of the mercy of God, by which we are justified gratis, he strives to teach that it is to be merited only by faith and works, saying: "To those asserting that the mercy of God is to be merited by faith and works, any man who is ignorant of the sense of Pelagian discretion would adjudge the Catholic voice." Whence, also, in the eleventh book, he impudently and brazenly asserts that through natural vigor, without the aid of grace, many not only before the coming of the Lord, but even before the law of the letter, were saved and attained to the full purity of heart and perfect justice, and deserved to become sons of God.
Denique in the ninth chapter of the same book, among other things, he says: "Since men were so endowed to the image and likeness of God that many even deserved to be called the sons of God, or—if we must limit ourselves to a few examples A —how many before the law of the letter, with the law of nature, which is the first grace of God, as we have said, instructing them, entered as it were the vestibule of salvation?" And again, after a few words: "Whence, he says, could Enoch have walked with God, or pleased God, unless the law infused into his heart had illuminated him by a secret magistracy, to such a degree that, tasting nothing earthly, he was wonderfully caught up by God from the earth? He, who in the first age of that century excelled the others by the merit of faith, taught that faith itself had been handed down to him along with the law of nature." And again, after some time: "How and how great," he says, "was the law he received in the first creation, the perfect justice of Noe also declared, who cultivated the general gifts of faith through a special devotion to the pursuit of virtues." If, according to his impious sense, Enoch could be purified from all earthly dregs to such an extent, by the vigor of nature, that he tasted nothing earthly, and Noe could arrive at perfect justice, then B Christ died in vain. If the wisdom of the flesh (which is hostile to God) could more fully purge a man through the vigor of nature and fulfill him with perfect justice, what need was there for God to have been taken up for the human race? But did the Apostle remain silent as to whence Enoch and Noe could please God, saying: "By faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God translated him: for before his translation he had testimony that he pleased God"? And the rest: "By faith Noe, having received an answer concerning those things which as yet were not seen, moved with fear, framed the ark for the saving of his house, by the which he condemned the world; and he was instituted heir of the justice which is by faith." The Apostle teaches that faith is not general, as Faustus insanely says, but special, saying: "For all men have not faith"; nor is it naturally in all, but is given by God, who worketh all in all. As also in another place the same Apostle says that which the most blessed Augustine set forth above: "Peace to the brethren, and charity with faith, from God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." Therefore, not through the law of nature, but through the grace of Christ have all the saints pleased God before the coming of the Lord. According to that C which the most blessed Peter also testifies in the Acts of the Apostles, saying: "Why tempt you God, to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, in like manner as they also." Let Possessor now go, and in his own destruction and that of those who agree with him, defend the Catholic books of Faustus, which the truth teaches to be totally contrary not only to the writings of the most holy man Augustine, but even to the sentiments of the supreme and principal apostles of Christ, as we have proven in this place by manifest reason. For I considered it necessary to insert here certain sentiments both from the preface of the errors of Faustus, and from the first and seventh chapters of the former book; because the same Possessor is accustomed to excuse himself cunningly, saying that he read no more than the eight chapters of the first book, so that at least, being confused, he might one day come to his senses and refrain from pronouncing as Catholic—having dared to pronounce it with his own mouth—that which he asserts he read. D
BY THE SAME: A LITTLE BOOK AGAINST THE ACEPHALI
The profession of the Catholic faith having been briefly set forth, we now proceed to answer the definitions of those who, falling into miserable ruin, with new and exquisite arguments, strive to introduce an impious dogma into the Churches of Christ, and while confessing God and man, the Word and the flesh, they foolishly and too impudently attempt to assert one nature in Christ after the union—because, they say, there is no nature without a person. To whom it is replied: If D after the union there is one nature in Christ, then there is no union of the flesh; but if there is no union of the flesh, why is mention made of an union? If, however, an union of the flesh has taken place, there is now in Christ not only the divine nature but also that of the flesh; therefore, there are without any doubt two natures in Christ after the union. But if, after the union was made, one and only the divinity remains in Christ, then the same Word of God is not simple, but composite and passible.
A For whatever is believed to subsist from an union is by no means, according to the truth, properly simple, but is understood to be entirely composite. Moreover, to opine this concerning the divinity of Christ alone is proven to be sacrilege. It remains, therefore, that the union, which effects the composition, avoids simplicity, and no doubt signifies the assumption of human nature by the Son of God. And therefore it is established that there are two natures in the Son of God after the union, namely, divinity and humanity, from which and in which the one and singular person of Christ subsists.
