, that
apostolus, ad Rom., dicit: heredes we may be also glorified with Him”
quidem Dei, coheredes autem (Rom. 8:17). Second, because, if men
Christi. Si tamen compatimur, ut et coming to Jesus were forthwith to
simul glorificemur. Secundo quia, si achieve immortality and impassibility,
homines venientes ad Iesum statim many men would approach Christ more
immortalitatem et impassibilitatem for these bodily benefits than for
consequerentur, plures homines ad spiritual goods. And this is against the
Christum accederent magis propter intention of Christ who came into the
haec corporalia beneficia quam world to change men from love of bodily
propter spiritualia bona. Quod est things to love of spiritual things. Third,
contra intentionem Christi, venientis because, if those who come to Christ
in mundum ut homines ab amore were forthwith rendered incapable of
corporalium ad spiritualia suffering and death, this would
transferret. Tertio quia, si somehow compel men to accept faith in

accedentes ad Christum statim Christ. And thus the merit of faith would
impassibiles et immortales be diminished.
redderentur, hoc quodammodo
compelleret homines ad fidem
Christi suscipiendam. Et sic
meritum fidei minueretur.
Quamvis autem sufficienter pro [29] Granted, of course, that Christ has
peccatis humani generis sua morte sufficiently satisfied for the sins of the
satisfecerit, ut vigesimasexta ratio human race by His death, as the
proponebat, sunt tamen unicuique twentysixth argument proposed, every
remedia propriae salutis quaerenda. single one, for all that, must seek the
Mors enim Christi est quasi remedies of his own salvation. For the
quaedam universalis causa salutis: death of Christ is, so to say, a kind of
sicut peccatum primi hominis fuit universal cause of salvation, as the sin
quasi universalis causa of the first man was a kind of universal
damnationis. Oportet autem cause of damnation. But a universal
universalem causam applicari ad cause must be applied specially to each
unumquemque specialiter, ut one, that he may receive the effect of
effectum universalis causae the universal cause. The effect then, of
percipiat. Effectus igitur peccati the sin of the first parent comes to each
primi parentis pervenit ad one in the origin of the flesh, but the
unumquemque per carnis originem: effect of the death of Christ comes to
effectus autem mortis Christi each one in a spiritual regeneration in
pertingit ad unumquemque per which the man is somehow conjoined
spiritualem regenerationem, per with Christ arid incorporated into Him.
quam homo Christo quodammodo And for this reason each must seek to
coniungitur et incorporatur. Et ideo be regenerated through Christ, and
oportet quod unusquisque quaerat must himself undertake to do those
regenerari per Christum, et alia things in which ,the power of Christ’s
suscipere in quibus virtus mortis death operates.
Christi operatur.
Ex quo patet quod effluxus salutis a [30] From this it is clear that the flow of
Christo in homines non est per salvation from Christ to men is not
naturae propaginem, sed per through a natural propagation, but
studium bonae voluntatis, qua through the zeal of good will in which a
homo Christo adhaeret. Et sic quod man cleaves to Christ. Hence, that
a Christo unusquisque consequitur, which each accomplishes by Christ is a
est personale bonum. Unde non personal good. Wherefore, it is not
derivatur ad posteros, sicut passed on to descendants, as is the sin
peccatum primi parentis, quod cum of the first parent, which is produced
naturae propagine producitur. Et with the propagation of the nature.
inde est quod, licet parentes sint a Accordingly, although the parents are
peccato originali mundati per cleansed of original sin by Christ, there
Christum, non tamen est is nothing awkward about the birth of
inconveniens quod eorum filii cum their children in original sin, requiring
peccato originali nascantur, et the sacraments of salvation, as the
sacramentis salutis indigeant, ut twentyseventh argument was

vigesimaseptima ratio concludebat. concluding.
Sic igitur ex praemissis aliquatenus [31] Thus, then, from what has been set

patet quod ea quae circa mysterium down it is to some extent clear that what
incarnationis fides Catholica the Catholic faith preaches about the
praedicat, neque impossibilia neque Incarnation contains nothing impossible
incongrua inveniuntur. and nothing inharmonious.
Caput 56 Chapter 56
De necessitate sacramentorum ON THE NECESSITY OF THE
SACRAMENTS
Quia vero, sicut iam dictum est, [1] Since, however (as has already been

mors Christi est quasi universalis said), the death of Christ is, so to say,
causa humanae salutis; the universal cause of human salvation,
universalem autem causam oportet and since a universal cause must he
applicari ad unumquemque applied singly to each of its effects, it
effectum: necessarium fuit exhiberi was necessary to show men some
hominibus quaedam remedia per remedies through which the benefit of
quae eis beneficium mortis Christi Christ’s death could somehow be
quodammodo coniungeretur. conjoined to them. It is of this sort, of
Huiusmodi autem esse dicuntur course, that the sacraments of the
Ecclesiae sacramenta. Church are said to be.
Huiusmodi autem remedia oportuit [2] Now, remedies of this kind had to be

cum aliquibus visibilibus signis handed on with some visible signs.
tradi.
Primo quidem, quia sicut ceteris [3] First, indeed, because just as He
rebus ita etiam homini Deus does for all other things, so also for man,
providet secundum eius God provides according to his condition.
conditionem. Est autem talis Now, man’s condition is such that he is
hominis conditio quod ad spiritualia brought to grasp the spiritual and
et intelligibilia capienda naturaliter intelligible naturally through the senses.
per sensibilia deducitur. Oportuit Therefore, spiritual remedies had to be
igitur spiritualia remedia hominibus given to men under sensible signs.
sub signis sensibilibus dari.
Secundo quia instrumenta oportet [4] Second, because instruments must

esse primae causae proportionata. be proportioned to their first cause. But
Prima autem et universalis causa the first and universal cause of human
humanae salutis est verbum salvation is the incarnate Word, as is
incarnatum, ut ex praemissis clear from the foregoing. Therefore,
apparet. Congruum igitur fuit ut harmoniously the remedies by which the
remedia quibus universalis causae power of the universal cause reaches
virtus pertingit ad homines, illius men had a likeness to that cause—, that
causae similitudinem haberent: ut is, the divine power operates in them
scilicet in eis virtus divina under visible signs.
invisibiliter operaretur sub
visibilibus signis.
Tertio, quia homo in peccatum [5] Third, because man fell into sin by
lapsus erat rebus visibilibus clinging unduly to visible things.
indebite inhaerendo. Ne igitur Therefore, that one might not believe
crederetur visibilia ex sui natura visible things evil of their nature, and that
mala esse, et propter hoc eis for this reason those clinging to them
inhaerentes peccasse, per ipsa had sinned, it was fitting that through the
visibilia congruum fuit quod visible things themselves the remedies
hominibus remedia salutis of salvation be applied to men.
adhiberentur: ut sic appareret ipsa Consequently, it would appear that
visibilia ex sui natura bona esse, visible things are good of their nature—
velut a Deo creata, sed hominibus as created by God—but they become
noxia fieri secundum quod eis damaging to men so far as one clings to
inordinate inhaerent, salutifera vero them in a disordered way, and saving so
secundum quod ordinate eis far as one uses them in an ordered way.
utuntur.
Ex hoc autem excluditur error [6] Thus, of course, one excludes the
quorundam haereticorum qui error of certain heretics who want every
omnia huiusmodi visibilia a visible thing of this kind removed from
sacramentis Ecclesiae volunt esse the sacraments of the Church. Nor need
removenda. Nec mirum, quia ipsi one marvel at this, for the very same
iidem opinantur omnia visibilia ex men maintain that whatever is visible is
sui natura mala esse, et ex malo evil in its nature, and is produced by an
auctore producta: quod in secundo evil author. And this we rejected in Book
libro reprobavimus. II.
Nec est inconveniens quod per res [7] Nor is it unsuitable that by things

visibiles et corporales spiritualis visible and bodily a spiritual salvation is
salus ministretur: quia huiusmodi served. For visible things of this kind are
visibilia sunt quasi quaedam the instruments, so to say, of a God who
instrumenta Dei incarnati et passi; was made flesh and suffered. Now, an
instrumentum autem non operatur instrument does not operate by the
ex virtute suae naturae, sed ex power of its nature, but by the power of
virtute principalis agentis, a quo its principal agent who puts it into
applicatur ad operandum. Sic igitur operation. Thus, also, then, do visible
et huiusmodi res visibiles salutem things of this kind work out a spiritual
spiritualem operantur, non ex salvation—not by a property of their own
proprietate suae naturae, sed ex nature, but by Christ’s institution, and
institutione ipsius Christi, ex qua from the latter they receive their
virtutem instrumentalem instrumental power.
consequuntur.
Caput 57 Chapter 57

De distinctione sacramentorum
THE DISTINCTION OF THE
veteris et novae legis SACRAMENTS OF THE OLD AND
THE NEW LAW
Deinde considerandum est quod, [1] Next, this must be considered.
cum huiusmodi visibilia sacramenta Since the sacraments of this visible
ex passione Christi efficaciam kind got their efficacy from the passion
habeant et ipsam quodammodo of Christ and in some way represent it,
repraesentent, talia ea esse oportet they must be such as to be in
ut congruant saluti factae per harmony with the salvation wrought by
Christum. Haec autem salus, ante Christ. Now, this salvation was
Christi incarnationem et mortem, erat promised, indeed, before Christ’s
quidem promissa, sed non exhibita: Incarnation and death but not
sed verbum incarnatum et passum displayed, it was the incarnate and
est salutem huiusmodi operatum. suffering Word who brought about this
Sacramenta igitur quae kind of salvation. Therefore, the
incarnationem Christi praecesserunt, sacraments which preceded Christ’s
talia esse oportuit ut significarent et Incarnation had to be such as signified
quodammodo repromitterent salutem: and somehow promised salvation. But
sacramenta autem quae Christi the sacraments which follow the
passionem consequuntur, talia esse suffering of Christ ought to be such as
oportet ut salutem hominibus deliver this salvation to men, not
exhibeant, et non solum significando merely such as point to it by signs.
demonstrent.
Per hoc autem evitatur Iudaeorum [2] Of course, in this way one avoids
opinio, qui credunt sacramenta the opinion of the Jews, who believe
legalia, propter hoc quod a Deo sunt that the sacraments of the Law must
instituta, in perpetuum esse be observed forever precisely
servanda: cum Deus non poeniteat, because they were established by
non mutetur. Fit autem absque God, since God has no regrets and is
mutatione disponentis vel poenitentia, not changed. But without change or
quod diversa disponat secundum regret one who disposes things may
congruentiam temporum diversorum: dispose things differently in harmony
sicut paterfamilias alia praecepta with a difference of times; thus, the
tradit filio parvulo, et alia iam adulto. father of a family gives one set of
Sic et Deus congruenter alia orders to a small child and another to
sacramenta et praecepta ante one already grown. Thus, God also
incarnationem tradidit, ad harmoniously gave one set of
significandum futura: alia post sacraments and commandments
incarnationem, ad exhibendum before the Incarnation to point to the
praesentia et rememorandum future, and another set after the
praeterita. Incarnation to deliver things present
and bring to mind things past.
Magis autem irrationabilis est [3] But more unreasonable still is the
Nazaraeorum et Ebionitarum error qui error of the Nazarenes and the
sacramenta legalia simul cum Ebionites, who used to say that the
Evangelio dicebant esse servanda, sacraments of the Law should be
quia huiusmodi error quasi contraria observed simultaneously with those of
implicat. Dum enim servant the Gospel. An error of this kind
evangelica sacramenta, profitentur involves a sort of contrariety. For,
incarnationem et alia Christi mysteria while they observe the evangelical
iam esse perfecta: dum autem etiam sacraments, they are professing that
sacramenta legalia servant, the Incarnation and the other
profitentur ea esse futura. mysteries of Christ have already been
perfected; but, when they also
observe the sacraments of the Law,
they are professing that those
mysteries are in the future.
Caput 58 Chapter 58
De numero sacramentorum novae ON THE NUMBER OF THE
legis SACRAMENTS OF THE NEW LAW
Quia vero, ut dictum est, remedia [1] However, since the spiritual
spiritualis salutis sub signis remedies of salvation (as was said)
sensibilibus sunt hominibus tradita, have been given to men under
conveniens etiam fuit ut sensible signs, it was suitable also to
distinguerentur remedia quibus distinguish the remedies provided for
provideretur spirituali vitae, secundum the spiritual life after the likeness of
similitudinem corporalis. bodily life.
In vita autem corporali duplicem [2] Now, in bodily life we find a twofold

ordinem invenimus: sunt enim order: for some propagate and order
propagatores et ordinatores corporalis the bodily life in others; and some are
vitae in aliis; et sunt qui propagantur propagated and ordered in the bodily
et ordinantur secundum corporalem life.
vitam.
Vitae autem corporali et naturali tria [3] Now, in a bodily and natural life
sunt per se necessaria, et quartum three things are necessary of
per accidens. Oportet enim primo, themselves, and a fourth incidentally.
quod per generationem seu For first, by generation or birth a thing
nativitatem res aliqua vitam accipiat; must receive life; second, by growth it
secundo, quod per augmentum ad must arrive at its due size and
debitam quantitatem et robur strength; third, both for the
perveniat; tertio, ad conservationem preservation of life acquired by
vitae per generationem adeptae, et ad generation and for growth
augmentum, est necessarium nourishment is necessary. And these
nutrimentum. Et haec quidem sunt are of themselves necessities for
per se necessaria naturali vitae: quia natural life, because without these
sine his vita corporalis perfici non bodily life cannot be perfected;
potest; unde et animae vegetativae wherefore, one assigns to the
quae est vivendi principium, tres vires vegetative soul which is the principle
naturales assignantur, scilicet of life the three natural powers: that of

generativa, augmentativa, et nutritiva. generation, that of growth, and that of
Sed quia contingit aliquod nourishment. But, since there can be
impedimentum circa vitam an impediment to natural life from
corporalem, ex quo res viva which the living thing grows weak, a
infirmatur, per accidens necessarium fourth thing is incidentally necessary;
est quartum, quod est sanatio rei this is the healing of the sick living
viventis aegrotae. thing.
Sic igitur et in vita spirituali primum [4] Thus, then, in the spiritual life,
est spiritualis generatio, per also, the first thing is spiritual
Baptismum; secundum est spirituale generation: by baptism; the second is
augmentum perducens ad robur spiritual growth leading to perfect
perfectum, per sacramentum strength: by the sacrament of
confirmationis; tertium est spirituale confirmation; the third is spiritual
nutrimentum, per Eucharistiae nourishment: by the sacrament of the
sacramentum. Restat quartum, quod Eucharist. A fourth remains, which is
est spiritualis sanatio, quae fit vel in the spiritual healing; it takes place
anima tantum per poenitentiae either in the soul alone through the
sacramentum; vel ex anima derivatur sacrament of penance; or from the
ad corpus, quando fuerit opportunum, soul flows to the body when this is
per extremam unctionem. Haec igitur timely, through extreme unction.
pertinent ad eos qui in vita spirituali These, therefore, bear on those who
propagantur et conservantur. are propagated and preserved in the
spiritual life.
Propagatores autem et ordinatores [5] Now, those who propagate an!
corporalis vitae secundum duo order in the bodily life are marked by
attenduntur: scilicet secundum two things: namely, natural origin, and
originem naturalem, quod ad parentes t is refers to parents; and the political
pertinet; et secundum regimen regime by which the peaceful life of
politicum, per quod vita hominis man is conserved, and this refers to
pacifica conservatur, et hoc pertinet kings and princes.
ad reges et principes.
Sic igitur est et in spirituali vita. Sunt [6] It is, then, also like this in the
enim quidam propagatores et spiritual life. For some propagate and
conservatores spiritualis vitae conserve the spiritual life in a spiritual
secundum spirituale ministerium ministry duly, and this belongs to the
tantum, ad quod pertinet ordinis sacrament of orders; and some
sacramentum; et secundum belong to the bodily and spiritual life
corporalem et spiritualem simul, quod simultaneously, which takes place in
fit per sacramentum matrimonii, quo the sacrament of matrimony where a
vir et mulier conveniunt ad prolem man and woman come together to
generandam et educandam ad cultum beget offspring and to rear them in
divinum. divine worship.
Caput 59 Chapter 59

De Baptismo ON BAPTISM
Secundum hoc igitur apparere potest [1] In this way, then, one can discern
circa sacramenta singula et effectus in the individual sacraments the
proprius uniuscuiusque et materia proper effect of each one and the
conveniens. Et primo quidem circa becoming matter. Now, first:
spiritualem generationem, quae per Regarding the spiritual generation
Baptismum fit, considerandum est which takes place in baptism, one
quod generatio rei viventis est mutatio must consider that the generation of a
quaedam de non vivente ad vitam. living thing is a kind of change from
Vita autem spirituali privatus est homo nonliving to life. But man in his origin
in sua origine per peccatum originale, was deprived of spiritual life by
ut supra dictum est; et adhuc original sin, as was shown above; and
quaecumque peccata sunt addita still every single sin whatever which is
abducunt a vita. Oportuit igitur added draws him away from life.
Baptismum, qui est spiritualis Baptism, therefore, which is spiritual
generatio, talem virtutem habere quod generation, had to have the power to
et peccatum originale, et omnia take away both original sin and all the
actualia peccata commissa tollat. actual, committed sins.
Et quia signum sensibile sacramenti [2] Now, because the sensible sign of

congruum debet esse ad a sacrament must be harmonious with
repraesentandum spiritualem the representation of its spiritual
sacramenti effectum, foeditatis autem effect, and since washing away filth in
ablutio in rebus corporalibus facilius et bodily things is done more easily and
communius fit per aquam: idcirco more commonly by water, baptism is,
Baptismus convenienter in aqua therefore, suitably conferred in water
confertur per verbum Dei sanctificata. made holy by the Word of God.
Et quia generatio unius est alterius [3] And since the generation of one is

corruptio; et quod generatur priorem the corruption of another, and since
formam amittit et proprietates ipsam what is generated loses both its
consequentes: necesse est quod per previous form and the properties
Baptismum, qui est spiritualis consequent on that form; necessarily
generatio, non solum peccata through baptism, which is a spiritual
tollantur, quae sunt spirituali vitae generation, not only are sins taken
contraria, sed etiam omnes away—these are contrary to a
peccatorum reatus. Et propter hoc spiritual life—but also every guilt of
Baptismus non solum a culpa abluit, sins. For this reason, too, baptism not
sed etiam ab omni reatu poenae only washes away the fault, but also
absolvit. Unde baptizatis satisfactio absolves from all guilt. Hence, no
non iniungitur pro peccatis. satisfaction for their sins is enjoined
on the baptized.
Item, cum per generationem res [4] Again, when by generation a thing

formam acquirat, simul acquirit et acquires a form, it acquires at the
operationem consequentem formam, same time the operation consequent
et locum ei congruentem: ignis enim, on the form and the place in harmony

mox generatus, tendit sursum sicut in with it. For fire, as soon as generated,
proprium locum. Et ideo, cum tends upward as to its proper place.
Baptismus sit spiritualis generatio, Accordingly, since baptism is a
statim baptizati idonei sunt ad spiritual generation, the baptized are
spirituales actiones, sicut ad forthwith suited for spiritual actions—
susceptionem aliorum the reception of the other sacraments,
sacramentorum, et ad alia huiusmodi; for example, and other things of the
et statim eis debetur locus congruus sort—and forthwith there is due to
spirituali vitae, qui est beatitudo them the place harmonious to the
aeterna. Et propter hoc baptizati, si spiritual life, which is eternal
decedant, statim in beatitudine beatitude. Hence, we say that
recipiuntur. Unde dicitur quod “Baptism opens the gate of heaven.”
Baptismus aperit ianuam caeli.
Considerandum est etiam quod unius [5] One should also consider that one
rei est una tantum generatio. Unde, thing has but one generation. Hence,
cum Baptismus sit spiritualis since baptism is a spiritual
generatio, unus homo est semel generation, a man is to be baptized
tantum baptizandus. once only.
Manifestum est etiam quod infectio, [6] Clearly, also, the infection which
quae per Adam in mundum intravit, entered the world through Adam
semel tantum hominem inquinat. makes a man guilty but once. Hence,
Unde et Baptismus, qui contra eam baptism, which is chiefly ordered
principaliter ordinatur, iterari non against this infection, should not be
debet. Hoc etiam commune est, quod, repeated. There is also this common
ex quo res aliqua semel consecrata consideration: that, as long as a thing
est, quandiu manet, ulterius is once consecrated, it must not be
consecrari non debet, ne consecratio consecrated again, so long as it
inefficax videatur. Unde, cum endures, lest the consecration appear
Baptismus sit quaedam consecratio inefficacious. And so, since baptism is
hominis baptizati, non est iterandum a kind of consecration of the one
Baptisma. baptized, baptism must not be
repeated.
Per quod excluditur error This excludes the error of the
Donatistarum, vel rebaptizantium. Donatists or Rebaptizers.
Caput 60 Chapter 60
De confirmatione ON CONFIRMATION
Perfectio autem spiritualis roboris [1] The perfection of spiritual strength
in hoc proprie consistit, quod homo consists properly in a man’s daring to
fidem Christi confiteri audeat confess the faith of Christ in the
coram quibuscumque, nec inde presence of anyone at all, and in a man’s
retrahatur propter confusionem being not withdrawn therefrom either by
aliquam vel terrorem: fortitudo confusion or by terror, for strength drives

enim inordinatum timorem repellit. out inordinate terror. Therefore, the
Sacramentum igitur quo spirituale sacrament by which spiritual strength is
robur regenerato confertur, eum conferred on the one born again makes
quodammodo instituit pro fide him in some sense a frontline fighter for
Christi propugnatorem. Et quia the faith of Christ. And because fighters
pugnantes sub aliquo principe eius under a prince carry his insignia, they
insignia deferunt, hi qui who receive the sacrament of
confirmationis sacramentum confirmation are signed with the sign of
suscipiunt signo Christi Christ; this is the sign of the cross by
insigniuntur, videlicet signo crucis, which He fought and conquered. This
quo pugnavit et vicit. Hoc autem sign they receive on the forehead as a
signum in fronte suscipiunt, in sign that without a blush they publicly
signum quod publice fidem Christi confess the faith of Christ.
confiteri non erubescant.
Haec autem insignitio fit ex [2] This signing takes place with a
confectione olei et balsami, quae mixture of oil and balm which is called
chrisma vocatur, non chrism, and not without reason. For by
irrationabiliter. Nam per oleum the oil one designates the power of the
spiritus sancti virtus designatur, Holy Spirit, from whom Christ, too, is
quo et Christus unctus nominatur, called “anointed” (Ps. 44:8; Luke 4:18);
ut sic a Christo Christiani dicantur, and consequently from Christ they are
quasi sub ipso militantes. In called “Christians” (Acts 9:26), so to say,
balsamo autem, propter odorem, as fighting under Him. And by the balm,
bona fama ostenditur, quam through its fragrance, good repute is
necesse est habere eos qui inter indicated. For the public confession of
mundanos conversantur, ad fidem faith in Christ this good repute must be
Christi publice confitendam, quasi had by those who dwell among men of
in campum certaminis de secretis this world, brought forth, so to say, from
Ecclesiae sinibus producti. the hidden recesses of the Church onto
the field of battle.
Convenienter etiam hoc [3] Suitably, too, this sacrament is

sacramentum a solis pontificibus conferred only by bishops, who are in
confertur, qui sunt quodammodo some sense the leaders of the Christian
duces exercitus Christiani: nam et army. For even in secular military forces
apud saecularem militiam ad it is the prerogative of the army leader to
ducem exercitus pertinet ad select some men to be enrolled; so, also,
militiam eligendo quosdam those who receive this sacrament seem
adscribere; ut sic qui hoc to be enrolled somehow in the spiritual
sacramentum suscipiunt, ad military forces. Hence, also, a hand is
spiritualem militiam quodammodo laid upon them to designate the
videantur adscripti. Unde et eis derivation of manliness from Christ.
manus imponitur, ad designandam
derivationem virtutis a Christo.
Caput 61 Chapter 61

