Saint Anastasius of Sinai, Patriarch of Antioch

YEAR OF OUR LORD 561. ST. ANASTASIUS SINAITA, PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH. NOTICE.

(FABRIC. Bibliotheca Græca, ed. Harless, tom. X, pag. 571.)

^A Anastasius, presbyter and monk of Palestine, on Mount Sinai, is considered by Nicephorus and in the Roman Martyrology for April 21, as well as by many other more recent writers, to be the same person as the Anastasius who, following Domninus, was Bishop of Theopolis, or Antioch, from the year 561 AD. He firmly resisted the edict issued by the Emperor Justinian in favor of the opinion of the Aphthartodocetae—namely, followers of Julian of Halicarnassus and Gaianus—who asserted that Christ's body was incorruptible before the resurrection. Subsequently, in the year 570, he was sentenced to twenty-three years of exile by Justin the Younger. Having finally been restored in the eleventh year of Maurice, after the death of Gregory of Antioch in the year 593 AD, he died in the year 599. Succeeding him in the episcopate was another Anastasius, who translated into Greek the book of Gregory the Great, *De Cura Pastorali* (the mention of this version, which has perished, is found in Gregory himself, lib. X, epp. 22, and in John the Deacon’s *Life of Gregory*, IV, 14). This later Anastasius was subsequently killed and burned by Jews during a riot in the year 609 (as noted in the Martyrologies for December 21).

But Anastasius Sinaita, the "New Moses," is more correctly distinguished from both of these by more recent Greeks. ^B Indeed, it was by Justin the Younger that he was not punished with exile for having resisted Justinian’s edict, as Hamberger and others have maintained. Lambecius distinguishes Anastasius Sinaita from the two Anastasii who were disciples of St. Maximus, one of whom died in 662 and the other in 666, both of whom are mentioned in Anastasius’s work on heresies and synods. Regarding the first Anastasius, the Bishop of Antioch, it is noted that he occupied the patriarchal throne for eleven years before his exile, and after his exile for twenty-six full years and twenty-eight days, from March 25, 593, until April 21, 599, the day on which he died. Kollarius observes that while Lambecius's arguments regarding the true year of Anastasius’s return agree well with the historical chronology, they depend solely on the authority and reliability of the epigraph of the manuscript (Vindob. XC, n. 16), which is of very recent date, unless one believes that the homily itself, along with its epigraph, was transcribed from some very ancient and trustworthy volume. Finally, he notes that Oudin did not turn his mind to these details and, in fixing the year of this return, followed Baronius, without even mentioning Lambecius’s calculations. Regarding the death of the Bishop at the hands of the Jews, which Nicephorus reports, Baronius refutes this in his *Martyrologium Romanum* for April 21.

^A This author is mentioned as one who clearly indicates that he wrote the *Hodegos* some time later, where on page 198 he reports things narrated to him by the Alexandrians, which took place after the times of the blessed Eulogius, Pope of Alexandria, who died in the year of Christ 608. Then, on page 296, he testifies that the Patriarch of the Alexandrians of the Theodosian party at the time he was writing was John, who, it is established, held that patriarchate from the year 677 to 686. Therefore, David Blondel rightly makes a distinction between the Sinaite and the Antiochene, in his book *De Eucharistia veteris Ecclesiæ*, which saw light at Rouen under Claude Sarravius in 1640; as do Edmund Aubertin, *De sacramento Eucharistiæ*, pp. 893 and 930; Daillé, book 1, *De scriptis Dionysii*, c. 33, p. 188; Allatius, book *De Simeonibus*; Henschenius, to April 21, vol. II, p. 852; Matthieu Larroque, *Hist. de l'Eucharistie*, part II, c. 11, p. 531; Antoine Arnauld, book 1, *De transsubstantiatione, a Græcis sæculi VII, VIII, IX, et x, credita*, against J. Claude, book VI, c. 7, p. 282 (*Perpetuité de la foy*, vol. IV); Richard Simon, book II, *Bibl. selectæ*, edited in French, c. 2, and J. Baptista Solerius in his *Appendice de institutis Copto-Jacobiticis*, after the treatise on the patriarchs of Alexandria, vol. V; *Act. SS. Junii*, p. 117 seq.; Barthélemy Germon, p. 373, *De hæreticis eccles. codicum corruptoribus*, book II, c. 14, Paris, 1713, 8vo, to pass over Pagi and others already. ^B FABR. Compare our Fabricius, *Biblioth. ecclesiast.*, on Sigebert, c. 42; Dupin, *Hist. eccles.*, vol. V, p. 67, or *Nouv. Bibliothèque*, vol. V, p. 95; Cave, *Hist. litterar. scriptorr. eccles.*, vol. I, p. 531 seqq.; R. Ceillier, *Hist. génér. des aut. ecclés.*, on Anastasius, Bishop of Antioch, vol. XVI, p. 630; and vol. XVII, p. 430, on Anastasius, the Sinaite monk, before the year 686; Lequien, *Orient. Christian.*, vol. II, p. 734; Alfonso Ciaconio in *Bibliotheca*, including almost all books and writers in alphabetical order; ed. J. Erhard Kapp, Amsterdam and Leipzig, 1734, fol., pp. 134 and 135; Adelung in *Fortsetzung des Jöcher. Gelehrt. Lex.*, vol. I, p. 776 seqq., who distinguishes the Anastasii Sinaitae I, II, and the fourth, Anastasius the Sinaite monk (a. 680), and Anastasius Theopolitanus, whom Vossius thought lived in the time of Cyril, circa 390; but Adelung rightly doubts this; Moller, *Homonymoscop.*, sect. 2, c. 5, § 3, pp. 414-417, on the various Anastasii; Saxius, *Onom. lit.* II, p. 49 seq., where he also rightly distinguishes the Anastasii: the elder, Bishop of Antioch from the year 561 (whom he writes died in 598), from the younger, the former's successor, and from Anastasius, presbyter and monk of Sinai in Arabia (a. 680). Moreover, Saxius praises Pagi in *Crit. Baron.* DXCIX. II, III, p. 638 seq., vol. X, and in many places; also Jacques Basnage in *Observatione de duplici Anastasio, Antiocheno et Sinaita*, pp. 433-435; Canisius, *Lect. antiq.*, vol. I; Walch, in the cited *Historia hæresium*, vol. VIII, p. 827 seqq., and elsewhere. ^C First of all, one must note Casimir Oudin’s *Diss. de Anastasio, episcopo Antiocheno et Sinaita, nominis quarto, ejusque operibus tam impressis, quam mss. ipsi attributis*, in *Commentar. de scriptor. eccles.*, vol. II, col. 544-583. He lists the works which are also commemorated by Fabricius under the name of Anastasius, adding information on the manuscript codices in which they are found, and by reasons and conjectures drawn from the works themselves, he strives to prove that the author of most of them was Anastasius the Sinaite and Bishop of Antioch, the fourth of that name, to be placed circa the year 1010 or 1020, and that only a single oration, delivered to the Antiochenes after his return, seems to belong to Anastasius the elder, Bishop of Antioch. In volume I, p. 1663 seq., he treats of Anastasius, the Sinaite monk, and Patriarch of Antioch, the third of this name, circa 685, the author of the *Narratio compendiaria de hæresibus*. HARL.

WRITINGS OF ANASTASIUS THE SINAITE.

1. The *Hodegos*, or *Guide*, written against the Acephali, Severians, and Theodosians, who admit only one nature in Christ, which he opposes with every kind of argument and testimonies from Holy Scripture and the ancient Fathers, ^D and dissolves their objections, having testified that he debated with them in person in Syria and Egypt, particularly at Alexandria, more than once. He does not deny that he wrote down most of the sayings of the Fathers from memory, being destitute of their books in the desert. Jacob Gretser, S.J., first edited this book from the Augustan codex, donated it with a Latin version, and consecrated the Greek and Latin edition to Marcus Velserus, by whose benefit he had received the manuscript codex to use, at Ingolstadt, 1606, 4to [and in *opp. Gretser.* vol. XIV, part II, p. 100, Ratisbon, 1740, fol.]. It was reprinted in Latin in the *Bibliotheca Patrum*, edit. Lyons, 1677, vol. IX, p. 808 seqq. But in Greek, it has never appeared again since the time of the first edition, wherefore it would be worth the effort for a new edition of it to be prepared by some learned man, who would review the work with new study against the manuscript codices which exist—surprisingly diverse among themselves—in various libraries, such as the Caesarean and that of the Most Christian King, the Colbertine and others. For Gretser, having used only a single...

codex, did not always grasp the meaning; he inserted scholia into the text, compared others, and left many things in the Greek corrupted and in need of better arrangement—a fact that no one will doubt who reads Richard Simon’s *Nouvelle bibliothèque choisie*, edited in French, vol. II, cap. 2, or the censures in Dupin’s *Bibliothèque ecclésiastique*, vol. I, p. 232. The same author recounts that he compared Gretser’s edition with certain manuscripts, corrected many things in it, and wished to bring it forth again, revised by his own labor. But the fates stood in the way of this purpose of his.

Although I would not deny that certain extraneous things have been stitched onto this book—the *Exposition of the Faith*, which is read on page 10, does not exist in two manuscripts of the *Hodegos*, such as the King’s manuscript in Paris and the Colbertine, but it does exist in other codices under the name of John of Damascus, just as the *Definitions* (pp. 22 ff. and 48) also appear there (see Michel Le Quien on [John] Damascene, vol. I, pp. 661–662 [18])—nevertheless, I would gladly attribute the Preface and the Scholia not to some unknown collector, as Simon does, but to Anastasius himself.

FABRICIUS (Cave, *loc. cit.*, pp. 531 ff.), opining that this work was patched together both from various writings of Anastasius himself and from certain works of the ancients, attributes it to Anastasius, Patriarch of Antioch, but believes it to have been somewhat heavily interpolated by a more recent hand; Weismann and Mosheim have not disagreed. Against this, many learned men cited by Fabricius in § 1, as well as Natalis Alexander in his *Historia ecclesiastica* (vol. V, p. 412) and Jacques Basnage (*Thesaurus monumentorum*, vol. I, p. 570, who translated it into German), place him toward the end of the seventh century; Walch (*loc. cit.*, pp. 828 ff.) subscribes to their opinion and judges the work itself with restraint. But Oudin (*loc. cit.*, chapters 3 and 4, pp. 554 ff. and 580 ff.), against Cave and Arnaldus—who, favoring his own cause, asserts in his book *De perpetua fide Ecclesiae circa realitatem corporis et sanguinis Christi in Eucharistia* (lib. VII, cap. 2, p. 649, as cited by Oudin) that this work belongs to the elder Anastasius—strives to prove with many arguments that the author of that confused hodgepodge was Anastasius IV.

2. Anastasius mentions in the *Hodegos* a *Dogmatic Tome*, p. 192, 194, as well as an *Apologetic Tome to the People*, p. 118, and a *Syntagma against Nestorius*, attacking his heresy at length and in detail. But none of these have come to light: I do not know if they still lie hidden somewhere in manuscripts. Certainly, Possinus wrote to Henschenius that the catalog of the works of Anastasius Sinaita alone, kept in the Vatican library, would fill four large pages. Although the writings of Anastasius of Antioch are perhaps commonly confused by librarians and catalogers with the writings of the Sinaite and other Anastasii.

The *Collectanea against the Severians* by Anastasius the Presbyter, which Canisius gave in Latin from the version of Turrianus (vol. IV, *Antiquae lectiones*), exist in a more complete state in Greek in a manuscript of the library of the Jesuit College in Paris. See J. Hardouin, *Opera selecta*, pp. 239, 243.

NOTITIA.

[He] considers that manuscript copy to be most worthy of being diligently and carefully compared with Gretser’s edition, but Kollar also judges the same, and recommends it to a future editor along with Lambecius. Codex LXXVII, no. 43 (in the same volume, page 406, described more fully by Lambecius), differs not insignificantly from the prior codex and Gretser’s edition in the matter of arrangement, as well as in variant readings and certain additions. The same Kollar praises excerpts and fragments of the same work in the Vienna codices CLXXXIII (see Lambecius IV, p. 449), CXLVII (Lambecius V, p. 268), and CCXLIX, which are encountered there and could be of use to a new edition. Furthermore, in the mentioned codex XLVI, no. 5, is an Appendix of the cited work, which in Gretser’s edition is as a preface. In codex CLXXXVIII, no. 1, in Lambecius IV, p. 449, are the first three chapters of the *Hodegos*. [MARL.] Aubertin and Richard Simon, in the cited locations. FABR. It is helpful to add knowledge of other manuscript codices. At Lambecius V, p. 3, in codex CCI, no. 2, are theological definitions collected from the writings of St. Clement and various other Fathers; the same are on page 320, vol. IV, in codex CLV, no. 6, but there is no mention of John of Damascus in the inscription; in codex CCXLIX, no. 1, however, is the second chapter of the *Hodegos*, containing various theological definitions. See Lambecius V, p. 298; add below to § 7, no. 23. A manuscript *Hodegos* is cited from the catalog of Constantinus Varinus by Lambecius I, p. 273 sq. In the Bavarian codex LXVI is an exposition by chapter from the *Hodegos* of Anastasius in an epitome of the faith. See Hardt in *Aretini Beyträgen*, etc., 1804, part II, p. — Paris, in the public library, codex DCCCXCVIII, 6, *Definitions from the Hodegos*, and in codex DCCCLXXXVII, 3 (thus cited in the catalog): *Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by Anastasius, Patriarch of Antioch, and also by Cyril*. The *Hodegos* is ibid. in codices MLIII, 8, and MLXXXIV. In Florence, in the Laurentian codex XII, no. 42, plut. 6, [are] several excerpts from the *Hodegos*. In codex XX, no. 1, plut. 8, is a part of the *Hodegos*, *A Brief Exposition of the Faith by Anastasius* (it is falsely read as Athanasius); Bandini shows that the things in this codex agree with the edition, though many things diverge from it. In codex VIII, no. 54, plut. 9, are *Theological Definitions from the second chapter of the Hodegos*; and *On the Faith* from the same work is in codex VI, no. 5, plut. 86. See Bandini, *Catalogus codicum Graecorum Laurentianorum*, pp. 121, 564 sqq., 402; and III, p. 294. *Certain things by Anastasius, Bishop of Antioch*, in Cambridge, in codex XXVI of Trinity College, no. 316. *Catalogus manuscriptorum Angliae*, vol. I, part II.

According to Montfaucon in his *Bibliotheca bibliothecarum manuscriptorum*, there exist in Rome in the Slusian library the works of Anastasius (p. 178, no. 157); ibid., in the *Bibliotheca Patrum* of St. Basil, certain things (p. 196 C and Montfaucon, *Diarium italicum*, p. 216). Ibid., in the Ottobonian codex, the *Hodegos* and *Questions and Answers* (p. 185 A and p. 188 A). In Augsburg, Anastasius in eight Mazarine codices (p. 1306 D); works and excerpts from his own works, in the Turin codices (p. 1394 A); *Sermons on the Truth of our Dogmas*, or *Five Books*, in the Sfotian library (p. 708 A). The *Hodegos* and *Sermons on the Truth of the Dogmas among us*, four sermons, in the Escorial library [see Pluer, *Itinerarium per Hispaniam*, p. 156, where they are ascribed to Anastasius, Bishop of Antioch]. *Fragments from the Hodegos*, in the Moscow codex CCXVI, and the *Hodegos* in codex CCLII. See Matthaei, *Notitia manuscriptorum synodalium Mosquensium*, pp. 142 and 163, ed. in 8vo. Ibid., p. 506, no. 58, in codex X: *Protheoria of the book whose title is: On the construction of the substance of all of us mortals*. The same *Protheoria* is in the *Bibliotheca Patrum* of St. Basil; see Montfaucon, *Diarium italicum*, p. 215. HARL. me Gazai.

^A *Questions and Answers CLIV, on various subjects* (Περὶ διαφόρων κεφαλαίων), Greek and Latin, were edited from three Vatican codices, with a notable supplement, by the same Jacob Gretser (Ingolstadt, 1617, 4to). [Reprinted in Gretser's *Works*, Ratisbon, 1740, fol. vol. XIV, part II, p. 1 et seqq. HARL.] They were reprinted in Latin in the *Bibliotheca Patrum*, Lyons edition, vol. IX, p. 956 et seqq.; but I have already noted that the Patriarch of Antioch is different from the monk of Sinai, the author of the *Hodegos*; and indeed, under the name of the Sinaite, the questions are explicitly praised by Philip the Solitary, who wrote in the year of Christ 1105, in his *Dioptra of the Christian Faith* to the monk Callinicus, book IV, p. 150. For in intending to introduce a question, which in this collection is number XCV, he says: "I shall provide a faithful and God-inspired witness named Anastasius, surnamed the Sinaite, teaching and clearly writing upon these things whereof he had been asked." Therefore, let Gentianus Hervetus, who translated ninety-three questions from these into Latin and published them—often reprinted in the *Bibliothecas Patrum*—under the name of Anastasius of Nicaea, take heed: he undoubtedly followed his manuscript codex, against which, besides the testimony of Philip, so many others disagree, ascribing these questions to Anastasius the Sinaite, as may be seen in Lambecius III, p. 197 ^B (20), where he mentions a codex from which six questions can be supplied, which are missing after the forty-first in the Gretser edition, and exist only in Latin in the Hervetian version; and in Montfaucon's *Bibliotheca Seguieriana or Coisliniana*, p. 188 and 189, where CLVI questions are numbered, and p. 193, where "Athanasius's questions" is erroneously printed for "Anastasius'." And on p. 304, 305, it is noted that Anastasius the Sinaite is cited in those questions, which I do not find in the printed editions. Nevertheless, Question 95 mentions that he had written a separate book, *On the various inclinations of men*, and that God is not the author of them insofar as they incline toward vice. "Regarding this, it has been spoken by us in a separate work, in which, starting from it..." ^C ...in the imperial codex of Vienna there occur *Questions*, etc., according to Lambecius: in codex XIX at the end of the *Questions and Answers* (the eighteenth, according to Lambecius's later revisions, and in the index under the word *Anastasius*), concerning men who have died by violent death, annotated by Kollarius in note B, vol. III, p. 94, who nevertheless adds: "Moreover, this thirteenth question of St. Athanasius (sic) is not only divided into two questions; it is much shorter than the one that is read in Gretser's edition of the *Questions and Answers of St. Anastasius*, page 210." Lambecius, however, observes in his index *loc. cit.* that this manuscript exemplar differs not insignificantly from Gretser's edition. In the same index, it is said that there exists the second question and answer of Anastasius concerning the true manner of worshiping God in spirit and truth, but in the context, p. 255 et seqq., of codex LVIII, the name of Anastasius is not mentioned. In codex LIX, n. 15, there exists the forty-seventh question concerning the miracles of Elijah and Elisha. ^D In the same codex n. 22, and codex CLV, n. 3; CCXIV, n. 7; CCXLIX, n. 2; CCLII, CCLXXXVII, n. 15, there are *Questions and Answers*; Fabricius has already observed that many questions can be supplied from the first codex. See Lambecius III, p. 485 et seq.; vol. IV, p. 319; vol. V, p. 91, ib. p. 298, p. 531, p. […]. Fourteen questions in codex CXXXVII, n. 1, Lambecius IV, p. 441. Thirty-three questions in codex CCXXXVIII, n. 4; Lambecius V, p. 197. Certain questions in codex XIX, n. 16; Lambecius VI, part II, p. 243. Question 115, in codex XLV, n. 64; then six questions, ibid. n. 67; Lambecius VIII, p. 947 and 948. 254 questions, in codex XXIV, n. 2. See Kollarius, *Supplement to Lambecius's Commentaries*, p. 209, who teaches that by a diligent comparison of this codex and the Gretserian Greek and Latin context, the version could be established much more correctly. Furthermore, it is useful to append a notice of the codices in other libraries. Therefore, those *Questions* exist in Dresden in the electoral library, on which codex see Goetzius, *Memorabilia*, Dresden, vol. III, syl. 4, p. 361. At Munich in the Bavarian library, in codex 511, ninety-two questions; but the renowned Hardt has shown more fully that they differ greatly from the printed editions in *Aretini Beytragen*, etc., 1804, part I, p. 19 et seqq. In Augsburg, but under the false name of Athanasius, see Reiser, *Index of MSS in Augsburg*, p. 27. *Collectanea* from Anastasius and others, ibid., p. 39. In Moscow in the synodal library, according to Matthaei in his *Notitia of Greek Manuscript Codices in Moscow*, in 8, in codex V, one question (p. 18, n. 27); in codex CCLII, *Answers* (p. 165, n. 31); in codex CCCXXVII, questions (p. 216, n. 2); in codices CCCLXXVIII and XLVIII, certain [questions] (p. 244, n. 11, and p. 326, n. 5). In Venice in the library of Julius Justinian, *Questions*, etc., of Anastasius and other Fathers, twice. See Montfaucon, *Diarium Italicum*, p. 434. The same, in *Palaeographia Graeca*, p. 48, concerning two codices, Parisian and Laurentian, in which there are questions, etc., of Anastasius. In Turin in the royal codex CXIII, 102 questions; but the name of Anastasius is omitted; see the catalog of Greek codices of Turin, p. 217. In codex CLXXVII, several questions, *ibid.*, p. 263. In codex CXCVI, very many questions, but with great discrepancy from the edition, *ibid.*, p. 296. In Florence in the Medicean Laurentian library, codex VI, n. 1, plut. 4, 86 questions; Bandini teaches how they differ from the printed ones in the *Catalog of Greek Manuscripts of the Laurentian Library* I, p. 524. *Ibid.* in codex VII, which for the most part agrees with the former, appear only 81 questions; but codex XVI, plut. 4, contains 157 questions. See Bandini, *loc. cit.*, p. 525 and 540. In Paris in the public library there are those, sometimes more, sometimes fewer, in seventeen codices, according to the manuscript catalog of that library, vol. II. According to the manuscript catalog of England and Ireland, in vol. I they are in the Barocci codex LXXVI, of Anastasius, Patriarch of Theopolis, *Answer to the questions of Gabriel, a Persian presbyter*; in codices XCI and CCVI are *Questions and Solutions*. In the codex of Thomas Roe, XVII, n. 263 of the catalog, more questions, twice. Also in the codex of Oliver Cromwell, CXI and CXII, n. 290 and 291 of the catalog. In Madrid, in the royal codex XIII, which Iriarte reviews broadly in the *Catalog of Greek Codices of Madrid*, p. 38 et seqq., he tracks them one by one, their sequence and their words, and he indicates what is missing in the Gretser edition, and signifies that they differ wondrously from the printed ones in order, in the form of words and sentences, sometimes in copiousness, sometimes in brevity. At p. 42, from the same codex he adduces a dissertation of Anastasius, *On the manifold machination and deception of the devil*, which, he says, you will not at all find among the questions or other works of Anastasius the Sinaite, and another fragment from the Gospel according to John, which he confesses is not easily determined from which work of Anastasius it was taken; p. 43 et seqq., other questions are listed from the same codex (for sometimes foreign works are inserted). In the Escorial codices, some questions appear. See Pluer, in *Itinerarium through Spain*, p. 156. According to Montfaucon, *Bibliotheca bibliothecarum manuscriptorum*, in Rome in the Vatican library, in codex DLXXXIX formerly of Queen Christina of Sweden, some questions: (1, p. 28. B). In Naples in the codex of the monastery of S. Severinus, questions etc. (p. 154. A). HARL.

^A from the regions of the sunrise to the regions of the sunset, and again from there in a circle to the North and following that even to the sunrise itself, we have shown that it is not God who makes man thus... and again a fornicator, etc. These questions were collected by the Sinaite from various writers, to which, subsequently, some things were added by I know not whom, from other ^B later writers (21): just as several other fragments of various writers are also added to them in the Barocci codex and in one [codex] of the Most Christian King [and likewise in the Madrid and others], which are sought in vain in the published editions, not only by Hervetus, but also by Gretser. In question 117, I consider the number "seven hundred years" to be corrupt for "twenty," and the words repeat what is from a writer near those times, by whom the Jews were expelled from Palestine around the year 378. Lambecius (III, p. 197 [p. 486. Kollar.]) notes that question 42 is taken from Hippolytus, *On the Song of Songs*, and question 52 from Isidore of Pelusium. Cotelerius observes, besides Lambecius in the cited place (*Monumenta*, Vol. III, p. 531), that question 153 is from Hesychius the Presbyter, and question 144 from Irenaeus (id. p. 542). The fragments which occur preserved in these Anastasian questions—from Eusebius, ^C Hippolytus, Severus of Antioch, Cyril of Alexandria, Basil, Epiphanius, and Chrysostom—were published separately in Greek from the Medicean library of the Queen Mother for the use of the Mussipontana Academy, with notes, in 1592, 4to, by Nic. Alemannus. Gretser exhibits brief but learned notes on certain passages of the Questions in his Preface. In the *Bibliotheca Patrum* (Lyon ed., Vol. IX), Gretser’s animadversions are not rarely mixed with the words of Anastasius in a poor confusion. FABR. Consult Oudin (l. c., ch. 5, col. 564 sqq.) regarding this work, who, because many passages and authors are found in these questions—those whom he cites and compares—who lived after the times of the Anastasii, bishops of Antioch, both the first and the second, gathers and maintains the proof that this little work pertains to Anastasius IV, a writer of the XI century. He then lists many codices in which this work is kept, and, following Lambecius, offers certain things regarding the lacunae and filling them ^D from codices. HARL.

INDEX OF WRITERS AND HERETICS, WHO ARE MENTIONED IN THE QUESTIONS OF ANASTASIUS THE SINAITE.

Apollonius Tyaneus the magician, qu. 20. Apuleius the magician, qu. 20. The fable of the Arabs, that a demon fell because he refused to adore man, qu. 126. Arab wanderers, qu. 127. The Quadragesima of the Arians, qu. 64. Arsenius, qu. 60. Astrologers, qu. 95. Athanasius, qu. 62. His responses, qu. 8. Questions, qu. 9. Barsanuphians, qu. 117. Basil the Great, qu. 61, 66, 67. Ascetica, qu. 1, 6, 9, 14, 15, 37, 60, 63, 64, 147. On Isaiah, qu. 2, 53. Monastic Rules, qu. 18, 25. Oration against the Drunkards, qu. 3. Dialogues, qu. 64. Epistle to Caesarius the Patrician, qu. 7. Book on the Holy Spirit, qu. 128, 151. On the Psalm, qu. 8. On the 33rd Psalm, qu. 57. On the beginning of Proverbs, qu. 9, 65. On the rich, qu. 12, 17. On the Gospel according to Luke, qu. 12. On Virginity, qu. 66. To Eubulus, qu. 154. To Evagrius the monk, qu. 17, 18. Cajanites, qu. 117. Council of Chalcedon. See Synod. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, qu. 14. From the first sermon on Providence and the just judgment of God, qu. 96. Clement of Rome, Apostolic Constitutions, qu. 1. Cyril of Alexandria, Against Julian, qu. 2. On adoration in spirit, qu. 20, 39, 57. Commentary on Job, qu. 30. Cyril of Jerusalem, From the Catechetical [lectures], qu. 1. Catechetical chapters, qu. 3. Diadochus, Ascetic chapters, qu. 2. Ascetic sermons, qu. 9. On spiritual perfection, qu. 21. Dionysius Alexandrinus, against Origen, qu. 23. Dionysius the Areopagite, qu. 6, 21, 22, 100. St. Ephrem, On judgment, qu. 72. Epiphanius, Panarion, qu. 22, 28, 57, 66, 155. Ancoratus, qu. 23, 28. On the XII stones, qu. 40. To Diodorus, qu. 45. The Church of St. Epiphanius in Cyprus, qu. 94. Euchologium, qu. 141. Eusebius Pamphili, to Marinus, qu. 9, 148. On ancient history, qu. 41, 65. Eustathians, qu. 64. Gregory of Nyssa, on the Lord's Prayer, qu. 1. To Olympius the monk, qu. 1. On those who are snatched away before their time, qu. 16. On fate, qu. 19. Gregory the Theologian, on the new Lord's Day [Easter], qu. 4. On the Lights [Epiphany], qu. 6. On the Exaequator, qu. 11. Against Julian, qu. 12, 65. On the blow of the hail, qu. 17, 65. On love for the poor, qu. 18, 63. To his brother Caesarius, qu. 21, 75. Hesychius the Presbyter, qu. 153. Confer Lambecius III, p. 197, and Cotelerius, *Monumenta* III, p. 531. Hippolytus, on the Song of Songs, qu. 41 and 42 (confer Lambec. III, p. 197); on Daniel, qu. 48. Irenaeus, against heresies, qu. 74 and 144. Confer Coteler. *Monumenta* III, p. 542. Isidore of Pelusium, qu. 5, 65, 66, and 52. Confer Lambecius III, p. 197. Ascetica, qu. 2. Epistles, qu. 8, 16, 17, 154. To Eusebius the Bishop, qu. 12.

(21) This, besides other things, Allatius [mentions]. In *De libris eccles. Graec.*, p. 274. No one, however, is cited in the published questions as "the younger" anno 680, whom Anastasius the Sinaite could have reached. For what Blondel (p. 375) assumes regarding the Eucharist, that Olympiodorus lived after the year 900 or 1000, is by no means the case, since the same Olympiodorus is even cited by Anastasius in the *Hexaëmeron*. Nor should J. B. Sollerius be heard, who, in the Appendix to *Histor. Patriarcharum Alexandrinorum*, p. 118, before Vol. V of the *Acta SS.* for June, wrote: "What leads to another Hodegus, of 154 questions, etc." FABR. See Lambecius and Kollar, in the *Commentarium*, Vol. IV, p. 77, and Cave (l. c.), who considers this work either not to be that of Anastasius the Sinaite, Bishop of Antioch, or to be significantly interpolated, and he adduces examples. But Oudin (l. c., p. 565) pronounces gravely that what Cave said is childish and unworthy of a grave man. HARL.

John Chrysostom, quest. 16, 66; on Matthew, quest. 3, 4, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 21, 22, quest. 1, 5, 6, 12, 18; On the Degrees of Ascent, quest. 2; Sermon on the Canaanite woman, quest. 2; On the Parable of the Fig Tree, quest. 5; To the Hebrews, quest. 3, 7; On 1 Corinthians, quest. 6, 9, 10, 11, 56; On Ephesians, quest. 10; On the Resurrection, quest. 11; On the Epistle to the Romans, quest. 12; On Psalm 6, quest. 5, 8, 9; On Psalm 50, quest. 6; On the Psalms of Ascent, quest. 6, 9, 17; On Psalm 145, quest. 20; On Philippians, quest. 14; On the Earthquake, quest. 18; On 1 Timothy, quest. 18; On the Priest’s Vestment, quest. 40; On Saul, quest. 53; On that saying, "Whoever shall look at a woman," quest. 59. John Climacus, quest. 6, 8, 15. Josephus, on the Maccabees, quest. 8; the last work of the Jewish Antiquities, quest. 146. Julian the Magician, quest. 20. Julian the Apostate, quest. 125. Lampetians, quest. 64. Manetho’s magic works, quest. 20. Manichaeans, quest. 96. Manichaean dogma, quest. 88. Marcionites, quest. 64. Marcus the Monk, quest. 1. Massalians, who sometimes appeared in Paphlagonia, quest. 64. Maximus the Monk, quest. 154; His heads, quest. 8. (Moschus) Spiritual Meadow or Limonarium, quest. 60. Necromancers, quest. 59. Nemesius, bishop of Emesa, on providence, quest. 48; On the Nature of Man, quest. 24. Nicephorus, bishop of Constantinople, against the Iconoclasts, quest. 2, 57. Nilus the Monk to Agathius the Monk, quest. 2, 11, 21. Olympiodorus on Job, quest. 16. Origen, quest. 23; Dialogue with Megethius the Marcionite, quest. 48. Palladius’ Lausiac History, quest. 2; Life of Chrysostom, quest. 11. Fathers, quest. 8, etc. A certain philosopher (Democritus), quest. 127. External philosophers, quest. 154. Scholasticus, casting insults at Plato and being warned by Plato in a dream, quest. 111. Samaritans, quest. 45. Sardanapalus’ epitaph, quest. 8. Serenus the Monk, quest. 8. Severians, quest. 117. Severus of Antioch, quest. 152. Add Lambec. VIII, p. 389 seq. [p. 827, Kollar.] Simon Magus, quest. 20. (Sophronius or Moschus) Spiritual Meadow, Limonarium, quest. 60. Sixth Synod (Trullan), quest. 64; Council of Chalcedon, 117; Synodical chapter from the Council of Carthage, quest. 143. Theodoret’s Cure of Greek Maladies, quest. 8, 16, 46, 47; On the Prophets, quest. 17; On that passage in Exodus, "My name I did not make known to them," quest. 40; On Hosea, quest. 60. Trisagion Hymn, quest. 154. Valens the Palestinian, quest. 2, from Palladius’ Lausiac History.

Anagogical Contemplations on the Six Days of Creation, in twelve books, to Theophilus, whom he calls his dearest son.

^A Eustathius of Antioch, whom he calls a doctor of the Nicene Council and a martyr, p. 903 H. (incorrectly *Epistethio* for Eustathio, p. 860, F. in the Latin edition, Lyons, Vol. IX of the *Bibl. Patrum*), Gregory of Nyssa, and Justin the martyr and philosopher, p. 887 D, 893 G, 895 A. Severianus of Gabala (so it should be read, p. 895 E, instead of Severus); Theodore, truly the miracle of Antioch, ibid. and p. 896 F, and Theophilus. Furthermore, he cites Clement of the *Stromata*, p. 891 G; Dionysius the apostolic mystic in his *Theology*, p. 891 A; the two Cappadocian Gregories (Nyssen and the theologian Nazianzen); Irenaeus of Lyons, p. 910 B; Olympiodorus the Alexandrian deacon, whom he notes as having adorned that city with his writings, p. 884 H; Pantaenus the Alexandrian; and Papias of Hierapolis, a disciple of John the Evangelist. He cites Philo the philosopher, a contemporary of the apostles, p. 893 G, 892 B; and the one who composed the Hexapla (Origen), ibid., and Book XII, p. 7. He reproaches Origen incessantly for his excessive use of anagogical and spiritual contemplations, p. 895 D seq., and states that he was justly condemned by synodical sentence. Add p. 901 E, 917 G, 920 E. H. He praises Theodoret of Cyrrhus, p. 896 F, and in the same place pronounces Origen unfortunate, because although he produced many useful works in the Church and interpreted the entire Old and New Testament to the letter, he later fell away from the truth, just as Eusebius of Palestine did. Regarding Methodius attacking Origen, see p. 920 E. H. By the "ancient Jew," p. 894 E, he seems to understand Philo, and he signifies him again at p. 898 E. He also mentions the divine *Monad* as spoken of by Orpheus, p. 864 D. He relates that frequent extemporaneous debates with the Jews occurred for him, Book VI, p. 884 A, and refers to his own second book against the Jews, p. 884 F. He also makes mention of various heretics who he says emerged because they understood the words of Moses concerning God and Paradise less than correctly, Book VII, p. 894 B. Some indeed held that God has a corporeal form, while others offered great thanksgivings to the serpent because, through its counsel and the resulting transgression, the entire human race was generated from the woman; these are rightly called Ophites, that is, Serpentines. Add 910 B, 912 G. The Manichaeans, however, men and women together, gather naked in their ^B churches in imitation of Adam and Eve. Others worshipped the uncreated nature of fire, for the reason that no mention of fire is made in the entire six-day creation. Others worshipped water as uncreated, because it is not written, "And God said: Let there be water." Others, among whom are the Persians, contracted marriages with their sisters and mothers, because our first parents were joined with their own mothers and sisters. There are also certain heresies that accuse God of not having prevented the wicked one from seducing Eve through the serpent. Another heresy, in turn, decreed that the souls of beasts are also endowed with reason, being able to hear and practice prayer, since they heard God blessing the birds and fish, cursing the serpent, and bringing the beasts, birds, and cattle to Adam so that he might know what to call them. He lashes the error of the Manichaeans, who blaspheme the deceitful God who spoke the Old Testament, p. 900 A, 902 H, 917 G. Of Simon Magus, Book XI, p. 19. The heresy of the Encratites, p. 917 G. Furthermore, p. 895 D, a book of the Hebrews not included in the Canon is cited, which is called the *Testament of the Protoplasts*, in which it was handed down that Adam was placed in Paradise on the fortieth day, just as, he says, it seems to a certain historical chronographer, Pyrrhus, and some expositors. Glycas also makes mention of this chronographer Pyrrhus from Anastasius, p. 82 of his *Annales*. Anastasius says that the Gospel of Matthew was translated from the Hebrew dialect into the Greek language by Luke and Paul, p. 900 D. He lashes Aquila’s interpretation of Genesis II, 18: *Ποιήσομεν αὐτῷ βοηθὸν κατέναντι αὐτοῦ*, p. 902 H, more harshly than he deserved, as Montfaucon noted concerning that passage of Genesis in his Hexapla. Symmachus and Aquila are called upon again, p. 909 F, regarding Genesis I, 1 and 5, p. 909 F, 913 E.