B Again, if after the union one nature is to be professed in the Son of God, then either only humanity is in Christ, or certainly only divinity. Furthermore, if there is no nature without a person, much less can a person exist without a nature. If, therefore, there is no nature without a person, and a person is not without a nature, then there are three natures of the divinity, not one. For there are without doubt three subsistences or persons, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But those who say this are entirely associated with the Arians, and are to be avoided with equal caution, because they are known to blaspheme similarly to them. Let us inquire, however, what that addition means for them when they say, "after the union." Is it because there were two natures in Christ before the union, and therefore they say "after the union," or do they profess that there was one nature in Christ even before the union? But if they say that there was one before the union, it is entirely superfluous to say "after the union," because according to them it is established that there always was and is one nature in Christ. C But if this is so, even mentioning the union is brought forward by them entirely deceitfully. For, if one nature remained in Christ both before and after, no union has been made at all, since there is no one who does not know that a union is made from the natures of diverse things. But if they were to say that there were two natures in Christ before the union, they are also convicted of saying without doubt that there were two persons in Christ before the union, because, according to them, there is no nature without a person. When they say this, who does not know that they are entangled in the snares of the Nestorian perfidy (which they flee from), as they are convicted of preaching a man full of God, not God become man. Furthermore, if there is no nature without a person, let us inquire of them: Whether, after the union of the Word and the flesh, they say there are two natures in Christ, or whether they deny it. For if they deny the essence of either the Word or of the flesh in Christ, they must either be joined entirely to the impiety of the Jews, who assert that Christ was a mere man, or be compared to the sacrileges of the Manichaeans, who deny the essence or nature of the flesh in Christ. If, however, they say that the Word is flesh in Christ, they unwillingly confess two essences of diverse natures by the very testimony of the names, because the names of "Word" and "flesh" are not the same; for the Word is the Word, and the flesh is the flesh. But because they do not want there to be a nature without a person, D without doubt, even thus, according to this foolish and impious definition of theirs, they themselves will rather find two persons to be preserved; for they cannot deny the Word and the flesh even after the union in Christ, as no one is unaware that their natures are diverse. But, they say, we confess that two natures ought not to be said to be in Christ after the union, because the number two cannot be undivided, since according to truth, every number is subject to division. Such and similar is the vanity with which their most impudent sort is wont to argue against the Catholic truth. And first, we are taught by most evident reason that no number subsists by itself, but in the natures of things. Secondly, if those things which are discerned and numbered according to something cannot at all subsist in unity, I ask, how do the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit—who are discerned from one another not in reality, but only by cognition—subsist not in division, but in the unity of nature?
But if these three are one, and observe the properties of their persons whole and perfect without confusion, and subsist not in division but in unity, it remains that we should no longer wickedly divide into reality itself all the things which we distinguish by numbering them according to cognition. For not even when we pronounce two diverse natures of flesh and soul do we divide one man into two, who we discern not in reality, but in cognition. Otherwise, let them divide first, if they can, not only in intellect but also in reality, color from splendor, and heat from the sun; then their foolish opinion might be established. But if they cannot do this, let them yield to the truth, and with us profess that there are two natures in Christ, which we do not divide in reality itself, but only discern and prove by cognition. If, however, they shall say: Just as one human nature is constituted from soul and flesh, which is pronounced by a singular, not a plural number, so from divinity and humanity one nature of Christ has been made. First indeed, I do not believe this example at all befits the Son of God, to whom flesh was not the cause of subsisting. Indeed, He who was born of the Father before the ages subsists immutably in His own person, but when the Word became flesh, it was a work of mercy. No one has dared to affirm that the human soul subsists somewhere before the flesh, and is subsequently inserted into the flesh. Truly, because there is no thing or nature that is not called by its own proper name, let them teach the name of the "one nature" which they contend is made from the Trinity and humanity. But if they wish to say: "The incarnate Word," or "one incarnate nature of God the Word," by the very fact that they say this, they are without doubt convicted of saying there are two natures in Christ, and they use the names of two natures, not one—namely, that which is incarnate, that is, the Word of God, and that which was assumed by Him, that is, the flesh. Therefore this is not the name of one thing, which might teach such an expressed signification of two diverse and united natures, as when it is said, "human nature," which no one doubts subsists from two, or rather, in two diverse natures, that is, of flesh and soul, but as if