Dogmatic Fragments

THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA DOGMATIC FRAGMENTS

FROM THE BOOKS ON THE INCARNATION OF THE SON OF GOD

Theodore, from the first book *On the Incarnation*, interpreting the one who makes the confession of Peter, in which he says: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." ^A Just as Nathanael is shown to have had no knowledge of the divinity of Christ through a confession of this kind (for the Jews and Samaritans, hoping for such things, were far from the knowledge of the Word of God), so also Martha, through that confession of hers, is proved not to have had knowledge of his divinity at that time; and clearly, neither did blessed Peter. For it was as yet sufficient for them, as they received that revelation, to accept something singular and greater regarding Him than the imagination of other men. But after the resurrection, when they were led by the Spirit to knowledge, they then received a perfect knowledge of the revelation, so that they might know that the singular [status] that came to Him beyond other men did not come through some mere honor from God, as it is in the case of other men, but through the union with the Word of God, by which He is partaker of every honor after having ascended into heaven.

Theodore, from the second book *On the Incarnation*. The man Jesus is likewise in no way different from other men who are connatural [to Him], save for the grace which He gave to them; but the grace given does not change nature; yet after the destruction of death, God bestowed upon Him a name which is above every name.

Theodore, from the same book. ^B But my brothers, who are sons of the same mother as I, say to me: "Do not separate the man and God, but call the man one and the same." I say He is connatural to me, I say He is God. If I say He is connatural to God, I say, "How is man and God one?" Is the nature of man and of God, of the Lord and the servant, of the Creator and the created, the same? Is man consubstantial to man, and God consubstantial to God? How then can man and God be one by union, who saves and is saved, who is before the ages, and who appeared from Mary?

From the fifth book. When one discerns the natures, he necessarily finds one as one thing and the other as another; and I do not think this is repugnant, since it is granted that one is the Word of God by nature, and the other is that which was assumed, whatever that may be. ^C Meanwhile, in this regard, He is found to be the same person, not at all by the natures being confused, but on account of the union which was made of the assumed with the Assumer. For if it is granted entirely that this is some other thing from that in nature, and it is manifest that what was assumed is not equal to the Assumer, nor is this similar to that, nor is the assumed the same as that which assumed, it is manifest that He Himself will be found the same by the union of person. Thus, therefore, it was necessary to divide those things which are about Christ: for nothing that is contrary is in these divisions, for these have much in common even with the divine Scriptures. Thus, there comes about neither a confusion of natures nor some perverse division of person. For let the definition of the natures remain unconfused, and let the person be known as undivided. That, indeed, is by the property of nature, that which was assumed being divided from the Assumer; but that is by the union of person, in one appellation being considered the whole, whether the nature of the Assumer or even of the assumed; and, if I may so speak, in the appellation of the Son we simultaneously call upon the Word of God, and we co-signify the assumed nature, whatever that may be, on account of the union which it has with Him.

From the sixth book. If, therefore, we seem to them to be justly called "man-worshippers" for calling Christ man, Scripture taught all men this before we said it, through those things by which it does not refuse to call Him man, just as we showed above in most places that Christ is called by this name. But they say that those who call Christ a mere man must be called man-worshippers: this is now an open lie, if indeed they wished to say this. For no one ever heard us saying these things; and I think that neither can they themselves sustain telling so open a lie: not because they are not conscious of the lie, but because they see that they can very easily be refuted; although, if one cares little for it, perhaps this happens. We—

^A however, ask: do we not reckon that it is a matter of the highest madness to say these things, that is, to deny the divinity of the Only-Begotten, or what reason now remains for us to be separated from the heretics? For what reason do we endure such and so great persecutions? Or who is ignorant that war is always being waged against us by the heretics? Every mine and every desert place is filled with our people on account of the doctrine of piety. And after a little: When the blessed Meletius, he says, first endured all these things, and many then with him throughout the provinces ^B and cities and regions were held by the heretics, for what reason? Is it not because they confessed that the Lord Christ is true? Is it not because they preached the true Son of God, begotten from the paternal essence, existing always simultaneously with the Father who begets Him, adding also a pious confession concerning the Holy Spirit? How, therefore, can we who have suffered so much on account of this confession endure calumny from them, they calling Him a mere man, when the facts themselves refute this calumny?

Of Theodore, From His Book VII, On the Incarnation

If, then, we understand how the indwelling occurs, we shall also know the manner, and what the difference of the manner is. Therefore, some have declared the indwelling to have taken place by substance; others, however, by energy. Let it be examined, then, if either of these is true. And first, let this be conceded to us: whether He dwells in all, or not. But that He does not dwell in all is manifest; for God promises this to the saints as something extraordinary; or, in short, to those whom He wills to be ^C dedicated to Him. Or what, then, was He promising when He said, *I will dwell in them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be My people* (Lev. xxvi, 12; II Cor. vi, 16), as if about to bestow upon them something extraordinary, if indeed all men commonly participate in this? Wherefore, if He does not dwell in all—for this is manifest, I do not say in all things that exist, but not even in all men—there must be some proper manner of indwelling, by which He is present alone in those in whom He is said to dwell. Now, to say that God dwells [in them] by substance is of the most unbecoming things. For it is necessary otherwise to include His substance only in those in whom He is said to dwell; and He will be outside all other things: which is absurd to say of an infinite nature, which is everywhere and is circumscribed by no place. ^D Or, if they say that God is everywhere by reason of substance, it is necessary that He communicate His indwelling to all things; and not only to men, but to irrational animals, and even to inanimate things, if we say that His indwelling occurs by substance. Both of these are evidently unbecoming: for to say that God dwells in all things is confessed to be plainly among the absurdities; and to circumscribe His substance is unbecoming. Therefore, to say that the indwelling occurs by substance would be of the most foolish things. The same can be said concerning energy, or operation. For either it is again necessary that the operation be circumscribed by him...

^A in those only (in which, that is to say, he dwells), and how will it be true that God provides for all things, and governs all things, and that he operates in all things what is fitting? Or, if we say that he is imparting his operation to all—which indeed is becoming and consequential, since all things are empowered by him so that each may consist and operate according to its own nature—then we shall say that he is dwelling in all. Therefore, it cannot be said that the inhabitation of God occurs either by substance or by operation. What, then, is left? By what manner of speech shall we use, which in these cases will seem to be reserved in a way peculiar to them?

It is clear, therefore, that it is fitting to say that the inhabitation comes about by *eudokia* (that is, by good pleasure). *Eudokia* is called the best and most excellent will of God, which he performs when he is pleased with those who have made it their business to dedicate themselves to him, being derived from "well" and "seeming good to him" concerning them; this term is habitually taken and used by the Scripture. Thus, the blessed David says: "He will not take pleasure in the strength of the horse, nor will he be pleased with the legs of ^B a man" (Ps. CXLVI, 10, 11). "The Lord taketh pleasure in them that fear him, and in those who hope in his mercy" (Ps. CXLVI, 11). By saying this, he means that he does not judge to help others, nor does he wish to cooperate with others, but says that these—those who fear him—these he holds in great account, and it is his pleasure to cooperate with and protect them.

Thus, therefore, it is fitting to speak concerning inhabitation. For being infinite and uncircumscribed by nature, he is present to all; but by good pleasure, he is far from some, and near to others. For according to this sense it is said: "The Lord is near to them that are of a broken heart, and will save the humble in spirit" (Ps. XXXIII, 19); and elsewhere: "Cast me not away from thy face, and take not thy holy Spirit from me" (Ps. L, 13). For he becomes near by the disposition of those who are worthy of this nearness; and again, he becomes far from those who sin, not being separated by his nature, nor by this becoming nearer, but creating the effect of both by the habit of his will. Just as, therefore, by good pleasure he becomes near and far (for it is manifest from what has been said what we mean by *eudokia*; for this reason, indeed, we have interpreted with all diligence what meaning this name declares), so also by good pleasure he effects the inhabitation, ^C not indeed circumscribing his substance or operation in these, while being separated from others; but rather he is present to all by substance, but separated from the unworthy by the state of his disposition (that is, of affection). For in this way his uncircumscribed nature is better preserved for him, if it appears that he does not serve it as if by some necessity of the uncircumscribed nature of his own substance. For if he who is present everywhere by substance were also present by good pleasure, he would again be found serving a necessity, not now displaying his presence according to his will, but having a will consequent upon the infinity of his nature; but since he is present to all by nature, and is separated by will from those whom he wishes, the unworthy receive no ^D benefit from the presence of God; and truly, there is preserved for him both the wholeness and the uncircumscribed character of his nature.

^A

Thus, therefore, he is present to some by his good pleasure, while he is separated from others, as if by his substance he were separated from the rest, even while he was with them. In whatever manner, therefore, the indwelling takes place by good pleasure, the good pleasure varies the mode of the indwelling. For that which effects the indwelling of God—and which, having regard to his essence, makes him who is present everywhere to dwell in some and in very few—this precisely designates the mode of the indwelling. For as the substance is present to all, yet is not said to dwell in all, but only in those to whom he is present by good pleasure; so, although he may be said to dwell, an equality of indwelling is not found in all, but rather the mode of the indwelling will be consonant with the good pleasure. When, therefore, he is said to dwell in the prophets, or in the apostles, or finally in the righteous, he effects the indwelling as in the righteous—that is, as one well-pleasing—resting in them as in those endowed with virtue. Yet in him (Christ, that is), we do not say the indwelling took place in this way—for we would never proceed to such a pitch of madness—but as in the Son. For thus, being well-pleased, he dwelt within.