De Eucharistia ON THE EUCHARIST
Sicut autem corporalis vita materiali [1] Now, bodily life needs material
alimento indiget, non solum ad nourishment, not only for increase in
quantitatis augmentum, sed etiam ad quantity, but to maintain the nature of
naturam corporis sustentandam, ne the body as well, lest it be dissolved by
propter resolutiones continuas continuous resolutions and lose its
dissolvatur et eius virtus depereat; power; in the same way it was
ita necessarium fuit in spirituali vita necessary to have spiritual
spirituale alimentum habere, quo nourishment for the spiritual life that
regenerati et in virtutibus the reborn may both be conserved in
conserventur, et crescant. virtues and grow in them.
Et quia spirituales effectus sub [2] Spiritual effects were fittingly given
similitudine visibilium congruum fuit under the likeness of things visible (as
nobis tradi, ut dictum est, huiusmodi was said); therefore, spiritual
spirituale alimentum nobis traditur nourishment of this kind is given to us
sub speciebus illarum rerum quibus under the appearances, of the things
homines communius ad corporale which men rather commonly use for
alimentum utuntur. Huiusmodi autem bodily nourishment. Bread and wine
sunt panis et vinum. Et ideo sub are of this sort. Accordingly, this
speciebus panis et vini hoc traditur sacrament is given under the
sacramentum. appearances of bread and wine.
Sed considerandum est quod aliter [3] But consider this: He who begets is

generans generato coniungitur et joined to the begotten in one way, and
aliter nutrimentum nutrito in nourishment is joined to the nourished
corporalibus rebus. Generans enim in another way in bodily things. For the
non oportet secundum substantiam one who begets need not be conjoined
generato coniungi, sed solum to the begotten in substance, but in
secundum similitudinem et virtutem: likeness and in power only. But
sed alimentum oportet nutrito nutriment must be conjoined to the one
secundum substantiam coniungi. nourished in substance. Wherefore,
Unde, ut corporalibus signis that the spiritual effects may answer
spirituales effectus respondeant, the bodily signs, the mystery of the
mysterium verbi incarnati aliter nobis incarnate Word is joined to us in one
coniungitur in Baptismo, qui est way in baptism which is a spiritual
spiritualis regeneratio; atque aliter in rebirth, and in another way in this
hoc Eucharistiae sacramento, quod sacrament of the Eucharist which is a
est spirituale alimentum. In Baptismo spiritual nourishment. In baptism the
enim continetur verbum incarnatum Word incarnate is contained in His
solum secundum virtutem: sed in power only, but we hold that in the
Eucharistiae sacramento confitemur sacrament of the Eucharist He is
ipsum secundum substantiam contained in His substance.
contineri.
Et quia complementum nostrae [4] And since the fulfillment of our
salutis factum est per passionem salvation took place through the
Christi et mortem, per quam eius passion and death of Christ, in which
sanguis a carne separatus est, His blood was separated from His
separatim nobis traditur flesh, we are given the sacrament of
sacramentum corporis eius sub His body separately under the
specie panis, et sanguinis sub appearance of bread, and of His blood
specie vini; ut sic in hoc sacramento under the appearance of wine—, and
passionis dominicae memoria et so we have in this sacrament both
repraesentatio habeatur. Et memory and the representation of our
secundum hoc impletur quod Lord’s passion. And in this our Lord’s
dominus dixit, Ioan. 656: caro mea words are fulfilled: “My flesh is meat
vere est cibus, et sanguis meus vere indeed, and my blood is drink indeed”
est potus. (John 6:56).
Caput 62 Chapter 62
De errore infidelium circa ON THE ERROR OF THE INFIDELS
sacramentum Eucharistiae ABOUT THE SACRAMENT OF THE
EUCHARIST
Sicut autem, Christo proferente [1] Of course, just as when Christ spoke

haec verba, quidam discipulorum these words, some of the disciples were
turbati sunt, dicentes, durus est hic troubled and said: “This saying is hard,
sermo. Quis potest eum audire? Ita and who can bear it?” (John 6:61), so,
et contra doctrinam Ecclesiae also, against the teaching of the Church
insurrexerunt haeretici veritatem some heretics have arisen to deny this
huius negantes. Dicunt enim in hoc truth. They say that the body and blood
sacramento non realiter esse of Christ are not really present in this
corpus et sanguinem Christi, sed sacrament, but by way of sign only;
significative tantum: ut sic thus, one understands Christ’s saying
intelligatur quod Christus dixit, when He indicated the bread: “This is
demonstrato pane, hoc est corpus My body” (Mat. 26:26) as though He
meum, ac si diceret, hoc est were saying: “This is a sign or figure of
signum, vel figura corporis mei; My body.” And in this way the Apostle
secundum quem modum et spoke: “And the rock was Christ” (1 Cor.
apostolus dixit, I Cor. 104, petra 10:4), that is, “a figure of Christ”; and to
autem erat Christus, idest, Christi such an understanding they refer
figura; et ad hunc intellectum whatever is said in the Scriptures in a
referunt quicquid in Scripturis similar way.
invenitur similiter dici.
Huius autem opinionis occasionem [2] Of course, the occasion of this
assumunt ex verbis domini, qui de opinion is taken from our Lord’s words.
sui corporis comestione et Speaking of eating His flesh and
sanguinis potatione, ut scandalum drinking His blood, to quiet the scandal
discipulorum quod obortum fuerat which had arisen among the disciples
sopiretur, quasi seipsum exponens, He, said—as, though explaining Himself:
dixit: verba quae ego locutus sum “The words that I have spoken to you
vobis, spiritus et vita sunt: quasi ea are spirit and life” (John 6:64); as though
quae dixerat, non ad litteram, sed His words were to be understood not
secundum spiritualem sensum literally, but in a spiritual sense.
intelligenda essent.
Inducuntur etiam ad dissentiendum [3] They are also induced to their dissent
ex multis difficultatibus quae ad by the many difficulties which seem to
hanc Ecclesiae doctrinam sequi follow this teaching of the Church; by
videntur, propter quas hic sermo reason of these “this saying” of Christ
Christi et Ecclesiae durus eis and the Church appears hard to them.
apparet.
Et primo quidem, difficile videtur [4] In the first place, there seems to be a

quomodo verum corpus Christi in difficulty in the way in which the true
altari esse incipiat. Aliquid enim body of Christ begins to be on the altar.
incipit esse ubi prius non fuit, For a thing begins to be where it was not
dupliciter: vel per motum localem, before in two ways: either by local
vel per conversionem alterius in motion, or by the conversion of another
ipsum; ut patet in igne, qui alicubi into itself. This is clear in the case of fire,
esse incipit vel quia ibi de novo which begins to be in some place either
accenditur, vel quia illuc de novo because it is newly lighted there or
apportatur. Manifestum est autem because it is newly carried there.
verum corpus Christi non semper in Manifestly, of course, the true body of
hoc altari fuisse: confitetur enim Christ was not always on the altar; for
Ecclesia Christum in suo corpore the Church confesses that Christ in His
ascendisse in caelum. body ascended into heaven.
Videtur autem impossibile dici quod [5] But it seems impossible to say that

aliquid hic de novo convertatur in here something is newly converted into
corpus Christi. Nihil enim videtur the body of Christ. For nothing seems
converti in praeexistens: cum id in converted into the preexistent, since
quod aliquid convertitur, per what is converted into something begins
huiusmodi conversionem esse to be by this sort of conversion. But,
incipiat. Manifestum est autem manifestly, the body of Christ pre
corpus Christi praeextitisse, utpote existed, let us say, as conceived in the
in utero virginali conceptum. Non virginal womb. Therefore, it does not
igitur videtur esse possibile quod in seem possible that on the altar it begins
altari de novo esse incipiat per to be anew by the conversion of another
conversionem alterius in ipsum. into itself.
Similiter autem, nec per loci [6] In a similar fashion, it cannot be there

mutationem. Quia omne quod by a change of place, since whatever is
localiter movetur, sic incipit esse in moved locally begins to be in one place
uno loco quod desinit esse in alio, in such wise that it ceases to be in
in quo prius fuit. Oportebit igitur another in which it was before.
dicere quod, cum Christus incipit Therefore, one will have to say that
esse in hoc altari, in quo hoc when Christ begins to be on this altar
sacramentum peragitur, desinat whereon the sacrament is enacted He
esse in caelo, quo ascendendo ceases to be in heaven where He
pervenerat. Amplius. Nullus motus arrived after His ascension.
localis terminatur simul ad duo Furthermore, no local motion has two
loca. Manifestum est autem hoc places simultaneously as its term. But,
sacramentum simul in diversis clearly, this sacrament is celebrated
altaribus celebrari. Non est ergo simultaneously on different altars.
possibile, quod per motum localem Therefore, it is not possible that the
corpus Christi, ibi esse incipiat. body of Christ begins to be thereon by
local motion.
Secunda difficultas ex loco accidit. [7] The second difficulty comes from the

Non enim semotim partes alicuius place. For parts are not contained in
in diversis locis continentur, ipso separated places if a thing remains a
integro permanente. Manifestum whole. But, manifestly, in this sacrament
est autem in hoc sacramento the bread and wine, are apart from one
seorsum esse panem et vinum in another in separate places. Therefore, if
locis separatis. Si igitur caro Christi the flesh of Christ is under the
sit sub specie panis, et sanguis sub appearance of bread and the blood
specie vini, videtur sequi quod under the appearance of wine, it seems
Christus non remaneat integer, sed to follow that Christ does not remain
semper cum hoc sacramentum whole; but whenever this sacrament is
agitur, eius sanguis a corpore performed His blood is separated from
separetur. His body.
Adhuc. Impossibile videtur quod [8] Furthermore, it seems impossible

maius corpus in loco minoris that a larger body be inclosed in the
includatur. Manifestum est autem place of a smaller one. Clearly, of
verum corpus Christi esse maioris course, the true body of Christ is greater
quantitatis quam panis qui in altari in quantity than the bread which is
offertur. Impossibile igitur videtur offered on the altar. It seems, then,
quod verum corpus Christi totum et impossible that the true body of Christ
integrum sit ubi videtur esse panis. be whole and entire there where the
Si autem ibi est non totum, sed bread is seen. Of course, if it is not the
aliqua pars eius, redibit primum whole there, but one of its parts, then
inconveniens, quod semper dum the first awkwardness recurs: Whenever
hoc sacramentum agitur, corpus this sacrament is performed the body of
Christi per partes discerpatur. Christ is scattered into parts.
Amplius. Impossibile est unum [9] It is further impossible that one body

corpus in pluribus locis existere. should exist in many places. But,
Manifestum est autem hoc manifestly, this sacrament is celebrated
sacramentum in pluribus locis in many places. Therefore, it seems
celebrari. Impossibile igitur videtur impossible that the body of Christ is
quod corpus Christi in hoc truthfully contained in this sacrament—
sacramento veraciter contineatur. unless one says, perhaps, that the body
Nisi forte quis dicat quod secundum is contained in one of its particles here,
aliquam particulam est hic, et and in another there. And on this it
secundum aliam alibi. Ad quod follows, once again, that by the
iterum sequitur quod per celebration of this sacrament the body of
celebrationem huius sacramenti Christ is divided into parts; for all that, at
corpus Christi dividatur in partes: the same time, the quantity of the body
cum tamen nec quantitas corporis of Christ does not seem to suffice for the

Christi sufficere videatur ad tot division of as many particles from the
particulas ex eo dividendas, in quot body as there are places where this
locis hoc sacramentum peragitur. sacrament is performed.
Tertia difficultas est ex his quae in [10] The third difficulty lies in the things
hoc sacramento sensu percipimus. which we perceive by our senses in this
Sentimus enim manifeste, etiam sacrament. For, clearly, in this
post consecrationem, in hoc sacrament we sense, even after the
sacramento omnia accidentia panis consecration, all the accidents of bread
et vini, scilicet colorem, saporem, and wine: color, taste, odor, figure,
odorem, figuram, quantitatem et quantity, and weight; and concerning
pondus: circa quae decipi non these we cannot be deceived, for “the
possumus, quia sensus circa sense is never deceived about the
propria sensibilia non decipitur. proper sensibles.”
Huiusmodi autem accidentia in [11] But accidents of this kind cannot be

corpore Christi esse non possunt in the body of Christ as in a subject; in
sicut in subiecto; similiter etiam nec like fashion, neither can they be in the
in aere adiacenti: quia, cum plurima surrounding air; for, since many of them
eorum sint accidentia naturalia, are natural accidents, they call for a
requirunt subiectum determinatae subject of a determined nature, which is
naturae, non qualis est natura not like the nature of the human body or
corporis humani vel aeris. of the air.
Nec possunt per se subsistere: [12] Nor can they subsist in themselves,

cum accidentis esse sit inesse. since “the being of an accident is by
Accidentia etiam, cum sint formae, inherence.”
individuari non possunt nisi per
subiectum.
Unde remoto subiecto, essent [13] Also, since accidents are forms,
formae universales. Relinquitur they cannot he individuated except
igitur huiusmodi accidentia esse in through a subject. Wherefore, with the
suis determinatis subiectis, scilicet subject removed they would be
in substantia panis et vini. Est igitur universal forms. Therefore, this remains:
ibi substantia panis et vini, et non Accidents of this kind are in their
substantia corporis Christi: cum determined subjects; namely, in the
impossibile videatur duo corpora substance of bread and wine. Therefore,
esse simul. the substance of bread and wine is
there, and the substance of the body of
Christ is not, since it seems impossible
that the two bodies be there
simultaneously.
Quarta difficultas accidit ex [14] The fourth difficulty arises from the
passionibus et actionibus quae actions and passions which appear in
apparent in pane et vino post the bread and wine after the
consecrationem sicut et ante. Nam consecration just as they did before it.
vinum, si in magna quantitate For the wine, if taken in large quantity,
sumeretur, calefaceret, et would make one warm and would make
inebriaret: panis autem et one drunk; the bread, of course, would
confortaret et nutriret. Videntur strengthen and would nourish. They
etiam, si diu et incaute serventur, seem, also, if kept long and carelessly,
putrescere; et a muribus comedi; to rat or to be eaten by mice, they can
comburi etiam possunt et in even be burned, and reduced to ashes
cinerem redigi et vaporem; quae and smoke. But none of this agrees with
omnia corpori Christi convenire non the body of Christ, since the faith
possunt; cum fides ipsum preaches that it is incapable of suffering.
impassibilem praedicet. Impossibile Therefore, it seems impossible that the
igitur videtur quod corpus Christi in body of Christ be contained substantially
hoc sacramento substantialiter in this sacrament.
contineatur.
Quinta difficultas videtur specialiter [15] A fifth difficulty seems to arise
accidere ex fractione panis: quae especially from the breaking of the
quidem sensibiliter apparet, nec bread; indeed, this breaking appears
sine subiecto esse potest. sensibly and cannot be without a
Absurdum etiam videtur dicere subject. It even seems absurd to say
quod illius fractionis subiectum sit that the subject of that breaking is the
corpus Christi. Non igitur videtur ibi body of Christ. Therefore, the body of
esse corpus Christi, sed solum Christ seems not to be there, but only
substantia panis et vini. the substance of the bread and wine.
Haec igitur et huiusmodi sunt [16] These, then, and points of this kind

propter quae doctrina Christi et are the reason why the teaching of
Ecclesiae circa hoc sacramentum Christ and the Church concerning this
dura esse videtur. sacrament appears hard.
Caput 63 Chapter 63
Solutio praemissarum SOLUTION OF THE DIFFICULTIES SET
difficultatum, et primo quoad DOWN: FIRST, ABOUT THE
conversionem panis in corpus CONVERSION OF THE BREAD HIM THE
Christi BODY OF CHRIST
Licet autem divina virtus [1] Although, of course, the divine power
sublimius et secretius in hoc operates with a greater sublimity and
sacramento operetur quam ab secrecy in this sacrament than a man’s
homine perquiri possit, ne tamen inquiry can search out, nonetheless, lest
doctrina Ecclesiae circa hoc the teaching of the Church regarding this
sacramentum, infidelibus sacrament appear impossible to
impossibilis videatur, conandum unbelievers, one must make the endeavor
est ad hoc quod omnis to exclude every impossibility.
impossibilitas excludatur.
Prima igitur occurrit consideratio, [2] The first consideration we meet, then,
per quem modum verum Christi is that of the way in which the true body of
corpus esse sub hoc sacramento Christ begins to be under this sacrament.
incipiat.
Impossibile autem est quod hoc [3] It is impossible, of course, that this take

fiat per motum localem corporis place by a local motion of the body of
Christi. Tum quia sequeretur Christ. One reason is that it would follow
quod in caelo esse desineret that He ceases to be in heaven whenever
quandocumque hoc agitur this sacrament is performed. Another
sacramentum. Tum quia non reason is that this sacrament could not be
posset simul hoc sacramentum performed at the same time except in one
agi, nisi in uno loco: cum unus place, since a local motion is not ended
motus localis non nisi ad unum except at one term. Another reason, also,
terminum finiatur. Tum etiam quia is that local motion cannot be
motus localis instantaneus esse instantaneous, but requires time.
non potest, sed tempore indiget. Consecration, however, is perfected in the
Consecratio autem perficitur in ultimate instant of the pronouncement of
ultimo instanti prolationis the words.
verborum.
Relinquitur igitur dicendum quod [4] Therefore, one concludes by saying
verum corpus Christi esse that the true body of Christ begins to be in
incipiat in hoc sacramento per this sacrament by the fact that the
hoc quod substantia panis substance of the bread is converted into
convertitur in substantiam the substance of the body of Christ, and
corporis Christi, et substantia vini the substance of the wine into the
in substantiam sanguinis eius. substance of His blood.
Ex hoc autem apparet falsam [5] But thus appears the falsity of the
esse opinionem, tam eorum qui opinion: not only of those who say that the
dicunt substantiam panis simul substance of the bread exists
cum substantia corporis Christi in simultaneously with the substance of
hoc sacramento existere; quam Christ in this sacrament, but also of those
etiam eorum qui ponunt who hold that the substance of the bread
substantiam panis in nihilum is reduced to nothing or is resolved into
redigi, vel in primam materiam prime matter. For on each of these
resolvi. Ad utrumque enim positions it follows that the body of Christ
sequitur quod corpus Christi in does not begin to be in this sacrament
hoc sacramento esse incipere except by local motion. And this is
non possit nisi per motum impossible, as we have shown.
localem: quod est impossibile, ut
ostensum est.
Praeterea, si substantia panis Furthermore, if the substance of the bread

simul est in hoc sacramento cum is simultaneous in this sacrament with the
vero corpore Christi, potius true body of Christ, Christ should rather
Christo dicendum fuit, hic est have said: “My body is here” than: “This is

corpus meum, quam, hoc est My body.” For by “here” one points to the
corpus meum: cum per hic substance which is seen, and this is
demonstretur substantia quae indeed the substance of the bread, if it
videtur, quae quidem est remains in the sacrament with the body of
substantia panis, si in Christ.
sacramento cum corpore Christi
remaneat.
Similiter etiam impossibile videtur Similarly, also, it seems impossible that the
quod substantia panis omnino in substance of the bread returns to
nihilum redeat. Multum enim de nothingness. For much of the bodily nature
natura corporea primo creata iam first created would have already returned
in nihilum rediisset ex into nothingness from the repetition of this
frequentatione huius mysterii. mystery. Neither is it becoming that in a
Nec est decens ut in sacramento sacrament of salvation something be
salutis divina virtute aliquid in reduced to nothing by the divine power.
nihilum redigatur. Neque etiam in Nor is it even possible that the substance
materiam primam substantiam of the bread is resolved into prime matter,
panis est possibile resolvi: cum since prime matter cannot be without form
materia prima sine forma esse —except, perhaps, that one is to
non possit. Nisi forte per understand by “prime matter” the primary
materiam primam prima bodily elements. To be sure, if the
elementa corporea intelligantur. substance of the bread were resolved into
In quae quidem si substantia these, this very thing would necessarily be
panis resolveretur, necesse esset perceived by the senses, since the bodily
hoc ipsum percipi sensu: cum elements are sensible. There would also
elementa corporea sensibilia sint. be local transmutation in the place and
Esset etiam ibi localis bodily alteration of contraries. And these
transmutatio et corporalis cannot be instantaneous.
alteratio contrariorum, quae
instantanea esse non possunt.
Sciendum tamen est quod [6] Nonetheless, it must be recognized that

praedicta conversio panis in the aforesaid conversion of the bread into
corpus Christi alterius modi est the body of Christ is of another mode than
ab omnibus conversionibus any natural conversion whatever. For in
naturalibus. Nam in qualibet any natural conversion a subject persists
conversione naturali manet in which different forms succeed
subiectum, in quo succedunt sibi themselves: these are accidental—white,
diversae formae, vel for example, is converted into black, or
accidentales, sicut cum album in they are substantial—air, for example, is
nigrum convertitur, vel converted into fire; wherefore these are
substantiales, sicut cum aer in named formal conversions. But in the
ignem: unde conversiones conversion under discussion a subject
formales nominantur. Sed in passes over into a subject, and the
conversione praedicta subiectum accidents persist; hence, this conversion is
transit in subiectum, et accidentia named substantial. Indeed, how these
manent: unde haec conversio accidents persist, and why, must be
substantialis nominatur. Et closely examined later.

quidem qualiter haec accidentia
maneant et quare, posterius
perscrutandum est.
Nunc autem considerare oportet [7] But now we must consider how a
quomodo subiectum in subiectum subject is converted into a subject. And
convertatur. Quod quidem natura this, to be sure, nature cannot do. For
facere non potest. Omnis enim every operation of nature presupposes
naturae operatio materiam matter which individuates the substance;
praesupponit per quam wherefore, nature cannot bring it about
substantia individuatur; unde that this substance ‘become that
natura facere non potest quod substance, that this finger, for example,
haec substantia fiat illa, sicut become that finger. But matter is subject to
quod hic digitus fiat ille digitus. the divine power, since the latter brings it
Sed materia subiecta est virtuti into being. Hence, by divine power it can
divinae: cum per ipsam come about that this individual substance
producatur in esse. Unde divina be converted into that preexisting
virtute fieri potest quod haec substance. Now, just as the power of a
individua substantia in illam natural agent whose operation extends to
praeexistentem convertatur. Sicut the change of a form only—and the
enim virtute naturalis agentis, existence of the subject is supposed—
cuius operatio se extendit tantum changes this whole into that whole in a
ad immutationem formae, et variation of the species and the form—this
existentia subiecti supposita, hoc air, let us say, into that generated fire—so
totum in illud totum convertitur the divine power, which does not
secundum variationem speciei et presuppose matter, but produces matter,
formae, utpote hic aer in hunc converts this matter into that matter, and,
ignem generatum: ita virtute in consequence, this individual into that
divina, quae materiam non individual; for the principle of individuation
praesupponit, sed eam producit, is matter, just as form is the principle of
et haec materia convertitur in species.
illam, et per consequens hoc
individuum in illud: individuationis
enim principium materia est, sicut
forma est principium speciei.
Hinc autem manifestum est quod [8] In this way, of course, it is clear that in
in conversione praedicta panis in the aforesaid conversion of bread into the
corpus Christi non est aliquod body of Christ there is not a common
subiectum commune permanens subject persisting after the conversion,
post conversionem: cum since a transmutation takes place in the
transmutatio fiat secundum first subject, and this is the principle of the
primum subiectum, quod est individuation. It is necessary, for all that,
individuationis principium. that something persist to make true the
Necesse est tamen aliquid words: “This is My body”; the very words,
remanere, ut verum sit quod in fact, which are significative and effective
dicitur, hoc est corpus meum, of this conversion. And the substance of
quae quidem verba sunt huius the bread does not persist; neither does
conversionis significativa et any prior matter (as was shown).
factiva. Et quia substantia panis Therefore, one necessarily says that what

non manet, nec aliqua prior persists is other than the substance of the
materia, ut ostensum est: bread. Of this sort, of course, is the
necesse est dicere quod maneat accident of the bread. Therefore, the
id quod est praeter substantiam accidents of the bread do persist even
panis. Huiusmodi autem est after the conversion mentioned.
accidens panis. Remanent igitur
accidentia panis, etiam post
conversionem praedictam.
Inter accidentia vero quidam ordo [9] Among accidents, however, there is a

considerandus est. Nam inter certain order to be considered. For, among
omnia accidentia propinquius all the accidents, that inhering more
inhaeret substantiae quantitas closely to the substance is the quantity
dimensiva. Deinde qualitates in which tends to measure. Then the
substantia recipiuntur quantitate qualities are received in the substance
mediante, sicut color mediante with the quantity as medium—color, for
superficie: unde et per divisionem example, with the surface as medium;
quantitatis, per accidens hence, even by the division of the quantity
dividuntur. Ulterius autem they are incidentally divided. But, in
qualitates sunt actionum et addition, the qualities are the principles of
passionum principia; et actions and passions, as well as of certain
relationum quarundam, ut sunt relations—father and son, let us say, or
pater et filius, dominus et servus, master and servant, and others of this
et alia huiusmodi. Quaedam vero kind. Of course, some relations follow
relationes immediate ad immediately on the quantities—greater
quantitates consequuntur: ut and less, for instance, or doubled and
maius et minus, duplum et halved, and similar relations. Therefore,
dimidium, et similia. Sic igitur one ought to hold that the accidents of the
accidentia panis, post bread persist after the conversion
conversionem praedictam, mentioned in such wise that only the
remanere ponendum est ut sola quantity which tends to measure subsists
quantitas dimensiva sine without a subject, and on it the qualities
subiecto subsistat, et in ipsa are based as on a subject, and so in
qualitates fundentur sicut in consequence are the accidents, passions,
subiecto, et per consequens and relations. Therefore, in this conversion
actiones, passiones et relationes. what takes place is the contrary of what
Accidit igitur in hac conversione usually takes place in natural mutations,
contrarium ei quod in naturalibus for in these the substance persists as the
mutationibus accidere solet, in subject of the mutation, whereas the
quibus substantia manet ut accidents are varied; but here, conversely,
mutationis subiectum, accidentia the accident persists, the substance
vero variantur: hic autem e passes.
converso accidens manet, et
substantia transit.
Huiusmodi autem conversio non [10] Of course, a conversion of this kind
potest proprie dici motus, sicut a cannot properly be called motion as that is
naturali consideratur, ut considered by the natural philosopher,

subiectum requirat, sed est since that requires a subject, but it is a
quaedam substantialis successio, kind of substantial succession; so there is
sicut in creatione est successio in creation a succession of being and non
esse et non esse, ut in secundo being, as was said in Book II.
dictum est.
Haec igitur est una ratio quare [11] This, then, is one reason why the
accidens panis remanere oportet: accident of the bread must remain: that
ut inveniatur aliquod manens in something be discoverable which persists
conversione praedicta. in the conversion under discussion.
Est autem et propter aliud [12] But it is necessary for another reason.