Regarding the two homilies on the sixth Psalm, worthy of being read, the former begins: *Πρέπουσαν τῆς τῶν νηστειῶν ἀρχῆς*. The latter: *Πρέπουσα διδασκαλία μετανοίας*. Henricus Canisius published the former with the version of Philippus Sueuenzelius S.J., Vol. III, *Lection. antiquar.*, p. 87-122 [in the Basnage ed., Vol. I, p. 480, and the other, p. 502, Gr. and Lat., from the Combefis edit., *Auctar. novi* Vol. I, p. 943]. Francis Combefis included both in Vol. I of his *Auctarium novum*, Paris 1648, fol. p. 907, 943-976; he unearthed the latter from a manuscript of the Most Christian King and added his own version (25). The book of Anastasius Sinaita on the sixth Psalm is praised by Nicephorus XVIII, 44: *Ὁ εἰς τὸν ἕκτον ψαλμὸν λόγος ταῖς εἰσβάσεσι τῶν νηστειῶν ἐκδοθείς*.

ἐκδοθείς*. ^A On ^B the sacred synaxis, and on not judging, and on the forgetting of injuries. It begins: *Ἀεὶ μὲν ἡ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος χάρις*. From a Bavarian codex with the version of Achilles Statius the Portuguese, edited by Henricus Canisius, *Antiq. Lect.* tom. III, p. 60–86 (26); then revised against the royal codices with his own new version by Franciscus Combefisius, *Auctar. nov.* tom. I, p. 881. Combefisius’s version was reprinted in tom. IX of the *Bibl. Patrum*, Lyon edition, p. 943. Fragments from the version of Statius, as yet unpublished at that time, had been produced by Baronius at the year 599, n. 9, etc. The Portuguese in *Perpetuitate fidei catholicæ de transsubstantiatione* prefer to attribute this writing to a junior, I know not whom, an Anastasius of Nicaea, because it repeats certain things from John Climacus regarding rash judgment. But Combefisius rightly allowed himself little to be moved by that reasoning, so as not rather to place faith in the consensus of the manuscript codices which consistently attribute it to the Sinaite. See Lambecius, IV, p. 135, 168 [p. 310, n. 6, p. 378, n. 5, where the codex at the end has the narrative concerning the unpublished writings mentioned below at n. 16: also vol. V, p. 90, etc., and p. 243, n. 8 Kollar] and Montfaucon’s *Bibl. Coisliniana*, p. 490. It is added that there is no doubt that Anastasius Sinaita wrote after J. Climacus.

7. Concerning ^C humanity created in the image of God. It was produced in Greek and Latin under the name of Anastasius the presbyter Sinaita, at the end of the *Philocalia* of Origen, Greek and Latin, edited by Joannes Tarinus, Paris, 1618, 4to. The same sermon also saw the light among the works of Gregory of Nyssa, tom. I, *Opp.* Paris, 1615, p. 854–866 (27); and in 1638, tom. II, p. 22, with the version of Fronto Ducaeus, with which it had seen the light at Ingolstadt, 1596. It begins: *Ὁ τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀπλανῶς τοῦ προσώπου*. Truly, there is hardly anything to persuade one that the author is the younger Nyssen, although others preferred to attribute it to Anastasius. See Tillemont, tom. IX, *Memor.* p. 741 and 605, where he thinks this writing is a portion of a larger work by which the author illustrated difficult passages of Holy Scripture, which seems to me by no means likely. FABR. C. Barth calls it a golden booklet, *ad Claudian. Mamert.* p. 315. FABR. — A fragment is in the Moscow manuscript XXX, n. 2, in the index of Matthaei, *l. c.* p. 316. — In the Laurentian manuscript I, n. 6 and 8, plut. 7, there are three homilies of Anastasius on humanity created in the image of God, with a few scholia, the first of which was published by Tarinus at the end of the *Philocalia* of Origen, p. 561–589; the second, however, as if another part of the first, was published there at p. 588–605; the third, in which the author declares the reason why he wrote those two sermons and teaches other things, Bandini reviewed in the *Cat. codd. Gr. Laurent.* tom. I (where he reviewed those three homilies at p. 295, etc.), p. 299–312 in Greek with the Latin version of Dominicus Straticon; he was the first to bring it to light from that codex. In the Baroccian manuscript CXCVII, it begins: *Ἀλλὰ γε δεῖ ἐπί τό*. HARL.

8. On the Transfiguration of the Savior. We have a sermon on this subject by Anastasius of Antioch. It begins: *Ὡς φοβερὸς ὁ τόπος οὗτος*. Allatius remembers it in his book *De Simeonibus*, p. 116, and John Cyparissiota cites it. FABR. — The same homily is in the Baroccian manuscript CXCIX, near the end, and in the Mazarine codex, as witnessed by Montfaucon in *Bibl. Biblioth. ms.* II, p. 1317 E. — Florentine, in the Laurentian manuscript XXXIII, n. 29. See Bandini, *l. c.* I, p. 456. — Paris, in the Public Library in manuscripts MCXCIV, n. 7; MDIV, 7, and MDXLVIII, 12; add Oudin (who attributes it to Anastasius IV), *l. c.* 571, n. 3; and 572, n. 5. HARL.

9. On those who have fallen asleep in the Lord. It begins: *Τί τοῦτο σήμερον, ἀγαπητοί*. Allatius mentions it, p. II, of his praised book on the Simeons, and Lambecius mentions the manuscript in the Imperial Library, IV, p. 136; Fabr. *s.* p. 311, n. 7, ed. Kollar. — Item at Venice in the Nanian manuscript CXXVIII, n. 3. See *Cat. codd. Gr. Nan.* p. 297. In the Escorial manuscript. See Pluer.

^D (26) See Basnage, *Antiq. Lect.* tom. I, p. 465, who represents that oration from the Combefisius edition, revised against the codices of the Parisian library, in which it is indicated in vol. II of the *Cat. mss. Paris.* that seven codices are found which contain this little work. Concerning the Bavarian manuscript XXIV, from which Canisius had published the oration, see the *clarissimus* Hardt in *Aretini Beyträgen*, etc., 1803, part III, p. 25, etc. Compare vol. IX, p. 740, n. 6, and concerning the manuscripts, see Oudin, *l. c.* p. 572, etc., n. 6 and 7, to which I will add the Turin manuscript CXV. See *Cat. codd. Gr. Taur.* p. 217. — Excerpts from the oration at Florence in the Laurentian manuscript XVII, n. 25, plut. 8. See Bandini, *Cat. codd. Gr. Laur.* I, p. 361. At Moscow, codex CCCLI, n. 42. In manuscript XXX, however, of the Synodal printing-house, there is the work of Anastasius Sinaita on the fast which is celebrated around the 14th of the month of November, from the memory of the holy apostle Philip until the birth of Christ; the one around the 14th of November, according to Matthaei in his *Notitia mss. Gr. Mosquens.* p. 228 and 289. HARL. (27) See vol. IX, p. 106, n. 12. HARL.

Itinerarium through Hispania, p. 156. — In two Mazarin codices. See Montfauc. *Bibl. biblioth. mss.* p. 1311 B. and 1315 B. — In the Moscow codex, see V. Matthaei, *Notit. mss. Gr. Mosquensium*, in 8, p. 17, n. 7. He published this homily in *Glossaria et Anecdota*, Moscow, 1774, 4, vol. 1, p. 51 sqq. HARL. 10. *On the new Sunday and St. Thomas the Apostle, and St. Theodore the Leader* (about whom Henschenius on 5 February) is praised in an image by J. Damascene *On Images*. 11. *On the Resurrection*. Cited in Mich. Glyca in his *Annals*, p. 86, 89, 94, 102, different from the sermon on the resurrection which exists by Anastasius of Antioch. 12. *Ascetic Chapters* in the Coislin library, codex 574. It begins: *O soul*. 13. Some attribute to Anastasius of Sinai an *Exegesis* or writing distributed into thirty-five chapters, which Joannes Tarinus published in Greek and Latin with the *Philocalia* of Origen (Paris, 1618, 4), under the title *Opinions of uncertain Christian Greek philosophers on the soul*. See Caspar Barthius on Claudianus Mamertus, p. 137, who subjoined the same writing in Latin from the translation of Tarinus to Claudianus, p. 472-532. It begins: *Of the faculties of the soul, some are irrational, others rational*. FABR. *Cons.*, vol. VII, p. 221; and vol. IX, p. 62, n. XXI. HARL. 14. Sermons *On diverse modes of salvation and penance* were noted before Oudin by Possevinus in his *Apparatus*, but I think he had seen what we have among the questions of Anastasius, question 104. FABR. *Homily on penance*, Paris, in the public library, codex MCLXXIV, n. 19. — Vienna, in the Imperial codex CCXXXVIII, n. 7, *Oration on various modes of saving the soul and performing penance*. See Lambec. V, p. 205 sq. HARL. 15. *On the various heresies and the synods held against them*, which the manuscript mentioned by Lambecius, VIII, p. 443 (29), does not seem different from those which are read published in chapters 4 and 5 of the *Hodegos*. [To the dissertation on section 4, § 3, regarding codices from the Madrid codex.] 17. Labbeus, *Bibl. nova* p. 82, records as a work of Anastasius of Sinai *On the faith of redemption, to the church which is in Babylon* (it exists p. 78 sq. of the *Hodegos* (30)), and also *On the spirit of blasphemy* (31), and *On true adoration and whether one must communicate daily to the body of Christ*. And two questions: 1, *If by chance Jews, infidels, or heretics should gain power, should one pray for them in the church?* (this is question 110 among those published); 2, *Concerning Jews who died before the arrival of Christ, are they to be anathematized?* (among the published, question 111). Although there are those who consider these questions to be two books against the Jews, I do not doubt that the work was different from these, which Anastasius of Sinai testifies he wrote in Book VI of his *Hexaemeron*, p. 884 F, citing what he had written in his second book against the Jews. 18. I see also that others mention his *Lives of the Holy Fathers* (32); as well as the *Encomium of Egypt*, and *On the creation of man* in two books, a *Mystical contemplation of the passions of Christ*, and *On Psalm XIII*, and a *Question against those who say there are three essences in the divine* (33). What these are, those to whom it has been permitted to see them will say.

(28) It is among the published questions: LXXXIX. (29) Or p. 931 sqq. Ed. Kollar. And Lambecius, who records more about that narration, which also mentions the third Council of CP, held in the years 680 and 681 under Emperor Constantine Pogonatus against the Monothelites, and ends under Emperor Justinian Rhinotmetus in the year 685 sqq. He observes its author to be different from the two Anastasii, patriarchs of Antioch, and those two Anastasii, disciples of S. Maximus, of whom one died in 599, the other in 666, and whose author of the narration mentions both. Hence Oudin also, in his *Commentary on the Holy Fathers*, vol. I, p. 1663 sqq. (where he narrates more about him), calls this Anastasius Sinaita the third patriarch of Antioch of this name, in the year 685. Kollar, however, in his notes to Lambecius, l. c., notes that Fabricius departs from himself: see vol. VII, p. 350 sq., as I have already observed in note 17. HARL. (30) It exists in Moscow in codex X, the epistle begins: *In the beginning was the Word*. See Matthaei, *Notit. codd. Gr. Mosq.*, ed. in 8, p. 206, n. 38. HARL. (31) *Chapters on blasphemy* in codex Sfortiano. See Montfauc. *Bibl. biblioth. mss.* p. 706 C. — *On the spirit of blasphemy*, inc.: *When it begins in us...*. See Matthaei, *Notit. cit.* p. 243, n. 9. — *Fragment of a sermon of Anastasius on mystical participation or communion*, Oxford, in the Baroccian codices CXXXI. (Conf. Gale on the following note, Florence, in the Laurentian codex XXXVII, 4, plut. 6): *Anastasius's response, when he had been asked whether it is better to communicate constantly or at intervals*: inc.: *The Apostle saying, "Let a man examine himself"*. See Bandini II, p. 650. HARL. (32) *Fathers*. Ms. in the Colbertine codex 4726. Cangius, *Glossar. Graeco-Barb.* FABR. In the Milan codex. See above at section 5; in the Vatican codex. See Montfauc. *Bibl. Biblioth. mss.* p. 142 B. HARL. (33) Anastasius, patriarch of Antioch, in the codex of the Abbey of S. Remigius of Reims, according to Montfauc. *Bibl. biblioth. mss.* p. 1289 B. — *Exposition of the Apostles' Creed*. Oxford, in codex Laudi XL, n. 10, s. n. 1205; *Cat. mss. Angliæ*, etc. vol. I. *On the economy of Christ* in the Norfolk codex DXXXVI s. n. 3435; *Cat. cit.* vol. II, p. 85, where it seems to the compiler of the catalog that this little book was collected by Anastasius Sinaita. Ibid. n. 5875 s. n. XLI. Thomas Gale, *Anastasius Sinaita's sermon on evil thoughts, and sermon on sacred and mystical communion*. Add. n. 17, noted. *His Etymologicon*. See vol. VI, p. 602. *On etymology*, which is part of the *Hodegos*. See above, n. 5. On the Milan codex, and Bandin. *Catal. codd. Gr. Laurent.* 1, p. 365. *On the ninetieth psalm*, Paris, in codex CMLXXIX, n. 9. Ibid. n. 28, and in codex MDIV, n. 10, *Anastasius Sinaita's homily on the passion of Christ*. Ibid. in codex DCCCXIX, n. 16, *Homily on the description, about which St. Luke chapter 11, and on the Theotokos*. Anastasius, monk and presbyter of Mount Sinai, *Homily on the passion of J. Christ and exposition of the second psalm*, in the royal codex of Turin, CLXVI. See *Cat. codd. Gr. Taur.* p. 255. HARL.

TO MARCUS VELSERUS, MOST ILLUSTRIOUS DUUMVIR OF THE REPUBLIC OF AUGSBURG, JACOBUS GRETSERUS OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS.

^A Anastasius the Sinaite has come at last, most noble Marcus. Is he yours, or is he mine? If I am late, you will forgive me. It is a long journey from Mount Sinai to these shores of ours, not of one month, but of many; nor did Anastasius wish to present himself to you and your library until he had learned to speak in this, our Latin tongue—if not elegantly, then certainly faithfully. That this might be achieved, no small amount of time was required; especially since he fell into the hands of a teacher of the Latin language whom other occupations so distract, that he can only devote excepted and, as it were, stolen hours to imbuing the Greeks with Latinity. Now, therefore, Anastasius, skilled in forming and sounding Roman words, travels gladly to Augsburg, and carries your name inscribed upon his very brow, so that he may openly testify to whom he is sacred and devoted, and under what patronage he proceeds into the public eye—most certain that he will be grateful and acceptable to the whole choir of the learned, if only for this reason: that he comes distinguished by your most famous name. For who in our Germany, in Belgium, Italy, France, and elsewhere, who studies not only the more pleasant and cheerful Muses and letters, but also those more austere ones—who is there to whom Velserus is not most thoroughly known, whether through his own monuments, or the report and celebrated fame of others, or even through letters sent back and forth?

In Origen Adamantius, Eusebius ^B commends three things: first, that the philosophers of the Greeks (and among them Porphyry, the bitterest enemy and persecutor of Christians), though alien to the true religion, were moved by Origen’s incredible erudition and sprinkled frequent mention of him in their own books, to the end that they might illuminate their own lucubrations with this illustrious sun. Second, that some persons occasionally dedicated to him books they had crafted. Third, that they sometimes submitted their own vigils to him, as to a judge, arbiter, and teacher, to be assessed, amended, and polished. This triple praise of Origen applies no less to you, unless my spirit deceives me. For how frequent is the commemoration and proclamation of your name and doctrine in the commentaries of those who, at this time, hold either the first seats, or those next to the first, or at least not the lowest, in the literary senate; some of whom are in agreement with you in the sense and taste of sincere piety a little more—if indeed it is more—than Porphyry was with Origen, and the rest of the company of philosophers who abhor the legitimate worship of God! Truly, this is the nature of solid erudition, and this its genius, that it easily snatches all into love and admiration of itself, especially if, as in you, it is coupled with grace and affability of manners, and adorned with splendor of lineage and the amplitude of one’s function in administering the republic. Indeed, if the books once dedicated and inscribed to Origen by philosophers were compared with those that are sacred and dedicated to you, which are seen suspended in the temple of the Muses and Memory, so to speak, perhaps their fewness in comparison to the ^C multitude of these others would not unjustly grow cheap in our eyes. I know, moreover, that there is no lack of men outstandingly cultivated in all disciplines for whom it is a religious duty to commit themselves and their thoughts—if they have set anything down on paper—to the public, unless they are first stirred up and incited to dare by your vote and most weighty judgment. And by what other strategy do you so bind the wills and studies of learned men to yourself,

PREFACE TO THE READER.

except for that indefatigable alacrity and insatiable desire to deserve well of all who love literature? I myself have been reaping a most abundant harvest from this for so many years now, while your own library—or rather, the noble and public library of your commonwealth—is as open to me as it is to you; and while, even if a book must be sent for from foreign regions, you spare neither effort nor expense to ensure I attain my wish. I will not mention that a question so intricate has rarely arisen from whose tangles I have not escaped when I have employed you as my champion. This benevolence, therefore, which you use toward me and toward others who deal in letters, in turn secures for you the benevolence and love of all; and for that reason the Muse forbids the man worthy of praise to die, and blesses him with heaven; because, as the same Lyric poet sings, virtue and favor and the tongue of powerful poets consecrate to wealthy crowns.

These are great things, I confess, but greater are those which I cherish and admire in you even more: your singular zeal for piety toward God and the denizens of heaven; your ardent love for the ancient faith; your frequency in attending to the holy Catholic rites; your public and by no means rare profession of the true religion, handed down from the apostolic age even to our own time, and your burning desire to have it amplified and propagated as far as times and customs allow. Nor do I deny that I am also miraculously delighted by the benevolent and beneficent affection of your mind toward our Society; if no sense of this were to flow to us in such great generosity, we would not rashly be considered destitute of feeling; to remunerate this however slightly, behold, I offer you Anastasius. I would present bowls, I would present tripods, the prizes of the brave Greeks; nor would you bear the worst of gifts, as I am rich in the arts which either Parrhasius or Scopas brought forth; but I lack such potency: the matter is not yours, nor is your spirit one that craves such luxuries. You delight in poems and books; poems and books we can provide, and in fact we do provide. Do not estimate the gift separately, but together with the spirit of the giver: and I do not doubt it will be seen as great, though by itself it has the weight of barely a point. Farewell. Ingolstadt, the 3rd of the Nones of March, MDCVI.

TO THE READER.

Before you read this book, friendly Reader, read these few words concerning Anastasius and the argument of the work. He first professed the monastic life on Mount Sinai, from whence he also received the surname Sinaita. Thence he was called to the bishopric of Antioch in the year of Christ 561, the 35th year of Emperor Justinian, and he administered the same piously, holily, and stoutly for eleven years, namely up to the year of Christ 572, and the seventh of Emperor Justin the Younger; from where he was driven from his see by the same Justin and sent into exile; in which he lived twenty-three or, as others prefer, twenty-four years: that is, up to the year of the Redeemer 595, and the tenth of Emperor Maurice, who restored to the exile his see and episcopal honor. He departed from this life in the year of salvation 599, the 14th of Emperor Maurice, whose anniversary memory the Church keeps on the 11th of the Kalends of May, having held the see for six years started, after he had returned to his own Church; as Baronius notes. He had as a successor an Anastasius of the same name, who in the year of Christ 609 was most cruelly killed by rioting Jews.

Our Anastasius wrote many things, and was even skilled in the Latin language: for he translated into the Greek tongue the Pastoral book of St. Gregory the Great, with whom in the familiar use of letters he was joined. Witness is Pope Gregory himself, lib. X, epist. 22. This first book itself, which he inscribed *HODIGOS* [Guide], he labored upon; mention of which is made also in Nicephorus, lib. XV, cap. 44. The reason for the inscription is that he desired this commentary to be, as it were, a leader and guide of the way for the orthodox, lest they fall into the snares and nets of the heretics, especially those who followed Severus. For the whole book contains nothing other than instruction and institutional guidance on how the most fraudulent machinations and fallacies of the Severians ought to be avoided. And from this likewise you will clearly recognize how diligently and fearlessly Anastasius contended with these monsters, especially in Egypt.

But at what time did he elaborate this *HODIGOS* (which, with the epigraphs of certain books of the moderns, you might perhaps correctly name *VADE MECUM*, if not insightfully, yet truly)? Unless my conjecture leads me into error, it was before his bishopric, while he was still acting as a monk on Mount Sinai. The very reading of the book itself, which for the sake of brevity I pass over in silence, will suggest not a few arguments to the reader to prove this.

There exist of the same Anastasius eleven books on the Hexaemeron; for Sixtus of Siena errs, who attributes this work to Anastasius

to the successor of this our Anastasius. It is more credible to follow Glycas and others, who cite him by the name of Sinaita. It is found in Greek in the Bavarian library, codex 202 and codex 241. II. *On the tenets of the Catholic faith*, five books or orations, interpreted by Godefridus Tilmannus. Franciscus Turrianus once rendered the same into Latin, but his version has not yet seen the light of day. It will one day be seen along with the *Preparation* against heretics by Theodore, presbyter of the Laura of Raithu, which that same Turrianus rendered into Latin. III. *Oration on the Sacred Eucharist*, and *On not judging*, and *On the forgetting of injuries*. IV. *Oration or Homily on the sixth Psalm*, which Nicephorus mentions in his *Ecclesiastical History*, bk. XVIII, ch. 44. Both were edited in Greek and Latin by D. Henricus Canisius in volume III of *Antiq. Lect.*

The collector of the *Bibliotheca SS. Patrum* mentions these unpublished works of Anastasius: An *Oration to the Antiochenes*, written at his entrance into the episcopate, which Nicephorus discusses. An *Oration of peace*, which he delivered in the thirty-third year upon being restored to his see, of which the same Nicephorus speaks. *Responses to the interrogations of the monasteries of the first and second Syria.* *Syntagmatikon* to the Antiochenes, or *On discipline*. *Two books on the construction of man.* *Mystical contemplation of the passions of Christ.* *Encomium of Egypt.* *Question against those who speak of three essences in the divine.* *Oration on the Resurrection*, which Glycas often cites; this is not the one which makes up the fifth book *On the tenets of the Catholic faith*, since the passages which Glycas cites are not found in it. *Oration on the Transfiguration of the Lord*, cited several times by John Cyparissiota in *Decade V*, chapters 4, 5, 7. Damascenus, in his third oration *On Images*, cites his oration *On the new Sunday and on the Apostle Thomas*. In the second Council of Nicaea, act 4, mention is made of a discourse *On the Sabbath* by the blessed Father Anastasius to Simeon, bishop of Bostra, and of an epistle by which he replies to a certain person regarding a doubt from which he desired to be freed. Damascenus also mentions the discourse *On the Sabbath* in his third oration.

In the Augustan codex, which I praised above and which contains the *Hodegetes*, there is also contained, under the name of Anastasius, bishop of Theopolis, or Antioch, an *Exegesis concerning those things done in Persia*, that is to say, a narrative of the debate between the Christian prelates and the ethnic Greeks and Jews, with the archimagus of the king of the Persians, Aphrodiasinus, as judge; Anastasius even claims to have been present at this, and indeed as the only one of the bishops of the Roman empire. But that oration smacks of I know not what fables, so that it is difficult to believe it issued from the workshop of our Anastasius. I had indeed undertaken to transcribe the Greek context from the Augustan copy and had prepared myself for the version; but, offended by the multitude of errors and fables, I drew back; nor do I think this *narration* will be accessible to anyone, unless he acquires a more correct text or more manuscript copies.

Did the same Anastasius write a book, or books, against John Philoponus? Philoponus, for the sake of the sect and tenets of Severus, had published a book comprised of ten chapters, according to Nicephorus, *Eccl. Hist.*, bk. XVIII, ch. 47, which he had designated as *diaitetes*, that is, arbitrator or judge; in which Philoponus acted as a kind of Palamon, wishing to restore discordant parties to concord with an ineffectual effort; for heresies are not settled by heresies, nor errors by errors; a thing which we have seen attempted by some at this time as well, with no greater success. Hence he had also titled the same book *On union*, according to Nicephorus. When others refuted this book, our Anastasius did so as well; would that his labor, if it has not perished entirely, might be brought forth from darkness into the light.

BREVIARIUM OF THE LIFE AND DEEDS of S. Anastasius Sinaita, Patriarch of Antioch.

I. He becomes bishop of Antioch in the year of Christ 561. II. He courageously resists the heretical edict of the Emperor Justinian in the year of Christ 563. Read Evagrius, bk. IV, ch. 38, concerning this. III. Other orthodox persons relied upon his judgment, as Evagrius testifies, because he was celebrated with the fame of being both most holy and most learned. IV. He is cast into exile by the Emperor Justin in the year of Christ 571, and this through the zeal of the envious and slanderers. Consult Evagrius, bk. V, ch. 6. V. Saint Gregory the Great insisted before the Emperor that Anastasius be restored to the see of Antioch...

and that meanwhile, while the matter was being settled, he be permitted to reside in Rome. In the year of the Redeemer 590. Consult the 6th epistle of the first book of the Epistles of St. Gregory, who testifies that upon receiving letters from Anastasius he was wonderfully delighted. He says, “I received the letter of your beatitude as the weary receives rest, the sick health, the thirsty a fountain, and the hot, cool water,” etc.

VI. He recovered his Antiochene see in the year of salvation 595.

VII. Saint Gregory the Great congratulated him on this. See book IV of the Register, epistle 37.

VIII. Anastasius defended the correct position on the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. See Baronius, anno 591, no. 47.

IX. He wrote to Saint Gregory the Great, and regarded the controversy concerning the title of “Universal” as not of such great importance. In the year of grace 597.

X. Anastasius was warned by Saint Gregory regarding the case of John, Patriarch of Constantinople, who arrogated to himself the title of “Universal.”

XI. Anastasius translated the book of Saint Gregory which is entitled *The Pastoral* from Latin into the Greek language. See Saint Gregory, book X, epistle 22.

XII. Anastasius died in the year of the Lord 599, for whom this encomium is placed in the Roman Martyrology on the 21st of April: “At Antioch, of Saint Anastasius of Sinai, bishop.”

OF THE HOLY ANASTASIUS OF SINAI, BISHOP OF ANTIOCH, THE GUIDE (HODEGOS)

S. ANASTASIUS OF SINAI, BISHOP OF ANTIOCH, THE GUIDE UPON THE WAY AGAINST THE ACEPHALI

(Gretser, Op. Vol. XIV, p. 1 ed. 1740.)

PREFACE

^A We ask readers of this book to forgive us for the various corrections applied throughout, and for the tautologies, and the iterations of things and words committed rather often; for the frequency of our infirmities did not allow us to labor upon these matters according to our own mind. For it is right that he who devotes his attention to explaining the dogmas of the Christian religion in this manner should annotate everything in drafts, correct them, and punctuate them into verses, and then hand them over to scribes to be copied out properly and neatly. But the sloth and sluggishness of those who share our sentiments have brought back upon them the due praise of diligence and industry. Therefore, having obtained a quaternion in place of the drafts, we bring it forth into the light. And if anywhere we have said something improbable or remote from the true sense, we ask for pardon; for God alone is immune from error. ^B Furthermore, we entreat those who are to transcribe this book to add the scholia also; and to note carefully the accents, the points, the semipoints, and also the solecisms themselves, or whatever bears the mark of a solecism; for at other times, certain unskilled persons, in transcribing our dogmatic volume, filled it with blasphemies out of ignorance.

THESE ARE THE CONTENTS OF THE BOOK WHICH IS CALLED THE GUIDE (HODEGOS)

I. A brief forethought (pre-theory) concerning the things in which he who wishes to discourse rightly about faith in God ought to exercise himself.

II. Dogmatic definitions according to ecclesiastical tradition.

^A

I. Prooemium of the future treatise.

you will find a Scholion before the 24th chapter concerning the single nature of God the Word incarnate.

CHAPTER ONE

With the help of God, a compendious ^A exercise or preliminary training, instructing any studious person in those things in which he ought to exercise himself and of which he ought to have knowledge.

It is necessary that the following things be required.

That before all else, one leads an honest and solemn life and has the Holy Spirit as an inhabitant of the soul.

That one maintains the definitions, especially the more necessary ones, accurately understood in the heart.

That one knows the minds and opinions of the adversaries with perfect precision and turns over their writings; for often one will be able to put them to shame and bring them to blush out of their own mouths.

^B That one should not descend into a contest over the topics of faith with the profane and the foolish indiscriminately and without distinction, but rather with discernment as to with whom, and when, and how much is fitting.

That one should examine all divine Scripture with the fear of God, not with a malignant mind, but in simplicity of heart: and not that one should wish to scrutinize and handle things that exceed our grasp and which the divine Letters have suppressed. This, of course, is what "Not to break a bone" signifies; that is, not to touch the things that are firm and solid. That one should distinguish between what has been said definitely, and conversely, what has been said figuratively, and what simply; of which kind is that saying: "Every man is a liar," and, ^C "There is no one who does good, not even one."

It should be noted that the Church has received certain traditions even outside of Scripture, such as: that holy communion should be received while fasting; to pray toward the East; that the Theotokos remained a virgin after childbirth; and that she gave birth in a cave; and other traditions of this kind.

One should know that there are two modes of disputation: the one through the testimonies of Scripture, the other through demonstrations sought from the very nature of things, which mode is firmer and more true. For the words of Scripture can be depraved. Wherefore it is possible to see that, as soon as a testimony ^D of Scripture is objected to an adversary, by him in turn, immediately, another testimony is produced, whether one be a heretic or a Jew. Wherefore, he to whom the strength for this is granted, let him rather arm himself against his adversaries with demonstrations taken from the very nature of things.

One should have a thorough knowledge of chronology, and at what time this or that Father lived, and when this or that heresy existed.

Neither should this be ignored: that an adversary, when he has been reduced to straits through interrogation, tries to transfer the discourse to another matter by proposing another question. Which is not to be tolerated.

Before the disputation, an oath should be demanded from the adversary, by which he promises that he will not act against his conscience in any word whatsoever.

^A Before the beginning of the conference, all perverse suspicions and opinions whatsoever that the adversary has conceived about us must be detested and cursed; as, if one must contend with the Arabs, we should subject to anathema him who says there are two gods, or him who teaches that God begat a Son in the manner and way accustomed to flesh, or him who adores as God any creature whatsoever in heaven or on earth. In the same way, all other heresies and all false opinions with which they have been imbued concerning us must first be struck with anathema. For when they hear these things, they offer their ears more readily to the rest.

It behooves one to proclaim to every Monophysite that we do not take up arms against them from the Council of Chalcedon, but from ^B the Fathers who preceded the synod, whom both we and they confess to have been orthodox. We must forearm the Monophysite, and sincerely denounce anathema upon all those who do not confess Christ to be true God. This having been done, one must put on the person of a Jew, or of Paul of Samosata, and require of him from where it is evident that Christ is God Most High, just as Ammonius did against the Halicarnassian, which antithesis you will find lying in the fourth part.

It is to be noted that the Monophysites are refuted by the very offering of their chalice. For they offer pure and unmixed wine, without the admixture of water. By this they indicate that Christ is free from every concretion of body and soul, and consists of ^C divinity alone and bare.

A brief exposition of the faith.

It must be known and not ignored that we ought not to embrace any word pertaining to dogmas without examination and investigation. For it is possible for someone to assert, both piously and impiously, two natures in Christ; likewise two wills and operations, and everything else pertaining to the doctrine of the faith. In the same way, let those who posit two natural properties in Christ explain to us, I wish, in what way they receive the word "natural." For it can be taken both properly and improperly. For that is also called natural which is done according to the common custom ^D of those who are nothing more than men; which has no place in nature or in property, as they are spoken of in regard to Christ.

In the same way, he who wishes to preach one will and operation of the divinity and another of the humanity in Christ, let him not, as chance may have it, like certain ignorant men, with unbridled mouth, thoughtlessly and impudently shout "two natures and wills and two natural operations"—for among the simpler folk scandal is most easily begotten when they hear "two physics or naturals" in Christ, this, indeed, and that—but, filled with divine fear and all reverence, let him reveal this mystery to those who are capable, and being asked, let him respond and explain what he means by the name of nature, and how he receives the term "nature" in Christ; namely, for the truth of the thing itself, not for .

some particle of the flesh, but for two true realities united in one hypostasis, that is, for perfect deity and perfect humanity, coupled together in the one person of Christ without confusion, without change, and without division; for Christ is one person and one hypostasis.

13. Similarly, I advise that the listener should also be forewarned concerning the wills, and therefore he should say thus: We by no means affirm that in Christ there are two wills at variance and struggling with each other, as our adversaries imagine; nor a will subject to the flesh and to depraved affections ^B and desires—for not even the demons would dare to assert this concerning Christ. But since He assumed perfect man in order to save the whole man, and is Himself perfect in humanity, for this reason we call the divine will in Christ that force and sovereign power by which, as Lord, He gives commands and establishes laws. By the human will in Christ, however, we understand nothing else than the faculty of volition with which a soul partaking of reason is endowed; which it possesses—according to the image and likeness of God, granted and inspired in it by God at the very moment of its creation—to the end that, through this very power of willing and obeying, it might fulfill and accomplish the divine will and the divine commands. But if the soul of Christ is deprived of this rational faculty and power of volition, it follows that it is neither created in the image of God nor is it of the same substance as our souls, but will be of the number of those that are utterly ^C devoid of the power of willing. And furthermore, Christ could no longer be called perfect in humanity.

Therefore, Christ, existing in the form of God according to His divine nature, has a sovereign will that is in agreement with the supreme Lord, common to the Father and the Holy Spirit Himself. Likewise, in the form of a servant which He assumed, He has a will appropriate to His intellectual and immaculate soul, created in the image and likeness of God, which fulfills the will of the Lord. If therefore the will is removed from the holy and intellectual soul of Christ, it will necessarily follow that, according to His divinity, He is subjected in the manner of a servant, and fulfills the will of the Father. For thus did Arius and Diodorus blaspheme, positing two wills in the Father and the Son according to divinity: the one of the Father as Lord, the other of the Son as servant. Hence they say that the Son spoke that saying to the Father ^D as a servant to a Lord: "Not my will, Father, be done, but Thine." And: "I do not seek my will, but that of the Father." These are the things the heretics say.

But our holy Fathers interpreted these things according to the human nature of Christ. If, however, the soul of Christ lacked an intellectual will, it becomes manifest that it was subjected to the divine Word involuntarily, in the manner of a creature not endowed with reason. But away with such thoughts! For if He was perfect according to His divinity;

and likewise perfect and consubstantial with us according to His humanity, He possesses perfect properties according to ours, just as He possesses perfect properties according to His divinity.

^A In this same way, one must conceive and interpret the two operations in Christ. For the production of miracles and prodigies—especially those in which His most holy flesh did not make contact and did not touch, such as the affair of the Canaanite woman’s daughter, who did not come to Christ, and the servant of the centurion, and the rending of the veil, and the darkening of the sun, and the splitting of the rocks, and the opening of the graves, and the resurrection of the dead—since His most holy body was hanging dead and touching none of these, the divine operation of the Word of God Himself alone performed and wrought these things.

^B On the other hand, we call the human operation in Christ pure, holy, blameless, God-given, divinely-created, and vital—that is, the life-giving operation of His holy soul, through which His most holy body was made alive. When this was separated at the time of the passion and had departed from the body, the body immediately became dead, though the divine operation was in no way separated from it. That the body is made alive through the operation of a vital and intellectual soul is testified to by Scripture, which, through the divine inbreathing, created a living soul for our earthy body. Concerning this, Solomon says to certain lawless men and idolaters: “The life of them is *viler than clay; for they knew not Him that fashioned them, and who breathed into them an active soul, and breathed into them a vital spirit.”* Behold, we learn clearly that the body is made alive through the operation of the soul, just as the Lord, introducing the discourse on flesh and soul, says: *“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing.”* But if an adversary says that it was the God Word who made the body alive, he is forced by necessity to say that it was by the privation and separation of the God Word Himself that His body died. But if this is so, what need was there, in the first place, for Him to assume or possess a vital, rational soul?

^D Some say that every accretion, or secretion, or subtraction, or need of the holy flesh of Christ—which is not naturally in the divinity, neither in reality nor in conception—can be called a human operation of Christ; but we call “theandric” that operation which is consonant to God and man, which is produced by Christ in a manner befitting the communion of the divine and human nature; such as was the healing of the blind man through clay, and the raising of the daughter of the synagogue ruler carried out by the touch of the most holy hand of Christ; and the blessing of the loaves; and the healing of the deaf man through His finger; and the raising of Lazarus through the ministry of His voice; and the flow of blood from the dead body; and the walk upon the sea, and that of His God-honored...

^A imparting of the Spirit. The heretics, therefore, looking to this common, God-man-like operation of Christ, refuse to confess in Him any divine, or likewise any vital human, operation.

It must, however, be accurately and undoubtedly understood by us that those who are of the opposing party hold this view because they see their own will and the energy of their own soul and body being incessantly and unceasingly warred against and befouled by the inflammation and action of the devil. For this reason, both they and Nestorius refused to affirm in Christ a human ^B will or operation. But the Monophysites imagined a sameness of will and sameness of action, as we have demonstrated at length regarding this both in what follows and elsewhere.