But what is meant by "as in the Son"? It is that, having dwelt within, he united to himself the whole that he had assumed, and he caused him to share in that entire honor which he who dwelt within—being by nature the Son—willed to have in common with him. So that it pertained to one person according to the union ^B with him, and yet he willed to communicate every princedom with him, and thus to perform all things in him, so that he will carry out the judgment of the whole world and the examination through him and through his coming, so that the distinction in those things which are specific according to nature is understood.

From the same book

As, therefore, although in the future our body and soul will be perfectly governed by the Spirit, we nevertheless possess here, in part, a kind of first-fruits, by which, being helped by the Spirit, we are not forced to follow the cogitations of the soul; so the Lord, even if afterward he had entirely within him God the Word working all things, and having every operation inseparable from himself, yet even before that he had him working in him in the highest degree, in the things that were necessary; and he was allowed meanwhile, before the cross, for our benefit, to fulfill the virtue for us by his own purpose, though being incited by him in these things and confirmed to complete what he ought to do. For he had from the very beginning, when he was being formed in the womb, a union with him. But when he reached the age which is by nature suitable for men to discern ^C the evil from the good—indeed, even before that age, he showed a faculty for discerning these things more briefly and quickly than other men; for while for other men

^A the power of discernment does not arise at the same time or in the same way, as some attain what is required more quickly through an abundance of wisdom, while others acquire it over a longer period through practice, this came to him more swiftly, in an exceptional manner, beyond the common age of others. It was fitting that he should have something more in those things which pertain to man, especially since he was not formed by the union of man and woman according to the common nature of humans, but was fashioned by the divine operation of the Holy Spirit.

He also possessed an uncommon inclination toward the better ^B through his union with the Word of God, for which he had been deemed worthy according to the foreknowledge of the Son of God, who had united him to Himself from the beginning. Therefore, on account of all these things, immediately along with his discernment, he possessed a great aversion to evil, while adhering to the good with an inseparable love; and, as he received the cooperation of the Word of God in a manner analogous to his own resolve, he remained from then on immutable against any change for the worse. This he maintained both by his own will, and because his purpose was thus preserved for him by the cooperation of the Word of God. He pursued the most perfect virtue with the greatest ease, whether he was keeping the law before his baptism, or living the common life in the state of grace after his baptism, of which he provided us with the model, becoming in this way a certain road for us.

So then, after the resurrection and the ascension into the heavens, he proved himself ^C to be worthy of the union by his own will—he who had previously assumed this union in his very formation according to the good pleasure of the Lord—and he subsequently displayed a perfect demonstration of that union, having no activity of the Word of God that was separate or severed, since he had God working all things within him on account of his union with Him.

Thus, therefore, before the cross, we see him hungry, we know him to be thirsty, we learn that he is afraid, and we find that he is ignorant, since he contributed the purpose of virtue from himself. And a witness to these things is the prophet Isaiah, saying: *For before the child knows how to distinguish good from evil, he will resist evil in order to choose the good* (Isa. vii, 15, 16), clearly meaning by "discernment," hating the one and loving the other. For choice always happens through the discernment between the better and the worse. How then does the child do this before he knows? That is, before he reaches that age in which it is customary for other men to perform the discernment of things to be done, since he possessed something more and exceptional beyond other men. For if, even among us, there are often found children young in age but showing such ^D a display of wisdom that they lead those who see them to wonder, because they possess a prudence greater than their age,

^A it was fitting that this man should surpass all men who are like him.

From the same book.

*Jesus increased in wisdom and in years, and in favor with God and man.* He grew in years as time progressed; in wisdom, he acquired understanding as time proceeded; in favor, he pursued virtue in accordance with his understanding and knowledge, from which the grace from God received its increase in him. And in all these things he increased before God and man—men seeing his progress, and God not only seeing it, but bearing witness to it and cooperating in what was being done. It is therefore also manifest that ^B he fulfilled virtue more perfectly and with greater ease than other men were able to perform it, inasmuch as God, who had united him to Himself at the very beginning of his formation, afforded him greater cooperation from Himself for the accomplishment of what was necessary, governing all things for the salvation of all, urging him on toward what is more perfect, and for the most part alleviating his labors, whether they pertained to the soul or to the body; and thus He rendered the fulfillment of virtue greater and lighter for him.

From the same book.

For the one assumed was united to God from the beginning according to foreknowledge, having received the commencement of the union in the very formation in the womb. But once he was deemed worthy of the union, he obtained everything that it was fitting for a man united to the Only-Begotten and Lord of all to obtain, being endowed with greater things than others, ^C in proportion to the excellence of the union that occurred for him. Therefore, he was endowed with the indwelling of the Spirit before others, and he was endowed with this not in the same way as the rest. For he received the whole grace of the Spirit into himself; to others, however, he provided a participation in the whole Spirit for their part. And thus it came about that the whole Spirit operated in him. Therefore, he who spoke, in so far as the voice resounded, was man; but the power of the things said was manifold and various. ^D

From Book VIII.

*And the glory which You gave me I have given them.* Which glory? Namely, to partake of adoption. For he himself received this according to his humanity, having been baptized first in the Jordan, wherein our baptism was prefigured in him as in a type; and the regeneration taking place was confirmed by the testimony of His voice who said: *This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.* And the Spirit, descending, remained upon him, just as it was to be that we also would partake of this Spirit in him; which indeed, in an outstanding way, [was given to him]

^A by coming unto us through the knowledge of the Word toward God, partaking of those things which he possesses as a Son by nature.

From the same book.

It is therefore clear from every side that any mixing is superfluous, unseemly, and inapplicable to each of the natures, since each remains indissolubly in itself. It is manifest, however, what is appropriate for the union; for through this, the natures having been brought together, they accomplished one person according to the union. ^B Thus, that which the Lord says concerning the man and the woman, "So that they are no longer two, but one flesh" (Matt. XIX, 6), we also might ourselves say, with reason, according to the rule of union: so that they are no longer two persons, but one, naturally the natures being distinct; for just as there it does not harm the number of the duality that they are called one flesh—for it is manifest in what way they are said to be one—so here too the union of the person does not do harm to the difference ^C of the natures. For when we distinguish the natures, we speak of the perfect nature of God the Word, and a perfect person—for it is not permitted to call a hypostasis without a person—and similarly also a perfect nature of man, and a perfect person. When, however, we look to the copulation, then we speak of one person.

From the same book.

In the same way here, we say there is a peculiar substance of God the Word, and also a peculiar substance of the man; for the natures are distinct, but one person is constituted by the union. Wherefore here too, when ^D we set out to distinguish the natures, we say that the person of the man is perfect, and likewise that of the divinity. But when we look to the union, then we proclaim the one person [comprised of] both natures, with the humanity receiving honor from the creation, and the divinity operating in it all that was fitting.

From the tenth book.

Here, then, we have found that the expression "it became" can by no means be said otherwise than as "it seemed to be"—which we have also taught in the divine Scripture and most especially concerning the Lord, more accurately in other places above; for "it seemed to be," The Word became flesh. But "it seemed to be" is not according to [the meaning that he did] not take true flesh, but according to its not having been brought into being [as such]. For when it says he "took," it does not speak according to appearance, but according to truth; but when it says "it became," then [it speaks] according to appearance; for he was not changed into flesh. One must therefore attend to the mind of the Evangelist; for thus we shall know the power of what is being said.

From the same book.

For what is said among us according to the relation in place, this, in God, is said according to the relation of [index: entries preserved]

of ^A will. Just as we say of ourselves in this place, that is, "I have come to be," in place of "I was," so also in God we say, "He has come to be," in this; because what in us is caused by the transition from place to place, this in God is caused by the will, who is by nature everywhere.

From the tenth book. ^B Just as through such voices from divine Scripture we are instructed about the differences of natures, so too we learn of their union, as often as it brings the properties of both natures into one, and speaks as if of one certain thing. For this is simultaneously to show both the different natures and the union of the person: from the difference of the things that are said, the difference of the natures is understood; but when they are brought together, we perceive a manifest union. Therefore, the blessed evangelist John says: "The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said: Behold the Lamb of God, behold who takes away the sins of the world. This is he of whom I said, for he came after me, the man who was made before me, because he was prior to me, and I did not know him" (John 1, 29). For here, by saying, "He saw Jesus coming to him, and said: Behold the Lamb of God," it seems to me that he manifests his humanity. ^C For this is what John the Baptist was seeing, this was what had undertaken death, the body clearly, which was offered for the whole world. But what follows, "Who takes away the sins of the world," by no means now applies to the flesh. For it was not of that [flesh] to take away the sin of the whole world, but this was certainly the work of divinity.

From the tenth book or sermon. "And there appeared to him an angel from heaven strengthening him. And being in agony he prayed more intently. And his sweat became like drops of blood running down upon the earth" (Luc. XXII, 43, 44). We understand therefore from these things that Christ had indeed endured a struggle, and clearly not a common one.

From the same book. What consistency, however, did that statement have: "Who descended from heaven, and is in heaven" (Joan. III, 13)? For the one destroys the other. To have descended from heaven destroys "to be in heaven," and to be there destroys "to have descended." But he descended according to his indwelling in man; yet he is in heaven according to the uncircumscribed nature, being present to all.

From the same book. Let us consider, therefore, who the man is about whom he is astonished and marvels, that the Only-Begotten deemed it worthy to remember him and to pay him a visitation; that this was not said of every man, has been demonstrated in what went before; that it was not about just any one of the common people, this also is clear. But that we may omit all else, let us embrace the apostolic testimony, which is more credible to all.

From the eleventh book. ^D To these things, therefore, what we have said suffices, where we have shown the difference of the natures and the union of the person, and that according to the natures this one receives the benefit, while that one gives the benefit, a certain established unity from which honor is indivisibly fulfilled by the whole creation.