necessarium. Si enim substantia For, if the substance of the bread were
panis in corpus Christi converted into the body of Christ and the
converteretur et panis accidentia accidents were to pass on, it would not
transirent, ex tali conversione follow from such a conversion that the
non sequeretur quod corpus body of Christ in His substance would be
Christi, secundum suam where first there was bread, for no
substantiam, esset ubi prius fuit relationship between the body of Christ
panis: nulla enim relinqueretur and the aforesaid place would be left. But
habitudo corporis Christi ad since, after the conversion, the quantity of
locum praedictum. Sed cum the bread which tends to measure does
quantitas dimensiva panis remain, and through this the bread
remanet post conversionem, per acquired this place, the substance of the
quam panis hunc locum bread changed into the body of Christ
sortiebatur, substantia panis in becomes the body of Christ under the
corpus Christi mutata fit corpus bread’s quantity tending to measure; in
Christi sub quantitate dimensiva consequence, the body of Christ in some
panis; et per consequens locum way acquires the place of the bread, with
panis quodammodo sortitur, the measurements of the bread,
mediantibus tamen nonetheless, mediating.
dimensionibus panis.
Possunt et aliae rationes [13] Other reasons can also be given:
assignari. Et quantum ad fidei respecting the essentials of faith, which
rationem quae de invisibilibus deals with the invisible; respecting also its
est. Et eius meritum quod circa merit, which is so much the greater in
hoc sacramentum tanto maius connection with this sacrament, since it
est quanto invisibilius agitur, deals with the more invisible, for the body
corpore Christi sub panis of Christ is hidden under the accidents of
accidentibus occultato. Et propter the bread; respecting, also, the more
commodiorem et honestiorem appropriate and worthy use of this
usum huius sacramenti. Esset sacrament, for it would be horrible for the
enim horrori sumentibus, et receivers, and an abomination to those
abominationi videntibus, si looking on, if the body of Christ were
corpus Christi in sua specie a received by the faithful in its own
fidelibus sumeretur. Unde sub appearance. Hence, it is under the
specie panis et vini, quibus appearance of bread and wine, which men
communius homines utuntur ad use rather commonly for meat and drink,
esum et potum, corpus Christi that the body of Christ is set forth to be
proponitur manducandum, et eaten and His blood to be drunk.
sanguis potandus.
Caput 64 Chapter 64
Solutio eorum quae SOLUTION OF THE OBJECTIONS MADE
obiiciebantur ex parte loci REGARDING PLACE
His igitur consideratis circa [1] Now, after we have considered these
modum conversionis, ad alia points about the mode of conversion, the
solvenda nobis aliquatenus via way to solve the other arguments is
patet. Dictum est enim quod opened up to us somewhat. For it has now
locus in quo hoc agitur been said that the place in which the
sacramentum, attribuitur corpori sacrament is is ascribed to the body of
Christi ratione dimensionum Christ by reason of the measurements of
panis, remanentium post the bread remaining after the conversion of
conversionem substantiae panis the substance of the bread into the body of
in corpus Christi. Secundum hoc Christ. And in accord with this, that which is
igitur ea quae Christi sunt of Christ must be in the place mentioned so
necesse est esse in loco far as the essentials of the conversion
praedicto, secundum quod exigit mentioned require it.
ratio conversionis praedictae.
Considerandum est igitur in hoc [2] Consideration, then, must be given this:

sacramento aliquid esse ex vi There is something in this sacrament by
conversionis, aliquid autem ex force of the conversion and something by
naturali concomitantia. Ex vi natural accompaniment. Now, by force of
quidem conversionis est in hoc the conversion there is in the sacrament
sacramento illud ad quod directe that in which the conversion is directly
conversio terminatur: sicut sub terminated: so, under the appearances of
speciebus panis corpus Christi, bread there is the body of Christ into which
in quod substantia panis the substance of the bread is converted, as
convertitur, ut per verba is clear from the words of the consecration
consecrationis patet, cum dicitur, when one says: “This is My body”; in like
hoc est corpus meum; et similiter manner under the appearance of wine
sub specie vini est sanguis there is the blood of Christ when one says:
Christi, cum dicitur, hic est calix “This is the chalice of My blood,” and so
sanguinis mei et cetera. Sed ex forth. But by natural accompaniment all the
naturali concomitantia sunt ibi other things are there in which the
omnia alia ad quae conversio conversion is not terminated, but which are,
non terminatur, sed tamen ei in nonetheless, really conjoined to that in
quod terminatur sunt realiter which the conversion is terminated. For it is
coniuncta. Manifestum est enim clear that the conversion of the bread is not
quod conversio panis non terminated in the divinity of Christ, nor in
terminatur in divinitatem Christi, His soul; nonetheless, under the
neque in eius animam; sed appearance of bread the soul of Christ is
tamen sub specie panis est there, and His divinity by reason of the
anima Christi et eius divinitas union of each of these to the body of
propter unionem utriusque ad Christ.
corpus Christi.
Si vero in triduo mortis Christi [3] However, if in the threeday period of
hoc sacramentum celebratum the death of Christ this sacrament had
fuisset, non fuisset sub specie been celebrated, the soul of Christ would
panis anima Christi, quia realiter not have been under the appearance of
non erat corpori eius unita: et bread, because it was not really united to
similiter nec sub specie panis His body; in the same way, there would not
fuisset sanguis, nec sub specie have been blood under the appearance of
vini corpus, propter bread, nor body under the appearance of
separationem utriusque in morte. wine, by reason of the separation of each
Nunc autem, quia corpus Christi of these in death. But now, since the body
in sua natura non est sine of Christ in His nature is not without blood,
sanguine, sub utraque specie His body and blood are contained under
continetur corpus et sanguis: each appearance: under the appearance of
sed sub specie panis continetur bread the body is contained by force of
corpus ex vi conversionis, conversion, the blood by natural
sanguis autem ex naturali accompaniment; under the appearance of
concomitantia: sub specie autem wine the converse is true.
vini e converso.
Per eadem etiam patet solutio [4] The same points give a solution to the
ad id quod obiiciebatur de objection about the inequality of the body of
inaequalitate corporis Christi ad Christ to the place of the bread. For the
locum panis. Substantia enim substance of the bread is directly converted
panis directe convertitur in into the substance of the body of Christ, but
substantiam corporis Christi: the dimensions of the body of Christ are in
dimensiones autem corporis the sacrament by natural accompaniment,
Christi sunt in sacramento ex and not from force of conversion, since the
naturali concomitantia, non dimensions of the bread remain. In this
autem ex vi conversionis, cum way, then, the body of Christ is not related
dimensiones panis remaneant. to this place with its own dimensions as
Sic igitur corpus Christi non medium, so that the place need be equated
comparatur ad hunc locum to those dimensions, but His body is here
mediantibus dimensionibus with the persisting dimensions of the bread
propriis, ut eis oporteat as medium, and to these the place is
adaequari locum: sed equated.
mediantibus dimensionibus
panis remanentibus, quibus
locus adaequatur.
Inde etiam patet solutio ad id [5] Therein, also, the solution is open to
quod obiiciebatur de pluralitate what was objected to about the plurality of
locorum. Corpus enim Christi per places. For the body of Christ in His own
suas proprias dimensiones in dimensions exists in one place only, but
uno tantum loco existit: sed through the mediation of the dimensions of
mediantibus dimensionibus the bread passing into it its places are as
panis in ipsum transeuntis in tot many as there are places in which this sort
locis in quot huiusmodi of conversion is celebrated. For it is not
conversio fuerit celebrata: non divided into parts, but is entire in every
quidem divisum per partes, sed single one; every consecrated bread is
integrum in unoquoque; nam converted into the entire body of Christ.
quilibet panis consecratus in
integrum corpus Christi
convertitur.
Caput 65 Chapter 65
Solutio eorum quae SOLUTION OF THE OBJECTIONS
obiiciebantur ex parte REGARDING ACCIDENTS
accidentium
Sic igitur difficultate soluta quae ex [1] Thus, then, with the difficulty solved

loco accidit, inspiciendum est de arising from place, one ought to look into
ea quae ex accidentibus the one which seems to arise from the
remanentibus esse videtur. Non accidents which remain. For it cannot be
enim negari potest accidentia panis denied that the accidents of bread and
et vini remanere: cum sensus hoc wine remain, since the senses infallibly
infallibiliter demonstret. point this out.
Neque his corpus Christi aut [2] Neither the body of Christ nor His
sanguis afficitur: quia hoc sine eius blood is: affected by these accidents,
alteratione esse non posset, nec because without changing Him this could
talium accidentium capax est. not be; nor has He the capacity for such
Similiter autem et substantia aeris. accidents. Much the same can he said of
Unde relinquitur quod sint sine the substance of the air. Hence, one
subiecto. Tamen per modum concludes that they are without a
praedictum: ut scilicet sola subject. Nevertheless, they are without a
quantitas dimensiva sine subiecto subject in the manner mentioned:
subsistat, et ipsa aliis accidentibus namely, that only the quantity tending to
praebeat subiectum. measure subsists without a subject,.and
this supplies a subject to the other
accidents.
Nec est impossibile quod accidens [3] Neither is it impossible that by the

virtute divina subsistere possit sine divine power an accident can subsist
subiecto. Idem enim est without a subject. For one ought to make
iudicandum de productione rerum, the same judgment about the creation of
et conservatione earum in esse. things and about their conservation in
Divina autem virtus potest being. The divine power, of course, can
producere effectus quarumcumque produce the effects of any second
causarum secundarum sine ipsis causes whatever without the second
causis secundis: sicut potuit causes themselves; so it was able to
formare hominem sine semine, et form a man without seed, and to cure a
sanare febrem sine operatione fever without the operation of nature.
naturae. Quod accidit propter And this happens by reason of the
infinitatem virtutis eius, et quia infinity of His power, and be, cause He
omnibus causis secundis largitur grants to all second causes their power
virtutem agendi. Unde et effectus to act. Wherefore, also, He can conserve
causarum secundarum conservare the effects of second causes in being
potest in esse sine causis without the second causes. And in this
secundis. Et hoc modo in hoc way in this sacrament He conserves an
sacramento accidens conservat in accident in being, even after the removal
esse, sublata substantia quae of the substance which was conserving
ipsum conservabat. it.
Quod quidem praecipue dici potest And this, indeed, can especially be said

de quantitatibus dimensivis: quas of the quantities tending to measure;
etiam Platonici posuerunt per se these even the Platonists held to subsist
subsistere, propter hoc quod of themselves, for this reason: They are
secundum intellectum separantur. separated in the understanding. But it is
Manifestum est autem quod plus clear that God can do more in operation
potest Deus in operando quam than the intellect can in apprehension.
intellectus in apprehendendo.
Habet autem et hoc proprium [4] Of course, the quantity tending to
quantitas dimensiva inter measure has among the remaining
accidentia reliqua, quod ipsa accidents this property: that it is in itself
secundum se individuatur. Quod individuated. And the reason is this:
ideo est, quia positio, quae est Position, which is “the order of parts in
ordo partium in toto, in eius ratione the whole,” is essentially included in this
includitur: est enim quantitas quantity, for quantity is “that which has
positionem habens. Ubicumque position.” But wherever a diversity of
autem intelligitur diversitas partium parts of the same species is understood,
eiusdem speciei, necesse est individuation is necessarily understood,
intelligi individuationem: nam quae for things which are of the same species
sunt unius speciei, non are not multiplied except in the
multiplicantur nisi secundum individual; accordingly many
individuum; et inde est quod non whitenesses cannot be apprehended
possunt apprehendi multae except as they are in different subjects,
albedines nisi secundum quod sunt but many lines can be apprehended,
in diversis subiectis; possunt even if they are considered in
autem apprehendi multae lineae, themselves. For diversity of site which is
etiam si secundum se in the line of itself is sufficient for the
considerentur: diversus enim situs, plurality of lines.
qui per se lineae inest, ad
pluralitatem linearum sufficiens est.
Et quia sola quantitas dimensiva And because only the quantity tending to

de sui ratione habet unde measure has in its essentials a possible
multiplicatio individuorum in eadem source of the multiplication of individuals
specie possit accidere, prima radix in the same species, the first root of this
huiusmodi multiplicationis ex kind of multiplication seems to be from
dimensione esse videtur: quia et in measurement, because even in the
genere substantiae multiplicatio fit genus of substance the multiplication is

secundum divisionem materiae; made according to the division of matter.
quae nec intelligi posset nisi And this could not even be understood
secundum quod materia sub save by the consideration of matter
dimensionibus consideratur; nam, under measurements, for with the
remota quantitate, substantia quantity gone all substance is indivisible,
omnis indivisibilis est, ut patet per as is clear from the Philosopher in
philosophum in I physicorum. Physics I [2].
Manifestum est autem quod in aliis [5] It is, of course, manifest that in the
generibus accidentium, other genera of accidents, individuals are
multiplicantur individua eiusdem multiplied in the same species on the
speciei ex parte subiecti. Et sic part of the subject. And thus one is left to
relinquitur quod, cum in huiusmodi conclude: Since we hold that in this
sacramento ponamus dimensiones sacrament the measurements subsist of
per se subsistere; et alia accidentia themselves and that the other accidents
in eis sicut in subiecto fundari: non are founded on these as on a subject,
oportet nos dicere quod accidentia we need not say that accidents of this
huiusmodi individuata non sint; kind are not individuated; for there
remanet enim in ipsis persists in the measurements
dimensionibus individuationis radix. themselves the root of individuation.
Caput 66 Chapter 66
obiiciebantur ex parte actionis REGARDING ACTION AND PASSION
et passionis
His autem consideratis, quae ad [1] After the consideration of these points,

quartam difficultatem pertinent one should consider those belonging to
consideranda sunt. Circa quae the fourth difficulty. And concerning these
aliquid quidem est quod de facili there is, indeed, something which can be
expediri potest: aliquid quidem est dealt with easily; something else,
quod maiorem difficultatem however, offers a greater difficulty.
praetendit.
Quod enim in hoc sacramento [2] The fact that in this sacrament the
eaedem actiones appareant quae same actions appear which previously
prius in substantia panis et vini appeared in the substance of the bread
apparebant, puta quod similiter and wine (they change the senses in the
immutent sensum, similiter etiam same way, let us say; they even in the
alterent aerem circumstantem, vel same way alter the surrounding air, or
quodlibet aliud, odore aut colore: anything else, by odor or color) now
satis conveniens videtur ex his seems fitting enough from what has been
quae posita sunt. Dictum est enim set down. For we said that in this
quod in hoc sacramento remanent sacrament the accidents of the bread and
accidentia panis et vini: inter quae wine persist. And among these are the
sunt qualitates sensibiles, quae sensible qualities which are the principles
sunt huiusmodi actionum of actions of this sort.

principia.
Rursus, circa passiones aliquas, [3] Again, concerning some passions

puta quae fiunt secundum (those, for instance, which take place in
alterationes huiusmodi alterations of accidents of this kind), the
accidentium, non magna etiam difficulty which occurs is not so great, if
difficultas accidit, si praemissa the premises be granted. For, since it was
supponantur. Cum enim premised that the other accidents are
praemissum sit quod alia based on the measurements as on a
accidentia in dimensionibus subject, the alteration of the other
fundantur sicut in subiecto, per accidents can be considered in the same
eundem modum circa huiusmodi way with respect to this subject as they
subiectum alteratio aliorum would be if the substance were there; for
accidentium considerari potest, example, if the wine had been warmed
sicut si esset ibi substantia; ut and became cold, or if it should change its
puta si vinum esset calefactum et flavor, or something of this kind.
infrigidaretur, aut mutaret
saporem, aut aliquod huiusmodi.
Sed maxima difficultas apparet [4] But a very great difficulty appears
circa generationem et regarding the generation and corruption
corruptionem quae in hoc which seems to take place in this
sacramento videtur accidere. sacrament. For if one were to use this
Nam si quis in magna quantitate sacramental food in large quantity he
hoc sacramentali cibo uteretur, could be sustained, and by the wine even
sustentari posset, et vino etiam made drunk, as the Apostle has it: "One
inebriari, secundum illud apostoli I indeed is hungry and another is drunk" (1
Cor. 1121, alius esurit, alius Cor. 11:21). And these things could not
ebrius est: quae quidem accidere take place unless, from this sacrament,
non possent nisi ex hoc flesh and blood were generated, for
sacramento caro et sanguis nourishment is converted into the
generaretur; nam nutrimentum substance of the one nourished. Some
convertitur in substantiam nutriti; may, of course, say that a man is not
quamvis quidam dicant hominem nourished by this sacramental food, but
sacramentali cibo non posse only invigorated and refreshed, as when
nutriri, sed solum confortari et one is invigorated by the fragrance of
refocillari, sicut cum ad odorem wine. But this invigoration can happen for
vini confortatur. Sed haec quidem an hour; it does not, of course, suffice to
confortatio ad horam accidere sustain a man if he remains long without
potest: non autem sufficit ad food. But a trial would readily show that a
sustentandum hominem, si diu man can be sustained for a long time by
sine cibo permaneat. Experimento the sacramental food.
autem de facili inveniretur
hominem diu sacramentali cibo
sustentari posse.
Mirandum etiam videtur cur [5] It also seems a wonder why they
negent hominem hoc should deny that a man can be nourished

sacramentali cibo posse nutriri, by this sacramental food, refusing to this
refugientes hoc sacramentum in sacrament the possible conversion into
carnem et sanguinem posse flesh and blood, when it appears to the
converti: cum ad sensum senses that by putrefaction or combustion
appareat quod per putrefactionem it is turned into another substance;
vel combustionem in aliam namely, dust and ashes.
substantiam, scilicet cineris et
pulveris, convertatur.
Quod quidem difficile tamen [6] And this, indeed, seems nonetheless
videtur: eo quod nec videatur difficult, since it does not seem possible to
possibile quod ex accidentibus fiat make a substance out of accidents; nor is
substantia: nec credi fas sit quod it right to believe that the substance of
substantia corporis Christi, quae Christ's body—which is not capable of
est impassibilis, in aliam suffering—be converted into another
substantiam convertatur. substance.
Si quis autem dicere velit quod, [7] However, if one wishes to say that as
sicut miraculose panis in corpus the bread is miraculously converted into
Christi convertitur, ita miraculose the body of Christ, so the accidents are
accidentia in substantiam converted miraculously into substance:
convertuntur: primum quidem, hoc first, indeed, this does not seem suitable
non videtur miraculo esse for a miracle, the putrefaction of this
conveniens, quod hoc sacrament, or its dissolution by
sacramentum putrescat, vel per combustion; and then that putrefaction
combustionem dissolvatur; and combustion are found taking place in
deinde, quia putrefactio et this sacrament in the usual order of
combustio consueto naturae nature, which is not usually the case in
ordine huic sacramento accidere things done miraculously.
inveniuntur: quod non solet esse
in his quae miraculose fiunt.
Ad hanc dubitationem tollendam [8] To remove this hesitation a certain
quaedam famosa positio est famous position was invented, which is
adinventa, quae a multis tenetur. held by many. They hold thus: When this
Dicunt enim quod, cum contingit sacrament happens to be converted into
hoc sacramentum in carnem flesh or blood by nutrition, or into ashes
converti aut sanguinem per by combustion or putrefaction, the
nutrimentum, vel in cinerem per accidents are not converted into
combustionem aut substance; nor is the substance of the
putrefactionem, non convertuntur body of Christ converted; but by a divine
accidentia in substantiam; neque miracle the substance of the bread which
substantia corporis Christi; sed was there previously returns, and from it
redit, divino miraculo, substantia are generated the things into which we
panis quae prius fuerat, et ex ea find the sacrament converted.
generantur illa in quae hoc
sacramentum converti invenitur.
Sed hoc quidem omnino stare [9] But this, to be sure, simply cannot
non potest. Ostensum est enim stand. For we have shown above that the
supra quod substantia panis in substance of the bread is converted into
substantiam corporis Christi the substance of the body of Christ. But
convertitur. Quod autem in aliquid that which is converted into another
conversum est, redire non potest cannot return unless, conversely, that
nisi e converso illud reconvertatur other be reconverted into it. If, therefore,
in ipsum. Si igitur substantia panis the substance of the bread returns, it
redit, sequitur quod substantia follows that the substance of the body of
corporis Christi reconvertitur in Christ is reconverted into bread. And this
panem. Quod est absurdum. is absurd.
Adhuc, si substantia panis redit, What is more, if the substance of the
necesse est quod vel redeat bread returns, it must return either while
speciebus panis manentibus; vel the appearances of bread persist or when
speciebus panis iam destructis. the appearances of bread are already
Speciebus quidem panis destroyed. In fact, while the appearances
durantibus, substantia panis of bread persist, the substance of the
redire non potest: quia quandiu bread cannot return, because, as long as
species manent, manet sub eis the appearances remain, thereunder
substantia corporis Christi; remains the substance of the body of
sequeretur ergo quod simul esset Christ; it would follow, therefore, that
ibi substantia panis et substantia simultaneously present there would be
corporis Christi. Similiter etiam both the substance of the bread and the
neque, corruptis speciebus panis, substance of the body of Christ. In like
substantia panis redire potest: manner, also, if the appearances of the
tum quia substantia panis non est bread are corrupted, the substance of the
sine propriis speciebus; tum quia, bread cannot return—for this reason: The
destructis speciebus panis, iam substance of the bread is not without its
generata est alia substantia, ad own appearances; and for this reason, as
cuius generationem ponebatur well: When the appearances of the bread
quod substantia panis rediret. are destroyed, another substance has
already been generated, and it was for the
generation of this second substance that
(so they were holding) the substance of
the bread should return.
Melius igitur dicendum videtur [10] Therefore, it seems better to say that

quod in ipsa consecratione, sicut in the consecration itself, just as the
substantia panis in corpus Christi substance of the bread is miraculously
miraculose convertitur, ita converted into the body of Christ so this is
miraculose accidentibus confertur miraculously conferred on the accidents:
quod subsistant, quod est that they subsist which is proper to
proprium substantiae: et per substance, and, as a consequence, are
consequens quod omnia possint able to do and to suffer the things which
facere et pati quae substantia the substance could do and suffer if the
posset facere et pati, si substantia substance were present. And so, without
adesset. Unde sine novo a new miracle, they are able to inebriate
miraculo, et inebriare et nutrire, et and to nourish, to be burned and to rot, in
incinerari et putrefieri possunt, the same way and order they would if the

eodem modo et ordine ac si substance of the bread and wine were
substantia panis et vini adesset. present.
Caput 67 Chapter 67
obiiciebantur ex parte fractionis REGARDING FRACTION
Restat autem ea quae ad quintam [1] It remains to speculate on the points

difficultatem pertinent speculari. which belong to the fifth difficulty. It is
Manifestum est autem secundum manifest, of course, from the aforesaid
praedicta, quod fractionis that we can set down as subject of the
subiectum ponere possumus breaking the dimensions subsisting of
dimensiones per se subsistentes. themselves. For all that, when dimensions
Nec tamen, huiusmodi of this kind are broken, the substance of
dimensionibus fractis, frangitur the body of Christ is not broken, because
substantia corporis Christi: eo the whole body of Christ remains under
quod totum corpus Christi sub every portion.
qualibet portione remaneat.
Quod quidem, etsi difficile videatur [2] Now, to be sure, although this appears
tamen secundum ea quae difficult, it has an explanation in accord
praemissa sunt, expositionem with the things premised. For we said
habet. Dictum est enim supra above that the body of Christ is in this
quod corpus Christi est in hoc sacrament in His substance by force of
sacramento per substantiam the sacrament, but the dimensions of the
suam ex vi sacramenti; body of Christ are there by their natural
dimensiones autem corporis accompaniment to the substance; the
Christi sunt ibi ex naturali situation here is contrary to the one in
concomitantia quam ad which a body is naturally in a place, for
substantiam habent; e contrario ei the natural body is in place with those
secundum quod corpus naturaliter dimensions mediating by which it is
est in loco; nam corpus naturale measured in the place.
est in loco mediantibus
dimensionibus quibus loco
commensuratur.
Alio autem modo se habet aliquid [3] But something substantial is related to

substantiale ad id in quo est; et that in which it is in one way, and
alio modo aliquid quantum. Nam something quantified is related in another
quantum totum ita est in aliquo way. For the quantified whole is in some
toto quod totum non est in parte, whole so that the whole is not in the part,
sed pars in parte, sicut totum in but the part is in the part as the whole is
toto. Unde et corpus naturale sic in the whole. Hence, too, a natural body is
est in toto loco totum quod non est thus in the whole place—a whole which is
totum in qualibet parte loci, sed not whole in every part of the place, but
partes corporis partibus loci the parts of the body are fitted to the parts
aptantur: eo quod est in loco of the place. This is because it is in the
mediantibus dimensionibus. Si place by the mediating dimensions. Of

autem aliquid substantiale sit in course, if a substantial thing is whole in
aliquo toto totum, etiam totum est some whole, it is also whole in every part
in qualibet parte eius: sicut tota thereof. So, the whole nature and species
natura et species aquae in of water is in every part of water, and the
qualibet parte aquae est, et tota whole soul is in every part of the body.
anima est in qualibet corporis
parte.
Quia igitur corpus Christi est in [4] Since, then, the body of Christ is in the

sacramento ratione suae sacrament by reason of His substance
substantiae, in quam conversa est into which the substance of the bread—
substantia panis dimensionibus the dimensions thereof remaining—has
eius manentibus; sicut tota been converted, as the whole species of
species panis erat sub qualibet bread was in every part of its dimensions,
parte dimensionum, ita integrum so the entire body of Christ is in every
corpus Christi est sub qualibet part of the same dimensions. Therefore,
parte earundem. Non igitur fractio that breaking or division does not touch
illa, seu divisio, attingit ad corpus on the body of Christ so as to be in it as in
Christi, ut sit in illo sicut in a subject, but the subject thereof is the
subiecto: sed subiectum eius sunt persisting dimensions of the bread or
dimensiones panis vel vini wine; so also we called those dimensions
remanentes, sicut et aliorum the subject of the other accidents therein
accidentium ibidem remanentium persisting.
diximus eas esse subiectum.
Caput 68 Chapter 68
Solutio auctoritatis inductae SOLUTION OF THE AUTHORITY
INTRODUCED
His igitur difficultatibus remotis, [1] With these difficulties removed, then, it
manifestum est quod id quod is clear that what ecclesiastical tradition
ecclesiastica traditio habet circa holds about the sacrament of the altar
sacramentum altaris, nihil contains nothing impossible for God, who
continet impossibile Deo, qui can do all things.
omnia potest.
Nec etiam contra Ecclesiae [2] Neither is there anything contrary to the

traditionem est verbum domini teaching of the Church in the word which
dicentis ad discipulos, qui de hac our Lord spoke to His disciples, who
doctrina scandalizati videbantur: seemed scandalized by His teaching: “The
verba quae ego locutus sum words that I have spoken to you are spirit
vobis, spiritus et vita sunt. Non and life” (John 6:64). For by these words
enim per hoc dedit intelligere He did not give them to understand this: in
quod vera caro sua in hoc this sacrament His true flesh was not being
sacramento manducanda given to the faithful to eat, but that it is not
fidelibus non traderetur: sed quia given to be eaten in an ordinary manner,
non traditur manducanda with the result that, like earthly foods it
carnaliter, ut scilicet, sicut alii cibi might be received as macerated in its own
carnales, in propria specie appearances. He gave them to understand
dilacerata sumeretur; sed quia that it is received in a certain spiritual
quodam spirituali modo sumitur, fashion, apart from the manner of earthly
praeter consuetudinem aliorum carnal foods.
ciborum carnalium.
Caput 69 Chapter 69
Ex quali pane et vino debet ON THE KIND OF BREAD AND WINE
confici hoc sacramentum THAT ARE TO BE USED IN THIS
SACRAMENT
Quia vero, ut supra dictum est, ex [1] Now, because, as was said above,

pane et vino hoc sacramentum this sacrament is accomplished with
conficitur, necesse est eas bread and wine, those conditions
conditiones servari in pane et necessarily must be observed to,
vino, ut ex eis hoc sacramentum accomplish this sacrament therefrom
confici possit, quae sunt de which belong to the essentials of bread
ratione panis et vini. Vinum autem and wine. But one calls wine only that
non dicitur nisi liquor qui ex uvis liquid which is pressed from grapes, and
exprimitur: nec panis proprie one calls bread, properly speaking, only
dicitur nisi qui ex granis tritici that which is made from grain wheat. But
conficitur. Alii vero qui dicuntur other socalled breads, for lack of wheat
panes, pro defectu panis triticei, bread and to supplement it, have come
ad eius supplementum, in usum into use; in a like way, other liquids have
venerunt: et similiter alii liquores in come into use with wine. Hence, neither
usum vini. Unde nec ex alio pane from some other bread nor from some
nec ex alio vino hoc sacramentum other wine could this sacrament be
confici posset: neque etiam si pani accomplished, especially not if the
et vino tanta alienae materiae mixture of foreign matter with bread or
admixtio fieret quod species wine be so considerable that the species
solveretur. is lost.
Si qua vero huiusmodi pani et vino [2] However, if things happen to this sort

accidunt quae non sunt de ratione of bread and wine which do not touch the
panis et vini, manifestum est essentials of bread and wine, manifestly
quod, his praetermissis, potest one may pass these things over, and truly
verum confici sacramentum. accomplish the sacrament. Wherefore,
Unde, cum esse fermentatum vel since to be leavened or unleavened is not
azymum non sit de ratione panis, essential to bread—rather, whichever of
sed utrolibet existente species the two is the case, the species of bread
panis salvetur, ex utrolibet pane is preserved—the sacrament can be
potest confici sacramentum. Et accomplished from either of the two
propter hoc diversae Ecclesiae breads. This is the reason why different
diversum in hoc usum habent: et churches have different customs in this
utrumque congruere potest matter, but each of the two can be in
significationi sacramenti. Nam, ut harmony with the significance of the
Gregorius dicit in registro: sacrament. For, as Gregory puts it in his
Romana Ecclesia offert azymos Register: “The Roman Church offers