Scholion. Let the studious reader know that since we are accustomed to call those obsessed by a demon "energumens," the heretics, when they hear of "energies" (that is, operations) in Christ, immediately imagine that these are the energies that those whom a demon occupies suffer. For this reason they are indignant and turn away from this term no otherwise than do energumens, that is, those exagitated by demons.

With Divine Grace. Protheoria, or Consideration of the definitions explained in the book which is entitled "The Guide."

^C The constitution of the entire nature of our kind—that is, human nature—and its composition, comprising a rational and intellectual soul, and a concretion from the elements, which we call flesh, has been received from the supreme Creator of all things; but life, conformed to the norm of virtue, derives its beauty from piety, faith, and the observance of divine commandments. For neither does a body destitute of a soul possess life of itself, nor does the observance of commandments, if it is not joined with true and orthodox doctrine, produce any benefit. For what the soul is to the body, that orthodoxy is to the spirit, and the correct estimation of divine things. Before all things, therefore, let us apply ourselves to this, and bestow upon it all our industry, that we may guard a sentiment regarding heavenly doctrine that is pure and integral, free from every stain, so that upon a pure and immovable foundation having been laid—Christ, the cornerstone—He may be honored by us, and may fitly join and compose us all, exempt from fault, into this spiritual edifice, that we might persist unharmed by all the impressions and incursions of heretical imposture. ^D Since, indeed, a stable and infrangible foundation of all wisdom which proceeds from reason is accustomed to be the apprehension and foreknowledge of the definitions that serve the proposed argument, it is necessary that these should precede, as the most certain guides of the present argument. For to few, and to these least of all of those who live in our age, is the instruction and foreknowledge of these definitions a care and a concern.

^A But in this way, just as in some night-battle, or rather in a battle of the blind, did the many heretics with whom we contended set about formulating doctrines concerning Christ. At whom we truly poured out broad laughter, and most especially at those who live in the city of Alexandria. For what could be more laughable than this? They were formulating doctrines about nature, and they were utterly ignorant of what a definition of nature is. They were contending about hypostasis, and they did not know what a hypostasis is, and similarly for the rest. We, however, by the cooperation of Christ, having received from our tender years, through paternal tradition, a partial education in these definitions, and having seen—after God, by means of this—all our adversaries routed and put to flight, we exhort you before all else to take care with these definitions, and especially those that pertain to the doctrine of Christ, so that you may not be blind barbarians, and he who speaks with you may not be a barbarian as well.

^B It is necessary, therefore, to know before all else that the tradition of the Catholic Church does not at all follow or track the definitions of the Greek philosophers in everything. Especially in the disputation concerning the mystery of Christ and the trinitarian word; but it follows its own peculiar rule, drawn from evangelical and apostolic fountains in a manner worthy of God. For the mystery of the Godhead transcends natural definitions and laws. Because the heretics did not discern this, they went astray. For this reason Paul said that “he does not preach Christ in the persuasive words of the wisdom of this world”; because the wisdom of this world, and all encyclical philosophy, is foolishness before God.

^C See, then, that its first definition speaks thus: “Things that are by nature contrary to one another cannot come together into mutual communion.” For instance, as it is impossible for fire to be united with hay without harm. And yet, the first tenet of our salvation overturns the first definition of philosophy, by preaching virginity and birth, and divine fire and an opposite nature, and the communion and union of flesh.

^D The second definition of philosophy is: “That which is alone and unique in hypostasis, and which contains all things, is uncircumscribed”; for it is impossible for one to speak of a duality or a triad as uncircumscribed; for in the circumscription of the monad is recognized the dyad. But the holy Church confesses three uncircumscribed hypostases of God. Again, Plato says that “paternity is a prior existence to sonship”; but the Church teaches that the Son exists co-existent and co-eternal with the Father, before the ages.

These things, and such as these, the God-minded Basil, well understanding, says to Amphilochius: “Nature and essence in ecclesiastical dogmas are one,” the Father having signaled, by saying “in ecclesiastical dogmas,” that in the Greek schools nature and essence are distinguished. For this reason, also, Clement, who is abundant in wisdom and...

a genuine nursling of the holy ^A apostles Peter and Paul, especially the all-wise Paul, when he heard him utterly repudiating and detesting Greek philosophy.

The first question from us to the heretics who come to contradict us concerning the incarnate economy of Christ.

Whence, or from what source of the Sacred Scriptures, did the Church first take the word “nature”? And who is the one who called it “energy,” and where did he learn the word “genus”? And who before all others mentioned “will,” and where, concerning “hypostasis” and “ousia” or “essence,” did Solomon, Moses, Leviticus, the Psalms, or the [individual] Psalm [first] hear anything? But when the heretic is destitute of proof and demonstration for all of these, it is certain that he will be defeated and laid low at this very first encounter.

CHAPTER II

By Divine grace, various definitions according to the tradition and faith of the holy and Catholic Church, collected from Clement and the holy Fathers; which he who desires, with the help of God, to preside over the word of piety ought to learn before all other disciplines.

For a more accurate tradition, it is also necessary to know that every question or interrogation contains three inquiries and examinations, comprising something of doubt between us and our adversaries. For example: “What is God?” And, “From what is God said?” And, “In how many ways is God understood?” And indeed, when we inquire by saying, “What is God?” it is plain that we are seeking the definition of the thing. But when we ask, “From what is God said?” we are requesting the etymology or derivation ^B of the name. When again we ask, “In how many ways is the appellation of God understood?” it is plain that we are requiring them to tell us in how many modes the name “God” is used. He, therefore, who enters into a dispute about dogmas without knowledge of definitions is no different from a blind traveler, wandering aimlessly hither and thither. We must therefore begin in the aforementioned way, to institute a threefold inquiry concerning definitions: what exactly is a definition; from what is it so called; and how manifold is its notion?

A definition is a short statement indicating the essence underlying the thing. ^C Definitions are called, as it were, the intuitions and eyes of things. Or because they circumscribe the force of the mind in a few words. For in place of this: “Man is a substance composed of flesh, soul, reason, blood, elements, and many other things,” we briefly circumscribe the thing by definition in this way: “Man is a rational, mortal animal, capable of mind and knowledge.” There are indeed many and numberless definitions for any given thing. But of the many, we shall adduce only a few, on account of the sloth of the men of this age.

Yet it must be observed and believed by him who has accurately established definitions ^D that he who diligently practices the definitions will easily, in discussions,

silence rhetoricians and anyone else powerful in speech. For if they are asked what an expression is, and why it is called an expression, and in how many ways an expression is used, and the opponent falters in providing the definitions, he will be ashamed in the remaining matters, as if he knew nothing.

^A The definition of definitions is that which defines all things, yet is itself defined by nothing. Such a definition of definitions is God alone. That which does not fall under signification according to its essence cannot be defined, such as God. That which is not universal, but known only in part, can be defined with difficulty, such as the tree of life. There are three things unknown and ineffable to men according to their essence: God, an angel, and the soul, which are known according to their essence to God alone. Then, he who rightly contends with an opponent asks: What is a definition? And what is the undefined? And what is the difficult to define? And what is the easily defined?

The easily defined is that which falls under tactile apprehension and is subject to decay, such as bread and the like. A limit is an impassable boundary. The undefined is that which alone is uncreated: God. The difficult to define is the created and undefined, such as an angel, the soul, a demon.

What is God; and according to what is God; and in how many ways is "God" said?

God is a substance without cause, the omnipotent cause of every cause, a certain cause above substance. God is a name-less existence, and one not signified among men, the productive cause of every existence. ^B For Solomon said that the name of God is incommunicable. An incommunicable name is that which has been neither heard nor understood by men or angels. In how many ways is the appellation "God" used in Scripture? It is clear that it is used in two ways: by nature and by relationship. By nature, it is the Creator; by relationship and grace, the righteous are also called gods.

Interrogation: Does the appellation "God" denote essence, or person, or operation? Furthermore, is it proper, or metaphorical and translational?

Response: It signifies operation. This is clear by itself, for it does not set before us the very substance of God—for it is impossible to know this—but the word "God" represents to us only His contemplative operation, which we grasp by thought as being in God.

Concerning Paternity.

What is Father? And according to what is he called Father? And in how many ways is Paternity used in regard to God? Father is properly called the causeless hypostasis, generative and unbegotten. But he is called "Father" either as preserving all things, or as preserving his own children, like a father. God is called Father in two ways: by nature and by grace. By nature, the Father—as preserving all things—is Father.

^A His own consubstantial Word; but by grace, he is our father, according to the saying: "I said: You are gods, and all of you the sons of the Most High" (Ps. LXXXI, 6).

On Filiation.

What is the Son? And why is he called Son, and in how many ways is the Son understood? The Son is properly the doubling or repetition of the hypostasis in the same nature; or a multiplication of persons in the same nature; or the procession of nature into the communion of the same substance. The Son is properly called [Son], as if you were to say *oios*, "of such a kind." For of such a kind as the Father is in essence, of such a kind is the only-begotten Son; and the Son is either from the uncreated [Father] uncreated, or from the mortal mortal, and from the man man. But the [title of] Son is applied to God in two ways: by nature and by grace. By nature, the Word of God is Son; by grace, the righteous are sons.

On Spirit.

What is spirit? And why is it called Spirit, and in how many ways is "spirit" used in Scripture? Spirit is a subtle, immaterial, and formless substantial procession. It is called spirit (*pneuma*) as if to say "every nod" (*pan neuma*), because like a nod, it is swiftly borne and moved wherever it wills. Spirit is accepted in four ways in Scripture: for the Holy Spirit, for an angel, for a soul, and for wind. Beyond these, the mind is also called spirit. The Trinity, if we wish to measure the matter by the course of nature, is nothing other than a composition of units. ^B But in divine matters, the Trinity is a substance or subsistence surpassing every number.

On Eternity.

"Ever-existing," that is, eternal, is that which always exists—that is, that which never began nor ends. Not everything that lacks an end also lacks a beginning. For the angels and souls had a beginning of their procreation, yet they do not have an end.

On Idiom, or Property.

Property is said to be that which properly belongs to a certain nature and is found in no other substance: just as "risibility" in man. For there is no laughter in any other nature of whatever kind.

On Nature.

What is nature? And in how many ways, and why is it called nature? Nature, according to the rule of ecclesiastical doctrine, is the true existence of a thing. ^C According to Aristotle, however, and the other Greeks, nature is defined in many ways; those who followed the Severians in these definitions have wandered from the truth. Nature, according to the teaching of the divine Apostle, is everything that exists in truth, and is not merely imagined by fantasy—of which we shall speak more copiously later. The Church calls nature the very truth of existing things, or that which is inborn in their essence. Nature is so called from "being born" (*nasciendo*) and from the fact that it exists or subsists, just as essence

and nature, and genus, and form signify one and the same thing in ecclesiastical dogmas, just as a piece of bread and a morsel mean the same thing. Wherefore "the inborn" and "that which is of the essence" are one and the same. ^A

Nature is spoken of in four ways, as I have said before: essence, nature, genus, and form. For it is declared by the wise Solomon concerning impious men that: "All men are "vain by nature," in whom there is no knowledge of God." And it is said again by the divine Apostle concerning us Gentiles, that: "We were sometime "by nature the children of wrath." If, therefore, the impious are vain by nature, that is, self-produced, they are blameless. For those things which exist in us by nature and naturally are beyond blame and beyond condemnation, as being naturally created in us by God, such as breathing, eating, and sleeping. And it would follow that God naturally created vanity in men. Likewise, if we were by nature the children of wrath, the cause refers back to God. For "by nature" signifies that which exists in such a way essentially, just as the nature of light was formed by nature for illuminating, and fire was created by nature for burning, and the earth was fashioned by nature for bringing forth sprouts. ^B Therefore, it remains for the heretics to affirm one of two things: either that God created the natures of vanity and wrath, or that "by nature" signifies nothing else than that which truly exists. As a result, we are henceforth set free from every reproach when we assert that Christ is God by nature and man by nature, that is, that He who is truly God is truly also man. And no teacher, nor angel from heaven, will ever be able to innovate or overturn this tradition and this definition concerning nature, which we now bring forward from the Old and New Testament. ^C

On Hypostasis.

What is hypostasis? From where is it said, and in how many ways is hypostasis spoken of? Hypostasis, therefore, according to ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition, is the person, that is, the character—as Paul says of the Son, "the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person" (i.e., of the substance)—that is to say, a consubstantial person, the character of the hypostasis of the Father. By the name of person and character, we understand in God an incorporeal ^D

^A uncircumscribed, and featureless reality. A person, or hypostasis, according to the holy Fathers, is something proper as distinguished from the common. For the nature of each thing is something common; but hypostases are proper. Let us offer an example: the divinity is one nature or essence; but there are three hypostases—Pater, Filius, and Spiritus sanctus. There are three persons or characters, but one essence and genus.

If anyone therefore says, "May the divinity protect us," the whole Trinity is signified. But if you say, "The Son of God is with us," you have indicated one of the three hypostases, and the whole divinity as well. Consider the same again: "Divinity" is that which is common, and the perfect essence itself. Let us proceed. "Paternity"—behold one person, or hypostasis. "Filiation"—lo, another hypostasis. "Holy Spirit"—behold yet another hypostasis. There are three hypostatic properties in the divinity: being unbegotten, of the Father; being begotten, of the Son; and procession, of the Holy Spirit. Neither is the Father begotten, nor is the Son proceeding, nor is the Holy Spirit begotten. The hypostasis has five appellations: hypostasis, person, character, property, and individual.

Again concerning nature.

Nature is spoken of as the substance of an angel; but the hypostasis of an angel is the proper ^B designation of each angel, such as Gabriel, Michael, Uriel, Raphael. Again: the nature is one and common, as is humanity; but the hypostasis is Peter, Paul, Thomas, and the remaining persons and characters. Nature, therefore, is the author, fountain, and origin of the hypostases that are within it; hence they are called hypostases, as subsisting under nature itself, their fountain and origin.

Again, let us speak on the same subject. If you say, "The nature of the angel is noble," you have implied their whole essence. But if you say, "Gabriel is great," you have signified one hypostasis out of all. "Man is miserable"—behold the whole nature. But Conon, Simon, and Philo are hypostases. Again: if you say, "A winged creature is light"—behold the whole nature; but the dove, the turtledove, the nightingale, the peacock, the swan—behold, these are hypostases. "Beast"—behold the entire nature of beasts. But the horse, the lion, the dog—behold, these are called hypostases, characters, and supposita. And this rule holds not only in those things which excel in reason, intellect, and soul, ^C but also in natures which are destitute of soul, sense, and motion.

The matter will be clarified by an example. If I say that light was created by God, behold, we have signified the whole nature of luminaries. This nature is divided into its hypostases. The hypostases of the nature of light are the moon and the stars, Orion, Hesperus, the Bear, Lucifer, Cancer, and the like. The same principle applies to winds. If you say "spirit," you have indicated the entire nature of the winds. But if you say "Notus," or "Boreas," or "Lips," you are now naming hypostases. The same account applies to fire. There consists one nature. It is divided

into hypostases, that is to say, lamps, candles, torches, furnaces, and ovens—in a similar way, as I said before. And all humanity is one nature, but it contains many persons ^A.

Therefore, we do not call the holy flesh of Christ a person, but a nature. This is to signify that He took our entire nature and saved it. For if we called it a hypostasis, we would find ourselves saying that Christ took and saved some one particular man. Yet it cannot be called a hypostasis, inasmuch as the flesh is inseparable from the divine Word; for "hypostasis" is the term for a separated person. However, we do call it "subsistent" [ἐνυπόστατον], though not a "hypostasis" [ὑπόστασιν]. For that which is subsistent is that which exists. Just as, on the other hand, something is "unsubstantial" [ἀνυπόστατον] if it has no existence, that is, no essence; such as a dream—inanimate, unsubstantial, and existing only in fantasy. ^B For this lacks nature, subsistence, and hypostasis.

But to bring forward a definition: "unsubstantial," "non-existent," and "essential-less" is that which is frequently spoken of by name, but cannot be apprehended by thought as something truly possessing nature or hypostasis, such as Hades, death, or sickness. Again, we call something "intrinsic" [ἐνούσιον] either as the being itself, or as the property known within the essence. For example, "rational" and "mortal" are intrinsic to man. Similarly, "subsistent" [ἐνυπόστατον] is spoken of in two ways: either as that which exists according to the truth of the thing, or as the property in the hypostasis—as in God and the Father, the "unbegotten"; in the Son, the "begotten"; and in the Holy Spirit, the "proceeding," as has also been stated above.

Habit [ἕξις] is the faculty of any nature whatsoever, by which it is distinguished and separated from the rest of the natures; just as the divine Dionysius says, that corruption is of nature, and infirmity and deficiency are of natural habits, operations, and faculties. ^C

On the Will

What is the will? And for what reason is "will" [θέλημα] so named? And in how many ways does "will" exist? Will is the appetite of an intellectual and rational nature toward that which is pleasing. For it is evident that everything endowed with intellect is also endowed with the power of willing. For just as breath is, so also is the will [a reality] essentially present in every rational nature as a kind of life.

Now, "will" [θέλημα] is said to be named from "running eagerly" [θέειν λίαν] together with the nature toward that which it wills; or [it is] the grasping, that is, the holding, of the object willed. The will is considered in three ways—that is, divine, angelic, and human. For these three natures, and these alone, have the faculty of willing. Again, in Scripture, we find "will" spoken of in a threefold way—divine, and natural. ^D

and, thirdly, ^A the carnal, which signifies the diabolical. Natural will, created by God and bestowed upon man, signifies an intellectual movement of the appetitive part of the soul according to nature, impelling man toward that which is desired. The divine will among men is the impetus of the innate intellectual appetite toward those things which are above nature, proceeding from that which is according to nature. The carnal will is impassioned, being a turning aside and deviation of the soul from those things which are according to nature, toward those things which are contrary to nature.

What is an idiom or property?

What is an idiom? Whence is it derived? And in how many ways is it understood? An idiom, or property, is so called because it is proper to its own nature simultaneously, without the admixture of other natures; or because it exists simultaneously in the species. For properties are inseparable from their natures and hypostases. An idiom, therefore, or property, is that which exists properly in one nature, but is not found in another. For example, in the divine nature, to be eternal, uncreated, and uncircumscribed—things which are not found in any other nature, not even in the very ^B most holy body of Christ according to nature. For it is not eternal, nor uncreated, nor will it ever be uncircumscribed. The property of the angelic nature is to be impassible, and to chant hymns to God without intermission. And when I call them impassible, I also indicate their immortality. It is proper to man that he is composed of a mortal and immortal nature; a composition that you will not find in any other thing. Therefore, those things which I have previously mentioned are natural idioms and properties. There are also hypostatic properties—namely, whiteness, snubness or curvature of the nose, blackness, length, being mutilated, swiftness, slowness, and other such things, which are not found in all men in the same way. For not all are snub-nosed, not all are swift, not all are fair. Wherefore, there are those who teach that the hypostasis is the collection of those characteristic properties which we previously enumerated. But natural properties are found ^C equally in every species. For all men are equally mortal, possessors of reason, ^D and by breathing and sleeping are cultivators of the arts.

An accident is so called when it is present and absent—such as infancy, which is present and absent due to more perfect age. In a similar way, health, disease, heat, dryness are changed; in a word, everything that is capable of being varied is called an accident. An essential will is that which is present in nature commonly and generally. If, therefore, the flesh of Christ voluntarily possessed a will not to die, as the holy Fathers teach: if such a will is found in the Father and the Holy Spirit, it will follow entirely that the will of the flesh and of the divinity is the same.

The natural will of man is, as saint Basil and Cyril say, to love life. For every

^A man by nature loves life, and to see the light. Behold the common will. Our nature has many particular or gnomic wills. For one man wishes to live as a private citizen, another to build, another to farm, another to sail. And we have many other similar gnomic wills. But there is one natural will, that is, to love life. And man does not love life without purpose, but nature signifies that he loves and seeks that immortality which he had from the beginning, when he was created.

The divine will consists in the commandments of God. The natural will of a rational nature is the execution of the divine will. The carnal will is the transgression of the divine law.

On Operation.

What is operation? And in what sense is it called operation? And how is operation [defined]? Operation, then, is, as saint Gregory of Nyssa says, the natural faculty and motion of every essence, of which only that which does not exist is deprived. For whatever participates in any essence, participates also ^B altogether in the operation by which it becomes known. For true reason knows that the true and genuine definitions of natures are their operations themselves; as for intellectual things, intellection; for sensible things, sense; for mobile things, motion; for winged things, flight; for swimming things, swimming; for germinating things, germination; for creeping things, creeping; for things that have the power to illuminate, illumination; for those that have the power to burn, combustion; for fluids, flowing. For those endowed with the power of contemplation, contemplation; for those that have the faculty of generating, generation; and to speak universally, the index and definition of any nature is its natural operation; which being removed and destroyed, it is altogether necessary that the nature itself should also be removed and destroyed. If the power of burning is removed, fire is also extinguished; if the motion ^C of a living creature is removed, the living creature itself is destroyed; if intellection is removed, the intellectual and rational part of the soul is destroyed. And for this reason we say that there are two wills and operations in Christ, so that we may not say that He had an inanimate body and a soul without reason; for the operation of an animate body is walking and working. But the operation of a rational soul is its willing, rational, and deliberative intellect. Nor must we assume that it is devoid of reason in this. For the operation of a rational soul is that act of willing, reasoning, and consulting.

And not only in living and mobile things, but also in inanimate and immobile things, it is possible to find natural operations; as scammony bears witness, and all those things which have the power of purging and evacuating. And mercury likewise, which possesses a death-dealing operation. And hemlock also, which is likewise destructive. But it ^D is a wonderful thing that certain different natures, when they have been deprived of their natural operations, produce other operations; for example, a stone, when it is burned, puts off its cold operation, and, having become lime, it possesses the power of burning all bodies. Likewise, the cedar also, when burned, is deprived of its natural, and augmentative, and vegetative operation.

the faculty of growing and budding, and another which is called cedar, it takes up what is applied to procuring health and killing worms.

26 Indeed, those who know how to examine and investigate the appellations of things attentively and carefully will easily understand that most appellations of any things whatever are derived not from nature, but from operations; since they are imposed upon things from their own proper actions. And the starting point for demonstrating this must be sought from the very appellation of God. For the name of God does not set before our mind the very incomprehensible and ineffable nature of the Creator; but He is called God from ^B the contemplative operation in Him which we conceive in our mind. In like manner also, angel does not signify the nature and substance of those spirits, but from the duty and ministry of announcing, in which they function, the name of angel descends. Just as man is not called so from his essential condition, but because he has his face turned upward, that is, he is called *anthropos* (man); because of all animals that use eyes, man alone is endowed with eyes turned toward the stars: whence he is called *anthropos* from the power of looking upward. Others wish that it is called man, that is, walking upright: whereas all other animals look at the earth while walking, and have their faces cast down to the ground.

If, therefore, both appellations of the natures of Christ, to wit, God and man, are derived from natural ^C actions; how is it that those who refuse to establish two operations in Christ are not overcome with shame; when, by no text brought forth from the sacred Scriptures or the monuments of the holy Fathers, they are not clearly refuted by the very names of God and man which are attributed to Christ? For as we said a little before, almost every nature has obtained its name from its essential operation. For example, *parthenos* (virgin), signifies as it were a dead or extinguished fire, because it extinguishes the ardor of the flesh. Again, when we name a dove, we do not signify the nature of this bird, or the quality thereof; but the operation which it exercises, for that it flies steadily, it is called a dove. Thus also the following ^D took their names from natural operations: the stag, because it destroys serpents; the swallow, because it moves its lips when it captures something; the serpent, that is, as it were, the one speaking or having spoken, namely, to Eve in Paradise; the goat, because it sees acutely; the turtledove, as it were, because it preserves its own kind, refraining from another union; the nightingale, because it is always singing, in summer alike and in winter; the vulture, because it roams about high places; the horse, because it flies with its feet; the hellebore, as it were, food bringing death; for *bora* is called food; the eagle, as it were, always renewing itself, because it is often renewed and lives long; the bird, that which extends its wing; the river, as having a drinkable operation; the torrent, because it flows in winter; nature, from causing substances to grow; herb, according to walking upward; just as also a flower, from running upward, that is, hastening; and the

soul also draws this name from its own operation: for [living/cooling] is the same as to vivify. Therefore it is named from the action of vivifying; because it vivifies the body.

Six hundred other things may be found (lest I enumerate them all), to which names have been given from the operations in which they excel. For energy, or operation, is a certain faculty of nature. For energy, and that which is operative, and the effect produced are not the same. For that which is operative ^B is said to be the being itself, the very thing of the substance; but the effect produced ^B is the product which the energy of the operator performs. The product of God is the heaven, the man, the angel, and every creature. Operation ^B is so called, because it exists in works, or is manifest. Energy is understood in two ways, I mean intellectually and sensibly; that which is sensible is that which is seen, and heard, and subject to corruption; but that which is intelligible is that which is void of corruption, and eternal. Intellectual is that which looks upon invisible notions. Energy, or operation, finds its name from acting and operating. But will, and that which is endowed with will, and that which falls under the will, are not the same. For will is an intellectual appetite of an intellectual substance; that which is endowed with will is that which itself possesses the will.

On Union

^C What is union? And from what is it called union? And in how many ways is union understood? And union is a social bonding of disparate things. It is called union ^C because it drives things into one, that is, it forces things together. Union is spoken of in five ways: ^C confusion, as is that of wine and water; dividing, as is that of man to man; relative, as that of the nations in the faith; positional, as gold to gold. But the union of Christ surpasses all these, which is called according to hypostasis. And union according to hypostasis is the co-subsistent conjunction of the two natures in the womb of the holy Theotokos. For neither did the body exist there before the Word of God, nor the soul. But at the same time flesh, at the same time the Word of God, at the same time soul-bearing, rational flesh; for it subsisted in Him. Just as, as it seems to me, our own conception also occurs. The soul and the body come together co-subsistently. For neither does the body exist by itself, nor does the soul pre-exist the body, being an adumbration of the union of Christ.

On the Consubstantial

What is consubstantial? And from what is it called consubstantial? And ^D

consubstantial is that which exists ^A unchangeably of the same nature and operation, just as a human is to a human, and an angel to an angel, and an animal to an animal, and flame to a flame, which in diverse hypostases or individuals are one nature. ^B Consubstantial is called that which possesses one nature and power. Consubstantial is said in four ways: consubstantial, and congeneric, and conspecific, and con-tribal. Consubstantial is that which is lesser in power within the same nature, such as a crumbling stone and a sharp-edged stone. Likewise wood of a palm and wood of ebony; flesh of a fish and flesh of a camel.

Heterousion is that which is in every way dissimilar to the other, as fire and water, and human and God, and angel and clay, and sun and grass. Demi-substantial some have called dead flesh, bereft of life. Heterophyen, and allogene, and heterogene is that which exists of another nature. "Each" is said, that is, both this and that, or both together.

Innovation, or novelty, is that which in every respect departs from the precept of common nature, and in nothing is assimilated to the customary behavior of men. ^C It is necessary to know this definition, on account of those who wrongly posit such an innovation in Christ. For although He acted beyond the laws of nature when He was conceived without seed, nevertheless after birth, many things—not new, but customary and compared to our own similarity, yet without sin, as Paul teaches—were to be seen in Him, such as the increase of age, and many other things of that kind pertaining to the body; such as ingestion and egestion, circumcision, exile, or migration from place to place; likewise form, limbs, the growth of hair, teeth, ^D and nails; infant stammering in speech, hesitation, and walking. All these things did not occur according to innovation, but according to some similarity to us, without sin, as Paul cries out.

On the Soul. What is the soul? From whence is it called the soul? And in how many ways? The soul is accepted in two ways in the Old Scripture; for the rational, to be sure, and for the one devoid of reason, such as that of brute animals and other things that consist of a soul. The rational soul is an intellectual substance, nameless and unknowable, rational, life-giving and constitutive of the body. The soul is a tenuous substance, immune to matter and form, an image and likeness of God. It is called the soul from the fact that it cools, or by its own proper activity vivifies the body. The soul devoid of reason is an operation in the blood that is life-giving, warming, and moving and stirring by means of a material spirit. The brute soul is a material power, operating, sensing, and composing the body. The rational mind is the immortal and intellectual faculty of the soul for contemplating. The mind is the vision or

^A intellectual power coursing through all things without the burden of labor. In how many ways is the mind used? In three; namely, for the mind of God, for the angels, and for our own. Scholion. Who has known the mind or sense of the Lord?

That which is understood by the mind is called "intelligible"; it is called "intelligible" because it sees the things that are understood.

Body, according to the teachers of external philosophy, is said to be everything that consists in three dimensions, namely, length, breadth, and depth. But according to the Church’s doctrine, body is everything that has come to be from non-being. For there are heavenly bodies, and there are earthly bodies. Therefore, the heavenly bodies do not have depth. One should, however, know that it is evident that every flesh is also called a body, but not every body is named flesh. For the stars are called heavenly bodies, but truly they are not heavenly flesh. Body is therefore used in two ways: sometimes for the material, and sometimes for the subtle and thin. The material body is that which is held by touch and is subject to decay; the subtle body is that which flees from touch and is intangible. Flesh is a concretion of elements. Flesh is a fluid substance, composed of blood, phlegm, and humors, namely of air, earth, fire, and water; that is to say, of hot, cold, moist, and dry. The sun brings forth the hot and vital; the air, the cold; the earth, the dry; the waters, the moist element.

An element is a simple substance, the fourth part of a created thing. When, therefore, you hear Paul saying: *We no longer know Christ according to the flesh* (II Cor. v, 16), understand that he spoke of flesh as the corruptible. For he did not say that we no longer know Christ according to the body, but according to the flesh, that is, in a fluid substance. Our senses are five; that is, sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch, namely, palpation. Therefore, "sensible" is everything that falls under one of these ^C five senses. The "sensorium," or instrument of sensing, is the whole organ in the body that preserves each sense. Every animal is gifted with sense, having a sense of fear and death. Therefore, "intelligible" is that which escapes our five senses.

Concerning the corruptible.

What is corruptible? And on what account is it called corruptible? And in how many ways is corruption used? Corruption is used in two ways in the divine Scriptures; that is to say, corporally and, again, spiritually; as when it says: *And the Lord God saw, and behold all the earth was corrupted* (Gen. vi, 11) by sin. And again, it is said concerning men: *They were corrupted and were made abominable in their iniquities and their practices* (Ps. XIII, 2). Hence, when you hear a teacher saying that the body of Christ was incorruptible before the cross, understand that he calls it incorruptible with respect to the corruption of sin, that is,

^A undefiled, and not according to any refinement or foreign quality of our bodies. For that which is impassible, and immaterial, and intangible, is strictly incorruptible. That which cannot be harmed by another substance is incorruptible. That which is in every way free from decay, and needy, and invulnerable is incorruptible; but the all-holy body of Christ has both suffered and been pierced by nails and by the spear, and has poured forth blood and water, and from being alive has become dead.

Whatever is subject to death and separable from life is corruptible. Corruption of nature is, as the holy Dionysius says, a certain weakness and failure of natural habits, and operations, and powers. Some have said that the most holy body of Christ was corruptible by potentiality, that is, capable of corruption; but by the power of the divine Word, it was preserved in the tomb without corruption. ^B *Kataphora* is the total destruction and perishing of a thing. *Diaphthora* is when one substance is destroyed by another, as the body by worms. *Morphe* (form) is so called as being a texture of parts—that is, substance; and the parts of the form are called its hypostases, or its members.

*Scholion.* Man has a fourfold notion in Scripture. For he is taken for God, for an angel, and for Satan; and for our interior and exterior man. Man is a rational animal, walking upright and endowed with broad nails; or a rational, material, risible animal; or an animal fashioned from diverse natures combined at the same time and in an inexplicable manner; or a rational, mortal animal, capable of mind and knowledge. He is called "animal" so that he may be separated from inanimate things; "rational" so that he may be separated from the nature lacking reason; "mortal" so that the distinction from the immortal substance of the angels may be signified; "capable of mind and knowledge" as being that which bears the image of God according to grace. An angel is a rational, ^C fiery, and sleepless animal (12).

*On Faith.*

What is faith? And whence and how many are the ways in which right faith is spoken of? Faith is a concept implanted in the mind, or a substance conceived in the soul; it is called "faith" according to the sense of being persuaded of something, since it obeys so as to believe something. Right faith is understood in two ways. For there is faith from the hearing of the preaching. And there is a firmer faith, "the substance of things hoped for" (Heb. xi, 1). And that which is from hearing, all men are able to possess (13); but the second, only the just possess. Orthodoxy ^D is a true understanding concerning God and creation.

or a true knowledge of the mind regarding all things, or an opinion about things as they are.

Concerning the Word (Logos)

...

^A For how could the self-determining power of the soul be made known, where there is no opposing assault? The self-determining power of the soul can indeed be recognized.

Scholion

Quality is a faculty belonging to an essence; as the coldness of water, and the heat of fire, and the hardness of a stone, and the dryness of the earth. Quality, and property, and difference, and idiom signify one and the same thing.

The body is fourfold, composed of four elements, just as a world of some sort. ^C But the soul in it is tripartite, shadowing forth the holy Trinity, which, as if in a body, will appear in this deadened world, that it might vivify it with divine knowledge. They call the soul tripartite, because it has its parts, or faculties, as intellectual elements from which it is also composed; that is, the ratiocinative, the concupiscible, and the irascible faculties; so that through the strength of the ratiocinative, it may contemplate the beauty of virtue; through the strength of the concupiscible, it may love God; and through the irascible, it may be angry at the demons, having taken up arms against them. As, therefore, it is impossible for a body to be that does not consist of four elements, so it is impossible for there to be a soul that does not have the three parts by which it is constituted. ^D

Concerning relative things, or those which are toward something

Affirmation is a claim or statement put forth regarding something: as when we say, "The river ascends"; or, "The prince enters." Negation is the overturning of the affirmation.

^A

Category is not used only in a bad sense (for accusation), but also in a good sense. For a category is any definite expression concerning any subject whatever; as, "God is by nature good"; "The devil is crafty and guileful"; "the fox is astute"; "the cat is thieving." ^B

Catachrestic and abusive is everything that is asserted not definitely and simply, but in a certain way, in good faith and with intention. Things of this kind cannot be reduced to a certain law or definition; such as that which is said: "Then they spat in his face" (Matt. xxvi, 67); for here one must not take the word "face" to mean the person of Christ himself, but his human nature.

On Etymology

Etymology is the notation or rectitude of the power which a name possesses, derived from the interpretation of the name itself. For example, peace (*eirene*), because it pacifies and tranquillizes the mind; just as, on the other hand, disturbance (*tarache*), because it is easily diffused; and error (*plane*), because it makes the mind stray (*plagiazein*); temperance (*sophrosyne*), because it thinks soundly (*soa phronein*), or because it guards the body from filth. Fornication (*porneia*) is so called as a mutilation (*peronia*), because it maims youth, or because it blinds the mind—that is, makes it sightless—or again, because it leans from afar. Chastity (*hagneia*), because of a life that remains unfruitful. Charity (*agape*), because it leads the whole—that is, it unites and joins to concord. Virtue (*arete*), something pleasing to God, or an object of love and affection. ^C

Baptism (*baptisma*, *baptaisma*), in which is cast, that is, in which falls away, the fault (*ptaisma*). Good (*agathon*), the utterly (*agan*) Divine, or to love God. Death (*thanatos*), *thenotos*, because the dying man is laid upon his back. Hades (*hades*), because of the hidden (*adilon*) nature, or an obscure (*adelos*) descent, or an obscure binding. Resurrection (*anastasis*), an upward standing, that is, a rising. Corruption (*phthora*), from the fact that it is easily destroyed—that is, easily rots—for putrefaction (*phthisis*) is rotting. A bier (*soros*), in which the body flows—that is, the body runs down. Body (*soma*), *soaima*, a safe blood (*soou haima*) in the together. Members (*mele*), as one might say, parts. Communion (*koinonia*), to go into common, which are the parts. Cross (*stauros*), the breadth (*euros*), the standing, and the breadth, that is, the length and the breadth; for the breadth is the width. Altar (*thysiasterion*), that which holds the sacrifice. Victim (*hiereion*), as it is called, from the sheep (*probata*), because of the going (*iesthai*)—that is, bearing the wool—... ^D

Priest (*hiereus*), the one holding the victim, that is, offering [the sacrifice]. ^A

All names that have the prefix *ana-* signify "upward." For example, *anaphora* (offering), that is, carrying upward; *anastasis* (resurrection), *anōstasis* (an upward standing); *anatole* (orient/rising), the upward rising of the sun; *anagraphe* (registration), *anagnosis* (reading), the knowledge from above, and the rest likewise. *Anabasis* (ascent), *anankaia* (necessary), the renewal from above; *anapausis* (rest), *analemma* (a support/taking up), *anapsyche* (refreshment). *Gēras* (old age), *geras* (a gift), that is, honor, or because it sees (*horā*) the earth. *Lychnos* (lamp) because of "loosening" (*lyein*) the *nychos* (night), that is, the darkness. *Lypē* (grief), it "fails" (*leipei*), for it consists in the lack of something. *Anemos* (wind), because it blows and stays for a time. *Arrhenikon* (masculine), from "taking up" (*airein*) the victory (*nikos*); a sign or signal of one who places it. ^B

*Kyōn* (dog), from frequently conceiving (*synōs kyein*). *Kēros* (wax), because when it is burned, it flows; as the cedar, when it is burned, creates sweat. *Nephelē* (cloud), because it withdraws the moisture. *Episkopos* (bishop), because he is in a watchtower (*skopein*). *Kardia* (heart), as from being shaken (*kradainesthai*), that is, being stirred incessantly. *Nephroi* (kidneys), because they are carried in the back. *Metaphrena* (space between the shoulders), those parts behind the head, that is, after the *phrenes* (midriff/mind), for the *phrenes* are in the head. *Kranion* (skull), in which the mind hangs. *Trachēlos* (neck), the "nail" (*hēlos*) of the spine (*rhachis*). *Mystax* (mustache), in which the nostrils drip. *Mēroi* (thighs), because of the division of the body. *Ōmos* (shoulder), because it is equal in breadth and length. *Gony* (knee), as nodding to the earth. *Agkylē* (bend of the arm), because of the hollow above it. *Malai* (cheeks), from the softness (*malou*) of the hair. *Odontes* (teeth), because they are for eating. *Cheires* (hands), because they are easily spread out and because they minister to our needs. *Podes* (feet), because they strike (*paiein*) the ground. *Koilia* (belly), from conceiving. ^C *Entera* (viscera), because they flow inside. *Pneumōn* (lung), because the spirit (*pneuma*) is in it.