From the twelfth book. Therefore he did not say, "He spoke to us in the Son" (Heb. 1, 2) with the Greek article, but "in Son," without the article (which indeed, being said absolutely, could signify both in the same), signifying primarily the true Son; and by true Son I mean him who possesses the sonship by natural generation, primarily; and consequently…

it admits ^A of the meaning, that is, it receives the sonship in its signification, and according to truth partakes of the dignity by the union made with the Word.

*From the same book.* Will they at last desist from their shameless fighting? Will they depart for the future from their vain contention, reverencing that which is openly stated? "For he brought many sons unto glory" (Heb. 2:10). Behold, therefore, the Apostle appears to be ranking the assumed man with the many in the account of sonship, not as though he partakes of the sonship in the same way as they, but according to the likeness, according to which he has received ^B the sonship by grace, while the Godhead alone possesses the natural sonship. For it is plain that the excellence of sonship belongs to him beyond other men, through the union with him; whence, also, by the word "Son," he is understood and included along with him. But they invent arguments against us, that if we say two perfects, we shall necessarily say two sons. But behold, "Son" is used in the divine Scripture, with the Godhead removed, placed and numbered with the rest of men; and yet we do not straightway say "two sons." Only one Son is conceded, because the division, or distinction, of the natures must necessarily remain, and the union of the person be preserved inseparably. And after he said, "brought many sons unto glory," he adds, ^C "to make the author of their salvation perfect through sufferings." See how clearly he states that the Word perfected through sufferings the assumed man, whom he also called the author of their salvation, inasmuch as he, being the first deemed worthy of this salvation, also became the cause of salvation to others.

*From the same book or oration.* For to all such things they apply the name of Son according to their exposition; for since the things spoken of are human, they judged it right to use this word, which it happened was his appellation: and that the name Jesus is an appellation of the assumed [man], just as in the apostles, the name of Peter or Paul, or any other of that kind, so it was imposed upon him after his birth from Mary. ^D

*From the same book.* But to this they say that the name Jesus signifies Savior. But how, they say, can the man be called Savior? Forgetting that Jesus was also the name of the son of Nave; and, what is more wonderful, he was not called so by any chance occurrence at his birth, but was renamed by Moses. It is clear that he would never have suffered this name to be imposed upon a man, if it necessarily signified the divine nature.

*From the same book.* God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us . . .

by [His] Son. ^A Clearly, therefore, here by "in the Son"—by which He speaks of the man—is He shown.

*From the same book.* Wherefore, not only does He call Him Son, separating Him from the Word of God, but He is also proved to be ranking Him, according to the principle of sonship, with the rest of those who have participated in sonship; since he himself also participated in sonship by grace, not being born naturally of the Father, having nevertheless an excellence beyond the rest, because by the union with the Word he acquired the sonship, which bestows upon him a more proper participation in the reality.

*From the same book.* And thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest. ^B Behold, therefore, how he who announces the birth from Mary according to the flesh, bids him be called Jesus; but predicts that he shall be called the Son of the Highest; for it is fitting that the former is commanded to be set as a name for the one being born, while as for the latter, he predicts that he shall be called [so], because the name was a symbol of honor, which honor the participation in the reality thereafter confirmed.

*From the same book.* It is manifest, however, that in the distinction of natures it has been necessarily observed by us to know that God the Word is said to be Son according to natural generation; but the man is said to enjoy the dignity of Son, much greater than ^C what was fitting for him in himself, on account of the conjunction with that Son.

*From book XIII.* Who was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit. He says he was justified in the Spirit, either as one who kept the Law before baptism with the fitting diligence, or as one who, after baptism, lived the life of the Law of grace with much accuracy through the cooperation of the Holy Spirit.

*From the same book.* For even that which was said to him by John—"I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?"—will not take away the fact that it is a man who is being baptized. ^D For it will be fitting also according to the principle of humanity, since according to virtue itself he had much preeminence over John; and on account of the nature of the divinity dwelling in him, he was justly acknowledged to have a dignity not only above John, but above all men, and indeed above all creation.

*From the same book.* Wherefore, when the Lord wished to display both endurance and philosophy in the use of food, He says this: "Necessity does not demand that it should happen." But teaching that He cares less for food, and that He honors nothing more than virtue, He says to him: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

^A For the devil strove to persuade Him that there was no care for Him from God. Therefore he said: "If Thou art the Son of God, do this," that is, demonstrate by deed that God cares for You. But the devil himself promised great things, so that by that persuasion he might alienate and disjoin Him from God, and by his promises reconcile and attach Him to himself; and in the first temptation he sets forth bread, that he might provoke Him to the experience through pleasure.

^A

From the same book.

From the same book.

^C

From book XIV.

From the same book.

^A even from the beginning what sort he was, and for the confirmation of this matter, He granted him much cooperation through His own indwelling for our salvation. Whence no one could say that it was an injustice that some privilege beyond all others was bestowed upon the man assumed by the Lord.

From the same Theodore, from the fourteenth book of *On the Incarnation*, where he says that Christ was an image of the Word of God, and just as an imperial image was worshipped by all.

And he holds the place of an image in two ways. For those who love certain persons, setting up images of them after their death, think they have a sufficient consolation for their death, and they think that by looking at the image, they see him who is not seen and is not present, thus calming the flame of their desire and strength. But even those who have images of emperors throughout their cities, ^B by the worship and adoration of the images, show honor to those who are not present as if they were present and to be seen. Now both of these things are fulfilled through Him, for all who are with Him and follow His virtue, and are prepared payers of what is due to God, love Him and honor Him greatly: and the divine nature, although it is not seen, truly fulfills its love for Him in Him who is seen by all, as all believe, that they see Him through Him, and they attribute all true honor to Him as if He were an imperial image, since the divine nature is as it were in Him and is beheld in Him. For if it is the Son who is said to dwell within, yet the Father is also with Him, and is believed by every creature to be inseparably in every way with the Son; and the Spirit also is not absent, inasmuch as He has been made for Him even in the place of anointing, and He who is assumed is always with Him; and it is not to be wondered at, since it is even said that the Father is with the Son in any men who follow virtue: *For we will come, I and the Father, and will make our abode with him* (John xiv, 23). And that the Spirit is likewise inseparable from such men is certain to all.

From book xv.

Since, therefore, they ask whether Mary ^C is anthropotokos (man-bearer) or Theotokos (God-bearer), let it be said by us to be both; the one indeed according to the nature of the thing, the other according to relation (16). Man-bearer indeed by nature, since He whom Mary bore was a man, just as He also came forth from her; but God-bearer, because God was in the man whom she bore, not circumscribed according to nature, but existing in Him according to the disposition of his will.

From the same book.

For the Lord was more disturbed and struggled more against the passions of the soul than of the body; and by a better reason He controlled pleasures, the divinity clearly mediating and helping Him toward achievement.

From the same work of Theodore, *On the Incarnation*

The Lord was more disturbed, and had a struggle against the passions of the soul rather than the body, and with a better mind conquered desires, through the mediation of the deity for perfection. Hence also the Lord appears to be instituting this struggle most of all. For, not being deceived by the love of money, and not being tempted by the desire for glory, He offered nothing to the flesh (nor was it for Him to be overcome by such things); but if He had not assumed a soul, and it is the deity who had conquered them, the profit would not in any way regard us of those things which were done (for what, in regard to the perfection of our way of life, is the similarity of the deity and the human soul?). And the Lord’s struggles do not appear ^D to have been for the sake of some display, looking to no profit for us. But if this is not possible to say (for it is certain that those things were done for our sake), and He instituted a greater struggle against the passions of the soul, and a lesser one against those of the flesh: how much more was it the case that those were disturbing [Him] more, and that it was they which required more abundant medicine, namely, that assuming both flesh and soul, He struggled through both for the sake of both: mortifying indeed sin in the flesh, and rendering its desires tame, and making them easily caught by the better reason of the soul; but instructing the soul...

and exercising himself to overcome his passions and to restrain the lusts of the flesh. For this indwelling deity was working, this indwelling deity was healing both of them.

*From book XV.* Wherefore he is justly called the Son in both respects, there being one existing person, which the union of natures brought about.

*Of the same, concerning the discourse of the incarnation.* According to the foreknowledge of the Word, he who was born of the Virgin without seed as a man is shown not to be a creature separated from the Word, but united to him through the likeness of his mind, by which, in his condescension, he united him to himself and showed him to be, according to operation, inseparable from himself, possessing the same authority and power, and receiving adoration by an equal law, not differing therefrom.

FRAGMENTS FROM THE BOOKS AGAINST APOLLINARIUS

^B How then can you, to whom above all men it is most fitting to govern minds, say that he who was born of the Virgin is God, and that he is to be considered consubstantial with the Father, unless perhaps you bid us attribute his creation to the Holy Spirit? But who is the God from God, and consubstantial with the Father? It is the same one who was born of the Virgin, O wonder! and who was fashioned through the Holy Spirit according to the divine Scriptures, and received his composition in a female womb. Perhaps he was present, because as soon as he was fashioned, he received it that he might be the temple of God: yet it is not to be thought by us that God was born of the Virgin: unless perhaps we are to think the same thing—both that which was born, and that which is in the temple that was born, and that he who is in the temple is God the Word: yet it is not to be pronounced according to your expression that God was born of the Virgin at all, and is God from God, consubstantial with the Father. For if he who was born of the Virgin is not a man, as you say, assumed, but God incarnate, how will he who was born be called God from God and consubstantial with the Father, when the flesh is not able to accept this saying? For it is indeed madness to say that God was born of the Virgin. For this is nothing else but to say that he was begotten from the seed of David from the substance of the Virgin, and was fashioned in her womb, since we say that what is from the seed of David and from the substance of the Virgin subsisted in the maternal womb, and was fashioned by the power of the Holy Spirit, and was born of the Virgin. But if someone should conclude from this to say of them that God from God and consubstantial with the Father was born of the Virgin, because he is in the temple that was born, but God the Word was not born of himself, but was incarnate, as this wise man says. If therefore they say that he was born with flesh, and that what was born is God from God and consubstantial with the Father, it is necessary to say this of the flesh also. But if it is not flesh for that reason, because it is neither God from God nor consubstantial with the Father, but is from the seed of David, and is consubstantial with him whose seed it is, and not—

^C what was born of the Virgin is God from God, and consubstantial with the Father: unless perhaps a part of the born one, just as he himself in the lower parts calls the deity a part of Christ, but the divine nature is not born of the Virgin. But he who consists of the substance of the Virgin is born of the Virgin; it is not God the Word who is born of Mary. But he who is of the seed of David is born of Mary. It is not God the Word who was born of a woman, but he who was fashioned in her by the power of the Holy Spirit was born of a woman. It is not he who is born of a mother who is consubstantial with the Father; for he is without a mother, according to the voice of the blessed Paul (Heb. 7:3); but he who in later times was fashioned in the maternal womb by the power of the Holy Spirit, being called for that reason without a father.

