Sermons on the Song of Songs80 Sermon LXXX. An acute and profound argument respecting the image or Word of God, and the soul, which is created in that image : and concerning the error of Gilbert, bishop of Poictiers.1
Sermon LXXX. An acute and profound argument respecting the image or Word of God, and the soul, which is created in that image : and concerning the error of Gilbert, bishop of Poictiers.1
Some of you, as I have learned, find a reason for discontent, because, while I have for some days past taken pleasure in occupying you with the profound and wonderful mysteries contained in the words of the Bride, the discourses which I have delivered to you have been too little seasoned with moral reflections, 1 This sermon was preached after the Council, held at Rheims in the year 1148, in which Gilbert was condemned.
2. But someone will say to me: 'Why do you join these two together? What relation is there between the Word and the soul?' Much in every way. In the first place, there is so close an affinity between the nature of the One and that of the other, that the One is the Image and Likeness of God, the other made after that image. In the second place, the resemblance that is between them is a witness of that affinity. For the soul has been created, not only after the image, but in the likeness of it. Do you ask, In what respects is it like? Listen first, and hear in what respects it is in the Image of the Word. The Word is truth, and wisdom, and righteousness, and these constitute the image. Of what is it the image? Of [Him who is Truth, and Wisdom, and Righteousness. He who is the Image is, then, Righteousness of Righteousness, Wisdom of Wisdom, Truth of Truth, yea, Light of Light, and in a word, God of God None of these can be predicated of the soul, because it is not [at the present the Image of God. But it is capable of these excellences, and desirous of them, and, therefore, perhaps is shown to be in the image of the Word. It is of creatures the loftiest, since it is capable of that greatness, and the desire it feels for that is a mark of its uprightness. For we read that God made man upright (Eccles. vii. 29); and as for his greatness, his capacity, as has been said, is a conclusive proof of it. For it is of necessity that he who is in a certain image should be in conformity with that image, and not merely share in the empty name of the image; inasmuch as the archetypal Being Himself bears not His Name simply for the name's sake, but because it is expressive of His attributes. But you are told of Him who is the Image of that archetypal Being, that He was in the Form of God, and thought it not robbery to be equal with God (Phil. ii. 6). You see that His uprightness is shown by His being in the Form of God, and His greatness by His equality with Him; so THE IMAGE OR WORD OF GOD that uprightness being compared with uprightness, and greatness with greatness, it becomes manifest that the Image, and that which is made in that image [i.e., the soul], correspond in one of these respects; while the Image, and that Being of whom He is the Image, correspond in both. For it is He of whom you have heard holy David sing in a Psalm: Great is our Lord, and of great power (Ps. cxlvii. 5); and again, The Lord is upright... and there is no unrighteousness in Him (Ps. xcii. 15). Of that great and righteous God He is the Image, so that He is great, and He is righteous; and it is from Him that the soul, that is made in His image, has its likeness.
3. But I inquire: Has He who is the Image of God nothing more than the soul which is made in His likeness, for we ascribe to it also to be great and to be righteous? Assuredly, there is a very great difference. The one has received those qualities in a measure: the other has them according to His equality [with the Father]. Is there not still another difference? There is this: Upon the one either creation or condescending goodness has conferred them: but they belong to the other by His generation. And there is no doubt that this is a sign of far higher dignity. No one can fail to see that the one receives these qualities only by the bounty of God; but the Other has from God His very Nature and Substance, which is a condition far more exalted. For the Image of God is consubstantial with Him; and all that He appears to communicate to the same Image of Him is Essential to Both, not accidental. Notice also still another particular in which He who is the Image of God is immeasurably superior. To be great and to be righteous; who does not know that those two qualities are distinct in their nature? Yet in Him they are but one. And even more: they are one with Him. Not only is it with Him the same thing to be righteous and to be great, but His greatness and His righteousness are no other than His Being. It is not thus with the soul. Its greatness and its righteousness are both distinct from itself and distinct from each other. For if, as I have said above, the soul is great because it is capable of things eternal, and righteous because it yearns for the goodness everlasting, then the soul which does not desire nor seek for the things which are above, but those which are upon the earth, is not upright, but is bent downwards, and so ceases to be always great, though it remains always capable of eternal existence. For even if the soul should never receive it, it will always retain this capability; and thus the saying of the Scripture is realized, Surely man passeth as an image (Ps. xxxviii. 7, Douay), yet only in part, so that the immeasurable superiority of the Word, as possessing these qualities in their completeness, may clearly appear. For how is it possible that the Word should fall from being righteous and great, since He is Himself greatness and righteousness? Man, on the contrary, possesses these qualities in part, lest if he were wholly deprived of them, no hope of salvation should remain to him. For if [the soul should cease to be great, it would cease also to be capable of salvation, inasmuch as it is from this capacity, as I have said, that its greatness is derived. How, then, could it possibly hope for that which it was not capable of receiving?