It must be known, however, that some names are foreign, which cannot be etymologized. For example, *sakellarios* is Syriac; for *sakella* is said to mean "to receive." Likewise, *latos* is said in Roman (Latin); for *latos* is called breadth (*platos*). *Despotēs* (master), a certain bond (*desmos*), because he includes and holds together all things. *Kyrios* (Lord), from *kyros* (authority/power) it is said; *kēryx* (herald), from the movement, easily sharp; *Hypsistos* (Most High), the One standing on high; *ouranos* (heaven), ^D

^A a vision above, or contemplation; *selēnē* (moon), a light that is infantile, or, so to speak, the light of an infant; *hēlios* (sun), perhaps because it brings the dawn; for *eōs* is the dawn or aurora. *Pleias* (Pleiades), that which consists of many stars; *heōsphoros* (morning star), because it carries the dawn, that is, the rising. *Pōmarion* (orchard), this is a Roman term; for they call horti *pomaria*. *Aigyptos* (Egypt), *engypotos*, as being near the drink or the river; *Neilos* (Nile), because it renews the slime/material. *Babylōn* (Babylon), a Hebrew expression, *Babel*, which means confusion or tumult; *numphios* (bridegroom), he who now loves the bride. *Notarios* (notary), a Roman expression; for *notae* in the Roman tongue are letters. *Nēpion* (infant), newborn, fat, that is, plump; *neōteros* (younger), he who is young in appearance. *Nautēs* (sailor), one from the ship; *korē* (girl/pupil), a prohibition of flow before birth, or before the menses; or the pupil of the eye, as the tear flows in the circle. From this is derived *kollyrion* (collyrium), that which stops the flowing. *Ophthalmos* (eye) is spoken of, a vision that is obscured; *homōs*, that is, with difficulty; *scholion* (commentary) is so named because it is set forth at leisure for a better interpretation of difficult concepts or terms. ^B

Let not the studious reader be ignorant of this either, I say, that he who diligently considers the definitions offered thus far, and fixes them in his mind, will with no difficulty grasp the entire doctrine of dogmas contained within them. It must be known that the two appellations of Christ, I mean "God" and "man," are said actively, as being named from their own proper energies. For "God" does not signify the very substance of the divinity; for this is incomprehensible and nameless to us; but He is called God from His contemplative energy, as the holy Dionysius says, or from *theein*, that is, to run and to inflame. Similarly, "man" does not denote the nature itself, but the looking of the face upward, that is, the lifting up the energy of the eyes. If, therefore, the two appellations of Christ's natures take their names from their proper energies, it is a cause for wonder at the blindness of the heretics, how they are not ashamed, ^C since they deny His essential energies.

Concerning those things that pertain to the economy, or Incarnation.

The term "economy," or dispensation, can be said of Christ in three ways: that is, either as when we say "economically" He nursed, He played the infant, Christ grew, He slept, and He hungered—that is, according to the nature of His economy. We say again "economically" when something happens which was not absolutely necessary to occur, but happens for the sake of condescension and the intent of the salvation of certain persons. As when Paul circumcised Timothy, wishing to draw the Jews to himself. Therefore he also purified himself. And the circumcision of Christ also occurred in this manner economically; ^D

lest He should appear to be abolishing the law. Thirdly, that also occurred by dispensation, when in the morning He came to the fig tree, being hungry, and dried it up; and when He came ^A to His disciples at night, walking upon the waters, which were [done] through certain hidden economies. The heretics, therefore, abandoning the thinking of these modes according to economy, say that that which was done by economy was done in no other way than according to phantasy, opinion, and that external appearance.

Scholion. It must be observed that composite natures are, as they naturally are, easily dissolvable, as Saint Gregory says, because composition is the beginning of decomposition. For this reason, therefore, the bodies of men and of animals are easily corrupted and perish, inasmuch as they are constituted from four natural elements, which are accustomed to stir up perpetual conflicts among themselves on account of the diversity of their nature. But simple things, which lack concretion, are firm and stable, and they remain whole and entire until the end of the world; such as the human soul, the sun, light, the luminaries or stars, air, water, fire, spirit, and all things that are simple, unitary, unmixed, and incomposite. Whence also plants and trees, ^B as being constituted through the four elements—I mean earth and water, sun [fire], and air—do not persist until the end, neither are they ageless, nor incorruptible, nor do they remain unfading unto the end; but they die just as the bodies do, just as the earth is constituted. Make a brick composite of earth and water, and it is easily broken.

Scholion. A refutation and destruction of that much-bruited problem of all the Monophysites, which asserts that there is no nature without a hypostasis. ^C

CHAPTER III

I ask those who are to read this book, that they also read the scholia inserted in certain places. And if, as is probable, the book contains some solecisms, forgiveness will be granted. For when the author is fixed with his whole mind and thought upon noting the sense and designating it, it often happens that he considers solecisms and punctuation to be of less importance.

Anastasius, the humblest monk, a work on the orthodox faith, culled from the holy Scriptures and teachers.

^A The beginning of your words, Christ, is truth, or rather you yourself, God the Word, are true truth, as being truly a generation from the most true paternal truth, and truth itself; and to those who are lovers of your truth who labor, you promise to send the Spirit of truth, saying: “But the Paraclete, whom I will send to you in the name of the Father, the veridical Spirit, he shall guide you into all truth, so that it is not you who will be speaking, but the veridical Spirit who speaks the truth through you.” For just as those who wish to hunt for and display to men the bright and precious pearls from invisible depths, stripping themselves of every covering and filling their mouths with oil, and drawing into their nostrils sufficient spirit from the air, in this way cast themselves into that terrible and shadowy depth. This example, I think, demonstrates that he who wishes to investigate the depths of spiritual waters and dogmas, and to hunt from them for divine and pure pearls, must be denuded of every passionate covering, and must draw in and hold the Holy Spirit into the nostrils of his soul, according to the holy one who says: “The divine Spirit is that which is in my nostrils, and the breath of the Almighty which instructs me”; and: “I opened my mouth and drew in the spirit, which is the oil of gladness.” So that the divine oracle may be fulfilled in them, which says: “The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, just as certainly as the passionate man out of the passionate treasure of his heart brings forth evil things.” For there is not so much danger for those who venture into the depths of waters as there is for those who possess passions and attempt to investigate the depths of the holy Scriptures; for only the Holy Spirit, as God, is able to search the depths of God. ^B

For this reason, a certain wise man also said: “First one must be cleansed, and then one should converse with the Pure.” For if he who had Christ speaking within himself, and who had been caught up to the third heaven and had learned ineffable words in paradise, and had said, “I no longer live, but Christ lives in me,” writing to the Corinthians said: “We speak in part, and we know in part”—who then is able to say that I speak perfectly, and I know perfectly, and especially those things which pertain to the incomprehensible God? ^C Which again a certain theologian, speaking through the Holy Spirit, said: “When I speak about God, I shudder in my tongue, and in my hearing, and in my mind.” For it is not without danger to speak about God. But certain men, not considering nor discerning these things, and not knowing how the things within their own bellies are managed, but wallowing in the passions of dishonor and in the mire of pleasures just as I myself do, and not even knowing whether there is a Spirit in men

^A but—while they are in taverns, brothels, markets, and baths—they drag about and mock the mysteries of Christ, and offer the faith to be blasphemed by the unbelievers. Many times they steal two or three little phrases, or little sentences from the Fathers and, having committed them to memory, immediately parade themselves as teachers—not divinely ordained, but driven by passions, thrusting themselves forward from a mind of vainglory and love of pleasure, for the sake of shameful gain; for they often sell the divine pearls of the Word to the swine and to the unworthy, in the manner of the Jews. For indeed, as one may learn from the ecclesiastical historians of various times, most heresies have arisen from vain ambition to rule, and love of money, and the desire to please men, and pride; and they would not have been so blinded if, through leisure, exercise, and passionlessness, they had made the all-holy Spirit dwell within them. For if we do not know how to pray as we ought, unless we possess the divine Spirit, how much more so [is it the case that we cannot] search out the mysteries of God? ^B But the empty theologians will certainly say to me, "We say nothing of our own devising, but things taken from holy Scripture and from the holy Fathers of the catholic Church." To whom I also will say, that all heretics claim the very same thing. Hence, they seem to contradict us from holy Scripture and from the teachers. Therefore, as it seems to me, a man will not be able to understand the words of the Fathers without error and offense, and without fault, unless he has the Holy Spirit, who spoke in them, as his guide and indweller. For when Christ said that the Spirit of truth will lead you into all truth, he was undoubtedly denoting both Scripture and the Fathers.

Capita, which the orthodox ought to reject and anathematize before the discussion, when he is about to hold a discourse on the faith with the Theodosians or the Gaianites.

In the first place, Nestorius and his faith must be anathematized, and, following that, in order, the following: ^C He who does not confess the holy Virgin Mary to be the Theotokos [Mother of God] by nature and supernaturally; he who asserts two persons, or two hypostases, or two natures separated in Christ; he who does not accept the union in hypostasis in Christ; he who does not admit the sentiment which says there is one incarnate nature of God the Word, as the holy Cyril interpreted it; he who says or thinks that there are in Christ two natures, one of the male and one of the female; ^D he who says that the divinity of Christ was separated from his body on the cross, or in the tomb, or in any other place; he who denies that the body and blood which we partake of are of God. But above all and before all, it is necessary to anathematize him who preaches or holds a new faith or a new dogma, altered from the faith of the CCCXVIII Fathers at Nicaea, and the CL at Constantinople, and the CC at Ephesus. Likewise, also he who invents or receives from the council of Chalcedo

Chalcedon a new faith, outside the mind of the holy Fathers: Dionysius, Irenaeus, Clement, Ambrose, Julius, Eustathius, Athanasius, Basil, the two Gregorys (Nazianzen and Nyssen), Amphilochius, John, Epiphanius, Theophilus, Proclus, Ephrem, Isidore, and the blessed Father and doctor Cyril, and the rest of the holy Fathers who are of one mind with them. For those who do not follow these holy men, we judge to be condemned and alien to Christ. ^B

CAP. IV.

Of Anastasius, the least of the presbyters of the Holy Mountain of Sinai, a work on the faith of the economy of Christ the Son of God, written to the holy Catholic Church in Babylon, at the request of our brothers there who are studious of Christ and orthodox.

In the beginning was God, and God was in the beginning, and before the beginning without beginning, He was always, and is, and shall be, God. By God I mean the holy, consubstantial, and uncreated Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is our God, who always is, and who is before all things. By His pre-beginning and super-manifest divine counsels, first of all, before He created anything else, He conceived and created the holy and angelic Powers—when, and where, and as He alone thought best, and as He alone knows. Their nature, their order, their number, their way of life, and their form, God alone, their Maker, knows. ^C From these incorporeal classes, one, the leader of the ranks, puffed up against the Creator—as the prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel relate—was cast out and fell with his own rank: he who is now called the devil, and his faction, the demons. Therefore, when God created this visible world—I mean the heaven, and the earth, and what is in them—the devil, as one of the doctors says, believed that he was to be appointed by Him as king and lord of the visible creation. But when he saw that Adam was created and was set by God to have dominion over things on earth, he was tortured in spirit, and, burning with envy, the wicked one deceived man through Eve and the tree, whether by God’s permission or in some other more mysterious way, is known to God. For it is not right for us to pry into things passed over in silence by Holy Scripture—I mean things concerning paradise, and the tree of knowledge, and the tunics, and other such things that are not clearly explained to us in the sacred books. ^D Therefore, Satan, as I said, armed himself from the beginning against the human race. Then he murders Abel through Cain; then he leads men astray into the daughters of Cain; and finally into idols and handmade statues, which they worshipped as gods instead of God. Therefore, God chastises them by the flood. Then, reconciled to man, He restores the world through the seed of Noah. But not even after these things did mortals return to wisdom, but [remained enslaved] to idols and shameful deeds.

^A God then revealed certain lights, providing patterns of piety. I speak of those around the blessed Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob. But even this did not bring the world to its senses. Then the Lord brought various and manifold disciplines upon the creation. Then He gave a written Law, appearing to the people of Israel with signs and wonders and powers. And not even so did men depart from their error. Afterward, He sent wonder-working prophets. But even these did the people, having turned away, put to death. ^B Finally, when the fullness of the time of God’s ancient counsel had come, that the mystery which God had predestined before the aeons for our glory should be revealed, He sent His own Son, born from an Ever-Virgin woman, without human seed. After He was seen on earth and conversed with men—yet not even in this way did the wicked and shameless deceiver cease to trouble the world, but, having quickly occupied human vessels and instruments, he hastened to overturn the presence of Christ altogether. And first, Simon Magus, the Samaritan, born of the village of Gitta, ^C said to those in Rome who had believed in Peter the chief of the apostles, that Jesus, who had come, was a liar and a deceiver, but that he himself was the true Christ. After him arose Cerinthus, and Nicolaus, and Marcion, who imagined things similar to Simon. But again, the judgment of God destroyed these men and their teachings. But not even in this way did the evil dragon cease his war against the Church. For he quickly stirred up persecutions by the Greeks and the lawless against her. But these being removed by the power of Christ, the shifty serpent ^D devised a third method of deception. For having heard that utterance in the Gospels given by the Lord, saying, "If I go away to the Father, I will ask Him, and He will send you another Paraclete," he sowed into certain men who were magicians and sorcerers [the idea] that they should say, "I am the Paraclete whom Christ promised to send to the world." Among whom was Manes, the leader of the Manichaeans, and Montanus, born of the village of Ardabau, and certain others. When these, too, had their hope frustrated, and the enemy saw that day by day the proclamation of Christ was expanding and increasing, and that he could no longer turn the race of men toward the worship of idols, he sowed various tares into the world from that point on, so that men might hold in the worship of God the same conflict and dissension which they had held in the worship of idols. Indeed, after some intervals of time since Manes and Montanus, and Novatus also, the demon who is the middle-dancer of this choir instituted that Arian theatrical orchestra, and those who mimicked this sect, Apollinarius, who said that Christ had taken on a man without a soul and without a mind and imperfect, and Eunomius, and those with him, who said that the Word of God was a creature, and

who claimed one nature, will, and activity for both his divinity and his humanity. ^A Once again, the hater of good, not content with these things, arms himself against the all-holy Spirit through Macedonius the Spirit-fighter. But the Power from on high destroyed all those wicked and God-fighting beasts; and today, not a memory of the Arians, or Macedonians, or Eunomians who fought against the divinity remains in the world. And just as a dragon, having received a mortal wound, grows weaker day by day from the pain, so too the devil, having been struck by Christ the Son of God, was shown to be brought to naught as time progressed. For see: he wished at first immediately to dissipate the coming of Christ, and he could not. Then he wished to abolish the preaching of Christ through instigated persecutions, and he failed. He wished for wizards to be worshipped instead of the Holy Spirit, and he fell short of his goal. He struck at the divinity of Christ, and was put to shame. Then, at last, being unable to fight against the divinity, he turned his war against the flesh of Christ, having dug out the charybdis of separation after the Arian choir—I mean, indeed, dividing the flesh of Christ from the divinity and cutting the one Christ into two. The authors of this division were Theodore of Antioch and Diodorus of Tarsus. ^B From whom, like some root of hellebore, there sprouted that Chaldean swine, the Assyrian Nestorius, who even to this day spatters his own mire upon those who are persuaded by him. For having been removed from Constantinople, and having taken up residence in the climes of Mesopotamia, he sowed his poison and his mud there; and from there, as if through some conduit, he defiled most especially all the East. Against him we have composed a work at length, branding his deceit and wickedness, to which we refer the diligent. One ought to know, however, that there is no heresy today more malicious than that of Nestorius, which secretes its poison so painfully. Indeed, for the sake of foul gain and vain glory, they often through deception call Christ God, and the holy Virgin Theotokos, and they anathematize Nestorius, rejecting the one who says there are two persons in Christ. ^C But he who wishes to refute their deceit should bring to them blessed Cyril and the synod under him against Nestorius; and if they accept these sincerely, they have in them that which is acceptable. So much, then, for the present regarding Nestorius, that impious person, steeped in Jewish opinions, and that Chaldean Assyrian swine. For the holy Church rejects this one on account of the division of the natures in Christ, just as it rejects Severus and those with him on account of the confusion of those same natures. ^D

CHAPTER V. Concerning the holy councils.

[I]t acts, and after that in various provinces concerning various chapters.

^A Thus the first holy ecumenical council of the 318 Fathers was held at Nicaea under the Emperor St. Constantine against the Alexandrian presbyter Arius, whom the holy martyr and bishop Peter had already anathematized beforehand, saying: "Arius, both in this age and in the future, is separated and cut off from the glory of the Son of God, Jesus Christ." For this same Arius used to preach that the Son and Word of God was a creature, and not begotten of the Father before the ages. But the holy council defined the Son as being of the same principle as the Father and of the same nature, begotten, not made. It also condemned Sabellius the Libyan, who said there was one person of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; the same God-minded council proclaimed three hypostases and one substance. From which it is especially possible to put to shame the Theodosians and Jacobites, who say that substance, or nature, and hypostasis are the same thing, as we intend to show. This holy council also condemned the heresy of Photinus, which said that Christ had the beginning of his divinity and of his humanity from Mary, and that he did not exist before the ages according to his uncreated divinity.

^B The second holy ecumenical council of the 150 holy Fathers was held in Constantinople under the Emperor Theodosius the Great against Macedonius, Archbishop of Constantinople, who said the Holy Spirit was a creature. But the holy council, having deposed Macedonius, proclaimed the Holy Spirit to be consubstantial with the Father and the Son, and it ensured that in the Creed there was added: "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life," and what follows.

^C The third holy council of 200 holy Fathers was held at Ephesus, 50 years after the one in Constantinople, under the Emperor Theodosius the Younger, against the impious Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, who taught that the most holy Theotokos gave birth to a mere man; and who finally impiety divided Christ into two persons and two hypostases. Having deposed him, the holy council piously taught that the most glorious holy Virgin is properly and truly Theotokos, and that Christ has one composite hypostasis.

^D Then, about ten years later, a certain Eutyches, an Archimandrite in Constantinople, arose, saying that the body of Christ had come down from heaven, and that it was different from our own, and that Christ was entirely one nature. Against him the blessed Flavian, being Bishop of Constantinople, held a provincial council, then deposed him, and defined that the body of Christ was of the same substance as our own. But Eutyches, having submitted a supplicatory petition to the emperor, persuaded him; and having summoned Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, he carried out the second council at Ephesus against Flavian, which is called

by them. On account of which the holy synod was held at Chalcedon against the heresiarchs Dioscorus and Eutyches, who asserted one nature in Christ. But the holy synod, because Christ is perfect in divinity and likewise perfect in humanity, proclaimed Him one Lord in two natures, united inconfusedly and inseparably; and it confirmed the condemnation of Nestorius, which the blessed Cyril had enacted at the previous holy synod in Ephesus, and it praised the same blessed Cyril, saying, "Eternal be the memory of Cyril," under the emperor Marcian.

An hundred years after the Council of Chalcedon, the fifth ^B ecumenical council was held under the emperor Justinian against Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius, who held foolish opinions; for they said that our souls fell from heaven along with the demons into our bodies, and that punishment has an end, and that the devil through it is restored again to his ancient angelic order. This same holy synod also condemned Severus and his mindset, and everyone who thinks the same—that is, that our souls pre-exist our bodies. It is necessary to know, however, that many other local synods have taken place in various places for the sake of different ecclesiastical matters.

CHAPTER VI

It is henceforth pious, so that the studious person may not be ignorant, briefly to explain where the heresy that introduces confusion among the Monophysites began, and from what heresies and ancient dragons it drew its venom. For having pored over the books of the Manichaeans, Valentinians, Marcionites, and Arians, Eutyches, who was deposed by the holy synod of Chalcedon, was taught from them a phantastic and imagined body, and proclaimed one nature of the divinity and humanity of Christ. Then Dioscorus received this ^D disease from Eutyches. But after Dioscorus was condemned and deposed at Chalcedon, the Church of Constantinople and that of Alexandria were separated by a schism. Some years later, therefore, Timothy became bishop of the Monophysites in Alexandria, and he immediately wrote treatises against the Council of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo, Pope of Rome. Then John the Grammarian of Caesarea made a defense on behalf of the council, as did many others. Severus, therefore, having been expelled from Antioch on account of his perverse dogmas,

which he taught against the Council of Chalcedon, arrives in Alexandria at the den of vipers, the enemies of the Catholic Church. Having bent his attention to the treatises of the Caesarean and of certain others who were writing in defense of the council by means of very many testimonies from the Fathers and from Scripture, and also by means of arguments and proofs, he first of all straightway wrote against John of Caesarea. And after this, just as Aquila did with the Old Scripture—misinterpreting it, and distorting and truncation the majority of the testimonies and evidence regarding Christ, and leaving behind a false edition in opposition to the truth and to the Christian religion, for the perdition of the Jews—so too did Severus himself act. For when he had seen that those who were struggling on behalf of the council had properly established, from the testimonies of the holy Fathers and doctors, that Christ is endowed with two natures in one person, this ^B great Severus forgot that “the Father has given all judgment to the Son” [John V, 22]. Like an Antichrist, he snatched from Christ the dignity of judgment and, sitting as a kind of arbiter and judge over the holy Fathers and doctors, he brought forward their testimonies; such as he could corrupt, he confessed were truly the Fathers'. But those whose books were more rarely found, either because of the distance of their regions or because they were in a different language, he cast aside, judging them false and adulterated. ^C Again, concerning the testimonies he encountered in Gregory, John, Cyril, Athanasius, Ambrose, Proclus, and the other illustrious doctors—whose books and statements he could not resist, since it is established to the whole world that they themselves affirm two natures in Christ—this illustrious legislator and judge, Severus, issued a censure and mockery against them. At one time, writing to the one called Nephalius, he says he grants pardon to the holy Fathers for the expression of "two natures," because, he says, when they were arming themselves against the Arians, they were compelled to use the expression of "two natures." But at another time, acting more impudently, he does not even deem the holy Fathers worthy of pardon, but, as far as he is concerned, he effects the abolition and destruction of their divinely inspired dogmas, propounding his own dry words, as we shall speak of more fully later, intending to show that he says the testimonies of the holy Fathers concerning two natures united in Christ are to be despised and rejected, however much they may otherwise be Cyril's: and that at the interval of times, according to the vicissitude of heresies, the Christian dogmas also ought to change and, as it were, to be transferred. Whence he says that when Arians were saying "one nature" in Christ, the Fathers did well to declare "two natures," and "I grant them pardon." But when Nestorius asserts "two natures" in Christ, the voices and opinions of the Fathers are henceforth to be despised, even if they be those of the blessed Cyril himself.

^A For thus remaining, Christ is one nature and has been deprived of the other. For perhaps, having looked upon Nestorius, the all-holy flesh of Christ, which for its part is united to Him in hypostasis, was separated and fled from God the Word, and became without hypostasis and disappeared, and henceforth left God the Word naked, according to the teaching of Manes. For he says concerning this: "He has set his tabernacle in the sun," of his flesh, when he was taken up into the heavens.

^B Having legislated these things, Severus, just as if to an Aquila, and having taught his own people of the Alexandrians, as if with that which is called "Deuterosis" among the Hebrews, which contains the destruction of the correct interpretation of the Seventy interpreters and the dissolution of the divine law; he sat down therefore and set forth for them a book called "Philalethes," or rather "Philomuthes" [Lover of Fables]; in which, having appointed himself as it were a judge of the living and the dead, he compiled a table of citations and Fathers, accepting some as he pleased, and commanding others to be cast out again. Which book, in this way, the enemies of the Church, the disciples of Jacob, and Severus, and Theodosius, and Timothy, and Dioscorus, hold throughout Egypt and Syria, above the divine Gospel itself according to John. And just as, as I said a little while ago, the children of the Jews, having left all the Mosaic and prophetic editions, rely on the tradition of Aquila and his error, so indeed the disciples of Severus and Jacob prefer to disregard and reject all the Evangelical, and Scriptural, and Patristic citations rather than the legislation of Severus in such a book. For even if you were to bring forward to them Peter or Paul, and Eustathius and Gregory, ^C or Basil, or John, or Athanasius, and the blessed Cyril himself, or the citation or composition of any other Father, they do not accept this beforehand, until they examine it by the legislation of Severus (I speak of the book composed by him called "Philalethes"), and according to his judgment and authority and decision, they either accept or reject the teacher, and having set his voice as teacher of teachers, and judge of wonder-workers, and examiner and tester of the God-bearing men.

These things we do not write from hearsay, but from much experience ^D obtaining, both in Syria, and in Egypt, and in Alexandria, and in other places; knowing those who dogmatize the one nature in Christ to examine and interpret every Scriptural and Patristic utterance according to the legislation of Severus. For he legislated for them in the same book, called "Philalethes," that the faith of Chalcedon had destroyed two hundred and thirty citations of the holy Fathers in the apology which John of Caesarea made for it, which also the notary Athanasius brought forward to us in Babylon. Since, therefore, toward the citations of the Fathers, like a deaf adder...

closing its ears, they have shut the ears of their heart, lest the faction of them, hearing the voice of those who charm it, be thoroughly charmed by a wise man; therefore, with the help of Christ, whom they themselves reject, they must be attacked by another path which they have not discovered; and the enemies of truth must be invaded by another way of piety, which they have neither trod with their feet nor known in their minds. For if they had known, they would never have blasphemed the Lord of glory: or rather, to speak more correctly, they did know, and deliberately became impious toward Him.

^A It must be known, however, and not ignored, that all those who dogmatize that there is one nature of the divinity and humanity of Christ have drawn this from Aristotle and other Greek teachings in order to assert that nature is person, and likewise that person is nature. For Aristotle says that persons are particular, or singular, natures or essences. Following this vain doctrine, Arius established three natures or essences in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Embracing the same perverse rule, Severus taught that from two particular natures, or essences and hypostases that were halved and imperfect, one nature of Christ was fashioned and constituted. The same was taught by Eutyches, Dioscorus, Timothy, Gaius, Julian, James, Peter the Fuller, Barsanuphius, and Theodosius—the ten-horned ^B beast of error. Not from the Scriptures and the Gospel, but from the Aristotelian Categories did they draw this opinion of theirs, by which they contend that nature is person, and that no nature exists without a person.

*Scholion.* In the same way, Sabellius, affirming that nature and hypostasis are one and the same thing, established one hypostasis in the most holy Trinity.

Furthermore, they have aimed all these things at bringing shame upon the Council of Chalcedon, as if, because it defined that the one and only Christ consists of two natures indivisibly, it could by this very fact be convicted of having established two persons in Christ; so that thus the most holy Trinity might comprise four persons: two, namely, of the Father and the Holy Spirit, ^C and again two of the Son. Such are the heretics. But now that Greek wisdom has been once expelled by Christ speaking through the mouth of Paul, we faithful in no way endure that the dogmas of Christ be handed down and explained according to the norm and discipline of Aristotle. Nor do we proclaim Christ as Paul of Samosata does, but as Paul of Tarsus: "Not in wisdom of word, lest the cross of Christ be emptied," he who says: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; because [God] made foolish the wisdom of this world," and, "It pleased God by the ignorance and foolishness of the disciples to save those who believe in the Gospel," not in

the persuasive words of wisdom; for the wisdom of the world is foolishness before God, both it ^A and those who walk according to it.

Therefore, when anyone from the aforementioned faction of the ten horns approaches us to dispute with us concerning Christ, let us not offer any word of defense until we first examine him: what he understands by the name "nature"; how he interprets nature; what essence, hypostasis, and substance are; how he defines "person"; and by what rule he understands "genus." And if he brings forward to you Aristotelian or Homeric definitions and laws, claiming that "nature" is "person," ^B bid him a long farewell, and send him away down below with the devil, or rather, even lower than the devil. For not even the devil would dare to prefer Greek wisdom over the Mosaic, prophetic, Evangelic, and apostolic tradition.

Therefore, whosoever we are who love the Holy Spirit, let us preach and proclaim all the dogmas pertaining to Christ together with the holy catholic Church according to the tradition of the Old and New Testament. Let us interpret essence, genus, nature, hypostasis, and person according to Moses, the prophets, and the Gospel, so that no one can contradict us. First, because it is the mistress and queen of all other ecclesiastical writings and of the Fathers. Second, because the voices of the Law and the prophets are genuine, sincere, and free from contradiction. Third, therefore, it is necessary to present from the Old and New Testaments the matters concerning nature, ^C hypostasis, person, genus, and essence, since Severus has utterly repudiated all the holy Fathers, as we shall immediately make plain from what he wrote to Nephalius and certain others in these words: "If the adversaries, that is, the champions of the Council of Chalcedon, say: 'We likewise shall bring forward testimonies of the Fathers in which they quite clearly and explicitly assert two natures in Christ,' I will give them this reply, placidly and without any contention: 'Finally, this mode of speaking, whereby we affirm two natures in Christ, has not been rejected by any of the number of the ancient Fathers; but all the holy Fathers have used this mode of speaking rightly and without any reproach.'" What then, I ask, does Severus answer to this? "Many of the formulas of speech of the ancient Fathers, ^D which were once used without any reproach from anyone, are no longer considered safe and secure after Nestorius."

CAP. VII.

And a little after, the same man says: "And do not tell me again, as some do, that by the term of 'two natures'

' ^A the Fathers once made use. They did indeed make use of it according to our understanding, if we grant as much to the argument. But in the time of the blessed Cyril, when the pestilence of the Nestorian innovation was consuming the Church, this term was for the most part rejected and spurned. For medicines must be adapted to diseases. Yet the voices of other Fathers cannot, even if they were to be found—I say this again by way of hypothesis—be brought forward against the holy Cyril, who devised the remedy appropriate to the encroaching disease. I say for the most part, even if those words were of Cyril himself." These things Severus set forth.

But how can I thank this orator, or with what applause shall I crown him, for the benefits he has unwittingly conferred upon the Church and the Synod of Chalcedon, just like those who crucified Christ and brought great benefits to the world, though they intended it not? For as to his confession that the holy Fathers ^B without any reproach spoke of two natures in Christ, we would not trade such an advocate against those who posit one nature in Christ for ten thousand talents, nor find another like him. Secondly, we gather for ourselves another gain, in that he bears witness that the blessed Cyril himself taught two natures in Christ. For if he had not known this, he certainly would not have said: "Even if those words were of Cyril himself."

A third benefit is brought to us by this most eloquent rhetorician, namely, his confession that for nascent diseases and heresies, medicines and dogmas must be prepared and changed. "For the holy Fathers," says Severus, "struggling against the heresy of Arius, which spoke of one nature in Christ, having overthrown that, explicitly confessed two natures in Christ." Truly, how sweet are your words to my throat, sweeter than honey to my mouth ^C! For I perceive that the sinner is caught in the words of his own lips. For if the holy Fathers, because of the sect of Arius—which posited one nature in Christ, our God—rejected and condemned that as full of impiety, and in its place preached and handed down two natures; how much more is it in this present time, because of Eutyches, and Dioscorus, and Peter, and Timothy, and Theodosius, and Julian, and Gaius, and Barsanuphius, and James, and the venerable exarch of this ten-horned orchestra, Severus, and the rest of the heresiarchs who posit one nature in Christ in the human manner, reasonable, opportune, and fitting to preach and publicly announce the two natures in Christ, united indivisibly according to hypostasis in one person.

Rightly would one laugh at this orator, marveling at how, through his own thoughtlessness, he has freed the Synod of Chalcedon from all reproach and accusation. ^D "For," he says, "when diseases and heresies emerge, it is necessary to prepare suitable medicines." And how, most wise sir, do you not

^A observe the same equity toward the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, against whom you inveigh with such great bitterness of speech? For when the morbid sect of Eutyches had arisen, teaching that the incarnation of Christ was a phantasm, and that His body had descended from heaven and was seen on earth as if in a shadow and mere opinion alone, and that it was of a different substance from us, or rather of no substance at all—what other medicine could be devised and brought forward to crush this heresy, than to say that His most holy soul and flesh were a nature united according to hypostasis to the divine Word, and that He is perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, in either nature?

^B An immense astonishment takes hold of me, as to how this Severus, with brazen face and impudent tongue, did not shudder to condemn the whole assembly of the holy Fathers, to the point that he did not even spare the holy Cyril himself, but said: "After the time of Nestorius, the utterances of the ancient Fathers which affirm two natures in Christ are no longer considered safe, but full of danger." Wherefore, against the ancient Fathers, this impious man enacts a sort of decree and pronounces judgment, claiming that their doctrine—even if such utterances be those of Cyril himself—is vain and dangerous. But Christ, through Paul, says: "He has placed in the Church first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers" (1 Cor. XII, 28). But this Antichrist exterminates and thrusts from their seat those whom God gave to the Church as Fathers and shepherds; and this futile rhetor dares, as if he were the teacher of teachers, to pronounce that the voices and sentences of the holy Fathers are not secure and free from danger.

^C Let apostolic Dionysius be silent hereafter. Let Irenæus, the scourge of all heresies, be quiet. Let Clement, the shoot of Christ, say nothing. Let Augustine now depart, he who in his writings confirmed with his own blood the two natures in Christ. For this most wise adversary of teachers spared no one. He did not revere the countenance of Eustathius. He treated Gregory, the worker of miracles, as of no account. He held the struggles of Athanasius as of no consequence. That manner of life of Basil, which is a horror even to demons, he held in the lowest regard. ^D He bestowed no honor upon the Gregories, whom even the Greeks, alien to our faith, respected and revered. He despised Epiphanius, who struck malignant spirits with stupor and terror. He showed no reverence for John, whose voice even emperors feared; he did not hesitate before Amphilochius, nor Ambrose, nor Ephraem, most cultivated in every kind of virtue, nor Proclus; nor did he refrain from the holy Cyril himself, the seal of the Fathers, nor from any others whose names I have mentioned or have not mentioned. But he cast them all out, saying that "until the time of Nestorius, Christ was known in two natures, according to the voices of the holy Fathers—"

but after Nestorius, Christ became one nature." ^A And the voices of the ancient Fathers, which previously claimed two natures in Christ, must now be numbered among blasphemies. Thus it results that the lunatic Severus subjects Christ to the changing and variation of the moon, imagining Him now bereft of light, now perfectly full of it; at one moment consistent in two natures, at another in one, changed and transformed like a hare—if I may utter something akin to his blasphemy—or changed like pregnant women, who at one time possess two souls, and then again after birth are endowed with but one.

Furthermore, I do not think it inappropriate ^B to refute the wickedness and lying lust of Severus, that leader of a ten-horned orchestra, and to show that even before Nestorius there existed authors and heresiarchs of that division, who split Christ into two and asserted him to be a bare man; their origin and head being Artemon, as is possible to learn from the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphili, who flourished before the holy synod held in Nicaea. Then after Artemon, in the times of the Arians, came Paul of Samosata, and also Diodorus and Theodore of Antioch, being contemporaries of the blessed Gregorys, Athanasius, and Basil, who wickedly divided Christ into two—from whom Nestorius drew the infinite dogmas of division, as holy Proclus and blessed Cyril testify. ^C

*Scholion.* In the holy synod at Ephesus, the diligent reader will find it demonstrated that the dogmas of Nestorius agree with the doctrine of Paul of Samosata, who lived 160 years prior, which the studious reader will discover in the said synod.

