which were concluded with the intention of edification: as we did in the homilies or short discourses on Genesis and Exodus, and especially in those which, though spoken by him in the style of a peroration, were translated by us in the manner of an explanation for the book of Leviticus. We undertook the labor of 689 filling in what was lacking for this very reason, lest the questions stirred up and left behind—which in the homiletic style of discourse is often wont to happen with him—should generate weariness for the Latin reader. For those things which we wrote on Joshua, and on the book of Judges, and on the thirty-sixth, and thirty-seventh, and thirty-eighth psalms, we translated simply as we found them, and not with much labor. Although, therefore, in the others we have mentioned above, we labored to supply what he had omitted, yet in this work on the Epistle to the Romans, because of the reasons we comprehended in the Preface, an immense and inextricable labor pressed upon us. But it was a delight to have indulged in these labors; if only, as we have experienced in others, malevolent minds do not return insults for our vigils, if they do not study to repay our labors with detractions and traps. For we are undergoing a new kind of guilt among them. They say to me: "In those things that you write, since many things of your work are held within them, give the title of your name, and write: 'Rufinus, for example, Books of Explanations on the Epistle to the Romans,' just as with secular authors," they say, "the title holds the name not of him who was translated from Greek, but of him who translated." But they grant me all this not out of love for me, but out of hatred for the author. Yet I, who defer more to my conscience than to a name, even if I appear to add something and supply what is missing, or shorten what is long, do not think it right to steal the title of him who laid the foundations of the work and provided the material for building the edifice. Let it surely be at the discretion of the reader, when he has approved the work, to whom he wishes to ascribe the merit of the work. For our purpose is not to seek the applause of readers, but the profit of those who are progressing. After this, indeed, the work calls us which was enjoined some time ago, but is now more vehemently urged by the blessed Bishop Gaudentius, namely, that the books of Clement, Bishop of Rome and companion and successor of the apostles, concerning the Recognitions, be translated into Latin. In which work I well know that labor multiplies labor, if it takes on its destiny. I shall certainly satisfy my friends in this: I will give my name to the title, while the name of the author nonetheless remains. For it will be written "Rufinus’ Clement." And if the Lord permits me to complete this, I shall return again to your desires, so that, God permitting, we may say something either on the books of Numbers or Deuteronomy (for this alone is missing for us from the Heptateuch), or on the remaining Epistles of the apostle Paul, which we can, as the Lord directs.
FRAGMENTA IN EPISTOLAM AD GALATAS
Ex initio libri primi. 690 From what the Apostle said: *Paul, an apostle not of men, nor through man, but through Jesus Christ*, it is clearly given to be understood that Christ Jesus was not a man, but was of a divine nature. For if he were a man, Paul would not have said what he says: *Paul, an apostle not of men*, A nor through man. For if Jesus was a man, and Paul was assumed into the apostolate through him, then surely he had been made an apostle through a man. But if he was an apostle through a man, he would never have said: "nor through man": but Paul clearly separates Jesus from human nature by these words. For it is not sufficient for him to have said: "nor through man"; but B he added, saying: *but through Jesus Christ*. Which, indeed, ...
A because he knew it was of a more excellent nature, for that reason he said that he was not assumed through man.
From what follows in his same book on that verse: *"But I make known to you, brethren, the Gospel which I have preached to you, that it is not according to man: for neither did I receive it from man, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."*
Observe, therefore, what he writes, for one who connects these things with the preceding ones will be able to understand, and to show to those who deny the deity of Jesus Christ, but proclaim him to be man alone, that he is not man, but God, Jesus Christ the Son of God. For thus does the Apostle speak: *Because the Gospel which I have preached to you is not according to man, but according to Jesus Christ.* He shows evidently, therefore, that Christ Jesus is not man: but if he is not man, without doubt he is God; nay, he shall be nothing else but God and man. And again, if it is true what Paul says, that B he did not receive the Gospel from man, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ, it is certain that Jesus Christ who revealed it is more than man. For it is foreign to man to reveal those things which are in secret and are veiled: which, even if it happens sometimes through man, yet it is not from man, but from him who speaks in man, Christ.
*And in another place.*
That also must be added to what we have said above, that the body of Christ was not foreign to earthly substance according to this, that he is the son of David, and the son of Abraham, as Matthew writes: *The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham*: and as Paul says, that Christ is of the seed of Abraham and of the seed of David according to the flesh. Therefore, what was said, that when forty days of fasting had been completed, and forty nights, he afterwards hungered, without doubt indicates this, that his body was also able to be emptied and filled in the same way as our bodies are accustomed to be. But if anyone should object to us the reason for this miracle of the forty days of fasting, it can easily be solved when that example also is applied of Moses and Elijah, C who are reported to have endured a fast in a similar way. But also that fact, that fatigued by the labor of the journey and the heat, sitting by the well he rests and is thirsty, what else does it indicate but that the element of bodily moisture was consumed by the fatigue of the nerves and the excessive heat of the sun? But that he was occupied with better things and delayed what he had wanted to drink and did not drink, it is not therefore to be said that he did not even suffer thirst. But also that fact, that he is frequently invited for dinners, and in the sight of all eats and drinks, he does not do this deceiving or falling the eyes of those who see, nor fictitiously, as some suppose, especially since he would take food and drink in such a way that he was even blamed by some as if for excessive gluttony, as if he D sought food and drink more greedily. But if anyone in a more violent manner wishes to affirm that these things were said because he ate by phantasy, and they did not know how that happened, it must be answered to these things from what the Lord himself said: *John the Baptist came neither eating nor drinking, and they say: He has a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say: Behold a man that is a glutton and a drinker of wine.* Since the Savior himself says that the Son of man came eating and drinking, how does anyone dare to say that he neither ate nor drank? Which, indeed, is manifest incredulity of his doctrine. But if he ate and drank, and the substance of wine and food was turned into his flesh, without doubt it was distributed through all the connections and perplexities of the limbs of his body. For a spiritual nature (as some feel about his body, which they do in a sufficiently ignorant and absurd way) it is impossible to receive the substance of wine and food. But if anyone brings forward unworthy and obscene inquiries to these things, asking if digestions also took place in the body; nothing absurd seems to be the confession according to the consequence of a corporeal nature. But if they even demand this to be affirmed by us with examples, it is to be shown that they inquire into these things quite foolishly. For where are these things reported to have happened even to the apostles, or to the other saints, or even to the impious and sinners, that it is requested about him in abundance? But even the reason for his circumcision will not generate anxiety for us, as we say that he, consistently with a human body, was also circumcised, and his foreskin was perhaps committed to the earth until the time; or if it is otherwise, it shall be searched for in another dispute. Yet this circumcision of his will sufficiently straiten those who are of the opposite view. For how could a spiritual body be circumcised by earthly iron? On account of which some of them were not ashamed to even publish books concerning the foreskin of his circumcision, by which they would endeavor to show that it passed into a spiritual substance. But not less will they be straitened who say that the body of Christ is an animal body. But also concerning his blood and the water which proceeded from his side pierced by the soldier, the same things must be felt. But to those who know what is heard through that which is said, that the punctures of the nails were in his body, it is manifestly declared that the flesh was earthly, that is, of human nature: which indeed was not such that it would avoid the quality of receiving wounds. What, if he had not also felt much of human infirmity in his very death, "My soul is troubled, and is sorrowful even unto death"? All of which evidently show that he did not speak falsely, but as a man: "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." The reason of sleep no less shows the same thing, when it is said that he was in the ship sleeping upon a pillow, as Mark reports, and al