4. It is, then, by the greatness which it still retains, even after having lost its righteousness, that man passes through this world in the image [of the Word; only he limps (so to speak) on one foot as he walks, and he has become an alienated son. For of such it was, I think, that these words were spoken: The children that are strangers have lied unto me, strange children have faded away, and have halted from their paths (Ps. xviii. 46, Douay). With great fitness are they styled strange children; for they are children, because they have retained that which made them great; and yet they are strange, because of the loss of their original righteousness. Nor would he have said have halted but 'have fallen/ or something like that, if they had divested themselves entirely of the image in which men were made. So then, now, man passes through the world in the image of the Word so far as relates to greatness; but as relates to righteousness, he, so to speak, halts; he is troubled and despoiled of that image; and the Scripture speaks thus of him: Every man walketh in a vain shew; surely they are disquieted in vain. Altogether in vain, for it goes on to say: He heapeth up riches, and knoweth not who shall gather them (Ps. xxxix. 6). And why is he ignorant, except that he bends down towards things low and earthly, and treasures up for himself nothing but earth? He does not know in the least for whom he is gathering those things which he confides to the earth, whether for the moths to devour, or for thieves to break through and steal, for robbers to pillage, or for fire to destroy. And therefore it is in the person of that unhappy man who contorts himself towards the ground, and broods over none but earthly things, that the melancholy declaration is made in the Psalms: I am troubled; am bmved down greatly; I go mourning all the day long (Ps. xxxviii. 6). He has experience in himself of the truth in that saying of the Wise Man: God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions (Eccles. vii. 29). And at once the voice of ridicule is addressed to him: Ban* down, that we may go over (Is. li. 23).
5. But how have we arrived at this point? Was it not thus, that we wished to show that greatness and righteousness (which are the two excellences that we had determined to be in the Image of God) are not one in the soul and with the soul, as we have shown it to be of faith that they are one in the Word and with the Word. And as to righteousness, it is quite plain from what has been said, that it is distinct both from the soul itself and from the greatness of the soul, since even when it no longer exists, the soul endures, and is still great. But in what way shall it be shown that the greatness of the soul is distinct from the soul itself? For this cannot be done in the same manner in which the distinction between the soul and its righteousness was demonstrated; the soul cannot be deprived of its greatness as it may be of its righteousness. Yet the greatness of the THE IMAGE OR WORD OF GOD soul is not the soul itself; for although the soul is not found without its greatness, yet the greatness itself is found also without (extra, beyond) the soul. Do you ask where? In the Angels. For the Angels are great in the same manner as the soul, namely, by the capacity they have for things eternal. It has been shown clearly that the soul is distinct from its righteousness, because it may be deprived of that righteousness; why, then, should it not be distinct from its greatness, which it cannot claim to be exclusively its own? If, then, the one of these qualities is not in every soul, and the other is not found in the soul alone, it is plain that both the one and the other is distinct from the soul. Also, no form is that of which it is the form. Now, the greatness of the soul is its form. For it cannot be said not to be the form of the soul because it is inseparable from it. All differences of substance are of this nature, not only those which are so proper to one thing that they cannot belong to any other, but also certain others which are common to many natures. The soul, then, is not [the same as its greatness, even as the blackness of a crow is not the crow, nor the whiteness of snow the snow, nor the faculty of reason or of risibility is the man who possesses them; and yet you will never find a crow without blackness, snow without whiteness, nor a man without the faculty of reason or of risibility. Thus also the soul and the greatness of the soul, although inseparable, are distinct from each other. How can they be otherwise than distinct, when the one is in the subject [in which it inheres], and the other is the subject and the substance? The only Nature which is supreme and uncreate, that is, God the Holy Trinity, possesses for Itself alone this pure, and unique simplicity of Essence, that there is not found in it one thing and another thing, here and there, one time and another time. For it abides in its own Self, It is all that It has, and what It is; It exists always, and in a manner unchanging and unchanged. All that in other natures is separated or different, is in it united and rendered alike, so that in It, number does not cause plurality, nor diversity change. It contains all places, and not being contained in any, sets in due order all things, each in its place. Beneath it pass all times; it is not subject to them. The future it does not await; it does not hold anything in remembrance as past, nor experience any as being present.