*And after other things.* Moreover, God the Word was in that which was fashioned: for he was not only present in him ascending into heaven, but also rising from the dead, inasmuch as he was raising him up according to his promise. Nor was he present only to him rising from the dead, but also to him being crucified, and being baptized, and performing his evangelical conversation after baptism, and indeed also fulfilling the legal constitution before baptism, being presented according to the law, and circumcised, and wrapped in swaddling clothes at birth. And perhaps he was in him even while he was being born, and when he was in the maternal womb from the very first fashioning: for he was imposing order upon the dispensation which was around him; inasmuch as he was leading him part by part to perfection.

*And after other things.* And leading him through time to baptism, and after that to death: then raising him up according to his own proclamation, leading him into heaven, placing him at the right hand of God through his own conjunction, from which he sits and is adored by all, and will judge all. Yet God the Word held the end of all these things within himself, when he was in him, and was fulfilling all things according to order, which order he himself judged to have a good end by predefinition indeed and

by the good will which he had concerning him from the beginning, he was similarly within him; but he was leading him to perfection by the order that was pleasing to himself.

From the same book.

He afforded his own cooperation ^A to the proposed works to Him who was assumed; where he does this, instead of "mind," the Deity was to Him who was assumed. For neither to those to whom he granted his cooperation did the "mind" hold the place of it [the Deity]. But if he even granted a certain special cooperation to Him who was assumed, he did not by this make the Deity hold the place of "mind." But if the Deity stood in the place of "mind" for Him who was assumed, according to your words, how did he receive fear in the passion? Why did he need the more vehement prayers for the impending necessity, which he offered to God with a loud and clamorous voice, but also with many tears (according to the blessed Paul)? How was he held by such great fear, that from intense trepidation he emitted fountains of sweat, with the evangelist openly saying that sweat like drops of blood ^B was descending? And what need had he of the arrival and visitation of an angel to refresh his soul in the experience of evils, to strengthen his alacrity, to excite him to the impending necessity of the passion, to persuade him to bear the evils bravely, to urge him to patience and the tolerance of evils, to show him the fruit of the present evils from the passion, and the transformation into good glory to be his after the passion? For he who (according to the voice of the evangelist) was comforting him, namely the angel, was making him strong with these words, and was exhorting him to become superior to the weakness of nature, and by strengthening his thoughts, was making him strong.

And after other things, in the same book, the same Theodore, in the person of Christ as if responding to Peter who was speaking to Christ about the passion of the cross, "Be it far from thee, Lord, this shall not be unto thee": thus he introduced:

Get behind me, Satan, thou art an offense unto me, because thou savorest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Death is not a confusion to me, nor will I flee it as indecent, looking to human glory; but I will sustain with a better mind the experiment of death for many future goods, in which I myself shall be, and through me all: so that you do not hurt my mind, nor trouble it, by admonishing me to flee the experiment of death as though it were worthy of confusion.

And after other things.

For what is said: "He was led by the Spirit," openly signifies that he was ruled by him, that he was strengthened by him for the virtue of the things proposed; that he was led by him to these things to which it was fitting; that he was taught by him what was fitting; that he was strengthened by him in his thoughts, so that he might be sufficient for such a struggle, ^C just as the blessed Paul also says: "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God"; calling those "led by the Spirit" who are governed by him, taught by him, constituted by him toward the better, and receive the doctrine of those things which are competent from him. But when the evangelist had said that "being full of the Holy Spirit he returned from the Jordan," he openly demonstrated that for this cause he received the habitation of the Holy Spirit in his baptism, so that from thence he might receive the proposed virtue. Whence he was also led by the Spirit to that struggle which he was about to effect for us against the devil.

And after other things.

Let them tell us, therefore, most wise of all: If for the "mind," the Deity had been made for the Lord Christ who is according to the flesh, as they say, what need had Christ of the cooperation of the Holy Spirit for these things? For neither did the Deity of the Only-Begotten need the Spirit for justification, need the Spirit to overcome the devil, need the Spirit to work miracles, need the Spirit to be taught the things that were fitting to be done, need the Spirit to appear immaculate. For if the Deity stood in the place of the "mind," and his virtue was sufficient for all things, it would be necessary for all things to be done from thence, so that the habitation of the Holy Spirit would be superfluous. But now he says that he was anointed by the Spirit, and that the Spirit dwelt in him, and that it ^D helped all the proposed things, and that he received from thence doctrine and virtue, and from thence obtained justification, and from thence was made immaculate.

Of the same Theodore from the third book against the impious Apollinarius.

That man, therefore, in whom he appointed the judgment of all, for the faith of things to come, when he had raised him from the dead, and had demonstrated him the judge of all, according to the voice of the blessed Paul, he deigned to unite to himself, and through the conjunction made to himself, made him a participant of such things, and to have the communion of adoration: while all indeed render the adoration due to the divine nature, but understand by that adoration him whom they know to be inseparably conjoined to him; from which it is manifest that he led him to greater things.

And after other things.

So also the soul, as being human and established as immortal, and first receiving the participant of sensations, and establishing it through resurrection into immutability, he thus also provided us with the communion of these same things through the resurrection. Therefore, despite the resurrection from the dead, he rebukes Peter as offending him with his own words, and, having been placed in great trepidation during the time of the passion, he needs the appearance of an angel, strengthening him for the patience and tolerance of the imminent evils.

^A

*And after other things.*

Thus, therefore, he teaches us most wisely of all to possess the mind of Christ, so that, having the Holy Spirit, we might have him who was filling the mind of Christ with some virtue, granting him prudence for everything that needed to be done, just as we have also demonstrated in the preceding, that he was indeed led by him into the wilderness for the struggles that were against the devil, and by his anointing he was receiving the knowledge and power for the things that needed to be done; and having become a partaker of him, he was not only working miracles, but also knew how it was necessary to use miracles, so that he might indeed make piety known to the Gentiles, yet also suffer the infirmities of those who were laboring, and thus bring forth his own will to effect: and he was justified, and therefrom he was shown to be immaculate, whether by the separation ^B or restoration of the worse, or by the preservation of the better, or even by progress toward better things little by little.

*From the same book.*

It is manifest that Paul of Samosata, who was indeed bishop of the Church of Antioch, and who was suffering from the error of Theodotus and Artemon, who said that the Lord Jesus Christ was a mere man, not knowing Him as God the Word, and as the Son of God existing before the ages in his own substance from God the Father—

*From the third book of the same treatise.*

But ^C God and from God, consubstantial with the Father, was present—O, the wonderful thing!—in him who was born from the Virgin, and was formed by the Holy Spirit according to the divine Scriptures, and was compacted in the female womb, as was fitting, after he was formed at the same time and received, so that he might be the temple of God; yet we must not think that God was born from the Virgin, unless we must think that the one born and the one in the one born—the temple, that is, and God the Word who is in the temple—are the same thing; nor must it be denied, according to the expression of some, that he who was born from the Virgin—since the flesh is not able to accept this expression—is [to be called so]. For it is indeed devoid of reason to say that God was born from the Virgin. For this is nothing ^D other than to say that he is from the seed of David, arranged from the substance of the Virgin, and formed within her; since indeed, as for what is from the seed of David, if it be formed from the substance of the Virgin in the maternal womb, and formed by the power of the Holy Spirit, we say that it has been born from the Virgin.

*From the fourth book of the same treatise.*

Since, however, man is said according to us to consist of soul and body, and we say that these are two natures, soul and body, but one man composed of both; we must not, in order to preserve the fact that both are one, confuse the natures, and in turn say that the soul is flesh and the flesh is soul. And since the former is immortal and rational, but the flesh is mortal and irrational, we must not in turn say that the immortal is mortal, and the mortal is immortal; and the rational is irrational, and the irrational is rational. But neither have we been taught this by divine Scripture, O wisest of all, nor does any other person say this, down to the present day, of those who have a sane human mind, except you, who are in all things insane: who, by removing from the dispensation that was done for our sake the assumption of the mind into the mind itself, have received judgment, speaking things full of complete folly, and establishing laws with much irreverence. For whatever things are distinct according to something, and have received unity according to something, keep the reason of that by which they are distinct, while having their unity intact. There is something that is one by nature, just as the Son and the Father; but the distinction of the persons remains: while the essence is inseparably one, the persons have their own proper distinction; so that neither is the Father called the Son, nor the Son the Father. Similarly—

even if natures are somewhat diverse, according to another they happen to be joined, and they ^A neither lose their natural division, nor have their own proper unity, just as the soul is joined to the body, and one man is produced from both. The division of natures remains: one thing is the soul, another is the flesh; and the former is immortal, the latter mortal; and the former is rational, the latter irrational. Yet one man is both: but one is never called the other in itself, absolutely and properly, unless perhaps with some addition, as the inner man and the outer man, not absolutely man, but interior and exterior: so that it may appear that one thing is the interior of man, and another the exterior. And so in the Lord Christ we say (O wonderful man!), that since he exists in the form of God, he is the form of a servant, neither assuming what has been assumed, nor assuming that which is assumed. The unity of the assumed with respect to the assumer is inseparable, and cannot be divided in any way.