panes, propterea quod dominus unleavened bread because our Lord took
sine ulla commixtione carnem on flesh without any mixture. But the rest
suscepit. Sed caeterae Ecclesiae of the Churches offer leavened bread,
offerunt fermentatum: pro eo quod since the Word of God was clothed with
verbum patris indutum est carne, flesh, and is true God and true man, just
et est verus Deus et verus homo, as the leaven is mixed with the paste.”
sicut et fermentum commiscetur
farinae.
Congruit tamen magis puritati [3] Nonetheless, there is greater harmony

corporis mystici, idest Ecclesiae, with the purity of the mystical body, that
quae in hoc sacramento is, the Church, of which there is also a
configuratur, usus azymi panis: figure in this sacrament, in the use of
secundum illud apostoli, I Cor. 57 unleavened bread; as the Apostle has it:
Pascha nostrum immolatus est “Christ our pasch is sacrificed. Therefore
Christus. Itaque epulemur in let us feast... with the unleavened bread
azymis sinceritatis et veritatis. of sincerity and truth” (1 Cor. 5:78).
Per hoc autem excluditur error [4] Thus does one exclude the error of
quorundam Graecorum, qui dicunt certain Greeks, who deny that this
in azymo sacramentum hoc sacrament can be celebrated with
celebrari non posse. Quod etiam unleavened bread. And this is even
evidenter Evangelii auctoritate clearly destroyed by the Gospel’s
destruitur. Dicitur enim Matth. 25 authority, for we read in Matthew (26:17),
17; et Marc. 1412; et Luc. 227, in Mark (14:12), and in Luke (22:7) that
quod dominus prima die on the first day of the unleavened bread
azymorum Pascha cum discipulis our Lord ate the pasch with His disciples,
suis comedit, et tunc hoc and at that time instituted this sacrament.
sacramentum instituit. Cum autem Now, since it was not permitted by the
non esset licitum secundum legem Law that from the first day of the
quod prima die azymorum unleavened bread anything leavened be
fermentatum in domibus found in the homes of the Jews (which is
Iudaeorum inveniretur, ut patet clear from Exodus 12:15), and since our
Exodi 1215, dominus autem, Lord as long as He was in the world kept
quandiu fuit in mundo, legem the Law, clearly He converted
servavit: manifestum est quod unleavened bread into His body and gave
panem azymum in corpus suum it to His disciples to receive. It is stupid,
convertit, et discipulis sumendum then, to attack in the use of the Latin
dedit. Stultum est igitur improbare Churches what our Lord observed in the
in usu Ecclesiae Latinorum quod very institution of this sacrament.
dominus in ipsa institutione huius
sacramenti servavit.
Sciendum tamen quod quidam [5] For all that, one must acknowledge
dicunt ipsum praevenisse diem that some say He anticipated the day of
azymorum, propter passionem the unleavened bread with His passion so
imminentem: et tunc fermentato near, and, then, used leavened bread.
pane eum usum fuisse. Quod Indeed, to support this they rely on two
quidem ostendere nituntur ex things. First, there is what John (13:1)
duobus. Primo ex hoc quod dicitur says, that “before the festival day of the
Ioan. 131 quod ante diem festum pasch” our Lord celebrated the feast with
Paschae dominus cum discipulis His disciples, and at this feast
cenam celebravit, in qua corpus consecrated His body, as the Apostle tells
suum consecravit, sicut apostolus us (1 Cor. 11:23). Hence, it seems that
tradit I Cor. 1123. Unde videtur Christ celebrated the feast before the day
quod Christus cenam celebraverit of the unleavened bread, and so, in the
ante diem azymorum: et sic in consecration of His body, used leavened
consecratione sui corporis usus bread. Also, they want to confirm this by
fuerit pane fermentato. Hoc etiam what is found in John (18:28): that on the
confirmare volunt per hoc quod Friday on which Christ was crucified the
habetur Ioan. 1828, quod sexta Jews did not enter the pretorium of Pilate,
feria, qua Christus est crucifixus, “that they might not be defiled but might
Iudaei non intraverunt praetorium eat the pasch.” But the pasch is called
Pilati, ut non contaminarentur, sed the unleavened bread. Therefore, they
manducarent Pascha. Pascha conclude that the feast had been
autem dicuntur azyma. Ergo celebrated before the unleavened bread.
concludunt quod cena fuit
celebrata ante azyma.
Ad hoc autem respondetur quod, [6] Now, to this one answers that, as the
sicut dominus mandat Exodi 12, Lord commands in Exodus 12, “the feast
festum azymorum septem diebus of the unleavened bread was celebrated
celebrabatur, inter quos dies prima for seven days, and of these the first day
erat sancta atque solemnis was especially holy and solemn among
praecipue inter alias, quod erat the others, and it was the fifteenth day of
quintadecima die mensis. Sed the month.” But, since among the Jews
quia apud Iudaeos solemnitates a the solemnities used to begin on the
praecedenti vespere incipiebant, preceding evening, they therefore on the
ideo quartadecima die ad evening of the fourteenth day began to
vesperam incipiebant comedere eat the unleavened bread and they ate it
azyma, et comedebant per for seven days following. And, therefore,
septem subsequentes dies. Et we read in the same chapter (Ex. 12:18
ideo dicitur in eodem capitulo: 19): “The first month, the fourteenth day
primo mense, quartadecima die of the month in the evening you shall eat
mensis ad vesperam, comedetis unleavened bread until the one and
azyma, usque ad diem vigesimam twenties day of the month in the evening.
primam eiusdem mensis ad Seven days there shall not be found any
vesperam. Septem diebus leaven in your houses.” And on the same
fermentatum non invenietur in fourteenth day in the evening they used
domibus vestris. Et eadem to sacrifice the paschal lamb. Therefore,
quartadecima die ad vesperas the first day of the unleavened bread is
immolabatur agnus paschalis. the way the three Evangelists—Matthew,
Prima ergo dies azymorum a Mark, and Luke—name the fourteenth
tribus Evangelistis, Matthaeo, day of the month, because in the evening
Marco, Luca, dicitur quartadecima they used to eat the unleavened bread,
dies mensis: quia ad vesperam and then “they sacrificed the pasch,” that
comedebant azyma, et tunc is, “the paschal lamb”; and this, according
immolabatur Pascha, idest agnus to John, was before the festival day of the
paschalis: et hoc erat secundum pasch,” that is, the day before the
Ioannem, ante diem festum fifteenth day of the month which was the
Paschae, idest ante diem quintam most solemn day of all, and on this day
decimam diem mensis, qui erat the Jews wanted to eat the pasch, that is,
solemnior inter omnes, in quo “the unleavened paschal bread,” not, of
Iudaei volebant comedere course, the paschal lamb. And thus, since
Pascha, idest panes azymos no discord exists among the Evangelists,
paschales, non autem agnum it is plain that Christ consecrated His
paschalem. Et sic nulla discordia body from unleavened bread at the feast.
inter Evangelistas existente, Hence it becomes clear that the Church
planum est quod Christus ex of the Latins reasonably uses unleavened
azymo pane corpus suum bread in this sacrament.
consecravit in cena. Unde
manifestum fit quod rationabiliter
Latinorum Ecclesia pane azymo
utitur in hoc sacramento.
Caput 70 Chapter 70
De sacramento poenitentiae. Et ON THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE,
primo, quod homines post AND, FIRST, THAT MEN AFTER
gratiam sacramentalem acceptam RECEIVING SACRAMENTAL GRACE
peccare possunt ARE ABLE TO SIN
Quamvis autem per praedicta [1] Now, although grace is bestowed
sacramenta hominibus gratia upon men by the aforesaid sacraments,
conferatur, non tamen per acceptam they are not, for all that, rendered
gratiam impeccabiles fiunt. incapable of sin.
Gratuita enim dona recipiuntur in [2] For gratuitous gifts are received in
anima sicut habituales the soul as habitual dispositions; it is
dispositiones: non enim homo not always, then, that a man acts
secundum ea semper agit. Nihil according to those gifts. Nothing stops
autem prohibet eum qui habitum him who has a habit from acting in
habet, agere secundum habitum vel accord with the habit or against it; thus,
contra eum: sicut grammaticus a grammarian can in accord with
potest secundum grammaticam grammar speak rightly, or even against
recte loqui, vel etiam contra grammar speak awkwardly. It is also
grammaticam loqui incongrue. Et ita like this with the habits of the moral
est etiam de habitibus virtutum virtues, for one who has the habit of
moralium: potest enim qui iustitiae justice can also act against justice. This
habitum habet, et contra iustitiam is the case because the use of habits in
agere. Quod ideo est quia usus us depends on the will, but the will is
habituum in nobis ex voluntate est: related to each of two opposites.
voluntas autem ad utrumque Manifestly, then, he who receives
oppositorum se habet. Manifestum gratuitous gifts can sin by acting against
est igitur quod suscipiens gratuita grace.
dona peccare potest contra gratiam
agendo.
Adhuc. Impeccabilitas in homine [3] What is more, there can be no
esse non potest sine immutabilitate impeccability in a man unless there is
voluntatis. Immutabilitas autem immutability of will. But immutability of
voluntatis non potest homini will does not become man except so far
competere nisi secundum quod as he attains his ultimate end. For what
attingit ultimum finem. Ex hoc enim renders the will immutable is its
voluntas immutabilis redditur quod complete fulfillment, so that it has no
totaliter impletur, ita quod non habet way to turn away from that on which it is
quo divertat ab eo in quo est made firm. But the fulfillment of will is
firmata. Impletio autem voluntatis not proportioned to a man except as
non competit homini nisi ut finem attaining his ultimate end, for, as long
ultimum attingenti: quandiu enim as something remains to be desired, the
restat aliquid ad desiderandum, will has not been fulfilled. Thus, then,
voluntas impleta non est. Sic igitur impeccability is not proper for a man
homini impeccabilitas non competit before he arrives at the ultimate end.
antequam ad ultimum finem And this, to be sure, is not given man in
perveniat. Quod quidem non datur the grace which is bestowed in the
homini in gratia quae in sacramentis sacraments, because the sacraments
confertur: quia sacramenta sunt in are for man’s assistance along the road
adiutorium hominis secundum quod to the end. Therefore, no one is
est in via ad finem. Non igitur ex rendered impeccable from the grace
gratia in sacramentis percepta received in the sacraments.
aliquis impeccabilis redditur.
Amplius. Omne peccatum ex [4] Furthermore, every sin comes about

quadam ignorantia contingit: unde from a kind of ignorance. Thus, the
dicit philosophus quod omnis malus Philosopher says that “every evil man is
est ignorans; et in proverbiis dicitur: ignorant”; and we read in Proverbs
errant qui operantur malum. Tunc (14:22): “They err that work evil.”
igitur solum homo securus potest Therefore, then, a man can be secure
esse a peccato secundum from sin in the will, only when his
voluntatem, quando secundum intellect is secure from ignorance and
intellectum securus est ab from error. But, manifestly, a man is not
ignorantia et errore. Manifestum est rendered immune from every ignorance
autem quod homo non redditur and error by the grace received in the
immunis ab omni ignorantia et sacraments; for such is a man whose
errore per gratiam in sacramentis intellect is beholding that truth which is
perceptam: hoc enim est hominis the certitude of all truths; and this very
secundum intellectum illam beholding is the ultimate end of man, as
veritatem inspicientis quae est was shown in Book III. It is not, then, by
certitudo omnium veritatum; quae the grace of the sacraments that man is
quidem inspectio est ultimus rendered impeccable.
hominis finis, ut in tertio ostensum
est. Non igitur per gratiam
sacramentorum homo impeccabilis
redditur.
Item. Ad alterationem hominis quae [5] Again, to that change in a man which
est secundum malitiam et virtutem, accords with malice and virtue much is
multum operatur alteratio quae est contributed by that change which
secundum animae passiones: nam accords with the soul’s passions. For by
ex eo quod ratione passiones a reason curbing and ordering the
animae refrenantur et ordinantur, soul’s passions a man becomes
homo virtuosus fit vel in virtute virtuous or is preserved in virtue, but by
conservatur: ex eo vero quod ratio a reason following the passions a man
sequitur passiones, homo redditur becomes vicious. So long, then, as a
vitiosus. Quandiu igitur homo est man can be altered in the soul’s
alterabilis secundum animae passions, he can also be altered in vice
passiones, est etiam alterabilis and virtue. But alteration in the soul’s
secundum vitium et virtutem. passions is not taken away by the grace
Alteratio autem quae est secundum conferred in the sacraments; it persists
animae passiones, non tollitur per in a man as long as the soul is united to
gratiam in sacramentis collatam, the body, which is capable of passion.
sed manet in homine quandiu anima Manifestly, then, the sacramental grace
passibili corpori unitur. Manifestum does not render a man impeccable.
est igitur quod per sacramentorum
gratiam homo impeccabilis non
redditur.
Praeterea. Superfluum videtur eos [6] There is more. It seems superfluous

admonere ne peccent qui peccare to warn those not to sin who cannot sin.
non possunt. Sed per evangelicam But in the evangelical and apostolic
et apostolicam doctrinam teaching the faithful are so admonished,
admonentur fideles iam per although they have already received the
sacramenta spiritus sancti gratiam grace of the Holy Spirit through the
consecuti: dicitur enim Hebr. 1215: sacraments, for we read in Hebrews
contemplantes ne quis desit gratiae (12:15): “Looking diligently, lest any
Dei, ne qua radix amaritudinis, man be wanting to the grace of God;
sursum germinans, impediat; et lest any root of bitterness springing up
Ephes. 430: nolite contristare do hinder”; and in Ephesians (4:30):
spiritum sanctum Dei, in quo signati “Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God
estis; et I Cor. 1012: qui se whereby you are sealed”; and again:
existimat stare, videat ne cadat. “He that thinks himself to stand, let him
Ipse etiam apostolus de se dicit: take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10). Even
castigo corpus meum et in the Apostle himself says of himself: “I
servitutem redigo: ne forte, cum aliis chastise my body and bring it into
praedicaverim, ipse reprobus subjection, lest perhaps when I have
efficiar. Non igitur per gratiam in preached to others, I myself should
sacramentis perceptam homines become a castaway” (1 Cor. 9:27).
impeccabiles redduntur. Therefore, men are not rendered
impeccable by the grace received in the
sacraments.
Per hoc excluditur quorundam [7] This excludes the error of certain
haereticorum error, qui dicunt quod heretics who say that man, after he has
homo, postquam gratiam spiritus received the grace of the Spirit, is
percepit, peccare non potest: et si unable to sin, and that, if he sins, he
peccat, nunquam gratiam spiritus never had the grace of the Holy Spirit.
sancti habuit.
Assumunt autem in fulcimentum sui [8] They take, however, as a prop for

erroris quod dicitur I Cor. 138: their error the saying of 1 Corinthians
caritas nunquam excidit. Et I Ioan. (13:8): “Charity never falls away.” And 1
36 dicitur: omnis qui in eo manet John (3:6, 9) says: “Whosoever abides
non peccat; et omnis qui peccat, in Him sins not; and whosoever sins
non vidit nec cognovit eum. Et infra has not seen Him nor known Him.” And
expressius: omnis qui est ex Deo, later on, more expressly: “Whosoever is
peccatum non facit: quoniam semen born of God commits not sin; for His
ipsius in eo manet, et non potest seed abides in him, and he cannot sin
peccare, quoniam ex Deo natus est. use he is born of God.”
Sed haec ad eorum propositum [9] But for establishing their proposition

ostendendum efficacia non sunt. these texts are not effective. For one
Non enim dicitur quod caritas does not say: “charity never falls away”
nunquam excidit, propter hoc quod on the ground that he who has charity
ille qui habet caritatem, eam does not sometimes lose it, since the
quandoque non amittat, cum dicatur Apocalypse (2:4) says: “I have
Apoc. 24, habeo adversum te somewhat against you because you
pauca, quod caritatem tuam primam hast left your first charity.” But “charity
reliquisti. Sed ideo dictum est quod never falls away” was said because,
caritas nunquam excidit, quia, cum when all other gifts of the Holy Spirit
cetera dona spiritus sancti de sui (which essentially contain some
ratione imperfectionem habentia, imperfection—the spirit of prophecy, for
utpote spiritus prophetiae et example, and this kind of thing) “shall
huiusmodi, evacuentur cum venerit be made void... when that which is
quod perfectum est, caritas in illo perfect is come” (1 Cor. 13:8, 10), then
perfectionis statu remanebit. in that state of perfection charity shall
abide.
Ea vero quae ex epistola Ioannis [10] But the remarks taken from the
inducta sunt, ideo dicuntur quia Epistle of John are said for this reason:
dona spiritus sancti quibus homo The gifts of the Holy Spirit by which a
adoptatur vel renascitur in filium man is adopted or born again as a son
Dei, quantum est de se, tantam of God have of themselves power
habent virtutem quod hominem sine enough to be able to preserve a man
peccato conservare possunt, nec without sin, and a man cannot sin who
homo peccare potest secundum ea lives by those gifts. He can, for all that,
vivens. Potest tamen contra ea act against them, and sin by departing
agere, et ab eis discedendo from them. For “whosoever is born of
peccare. Sic enim dictum est, qui God... cannot sin” was said just as
natus est ex Deo, non potest though one should say that “the hot
peccare, sicut si diceretur quod cannot cool.” What is hot, nevertheless,
calidum non potest infrigidare: id can be made cool, and then it will make
tamen quod est calidum, potest fieri cool. Or it was said as though one
frigidum, et sic infrigidabit. Vel sicut should say that “the just man does no
si diceretur, iustus non iniusta agit: unjust things”; namely, in so far as he is
scilicet, inquantum est iustus. just.
Caput 71 Chapter 71
Quod homo peccans post THAT A MAN SINNING AFTER THE
sacramentorum gratiam potest GRACE OF THE SACRAMENTS CAN
converti per gratiam BE CONVERTED BY GRACE
Ex praemissis autem apparet [1] However, from what has been said it

ulterius quod homo post further appears that a man falling into
sacramentalem gratiam susceptam sin after receiving sacramental grace
in peccatum cadens, iterum reparari can once more be restored to grace.
potest ad gratiam.
Ut enim ostensum est, quandiu hic [2] For, as we showed, so long as we
vivitur, voluntas mutabilis est live here the will is mutable in the matter
secundum vitium et virtutem. Sicut of vice and virtue. Therefore, as one
igitur post acceptam gratiam potest can sin after grace is received, so also
peccare, ita et a peccato, ut videtur, from sin, it seems, one can return to
potest ad virtutem redire. virtue.
Item. Manifestum est bonum esse [3] Manifestly, again, good is more
potentius malo: nam malum non agit powerful than evil: for “evil acts only in
nisi in virtute boni, ut supra in tertio the power of the good,” as was shown
est ostensum. Si igitur voluntas above in Book III. If, then, the will of
hominis a statu gratiae per man is turned away from the state of
peccatum avertitur, multo magis per grace by sin, much more can grace call
gratiam potest a peccato revocari. him back from sin.
Adhuc. Immobilitas voluntatis non [4] Immobility of will, furthermore, is not

competit alicui quandiu est in via. proper to anyone so long as he is on
Sed quandiu hic homo vivit, est in the way. But, so long as man lives here,
via tendendi in ultimum finem. Non he is on the way which tends towards
igitur habet immobilem voluntatem the ultimate end. He does not, then,
in malo, ut non possit per divinam have a will unmovable in evil, so that he
gratiam reverti ad bonum. is not able to return to the good by
divine grace.
Amplius. Manifestum est quod a [5] There is more. Manifestly, a man
peccatis quae quis ante gratiam who committed sins before he received
perceptam in sacramentis commisit, grace in the sacraments is delivered
per sacramentorum gratiam from those sins by the grace of the
liberatur: dicit enim apostolus, I ad sacraments, for the Apostle says:
Cor. 69 neque fornicarii, neque “Neither fornicators nor idolaters, nor
idolis servientes, neque adulteri, adulterers,” and so forth, “shall possess
etc., regnum Dei possidebunt. Et the kingdom of God. And such some of
hoc quidem fuistis aliquando, sed you were; but you are washed, but you
abluti estis, sed sanctificati estis, are sanctified, but you am justified in
sed iustificati estis in nomine domini the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and
nostri Iesu Christi, et in spiritu Dei the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:911).
nostri. Manifestum est etiam quod Manifestly, also, the grace bestowed in
gratia in sacramentis collata naturae the sacrament does not diminish, but
bonum non minuit, sed auget. increases, nature’s good. Yet this
Pertinet autem hoc ad bonum belongs to the good of nature, that it
naturae, quod a peccato reducibilis can be led back from sin into the state
sit in statum iustitiae: nam potentia of justice, for the capacity for good is a
ad bonum quoddam bonum est. kind of good. If, then, sin takes place
Igitur, si contingat peccare post after grace is received, man can still be
gratiam perceptam, adhuc homo led back to the state of justice.
reducibilis erit ad statum iustitiae.
Adhuc. Si peccantes post [6] If those, moreover, who sin after
Baptismum ad gratiam redire non baptism cannot return to grace, their
possunt, tollitur eis spes salutis. hope of salvation is entirely lost. But
Desperatio autem est via ad libere despair is the way to sinning freely, for
peccandum: dicitur enim ad Ephes. the Apostle speaks of some who
419 de quibusdam quod “despairing have given themselves up
desperantes tradiderunt semetipsos to lasciviousness, unto the working of
impudicitiae, in operationem omnis all uncleanness, unto covetousness”
immunditiae et avaritiae. (Eph. 4:19). This is, then, a very
Periculosissima est igitur haec dangerous position which leads men to
positio, quae in tantam sentinam so great a cesspool of vices.
vitiorum homines inducit.
Praeterea. Ostensum est supra [7] There is more. We showed above
quod gratia in sacramentis percepta that the grace received in the
non constituit hominem sacraments does not make a man
impeccabilem. Si igitur post gratiam unable to sin. Therefore, if one who sins
in sacramentis perceptam peccans after receiving grace in the sacraments
ad statum iustitiae redire non could not return to the state of justice, it
posset, periculosum esset would be dangerous to receive the
sacramenta percipere. Quod patet sacraments. And this is obviously
esse inconveniens. Non igitur unsuitable. Therefore, to those who sin
peccantibus post sacramenta after receiving the sacraments the
percepta reditus ad iustitiam return to justice is not denied.
denegatur.
Hoc etiam auctoritate sacrae [8] This also is confirmed by the
Scripturae confirmatur. Dicitur enim authority of sacred Scripture, for we
I Ioan. 21: filioli mei, haec scribo read in John: “My little children, these
vobis ut non peccetis. Sed et si quis things I write to you, that you may not
peccaverit, advocatum habemus sin. But if any man sin, we have an
apud patrem, Iesum Christum advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ,
iustum, et ipse est propitiatio pro the just. And He is the propitiation for
peccatis nostris: quae quidem verba our sins” (1 John 2:12). And these very
manifestum est quod fidelibus iam words were clearly being set forth to the
renatis proponebantur. Paulus etiam faithful already reborn. Paul also writes
de Corinthio fornicario scribit II Cor. about the Corinthian fornicator: “To him
26 sufficit illi qui eiusmodi est who is such a one, this rebuke is
obiurgatio haec quae fit a pluribus, sufficient which is given by many: so
ita ut e contrario magis doleatis et that on the contrary you should rather
consolemini. Et infra, 79, dicit: forgive him and comfort him.” And later
gaudeo, non quia contristati estis, he says: “I am glad: not because you
sed quia contristati estis ad were made sorrowful, but because you
poenitentiam. Dicitur etiam Ier. 31: were made sorrowful unto penance” (2
tu autem fornicata es cum Cor. 2:67; 7:9). We also read in
amatoribus multis: tamen revertere Jeremiah (3:1): “You prostituted yourself
ad me, dicit dominus. Et Thren. ult.: to many lovers; nevertheless, return to
converte nos, domine, ad te, et Me, says the Lord”; and in his
convertemur, innova dies nostros Lamentations (5:21): “Convert us, O
sicut a principio. Ex quibus omnibus Lord, and we shall be converted: renew
apparet quod, si fideles post gratiam our days, as from the beginning.” And
lapsi fuerint, iterum patet eis reditus from all these one sees that if the
ad salutem. faithful fall after receiving grace, there is
open to them a second time a way back
to salvation.
Per hoc autem excluditur error [9] In this way, of course, one excludes