6. Let us withdraw ourselves, beloved, let us withdraw ourselves from those teachers of novelties, not dialecticians, but heretics, who, in their extreme impiety, argue that the greatness in which God is great, the goodness in which He is good, the wisdom in which He is wise, and the righteousness in which He is righteous, and lastly, the Divinity in which He is God, is not God. ' He is God/ they say, 4 by His Divinity, but the Divinity is not God. Perhaps it does not condescend to be God, because it is so great that it makes God to be what He is.' But if It is not God, what is It? For either It is God, or something which is not God, or It is nothing at all. Now, you do not allow that It is God; you do not pretend, I suppose, that It is 7. But the heretic says: 'What? Do you deny that He is God by His Divinity?' No; but I maintain that the same Divinity by which He is God is God Himself, that I may not be obliged to allow that there is anything more excellent than God. For I say also that He is great by greatness, but is Himself that greatness, that I may not rank anything as greater than God. And I confess that He is good by goodness, but that this goodness is no other than Himself, that I may not seem to recognise anything as better than He; and so with all other attributes. It is with gladness and confidence that I am going onward in the path of truth, that I adopt the conclusion of him who said: 4 God is great with no other greatness than that which He Himself is; for otherwise that greatness would be greater than God.' This was Augustine, the strongest hammer who has ever crushed heretics. If, then, any such thing may be properly said of God, it may more fitly and correctly be asserted that God is greatness, goodness, righteousness, wisdom, than to say God is great, good, righteous, or wise.
8. For this reason it was that in the Council lately held at Rheims by Pope Eugenius, that exposition made by Gilbert, Bishop of Poictiers, in his comment upon the words of Boethius' De Trinitate, which are themselves perfectly sound and orthodox, was deservedly adjudged by the Pope and the other Bishops to be perverse and altogether suspicious. For the Bishop commented upon them thus: 1 The Father is Truth, that is. He is true; the Son is Truth, that is, He is true; the Holy Ghost is Truth, that is, He is true. And these Three together are not three truths, but one Truth; that is to say, One Being who is true/ O explanation obscure and perverse! How much more appropriate and true it would be to say, on the contrary: ' The Father is true, that is, He is Truth; the Son is true, that is, He is Truth; the Holy Ghost is true, that is, He is Truth. And these Three are One Being who is true, that is, They are One Truth.
1 De Trinitate, Bk. V., c. 10, #i. II.
The IMAGE OR WORD OF GOD Which, indeed, he would have done had he deigned to imitate holy Fulgentius, who says: 1 One only Truth of One God, or rather one Truth which is One God, does not allow the service and the worship which is due to the Creator to be rendered to a creature* {Lib. de Fide Orthod. ad Donate cap. 5). He was a good defender of the faith who spoke so truly of the Truth, who had opinions so pious and Catholic respecting the true and pure simplicity of the Divine Substance, in which there can be nothing which is not Itself, and Itself is God. That book of the Bishop beforenamed contained other passages which differed from the rectitude of the faith, one of which I will quote as an example. For where his author (Boethius) says: 4 When it is said, God, God, God, this refers to the Substance, our commentator adds: ' Not what the Substance is, but by what It is/ But God forbid that the Church Catholic should assent to that proposition that there is any substance or anything at all by which God is, and which is not God.