Let the philosopher Severus then explain to me how those holy Fathers, being contemporaries of the heresiarchs Theodore and Diodorus, affirmed two natures in Christ. For the Samosatene, and those around Theodore and Diodorus, blasphemed that there were two persons and hypostases in Christ before Nestorius, and that he was a bare man. Therefore, the holy Fathers did not deliver the doctrine concerning Christ as slaves to the times, in the manner of lunatics, lest they introduce Christ ^D as a chameleon, fantastically putting on various forms, shapes, and figures; for they had heard him saying: "See, see, that I am, and I am not changed." But this grave decurion, Severus, did not understand these things; therefore he says: "At the time of Nestorius, the modes of speech of the ancient Fathers were reprobated and rejected." But tell me, O most wise one, who reprobated them? Who rejected them? For the divine Cyril did not do this, who is accustomed to calling these men his own Fathers, and professes to embrace their doctrine, and in the very same holy synod against Nestorius he produced testimonies of the Fathers which explicitly mention two natures

^A in Christ; among which is that of the great Ambrose, who says that each nature ^B is in Christ. Nor is this all, but Cyril also highlights with great praise Proclus, his contemporary. For in the explanation of the Creed he says as follows: "The choir of the holy Fathers, most beloved of Christ, thinks these things with us. And he himself, who now occupies the throne of the holy Church of the Constantinopolitans, the most holy and God-fearing brother and co-bishop Proclus." Thus speaks the divine Cyril.

But I, crying out to him on behalf of Severus, will say: "What are you doing, O blessed Cyril, praising Proclus after the time of Nestorius, who wrote concerning Christ that 'He was born without corruption, having entered without obstacle through closed doors; in whom Thomas, having beheld the conjunction of the natures, cried out, saying: My Lord and my God'?" And again the same one says thus concerning the verse, "A child is born to us": "Distinguish the natures by the Word, and theologize the union of the mystery." The same Proclus says: "And there is one Son, not divided into two hypostases of the natures, but it is the fearful ^C economy that united the two natures into one hypostasis." The divine Cyril, teaching these things by Proclus during the time of Nestorius, confesses him to be of one mind and most holy and pious, and praises him for explicitly speaking of two natures in Christ.

Therefore, let the legislator Severus be summoned ^D and show us who is the one who has rejected the utterances of the holy Fathers concerning two natures, and who has taught him to say that, according to the condition of the diseases and the heresies that arise, it is necessary to change the doctrines of Christ as well, and now to say that he is of two natures, and now of one? Then, another heresy having appeared, that Christ must be called corruptible; then again incorruptible; then of one person; then of two persons; then the only-begotten; then twice-begotten; and thus, until the consummation of the age, to carry and carry about Christ, just like some ball being played with by boys, tossed here and there and struck.

And this rhetor is not ashamed to legislate these things, but he even sets forth arguments and examples in what follows of the same discourse, saying as follows: "For not even if some excellent physician," he says, "should a pestilential disease occupy some city, forbid the drinking of water, could someone come into the midst and say to him, 'But our ancestors' physicians permitted the drinking of water.'" Now, what Severus says here is of this sort: "The disease of Nestorius now being heavy and raging, I, the excellent and only wise physician, do not permit you to drink any longer the water of life—the teaching of the fathers that says two natures are in Christ—even if the physicians, the holy Fathers, permit us to use such life-giving water." To whom, as if he were present, I would have given this answer: "But, O man, the blessed Cyril

approved of and admitted the holy Fathers, who ^A preach two natures in Christ, as I showed a little earlier; especially Paul of Emesa, who came to Alexandria on behalf of all the Eastern Churches and bishops. When he also ascended the ambo, or pulpit, in the church of Alexandria, and preached two united natures in one hypostasis in Christ, the blessed Cyril was affected with great joy, and cried out: 'Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth exult. Behold, we have drawn water of life from the holy font of the holy Father Paul, who has explained to us the great mystery of truth.' Behold, the divine Cyril calls the assertion of two natures in Christ the water of life, from which that crafty physician Severus forbids us to drink."

Scholion

When I had said this, Severus came forward into the midst and said: "And yet, with the other Fathers, I have also repudiated the doctrine of Cyril, as being by no means worthy to be received or approved after Nestorius; even if they are Cyril’s own pronouncements, even if they were uttered by his mouth." With what face, do you think, will he hereafter produce against us the authority of Cyril, bringing forward that which he turns up and down, and vice versa, down and up, where he says somewhere, 'that there is one incarnate nature of the divine Word'? "But I have not rejected that assertion," says Severus, "but the other, which establishes two natures in Christ." Severus certainly performed an excellent service for the teachers of the Jews, the Greeks, and the Arabs, who receives the ^C Holy Scriptures in part and rejects them in part, which is what the children of the Manichaeans also do.

But if it is necessary to change and adjust the dogmas of Christ and of truth according to the diseases of the heresies that arise; and if that expression which professes two natures must be rejected because of Nestorius, it will be necessary that the statement which announces 'one incarnate nature of the divine Word' also be utterly empty and idle; because of the ten heresies of that faction—of which it was spoken before—which is furnished with ten horns: which introduces confusion, phantasy, and indeed even the denial of the human nature in Christ.

What, then, shall I do or what shall I achieve as regards the rest? Woe is me, I do not know. "For because of the disease of Nestorius," he says, "the two natures of Christ were repudiated and rejected." And again, because of Eutyches, ^D and Dioscorus, and Theodosius, that expression which affirms one nature of his divinity and his humanity will be rejected; and so the preaching will henceforth be empty; the faith also will be vain. Religion will perish, and will be destroyed even to extinction.

^A Since, therefore, some new man now says, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me," Severus has been revealed as an Antichrist, and has worked the deposition of the holy Fathers. Come, let us crush his ten-horned ^B alliance with prophetic and evangelical Scriptures, demonstrating that nature is one thing, and person is another.

CAP. VIII. Proof from the Old and New Testament that nature and person are not the same.

With King Christ God presiding upon a high and exalted throne in our holy, catholic, apostolical, and orthodox Church, and all the celestial angelic powers standing by him, and also the holy patriarchs, prophets, evangelists, and apostles who have been from the ages being present and bearing in their holy and divine hands the books of the Old and New Testament, Moses, first as the first, opened the first volume of the Law; and thence he teaches the holy Church, not Aristotelianly, but theologically, what genus or nature is, saying: ^B "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the grass of hay, yielding seed according to its genus and likeness." And again after a short interval: "And God said, Let the waters bring forth reptiles of living souls according to genus, and birds flying above the earth under the firmament of heaven. And God made the great sea-monsters, and every living soul of the reptiles, which the waters brought forth after their genera. And every winged bird according to genus." And again: "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living soul according to genus, quadrupeds, reptiles, and beasts of the earth according to genus. And it was so. And the cattle according to genus, and all the reptiles of the earth according to their genus."

Behold the dominical and divine voices, which theologically call the diverse existences of things—of animate and inanimate, of birds, of water-creatures, and of reptiles—diverse genera, ^C that is to say, natures; and by no means diverse persons, according to the discipline of Aristotle or Homer. For the Creator of all things taught us that the genus, that is to say the nature, of reptiles is one thing, and the genus or nature of beasts is another, and the genus or nature of men is another, and another genus or nature of demons. As Christ testifies concerning them, saying: "This genus [of demons] does not go out except by prayer and fasting." Whence also Paul, teaching the philosophers of Athens our consubstantiality and that of Christ according to the flesh, says: "For we are also his genus." But perhaps Severus, rejecting both Moses and Paul, will deny that nature is called genus. ^D Therefore, let the brother of God, James, put him to shame for us in his Catholic Epistle; who, as brother of God, speaks things consonant and agreeable to God. For what things God called genera through the mouth of Moses, these James denominates natures, saying: "Every nature of beasts and birds and serpents and sea-creatures is tamed, and is tamed by the human nature..."

^A Behold, clearly the brother of the Lord calls the different kinds "different natures." Wherefore the whole assembly of the holy Fathers also has called those things that are of diverse substance and nature things of "diverse kinds." Therefore, those who posit one nature in Christ after the union must of necessity affirm either that the divinity has been turned into a creature of the same kind as the flesh, or that the flesh has been made consubstantial with the most holy Trinity: which belongs to the number of those things that have no power to come to pass. But if the body is not consubstantial with the Word, it must be that one nature is different from another in Christ, just as the all-wise Cyril showed, defending the Orientals to Eulogius who was staying in Constantinople. ^B *Scholion.* In the *Thesaurus*, Cyril calls "heterogeneous"—that is, of diverse kind—those things that are of diverse nature or essence. Gregory, in his *Oration on the Theophany*, the beginning of which is "Again my Jesus," calls the Holy Spirit and the divine Word "testamentary kindred," just as Gabriel also said to the Theotokos: "And behold, Elizabeth thy kinswoman." But let these things suffice for now. Let us proceed to other matters.

After Moses, let Solomon, the all-wise, come forward from the divine choir of prophets and apostles, who himself was also the first to expound the definition of nature clearly in the book that is inscribed *Wisdom*, saying: ^C "Vain are all men by nature, in whom there is not the knowledge of God." What is "by nature"? This is [to say], "in truth." For nature is, as the God-inspired Scriptures declare, the very truth of things. Let us invert Solomon's statement for the sake of the foolish, and let us say: "Vain are all men by person, in whom there is not the knowledge of God." But it is not at all fitting to say "vain by person," but rather "vain by nature." Thus, nature and person are not the same. And this has indeed been spoken of by us also in the *Apologetic Tome* to the people, and it has not escaped my memory. But because it concerns an ulcer and a chronic, stubborn rottenness, and one that consumes everything, and breathes out a stench like a fistula, especially in the dens and caverns of the dark and Egyptian regions, always filled with sand and dust, ^D for this reason it behooves me to discourse again on the same argument; especially so that, if we invert the words of the holy Scripture, we may produce faith in the unlearned that nature and person are not one and the same. Let us therefore repeat the saying of the blessed James, and let us change the name of "nature" into the name of "person." "Every nature of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of sea-creatures is tamed, and is tamed by the human nature." He did not say, "by the human per-

person," for the human is not a single person, but there is humanity, and yet there are countless persons, while nature is but one. ^A

As I was saying these things, that divine doctor and orator of the world-encompassing Church, Paul, came into our midst, carrying the Epistle to the Romans, in which he instructs us, saying: "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law." What is "by nature," if not "in truth"? Let us invert the expression and say: "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by person the things contained in the law." But this phrasing is in no way suitable or fitting, so nature is not person. For he says again that "it shall judge that which by nature is uncircumcision, if it fullfil the law," which is to say, the uncircumcision of the Gentiles, in truth fulfilling the law, condemns you who, through the letter and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law.

Scholion. No one does the law of God by nature, but by purpose and choice; for if the performance and execution of God's commandments were by nature, all would have been justified. ^B Thus, even in this place, the name "nature" is taken for that which is "in truth."

And again: "For if God spared not the natural branches," that is, those who were by truth united and grafted into the root, "neither will he spare you" who deny the truth. Let us again invert the expression for the sake of the perverse and tortuous, and say: "For if God spared not the branches by person." What person, tell me—or what logic or coherence does this expression even have? Therefore, nature is not person. For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, that is, cut out from that which was infidelity according to the truth of the matter, and were grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree, how much more shall these, who are the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? By the wild olive, he signifies infidelity. ^C For no one is an infidel by nature, but by choice. Thus, here too, the word "nature" is placed for "truth."

When I had said these things, and was hastening toward other proofs, in order to demonstrate from the testimonies of Scripture that nature and person are not one and the same, the holy Apostle again took me by the hand, offering me his First Epistle to the Corinthians, in which he again clearly teaches us that nature signifies nothing else but the very truth of things. For, reproving certain women who prayed with their heads uncovered, he speaks thus: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you?" that is, does not the very reality itself teach you? If, therefore, we were to invert this and say, instead of "nature," that "not even the hypostasis teaches you," ^D does it have any logic or

does it follow from what is said? Not at all. Therefore, nature, person, and hypostasis are not the same thing.

But the exarchs of that ten-horned ^A association by no means pondered these things, nor did they take into account the reasoning of Moses, or Solomon, or Christ, or James, or Paul, concerning what they handed down regarding nature and person. For if they had known these things from reading, they would by no means have blasphemed the Lord of glory by saying that "there is no nature without a person," but that nature and person ought to be considered as one and the same. Hence it follows that the Synod of Chalcedon, or rather the holy Fathers, who affirmed two indivisible natures in Christ, are found—according to the persuasion of Nestorius—to have also established two persons in Him; and for this reason Severus, that most fair judge, deposed them from their thrones. That nature and hypostasis are therefore not one and the same has been sufficiently and abundantly demonstrated from the Old and New Testaments. It follows that we should make clear from the same Holy Scripture that a person cannot even receive the designation of "nature." Nor does anything remain except that those who, out of ignorance, contend that person and nature are one and the same, should diligently direct their attention to what is to be said.

What follows is to be read in the form of question and answer.

When God cursed Cain, ^B did He curse the entire human nature, or one person or hypostasis? It is clear that it was only the person of him who had sinned. Therefore, person and nature are not the same.

When Noah addressed his son, by whom his nakedness had been uncovered and mocked, saying: "Cursed be Canaan, he shall be a servant of servants to his brethren," did he curse the common nature of the three sons, or one out of those three persons? It is evident that it was only the person of Ham. Therefore, nature and person are not the same. ^C

When Enoch was taken up by God, was the entire nature of men taken up, or one and only one person? It is clear that it was only the person of Enoch. Therefore, nature is not a person.

In the same way, when Christ cursed Judas, He did not curse the entire nature of the apostles, but one person. And lest we seem to our adversaries to be telling tall tales, come, let us move to those very passages of Holy Scripture where mention is specifically made of "person," when the discourse is about God. ^D

We read that the patriarch Jacob, after that wondrous wrestling match, named that place Phanuel, that is, the vision of God; for he said: "I have seen God face to face," as if to say, "person to person." "And my soul has been saved." Let the great philosopher Severus tell me—he who says that nature and person are one and the same—can it be

^A that Jacob, in place of this, could have said, "I saw God, nature to nature, and my soul has been saved"? By no means. Therefore, nature and person are not the same.

Accept, Jacobite, another stone cast from a sling against Jacob. For he said to his brother Esau, "I saw your face (your person), as if I had seen the face of God." Behold, again he said "face." For it was impossible for him to say, "I saw your face, as if one were to see the nature of God." Therefore, nature and person are not the same.

It is said again in Exodus that the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that it was glorified, and they placed a veil over his face. When, therefore, they veiled the face of Moses, did they thereby veil his whole nature, or the whole race of Israel? By no means. Therefore, nature and person are not the same.

And again, when it speaks of Moses at the burning bush, that "Moses turned away his face," for he was afraid; it could not have been said, "Moses turned away his nature"; therefore nature and the ^B person are no longer the same.

And when the prophet says to God, "Show your face, and we shall be saved," he cannot say, "Show your nature, and we shall be saved"; therefore, nature and person are not the same.

Furthermore, not even when he was pouring out prayers to the Lord and saying, "My face sought you," could he have said, "My nature sought you." For it was not the nature of men that was then seeking God, but David; therefore, nature and person are not the same.

And again when saying to God, "I, in justice, shall appear to your face," he could not exchange the word and say, "I, however, shall appear in justice to your nature." For this is impossible. Therefore, nature and person are not the same.

And Isaiah also, when saying, "I did not turn away my face from the shame of spitting," could not say, "I did not turn away my nature from the shame of spitting"; therefore, nature and person are ^C not the same. Nor even when he says, "I set my face like a hard rock," could he say, "my nature." Therefore, nature and person are no longer the same, as Severus raves.

In saying these things, I do not mean that the nature of God is invisible, but that his person is visible. Away with such an absurdity! But I only wish to show the heretics the difference in the term. And that it is not absolutely the case that where "nature" is named, "person" can also be named; nor again, where "person" is spoken of, is "nature" necessarily spoken of. ^D

where the name of the face is placed, there also under every aspect the name of nature must be placed. And this I shall endeavor to demonstrate immediately, not from Greek tradition, but from that of the ^A Gospels and the Apostles. For the Son of God says to certain ones: "See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I say to you, that their angels always see the face of my Father in heaven." But this is absolutely and simply impossible if it be understood of nature (as the Word of God Himself teaches us in these words: "No one has ever seen God; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has revealed him"). Moreover, when He says, "No one has ever seen God," He pronounced this not only concerning men, but also concerning the angels. Let the Acephalus explain, therefore, how the angels, who see the face of the Father, do not see His nature, if, as they contend, nature and face are the same.

Hear also Paul clearly explaining these things to you, and put aside that oft-repeated lullaby of yours, which asserts that nature and face are the same. He says, therefore, to the Corinthians concerning those who are pure in heart, that now indeed they see God as in a mirror and in an enigma, but in the future ^B life face to face. Answer me, therefore, you who think that nature and face are the same: is it permitted to invert the statement and to say: "Then the just shall see God nature to nature"? Away with such a thought! For Paul himself, who is divine, testifies concerning God, saying: "Whom no man has seen, nor can see." Therefore, nature and face are not the same. And one may find ten thousand other such testimonies in the holy Scripture, which represent God to us as in an image and vision according to the face, but nowhere those which treat of Him according to the essence or nature. For you will not find in all the Old and New Testament the nature of God manifested or named; but all who have been deemed worthy of a typical and shadowy vision of the invisible God, they have seen, if one might say, a personal or facial vision, and not the physical or natural substance of God. Thus ^C Daniel saw the Ancient of Days and another as the Son of man coming with the clouds of heaven; and Isaiah saw in a typical form of a human face, through a vision, "the Lord sitting upon a throne high and lifted up, and the things that were under Him filled the temple. Seraphim stood above it; six wings to one, and six wings to another"; who indeed were not seeing the divine nature in itself, but one shadowed in a form, by the benefit of which they were able to see, in as much as they were capable of God, otherwise being removed from every aspect and figure, which then exhibited itself to be beheld in a human form. ^D But if nature and face are the same, why did the prophet not say to God: "Do not turn Your nature away from me," but rather, "Do not turn Your face away from me"? And again, "The light of Your face has been signed upon us, O Lord." And simply, in ten thousand forms the divine Scripture, naming the face of God, nowhere [speaks of] nature

itself. Wherefore nature and person are not the same. ^B

But, [the heretic] says, the divine Scripture, through an improper usage and accommodating itself to our mode of understanding, attributes a face to God, just as [it attributes] hands, feet, ears, wings, eyes, mouth, and the remaining members; since the Divine is incorporeal, without a face, and formless. While the heretic objects this, I agree with the statement. But I ask in turn: How is it that, while the divine Scripture in ten thousand places speaks of a face regarding God improperly and allegorically, it in no way speaks of nature or essence regarding Him, neither improperly, nor allegorically, nor symbolically, if, as you say, nature and person are the same? Thus, it is clear to everyone that nature and person are not the same, as we have demonstrated at length from the sacred Scripture, both Old and New.

If you inquire also, saying: for what reason did the blessed prophets, throughout the whole of divine Scripture, seek, pray for, and expect the epiphany and presence of the face of God, and not [the presence] of nature? Hear concerning this a patristic account that is at once faithful; and do not gainsay it. For the blessed prophets and patriarchs, having known through the operation of the Holy Spirit that not the common nature of the holy Trinity—that is, the complete fullness of the three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—was going to appear on earth and become incarnate in the last times, but [rather] one person, that is, God the Word—for this reason they did not preach that the Trinitarian essence of God would dwell [among us], but they proclaimed the epiphany of the face of God, and prayed, as if clearly and manifestly seeking the face of God the Word and His advent on earth, saying to Him: "Shine forth Thy face, and we shall be saved." And, "Thy face, O Lord, will I seek." And, "May God cause His face to shine upon us and have mercy on us." And again, "Shine forth Thy face upon Thy servant," that is, upon the man whom You fashioned. The prophets were preaching not the common nature, but the presence of the particular face of God, that is, of the one of the holy Trinity, God the Word. And if one must speak more clearly, they announce the advent of a substantial face of God, and not the total three-personed incarnation of the three-personed Trinity. Thus nature and person are not the same, as I have said ten thousand times. ^C

These things being brought forward by me from the divine Scripture and the prophets, I fear and am troubled and tremble, lest— ^D

^A Severus, pricked by such refutations, should leap forth from his tomb and, calling together his ten-horned assembly, hold a synod to reject and cast away Christ, Moses, Paul, the prophets, and the evangelists, just as he has done with the teachers, and legislate, saying that the words of Christ, the prophets, and the Apostles were faithful and firm until the time of Nestorius, but from the time of Nestorius onward they were rejected, and the Old and New Testaments are no longer secure if they do not assert that nature and person are one and the same. For, regarding existing heresies, he believes that the divine Scriptures and the assertions of the holy Fathers must be varied and inverted, and that they should be received at one time and rejected at another.

^B Severus, being reduced to straits and uncertain in his mind, attempts these things, seeking by what person he might render null the words of the holy Fathers concerning the two natures of Christ. Finally, he accepts "nature," not in the apostolic manner, but in the Greek manner. For if he had thought to follow the footsteps of Paul, just as the holy Church has done, he would have had to say that nature is nothing other than the truth of a thing. For how else are we to understand what is said by the Apostle: “And we were by nature children of wrath” (Ephes. II, 3)? What is “by nature wrath” if not in the truth of wrath? I could also bring forward many testimonies from the holy Fathers, by which I might make it clear that nature signifies nothing else than truth; but I fear lest Severus say to me that this word was rejected and reprobated ^C when Nestorius arose. Yet, I will bring forward him himself who, when the impiety of Nestorius was boiling over, was flourishing, that most celebrated and blessed light of the Fathers, holy Cyril, who, following the Apostles, teaches that nature is truth. Whence it also appears that in various places he has spoken of a natural birth in Christ, and a natural union; and when Theodoret took exception to such words, the divine Cyril explains himself in the apologies which he wrote for the twelve anathemas, saying that he had accepted "physical," that is, "natural," according to the custom of the Apostles, in place of "true." To this, the custom of the Egyptians and especially the Alexandrians greatly consents, which is accustomed to call the truths of things "natural." Whence, when one speaks truths to another in conversations, he is wont to say: "I tell you naturally (physica)," that is to say, truly. ^D Is it permissible to change this word and in its place say: "I tell you personally"? By no means. For this word does not have the same force and order. Therefore, nature and person are not the same. And do not laugh at what is said. For it has flowed down from apostolic tradition that nature should be called truth. Whence we also have received that nature and person are distinguished.

Behold, blessed Peter the martyr in Alexandria consigned Arius to excommunication, using these words: “Arius, both in the present and in the future age, let him be separated

^A from the Son of God.” Tell me, then, does this excommunication or curse extend to one person, or to the common nature of men? It is clear that it extends to the person of Arius and to him alone. Truly, you are likewise participants of this and of every other excommunication pronounced against a pagan or a heretical person. But the reason of the truth is not so; for if one man’s person is infected with leprosy, you cannot for that reason say that the nature of men has been infected with leprosy. Nor, again, can you say in the flood that the common nature of men was submerged, for the reason that this or that particular person of a certain man was submerged; nor, if a substance is deprived of its possessor, can you substitute it in the place of ^B essence or substance. For, as we have often said, the term "person" signifies what is proper, but "nature" signifies that which is common, and the very truth of the thing, as we have shown from the tradition of the law, the prophets, Christ, the Gospel, the apostles, the teachers, and the Creator Himself. And the catholic Church, following this canon, confesses in Christ the God two natures united in one hypostasis—that is to say, two true realities—I mean divinity and humanity, unconfusedly and indivisibly.

If, therefore, as the argument has thus far demonstrated in many ways and parts, nature is truth, let all those who refuse to call the humanity of Christ a nature, just as they do not call His divinity a nature, understand that they are denying the truth of Christ’s flesh and soul. But if it is truth, it is clear that it is also nature. And if it is not nature, it is not truth. But if He became man in truth, Christ is by nature man even after the union, and by nature God, by nature uncreated and by nature created is the same One—that is, in truth and in truth. Do not deny the nature of the flesh, O heretic, since you have denied the truth. For nature is truth; if Christ has a uniform nature, He is uniformly true, and in another way false; but if truth exists in divinity and humanity, it is clear that He possesses two true natures, because nature is truth.

^D Furthermore, what happened to the detestable Arius and Sabellius in the mystery of the Trinity, this also happened to Nestorius and Severus in the mystery of the incarnation of the divine Word. For Sabellius, having devised a confusion in the divinity through his own phantasy, established one hypostasis of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. But the wicked Arius, wishing to appear to wage war against Sabellius, fashioned three dissimilar substances in the consubstantial Trinity. But the holy Church, having chosen the royal path of God, rejected both the confusion of Sabellius and the division of Arius; for she piously confesses three persons—and not merely one—in the holy Trinity, and one substance of them—not three substances. So again, when the impious Nestorius posited two persons in Christ, and the wretched Severus professed one nature in Christ, the holy Church likewise rejected both the division of Nestorius, preaching one person in Christ, and rejected the confusion of Severus, confessing one and only Christ our Lord.

^A The Catholic Church of God, therefore, does not teach about Christ after the manner of Aristotle or the Greeks; but, as I have often said, it teaches evangelically and apostolically, "not in the persuasive words of Pythagorean wisdom, that the cross of Christ may not be made void." ^B For Aristotle says that nature is a principle of motion and rest. But the pious tradition derived from the apostles declares that there is neither a principle of motion, nor rest, nor a limit, in the divine nature. Therefore, the evangelical nature defines nature as the very thing that is naturally constituted and subsists in truth. For what is not in truth and substance is clearly said to exist in estimation and phantasy, but it does not subsist. Concerning this matter, we have already argued to the best of our ability with proofs from Scripture, from nature, and from the things themselves that have been brought forward, by which we made it clear that nature is one thing, and hypostasis, or person, is another. ^C But the adversary will surely contradict our opinions and our examples, thinking that we are destitute of didactic proofs concerning this, and that for this reason we have used our own reasoning out of a lack of more solid arguments. Therefore, so that we may not ourselves appear to walk in the way of Severus, and to hold in contempt and repel the choir of holy Fathers and their voices, come, let us prove, both in a Patristic and a synodical manner, that what is common to the nature of every one of the beings existing in this universe, whether in heaven or on earth, is one thing, and that which is proper to a personal hypostasis is another. ^D I shall provide such a demonstration not from the mouth of any one saint, nor from an hundred, but from three hundred and eighteen Fathers, among whom were very many martyrs of Christ, and very many workers of miracles, or those bearing the marks and signs of torments in their own bodies. Perhaps Severus and his followers, revering such a multitude, will cease to attack us with calumnies.

CAP. IX.

Concerning nature and hypostasis from the sacrosanct Nicene Synod.

^A another is the hypostasis. Thus it speaks: The holy, catholic, and apostolic Church subjects to anathema those who say, "There was a time when the Son of God was not, and before He was begotten, He was not; and that He was made out of non-existent things, or who claim the Son of God to be of another hypostasis or substance, changeable or alterable."

Let those ^B who claim that nature and hypostasis, or person, are the same, come forward then as condemned men, as if under sentence, to pay the penalties worthily required of them by this holy and blessed Synod, and let the entire assembly of their ten-horned vanity do the same. For behold, the angelic chorus of the holy Fathers teaches that the substance is one thing and the hypostasis another. For they did not say: "We condemn those who claim the Son is of another hypostasis, that is, nature or substance," but rather, "those who claim [the Son] is of another hypostasis, or substance," clearly teaching us that the hypostasis is one thing and the substance another. And they did not stop the discourse at this point, but even repeated such an expression, confirming and establishing it through this duplication, and they say again: "For we know the Father is the Father, and the Son is the Son, and the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit—one substance and three hypostases." And they did not say "three substances," or "three hypostases," nor did they say "three natures and three persons," as do those fools, but [they said] one substance and three hypostases, stating that the substance is one thing and the hypostasis another. Behold the foundation of the faith of the Fathers; behold the root, the origin, and the basis of piety; behold the luminaries and heralds of the truth; behold the immovable, invincible pillars and bastions; behold those men filled with the divine Spirit, instructed by the gift of prophecy and equal to the angels—they say that nature is one thing and the hypostasis another. And is there, then, any such person hereafter who is able to overturn such a canon, rule, and law? For I am persuaded, and thus I believe, that there were present in that holy synod men filled with God, having a prophetic and apostolic measure and manner of life before God, and it was permitted for them to say with all boldness even this: ^C "If even an angel from heaven should preach to the Church anything other than what we have preached and announced to her, let him be anathema, and his preaching as well."

Let the catholic Church therefore be of good courage, having three hundred and eighteen holy advocates and supporters who teach that nature is one thing and the hypostasis another. For the gates of hell shall not prevail against them, nor shall they ever overturn such a rule and law. Wherefore, I affirm with holy integrity in the sight of God, without any respect of persons or prejudice ^D of sinister affection, that for those who rightly understand against Severus and Dioscorus and all those who say that nature is identical to hypostasis and person, it is found...

^A to have been established. And this is not only against them, but also against the impious Nestorius; for he too, like Severus, calls the nature a person. But if nature is person, the holy synod of Nicaea condemned Sabellius without cause, who posited one person in one nature of the most holy Trinity. If nature is person, and person is nature, how was Arius subjected to anathema, who posited three natures in the three divine persons? If nature signifies person, then I denounce against Severus and Theodosius grievous curses, which will befall all their followers, who assert that Christ consists of two hypostases: for from this it will be concluded that the same Christ also consists of two persons, if nature and person signify one and the same thing. With what mouth, therefore, could they hereafter rebuke Nestorius, when they hold the same opinions as Nestorius? For if Christ consists of two persons, it is manifest that the human person existed beforehand in the maternal womb, and thus afterwards the person of the divine Word was united to it. If Christ consists of two personal ^B natures, that is, which are simultaneously persons, it is necessary that the other person be and be called the person of the divine Word.

Let them therefore explain to us, those who say that nature and person are the same, by what appellation that other person of Christ must be designated? For it never happens that any person is entirely lacking a name. If you candidly and without sinister affection assert that nature and person are the same, come now, profess one person in one divine nature; and we shall desist from the struggle. If persons are multiplied according to the number of natures, say that there are three natures in the three persons of the most holy Trinity: and we shall no longer be troublesome to you. You assert that Christ is of one substance with the Father according to divinity, and of one substance with us according to humanity. If ^C substance or nature and person are the same, say that Christ is of the same person as the Father according to divinity, and of the same person as us according to humanity; and we shall lay down our arms. If nature and person are the same, but the persons of men are many and innumerable, say likewise that the natures of men are many, and we shall put an end to the struggle. Stand by me for a little while, heretic, and receive the Davidic blows like Goliath. When Severus hands down that Christ consists of two hypostases or persons, it is clear that you affirm Christ to be composed of divinity and humanity; for these two are what you call hypostases, that is to say, the divinity and the humanity. When, therefore, you say that the same Christ after the union is perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, you manifestly confess ^D him to subsist in two hypostases or persons, if nature and hypostasis and person are one and the same thing, as you suppose.

A Saying of an Orthodox to a Theodosian

natures are indicated by this expression. When the heretic replied that this manner of speaking indicates that Christ is composed of two natures from divinity and humanity, the orthodox [man] smiled and said, "Therefore, O good sir, that he is perfect in divinity and in humanity clearly sets forth that he subsists in two natures." And that we may not seem to our opponents to be speaking our own words, let us call the holy Fathers into our midst, who say that nature is one thing and person is another. I do not know, indeed, how, fearing the deposition by Severus, they would still not dare to use the phrase "two natures." ^A I shall bring forward first, as the chief witness, the divine Cyril, since, as they think, they see fit to fight us using him; for he wrote quite clearly to the Orientals: "We know that those who are skilled in the theology of the evangelical and apostolic words concerning Christ have made some common, as if in one person, but others they have divided, as if in two natures." Behold, clearly the Father does not call nature and person the same thing. ^B

Scholium. It must be known that even in the letter to Eulogius, Saint Cyril said there is one nature of the divinity and another of the flesh of Christ.

But the heretic says that Cyril defended himself to Eulogius regarding this expression. What, then, is this apology? Tell me, O heretic. For if the admirable Cyril separated himself from the communion of the Orientals after uttering this phrase, show it; but you will not show it. Therefore, since he remained in communion with those who confessed two natures in Christ, it is manifest that he himself held the same opinion. Yet let it be granted that he made an apology for the phrase used to the Orientals. Did he also renounce Proclus, who proclaims two natures ^C to all and openly? Did he also reject Ambrose, who uses the term "two natures," whose testimonies he even brought forward in the Ephesian synod? Did he also cast away Isidore of Pelusium, who sent a letter to him regarding the two natures, whom the holy Cyril also proclaims as his father? Moreover, not only in the letter to the Orientals, but also in those written to Hermias, who asked whether nature is one thing and hypostasis another, the holy Father speaks in such clear words: "It is altogether something else, and very different, and passing between the two." ^D

Likewise, the God-minded Basil says to Amphilochius that "hypostasis has this difference from essence, as much as that which is particular has from that which is common." Wherefore, taking this up, the holy Amphilochius says concerning Christ: "He was twofold according to nature, not according to hypostasis." This manner of speaking of Amphilochius the God-inspired Cyril brought forward at Ephesus against the impiety of Nestorius. In the same way, Amphilochius used this expression in writing to Seleucus the son of Traini, saying: "If two or twin natures constitute one person." You see the agreement of the holy Fathers and of the blessed

Cyril, ^A of those who with harmonious voice affirm that nature is one thing, and person another. And how, pray, do you not cease from your vain complaints and babblings, repeatedly insisting upon your claim: that "there is no nature without a person," and that "nature and person are the same"? Show me from which Father you have learned this! But you will not be able to show anyone save Arius, and Sabellius, and Nestorius, who say that nature and person are the same. Wherefore all the holy Fathers, especially those around Ambrose, and Gregory, and Athanasius, refuting this impious dogma, proclaim one divine nature in three divine persons—or hypostases—and not three natures; but one, even as the holy synod of Nicaea of the three hundred and eighteen most holy Fathers taught. Yet these wise new rhetoricians did not hesitate to cast themselves into infinite precipices and blasphemies, ^B so that, as they think, they might insult the holy synod of Chalcedon and the Catholic Church of Christ.

But if you wish, let us reduce the matter to fewer points. Whoever, according to the rule of Greek philosophy, [(39)] with Aristotle teaches that natures are hypostases or persons, they cannot confess three hypostases in the holy Trinity, lest they also assert three natures with Arius; nor, again, can they affirm two natures in Christ, lest they be forced to acknowledge also two persons or hypostases in Him in the manner of Nestorius. For it was from the discipline of Aristotle that Nestorius drew the assertion that nature and hypostasis are one and the same. But the holy Church, fleeing Aristotelian and Greek vanities, believing and treating matters pertaining to Christ ^C evangelically and apostolically, as has been said shortly before, does not at all say that nature and hypostasis are the same.

What then will the followers of Severus mutter against this? Perhaps they will say: "In the Trinity, nature and hypostasis are not the same; but in the mystery of the incarnation of Christ, who is one of the Trinity, nature and person or hypostasis are one and the same; for there is no nature devoid of a person." These statements of theirs we accept most readily—nay, we embrace them with open arms—and we do not in any way reject them, but gladly welcome them. What, then, is the impiety that arises from this, and into what abyss of perdition and blasphemy do they cast themselves? I shall now teach you, whoever you are among the number of the faithful. Hear, therefore, the story and behold the drama, as it were, which was performed for us in Alexandria by the Theodosians and ^D the Gaianites, who insisted to us there that nature and person are the same in the economy of Christ. For I shall add this also, hereafter, for the edification of those who preside over the faith which flourishes in the holy and Catholic Church of God.

NOTE.

[(39)] Aristotle, rightly understood, is for the Orthodox, not for the Acephali.

CHAPTER X. With what end the disputation was instituted with the heretics in Alexandria.

Certain sayings are circulated in some books, which call natures "hypostases," preferring the name of Saint Cyril. But whether they are truly his or of someone else, we shall inquire later. For we have found, God being our witness, other dogmatic utterances of the same Cyril, which we sought in books in Alexandria, to have been depraved and corrupted. Nevertheless, as I was saying, since all the teachers assert that nature is one thing and hypostasis is another, there are circulated booklets in the name of Saint Cyril which state that natures are hypostases. The Severians, therefore, the Theodosians, the Gaianites, the Dioscororians, and that entire throng of those who posit one nature in Christ, setting at naught the entire gathering of the holy Fathers, hang only upon those sentences which, as if from the person of Cyril, affirm that natures are hypostases, so that by their force they might refute us—as they suppose—who posit two united natures in Christ, as if we also confessed two hypostases or persons in Him.

When, therefore, I had come to Alexandria, as I said before, and had seen the vanity which they have set before themselves, entirely contrary to God and tending only toward the attack and subversion of the Church, mindful of a certain prophet ^A who warns that we must deal with the crooked and perverse (or, as it is commonly said, that we must be cunning with the cunning and Cretize with the Cretans), I spoke privately in this manner to the heretics, with the truth as my witness: "It is impossible, neither in heaven nor on earth, for a nature to exist or be named that is devoid of a person. But what are you to do if it has crept into the Church for us to name two natures in Christ, and one person? ^B But if you do not compel me to anathematize any bishop or synod, let us publicly join in a common subscription, defining that wherever 'nature' is named, there it must also signify a 'person'; for there is no nature without a person. And if we subscribe to this, you also hold the equal copy of this agreed-upon document, and perhaps some economy will be brought about, and the holy Churches will be united." ^C Ignoring, therefore, the trickery of the drama, or rather, being blinded by God, they subscribed, that "wherever nature is named in Christ, it by all means signifies also a person; for there is no nature that is impersonal or without hypostasis."