Novatianorum, qui peccantibus post the error of the Novatians, who used to
Baptismum indulgentiam deny forgiveness to those who sinned
denegabant. after baptism.
Ponebant autem sui erroris [10] Now, they used to set down as the

occasionem ex eo quod dicitur occasion of their error the saying in
Hebr. 64 impossibile est eos qui Hebrews (6:46): “It is impossible for
semel sunt illuminati, et gustaverunt those who were once illuminated, have
donum caeleste, et participes sunt tasted also the heavenly gift, and were
facti spiritus sancti, gustaverunt made partakers of the Holy Spirit, have
nihilominus bonum verbum Dei, moreover tasted the good word of God,
virtutesque saeculi venturi, et and the powers of the world to come,
prolapsi sunt renovari rursum ad and are fallen away: to be renewed
poenitentiam. again to penance.”
Sed ex quo sensu hoc apostolus [11] But the sense in which the Apostle

dixerit, apparet ex hoc quod said this is apparent from what is
subditur: rursus crucifigentes immediately added: “Crucifying again to
sibimetipsis filium Dei, et ostentui themselves the Son of God and making
habentes. Ea igitur ratione qui Him a mockery.” Therefore, the reason
prolapsi sunt post gratiam why those who have fallen after
perceptam renovari rursus ad receiving grace cannot be renewed
poenitentiam non possunt, quia again to penance is that the Son of God
filius Dei rursus crucifigendus non must not be crucified again. One,
est. Denegatur igitur illa renovatio in therefore, denies to them that renewal
poenitentiam per quam homo simul again to penance in which a man is
crucifigitur Christo. Quod quidem crucified along with Christ. And this
est per Baptismum: dicitur enim indeed is in baptism, for we read: “All
Rom. 63: quicumque baptizati we who are baptized in Christ Jesus are

sumus in Christo Iesu, in morte baptized in His death” (Rom. 6:3).
ipsius baptizati sumus. Sicut igitur Therefore, as Christ must not be
Christus non est iterum crucified once again, so he who sins
crucifigendus, ita qui peccat post after baptism must not be baptized
Baptismum, non est rursus again. Nonetheless, he can be
baptizandus. Potest tamen rursus converted to grace once again by
converti ad gratiam per penance. Hence, the Apostle did not
poenitentiam. Unde et apostolus say it was impossible that those once
non dixit quod impossibile sit eos fallen should again be recalled or
qui semel lapsi sunt, rursus revocari converted to penance, but impossible
vel converti ad poenitentiam, sed that they be “renewed”—which one
quod impossibile sit renovari, quod usually attributes to baptism—as in
Baptismo attribuere solet, ut patet Titus (3:5): “According to His mercy, He
Tit. 35: secundum misericordiam saved us, by the laver of regeneration
suam salvos nos fecit, per lavacrum and renovation of the Holy Spirit.”
regenerationis et renovationis
spiritus sancti.
Caput 72 Chapter 72
De necessitate poenitentiae et ON THE NECESSITY OF PENANCE
partium eius AND OF ITS PARTS
Ex hoc igitur apparet quod, si [1] From this, then, it is evident that if a
aliquis post Baptismum peccet, man sins after baptism, he cannot have
remedium sui peccati per the remedy against his sin in baptism.
Baptismum habere non potest. Et And since the abundance of the divine
quia abundantia divinae mercy and the effectiveness of Christ’s
misericordiae, et efficacia gratiae grace do not suffer him to be dismissed
Christi, hoc non patitur ut absque without a remedy, there was established
remedio dimittatur, institutum est another sacramental remedy by which
aliud sacramentale remedium, quo sins are washed away. And this is the
peccata purgentur. Et hoc est sacrament of penance, which is spiritual
poenitentiae sacramentum, quod healing of a sort. For just as those who
est quaedam velut spiritualis receive a natural life by generation can,
sanatio. Sicut enim qui vitam if they incur some disease which is
naturalem per generationem adepti contrary to the perfection of life, be cured
sunt, si aliquem morbum incurrant of their disease: not, indeed, so as to be
qui sit contrarius perfectioni vitae, a born a second time, but healed by a kind
morbo curari possunt, non quidem of alteration; so baptism, which is a
sic ut iterato nascantur, sed spiritual regeneration, is not given a
quadam alteratione sanantur; ita second time against sins committed after
Baptismus, qui est spiritualis baptism, but they are healed by penance
regeneratio, non reiteratur contra which is a kind of spiritual alteration.
peccata post Baptismum
commissa, sed poenitentia, quasi
quadam spirituali alteratione,
sanantur.
Considerandum est autem quod [2] Let this, however, be considered:
corporalis sanatio quandoque bodily healing is at times wholly from
quidem ab intrinseco totaliter est: within, as when one is cured by the
sicut quando aliquis sola virtute power of nature alone. But there are
naturae curatur. Quandoque autem times when one is cured from within and
ab intrinseco et extrinseco simul: ut from without simultaneously, for
puta quando naturae operatio example, when the operation of nature is
iuvatur exteriori beneficio helped by the external benefit of
medicinae. Quod autem totaliter ab medicine. But it never happens that one
extrinseco curetur, non contingit: is cured entirely from without, for he still
habet enim adhuc in seipso has within himself the principles of life,
principia vitae, ex quibus sanitas and from these the healing is somehow
quodammodo in ipso causatur. In caused within him. But spiritual healing,
spirituali vero curatione accidere it happens, cannot be brought about
non potest quod totaliter ab entirely from within, for we showed in
intrinseco fiat: ostensum est enim Book III that man cannot be delivered
in tertio quod a culpa homo liberari from fault except by the help of grace. In
non potest nisi auxilio gratiae. like fashion, also, neither can his spiritual
Similiter etiam neque potest esse cure be entirely from an external thing;
quod spiritualis curatio sit totaliter for the soundness of his mind would not
ab exteriori: non enim restitueretur be restored unless ordered movements
sanitas mentis nisi ordinati motus of will were caused in man. Therefore,
voluntatis in homine causarentur. the spiritual health in the sacrament of
Oportet igitur in poenitentiae penance must proceed both from
sacramento spiritualem salutem et something internal and from something
ab interiori et ab exteriori external.
procedere.
Hoc autem sic contingit. Ad hoc [3] This comes about in this way. For a
enim quod aliquis a morbo man to be perfectly cured of a bodily
corporali curetur perfecte, necesse disease, he necessarily must be freed
est quod ab omnibus incommodis from all the inconveniences which the
liberetur quae per morbum incurrit. disease involves. Thus, then, even the
Sic igitur et spiritualis curatio spiritual cure of penance would not be
poenitentiae perfecta non esset nisi perfected unless a man were relieved of
homo ab omnibus detrimentis all the damages into which he has been
sublevaretur in quae inductus est led by sin. Now, the first damage which
per peccatum. Primum autem man sustains from sin is the disordering
detrimentum quod homo ex of the mind; in that man is turned away
peccato sustinet, est deordinatio from the incommutable good—namely,
mentis: secundum quod mens God—and is turned toward sin. But the
avertitur ab incommutabili bono, second damage is that he incurs the guilt
scilicet a Deo, et convertitur ad of punishment, for, as was shown in
peccatum. Secundum autem est Book III, God the most just ruler requires
quod reatum poenae incurrit: ut a punishment for every fault. The third
enim in tertio ostensum est, a damage is a certain weakening of the
iustissimo rectore Deo pro qualibet natural good, in that man by sinning is
culpa poena debetur. Tertium est rendered more prone toward sinning and
quaedam debilitatio naturalis boni: more reluctant toward doing well.
secundum quod homo peccando

redditur pronior ad peccandum, et
tardior ad bene agendum.
Primum igitur quod in poenitentia [4] Therefore, the first thing required in
requiritur, est ordinatio mentis: ut penance is the ordering of the mind;
scilicet mens convertatur ad Deum, namely, that the mind be turned toward
et avertatur a peccato, dolens de God, and turned away from sin, grieving
commisso, et proponens non at its commission, and proposing not to
committendum: quod est de ratione commit it; and this belongs essentially to
contritionis. contrition.
Haec vero mentis reordinatio sine [5] But this reordering of the mind cannot

gratia esse non potest: nam mens be without grace, for our mind cannot
nostra debite ad Deum converti duly be turned toward God without
non potest sine caritate, caritas charity, but one cannot have charity
autem sine gratia haberi non without grace, as is clear from what was
potest, ut patet ex his quae in tertio said in Book III. Thus, then, by contrition
dicta sunt. Sic igitur per the offense to God is removed and one
contritionem et offensa Dei tollitur is also freed from that guilt of eternal
et a reatu poenae aeternae punishment which cannot be
liberatur, qui cum gratia et caritate simultaneously with grace and charity;
esse non potest: non enim aeterna for there is no eternal punishment except
poena est nisi per separationem a by separation from God, and by grace
Deo, cui gratia et caritate homo and charity man is united with Him.
coniungitur. Haec igitur mentis Therefore, this reordering of the mind,
reordinatio, quae in contritione which consists of contrition, proceeds
consistit, ex interiori procedit, idest from within, that is, from the free will with
a libero arbitrio, cum adiutorio the help of divine grace.
divinae gratiae.
Quia vero supra ostensum est [6] Since, however, it was established
quod meritum Christi pro humano above that the merit of Christ suffering
genere patientis ad expiationem for the human race works for the
omnium peccatorum operatur, expiation of all sins, if a man is to be
necesse est ad hoc quod homo de healed of sin his mind must necessarily
peccato sanetur, quod non solum cleave not only to God, but also to the
mente Deo adhaereat, sed etiam mediator of God and men, Jesus Christ,
mediatori Dei et hominum Iesu in whom rests the remission of all sins.
Christo, in quo datur remissio For spiritual health consists in the turning
omnium peccatorum: nam in of the mind to God, and, to be sure, we
conversione mentis ad Deum salus cannot achieve this health except
spiritualis consistit, quam quidem through the physician of our souls, Jesus
salutem consequi non possumus Christ, “who shall save His people from
nisi per medicum animarum their sins” (Mat. 1:21). Indeed, His merit
nostrarum Iesum Christum, qui is sufficient to take away all sins
salvat populum suum a peccatis altogether, for it is He “‘who takes away
eorum. Cuius quidem meritum the sins of the world” as John (1:29)
sufficiens est ad omnia peccata says. Nonetheless, not all achieve
totaliter tollenda, ipse est enim qui perfectly the effect of remission; each
tollit peccata mundi, ut dicitur Ioan. achieves it in the measure in which he is
129: sed tamen non omnes conjoined with Christ suffering for sins.
effectum remissionis perfecte
consequuntur, sed unusquisque in
tantum consequitur in quantum
Christo pro peccatis patienti
coniungitur.
Quia igitur coniunctio nostri ad [7] Our conjunction, then, with Christ in
Christum in Baptismo non est baptism is not in accord with our
secundum operationem nostram, operation (from within, so to say),
quasi ab interiori, quia nulla res because nothing generates itself in
seipsam generat ut sit; sed a being, but it is from Christ, who
Christo, qui nos regenerat in spem “regenerated us unto a lively hope” (1
vivam: remissio peccatorum in Peter 1:3); therefore, the remission of
Baptismo fit secundum potestatem sins in baptism is made in accord with
ipsius Christi nos sibi coniungentis the power of Christ conjoining us
perfecte et integre, ut non solum perfectly and entirely with Himself, so as
impuritas peccati tollatur, sed etiam not only to take away every impurity of
solvatur penitus omnis poenae sin, but also to free us entirely from
reatus; nisi forte per accidens in his every guilt of punishment; except
qui non consequuntur effectum incidentally, perhaps, in the case of
sacramenti propter hoc quod ficte those who do not get the effect of the
accedunt. sacrament because they approach with
a false attitude.
In hac vero spirituali sanatione [8] In the later spiritual healing we are
Christo coniungimur secundum conjoined to Christ in accord with our
operationem nostram divina gratia own operation informed by divine grace.
informatam. Unde non semper Hence, we do not always entirely, nor do
totaliter, nec omnes aequaliter we all equally, achieve the effect of
remissionis effectum per hanc remission by this conjunction. For there
coniunctionem consequimur. can be a turning of the mind toward God,
Potest enim esse conversio mentis and to the merit of Christ, and to the
in Deum et ad meritum Christi, et in hatred of sin which is so vehement that a
detestationem peccati, tam man perfectly achieves the remission of
vehemens quod perfecte sin, not only with regard to wiping out the
remissionem peccati homo fault, but even with regard to remission
consequitur non solum quantum ad of the entire punishment. But this does
expurgationem culpae, sed etiam not always happen. Hence, after the fault
quantum ad remissionem totius is taken away by contrition and the guilt
poenae. Hoc autem non semper of eternal punishment is relieved (as was
contingit. Unde quandoque, per said), there sometimes persists an
contritionem amota culpa, et reatu obligation to some punishment to
poenae aeternae soluto, ut dictum maintain the justice of God which
est, remanet obligatio ad aliquam requires that fault be ordered by
poenam temporalem, ut iustitia Dei punishment.
salvetur, secundum quam culpa
ordinatur per poenam.
Cum autem subire poenam pro [9] Since, however, to undergo
culpa iudicium quoddam requirat, punishment for a fault calls for a kind of
oportet quod poenitens, qui se judgment, the penitent who has
Christo sanandum commisit, Christi committed himself to Christ for healing
iudicium in taxatione poenae must look to Christ’s judgment for fixing
expectet: quod quidem per suos the punishment; and this, indeed, Christ
ministros exhibet Christus, sicut et does through His ministers, just as He
cetera sacramenta. Nullus autem does in the other sacraments. But no
potest iudicare de culpis quas one can judge of faults which he does
ignorat. Necessarium igitur fuit not know. It was necessary, then, that
confessionem institui, quasi confession be instituted, the second part
secundam partem huius of this sacrament, so to say, in order to
sacramenti, ut culpa poenitentis make the fault of the penitent known to
innotescat Christi ministro. the minister of Christ.
Oportet igitur ministrum cui fit [10] The minister, therefore, to whom
confessio, iudiciariam potestatem confession is made must have judiciary
habere vice Christi, qui constitutus power representing Christ, “who was
est iudex vivorum et mortuorum. appointed to be judge of the living and
Ad iudiciariam autem potestatem the dead” (Acts 10:42). For judiciary
duo requiruntur: scilicet auctoritas power two things are required: namely,
cognoscendi de culpa, et potestas the authority to know about the fault, and
absolvendi vel condemnandi. Et the power to absolve or condemn. And
haec duo dicuntur duae claves these two are called the “two keys of the
Ecclesiae, scilicet scientia Church,” namely, the knowledge to
discernendi, et potentia ligandi et discern and the power to bind and loose
solvendi, quas dominus Petro which our Lord committed to Peter as
commisit, iuxta illud Matth. 1619: Matthew (16:19) has it: “I will give to you
tibi dabo claves regni caelorum. the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” He
Non autem sic intelligitur Petro is not understood to have committed
commisisse ut ipse solus haberet, these to Peter so that he alone might
sed ut per eum derivarentur ad have them, but so that they might
alios: alias non esset sufficienter through him be passed on to others;
fidelium saluti provisum. otherwise, sufficient provision for the
salvation of the faithful would not have
been made.
Huiusmodi autem claves a [11] Of course, keys of this kind have
passione Christi efficaciam habent, their effectiveness from the suffering of
per quam scilicet Christus nobis Christ by which, we know, Christ opened
aperuit ianuam regni caelestis. Et for us the door of the kingdom of
ideo, sicut sine Baptismo, in quo heaven. Accordingly, just as without
operatur passio Christi, non potest baptism, in which the suffering of Christ
hominibus esse salus, vel realiter works, there cannot be salvation for men
suscepto, vel secundum —whether the baptism be really
propositum desiderato, quando received, or desired to the purpose
necessitas, non contemptus, “when necessity, but not contempt,

sacramentum excludit; ita excludes the sacrament”—so for those
peccantibus post Baptismum salus sinning after baptism there can be no
esse non potest nisi clavibus salvation unless they submit themselves
Ecclesiae se subiiciant, vel actu to the keys of the Church, whether it be
confitendo et iudicium ministrorum by actually confessing and undergoing
Ecclesiae subeundo, vel saltem the judgment of the ministers of the
huius rei propositum habendo, ut Church, or at least having this as a
impleatur tempore opportuno, quia, purpose to be fulfilled at the opportune
ut dicit Petrus, Act. 412 non est time; because, as Peter says: “There is
aliud nomen datum hominibus, in no other name given to men whereby we
quo oporteat nos salvos fieri, nisi in must be saved except by the name of
nomine domini nostri Iesu Christi. our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 4:1012).
Per hoc autem excluditur [12] In this way one avoids the error of
quorundam error qui dixerunt some who held that a man can achieve
hominem posse peccatorum forgiveness of sins without confession
veniam consequi sine confessione and without the purpose of confessing,
et proposito confitendi: vel quod and that the prelates of the Church can
per praelatos Ecclesiae dispensari dispense one from the obligation of
potest quod ad confessionem confessing. For the prelates of the
aliquis non teneatur. Non enim hoc Church are unable “to make vain the
possunt praelati Ecclesiae, ut keys of the Church” in which their entire
claves frustrentur Ecclesiae, in power consists, and they cannot bring it
quibus tota eorum potestas about that one achieve the remission of
consistit: neque ut sine sacramento his sins apart from a sacrament which
a passione Christi virtutem has power from the passion of Christ.
habente, aliquis remissionem This belongs only to Christ, who
peccatorum consequatur; hoc enim established the sacraments and is their
est solius Christi, qui est author. Thus, then, as there can be no
sacramentorum institutor et auctor. dispensation from the prelates of the
Sicut igitur dispensari non potest Church allowing one to be saved without
per praelatos Ecclesiae ut aliquis baptism, neither can there be one
sine Baptismo salvetur, ita nec allowing a man to achieve the remission
quod aliquis remissionem sine of his sins without confession and
confessione et absolutione absolution.
consequatur.
Considerandum tamen est quod [13] Nonetheless, there is this

sicut Baptismus efficaciam aliquam consideration. Baptism has some
habet ad remissionem peccati effectiveness for the remission of sins
etiam antequam actu suscipiatur, even before it is actually received, while
dum est in proposito ipsum one has the purpose of receiving it. We
suscipiendi licet postmodum grant that afterwards—when it is actually
pleniorem effectum conferat et in received—it bestows a fuller effect both
adeptione gratiae et in remissione in the achievement of grace and in the
culpae, cum actu suscipitur; et remission of fault. Sometimes, too, grace
quandoque in ipsa susceptione is bestowed in the very reception of
Baptismi confertur gratia, et baptism and a fault is remitted for which
remittitur culpa, ei cui prius remissa previously there was no remission. And
non fuit, sic et claves Ecclesiae thus the keys of the Church have
efficaciam habent in aliquo effectiveness in one before he actually
antequam eis se actu subiiciat, si submits himself to them, provided that
tamen habeat propositum ut se eis he has the purpose of submitting himself
subiiciat; pleniorem tamen gratiam to them; nevertheless, he achieves fuller
et remissionem consequitur dum grace and forgiveness when he actually
se eis actu subiicit confitendo, et submits himself to the keys by
absolutionem percipiendo; et nihil confessing and receiving absolution; and
prohibet quin aliquando virtute nothing prevents our thinking that
clavium alicui confesso in ipsa sometimes a grace is conferred by the
absolutione gratia conferatur, per power of the keys on one who has
quam ei culpa dimittitur. confessed, in the course of the
absolution itself, and that by this grace
his fault is dismissed.
Quia igitur etiam in ipsa [14] Therefore, since even in the very
confessione et absolutione plenior confession and absolution a fuller effect
effectus gratiae et remissionis of grace and remission is bestowed on
confertur ei qui prius, propter him who—by reason of his good purpose
bonum propositum, utrumque —had previously obtained both,
obtinuit; manifestum est quod manifestly the minister of the Church,
virtute clavium minister Ecclesiae, absolving by the power of the keys,
absolvendo, aliquid de poena dismisses. something of the temporal
temporali dimittit, cuius debitor punishment for which the penitent
remansit poenitens post remains in debt after contrition. He does,
contritionem. Ad residuum vero sua however, oblige the penitent to the
iniunctione obligat poenitentem: balance by his command. And this
cuius quidem obligationis impletio fulfillment of the obligation is called
satisfactio dicitur, quae est tertia satisfaction, which is the third part of
poenitentiae pars; per quam homo penance. By this a man is entirely freed
totaliter a reatu poenae liberatur, from the guilt of punishment when he
dum poenam exsolvit quam debuit; pays the penalty which he owed; further,
et ulterius debilitas naturalis boni the weakness of the natural good is
curatur, dum homo a malis abstinet cured when a man abstains from bad
et bonis assuescit; Deo spiritum things and accustoms himself to good
subiiciendo per orationem, carnem ones: by subjecting his spirit to God in
vero domando per ieiunium, ut sit prayer, or by taming his flesh by fasting
subiecta spiritui; et rebus to make it subject to the spirit, and in
exterioribus, per eleemosynarum external things by uniting himself by
largitionem, proximos sibi giving alms to the neighbors from whom
adiungendo, a quibus fuit his fault had separated him.
separatus per culpam.
Sic igitur patet quod minister [15] Thus, clearly, then, the minister of
Ecclesiae in usu clavium iudicium the Church exercises a certain judgment
quoddam exercet. Nulli autem in the use of the keys. But judgment is
iudicium committitur nisi in sibi not granted to one unless it be judgment
subiectos. Unde manifestum est on those who are his subjects. Hence, it
quod non quilibet sacerdos is manifest that it is not any priest at all
quemlibet potest absolvere a who can absolve any man at all from sin

peccato, ut quidam mentiuntur: sed —as some falsify it; he can absolve only
eum tantum in quem accepit one over whom he has received power.
potestatem.
Caput 73 Chapter 73
De sacramento extremae ON THE SACRAMENT OF EXTREME
unctionis UNCTION
Quia vero corpus est animae [1] Now, the body is the instrument of
instrumentum; instrumentum autem the soul, and an instrument is for the
est ad usum principalis agentis: use of the principal agent: therefore, the
necesse est quod talis sit dispositio disposition of the instrument necessarily
instrumenti ut competat principali must be such as becomes the principal
agenti; unde et corpus disponitur agent. Hence, the body is disposed in
secundum quod congruit animae. harmony with the soul. Therefore, from
Ex infirmitate igitur animae, quae the infirmity of the soul which is sin
est peccatum, interdum infirmitas infirmity sometimes flows into the body,
derivatur ad corpus, hoc divino when the divine judgment so disposes.
iudicio dispensante. Quae quidem To be sure, this bodily infirmity is at
corporalis infirmitas interdum utilis times useful for the soundness of the
est ad animae sanitatem: prout soul: so far as a man bears bodily
homo infirmitatem corporalem infirmity humbly and patiently, and so far
sustinet humiliter et patienter, et ei as it is reckoned as satisfying
quasi in poenam satisfactoriam punishment for him. At times, also, it
computatur. Est etiam quandoque tends to hinder spiritual health: so far as
impeditiva spiritualis salutis, prout bodily infirmity hinders the virtues.
ex infirmitate corporali impediuntur Therefore, it was suitable to employ
virtutes. Conveniens igitur fuit ut some spiritual medicine against sin, in
contra peccatum aliqua spiritualis accord with the fact that bodily infirmity
medicina adhiberetur, secundum flows out of sin; indeed, this spiritual
quod ex peccato derivatur infirmitas medicine cures the bodily infirmity at
corporalis, per quam quidem times, namely, when this is helpful to
spiritualem medicinam sanatur salvation. And for this a sacrament was
infirmitas corporalis aliquando, cum established extreme unction, about
scilicet expedit ad salutem. Et ad which James (5:1415) says: “Is any
hoc ordinatum est sacramentum man sick among you? Let him bring in
extremae unctionis, de quo dicitur the priests of the Church, and let them
Iacob. 514 infirmatur quis in vobis: pray over him, anointing him with oil in
inducat presbyteros Ecclesiae, et the name of the Lord. And the prayer of
orent super eum, ungentes eum faith shall heal the sick man.”
oleo in nomine domini; et oratio
fidei sanabit infirmum.
Nec praeiudicat virtuti sacramenti si [2] Nor is the power of this sacrament

aliquando infirmi quibus hoc prejudiced if at times the sick on whom
sacramentum confertur, non ex toto it is conferred are not wholly cured of
ab infirmitate corporali curantur: this bodily infirmity, for the restoration of
quia quandoque sanari corporaliter, bodily health—even in those who

etiam digne hoc sacramentum receive the sacrament worthily—
sumentibus, non est utile ad sometimes is not useful for salvation.
spiritualem salutem. Nec tamen And they do not, for all that, receive it in
inutiliter sumunt, quamvis corporalis vain, although bodily health may not
sanitas non sequatur. Cum enim follow on it. For, since this sacrament is
hoc sacramentum sic ordinetur set against bodily infirmity so far as this
contra infirmitatem corporis follows on sin, this sacrament manifestly
inquantum consequitur ex peccato, was established against the other
manifestum est quod contra alias consequences of sin, which are
sequelas peccati hoc sacramentum proneness to evil and difficulty in good,
ordinatur, quae sunt pronitas ad and it is set so much the more as the
malum et difficultas ad bonum: et soul’s infirmities of this sort are closer
tanto magis quanto huiusmodi neighbors to sin than bodily infirmity is.
infirmitates animae sunt Indeed, spiritual infirmities of this sort
propinquiores peccato quam are to be cured by penance, in that the
infirmitas corporalis. Et quidem works of virtue which the penitent
huiusmodi infirmitates spirituales performs when he makes satisfaction
per poenitentiam sunt curandae, withdraw him from evils and incline him
prout poenitens per opera virtutis, to good. But, since man, whether due to
quibus satisfaciendo utitur, a malis negligence, or to the changing
retrahitur et ad bonum inclinatur. occupations of life, or even to the
Sed quia homo, vel per shortness of time, or to something else
negligentiam, aut propter of the sort, does not perfectly heal within
occupationes varias vitae, aut etiam himself the weaknesses mentioned, a
propter temporis brevitatem, aut healthful provision for him is made by
propter alia huiusmodi, praedictos this sacrament: it completes the healing
defectus in se perfecte non curat, aforesaid, and it delivers him from the
salubriter ei providetur, ut per hoc guilt of temporal punishment; as a
sacramentum praedicta curatio result, nothing remains in him when the
compleatur, et a reatu poenae soul leaves the body which can obstruct
temporalis liberetur, ut sic nihil in eo the soul in the perception of glory. And
remaneat quod in exitu animae a therefore James adds: “And the Lord
corpore eam possit a perceptione shall raise him up.” Perhaps, also, a
gloriae impedire. Et ideo Iacobus man has neither awareness nor memory
addit: et alleviabit eum dominus. of all the sins which he has committed,
Contingit etiam quod homo omnium so that they may be washed away
peccatorum quae commisit, individual by penance. There are also
notitiam vel memoriam non habet, those daily sins without which one does
ut possint per poenitentiam singula not lead this present life. And from these
expurgari. Sunt etiam quotidiana a man ought to be cleansed at his
peccata, sine quibus praesens vita departure by this sacrament, so that
non agitur. A quibus oportet nothing be found in him which would
hominem in suo exitu per hoc clash with the perception of glory. And
sacramentum emundari, ut nihil therefore James adds: “If he be in sins,
inveniatur in eo quod perceptioni they shall be forgiven him.”
gloriae repugnet. Et ideo addit
Iacobus quod, si in peccatis sit,
dimittentur ei.
Unde manifestum est quod hoc [3] Hence, it is clear that this sacrament

sacramentum est ultimum, et is the last, that it somehow tends to
quodammodo consummativum consummate the entire spiritual healing,
totius spiritualis curationis, quo and that in it a man is, as it were,
homo quasi ad percipiendam prepared for the perception of glory. For
gloriam praeparatur. Unde et this reason also it is named extreme
extrema unctio nuncupatur. unction.
Ex quo manifestum est quod hoc [4] From this it is apparent that this
sacramentum non quibuscumque sacrament is not to be given to anyone
infirmantibus est exhibendum, sed at all who is sick, but only to those who
illis tantum qui ex infirmitate seem in their weakness to be
videntur propinquare ad finem. Qui approaching the end. Nevertheless, if
tamen, si convaluerint, iterato they get well, the sacrament can be
potest hoc sacramentum eis conferred on them again if they return to
conferri, si ad similem statum a similar situation. For the anointing in
devenerint. Non enim huius this sacrament involves no
sacramenti unctio est ad consecration, as does the anointing in
consecrandum, sicut unctio confirmation, or the washing in baptism,
confirmationis, ablutio Baptismi, et and certain other anointings which are
quaedam aliae unctiones, quae never repeated—simply because the
ideo nunquam iterantur quia consecration always remains, so long
consecratio semper manet, dum res as the thing consecrated endures,
consecrata durat, propter efficaciam because of the effectiveness of the
divinae virtutis consecrantis. divine power which consecrates. But the
Ordinatur autem huius sacramenti anointing of this sacrament is ordered
inunctio ad sanandum: medicina toward healing, and healing medicine
autem sanativa toties iterari debet ought to be repeated as often as the
quoties infirmitas iteratur. weakness is repeated.
Et licet aliqui sint in statu propinquo [5] We grant that some are in a state