9. But it is not against him personally that I say these things, since he, in the same Council, acquiescing humbly in the opinion of the other Bishops, has condemned with his own mouth both these and other statements which were found worthy of blame; but on account of those persons who are said to be still perusing and tran-scribing that book, against the apostolical prohibition promulgated at the same place, and who persist obstinately in following that Bishop in opinions which he has himself abandoned, preferring to have him for a master in his error, rather than in the correction of it And we have spoken not only for them, but on your account I have thought it desirable to make this digression, taking occasion from our having to consider the difference between the Image [of the Word and the soul which has been made in that Image, so that those who perhaps may at some time have drunk of those stolen waters, and have thought them pleasant (Prov. ix. 17), may reject them by the taking of this antidote, and, being purged in the stomach of their soul, may listen to that which remains to be said, according to my promise, of the resemblance of the soul to the Word. Thus they shall draw with joy from purer fountains; not mine, but those of the Saviour, the Bridegroom of the Church, Jesus Christ our Lord, who is above all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
1. Quidam vestrum, ut comperi, minus aequo animo ferunt, quod ecce jam per aliquot dies, dum stupori et admirationi sacramentorum inhaerere delectat, sermo quem ministramus, aut nullo fuerit, aut exiguo admodum moralium sale conditus. Id quidem praeter solitum. Sed num quae dicta sunt, revisere licet? Non procedo, nisi prius revolvam omnia. Eia, dicite, si recordamini, a quonam Scripturae loco coeperit defraudatio haec, ut rursum inde adoriar. Meum est resarcire damna, imo Domini, de quo totum praesumimus. Quo itaque repetendum principio? An inde: In lectulo meo quaesivi per noctes quem diligit anima mea? Ni fallor, inde. Abhinc tantum et deincps cura una fuit mihi, harum allegoriarum densa discussa caligine, ponere in lucem Christi et Ecclesiae secretas delicias. Igitur redeamus ad indaganda moralia. Nec enim mihi poterit esse pigrum, quod vobis commodum fuerit. Atque hoc ita congrue fiet, si quae dicta sunt in Christo et in Ecclesia, Verbo animaeque eadem nihilominus assignemus.
2. Sed dicit mihi aliquis: Quid tu duo ista conjungis? quid enim animae et Verbo? Multum per omnem modum. Primo quidem, quod naturarum tanta cognatio est, ut hoc imago, illa ad imaginem sit. Deinde, quod cognationem similitudo testetur. Nempe non ad imaginem tantum, sed ad similitudinem facta est. In quo similis sit quaeris? Audi de imagine prius. Verbum est veritas, est sapientia, est justitia: et haec imago. Cujus? Justitiae, sapientiae et veritatis. Est enim imago haec justitia de justitia, sapientia de sapientia, veritas de veritate, quasi de lumine lumen, de Deo Deus. Harum rerum nihil est anima, quoniam non est imago. Est tamen earumdem capax, appetensque et inde fortassis ad imaginem. Celsa creatura, in capacitate quidem majestatis, in appetentia autem rectitudinis insigne praeferens. Legimus quia Deus hominem rectum fecit, quod et magnum capacitas, ut dictum est, probat. Oportet namque id quod ad imaginem est, cum imagine convenire, et non in vacuum participare nomen imaginis, quemadmodum nec imago ipsa solo vel vacuo nomine vocitatur imago. Habes vero de eo qui imago est, quia cum in forma Dei esset, non rapinam arbitratus est esse se aequalem Deo. Ubi tibi utique ejus et in forma Dei innuitur rectitudo, et in aequalitate majestas: ut dum rectitudini rectitudo, et magnitudo magnitudini comparatur, consonanter sibi altrinsecus respondere appareat quod ad imaginem est, et imaginem; sicut imago quoque nihilominus in utroque respondet illi cujus imago est. Nempe ipse est, de quo sanctum David audistis in psalmis canentem, nunc quidem: Magnus Dominus noster, et magna virtus ejus; nunc vero: Rectus Dominus Deus noster, et non est iniquitas in eo. Ab isto recto et magno Deo habet imago ejus, ut et ipsa recta, et magna sit: habet anima, quae ad imaginem est.
