22. But birth does not countenance this vain imagination; for such identity without differentiation excludes birth. For what is born has a father who caused its birth. Nor because the divinity of Him who is being born is inseparable from that of Him who begets, are the Begetter and the Begotten the same Person; while on the other hand He who is born and He who begets cannot be unlike. He is therefore anathema who shall proclaim a similarity of nature in the Father and the Son in order to abolish the personal meaning of the word Son: for while through mutual likeness one differs in no respect from the other, yet this very likeness, which does not admit of bare union, confesses both the Father and the Son because the Son is the changeless likeness of the Father. For the Son is not part of the Father so that He who is born and He who begets can be called one Person. Nor is He an emanation so that by a continual flow of a corporeal uninterrupted stream the flow is itself kept in its source, the source being identical with the flow in virtue of the successive and unbroken continuity. But the birth is perfect, and remains alike in nature; not taking its beginning materially from a corporeal conception and bearing, but as an incorporeal Son drawing His existence from an incorporeal Father according to the likeness which belongs to an identical nature.

IX. “And if any one, because the Father is never admitted to be the Son and the Son is never admitted to be the Father, when he says that the Son is other than the Father (because the Father is one Person and the Son another, inasmuch as it is said, There is another that beareth witness of Me, even the father who sent Me14    John v. 32.), does in anxiety for the distinct personal qualities of the Father and the Son which in the Church must be piously understood to exist, fear that the Son and the Father may sometimes be admitted to be the same Person, and therefore denies that the Son is like in essence to the Father: let him be anathema.”

22. Filius eo quod natus, nec ipse qui Pater, nec aliud quam Pater. Filium a Patre aliud volentes, ob distinctionem personae.---Sed nativitas non admittit hanc fabulam; quia unio non habet nativitatem. Quod enim natum est, habet nativitatis suae patrem. Neque quia indiscreta est nascentis a gignente divinitas, ideo ipse est et generator et genitus; cum non 0497B possit nisi alius atque alius esse et generans et natus, neque rursum dissimilis esse possit natus et generans. Anathema ergo est, qui in Patre et Filio naturae similitudinem ad abolendam Filii personalem significantiam praedicabit: quia cum in nullo differat res a re per mutuam similitudinem; similitudo tamen ipsa, non recipiens unionem, Patrem et Filium per id, quod Filius indemutabilis similitudo Patris est, confitetur. Non enim aut pars est Filius Patris, ut unus dici possit et natus et generans. Neque emanatio est, ut continenti fluxu per corporalem et individuum procursum idem ipse fluxus retentus in origine, ipsum sibi sit serie atque tractu cohaerenti origo quod fluxus. Sed perfecta nativitas est, et cum naturae similitudine manens: non conceptu 0497C et partu corporali corporaliter incohata, sed secundum ejusdem naturae similitudinem incorporalis 474 Filius ex incorporali Patre subsistens.

IX. «Et si quis, propterea quod numquam Pater Filius intelligitur, et quod Filius numquam Pater intelligitur, alium dicens Filium praeter Patrem, propterea quod alius sit Pater, alius sit Filius, secundum quod dictum est, Alius est qui testimonium perhibet mihi, qui me misit Pater (Joan., V, 32): propter hanc piam in Ecclesia intelligendam proprietatem personae Patris et Filii, timens ne quando idem intelligatur Filius et Pater, similem non dicat etiam juxta essentiam Patri: anathema sit.»