morti etiam absque infirmitate, ut close to death even without infirmity—
patet in his qui damnantur ad this is clear in the case of those
mortem, qui tamen spiritualibus condemned to death—and they
effectibus huius sacramenti nevertheless would need the spiritual
indigerent: non tamen est effects of this sacrament, but it is not to
exhibendum, nisi infirmanti, cum be given unless such a one is sick,
sub specie corporalis medicinae since it is given under the appearance
exhibeatur, quae non competit nisi of bodily medicine, which is fitting only
corporaliter infirmato; oportet enim for one who has been weakened in the
in sacramentis significationem body. For in the sacraments the
servari. Sicut igitur requiritur in character of the sign must be
Baptismo ablutio corpori exhibita, maintained. Therefore, just as baptism
ita in hoc sacramento requiritur requires that washing be used on a
medicatio infirmitati corporali body, so this sacrament requires that
apposita. Unde etiam oleum est medicine be applied for bodily
specialis materia huius sacramenti, weakness. Hence, also, oil is the special
quia habet efficaciam ad sanandum matter of this sacrament, because it has
corporaliter mitigando dolores: sicut effectiveness for bodily healing by
aqua, quae corporaliter abluit, est alleviating pain; just as water which
materia sacramenti in quo fit cleans the body is the matter of the
spiritualis ablutio. sacrament in which spiritual cleansing
takes place.
Inde etiam manifestum est quod, [6] Therein one also sees that, just as
sicut medicatio corporalis bodily medicine must be applied at the
adhibenda est ad infirmitatis source of the infirmity, so this anointing
originem, ita haec unctio illis is used on those parts of the body from
partibus corporis adhibetur ex which the weakness of sin proceeds:
quibus infirmitas peccati procedit: such are the organs of the senses, and
sicut sunt instrumenta sensuum et the hands and feet by which the works
manus et pedes, quibus opera of sin are carried On, and—in accord
peccati exercentur, et, secundum with the custom of some—the loins in
quorundam consuetudinem, renes, which the libidinous force is strong.
in quibus vis libidinis viget.
Quia vero per hoc sacramentum [7] But, since sins are forgiven by this
peccata dimittuntur; peccatum sacrament, and no sin, of course, is
autem non dimittitur, nisi per forgiven except by grace, manifestly
gratiam: manifestum est quod in grace is conferred in this sacrament.
hoc sacramento gratia confertur.
Ea vero, in quibus gratia illuminans [8] Now, when things bestow

mentem confertur exhibere solum enlightening grace on the mind, their
pertinet ad sacerdotes, quorum use is proper only to priests, for their
ordo est illuminativus, ut Dionysius order tends to enlighten, as Dionysius
dicit. Nec requiritur ad hoc says. Neither does this sacrament
sacramentum episcopus: cum per require a bishop, since this sacrament
hoc sacramentum non conferatur does not confer a state of excellence, as
excellentia status, sicut in illis is the case with those whose minister is
quorum est minister episcopus. a bishop.
Quia tamen hoc sacramentum [9] Nonetheless, since this sacrament

perfectae curationis effectum habet, has a perfect cure as its effect, and an
et in eo requiritur copia gratiae; abundance of grace is required in it, it
competit huic sacramento quod becomes this sacrament to have many
multi sacerdotes intersint, et quod priests present, and to have the prayer
oratio totius Ecclesiae ad effectum of the whole Church help in the effect.
huius sacramenti coadiuvet. Unde Hence, James says: “Let him bring in
Iacobus dicit: inducat presbyteros the priests of the Church... and the
Ecclesiae, et oratio fidei sanabit prayer of faith shall save the sick man.”
infirmum. Si tamen unus solus If, nonetheless, only one priest is
presbyter adsit, intelligitur hoc present, it is understood that he fulfills
sacramentum perficere in virtute this sacrament in the power of the entire
totius Ecclesiae, cuius minister Church whose minister he is, and which,
existit, et cuius personam gerit. in person, he represents.
Impeditur autem huius sacramenti [10] Of course, the effect of this
effectus per fictionem suscipientis, sacrament is obstructed by pretense in

sicut contingit in aliis sacramentis. the receiver, just as can be the case
with the other sacraments.
Caput 74 Chapter 74
De sacramento ordinis ON THE SACRAMENT OF ORDERS
Manifestum est autem ex praedictis, [1] It is, of course, clear from what has
quod in omnibus sacramentis de been said that in all the sacraments
quibus iam actum est, spiritualis dealt with a spiritual grace is conferred
confertur gratia sub sacramento in a mystery of visible things. But every
visibilium rerum. Omnis autem actio action ought to be proportioned to its
debet esse proportionata agenti. agent. Therefore, the sacraments
Oportet igitur quod praedictorum mentioned must be dispensed by visible
dispensatio sacramentorum fiat per men who have spiritual power. For
homines visibiles, spiritualem angels are not competent to dispense
virtutem habentes. Non enim the sacraments; this belongs to men
Angelis competit sacramentorum clothed in visible flesh. Hence, the
dispensatio, sed hominibus visibili Apostle says: “Every high priest taken
carne indutis: unde et apostolus from among men is ordained for men in
dicit, ad Hebr. 51: omnis pontifex, the things that appertain to God” (Heb.
ex hominibus assumptus, pro 5:1).
hominibus constituitur in his quae
sunt ad Deum.
Huius etiam ratio aliunde sumi [2] This argument can be derived in
potest. Sacramentorum enim another way. The institution and the
institutio et virtus a Christo initium power of the sacraments has its
habet: de ipso enim dicit apostolus, beginning in Christ. For the Apostle
ad Ephes. 5, quod Christus dilexit says of Him: “Christ loved the Church
Ecclesiam, et seipsum tradidit pro and delivered Himself up for it: that He
ea, ut illam sanctificaret, mundans might sanctify it, cleansing it by the
eam lavacro aquae in verbo vitae. laver of water in the word of life” (Eph.
Manifestum est etiam quod Christus 5:7526). It is also clear that Christ gave
sacramentum sui corporis et the sacrament of His body and blood at
sanguinis in cena dedit, et the Last Supper, and ordered it to be
frequentandum instituit; quae sunt frequented; and these are the principal
principalia sacramenta. Quia igitur sacraments. Therefore, since Christ
Christus corporalem sui was about to withdraw His bodily
praesentiam erat Ecclesiae presence from the Church, it was
subtracturus, necessarium fuit ut necessary that Christ should establish
alios institueret sibi ministros, qui other ministers in His place who would
sacramenta fidelibus dispensarent: dispense the sacraments to the faithful;
secundum illud apostoli I ad Cor. 4 in the Apostle’s words: “Let a man so
1: sic nos existimet homo ut account of us as ministers of Christ and
ministros Christi, et dispensatores dispensers of the mysteries of God” (1
mysteriorum Dei. Unde discipulis Cor. 4:1). And so He committed the
consecrationem sui corporis et consecration of His body and blood to
sanguinis commisit, dicens: hoc the disciples, saying: “Do this in

facite in meam commemorationem; commemoration of Me” (Luke 2:19); the
eisdem potestatem tribuit peccata same received the power of forgiving
remittendi, secundum illud Ioan. 20 sins, in the words of John (20:2.3):
23: quorum remiseritis peccata, “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are
remittuntur eis; eisdem etiam forgiven them”; the same also were
docendi et baptizandi iniunxit given the duty of teaching and
officium, dicens Matth. ult.: euntes baptizing, when He said: “Going,
docete omnes gentes, baptizantes therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing
eos. Minister autem comparatur ad them” (Mat. 28:19). But a minister is
dominum sicut instrumentum ad compared to his lord as an instrument
principale agens: sicut enim to its principal agent, for, as an
instrumentum movetur ab agente ad instrument is moved by the agent for
aliquid efficiendum, sic minister making something, so the minister is
movetur imperio domini ad aliquid moved by his lord’s command to
exequendum. Oportet autem accomplish something. Of course, the
instrumentum esse proportionatum instrument must be proportionate to the
agenti. Unde et ministros Christi agent. Hence, the ministers of Christ
oportet esse ei conformes. Christus must be in conformity with Him. But
autem, ut dominus, auctoritate et Christ, as the Lord, by His very own
virtute propria nostram salutem authority and power wrought our
operatus est, inquantum fuit Deus et salvation, in that He was God and man:
homo: ut secundum id quod homo so far as He was man, in order to suffer
est, ad redemptionem nostram for our redemption; and, so far as He
pateretur; secundum autem quod was God, to make His suffering salutary
Deus, passio eius nobis fieret for us. Therefore, the ministers of Christ
salutaris. Oportet igitur et ministros must not only be men, but must
Christi homines esse, et aliquid participate somehow in His divinity
divinitatis eius participare secundum through some spiritual power, for an
aliquam spiritualem potestatem: instrument shares in the power of its
nam et instrumentum aliquid principal agent. Now, it is this power
participat de virtute principalis that the Apostle calls “the power which
agentis. De hac autem potestate the Lord bath given me unto edification
apostolus dicit, II ad Cor. ult., quod and not unto destruction” (2 Cor. 13:10).
potestatem dedit ei dominus in
aedificationem, et non in
destructionem.
Non est autem dicendum quod [3] One must not say, of course, that
potestas huiusmodi sic data sit power of this sort was given by Christ to
Christi discipulis quod per eos ad His disciples in such a way as not to
alios derivanda non esset: data est flow on through them to others; it was
enim eis ad Ecclesiae given “for building up the Church,” in
aedificationem, secundum apostoli the Apostle’s phrase. So long, then,
dictum. Tandiu igitur oportet hanc must this power be perpetuated as it is
potestatem perpetuari, quandiu necessary to build up the Church. But
necesse est aedificari Ecclesiam. this is necessary from the death of the
Hoc autem necesse est post disciples of Christ to the very end of the
mortem discipulorum Christi usque world. Therefore, the spiritual power
ad saeculi finem. Sic igitur data fuit was given to the disciples of Christ so
discipulis Christi spiritualis potestas as to pass on from them to others.
ut per eos deveniret ad alios. Unde Hence, also, our Lord used to address
et dominus discipulos in persona His disciples in the person of other
aliorum fidelium alloquebatur: ut believers. Thus, we have in Mark
patet per id quod habetur Marc. 13 (13:37): “What I say to you, I say to all”;
37: quod vobis dico, omnibus dico; and in Matthew (28:20) our Lord said to
et Matth. ult., dominus discipulis the disciples: “Behold, I am with you all
dixit: ecce, ego vobiscum sum days even to the consummation of the
usque ad consummationem saeculi. world.”
Quia igitur haec spiritualis potestas [4] This spiritual power from Christ,
a Christo in ministros Ecclesiae then, flows into the ministers of the
derivatur; spirituales autem effectus Church; the spiritual effects on us, of
in nos a Christo derivati, sub course, derived from Christ, are fulfilled
quibusdam sensibilibus signis under certain sensible signs, as is clear
explentur, ut ex supra dictis patet: from the foregoing; therefore, this
oportuit etiam quod haec spiritualis spiritual power also had to be passed
potestas sub quibusdam on to men under certain sensible signs.
sensibilibus signis hominibus But fixed forms of words and
traderetur. Huiusmodi autem sunt determined acts are of this sort: the
certae formae verborum et imposition of hands, for example, the
determinati actus, utputa impositio anointing, and the offering of the book
manuum, inunctio, et porrectio libri or the chalice, or of something of this
vel calicis, aut alicuius huiusmodi sort which belongs to the execution of
quod ad executionem spiritualis the spiritual power. But, whenever
pertinet potestatis. Quandocunque something spiritual is transferred under
autem aliquid spirituale sub signo a bodily sign, we call it a sacrament.
corporali traditur, hoc dicitur Clearly, then, in conferring the spiritual
sacramentum. Manifestum est igitur power, a certain sacrament is enacted
quod in collatione spiritualis which is called the sacrament of orders.
potestatis quoddam sacramentum
peragitur, quod dicitur ordinis
sacramentum.
Ad divinam autem liberalitatem [5] Now, this belongs to the divine
pertinet ut cui confertur potestas ad liberality: that, if the power for some
aliquid operandum, conferantur operation is conferred on one, there be
etiam ea sine quibus huiusmodi conferred also those things without
operatio convenienter exerceri non which this operation cannot suitably be
potest. Administratio autem exercised. But the administration of the
sacramentorum, ad quae ordinatur sacraments to which the spiritual power
spiritualis potestas, convenienter is ordered is not suitably done unless
non fit nisi aliquis ad hoc a divina one be helped to it by divine grace.
gratia adiuvetur. Et ideo in hoc Accordingly, grace is bestowed in this
sacramento confertur gratia: sicut et sacrament as it is in the other
in aliis sacramentis. sacraments.
Quia vero potestas ordinis ad [6] Now, the power of orders is
dispensationem sacramentorum established for the dispensation of the
ordinatur; inter sacramenta autem sacraments. But among the sacraments

nobilissimum et consummativum that which is most noble and tends
aliorum est Eucharistiae most to complete the others is the
sacramentum, ut ex dictis patet: sacrament of the Eucharist as is clear
oportet quod potestas ordinis from what has been said. Therefore, the
consideretur praecipue secundum power of orders must be weighed
comparationem ad hoc chiefly by reference to this sacrament,
sacramentum; nam unumquodque for “everything is denominated from its
denominatur a fine. end.”
Eiusdem autem virtutis esse videtur [7] It seems, of course, to be the same
aliquam perfectionem tribuere, et ad power which grants a perfection, and
susceptionem illius materiam which prepares matter for the reception
praeparare: sicut ignis virtutem of that perfection. just so, fire has the
habet et ut formam suam power both to pass its form on to
transfundat in alterum, et ut another, and to dispose that other for
materiam disponat ad formae the reception of the form. Since, then,
susceptionem. Cum igitur potestas the power of orders is extended to
ordinis ad hoc se extendat ut performing the sacrament of the body of
sacramentum corporis Christi Christ and handing it on to believers,
conficiat et fidelibus tradat, oportet the same power must extend itself to
quod eadem potestas ad hoc se this: making the believers ready for this
extendat quod fideles aptos reddat sacrament and in harmony with its
et congruos ad huius sacramenti reception. But a believer is made ready
perceptionem. Redditur autem aptus for the reception of this sacrament and
et congruus fidelis ad huius in harmony with it by his freedom from
sacramenti perceptionem per hoc sin; otherwise, he cannot be united
quod est a peccato immunis: non spiritually with that Christ to whom he is
enim potest aliter Christo spiritualiter sacramentally conjoined by the
uniri, cui sacramentaliter coniungitur reception of this sacrament. Therefore,
hoc sacramentum percipiendo. the power of orders must extend itself
Oportet igitur quod potestas ordinis to, the remission of sins by the
se extendat ad remissionem dispensation of those sacraments which
peccatorum, per dispensationem are ordered to the remission of sins;
illorum sacramentorum quae baptism and penance are of this kind,
ordinantur ad peccati remissionem, as is clear from what has been said.
cuiusmodi sunt Baptismus et Hence, as was said, our Lord’s
poenitentia, ut ex dictis patet. Unde, disciples, to whom He committed the
ut dictum est, dominus discipulis, consecration of His body, were also
quibus commisit sui corporis given the power to forgive sins. This,
consecrationem, dedit etiam indeed, is the power we understand by
potestatem remittendi peccata. the “keys” about which our Lord said to
Quae quidem potestas per claves Peter: “I will give to you the keys of the
intelligitur, de quibus dominus Petro, kingdom of heaven” (Mat. 16:19). For to
Matth. 1619, dixit: tibi dabo claves every man heaven is closed or is
regni caelorum. Caelum enim opened by this: he is subject to sin, or
unicuique clauditur et aperitur per he is cleansed from sin; hence, too, the
hoc quod peccato subiacet, vel a use of these keys is called “to bind and
peccato purgatur: unde et usus to loose”, namely, from sins. It was of
harum clavium dicitur esse ligare et these, indeed, keys that we spoke
solvere, scilicet a peccatis. De above.

quibus quidem clavibus supra
dictum est.
Caput 75 Chapter 75
De distinctione ordinum ON THE DISTINCTION OF ORDERS
Considerandum est autem quod [1] Let us now take this into
potestas quae ordinatur ad consideration: The power ordered to
aliquem principalem effectum, nata some principal effect by nature has under
est habere sub se inferiores it inferior powers which serve it. This is
potestates sibi deservientes. Quod especially clear in the arts, for the are
manifeste in artibus apparet: arti which introduces into a thing its artificial
enim quae formam artificialem form is served by the are which prepares
inducit, deserviunt artes quae the material; in turn, the one which
disponunt materiam; et illa quae introduces the form serves the are to
formam inducit, deservit arti ad which the end of the artificial thing
quam pertinet artificiati finis; et belongs; the one in turn ordered to a
ulterius quae ordinatur ad further end serves the one ordered to the
citeriorem finem, deservit illi ad ultimate end. just so, the are of the,
quam pertinet ultimus finis: sicut woodcutter serves that of the ship
ars quae caedit ligna, deservit builder, and the latter that of navigation,
navifactivae; et haec and this in turn the are of economy, or of
gubernatoriae; quae iterum warfare, or something of this sort, since
deservit oeconomicae, vel militari, the navigator’s are can be ordered to
aut alicui huiusmodi, secundum different ends.
quod navigatio ad diversos fines
ordinari potest.
Quia igitur potestas ordinis Since, then, the power of orders is
principaliter ordinatur ad corpus principally ordered to consecrating the
Christi consecrandum et fidelibus body of Christ and dispensing it to the
dispensandum, et ad fideles a faithful, and to cleansing the faithful from
peccatis purgandos; oportet esse their sins, there must be some principal
aliquem principalem ordinem, order whose power extends principally to
cuius potestas ad hoc principaliter this; this is the order of the priesthood;
se extendat, et hic est ordo and there must be other orders which
sacerdotalis; alios autem qui serve this one by preparing the material,
eidem serviant aliqualiter and these are the ministerial orders.
materiam disponendo, et hi sunt Now, since the priestly power, as was
ordines ministrantium. Quia vero said, is extended to two things—namely,
sacerdotalis potestas, ut dictum the consecration of the body of Christ
est, se extendit ad duo, scilicet ad and making the faithful ready for the
corporis Christi consecrationem, et Eucharist by absolution from their sins—
ad reddendum fideles idoneos per the lesser orders must serve the priestly
absolutionem a peccatis ad power either in both of these things, or
Eucharistiae perceptionem; else in one or the other. And, manifestly,
oportet quod inferiores ordines ei an order is superior among the inferior
deserviant vel in utroque, vel in orders by just as much as it serves the
altero tantum. Et manifestum est superior order in many things or in some
quod tanto aliquis inter inferiores worthier one.
ordines superior est, quanto
sacerdotali ordini deservit in
pluribus, vel in aliquo digniori.
Infimi igitur ordines deserviunt [2] Therefore, the lowest orders serve the

sacerdotali ordini solum in populi priestly order merely in the preparation of
praeparatione: ostiarii quidem the people: doorkeepers, by actually
arcendo infideles a coetu fidelium; keeping unbelievers out of the gathering
lectores autem instruendo of believers; readers, by instructing
catechumenos de fidei rudimentis, catechumens in the rudiments of the faith
unde eis Scriptura veteris —hence, the Old Testament Scripture is
testamenti legenda committitur; assigned them for reading, exorcists,
exorcistae autem purgando eos however, by cleansing those who are
qui iam instructi sunt, sed already instructed, but to some extent are
aliqualiter a Daemone impediuntur obstructed by the devil from the reception
a perceptione sacramentorum. of the sacraments.
Superiores vero ordines [3] The superior orders serve the priestly

sacerdotali deserviunt et in order both in the preparation of the
praeparatione populi, et ad people and in the consummation of the
consummationem sacramenti. sacrament. Acolytes have supervision
Nam acolythi habent ministerium over vessels which are not sacred and in
super vasa non sacra, in quibus which the material of the sacrament is
sacramenti materia praeparatur: prepared; hence, the cruets are handed
unde eis urceoli in sua ordinatione to them during their ordination.
traduntur. Subdiaconi autem Subdeacons, however, have supervision
habent ministerium super vasa over sacred vessels and the disposal of
sacra, et super dispositionem material not yet consecrated. But
materiae nondum consecratae. deacons, beyond this, have supervision
Diaconi autem ulterius habent over consecrated material in that they
aliquod ministerium super dispense the blood of Christ to the
materiam iam consecratam, prout faithful. Accordingly, these three orders—
sanguinem Christi dispensant the priesthood, the diaconate, and the
fidelibus. Et ideo hi tres ordines, subdiaconate—are called sacred orders
scilicet sacerdotum, diaconorum et because they receive a ministry over
subdiaconorum, sacri dicuntur, something sacred. The superior orders
quia accipiunt ministerium super serve also in the preparation of the
aliqua sacra. Deserviunt etiam people. Hence, deacons are entrusted
superiores ordines in with the Gospel teaching to present it to
praeparatione populi. Unde et the people, and subdeacons with the
diaconibus committitur evangelica apostolic teaching; acolytes are entrusted
doctrina populo proponenda; with the performance in each of the two
subdiaconibus apostolica; cases with what belongs to the solemnity
acolythis ut circa utrumque of the teaching, namely, that they carry
exhibeant quod pertinet ad the lights and administer tasks of this
solemnitatem doctrinae, ut scilicet kind.
luminaria deferant, et alia
huiusmodi administrent.
Caput 76 Chapter 76
De episcopali potestate: et quod ON THE EPISCOPAL POWER AND
in ea unus sit summus THAT THEREIN ONE IS THE HIGHEST
Quia vero omnium horum ordinum [1] Now, the bestowal of all of these
collatio cum quodam sacramento orders accompanies some sacrament,
perficitur, ut dictum est; as was said, and the sacraments of the
sacramenta vero Ecclesiae sunt Church require some ministers for their
per aliquos ministros Ecclesiae dispensing; there must, therefore, be a
dispensanda: necesse est aliquam superior power in the Church with a
superiorem potestatem esse in higher ministry which dispenses the
Ecclesia alicuius altioris ministerii, sacrament of orders. And this is the
quae ordinis sacramentum episcopal power, which, although it does
dispenset. Et haec est episcopalis not exceed the power of the priest in the
potestas, quae, etsi quidem consecration of the body of Christ, does
quantum ad consecrationem exceed the priestly power in what
corporis Christi non excedat touches the faithful. For the priestly
sacerdotis potestatem; excedit power itself flows from the episcopal
tamen eam in his quae pertinent ad power, and anything particularly difficult
fideles. Nam et ipsa sacerdotalis to be performed for the faithful is
potestas ab episcopali derivatur; et reserved to the bishops; by their
quicquid arduum circa populum authority, even priests are empowered to
fidelem est agendum episcopis do that which is committed to them to be
reservatur; quorum auctoritate done. Hence, even in the tasks which
etiam sacerdotes possunt hoc priests perform they employ things
quod eis agendum committitur. consecrated by bishops; thus, in the
Unde et in his quae sacerdotes Eucharistic consecration they use a
agunt, utuntur rebus per chalice, an altar, and a pall consecrated
episcopum consecratis: ut in by the bishop. Clearly, then, the chief
Eucharistiae consecratione utuntur direction of the faithful belongs to the
consecratis per episcopum calice, dignity of the bishops.
altari et pallis. Sic igitur manifestum
est quod summa regiminis fidelis
populi ad episcopalem pertinet
dignitatem.
Manifestum est autem quod [2] But this, too, is clear: Although people

quamvis populi distinguantur per are set apart according to differing
diversas dioeceses et civitates, dioceses and states, yet, as the Church
tamen, sicut est una Ecclesia, ita is one, so must the Christian people be
oportet esse unum populum one. Therefore, as for the specific
Christianum. Sicut igitur in uno congregation of one Church one bishop
speciali populo unius Ecclesiae is called for who is the head of that
requiritur unus episcopus, qui sit Church; so for the entire Christian people
totius populi caput; ita in toto there must be one who is head of the
populo Christiano requiritur quod entire Church.