From Book IV Against Apollinarius

You said that some of our people gave you those things, which were not given by any of those who have endeavored to embrace the ecclesiastical ^B doctrine. For we were inquiring: do they confess that God the Word was made man? Or how did you infer that they gave that? Or what person endowed with reason would say, as you say, that the Word was made man, unless he first suffers from your own madness? For we firmly assert that he assumed a man; but we can never say that he was made man, as you think.

From the same treatise, Book III

As if from the person of Christ, he says thus: I, whom you see, can indeed do nothing according to my own nature, since I am a man; but I do work, because the Father who abides in me does all things; for, he says, since I am in the Father, and the Father is in me. But the God Word, the Only-begotten of God, is in me, and clearly the Father is with him, remaining in me and ^C performing the works. And it is not to be wondered at that we think this is so in Christ, since he himself explicitly says concerning other men: *He who loves me will keep my word; and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and make our home with him.* For if with each one of such people the Father and the Son make their home; what is surprising if in the Lord Christ according to the flesh both are thought to dwell together by a communion according to substance, while admitting, as is appropriate, a communion of participation?

From the same treatise, Book IV

He who is before the ages, he says, was made in the last days; this again he says as if some people disagreed and said this: although none of those who have ^D striven to be pious would ever wish to suffer from the disease of this madness, as to say that he who is before the ages was made in the last days.

And after other things:

Therefore, following your laws, and embracing and approving the conversion—or rather, the subversion—of your sharp-wittedness, come, let us confuse everything in him; and let there be no distinction henceforth, neither of the form of God, nor of the form of a servant, nor of the temple assumed, nor of the inhabitant in the temple, nor of the temple dissolved, nor of the one who raises up the temple, nor of the one made perfect in sufferings, nor of the one who made perfect, nor of the one remembered, nor of the one remembering, nor of the one visited, nor of the one visiting, nor of the one reduced a little lower...

not of him who is visited, nor of him who was made a little lower than the angels, nor of him who lowered[him], nor of him who is crowned with glory and honor, nor of him who crowned[him], nor of him who was set over the works of [God's] hands, nor of him who set [him], nor of him who received them in subjection, nor of him who gave the subjection. ^A

From the fourth book against Apollinarius

But the man of whom the prophet speaks these things, the blessed Paul clearly declares to be the man taken up by the Only-Begotten; for when he had said: But one in a certain place testified, saying, "What is man, that you are mindful of him? or the son of man, that you visit him? You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor, and set him over the works of your hands. You have put all things in subjection under his feet," he subjoins: "But we see him who was made a little lower than the angels, Jesus, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor," clearly demonstrating that Jesus is the man of whom the blessed David speaks, marvelling that the divine nature deigned to remember him and deemed him worthy of His own visitation; that He indeed made him a little lower than the angels, by causing him to taste of death; but clothed him with glory and all honor, so as to declare him Lord of all through the union with Himself. ^B

FRAGMENT FROM THE BOOK AGAINST EUNOMIUS

From book X

For all the Jews were expecting a Christ to come, according to the prophetic voices, [believing him to be] someone great and a future author of many good things for them. Wherefore, when Herod, after the arrival of the Magi, asked the Scribes and Pharisees where Christ would be born, they answered him and told the place, because "In Bethlehem of Judea." But for this reason they did not know that Christ was the Son of God, God; rather, they judged Christ to be a mere man according to the most approved of the prophets, although [they considered him] to be something a little better than these, a thing which any one may see even now that the Jews believe. ^C

From book XI

For these things, what we have said is sufficient, where we have demonstrated both the difference of the natures and the unity of the person, and that, according to the natures, the one receives a benefit, while the other gives a benefit, with a unity established certainly, from which [humanity] is honorably fulfilled by the whole creation in an undivided manner. ^D

ON APOLLINARIUS AND HIS HERESY

For some years ago we wrote a book on the incarnation of the Lord, reaching to fifteen thousand verses, in which we examined the presumption of Arius and Eunomius regarding this matter, and also the vain presumption of Apollinarius, through that entire work; so that, as my opinion suggests, I passed over nothing.

[...related to the firmness of ecclesiastical orthodoxy, and to the conviction of their impiety. But those who assume everything most easily, and who were further instructed by Apollinarius (who had been the leader of this heresy), made our work manifest to all who felt likewise, to see if they could find any strength to refute the things inscribed there. But since no one presumed to undertake a written struggle, they imitated weak and crafty athletes who, because they cannot contend against stronger opponents, attempt to overthrow them with plots and schemes. For they themselves wrote among one another, no doubt, certain ineptitudes that would never be uttered by us. Finally, they inserted these very things into the middle of our writings in a certain section, and showed them to their own followers; sometimes, however, they also showed them to our own people, who, because of their easygoing nature, listened to everything with willing minds; and this, as they thought, they presented to observers as proof of our impiousness. One, however, of these writings was the claim of two sons. For so they made us ^A in this work say, that one ought to think and say there are two sons, and they vehemently accused us of that statement—we, who everywhere in that writing were clearly saying that one ought not to say there are two sons. It was necessary, therefore, that those writings should appear to the hearers not only as inept, but also as weak: for it could not be shown to be possible through any sound reasoning or logical consistency; hence, it was written by them as something weak, insofar as the one who had written it could the more easily be refuted from it. One of our own people, therefore, because of his great credulity, believed these things to be our writings, and for this reason was deemed ^B worthy of trust by those who perused them, and he reported to us what had been inscribed. When, therefore, we heard this, we indeed reproached him for having believed, contrary to what we had said, about these matters—things which he heard us stating quite often both in church and in private—when he ought to have judged our own voice to be more trustworthy than those writings, as a document of our view, which it is our wish to preserve in matters of dogma.]

From the Interpretation of Psalm VIII

^C For this reason, therefore, the Psalm demonstrates to us the difference between the God-Word and the man who was assumed. Moreover, these things are found divided in the New Testament. The Lord indeed refers the former parts of the Psalm to Himself, in which He says that He is the Creator of the creation, and that His majesty is exalted above the heavens, and that He is made wonderful in all the earth; but the Apostle takes the second part of the Psalm and interprets it concerning the man who was deemed worthy of so great a benefit from the Son. How, therefore, is it not manifest that the divine Scripture clearly teaches us that the God-Word is one thing, and the man ^D is another? It shows us, indeed, a great difference between them. For the One is He who remembers, while the other is he who, by this, is deemed worthy to be called blessed. And the One is He who benefits, being made a little lower than the angels, while the other is he who is benefited, and is so even in that state of being made lower; and the One is He who crowns with glory and honor, while the other is he who is crowned and, in these things, is called blessed; and the One is He who set him over all the works of His hands, and subjected all things under his feet, while the other is he who was deemed worthy to have dominion over these things, of which he previously did not have authority.

From the Second Discourse of the Impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, on the Miracles Worked

"I will, be thou clean," said the Savior to the leper, showing that there is one will, one operation, brought forth in accordance with one and the same authority—not by word of nature, but of favor—by which the one who, according to foreknowledge, was made man later from the seed of David, was united to the God-Word, having from the very womb an innate affinity toward Him.

≫

FROM THE BOOK AGAINST THE DEFENDERS OF ORIGINAL SIN

From the second codex, book four, leaf ten, against Blessed Augustine who defends original sin and discourses in a Catholic manner on Adam having been made mortal through transgression.

1. So many things existing which demonstrate that Adam was thus formed from the earth, so that he was altogether mortal, he wished to occupy the discussion regarding his proper food, and being unable to turn from there to the truth, for the sake of the dogma, he joins an advocacy out of seductive falsehood, etc.

2. Nor did God say, *You shall die* (Gen. II, 17); for since they were already mortal by nature, he threatened to bring upon them the experience of death, which he also delayed from bringing to effect in accordance with the custom of his own benignity. For just as when he says: *Whoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed for him* (Gen. IX, 6), he does not say this because one who kills a man will be mortal, but because he is worthy of being condemned by such a death: so too in the present instance he said, *You shall die*; not because they would become mortal then, but because they would be worthy, through transgression, to receive the sentence of death.

3. But observe the divine judgment which he seems to bring upon Adam after the sin. For thus he says (Gen. III, 17-19): *Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I had commanded you not to eat alone, the earth shall be cursed in your works; in sorrow you shall eat from it all the days of your life; it shall bring forth thorns and thistles for you, and you shall eat the hay of the field, and in the sweat of your brow you shall eat your bread, until you return to the earth*. By these things he threatened that he would have a wretched life, henceforth exhausted by labor to take from the earth that by which he might be nourished and subsist, by no means having, as before, such great abundance provided as he enjoyed from the plenty of paradise. For God did not give the working of the earth as a punishment, as if transferring men from an immortal nature into mortality, since he also commanded him to work and guard paradise (Gen. II, 15); but in exchange for such great previous liberality and pleasure, he threatens that his maintenance from the fruits of the ground will be wretched. For he was made entirely mortal, and even then he was in need of the fruits of paradise, just as he now seeks the fruits of the earth; and as a punishment, being deprived of his former delights, he is punished with this most wretched and laborious manner of life.