Now, before such dramaturgy and subscription, I had collected books from various persons—most of them from the Theodosians themselves—and I had extracted the sentiments of the holy Fathers which call the flesh of Christ a "nature," and had written these down clearly and cleanly in a volume. And on the following day, we gathered in public, before ^D those who were leaders and those who administered the city, and a great multitude of the Catholic Church, the clergy, and of every other faith and communion—of the Theodosians, and of the Gaianites, and of the S[...]

Semidalites. Next, the document was read, in which it was contained that every nature that is named in Christ signifies a person. And their books having been produced, I read before all the subjoined passages; and above all, those of holy Cyril, upon whom they especially think that they rely.

Of the blessed Cyril, Pope of Alexandria, from the letter written to the Orientals.

^A “We know that those who are skilled in theology make the evangelical and apostolic utterances regarding the Lord; some they treat as common, as if concerning one person, others they divide, as if concerning two natures.” And I, turning to the adversaries, said: “As if concerning two natures, that is to say, as if concerning two persons; for there is no nature that does not signify a person, just as we have confessed by the subscription of our own hands.”

Of the same divine Cyril, from the letter to Successus.

^B “Therefore, as far as concerns the concept and that which is perceived by the mind’s eyes alone, ^C as to how the Emmanuel became man and in some way assumed and united through the incarnation, we assert that there are two natures, that is to say, the persons of Christ; for there is no nature devoid of a person, but wherever a nature is found, there it is necessary that a person also be found.” Note: The sentiment of St. Cyril is corrupted and depraved in all Alexandrian exemplars.

Of the same holy Cyril to the same Successus.

“Most rightly and very skillfully you expound the doctrine concerning the saving passion; that is to say, not that the only-begotten Word of God Himself, inasmuch as He is God, suffered according to His divine nature the things that are proper to the body, but rather He suffered according to the earthly nature—that is to say, His earthly person. For there is no nature which does not indicate a person.”

Of the same holy Father Cyril.

^D “I do not admit that which is commingled in Christ, for commingling effects the destruction of the natures, or rather, of the persons of Christ; for there is no nature without a person.”

Of the same blessed Cyril.

“For we do not teach that the natures are confused.” Behold again, this holy Father interprets the natures as being persons, in the manner to which you have subscribed with your own hand.

Of the same most renowned Cyril, from the Scholia.

“The natures have remained unconfused,” that is to say, the hyp-

hypostases, that is, the persons of Christ. When I had produced this saying, I inquired of Athanasius the Babylonian: “Whose natures or persons did he say remained unconfused?” And he said to me: “Christ’s.” To whom I, with a great laugh and clapping my hands, said: “Why then do you reproach the Council of Chalcedon, which teaches that there are two natures united in Christ, when you yourselves, with Nestorius, posit two hypostases in him?”

Of the same most wise Cyril. “Different, indeed, are the natures that have been brought together into true unity; but one is Christ from both.” Again, the teacher has called the natures different; it is clear, therefore, that he signified different persons in ^B Christ, as you think.

Of the same, from the book To the Queens. “One must not, therefore, divide our one Lord Jesus Christ separately into man and separately into God, but we profess one and the same Jesus Christ, having well examined the difference of the natures, and teaching that they remain unconfused with one another.”

Of the same, from the work Against Nestorius. “Not as if the difference of the natures has been abolished by the union.” Behold, the Father openly and plainly confesses natures in Christ, that is to say, persons, as you maintain; for there is no nature that is without a person. And not only the saintly Cyril, but also all the other ^C Fathers who confess two natures in Christ are accused of Nestorianism according to this new custom of yours, which says that wherever natures are named, there also persons are altogether signified; for indeed, there is no nature that lacks a person.

Of Saint Ambrose. “Let us preserve the difference of divinity and flesh. For one and the same Christ speaks in both, since each nature is in him; that is, each and a different person. For where nature is named, it signifies a person.” And why, tell me, did saintly Cyril produce this saying at the synod against the impious Nestorius, if different natures signify different persons? And after a few words in the same ^D sentiment, Ambrose says: “As God, Christ speaks divine things; and since he is the Word, he speaks as man the human things, since he speaks in my substance or nature”; that is, in the person of my flesh, if, as you wish, nature signifies person.

Of the most sweet luminary Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, from the works Against Eunomius. “Which nature of Christ is struck with blows at the time of the passion? And which is glorified from eternity?”

^A

From the same work of the same (author)

Of the same Gregory of Nyssa

From the same, from his discourse on the text: “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst,” etc.

In the same way, Proclus, Bishop of Constantinople, in his Oration on the Theotokos, says regarding Christ that he was born incorruptibly, and that he entered through closed doors; in whom, when the Apostle Thomas contemplated the conjunction of natures, he cried out, saying: “My Lord and my God.” Behold the conjunction of natures—that is, of persons—since there is no nature devoid of a person. And the God-bearing Ephrem, in his Oration on the Pearl, says that “The priceless pearl—that is, Christ—partakes of two natures.” Again he says: “He has a double nature, so that he may not lose the two. For neither did a demi-god descend to the earth, nor did a demi-man ascend into heaven.” Behold, the righteous Ephrem also spoke of natures—that is, persons—according to your own transcription. ^C Likewise, the blessed Amphilochius also says regarding Christ in the Oration to Seleucus, the nephew of Trajan: “Since the two natures come together into one person.” And Isidore, the ornament of the Church of the Pelusiotes, writing to Cyril as a father to a son, says: “With all vigilance keep your heart, lest at any time you admit one nature in Christ after the incarnation, for the approval of one

is the denial of the other.” And having about this matter many proofs from our holy Father Athanasius, a man profoundly versed in divine things: observe that Amphilochius and Isidore, in declaring there are two natures, have also, as it seems to us, declared two persons in Christ. And so that we may explain more fully the usage of Amphilochius to Seleucus, it stands thus concerning Christ: ^A “The nature that was taken suffers; but the nature that took remains impassible. The divine Word, however, makes its own—without passion—the things of his own temple; I mean the cross, and death, and the other things which are dispensed and contemplated concerning him; he makes his own the things of his own temple, since the two natures coalesce into one person.” Behold, the Father has declared the two natures in an irreproachable, evangelical way. Thus, in the Greek sense, nature and person are not the same.

From the same Amphilochius, from the discourse on: “The Father is greater than I.”

Scholium. It is sufficient for the Catholic Church that the three hundred and eighteen Fathers, and the two hundred who testified at Ephesus, hold that nature and hypostasis are not one and the same. ^B

“Distinguish, therefore, from this point on, and differentiate between the natures, the divine and the human; for he did not become man from God by way of indwelling, nor God from man by way of progress.”

Observe again how this teacher confesses natures in Christ, and not persons. For if nature and person were the same, how could the blessed Cyril, when bringing forward his testimony at the Ephesian synod—in which two natures are expressly proclaimed, but one person—have addressed the holy synod thus: ^C “You see, then, how the holy Fathers have declared Christ to be of the same substance with the Father according to his divinity, and of the same substance with us according to his humanity; a double, that is to say, substance or nature, but not a double hypostasis or person.” Behold the sword of the Spirit, the tongue of the theologian Cyril, in the synod of the two hundred holy Fathers, teaching that nature is one thing, and hypostasis another.

Scholium. For this reason, I refuse to believe that Cyril, who at the synod said that nature is one thing and hypostasis another, called the natures hypostases, so that he might not be found contradicting himself.

From the same, on the passage: “Destroy this temple.” ^D “The temple of the body was destroyed at the time of the passion in the three-day burial, by his own will. And again he raised it up, and was united to it by an ineffable and inexpressible Word, not being mingled within it, nor stripped of his flesh, but preserving in it the difference of the two natures without confusion as to their properties.”

From the same, to Eulogius, apologizing for the Orientals who asserted two natures in Christ: “But if the body is not of the same substance as the Word, another...

nature is—that is to say, another person—as you claim. But the divine Proclus stops your mouths, writing thus: “And there is one Son, not with the natures divided into two hypostases, but with the terrifying dispensation uniting the natures into one hypostasis.” ^A And again [δ] (45) concerning the word, “A Child is born to us,” he says thus: “Distinguish the natures by reasoned argument, and theologically conceive of the union of the mystery.” Turn around, therefore, you yourselves the words of the teacher, and say regarding Christ: “Distinguish the persons by reasoned argument, and theologically conceive of the union.”

From the book of Saint Irenaeus, *Against the Valentinians*. “Just as the ark was gilded inside and outside with pure gold, so too was the body of Christ pure ^B and radiant: adorned within by the Word, and guarded without by the Spirit, so that from both the splendor of the natures might be demonstrated.”

From Antiochus, Bishop of Ptolemais, on the Nativity of Christ: “Do not confuse the natures, and do not be overcome by a heavy sleep regarding the incarnation.” Behold, according to your own definition and law, both the divine Irenaeus and Antiochus established different persons, that is, natures, in Christ, since no nature is without a person.

Scholium. Since the nation of heretics is prone to fault-finding, it must be known that, as we were living in the desert and did not have the books ^C of the holy Fathers at hand, we wrote down these testimonies from memory. We ask and entreat those who possess sincere and uncorrupted books of the holy Fathers to correct them, if they find anything contradictory in the aforementioned testimonies. For we have not of our own accord added or subtracted anything. The Lord is witness.

When we had brought forward these and many more sayings of the holy Fathers according to the prescribed pattern, and had demonstrated that nature is person, and consequently, by their own law and persuasion, that all the holy Fathers are proven to be infected with Nestorianism, inasmuch as they constitute two persons in Christ, all the adversaries fell silent; they were hushed, their voice stuck in their throats; they were astonished, they were confounded; they did not know where to turn. ^D They did not speak a word. They were changed, because they quieted down. The entire gathering of the Church applauded, and cried out against the enemies: “If nature is person, take away and burn the holy Fathers, who professed two natures in Christ.” But if nature is not person, then the synod is free from censure.

^A These things they shouted for a long time, and they then added a prologue worthy of being burned, saying: “Give the Theodosian and the Gaianite whatever he seeks, and he will immediately perish”—that is to say, bring to his memory that nature is the same thing as person, and by this very word he will be suffused with blushing, being forced either to cast the holy Fathers into the rank of the Nestorians, or to acknowledge the synod of Chalcedon free from blame, since it proclaimed two natures united in the same hypostasis in Christ.

Another Disputation.

So much for that disputation. But since they wished once again to confirm their own dogmas and tenets, they gathered another time for a disputation with us, likewise in a public gathering. In this assembly there came their great and excellent man, and, as it were, a certain champion of the Danaans, ^B the monk John, who was surnamed Zygas, one of the eighteen. There was also present with him Gregory the “Dozing,” a Syrian-Egyptian in his reasoning. Then came the people with the clergy. For such a gathering was by design and public appointment. Then were brought forward questions controversial between us, from a written and prescribed formula: doubts proposed—if I may not call them frigid and devoid of all warmth—problems, namely, that “there is no nature without hypostasis and person.” For look, they say, the blessed Cyril ^C states in various places that natures are hypostases. For this reason, the synod of Chalcedon is reproached for asserting two hypostases or persons in one Christ, by the very fact that it defined that there are two natures in Him.

ORTHODOX. To these things, in turn, we answered them in a fox-like manner: It is difficult for us to believe that the most blessed and truly God-inspired Cyril taught that the natures in Christ are hypostases. First, ^D because in order, such a word is contrary to the holy synod at Nicaea, which defines nature as one thing and hypostasis as another. Second, how could he—in the time of Nestorius, whom Cyril deposed from his see precisely because he preached two hypostases in Christ—even in his dreams have preached hypostases in Christ? Third, because the testimonies that the same holy Cyril produced at the synod of Ephesus from various Fathers, he produced for no other reason than to assert that there is one hypostasis of Christ.

Fourth, because Theodoret, while professing one hypostasis in Christ, would have entirely rejected the term "hypostases" in his *Refutation of the Twelve Anathemas* of Saint Cyril. And similarly, the holy Saint Cyril himself ought to have defended himself in his *Apologies* and explained in what sense he used the term "hypostases." Yet of this matter in Saint Cyril there exists no judgment at all, nor any argument. Fifth, if Saint Cyril had thought that in Nestorius the natures were two hypostases, he would not have separated Nestorius from the communion of the faithful. Sixth, because as far as the sunrise is from the sunset, so far does the term "two hypostases" distance itself from the one incarnate nature of God the Word.

^B Seventh, because the term "hypostases" overturns the union according to hypostasis. For how is it possible that from two hypostases there should occur a union of substances or natures that is "according to hypostasis"? Eighth, because neither did the holy Fathers say that Christ consists of two hypostases, that is, persons. Ninth, if Christ consists of two hypostases, then the most holy Trinity is no longer of three persons, but of four, having two hypostases of Christ and two others, that of the Father and that of the Holy Spirit.

Tenth, and the greatest of all, which contains a trick and fraud: it is that the divine Cyril himself says that "persons" are "hypostases" in Christ. For he says in the fourth anathema: "If anyone divides Christ into two persons or hypostases, let him be anathema." Similarly, in the synod of Ephesus, the same [Cyril] says that Christ is two-fold according to nature, but not two-fold in hypostasis or person. By the name "person" he understands "hypostasis."

And how then, O good sirs, ^C calling persons "hypostases," could he have called the natures "hypostases," and that the natures or hypostases of Christ have remained inconfused? And he did not say in this place that the natures or hypostases have remained inconfused. If, therefore, they remained inconfused after the union, it follows that they likewise exist. But if they exist, it is certain that they can be viewed and conceived by the mind. Wherefore they will also be able to be numbered. If they cannot be numbered, it is evident that they do not exist. But if they do not exist, then neither have the natures or hypostases remained inconfused. But if they have remained, they remain for eternity.

But if you, O Severians, say that the divine Cyril is not speaking of personal hypostases, but by the name of "hypostases" he understands "subsistences"—that is, things which subsist and true realities—when he names the divinity and humanity of Christ, I could indeed have opposed and responded to these [claims] by saying: that since in the fourth anathema, as was said a little before, he says that "persons" are "hypostases," it would have been more consistent with reason and more necessary to follow the footsteps of such a great teacher than your ^D allegories. But lest we seem to blame the pillar and lamp of the orthodox faith, let it be as you wish; that the subsistences of Christ were called "hypostases" by the most wise Father. Therefore, since you [do not admit] the flesh of Christ...

it is clear that you maintain it to be non-existent, without subsistence, and without essence. ^A And turning and looking toward John the monk, I say: "What do you say to these things, O philosopher? The hypostases of Christ have remained inconfused, as the God-minded Cyril cries out, as you yourself bear witness, and yet you do not admit that the natures have remained inconfused in Christ? You accept the hypostases, and you deny the natures? Truly, your position is ridiculous and a broad fable. We ask you, saying, 'Whose hypostases have remained inconfused?' and you answer fearlessly, saying, 'The hypostases of Christ.' And when you hear us saying that the natures of Christ have remained inconfused, you are indignant, you blaspheme, you cry out, you leap about, and you do thousands of evil things! ^B I say again, your position is more ridiculous than a whole stage, and an orchestra, and the theatrical plays of mimes; you confess the hypostases of Christ, but deny His natures. You proclaim the hypostases openly, but hide the natures because of us. You reject the expression that is beyond all reproach, and you adopt the one that is subject to reproach. For if it is possible at all to speak without reproach of two hypostases in Christ, it is much easier and more blameless to speak of two natures. And if, as you say, there is no nature without a person, much more is there no hypostasis without a person, as indeed seems to be the opinion of Cyril. And if those who posit hypostases in Christ are immune from all reproach, we who profess natures in Christ will be much further from all guilt. For you have one advocate for the hypostases; we have the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers, and all the other teachers, saying that there are two natures in Christ, but not two hypostases. ^C And if we who say there are two natures joined together in Christ hold the views of Nestorius, then you are all the more so, who affirm two hypostases. And if it is possible to understand and interpret 'hypostases' in a pious way, it is much more possible for 'two natures' to be interpreted piously. For from two natures it is possible for one hypostasis to be composed, just as a human being is composed; but from two characteristic hypostases, a union according to hypostasis cannot come to be. So that, in truth, by this the mouths of those calumniating the Council of Chalcedon and us are stopped, because even as you say, Athanasius and Cyril having called the natures 'hypostases,' ^D the council and we have avoided speaking of two hypostases. For if, when we say that the natures are united in Christ according to hypostasis, you pour out such and so many evils upon us, as if we held the views of Nestorius, what kind and what great evils would you have been about to do if you had heard the Council of Chalcedon, or Leo the Pope, or anyone else from the number of the Catholics asserting diverse hypostases in Christ, and that the natures—that is, his two hypostases—have remained inconfused?" As I said these things and more in the assembly, John the monk of Ziga answered and said:

^A THE HERETIC. «We do not say that the two hypostases have remained inconfused; neither do we signify the number of a duality; but we say indefinitely that the natures, or the hypostases, have remained inconfused.»

THE ORTHODOX. When he had said this, I said to him with a smile: "Would that you said two hypostases, and not more. For in that you do not designate a number, but indefinitely say that the natures—or the hypostases—have remained inconfused, this is understood and said not only of two, but even of more natures and hypostases."

THE HERETIC. Then John replied to these things: «Such is the voice of the holy Fathers Athanasius and Cyril; and no one can reject it.»

^B THE ORTHODOX. To this I made answer: "God has provided and taken thought for us who are reckoned of the catholic Church, better than that the most holy prelates of the Alexandrians should have uttered such an utterance on account of those who now seek in it a kind of lair of every confusion, like dragons. Nay rather, with those very weapons with which they think to combat our faith, they are slain, like Goliath, by the invincible David.

"For when they endeavor to convict of Nestorianism those who profess two natures in Christ, on account of that statement which calls the natures hypostases, they do not notice that they are drawing the sword as much against the holy Fathers as against themselves. For when you say that the natures are hypostases, while Cyril the theologian teaches that the hypostases are ^C persons, it is manifest that you say nothing else than that the persons of Christ have remained inconfused. And not only this, but you also inflict most grievous injury upon the most celebrated Cyril himself, when you affirm, as if from his opinion, that nature is person. For if nature signifies person, how shall we understand that statement of the same Cyril in his letter to Succensus: 'We profess there to be two natures,' unless we profess there to be two persons in Christ, if nature is person?"

Then John the heretic answered to these things: «That the blessed Cyril piously confesses that the one and same Christ consists of two natures, or hypostases, is the truth.»

THE ORTHODOX. Then I said: "Whether those are indeed the voices of the blessed Cyril, is known to God alone, as I have already said; for in one place he says, 'Christ consists ^D of two hypostases.' Yet in many other places testimonials are circulated under his name in which that expression 'of two' does not appear; but sometimes he says, 'The ark of the covenant was a figure of the hypostases of Christ.' Sometimes: 'If anyone after the ineffable union divides the hypostases.' And in his Scholia he speaks thus: 'That the natures—or the hypostases—have remained inconfused, we know from this.' For wood anointed with gold remains what it was, and the wood itself is enriched and participates in the splendor of the gold; but

it does not cease to be wood. Hearing these things, I shudder, if he who says that hypostases are persons has dared, even in dreams, to speak of diverse hypostases in Christ our God. ^A But, 'He does not say,' he claims, 'that the hypostases are "personal" according to Cyril.' But neither do I, nor does the Synod of Chalcedon, say that the natures are "personal." Rather, just as the divine Cyril understands hypostases as existences—that is, things that have subsistence—so I, too, understand natures as nothing other than things that truly are and exist. For just as you conceive of a hypostasis as something subsistent, so do I, by the name of nature, conceive of something that exists.

^B But perhaps you wish to say this to us: that the natures and hypostases which the holy Cyril named denote existences, and he is irreproachable. But the natures which the Synod of Chalcedon proclaims regarding Christ are simply natural parts, like the natures of blowing winds, or of camels and mules. I said these things with a grave voice, mocking John the "Dormitatorem," and turning to the people of the church, I said: 'I bear witness to your charity, that the Severians, when they hear of hypostases in Christ, understand them—if I am not mistaken—as hypostases of certain properties or fortunes; and for this reason they preach and confess them with an intrepid and fearless spirit. But when they hear ^C of "nature," they picture in their minds certain base and absurd things, as being the parts that make up the bodies of men and women; and for this reason they avoid this word, as if they had been instructed in the discipline of the Saracens. For even they, when they hear of the conception of God and the birth of God, immediately dream of marriages, and seed, and carnal conjunction, and they blaspheme. For if those of Severus do not understand it otherwise, why is it that when they name the body of the Lord, they accept very many and diverse appellations—truly poor and unworthy of God, and likewise alien even to angelic nature—yet they refuse to use only the appellation of "nature" for Him?

See then: they call the body of the Lord mortal; they call it ^D subject to corruption. They call it passible, fluid, material, terrestrial, subject to hunger, thirst, and labors—appellations which cannot be spoken of either in regard to angels or spirits; yet they refuse to call it by the only name of nature, that is, of truth. And why do I mention the aforementioned names, and not rather those that are harsher? They confess that Christ, through the flesh, was made a curse and became sin, as Scripture says (Gal. III, 13; II Cor. V, 21). They confess that He was tempted for forty days

^A by the devil. But they cannot endure to call it nature, or so it were, "truth." We ask them, saying: "What nature of Christ grew; what was put to death; what was buffeted; what labored; what shed tears?" and simply when they are asked by us regarding all the lowly words and actions of Christ, "According to what nature were these things done and said?" they answer, saying that it was according to the flesh, according to that which is earthly, according to that which is visible, according to that which was assumed, according to the body of Christ. While they give these and ten thousand other names to the humanity of Christ, they cannot endure to confess it as nature, even though, as I said before, they call it hypostasis. You see the blindness of men.

The adversaries replied: "For if we call the body of Christ a nature, we shall be found, of absolute necessity, just like the Synod of Chalcedon, to be confessing two natures in Him, that is to say, two persons; for there is no longer such a thing as a nature without a person." Then I said in reply: "On the contrary, O men, there is no hypostasis without a person. For all the Fathers, both in the mystery of the Trinity and in the economy, affirm that hypostasis is person." If, however, according to your Severian discipline, he who calls the flesh of Christ a nature thinks and feels as Nestorius does, establishing two natures and therefore establishing two persons in Him, then it follows that all the holy Fathers must be rejected as followers of Nestorius, for they all taught that the humanity of Christ is a nature. And first of all the blessed Paul himself, the apostle and light of the world. By him the humanity of our Savior is called the "form of a servant" (Phil. II, 7); ^C if it is a form, it is certainly a nature, as the choir of holy teachers tells us. Likewise Dionysius, the disciple of Paul, in his epistle to Gaius, calls the humanity of Christ a substance or essence. Similarly Irenæus, who was almost an equal of the apostles, as is clear from the testimonies brought forward above. If, then, it is impious, Nestorian, and detestable to call the humanity of Christ a nature, then once again the entire multitude of the saints is rejected by you, and all their teaching is of no value or importance among you.

Scholium. From the Oration on the Ascension. John, Bishop of Constantinople, will therefore be a liar when he says: "God hidden in human nature; and that the nature which had heard on earth, 'You are earth, and to earth you shall return' (Gen. III, 19), this same nature heard in the heavens, 'Sit at my right hand'" (Ps. CIX, 1). And ^D again the same one says: "The nature for whose sake the Cherubim guarded paradise is now above the Cherubim." If, after the union, it is impious to call the humanity of Christ a nature, it is surely manifest that you are pronouncing anathema upon the holy Fathers.

Scholium. (Against Eunomius.) Concerning Ambrose, who says: "Christ speaks in my substance," and concerning Gregory, who asks: "What nature in Christ was buffeted?"

[and is struck;] and that Christ "granted time to the nature of the body to perform what was its own." Therefore, you must also condemn Athanasius, for saying in his works against the Arians, "that the flesh of Christ suffered pains by its own nature." What penalty, then, will you inflict upon Basil, who says in his discourse *On Fasting*, concerning Christ, that "returning into the heavens, he tasted food, authenticating the nature of the body which had risen"? With whom Athanasius also agrees in his book *On the Incarnation*, saying concerning Christ: "The body, indeed, had a nature common to all. For it was a human body." Just as the theologian Gregory also says in his discourse on the *Theophany* concerning the Lord's body, that "it hungered, and thirsted, and wept by the law of nature." ^B Ambrose likewise agrees, speaking about the passion of Christ to the emperor Gratian, saying: "For he participates in both natures, that is, human and divine. For in the human nature he endured the passion." And the same author says the same in his book *On the Incarnation*. With which the Nyssen also agrees, saying: "What nature is struck on the cheek during the passion?"

I will seal what has been said as if with a royal ring and signet, with the authority of the most celebrated Cyril; although I am not unaware that he too is rejected by you at the command of Severus when he calls the body of the Lord Christ "nature." For he writes to Successus, "that he suffered and was crucified in the terrestrial nature." And again to the same, that "the nature of the flesh has not passed into the nature of the Word." And again in another place he says: "It is free from all blame to know and profess ^C that the flesh of Christ is distinct in its own nature from God the Word." Likewise, he says to Eulogius, "If the body is not of the same substance as God the Word, it is absolutely a different nature; just as all these things have been said before." But when this holy Father names "one nature and another" in Christ, it is evident that he calls the divinity of Christ and his humanity a nature as well. Just as also when he says, "We say there are two natures," it is manifest that he calls the flesh one of these, which he terms a nature: just as the divine Ephrem, and Isidorus, and Proclus, and Atticus, and all the other Fathers, who say there are diverse natures in Christ, maintain that his body is one of these. And how, therefore, do you stand against them so obstinately and disobediently, saying that it is impossible for the humanity of the Lord to be called a nature?

To these things, John and Gregorius the "Dormitant" (the Nyssen) said: "Before the union we confess two natures; but after the union, Christ is one incarnate nature." And I, ^D answering, said to them: "I suppose that after the ineffable union of Christ which took place at Nazareth in the womb of the holy Theotokos, and after the birth, and after his ascension to the Cherubic throne, Severus, having gathered his ten-horned assembly and summoned you, fabricated another second union in Christ; and for that reason he delivered this to you...

saying ^A that, after the union which he himself brought about in Christ, one should no longer call the body of Christ a "nature," nor acknowledge in Him two united natures. For if he had not done this, behold, all the blessed Fathers, as has been demonstrated before, after the union of Christ in Nazareth, have confessed the two natures in Him: some concerning the birth and delivery at Bethlehem; others while dealing with the meeting with Simeon; others while treating of the baptism; others, as Cyril did, said He was buffeted and suffered in an earthly nature. Proclus, in the touching of the side by the apostle Thomas, proclaims the conjunction of natures in Christ. Basil asserts the same from the food partaken of after the resurrection, and names the Lord’s body a "nature." John Chrysostom, after the holy Ascension into heaven, named our nature within Christ; ^B inasmuch as he says it was raised above the Cherubic throne, to whom it was said by the Father: "Sit at my right hand." Where, however, the most holy body of Christ is called a "nature," it is clear that two natures are acknowledged and established in Him. Therefore, as I said, your lawgiver Severus has architected a certain new union in Christ after His holy return to the heavens: and for this reason he commanded you not to profess two natures in Christ after the union.

HERETICS. But it is the voice of Cyril that says: "After the union, Christ is one incarnate nature, and for this reason we do not profess two natures in Him." ^C When John and those of his heretical perversity said these things, I cried out with a clear and joyful voice and said: "Eternal be the memory of Cyril, just as the Council of Chalcedon also said." For indeed, no one of the holy Fathers has preached that most holy, and unfailing, and eternal, and indelible benefit of the natures of Christ as the divinely inspired Cyril. For the blessed Fathers mentioned the number; but the thrice-blessed Cyril, along with the number, taught clearly that the natures are preserved indelibly and always, even after the union. For on that text: "Destroy this temple," he said: "Christ, in both natures, which were of different substances, preserved the inconfused property." To Succensus, moreover, he says: "We say there are two natures." ^D Again, in his Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, he speaks thus concerning the two natures of Christ: "And we surely do not say that a melting away, as it were, has happened regarding the natures, so that the nature of the Word would pass over into the nature of man, or the nature of man into the nature of the Word; but we say that the union has happened while each nature exists and perseveres in its own boundary." Similarly, in the sixth volume of those same commentaries, he used these very words: "We do not say that a certain transfusion of the natures into one another has happened; but rather we assert that each one has remained what it was." This is also what he handed down in the scholia, when he says: "the natures remained inconfused." May it be well with you, O light, torch, and column of truth

^A Cyril. I will say it again: truly eternal is the memory of Cyril, who does not allow us to wander from the truth, but explains to us the indefectible and eternally enduring state of the natures in Christ; which he also does in the book to the queens or empresses, where he admonishes us to "recognize the diversity of the natures and to keep them inconfused." You, therefore, O men, misinterpreting one certain expression of Cyril, say that he posits one nature in Christ after the union. Behold, the herald of piety, in the most eloquent manner and in every way, confesses that two natures in Christ are preserved, remain, are considered, and are numbered after the union. Attend, I beseech you, diligently to the words of the Father.

He said that the property of the two natures in Christ, of the different essences, remains inconfused. ^B Likewise, he said again: "We affirm that there are two natures." He said that each of them is understood and exists within the limit of its own nature. He said that each nature remains in Christ what it is. He said that the natures, or hypostases, of Christ have remained inconfused. In addition to all these things, he exhorts us, saying that we must know the difference of the natures and keep them inconfused with one another. Therefore, the divine orator Cyril, as has been demonstrated, teaches us here in six ways the undiminished and countable existence of the two natures of Christ, saying that they are preserved in Christ, saying that they are, saying that they exist, saying that they remain in him. Then he adds that they also persevere inconfused; again he admonishes us to recognize the difference of the natures and to profess them inconfused. And these things, truly, are from our doctor.

Further, it will be the task of your office, and that of the impartial judge and legislator Severus, to define and characterize for us a fixed limit of time: for how many years the two natures have remained inconfused in him, and for how many months we ought to affirm that there are two natures in him, and until what time it is necessary to know the difference of the natures, and for how many days he retains in himself the inconfused property ^C of the two natures of different essences, and until what presence it is necessary to know the difference of the natures of Christ and to keep them inconfused with one another. While we were asking these questions long ago, the judge Severus set forth his answer and his decision against Christ, saying in his own writings:

THE HERETIC. Until the times of Nestorius the natures were inconfused; but from the time of Nestorius a mixture and diminution of the natures occurred. And from the days of the Council of Chalcedon, Cyril is a liar ^D when he says: "We affirm that there are two natures of Christ." From the time of the publication of the Tome of Leo, Christ no longer preserves the inconfused property of the two different natures. From the time that Dioscorus was cast from his throne and subjected to anathema, we must no longer recognize the difference of the natures in Christ, nor keep them inconfused; for toward us

^A rising heresies it is necessary also to change the faith, and to rewrite the doctrines of the divine Scriptures and the Fathers.

When John and those sectarians with him were vexed and gnashing their teeth at what was said, I spoke again to them: It is so, before God in whose sight we stand, that you, obeying the exhortations and admonitions of Severus—by which he gave you the power to reject, after the time of Nestorius, the testimonies of the holy Fathers, and even of the divine Cyril himself, which preach two natures in Christ—do not admit the sayings of the Fathers. You are not far from spurning the very holy Gospels themselves, as well as the Old and New Testaments, and rejecting all the writings and pronouncements of the Fathers, setting your footsteps in the tracks of Severus, as if he were some new Aquila. For who among you does not know with all precision that the Fathers said that two natures remain in Christ, without diminution? Who among you does not testify that the cited words belong to holy Cyril, which declare that the two natures in Christ exist, remain, are known, are not confused, and are numbered in one person, indivisible? Who among you is ignorant that nature and person are not one and the same? For see, infinite persons are present here, yet we are all one nature.

^B When these and many other things of this kind had been said in the assembly, since I knew from long and varied experience that the followers of Severus examine the writings of Cyril from head to toe, and turn his testimonies up and down, while they pay little attention to the rest of the blessed Fathers, a few days before this disputation, realizing that the Theodosians had summoned the leaders and princes of their sect—I mean John and Gregory—to array them against us, I sat down and composed a dogmatic Tome in the name of Flavian, the bishop of Constantinople, who was murdered by Dioscorus because he confessed two natures, united indivisibly, in one composite hypostasis.

In this Tome, I preserved the aim and mind of the holy Fathers with a certain great precision, but I placed their actual words, having changed them for other words of equivalent meaning. For example, instead of "form," I wrote "substance" or "essence"; instead of "earthly," "terrestial"; and instead of "passion," "the cross"—to make it manifest to all ^C that they oppose the Council of Chalcedon, the blessed Flavian, and the Tome of holy Leo with a hostile and ill-disposed spirit, and not out of love for the truth. For I saw that they, rashly and without any reason, upon hearing only the name of Flavian or of Leo in the Tome, would cry out anathema, caring nothing whether the doctrine delivered in that Tome was right or perverse. I said therefore to them: If it pleases you, let there be a compendium of words, and there will be no need for many

but let us speak and hear; behold our faith and that of the Council of Chalcedon; receive and read, and either walk in accordance with it or anathematize it. Now the Tome was as follows:

^A From the Tome of Flavian, Bishop of Constantinople, from the dogmatic Tome which he wrote to Leo, the Pope of Rome, concerning the incarnate economy of Christ, our true God. "The Word," he says, "became flesh, and dwelt among us." Now the dwelling is one thing, and that which dwells in it is another. I do not say other and other, as if there were two persons, but one thing and another, as if there were two natures. For every evangelical and apostolic exhortation and testimony concerning Immanuel is divided into two modes: in one way it indicates his singular person, and in another it clearly testifies to his two natures. For he was, and is, twofold, the one and only Jesus Christ, and his ratio is twofold, not before the union, but after the ineffable union, ^B the same being perfect as in divinity, so also in humanity. For if he had consisted of a simple nature, how could he have been able to suffer and die? How could he have been struck and buffeted, if not by the passible and earthly nature of the body? For just as being consubstantial with God and the Father, he is perfect God from perfect God; so also, existing as consubstantial with us, he is perfect man.

Scholium. We set these things forth so that the studious may use the same method of combat against their adversaries, since even the blessed Paul knew how to use such a method. For which reason he said to some: "I caught you by craft."

Scholium. ^C From Gregory the Theologian's *On the Theophany*, and from Cyril of Jerusalem, and likewise from Cyril of Alexandria in the first book *On the Most Holy Trinity*, and from Gregory of Nyssa's *Against Eunomius*, and from Cyril of Alexandria's *To Succensus*: and from the address of Paul, Bishop of Emesa, which he delivered in Alexandria in the presence of the holy Cyril, to whom this saying belongs: "For when he was in the form of God, he took the form of a servant for our sake." Now the form of God signifies the substance of God, just as the form of man signifies human nature. From Gregory of Nyssa's *Against the Eunomians*: "The stripes, therefore, and the cross, and the death belong to man, in whom ^D is the Lord, the Word of God; but the glory and the power belong to the Lord, whom the servant, that is, the man, encompasses." Gregory, *Against Eunomius*: "If therefore he is impassible according to the divine nature, but capable of passion according to the human nature, who, among those who have understanding, would dare to call his two natures one?"

Saint Ephrem in *The Pearl*: "If, however, divinity and humanity are one nature, then a demi-god is the God who was incarnate, and a demi-man the one who was assumed into heaven." But such is not what the assembly of the saints taught, which Eutyches the archimandrite rejected; he taught, I say, that there is one nature of the uncreated divinity and of the humanity of Christ which is according to us.

^A But the entire chorus of the holy Fathers confesses that Christ has a twofold substance, that is to say, nature; but not a twofold hypostasis, that is, person. [Testimonies] of Amphilochius, of Cyril to Successus, and of Proclus.

Testimony of Amphilochius: "For into one person, as your holiness also teaches, both natures have come together, which we confess both to be and to be preserved in Christ immutably and indivisibly."

Testimony of Proclus: "For there is one and only begotten Son and Word of God; his natures are not divided into a duality of hypostases, but the ineffable Word has joined them into one hypostasis; his most holy body, adorned from within by the Word, and guarded from without by the protection of the Holy Spirit, that from both the radiance of the natures might be shown forth. Thus indeed we also say that he ate, not only before the passion, but even after the resurrection, to prove the nature of his body."