unus sit totius Ecclesiae caput.
Item. Ad unitatem Ecclesiae [3] Then, too, the unity of the Church
requiritur quod omnes fideles in requires that all the faithful agree as to
fide conveniant. Circa vero ea the faith. But about matters of faith it
quae fidei sunt, contingit happens that questions arise. A diversity
quaestiones moveri. Per of pronouncements, of course, would
diversitatem autem sententiarum divide the Church, if it were not
divideretur Ecclesia, nisi in unitate preserved in unity by the pronouncement
per unius sententiam of one. Therefore, the unity of the
conservaretur. Exigitur igitur ad Church demands that there be one who
unitatem Ecclesiae conservandam is at the head of the entire Church. But,
quod sit unus qui toti Ecclesiae manifestly, in its necessities Christ has
praesit. Manifestum est autem, not failed the Church which He loved and
quod Christus Ecclesiae in for which He shed His blood, since even
necessariis non defecit, quam of the synagogue the Lord says: ‘What is
dilexit, et pro qua sanguinem suum there that I ought to do more to My
fudit: cum et de synagoga dicatur vineyard that I have not done to it?” (Isa.
per dominum: quid ultra debui 5:4). Therefore, one must not doubt that
facere vineae meae, et non feci? by Christ’s ordering there is one who is
Isaiae 54. Non est igitur at the head of the entire Church.
dubitandum quin ex ordinatione
Christi unus toti Ecclesiae praesit.
Adhuc. Nulli dubium esse debet [4] No one should doubt, furthermore,
quin Ecclesiae regimen sit optime that the government of the Church has
ordinatum: utpote per eum been established in the best way, since
dispositum per quem reges He has disposed it by whom “kings reign,
regnant et legum conditores iusta and lawmakers decree just things” (Prov.
decernunt. Optimum autem 8:15). But the best government of a
regimen multitudinis est ut regatur multitude is rule by one, and this is clear
per unum: quod patet ex fine from the purpose of government, which
regiminis, qui est pax; pax enim et is peace; for peace and the unity of his
unitas subditorum est finis regentis; subjects are the purpose of the one who
unitatis autem congruentior causa rules, and one is a better constituted
est unus quam multi. Manifestum cause of unity than many. Clearly, then,
est igitur regimen Ecclesiae sic the government of the Church has been
esse dispositum ut unus toti so disposed that one is at the head of
Ecclesiae praesit. the entire Church.
Amplius. Ecclesia militans a [5] The militant Church, moreover,

triumphanti Ecclesia per derives from the triumphant Church by
similitudinem derivatur: unde et exemplarity, hence, John in the
Ioannes in Apocalypsi, vidit Apocalypse (21:2) saw “Jerusalem
Ierusalem descendentem de caelo; coming down out of heaven”; and Moses
et Moysi dictum est quod faceret was told to make everything “according
omnia secundum exemplar ei in to the pattern that was shown you in the
monte monstratum. In triumphanti mount” (Ex. 25:40; 26:30). But in the
autem Ecclesia unus praesidet, qui triumphant Church one presides, the one
etiam praesidet in toto universo, who presides over the entire universe—
scilicet Deus: dicitur enim Apoc. namely, God—for we read in the
213: ipsi populus eius erunt, et Apocalypse (21:3): “They shall be His
ipse cum eis erit eorum Deus. Ergo people and God Himself with them shall
et in Ecclesia militante unus est qui be their God.” Therefore, in the militant
praesidet universis. Church, also, there is one who presides
over things universally.
Hinc est quod Oseae 111 dicitur: [6] Hence it is that we read in Hosea
congregabuntur filii Iuda et filii (1:11): “The children of Judah and the
Israel pariter, et ponent sibi caput children of Israel shall be gathered
unum. Et dominus dicit, Ioan. 10 together; and they shall appoint
16: fiet unum ovile et unus pastor. themselves one head.” And our Lord
says: “There shall be one fold and one
shepherd” (John 10:16).
Si quis autem dicat quod unum [7] But let one say that the one head and

caput et unus pastor est Christus, one shepherd is Christ, who is one
qui est unus unius Ecclesiae spouse of one Church; his answer does
sponsus: non sufficienter not suffice. For, clearly, Christ Himself
respondet. Manifestum est enim perfects all the sacraments of the
quod omnia ecclesiastica Church: it is He who baptizes; it is He
sacramenta ipse Christus perficit: who forgives sins; it is He, the true priest,
ipse enim est qui baptizat; ipse qui who offered Himself on the altar of the
peccata remittit; ipse est verus cross, and by whose power His body is
sacerdos, qui se obtulit in ara daily consecrated on the altar—
crucis, et cuius virtute corpus eius nevertheless, because He was not going
in altari quotidie consecratur: et to be with all the faithful in bodily
tamen, quia corporaliter non cum presence, He chose ministers to
omnibus fidelibus praesentialiter dispense the things just mentioned to the
erat futurus, elegit ministros, per faithful, as was said above. By the same
quos praedicta fidelibus reasoning, then, when He was going to
dispensaret, ut supra dictum est. withdraw His bodily presence from the
Eadem igitur ratione, quia Church, He had to commit it to one who
praesentiam corporalem erat would in His place have the care of the
Ecclesiae subtracturus, oportuit ut universal Church. Hence it is that He
alicui committeret qui loco sui said to Peter before His ascension:
universalis Ecclesiae gereret “Feed My sheep” (John 21:17); and
curam. Hinc est quod Petro dixit before His passion: “You being once
ante ascensionem: pasce oves converted confirm your brethren” (Luke
meas, Ioan. ult.; et ante 22:32); and to him alone did He promise:
passionem: tu iterum conversus, “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom
confirma fratres tuos Lucae 2232; of heaven” (Mat. 16:19), in order to show
et ei soli promisit: tibi dabo claves that the power of the keys was to flow
regni caelorum; ut ostenderetur through him to others to preserve the
potestas clavium per eum ad alios unity of the Church.
derivanda, ad conservandam
Ecclesiae unitatem.
Non potest autem dici quod, etsi [8] But it cannot be said that, although
Petro hanc dignitatem dederit, He gave Peter this dignity, it does not
tamen ad alios non derivatur. flow on to others. For, clearly, Christ
Manifestum est enim quod Christus established the Church so that it was to
Ecclesiam sic instituit ut esset endure to the end of the world; in the
usque ad finem saeculi duratura: words of Isaiah (9:7): “He shall sit upon
secundum illud Isaiae 97: super the throne of David and upon His
solium David, et super regnum eius kingdom to establish and strengthen it
sedebit, ut confirmet illud et with judgment and with justice from
corroboret in iudicio et iustitia, henceforth and forever.” It is clear that
amodo et usque in sempiternum. He so established therein those who
Manifestum est igitur quod ita illos were then in the ministry that their power
qui tunc erant in ministerio was to be passed on to others even to
constituit, ut eorum potestas the end of time; especially so, since He
derivaretur ad posteros, pro Himself says: “Behold I am with you all
utilitate Ecclesiae, usque ad finem days even to the consummation of the
saeculi: praesertim cum ipse dicat, world” (Mat. 28:20).
Matth. ult.: ecce, ego vobiscum
sum usque ad consummationem
saeculi.
Per hoc autem excluditur [9] By this, of course, we exclude the
quorundam praesumptuosus error, presumptuous error of some who
qui se subducere nituntur ab attempt to withdraw themselves from the
obedientia et subiectione Petri, obedience and the rule of Peter by not
successorem eius Romanum recognizing in his successor, the Roman
pontificem universalis Ecclesiae Pontiff, the pastor of the universal
pastorem non recognoscentes. Church.
Caput 77 Chapter 77
Quod per malos ministros THAT THE SACRAMENTS CAN BE
sacramenta dispensari possunt DISPENSED BY EVIL MINISTERS
Ex his quae praemissa sunt [1] From what we have Premised it is
manifestum est quod ministri clear that the ministers of the Church,
Ecclesiae potentiam quandam in when they receive their orders, receive a
ordinis susceptione divinitus certain power for dispensing the
suscipiunt ad sacramenta fidelibus sacraments.
dispensanda.
Quod autem alicui rei per [2] But what is acquired by a thing
consecrationem acquiritur, through consecration persists in that
perpetuo in eo manet: unde nihil thing forever; hence, nothing consecrated
consecratum iterato consecratur. is consecrated a second time. Therefore,
Potestas igitur ordinis perpetuo in the power of their orders persists in the
ministris Ecclesiae manet. Non ministers of the Church perpetually.
ergo tollitur per peccatum. Therefore, it is not taken away by sin.
Possunt ergo etiam a Therefore, even sinners and evil men,

peccatoribus, et malis, dummodo provided they have orders, are able to
ordinem habeant, ecclesiastica confer the sacraments of the Church.
sacramenta conferri.
Item. Nihil potest in id quod eius [3] Then, too, nothing has power over
facultatem excedit nisi accepta that which exceeds its capacities unless
aliunde potestate. Quod tam in the power be received from some other
naturalibus quam in civilibus patet: source. This is clear in natural as well as
non enim aqua calefacere potest in civil matters: Water cannot heat unless
nisi accipiat virtutem calefaciendi it receives the power of beating from fire,
ab igne; neque balivus cives nor can a bailiff coerce citizens unless he
coercere potest nisi accepta receives power from a king. But the
potestate a rege. Ea autem quae things accomplished in sacraments
in sacramentis aguntur, facultatem exceed human capacity, as the foregoing
humanam excedunt, ut ex made clear. Therefore, no man can
praemissis patet. Ergo nullus dispense the sacraments, no matter how
potest sacramenta dispensare, good he is, unless he receives the power
quantumcumque sit bonus, nisi to dispense them. Now, goodness is in
potestatem accipiat dispensandi. man the opposite of malice and sin.
Bonitati autem hominis malitia Therefore, one who has received the
opponitur et peccatum. Ergo nec power to dispense the sacraments is not
per peccatum ille qui potestatem blocked by sin from dispensing them.
accepit, impeditur quo minus
sacramenta dispensare possit.
Adhuc. Homo dicitur bonus vel [4] A man, furthermore, is called good or

malus secundum virtutem vel bad in accord with virtue or vice, which
vitium, quae sunt habitus quidam. are habits of a sort. Habit differs from
Habitus autem a potentia in hoc power in this way: By a power we are
differt quod per potentiam sumus able to do something, but by a habit we
potentes aliquid facere: per are not rendered able or unable to make
habitum autem non reddimur something, but ready or unready in doing
potentes vel impotentes ad aliquid well or badly what we are able to do.
faciendum, sed habiles vel Habit, therefore, neither gives us an
inhabiles ad id quod possumus ability nor removes one, rather, by habit
bene vel male agendum. Per we acquire this: to do something well or
habitum igitur neque datur neque badly. Therefore, a man’s being good or
tollitur nobis aliquid posse: sed bad does not make him able or unable to
hoc per habitum acquirimus, ut dispense the sacraments, but suitable or
bene vel male aliquid agamus. unsuitable for dispensing them well.
Non igitur ex hoc quod aliquis est
bonus vel malus, est potens vel
impotens ad dispensandum
sacramenta, sed idoneus vel non
idoneus ad bene dispensandum.
Amplius. Quod agit in virtute [5] Morover, that which acts by the power
alterius, non assimilat sibi patiens, of another likens the thing modified not to
sed principali agenti: non enim itself, but to the principal agent. For a
domus assimilatur instrumentis house is riot made like the instrument
quibus artifex utitur, sed arti ipsius. which a builder uses; it is made like his
Ministri autem Ecclesiae in art. The ministers of the Church do not
sacramentis non agunt in virtute perform the sacraments in their own
propria, sed in virtute Christi, de power, but in the power of Christ, of
quo dicitur Ioan. 133: hic est qui whom John (1:33) says: “He it is who
baptizat. Unde et sicut baptizes.” Hence, also, ministers are said
instrumentum ministri agere to act as instruments, for a minister is an
dicuntur: minister enim est sicut “animate tool.” Therefore, the malice of
instrumentum animatum. Non the ministers does not block the faithful
igitur malitia ministrorum impedit from achieving in the sacraments the
quin fideles salutem per salvation which is from Christ.
sacramenta consequantur a
Christo.
Praeterea. De bonitate vel malitia [6] There is more. The goodness or
alterius hominis homo iudicare malice of another man cannot be judged
non potest: hoc enim solius Dei by man; this is God’s alone, who scans
est, qui occulta cordis rimatur. Si the secrets of the heart. If, then, the
igitur malitia ministri impedire malice of the minister could block the
posset sacramenti effectum, non effect of the sacrament, a man could not
posset homo habere fiduciam have a sure confidence about his
certam de sua salute, nec salvation, and his conscience would not
conscientia eius remaneret libera remain free from sin. It seems awkward,
a peccato. Inconveniens etiam also, that one put the hope of his
videtur quod spem suae salutis in salvation in the goodness of a mere man,
bonitate puri hominis quis ponat: for Jeremiah (17:5) says: “Cursed be the
dicitur enim Ierem. 175: man that trusts in man.” But, if a man
maledictus homo qui confidit in were not to hope for the achievement of
homine. Si autem homo salutem his salvation through the sacraments—
consequi per sacramenta non except through those conferred by a
speraret nisi a bono ministro good minister—he would appear to put
dispensata, videretur spem suae the hope of his salvation to some extent
salutis aliqualiter in homine in a man. That we may, therefore, put the
ponere. Ut ergo spem nostrae hope of our salvation in Christ, who is
salutis in Christo ponamus, qui est God and man, we must confess that the
Deus et homo, confitendum est sacraments are for salvation by the
quod sacramenta sunt salutaria ex power of Christ, whether they are good
virtute Christi, sive per bonos sive ministers or bad ministers who confer
per malos ministros dispensentur. them.
Hoc etiam apparet per hoc quod [7] This is apparent as well from the fact
dominus etiam malis praelatis that our Lord teaches us to obey even
obedire docet, quorum tamen non bad prelates, whose works we must not
sunt opera imitanda: dicit enim imitate. For He says: “The Scribes and
Matthaeus 232 super cathedram the Pharisees sit on the chair of Moses.
Moysi sederunt Scribae et All things, therefore, that they say to you,
Pharisaei. Quae ergo dixerint observe and do. But according to their
vobis, servate et facite; secundum works, do not do” (Mat. 23:23). But there
autem opera eorum nolite facere. is much more reason to obey people who
Multo autem magis obediendum have received a ministry from Christ than
est aliquibus propter hoc quod there was to obey “the chair of Moses.”
suscipiunt ministerium a Christo, Therefore, one must obey even bad
quam propter cathedram Moysi. ministers. And this would not be the case
Est ergo etiam malis ministris unless the power of their orders persisted
obediendum. Quod non esset nisi in them—which is the reason one obeys
in eis ordinis potestas maneret, them. Even bad men, therefore, have the
propter quam eis obeditur. Habent power of dispensing the sacraments.
ergo potestatem dispensandi
sacramenta etiam mali.
Per hoc autem excluditur 18] . In this way one excludes the error of

quorundam error dicentium quod some who say that all good men have the
omnes boni possunt sacramenta power of dispensing the sacraments and
ministrare, et nulli mali. no bad men have it.
Caput 78 Chapter 78
De sacramento matrimonii ON THE SACRAMENT OF
MATRIMONY
Quamvis autem homines per [1] Now, we grant that by the sacraments

sacramenta restaurentur ad men are restored to grace; nonetheless,
gratiam, non tamen mox they are not immediately restored to
restaurantur ad immortalitatem: immortality. We have given the reason
cuius rationem supra, ostendimus. for this. But things which are corruptible
Quaecumque autem corruptibilia cannot be perpetuated except by
sunt, perpetuari non possunt nisi generation. Since, then, the people of
per generationem. Quia igitur the faithful had to be perpetuated unto
populum fidelium perpetuari the end of the world, this had to be done
oportebat usque ad mundi finem, by generation, by which, also, the human
necessarium fuit hoc per species is perpetuated.
generationem fieri, per quam etiam
humana species perpetuatur.
Considerandum est autem quod, [2] But let us consider this: When
quando aliquid ad diversos fines something is ordered to different ends
ordinatur, indiget habere diversa there must be differing principles
dirigentia in finem: quia finis est directing it to the end, for the end is
proportionatus agenti. Generatio proportioned to the agent. Human
autem humana ordinatur ad multa: generation, of course, is ordered to
scilicet ad perpetuitatem speciei; et many things; namely, to the perpetuity of
ad perpetuitatem alicuius boni the species and to the perpetuity of
politici, puta ad perpetuitatem some political good—the perpetuity of a
populi in aliqua civitate; ordinatur people in some state for example. It is
etiam ad perpetuitatem Ecclesiae, also ordered to the perpetuity of the
quae in fidelium collectione Church, which consists in the collection
consistit. Unde oportet quod of the faithful. Accordingly, generation of
huiusmodi generatio a diversis this kind must be subject to a diversity of
dirigatur. Inquantum igitur ordinatur directions. Therefore, so far as it is
ad bonum naturae, quod est ordered to the good of nature, which is
perpetuitas speciei, dirigitur in the perpetuity of the species, it is
finem a natura inclinante in hunc directed to the end by nature inclining to
finem: et sic dicitur esse naturae this end; thus, one calls it a duty of
officium. Inquantum vero ordinatur nature. But, so far as generation is
ad bonum politicum, subiacet ordered to a political good, it is subject to
ordinationi civilis legis. Inquantum the ordering of civil law. Then, so far as it
igitur ordinatur ad bonum is ordered to the good of the Church, it
Ecclesiae, oportet quod subiaceat must be subject to the government of the
regimini ecclesiastico. Ea autem Church. But things which are dispensed
quae populo per ministros to the people by the ministers of the
Ecclesiae dispensantur, Church are called sacraments.
sacramenta dicuntur. Matrimonium Matrimony, then, in that it consists in the
igitur secundum quod consistit in union of a husband and wife purposing
coniunctione maris et feminae to generate and educate offspring for the
intendentium prolem ad cultum Dei worship of God, is a sacrament of the
generare et educare est Ecclesiae Church; hence, also, a certain blessing
sacramentum: unde et quaedam on those marrying is given by the
benedictio nubentibus per ministros ministers of the Church.
Ecclesiae adhibetur.
Et sicut in aliis sacramentis per ea 13] And as in the other sacraments by
quae exterius aguntur, spirituale the thing done outwardly a sign is made
aliquid figuratur; sic et in hoc of a spiritual thing, so, too, in this
sacramento per coniunctionem sacrament by the union of husband and
maris et feminae coniunctio Christi wife a sign of the union of Christ and the
et Ecclesiae figuratur: secundum Church is made; in the Apostle’s words:
illud apostoli, ad Ephes. 532: “This is a great sacrament, but I speak in
sacramentum hoc magnum est: Christ and in the church” (Eph. 5:32).
ego autem dico in Christo et
Ecclesia.
Et quia sacramenta efficiunt quod [4] And because the sacraments effect
figurant, credendum est quod that of which they are made signs, one
nubentibus per hoc sacramentum must believe that in this sacrament a
gratia conferatur, per quam ad grace is conferred on those marrying,
unionem Christi et Ecclesiae and that by this grace they are included
pertineant: quod eis maxime in the union of Christ and the Church,
necessarium est, ut sic carnalibus which is most especially necessary to
et terrenis intendant quod a Christo them, that in this way in fleshly and
et Ecclesia non disiungantur. earthly things they may purpose not to
be disunited from Christ and the Church.
Quia igitur per coniunctionem maris [5] Since, then, the union of husband
et feminae Christi et Ecclesiae and wife gives a sign of the union of
coniunctio designatur, oportet quod Christ and the Church, that which makes
figura significato respondeat. the sign must correspond to that whose
Coniunctio autem Christi et sign it is. Now, the union of Christ and
Ecclesiae est unius ad unam the Church is a union of one to one to be
perpetuo habendam: est enim una held forever. For there is one Church, as
Ecclesia, secundum illud Cant. 68: the Canticle (6:8) says: “One is My dove,
una est columba mea, perfecta My perfect one.” And Christ will never be
mea; nec unquam Christus a sua separated from His Church, for He
Ecclesia separabitur, dicit enim Himself says: “Behold I am with you all
ipse Matth. ult.: ecce, ego days even to the consummation of the
vobiscum sum usque ad world” (Mat. 28:20); and, further: “we
consummationem saeculi; et shall be always with the Lord” (1 Thes.
ulterius: semper cum domino 4:16), as the Apostle says. Necessarily,
erimus, ut dicitur I ad Thess. 417. then, matrimony as a sacrament of the
Necesse est igitur quod Church is a union of one man to one
matrimonium, secundum quod est woman to be held indivisibly, and this is
Ecclesiae sacramentum, sit unius included in the faithfulness by which the
ad unam indivisibiliter habendam. man and wife are bound to one another.
Et hoc pertinet ad fidem, qua sibi
invicem vir et uxor obligantur.
Sic igitur tria sunt bona matrimonii, [6] Thus, then, there are three goods of

secundum quod est Ecclesiae matrimony as a sacrament of the
sacramentum: scilicet proles, ad Church: namely, offspring to be accepted
cultum Dei suscipienda et and educated for the worship of God;
educanda; fides, prout unus vir uni fidelity by which one man is bound to
uxori obligatur; et sacramentum, one wife; and the sacrament—and, in
secundum quod indivisibilitatem accord with this—there is indivisibility in
habet matrimonialis coniunctio, the marriage union, in so far as it is a
inquantum est coniunctionis Christi sacrament of the union of Christ and the
et Ecclesiae sacramentum. Church.
Cetera autem quae in matrimonio [7] Now, all the other things one ought to

consideranda sunt, supra in tertio consider in matrimony we have dealt
libro pertractavimus. with in Book III.
Caput 79 Chapter 79
Quod per Christum resurrectio THAT THROUGH CHRIST THE
corporum sit futura RESURRECTION OF BODIES IS TO
COME
Quia vero supra ostensum est quod [1] Now, we have shown above that we

per Christum liberati sumus ab his have been freed by Christ from what
quae per peccatum primi hominis we incurred by the sin of the first man;
incurrimus; peccante autem primo and, when the first man sinned, not
homine, non solum in nos peccatum only was the sin itself passed on to us,
derivatum est, sed etiam mors, quae but also, death, which is the
est poena peccati, secundum illud punishment of sin, in the Apostle’s
apostoli, ad Rom. 512: per unum words: “By one man sin entered into
hominem peccatum in hunc this world and by sin death” (Rom.
mundum intravit, et per peccatum 5:12). Therefore, it necessarily is by
mors: necessarium est quod per Christ that we are freed from each of
Christum ab utroque liberemur, et a these; namely, from the fault and from
culpa scilicet et a morte. Unde death. Accordingly, the Apostle says in
ibidem dicit apostolus: si in unius the same place: “If by one man’s
delicto mors regnavit per unum, offence death reigned through vie;
multo magis accipientes much more they who receive
abundantiam donationis et iustitiae, abundance... of the gift and of justice
in vitam regnabunt per unum Iesum shall reign in life through one, Jesus
Christum. Christ” (Rom. 5:37).
Ut igitur utrumque nobis in seipso [2] Therefore, in order to make each of

demonstraret, et mori et resurgere these clear to us in Himself, He chose
voluit: mori quidem voluit ut nos a both to die and to rise. He chose to die,
peccato purgaret, unde apostolus indeed, to cleanse us from sin; hence,
dicit, Hebr. 927: quemadmodum the Apostle says: “As it is appointed
statutum est hominibus semel mori, unto men once to die, so also Christ
sic et Christus semel oblatus est ad was offered once to exhaust the sins of
multorum exhaurienda peccata; many” (Heb. 9). But He chose to rise to
resurgere autem voluit ut nos a free us from death; hence, the Apostle
morte liberaret unde apostolus, I says: “Christ is risen from the dead, the
Cor. 1520 Christus resurrexit a firstfruits of them that sleep. For by a
mortuis, primitiae dormientium. man came death and by a man the
Quoniam quidem per hominem resurrection of the dead” (1 Cor. 15:20
mors, et per hominem resurrectio 21).
mortuorum.
Effectum igitur mortis Christi in [3] It is, then, the effect of the death of

sacramentis consequimur quantum Christ in regard to the remission of sin
ad remissionem culpae: dictum est which we achieve in the sacraments,
enim supra quod sacramenta in for, it has already been said, the
virtute passionis Christi operantur. sacraments work in the power of the
passion of Christ.
Effectum autem resurrectionis Christi [4] But the effect of the resurrection of

quantum ad liberationem a morte in Christ in regard to our liberation from
fine saeculi consequemur, quando death we shall achieve at the end of
omnes per Christi virtutem the world, when we shall all rise by the
resurgemus. Unde dicit apostolus, I power of Christ. Hence, the Apostle
Cor. 1512 si Christus praedicatur says: “If Christ be preached that He
quod resurrexit a mortuis, quomodo arose again from the dead, how do
quidam dicunt in vobis quoniam some among you say that there is no
resurrectio mortuorum non est? Si resurrection of the dead? If there be no
autem resurrectio mortuorum non resurrection of the dead, then Christ is
est, neque Christus resurrexit, si not risen again. And if Christ be not
autem Christus non resurrexit, inanis risen again then is our preaching vain
est praedicatio nostra, inanis est et and our faith is vain (1 Cor. 15:12`14).
fides nostra. Est igitur de necessitate It is, then, a necessary tenet of faith to
fidei credere resurrectionem believe that there will be a resurrection
mortuorum futuram. of the dead.
Quidam vero hoc perverse [5] There are, however, some who are
intelligentes, resurrectionem perverse in their understanding of this
corporum futuram non credunt: sed and they do not believe in the future
quod de resurrectione legitur in resurrection of bodies, but attempt to
Scripturis, ad spiritualem ascribe what we read about the
resurrectionem referre conantur, resurrection in the Scriptures to a
secundum quod aliqui a morte spiritual resurrection in which some
peccati resurgunt per gratiam. arise from the death of sin by grace.
Hic autem error ab ipso apostolo [6] But this error is rejected by the
reprobatur. Dicit enim II Tim. 216 Apostle himself, he says: “But shun
profana et vaniloquia devita, multum profane and vain babblings: for they
enim proficiunt ad impietatem, et grow much towards ungodliness, And
sermo eorum ut cancer serpit: ex their speech spreads like a canker: of
quibus est Hymenaeus et Philetus, whom are Hymenaeus and Philebus:
qui a veritate fidei exciderunt, who have erred from the truth of the
dicentes resurrectionem iam factam faith, saying that the resurrection is
esse: quod non poterat intelligi nisi past already” (2 Tim. 2:1618). And this
de resurrectione spirituali. Est ergo was not understandable except of a
contra veritatem fidei ponere spiritual resurrection. It is, therefore,
resurrectionem spiritualem, et contrary to the truth of the faith to
negare corporalem. accept a spiritual resurrection and deny
a bodily one.
Praeterea. Manifestum est ex his [7] There is more. It is clear from what

quae apostolus Corinthiis dicit, quod the Apostle says to the Corinthians that
praemissa verba de resurrectione the words cited are to be understood of
corporali sunt intelligenda. Nam post a bodily resurrection. For, after a bit, he
pauca subdit: seminatur corpus adds, “It is sown a natural body, it shall
animale, surget corpus spirituale, ubi rise a spiritual body,” wherein,
manifeste corporis resurrectionem manifestly, the body’s resurrection is
tangit; et postmodum subdit: oportet touched on; and a little later he adds:
corruptibile hoc induere “This corruptible must put on
incorruptionem, et mortale hoc incorruption; and this mortal must put
induere immortalitatem. Hoc autem on immortality” (1 Cor. 15:44, 53). But
corruptibile et mortale est corpus. the corruptible and the mortal mean the
Corpus igitur est quod resurget. body. Therefore, it is the body that will
rise.
Adhuc. Dominus, Ioan. 525, [8] Moreover, our Lord promises both
utramque resurrectionem promittit. resurrections, for He says: “Amen,
Dicit enim: amen, amen dico vobis, Amen, I say unto you that the hour
quia venit hora, et nunc est, quando comes and now is when the dead shall
mortui audient vocem filii Dei, et qui hear the voice of the Son of God and
audierint, vivent: quod ad they that hear shall live.” And this
resurrectionem spiritualem seems to pertain to the spiritual
animarum pertinere videtur, quae resurrection of souls, which even then
tunc iam fieri incipiebat, dum aliqui was beginning to be completed, when
per fidem Christo adhaerebant. Sed some were cleaving to Christ in faith.
postmodum corporalem But, later, it is the bodily resurrection
resurrectionem exprimit dicens: venit He expresses, saying: “The hour is
hora in qua omnes qui in coming, when all who are in the graves
monumentis sunt audient vocem filii shall hear the voice of the Son of God”
Dei. Manifestum est enim quod (John 5:25, 28). For, clearly, souls are
animae in monumentis non sunt, sed not in the graves, but bodies.
corpora. Praedicitur ergo hic Therefore, this predicts the bodily
corporum resurrectio. resurrection.
Expresse etiam corporum [9] The bodily resurrection was also

resurrectio praenuntiatur a Iob. expressly foretold by Job. For he says:
Dicitur enim Iob 1925: scio quod “I know that my Redeemer lives, and
redemptor meus vivit, et in on the last day I shall rise out of the
novissimo die de terra surrecturus earth, and shall be clothed again with
sum, et rursus circumdabor pelle my skin, and in my flesh I shall see my
mea et in carne mea videbo Deum. God” (Job 19:7576).
Ad ostendendum etiam [10] Moreover, to establish that there