4. And in the end, he consequently adds: *Because you are earth, and into the earth you shall return* (Gen. III, 19), signifying hence also the mortality of nature; for it is not because he was immortal, and was now first beginning to receive the sentence of death, as the most wise defenders of original sin—or rather, the marvelous fathers of sin—assert, that he composed this word for the earth: but that from the beginning, having been naturally made mortal, divine Scripture indicated this appellation to be appropriate, frequently assuming this word concerning men to demonstrate their corruptible and dissoluble nature. For, *He has remembered*, it says, *that we are dust; man, his days are as hay, and as the flower of the field, so shall he flourish, because the spirit shall pass through in him, and his place shall be no more* (Ps. CII, 15, 16). He wishes to say, however, that we are all corruptible and dissoluble, like hay that flourishes for a little while and perishes after a short time. For we lead our life for a brief time; but afterwards we arrive at non-existence entirely. Thus also Abraham: *I am*, he says, *earth and ashes* (Gen. XVIII, 27), as if he were saying, I am not worthy to converse with such a God, being made man from earth, and altogether destined to be such. He ought, therefore, to have said rather: Since you are earth, and into the earth you shall return, if indeed his nature were now first becoming mortal.

From the second codex, book three, four leaves before the end of the book.

1. But the wonderful asserter of original sin could perceive nothing of these things, since he was by no means trained in the divine Scriptures, nor from infancy, according to the word of blessed Paul, [was he learned in] the sacred fruits. Although the Septuagint also translated the Hebrew text in the plural number, in which place Ambrose believed some hidden mystery lay (Lib. de Parad. cap. 5).

Theodore opposes this, or by that fact most especially, that the judgment of God would be unjust, who would inflict such a penalty for such a sin, when the fault of one would be paid for by all, which Scripture denies to be just. A light fault, namely eating the apple, would be followed by a heavy penalty, death indeed: which equity forbids. The wrath of God would pertain to all, among whom many saints existed, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, etc., with the merits and virtues of so many and such great men resisting in vain: which is repugnant to divine clemency. The first just man, Abel, would have received the first vengeance for another’s injustice: which is a sin to even think of. The devil, the first author and instigator of sin, through...

his own envy, ^A should rather have been the one to pay the penalty. But instead, to imagine that Almighty God—who will render to each according to his works (Rom. II, 6); and, Each of us shall bear his own burden (Gal. VI, 5); and, Why do you judge your brother? Or why do you despise your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ (Rom. XIV, 10)—would in anger and fury order that Adam be mortal, and because of his one sin, punish everyone, even those not yet born, with death! He who argues thus is neither afraid nor ashamed to hold opinions about God that no one, even among men who are sane and possess some concern for justice, would ever dare to imagine. Nor has he remembered that divine voice which says that this proverb shall no longer be used in Israel: The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge, for thus says the Lord Adonai: Their teeth, which have eaten the sour grape, shall be set on edge (Ezech. XVIII, 23). By this, He shows ^B that God does not punish one for another, contrary to the error of some.

3. But he, ^C thinking that God was moved by such fury that He both subjected him to the most atrocious punishment and promulgated the same sentence against all his descendants—among whom how many just men there will be, no one can easily count—from which it would have been most fitting to consider how exceedingly incongruous it would seem that Noah, Abraham, David, Moses, and the rest of the innumerable just should be rendered liable to punishment for the one sin of one man, and for the one taste of the fruit of the tree; and that God would thus extend His wrath beyond the measure of justice, in such a way that He would discard all the virtues of so many just ones and bind them, because of the one sin of Adam, to such a great punishment.

From this he concludes that mortality is natural to men; and that it was wisely constituted by God, since it is useful for us to aspire from mortality to immortality: so that we may bear first the image of the earthly and mortal Adam, and then that of the heavenly and immortal one. And indeed, Christ Himself showed by His own example that one must progress from imperfect to perfect; for He first submitted Himself to the necessity of nature and the law, being born of a woman, growing by increments, circumcised, offered in the temple, obedient to His parents, and finally dead. Then He showed Himself to be the Lord of nature and the law, when He rose immortal from the tomb and, established at the right hand of the Father, possesses power over all. Moreover, he contends, from the fact that the Word assumed mortality according to nature, but did not assume sin, it is established that mortality is in nature, while sin is ^D in the will alone.

Indeed, the reproach that follows—namely, that such an assertor of original sin had not from infancy learned the Holy Scriptures, so that he might touch upon Jerome, as is evident from Photius—falls better upon Augustine, who, according to the mind of Theodore, spoke either ignorantly or rather maliciously; just as that point about the movement of power also remained unaddressed. For Julian objected both of these to the most holy doctor by way of calumny, which he first reported to Theodore about Augustine, having written it from the West, and later in friendly conversation in Cilicia.

Augustine responds with words most worthy of note: "Do not use the most wretched argument which all heretics use, whom the laws of Christian emperors restrain from pernicious license. For all of this kind say what you yourself said: that that side which, when it introduces terror, obtains no consent from the prudent, but extorts blind consent from the fearful, labors from a lack of reason."

...when he was writing, that Augustine had recently said that God, out of anger, had held Adam guilty of disobedience and had consigned all his descendants to death? Or in Tractate 14 on John, at these words: *The wrath of God remains upon him* (John III, 35), where he says: "All who are born have the wrath of God; but what wrath of God? Which the first Adam received. For so did the first man sin, and he heard, *You shall die the death*; he was made mortal, and we began to be born mortal, we who were born with the wrath of God." Or rather in the Enarration on Psalm CI, at these words: *From the face of your wrath and indignation?* Where, addressing God, Augustine says: "That is, your wrath, O Lord, is in Adam: the wrath with which we were all born, to which we have adhered by being born; the wrath from the lineage of iniquity; the wrath from the mass of sin, according to what the Apostle says: *And were by nature children of wrath, even as others* (Ephes. II, 3); and whence the Lord says: *The wrath of God remains upon him*. Or finally in the Commentary on Psalm XXXVII, where he says: "Nature for us has been made into a penalty, from the vengeance of the first man; what was a penalty is now our nature?" Whence the Apostle says: *And we were sometime children of wrath*, that is, bearing vengeance, etc.

But, even if these passages indicate to some extent that wrath of God which Theodore mentions, they nonetheless hardly correspond to the word "recently" if one considers the times when Theodore was writing; for Augustine said or wrote the Tractates on John and the Enarrations on the Psalms either before the rise of the Pelagian heresy, or at least before he had worked out the three books *On the Merits of Sins*; yet Theodore published the work from which we have excerpts before us about twelve years after the publication of books of this kind.

He refers, therefore, if I am not mistaken, to the *Enchiridion to Laurentius*, where these words are read (ch. 25): "For the Lord had threatened the punishment of death to man if he should sin: thus, while he was..."

^A properly to be estimated, when he, being the first just man, was the first to die; and if indeed God had established death as the punishment of men, how was it not of the deepest impiety that he who was the cause of sin should live, and that Eve, the finder of malice, should live even with him? For I omit the devil, who has endured to this day in immortality; but that the first just man and the finder of virtue, and the first to bear the care of divine worship, should have been struck down before all others by the punishment of sinners.

[...and he] is subjected to legitimate conversation. So also, for the completion of the rest, He finally takes upon Himself death, as a tribute of nature: so that, dying according to the law of human nature, and rising from the dead by divine power, He might become the beginning for all men, who accept death according to their own nature, so that they may rise from the dead and be changed into an immortal substance.

^B ...Enoch, who did not die, to examine carefully. For he was not endowed with such virtue or piety that he should be better than all others—I speak of Moses and the prophets and apostles or all the rest of whom the most blessed Paul says: "Of whom the world was not worthy" (Heb. xi, 38)—so that, while they died, he alone should endure without the experience of death. But God had already had this determined with Himself from the beginning, that men should indeed first be mortal, but afterwards enjoy immortality; He Himself disposing this for our benefit.

^C ...God shows the same when he translates Enoch and makes him immortal. For if through the sin, which was the cause of punishment, God introduced death, and had not long ago had this determined with Himself—ineffably dispensing all things for us according to His own wisdom—Enoch would by no means have been immortal; but the Lord Christ would have arrived at the experience of death.

^D ...He was made the author of all good things for men, so that as Adam was the beginner of the first and mortal state, so He Himself, being the initiator of the second and immortal state, might primally preserve the natural things of the former Adam; while he is born of a woman; while he is wrapped in swaddling clothes, and gradually assumes the increments of age: for "Jesus," as it is said, "increased in stature, and wisdom, and grace before God and man" (Luc. ii, 52); while he undergoes circumcision; while according to legal custom...

[...subjected to] free will, yet he should rule with authority, should terrify with destruction; and in the happiness of paradise as in a shadow of life, from where justice guarded would have led to better things, he placed him.

... "Hence after sin he became an exile (ch. 26), and his offspring also, which by sinning he had as it were corrupted in the root, he bound with the punishment of death and condemnation: so that whatever offspring was born from him, and at the same time from the spouse through whom he had sinned, through carnal concupiscence, in which the punishment of disobedience was repaid in kind, would draw original sin, by which he would be drawn through diverse errors and sorrows to that extreme, with the deserting angels, his corrupters and possessors and companions, to punishment without end. Thus by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so it passed through into all men, in whom all have sinned" (Rom. v, 12). For in that passage the Apostle called the whole human race "the world."

8. For in the first words cited is contained both the anger of God, of Him who is indignant and punishing with vengeance, and the entire human race brought under...