If however the body, about which the heretics dispute, is termed a nature and substance, it is manifest that in the one Christ each nature remains entire—that is to say, the divine and the human—and that he speaks in the divine nature those things which become God; and in our nature, again, he utters those things which are human and lowly; having no commixture, no confusion, and no division regarding the natures; but that he is one Jesus and Christ, and Lord, and Savior, to those who piously believe in him. ^B

^C When these things had been read from the Tome, John and Gregory cursed, rejected, and subjected to anathema the things written therein. And after they had detested and anathematized the Tome, we brought forward the books of the holy Fathers, from which all the testimonies that were contained in the Tome had been taken; for we had them ready at hand. And the individual testimonies were nothing other than reproofs and refutations of the heretics. And when we demonstrated from their own books that they had not cursed Flavian, but the holy Fathers, and had subjected them to anathema, the common people arose, reviling them extremely, and almost wanting to stone them. This was the triumph and the disgrace which John and his associates publicly bore. ^D

It will not be irrelevant for the studious to observe this also at this point. The Catholics who live in Alexandria told us that after the times of the blessed Pope Eulogius (of Alexandria), there was a prefect Augustalis there named Severianus, who for a long time kept and maintained fourteen calligraphers or scribes of his own opinion, to whom he gave the task of falsifying and depraving the books of the Fathers, especially those of holy Cyril. When we came upon his letter to Successus, we did not find that saying, "We say that in Christ there are two natures," sincere and uncorrupted in any of the Alexandrian copies; but some had: "We say there are two natures united." Others: "Two na-

natures are to be considered." And while we were in great sorrow, the Lord Isidore, custodian of the patriarchal library, brought us a book in which the opinion of Cyril was found uncorrupted. With similar wickedness they also corrupted a saying of Saint Ambrose; for in place of: "Let us preserve the difference of divinity and of the flesh," they placed: "Let us preserve the difference of the reading." Furthermore, they corrupted a saying of the blessed Proclus concerning Christ, when he says: "That He was born without corruption, He who entered without hindrance through closed doors; in whom Thomas recognized the conjunction of natures." In place of "without corruption" ^B (written with the Greek word *aphthartos*), the Gaianites say "incorruptible," that is to say, "destitute of corruption." And in place of saying the affirmative article which says, "whose conjunction of natures, that is, of Christ," they themselves substitute the negative particle in this manner: "Thomas did not recognize the conjunction of natures," etc. So also in that passage: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up;" by the name of the temple they understand the college of the apostles, which was dispersed and again gathered. In which matters they did not blush to affirm with most impudent mouth that it was advantageous for the professors of the synod of Chalcedon to say that there are two hypostases in Christ, and not to say two natures; for nature, they say, is indicative of many hypostases. When they were blurting out these things, I said to them: "Then do you not confess any nature at all in Christ?" The heretics said: "We confess one nature in Him, just as the Fathers teach." While they were admitting this, I said in a loud voice, "So that it may become manifest to you, while you posit one nature in Christ, you profess diverse hypostases in the same, if, according to the mode you have established and approved, nature is the index of diverse hypostases—come, let us proceed to demonstrate this."

Another mode by which we engaged with the same Theodosians, in the presence of the Augustal Prefect, in a public audience of the city.

^C Sufficiently, therefore, and without any doubt, the heretics having been suffused with shame and redness from our action, which we had instituted like a drama, and since there was evidently no longer any pretext for them to open their mouth against the Catholic Church, they sent messengers into Egypt and summoned some bishops whom they judged to be skilled in the Scriptures, one of whom was also the Bishop of Cynopolis. These, coming to the Augustal Prefect, asked him that they might have the opportunity of disputing with us concerning Christ. He not unwillingly agreeing, we were immediately summoned into the praetorium. Those, however, who had been sent, announced to us that Theodosians were present, who had a mind to confer with us concerning the faith in the presence of the Augustal Prefect. When we had come and had sat down, the Augustal Prefect began to speak in this way: "Since these bishops had heard of the disputes that had arisen between the Church and the Theodosians, they betook themselves hither, desiring to dispute with your holiness." When the Augustal Prefect had spoken these things, those bishops opened their mouths, and began to accuse me, as if I were a disturber of the city, of the people, ^D

and of their Church. I said to them with a mild and smiling voice: "Venerable Fathers, have you ever seen me before, or conversed with me, or heard my faith or my opinion from my own mouth?" When they denied it, I continued: "Listen then, Fathers, to my faith; I hope in God that it will be entirely pleasing to you, and that you will find no fault in me." Having said this, wishing to make clear to all and to expose the wickedness that lay hidden in their hearts and in their entire church, I took a parchment and a pen from the notaries who were attending the Augustal Prefect and wrote as follows: "I, Anastasius, a monk of the holy mountain of Sinai, confess that the very Word of God, begotten of God the Father before all ages, was himself crucified, and buried, and suffered, and rose again." I wrote these things without mentioning flesh, or his coming to us, or his incarnation, but expressed only the naked divinity of the Word of God. Then, rising, I handed the parchment to them; they read, praised, and approved it. When I saw that they had praised it, I said: "If I know that you think in this way, sign it, and I will immediately commune with you." For it was the Lord's day, and about the third hour. They agreed and signed it. ^B Having taken the parchment after their signature, I approached the one who seemed to be the wisest and most learned among them, and gently touching his beard with my hand, I said: "Remember that you have signed, 'Christ having suffered in the flesh,' O Theopaschite, 'and not in his divinity; having suffered in the flesh,' as the Apostle Peter teaches, 'and not having suffered in his divinity,' as Severus blasphemes, whose impiety you have now approved by your subscription. For wishing to reveal to all the blasphemy hidden in your mind, I wrote in the declaration of the parchment only the naked divinity of the Word of God, without mentioning flesh, or incarnation, or the birth from the most holy Virgin." When they heard this, as if sobering up from a drunken stupor, they were greatly agitated and tried everything to take such a parchment from me; but I kept shouting in front of everyone that I would not return it until I should present it to Christ against them on the day of judgment.

Another discussion and questioning with the same sectaries in the city of Alexandria, with George, I say, surnamed Clidopaeus, who served as a presbyter in their church and held the office of logographos.

^C As we sat in the Semiographeion of Caesarius, they recited to us their usual problems from their own pattern; namely, that "there is no nature without a hypostasis." Therefore, since the synod of Chalcedon established two natures in Christ, it necessarily follows that it also posited two hypostases, that is, persons, in the same Christ; and from this it is concluded that there are no longer three persons in the most holy Trinity, but four. To which we replied: "And what harm is brought to the truth if we say there are two hypostases in Christ? For..."

a hypostasis is not a person." ^A Since they again failed to grasp our aim—that we were not speaking these things in a guileful, crafty manner, like those who are evil, and not according to the truth—they began to be indignant, and they brought forward very many proofs and testimonies from certain of the holy Fathers, and from the blessed Cyril himself, that "hypostases are persons," both in the case of the holy Trinity and in the mystery of the Word’s incarnation. When, therefore, after much dispute, they had sufficiently affirmed and defined that hypostases are in every way persons, I then said to them: "In truth, if hypostases signify persons, you are inflicting a grave injury upon holy Cyril, inasmuch as you make him a Nestorian, just as you do yourselves; for he says that the hypostases of Christ have remained inconfused, or exist as the inconfused persons of Christ. For the word 'remained' signifies their eternal, inconfused, and subsistent duration; and I consider it worthy of admiration that he does not say the hypostases have remained 'undivided,' but 'inconfused,' that is to say, manifest, easy to be seen, recognizable, capable of being numbered, and permanent." ^B According to this term, therefore, and this rule, when you say that Christ is composed of two hypostases, you assert that he is composed of two persons. But if he is composed of two persons, it is manifest that the flesh was first formed, and then at last the divine Word came into it by the grace of indwelling. If these things are so, for what reason do you oppose Nestorius, seeing that your view is in harmony with Nestorius? Truly, heaven and earth will pass away, but these rules and decrees will not pass away: for, of course, if 'hypostasis' signifies 'person,' it is impossible for anyone to say that the hypostases of Christ have remained inconfused. Likewise: "If anyone after the immaculate union divides the hypostases." Finally: "The ark of the covenant bears the figure of the two natures, or hypostases, in Christ." For these, as you say, are the words of Saint Cyril, along with not a few others which name hypostases in Christ. Thus far our debate; for in this way the heretics are more briefly and expeditiously put to shame. ^C

On the saying that there is one incarnate nature of the Word of God, which the heretics bring forward perpetually, both up and down.

Since the most wise Cyril himself has interpreted this definition of his that is set before us, I deem it superfluous to have any doubt about its meaning; for it signifies exactly what Cyril himself indicated in his letter to Succensus, when he spoke of ^D the incarnate nature. Once this is understood, when any one of the adversaries names one incarnate nature of the divine Word, say to him: "And who, if he were not foolish, would dare to affirm that the two natures of Christ are incarnate? For thus there would be four natures in Christ; which God forbid!" Therefore, what the meaning is when he wrote "one incarnate nature," that same most wise Father has explained to us elsewhere; for by the name "one incarnate nature" he understood nothing else than that one person of the most holy Trinity is incarnate: for the Word was made flesh, in order that

^A the flesh should also become the Word, as the evangelist says. Since these things are so, and the holy Father has affirmed "one incarnate nature," why are you not content with this expression, but rather attach a new meaning to the teacher, as if he said that Christ is one nature, and that the nature of Christ is divinity alone, even if incarnate? From which Father did you learn this? Which of the teachers has said that there is "one nature," or one being and rationale, of the divinity and the flesh of Christ after the union? And how is it at all possible for the created and the uncreated to come to be of the same nature and the same genus, so that the whole is either created or uncreated? If, therefore, Christ is one nature, it follows that he is a man of a half-nature or a semi-man, just as the myths of the Manichaeans teach. But if the body is not of the same substance as the divine Word, but is altogether of a different substance, then there must be one nature and another, as the divine Cyril affirms to Eulogius. For Christ is perfect in divinity, and perfect in humanity, as the holy Fathers have piously handed down to us. ^B

These are the weapons, O defenders of the holy Church and of divine truth, which you must hold fast in time of war. And if any wolf from that flock approaches you, bringing those frigid fables about Christ, and turning the whole mystery of the incarnation into a vain phantasy and mere supposition, and saying that we, by the bare cogitation of the mind and apprehension of the intellect, conceive Christ as consisting of two natures but as one incarnate nature; for after the union there are no longer two natures; ^C for the flesh is deified, and, like a drop of vinegar mixed into the vast ocean, has put on the nature which that has by which it was deified; for the Word was made flesh, so that the flesh might also become the Word—for the will of the divinity is one, as is also the one substance of the Word, and there are not two natures in Christ, one capable of adoration and one incapable of adoration, and other things of this kind properly asserted sometimes by the Fathers, but wrongly interpreted by those—if, I say, anyone brings forth these or similar things, let that saying of Solomon come to your mind: "Answer a fool according to his folly." And say also: "The hypostases of Christ remained unconfused even after the union: and if anyone divides the hypostases of Christ after the union, let him be anathema," as the divine Cyril says. For "that legal ark is a certain type of the two hypostases in Christ." ^D But what are the hypostases? It is clear that they are persons, as the same divine Cyril and the whole choir of the holy Fathers teach. Thus, O believer, encounter the adversaries with their own opposites or contraries. Thus fight against them. With these weapons, slaughter for me the detestable Severus. With these, cast down Dioscorus. With these, strike Theodosius, and Gaian, and Julian, and the whole of their ten-horned...

^A crowd, which established one nature in Christ.

CHAPTER XI. In which the author indicates whence Saint Cyril took the occasion to speak of two natures.

Furthermore, lest anyone of those who now live, or who are to live in future times, should think that we have gone so far mad as to establish with Nestorius two persons or hypostases in Christ, and impiously profess this, I have deemed it necessary to explain from where that mode of speaking came. The language of the Africans, and of the Romans, and of all the Westerners, in ancient times and at the beginning of their reception of the preaching, having as yet no experience of terms pertaining to dogma and ^B deep concepts—being, as it were, ethnic and barbarian—could not distinguish essence or substance and nature from hypostasis; but said that substance was the same as hypostasis, and in place of both terms, it made use of the word "subsistence." And since, through poverty of language, it could not name and express "hypostasis," it called the three persons of the holy Trinity "three subsistences." Now, "subsistence" can, in a certain way, be taken both for "substance" and for "hypostasis," for "subsistence" is that by which it subsists; and "essence" is that by which it is; and "hypostasis" is that by which it underlies. Since, therefore, as I was saying, the Westerners could not say "three ^C hypostases" in the Trinity, they said "three substances." Because of this, certain others who were well-versed in the Greek language, and trained to accurately distinguish dogmatic terms, in the times of Saint Athanasius, began to contend with the Westerners, arguing to them that one should not say "three substances" in the holy Trinity. The Westerners, on the other hand, not knowing how to say "hypostasis," insisted on saying "three substances," lest, they said, we be found saying that the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit is substanceless, that is, non-existent.

When a great dispute and schism had therefore arisen, the blessed Athanasius, as a son of God’s peace, ordered his words in judgment by divine inspiration; and having summoned both parties, and inquired, and learned that they agreed in sense but disagreed in words, and that the Westerners were contending with the others only because of the ^D poverty of their native tongue, he restored peace to the Church, and writing to the Africans, using their own lack of terminology as a concession, he called substance "hypostasis." If, therefore, those expressions of Saint Cyril are authentic which call the natures "hypostases," they certainly flowed from this source. Saint Gregory the Theologian testifies to this in his funeral oration on Saint Athanasius. Likewise also the Lord Eulogius, Pope of Alexandria, writing in defense of the Tome, or decretal Epistle, of Saint Leo. But I add: things that are said rarely and as if by necessity do not pass into law, nor do they prejudice the Church. Indeed, from this the piety and sound mind of the Council of Chalcedon is caught, in that it did not wish to speak of two hypostases in Christ, even though the ability to do so, according to the custom of the Fathers, was not lacking.

CHAPTER XII.

^A Concerning the salutary passion of Christ, and that they are Theopaschites who usurp the phrase: “Holy Immortal, who was crucified and suffered.”

It has been excellently said by the wisest of men that refutations and proofs grounded in reality and deeds are far firmer, more trustworthy, and more powerful than those which consist of mere words and are merely drawn from books. For while the former cannot be corrupted or wickedly twisted into an alien meaning, the latter are often corrupted by the wicked through additions or subtractions; a fact which anyone who studies these matters will recognize, as we have said before, from many copies of things—not only dogmatic works, but also Mosaic and prophetic monuments. For when, at a certain desired time, I had taken into my hands various copies of the prophet Jeremiah, I found in them absolutely no mention of the thirty pieces of silver, the price for which Christ was sold, nor of the potter’s field. If, therefore, those who are alien to the orthodox faith do not spare even the Holy Scriptures themselves, how much less will they keep their falsifying hands off the lucubrations of teachers—a matter of which we have already spoken at greater length. ^B Therefore, heretics and those devoid of the true faith are shamed more powerfully and effectively by realities. For when we were debating with our adversaries concerning the salutary passion and the cross of Christ, and we observed them laboring to demonstrate, from the testimonies they brought forward, that the Word of God was passible together with His own flesh, I abandoned the proofs based on speech and turned to material evidence and examples. I depicted the crucifixion of the Lord on a certain tablet, with an added inscription which we shall append to the testimonies.

^C A few testimonies, out of many, which the Theodosians and Gaianites bring forward to prove that the Word of God Himself was also subject to suffering together with His own flesh. (From the Epistle to the Corinthians.)

“But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, which none of the rulers of this age knew; for if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” [1 Cor. ii, 7, 8]

From the holy Ignatius, bishop of Antioch: “Permit me to be an imitator of the passion of my God.”

From Julius, bishop of Rome: “The Jews, in crucifying the body, crucified the Word.” To this testimony I immediately replied, saying to them: If by crucifying the body the Jews killed the Word, ^D then the Trinity was not the Trinity, but, so to speak, only a duality existed in heaven, until the Word of God rose from the dead on the third day.

From the holy Gregory the Theologian: “Do not be disturbed in your mind when you hear of the blood and passion of God.”

^A From Melito, bishop of Sardis, from the discourse on the Passion: “God has suffered by the right hand of the Israelite.” From the holy Gregory: “A few drops of the blood of God sanctified the whole world.” From the holy Cyril against Nestorius: “The passion is God’s, the cross is God’s, the death is God’s, the resurrection is God’s.” They claim, furthermore, that Gregory supports their persuasion regarding the passibility of the divinity when he says: “Let him who denies the divinity of Christ be numbered with the Jews who killed God.” Wherefore, by those very words which they added to the Trisagion hymn, “Holy Immortal, who was crucified for us,” they indicate nothing else than this: “The holy, immortal Word of God, who for us suffered and died.” For they call the divine Word immortal, which is indeed immortal. So also that saying, “The passion of God,” must be understood with all caution and circumspection; since some malevolent person could likewise transfer this to the Father and the Holy Spirit, for the Holy Spirit is God, just as the Father and the Son. Since, therefore, the Severians, Theodosians, and Gaianites had brought forward these and similar authorities, by which they endeavored to prove that the divinity is passible, we, wanting to draw out the hidden deceit and all that poison which lay concealed in their breast, and to expose it publicly, leaving aside arguments ^B set forth in speech and derived from the writings and meditations of others, proceeded to proofs taken from the things themselves and from a figure presented to the eyes. By this kind of proof they were also remarkably confounded. For when we had depicted the Lord’s passion on a certain tablet, as was said before, with an inscription added which was such: “The Word of God on the cross; and a rational soul, and body,” and had placed a finger [upon it], we debated with them by questioning. The figure was of this kind.

^C Scholium. We adjure by the Son of God him who transcribes this book, that he form the same image of the crucified in this place. When, therefore, we had proposed this figure, we spoke thus: “Behold, Christ, the Son of the living God, complete and undivided, hangs on the cross; that is, the Word of God, and the soul which is hypostatically united to him, and the body. Which of these three underwent death and destruction, and became idle and motionless?” Attend diligently: “I did not say, which of these three in Christ underwent death and destruction in that triduum?” Being asked these things by us, the heretics, affected with the greatest disgrace and reproach, answered, “The body of Christ is what died.” We again [said] to them: “Did his soul die, or suffer, or become dead?” They replied: “Far be it!” Then, not without mockery and derision, we added: “Are you not ashamed, therefore, that, while you maintain and confess the soul which was created by the Word to be impassible and immortal, you dare to sing of the Word of God, who created the soul, ^D

^A as one who has suffered and died for us; are you not more injurious to the Creator than to the creatures? You call the angels immortal and impassible. You also call our souls immortal. You further assert that the demons are impassible and immortal. And are you not ashamed, I repeat, to call him who is the maker of all these things, who alone by nature is impassible, passible and mortal, offering less honor and glory to the Creator than to the creatures? Turn your attention to what I say. There were five things on the cross when Christ was fixed to it. There was the sun, which first received the nails and the spear, and remained inseparable from the cross, and suffered no pain from the nails. There was also the most holy body of Christ. There was also his most holy soul. There was God the Word. There was also the wood of the Cross. ^B Four of these are created, but God the Word is uncreated, and the creator of them. Two of the created things remained devoid of passion, I mean the sun and his most holy soul. And how, therefore, could his divinity die? Thus, in two ways Christ is immortal, but in one way mortal, namely according to the flesh. Are not, therefore, O Acephalus, those most faithful men Peter and Paul—the pillars and chiefs, and the luminaries of the world, and the chosen heralds of the faith—judged and condemned by you? Sing no longer with Peter the Fuller: "Holy, immortal, O God the Word, who hast suffered," but with Peter the fisherman say: "Christ having suffered in the flesh for us." ^C Nor preach any longer with Paul of Samosata, but with Paul of Tarsus: "Put to death indeed in the flesh, but brought to life in the spirit." Christ died in mortal flesh, but not in the immortal spirit. But those who sing, "Holy, immortal, who was crucified and suffered for us," either declare the divine Word, who is immortal, to have been put to death, or his immortal soul. But the tomb of Christ refutes them, containing neither the divine Word dead, nor a rational soul put to death, but a divine body dead.

Since these things are so, whenever you hear: "The Lord of glory was crucified," or "God has suffered by the hand of an Israelite woman," or "Allow me to become an imitator of the passion of my God," or "A drop of the blood of God," or "The death, and burial, and cross of God," do not at all think that ^D the divine Word sustained suffering and death according to the divine nature; but do so according to the flesh, which was united to him hypostatically. For just as those things which belong to God are predicated of the flesh because of the ineffable and indivisible union with the Word, so also those things which are of man, such as suffering, dying, are often attributed to the divine Word; because he took these and similar things that are proper to the flesh through dispensation and condescension, remaining in himself naturally and truly as God, devoid of all passion and destruction. And just as if, having taken up a sword and entered into the furnace of the children, you slaughtered Azariah, you would in no way [cause] the nature of the fire

flesh of Christ suffered, the Word of God existing in it remained inseparable and impassible.

Not only unto the discourse concerning the passion of Christ does the proposed representation of the Cross contribute—that model and inscription of the three designations, I mean the Word of God, and His intelligent soul, and His most holy body—but it contributes much to all the other problems and perversities that our adversaries propose against us. For again, when their catch-phrases and "water-clocks" [sophistries] were cast before us, and their subtle thoughts concerning Christ, or rather their fantasies, and opinions, and mixtures, and confusions, and combinations, and the denials of the holy Fathers which are traditioned by Severus, and the examples of the drop of vinegar and the ocean; and, in a word, in all their propositions that deny that one ought to speak of two united and undivided natures in Christ, we hold forth against them the proposed precious Cross and the three-fold inscription upon it as an invincible trophy, mocking them and whistling at them; and, placing our finger upon each of the three designations and questioning them, we say: "What are you saying to us, O you who find excuses for sins, who bring forth for us a dark and impassable cavern, a labyrinth of words, saying that 'After the ineffable union the flesh was deified, and is no longer called a nature'? For it has become such as the Word of God who deified it, and henceforth it is no longer in its own properties, but by the victory of the superior element, the whole of Christ has become one nature; for the body was intermingled with the ocean of the divinity. Therefore, this also, by deification, has become God."

Scholium. The Following Must Be Read as an Interrogation

Why do you keep dragging these and such-like arguments back and forth before us—words rightly spoken by the holy Fathers, but wrongly understood by you? Look you at the proposed type of the Cross, and at the three-fold inscription of Christ upon it, and tell us: Has the Word of God become consubstantial with the flesh after the union? Has the intelligent soul ceased to be a soul? Has the body become consubstantial with the Word? Has any one of these three been deprived of its own property? Has the body of Christ become uncircumscribed? Has His intelligent soul become mortal? Has the Word of God become passible and mutable? By no means. If, therefore, even after the union, all things in Christ have remained unchangeable and unconfused, how then, by what reasoning, can the two immortal things and His mortal body be said to be one nature?

Question proposed to the same, refuting them because

^A they make God passible. But him whom you call crucified, do you also call him dead or not? HERETICS. Certainly; for Christ is one, and not two. ORTHODOX. Rightly so. Since, therefore, you say, "Holy Immortal, who was crucified and suffered for us and died," ^B whom do you call the immortal One who has died? For if you say it of the divine Word, you speak ill; for His flesh was not immortal on the cross. But if, again, you speak of the whole composite entity, which is called Christ, when you chant: "Holy Immortal who has suffered and died," you are again evilly persuaded. For that term, "immortal," cannot apply to a body, as I said before. And death does not fall upon the immortal Word, nor upon the soul, which partakes of immortality with the Word. Wherefore, in every respect, this hymn of yours is blasphemous and impious along with its author.

CHAPTER XIII

Before we proceed to the matter itself, we premise this: whether such sayings are certain additions of heretics is known to God alone. We see, indeed, in other places the holy Fathers have plainly spoken inconsistently and contrary to such testimonies. But if some of these sayings are truly of the holy Fathers, as indeed can happen, we add this: that such things were spoken by the holy Fathers improperly, or by way of catachresis ^D and blamelessly, without any suspicion of impiety, and generally with the intention of honoring the most holy soul and flesh of Christ, which those who deny the mystery of the incarnation now interpret falsely and against the mind of the holy Fathers, and drag them to such a point that they infect our nature in Christ, while they claim that from flesh and divinity one nature has coalesced after the ineffable union, as if, forsooth, the most holy flesh of Christ had been converted into the nature of divinity through commixture; and they add a certain saying of Gregory Nazianzen concerning the Lord’s body, saying, "And this is God through deification," and similarly of the blessed Cyril, preaching "God’s cross, God’s passion, God’s death, God’s resurrection," and many other things of this kind. But the wretched and unlearned do not observe that these and similar things are not said concerning the divine nature; but on account of the union and deification. For the divine Gregory did not assert that the body is God by nature; but it is just as if one were to say, etc. For the Word is immortal; but if you say it of the flesh, you again think erroneously, for the flesh was not, etc.

^A by its nature, fire, even though iron, because of its union with fire, shines with heat. For it has not put off the nature of iron. Thus also, the all-wise Cyril, again, did not say that the death belongs to the Divinity, nor that the passion belongs to the Divinity; for he would thus have made the fullness of the Divinity passible and mortal; but he said the passion belongs to God. For it is possible, as has already been stated, for the Lord’s humanity to be called God with a pious intention, on account of that supreme union, just as we know that men who were mere men, and not united to the Deity, have also been called gods. However, the most holy body of Christ cannot be called Divinity, lest we appear to be declaring the Divinity of the holy Trinity to be consubstantial with a creature. Hence, we often call the whole fullness of Christ God, on account of the supreme union, but we do not call him entirely Divinity, but Divinity and humanity together, on account of the difference of the natures.

And so that the discourse may return to the passion of Christ and his Trisagion hymn, it must be asked of them and put to them as a problem: when you sing and say, "Holy Immortal One, who was crucified and suffered for us," ^B whence is it evident that you say this concerning Christ? For if you were to say, "Holy Immortal One, who in the flesh was crucified for us," it would be clear that you are referring the hymn to the incarnate Christ. But since you do not name flesh, or body, or incarnation at all in such a hymn, but say in the dry phrase, "Holy Immortal One, who was crucified," someone may reasonably take issue with you and say that you do not call Christ crucified, but the immortal Father, or God, or the immortal holy Spirit. For since the body on the cross was mortal and not immortal, it becomes manifest from your judgment that you are saying that either the immortal Father, or the immortal God the Word, or the immortal holy Spirit was crucified, suffered, and died.

ACEPHALUS: And how again do we find the blessed Athanasius writing to Emperor Jovian, ^C saying: "The Word became flesh, in order that the flesh might also become Word"? If, therefore, the flesh has also become Word, by what reasoning can we henceforth speak of two natures?

ORTHODOXUS: As I said before, I say again, that I am held in strong doubt as to whether such statements have even proceeded from the holy Fathers. And to speak somewhat more boldly, even if an angel from heaven had uttered the statement in question, he would have uttered something impossible, and something that in no way happens. And the blessed Athanasius himself and Cyril ^D clearly testify that it is impossible and entirely inconceivable for the flesh to change into the nature of the Word. For how is it possible that that which, after ten thousand generations and ages, was created by the pre-eternal God the Word, should become of the same nature and kin to the uncreated God the Word? And if "the Word became flesh" in order "that the flesh might also become Word," it is consequently clear that we must acknowledge the flesh to have the properties of the Word, that is to say,

^A uncircumscribed, uncreated, without beginning, without form, and co-eternal with the Father. If, however, it is impossible to call the holy flesh of Christ any of these things, it is manifest that the flesh did not become Word. And if it did not become Word—just as in fact it did not—then he who said, "The Word became flesh, in order that the flesh might also become Word," was a liar. And let not the Acephalite say to me that the Master did not mean that the flesh became Word by nature, but by glory; for to this I can also reply to you that, by glory, all men can become gods, according to the words: "I said, Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High." Yet it is not even written in the book of the Master that it is by glory; rather, it is stated absolutely: "The Word became flesh, in order that the flesh might also become Word."

They do not bring forward this testimony alone as being from the holy Athanasius, but also another which says: "Christ was incarnate without sin and without carnal desires. For the will, he says, is of the divinity alone, just as is the substance of the Word alone." I cannot say who the author of this is. But this I do know and proclaim: that every man who proclaims only the substance of the divine Word in Christ has no lot or part in Christ, ^B as one who denies our own lump and the nature common to us, which He assumed from the holy Virgin and Theotokos Mary. For if the divinity alone is in Christ, why do we reproach the Manichaeans, who affirm that the flesh of Christ was such only in external appearance, and in supposition, and in fantasy, and that as He ascended into the sun He laid aside even that shadowy body which He wore in fantasy? Those whose footsteps the venerable Timotheus diligently follows, as a genuine disciple, walking and traversing the same path of error when he says: "The nature of Christ is divinity alone, even if He has been incarnate." One might aptly answer such a claim by taking up his own words and saying: If the nature of Christ is divinity alone, then it follows necessarily to say that the birth of Christ was that of the divinity alone, the growth of Christ was that of the divinity alone, the infancy of Christ was that of the divinity alone, the wrapping in swaddling clothes of Christ, the touching of Christ, the hunger, and thirst, and labor, and agony, and spittle, and blood, and tears ^C of Christ, and the crucifixion of Christ were those of the divinity alone. And what man, pray tell, or demon, would dare to say such things? Timotheus is therefore impious when he says: "The nature of Christ after the incarnation is divinity alone." For if Christ is divinity alone, and the divinity is invisible, untouchable, and cannot be sacrificed, is devoid of limbs and of being eaten, it is clearly established that Timotheus, like the Jews, denies the sacrifice and communion of the holy mysteries and does not believe, nor confess in truth, that the body and blood of Christ are visible, created, and earth-born; yet he offers them and imparts them to the people, saying: "The body and blood of our Lord, and God, and Savior Jesus Christ." For if the nature of Christ ^D

^A be claimed to be divinity alone, while the being held, broken, divided, crumbled, poured out, emptied, changed, and crushed by teeth is utterly abhorrent to the divinity, then Timotheus must necessarily fall into one of two pits: either he must posit that the divinity is passible and mutable, or he must deny the body and blood of Christ which he offers and consumes at the mystical table and imparts to the people with the words: "The body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ." For he ought rather to have addressed the recipient thus: "The divinity alone of our Lord Jesus Christ." But in truth, among Timotheus's followers, the doctrine of the incarnation has no place.

Away with this. For flesh is not divinity, as the thrice-blessed Athanasius affirms, writing somewhere thus: "For the body was not the Word, but the body was the body of the Word." And again, the same man, preaching the distinction of the substances of Christ, rebukes some, shouting: "What Orcus vomited forth that voice which claims the body and the Word of God to be of the same substance?" But if they are not of the same substance, then one is one, and the other is another nature, just as the all-wise Cyril wrote to his own vicar Eulogius who was in Constantinople. If, however, one nature is seen in Christ and another is another, then His substance is not that of the Word alone. And if the nature of Christ is not that of the Word alone, then Timotheus lies in saying that the nature of Christ is only divinity, even if it has become incarnate.

The heretic says—by the opinion of Timotheus and Severus, not denying the incarnation of Christ—that they preach one nature in Him. But they follow the holy Fathers: for the blessed Gregory the Theologian says that the body became of like divinity ^C to the God Word, and was perfected such as is that which divinized it. And the God-fearing Nyssen uses an example regarding the divinization and transmutation of the most holy body of Christ, saying that "As a drop of vinegar cast into the sea no longer remains in the properties of the vinegar, but is transformed and mixed into the property of the sea's waters: so too that most holy body, being mixed with the divinity, no longer exists in the properties of flesh."

ORTHODOX. Since you again put forth to us your opinion—I mean, that which removes the incarnate dispensation—it is necessary that we also use the same defense as we have previously stated. For if the holy body has become such as the God Word who divinized it, and no longer exists in the properties of human nature, it is manifest henceforth that IT IS no longer circumscribed, no longer movable from place to place, no longer capable of going or coming, no longer tactile, no longer visible; nor does Christ have the form of a man, no longer hands, no longer feet, no longer a body, no longer a side—how then does the prophet say, "They shall look on him whom they pierced"? If the body of Christ is no longer in any human property, but has been transformed into

^A the phenomena of the godhead, how does He say to the disciples after His three-day resurrection and the transformation of His body into incorruption: "Handle me, and see, for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see me have"? How did Thomas touch the prints of the nails, regarding which the same Nyssen speaks thus: "Consider how far the spear entered into the side, so that it could even receive the whole hand of the disciple for touching"? With whom agrees also the god-wise Epiphanius, saying: "Tell me, Marcion, how the breaking of the bread occurred; was it only in appearance, or by the working of a body endowed with its own mass?" ^B

But if any one of the adversaries replies to these things, saying that some of the holy Fathers, and Nyssen by name, affirm that the flesh of the Lord is no longer subject to its human properties, let the learner know that the holy Fathers did not use such turns of speech in the sense that he himself supposes, but in quite a different one. For in the beginning, man was created by God devoid of corruption and immortal; but through sin he became corruptible, mortal, subject to the concretion and mutation of matter, to destruction, and to various torments, sadness, labors, tears, and sleep. The divine Word, therefore, becoming flesh and taking on our lump, cleansed and freed it from all the inconveniences and calamities which had befallen it through sin. When, therefore, you hear a teacher asserting that the flesh of Christ does not consist any longer in the properties of flesh, understand it thus: that the human nature assumed by Christ is no longer subject to those molestations which befell our body as a result of sin; ^C but by the union with the divinity and the resurrection that took place after the third day, the most holy body of Christ has been changed and reformed for the better; and it is no longer subject to the prior conditions and affections of the body. For it is no longer capable of death and corruption, not of mutation, not of labor and molestations, nor of indigence; but it has been transmuted from mortality to immortality, from corruption to incorruption; and the material has become immaterial; the carnal, spiritual; the passible, impassible; the fluid, devoid of all flux; liable to hunger, above all hunger; aqueous, without water; indigent, needing nothing; thick, thin and subtle; temporal, eternal; yet not, however, uncircumscribed, nor shapeless, nor immobile, nor untouchable, nor invisible, nor uncreated, nor without beginning: for these are properties of the divinity alone. ^D

Therefore, the pious and orthodox discourse of the Fathers teaches that the body of Christ lacks those properties which had arisen from sin, not those which Adam, created by God, had at the beginning of his creation. So, indeed, must the sayings of the holy Fathers be accepted. As much, therefore, as was possible and the nature of the body allowed, it was changed by the hypostatic union with the divinity, so that

^A we might learn the singularity of the person of Christ; and yet it became in some respects apart, that we might be taught the difference of the natures. And for this reason, even if the flesh was united to the uncircumscribed Word of God, it did not become uncircumscribed, nor eternal, even if it became a consort to the eternal, nor invisible, even if it carries the invisible within, nor without form, even if it received its existence in that which is without form, nor uncreated, even if it came from the Uncreated into creation, and holds this within itself inseparable. But if you attend to the dry and unexamined words of Scripture and of teachers, you fall into many and deadly absurdities; and this I shall immediately prove by the testimony of the all-wise Gregory now before us. Behold, he said that our nature was mingled like a drop of vinegar with the sea of the divinity. It is clear that it then becomes invisible, and non-existent, and intangible. If, therefore, the Lord’s body, through the union with the sea of divinity, has become invisible, and exists as invisible by nature, and is intangible, and the sea of divinity likewise neither comes under sight nor under touch, then ^B all the conduct of Christ upon earth—from the very birth from the Virgin up to His ascension into the heavens—will be found to be a mere fantasy and hollow persuasion. Therefore, the divine Gregory did not use the comparison of the vinegar and the sea for the confusion of things, but as a parable of prototypes, demonstrating the lowliness of our nature compared to the infinite magnitude of that incomprehensible sea of divinity. For he who said against Eunomius, "What nature of Christ is struck with blows at the passion? And what nature is glorified from eternity?" was not about to proclaim a blending and annihilation of the natures of Christ. For the Father says these things are clear, even if someone does not expound them in word, that the blows are of the servant, in whom the Lord dwelt, while the honor is of the Lord, around whom the servant was. If the teacher said these things, and named the flesh—that is, the form of the servant—as "servant," how could he thereafter possibly say that it was annihilated and blended like a drop of vinegar in the sea? So that ^C he looks to his example not for confusion, but for the supreme union.

HERETIC. Touching these matters: the holy Fathers have used such words not to deny the flesh of Christ, but to show that that which is more excellent has prevailed, and that the other, which is less excellent, has been dowered by its Deity. Whence also the apostolic Father, Dionysius the Areopagite, says that all things human, and natural, and blameless in us, are in Christ "above nature," and not "according to nature." For he says in his *Theological Elements*, as if from the person of the most holy Hierotheus, concerning Christ: "And that which is of all the most novel and common, is that He was in our natural things above nature; and in those which are according to essence, He was super-essential, ^D surpassing all things belonging to us, from us, above us." Whence also the same Father, writing to Gaius, says that

^A Christ did not perform human actions and human things according to man, but rather performed human things in a way beyond man.

ORTHODOXUS. In all places of holy Scripture, man needs reverence and the fear of God, and much more so in speeches and preachings concerning God. But the children of the heretics are like certain one-eyed men, seeing some things of the Fathers while overlooking others. For that Father, having said thus, that Christ possessed everything belonging to us in a manner above us, the same man again said, in the chapter concerning union and distinction, that He was incarnate from the blood of the Virgin; which is a somewhat coarse statement, and appears difficult to the simple-minded, as though it had not been uttered by some other of the teachers. Therefore, it was necessary to receive ^B all the words of the Father piously. For if Christ possessed nothing of our natural properties according to the likeness of us, but all things above us, then Paul lies when he says that He was made a man from the seed of David according to the flesh without seed, and "partook of flesh and blood with the children," and "was tempted in all things according to our likeness, apart from sin."

*Scholium.* Since therefore the children have partaken of flesh and blood, it seems to me that from there Dionysius, the disciple of Paul, took this manner of speaking.

