§9Omni modo igitur cum pateret non posse ullas animas ab eo auctore separari, a quo lux ista non separaretur, iam quicquid adferrent, non acciperem admoneremque potius, ut eos mecum sequi mallent, qui omne, quicquid esset, quoniam esset, in quantumcumque esset, ex uno deo esse praedicarent.
In every way, therefore, since it was clear that no souls could be separated from that author from whom this light of ours was not separated, henceforth whatever they might bring, I would not accept it, and I would rather admonish them that they should prefer to follow with me those who would declare that everything, whatever existed, since it existed, in howsoever small a degree it existed, was from the one God.
Recitarent aduersum me uoces illas euangelicas: uos propterea non auditis, quia non estis ex deo; uos ex patre diabolo estis. ego quoque contra recitarem: omnia per ipsum facta sunt et sine ipso factum est nihil, et illud apostoli: unus deus, ex quo omnia, et unus dominus Iesus Christus, per quem omnia, et iterum eiusdem apostoli: ex quo omnia, per quem omnia, in quo omnia, insi gloria, hortarerque homines — si tamen homines inuenirem —, nihil nos iam quasi conperisse praesumeremus, sed quaereremus potius magistros, qui sententiarum istarum, quae nobis inter se pugnare uiderentur, pacem concordiamque monstrarent.
They might recite against me those evangelical words: "For this reason you do not hear, because you are not from God; you are of your father the devil." I also would recite in opposition: "All things were made through him, and without him nothing was made," and that of the apostle: "One God, from whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things," and again of the same apostle: "From whom are all things, through whom are all things, in whom are all things, to him be glory," and I would exhort men—if indeed I should find men—that we should no longer presume to have, as it were, found out anything, but should rather seek teachers who would show the peace and concord of those opinions which seemed to us to fight against each other.
non in una atque eadem auctoritate scripturarum cum alibi sonaret: omnia ex deo, et alibi: uos non estis ex deo, quoniam libros temere condemnare nefas esset, quis non uideret peritum doctorem, cui quaestionis huius solutio nota esset, inueniendum fuisse? qui profecto si esset bonus intellector et.
When, in one and the same authority of the Scriptures, it sounded in one place: "all things are from God," and in another: "you are not from God," since it would be an impiety to rashly condemn the books, who would not see that a skilled teacher, to whom the solution of this question was known, ought to have been found?
ut diuinitus dicitur, homo spiritalis. quoniam necessario faueret ueris rationibus, quas de intellegibili sensibilique natura, quantum potui, tractaui atque disserui. immo eas ipse multo melius et ad docendum aptius aperiret. nihil ab eo aliud de hac quaestione audiremus, nisi quemadmodum fieri posset, ut et nullum animarum genus non esset ex deo, et recte tamen peccatoribus et infidelibus diceretur: non estis ex deo. nam et nos fortasse inplorato in auxilium deo facile uidere possemus aliud esse uiuere, aliud peccare. et quamquam uita in peccatis in conparatione iustae uitae mors appellata sit.
Who indeed, if he were a good understander and, as it is divinely said, a spiritual man, since he would necessarily favor the true reasons which I have treated and discussed, as far as I was able, concerning the intelligible and sensible nature—indeed, he himself would open them much better and more fitly for teaching—we would hear nothing else from him on this question except how it could happen that both no class of souls was not from God, and yet it was rightly said to sinners and unbelievers: "you are not from God." For we too, perhaps, having implored God for help, could easily see that it is one thing to live, another to sin; and although life in sins, in comparison with a righteous life, has been called "death," yet both can be found in one and the same man, so that he is at the same time alive and a sinner.
utrumque tamen in homine uno posse inueniri, ut simul sit uiuus atque peccator. sed quod uiuus, ex deo, quod peccator. non ex deo.
But in that he is alive, he is from God; in that he is a sinner, he is not from God.
in qua diuisione utimur ea parte de duabus, quae nostrae sententiae conpetit, ut, cum dei conditoris omnipotentiam insinuare uolumus, etiam peccatoribus dicamus. quod ex deo sint — dicimus enim his, qui aliqua specie continentur, dicimus animantibus, dicimus rationalibus, dicimus postremo, quod ad rem maxime adtingit, uiuentibus, quae omnia per se ipsa diuina sunt munera-, cum autem malos arguere propositum est. recte dicimus: non estis ex deo. dicimus enim se a ueritate auertentibus, infidelibus, facinorosis.
In which division we use that part of the two which fits our opinion, so that, when we wish to insinuate the omnipotence of God the Creator, we say even to sinners that they are from God—for we say this to those who are contained in some species, we say it to living creatures, we say it to rational beings, we say it finally, which most pertains to the matter, to those who live, all of which are in themselves divine gifts—but when our purpose is to reprove the wicked, we rightly say: "you are not from God." For we say this to those turning away from the truth, to unbelievers, to criminals, to the shameful, and what contains the whole in one name, to sinners: all of which things again, who would doubt that they are not from God?
flagitiosis, et quod nomine uno totum continet, peccatoribus: quae rursus omnia ex deo non esse quis dubitet? itaque Christus peccatoribus id ipsum, quod peccatores erant et sibi non credebant, coarguens, quid mirum si ait: non estis ex deo. ex alia parte illa salua manente sententia quod omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et: omnia ex deo. nam si Christo non credere, Christi aduentum repudiare. Christum non recipere certum indicium esset animarum, quae non sunt dei. et ideo dictum esset: uos propterea non auditis. quia non estis ex deo, quomodo uera esset uox illa apostoli in ipso euangelii memorabili principio, qua dictum est: in sua propria uenit et sui eum non receperunt? unde sui. si non receperunt? aut unde ideo non sui. quia non receperunt? nisi quia homines peccatores, eo quod sunt homines. ad deum. eo uero, quod peccatores, ad diabolum pertinent.
And so, when Christ reproved in sinners that very fact, that they were sinners and did not believe in him, what wonder if he says: "you are not from God," while on the other hand that opinion remains safe and sound, that "all things were made through him," and "all things are from God." For if not believing in Christ, rejecting Christ's coming, not receiving Christ were a certain indication of souls which are not of God, and for this reason it had been said: "For this reason you do not hear, because you are not from God," how would that word of the apostle be true in the very memorable beginning of the Gospel, where it is said: "He came into his own, and his own received him not"? Whence "his own," if they did not receive him? Or whence on that account "not his own," because they did not receive him? Except because sinful men, in that they are men, belong to God, but in that they are sinners, they belong to the devil.
hic ergo partem naturae tenuit qui ait: sui eum non receperunt. ille uoluntatis qui ait: non estis ex deo. euangelista enim dei opera commendabat. Christus hominum peccata cohercebat.
He, therefore, held the part of nature who said: "his own received him not"; and he the part of the will who said: "you are not from God." For the evangelist commended the works of God; Christ restrained the sins of men.