^A ...nature, we are all made at present, so we shall be made conformable to Christ the Lord in the future: "For He will transfigure the body of our humility, to be made conformable to the body of His glory" (Philipp. iii, 21); and, "As is the earthly, such are they that are earthly; and as is the heavenly, such also are they that are heavenly; and as we have borne the image of the earthly, let us also bear the image of the heavenly" (I Cor. xv, 48, 49): showing that having been made participants of the first Adam, we necessarily also follow a participation in the future status of the second Adam, Christ the Lord, according to the flesh: inasmuch as He consists of this same nature, and has taken upon Himself all things that were of nature; and therefore He endured death, so that, by taking upon Himself the death of nature and rising again from the dead, He might perfect nature freed from death.

^C ...but sin not at all; rather, he remained entirely immune from this. For He surely assumed what was of nature, that is, death; but sin, which was not of nature but of the will, He in no way assumed. But if sin had been in nature, according to the utterance of this most wise man, sin being altogether existent in nature, He would necessarily have assumed it.

From the second codex, from the third book, folio eighteen (1).

1. (2) If, he says, God truly knew that Adam would sin, let this be the answer of these most wise men, that it is most insane even to perceive in thought that it is manifest that He both knew he would sin, and that because of this he would without a doubt die. How then is it not of extreme madness to believe that He originally [made] him immortal in...

[...the condition of death]. Then the *Enchiridion* was composed by Augustine after the death of Jerome, and thus after the year 420. But the five books of which we are now speaking, Theodore wrote against Augustine around the year 423.

(1) [It cannot] be prudently affirmed by anyone that there was any will of God to grant immortality to Adam immediately from his birth, if God is said to be the prescient of all things, and thus of the sin to be committed by Adam; for that would detract either from divine wisdom or from His power. For whose is the wisdom, he says, to grant something as an extraordinary benefit, for only six hours? Or whose is such great power, to desire seriously that a man be immortal, and not to prevent him from being dragged into death by the devil?

(2) ...notaries: "But it is to be restored thus: 'Did God not know that Adam would sin?' But since it is the response of these most wise men that this is most insane even to perceive in thought, it is manifest, etc."

...[The reader] had caused [the hours] (for so great were they from his creation up to his transgression, since on the 6th day he was made from the earth, and eating against the divine command, he was driven from paradise), but had shown him to be mortal after the sin?

2. For it is certain that if He had wished him to be immortal, not even the intervening sin would have changed the judgment of God; since He did not make the devil mortal from an immortal being, and [he is] indeed the source of all evils existing.

From the second codex, from the third book, folio twenty-five.

1. For it is not, he says, that those who were from Adam up to the coming of Christ the Lord were in such great ^A impieties and iniquities as the blessed Paul expressed in his own words, as has been declared in the words above, that He is about to bring as a reward, as if it were some great thing, the resurrection, if He has handed them over to certain punishments without end and without correction. For where will the resurrection be considered in the place of a gift, if punishment without correction is brought upon those who rise?

2. And a little later. Who, he says, is so mad that he believes such a great good becomes a source of infinite punishment for the resurrected, for whom it would be more useful not to rise at all than to be subject to the experience of such and so many evils, after the resurrection, under infinite punishments?

[Theodore], I think, as if marveling that Augustine fought with such strength for the assertion of immortality for the innocent Adam, attempted to prove that immortality is not to be numbered among goods in itself, but rather among [italic]adiaphora[/italic] [indifferent things], and not to be held in high regard, unless it is conjoined with impeccability and the reward of beatitude; since it is to be communicated even to the impious themselves, for the increase of punishment; certainly it would not be communicated, if it were as great a good as it is said to be by the defenders of original sin.

FROM THE THIRTEENTH BOOK OF THE MYSTICAL CODEX.

‹ Paul of Samosata, he says, is an angel of the devil, who presumed to speak of the Lord Jesus Christ as a mere man, and denied the existence of the divinity of the Only-begotten, which is before the ages. ›

FROM THE SECOND EPISTLE OF THEODORE TO ARTEMIUS OF ALEXANDRIA.

Those whom it behooved to know that we adore the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, ^B saying that the divine and eternal and uncreated Trinity is completed in these. Since each one of these is of the same essence, that is, of the eternal cause of all things created, and truly divine. And the Father is to be adored not for any other reason, but because of His own essence. So also the Son, not receiving this on account of another, but because He is of that same and such essence, in regard to which it was fitting that these things be fulfilled. Likewise also acknowledging the Holy Spirit to be of the same essence, we adore Him because of His own essence. Thus also we speak of three persons, each one perfect, and of the same essence, eternal and divine, and because we believe them to be the cause of the things that were made, and we adore three persons, believing them to be of one, truly divine essence. How, therefore, is it possible to add a fourth person to these—that form of a servant which was assumed? Which we do not judge to be of the same essence, to which no worship is due for its own sake, nor do we recognize that it ought to receive adoration because of its own essence, nor do we adore it alone by itself, divided in its own person, just as they think it is divided.

FROM THE SAME EPISTLE TO DOMNUS: FRAGMENTS.

The union of natures which occurs according to [italic]eudokia[/italic] [good pleasure] provides one appellation for both by the account of the shared name; the will, the operation, the authority, the power, the dominion, the dignity, the empire [are] in no way divided, since there is one person of both according to it and [it is] spoken of as such. ^C The union of natures according to good pleasure brings about one designation for both by reason of their common name; the will, the operation, the authority, the power, the dominion, the dignity, the supremacy—divided in no way; one person of both through it being both produced and spoken.

^A And what need is there to say much? The argument concerning union according to substance is true only in the case of consubstantial beings, but it is false in the case of those of a different substance, since it cannot exist without confusion. But the mode of union according to good pleasure, keeping the natures unconfused and undivided, manifests one person in both, and one will, and one operation, along with the one authority and lordship that follows these. For indeed, according to the mode of good pleasure, the temple born from the Virgin, being joined to God the Word, as we have said, from the very womb, has remained undivided, having in all things towards Him the same will and the same operation: than which nothing can be more conjoined. And after other matters: And what need is there of many words? The theory of union according to substance is true only in consubstantial beings; in those of a different substance it is false, since it cannot exist without confusion. But the mode of union according to *eudokia* (good pleasure), keeping the natures unmixed and undivided, shows one person of both, and one will, and one operation, together with the one authority and lordship which follows them. And after other matters again: For according to the mode of *eudokia*, the temple which was born from the Virgin remained undivided, having been joined to God the Word, as we have said, from the womb itself, having in all things the same will towards Him, and the same operation: to which nothing can be more conjoined.

FROM THE BOOK TO THOSE BEING BAPTIZED

For not ^B if we speak of two natures, does any necessity constrain us to speak of two sons, or two men, or two Christs; since to think this is extreme madness. Of the same Theodore from the book *To Those Being Baptized*: For when it says: *Of his Son, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh* [Rom. 1, 3], it is certain that here it calls the Son who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, not God the Word, but the assumed form of a servant. For neither is God according to the flesh, nor is God made from the seed of David, but the man assumed for us, whom the blessed Apostle clearly calls Son. Of the same Theodore from the same book: You have been made another creature reborn for another, not now a part of Adam, subject to change and wrapped in sins, but of Christ, who has been made wholly blameless through the resurrection. The Creator had pity on the lost creature, and without commixture forms the infant, leads him to manly age, insinuating the likeness of nature through the process of growth in the manner of belief; but existing joined to him in secret, He was not absent when he was formed, He was not divided when he was being born; He was present joined to him who was speaking, persisting in his acts and observing there his connection without sin. Of the same from the same book: ...resuscitating him from the dead, and leading him to a better end. Of the same Theodore from the same book: Then, showing for whose sake He suffered, He introduces a diminution: *In that He should taste death for all* [Heb. 2, 9]: because, the Divine nature so willing, that nature being separate, He Himself by Himself tasted death for the benefit of all; and showing that the deity indeed was separate from Him who suffered according to the experience of death, because it was not possible for It to receive the experience of death, yet It had not been absent from Him who suffered, according to His care. Of the same from the same book: For Jesus, he says, of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power [Acts 10, 38], whose anointing he has merited, and has been made immaculate through all things, and has merited union with the divine nature. For he would not have received that union, unless he had first been made immaculate, so that it might befit that unity. Of the same Theodore from the interpretation according to the Gospel of Matthew: For that saying: *This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased* [Matth. 3, 17], is clear insanity to interpret as spoken of God the Word. For he who said: *This is my beloved Son*, and added: *In whom I am well pleased*, signified that he says this openly for the sake of comparison with other sons, who are neither beloved by Him, nor could they please Him overmuch. Of the same from the same book ^D: That He might show great care for him, but that He might make all things of him His own and endure them, being led through all the passions, through which He made him perfect according to His power, not departing from the dead according to the law of his nature, but by His presence and operation and grace delivering him indeed from death, and the evils that are from it; Of the same from the book *To Those Being Baptized*: But remaining, until, according to His creation and power, dissolving the sorrows of death, He delivered him from those ineffable bonds, and raising him from the dead, He transferred him into immortal[ity].

life; and making him incorrupt and immutable, he led him into heaven and caused him to sit at his right hand, and granted us communion with him.

And after other things: Christ, having been made righteous ^A and immaculate by the virtue of the Holy Spirit, just as the blessed Paul says in one place: *Which was justified in the spirit*; and in another: *Who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God*; he caused him to die according to the law of men; but inasmuch as he was made impeccable by the virtue of the Holy Spirit, he raised him from the dead and established him toward a better life: rendering him immutable in the thoughts of his soul, and incorrupt and indissoluble in his flesh.

And after other things: *But thanks be to God, who gave us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ*; calling God the cause of these things for us, who gave us victory against all adversaries, whether of death, or of sin, or of any evil whatsoever springing from hence; who, taking upon himself for our sake the man, our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the resurrection from the dead, translated him to a better [life].