3. Sed dico: Nihilne ergo amplius habet imago ab anima quae ad imaginem est, quia et huic magnum rectumque assignamus? Et plurimum. Haec ad mensuram accepit, illa ad aequalitatem. An non plus hoc? Adverte et aliud. Huic utrumque aut creatio, aut dignatio contulit; illi generatio. Atque id magnificentius esse non dubium est. Sed ne hoc quidem eminentius esse quis abnuat, quod cum a Deo huic, illi et de Deo utrumque sit, id est de Dei substantia. Est enim consubstantialis Deo imago sua, et omne quod eidem suae imagini impertiri videtur, ambobus est substantiale, non accidentale. Adhuc unum attende, in quo imago non parum eminet. Magnum et rectum (ista duo natura a sese discrepare quis nesciat?) in imagine unum sunt. Neque hoc solum: unum sunt et cum imagine. Imagini enim non modo id rectum est esse, quod magnum esse, sed etiam id magnum rectumque esse, quod esse. Animae non ita. Et magnitudo ejus, et rectitudo ipsius diversae ab ea, diversae ab invicem sunt. Si enim, ut supra docui, eo anima magna est, quo capax aeternorum; eo recta, quo appetens supernorum: quae non quaerit nec sapit quae sursum sunt, sed quae super terram, non plane est recta, sed curva, cum tamen pro hujusmodi magna esse non desinat, manens utique etiam sic aeternitatis capax. Neque enim illius aliquando non capax erit, etiamsi nunquam capiens fuerit, ut sit quomodo scriptum est: Verumtamen in imagine pertransit homo; ex parte tamen, ut eminentia Verbi appareat de ipsa integritate. Quo enim a magno rectove Verbum cadat, quod sic ea utique habet, ut sit quae habet? Vel ideo ex parte, ne si toto privaretur, non superesset spes salutis. Nam si desinat magna esse, et capax. Quippe de capacitate, ut dixi, aestimatur animae magnitudo. Quid vero sperare posset, cujus capax non foret.
4. Itaque per magnitudinem, quam retentat etiam perdita rectitudine, in imagine pertransit homo, uno quasi claudicans pede, et factus filius alienus. De talibus enim reor dictum: Filii alieni mentiti sunt mihi, filii alieni inveterati sunt, et claudicaverunt a semitis suis. Pulchre appellati sunt filii alieni: nam filii, propter retentam magnitudinem; alieni, propter amissam rectitudinem. Nec dixisset, claudicaverunt, sed: Corruerunt, aut quidpiam simile, si ex toto homines imaginem exuissent. Nunc vero secundum magnitudinem quidem in imagine pertransit homo; quantum vero ad rectitudinem, veluti claudicans, conturbatur et deturbatur ab imagine, Scriptura ita dicente: Verumtamen in imagine pertransit homo; sed et frustra conturbatur. Frustra omnino: nam sequitur: Thesaurizat, et ignorat cui congregabit ea. Cur ignorat, nisi quia inclinans se ad haec infima et terrena, thesaurizat sibi terram? Prorsus ignorat de his quae terrae committit, cui congregabit ea, tineaene demolienti, an furi effodienti; hosti diripienti, an igni devoranti. Et inde misero homini incurvanti se, et incubanti his quae in terra sunt, flebilis vox illa de psalmo: Miser factus sum, et curvatus sum usque in finem; tota die contristatus ingrediebar. In semetipso siquidem experitur veritatem illius sententiae Sapientis: Deus rectum hominem fecit, ipse autem se implicuit doloribus multis. Et continuo vox ludibrii ad eum: Incurvare ut transeamus.