resurrectionem carnis futuram will be a resurrection of the flesh there
evidens ratio suffragatur, suppositis is an evident supporting argument
his quae in superioribus sunt which is based on the points made
ostensa. Ostensum est enim in earlier. For we showed in Book II that
secundo animas hominum the souls of men are immortal. They
immortales esse. Remanent igitur persist, then, after their bodies,
post corpora a corporibus absolutae. released from their bodies. It is also
Manifestum est etiam ex his quae in clear from what was said in Book II that
secundo dicta sunt, quod anima the soul is naturally united to the body,
corpori naturaliter unitur: est enim for in its essence it is the form of the
secundum suam essentiam corporis body. It, then, contrary to the nature of
forma. Est igitur contra naturam the soul to be without the body. But
animae absque corpore esse. Nihil nothing which is contrary to nature can
autem quod est contra naturam, be perpetual. Perpetually, then, the
potest esse perpetuum. Non igitur soul will not be without the body. Since,
perpetuo erit anima absque corpore. then, it persists perpetually, it must
Cum igitur perpetuo maneat, oportet once again be united to the body; and
eam corpori iterato coniungi: quod this is to rise again. Therefore, the
est resurgere. Immortalitas igitur immortality of souls seems to demand
animarum exigere videtur a future resurrection of bodies.
resurrectionem corporum futuram.
Adhuc. Ostensum est supra, in [11] Furthermore, there was shown in

tertio, naturale hominis desiderium Book III the natural desire of man to
ad felicitatem tendere. Felicitas tend to happiness. But ultimate
autem ultima est felicis perfectio. happiness is the perfection of the
Cuicumque igitur deest aliquid ad happy one. Therefore, anyone to whom
perfectionem, nondum habet some perfection is wanting does not
felicitatem perfectam, quia nondum yet have perfect happiness, because
eius desiderium totaliter quietatur: his desire is not entirely at rest, for
omne enim imperfectum every imperfect thing naturally desires
perfectionem consequi naturaliter to achieve its perfection. But the soul
cupit. Anima autem a corpore separated from the body is in a way
separata est aliquo modo imperfect, as is every part existing
imperfecta, sicut omnis pars extra outside of its whole, for the soul is
suum totum existens: anima enim naturally a part of human nature.
naturaliter est pars humanae Therefore, man cannot achieve his
naturae. Non igitur potest homo ultimate happiness unless the soul be
ultimam felicitatem consequi nisi once again united to the body,
anima iterato corpori coniungatur: especially since it was shown that in
praesertim cum ostensum sit quod in this life man cannot arrive at his
hac vita homo non potest ad ultimate happiness.
felicitatem ultimam pervenire.
Item. Sicut in tertio ostensum est, ex [12] Moreover, as was shown in Book

divina providentia peccantibus III, by divine providence sinners
poena debetur, et bene agentibus deserve punishment, and those who do
praemium. In hac autem vita well a reward. But in this life men,
homines ex anima et corpore composed of soul and body, sin or act
compositi peccant vel recte agunt. rightly. Therefore, in both the soul and
Debetur igitur hominibus et the body men deserve reward or
secundum animam et secundum punishment. But that in this life they
corpus praemium vel poena. cannot achieve the reward of ultimate
Manifestum est autem quod in hac happiness is clear from the points
vita praemium ultimae felicitatis made in Book III. And time after time
consequi non possunt, ex his quae sins are not punished in this life; rather,
in tertio ostensa sunt. Multoties in fact, as we read in Job (21:7) here
etiam peccata in hac vita non “the wicked live, are advanced, and are
puniuntur: quinimmo, ut dicitur Iob strengthened with riches.” Necessarily,
217: hic impii vivunt, confortati sunt, then, we must assert a repeated union
sublimatique divitiis. Necessarium of the soul with the body, so that man
est igitur ponere iteratam animae ad can be rewarded and punished in the
corpus coniunctionem, ut homo in body as well as in the soul.
corpore et anima praemiari et puniri
possit.
Caput 80 Chapter 80
Obiectiones contra OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE
resurrectionem RESURRECTION
Sunt autem quaedam quae [1] There are, of course, some things
resurrectionis fidem impugnare which seem to be opposed to faith in the
videntur. resurrection.
In nullo enim naturalium rerum Thus: in no natural thing does one find that

invenitur id quod corruptum est which has been corrupted returning to
idem numero redire in esse: sicut being with numerical identity; neither does
nec ab aliqua privatione ad it seem possible to go back again from
habitum videtur posse rediri. Et privation of a thing to possessing it.
ideo, quia quae corrumpuntur Accordingly, since things which are
eadem numero iterari non corrupted cannot be repeated with an
possunt, natura intendit ut id identity in number, nature intends that the
quod corrumpitur idem specie thing which is corrupted be preserved with
per generationem conservetur. an identity in species by generation. Since,
Cum igitur homines per mortem then, man is corrupted by death, and the
corrumpantur, ipsumque corpus very body of man resolved even into the
hominis usque ad prima primary elements, it does not seem
elementa resolvatur: non videtur possible for a man with identity in number
quod idem numero homo possit to be restored to life.
reparari ad vitam.
Item. Impossibile est esse idem [7] Again, numerical identity is impossible
numero cuius aliquod to a thing if one of its essential principles
essentialium principiorum idem cannot be numerically identical, for, if an
numero esse non potest: nam essential principle is varied, that essence
essentiali principio variato, of the thing is varied by which the thing, as
variatur essentia rei, per quam it is, is also one. But what is returned
res, sicut est, ita et una est. altogether to nothingness cannot be taken
Quod autem omnino redit in up again with numerical identity; this will
nihilum, idem numero resumi non be the creation of a new thing rather than
potest: potius enim erit novae rei the restoration of an identical thing. But
creatio quam eiusdem reparatio. there seem to be several of the essential
Videntur autem plura principles of man returning to nothingness
principiorum essentialium by his death. And first, to be sure, his very
hominis per eius mortem in corporeity and the form of the compound,
nihilum redire. Et primo quidem since the body is manifestly dissolved.
ipsa corporeitas, et forma Then, too, a part of the sensitive soul, and
mixtionis: cum corpus manifeste the nutritive, which cannot he without
dissolvatur. Deinde pars animae bodily organs, seem lost. Further, of
sensitivae et nutritiva, quae sine course, there seems to return to
corporeis organis esse non nothingness the humanity itself—which is
possunt. Ulterius autem in said to be the form of the whole—once the
nihilum videtur redire ipsa soul is separated from the body. It seems,
humanitas, quae dicitur esse then, impossible that man should rise
forma totius, anima a corpore again being identical in number.
separata. Impossibile igitur
videtur quod homo idem numero
resurgat.
Adhuc. Quod non est continuum, [3] Furthermore, what is not continuous
idem numero esse non videtur. seems not to he numerically identical. And

Quod quidem non solum in this is manifest not only in sizes and
magnitudinibus et motibus motions, but even in qualities and forms,
manifestum est, sed etiam in for if, after healing, a man becomes sick
qualitatibus et formis: si enim and is healed again, the health which
post sanitatem aliquis infirmatus, returns will not be the same in number.
iterato sanetur, non redibit Now, clearly, man’s being is taken away by
eadem sanitas numero. death, since corruption is a change from
Manifestum est autem quod per being to nonbeing. It is, then, impossible
mortem esse hominis aufertur: that man’s being be repeated with
cum corruptio sit mutatio de esse numerical identity. Then, neither will the
in non esse. Impossibile est igitur man be the same in number, for things
quod esse hominis idem numero which are the same in number are the
reiteretur. Neque igitur erit idem same in being.
homo numero: quae enim sunt
eadem numero, secundum esse
sunt idem.
Amplius. Si idem hominis corpus [4] If, furthermore, a man’s identical body

reparatur ad vitam, pari ratione is restored to life, by equal reasoning
oportet quod quicquid in corpore whatever was in the man’s body ought to
hominis fuit, eidem restituatur. Ad be returned to the same man. But on this
hoc autem maxima indecentia something extremely unseemly follows—
sequitur: non solum propter not only by reason of the beard and the
capillos et ungues et pilos, qui nails and the hair which are openly
manifeste quotidiana praecisione removed by daily trimming, but also by
tolluntur; sed etiam propter alias reason of other parts of the body which are
partes corporis, quae occulte per covertly resolved by the action of the
actionem naturalis caloris natural heat—and if these all are restored
resolvuntur; quae omnia si to the man rising again, an unseemly
restituantur homini resurgenti, enormity will rise with him. It seems, then,
indecens magnitudo consurget. that man will not rise after death.
Non videtur igitur quod homo sit
post mortem resurrecturus.
Praeterea. Contingens est [5] There is more. It happens, occasionally,

quandoque aliquos homines that some men feed on human flesh, and
carnibus humanis vesci; et solum they are nourished on this nutriment only,
tali nutrimento nutriri; et sic and those so nourished generate sons.
nutritos filios generare. Caro Therefore, the same flesh is found in many
igitur eadem in pluribus men. But it is not possible that it should
hominibus invenitur. Non est rise in many. And the resurrection does not
autem possibile quod in pluribus seem otherwise to be universal and entire
resurgat. Nec aliter videtur esse if there is not restored to every man what
universalis resurrectio et integra, he has had here.
si unicuique non restituetur quod
hic habuit. Videtur igitur
impossibile quod sit hominum
resurrectio futura.
Item. Illud quod est commune [6] Again, that which is common to all
omnibus existentibus in aliqua those existing in a species seems to he
specie videtur esse naturale illi natural to that species. But the
speciei. Non est autem hominis resurrection of man is not natural, for there
resurrectio naturalis: non enim is not a natural power of man which
aliqua virtus naturalis agentis suffices to do this. Therefore, not all men
sufficit ad hoc agendum. Non will rise in common.
igitur communiter omnes
homines resurgent.
Adhuc. Si per Christum liberamur [7] Furthermore, if by Christ we are freed

et a culpa et a morte, quae est from fault and from death, which is the
peccati effectus, illi soli videntur effect of sin, it seems that those alone
liberandi esse a morte per ought to be freed who had a share in the
resurrectionem qui fuerunt mysteries of Christ by which they would be
participes mysteriorum Christi, freed from sin. But this is not true of all
quibus liberarentur a culpa. Hoc men. Therefore, not all men will rise, it
autem non est omnium hominum. seems.
Non igitur omnes homines
resurgent, ut videtur.
Caput 81 Chapter 81
Solutio praemissarum obiectionum SOLUTION OF THE
OBJECTIONS MENTIONED
Ad horum igitur solutionem, [1] Now, toward a solution of these

considerandum est quod Deus, sicut difficulties this consideration is
supra dictum est, in institutione humanae required: God, as was said,
naturae, aliquid corpori humano attribuit above, when He established
supra id quod ei ex naturalibus principiis human nature, granted the human
debebatur: scilicet incorruptibilitatem body something over and above
quandam, per quam convenienter suae that which was its due in its
formae coaptaretur, ut sicut animae vita natural principles: a kind of
perpetua est, ita corpus per animam incorruptibility, namely, by which it
posset perpetuo vivere. was suitably adapted to its form,
with the result that, as the life of
the soul is perpetual, so the body
could live perpetually by the soul.
Et talis quidem incorruptibilitas, etsi non [2] And this sort of incorruptibility,
esset naturalis quantum ad activum although not, of course, natural in
principium, erat tamen quodammodo its. active principle, was somehow
naturalis ex ordine ad finem, ut scilicet natural in its order to the end;
materia proportionaretur suae naturali namely, as matter would be
formae, quae est finis materiae. ordered to its natural form, which
is the end of the matter.
Anima igitur, praeter ordinem suae [3] When the soul, then, outside
naturae, a Deo aversa, subtracta est the order of its nature, was turned
dispositio quae eius corpori divinitus away from God, that disposition
indita erat, ut sibi proportionaliter was lost which had been divinely
responderet, et secuta est mors. Est igitur bestowed on the soul’s body to
mors quasi per accidens superveniens make it proportionally responsive
homini per peccatum, considerata to the soul; and death followed.
institutione humanae naturae. Death, therefore, is something
added as an accident, so to say,
to man through sin, if one
considers the establishment of
human nature.
Hoc autem accidens sublatum est per [4] . But this accident was taken
Christum, qui merito suae passionis away by Christ, who by the merit
mortem moriendo destruxit. Ex hoc igitur of His passion our “death by dying
consequitur quod divina virtute, quae did destroy.” From this, then, it
corpori incorruptionem dedit, iterato follows that by the divine power
corpus de morte ad vitam reparetur. which gave the body incorruption
the body may once again be
restored from death to life.
Secundum hoc igitur ad primum [5] In this way, then, one must
dicendum quod virtus naturae deficiens answer the first argument that the
est a virtute divina, sicut virtus instrumenti power of nature fails the divine
a virtute principalis agentis. Quamvis power, as the power of an
igitur operatione naturae hoc fieri non instrument fails the principal
possit, ut corpus corruptum reparetur ad agent. Granted, then, that the
vitam, tamen virtute divina id fieri potest. operation of nature cannot bring it
Nam quod natura hoc facere non possit, about that a corrupted body be
ideo est quia natura semper per formam restored to life, the divine power
aliquam operatur. Quod autem habet can bring it about. The reason
formam, iam est. Cum vero corruptum nature is unable to do this is that
est, formam amisit, quae poterat esse nature always operates by a form.
actionis principium. Unde operatione But what has a form, already is.
naturae, quod corruptum est idem When it was corrupted, of course,
numero reparari non potest. Sed divina it lost the form which was able to
virtus, quae res produxit in esse, sic per be the principle of the action.
naturam operatur quod absque ea Hence, by natures operation, what
effectum naturae producere potest, ut was corrupted cannot be restored
superius est ostensum. Unde, cum virtus with a numerical identity. But the
divina maneat eadem etiam rebus divine power which produced
corruptis, potest corrupta in integrum things in being operates by nature
reparare. in such wise that it can without
nature produce natures effect, as
was previously shown. Hence
since the divine power remains
the same even when things are
corrupted, it can restore the
corrupted to integrity.
Quod vero secundo obiicitur, impedire [6] What is stated in the second
non potest quin homo idem numero objection, however, cannot be an
resurgere possit. Nullum enim obstacle to man’s ability to rise
principiorum essentialium hominis per with numerical identity. For none
mortem omnino cedit in nihilum: nam of man’s essential principles
anima rationalis, quae est hominis forma, yields entirely to nothingness in
manet post mortem, ut superius est death, for the rational soul which
ostensum; materia etiam manet, quae tali is man’s form remains after death,
formae fuit subiecta, sub dimensionibus as was shown above; the matter,
eisdem ex quibus habebat ut esset also, which was subject to such a
individualis materia. Ex coniunctione igitur form remains in the same
eiusdem animae numero ad eandem dimensions which made it able to
materiam numero, homo reparabitur. be the individual matter.
Therefore, by conjunction to a
soul numerically the same the
man will be restored to matter
numerically the same.
Corporeitas autem dupliciter accipi potest. [7] Corporeity, however, can be

Uno modo, secundum quod est forma taken in two ways. In one way, it
substantialis corporis, prout in genere can be taken as the substantial
substantiae collocatur. Et sic corporeitas form of a body as it is located in
cuiuscumque corporis nihil est aliud quam the genus of substance. Thus, the
forma substantialis eius, secundum quam corporeity of any body is nothing
in genere et specie collocatur, ex qua else but its substantial form; in
debetur rei corporali quod habeat tres accord with this it is fixed in genus
dimensiones. Non enim sunt diversae and species, and to this the bodily
formae substantiales in uno et eodem, thing owes its having three
per quarum unam collocetur in genere dimensions. For there are not
supremo, puta substantiae; et per aliam in different substantial forms in one
genere proximo, puta in genere corporis and the same thing, by one of
vel animalis; et per aliam in specie puta which it is placed in the supreme
hominis aut equi. Quia si prima forma genus—substance, say; by
faceret esse substantiam, sequentes another in its proximate genus—
formae iam advenirent ei quod est hoc body or animal, say; and by
aliquid in actu et subsistens in natura: et another in its species—say man
sic posteriores formae non facerent hoc or horse. Since, if the first form
aliquid, sed essent in subiecto quod est were to make the being
hoc aliquid sicut formae accidentales. substance, the following forms
Oportet igitur, quod corporeitas, prout est would be accruing to that which
forma substantialis in homine, non sit already is actually a definite
aliud quam anima rationalis, quae in sua something (hoc aliquid), and
materia hoc requirit, quod habeat tres subsisting in nature; thus, the later
dimensiones: est enim actus corporis forms would not make a definite
alicuius. Alio modo accipitur corporeitas something, but would be in the
prout est forma accidentalis, secundum subject which is a definite
quam dicitur corpus quod est in genere something as accidental forms.
quantitatis. Et sic corporeitas nihil aliud Therefore, corporeity, as the
est quam tres dimensiones, quae corporis substantial form in man, cannot be
rationem constituunt. Etsi igitur haec other than the rational soul, which
corporeitas in nihilum cedit, corpore requires in its own matter the
humano corrupto, tamen impedire non possession of three dimensions,
potest quin idem numero resurgat: eo for the soul is the act of a body.
quod corporeitas primo modo dicta non in Another way of taking corporeity is
nihilum cedit, sed eadem manet. as an accidental form; in accord
with this one says a body is in the
genus of quantity. And corporeity
thus is nothing other than the
three dimensions which constitute
the character of body. Therefore,
although this corporeity yields to
nothingness when the human
body is corrupted, it cannot, for all
that, be an obstacle to the body’s
rising with numerical identity; the
reason is that corporeity taken in
the first way does not yield to
nothingness, but remains the
same.
Similiter etiam forma mixti dupliciter accipi [8] In the same fashion, also, the

potest. Uno modo ut per formam mixti form of a compound can be taken
intelligatur forma substantialis corporis in two ways. In one way it is so
mixti. Et sic, cum in homine non sit alia taken that by form of a compound
forma substantialis quam anima one understands the substantial
rationalis, ut ostensum est: non poterit form of the compound body. And
dici quod forma mixti, prout est forma thus, since there is not in man any
substantialis, homine moriente cedat in other substantial form than the
nihilum. Alio modo dicitur forma mixti rational soul, as was shown, one
qualitas quaedam composita et will not be able to say that the
contemperata ex mixtione simplicium form of the compound, as it is the
qualitatum, quae ita se habet ad formam substantial form, yields to
substantialem corporis mixti sicut se nothingness when man dies.
habet qualitas simplex ad formam Taken in a second way, a form of
substantialem corporis simplicis. Unde the compound is called that
etsi forma mixtionis sic dicta in nihilum certain quality which is composed
cedat, non praeiudicat unitati corporis and balanced from the mixture of
resurgentis. the simple qualities, and stands to
the substantial form of the
compound body as the simple
quality stands to the substantial
form of the simple body. Hence,
although the form of the
compounding when thus stated
yields to nothingness, this is not
prejudicial to the unity of the body
arising.
Sic etiam dicendum est et de parte [9] Thus, also, must one speak of

nutritiva, et sensitiva. Si enim per partem the nutritive part and the sensitive
sensitivam et nutritivam intelligantur ipsae part. For, if by sensitive part and
potentiae, quae sunt proprietates nutritive part one understands
naturales animae, vel magis compositi, those very capacities which are
corrupto corpore corrumpuntur: nec the natural properties of the soul,
tamen per hoc impeditur unitas or, better, of the composite, then,
resurgentis. Si vero per partes praedictas when the body is corrupted, they
intelligatur ipsa substantia animae are corrupted; nonetheless, this is
sensitivae et nutritivae, utraque earum est no obstacle to the unity of the one
eadem cum anima rationali. Non enim arising. But, if by the parts
sunt in homine tres animae, sed una mentioned the very substance of
tantum, ut in secundo libro ostensum est. the sensitive and nutritive soul is
understood, each of those parts is
identified with the rational soul.
For there are not three souls in
man, but only one, as was shown
in Book II.
De humanitate vero, non est [10] But, in speaking of humanity,
intelligendum quod sit quaedam forma one should not understand it as a
consurgens ex coniunctione formae ad kind of form coming forth from the
materiam, quasi realiter sit alia ab union of the form to the matter, as
utroque: quia, cum per formam materia though it were, really other than
fiat hoc aliquid actu, ut dicitur II de anima, each of the two, because, since
illa tertia forma consequens non esset by the form the matter is made
substantialis, sed accidentalis. Dicunt this actual something, as De
autem quidam quod forma partis eadem anima II [ 1] says, that third form
est et forma totius: sed dicitur forma partis following would be not substantial,
secundum quod facit materiam esse in but accidental. Of course, some
actu; forma vero totius dicitur secundum say that the form of the part is the
quod complet speciei rationem. Et same as the form of the whole: it
secundum hoc, humanitas non est aliud is called form of the part in that it
realiter quam anima rationalis. Unde patet makes the matter actual being,
quod, corrupto corpore, non cedit in but it is called form of the whole in
nihilum. Sed quia humanitas est essentia that it completes the species
hominis; essentia autem rei est quam essentially. In this way, humanity
significat definitio; definitio autem rei is not really other than the rational
naturalis non significat tantum formam, soul. Hence, clearly, when the
sed formam et materiam: necessarium body is corrupted it does not yield
est quod humanitas aliquid significet to nothingness. But humanity is
compositum ex materia et forma, sicut et the essence of man. The essence
homo. Differenter tamen. Nam humanitas of a thing, of course, is, what the
significat principia essentialia speciei, tam definition signifies; and the
formalia quam materialia, cum definition of a natural thing does
praecisione principiorum individualium, not signify the form alone, but the
dicitur enim humanitas secundum quam form and the ,matter. Therefore,
aliquis est homo; homo autem non est necessarily, humanity signifies
aliquis ex hoc quod habet principia something composite of matter
individualia, sed ex hoc solum quod habet and form, just as “man” does.
principia essentialia speciei. Humanitas Differently, never
igitur significat sola principia essentialia
speciei. Unde significatur per modum
partis. Homo autem significat quidem
principia essentialia speciei, sed non
excludit principia individuantia a sui
significatione: nam homo dicitur qui habet
humanitatem, ex quo non excluditur quin
alia habere possit. Et propter hoc homo
significatur per modum totius: significat
enim principia speciei essentialia in actu,
individuantia vero in potentia. Socrates
vero significat utraque in actu, sicut et
differentiam genus habet potestate,
species vero actu. Unde patet quod et
homo redit idem numero in resurrectione,
et humanitas eadem numero, propter
animae rationalis permanentiam et
materiae unitatem.

Salvation by St. Thomas

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Salvation by St. Thomas

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

5/4/2016 dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles4.

Ecce, haec ex parte dicta sunt [Douay, altered:] Lo, these things are said

Quia igitur debilis erat Dei cognitio [4] Therefore, since it was a feeble

pertingere poterat, ex intellectual glimpse, so to say—out of a

In qua quidem revelatione, In this revelation, in harmony with man, a

Hanc igitur triplicem cognitionem [6] It is this threefold cognition which Job

Quod vero subdit, quis poterit [8] But this addition, “Who shall be able to

Quia vero naturalis ratio per [11] But, since natural reason ascends to

Principium autem considerationis [1] Let us take the beginning of our study

Tradit igitur nobis sacra Scriptura [2] Sacred Scripture, then, hands on to us

Tamen ea quae coniunguntur Nevertheless, the additions in each

divinae generationis nomen very name of “divine generation.” For in

Considerandum tamen quod [1] Consideration must, of course, be

Sic igitur ex sacra Scriptura [3] Thus, then, are we taught from sacred

Quorum quidem consideraverunt [2] Some among these took into

Hanc autem positionem sacrae [4] Such was the position they were trying

Dicit enim dominus, Matth. ult.: [5] For our Lord says in Matthew (28:18):

Diligenter autem verba sacrae [11] However, those who diligently

Similis etiam ratio ex pluribus aliis [14] One can gather a similar

Amplius. Quaedam opera in [15] In sacred Scripture, moreover,

Scripturae de Christo secundum

Hanc autem positionem [2] They attempted to strengthen their

Haec autem fuit opinio [3] This was, of course, the opinion of the

Haec autem positio, etsi a [4] Now, the latter position differs from the

pater sit Christus et filius sui Christ and His very own son.

Scriptura tradit opinionem which Scripture treats: that the Son of

Hanc autem positionem confirmare [2] They used to try to strengthen this

Item. Apostolus dicit, I ad Tim. ult.: [4] The Apostle also says: “Keep the

Praeterea. Dominus dicit, Ioan. 14­ [5] Furthermore, our Lord says: “The

Adhuc. Natura patris non patitur [6] The nature of the Father, furthermore,

filium, et omnia dedit in manu eius. all things into His hand.” The Son,

Praeterea. Praeceptum recipere, [8] There is more. To receive a

defectus esse potest. In filio autem there can be no failure. But one finds a

Adhuc. Expresse in Scripturis [11] It is, furthermore, found expressly in

Est autem haec positio Arii et [14] Now, this is the position of Arius and

Item. Cum ratione creationis [4] Again, since by reason of creation the

cum filios dicimus aut discipulos, students or others who are in our charge

Praeterea. Si Christus verus filius [8] Moreover, if Christ be the true Son, of

Adhuc. Licet intellectus Angeli [10] Grant, furthermore, that the intellect

Amplius. Quicquid Deus habet in [11] Furthermore, whatever God has in

Praeterea. Apostolus dicit, Philipp. [12] What is more, the Apostle says that

intelligitur quam natura divina: sicut the divine nature, just as by the form of

Amplius. In Psalmo legitur non [14] Moreover, in the Psalms (88:7; 82:1)

Adhuc. Nulla substantia creata [15] Furthermore, no created substance

Praeterea. Nihil quod est in aliquo [16] There is more. Nothing which is in a

Praeterea. Cum propria actio [18] Furthermore, since the proper action

Sed quia posset Arianus dicere [19] But because an Arian might say that

quandoque congregatur ex diversis diverse powers in diverse agents, as

Item. Ultima nostra beatitudo in [21] Again, our beatitude is ultimately in

patrem. Et iterum in Psalmo dicitur: men may honour the Son, as they

Ex praemissis igitur et consimilibus [23] Taught, therefore, by those

Unde patet quod sola Ecclesiae [24] Wherefore it is clear that only in the

Sabellius tamen a Photino differt in Sabellius nevertheless differs from

Ex quo etiam patet quod vera filii [3] It is also clear from this that the true

Quod autem dominus dicit, pater From this it is also clear that in the same

Ex eo autem quod pater filio dare [5] From the fact that the Father is said

Similiter etiam apostolus, ad Similarly, the Apostle also says that God

in terra; et apostolus, ad Philipp. 2, disciples: “All power has been given to

Ex hoc autem manifestum est [8] Now, from this it is manifest how the

Et quod praecepta patris ad filium That the Father’s commandments to the

Similiter etiam patet quod per hoc [11] It is clear, and in the same way, that

Sic ergo per hoc quod pater [12] Thus, then, the fact that the Father

naturam: nam patri et filio commune hidden according to the divine nature,

Praeterea. Dominus dicit, Ioan. 14 [5] Furthermore, our Lord says: “The

Adhuc. Dicit dominus, Ioan. 1613, [3] Moreover, our Lord says, speaking of