This testimony, however, we have not discovered from ourselves but have been taught by divine Scripture, since the blessed Paul also says: *Of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God*. Not that he who is of the Jews and according to the flesh is God over all; but this he said to signify the human nature, which he knew to be of the Israelite race, while that [other phrase] is to show the divine nature, which he knew to be over all and dominating all things: *Ye deaf, hear, and ye blind, look*. ^B

*Of the same, concerning the interpretation of the symbol of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers.*

But while naming Christ according to the flesh and the form of a servant assumed, he yet names him who assumed it as God over all, doing this, however, according to the conjunction of names, so that it may not make a manifest division of natures. Let no one, therefore, say that he who is of the Jews according to the flesh is the God who is over all, according to the flesh of the Jews.

COPY OF THE EXPOSITION OF THE DEPRAVED [TRANSFORMED] SYMBOL.

Those who are now for the first time being accurately instructed in the discipline of ecclesiastical dogmas, or who wish to pass from some heretical error to the truth, ought to be taught, and to confess, that we believe in one God, ^C an eternal Father: who did not begin to exist afterward; but from the very beginning he existed as eternal God: nor did he become Father afterward, since he was always both God and Father. We believe also in one only-begotten Son of God, existing from the substance of the Father, who is truly Son, and of the same substance with him, whose Son he is and is believed to be. And in the Holy Spirit, who, since he is of the substance of God, is not Son, but is substantially God; inasmuch as he exists of that same substance, of which God and Father is, from whom he exists according to substance. For, he says, *We have not received the spirit of the world*, but

the Spirit which is from God: separating him from every creature, and joining him to God, from whom he is according to substance in a peculiar manner beyond all creation; which we do not reckon to be from God according to substance, but by the causality of creation. Nor do we reckon him to be a Son, nor that he has received his existence through the Son. But we confess ^A the Father as personally perfect, and the Son in like manner, and the Holy Spirit likewise; keeping whole for us the doctrine of piety, that we should not think the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit to be three some different substances, but one known in the identity of the Godhead.

One must also know regarding the economy which, for the sake of our salvation, the Lord God did accomplish in the dispensation according to the Lord Christ, that the Lord God the Word has taken up a perfect man, existing from the seed of Abraham and David, according to the declaration of the divine Scriptures, being this in nature, which those were from whose seed he was; a man perfect in nature, consisting of a rational soul and human flesh. Being this man according to our nature, formed by the power of the Holy Spirit ^B in the womb of the Virgin, having become from a woman, and having become under the law, so that he might redeem us all from the slavery of the law, having received the adoption of sons long since predetermined; in an ineffable way he joined him to himself; having prepared him indeed to taste of death according to the custom of men, but having raised him from the dead, and having led him up into heaven, and having seated him at the right hand of God. From where, indeed, existing above every principality, and power, and dominion, and virtue, and every name named not only in this age, but also in the one to come, he receives worship from all creation, as having an inseparable conjunction with the divine nature, with reference and reason ^C of God, every creature bestowing worship upon him. And we do not speak of two sons, nor two lords; since one is the Son by essence, the God Word, the only-begotten Son of the Father, to whom this one, being joined and sharing in the Godhead, is also a partaker of the appellation and honor of the Son. And the Lord by essence is the God Word, to whom this one being coupled is a partaker of the honor; and therefore we do not say two sons, nor two lords, because, since he is manifestly Lord and Son by essence, he who was assumed for our salvation, being inseparably joined to him, is made honorable by the name and honor of the Lord and Son, not in the mode in which each of us exists as a son by himself; ^D whence indeed also according to blessed Paul we are called many sons; but having this alone exceptionally in his conjunction with the God Word, participating of the sonship and lordship, he removes indeed every thought of a duality of sons and lords, but provides for us, in the conjunction with the God Word, to have all the faith, and the thought, and the contemplation,

^A regarding Him; wherefore He also receives worship from every creature, on account of the relationship which is referred to God.

We say, therefore, that there is one Son and Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things were made; ^B conceiving in our minds, first and principally, the God Word, who is by essence the Son of God and Lord; but at the same time, we embrace with our soul what was assumed, that is, Jesus from Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Spirit and with power, as one who, in the conjunction with the God Word, partakes of sonship and lordship. He is also called the second Adam, according to the teaching of the blessed Paul, insofar as he indeed exists of the same nature as Adam, but demonstrates to us the future state. Yet there intervenes between this one and that one as great a difference as exists between Him who imparts the ineffable goods of the future life and the other who gave the beginning and cause to the present calamities. He is called likewise the second Adam, as one who has shown us the state according to that, for Adam stood as the author of the former state, which is mortal and liable to passion and full of many miseries, in whom we also have drawn in his likeness; but Christ the Lord demonstrated the second state, who, when He appears from heaven, will lead us all into His own communion. For the first man, he says, is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven, ^C that is, about to appear from thence, in order to lead all to the imitation of Himself. Whence he adds: Such as is the earthy, such are they that are earthy; and such as is the heavenly, such also are they that are heavenly; and, As we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. And so, in this very One who appears, and who will be openly seen by all who are to be judged, the divine nature, lying hidden, will exercise judgment. For the times of our ignorance God having overlooked, now He commandeth men that all everywhere should repent; because He hath appointed a day, in which He is about to judge the world in justice, in the man in whom He hath appointed, having given faith to all, by raising Him from the dead. This is the doctrine of ecclesiastical ^D dogmas, and let everyone who thinks contrary to these be anathema. Everyone who does not accept the saving repentance, let him be anathema. Everyone who does not celebrate the holy day of Pascha according to the rite of the holy and catholic Church, let him be anathema.

YEAR OF OUR LORD CDXXX SYNESIUS BISHOP OF PTOLEMAIS IN LIBYAN PENTAPOLIS HISTORICAL NOTICE. From the notes of Dionysius Petavius on Synesius, Opp. Synes. ed. 1635, p. 1.

Synesius, ^A a gentile who was first a philosopher, then a Christian and a bishop, had the same fatherland—Cyrene, a city in the Libyan Pentapolis near Egypt—that gave birth to Aristippus and Carneades, men who were once most celebrated in philosophy. It was founded by Battus the Lacedaemonian, from whom he boasts in his *Epistle against Andronicus* that his ancestors were descended. Indeed, he relates in public records kept there that the line of his lineage can be traced back all the way to Eurysthenes, the first king of the Dorians at Sparta. He devoted himself to the study of philosophy at Alexandria, having as his teacher Hypatia, the daughter of the famous mathematician Theon; at that time, she was foremost in every branch of knowledge, to such a degree that a huge crowd of people would gather to hear her, and she wielded great authority and favor among the leading men and the Augustal prefects. This fact ultimately brought about her destruction. For when Orestes was administering Alexandria during the reign of Theodosius the Younger, ^B and was attentive to Hypatia while feuding with Bishop Cyril, the common people, thinking that Hypatia was interceding against their mutual harmony, tore her limb from limb, as Socrates relates in Book vii, chapter 15. This occurred when Honorius was consul for the 10th time and Theodosius for the 6th, in the month of March, during the days of Lent; this is the year of Christ 415.

Synesius had a brother named Evoptius, who held the bishopric of Ptolemais after him, as is clear from the second part of the Council of Ephesus, act 6. He also mentions another brother, Anastasius, in Epistle 79, as well as his sister Stratonice in Epistle 75. He took a wife in Alexandria; he himself testifies in Epistle 105 that Patriarch Theophilus presided over these nuptials, and in Epistle 18 he demonstrates that he had children by her. It is gathered from various epistles—especially 53 and 126—that there were four of them, and that they died shortly after he assumed the bishopric. He ^C served in a very honorable embassy on behalf of his homeland of Cyrene before the Emperor Arcadius, right at the beginning of the latter's reign; I speak more of this in the notes to the *Oratio de regno*.

After he had gained for himself an illustrious name on account of his rare and exquisite knowledge of philosophy and the other arts, to such a degree that he captured in love and admiration for himself not only gentiles but also Christians, he was compelled against his will to assume the bishopric of Ptolemais; and concerning this matter, we ought to discuss the situation with a little more precision. Evagrius, in Book 1, chapter 15—and following him, Photius in Cod. 26 and Nicephorus in Book xiv, chapter 55—writes that Synesius, a gentile philosopher, was won over by the Christians so that he might give his name to Christ, accept baptism, and thereafter take up the episcopal office. This was in spite of the fact that, in keeping with the decrees of Plato, he could not yet persuade himself of the resurrection of the body; but they, relying on certain hope and the greatness of the man's virtues and accomplishments, allowed him—while professing the Christian faith only in part—to acknowledge that the rest would be added by God.

The year in which Synesius was raised to the bishopric was 410 of Christ, as demonstrated by Epistles 13 and 66. In the latter, he signifies that he has recently become a bishop. ^D Writing in the former to Theophilus, he testifies that the third year is being completed since the restoration of communion to the supporters of John Chrysostom, the subsiding of dissensions, and the reconciliation of peace; since he had not yet been a bishop in the preceding year. Chrysostom died in the year 407, after whose death Theophilus immediately became the author of an amnesty (*ἀμνηστίας*) to be established between the parties: a date from which the third year falls in 410. Therefore, Synesius entered upon the bishopric in this year, and if we are to believe those same historians, it was also then that he began to be a Christian. Yet there are neither few nor light arguments available to us which suggest that he had been a Christian long before this time. In the third hymn, from verse 430, he testifies that even then, during the three-year embassy which he carried out on behalf of his Cyrenian homeland before the Emperor Arcadius, he conducted himself as a Christian. For he says that, anxious about the outcome of the embassy, he visited all the churches that were established for the celebration of the divine mysteries, and that he had made supplication to all the gods—that is to say, to the saints who were venerated in Constantinople and Chalcedon—and also to the angels.