5. Sed unde venimus huc? Nempe inde, cum docere vellemus, rectum magnumque (quo gemino bono definieramus imaginem) nec in anima esse unum, nec cum anima, quemadmodum in Verbo et cum Verbo ea unum esse fideli aeque assertione docuimus. Et de rectitudine quidem ex his quae dicta sunt, liquet quod diversa et ab anima sit, et ab animae magnitudine: quandoquidem ea etiam non existente, et anima manet, et magna. Verum magnitudinis animaeque diversitas unde docebitur? Non enim inde potest, unde rectitudinis animaeque monstrata est, cum non sicut rectitudine, ita et magnitudine sua privari anima possit. Non est tamen sua magnitudo anima. Nam etsi anima non invenitur absque magnitudine sua, ipsa tamen et extra animam reperitur. Quaeris ubi? In angelis. Inde quippe magni sunt angeli, unde animae magnitudo comprobatur, ex captu videlicet aeternitatis. Quod si eo constitit animam discrepare a rectitudine sua, quod ea carere possit: quidni aeque liqueat esse diversam et a sua magnitudine, quam sibi propriam vindicare non possit? Cum itaque nec illa in omni, nec ista in sola sit anima, patet utramque indifferenter differre ab ea. Item, Nulla forma est id cujus est forma. Est autem magnitudo forma animae. Nec enim ideo non forma, quia inseparabilis est illi. Hoc siquidem sunt substantiales differentiae omnes, hoc non modo proprie propria, sed et propria quaedam, hoc etiam aliae innumerabiles formae. Non igitur sua magnitudo anima, non magis quam sua nigredo corvus, quam suus candor nix, quam sua risibilitas seu rationalitas homo: cum tamen nec corvum sine nigredine, nec sine candore nivem, nec hominem, qui non et risibilis sit et rationalis, unquam reperias. Ita et anima, et animae magnitudo, etsi inseparabiles, diversae tamen ab invicem sunt. Quomodo non diversae, cum haec in subjecto, illa subjectum et substantia sit? Sola summa et increata natura, quae est Trinitas Deus, hanc sibi vindicat meram singularemque suae essentiae simplicitatem, ut non aliud et aliud, non alibi quoque et alibi, sed ne modo quidem et modo inveniatur in ea. Nempe in semet manens, quod habet est, et quod est, semper et uno modo est. In ea et multa in unum, et diversa in idem rediguntur, ut nec de numerositate rerum sumat pluralitatem, nec alterationem de varietate sentiat. Loca omnia continet, et quaeque suis ordinat locis nusquam contenta locorum. Tempora sub ea transeunt, non ei. Futura non exspectat, praeterita non recogitat, praesentia non experitur.
6. Recedant a nobis, charissimi, recedant novelli, non dialectici, sed haeretici, qui magnitudinem, qua magnus est Deus, et item, bonitatem, qua bonus, sed et sapientiam, qua sapiens et justitiam, qua justus, postremo divinitatem, qua Deus est, Deum non esse impiissime disputant. Divinitate, inquiunt, Deus est, sed divinitas non est Deus. Forsitan non dignatur Deus esse, quae tanta est ut faciat Deum. Sed si Deus non est, quid est? Aut enim Deus est, aut aliquid quod non est Deus, aut nihil. Equidem non das Deum esse, sed ne nihilum quidem, ut opinor, dabis, quam usque adeo necessariam Deo esse fateris, ut non modo absque ea Deus esse non possit, sed ea sit. Quod si aliquid est quod non est Deus: aut minor erit Deo, aut major, aut par. At quomodo minor, qua Deus est? Restat ut aut majorem fatearis, aut parem. Sed si major, ipsa est summum bonum, non Deus; si par, duo sunt summa bona, non unum: quod utrumque catholicus refugit sensus. Jam de magnitudine, bonitate, justitia, sapientiaque, idem per omnia, quod de divinitate, sentimus: unum in Deo sunt, et cum Deo. Nec enim aliunde bonus quam unde magnus, nec aliunde justus aut sapiens quam unde magnus et bonus, nec aliunde denique simul haec omnia est quam unde Deus, et hoc quoque nonnisi se ipso.