If therefore He was made man in the likeness of men, He was according to us; inasmuch as He was tempted as we are, apart from sin, as Paul ordains. But if in all human things He was not according to man, but above man, how is it possible to say that He is of the same substance as us according to humanity? For sameness of substance ^C is strictly the unchangeable identity of the natural properties of those of the same nature. Therefore, Dionysius was not in the least denying that the body of Christ is of the same substance as us, as you heretics suppose, when he said: "All things which naturally belong to us are in Christ in a way above nature, and Christ does not perform human things according to man"; but he affirmed this for the reason that that body was not from seed, but from the divine Word, and since it subsisted hypostatically with the divine Word, even in the womb of the Mother, our human mass of soul and body was, and indeed perfect; and furthermore, subsisting with God, it became something divine through the participation of divinity. Hence it comes that He did not possess human things nakedly, after the manner of men; but both ^D after the manner of God and of men, indeed theandrically—that is, in a divine and at once human manner—and subsisting indivisibly in the one singular person of Christ; yet nevertheless preserving the proper property of each nature unconfused; which are a manifest indication that Christ, in His incarnation, did some things...

^A from those things which are in our nature, and which cannot be rejected or refused, and which He performed as above man; while other things He performed according to man and according to the common prescription of our nature; and yet other things He performed more abjectly and contemptibly than our concerns, in order to muzzle the mouths of the heretics. For that His appearance was seen as dishonorable upon the cross, and "failing above the sons of men," as Isaias says; and that an angel appeared strengthening Him; and that He gave up His spirit before the robbers of His own accord because of the agony of the nails; and that He showed bruises and signs of wounds in His immortal body as well; and that He showed Himself in the vile guise of a gardener, when He was already gifted with an immortal and spiritual body; and that for forty days He willed to associate with mortals, to eat, and to drink—after the resurrection, that divine nature of the Lord's body, which is in need of nothing, spiritual and immortal, is in truth an argument of a certain destitution and subjection, and of a vileness and humility which in no way befits that most holy body. For all these things were not above man, but rather indications of the indigence to which our nature is subject. For no man ^B who is raised from the dead in the resurrection thereafter eats and drinks, or has need of the eating of broiled fish or of a honeycomb. Neither does anyone from the number of the unjust rise again still marked with bruises, scars, and signs of wounds on his body. No one among the just rises from the dead in the most simple guise of a gardener; because then the just "shall shine as the sun."

But if the heretic objects to me that Christ did all these things "economically" (by dispensation) to confirm the disciples in the faith, and that they should not be considered as a law, I will immediately reply to him that Christ also descended from heaven and was incarnate "economically"; therefore, let His incarnation, which happened by dispensation, no longer be considered true. For this fiction was first devised by Manes. For Manes invented the term "economically"—or "by dispensation"—in place of "fantastically," and as meaning merely and only by imagination and fiction. ^C

Since, therefore, it has been demonstrated that Christ, although He was true God, performed certain actions even more vilely than is consistent with the condition of our nature, it is now necessary that we say what He did according to our likeness and according to the prescription of our nature, and what He performed as God and Creator of nature—above man and above nature—having transgressed the bounds, the laws, and the order of our human nature and subsistence. Therefore, that He was made man in the womb of the most holy Virgin without matter and seed, this is above us, and is to be ascribed to the divine power alone. But that He was increased as an infant by the growth of nine months, and the womb of the Mother of God, Mary, became swollen, this is according to us and our... ^D

^A nature, a physical and common operation of the womb and the growth of the body. Again, to keep the seals of virginity intact after birth, this is a work of divinity exceeding our powers. But to come forth and be separated from the womb, this Christ did according to our likeness, truly becoming an infant, and being born, and being God incarnated. Wherefore He immediately showed, as God, the virgin breasts flowing with milk beyond nature, and He ran to the breasts in the manner of infants, crying out according to the law of our infantile nature; according to our likeness, He underwent the inviolable circumcision and the casting off of the flesh.

For if you believe that Paul speaks the truth, asserting ^B concerning Christ that He has been tempted in all things like us, without sin alone, then it must be that He completely passed through all our states, so that He might divinize and sanctify all things as God through the union. Thus, being God incarnated, Christ was, from that very highest union, voluntarily humbled, and in the world He revealed Himself through all those demonstrations of humility and abjection which befit the form of the servant, yet in such a way that He in no wise fell away from the glory of God. Of His own will, He underwent the nine-month delay in the womb according to our likeness. According to the likeness of men, He was brought into the light as a little infant. According to our likeness, He sought the maternal milk and voluntarily sought the breast; according to the likeness of men, as an infant, after the time of birth, He uttered infantile babblings from His mouth. According to our likeness ^C little by little, after the infantile creeping on the ground, He was taught by His Mother to walk, being led by the hand, and to speak. According to us, He produced the growth of hair and nails little by little. According to us, He possessed growth, and limitation, and the density of the body. He did not perform the increase of age, nor the other things of the body, beyond us, lest His incarnation be thought a phantasy and an empty fiction. Nor was His body formed in a foreign or unusual manner; nor did He have a figuration of limbs beyond that of man. For ^D the Lord put on the form of a servant; therefore, also the body of a servant, and the density of a servant, and the corruptible flesh of a servant, and the appearance of a servant, and the dense parts of a servant, and the mortality of a servant, and the excretions of a servant through the eyes, and through the mouth, and through the nostrils, and through sweat, and through those two parts by which food and drink are ejected. For He did not put on a body insusceptible to any molestation, or unknowing of corruption, such as the body of man was before the fall. For that which was subject to no molestation, devoid of destruction and death, needed no medicine. Therefore, the Word assumed my sick and poorly conditioned flesh, that is to say, corruptible, flowing, dense, needy, mortal, passible, exposed to hunger, thirst, and labors, so that He might liberate it from all these.

Wherefore, cease to pervert the sayings of the Fathers and of Dionysius with depraved interpretations. For if, as you heretically believe, Christ neither had nor acted in any of those things which are in us by nature, it is manifest

^A that he was not of the same substance as us according to the flesh, nor was his body of the same form as the bodies of men; there was neither his members being according to man, nor infancy, nor growth according to us, nor the swelling of the mother’s womb, nor time; nor did he truly flee, nor did he grow in a childlike manner, nor did he act, nor possess, nor perform anything else of the things that are God-created and irreproachable in us by nature. Consequently, neither is his sleep true sleep, nor his death true death, nor his piercing a true piercing, nor the separation of his soul from his immaculate body a true separation, nor is the perforation of his members and the wounding of his side a true wound and cutting of a body. For if he suffered and performed all things that are according to us, then you can say absolutely nothing about him according to the law of nature: neither body, nor shape, nor member, nor sleep, nor form, nor the circumscription of a body, nor death. But the divine Scriptures and Paul do not decree this. ^B Hear him in all his God-breathed epistles, and you will find that he calls our death a "falling asleep," but he strictly calls the death of Christ not a falling asleep, but death. For concerning us, he says: “But we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning them that are asleep.” And: “We shall not all sleep”; and, “We shall not prevent them that are asleep.” And ten thousand other such things. But concerning Christ, that “He died according to the Scriptures,” and that “we proclaim his death,” and that “being put to death in the flesh,” and simply in various places he calls our departure a falling asleep, that he might signify the resurrection of us all as if from sleep; but he names that of Christ "death," that he might put to shame the heretics who say that the incarnation and the other human things of Christ took place in fantasy. ^C But it was not Paul who spoke this, but Christ who dwelt in him; he himself named his own death, who also after the resurrection confirmed to us the account of the incarnation through eating and the marks of the nails, as has been said before. If, therefore, Christ shows our human qualities in himself not only according to us, but sometimes even more humbly than our own, willingly and for the sake of the dispensation, how is it possible to say that he performed nothing at all of human things according to nature upon the earth? And if it is necessary to speak more accurately about this, we also will speak, following the God-wise Cyril. For he says: “Of the words of the Savior, some are God-befitting, some are man-befitting, while others have a certain middle order.” Therefore, if Christ speaks as God, and speaks as man, and again speaks collectively—that is, ^D theandrically—then it follows entirely that all the events and operations pertaining to him, he performed some according to his divinity, others according to his humanity, and others commonly, according to his personal wholeness. By divinity I mean that which is inseparable from the flesh, and by humanity, that which is not separated from the divinity. And since these things are so—

[A] how can Timothy, your champion, speaking ^A against the Tome of Leo, say in his book: “The nature of Christ is divinity alone, even if it has been incarnate,” just as you dogmatize one nature in Christ, and that a divine one? Tell us then, O wise men, is this one, honorable, holy, and adorable nature—which you confess to be divine in Christ the Son of God—perfect, whole, and indeficient after the union, in every time and place, and in all things which Christ did, or is it not? To this the Severians and Gaianites answer unanimously and say: “Indeed: the nature of Christ is perfect, indeficient, and indivisible after the union, in every time, place, and affair, completely devoid of any partition, section, diminution, or division. For Christ is one, and his nature is one, and not two.”

Scholium

^B Our response to them: It is acknowledged among all that if Christ consists of only one nature, and that nature is nothing other than divinity, it is impossible for him to undergo any diminution, or falling away, or subtraction, or disjunction, or decrement, or completion. For the divine nature is always, and throughout all eternity, the same, and is not capable of any departure or addition; because in every time and place, and in every thing, it remains like itself, whole and indeficient. If, therefore, there is one nature of Christ and one operation, and that is divine, it is altogether required that Christ appear in every place affected the same way, without any defect or need. Come then, O heretic, and follow me with steady steps to four places during the time of Christ’s passion. First, indeed, to the sepulcher ^C in which he lay lifeless. Then, from the sepulcher, descend with me to the underworld. From the underworld, let us proceed to paradise. And from paradise, come back and station yourself outside the sepulcher in the garden, where Mary Magdalene saw him in the guise of a gardener. For if Christ consists only of divinity, as you say, and if this divinity exists in every place like itself and persists without any defect—for divinity is indeficient—how then did Christ remain indeficient in the sepulcher, with the rational soul separated from him, when he said: “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit”? Let us also descend into the underworld, and let us contemplate Christ there, and how he despoils that prison. Let us ask Adam, let us ask the bodies and the mouths of the saints who rose, that they might tell us in what guise they beheld Christ in the ^D underworld? With what body, what nature, and what form did he come and descend into those subterranean caverns? How did he walk in the footprints of the abyss? By what nature were the gates of death opened in fear?

^A What form did the janitors of the abyss see and shudder at? Did they see the divine nature alone? Away with the thought! For no one has ever seen God. But who then saw the flesh of the Master? By no means. For this flesh lay in the tomb, lifeless and immobile. Therefore, on the cross, as the prophet says, we saw Christ. And he had no bodily form or beauty; but the appearance of his body was dishonored, failing beyond the sons of men. And in the tomb we saw him, and he had no soul, nor the spirit of a man. And in Hades we saw him, and he had no body, nor blood, nor bones, nor density, nor material form, but only a rational, divine soul, separated from the body. And in Paradise with the thief, he had neither soul nor body, but was present solely by the divinity that is everywhere. ^B He was present with the thief, just as he was earlier with Adam, naked and incorporeal; he was present as God, as only he himself knows, seen by him, yet remaining invisible. Again, after the three-day burial, we saw Christ risen, having returned to himself, as Gregory says, and we saw him once again being body, and soul, and mind, and God all at once, and first appearing to Mary in the garden.

These things having thus been done and accomplished by Christ, let the heretics now stand present, they who prattle that Christ is one nature, and that this is entirely the divinity. And let them hear the apostle James theologizing concerning the divine nature and saying: ^C “There is no variation with the divine nature.” If then there is no variation of any kind with the divine nature, but everything is identity, and equality, and undiminished and fixed perfection, tell me, to which nature of Christ shall we immutably ascribe such and so many alternations—the deficiencies, the replenishments, the separations, the restitutions, the division of the soul from the body, the long retreat into Hades, the reunion of the soul to its own divine body? “You are yourself my King and my God,” the prophet cries concerning the Word of God. Just as the divine Word himself testifies: “See, see, that I am, and I do not change.” If, therefore, in the properties of the Word of God he was transformed, and the man united to him hypostatically was changed, how then on the cross did he not have form or beauty? And in the tomb was he imperfect and lacking a rational soul? And in Hades was the soul lacking its own body? And in Paradise, on the very day of the Passion, was he present there with the thief; yet there he lacked both the body, and the soul which was in Hades? And to speak briefly, if the heretics can show us that Christ was in every way undiminished, and that on the day of the Passion he was together with body and soul in the tomb, and in Hades, and in Paradise, then it will clearly shine forth that there is one nature and operation, and not two, as they have previously set forth. ^D

tion, not two, since it is necessary, as they have already affirmed before, that the nature of Christ should remain devoid of deficiency in every place, time, and matter.

To these I shall put the same questions in the same words: if Christ ^A is one nature, and this is divine, what part of it did He leave behind when it lay dead in the tomb? And if it is entirely possible for the divine nature to undergo a deficiency, what part of it do you assign to the soul? And what part to the body? For if Christ is one essence, it must be that the Word is a third part of it, the body a third, and the soul the other third part. Therefore, lest we fall into such deceits and mental delusions of yours, we, looking upon the divinely-inhabited man of the Lord, [we do not accept] such and so many immutable mutations, and invariable variations, additions, decessions, transitions, advances, figures, increments, and vicissitudes, and desiring to show that the divine, immutable, and unalterable nature of God the Word is free from every kind of variation, change, alteration, and death—for this reason, we call the humanity of Christ a nature, or rather, truth, and we will never accept the blasphemous voice of Severus and Timothy, which says that the nature ^B of Christ is divinity alone.

But what further do these grave rhetoricians and patrons of the heretics put forward to us? They say: “If Christ were not divinity, how did His spittle work medicine for the blind man? How did His tears raise Lazarus? How, speaking with the Samaritan woman and being thirsty, did He not drink? How after the forty-day fast, though hungry, did He not eat?” But we do not even read that He slept, except once in the boat, nor does it appear from the Gospel that He drank as chance might have it. All of which are proof that the flesh of Christ had become divine, and was no longer subject to human properties. Therefore, Christ ^C is only one nature.

Response of the Orthodox. It will not be out of place to chant to you that passage: “O foolish and slow of heart to believe in those things which the apostles and prophets have spoken.” For when you wish to show that the entire Christ is nothing other than divinity, you are abusive and insulting to the divinity itself, like the Manichaeans and Arians, because you subject it to passions and mutations, after the manner of created things. Certainly, the divine and most wise among doctors, Melito, in his third discourse on the Incarnation, inveighs heavily against those interpreters who strive to prove from the acts of Christ after baptism the truth of His soul and body, and likewise of His natural and sinless operations—I mean thirst, hunger, sleep, tears, spittle, sweat, the discharge through the nostrils, and the elimination and rejection ^D of corruptible and naturally digested food and drink—and not only of these, but also of those things which are accustomed to be in our soul by nature: that is, sadness, sorrow, and dejection. For against Marcion

^A the God-wise Melito writes, arguing thus. For Marcion, like Severus and Gaianus, used to deny the incarnate dispensation of Christ, using the same propositions and evangelical texts as these disciples of Marcion the Pontic now use against us. To whom Melito replied most wisely and opportunely, saying: "There is no need for those who do not lack understanding to prove, from the actions which Christ performed after his baptism, ^B the truth of his soul and body and of the human nature agreeable to us, and its removal from any fabrication. For the things done by Christ after his baptism," says Melito, "especially the miracles, most of all declared and confirmed to the world his hidden divinity; for since the selfsame one was both God and perfect man, he manifested his two natures to us: his divinity indeed through the miracles performed in that three-year period after his baptism; but his humanity in those thirty years preceding the baptism, in which, because of the imperfection ^C according to the flesh, he concealed the signs of his divinity, although he was truly God existing from before all ages."

Scholium

If, therefore, Christ has been tested in all things in every way ^D that happen to us during those thirty years, let the heretics know that, having been born as God from the holy Virgin, he wept voluntarily like an infant with a crying voice as a man. And not only at that time, but throughout that whole year, and second, and third year of his infancy, Jesus, having been tested in every way according to our likeness, wept countless times with a natural and infantile weeping. He hungered countless times, and thirsted, and ate, and drank, voluntarily, according to the hunger and thirst of the nature of children, eating and drinking. He slept countless times with a natural and *sinless* sleep. He spat countless times, and showed the fluidity of the body, both through the nostrils and through the mouth. He grew weary countless times, being voluntarily subject to, and serving in the form of a servant his own parents, as Luke says. He suffered agony and was grieved countless times like an infant, without passion and sin. For Christ had a body free from sin, yet not exempt from bodily necessities, as John Chrysostom teaches in his commentary on Matthew. For if he had denied the natural and blameless weaknesses and needs of our nature, he would have denied the very nature itself, and...

this too the same Chrysostom has dictated to us. Nor did the God-bearing Father dictate these things based on his own authority, but having been a disciple of and follower of Paul. For he heard him saying in the Epistle to the Hebrews concerning Christ: ^B "Since therefore the children have shared in flesh and blood, he himself, that is to say Christ, likewise partook of the same sufferings." Let the heretic tell me, then, what are the sufferings of the flesh of infants, the ones that are natural and blameless, of which Christ partook, if not hunger, and thirst, and sleep, and labor, and whatever else the discourse enumerated a short while ago? For the Apostle immediately added, saying concerning Christ: "For it is not to angels that he gives aid, but he gives aid to the seed of Abraham. Whence he had to be made like his brothers in all things, so that he might become a merciful high priest." And again, after a little he says: "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tested in all things according to likeness, without sin." But tested in what? It is manifest: in our natural and blameless weaknesses, for the sake of which he voluntarily became man. When, therefore, you hear Paul testifying that Christ has been tested in all the weaknesses of our nature in all things, except for sin alone, no longer then be indignant at us when we affirm that Christ underwent all the properties and blameless sufferings of our infancy and nature. For it was for this end that I brought forward the aforementioned testimonies, so that you might not ask me, "And whence is it clear that Christ experienced all of our natural, and pure, and blameless realities, having become man without seed and sin?"

^C See, then, that even the Mother of God herself, and Theotokos Mary, who through the Holy Spirit conceived and gave birth without seed to him, Christ the God, ever named him her own Son and her own child until his ascension into heaven, although she saw him performing divine signs and raising the dead; but because in his infancy and in all the thirty-year period before his baptism she saw him tested in all things according to our likeness, for this reason she called him her son, although he was true God. If, however, these things seem to you harsh, burdensome, and unbelievable, tell me, why did the women bring ointments to the tomb of Christ? For the Godhead, which is fragrant and incorruptible, needs no ointments; but that which is fashioned from matter, and is subject to corruption and decay—for which reason even Nicodemus, thinking of something human, with aloes and myrrh ^D embalmed the divine body of Christ. Consequently...

^A since we possess such advocates and most truthful witnesses—those who saw [Him] with their own eyes, who were ministers of the Word, and who lived together with Christ after He became incarnate—it is better that we obey them than others. For they proclaim to us the birth of Jesus, who was nursed at the breast; the feeding with milk; His reclining in the manger; the size of the body of the great God, who deigned to be born small—scarcely a span in length; His infant tears, His sleep, and the inability of His mouth to speak, before the child knew how to call his father or mother, as Isaiah says; ^B likewise the growth of hair, nails, and limbs; the daily, clearer formation of bodily shape; the progress and advance of nerves, bones, hands, and feet from infantile weakness to stronger and more robust powers; the sprouting of teeth, which naturally occurs in the succession of time; the partaking of solid food after the use of milk; and finally, the instruction by which He learned to walk and tread with the help of a hand.

If, however, you, O heretic, hearing these things, are indignant and shudder, what will you do if you hear of the circumcision performed on the eighth day after His birth, by which a part of His flesh was removed? Or of the separate cutting and excision of the hairs and nails that grew from Him? For there was a commandment for the Jews to shear their hair, and not to nourish locks. But I will gladly wrap in silence the drops ^C of blood falling from the side of Jesus to the earth, and the removal from the flesh subsisting in God. Perhaps you do not even have faith in the Gospels, which attest that "Jesus advanced in wisdom and age," leaving behind the infantile state and moving by steps to the puerile, the youthful, and the mature age suited to an adolescent, according to the predefined laws of nature. For if, according to the prescription of natural law, He did not voluntarily assume into His body all [the properties] that are implanted in us by nature before baptism, especially those which cannot be rejected, why, being the almighty God, did He not speak immediately in the manger when He was born? Why did He not walk immediately upon His birth? For what reason did He not call His father and mother immediately? Why did He not have ^D teeth, hair, and the other members of the body fully formed when He was born? Why did He not put on some appearance more noble and more radiant than human form? For if He had done these things, His parents and the world would have immediately recognized that He is God and not man. And if they had known this, they would not have called Him their own son, nor would they have deigned to have Him subject to them and serve them. Or rather, as the Bataneote Junior says, if Jesus wished to be believed to be a man above men, why did He not rather gather Jews and Greeks from all nations in Sion, as was done at Pentecost, and—as they looked on—descend from heaven in the manner in which He is about to come at His second advent, and as the tongues of fire appeared to all, and as He Himself was seen in the form of fire upon Mount Sinai, with the whole of Israel present and believing?

^A These same things Ammonius the Alexandrian writes against the Halicarnassian, saying: If Christ wished His body to transcend the common law of men in every way and in all respects, what need was there of a woman and the womb of Mary? What need was there of a nine-month sojourn in the womb? For He who had fashioned Adam from non-existence into existence without a woman, a womb, and birth, could certainly have created a human nature for Himself, and dwelled within it, and walked as a stranger in the world. Furthermore, if He did not wish to be like us in all things, save sin alone, why did He not put on a celestial body, shining and glistening like the sun or crystal, such as the face of Adam was when he was first created, or that of Moses on Mount Sinai? For it was fitting that He, being their God, should assume and possess a form far more radiant and brilliant than those, in order to attest to the world that He is God. And why did He not also show Himself to be seen by us and live among us in the same way that He was seen by Adam and lived with him—neither eating, nor drinking, nor sleeping, nor wearying, nor spitting, nor weeping, nor suffering anything? For He who did not terrify or strike fear into Adam when He walked with him, could certainly have appeared to us in the same way, just as He appeared face to face to Abraham and Jacob of old, and did not strike them with fear. ^B In like manner, the prophets, and Nebuchadnezzar, and Moses, and countless others saw the vision of God without a body. Not only they, but the whole human race will see Christ coming in the glory of His Father; and indeed, after the resurrection He was with the apostles for forty days in incorruption and immortality. Why, then, did He not reveal Himself to the world in an angelic nature, but rather in corruptible, mortal, and transient flesh?

^C ORTHODOX. That if Christ had come into the light with a more excellent and marvelous form, He would have been immediately believed and accepted as God, I shall attempt to demonstrate from the history of the Holy Scriptures. When God had created Adam according to the image and likeness of God, He placed upon his face, through the breath of life, grace, and illumination, and the ray of the Holy Spirit. Then, when this grace was extinguished and wiped away from his countenance through transgression and sin, he begat Cain and Abel. But after these, hear what the Scripture says: "And Adam lived two hundred and thirty years, and begat a son according to his own form and according to his own image," which is to say, such an image and splendor as he had had in his face from the beginning, when he was created by God: "and he called his name Seth," which means "resurrection," since he perceived in him that ancient and marvelous form, and grace, and the radiance of the Holy Spirit, on his face, restored and repaired. And all those who lived at that time,

of the Holy Spirit, which all the men of that time, once they beheld it on the face of Seth, immediately called him god. And for this reason, the Scripture says concerning his sons, that "the sons of Seth ^A seeing the daughters of men," that is, those of the race of Cain, "took them as wives for themselves," for they too were partakers of the grace of the Holy Spirit, until God said, "My Spirit shall not remain among these men." Nevertheless, Seth remained among men for nine hundred and five years, possessing such a marvelous form of countenance, and being named god by all. And Nebuchadnezzar also called the marvelous physical appearance of the fourth one "a son of God." And Manoah, having beheld the extraordinary form of the angel, called him God. Likewise, Jacob also named the One who wrestled with him God, because of the strange and extraordinary form of His countenance. And the woman with the familiar spirit, having beheld extraordinary forms, called them gods. And Moses also remained for forty years with that marvelous form of countenance.

And for what reason did Christ, who so glorified the faces of all these, not show such a form to men in Himself, in order that it might be proven that He exists truly as God, and on this account possesses a form superior to that which is material, earthly, and corruptible? But He humbled and emptied Himself, voluntarily taking the form of a servant; ^B and hence, in that very state of humiliation, He humbled Himself even more humbly. For He did not choose to be begotten on earth of a king as father, nor of a high priest, nor of a powerful man, nor of a queen as mother; but of impoverished parents, in the wretched village of Nazareth, not in any metropolis, not in Jerusalem, but in a destitute place. Joseph was poor, his trade was wretched, their life was one of poverty. Whence, even in Bethlehem, there was no room for them in the inn, nor indeed a multitude of servants, nor animals, nor mules. Thus, also, his entire sojourn on earth was spent in poverty and traveling on foot; the Lord of heaven and of earth, while being served by none, went from house to house, being a guest in strange dwellings, and being sustained by the charity of the women who followed Him, He who had been accustomed to bestow life and nourishment upon all. All these tokens of poverty ^C and examples Christ did not display or undergo without reason; but since man had fallen through arrogance and pride—thinking that he would become God—for this reason, through a great and ineffable humility, Christ performed all the acts of His incarnation, humbling Himself to such a degree that even His very burial linens He did not receive from his own parents, but voluntarily from Joseph.

Wherefore, having recognized the purpose of Christ's voluntary humility, that He emptied Himself and became poor, so that He might abolish the pride of the enemy, do not... ^D

^A let us fear, with Paul, to say that "He was tempted in all things even as we," yet without sin. ^B Especially since we have the proofs that preceded His baptism, which we mentioned earlier: namely, His growth from infancy to the perfection of man's estate, the hunger, the thirst, the labors, the tears, and other things of that nature which are proper to us. We oppose these, which He performed voluntarily for us during those thirty years, to the heretics, so that we might no longer labor or contend much over the specimens of human actions which Christ exhibited after His baptism. We shall remain silent about sleep, about eating and drinking, about labor, weeping, sadness, anxiety, and other natural affections of the material body. For even if in that three-year period after baptism He had exercised absolutely no human action—even if He had not eaten, nor drunk, nor taken sleep, nor become fatigued, nor spat, nor wept—yet those things which He performed for thirty years before His baptism, in our manner, would suffice for us to demonstrate the truth of His humanity. For there is a law derived from the apostolic canons which, in every question and dogma pertaining to Christ, allows the decision and supreme judgment to rest upon many testimonies or citations.

^C However, if anyone should wish to look more deeply into the evangelical history, he will clearly understand that the things which Christ suffered and performed voluntarily after His baptism are much more vile, abject, and contemptible than those which He underwent for our example before His baptism, even though before and after the incarnation He was the most true God. ^D For what, I ask, is more vile, or abject, or despicable than that the Creator of heaven and earth, the "splendor of the glory of the Father, and the figure of His substance" (Heb. 1, 3), the God of the universe, of the same substance and majesty with the Father, coeternal with the Holy Spirit, that Uncreated One, Immutable, the Immense Light, the only-begotten Son, of His own accord is led away by the lawless, with the lawless, as a lawless man, to an ignominious death according to the flesh, as if He were a malefactor? He is captured at night, bound, struck with palms, stripped, spat upon, buffeted with fists, scourged, nailed naked to the wood as if He were a criminal, pierced in the hands and feet and in His side, not avenging Himself—though that would have been easy for Him, being almighty God—but, as a sheep, He meekly underwent death for us. Then truly, being tempted in all things according to our likeness and tested, He was made devoid of life. We have seen His face formed after our likeness: and it had neither appearance nor beauty, but above the sons of men—that is, above other men subject to condemnation—He appeared despised and dehonestated. Then truly, like men who have departed this life, God according to the flesh suffered death, and after the manner of others was placed in a sepulcher; and we saw Him lying dead, His divine body, when the soul was separated, devoid of life, truly inanimate; without voice, without breathing

without movement, not seeing, not being moved, not teaching, not perceiving; but truly the dead body of God, as all the dead are. And knowing the vision, we were struck with wonder at this great spectacle of the God-bearing burial. Taking up again the aforementioned words, which the heretics think to hurl against us while fixing their gaze upon the most holy body of Christ, we pose these questions to them, saying: If the Word became flesh, ^A so that His body might also become Word, how is it that the body of Christ, which was speaking a little while before upon the cross, now lies buried in the sepulcher and speaks no word, although it contains within itself the unsilencing God the Word? For if it submitted to death in nothing that pertains to humanity, and if in all our natural functions it was above nature, how did it accept the separation of the soul from the body according to our nature? And if the body became such as the God-Word who deified it, ^B it is manifest that it did not die, but was immortal in the sepulcher, just as the God-Word is, and it was seen as dead only by semblance and fantasy. And if the flesh, like a drop of vinegar, was mixed into the ocean of the Godhead, and after the union it no longer consisted in any property of men at all, then Nicodemus and Joseph wrapped a phantom and a shadow in the burial cloths and placed it in the sepulcher; or rather, they wrapped the ocean of the Godhead alone in a linen shroud and bound it, shutting it in. But if the nature of the Godhead was circumscribed in the sepulcher, transmuting the body and changing it into its own nature, why did He who gives the voice of thunder to the inanimate heavens ^C not also give a voice to His own dead and inanimate body in the sepulcher? How is it that He who shakes the inanimate earth from its foundations did not shake His own inanimate flesh in the sepulcher? How is it that He who opened the mouths of inanimate graves did not open His own mouth in the sepulcher? If through deification the body of Christ has also become Godhead, why does it not perceive and see, as the Godhead which perceives all things, but instead keeps its eye closed—the body that contains within itself the light that enlightens every human being? How does that which holds within it the life of the world not live? How does it not breathe, being inseparable from God, who is the breath and life of all things? For the power and energy of the God-Word who is in it are superlatively more potent and effective than the power and energy of the soul ^D that was separated from it, when He said on the cross: “Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit.” If, therefore, He innovated upon nature and innovated upon all the natural properties of nature, and did nothing human in the manner of men, it was necessary that He should not even undergo the death of the body according to us. But if you proclaim the true death of Christ according to truth, and the true separation of soul from body, if not com-

completely—by which I mean no false, insensate, and motionless state—then recognize clearly, O children of heresy, that even after the union, Christ did not voluntarily perform all things above our own manner and condition. Nor did his body become such as the Word who deified it—uncircumscribed, invisible, uncreated, and without beginning—nor was it, like a drop of vinegar, mingled, altered, and changed into the immense sea of the divinity, so as to become of the same substance. Rather, it retained its own proper properties by nature, even after the union; for the divinity does not fall under sight, but the body is visible, circumscribed, and created. ^A

Store these things up in your mind, faithful one, so that in the time of war against foreigners they may be of use to you; take hold of the Cross and the Sepulchre as a two-edged sword. And whenever they bring forward their manifold and intricate trifles concerning the passibility of the divinity, lead them to the tree of the Cross, and there strike them down and slay them. But when they begin to dogmatize about a phantasm and a denial of our nature in Christ, lead them to the Lord's Sepulchre, and there, having put them to death, send them down to Hades. ^B

CAPUT XIV. What Ammonius the Alexandrian did against the Monophysites

For indeed, the most learned and experienced of doctors, Ammonius the Alexandrian, in this way overcame and slew the Halicarnassian. For having taken upon himself, and feigned, the person of the Samosatene, when he saw Julian resorting to phantasm and empty imagination, a shadowy specter, and asserting that the holy flesh of Christ had been deified and converted into the divine nature, and changed like a drop of vinegar into the sea of the divinity—Ammonius, as if astonished at such a contempt for the truth and struck with stupor, addressed Julian in this manner: That Christ is the true Son of God, and true God, and that his holy body has truly become divine by deification, and that in him dwells all the fullness of the divinity, is hidden from no one. ^C For he who does not think thus is a stranger and an alien to his most holy divinity. Nevertheless, because of your stubborn and contentious itch for disputation, by which you are driven to deny the human nature of Christ, behold, I put on for you the person of the Samosatene, or rather the person of the infidel Jew, Philo the philosopher; for he too, at that time, countered Mna-son, the disciple of the apostles, making a contradiction regarding the divinity of Christ, calling Mna-son "double-natured." ^D What, and what kind, and whence is the demonstration that Christ is God? For even if the aporia, [index: entries preserved]

^A you say, regarding his birth from the Virgin, is brought forth, the creation of Adam is more honorable and more paradoxical, formed by the very hands of God, quickened by the divine breath, and made much purer and cleaner than that which occurred in the female womb, and [wrought] amidst the ordure, stench, and filth of a nine-month residence of Jesus. And if you speak of the signs which he performed after his baptism, I say to you that no one on earth has performed signs and wonders for forty years ^B such as Moses performed. And if you show me Jesus again raising the dead, know that the prophet Ezekiel raised a numberless multitude of a host of dead men from dry bones; and Jesus himself said that some men would perform greater signs than he.

But if you say to us that Jesus was assumed into heaven as God, the prophet Elijah was assumed even more gloriously in a chariot of fire and horses of fire. So that it is the greatest of all your blasphemies to call Jesus the heavenly God; for God himself said to Moses, "No man shall see my face and live." And our Scripture also testifies that "No one has ever seen God. No man has seen God, nor can he see him." And how are the preachers of the Christians not ashamed when they say that Jesus is God? For it is written that God is "a consuming fire." Tell me, does a fiery God hunger? Does a fiery God thirst? Does a fiery God spit? ^C Does a fiery God undergo circumcision and hemorrhage? And does he cast into the earth the circumcised flesh, and blood, and the filth of the belly, which all, having been cast by Jesus onto the earth, were sometimes eaten and devoured by dogs, or wild beasts, and birds, and trampled by beasts—all the things cut from his flesh, and thrown away, and discarded, whether spittle, or nails, or hair, or blood, or sweat, or tears, which all are certain parts and portions conjoined to the substance of the body, and by various additions and accessions are accustomed to be acquired and lost? For you say that he was made like men in everything in his flesh, without sin. Therefore, you also preach that he who died and lay for three days is God. And what kind of God is a consuming fire that can die? Where even his servants, the angels, cannot die, nor indeed the wicked spirits of demons, nor, again, the souls of men? And what kind of God, I ask, having ^D the power of life and death, flees, as Jesus fled from Herod, so that as an infant he would not be slain? What kind of God is tempted by the devil for forty days? What kind of God becomes a curse, as Paul says concerning Jesus? And what kind of God, being sinless, commits sin? For it is said that Jesus became sin for our sake. But if he is God, how did he pray that the cup of death might pass from him? And not having...

been heard? If he is God, how did he cry out, being forsaken by God: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ^A Is God forsaken by God? Does God need God, saying, "Do not abandon my soul to Hades"? Is God bound, and struck with fists, and spat upon, and slaughtered? But if he were indeed God, he ought to have struck those who sought to capture him, just as in the time of Lot the angel struck the Sodomites. But that which you call the inability of Jesus, you misname long-suffering.

Anathema to you, and double anathema, ^B because even the demons themselves confessed that Christ is the Son of God. Let the insane and furious crowds of heretics hear this, who, under the appearance and pretext of honoring Christ, refuse to confess that his most holy body is a nature. For behold, that wicked Philo raised no dispute about "nature," but was scandalized and stumbled at the sufferings and ignominies inflicted upon Christ, just as all Gentiles and those alien to the true faith do. Therefore, if from now on you wish to offer this honor—a honor empty of all worship—to Christ, by saying that his flesh was deified by a more excellent victory and assimilated to the sea of divinity, and became such as the Word is who deified the flesh, you ought not to establish in Christ any of the aforementioned opprobria which the execrable Philo enumerated, and which are nevertheless adapted to generate scandal. For, by any comparison, all the aforementioned things are more contemptible and despicable than if one were to attribute human nature, will, and operation to Christ.

Continuing on the same path of ignorance as Philo is the detestable Maro, ^C a descendant of Nestorius, who, discoursing against those who confess the divinity of Christ, writes thus in his impious book: "They are deceived, those who, listening to the Egyptian Cyril, say that the divinity of Jesus was inseparable from his body in the sepulcher, transferring it from corruption to incorruption." To whom, as if to certain children playing in a theater, one might rightly speak in this manner: "What place is there, O foolish ones, where the uncircumscribed divinity is absent? For He who fills heaven and earth, and is present everywhere, was certainly also in the sepulcher of Jesus, just as He is in all other created things. But if the body of Christ was raised from corruption to incorruption, it is no wonder; for even Gentiles, when they rise from the dead, possess bodies not subject to any corruption."

Anathema to you forever. ^D It is, therefore, a thing most worthy of wonder, even to those who disparage the synod of Chalcedon while denying the nature of the flesh of Christ, that they claim that the body which falls under sight, which is encompassed by a certain space, which undergoes growth, which is wrapped in swaddling clothes, is circumcised, is touched, is bound, is struck with fists, is killed, is transfixed, is carried, and is buried, which is sacrificed, broken, divided, eaten, crushed, distributed, and partaken of, is not a nature or a reality: whereas the Word is...