7. Sed dicit haereticus: Quid? Deum divinitate esse negas? Non, sed eamdem divinitatem, qua est, Deum nihilominus assero, ne Deo excellentius aliquid esse assentiar. Nam et magnitudine dico magnum, sed quae ipse est, ne majus aliquid Deo ponam; et bonitate fateor bonum, sed non alia quam ipse est, ne melius ipso aliquid mihi videar invenisse; et de caeteris in hunc modum. Securus et libens pergo inoffenso, ut aiunt, pede in ejus sententiam qui dicebat: « Deus nonnisi ea magnitudine magnus est quae est quod ipse. Alioquin illa erit major magnitudo quam Deus. » Augustinus hic est, validissimus malleus haereticorum. Si quid itaque de Deo proprie dici possit, rectius congruentiusque dicetur: Deus est magnitudo, bonitas, justitia, sapientia, quam: Deus est magnus, bonus, justus aut sapiens.
8. Unde non immerito nuper in concilio quod papa Eugenius Remis celebravit, tam ipsi quam caeteris episcopis perversa visa est et omnino suspecta expositio illa in libro Gilleberti episcopi Pictavensis quo super verba Boetii de Trinitate, sanissima quidem atque catholica, commentabatur hoc modo: « Pater est veritas, id est verus; Filius est veritas, id est verus; Spiritus sanctus est veritas, id est verus. Et hi tres simul non tres veritates, sed una veritas, id est unus verus. » O obscuram perversamque explanationem! Quam verius saniusque per contrarium ita dixisset: Pater est verus, id est veritas; Filius est verus, id est veritas; Spiritus sanctus est verus, id est veritas. Et hi tres unus verus, id est una veritas. Quod quidem fecisset, si sanctum dignaretur Fulgentium imitari, qui ait: « Una quippe veritas unius Dei, imo una veritas unus Deus non patitur servitium atque culturam creatoris creaturaeque conjungi. » Bonus corrector, qui veracissime de veritate loqueretur, qui pie catholiceque sentiret de vera et mera divinae simplicitate substantiae, in qua nihil esse possit, quod ipsa non sit, et ipsa Deus. Quanquam manifestius in nonnullis locis aliis a rectitudine fidei liber ille praefati episcopi visus est discrepare; quorum, verbi causa, adhuc unum pono. Nam dicente auctore, « Cum dicitur, Deus, Deus, Deus, pertinet ad substantiam: » noster commentator intulit, « Non quae est, sed qua est. » Quod absit, ut assentiat catholica Ecclesia, esse videlicet substantiam, vel aliquam omnino rem qua Deus sit, et quae non sit Deus!
9. Sed haec minime jam contra ipsum loquimur; quippe qui in eodem conventu sententiae episcoporum humiliter acquiescens, tam haec quam caetera digna reprehensione inventa proprio ore damnavit; sed propter eos qui adhuc librum illum, contra apostolicum utique promulgatum ibidem interdictum, transcribere et lectitare feruntur, contentiosius persistentes sequi episcopum, in quo ipse non stetit, et erroris quam correctionis magistrum habere malentes. Non solum autem sed et propter vos, occasione accepta de differentia imaginis et animae, quae ad imaginem facta est, operae pretium credidi excursum hunc facere: ut si qui forte ex aquis furtivis, quae dulciores videntur, aliquando aliquid biberint, sumpto antidoto, evomant illud, et purgato mentis stomacho, ad id quod secundum promissionem nostram dicendum de similitudine superest accedentes, puriora jam in gaudio non de nostris hauriant, sed de fontibus Salvatoris, sponsi Ecclesiae Jesu Christi Domini nostri, qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in saecula. Amen.